So who invented the idea of having Saints?
When and where?
The Lord Our God created "Saints" The first mention of them is in the book of DEUTERONOMY: 33: v 2; the fourth book of the old testament of the bible and one of the books of the Hebrew Torah.
Saints hold no religious power though. All power is given to Jesus Christ and Him only.
New Orleans and I believe it was in the 70's but I could be wrong about the decade.
Sorry couldn't answer the question but couldn't keep my fingers still either.
New Orleans and I believe it was in the 70's but I could be wrong about the decade.
Sorry couldn't answer the question but couldn't keep my fingers still either.
New Orleans and I believe it was in the 70's but I could be wrong about the decade.
Sorry couldn't answer the question but couldn't keep my fingers still either.
Great question. The need for all the saints in Catholicism has always fascinated me. And I never quite understood why they jumped through hoops to invent Mary's ascension to heaven.
You may feel that this is a matter of semantics, Emile, but the Church teaches that Mary was Assumed into Heaven, not that she Ascended. Christ Ascended (by virtue of the fact that He was God in human flesh). Mary was "Assumed" into Heaven by God. She didn't do it, God did. Christ "Ascended" by His own power.
Ok. You seem to be in the know on this. When did they determine this happened and why? To be honest, I didn't realize that was Catholic belief until recently. I knew they considered Mary a saint, but not the rest.
Its just another catholic misdoctrine. Mary is dead and buried just like everyone else and awaiting the resurrection as are others who were greater than mary, David, Abimelech, Zadok, Joshua. The bible never states that mary is in heaven, the holy see did and it is not scriptural.
The male/female worship doctrine is pagan in origin and the God of the bible never intended this. It is akin to horus and osiris of the egyptians and they are false gods.
Yes, and having read through these forums; I've noticed there are a lot of things you post that there is no evidence the Bible supports. All Christian sects make many parts up as they go and disagree with the other sects on almost everything.
I'm curious to hear the explanation from a Catholic viewpoint. What is true to them is of no less value than what is true to you.
Catholics do not worship saints or Mary. We pay them honor and respect. In Latin, the word is dulia. Saints are given honor because they've lived virtuous lives in accord with Scripture, the teachings of Christ, and the teaching of the Church.
Mary is given high honor - hyper-dulia because she is the Mother of God (because Catholics believe in a Trinitarian God, therefore, Jesus is one of the three persons of the Godhead).
In preparation to carry the Son of God in her womb, Mary was conceived sinless, i.e., without the stain of original sin.
In the Gospel of Luke, Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth during her pregnancy. Elizabeth feels her own baby leap in her womb, and recognizes Mary as the Mother of God - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
Mary isn't just like any of the rest of us. And, having been born free of the stain of original sin, she was not in need of redemption like the rest of us.
Again, Catholics do not worship either Mary or the Saints. We pay them honor and ask their intercession (NOT mediation), since they stand before God in Heaven already.
Thanks. That makes sense. I've always been fascinated by the Catholic saints. I find it interesting that 'miracles' have only been documented within Catholicism. Makes you wonder what that means that there aren't any within the entire history of the Protestants.
You know, Emile, I think the biggest reason is that outside of Lutheran/Anglican circles, the majority of Protestants do not believe as Catholics do about saints, so they don't pray for the intercession of holy men and women who have died before them. Hence, they wouldn't attribute any miraculous happens to the intercession of those holy men and women, nor document them that way. They may recognize them, but without the interest of promoting prayer to saints, it wouldn't be of need to keep record. For most Protestants, I believe, the miracles recorded in Scripture are sufficient for faith.
Catholics believe that too, but miracles through the intercession of saints continue to be recorded as a means of recording God's continued presence and activity in the world.
That would be the simplest answer, I think.
This is why i've seen a painting, in the vatican, of mary on right hand of God and jesus on the left... and Jesus giving Mary his crown of thorns. Honor is one thing but the catholics go far beyond that, too far, in fact, as to have a fourth person in heaven, which actually, functions more importantly than Christ. Jesus takes a back seat to his mom and none of this is scriptural.
The scriptures say that all are born in sin. This was because of adam.. Mary was not sinless, she was chosen as were others to fulfill a role and after that role, to return to the background like so many others and then to die, like so many others. John the baptist was chosen near the same time and who is to say that elizabeth was sinless. the sinless human doctrine is heretical.
A reason that catholicism relies heavily on miracles is because once you have proclaimed yourself better than the word of God and above the bible, what else have you left? again unscriptural signs and wonders. Tricks! deceptions, falsehood and lies.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator (intercessor) between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
brotherychanan, we can all see you're a Protestant, the nature of which is to protest against the Catholic Church. It is to be expected that you would call it all tricks and lies. To be clear what you're dealing with though, Mary is not more important than Jesus, but you could say that she was the most important human being there ever was, since she was the first Christian. It is her primary evidence and strength of faith which validates Christ as the son of God.
Also, Christ's coming was predicted in the OT, well in advance. Mary was not a random choice, she was even of the blood-line predicted. The demotion of Mary as Queen of Heaven, comes from the the Protestant preoccupation with the OT in which they see Eve as causing Adam to sin his first sin and therefore women being secondary to men. The Puritans, for example, queried whether women have souls even. You will still see the celebration of women and mothers particularly in Catholic countries, whereas in northern European countries, Britain and America, (the mostly protestant countries) we have patriarchal societies.
In terms of miracles, Catholicism is a living religion, alive with culture that varies in practice but not in meaning from country to country. It is a lifestyle in which everything points to God but not confined to the pages of the Holy book.
Talking of which, the Bible as you know and worship it, was compiled by the Catholic church. Of the 17 or so documents of Christ that were available, the Church chose the four that we have now as the true Gospels of Christ. The other documents did not match up to the truth as the Church saw it, but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John matched one another in truth and sentiment. The central liturgy of the Church, which is the Mass, is constructed around those Gospels.
I hope this enlightens you about Catholic tradition.
I am well aware of catholic traditions and how they counter Jesus teachings at every turn in the road, its acceptance and incorporation of pagan beliefs, its male female diety, not to mention the restriction of bible reading to the masses and that inquisition stuff. Yes a wonderful resume'.
There are a lot of important human beings who have served God, even moses does not rival the attention that mary has gotten from the catholic church. Her primary evidence and strength of faith is NOT which validates Christ as the son of God. God validates Christ, the cross validates Christ, his ascension validates Christ but certainly NOT mary.
When talking about bloodlines - joseph was not the father. The levite lineage is not important, although, jesus was in an adopted state, which is legal for lineage, although, Jesus is a priest after the order of melchizedek - nothing to do with any lineage or geneology. All jesus needed to be was of the tribe of judah. So both parents are inconsequential to Christs divinity and priesthood.
Mary as Queen of Heaven is completely UNscriptural and heretical. Eve sinning has nothing to do with my opinion of mary. Mary is just mary a woman who believed in her sons teachings, present at many events and faithful to the end but an end she has along with everyone else, an end that finished in the grave, until the resurrection. If mary were a doctrine it would be contained in the scriptures, but it is not and by the Bible we are to consider mary as we do everyone else in the bible, except God and Jesus, which are the same.
I know the catholic church translated the bible. The bishops did the last revision to align the bible (by word only) with their wrong doctrines. Hell is simply the grave and not some place of torment forever and ever - just to cite one huge indiscretion.
If not for Luther we would all still be paying to get our dead out of purgatory.
May you also be enlightened
I didn't say the Catholic church translated the Bible, (which it did) I said it selected the texts that are in the Bible: it chose to put the documents in the Bible that coincided and resonated with the practice that had already been in place among Christians for some 50 years or more. Texts that did not agree with the Christian understanding of the early church were simply left out of the new testament as not the true word of God.
Luther, on the other hand, removed chunks of text from the new Testament to suit his idea that faith alone would get you into heaven.
So: far from straying from scripture, the people who believed in saints and miracles and honoring Mary (as Christ told St. John to do at the foot of the cross), were the same people that compiled the Holy Bible as you know and love it.
Incidentally, Catholics believe that anyone baptised in the name of Christ is a Christian. You don't believe Catholics are Christian. This remains one of the truely divisive wrongs for which Calvin and Luther and others were responsible. Rather than reforming the Church (which they had no intention of doing) they set its people against each other, where they have remained for 400 years.
Was it St Peter or St, Paul who said that the Church is a body and therefore cannot/should not be separated from itself. We have failed there.
Lastly, Catholics refer to the Church in the feminine. Yes, she is honored and revered as a mother, and as the most important mother, not 'just' a woman. I am proud of this tradition as a woman. It doesn't sit at odds with the Bible. Jesus loved his mother. She didn't 'fade into the background'. She was there throughout his suffering and death, according to St. John who was also there.
If we have any love for Christ, we should be seeking to unite where we can.
pertaining to john honoring mary. This was done because mary was alone. Saint (lol) joseph drifted off somewhere, or died but is not on the scene anywhere; for a woman to be alone in a jewish society was not proper. Christ made a way for the 'all hail queen mary' to be cared for. Please notice he told john to honor her, Jesus did not yell to the crowd.
Christ in his compassion for others provided for her. We need not overly read her superiority in this instance and since john took her to his home we may surmise that mary was homeless.
Luthers idea of faith alone is the beginning of Christianity, it was not 'his idea', Paul agrees with this and so do i, since no person can earn their salvation or do enough deeds to obtain salvation - which is freely given through Christ on the cross - what else is there? faith. Without faith we can do nothing. Faith ties us with God. Luther did a good job uncovering catholic doctrine.
Where did any of the saints that compiled the bible 'get on board' with the mary thing? Where does it say to pray to mary or even to lift her up? Mary was a disciple, yes, and that is all.
The baptism in christs name is not what makes a christian, christian according to christianity. It is salvation; forgiveness of sin by way of (formal) repentance (to make a sure statement) or - if you have heard of the sinners prayer - the sinners prayer. That process of being born again makes a person (sinner) a christian if you like to use the word christian, obviously following christ makes a christian but without repentance and forgiveness of past sin one cannot even make a footprint toward being christian. Baptism at birth is unscriptural, sprinkling is unscriptural and baptism is an outward sign of dedication to God and is not an integral ingredient in ones salvation. Baptism is by immersion.
John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was MUCH water there: and they came, and were baptized.
The church is a body but when we look at the wrong doctrines that are out there, these lesions cannot be incorporated. Many churches are similar but reproof of false doctrines needs to occur and catholicism is full of false doctrines, dangerously full.
I'm not saying there is no hope for them. People can be deceived and then die - God judge that one, but i think that sincere people who want what God has for them and seek the truth, God will bring them out of that system and into greater truth. Sometimes minds are closed and not open to other ideas. Nicodemus was a teacher of torah yet he pondered the words of jesus and two years later was found to be taking the body to the tomb. Once we put faith in a religious system even when we know there are blatant wrongs, we grieve God and shut ourselves off to the truth. Nobody is born into the kingdom of God or a denomination.
God bless ya, i'm glad your searching.
The Gospels are about the life of Christ, and they stay very narrowly within that frame. How much can we deduce of any of the other characters with so little information, other than what our understanding of the text tells us? Some of the Gospels aren't even first hand evidence. We live the Faith.
Mary was by no means superior. She was humble and gentle and accepting of the suffering she had to endure. Jesus said, 'blessed are the meek'. Was not Mary blessed? Who meeker than she?
Paul did not agree with Luther, nor did James or John. Paul said 'if I have faith to move mountains, but have not love, then I am nothing'. Luther said that st. James' epistle was an 'epistle of straw' and ignored its presence in the Bible. St. John was all about love. His entire Gospel is permeated with love, love love.
Christian baptism won't get you into heaven, no. Love of God and of your neighbor , receiving the sacraments and a contrite heart will be your salvation. The Catholic doctrine of baptism without full immersion means it does not discriminate against people willing to be baptised but who have no water available. Its called the baptism of desire. A Roman soldier appealed to Jesus to help his dying servant, but when Jesus offered to come to his house the soldier replied, 'Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed'. Jesus told him to go home and see the servant already healed. Salvation by desire.
The practices of the early church began with St Peter the rock and have been handed down form hand to hand, without a break, ever since. That is the basis of the Catholic church. Its called The Apostolic tradition and far from introducing random doctrines, it has remained the same ever since its manifestation. Members of the church have fallen short of saintliness many a time and there have been plenty who have been just plain bad. The doctrine and the Apostolic tradition did not change however. The Apostles Creed lists everything Catholics believe from start to finish. Is there anything in the Creed that you disagree with?
id like to read some evidence of what i post that has no biblical support and maybe i will just put all that into proper context for ya.
Well, I believe I have asked questions in the past, as to the nature of your interaction with people you are in disagreement with deviating widely from the teachings of the figure your religion is founded on. If I remember correctly, you made it clear that Yeshua's commandments were not pertinent.
But, since you've asked, I may start paying attention to your posts again when I run across them, and point out anything I might consider inconsistencies. Of course, it would be an exercise in futility, since it is clear there is a great deal of disagreement among you as to what is scripturally relevant. It is quite possible to bounce around and develop any theology.
yah i remember your query into my interaction and i told you christ rebuked people and so do i.
Thats the thing about scripture, it has many depths. It is classified into two categories - Milk and meat. If someone does not understand meat then it best they quietly move on instead of refuting the meat as the meat is over their head. If that person is at a milk stage, meat will be hard to digest, but again, needs not to be refuted.
Also if someone has not studied an area of scripture, it is again, best to do the study for themselves. Refuting scripture is not always a good practice until one has studied that area themselves. An open mind is the best position for Christians and non-christians to take as there are excellent christians in the world and they may have just run into one.
I always back up what i say and i also say your assumptions are not correctly founded.
good luck with this.
Honestly? The 'meat' you think you have consumed isn't meat. Which is quite obvious when reading your posts to your fellow Christians. I think, what you've consumed and might be spreading is better defined as an ingredient of compost. You know the one, the left overs after the digestive process.
As far as being open minded to the prospect of running across a good Christian. I am, and have. And a few I would define that way here on Hub Pages. I don't see your name on that list.
that's not evidence!
God left a book for a reason and our theologies have to concur with that book. In it are all the answers. I am open minded when people show me scripture that refutes what i say and i will study it, no problem, but opinions aside from the bible are not good enough for me; kinda like your opinions up there, since you say they are compost i will ask you again to prove that they are, but i am not very likely to bow to your opinion unless you show me biblically where i am compost.
good luck with this.
have a nice day
No Emile, not all Christians make thing up as they go along. Catholic traditions are absolutely steeped in hundreds of years of study. Have a look at Thomas Aquinas some time. Many many great minds have united over the centuries to reach solid conclusions about scripture. Every year there are Christian churches of another kind, forming new churches because the people in them have come up with a different interpretations of the Bible. Which is more divisive?
It would be difficult to explain my opinion in the confines of this forum; but, the short story, if there ever was a truth, I think it was buried at the Counsel of Nicaea. Politics formed a religion that single handedly held our world in the dark grips of fear and war for almost twelve hundred years. There is very little that was 'godly' in the policies of Catholicism. It was power and politics.
Protestants are simply another face, with the same goals. Power through fear. History testifies to this.
I've read some of Aquinas. When I saw his name in your post, the first thing that came to mind was his words on heretics;
With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death.
What a fine example of Christian philosophy.
I know I have said this before, but more recent historical studies have revised the idea that Christians prior to the reformation were in the grips of fear and ignorance. This former history largely was based on the protestant propaganda that was spread for over a hundred years after the reformation and claimed that the medieval people were basically stupid and miserable and probably grateful for change. Ofcourse it was important to support this idea else the likes of the Duke of Northumberland, who was rewarded the largest county in the kingdom for his support of Henry VIII, might have lost credibility somewhat.
According to many revisionist studies now available, most famously 'Stripping the Altars' by Eamon Duffy there is huge evidence of a Merry England prior to reformation: one that knew, understood and loved its faith.
What is true also is that there were reforms taking place already within the Catholic Church at the time of the reformation, and after. Thomas More was one such reformer. Henry VIII upset the process.
Don't get me wrong. I don't believe all that is religion is evil. Any who don't believe Christianity has given some good things to the world are also turning a blind eye to history.
But, whatever our views on the past; that is what it is. It's in the past. I think this 'revisionist' history you have been talking about is simply am attempt to rewrite actual history and make the Catholic church feel better about itself. The Protestants were not the victors. They didn't write history alone, without plenty of Catholic input.
Regarding your last sentence: you'd be suprised. In terms of feeling better about itself, people are simply misinformed about Catholics, but so strong is the prejudice, people keep pulling out old, fallacious history books.
Warts and all, people need to know the complete truth. History is never just history. It makes us who we are.
The Church has been canonizing saints since as early as the 13th century, if not before. There is no actual need for them to worship God. Most Catholics who choose to pray to saints do so for various personal reasons, i.e., that particular saint may have suffered through something similar in his/her lifetime and have been declared a patron saint for a specific person, place, or illness.
The Church refers to saints, and requests their intercession, on many high holy days, but they do so to recognize the constant and continued movement of God in the lives of His people throughout history.
Every person who returns to almighty God in heaven, God recoginzes as a saint. The dictionary defines a "saint" as any born again Christian and follower of Jesus.
The Catholic Church makes a big deal out of specific people and give them the title or designation of "saint" when in fact every Christian is a saint.
Therefor it is totally wrong to revere or pray to any one saint. It is wrong to believe that any saint has any intercessory power with God. Only Jesus is intercessor for man.
Not to pick....But the Catholic Tradition sounds alot like Wiccan and other Pagan traditions.
The only intercessor is Christ Jesus. There is no mention of praying TO saints, praying FOR yes, but TO, no. Again another catholic misdoctrine. If you want to know what to do, just do the opposite of catholicism and you will be much closer to the truth.
AS Bro Dave said, every person is a saint, a called out one, a follower of God born of the spirit (saved).
The catholic church likes to make saints seem special just to pump the church up. Most saints have outrageous miracles attached to them. One saint i forget who, a female, spread her cloak out and it grew to phenomenal size to indicate the territory God would give her. LOL.
You and I will certainly have to agree to disagree.
I am a practicing Catholic and feel quite insulted by what you've just said. I have no questions whatsoever that the way I practice my CHRISTIAN faith is sufficient and free of error. Before you choose to do the opposite of what Catholicism says, perhaps you should understand completely the teaching of the Church.
And, if you're a "reformed" Catholic, don't say you went to Catholic school, blah, blah, blah....Lots of people spend years being taught and never learn. As to there being no mention in scripture of praying to saints, there is also no mention of attending church in a preordained building and being pastored by only one man. There are such things as traditions that have sprung up over 2000+ years, that may not be as objectionable to God as you believe they are.
I'm sure we follow the same God. That's all that concerns me. You may choose to follow Him according to different doctrines, but you have no place to insult or to judge me because I may follow him differently.
Peace in Christ (yes, Catholics still believe in Him)
The infighting between the sects of Christianity disturbs me. The arrogance of one to call another believer wrong is an ongoing mystery. How in the world could one know that?
I don't think you can really call this fighting. Arguing to find the real truth is a good thing, it shouldn't be disturbing.
Oh lizzieboo. I would disagree. It is in direct conflict with what I understand to be the words and will of Yeshua. We both know that the Catholic church saw Protestants as heretics for centuries. I don't even know what their stand is now, in regards to the salvation of those outside of the Catholic faith. The Protestants simply chose to walk in the footsteps of their former master.
It is simply sad to see that, instead of attempting to learn from the mistakes made by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; many have chosen to go a similar route, and now proclaim all who don't agree with their theology to be heretics.
Heresy is a Greek word roughly meaning 'I choose', therefore protestants are heretics, yes. They chose to separate themselves from the body of the Church.
I am aware that the root of the word is choice. And it is egotistical for any to call another heretic. By all the evidence, you are all either groping in the dark, or holding onto the coattails of someone else who has.
I'm a nonconformist. So, I find religion offensive because it insists on telling others what to think, with no proof to back up it's claim of authority.
It's just a factual definition.
I don't find other people's views offensive, religion or no religion. brotherochanan had misunderstood Catholicism and I was telling him what we were really about. We can't all just accept not understanding one another like the tower of Babel.
Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. Hebrews 10:25
We are to be an encouragement to other believers, not just our denomination. Man made denominations. God did not. God supplied the only necessary tool ~ Jesus Christ.
We are indeed to be an encouragement to other believers, which is why I don't feel it's right to berate, belittle, or insult them because of minor doctrinal differences - and also why I wished brotheryochanan Peace in the name of the Christ we both choose as our Lord.
A god does not require saints - but a political religion needs them to fill in the hierarchical gaps in its arguments
I don't mind the idea of there being saints. In the scheme of all religious beliefs of all religions, why not this one. At least it's a kind of nice one, in that recognizes the lives of people who have "earned" their "saint status" in the church. Of all religious beliefs, this one's kind of a nice one (and one of the more harmless, as far as I'm concerned). Besides, for people who do believe in saints and/or who pray, I don't see any real harm in giving them someone else to send some prayers out to. Better "the saints thing", than some of stuff religions tell people.
There are people who believe their dead relatives can put in some kind of word with God for them, so I see the saints thing as nothing more than an extension of that kind of belief. I'm not saying any of it (the saints thing/the dead-relatives thing) is my personal belief, but I'm not knocking any of it either. It all serves a purpose to those who want/need to pray. Again - a lot less harmless than some of the hell-focused or believe-only-what-we-say-focused" stuff that comes from religions, and especially a lot less harmless than the thing "the devil" is actually a being.
I agree God does not need saints, if you pray and beg with your God from the core of your heart; with honesty and purity; you don't need saints to forward your requests to GOD
As far as I've ever known, the people who pray to saints are praying in addition to their usual prayers "straight to God". Or, else, as in the case of St Anthony, maybe not bothering God with the more minor stuff. My local news did a piece on how people whose houses weren't selling took the advice of a real estate agent who suggested they bury an upside statue of (I think, if I recall correctly) St. Joseph on their front lawn. A lot of the houses were sold shortly after. So, the way I see it (and I'm not a "saint-prayer" type) - it's not hurting anyone, so why not if it's something someone believes...
1 Peter 5:7 Casting ALL your care upon him; for he cares for you.
as if God hasn't got time for the minor stuff.
Burying an idol does not bring forth the power of God into a situation to rectify it. This is superstition and substitution.
It is hurting because the whole point, whole point of Christianity is God. God for this, God for that, God help, God heal, God give me strength... it is all God dependent. God centered, God, God, God.
Personal relationship with God.
Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of my Father which is in heaven.
This leaves no room for saint josephs idol in their lawn.
I think Greek Gods and Roman Catholic Saints are essentially the same.
It seems that the Catholics just could not get away from the concept of Polytheism.
All believers are called saints in the Bible.
The beautification by the RCC is irrelevant and unscriptural.
Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, (in His name), and not through Mary, or any "saint/s".
As if we need any other mediators.
Hebrews tells us we have ONE mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.
The rest is error, as far as I'm concerned.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of believing there's any "moderators" between man and any God he happens to believe in. I'd say, "maybe that's just me," but I think it's far from "just me" who thinks that way.
Saints enable ancient polytheism to continue to exist in a monotheistic religion.
Write on to Trish_M - -yes Saints are another for a religion famously known as a religion of only one God in fact as so many Gods-like imagines that can be separately worshiped. First the trinity, then Saints, and also the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The Pope's Easter message warned man not to play God but who else comes closer than the Pope himself. The Pope is supposed to be infallible. He has the fancy costumes. But the subject is Saints. The irony is that some of the most horrible people in history are now Saints even approaching the reputation of Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The "holy men" responsible for the inquisition became Saints. It is also interesting to Google the amazing story behind the canonization of Mother Teresa. Her miracles are almost a joke but the Catholic Church needs an Albanian connection as a tool for conversion of Atheists after the fall of Communism. And remember, the only place where intellectual discourse is ignored is religion.
"religion...the only place where intellectual discourse is ignored..." Except in the numerous universities and schools they've established. Oh dear, there goes your argument.
Can I reply? I'm not sure what the point is but - - thanks for the reply. I love the discourse here, but I have to keep answers shorter. Comments cut into my HUB writing time. But ideas for future HUBs flow out of this like water thru a rapids.
As far as I'm concerned studying theology is not unlike studying astrology or the history of palm reading. Universities are great places for intellectual discourse and rarely does that have anything to do with the foundation of a University in the distant past. Everything else that a Christian founded university does - short of proselytizing - is done the same way as any other university or is done better with a secular point of view.
In the late 60s, when I was young and weak, my mother pushed me into an up tight Methodist college. I wouldn't wish that on anyone with a brain in their head. Boring! But it helped make me the man I am today - an atheist. - - JACK
Miracles happen all the time. I myself have been healed of a back injury. I know people personally who have even been healed from cancer. God doesn't belong to a particular denomination, nor is he limited by our small faith.
Google the story of Mother Teresa's route to Sainthood. Amazing stuff. Mother Teresa's first "miracle" was to have a metal that she touched placed on the stomach of a woman who had a non-cancerous tumor. Praise God, she was cured! It was a miracle! But wait a minute. Her doctors and her own husband (who were not Catholics) explained that the medicines she took did its job exactly as was expected. Yet they were all badgered by Mother Teresa's supporters to agree that there was a miracle.
Maybe the medicine worked for your friends too, but they were very religious and wanted a religious based result. I am pleased to hear your back is better, but why do you need a religious based answer? I think doctors must be put off by all this miracle business since they never get credit for success, but always get the blame when people die.
Come on people, get a grip! Religion remains the one facet of intellectual life where large numbers of people can ignore common sense and believe anything they wish. Up to you. But not for me! And more people every day think you just sound silly. But up to you.
"since they (He) never get credit for success, but always get the blame when people die".
....God gets treated the same way.
Perhaps we would see a different outcome if Christians stopped using doctors so much and just relied on God.
food for thought
Good idea, over time it would resolve my concern - too many screwy people who for some reason base their lives around a first century mythology that has managed to ingratiate itself into our lives more than all the other ones that have faded away over time.
Let's take a vote: When you get sick raise your right hand if you prefer to visit a doctor. Or raise your left if you don't really want to get well. Up to you.
Excuse me but we are also way to polite about religion. When people hear silly talk we should say, "That's silly." For example that stuff written after my reply. That's silly talk! There its started - - JACK
As my Holy Bible (KJV) teaches, there is and has only been one sinless person ever to walk on this earth ~ The Lord Jesus Christ. I had never heard of Mary's assumption into heaven until reading here. It is definitely not taught in the Bible so whether it really happened or was man-inspired, I definitely wouldn't dispute that. All I can say is that God apparently didn't think it was worth mentioning (probably because some may look to her as an idol) or it would be in His Holy Word, the Book He wrote through mortal men. There are many, many things not mentioned (I've always wondered about Jesus growing up. Don't hear much after He was found back in the temple until He started His ministry. Can't wait to ask Him!) and an approximate 400 year gap between the books of Malachi and Matthew where nothing was recorded. Of course, man has added his speculations through the years and some churches have picked it up as doctorine.
Through my Bible studies, I have only learned of two people who have gone to heaven without a physical body death were Enoch and Elijah. Though they walked very close to God, they, too, were not exempt of sin in their lives.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. Romans 5:12-18
It is only through the belief of the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ that we can partake of the wonderful free gift of eternity in heaven with Him. Giving your heart and life to Jesus is the only way to be a part of His family. He is the one defending us against satan's constant reminders of our sinful nature. Praise God for His Mercy!
No, saints are not necessary.
I don't know when "saints" began as a concept, and not being Catholic, I've never been too familiar with them.
But it seems they are a term of respect for the humility, sacrifice and generosity of those people -- and especially their spirituality.
They stand as an inspiration to us all. They are heroes in every sense of the word.
Amongst Christian saints, Peter is perhaps the first. What a class act he was. I don't know of any other saints who walked on water, even if only for a moment.
by AshtonFirefly 6 years ago
I've been browsing through various religious forums and debates on this site, and it's led me to ask this question of those who believe in God or any religion in which a deity is involved: what is it that made you start believing what you believe in the first place? I'm a fan of psychology as well...
by little johnny 6 years ago
Can you be spiritual or be a believer of God apart from religion or the Church?
by Marie_Style 5 years ago
Do you believe that you have to go to church meaning a building.In order to be close to GOD. I am not one to go to church on a regular basis but I am very spiritual and sometimes have a little bit of difficulty Remaining unafraid, and keeping faith. Is this all a test or me being doubtful.
by ainon bani 6 years ago
If we really believe in one true God, then why most of us still worship saints?
by Greg Sereda 5 years ago
Is praying to Mary & the saints, like Catholicism teaches an act of false worship?The Bible teaches us to worship God only (Ex. 20:3-5; Rev. 19:10); but the Roman Catholic Church teaches its adherents to pray to Mary and the saints. They even bow down to statues and pictures of them when they...
by Baileybear 7 years ago
eg the the people that didn't get healed when you prayed for them? Not enough faith? Hidden sin? God doesn't care? Answered prayers are really just luck anyway?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|