W
Whoever is declared a Saint has passed alot of scrutiny… Thomas Aquinas… Augustine… Robert Bellarmino…etc the doctors are so many.
That was not the ushering in of new truths, but the recall of old doctrines that had fallen away.
If you want to understand Church doctrines, read the apostles and the Ante-Nicene Church fathers. Of special interest are the men of the first and second century who were taught of the original apostles. Most of these writers were contemporaries of Christ.
When you read them, you cand= clearly see where doctrine began to go amiss… with the rise of Catholicism etc.
Trying to identify the real doctrine of Christ 1000 years after his death without reading eye witness accounts will mislead you.
Demons influence many human beings in many ways but we tend to ignore the truth especially for those who are spiritually immature. We all know that the HUMAN BEING consists of the body,soul and mind/spirit. The body operates in the physical plane/ world which has its laws such as being limited to time and space. The soul operates on the astral plane which too has its various laws one being it is limited to time only and not space like in the physical world i.e the soul can travel to any place in an instant not limited by the physical boundaries. Thirdly the highest plane is the spiritual/mental plane where the spirit/body operates and too has laws such as not being limited to time and space. The spirit is therefore immortal since it is not limited by time and can be in any sphere at an instant since it is not limited by space. There are various creatures which exist in our physical plane which all are familiar with ndege ,wanyama, samaki na wengineo. Most of us tend to believe in only what we can see with our physical eyes and disregard anything that can’t take a physical shape and size. The astral plane where the soul resides is inhabited by various beings among them being the dead human beings who are on their next phase of spiritual development. The mental plane too have various entities.
Each god has to be customised to fit the issues at hand for each society. It’s more e demand driven issue. If modern humans were to create a god, he or she could be a computer geek, strong in AI, Quantum physics etc.
Scrutiny by who? That is the question.
Quick example, if a saint in the 4th Century AD says something that contradicts the writings of a Bishop who was appointed by the original apostles of Christ some 200 odd years before him, who do you follow?
Church history is very well documented. We have writings of the original Apostles (the NT), their Apostles (a number of Ante-Nicene Church Fathers), and the third generation of Bishops (Iraeneus falls into this group)
So what happens after the 3rd generation of Bishops? The Holy Spirit departs from the Church?
And what of those who are not clergy and yet are extremely endowed with Spiritual Gifts? Shall they be discarded? Are their writings false?
There is no Saint who is in opposition to an Apostle or Bishop. Not fundamentally. And in alot of cases the issue is view of the same elephant. Perspective may differ but not the essence of the subject.
Do you have a specific example of this discord in writings?
blah blah blah…
[ATTACH=full]317553[/ATTACH]
The doctrines that Martin Luther reformed, are you aware of their origins? SAINTS
No saint in opposition to an Apostle? What of the teachings of purgatory by Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory… BTW, this is the same St. Augustine you mentioned earlier.
What of the assumption of Mary by Pope Pius II?
Mary saving men?
These are just a few off the top of my head. The idea that no SAINT is fundamentally in opposition to the Apostles isn’t accurate.
And again, why not just read the bible and the teachings of the Apostles’ disciples? This is my view, the people closest to the fact are the most reliable. The first-century Church and witness accounts of the Apostles in the bible supersede any doctrines of later SAINTS, wherever there’s a contradiction.
What of those who are not clergy but are endowed with spiritual gifts? Do you mean like Simon the sorcerer in the book of Acts? Or like the demon possed girl who used to prophesy until Paul cast out the demon out of her?
I never said the HS departs from the Church after the third generation of Bishops. I just point them out as stewards of doctrine that we can verify. The deception was already rife in the church during Paul’s lifetime, not because there was no HS, but because of what I am saying: people were not selective of where they got their facts.
Are you insinuating that god exists only in some people’s minds and what is perceived as god by one community is not the same as others hence different sects?
Yes. Every sect creates God in its own image.
What is the role of religion and gods then? Why did every human civilization have some form of religion?
I mean nature discards what’s not needed. Why is religion so important to human beings, since it’s must be… seeing as how it manifests in every human civilization
Smh. You do realise that all the doctrines you have mentioned have Biblical basis right? There is a difference between doctrines and practices. Never equate culture with teaching.
What you have shared is that there are teachings that you do not understand and therefore disagree with… Maybe research is needed. The 95 points of Martin Luther were more cultural than doctrinal.
If you read Maccabees as Scripture(it’s part of the 72 books) likely also read by Iraneus and Co. You will see reference to the practice of praying for the dead.
All these teachings you question have Scripture at their heart. The Church never deviates from Scripture. Maybe we differ on what constitutes scripture. Orthodox have 84…Catholics 72 Protestants 66 and possibly in future kuna wengine watasema 55 ama 33… 
It’s curious that you can call verified what one said in 300 AD but cannot verify what was said in 1300 AD. Which should be easier to verify? Which records are easier to access?
Of the 95 theses of Martin Luther list for me the ones based on Saints and not Scripture. No Saint speaks if not from the basis of Scripture.
All teachings of Mary are based on Scripture. The essence of Her Power is derived from Her Divine Motherhood. Her Son is God. That is a profound statement. Whose ramifications we have not yet grasped.
But this is not a forum for such debates. If you treasure the teachings of the early Church Fathers look at their debates on everything including Mary. And you might be surprised by what they taught. And these are your “verifiable” saints.
It was particularly important because people had no other way to explain their existence. Religion gave them a way to attach meanings to things and life in general. It filled the ‘knowledge gap’. But as science matures, we are seeing more people turning away from religion. Check the US. Africa and middle east will hold onto to organised religion for longer
So science is the alternative to religion? I disagree. Science is a tool of religion. Science justifies religion. It explains stuff but cannot replace God. Science explains how God does stuff. How His Divine Thought becomes Word and how that Word becomes physical reality for us. Science cannot be God.
Science can never replace religion. Science is highly materialistic while religion is not. But your claims are shocking. So I now claim that science works for religion? When did you people change from God is all poerrful? So I want to highjack science? Show me one example where science works for religion?
Big bang occurred how? Big Bang could be the Scientific explanation of the principle of Creation. We say God Thought then God Spoke and That Word became flesh(physical reality)
It is a false dichotomy to say that the two are different. Science explains the principles of the Cosmos. The laws that run the universes.
That is misreading religion and misusing science for petty human pursuits of money and power.
If so, why did the Catholic Church and other religions fight scientific thought for so long? Going by your argument, I thought the church would have supported science all along?
The
That is a myth. They did not fight science they actually contributed alot to science over the last many centuries.
In the pursuit of money and power the Church leaders took positions that were not supported by Doctrine. God never said that the earth was the center of the Universe. But in a time of sicial turmoil the Church leaders failed that test of faith. They succumbed to the human temptation of misusing power and we are now where we are.
For context. St John Paul the Second apologised to the Scientific Community for all the errors and wrongs done by the Church. Even apologised to Galileo and his family for the torture at the hands of the Church.
The failure of Judas does not invalidate the message of Jesus.
Science and religion are one. You cannot separate them.
I have the full volumes of the Church father teachings. Let’s stick to the new testament when truths are understood. Read your bible, by the time Christ is preaching, even the issue of the resurrection was very divisive.
Your other argument is flawed. I didn’t say we can’t verify what happened in 1300AD. What I said is that where there is a contradiction in doctrinal matters, the records were written by the Apostles and their disciples supersede later teachers… it’s just logical.
Show me where the teaching of Mary is based on scripture. The Apostles never make mention of her, except in a historical context. The early church was never taught about her. The idea that she remained a virgin contradicts scripture.
There is but one mediator between men and God… just one.
Check your inbox
The pope thinks the Lord’s prayer is flawed, what’s your take on that?