Originally posted by Nellinator
Catholics are Christians. You'll get over it one day.
* nope... they are entirely different...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was baptized as a child in a Protestant church.
* Protestants are not just supposed to be churches separated from Catholic, their doctrines should too... that's why they deviated themselves from them...
* anyways, infant/child baptism is not in according with the Bible because in baptism, the person involved must have complete awareness of the faith he/she is going to accept... 😎
Originally posted by peejayd
* Protestants are not just supposed to be churches separated from Catholic, their doctrines should too... that's why they deviated themselves from them...
Really just one thing . . . hardly a big deal.
Originally posted by peejayd
* anyways, infant/child baptism is not in according with the Bible because in baptism, the person involved must have complete awareness of the faith he/she is going to accept... 😎
I was a precocious little tyke 😖hifty:
Originally posted by peejaydNo, not at all. Christian = saved. Catholics fit the Biblical formula for salvation. Therefore, Catholics = Christians. You'll get over it.
* nope... they are entirely different...* Protestants are not just supposed to be churches separated from Catholic, their doctrines should too... that's why they deviated themselves from them...
* anyways, infant/child baptism is not in according with the Bible because in baptism, the person involved must have complete awareness of the faith he/she is going to accept... 😎
You will find that is not the case at all.
* let me tell you a Christian is, according to the Bible:
"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
Acts 11:26
* so you see, Christians = disciples of Christ, and vice-versa... and what is the basis of a true disciple according to Jesus? is it only just to believe in Him? as simple as that?
"As he spake these words, many believed on him."
John 8:30
* many of the Jews believed in Jesus... but let us see if they were considered as "disciples" immediately:
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;"
John 8:31
* if a person continues to abide by the words of Christ, then he/she is truly a disciple of Jesus, hence a Christian... and they are not already saved...
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
And by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain."
I Corinthians 15:1-2
* if you hold fast to the words of Christ, you are being saved... that's why Jesus told his disciples this commandment:
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
Matthew 10:22
* if you will endure up until the end, by then you will be saved... i hope this clears and wraps this up... 😉
Originally posted by Nellinator3) No, that's not true at all.
unfortunately for the cause of faith and religion it is very true.. for example... i know several hindu families who have had their children "christened" because they see it as an "English" (rather than a "christian "😉thing to do, and I have several times been castigated for not having my child christened... I am not christian, and neither are those doing the castigating.... yet i am still held as being "strange" for not doing the "done thing"... for most people in this country a christening is what you do when your kids are six months old, regardless of whether you are christian, Christian or whatever... just like getting married in Church is considered better than a civil ceremony...
Originally posted by peejaydYah. Catholics = Christians. Why? Because they follow the teachings related to salvation to this day.
* let me tell you a Christian is, according to the Bible:"And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that even for a whole year they were gathered together with the church, and taught much people, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch."
Acts 11:26* so you see, Christians = disciples of Christ, and vice-versa... and what is the basis of a true disciple according to Jesus? is it only just to believe in Him? as simple as that?
"As he spake these words, many believed on him."
John 8:30* many of the Jews believed in Jesus... but let us see if they were considered as "disciples" immediately:
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [b]then are ye my disciples indeed
;"
John 8:31* if a person continues to abide by the words of Christ, then he/she is truly a disciple of Jesus, hence a Christian... and they are not already saved...
"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
And by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain."
I Corinthians 15:1-2* if you hold fast to the words of Christ, you are being saved... that's why Jesus told his disciples this commandment:
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved."
Matthew 10:22* if you will endure up until the end, by then you will be saved... i hope this clears and wraps this up... 😉 [/B]
Originally posted by big gay kirkI think this is an odd situation. I have rarely seen anything like this in my experience. However, my argument was based more on your over generalizing. Some people may have their infants baptized for these reasons, but there are many who still do it with its intended meaning.
unfortunately for the cause of faith and religion it is very true.. for example... i know several hindu families who have had their children "christened" because they see it as an "English" (rather than a "christian "😉thing to do, and I have several times been castigated for not having my child christened... I am not christian, and neither are those doing the castigating.... yet i am still held as being "strange" for not doing the "done thing"... for most people in this country a christening is what you do when your kids are six months old, regardless of whether you are christian, Christian or whatever... just like getting married in Church is considered better than a civil ceremony...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yah. Catholics = Christians. Why? Because they follow the teachings related to salvation to this day.
* very shallow conclusion there, my friend... teachings according to what? to whom? according to them? or according to the Bible?
"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.
He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."
John 7:17-18
Originally posted by big gay kirk
And to support Nellinator.... go into a Catholic church and one of the first things you'll see is a big statue of Jesus.... indeed, for a long while, Catholics considered themselves the only Christians there were... hence the title....
* statue?
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
Exodus 20:4-5
* yeah right... 🙄
After hearing all of this chatter I would like to point out: the only church that Jesus Christ ever founded was the Catholic Church. They were called "Christians" only because there was no need to differentiate themselves from heresy. The Catholic Church is the only church with direct apostolic succession from Jesus Christ meaning that they alone have the true sacraments and that the Protestant heresies are merely imitations.
Originally posted by peejaydFrom the Bible.
* very shallow conclusion there, my friend... teachings according to what? to whom? according to them? or according to the Bible?"If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the [b]teaching
, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself.
He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."
John 7:17-18* statue?
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
Exodus 20:4-5* yeah right... 🙄 [/B]
The second part is a gross misinterpretation. If one were to interpret the way you are suggesting that would mean God made Moses contradict the law given to the Hebrew people when he crafted the Ark of the Covenant. That would make the Tefillin and the menorah heretical. Yet we see no rebuking of such practices by Jesus himself.
"And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes" — Deuteronomy 6:8
"Therefore you shall lay these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes" — Deuteronomy 11:18
"And it shall be for a sign for you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand did the LORD bring you out of Egypt" — Exodus 13:9
"And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as totafot between your eyes; for with a mighty hand did the LORD bring us forth out of Egypt" — Exodus 13:16
The first part you underlined is incomplete without the second part you underlined. Also, I don't think you understand the significance of the "unto thee" part of the verse. Also, Mosaic Law is not applicable to the Gentiles. Furthermore, Catholics have never worshiped any images as they fall in line with the verses I mention above.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
After hearing all of this chatter I would like to point out: the only church that Jesus Christ ever founded was the Catholic Church. They were called "Christians" only because there was no need to differentiate themselves from heresy. The Catholic Church is the only church with direct apostolic succession from Jesus Christ meaning that they alone have the true sacraments and that the Protestant heresies are merely imitations.
Arguments like this always come down to the same question: was it inspired by God or wasn't it? Every Christian religion is equally dependent on the same question.
Under the often challenged assumption that God exists:
The changes made by the Catholic Church 3rd century AD can't be true unless they were inspired of God. The churches that split off from the Catholic church can't be the truth unless God specifically inspired them on details of doctrine that the Catholic church had lost. The Christian churches that didn't originate from any other religions (like mine) can't be true unless inspired by God...for obvious reasons.
Because the question of divine inspiration is the only one that can justify any of the beliefs, it is kind of pointless to argue points such as the date of origination.
Originally posted by Nellinator
From the Bible.The second part is a gross misinterpretation. If one were to interpret the way you are suggesting that would mean God made Moses contradict the law given to the Hebrew people when he crafted the Ark of the Covenant. That would make the Tefillin and the menorah heretical. Yet we see no rebuking of such practices by Jesus himself.
"And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes" — Deuteronomy 6:8"Therefore you shall lay these words of mine in your heart and in your soul; and you shall bind them for a sign upon your arm, and they shall be as totafot between your eyes" — Deuteronomy 11:18
"And it shall be for a sign for you upon your hand, and for a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand did the LORD bring you out of Egypt" — Exodus 13:9
"And it shall be for a sign upon your hand, and as totafot between your eyes; for with a mighty hand did the LORD bring us forth out of Egypt" — Exodus 13:16
* it is true that God would never contradict Himself... because He never did commanded the Israelites to make and worship graven images... hence, what the underlined phrases in Exodus 20:4-5 still stands... 💃
Originally posted by Nellinator
The first part you underlined is incomplete without the second part you underlined.
* in what way? my point there is, the Catholic doctrine is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ in the Bible...
Originally posted by Nellinator
Also, I don't think you understand the significance of the "unto thee" part of the verse. Also, Mosaic Law is not applicable to the Gentiles. Furthermore, Catholics have never worshiped any images as they fall in line with the verses I mention above.
* i know that the Mosaic Law is not for the Christian era, however, the said commandment was not changed nor amended by Christ so it still applies... it is still prohibited to make and worship graven images:
"Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man."
Acts 17:29
"Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things."
Romans 1:21-23
Originally posted by peejaydGod commanded the creation of several images. The cherubim on the Ark come to mind. However, it is correct that God never commands worship of them. Which is a non-point in this context because Catholics do not worship their images and have explicit and official doctrine to the contrary of your allegations.
* it is true that God would never contradict Himself... because He [b]never did commanded the Israelites to make and worship graven images... hence, what the underlined phrases in Exodus 20:4-5 still stands... 💃* in what way? my point there is, the Catholic doctrine is not in accordance with the teachings of Christ in the Bible...
* i know that the Mosaic Law is not for the Christian era, however, the said commandment was not changed nor amended by Christ so it still applies... it is still prohibited to make and worship graven images:
"Being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man."
Acts 17:29"Because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things."
Romans 1:21-23 [/B]
You are quite simply wrong.
And neither of these is a condemnation. Naturally, no one should believe the Godhead to be properly represented by anything we can craft. However, this is simply a warning against corruption of thinking, not of representation and reminder.
Romans 1:21-23 in the original language doesn't suggest what you are implying. The context of mankind in general is being used and is talking about the worshiping false gods that were of the likeness of man. It is not referencing anything to do with graven images.