">>It certainly enjoys the advantage of having been around fifteen hundred years before the first Protestant was."-----Trans
You can't go by how old a religion is.
>>The issue is not how old a religion is. The issue is whether a given group can, possibly, be what Jesus Christ refers to as "My Church" in Matthew 16:18:
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Needless to say, no Protestant denomination which has its origin in history at least 1500 years after Christ said those Words, can possibly be that Church.
***************************************
Judaism was around much longer than the Catholic Church.
>>The Hebrew religion was, of course, the True Faith, until the Coming of Our Lord and Saviour and the New Covenant. In this sense, the "age" of the True Church includes the Catholic Church, the Hebrew religion of Mosaic Temple worship, the Davidic covenant of eternal royal dominion through David's line, and the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision.
Since the Revelation of God in the Scriptures goes back to the very beginning, with Adam, it is obvious that the True Faith is also the first and original Faith. All that has changed in its historical development, has been the nature of the Covenant under which God is dealing with His people.
**************************************
The Babylonian gods were around even longer, even influencing the Hebrew language with their names, and certainly the Egyptian gods were at least as old as Yahweh.
>>You can't possibly mean what you say here. The "Babylonian gods" and the "Egyptian gods" are demons, fallen angels, and to say they are "at least as old as" the One True God is blasphemy so repulsive I cannot possibly believe you meant to say these things.
You are probably merely quoting out of some tedious book of modern psuedo-scholarship, which proceeds from the premise that all religious phenomena are to be judged according to the skeptical premises of modern day "historical criticism".
Needless to say, there is only One God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and all the pagan gods are merely perversions, fractured counterfeits, or demonic substitutes for Him.
*******************
And that's only one particular region. The far eastern religions are some of the oldest the world has ever known. Even the archaeological findings of the oldest civilizations confirm that those people had a religion, or at least a belief in an afterlife and higher powers.
>>The first man had a belief in a Higher Power, of course. He had an excellent reason for this belief. You might have forgotten that his name was Adam, and he was directly created by God. All the rest of this noise is modern psuedo-scholarship which, in every detail in which it contradicts the Holy Scriptures, is nothing but the puffed up speculations of quackademics intent on deceiving those who call themselves Christians, while effectively denying the Holy Scriptures. These "Christians" imagine that they look more credible in the eyes of the world, when they place more faith in the utterly biased speculations of "scholars", than they do in the inexpressibly pure and perfect word of God in Scripture.
***************************************************
So you can't use age to argue in favor (or even in opposition) to a religion.
>>Actually you can. The True Religion begins with the creation of the first man and hence is, of course, the oldest religion.
**************************************************
I also find it strange that you think if one belongs to a church body, they cannot also explore their own individual relationship with God.
>>I find it strange that you think that I think that. Since I never said it, let me ask you, where did you get such an idea of "what I think"?
****************************************
Doesn't the Bible mention time after time how all of us will be tested, that Satan, the earth, and our own sinful nature will at times get in our way? The Bible mentions several individuals to whom God speaks to individually: Samuel, all the prophets, Joseph the stepfather of Jesus. These people did not have to through their church to talk to God. God came to them and spoke to them one on one.
>>>Samuel and Joseph were both full members of the Covenant of Abraham, as well as the Covenant of Sinai, being circumcised the eighth day in accordance with the Law of Moses. Both of them were completely obedient to the Law, just as all faithful members of the Covenant today are completely faithful to the Catholic Church.
Originally posted by TransfinitumActually, my statement was intended to express the sad state of affairs within the Protestant movement, and not to suggest a biblically supported theological premise. Factually, Protestant denominations fall into two broad categories:
Tim wrote: "It should be noted that, despite the many varieties of Protestant churches, there are only two relevant camps within the movement.">>>Heh heh heh. Says who? You? On what authority? Where in the Bible does it say "there are only two relevant camps within the movement"? Can you give us chapter and verse, please? No? Oh. I see. So, by your own words above, "(the Bible) is the only authority we claim and the only authority we need" we can dismiss your statement here as utterly without authority.
Conservative Protestants (including Evangelicals and most Pentecostals/Charismatics) believe that the Bible is the exclusively authoritative Word of God. Virtually all authentic, born again Christians come from this camp. This view can be dated to the Protestant Reformation and encompasses the core of the original movement.
Liberal Protestants deny that the Bible is the Word of God. Growing out of the enlightenment period (1700AD onward), secular humanism infested some churches and led some Protestants to depart the faith. While they must be recognized as "Protestants" given their historical roots, they are not "Christians" by biblical definition. This statement should cause you no offense. Like conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics would have a serious problem with those who reject the historicity of the Scriptures, deny the divinity (or even existence) of Jesus, and incorporate an endless swath of religious syncretisms in their belief structures.
Given the spacious wording of my former post, I can't blame you for misapprehending my intent. I hope this makes things clearer. 🙂
">>You can't possibly mean what you say here. The "Babylonian gods" and the "Egyptian gods" are demons, fallen angels, and to say they are "at least as old as" the One True God is blasphemy so repulsive I cannot possibly believe you meant to say these things."----Trans
Uh...they're not real. I don't know how you got it through your head that I am actually calling Ra and the like actual, real "gods." What I am saying is that they were worshipped long before the establishment of the Jewish religion. I think we're at least in agreement that there is One True God. I am in no way saying they are valid, just that they were worshipped. It's a testament to the power of God that now the religions I referred to do not have one single person participating in them today. Even the ancient Greek gods are now just considered fun adventure stories rather than canon for worship.
I think we're at least in agreement that there is One True God. I am in no way saying they are valid, just that they were worshipped.or the other way around that your so called one true god is worshiped but in no way valid
Even the ancient Greek gods are now just considered fun adventure stories rather than canon for worship.so will it be with the juda/christinan/muslim god
Originally posted by anaconda
so will it be with the juda/christinan/muslim god
Actually, many historians speculate that the Ancient Greek Gods were not worshipped back then as a valid system of religion so much a just legends or stories, like we have with King Arthur or the like today. I'm not suggesting that there were no believers of things like the Greek pantheon for example, nor am I suggesting that there is a foolproof way of determining the beliefs of an entire nation that predates many, many civilizations. All I'm saying is unlike Judaism/Christianity/Islam in their respective early days (or even compared to now), the Greek pantheon (and the Roman adoption of it) is believed by some to be much more of a ritualistic chore, rather than an actual belief system.
Actually, many historians speculate that the Ancient Greek Gods were not worshipped back then as a valid system of religion so much a just legends or storiesjust as many view the "3 big" middle eastern originated religions today
All I'm saying is unlike Judaism/Christianity/Islam in their respective early days (or even compared to now), the Greek pantheon (and the Roman adoption of it) is believed by some to be much more of a ritualistic chore, rather than an actual belief system.again, the judo/christian/islam is to many nothing more than a belief system based on an ritualistic core. The majority of the so called "faith" is passed on through generations of kins, mostly parents to kids. .........then it becomes ritual rather than faith
Originally posted by willRules
Actually, many historians speculate that the Ancient Greek Gods were not worshipped back then as a valid system of religion so much a just legends or stories, like we have with King Arthur or the like today. I'm not suggesting that there were no believers of things like the Greek pantheon for example, nor am I suggesting that there is a foolproof way of determining the beliefs of an entire nation that predates many, many civilizations. All I'm saying is unlike Judaism/Christianity/Islam in their respective early days (or even compared to now), the Greek pantheon (and the Roman adoption of it) is believed by some to be much more of a ritualistic chore, rather than an actual belief system.
I am sorry, but that is completely wrong. There maybe some people who believe this, but I would think that they have a hidden agenda, just like the people who say that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.
The people of the Greek world allocated much of their resources to these gods much like we do today by building temples.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am sorry, but that is completely wrong. There maybe some people who believe this, but I would think that they have a hidden agenda, just like the people who say that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.The people of the Greek world allocated much of their resources to these gods much like we do today by building temples.
Thanks for the cool pics, I'm studying a classical civilization A level at the moment, so I need to know what Greek Architecture looks like, but hey I'm sure your much more informed on the subject than I am 😛
I'm not necessarily saying I'm completely right or wrong on the subject. I'm not, for example, saying everyone rejected Greco-Roman mythology as an invalid system of belief either. I'm just pointing out that some historians speculate there were many at the time who treated the the idea of a collection of God's representing various aspects of the world we live in as just stories in the same way we might look at some of the legends of King Arthur.
A good example of what I'm talking about is the four outer walls of the Parthenon are not supposed to present the four mythological battles shown as different stories for ritualistic worship, but would have been allegorical for the defeat of the Persians. This is only known through a combination of historical speculation and some written documents.
"Actually, many historians speculate that the Ancient Greek Gods were not worshipped back then as a valid system of religion so much a just legends or stories, like we have with King Arthur or the like today. I'm not suggesting that there were no believers of things like the Greek pantheon for example, nor am I suggesting that there is a foolproof way of determining the beliefs of an entire nation that predates many, many civilizations. All I'm saying is unlike Judaism/Christianity/Islam in their respective early days (or even compared to now), the Greek pantheon (and the Roman adoption of it) is believed by some to be much more of a ritualistic chore, rather than an actual belief system."-----willrules
It was an intriguing time, willrules, but at least a few important people believed in the gods because that was one of the charges against Socrates. He didn't believe in the Greek gods and that was brought up as "scandalous" and part of the accusation of him corrupting the youth.
I have to say, it's no wonder the ancient gods don't have a single worhsipper today. The Greek gods were more like the X-Men than gods. They were very childish and immature and very seldom actually looked out for humans or tried to be close to them in any way. It was Prometheus, who was not an actual "god" (notice it's not capitalized, trans, so I'm not saying any of these people are real) who brought them fire and seemed to care about them. The gods didn't even do anything when Pandora opened the box and unleashed all the bad things in the world.
Christianity offers a personal relationship with God as well as being part of a church community and its main focal point is God actually dying and rising again to save the entire world. Jesus' preachings of unconditional love, respecting children, turning the other cheek, and seeing through superficial differences like rich/poor, male/female are far more substantial than the self-obsessed Greek gods. Christianity has a staying power that the old religions did not, or ever could, have.
Well though the catholic church was the first church over the years it certainly did deviate from the teachings of the Christ hence the reformation. When jesus said catholic he meant the universal church which is different from the roman catholic church. Obviously neither the roman catholic or the protestant churches are perfect but IMO when it comes to the emphasis on a personal relationship with God through his son Jesus christ would go for the protestants. I went to a catholic seondary school the amount of catholics who did not evn read their bibles but instead read catholic prayer books and such was baffling. It seems they took the pope as an infallible leader who could not be corrected and whose word was law. A good number of them had actually neva said the sinners prayer.
Indeed Jesus did make Peter the head of the church but close study of scripture reveals that Paul had the deepest understanding of the message of the gospel. Evn peter himself admitted that he had to pray for the understanding of pauls revelation. Not only that but paul also opposed peter to his face when he felt peter was being a hippocrite regarding the matter of eating with gentiles. Now this is not to say that paul was somehow superior to peter as Jesus said PEter not paul was to be the head of the church. However i believe it does prove that the actions of the pope can and should be questioned in order for faith not to become blind. Christianity is a personal relationship wit God and therefore people should try to develop that relationship through close study of scripture and personal prayer time,rather than reciting or memorizing prayers from a book.