-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Catholicism a Christian religion ?
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
As a point of clarification, it says in Acts that an entire family was baptized, but what we don't know is what the ages of the children are.
What especially propelled the Church to administer baptism to children was during one of the early plagues whereas about 1/3 of the children died. At the end of Mark's Gospel, it says that one must believe and be baptized in order to be saved, thus the decision was made by the Church to allow for more infant baptism to be given but to also separate that sacrament into two parts: baptism and confirmation. This is why when an older child is confirmed, their baptism is mentioned in the ensuing prayers.
Since 1950, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA has served as a leading voice of ecumenical witness to the living Christ. The National Council of Churches is a diverse covenant community of 38 member communions and over 35 million individuals –100,000 congregations from Protestant, Anglican, historic African-American, Orthodox, Evangelical, and Living Peace traditions – in a common commitment to advocate and represent God’s love and promise of unity in our public square. NCC works with secular and interfaith partners to advance a shared agenda of peace, progress, and positive change.
National Council of Churches – National Council of Churches
It is a collaborative , ecumenical, not Catholic
Our motivation for research is quite different, mine is for knowledge, wherever it leads, yours seems to be driven by the will to seek out only that which suits you're objective, to destroy, tare down. I understand that knowledge is something you must confine to whatever your Governing Body allows. And that is lamentable.
And since much of Christian Scripture uses the language of Hebrew Scripture, its helpful to understand how 'household' is used in both.
Genesis 7:1 "Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation." (Note in this instance that the word "you" is singular, referring to Noah only. Yet, by virtue of Noah's righteousness, his whole family is taken into the ark. Peter compares this event to Baptism in 1 Peter 3:20,21)
Genesis 12:17 "But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife."
Genesis 18:19 "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."
Deuteronomy 14:26 "And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household."
Joshua 24:15 "And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
1 Samuel 25:6 "And thus you shall say to him who lives inprosperity: 'Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have!"
These passages speak of houses being blessed or condemned by virtue of the spiritual status of the head of that household. Joshua, cited above, even takes responsibility not only for his own serving the Lord, but for his family's as well.
And just as significant are those passages that mention the household but explicitly exclude children:
Genesis 50:7-8 "So Joseph went up to bury his father; and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house, and all the elders of the land of Egypt, as well as all the house of Joseph, his brothers, and his father's house. Only their little ones, their flocks, and their herds they left in the land of Goshen."
1 Samuel 1:21,22 "Now the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, 'Not until the child is weaned; then I will take him, that he may appear before the LORD and remain there forever.'"
The exceptions prove the rule. In both of the above cases, when the biblical writer mentions the entire household, he feels the need to point out in this case that the children are not included. He would not point this out unless the term "house" presumed otherwise.
Joachim Jeremias sums it up neatly:
The phrase "he and his (whole) house" denotes the complete family; normally husband, wife and children. In no single case is the term "house" restricted to the adult members of the house, though on the other hand children alone may be mentioned when the whole house is meant. Whilst slaves are very often not reckoned as part of the "house," the inclusion of the children is taken for granted. Indeed, the Old Testament repeatedly lays special emphasis on the very smallest being reckoned in.
Only one question remains: Does the New Testament use the word "house" in the same way? Clearly so. To quote Jeremias again:
I have not found in secular Greek usage any examples of "house" referring to "adults exclusively." As regards the phrase of the type "[So and so] and his house" no literary examples are found in the dictionaries generally in use.... In view of the dissimilarities of the New Testament phrase "he and his house" to secular Greek ... and its agreement with Old Testament usage ... there can be no doubt that it represents a heritage from biblical language.
In other words, the phrase "and his house" in the New Testament is clearly borrowed from the Old and meant to cover the same territory. it is irrelevant that children are not specifically mentioned in the household baptisms of the New Testament.
Even if it could be historically proven that every household baptism of the New Testament was -- by some fluke -- a baptism of a household with no very young children -- even that would be irrelevant. The point of the household language is that children, if any, are included unless explicitly excluded. If the Holy Spirit had meant to exclude children from baptism, the Scriptures would have to say, "[So and so] and his household were baptized, all who were at an age of understanding and could credibly profess their faith." Or "[So and so] was baptized and -- there being no young children in the household but only such as were of an age and actually believed -- the entire household were baptized with him."
To get the full flavor of this truth, we ought to see the entire New Testament witness. Look at these verses one by one, remembering the normal meaning that any Jew or instructed Gentile would attach to the word "house" and let the cumulative force of these verses overwhelm you:
Matthew 10:12-14 "And when you go into a household, greet it. If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet."
Luke 19:9 "And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham'"
to be continued
John 4:53 "So the father knew that it was at the same hour in which Jesus said to him, 'Your son lives.' And he himself believed, and his whole household."
Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"
Acts 10:2 "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always."
Acts 11:14-18 "'[Peter] will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God,
saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"
Acts 16:14-15 "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."
Acts 16:31-34 "So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
Acts 18:8 "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note well that Paul refers back to this event in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the baptism of "Crispus." It is clear that in Paul's mind, to baptize "Crispus" is necessarily to baptize the members of his household under his headship as well.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."
2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."
Hebrews 11:7,9 "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.... By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise."
The covenant made with Abraham is, for Paul especially, the covenant that foreshadows the New Covenant made in Christ's blood. Paul refers to it repeatedly to demonstrate that we are justified not by works of the law but by faith in the promised Seed, just as Abraham was (Romans 4:1-3, Galatians 3:6-9). So the true nature of that covenant's sign (circumcision) will prove of interest to us.
Paul says that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith..." (Romans 4:11a), succinctly defining circumcision not as a physical but a spiritual sign. This verse undergirds Strimple's Rule (named after Prof. Robert Strimple at WTS CA):
There is no objection to infant baptism that Abraham could not have leveled against infant circumcision.
This rule is a basic gauntlet thrown down against the baptistic position.
Imagine Abraham arguing with God. Why should he put this seal on infants? Infants don't have faith. In what sense is it a seal if it's possible for the recipient to grow up and deny the faith it seals? Why not wait for them to profess their faith and then apply the sign? These are good questions. The point of this paragraph is not to answer them but to show that they need to be answered. Because there is no question that God commanded circumcision of infants. Abraham didn't have the option of reasoning baptistically and concluding that people shouldn't receive the seal of faith until they are seen to have faith.
Those who dispute the Biblical character of infant Baptism have therefore to reckon with the fact that adult Baptism for sons and daughters born of Christian parents, which they recommend, is even worse attested by the New Testament than infant Baptism (for which certain possible traces are discoverable) and indeed lacks any kind of proof.
http://members.surfbest.net/[email protected]/bible/papers/infant_baptism.htm
There is no objection to infant baptism that Abraham could not have leveled against infant circumcision.
This rule is a basic gauntlet thrown down against the baptistic position.
Imagine Abraham arguing with God. Why should he put this seal on infants? Infants don't have faith. In what sense is it a seal if it's possible for the recipient to grow up and deny the faith it seals? Why not wait for them to profess their faith and then apply the sign? These are good questions. The point of this paragraph is not to answer them but to show that they need to be answered. Because there is no question that God commanded circumcision of infants. Abraham didn't have the option of reasoning baptistically and concluding that people shouldn't receive the seal of faith until they are seen to have faith.
Those who dispute the Biblical character of infant Baptism have therefore to reckon with the fact that adult Baptism for sons and daughters born of Christian parents, which they recommend, is even worse attested by the New Testament than infant Baptism (for which certain possible traces are discoverable) and indeed lacks any kind of proof.
http://members.surfbest.net/[email protected]/bible/papers/infant_baptism.htm
Acts 2:38-39 "Then Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.'"
Acts 10:2 "[Cornelius was] a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always."
Acts 11:14-18 "'[Peter] will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.' And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, 'John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' If therefore God gave them the same gift as He gave us when we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God,
saying, 'Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.'"
Acts 16:14-15 "Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, 'If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come to my house and stay.' So she persuaded us."
Acts 16:31-34 "So they said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.' Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household."
Acts 18:8 "Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized." (Note well that Paul refers back to this event in 1 Corinthians 1:14 as the baptism of "Crispus." It is clear that in Paul's mind, to baptize "Crispus" is necessarily to baptize the members of his household under his headship as well.)
1 Corinthians 1:16 "Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other."
2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."
Hebrews 11:7,9 "By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.... By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise."
The covenant made with Abraham is, for Paul especially, the covenant that foreshadows the New Covenant made in Christ's blood. Paul refers to it repeatedly to demonstrate that we are justified not by works of the law but by faith in the promised Seed, just as Abraham was (Romans 4:1-3, Galatians 3:6-9). So the true nature of that covenant's sign (circumcision) will prove of interest to us.
Paul says that Abraham "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith..." (Romans 4:11a), succinctly defining circumcision not as a physical but a spiritual sign. This verse undergirds Strimple's Rule (named after Prof. Robert Strimple at WTS CA):
There is no objection to infant baptism that Abraham could not have leveled against infant circumcision.
This rule is a basic gauntlet thrown down against the baptistic position.
Imagine Abraham arguing with God. Why should he put this seal on infants? Infants don't have faith. In what sense is it a seal if it's possible for the recipient to grow up and deny the faith it seals? Why not wait for them to profess their faith and then apply the sign? These are good questions. The point of this paragraph is not to answer them but to show that they need to be answered. Because there is no question that God commanded circumcision of infants. Abraham didn't have the option of reasoning baptistically and concluding that people shouldn't receive the seal of faith until they are seen to have faith.
Those who dispute the Biblical character of infant Baptism have therefore to reckon with the fact that adult Baptism for sons and daughters born of Christian parents, which they recommend, is even worse attested by the New Testament than infant Baptism (for which certain possible traces are discoverable) and indeed lacks any kind of proof.
http://members.surfbest.net/[email protected]/bible/papers/infant_baptism.htm
There is no objection to infant baptism that Abraham could not have leveled against infant circumcision.
This rule is a basic gauntlet thrown down against the baptistic position.
Imagine Abraham arguing with God. Why should he put this seal on infants? Infants don't have faith. In what sense is it a seal if it's possible for the recipient to grow up and deny the faith it seals? Why not wait for them to profess their faith and then apply the sign? These are good questions. The point of this paragraph is not to answer them but to show that they need to be answered. Because there is no question that God commanded circumcision of infants. Abraham didn't have the option of reasoning baptistically and concluding that people shouldn't receive the seal of faith until they are seen to have faith.
Those who dispute the Biblical character of infant Baptism have therefore to reckon with the fact that adult Baptism for sons and daughters born of Christian parents, which they recommend, is even worse attested by the New Testament than infant Baptism (for which certain possible traces are discoverable) and indeed lacks any kind of proof.
http://members.surfbest.net/[email protected]/bible/papers/infant_baptism.htm
What has that got to do with me pointing out from a Catholic translation that the word “perfect” means “complete”......that means it needs nothing added? No traditions or beliefs and practices adopted from outside of God’s word.
Jesus said something interesting about what it means to become a genuine follower of his.....
Matthew 10:34-37.....
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (NRSVCE)
When you speak of things ‘ecumenical’ I am reminded by Jesus of the division that would inevitably exist, among fellow “believers”, and even among those members of one’s own household.
So this is the challenge....when someone questions their accepted belief system, especially if they have strong family pressure to remain in it, it takes great courage to stand up for what is important to you. If we find glaring flaws in the beliefs we were raised with, then by all means do some research and dig deep....usually we will find what we’re looking for. And that is the decider.....what are we looking for? The real truth that necessitates change in our religious views? Or that which justifies what we want to believe, so that we can remain comfortable by continuing to believe them?
In the Jewish system, Jesus was viewed as a ‘heretic’ and his disciples were basically treated as brainwashed cult members. So making choices about Jesus and his teachings, required faith and conviction that what he taught was worth what would result..... becoming a virtual outcast among your neighbors, and even in your own family.
When Jesus warned about the “cramped and narrow road” and that “few” would find it, it was because the truth was not going to be accepted by the majority. (Matthew 7:13-14)
Any attempt by the churches to unite, to me is futile, because of the differences they all hold. At best, all they can hope to achieve is tolerance of each other’s views....as if Christianity means you can believe whatever you wish, whether it agrees with scripture or each other.
This is hardly what the apostle Paul described as being the underpinning of the Christian Faith....
1 Corinthians 1:10....
“Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.” (NRSVCE)
Those are the facts....Make of them what you will....
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
The church existed before the Bible. The Bible is a product of the church, not the other way round.
Paul and the Gospelers are replete with Platonism.
You haven’t shown that any of the things you mention are “Pagan.”
Point being your were not quoting from a Catholic translation.
And who was it that broke koinonia?, in the 16th cent.?, just the facts
I think you maybe laboring under a misapprehension here....
I quoted from The New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition (NRSV-CE) which according to a Google search, is a Bible translation approved for use by the Catholic Church, receiving the imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1991.
Take it up with them....OK? Its is a Catholic translation......apology accepted.
Who broke koinonia? I had to look that up as I had never heard of it, but apparently it refers to the Reformation. Is that correct? The breaking away from the corruption of the Catholic church.
You want the facts? Really?
Do you know the reasons for why the Reformation took place?
Do you know about Martin Luther and what was contained in his thesis?
Do you understand that indulgences (as a "get out of hell for money card") were a corruption of the Jesus' teachings on forgiveness? Can God be bribed? Apparently the leaders of the church could. But there was so much more....
The church was in a disgusting state and its abuses had reached epic proportions. No one was allowed to read the Bible so no one but a priest could have nailed that thesis to the door of the church outlining the clear abuses of which it was guilty. Luther wanted to see a correction, but like Jesus, all he got was grief. He is the hero of Protestantism and a ground breaker for what was to come. The Bible was put back into the hands of the people who then had an opportunity to decide for themselves what was true from the scriptures. The power of the corrupt Roman church was finally broken.
Luther started a revolution because the common people were sick of the abuses of a church which was in no way a representation of Christ's teachings. How on earth you whitewash a history like that is beyond me....
Go back over the thread sojourner...its all there. Not rehashing with you again.
The Bible is no more a product of the Catholic church than Jesus or the apostles were.
What scripture did they use.....? The Hebrew canon is a good part of the Bible too you know. It existed long before your church and it outlined clearly what the Messiah would accomplish. The Christian scriptures are there too but not a single solitary letter of it was written by a Catholic.
Who was used to compiled the Bible canon is really of no consequence since God can use even his enemies to accomplish his will. He can even eliminate the apocryphal books that don't belong, but which Catholicism wanted to retain. The Jews were apostate when Jesus walked the earth but that didn't not stop God from using them for his own purpose, did it?
Platonism? Really? You want to go there? Give it up....
Last edited:
Wow.....the ignorance just goes on and on.....why were all Jewish male infants circumcised?
You know that it was a command from God to circumcise all Jewish males on the eighth day after birth?
Genesis 17:12....NSSVCE...
"Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring."
Why eight days old? Because vitamin K, which is a clotting agent in the blood is at its highest level on the eighth day. Also it is better to circumcise an infant, who will retain no memory of the procedure, than to do it later.
No Jew had a choice in this. It was the Law.
And the Bible answers them for those who care to look.
Baptism was nothing like circumcision because for the Jews it was a command, as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. All Jews as descendants of Abraham, were born into a dedicated nation. No one had a choice about that because it was God's law.....all males 8 days old were circumcised.
Baptism on the other hand was a voluntary arrangement that involved learning about God and his requirements, making a decision, and thereafter making a public dedication to God as a baptized member of Christ's family.
Infant baptism is never mentioned and because it involved full immersion.....young infants would not be subjected to it because it meant putting them fully under the water. One wrong breath and they could drown or aspirate the water into their lungs and get pneumonia, which in those days would have been fatal.....quite a different scenario. Besides which the Apostle Paul clearly stated that children are "sanctified" in relation to believing parent(s). No need to baptize an infant as if the act of dunking or sprinkling them with water means anything without the heart commitment to become a follower of Christ. There was no proxy arrangement.
Israel were God's people to whom he offered the opportunity to be used by him in bringing his Messiah into the world. He would reward them richly if they obeyed his commands....unfortunately they didn't follow through on their promise, but God followed through on his. He kept them in existence as his people until his purpose in connection with them was fulfilled. Thereafter, when those very ones orchestrated the murder of their Messiah, he finally abandoned them. (Matthew 23:37-39)
All the proof you need is in the Bible.....but since the Bible seems to be of secondary value to tradition in the RCC, perhaps you have misunderstood that no one can be baptized who has not made a personal commitment to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I have lost count of the number of Catholic people I know who went through the motions of infant baptism as a meaningless ritual because they did not live as Christians, only as Catholics, and they had no real intention to raised their children to be anything other than what they themselves were....hypocrites. Confirmation is a joke. I have never seen a confirmed Catholic child grow up to fulfill the true meaning of baptism yet. Being a good Catholic doesn't make you a good Christian....in fact by true definition, it doesn't make you a Christian at all IMO.
Catholicism is full of rituals, but I rarely see any real adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ in their everyday lives....all I see is repetitious performance.....empty, meaningless performance.....just like I saw in my own church.....only worse.
You can support the Catholic church all you wish, and you can justify all of its unscriptural beliefs and practices to yourselves....but we will answer to Christ, who is the appointed judge of every one of us. He will accept no excuses. (Matthew 7:21-23)
It is the only Bible translation that is as widely ecumenical. Do you know what ecumenical means? As I stated before, it is a collaborative effort among Christians to find agreement on biblical translations. Because it is approved by the Church does not make it a Catholic translation. A Catholic translation is a translation by the Church's own biblical scholars, which is what the NABR.
Koinonia finds its origin in the dynamism of the life of the Triune God.
koinonia-gods-gift-calling.pdf (anglicancommunion.org)
Yes. Do you understand how much of his Catholic faith he retained, especially concerning Mary and the Saints? Its doubtful that Luther, or other Reformers would recognize what came to be, with thousands of churches going their separate ways.
I find it so interesting that you manage to find all these Catholics who do not know their own religion.
It is up to the priest whether or not the parents wish for baptism will be granted. If these parents have not been seen in church, are not members, and have little intention of doing so, they are refused baptism for the child.
Deliberate blindness causes that. Jesus, as did the Apostles, followed obligations of their faith, obviously, there was ritual.
Do you know what the imprimatur means? It simply means there is nothing 'heretical' found in it, does not imply full agreement.
Are you telling me that Catholics cannot use a Catholic Bible unless it is the one you say they should use?
Do I know what ecumenical means? A collaborative effort to find agreement.....I have to chuckle here because I see that as a pipe dream. Here in Australia we have what is called the Uniting Church. It is a blending of three smaller churches, all of whom were struggling to stay afloat, so they amalgamated. There will never be the “United” Church because they could not come to agreement on doctrinal matters so they just agreed to disagree and to continue “uniting”. This demonstrates to me that ecumenism is a pipe dream. You cannot unite people who disagree, all they can do is tolerate each other’s errors. Is that what Jesus said would unite Christians? They must of necessity agree on all the teachings of the Christ.
There is no such God in the Bible. The Father is the God of Jesus Christ and remained so after he returned to heaven.
Jesus never once identified himself as God and there is not a single reference to “God the Son” or “God the Holy Spirit” in any passage of scripture. According to my studies, this triune God is a blasphemous invention of the Catholic church.
No other Abrahamic faith worships a trinity except Christendom.
And even then, it did not become official church doctrine till the 4th century after Jesus death.
The very fact that there were reformers must tell you something....regardless of what they retained, they had legitimate complaints against the abuses and corrupt practices of the church......and their overwhelming success in toppling such a powerful church off its pedestal, must tell you something else.
I only know what I saw. The churches are dying where I live, so I guess they accept anyone for any reason rather than have an empty church. I have neighbors all around me who are Catholic. Apparently the priest here is thinking of leaving the church. The priesthood is diminishing everywhere and there are too few coming through to replace the ones who are leaving. I live in a very secular country. All the churches are in trouble it seems. I can understand why.
Jesus and his apostles were Jewish, not Catholic.
There is nothing in the scriptures to indicate any rituals in first century Christianity. No incense, no holy water, no infant baptisms, no adoration of Mary, no images, no rosary beads, no repetitious prayers, no monks or nuns, no distinctive robes or headgear, no hierarchy or titles.....and there wasn’t any Pope either. So where did all of that come from? Certainly not from anything Jesus taught.
Since it’s not a translation I would use for study, I really don’t care.
It’s the church’s problem, not mine.
Yet you quote from one such effort. Of course its a 'pipedream' for one who considers all other Christians have lost their way and only you as a JW have the only truth. To me that is far worse than a pipe dream, its a nightmare.
Yes, Luther had legitimate complaints, no, the Church has not been toppled at all, as it recognizes wrongs and corrects them.
Incense represents prayers of the saints lifting up into the heavens before God. This is evident from the blessing verse of the celebrant of the censer before incensing begins:
- "We offer to Thee, Christ our God, this incense as a spiritual fragrance; receive it, we pray, to Thy heavenly altar and send down to us, in return, the grace of Thy Holy Spirit."[3]
- Psalm 140:2 - "Let my prayer be set forth before You as incense, The lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice."[4]
- Revelation 5:8 - "Now when He has taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints."[5]
- Revelation 8:4 - "And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel's hand."[6
which Jesus would have acknowledged.
Then why quote from it?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It is a product of the Church, which much later split into East (Orthodox) and West (RCC). So, yeah, it is (by extension) a product of the Catholic Church which, at that time, included all churches East and West.
The Judaic canon wasn’t set until the 2nd century C.E.
We don’t know who wrote most of the NT. What we do know of the authors we know is that they were assuredly members of the Church (again, at that time, included both Roman and Eastern).
This isn’t cogent to the argument.
Really. If you were a real bible student, you’d know that.
Hardy, har, har.So what the apostles didn't say, forms the basis of your religion? I can see that actually....
I'm little surprised that you don't get the purpose, "having eyes but do not see". The Watchtower, like every other church, has beliefs and practices which are the result not of some direct statement of God, but arise through the normal processes of human theological development. You take the ideas that are offered in scripture and come to a conclusion that scripture does not present. Whether that doctrine is denial of infant baptism which we disagree on, or rejecting abortion because it is murder which both of us and the earliest Christian communities (see the Didache) all agree on.
Why not? Or, if you'd prefer, what is the difference between an infant and someone with the retarded mind of an infant that means the mentally retarded person can be choose and the infant cannot.
Your iteration of the worldly organization of the church, then. Founded in the 19th century and hasn't had to face the questions of the past, you criticize the answers to questions you've never had to face. What do we do if someone in a jail that will not allow a baptism to occur wants to convert? What do we do if someone cannot be moved? What do we do if there is no water?
We look to Christ and His example, when He said "the sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath." The sacraments are made for man, not man for the sacraments. God's grace is not limited that we have to be silly and worry about the logistics of water. No, all men can be baptized be it immersed, sprinkled, or spittled or just of the spirit with no water at all.
Except of course, for your definition of what the Bible is. And, your rejection of the apostolic teachings that aren't in the Bible.
One of which cannot be Bible based and the other strictly against the words of the Bible.
Perhaps I misunderstood your words. I'm sorry if I was confused, I see Paul there, in the context of the passage, speaking for the marriage and parenthood when of mixed faith. Your marriage is not unclean because of a division of belief. Your parenthood is not unclean. They are sanctified.
Alright, I get it and I think we agree on this point, those who are willfully ignorant or willfully defiant. So, what happens to people who don't know God because they're ignorant or developmentally incapable? It sounded like you said that if a child dies, their eternal fate is decided by the faith of their parent(s).
I think that's a first.Exceedingly sad. Almost as sad as believing our abba doesn't want to talk to us at all
No, I am talking about me saying "You've said this same exact thing (three, four, five) times, you've asked that question (three, four, five) times. Stop talking to me about it, I don't want to hear it anymore." I still care about them, that doesn't stop just because they annoy me with their ongoing problems that have entrenched themselves in their mind in certain patterns so the complaints come out the same.
I'd suggest the verse says that whether we think we have the words or not the Spirit is there interceding with the truths our minds and words are incapable of expressing. It doesn't say that when we do not know how to pray as we ought, it says we do not know how to pray. There is no one praying as we ought, all prayer is mediated by the intercession of the Spirit to bring the truths too deep for words to bear.
It's beautiful, it's wonderful. No matter how messed up I am, no matter how proper I think I am, we are not alone; the comforter, the Spirit of God is there with us.
Well, we know what Jesus meant because He clarified "thinking that they will be heard for their much speaking". But yes, thoughtless yammering. If I tell you my yammering is not in fact thoughtless, but heartfelt and truthfully meant, is it not for God to decide?
This is what I mean when I said you say things that don't respond to me. That doesn't address in any way that you are in a long line of people who have believed that their time was the end times, that they had a special knowledge or understanding that the unrighteous didn't have. The first Christians thought they were in the end times, they even thought they might have missed the Lord coming which is why Paul had to write to them to be calm in 2 Thess 2.
Be calm, the Lord hasn't come yet. You'll know you are in the end times when the son of perdition who has "all power, signs and lying wonders" comes. Before that is just idle speculation. "Comfort your hearts", "be thankful to God", "hold fast to our traditions by word of mouth or epistle" and establish in yourself every "good word and work".
Don't worry about the end times, they'll come when God is ready, focus on being thankful to God for salvation and being a good Christian who lives in truth and righteousness.
If someone is wrong about it being the time of the end, and their ideas about the interpretation of prophecy are incorrect, does that make them the wicked?
We'll probably quibble, because I would say that the Bible suggests that whether it is the end times or not isn't of much use to a Christian, we should act the same no matter when we are. We should always be in the fullness of love and truth.
That said, there is nothing wrong with looking to see if the time is now and prophecy is playing out. This fine description of your, and I assume Watchtower, understanding of the man of many metals, while fascinating, is beside the point. You do recognize that this understanding is just the understanding of men, correct? Not just that I find the portion on the iron legs as straining credulity, but in general if I offered another interpretation that we are in the Silver, not the Iron would you see that as unrighteous or wicked?
The Gold Head that represents Nebuchadnezzar, represents imperialism and monarchy as the world order. Gold representing rule and power in the head of the nation.
Silver represents the current age of commerce. Silver obviously representing coin that we spend our effort and heart to obtain (arms and breasts).
Not that I do believe that, but it just came to me as a possible understanding.
Re-framed, do you think that we are necessarily in the end times, or do you understand your interpretation to be the tradition of fallible men who can be incorrect?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Kind of like the beating of our heart. Sometimes repetition is life-giving. I am not always aware of my heartbeat, and I’m darn glad it’s a “mindless” rhythm.
I bet God never tires of the phrase “I love you.”