1
12volt_man
Guest
Fortunately for me, I have God’s word that says different.
- Status
E
Eden
Guest
Since you do not recognize the sacredness of Communion and the mockery that taking it under false pretenses would be, describing the need to be Catholic to take communion as “discrimination” shows a deep lack of understanding about Transubstantiation. Even Catholics can not receive communion under certain circumstances.
L
Lillith
Guest
She is more than any other woman…12volt…Her womb was the Holy dwelling place of God almighty…remember …God made mountains Holy so that he may dwell there…remember the Arc of the Covenent in the Old Testament? It was a wooden box that God made Holy…She has free will just as you or I…thank God that she said Yes and fixed Eve’s No!
Well…you are refering to the communion of Saints here…People who have died in Christ are alive in Christ…more alive than you or I…with glorified bodies and access to the Knowledge that God Himself might allow them to Have! Praise God!
I will ask Mary and the Saints to pray for me…but I certainly don’t worship her/them!
Statues are just three dimensional pictures by the way…I hope you don’t worship any pictures…'cause I don’t!
Co-redemptrix and mediatrix…have more to do with Mary’s yes than anything else…but a little bit much for you to understand right now…since you regard Mary as only a woman…
Boy 12volt…you sure jump around…
S
swnunley
Guest
You didn’t answer the question.
So each and every new person who comes into your church has to be rebaptized, even if they were already a believer attending a Baptist church before hand?
E
Eden
Guest
You are greatly misinformed about the meaning and origin of the Nicene Creed. I suggest researching the history of the Creed (which is not in the Bible!) before making the claim that it means “universal” and not specifically the “Universal/Catholic” Church that is known even today as Catholic.
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9705fea3.asp
M
mercygate
Guest
12volt_man said:
There are many Catholic teachings you do not reject.
That Jesus is the second Person of the Godhead, the only begotten Son of God: co-eternal and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit
The virgin birth
That Jesus died for the remission of our sins
That only through the blood of the cross are we redeemed
The Resurrection
That he ascended to the Father
That the Scriptures are the inspired an inerrant word of God
That Jesus will come again in glory at the end of the world
These are all teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which I believe are also believed by Baptists
P
pro_universal
Guest
12volt,
I’d be interested to see a historical record of a group living between 200 and 300 that practiced christianity in a form that is substantially similar to a modern baptist church.
Do you have such a record? If not, how do you know that the early christians actually adhered to these practices? (Biblical interpretation is clearly debated…so I’d like to just see some historical evidence of christians who interpreted the bible the same way the baptists now do.)
I’d be interested to see a historical record of a group living between 200 and 300 that practiced christianity in a form that is substantially similar to a modern baptist church.
Do you have such a record? If not, how do you know that the early christians actually adhered to these practices? (Biblical interpretation is clearly debated…so I’d like to just see some historical evidence of christians who interpreted the bible the same way the baptists now do.)
M
MrS
Guest
well, I am back from the dentist… boy did I miss a lot of posts…
12volt… you were doing so well, all things considered, until this statement…
L
Lillith
Guest
Of course Catholic means Universal…the Catholic Church is the one true Catholic and Apostolic Church…
Roman…just describes the practice…Just as Byzatine and Orthodox…
E
Eden
Guest
Why the Nicene Creed refers specifically to the Catholic Church:
The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata) the whole (holos),” or, more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the word “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time or shortly thereafter it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
Because the term is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, many Protestants try to claim it for themselves, insisting that the catholic church is the invisible, universal brotherhood of all believers. But this is an unhistorical view that ignores the actual use of the term at the time the creeds were written.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church (Early Christian Doctrines, 190).
Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for “Catholic” are reinterpreting them according to a modern fancy, much as a liberal Bible scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.
Included in the quotes below are extracts from the first creeds to use the term “Catholic” so that it can be seen in its historical context, which is supplied by the other quotations. It is from this broader context that the meaning of the term in the creeds is established, not by one’s own fancy of what the term once meant or what it ought to mean.
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (*Letter to the Smyrneans *8:2 [A.D. 110]).
More here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002frs.asp*
The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata) the whole (holos),” or, more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the word “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time or shortly thereafter it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.
Because the term is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, many Protestants try to claim it for themselves, insisting that the catholic church is the invisible, universal brotherhood of all believers. But this is an unhistorical view that ignores the actual use of the term at the time the creeds were written.
Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church (Early Christian Doctrines, 190).
Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for “Catholic” are reinterpreting them according to a modern fancy, much as a liberal Bible scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.
Included in the quotes below are extracts from the first creeds to use the term “Catholic” so that it can be seen in its historical context, which is supplied by the other quotations. It is from this broader context that the meaning of the term in the creeds is established, not by one’s own fancy of what the term once meant or what it ought to mean.
Ignatius of Antioch
Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (*Letter to the Smyrneans *8:2 [A.D. 110]).
More here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0002frs.asp*
M
MrS
Guest
Can’t use that … Cheney already didI quoted you, Mick, but not aimed at you
( I am a conservative,Independant/Republican, voted for Bush twice by the way)
M
MrS
Guest
So that grace is not from God?? it is up to us to say I do?
(I thought that was reserved for marriage)
S
swnunley
Guest
Statements like that will get you resuspended.
M
MrS
Guest
because it is not required.
Jewish idioms confuse us today.
Like when they say “… those who do not work, will not be fed…”
Is that a scriptural command to starve the infants, the infirmed, the crippled… who can not work
No, the understanding of the idiom is “… those who can work, and do not work will not be fed…”
Same for baptism…
" … THOSE WHO CAN REPENT, must repent and then be baptized…"
P
pro_universal
Guest
Someone hasn’t been doing his historical homework. I’d like to see a record of even one person being killed for teaching this. As far as I know, such an event has never happened.
1
12volt_man
Guest
She is a women. She has no divine power or authority. She holds no more sway over the will of God than anyone else.
According to the Bible, they are dead and contact with them is strictly forbidden.
Why would you pray to dead people when God has condemned it? Why would you pray to anyone other than God when God has condemned that?
Many Roman Catholics do.
Yeah, I’m just some poor apostate with a grad degree. I’m just too stupid to understand.
At least you got my name right this time.Boy 12volt…you sure jump around…
1
12volt_man
Guest
So says your pope. Not so says my God.
1
12volt_man
Guest
Yes, part of making a public profession is that we actually have to profess something.
P
pro_universal
Guest
To affirm this claim you must commit a logical heresy.
Let’s start with something we can agree on:
Jesus is both God and man. Because Jesus is one person, he is 100 percent man, and his divinity cannot be separated or divided from him manhood.
There is no debate that Jesus’s flesh came from Mary. Her body fed his and it was straight from her flesh that Jesus’s flesh grew and received sustenance. Hence, part of Jesus is actually Mary’s flesh.
Therefore…Jesus’s divinity (because it is inseparable from his manhood) was given birth into the world by Mary’s womb. She is indeed, if you accept that Jesus is both God and Man, the Mother of God.
To deny that Mary is the mother of God leads you either to blatant logical contradiction, or to negating Jesus’s manhood.
1
12volt_man
Guest
That’s rather tame compared to all of the Roman Catholics here who have come out of the woodwork to tell me that we’re not real Christians, cannot be saved, and are going to Hell.
- Status