Why do other faiths believe we have pagan roots?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rarra1985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Carmen wrote: <<The truth should never be denied. When I started to see that the people I believed were so true to their faith, were charlatans, I denounced them. If a church’s leadership strays from bible teaching, it’s time to leave. The bible is the litmus test for doctrine and what a church does in comparison to what the bible says they are able to do.>>

The people I mentioned about in my previous post were poorly catechized. The correct teaching was in place, but they did not articulate it correctly due to ignorance or greed or dishonesty.

Their sins and/or ignorance does not take away from the truth that the Catholic Church teaches.
 
I have no problem with water baptism. But only after someone has believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Right. Or the parents in the case of an infant.

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
 
I have no problem with water baptism. But only after someone has believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If Baptism is a formal sign of entry into the Christian Church, it is a covenantal relationship, and as Paul said, it replaced circumcision as the sign of God’s covenant. The vast majority of Jews, then and now, were circumcised as infants, and were accepted as part of His chosen people by God; why should Baptism be different in the eyes of God, as the Second Covenant?

(I would note, also, that other Protestant denominations accept infant baptism, as the Lutherans do.)
 
For those who assert that only adults are baptized in the Bible.

The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It’s as scriptural as “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family…that’s about as NT as it gets.

If you think that one has to make a profession of faith to enter the Kingdom of God, but then don’t believe that baptism is crucial for salvation, there is something scripturally wrong with your belief…yet the NT is almost adamant about that.

I do not believe that “only adults are baptized in the Bible” is accurate, and here is a good article that explains why.
Code:
    [Infant Baptism (Link)](http://www.catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism)
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has undergone a “born again” experience—that is, after one has “accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior.” At the instant of acceptance, when he is “born again,” the adult becomes a Christian, and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but after “being saved,” goes to heaven anyway.

As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament (in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted, baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the age of reason does he need to “accept Jesus” in order to reach heaven.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.

Peter explained what happens at baptism when he said, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults. He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
 
Some apparently feel that the early church did not baptize infants, but that can be disproved by reading the historical citations if the following article. Early Teachings of Infant Baptism (Fathers *) and from the very early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp (a disciple and friend of St. John as well as bishop of the Church in Smyrna) in which Polycarp plainly says the following when the proconsul tries to get him to deny Christ because of his old age. He shows that he was infant baptized.
Code:
    [CHAPTER 9 (LINK)](http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/martyrdompolycarp-hoole.html)   9:1 But to Polycarp, as he entered the arena, there came a voice from   heaven, saying, Be strong, and play the man, O Polycarp. And the  speaker  no man saw; but the voice those of our people who were present  heard.  And when he was brought in there was a great tumult, when men  heard that  Polycarp was apprehended.
9:2 Then, when he had been brought in, the proconsul asked him if he was Polycarp. And when he confessed, he would have persuaded him to deny, saying, Have respect unto thine age, and other things like these, as is their custom to say: Swear by the fortunes of Caesar; Repent; Say, Away with the Atheists. But Polycarp, when he had looked with a grave face at all the multitude of lawless heathen in the arena, having beckoned unto them with his hand, sighed, and looking up unto heaven, said, Away with the Atheists!

9:3 And when the proconsul pressed him, and said, Swear, and I will release thee, revile Christ; Polycarp said, Eighty and six years have I served him, and in nothing hath he wronged me; and how, then, can I blaspheme my King, who saved me?
 
The imperative is the fact that Jewish babies were circumcised on the 8th day by the command of God and since Paul & Peter both compare baptism to circumcision, that we see the type and example. The fact that the parents had the child circumcised as an entrance into their faith and professed their faith on behalf of the child while accepting the responsibility of seeing that they were raised in their faith, carries over into Christianity. It’s as scriptural as “Train up a child in the way that he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it.” The more relevant passages are those that show that entire households were baptized, which implies that people of all ages were included. If God commanded that babies be brought into the faith in the OT, why would that logical and family oriented practice cease with the coming of the Messiah? ALL Christianity is about family…that’s about as NT as it gets.
👍

For many years, I vehemently fought against the idea of baptismal regeneration because of my Baptist roots (however, I never bought into OSAS 🤷) but I also was never taught about the church fathers either…:rolleyes:

This point that you made is superb. Recently, I heard a Catholic speak (probably an old Journey Home program) and I can’t even remember who it was, but his point was exactly as you stated above and he also pointed out that brilliantly that MANY Jews were converted in the early church and no Jew in his right mind would leave a covenant that brought their BABIES into it via circumcision for a covenant that said their children couldn’t enter it until they were older and could make a personal profession of faith. And for those that would say, well, a child under the age of reason would be covered under their parents faith, isn’t that exactly what infant baptism implies in the first place? 🤷
 
Interesting that you claim I can read your mind and yet you know if I did or didn’t look up the meaning of the word. The only thing counterproductive is your ad hominem attacks.

Now you add that you have told me to stop reading your mind what post. I won’t hold my breath for an answer as you made it up just like you make all the other stuff up. My intervention? Guess what this is a public forum and as long as you obey the rules you are free to post what ever you want. When you post lies I will indeed correct them.
You have no concept of my respect for my religion. My post was a question one word of which allowed you to believe you could step in, and what exactly was ‘wrong’. It might be a public forum but don’t fall into the trap of believing that interventions like this from you are either correct or welcomed
 
Limbo was never a catholic teaching from the Magesterium. It was never defined as doctrine or dogma.

It was a theological speculation that became popular but was never more than a speculation.

If the church has said anything at all officially on the matter it has declared that limbo is not and never has been a doctrine.
AND THIS WAS MY POINT!!

Just because Catholics or even Priests teach something like for example “limbo” that doesn’t mean it’s taught with Majesterial Authority. There are even times the Pope does not even speak with Majesterial Authority.

Just because an idea or ideology or a theological argument / discussion is sneaking into the church or floating around that doesn’t mean the idea or theological argument was affirmed by Majesterial Authority!

So putting our thinking caps on…

Limbo may have been believed by some, even endorced by a few Priests but was it affirmed and declared with Majesterial Authority?

MY POINT IS TO MAKE A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN BELIEFS THAT MIGHT BE FLOATING AROUND WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES WITH MAJESTERIAL AUTHORITY BECAUSE IT’S NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME.
 
Hi
Your friend sounds really lovely. She is dedicated to her faith as a JW. It is great that you have a great relationship while you each belong to different denominations. I go to a Baptist church. I hope you don’t mind, I was reading your post to my husband who told me that Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in Jesus Christ’s Deity.

Anyway, I did want to pass on some info re your question.
Mother and child worship: Babylon had goddess mother Semiramis, her child Tammuz in her arms. Chinese had Shingmoo or the "Holy Mother. Child in her arms, rays of glory around her head. Germans worshipped the virgin Hertha, with child in her arms. The Etruscans Nutria, Scandinavians Disa, with a child. The Druids, the Virgo-Patitura was worshipped as the “Mother of God”

In pagan religion, the mother was worshipped more than the son. Catholic teaching: pray to Mary, she will take your petition to her son. Inferring she is more compassionate than Jesus.
Checked my bible. John 14:6 "Jesus said to him “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” I guess that means you shouldn’t be going thru Mary but directly to Jesus…hmm
Attempts to exalt Mary eg “immaculate conception” to make Mary more closely resemble the goddess of paganism. Myths had the goddess having a supernatural conception. Church doctrine says Mary was born without the stain of sin. Bible search: Romans 3:23 “All have sinned (except Jesus)” Luke 1:46 “And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” Mary says she needed a Savior.
Prayers to saints. Buddhists had their deities, goddess of sailors, the god of war on and on. Ancient Rome had Brighit, goddess od smiths and poetry. Juno Regina, goddess of womanhood and marriage. These merged into the church. Gods & goddesses renamed saints. Bible search: Ephesians 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus”. Saints were alive not dead. I read Isaiah 8:19 “Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?” If we want a saint to pray for us, it must be a living person. Pictures of saints have halos. Artists, sculptors of Babylon used the disk or aureola around gods and goddesses. Buddha too.
In 63 BC Julius Caesar was recognized as “Pontifex Maximus” In 378 Demasus, bishop of Rome, was elected Pontifex Maximus” official high priest of the mysteries. Title “Pontifex Maximus” repeatedly found on inscriptions at Vatican. Above statue of Peter, in the dome.

Keys to the Kingdom. Pagan god Janus, goddess Cybele had mystic keys. When the Roman emperor claimed to be the successor of the “gods” and the Supreme Pontiff of the mysteries, the keys came to be symbols of his authority. In 378 the bishop of Rome became Pontifex Maximus, he automatically became the possessor of the mystic keys.
Anyway, there is lots more. I have a book “Babylon Mystery Religion” which has far more information than I can pass on throuth the forum.
Hope this helps helps. Reading or researching the bible will also provide a lot of answers.
Carmen
Carmen - if this is your response then you have much to learn about the Catholic faith. I’d like to respond to this comment of yours and hopefully bring greater clarity.

First! I have responded in question form because it’s actually better because if you just follow the train of thought you could see how logical and how with reason one can believe the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Your idea that Mary is worshipped is way off base. I’m also going to demonstrate in my next post how come it is easy to belief that Mary was sinnless and immaculately conceived herself.

Finally… As Catholics we respond scripturally but for the most part believe in Majesterial Authority so what we say is hopefully not hopefully our own interpretation of scripture. I’ll post more later but for now it seems the sources you lean upon for understanding the Catholic Church has presented you misleading information. If you really want to know what is truly taught by the Catholic Church it’s time you actually begin to realize that the foundation you have based your understanding of the Catholic Church is a faulty foundation filled with misleading so-called facts.
 
Well I just wasted my time trying to post but this forum logged people off which bugs me because now I’m going to have to wait and respond at a later date on my computer at home. Darn, I had written some good stuff! lol
 
I’m not sure why Limbo was in the Baltimore Catechism if it was a mistaken belief. I have no issue with it being a mistaken belief. I do wish that it hadn’t been taught if it was never true. The idea that some traditions have roots in pre Christian practice is perfectly true. But the church has always (wisely) assimilated the traditions of the culture where it is seeking converts. Look at current priestly vestments, what was a Basilica? I’m not saying doctrine is pagan in its roots but undoubtedly some traditions are
 
You have no concept of my respect for my religion. My post was a question one word of which allowed you to believe you could step in, and what exactly was ‘wrong’. It might be a public forum but don’t fall into the trap of believing that interventions like this from you are either correct or welcomed
Your questions were appropriate and concise. Don’t let this other person derail the thread. It’s not worth it.
I’m not sure why Limbo was in the Baltimore Catechism if it was a mistaken belief. I have no issue with it being a mistaken belief. I do wish that it hadn’t been taught if it was never true. The idea that some traditions have roots in pre Christian practice is perfectly true. But the church has always (wisely) assimilated the traditions of the culture where it is seeking converts. Look at current priestly vestments, what was a Basilica? I’m not saying doctrine is pagan in its roots but undoubtedly some traditions are
This is why after Vatican 2 the official catechism of the Catholic Church was compiled. Prior to that bishops, apologists, educators had to sift through magisterial documents, and theological summaries and opinions. This lead to some errors of teaching of opinion as doctrine. Nothing that I sm aware of that was super significant, but limbo is one of the primary examples of this.
 
This is why after Vatican 2 the official catechism of the Catholic Church was compiled. Prior to that bishops, apologists, educators had to sift through magisterial documents, and theological summaries and opinions. This lead to some errors of teaching of opinion as doctrine. Nothing that I sm aware of that was super significant, but limbo is one of the primary examples of this.
When Jesus ‘descended to Hell’ or ‘Limbo of the Partiarchs’ he offered heaven to those worthy people. Are saying then that this place of the dead was superseded by Jesus’ death and resurrection ie salvation was now available for us via baptism. I have been taught that an aborted child could well be said to have received Baptism of Blood but is doctrine now that those of us who die unbaptised because of their age or because ignorance of Christ will go to heaven. We must believe that ultimately baptism is a key to attaining eternal life
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Limbo is not the topic of discussion.

Please return to the topic of “Why do other faiths believe we have pagan roots?”***
 
Well I just wasted my time trying to post but this forum logged people off which bugs me because now I’m going to have to wait and respond at a later date on my computer at home. Darn, I had written some good stuff! lol
I have taken to writing up all but the shortest replys in notepad or other text editor and pasting them into the post when I am done. Just a thought.
 
I’m not sure why Limbo was in the Baltimore Catechism if it was a mistaken belief. I have no issue with it being a mistaken belief. I do wish that it hadn’t been taught if it was never true.
I looked through the Btimore Catechism here : baltimore-catechism.com and didn’t see any explicit Doctrine of Limbo. Can you please provide a link where I can find that Doctrine of Limbo?
 
When Jesus ‘descended to Hell’ or ‘Limbo of the Partiarchs’ he offered heaven to those worthy people. Are saying then that this place of the dead was superseded by Jesus’ death and resurrection ie salvation was now available for us via baptism. I have been taught that an aborted child could well be said to have received Baptism of Blood but is doctrine now that those of us who die unbaptised because of their age or because ignorance of Christ will go to heaven. We must believe that ultimately baptism is a key to attaining eternal life
Yes I think you got it. We cannot assume anyone is in heaven. Baptism is essential and the normal means so push for that be a missionary of that. At the same time don’t despair for the unbaptized too much, have hope for Gods mercy on them.
 
Correct, it was a theological speculation put forth by some theologians. I was never an official Magisterial teaching of The Catholic Church.
It is still a valid speculation but as the Catechism says we do not know.
 
Yes I think you got it. We cannot assume anyone is in heaven. Baptism is essential and the normal means so push for that be a missionary of that. At the same time don’t despair for the unbaptized too much, have hope for Gods mercy on them.
Thanks. I just really like to know about our religion. It just shows that one never ever stops learning doesn’t it. I have been listening and learning and reading about our faith for about 47 years ha ha ha. And I love to learn even the smallest fact. Quite apart from the faith aspect thr Catholic religion has such an interesting history
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top