Why do true christians view each other as in separate churches?

[1holycatholic]

1Holycatholic, does the Bible say that to be a Christian you must be baptized? The teachings from the RCC and the Bible are not necessarily one and the same. So if it says so in the Bible can you direct me to a chapter and verse? Thank you.

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church. Why should I have to prove it from the Bible? On what authority do you demand such proof?

 

[Christian1983]

What do you mean by authority? Also, why do you say that I demand, when I simply asked?

I said that the teachings of the bible and the RCC are not necessarily the same. That is a true statement. True in the logic sense that there are times when it has been different. Can you guess when those times were? Now that you have been corrected, could you do me and many other people here a favor and direct me to where the Bible says in order to be Christian one must be baptized? I am simply asking, a very simple question to a very simple statement that you proposed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1Holycatholic, does the Bible say that to be a Christian you must be baptized? The teachings from the RCC and the Bible are not necessarily one and the same. So if it says so in the Bible can you direct me to a chapter and verse? Thank you.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[1holycatholic]

What do you mean by authority? Also, why do you say that I demand, when I simply asked?

I said that the teachings of the bible and the RCC are not necessarily the same. That is a true statement. True in the logic sense that there are times when it has been different. Can you guess when those times were? Now that you have been corrected, could you do me and many other people here a favor and direct me to where the Bible says in order to be Christian one must be baptized? I am simply asking, a very simple question to a very simple statement that you proposed.

Why should I have to show you from the Bible? I presented the Church teaching on baptism. The Church was founded by Christ and existed for ~350 years before it established the Canon of Scripture known as the Holy Bible. During that time, before the Canon of Scripture was established, the Church taught the same thing about baptism that it teaches today.

Your statement about the supposed errors of the Catholic Church are simply your opinion and have no basis in fact.

 

[excaliber]

The Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church. Why should I have to prove it from the Bible? On what authority do you demand such proof?

I have to call you on this one.
What you say is true…however.

The Pope says so, and why should I use the bible when it came from the church, are the most lasy arguments I have ever seen in my life!!!

nothing personal, but if everyone else can use the bible…what makes Catholics think they are above using the word of GOD??
Why do we have it, if we won’t use it.

It would make Catholics look better as a whole if “I don’t know the scripture,but I will do some research and get back to you” was said instead of " just cus the church says so, I don’t need no bible"
That makes catholics look baaaaaaaaad

trust me…watchtower uses it.
don’t help watchtower by saying stuff like that pleeeeeeas.

 

[Christian1983]

prodigalson1 that was a pretty good post. But that reference applies to entrance into Heaven not whether someone is a Christian or not. I know you might be thinking wow this guy is annoying or stupid or…

I forget where but somewhere in Revelations it basically says that if you repent then you can go to heaven. Therefore the verse you quoted is moot. Why? Well some people in the world like in China may never meet a Christian missionary or see a Bible. How would they be baptized? They wouldn’t. God does not damn the innocent to Hell. I hope not at least.

Repentance and love for God and Jesus is what makes you a Christian and what gets you into Heaven.

“Your statement about the supposed errors of the Catholic Church are simply your opinion and have no basis in fact.”

Now 1holycatholic, I did not want to say what the errors were as i assumed you to be knowledgeable enough to know. I said that the teachings of the RCC and the Bible are not necessarily the same. You seem to forget some history.

1holycatholic do you believe in purgatory? Well the RCC used to teach that it exists and would receive money from those not wanting to be stuck between Heaven and Hell. The fact is they did teach about that.

1holycatholic do you believe that the Pope can grant indulgences to reduce your sin (A long time ago Popes would receive money for indulgences)? I don’t think the Bible teaches that.

So where was I wrong in my statement? The truth is I was not wrong in my statement. There have been times when the RCC teachings and the teachings of the Bible are not the same.

 

[1holycatholic]

I have to call you on this one.
What you say is true…however.

The Pope says so, and why should I use the bible when it came from the church, are the most lasy arguments I have ever seen in my life!!!

nothing personal, but if everyone else can use the bible…what makes Catholics think they are above using the word of GOD??
Why do we have it, if we won’t use it.

What makes you think the word of God is limited to the Bible?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1Holycatholic, does the Bible say that to be a Christian you must be baptized? The teachings from the RCC and the Bible are not necessarily one and the same. So if it says so in the Bible can you direct me to a chapter and verse? Thank you.

Found another one.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[1holycatholic]

prodigalson1 that was a pretty good post. But that reference applies to entrance into Heaven not whether someone is a Christian or not. I know you might be thinking wow this guy is annoying or stupid or…

I forget where but somewhere in Revelations it basically says that if you repent then you can go to heaven. Therefore the verse you quoted is moot. Why? Well some people in the world like in China may never meet a Christian missionary or see a Bible. How would they be baptized? They wouldn’t. God does not damn the innocent to Hell. I hope not at least.

Repentance and love for God and Jesus is what makes you a Christian and what gets you into Heaven.

“Your statement about the supposed errors of the Catholic Church are simply your opinion and have no basis in fact.”

Now 1holycatholic, I did not want to say what the errors were as i assumed you to be knowledgeable enough to know. I said that the teachings of the RCC and the Bible are not necessarily the same. You seem to forget some history.

1holycatholic do you believe in purgatory? Well the RCC used to teach that it exists and would receive money from those not wanting to be stuck between Heaven and Hell. The fact is they did teach about that.

1holycatholic do you believe that the Pope can grant indulgences to reduce your sin (A long time ago Popes would receive money for indulgences)? I don’t think the Bible teaches that.

So where was I wrong in my statement? The truth is I was not wrong in my statement. There have been times when the RCC teachings and the teachings of the Bible are not the same.

Purgatory is a teaching of Christ, so yes I believe it.

The Church can and does grant indulgences. That ability was given to the Church by Christ.

Indulgences don’t “reduce your sin.” If you are going to complain about something, you ought to know what you are complaining about.

 

[Christian1983]

I don’t believe purgatory is a teaching from Christ. But lets suppose it is.

Is payment to avoid it a teaching of Christ?
Is payment for indulgences a teaching of Christ?

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t believe purgatory is a teaching from Christ. But lets suppose it is.

Is payment to avoid it a teaching of Christ?
Is payment for indulgences a teaching of Christ?

Show me where that was the teaching of the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to call you on this one.
What you say is true…however.

The Pope says so, and why should I use the bible when it came from the church, are the most lasy arguments I have ever seen in my life!!!

nothing personal, but if everyone else can use the bible…what makes Catholics think they are above using the word of GOD??
Why do we have it, if we won’t use it.

It would make Catholics look better as a whole if “I don’t know the scripture,but I will do some research and get back to you” was said instead of " just cus the church says so, I don’t need no bible"
That makes catholics look baaaaaaaaad

trust me…watchtower uses it.
don’t help watchtower by saying stuff like that pleeeeeeas.

Actually, the Jehovah Witnesses use their own version of the Bible called the New World Translation, which I have read was deliberately mistranslated to fit their own doctrines. It differs substantially from all the best translations of our time, including both protestant and Catholic Bible translations. It was translated in 1950.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[excaliber]

What makes you think the word of God is limited to the Bible?

who told you that?!?!?!?
Let me introduce you to a new term for catholics…but an old term for evangelical churches.

COMMON INTERESTS

Make your presentation of the gospel acceptable to the hearer.

If some one asks to see something in scripture…show them.
“we don’t have to use scripture because we have more then scripture” IS THE WORST WAY I HAVE EVER HEARD ANYONE OR ANY CHURCH TEACH A NON MEMBER.
are you aware that tradition along with scripture is CATHOLIC…meaning that thinking
must be taught to a non member.
Show them from the bible, THEN show them from the bible that "THE CHURCH is the pillar of truth…then they will be receptive to tradishion.

all that refusing to use the bible will push people away from the Catholic church.

 

[excaliber]

Actually, the Jehovah Witnesses use their own version of the Bible called the New World Translation, which I have read was deliberately mistranslated to fit their own doctrines. It differs substantially from all the best translations of our time, including both protestant and Catholic Bible translations. It was translated in 1950.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Do you think you know more about jw’s then me?
Tell me something I don’t know already.

Jw’s read to people out of there version of the bible and CONVERT PEOPLE as a result of using something most people respect.

SOME catholics go around refusing to use what people know…and talk about what is most unfamiliar…what do you hope to acomplish by refusing to give a scripture to someone? Do you actualy think it will convert them?

 

[Christian1983]

1holycatholic I’m having some trouble finding definitive information for you but ill try. I’m googling around and later when I find better stuff ill try to show it. So far I am noticing the belief in purgatory to have originated from pagans.

Ill try but now I have to do other things as this seems tough. I really do think that the RCC sold indulgences to people. I think a lot of RC’s also think so but forgive them for it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

who told you that?!?!?!?
Let me introduce you to a new term for catholics…but an old term for evangelical churches.

COMMON INTERESTS

Make your presentation of the gospel acceptable to the hearer.

If some one asks to see something in scripture…show them.
“we don’t have to use scripture because we have more then scripture” IS THE WORST WAY I HAVE EVER HEARD ANYONE OR ANY CHURCH TEACH A NON MEMBER.
are you aware that tradition along with scripture is CATHOLIC…meaning that thinking
must be taught to a non member.
Show them from the bible, THEN show them from the bible that "THE CHURCH is the pillar of truth…then they will be receptive to tradishion.

all that refusing to use the bible will push people away from the Catholic church.

Let me try to explain something to you that might enlighten you a bit.

It was said Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. How was scriptures taught until that time? Oral tradition. The same as Jesus taught from the synagogues, oral tradition. The New Testament, by and large, wasn’t written until sometime around the year 60AD, almost 30 years after the death of Christ. How was the word passed until then? Oral tradition. Most of the letters of the Bible were written after arrests had been made and the only way to continue the teachings were through written word. The canon of the Bible took place at a much later date (see below).

Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther.

The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today’s canon. This was one of the Church’s earliest decisions on a canon.

Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today’s canon.

The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus’ Decree.

Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon.

The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.

Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.

The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1holycatholic I’m having some trouble finding definitive information for you but ill try. I’m googling around and later when I find better stuff ill try to show it. So far I am noticing the belief in purgatory to have originated from pagans.

Ill try but now I have to do other things as this seems tough. I really do think that the RCC sold indulgences to people. I think a lot of RC’s also think so but forgive them for it.

1Co 3:15 If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Purgation

1Pe 3:18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,
1Pe 3:19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison Christ died, but enlivened in the spirit preached to the spirits in prison. Prison = purgatory.

1Pe 4:6 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: That they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh: but may live according to God, in the Spirit. Gospel preached to the dead. Those in heaven are alive. Those in hell suffer eternal damnation and cannot be saved. Only one place left to preach to the dead, purgatory.

I have bolded my comments above for emphasis.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[excaliber]

Let me try to explain something to you that might enlighten you a bit.

It was said Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. How was scriptures taught until that time? Oral tradition. The same as Jesus taught from the synagogues, oral tradition. The New Testament, by and large, wasn’t written until sometime around the year 60AD, almost 30 years after the death of Christ. How was the word passed until then? Oral tradition. Most of the letters of the Bible were written after arrests had been made and the only way to continue the teachings were through written word. The canon of the Bible took place at a much later date (see below).

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

You have said nothing that I was not aware of.

Did you know that we are no longer living in pre bible times, and since we have bibles…its ok to use them.

The word bible is not a profane word. And it dose not make the church less important. However it dose look like people just don’t know the bible, when they pull the old “scripture came from the church” argument, when knowone said it didn’t come from the church.

All they ask for is a scripture…how do we go from that to back before bible times?

Hahahahahaha!!!
that is a good tactic to buy time if you can’t find a scripture though

 

[1holycatholic]

1holycatholic I’m having some trouble finding definitive information for you but ill try. I’m googling around and later when I find better stuff ill try to show it. So far I am noticing the belief in purgatory to have originated from pagans.

Ill try but now I have to do other things as this seems tough. I really do think that the RCC sold indulgences to people. I think a lot of RC’s also think so but forgive them for it.

If you are saying Jesus was a pagan, I would have to disagree most strongly.

Did some priests sell indulgences contrary to the teaching of the Church? Certainly, but the fact that abuses occurred doesn’t make them the teaching of the Church. At one point a substantial number of Bishops were Arians, but that doesn’t make Arianism Church teaching.

 

[1holycatholic]

You have said nothing that I was not aware of.

Did you know that we are no longer living in pre bible times, and since we have bibles…its ok to use them.

The word bible is not a profane word. And it dose not make the church less important. However it dose look like people just don’t know the bible, when they pull the old “scripture came from the church” argument, when knowone said it didn’t come from the church.

All they ask for is a scripture…how do we go from that to back before bible times?

Hahahahahaha!!!
that is a good tactic to buy time if you can’t find a scripture though

That Scripture came from the Church is important. By declaring the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture you are also affirming the infallibility and inerrancy of the Church.