E
Exporter
Guest
You, michael777, have chosen NOT to use Upper Case letters. When you do not use the proper capital letters it makes it difficult to read your posts. Will you write in the common English Language?
- Status
You, michael777, have chosen NOT to use Upper Case letters. When you do not use the proper capital letters it makes it difficult to read your posts. Will you write in the common English Language?
B
bjcros
Guest
For a while Christianity was kind of a sect of Judaism, but when the Temple was destroyed Christians were no longer identified as Jews. That is when persecution started, and when all of the Jewish Christians left Jerusalem when Rome marched on it the Jews have been at odds with our faith. Any devout jewish believer would believe that we are blasphemers. A blasphemer is one who deprives something of its sacred character. b/c Jesus claimed to be God’s Son he was branded as a blasphemer, and that is why they called for his execution.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
vern humphrey:
I thought it was a nice addition to the joke.
Ahhh…you said (and I quote) “They managed to make it to a **desert **island, and were stranded there.” Desert island without deserted is a long way in the English language, isn’t it? One pertains to terrain and ecosystem while the other refers to lack of people.
I thought it was a nice addition to the joke.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’m sure you can dispute semantics. I’ve seen it before. But let’s just say I use Webster’s definition, and if it is used, there are tragically much more than 30,000 protestant denominations. JUST ONE Catholic denomination. Unity of command, just like God intended.
Well it seems you’ve quibbled sufficiently enough to cover all bases. I’m just stating the facts, you can agree with them or not. That’s up to you.
According to Baptist scholar, the late William B. Lipphard, former president of the Associated Church Press, and twenty-year editor of the Baptist publication *Missions Magazine, *
You said:
It does according to Webster’s definition. Can you tell me what denomination they belong to, cuz ‘Southern Baptist’ doesn’t meet Webster’s definition of the word? What "religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body?"
Cuz according to Baptist sources, the parish is its own legal and administrative body.
To which the parish church can either accept or reject voluntarily. “The local Baptist parish church is a law unto itself. Its relations with other Baptists churches, its compliance with recommendations from national church headquarters, its acceptance of any resolutions formulated at regional, national, or international conventions–all these are entirely voluntary on the part of the parish church” (ibid.). There’s no binding legal body governing the baptist parish. They are not a legal administrative body.
Let me give you an analogy. The US is composed of 50 states. There’s one nation that unites the states into a single legal and administrative body. Federal laws are not voluntary. Yet, in a baptist parish, regional or national conventions are voluntary. If Federeal laws were voluntary, then the nation would not be a single legal and administrative body for the 50 states, would it? There would be no federal laws, just federal “suggestions” or Federal “recommendations” to which the states could then either accept or reject voluntarily. Sounds like chaos, no? Sounds like Protestantism to me.
Baptists are merely a microcosm of Protesantism in general. Individual interpretation of Scripture produces individual parishes that reject higher authority as legally binding, which in turn produces individual persons who reject higher authority legally binding with regard to matters religious and doctrinal.
For example, a individual professing to be Southern Baptist can reject an everlasting hell no matter what their pastor or congregation teaches, right? Heb 13:17 is made meaningless in Protestantism.
Ummmm… Baptist scholar William Lipphard seems to disagree with you (see quote above).
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Nope, a “Desert Island” does not mean an island where the rate of evaporation equals the precipitation (the official definition of a desert.)
“Desert Island” means a deserted island – it might host a tropical rainforest, but is not inhabited by man. The term is about 300 years old, and is still used.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
If we go solely by Webster’s definition then you are right on. However, if we go by general usage of the term (as used by you, me and every other Joe in the country), then denomination is referring to Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc, - not 1st St. Baptist, Valley Baptist, etc.I’m sure you can dispute semantics. I’ve seen it before. But let’s just say I use Webster’s definition, and if it is used, there are tragically much more than 30,000 protestant denominations. JUST ONE Catholic denomination. Unity of command, just like God intended.
Well it seems you’ve quibbled sufficiently enough to cover all bases. I’m just stating the facts, you can agree with them or not. That’s up to you.
According to Baptist scholar, the late William B. Lipphard, former president of the Associated Church Press, and twenty-year editor of the Baptist publication *Missions Magazine, *
You said:
It does according to Webster’s definition. Can you tell me what denomination they belong to, cuz ‘Southern Baptist’ doesn’t meet Webster’s definition of the word? What "religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body?"
Cuz according to Baptist sources, the parish is its own legal and administrative body.
To which the parish church can either accept or reject voluntarily. “The local Baptist parish church is a law unto itself. Its relations with other Baptists churches, its compliance with recommendations from national church headquarters, its acceptance of any resolutions formulated at regional, national, or international conventions–all these are entirely voluntary on the part of the parish church” (ibid.). There’s no binding legal body governing the baptist parish. They are not a legal administrative body.
Let me give you an analogy. The US is composed of 50 states. There’s one nation that unites the states into a single legal and administrative body. Federal laws are not voluntary. Yet, in a baptist parish, they are. If Federeal laws were voluntary, then the nation would not be a single legal and administrative body for the 50 states, would it? There would be no federal laws, just federal “suggestions” to which the states can accept or reject voluntarily. Sounds like chaos, no? Sounds like Protestantism to me.
Baptists are merely a microcosm of Protesantism in general. Individual interpretation of Scripture produces individual parishes that reject higher authority as legally binding, which in turn produces individual persons who reject higher authority legally binding with regard to matters religious and doctrinal.
For example, a individual professing to be Southern Baptist can reject an everlasting hell no matter what their pastor or congregation teaches, right? Heb 13:17 is made meaningless in Protestantism.
Ummmm… Baptist scholar William Lipphard seems to disagree with you (see quote above).
While belonging to the SBConvention is voluntary, they still hold the same theological covenant with each other, encapsulated in the Baptist Faith and Message.
Peace to my semantic brother.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
vern humphrey:
Most people use the term “deserted island” to refer to a “desolate” island. You are unfortunately - not most people.
G
Ghosty
Guest
I don’t know about that. Most people think of Gilligan’s Island when they think of “desert island”, and that place was a jungle. I’ve honestly never heard anyone describe something like the Sahara when talking about a desert island, whether they know the root of the word or not.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Hmmmmm… seems to me “covenant” (Webster: “formal, solemn, and binding agreement”) is another term that seems to have a rather loose meaning here, with it being so entirely and arbitrarily voluntary to any Baptist parish.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Most people use the term “Go off half-cocked” to mean to do something for which one has not prepared, too. And they use “machavellian” when they mean “byzantine.”
But “to go off half-cocked” means to suddenly do something dangerous when thought safe (the “half cock” is the safety on old gun locks.)
“Machavellian” means amoral. “Byzantine” means characterized by elaborate plots.
L
LSK
Guest
I heard something interesting in terms of the God of Islam on Catholic Radio yesterday - and of course, because I am so tired on the ride home I cannot remember who was the guest. Anyway, what was said was that Muslims regard God as “Master” and we are His slaves and/or posessions, where as the Christian and Jewish concept is of God the FATHER. The reason Muslims will reject all writings but the Koran is because they regard the OT and NT as corrupted by Jews.
The speaker said that in defense of Christian doctrine, that by regarding God as Master rather than Father, one has actually limited God. For without slaves or posessions, one cannot be a Master. When regarded, however, as FATHER or CREATOR then the idea that God created us for no other reason than He loves us, and for no other reason than for us to LOVE HIM, God is not limited. He becomes, in fact, infinite in His existence.
I found it fascinating. :dancing:
The speaker said that in defense of Christian doctrine, that by regarding God as Master rather than Father, one has actually limited God. For without slaves or posessions, one cannot be a Master. When regarded, however, as FATHER or CREATOR then the idea that God created us for no other reason than He loves us, and for no other reason than for us to LOVE HIM, God is not limited. He becomes, in fact, infinite in His existence.
I found it fascinating. :dancing:
C
Chris_G
Guest
Well, I’m here to tell you it didn’t fall on deaf ears. As a long time lurker and seldom a poster, I loved what you wrote and would like it if I could have your permission to quote you on it in other forums.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is not really accurate. Persecution broke out long before the destruction of the temple since it is recorded in Acts of the Apostles in which timeline occurs prior to the temple’s destruction. The early church ceased being Jewish even in Acts since it no longer celebrated the sabbath and met on the first day of the week in honor of the resurrection and there is quite a bit of NT scripture to support this fact. the fact remains that we are still worshippers of the God of Abraham as are the Moslems, both of us having differing views of how to go about worshipping that God. The Jewish misperception of Jesus as messiah no more invalidates their faith than your own misperceptions of the Eucharist invalidates yours. It’s all a matter of each accepting and recognizing the revelation of God. Some cannot (yet).
B
bjcros
Guest
Church Militant:
I was reffereing to the state sanctioned persecution by the Roman government and Christians were thought of as a sect of Judaism until Christians openly converted people. The real break from Judaism really did happen when Rome invaded Jerusalem. b/c the Jews then began telling the Government that Christians were not actually Jews. Actually the Jews saying that Jesus isn’t the messiah does invalidate their faith and they will be judge for it. I will be judged for my actions just as you will. However, I don’t have any misconceptions of the Eucharist. In fact I can argue that you are the one with misconceptions. 1) Praying to Mary and Saints. 2) Mary being born without sin. 3) Pope’s infallibilty. So don’t talk to me about misconceptions there is little to no biblical evidence of any of these yet all of the catholics accept these.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
This is better stated. However, we both know that the NT records persecution by the Jews long before the sack of Jerusalem in 70AD and that we had ceased to be Jews as of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Right?
So you are saying that the Jews are no longer the olive tree that Jesus said we are grafted into? I think you have err’d in your interpretation of the Bible. If this was so then we are all lost since God Himself is the one who has grafted us onto that olive tree. The NT says so…
Oh…but you do. But that is another thread. Suffice it to say that the very nature of your “Protest-antism” shows that you have abandoned some of the very doctrines that even the original Protestants believed. Have alook at this thread about the Eucharist (so as to not hijack this thread):
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=40172
S
SusanL
Guest
Actually, there is biblical evidence to support this. Please consider starting another thread as it would be interesting to discuss this.
bjcros: I used to be Protestant up until 3 years ago and I had the very same objections. It is very hard to overcome the emotional part more than the intellectual part. I prayed to God to help me and then I did some research. I recommend reading anything by Scott Hahn when you feel ready to read. (He was a Protestant minister/Catholic convert who blew me away with how smart he was). It takes a lot of guts to look at this stuff and it doesn’t come easy.
Sue
M
Mickey
Guest
Relativism.
Suffice it to say then, that there are 30,000 + splits within protestantism.
M
MariaG
Guest
Wow! That is a relief. There are only 4 different truths that the Holy Spirit has revealed. Much better than 30,000. Oh wait, that didn’t include Nazarene. 5. Evangelical. 6. Assembly of God. 7. Congregational. 8. Church of Christ. 9. Foursquare. 10. Vineyard. 11. Presbyterian. 12. Unity. 13.
Okay. Wow! what a relief. There are only 13 different truths that the “Holy Spirit” has revealed. Or did I forget one? 14 truths?
God Bless,
from a former Nazarene,
former Assembly of God
and former Evangelical
Maria
H
Hildebrand
Guest
In ancient Israel, there was a steward. When the King would leave for whatever reason, the Steward would act in the King’s name and would have his authority in governing Israel. The succession to the office of Stewardship was often hereditary, but the King (and of course God) had the authority to appoint the Steward.
In the book of Isaiah Chapter 22, God appoints Eli’akim to be the Steward of Israel. “And I will place on his (Eli’akim) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
It is in this context that we fully understand the words of Christ in Matthew Chapter 16: “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
In the book of Isaiah Chapter 22, God appoints Eli’akim to be the Steward of Israel. “And I will place on his (Eli’akim) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”
It is in this context that we fully understand the words of Christ in Matthew Chapter 16: “I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
All religions have factions or sects within them. It’s part of human nature. And, three of those religions claim divine revelation to bolster their claims. Frankly, I don’t believe the “holy Spirit” has revealed anything, especially not to one distinct group. In the end, they all claim to have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth while claiming different revelations.
I personally prefer to believe as the Jews do about G-d. Luckily, there is room for difference in Judaism that circumvents part of the problems you find in Christianity which has dogmatized everything from what to wear to church and which pew you are supposed to sit in and what ice cream to have after services.
Peace…
- Status