Catholicism - Heart and Soul of a Great Nation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.

82

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]

Please explain to me, point by point, from Matthew 16:18-19, how you can prove the claims of papal infallibility, apostolic succession, absolution, etc., and we’ll see if I can’t refute them :wink:

83

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

The Lord works in misterious ways.

84

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Now as far as the Christian congregation being built on a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.

First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense. These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”

Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”

The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.

The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.

85

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That may be so. But NOWHERE in the Bible does it say we need to pray the rosary, or confess to a priest, etc.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

The Bible is the only ultimate authority. Not the Pope, nor anyone else who changes the “rules” at will. Any religion, doctrine, system that doesn’t uphold Christ’s qualifications for truth must be rejected. [/quote]

I’m not sure what anything after your first sentence has to do with this thread. But I’ll respond anyway: sorry, you’re incorrect and obviously not well read on Doctrinal History and how/why it evolved over time. Moreover, the Bible grew out of the Church; the Church existed first. That is a fact, sir. [/quote]

Source for this fact?

86

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Now as far as the Christian congregation being built and a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.

First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, â??the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and â??a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.â?? These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”

Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”

The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.

The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Amen the bible is consistently and abundantly clear about who the rock is.

87

[quote]XF220 wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
That may be so. But NOWHERE in the Bible does it say we need to pray the rosary, or confess to a priest, etc.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6

The Bible is the only ultimate authority. Not the Pope, nor anyone else who changes the “rules” at will. Any religion, doctrine, system that doesn’t uphold Christ’s qualifications for truth must be rejected. [/quote]

I’m not sure what anything after your first sentence has to do with this thread. But I’ll respond anyway: sorry, you’re incorrect and obviously not well read on Doctrinal History and how/why it evolved over time. Moreover, the Bible grew out of the Church; the Church existed first. That is a fact, sir. [/quote]

Source for this fact?
[/quote]
It’s called the King James Bible, even the translations from the Torah to the KJ Bible are messed up in some parts.

88

[quote]Kanada wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Kanada wrote:
The church of God and the Catholic Church are the same in name only. In a similar vein, the Protestant denominations are usually equally warped from their founding. Martin Luther rebelled against the Catholic Church because of the corruption and decadence, along with the deism of the Pope. Similar to Father Mackey in South Park confronting the Catholic Church over sexual abuse. They worshiped a giant spider.

So while katzen has a wonderful story for us, its kinda irrelevant. The Catholic Church lost its mandate from heaven the moment it legitimized itself, and no longer served God but themselves.[/quote]

The Catholic Church is filled with sinners. Yup. So?

[/quote]

Well, more like The Catholic Church is not the sole avenue to God
[/quote]

The Church admits this, you should read more about the Catholic Church, from the Catholic Church and stop listening to people that do not know what they are talking about.

89

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

The holiday of Christmas is pagan. There is no proof anywhere in the Bible of the day of Jesus’ birth. That is the truth.[/quote]

No, it’s another example of your half truths. Do you need proof that Jesus was born?

As I said, much of it - the date, many of the customs, etc - are pagan. The origins of Christmas are extremely complex. THIS^ little summary, however, is false. But works well in one sense at least: it’s nice and catchy, easy to remember, and easy to recite rapidly when someone’s trying to close the door. [/quote]

Well at least we agree that the date and many of the customs are pagan. So what are the origins of Christmas then?[/quote]

It was the time that two pagan beliefs of their God’s birth. Instead of putting back in March when Jesus was born, they just ‘replaced’ the other two holidays with Jesus birthday.

90

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

The holiday of Christmas is pagan. There is no proof anywhere in the Bible of the day of Jesus’ birth. That is the truth.[/quote]

No, it’s another example of your half truths. Do you need proof that Jesus was born?

As I said, much of it - the date, many of the customs, etc - are pagan. The origins of Christmas are extremely complex. THIS^ little summary, however, is false. But works well in one sense at least: it’s nice and catchy, easy to remember, and easy to recite rapidly when someone’s trying to close the door. [/quote]

Well at least we agree that the date and many of the customs are pagan. So what are the origins of Christmas then?[/quote]

It was the time that two pagan beliefs of their God’s birth. Instead of putting back in March when Jesus was born, they just ‘replaced’ the other two holidays with Jesus birthday.[/quote]

There is NO proof ANYWHERE of the date of Jesus birth, so putting it in March is as bad as putting it in December. Additionally, to have a celebration that is solely based on a pagan holiday, and to turn it into a celebration of God’s Son is just outright wrong.

Just think of the holiday: You are “celebrating” a birthday that involves a tree (pagan origins), an imaginary man from and imaginary place (Santa, pagan), and instead of giving gifts to the one whose birthday it is, you give gifts to each other (different from a normal birthday, but still pagan in its origin). Then to top it all off, you put the nativity scene, showing the “wise men” giving gifts to a “baby” Jesus, when it is clear from the Bible that Jesus was no longer a baby when they arrived.

The holiday has nothing to do with Jesus; only what people want to associate it. The origins are completely false. If you really love Jesus, these are things that need to be examined.

91

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]

Why do Catholics hate Baptists so much? I am a Southern Baptist, and I will say they have been bad in the past toward Catholics, but there is a change in the Southern Baptist Community to rectify that. Catholics and Protestants are brothers and sisters. If we would just stop this infighting among ourselves we could move forward and be used by God to bring his creation back to him. This is what God wants for all of us. We all believe that Jesus is the foundation of the chruch and that Peter was the head of the early church. It is stated in the New Testament clearly. Paul even submitted to the authority of Peter, but Peter also saw that Paul was the one ordained by God to spread the gospel to the gentiles. It took 11 disciples to try and win over the Jewish people, while it only took 1 to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Most of the beleivers today are gentiles and not Jews. I would say that we see this today in the U.S. We have churches at almost every street corner, and it is the church in the 3rd world that is flourishing.

92

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

The holiday of Christmas is pagan. There is no proof anywhere in the Bible of the day of Jesus’ birth. That is the truth.[/quote]

No, it’s another example of your half truths. Do you need proof that Jesus was born?

As I said, much of it - the date, many of the customs, etc - are pagan. The origins of Christmas are extremely complex. THIS^ little summary, however, is false. But works well in one sense at least: it’s nice and catchy, easy to remember, and easy to recite rapidly when someone’s trying to close the door. [/quote]

Well at least we agree that the date and many of the customs are pagan. So what are the origins of Christmas then?[/quote]

It was the time that two pagan beliefs of their God’s birth. Instead of putting back in March when Jesus was born, they just ‘replaced’ the other two holidays with Jesus birthday.[/quote]

There is NO proof ANYWHERE of the date of Jesus birth, so putting it in March is as bad as putting it in December. Additionally, to have a celebration that is solely based on a pagan holiday, and to turn it into a celebration of God’s Son is just outright wrong.

Just think of the holiday: You are “celebrating” a birthday that involves a tree (pagan origins), an imaginary man from and imaginary place (Santa, pagan), and instead of giving gifts to the one whose birthday it is, you give gifts to each other (different from a normal birthday, but still pagan in its origin). Then to top it all off, you put the nativity scene, showing the “wise men” giving gifts to a “baby” Jesus, when it is clear from the Bible that Jesus was no longer a baby when they arrived.

The holiday has nothing to do with Jesus; only what people want to associate it. The origins are completely false. If you really love Jesus, these are things that need to be examined.[/quote]

You must believe in pagan Gods. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be worried that a tree or a date had been claimed by them, first. Somebody should check to see if Pagans wore clothes when they gathered for worship. We might have to attend church naked from now on, if they did.

93

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

We are commanded to be no part of the world. To have traditions of pagan origins adopted into christian beliefs would go against that command, and therefore would be disapproved by God and Jesus. That is my point.

[/quote]

Does this mean you do not celebrate the birth of Christ in ANY form or fashion? Even if it be devoid of ANY pagan traditions? If so, Why?[/quote]

Thank you for asking, cueball. I do not celebrate the birth of Christ in any form. The reason for this is because it was not something that was requested of us in the Bible, nor does the Bible supply the necessary information for us to do such a thing.[/quote]

Do you feel then that commemorating Christ’s birth, or resurrection for that matter, is against God’s Word/the Bible?

Or another way, since the Bible doesn’t command it, you don’t feel any desire, spiritual or otherwise, to commemorate His birth or resurrection even if it was done in a fashion devoid of pagan traditions?

[quote]I do, however, commemorate the memorial of Christ’s death. - Luke Chapter 22.

This WAS a commission found in the Bible, and the exact day was given, Nisan 14, which this year fell on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010.[/quote]

Are referring to verse 19?[/quote]

You can choose to remember it, absolutely. That is a personal choice that I don’t believe is directly commanded against in the Bible.

When we commemorate what is mentioned, as you correctly brought out, at vs. 19, we do it devoid of any pagan traditions.[/quote]

You didn’t answer my question. Why do you choose not to commemorate either of the events I mentioned-devoid of pagan traditions?

I will return to this discussion Monday. I hope you will continue it with me then.

[/quote]

Because I don’t see a reason to. Is a reason really required? It is a neutral topic in the Bible.[/quote]

As you say, that is your personal choice. And as far as a reason goes, you have given me one-because the Bible doesn’t say I have to. Personally, this just sounds a bit like doing the bare minimum-I only do it if “I have to”.

But for me, as a Christian, even if the Bible doesn’t require me to commemorate Christ’s birth and resurrection, I am going to. Since it’s a neutral topic in the Bible, then why does it seem like you consider commemorating these events wrong?

And again, if it’s the pagan traditions holding you back, then don’t practice those.

I may have missed this somewhere, but do you consider yourself a Christian? And if you do, why don’t you feel a spiritual need to commemorate your Savior’s birth and resurrection-devoid of pagan tradition?

94

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
If you’re calling the Christian congregation the Church then yes it did exist before the Bible.[/quote]

Okay, so let’s call it the “Pre-Bible Church,” okay? Now, were they merely a group of people? Or did they do things? Perform certain sorts of actions? Believe in certain things? Debate about what had happened? Etc?

[/quote]
Jesus called his disciples a flock. What’s a flock? It’s a group of sheep. So yes Jesus’ disciple started out as a small flock or group and grew into a large flock or group that became the Christian congregation. At John 10:16 Jesus states that his disciples would be ONE Flock or group under ONE SHEPARD. Paul restates this at Ephesians 4:5 when he said:
“one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” So there is ONE group or Flock that God calls his people. This is how it was with the Israelites and with Christians in the Bible. God had one group that was his chosen people. He dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel and there was ONE faith or way to worship God. When the Israelites deviated from that ONE way to worship God he did not approve. It was the same with the Christian congregation. Once they became his chosen people they exclusively were the one true religion. If Israelites wanted to be approved by God they had to stop following there current form of worship and become Christians. This is exactly what Paul had to do to become a follower of Jesus. He couldn’t continue in the religion he was raised in. He had to adjust his thinking and believe and worship with the ONE true religion at that time. It is the same today.[/quote]

This is getting silly. So let’s call the Pre-Bible Church “a Flock,” okay? Will that satisfy you?

Now, were they (aforementioned “Flock”) merely a group of people sitting around twiddling their thumbs? Or did they do things? Perform certain sorts of actions? Believe in certain things? Debate about what had happened? Etc?

I know you don’t want to answer this because you know it will undermine your whole argument. Either that, or you really just don’t know.

[/quote]
Of course they weren’t a group of people just sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Of course they did things, perform certain actions and believe in certain things. What does that prove?

I’ll go a step further than just saying yes to your questions. Jesus gave them a commission at Matthew 28:19 & 20 which states:
"Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And, look! I am with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.â??

The first century Christians embarked on a preaching campaign that prior to that had never been done. Their main focus was Jesus and the coming Kingdom that Jesus told his disciples to pray for. They were to make disciples. Jesus said he would be with them until the conclusion of the system of things. What is the system of things that will conclude? Matthew 24:14 states something similar:
“And this GOOD NEWS OF THE KINGDOM will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and THEN THE END WILL COME.”

Once the Kingdom messages is spread throughout the earth to God’s satisfaction then the current system of things will come to an end by way of Armageddon. Do you Katz or anyone else know what this Kingdom Jesus told us to pray for is and what it will do for mankind?

95

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

We are commanded to be no part of the world. To have traditions of pagan origins adopted into christian beliefs would go against that command, and therefore would be disapproved by God and Jesus. That is my point.

[/quote]

Does this mean you do not celebrate the birth of Christ in ANY form or fashion? Even if it be devoid of ANY pagan traditions? If so, Why?[/quote]

Thank you for asking, cueball. I do not celebrate the birth of Christ in any form. The reason for this is because it was not something that was requested of us in the Bible, nor does the Bible supply the necessary information for us to do such a thing.[/quote]

Do you feel then that commemorating Christ’s birth, or resurrection for that matter, is against God’s Word/the Bible?

Or another way, since the Bible doesn’t command it, you don’t feel any desire, spiritual or otherwise, to commemorate His birth or resurrection even if it was done in a fashion devoid of pagan traditions?

[quote]I do, however, commemorate the memorial of Christ’s death. - Luke Chapter 22.

This WAS a commission found in the Bible, and the exact day was given, Nisan 14, which this year fell on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010.[/quote]

Are referring to verse 19?[/quote]

The fact that Christmas started out as a pagan religious event that had nothing to do with Jesus is why we don’t celebrate it.[/quote]

I didn’t ask him why he doesn’t celebrate Christmas. I asked him why he doesn’t commemorate Christ’s birth. SInce you don’t consider Christmas a valid celebration of that event, I’m sure you understand the distinction.

There is a bit of a contradiction here. If the commemoration doesn’t have any pagan traditions, or “of the world” traditions, how then is commemorating it “of the world”.

Also, how are wedding anniversaries, graduations, and retirements not “of this world”? It would seem a number of people “of this world” celebrate these events. And I’m sure many are athiest. So it’s OK to celebrate events athiests celebrate, but not events Christians celebrate?

I mean, people get married at courthouses all the time. Is celebrating that event, which was done in the absence of God, OK? And knowing that Godless people “of this world” celebrate these marriages, you still feel it’s OK to celebrate your marriage anniversaries?

Sounds like you are picking and choosing what you feel is OK to celebrate and what’s not, using “pagan traditions” as a blanket reason, rather than a specific reason. Do pagans not celebrate birthdays, retirement, graduations?

Please clear this up for me.

96

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

Incorrect. Here is the list of every Pope, find the one who bought their seat…

That’s not to say that the papacy had not been affected by political corruption and other bad behaviours of various degrees, but the succession is intact and the core dogma of the church has always been protected by the pope and never changed.

97

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

We are commanded to be no part of the world. To have traditions of pagan origins adopted into christian beliefs would go against that command, and therefore would be disapproved by God and Jesus. That is my point.

[/quote]

Does this mean you do not celebrate the birth of Christ in ANY form or fashion? Even if it be devoid of ANY pagan traditions? If so, Why?[/quote]

Thank you for asking, cueball. I do not celebrate the birth of Christ in any form. The reason for this is because it was not something that was requested of us in the Bible, nor does the Bible supply the necessary information for us to do such a thing.[/quote]

Do you feel then that commemorating Christ’s birth, or resurrection for that matter, is against God’s Word/the Bible?

Or another way, since the Bible doesn’t command it, you don’t feel any desire, spiritual or otherwise, to commemorate His birth or resurrection even if it was done in a fashion devoid of pagan traditions?

[quote]I do, however, commemorate the memorial of Christ’s death. - Luke Chapter 22.

This WAS a commission found in the Bible, and the exact day was given, Nisan 14, which this year fell on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010.[/quote]

Are referring to verse 19?[/quote]

You can choose to remember it, absolutely. That is a personal choice that I don’t believe is directly commanded against in the Bible.

When we commemorate what is mentioned, as you correctly brought out, at vs. 19, we do it devoid of any pagan traditions.[/quote]

You didn’t answer my question. Why do you choose not to commemorate either of the events I mentioned-devoid of pagan traditions?

I will return to this discussion Monday. I hope you will continue it with me then.

[/quote]

Because I don’t see a reason to. Is a reason really required? It is a neutral topic in the Bible.[/quote]

As you say, that is your personal choice. And as far as a reason goes, you have given me one-because the Bible doesn’t say I have to. Personally, this just sounds a bit like doing the bare minimum-I only do it if “I have to”.

But for me, as a Christian, even if the Bible doesn’t require me to commemorate Christ’s birth and resurrection, I am going to. Since it’s a neutral topic in the Bible, then why does it seem like you consider commemorating these events wrong?

And again, if it’s the pagan traditions holding you back, then don’t practice those.

I may have missed this somewhere, but do you consider yourself a Christian? And if you do, why don’t you feel a spiritual need to commemorate your Savior’s birth and resurrection-devoid of pagan tradition?

[/quote]

I know this is a short reply, but I will do a longer one at lunch.

I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?

These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.

98

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]honest_lifter wrote:

We are commanded to be no part of the world. To have traditions of pagan origins adopted into christian beliefs would go against that command, and therefore would be disapproved by God and Jesus. That is my point.

[/quote]

Does this mean you do not celebrate the birth of Christ in ANY form or fashion? Even if it be devoid of ANY pagan traditions? If so, Why?[/quote]

Thank you for asking, cueball. I do not celebrate the birth of Christ in any form. The reason for this is because it was not something that was requested of us in the Bible, nor does the Bible supply the necessary information for us to do such a thing.[/quote]

Do you feel then that commemorating Christ’s birth, or resurrection for that matter, is against God’s Word/the Bible?

Or another way, since the Bible doesn’t command it, you don’t feel any desire, spiritual or otherwise, to commemorate His birth or resurrection even if it was done in a fashion devoid of pagan traditions?

[quote]I do, however, commemorate the memorial of Christ’s death. - Luke Chapter 22.

This WAS a commission found in the Bible, and the exact day was given, Nisan 14, which this year fell on Tuesday, March 30th, 2010.[/quote]

Are referring to verse 19?[/quote]

You can choose to remember it, absolutely. That is a personal choice that I don’t believe is directly commanded against in the Bible.

When we commemorate what is mentioned, as you correctly brought out, at vs. 19, we do it devoid of any pagan traditions.[/quote]

You didn’t answer my question. Why do you choose not to commemorate either of the events I mentioned-devoid of pagan traditions?

I will return to this discussion Monday. I hope you will continue it with me then.

[/quote]

Because I don’t see a reason to. Is a reason really required? It is a neutral topic in the Bible.[/quote]

As you say, that is your personal choice. And as far as a reason goes, you have given me one-because the Bible doesn’t say I have to. Personally, this just sounds a bit like doing the bare minimum-I only do it if “I have to”.

But for me, as a Christian, even if the Bible doesn’t require me to commemorate Christ’s birth and resurrection, I am going to. Since it’s a neutral topic in the Bible, then why does it seem like you consider commemorating these events wrong?

And again, if it’s the pagan traditions holding you back, then don’t practice those.

I may have missed this somewhere, but do you consider yourself a Christian? And if you do, why don’t you feel a spiritual need to commemorate your Savior’s birth and resurrection-devoid of pagan tradition?

[/quote]

I know this is a short reply, but I will do a longer one at lunch.

I do consider myself a Christian. By the way, are you making sure, as a Christian, that you are following first all the things that we have been commissioned specifically to do? Things such as preaching the Bible’s message throughout the earth and observing the memorial of Christ’s death?

These are some things that would take priority over any celebration of Christ’s birth or resurrection.[/quote]

I have to jump in on this one just to clarify. Are you saying that Jesus’ death is more imporatant than his resurrection?

99

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]

Why do Catholics hate Baptists so much? I am a Southern Baptist, and I will say they have been bad in the past toward Catholics, but there is a change in the Southern Baptist Community to rectify that. Catholics and Protestants are brothers and sisters. If we would just stop this infighting among ourselves we could move forward and be used by God to bring his creation back to him. This is what God wants for all of us. We all believe that Jesus is the foundation of the chruch and that Peter was the head of the early church. It is stated in the New Testament clearly. Paul even submitted to the authority of Peter, but Peter also saw that Paul was the one ordained by God to spread the gospel to the gentiles. It took 11 disciples to try and win over the Jewish people, while it only took 1 to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. Most of the beleivers today are gentiles and not Jews. I would say that we see this today in the U.S. We have churches at almost every street corner, and it is the church in the 3rd world that is flourishing.[/quote]

Catholics don’t hate Southern Baptists, or protestants of any kind. We are all brothers and sister in Christ and the Church teaches this. If anything I have seen the opposite.

100

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]OKLAHOMA STATE wrote:

[quote]mcdugga wrote:
Pat, some Popes bought their seat. Some Popes were simply the bastard son of the previous Pope. If this represents a holy, apostolic succession to you, ordained and protected by God, then I fear you too may be “drunk with the wine of her fornication”.[/quote]

There have been Popes who have been true scumbags as people. However, every single Pope has been infallible, meaning no Pope can change or has changed any dogma that has been accepted by the Church throughout history. Not surprising when you consider that Jesus said “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” Jesus was very clear that all the power of Hell could not overtake the Catholic Church and this has been proven time and time again throughout history when you consider some of the shady characters who became Pope.

Any attack I’ve ever seen on the Catholic Church by baptists/southern baptists/evangelical nuts is easily refutable by knowledge of the Bible.[/quote]
I can’t believe that people believe that the Catholic church started in the first century with the apostles and followers of Jesus. It’s a HISTORICAL FACT that the Roman Catholic church started with Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. I guess people who have faith in the Catholic church deny this just like they deny clear scripture that refutes just about all Catholic doctrine. Faith can be a good thing and a bad thing.

Now as far as the Christian congregation being built and a man named Peter this is completely FALSE. Unfortunately, Matthew 16:18 does cause some confusion but Jesus DID NOT say “you are Peter and on YOU I will build my congregation.” He said “you are Peter and on THIS ROCK MASS I will build my congregation.” Jesus was talking about himself as being the Rock Mass. No where is Peter identified as the Rock Mass or the Christian congregation being built on him. Jesus however is. I know that the Greek word for Peter which is Petros means piece of rock and Petra, the word Jesus used for ROCK MASS means MASS OF ROCK. But we don’t have to go as far as trying to identify the Greek words, all we have to do is turn to other parts of the Bible to see who clearly is identified as the congregation being built on.

First of all none of the apostles thought Jesus was talking about Peter when Jesus made that statement because later at Luke 22:24 the apostles argued over who was the greatest among them. If the Christian congregation was going to be built on Peter then there would not have been any disputing as to which one was the greatest. The Scriptures clearly show that as foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19 & 20 clearly shows this when it states:
“Certainly, therefore, you are no longer strangers and alien residents, but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and are members of the household of God, and you have been built up upon the FOUNDATION OF THE APOSTLES and prophets, while CHRIST JESUS HIMSELF IS FOUNDATION CORNERSTONE.”
That verse clearly shows that the apostles are equal founding members but Jesus is the foundation corners stone. In ancient construction the cornerstone was laid first and was the most important stone in the building of a solid foundation. Peter even identifies Jesus as the ROCK MASS on which the congregation is being built at 1 Peter 2:7 & 8 which states:
“It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, Ã?¢??the identical stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner, and Ã?¢??a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.Ã?¢?? These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed.”

Paul similarly wrote at 1 Corinthians 10:3 which states:
“and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.”

The Bible is clear that Peter was not the Rock Mass that the congregation was built on, Jesus is. Jesus was referring to himself as the Rock Mass when he was talking to Peter. The Bible is clear that the apostles including PETER are equal parts of the foundation on which the congregation or church was built. Jesus is the cornerstone. He is clearly the head of the congregation.

The whole Catholic church is built on this false teaching. Can you see how bad a false teaching can be? They wrongly believe that Jesus built the Christian congregation on Peter and that they can trace the Popes back to Peter. So they believe that the Pope should be the leader and put in an elevated position. This is clearly wrong. Even though the Bible is clear as to who the Christian congregation is built on peoples faith will cause them to either not understand the scriptures I wrote above or cause them to deny these scriptures. Again, faith can be a good thing but it can also being a very bad thing.
[/quote]
Amen the bible is consistently and abundantly clear about who the rock is.[/quote]

Do some research. You are incorrect.
I am not sure how this is ambiguous…
Mt. 16:18-19
“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Man, their is an incredible amount of misinformation about Catholicism! The lies have taken on a life of their own. If you seek the truth you will realize we are not far apart, but very close.