|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 24, 2008 17:33:10 GMT -5
Why are you "not" the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 24, 2008 20:38:32 GMT -5
I am not Protestant because i believe the Eucharist is more than just a symbol, and i also believe that one must be Baptised to reach Heavan. I also do not think that a religion that was started in the 1500's or later could remotely be the faith that Jesus wants us to follow. Just studying history can point anyone in the right direction. At the same time, i feel all protestants ARE Christian, and that they will reach Heaven as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Mar 28, 2008 13:59:56 GMT -5
I am not a Catholic because I disagree with too much of what the RCC does.  |
|
|
|
Post by I.M.Apologetics on Apr 3, 2008 0:56:17 GMT -5
I am Catholic because I love Jesus!
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 3, 2008 22:47:41 GMT -5
I'll be honest. The most obvious reason I'm Protestant is that I was reared that way. But, of course, I just as quickly acknowledge that it is the grace of God that allowed me to be born into a family that taught me the Holy Scripture from infancy, and instilled and nurtured in me a love for God, so that when I came of age, having read widely of other religions, I understood that faith in Christ alone is the only way to heaven...that there is "no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Now that my children and I are studying the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation in depth together, I am learning more and more about how Christ's church became corrupt over time, and how important it was that godly men who knew the Scriptures "blew the whistle" on the RCC. I'm thankful for Johann Gutenberg, who made it possible for all men to have a copy of the Scriptures.
Recently, I visited the Greek Orthodox cathedral in the Square in Timisoara, Romania. My heart was sick, and my eyes filled with tears at the sight of the gilt furnishings that contrasted so starkly with the poverty of the worshipers who were kneeling before statues of Mary, bowing before "saints," kissing relics. I wanted to run up to them and shout: "This religion is vain! These relics can't do anything for you! These candles for the dead are empty!" The things I saw in there will burn in my mind as long as I live.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 3, 2008 23:06:02 GMT -5
Outstanding answer Ann (and welcome aboard). I did the same drill. I tried other religions, but then came back to the faith of my fathers. As for your faith in Christ alone being the path to salvation, I invite you to post a thread in the Jesus Christ Forum. I'd love to discuss that with you. I just try to keep the threads on topic here and that sentiment is too good to not have it's own thread. "Where" are you studying these things? At a "secular" school or at a particular religious institution. As for Gutenburg, he was just a Catholic who was commissioned by his Church to do precisely that. I guess you then agree with The Church on that count, right? Oh, and the term RCC (for Roman Catholic Church) is a slight and is insulting. There is no such institution as The Roman Catholic Church. There is only The Catholic Church. Just in case you didn't know this, the term "roman" has it's roots in racism. The Church was soundly hated by American Protestants for being against slavery and thus cursed The Church because of it's "Latin" origins. When a Catholic uses that term, they use it correctly...to distinguish which "rite" of The Church they belong to. When a Protestant uses that term, it's roots are steeped in racism and bigotry. I suggest you look up the history of that term in early American religious history (along with the words "" and "romanists"). Excellent points. If only they were based on truth though. My girlfriend is a Greek Orthodox. Their Church was founded by The Apostle Andrew. Do you think that Andrew, an Apostle of Jesus led them astray? Or do you think that somewhere down the line, Jesus' promise that His Church would never be corrupted by Satan was a lie? Again, I would love for you start threads on this. I will show you where God Himself commanded men to make idols and people were healed by them. ;D |
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 3, 2008 23:36:01 GMT -5
As for your faith in Christ alone being the path to salvation, I invite you to post a thread in the Jesus Christ Forum. I'd love to discuss that with you. I just try to keep the threads on topic here and that sentiment is too good to not have it's own thread. "Step into my parlor," said the spider to the fly...  I'm reading both secular and sacred resources in my research. Of course, being reared as an evangelical Protestant, I've been taught all my life from that perspective. Right now, as a homeschooling mom, I've been fortunate enough to do further research, which has proved fascinating as well as enlightening. No offense intended, I assure you. I was using the term in the historical/geographical sense, not in the racist sense. "Roman Catholic" is different than its sister church "Eastern Orthodox." It has its "capital" in the city of Rome. It was the "Roman Catholic Church" (the "Catholic" church whose capital was in Rome) that the reformers spoke out against. That's all I meant. I'm a bit confused. How can something be "excellent" yet not based on truth? I wasn't trying to make any points...just observations. Perhaps you mistook my meaning. This question, like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" has no right answer. The question itself is flawed. The bronze serpent in the wilderness, perhaps? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 1:58:17 GMT -5
Start the thread. Same revelations here. When I read Matthew 16:18 and worked backwards from that and found that Saint Peter did in fact found an actual physical Church, I knew that I had to be in that particular Church as a Christian. I believe you. I was once ignorant to believe certain things about Martin Luther until his true intentions were revealed to me and I grew to understand him better. Now, I'm quite fond of him. [/quote] Nah, that one's too obvious. Try His own Temple, or The Ark of The Covenat itself. Or, I'll show you how God "doen't" forbid the making of idols of animals to be used in worship (only certain animals) and it's right in the first Commandment! ;D This is how Christians have always been able to use "images" or "idols" of what are now known as "Jesus Fish". But I'll wait for you to start the thread. |
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 6:52:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 13:06:25 GMT -5
It's funny how Protestants dissassociate themselves with the founder of their religion when the truths come to light. Then they go about picking and choosing which of his beliefs they'll hold sacred and which they'll discount altogether.
That's what I LOVE about being and Apostolic Christians...our Church Founders were 100% right. We could accept everything they taught without having to discredit our own leaders.
;D
Nobody ever said they were. Why state that?
We were talking about idols used "in" worship as commanded by God...not idols "being" worshipped.
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 14:09:02 GMT -5
It's funny how Protestants dissassociate themselves with the founder of their religion when the truths come to light. Then they go about picking and choosing which of his beliefs they'll hold sacred and which they'll discount altogether. I love it! Spoken like a true Catholic! Because I believe in sola scriptura and in the priesthood of every believer, I don't need men to tell me how to believe. The Holy Spirit Himself, the great Illuminator of Scripture, indwells all true believers, guiding them into all truth, just as Jesus said He would. Of course, I would not be so arrogant as to say that we don't need shepherds to teach us what Scripture says, but just because a man says it doesn't make it true. We all, like the Berean believers, are responsible to read the Scripture for ourselves, evaluating a person's teaching against God's Word. God's Word, not a "founder," is the standard. Of course, Catholics have a very different view of "fathers" and "founders" than Protestants. How can any fallen man be 100% right about everything? Your faith rests on a shaky foundation. How can all of the church founders be 100% correct when they disagreed with each other? You used the word idol. Can you tell me in what sense you used the word (options below from dictionary)? i·dol –noun 1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed. 2. Bible. a. an image of a deity other than God. b. the deity itself. Again, I would say that these things (ark, temple, tabernacle) were not idols...They are clearly presented as places in which God's actual presence resided. Scripture describes how God's presence came to dwell inside the ark, the tabernacle, and the temple. Otherwise, what would be the significance of the veil in the temple being rent in twain from top to bottom? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 4, 2008 14:23:28 GMT -5
Can you show us where they disagreed? Really, this is important to me, i would like to know.
|
|
ann
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by ann on Apr 4, 2008 15:01:20 GMT -5
Can you show us where they disagreed? Really, this is important to me, i would like to know. That depends on whom you consider to be "church fathers." |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Apr 4, 2008 15:07:15 GMT -5
Well, tell me about the Church Fathers that disagreed. If you google "early church fathers", those are the ones im talking about, did not know there were any other kind...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 4, 2008 15:36:42 GMT -5
Can you show us where they disagreed? Really, this is important to me, i would like to know. That depends on whom you consider to be "church fathers." Those that The Apostles taught who developed the magistarium of The Church (in essence, fathering The Church). A safe bet would be to work your way from The Holy Bible age (4th Century) and back. All our doctrine came from the traditions of these men. That led to the creation of The Holy Bible. God chose these men to reveal what He wanted to be in His Word. They obeyed Him and did the actual "work" of producing the Scriptures. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 5, 2008 11:01:24 GMT -5
I guess you missed the part of the Bible where Jesus stated that whoever doesn't accept The Apostles' teachings, don't accept Him and God then, huh?
If if wasn't for these "men" that Jesus sent out to tell us "how" to believe, we wouldn't know about Jesus. Who do you think wrote your Bible?
Jesus? God? No...men. Because God chose them to do this.
If God says that He has placed "men" in position of authority over you, why would you "not" accept this?
The Holy Bible is full of instances where "men" are shown to be in authority over other Jesus' followers. The Word of God literally says this.
And that same Holy Spirit was given to the heirchy of The Church (The Apostles) to guide them as they led the rest of The Sheep.
Remember, in John 21, Jesus tells Peter (The first Pope) to take over His duties of spiritually nurturing His followers, to literally shepherd His flock.
So Jesus felt that we needed a religious leader.
This kind of conflicts with your initial sentence where you said;
"I don't need men to tell me how to believe."
And if we read that Word, we'd see that God has placed men in positions of authority over us to guide us. That very same Bible was actually "authorized" by human beings that God chose to "authorize".
Yep...our beliefs have been around since 30 AD.
Protestants created new views after the 16th Century.
No fallen "man" can, but a person guided by The Holy Spirit on matters of faith can be 100% right because it is not the "man" talking, but God talking through the "man".
Remember when Saint Stephen was martyred? When he spoke he was speaking truthfully because he was "full of The Spirit". As it happened with others in Scripture.
This guidance was promised to The Church's leadership by Jesus.
When a Church leader fails, it is not Christ nor The Church that is failing...it is just that man who is acting outside of The Spirit that has failed. No man can bring down The Church of Christ (remember, the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against it).
Even those that walked directly with and who were ordained "by" Jesus Himself were prone to failure (all but one abandoning Him and betraying Him). So if The Apostles failed Christ, what would make men detached for 2,000 years from His presence any more perfect than them.
Well, first of all, personally speaking, my faith is in Christ. If I am a Catholic, it is because I became a Christian first. I ended up reverting back to the Catholic Church precisely because it is The Church Jesus started.
And let us not forget that it is the Apostles and the Prophets, who are the foundation of Jesus' Church (Eph 2:20).
The Apostles weren't 100% correct...do you "not" believe in what they taught either? They taught things that Jesus never spoke of in The Catholic Letters of The New Testament that all Christians believe in today.
Are you now saying that we are "not" to believe in those Christian teachings that Jesus never taught, but that the faulty Apostles taught?
An idol in the sense of an image.
If you used Dictionary.com, I see that you "conveniently" edited the definition to "limit" it's meanings to what "you" want it to mean where as the definition completely is:
i·dol
–noun 1. an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.
2. Bible. a. an image of a deity other than God.
b. the deity itself.
3. any person or thing regarded with blind admiration, adoration, or devotion: Madame Curie had been her childhood idol.
4. a mere image or semblance of something, visible but without substance, as a phantom.
5. a figment of the mind; fantasy.
6. a false conception or notion; fallacy.
Now...look at the synonyms of the word:
Head Knock, beloved, dad, darling, dear, deity, desire, eidolon, false god, favorite, fetish, god, goddess, golden calf*, graven image, hero, icon, image, inamorata, pagan symbol, pet, pin-up, simulacrum, superstar, true-love
I used it in the sense of a physical semblance of something. An "image".
For example, the two "Angels" on top of The Ark ordered to be placed there by God are "idols" of persons in Heaven. Right?
[/quote]
But they actually had "idols" on them and in them. For example, Solomon's Temple too had images/idols of Angels in it as well as of animals (oxen, lions).
Of course, there is the idols of the Brass Serpent used by Moses commanded to be created by again...God Himself.
And the tearing of the veil is a typical expression of Jewish suffering. When one would die, their loved one's would shred their shirts. When Jesus died, The House of God (The Temple) was in mourning for His Death.
Besides, Jesus Christ Himself distinguishes between a regular "man" and a "Priest". When He healed a lepor, He told him to tell no "man", but to go show himself to a Priest and to do what the Priest told him to do (which was the healing ritual prescribed by Moses).
Here, you have a perfect example of Jesus Himself telling someone He saved to do what a Priest tells him to do with regards to a spiritual ritual.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 16, 2008 18:46:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 11, 2008 21:50:43 GMT -5
|
|
