At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Doctrine simply means what the Church believes, teaches and follows. So you have the things Sndbay said, baptism, incorporating Jesus' birth and death into pagan holidays, fish Friday, waving incense and many many other things that churches do in the name of Jesus that have nothing to do with Jesus....that is how I say that.
Doctrine simply means what the Church believes, teaches and follows. So you have the things Sndbay said, baptism, incorporating Jesus' birth and death into pagan holidays, fish Friday, waving incense and many many other things that churches do in the name of Jesus that have nothing to do with Jesus....that is how I say that.
The Bible also teaches doctrine, but not all church doctrine comes from scripture.
I would discern this as untrue because I see many churches that have changed what Christ suffered to accomplish.
Lists of changes can be shown such as baptizing innocent new born babies at birth, baptism without full coverage in of water,( a paganism feast) rather then passover feast where the lamb of Christ our passover, and a huge doubt taught to say we are still with sin, and not knowing we were set free from sin by the blood of Christ.
Christ brought division between those that do not believe in HIS WORD, and those that have faith in Christ.
Those that overcome are connected in unity with the Fire of Spiritual Truth in our Father, and the Holy Spirit when baptized. And have been set free from the curse of sin, having no more sin by the blood of Christ.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will
Eph 14:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive
You make at least two erroneous suppositions. The first is that the Church (RC) negotiates what it's doctrines. All doctrines, revealed are Divine Truth and disciplines of the Church are the result of Christ’s teachings which have been passed down through the ages by the Apostles and their successors. This is the teaching Magisterium of the Church and is headed by the Pope who is made infallible with the strength of the Holy Spirit. And holding that entrance into the Kingdom of God requires (necessitates, has need of, is pre-requisite, a precondition), then baptizing children would seem to me to be a natural thing; notwithstanding the absence of any Scriptural prohibition.
Christ didn’t bring division. In fact he prayed that ”all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17: 21)
Addressing the second supposition: I can’t see how (or for what reason) that one would insist that Christ Himself would bring division, especially given John 17:21. So the contention is that God was incarnate in man to bring division? He says himself I came to give testimony to the God’s Truth, (Cf. John 18:37). Why would a man let alone God do such a thing; do you not recall a “house divided cannot stand”?
Added note: The Catholic Church does not depend on uniformity, rather it is one of unity.
Doctrine simply means what the Church believes, teaches and follows.
Doctrine refers to the knowledge imparted by teaching. It’s has the same meaning as catechesis. ‘Doctrine’ is a principle taught, not an the establishment of the principle. The principles taught by the Roman Catholic Church are Divine morals and ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
So you have the things Sndbay said, baptism
Baptism is an absolute necessity to enter into the Kingdom of God. : 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 (John 3:5) i.e., principle taught by Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
incorporating Jesus' birth and death into pagan holidays
Many have shown that that Christ’s Birthday can be shown to be on or about December 25. And if it isn’t how is it that it’s a pagan holiday. Is it a pagan holiday today?
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
fish Friday
Wow, that hurts! No fish Friday? You mean all this time we Catholics have been fasting for no reason? Praying for no reason?
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
…waving incense…
There are a couple of people I know who need a double dose – you know they seem to be rather odoriferous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
… and many many other things that churches do in the name of Jesus that have nothing to do with Jesus....that is how I say that.
And if there were "many many other things" it would seem to me that you could list one valid complaint. There doesn’t seem to be any substantial complaints here.
There is baptism as Jesus taught and there is baptism as the church does.
Don't you know anything about the history of Christmas and Easter and how the church changed the dates of Jesus' birth and death to these pagan holidays? Also I would like to see your references for Jesus being born on Dec 25th. I have seen much to the contrary. Also Easter is celebrated on different days within a month or so, so how could that be the day of Jesus resurrection?
It may be a reason to you to eat fish on Fridays but it is a tradition of man not Biblical.
[quote=N0help4u;1818825]There is baptism as Jesus taught and there is baptism as the church does.
Don't you know anything about the history of Christmas and Easter and how the church changed the dates of Jesus' birth and death to these pagan holidays? Also I would like to see your references for Jesus being born on Dec 25th. I have seen much to the contrary. Also Easter is celebrated on different days within a month or so, so how could that be the day of Jesus resurrection?
In what way is the baptism Jesus taught diffrent from what the Chruch teaches?
And what dates would you prefer for Christ's birthday? The first Easter was on Passover, remember?
How does the tradition of fasting affect our faith negatively?
The point isn't what I prefer but WHY would the Church choose pagan holidays to celebrate Jesus birthday?
Even with Easter and Passover being the same day why is it Christian tradition to celebrate with Easter eggs?
The point isn't what I prefer but WHY would the Church choose pagan holidays to celebrate Jesus birthday?
Even with Easter and Passover being the same day why is it Christian tradition to celebrate with Easter eggs?
The date for Christmas was unsettled for many centuries. The Gospels don’t give us any help. Back dating from Zachary’s Temple service can render Christ’s birth in late December. But all the computations based on the Temples feast days are unreliable. An approach was made using Old Testament festivals suggests a September date. Among the theories already discussed is the following:
The well-known solar feast...of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date. For the history of the solar cult, its position in the Roman Empire, and syncretism with Mithraism, see Cumont's epoch-making "Textes et Monuments" etc., I, ii, 4, 6, p. 355. …
The earliest rapprochement of the births of Christ and the sun is in Cyprian, "De pasch. Comp.", xix, "O quam præclare providentia ut illo die quo natus est Sol . . . nasceretur Christus." — "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born . . . Christ should be born."
In the fourth century, Chrysostom, "del Solst. Et Æquin." (II, p. 118, ed. 1588), says: "Sed et dominus noster nascitur mense decembris . . . VIII Kal. Ian. . . . Sed et Invicti Natalem appelant. Quis utique tam invictus nisi dominus noster? . . . Vel quod dicant Solis esse natalem, ipse est Sol iustitiæ." — "But Our Lord, too, is born in the month of December . . . the eight before the calends of January [25 December] . . ., But they call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord . . .? Or, if they say that it is the birthday of the Sun, He is the Sun of Justice."
Already Tertullian (Apol., 16; cf. Ad. Nat., I, 13; Orig. c. Cels., VIII, 67, etc) had to assert that Sol was not the Christians' God; Augustine (Tract xxxiv, in Joan. In P.L., XXXV, 1652) denounces the heretical identification of Christ with Sol.
Pope Leo I (Serm. xxxvii in nat. dom., VII, 4; xxii, II, 6 in P.L., LIV, 218 and 198) bitterly reproves solar survivals — Christians, on the very doorstep of the Apostles' basilica, turn to adore the rising sun. Sun-worship has bequeathed features to modern popular worship in Armenia, where Christians had once temporarily and externally conformed to the cult of the material sun (Cumont, op. cit., p. 356).
But even should a deliberate and legitimate "baptism" of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed. The "mountain-birth" of Mithra and Christ's in the "grotto" have nothing in common: Mithra's adoring shepherds (Cumont, op. cit., I, ii, 4, p. 304 sqq.) are rather borrowed from Christian sources than vice versa. (Source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Christmas )
What is the importance of a Christian feast being substituted for a pagan feast? This seems logical when teaching pagans Christianity; substitute Christian observances for pagan ones.
To my knowledge Easter eggs can’t necessarily be attributed to Catholics. And if Easter eggs could be attributed to Catholics I don’t understand how this would affect one’s faith. It’s a custom my family participates in – to my knowledge none of them have been struck by lightning yet.
Christ didn’t bring division. In fact he prayed that ”all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” (John 17: 21)
Addressing the second supposition: I can’t see how (or for what reason) that one would insist that Christ Himself would bring division, especially given John 17:21. So the contention is that God was incarnate in man to bring division? He says himself I came to give testimony to the God’s Truth, (Cf. John 18:37). Why would a man let alone God do such a thing; do you not recall a “house divided cannot stand”?
JoeT
Obviously you are not reading what I have posted and said. Go back to read post #69 that does reference Luke 12:51-52. The division is between evil and godly.
The Father Son and Holy Spirit delivered what is possible in godly unity by faith. Eph 4:5-6 One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
To confirm what I posted refer: Posting #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndbay
Eph 14:13[/b] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive
(Luke 12:51) - "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..."
Most people that have used times and events in the Bible have come up with September 29th as Jesus' birth day.
Linear Mode
