I was hoping you'd Goggle. Guess not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Do you agree with DrGade's post?
|
I was hoping you'd Goggle. Guess not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Do you agree with DrGade's post?
Google what? Your comments were irrelevant to the topic. You even suggested as much. Once again, unless you have something to say, it makes no sense to fill up the thread with vague comments suggesting that you are thinking something but it has so little place on the board that you can't say it. My children used to do that, but it has no place in an adult discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Neither of us was on topic at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Let us get a bit larger snippet of that same book. Lets try the sentence before it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
The example set by St. Gregory in an age of persecution was impetuously followed when a time of peace succeeded. In the course of the fourth century two movements or developments spread over the face of Christendom, with a rapidity characteristic of the Church; the one ascetic, the other ritual or ceremonial. We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us. The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
Obviously, the new religion being spoken of here is Christendom. If you want to equate "Christendom" with "Catholic Church", I agree.
And if we go back to the very first paragraph in Chapter 8, we see that Cardinal Newman is discussing the "rise of Christianity". So, if you equate Christianity with "Catholic Church", I also agree.
But if you are insinuating that St. Constantine established the Church of Christ, I disagree. Nor can you find that statement even insinuated in this treatise.
But if we go back to the very first Chapter we see that Cardinal Newman believes a more Catholic form of doctrine:
And sometimes the cultivation of awe and love towards what is great, high, and unseen, has led a man to the abandonment of his sect for some more Catholic form of doctrine....
Church of Rome:
Here is a development of doctrine into worship, of which parallel instances are obviously to be found in the Church of Rome.
But don't take my word for it. Read the whole treatise yourself.
Newman Reader - Development of Christian Doctrine - Chapter 1
Sincerely,
De Maria
Right - just as I said, the Newman was speaking of the 4 th century, contrary to what the Roman Catholics on the board claimed. I am, glad that you have conceded that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
It is what is claimed to be Christian, though it is now a new religion where pagainism is mixed with Christianity - that is the point. But calling something Christian is not the same as it being Christian. Read Matthew 7:21-23.Quote:
Obviously, the new religion being spoken of here is Christendom. If you want to equate "Christendom" with "Catholic Church", I agree.
I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ denomination was started in 1830. Though interestingly they also claim to be the one and only true Christ started by Jesus, just as the Mormons do, the JWs do, and many others.Quote:
But if you are insinuating that St. Constantine established the Church of Christ, I disagree.
This illustrates the danger of placing your denomination or tradition above the Bible very nicely. If you place your denomination of tradition above God's word (the Bible), then you will think that you are right even when you are wrong. Just as each of these churches and cults believes that ONLY their church or organization is the true Church because their tradition or organization solely ordained by God teaches it.
But when Christians obey God and submit themselves to what the Bible teaches, then it is God's word which holds the authority, not the organizations and traditions of man.
De Maria,
Again you are correct but notice that Tj3 continues to twist what was wriiten to fit that which he WANTS to believe.
That is not new. Many people over the years have done the same.
Accepting the truth is very hard for some people.
I pray that God will open there closed minds.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I see that once again you choose to use ad hominems rather than deal with the issue. If you were so sure of what you think you know, it would be more effective to put forward the evidence for what you believe. Falling back on ad hominems is typically a method used by those who have no other defense for what they believe.
I agree that accepting the truth is very hard for some people.
Tj3,
Are you that guilty feeling?
I did not mention any names.
The shoe much have fit, for you put it on.
The issue was dealt with in what I said to De Maria.
It was NOt addressed to you.
Perhaps you did not notice that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Oh Fred, I cannot say if you it your eyesight or your forgetfulness which makes you unable to read or remember the first line of your post where you made a false accusation; which was subsequently followed up by your innuendo that perhaps it is my fault that you cannot remember your false accusations.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Perhaps you simply did not post personal attacks, remembering what you said would not be an issue. :D
BTW, even if you had not mentioned me, I am opposed to abusive remarks and false accusations made against anyone, by anyone.
Religions change all the time due to man's opinions, emotions and world's level of dislike of God.
God does not change (even though He many change a method when dealing with man).
His will and goal is that ALL should come to the knowledge of the truth and be saved. This was His goal with the first proclamation in the Garden of Eden of the one Who would crush the head of satan and thus give us access to the tree of life again.
What people like Constantine and many others who mixed secular things into God's kingdom did, did not alter the will of God.
God's people became and become God's people by faith through grace whether the saints of the OT, NT times or now. Being afraid of God does not save. Ignorant fear of God can only drive people to repent of their unbelief and seek His grace.
revdrgade,
It is nice and good to see you here.
As always I appreciate you thoughts an insights on Christian matters.
I very much agree with what you said as I quote you below here.
<<<+>>>
"God's people became and become God's people by faith through grace whether the saints of the OT, NT times or now. Being afraid of God does not save. Ignorant fear of God can only drive people to repent of their unbelief and seek His grace."
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
I completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by revdrgade
Am I the only one who notices this in some people though? Have any of you came across this same thought when speaking to either atheists or simply people who have been taught incorrectly... they have turned away from God because they have been taught unhealthy fear of Him?
Moonlutwaves,
I also agree with rev
Yes I have. God is love and is therefore to be loved.
An unhealthy fear of God is self injury by not understanding that God is infinite and perfect in love, mercy, and forgiveness attributes.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
You aren't the only one who noticed. I was once turned from God because of just that reason as were many people I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves
tawnynkids,
As I mentioned here before, I also noticed that.
I have seen it with atheists and agnostics.
They can't seem to grasp that God is NOT a ruthless tyrant.
Rather He is love and created out of love.
All that is good and love comes originally from God.
Love and good are a part of the image of God in which we mortals were created.
Thank God for that and much more.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Yes, sadly I think that is because people are too busy teaching to fear hell rather than to love God, just like I was taught. Unfortunately the message can enter that way but God has miraculous ways of showing us what He wants us to see. It was a bit easier for me to understand though when I looked at my relationship with my own children and applied it to my relationship with God. I want my children to obey and love me (healthy respect/fear) because I love them not out of fear of me or the consequences (unhealthy fear). I want them to realize the consequences of disobedience yes but I don't ever want that to be the driving factor. That is how I view the difference between a healthy view of fearing someone versus an unhealthy fearing of someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Only if you don't know how to read English. However, I am confident that there are many reasonable people on this forum who can read the matter for themselves. It is obvious that Cardinal Newman is referring to Christendom as the new religion. And Christendom, by its very name is the Church of Jesus Christ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
In addition, the good Cardinal has not even used the terminology "Catholic" in this paragraph.
So, your interpretation is another example of how you read your presuppositions into everything. Not just Scripture.
No. The accoutrements are simply the dressings. The doctrines remain Christ's.Quote:
It is what is claimed to be Christian, though it is now a new religion where pagainism is mixed with Christianity - that is the point. But calling something Christian is not the same as it being Christian. Read Matthew 7:21-23.
We can look at Protestantism today and see that you aren't even dressed the way Luther dressed. Nor do your temples look as they did in the days of the Reformation. Yet, you continue claim the same faith.
Or perhaps you don't. I hadn't thought of that. There is no continuity between you and the past. You make up your religion from generation to generation don't you?
Why yes, yes you did.Quote:
I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church.
Message #101, you said,
Well, you used the word "created". But the difference in meaning is negligible.Quote:
Fred,
It is a denomination by definition. The term denomination comes from the root word "nom" which means name. Once you have a group of churches combined together under one name, you have a denomination, and this happened in 325AD when Constantine created the Roman Catholic church.
The difference is that they can't prove it. Whereas the Catholic Church can trace Her Popes, Bishops, Saints, Church buildings, Church history both at the universal and local level, all the way back to Jesus Christ.Quote:
The Church of Christ denomination was started in 1830. Though interestingly they also claim to be the one and only true Christ started by Jesus, just as the Mormons do, the JWs do, and many others.
And I'm not really interested in those denominations in this discussion as I am in yours. Although you've not revealed what denomination you profess, I KNOW that your beliefs can only be traced back as far Luther AT BEST.
The Catholic Church places God's word above everything.Quote:
This illustrates the danger of placing your denomination or tradition above the Bible very nicely. If you place your denomination of tradition above God's word (the Bible), then you will think that you are right even when you are wrong. Just as each of these churches and cults believes that ONLY their church or organization is the true Church because their tradition or organization solely ordained by God teaches it.
The Church holds to Scripture. And to Tradition in obedience to Scripture.Quote:
But when Christians obey God and submit themselves to what the Bible teaches, then it is God's word which holds the authority, not the organizations and traditions of man.
But when Protestants rebel against the Word of God by disobeying Scripture's command to keep the traditions and to obey the Church leaders, that leads to anarchy and division as has been proved. All we have to do is look at those who hold to the tradition of men known as Sola Scriptura.
Sincerely,
De Maria
De Maria,
Excellent response to Tj3 though he will argue it forever.
You are right and he is wrong it is a simple as that.
Twisting the words of others and picky choosey Scripture to make the point one wants to make is the name of the game and has been for several hundred years.
For 30 years I was a Catholic basher until I started reading Scripture and history carefully to prove that Catholicism was wrong.
What happened was that the more I learned the more I found that The Church (Catholic that is) was right time after time after time.
I also came to realize that the more a person is zealously opposed to the Catholic Church the more that person harbors a deep seated (though hidden) fear that the Catholic Church is right and always has been.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
Thanks be to God! I wasn't a Catholic Basher. But I had no love for the Church. Although I was born Catholic, I became Atheist in my early teens.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
When I came back to Christ however, I was first approached by several Protestants who told me about Sola Scripture. I tried to believe it, but the fact is, I couldn't understand the Bible without help.
So, logically, Sola Scriptura didn't work. My standard for truth was teaching. Some person had to teach me or I had to gather the information I needed from books about the faith.
Anyway, I just got on to kill some time. I'll be leaving for a week. God willing, I'll be back to continue these conversations.
Peace and kindness,
Sincerely,
De Maria
Heh heh heh - well if you have no other defense, go after the person, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
So pagan ritual's dressed up with Christian words thrown in is okay - is that your position?Quote:
No. The accoutrements are simply the dressings. The doctrines remain Christ's.
No, I am not protestant.Quote:
We can look at Protestantism today and see that you aren't even dressed the way Luther dressed. Nor do your temples look as they did in the days of the Reformation. Yet, you continue claim the same faith.
What is it that you think that I was saying that I did not say. You appear mixed up. Constantine did indeed start the Roman catholic Church in 325AD - I have stated that consistently - why - you think that somewhere that I denied that?Quote:
Why yes, yes you did.
Message #101, you said,
They have as much evidence as your denomination - empty claims on paper.Quote:
The difference is that they can't prove it.
Then why are we having this discussion? Let's examine your tradition using God's word.Quote:
The Catholic Church places God's word above everything.
Come now? You've essentially lost all credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
First you claim that Newman said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. But you conveniently left out the sentence right whereby Newman identified the New Religion as Christendom.
Then you claim that Rev 17 1-6 is about the Catholic Church. But a simple reading of Scripture reveals it is Jerusalem.
Then you claim that the keys to hell and death are the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.
I was doing you a service by assuming that you couldn't read English. Otherwise I'd have to assume that you are twisting and spinning the written word intentionally.
No. These are Christian rituals. And Christian rituals are the truths of God lived and portrayed in order to re-present, to make present what God has done for us.Quote:
So pagan ritual's dressed up with Christian words thrown in is okay - is that your position?
So, just as you now worship in a formerly pagan language, English. The rituals are Christian but the language is of pagan origins.
In the case of the attire, you also worship in a formerly pagan attire. The rituals are Christian but the attire is pagan is of pagan origins.
If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. You show every sign of being Protestant.Quote:
No, I am not protestant.
Oh, sorry, there's a period there:Quote:
What is it that you think that I was saying that I did not say. You appear mixed up. Constantine did indeed start the Roman catholic Church in 325AD - I have stated that consistently - why - you think that somewhere that I denied that?
You are correct, you continue to claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church even though your claim has been proven false from the very document you presented.Quote:
I never said that. Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church.
The Scripture is also on paper. Is it empty?Quote:
they have as much evidence as your denomination - empty claims on paper.
So claims aren't empty simply because they are on paper are they. Another one of your non sequitur conclusions.
The fact is, the claims of the Church are verifiable because the paper on which they are written are ancient. Far more ancient than your new version of Christianity.
Certainly. I believe we've started doing so already in these various threads. We'll also continue to hightlight that your pillar, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is nowhere in Scripture and in fact contradicts Scripture.Quote:
Then why are we having this discussion? Let's examine your tradition using God's word.
In addition, all the doctrines which have been derived by Sola Scriptura which contradict the Catholic Church also contradict Scripture.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Where in the Bible is the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary?Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Apocalypse 12 1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered. 3 And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns: and on his head seven diadems: 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered; that, when she should be delivered, he might devour her son. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Note that this woman's child is Jesus. And Jesus' mother is Mary.
In addition, Mary has always been known by Christians as the New Ark of the Covenant. Why? Because in the Old Covenant, the Ark contained the Word of God in the Ten Commandments, the Rod of Aaron, representing the Levitical Priesthood and the manna, bread, from heaven.
Mary, being Jesus' mother, held in her womb, the Word of God made flesh, the eternal Priest, and the Bread of Life.
In addition, the Shekinah cloud overshadowed the first Ark,
Leviticus 16 2 And he commanded him, saying, Speak to Aaron thy brother, that he enter not at all into the sanctuary, which is within the veil before the propitiatory, with which the ark is covered, lest he die, (for I will appear in a cloud over the oracle,)
And the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary.
Luke 1 35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
If we look at the very last verse in Chapter 11 of the Apocalypse, and keep in mind that the Bible was originally printed without Chapter designations, we see:
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.
In other words, these two sentences were originally side by side:
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail.
1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
Therefore, St. John was telling us, the woman with the twelve stars which he saw in heaven is she who is the New Ark of the Covenant.
Sincerely,
De Maria
In your eyes perhaps. That does not bother me.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Sigh - we went through this once already. Mormons say that they are Christian. JWs say that they are Christian. Some Wghite supremacist say that they are Christian. Just claiming it does not make it say. I already agreed that he said that the new religion which mixed pagainism with the church was Christian, but nonetheless it was a new relion because once you mix pagaism into the church, it is not the same. Indeed even it's leader became the Pontiff (the pagan title for their priest).Quote:
First you claim that Newman said that Constantine started the Catholic Church. But you conveniently left out the sentence right whereby Newman identified the New Religion as Christendom.
Really? All 7 hills?Quote:
Then you claim that Rev 17 1-6 is about the Catholic Church. But a simple reading of Scripture reveals it is Jerusalem.
We dealt with that already. Perhaps if you have difficulties understanding this point, we should discuss how scripture describes the gospel.Quote:
Then you claim that the keys to hell and death are the keys to the Kingdom of heaven.
That is what I said - you are saying that once pagan rituals are wrapped in Christian decoration or mixed with Christian words, it becomes Christ - right? I disagree because we find a solid thread in scripture where God would not permit any adulteration of His people or teachings with paganism.Quote:
No. These are Christian rituals. And Christian rituals are the truths of God lived and portrayed in order to re-present, to make present what God has done for us.
So, just as you now worship in a formerly pagan language, English. The rituals are Christian but the language is of pagan origins.
In the case of the attire, you also worship in a formerly pagan attire. The rituals are Christian but the attire is pagan is of pagan origins.
Would uyou like to go through the appearances of pagaism in your denomination?Quote:
If it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it must be a duck. You show every sign of being Protestant.
Your claim does not make it so.Quote:
You are correct, you continue to claim that Constantine started the Catholic Church even though your claim has been proven false from the very document you presented.
No, and that is the crux of the issue. Scripture is the word of God. The claims of your denomination are words of men.Quote:
The Scripture is also on paper. Is it empty?
While De Maria shows that the teaching is not contrary to scripture and is inspired by the Bible, you have to remember that as a Catholic, we believe in the development of doctrine -- that, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church can and does come to deeper appreciations of facets in the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles. Jesus promised as much in John 16:13. Non-Catholic Christians/Protestants, however, believe that the Faith is static -- frozen solidly in the pages of a recorded document (sola scriptura).. . And that this recorded document is all we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Well, if that's the case, then it necessarily follows that you MUST be able to show that your interpretation of this document is consistent and repeatable for anyone (in whatever age) who reads the Biblical record... there MUST BE an objective standard for interpretation or else all you have is Biblical relativism.
Tj3,
You ARE a Protestant. Period.
I know of no one who protest more against the Catholic Church than you do.
That MAKES YOU a Protestant whether you admit it or not.
Then you must be a Mormon since in the past you have defended Mormonism.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Tj3,
Wrong again.
I am not a Mormon.
I have defended their RIGHT to believe as they want to just as I have defended your right to believe and you wish.
Never-the-less the fact remains that you ARE a Protestant as I explained why you are.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
And I am not a Protestant. BBut if you persist on calling me something that I am not, I would be in my rights to call you something that you may not be, but that you convinced several people that you were through your defense of several key Mormon doctrines.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Fred, I don't know of anyone who has attacked my right to believe over the years as I wish more than you. Some perhaps equally, but no one more.Quote:
I have defended their RIGHT to believe as they want to just as I have defended your right to believe and you wish.
And you therefore are a Mormon.Quote:
Never-the-less the fact remains that you ARE a Protestant as I explained why you are.
In other words, the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is not found in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottRC
Neither, BTW, is the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, which was "developed" afterwards by men.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I was taking it one piece at a time. Thank you, though, for mentioning that as another instance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Wondergirl,
The Assumption of Mary is based somewhat on the bible and is a Church teaching.
In the bible we see that Jesus was a perfect person, of great power and the son of God.
Being perfect He was/is a perfect son who loved and honored His mother perfectly.
If I had the ability to take my earthly mother into heaven rather than letting her body rot in a cold lonely grave I would do so.
The Church believes that Jesus did that.
It makes sense to me and a great many other people.
So The Assumption of Mary has become a feast day in The Church.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
Really? Where is this found in the Bible. I'd love to see the reference so that we can look at the context.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Well, that sure says a lot about the rest of us Christians who end up rotting in cold lonely graves! Why didn't Jesus want to bring all of His dead children immediately to heaven?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Tj3,
Please re-read what I said.
It is based on who and what Jesus was and is as I explained.
Don't try to read something into my post that was not there.
Your habit of twisting things continues to get you into trouble.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura)
But there is nothing in the Bible to substantiate Mary's Assumption. Correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I read it, as I have the hundreds of other times that you posted this on this and other boards. BTW, your false accusations and abusive comments do not enhance the credibility of you argument. Scripture, on the other hand, would.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
I note that you did not respond to my request for your claimed Biblical backup. That tells me that you cannot find it either.
This is a good follow up to your OP :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonlitWaves
There is no doubt that God is to fear, be afraid of - OT is full examples of people dying just being close to the tabernacle or in Acts when the contribution was not enough. :eek:
I think we have to understand the perfection and holiness of God that is incompatible with sin and imperfection.
Hell is Biblically real! And it I think it legitimate to acknowledge this.
What good is the cure if you don't know your sick:confused:
Demanding perfection whether religious or secular is cruel - no one can measure up, Rom 3. and it leads to hypocrisy. :(
I think God in His infinite wisdom and mercy knows this and it hurts Him to know He would be alone in Heaven and that His creations would be eternally separate. - Hell if you want.
In the OT especially Hosea there is a cycle of rebellion punishment and forgiveness. God is merciful! And John 3 :)
I do have a problem with Christians bringing people to Christ and then not showing them how to live - NT. Grace, love, mercy, forgiveness Galatians and 1 John for example.
This is a very important point. Scripture tells us to make disciples,Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
NKJV
And yet I see people being led to the Lord and then not being helped to get grounded in a church where they can get sound teaching, nor are they helped to get solid grounding in God's word, and as a result, they are left to fall away from their faith or to perhaps be deceived by false teachings or cults.
There is much more to making a disciple than simply giving them the gospel.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 PM. |