Virgin of Zapopan

New denominations? Wonderful! That always breathes new life into dryed up, but orthodox Protestant Churches and the apostate Roman Catholic Church. [Revelation chapter 17]

 

Charming, Ray.

"A good deal of Protestantism is little more than anti-Catholicism."
Reinhold Niehbuhr, 1959

 

Hey Carson and others. I can't believe how this thread has traveled around the issues. Oh well topics do tend to jump around a lot. Anyway, to my Catholic friends. For some reason my posts are just not being challanged. I have posted on miracles and healings with no dispute. I have made good arguments against saints in heaven being able to hear our prayers or see us on earth. I have made an argument in regard to the prayers saints "carry". I even most recently explained being clean to God and being justified on earth. None of the posts mentioned have been refuted though most or all go against Catholic doctrine and some things I said may not sit well with all baptists either. How come I am being so ignored. My superior knowledge has never frightened anyone away before.

Carson, btw, Read what Peter said about baptism more closely. Even the catholic Bible puts a comma after the word baptism seperating the thoughts. The idea is the its the Picture of batism that saves. It is Jesus cleansing us from sin and us "coming out" a new person. Remember the "picture" Peter is using is that of a person going under the water, it is not sprinkling or pouring. The method is not a big deal to me but in this case it is important. The picture that Peter refers to is us dying (under the water) to our old self and emerging (coming back out of the water) a reborn child of God and clean in God's sight. Read the verse again and see that it is what batism shows that saves, it is the "picture" that saves not baptism. This makes sense in the fact that we are washed by blood now and the covenant is not made with the blood of animals but the blood of Jesus/God himself. No ceremonies
needed.
In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

Mike S,

Reinhold Niebuhr was a person who believed in neo-orthodoxy, and is hardly a person to elevate as an orthodox Christian. Neo-orthodoxy believes that the Word of God is fallible and the miracles of Christ were embellished stories told by zealous Israelites. He is hardly the person to point his finger at Protestantism.

In William Dean's book, "American Religious Empiricism," State University of New York Press, p. 68, he says,

'Niebuhr who restricted evil by protecting an unambiguously good God from contamination in historical evil. Neibuhr's equivocating realism (which confined evil to what is of secondary importance) to his own unappreciated gravity, which found no evil in his own home and in the only arena of his God, that of history.' He again showed his limited concept of Divinity and more especially that of widespread evil in our world.

.

 

Bump ---- waiting for answers!!!

 

"Corresponding to THAT" -- "Baptism now saves you" -- "NOT the magic touch of sacramental magic waters - but an APPEAL to God for a CLEAN conscience". 1Peter 3 again.

Notice that Peter makes the point that corresponding to Christ drawing the people of the OT - DURING The building of the Ark - and then the Ark being a place of safety -- Baptism Saves.

But far from appealing to sacramental holy waters - he says it is the deliberate, conscious, willfull "APPEAL" to God for a clean conscience.

IT is a freewill model of "choice".

One person - one vote.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thanks Bob, good point.

Anybody going to answer the questions or comment on my last 2 or 3 posts this thread?? Please!!!

still waiting,
Brian

 

You can worship God without parading a mere statue, otherwise known as doing something that at least resembles idolatry.

 

Nu 21:8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

Nu 21:9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

I just BET that when this serpent went up on the great pole that it "looked like" and "resembled" idolatry. Any bets on how many pagans who saw this came away thinking that the God of Israel is a snake?

 

Brian -

What exactly was your question?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I stand corrected on that point. Nevertheless, I hope that none of those people think that a statue is going to hear their prayers....it has eyes that do not see, a tongue that does not speak....

 

Even the pagans do not believe the "rock hears".

The RCC position is the same as other image-centric groups in that regard.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob are you going to reject anything in your beliefs that also can be found in a pagan religion?

If so you may have a problem.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_origins_getting_started.html

 

Well, well, well.

Bob, it seems like your religious beliefs were shared by paganism long before your "prophetess" came up with them.

Be consistent now. You cannot lay "paganism" at the feet of the Catholic Church and at the same time practice things that the pagans practiced 1400 years before Christ. Puts you in quite a spot, sir. Either you have to jettison everything in your SDA beliefs which dovetails with paganism, or you have to knock off this nonsense about paganism being in the Catholic Faith.

The truth is, of course, that the pagans and all others only saw the truth very dimly and had a very faint idea of what that truth would be like. Christ is the full revelation of that truth, for as we know, He did raise from the dead, as well as perform many other miracles which the pagans cannot claim. In other words, He validated Who He is while here on earth among us. No pagan lore or teacher can say that.

Where did the Babylonians get the idea of Seramis and Tammuz (assuming it is true)? They got it from the Protoevangelium which was given by God to our First Parents. I know you think that there was a KJV on every corner in those days, but

SURPRISE!!!

the promise of God was carried by word of mouth from generation to generation, and over time that message became both garbled and hijacked by pagan cultures. That's how the promise of the woman who would have seed and crush the serpent's head became Seramis and Tammuz (or any of the other numerous "mother and child" legends). They had a form of the truth, even if it was garbled and misused for political gain by some.

 

Don't you just love it! The RC "defense" for their own acceptance of paganism into the RCC is that they "hope" that Christianity "CAME FROM" paganism to start with!!!

I never thought I would see them say this in print. But the site you give - on the MYTH of the Gospel and the MYTH of Chrisitanity said...

And THIS is the RC defense for Paganism in the RCC???

Why not just leave a signed confession??

Could ANYONE "turn to Catholicism" after reading such tripe??

Such a defense could ONLY be convincing if you already WERE RC - or is there ONE non-RC that reads that and then says "OH YES - sign me up for some of that borrowed-from-paganism-gospel"???

See how "far" it goes once you decide the God is not trustworthy and the Bible is not trustworthy and you start that with the first 3 chapters of the book??

Pretty soon - the Christian Gospel itself - is just "so much paganism" to you.

Fantastic!

Instructive.

I came - I saw - I found the "real" Catholicism. And it was not a pretty sight.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And now "the real deal" for those RC's who think that Christianity "came from" or "evovled from" Paganism.

The DIFFERENCE in Christianity is that God pays for the sins of the world by dying on the cross for lost humanity.

The DIFFERENCE is that God teaches that there IS ONLY ONE God in ALL of the universe.

The DIFFERENCE is that God teaches that ALL was perfect, created in 6 days with the seventh day of rest - and that it was not until mankind fell that death came into the world - and God is "fixing" that problem such that soon there will be no more death - in the Earth made new and sin will be no more.

Instead of mariology - it is Christology.

Instead of evolution plus speculation - it is divine revelation.

Instead of the methods of pagans - it is the heart and mind of God sovereignly implementing the plan of salvation.

Instead of dispising the prophets of God - it is 2Chron 20:20 believing.

Instead of calling the Evil of paganism "good" and the Good of Christianity "pagan" it is Isaiah 5:20-24. (hmmm- might want to check that one - and enjoy).

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob...please.

That website is not a "Catholic" website, and we do not endore the personal beliefs of its authors. The point was to show, historically, that Christian elements are found in OLDER pagan religions, which as Catholic Convert says, does not indicate that Christianity and paganism are mixed, but rather that pagans generally have some FRACTION of the truth which comes out in their beliefs, but it is in Christianity that the FULLNESS of truth is revealed. We did not come from them, but we share similarities with them.

This is not hard to understand; you deliberatly miscontrue things, Bob. It's completely evident.

 

Bob, you there? You've posted on other threads. Please respond to this one.

 

The link is not "mine".

It is the RC POV that pulls up that link and IT SAYS that Christian evolved from or came FROM paganism. I did not say it - the RC argument is promoting the link - not me. I am simply offering to to VIEW the LINK as a possible source making the RC point.


Further more - RC historians THEMSELVES admit that the church BEGAN using the practices of paganism centuries AFTER the NT authors died. THEY admit that it was FROM the Pagan systems that they took the statue of Zeus and made it "Peter".

It was FROM Pagan Rome that they took the Pope's title "Pontificus Maximus".

The RC historians admit to the evolution over time of these pagan ideas brought INTO the Christian church.

Obfuscating the point that the belief in ONE God creator of all - and Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden - had to be the religion of Noah and of Adam and Eve and therefore shows up in several non-Christian religions, is just sidestepping the point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, you aren't that dense. I just know that you aren't. Please quote this "RC POV" that says that "Christianity evolved or came FROM paganism." I don't see it. I see, instaed, Thessalonian stating that Christian ideas are found in ancient paganism. And he cites a pagan website to show that pagan beliefs share a semblance with Christian beliefs. And as Catholics have stated here TIME AND AGAIN, our point in stating this is PAGANS HAVE A PIECE OF THE TRUTH, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM SEEK THE TRUTH, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE FULNESS OF THE TRUTH THAT IS CHRISTIANITY. Please, take a few moments and reread this and let it sink in. If you libel again, Bob, I hope that you are fervently discredited, because this point can't be made more obvious.

Thomas Bokenkotter? Amazing how you "pluralize" him. Now he is multiple historians? Seriously, he's about the only person you ever quote, and that in no way makes him a speaker for the Church, especially when what he says CONTRADICTS THE CHURCH. That's just silly.

If you want to claim you are using multiple sources, try SHARING them with us.

The English language is partly derived from Latin, as are all the Romance languages. A lot has transferred. That doesn't make the words "pagan." Pagans had priests too; I guess that means that Aaron was trying to be a pagan, right? According to your logic, if the pagans had it, and anyone else resembles the pagans, they are really pagan.

Good grief man; you'd fail a logic class.

Again with the pluralism. Try naming some names and quoting some quotes.

WHAT?!??! How is that side-stepping? Oh yeah, YOU DON'T TELL US HOW! Please, Bob, englighten us.