30,000+ protastant denominations

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by neal4christ:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Neal, you a material relativist (as opposed to a formal one). The result is the same.

Call me whatever you will, but I know that the RCC is just an earthly institution made up of fallen men. I have no problem admitting there is one Roman Catholic church, so you should be happy!

But hey, say your point stands or whatever you want, but please, speak the truth when throwing around stats. Or else don't get so upset when you don't like Bob's methods.


In Christ,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Well Neal,

First of all it is not a matter of name calling. It is mearly meant as an adjective. I hold no animosity toward you. Also, I gave where the number comes from and so I am not just pulling things out of the air or unwilling to defend the basis for them. I can certainly quote stats and then have provide you with the contemporary author that backs them up. What is wrong with that. He did the research. It is documented and it's available. So I don't feel overly guilty about using the number. I think it may be a little overblown but looking in just my local phone book I am not so sure, after all we are just 1 of thousands of worldly cities. Also it would be extremely difficult to actually determine how many of the 34000 he has figured out as denominatoins (or if he has them all) are the same denom. Especially with the blossoming of the Non-denominational denominations in the last 40 years. There is a local one that has something about birds as it's major reason for being a non-denom denom. If you are going to say that we cannot do that then throw out all the libraries because noone can use them as supporting information for anything. In truth I think your point is nonsense but I am not going to quibble. As for not liking Bob's methods, you really made a strong stand with him now didn't you.

Neil it is quite apparent that you do not really know what is true (with regard to the word of God), Perhaps some soul searching on that would do you some good. Perhaps you should reflect on Jer 3:15 a bit. Who are these MEN who are to be shepherds and who are to give KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING. Can true KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING come from false teaching. How many things that Jesus taught did he tell the Apostles to teach in Matthew 28. He apparently meant there to be successors as he told them it was to be taught to the whole world. Not something they could accomplish in their lifetime.


Blessings

[ September 18, 2003, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[A_Christian]

WPutnam:

Human logic is ALWAYS flawed, and that is why I'm
not a Roman Catholic (they place far too much
emphasis on their TRADITIONS).

As for your other comments on fragmentation and
confusion. I feel this comes from a
misunderstanding of Christianity. God places
the "Christian" were he is needed by GOD and
not where an organization wants him. Biblically,
sound Methodists are not much different than
Biblically sound Prebyterians and Biblically
sound Baptists and Biblically sound Independent
Bible Churches. *NOTE: The key word is BIBLICALLY sound.
As institutions have drifted from the BIBLE
being the INFALLIBLE and INERRANT WORD of GOD,
believers have had to be guided to new pastures.
The Roman Catholic church needed a to be
separated and repotted.
Today, I feel that there is a much higher
percentage of REAL Christians then at any time in
our history. This is due to PESONAL study and
PERSONAL soul-searching that the "Holy" Roman
Catholic church surpressed.
Church attendance may cause a person to see his
need; however, it doesn't MAKE him a "Christian".
ONLY the baptism of the Holy Spirit can do that
and that happens when a person places his faith
and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. The true
story of Christ is found ONLY in the Scriptures.
This is something the Roman Catholic church
once simply neglected. The ONLY reason the
Roman Catholic church is presently as open as it
is is due to the REFORMATION. I feel that Christ
allowed the Reformation to save the CHURCH
(the body of ALL believers) from COMPLACENSY.
OR

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
WPutnam:

Human logic is ALWAYS flawed, and that is why I'm
not a Roman Catholic (they place far too much
emphasis on their TRADITIONS).

Do you actually believe that "human logic is ALWAYS flawed"?

When you look out and see with your own eyes that a cloudless sky at noon in blue, and not one one human in all of man's existence testifies to that fact (not considering the physical/scientific reasons this is so) would therefore have you conclude that indeed, the sky is blue under those circumstances, right?

Does not logic then have you conclude a belief in an absolute truth here? ("The sky is blue.")

I can continue into my amateur version of the natural law that extends this logic that finds other absolute truths, but later...

As for your other comments on fragmentation and
confusion. I feel this comes from a
misunderstanding of Christianity.

Well, I have been one all my life, including my non-Catholic days, sir...

God places the "Christian" were he is needed by GOD and not where an organization wants him. Biblically, sound Methodists are not much different than Biblically sound Prebyterians and Biblically sound Baptists and Biblically sound Independent Bible Churches.

*NOTE: The key word is BIBLICALLY sound.

Yes, I noticed that!

Now, what I need from you is a a definition of "biblically sound." Who determines if I am "biblically sound" in my Catholicism compared to your Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptist examples you mention above?

NOTE: The important word above is WHO.

As institutions have drifted from the BIBLE
being the INFALLIBLE and INERRANT WORD of GOD,
believers have had to be guided to new pastures.
The Roman Catholic church needed a to be
separated and repotted.

Whho told you that the Catholic Church, as an "institution," has "drifted from the Bible? And who told you that the Bible (alone) is the infallible and inerrant Word of God? Can you demonstrate me some authority that the Bible, as it is now canonized by (...who is that famous outside authority that has done this in the 3rd. century?...) that has a New Testament that is identical to my Catholic Bible rendition?

In the 3rd. century, the following writings were considered but rejected to be included in the New Testament:

List follows...

The Acts of Andrew
The Acts and Martyrdom of Andrew
The Acts of Andrew and Matthew
The Acts of Barnabas
The Epistle of Barnabas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The martyrdom of Bartholomew
The Gospel of Bartholomew
The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Second Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The First Apocalypse of James
The Second Apocalypse of James
The Gospel of James
The Apocryphon of James
The epistle of James (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The first epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The second epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The third epistle (Unsigned, but thought to be by John.)
The Revelation of John (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of John
The Book of John Concerning the Death of Mary
The Apocryphon of John
The Epistle to the Laodiceans
The Mystery of the Cross
The epistle of Jude (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Acts of the Apostles (Unsigned, but thought to be by Luke.)
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Mark.)
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Passing of Mary
The Apocalypse of the Virgin
The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary
The Gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. (Unsigned, but thought to be by Matthew.)
The Acts and Martyrdom of Matthew
The Martyrdom of Matthew
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew
The Epistle of Paul to the Romans
The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Corinthians
The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians
The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians
The Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
The First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
The Second Epistle of Paul to Thessalonians
The First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
The Epistle of Paul to Titus
The Epistle of Paul to Philemon l
The Epistle to the Hebrews (Thought to be by Paul, but non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Paul
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
The Apocalypse of Paul
The Revelation of Paul
The Vision of Paul
The Prayer of the Apostle Paul
The Correspondence of Paul and Seneca
The first epistle of Peter
The second epistle of Peter (Thought to be non- inspired by some.)
The Acts of Peter
The Acts of Peter and Andrew
The Acts of Peter and Paul
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Revelation of Peter
The Gospel of Peter
The epistle of Peter to Philip
The Acts of Philip
The Gospel of Philip
The Revelation of Stephen
The Acts of Thomas
The Consummation of Thomas
The Apocalypse of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas
The Book of Thomas the Contender
The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp
The Epistle of Ignatius to Mary at Neapolis
The Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Second Epistle of Ignatius to St. John the Apostle
The Epistle of Ignatius to Hero, A deacon of Antioch
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians
The Second epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philippians
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary
The Reply of the Virgin Mary to Ignatius
The Epistle of Maria the Proselyte to Ignatius
An Arabic Infancy Gospel
Community Rule
Excerpts from Pistis Sophia
Fragments of Papias
Justin on the Resurrection
Justin on the sole government of God
Justin's Discourse to the Greeks-1
Justin's Hortatory Address to the Greeks
Other Fragments from the Lost Writing of Justin
The Acts of John the Theologian
The Acts of Thaddaeus
The Apocalypse of Adam
The Apocalypse of Sedrach
The Avenging of the Saviour
The Correspondence of Jesus and Abgar
The Death of Pilate
The Didache (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Epistle of Adrian in behalf of the Christians
The Epistle of Antoninus
The Epistle of Marcus Aurelius to the Senate
The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of the Apostles
The First Apology of Justin
The Giving Up of Pontius Pilate
The Gospel of Mary
The Gospel of Nicodemus
The Gospel of the Lord
The History of Joseph the Carpenter
The Letter of Pontius Pilate to the Roman Emperor
The Martydom of Polycarp
The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathaea
The Report of Pilate to Caesar
The Report of Pilate to Tiberius
The Report of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius
The Revelation of Esdras
The Revelation of John the Theologian
The Revelation of Moses
The Revelation of Stephen
The Second Apology of Justin
The Shepherd of Hermas (thought to be inspired by some.)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
The Teachings of Addeus the Apostle
The Three Steles of Seth

End of list...

Now, how do you know that some of the writings in the above list is not also divinely inspired "God breathed" and should be included in the New Testament?

And by what authority were they rejected? At one time, there were local local/regional churches who did not consider Hebrews, Romans and the book of Revelation as scripture. So, by what authority were they included?

Today, I feel that there is a much higher
percentage of REAL Christians then at any time in
our history. This is due to PESONAL study and
PERSONAL soul-searching that the "Holy" Roman
Catholic church surpressed.

Sorry, but sadly, I must disagree with you here!

I simply see the the testimony and the stories of wonderful fine saints in the early days, especially during the persecutions by the imperors of Rome, that would have today's usual and "nominal" Christian pale in comparison!

Church attendance may cause a person to see his
need; however, it doesn't MAKE him a "Christian".
ONLY the baptism of the Holy Spirit can do that
and that happens when a person places his faith
and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I see that baptism described in John 3:5, noting the use of "water" to accomplish that!

But if you are speaking of what I think you mean here, be advised that such a notion was not in vogue until contempory times. For the first 1500 years of church history, there is not one sintilla of a notion that "baptism of the spirit," which involves an emotional coming to believe in Jesus, making a public confession at some tent revival, and perhaps being "slain in the spirit" is that "spirit baptism" you speak of (and for which you can correct me) but again, nothing seen in the early history of the church.

The true story of Christ is found ONLY in the Scriptures.

I wonder how the first Christians fared between Pentecost and until ink first touched papyrus in the writing of the New Testament. Most scholars believe that the time lapse was about 30 years or more...

Do you suppose that in that interval of time, the "good news" of Jesus Christ was presented...ORALLY?

This is something the Roman Catholic church
once simply neglected. The ONLY reason the
Roman Catholic church is presently as open as it
is is due to the REFORMATION. I feel that Christ
allowed the Reformation to save the CHURCH
(the body of ALL believers) from COMPLACENSY.
OR

In other words, you are saying that there were lapses and failures by Christians in the only Church around took place? Oh, I certainly agree!

I will also agree that Luther, erronious as I think he was, was a tool in the hands of God that a "reformation" would take place in the Church, just as it occurred under the influence of other great saints, such as St. Catherine of Sienna and others.

A_Christian, being a Catholic also makes me a sinner! I will readily admit that! But being a sinner, the Church was also given the facilities that would help me avoid sin, and when I sin, receive a forgiveness for them, that I may stay the course and be saved before God in judgment at my death!

A_Christian, are you not also a sinner? I bet you still sin, don't you? I know I do, not being proud of it, of course.

A_Christian, look for a church that has those "facilities" that would have you be close to the Lord in your journey to salvation:

1. Baptism
2. Confirmation (almost like being "baptized in the spirit")

3. Holy Communion (daily in my case or as often as I can.)

4. Reconsiliation. Read John 20:22-23 (and we can someday discuss the power of priests to forgive or retain sins.)

5. Matrimony. Established by Christ that a man and woman be bound as God the binding force, that certainly brings graces to the couple!

6. Holy Orders. (Not for all of us, as not all of us are called to the priesthood...)

7. Anointing with holy oils. Found in scripture and practiced by the apostles which also forgives sins! Did you know that?

Usually applied to the sick and dying...

That's enough for now...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

[gb93433]

Being a Roman Catholic menas that you accept the following doctrinal additions.

SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESIES AND INVENTIONS
and the dates of their adoption over a period of 1650 years
1. Prayers for the dead, began about A. D ................................. 300
2. Making the sign of the cross ................................ 300
3. Wax candles, about ............................... 320
4. Veneration of angels and dead saints, and use of images .................. 375
5. The Mass, as a daily celebration ................................. 394
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary,
the term "Mother of God" first
applied to heir by the Council of Ephesus 431
7. Priests began to dress differently from laymen .................................... 500
8. Extreme Unction ........................................................................... 528
9. The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I ....................... 593
10. Latin language, used in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I ................. 600
11. Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints and angels, about ....................... 600
12. Title of pope, or universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor
Phocas ............ 607
13. Kissing the pope's foot, began with pope Constantine ....................... 709
14. Temporal power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the Franks ............ 750
15. Worship of the cross, images and relics, authorized in ................. 786
16. Holy water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest ........... 850
17. Worship of St. Joseph ............................... 890
18. College of Cardinals established ................................ 927
19. Baptism of bells, instituted by pope John XIII ................................... 965
20. Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John XV .......................... 995
21. Fasting on Fridays and during Lent .................................. 998
22. The Mass, developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11lth century
23. Celibacy of the priesthood, decreed by pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) ........................... 1079
24. The Rosary, mechanical praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit ........................... 1090
25. The Inquisition, instituted by the Council of Verona ............................ 1184
26. Sale of Indulgences ............................. 1190
27. Transubstantiation, proclaimed by pope Innocent III .................... 1215
28. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, instituted
by pope Innocent 111, in Lateran Council ................................... 1215
29. Adoration of the wafer (Host), decreed by pope Honorius III .............. 1220
30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books
by the Council of Toulouse .............................. 1229
31. The Scapular, invented by Simon Stock, an English monk ............ 1251
32. Cup forbidden to the people at communion by Council of Constance .......... 1414
33. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence ............. 1439
34. The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed .................... 1439
35. The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years laterand approved by pope Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century) 1508
36. Jesuit order founded by Loyola .............................. 1534
37. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the Council
of Trent ..................... 1545
38. Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent .............. 1546
39. Creed of pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed .......................... 1560
40. Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed by pope Pius TX .......................... 1854
41. Syllabus of Errors, proclaimed by pope Pitis TX, and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion. conscience, speech,
press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers 1864
42. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council ......................... 1870
43. Public Schools condemned by pope Pius XI .............................. 1930
44. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly
after her death), proclaimed by pope Pius XII ............................. 1950
45. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church, by pope Paul VI ............... 1965


Roman Catholicism copyright 1962 authored by Loraine Boettner pages 7-9

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Being a Roman Catholic menas that you accept the following doctrinal additions.

Oh yes, the doctrine of "wax candles"!!

Not getting anywhere with the 30,000 denomination challenge?

Here's a challenge for you:

Write the people at the address that I posted and ask them to give a list of the 30,000 denominations.

IMO the number of denominations is much, much, much higher if you consider all the variations of doctrine created within a single local church that buys into sola scriptura and then multiply that times the number of independent local churches!!

It just boggles the mind.

 

[thessalonian]

"30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books
by the Council of Toulouse .............................. 1229 "

Let's refute this lie for fun since it is so simple. The index of forbidden books didn't come in to being until 1559 so it would seem difficult for the bible to be on it in 1229.

gb do you know what the 8th (our 9th) commandment is. You have broken it many times above, though not knowingly perhaps. I hope not anyway. Or has your hatred blinded you.

blessings

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
Being a Roman Catholic menas that you accept the following doctrinal additions.

Oh yes, the doctrine of "wax candles"!!

Not getting anywhere with the 30,000 denomination challenge?

Here's a challenge for you:

Write the people at the address that I posted and ask them to give a list of the 30,000 denominations.

IMO the number of denominations is much, much, much higher if you consider all the variations of doctrine created within a single local church that buys into sola scriptura and then multiply that times the number of independent local churches!!

It just boggles the mind.

</font>[/QUOTE]T2U, I kicked the slats out of my crib when I first saw and read that nonsense!

Loraine Boettner - Perhaps the first of a long line of contemporary anti-Catholics that slam the Church with total distortations of what the Church really is.

What will some think of next? Get rid of water baptism because it harks back to the pagan purification ceremonies before Christianity?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

What will some think of next? Get rid of water baptism because it harks back to the pagan purification ceremonies before Christianity?

Why not? It had to originate from somewhere, and it certainly did not originate from Biblical teaching.
DHK

 

[Ed Edwards]

WPutnam speaking of Baptists: "Why are they
not under the szme roof instezad of being
seperated as they are?"

It is a doctrinal thing.
Each local church is it's own
denomination; each human their own priest.
But if you count Baptist denomination/churches
you come up with way past 30,000

 

[Ed Edwards]

WPutnam: "My atheist friends
laugh at these divisions in Christianity, which
is the great tragedy!"

Yes, my atheist friends laugh also.
But the joke is on them

The denominations
of Christianity can be delineated, the
denominations of atheists cannot be so determined.
Such divisions exict but atheists, like
ostrichs, ignore them and
continue to mock Christians
hoping they don't notice the same flaw exists
among the non-homogeneous atheists

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:

What will some think of next? Get rid of water baptism because it harks back to the pagan purification ceremonies before Christianity?

Why not? It had to originate from somewhere, and it certainly did not originate from Biblical teaching.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Then tell me what John 3:5 speaks of when to be "born again," one must be born of "water and spirit"?

Also, 1 Peter 3:21, when Peter likens the water of the great flood, which saved people in the ark, "prefures baptism, which saves you now.

Note the reference to "water" in both, one a hint and to what baptism with water will do for Nicodemus, and what it actually does by Peter's epistle.

But sadly, you are almost right insofar as seemingly to agree with what I have encountered in the respect, baptism conjures in the minds of many Fundamentalists, it is almost a "afterthought" ritural, one which can be discarded and no longer needed.

In my youth, I attended a church which had a huge baptismal tank behind the row of seats in from the the sanctuary of the church. For the two years I was there, it remained EMPTY.

Incredible...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
WPutnam speaking of Baptists: "Why are they
not under the szme roof instead of being
seperated as they are?"

It is a doctrinal thing.
Each local church is it's own
denomination; each human their own priest.
But if you count Baptist denomination/churches
you come up with way past 30,000

Ok, if you say so!

I prefer my church to be an authoritive church, like the one Christ established, built upon the ROCK of Peter, who is given the "keys of the kingdom" of awesome authority, as we see the Jewish metaphor in Isaiah 22:22, reinforced by the power to "bind and loose."

To have authority, the Church must speak with one voice, just like the military has one Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. Christ knew He had to set-up a similar institution, with His apostles being His "charter clergy" of that Church.

In my youth, I was confused as to where the truth was, this church or that. One taught baptism was necessary, some insisted on total immersion, and some thought pouring was just fine. Holy communnion was just a memorial service, the bread and wine (soda crackers and Welch's grape juice) was only symbolic, whereas, some considered it to be the real body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. (The high church Anglicans and the Lutherens had somewhat differing doctrines on this.)

So, thank you anyway, sir, but you can have your autonomous churches which have ZERO authority because they cannot trace a lineage back to Christ Himself.

I will cling to the one Christ founded...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
WPutnam: "My atheist friends
laugh at these divisions in Christianity, which
is the great tragedy!"

Yes, my atheist friends laugh also.
But the joke is on them

The denominations
of Christianity can be delineated, the
denominations of atheists cannot be so determined.

In fact, I think atheists really do not exist!

But to explain that would take too much writing, involving the natural law which is inherent in all men.

Such divisions exict but atheists, like
ostrichs, ignore them and
continue to mock Christians
hoping they don't notice the same flaw exists
among the non-homogeneous atheists

I agree with you here, but in their mockery, they reveal a secret belief, I think, that there must be a divine cause for everything in existence. I think they are running scared even while they loath to admit it!

And that is a reason I think a "true" atheist does not exist! But I could be wrong...

But I think that you and I both are encumbered with the need to evangelize them, you in your own way, perhaps, and me in my way. I use examples, logic (which they are fond of) and pure reasoning, not to mention the testimony of the gospels.

Somehow, some way, there is a latent grace in all men, far away from God as they may be, that a Christian is obliged to awaken one way or another- not in direct confrontation - but in example, kindness, the assurrance of our beliefs and in the need to demonstrate how God exists, why He exists and why we are here.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:

What will some think of next? Get rid of water baptism because it harks back to the pagan purification ceremonies before Christianity?

Why not? It had to originate from somewhere, and it certainly did not originate from Biblical teaching.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Then tell me what John 3:5 speaks of when to be "born again," one must be born of "water and spirit"?
</font>[/QUOTE]The word "water" means "water," and it is only your presuppostions that make you think that it refers to baptism, whereas baptism is nowhere mentioned in the entire chapter. Water is obviously symbolic of something, but it does not refer to baptism.
Water is a cleansing agent. But nowhere does the Bible teach that water washes away sin. Jer.2:22 teaches the exact opposite. In fact that is where your pagan beliefs do come in. Hindus were washing in the Ganges river thinking that the holy water of the river would wash away their sins, before Christianity ever existed. No doubt this is where the Catholic concept of baptismal regeneration originated from

But water is a cleansing agent. What else is?

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--The Word of God is also a cleansing agent. We are cleansed by the Word of God. Water is symbolic of the Word of God.

Ye must be born of water and of the Spirit. These are the only two agents mentioned. We all know that one must be born of the Spirit--the Holy Spirit. There is only one other agent left to be defined. John 15:3 identifies that as the Word.

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
--We are born again through the Word of God. This verse is very plain. There are only two agents whereby a man is born again: the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Clearly, the water in John 3:5 symbolically refers to the Word of God, and not to baptism. Baptism does not wash away sins; it just gets you wet.
It is a symbolic step of obedience symbolizing the believer's death to his old life, and rising again to a new life in Christ, after he believes in Christ as his Saviour.
DHK

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Being a Roman Catholic menas that you accept the following doctrinal additions.

SOME ROMAN CATHOLIC HERESIES AND INVENTIONS
....blah blah blah blah....
....blah blah blah blah....
....blah blah blah blah....
....blah blah blah blah....
Roman Catholicism copyright 1962 authored by Loraine Boettner pages 7-9

Woah! The Big Gun! Boettner the Bigot! Yep, lots of nasty doctrines (

) in that list!

If that's your best shot, pastor, you've already lost the battle. Try quoting Jack Chick next time -- at least he's so bad as to be funny. We always enjoy a bit of Chick here!

 

[Ed Edwards]

The most interesting place i find the
33830 denominations is at
The Skeptic's Dictionary, the
MASS MEDIA BUNK page

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk10.html

 

[WPutnam]

DHK came back, where I originally said:

What will some think of next? Get rid of water baptism because it harks back to the pagan purification ceremonies before Christianity?

And you replied:

Why not? It had to originate from somewhere, and it certainly did not originate from Biblical teaching.

And I most recently replied:

]Then tell me what John 3:5 speaks of when to be "born again," one must be born of "water and spirit"?

And take a gander at his latest response:

The word "water" means "water," and it is only your presuppostions that make you think that it refers to baptism, whereas baptism is nowhere mentioned in the entire chapter. Water is obviously symbolic of something, but it does not refer to baptism.

What is it "symbolic" of when Jesus actually comes right out and makes it an important ingredient (along with the "Spirit") that has one be "born again"?

DHK, I am actually shocked that you would make such a statement! Jesus declares someting that would have us be "born again," yet you sluff it off as simply "something," not defined. It is "something" we obviously see that is applied somehow that one is thus saved! And it went sailing right over your head that quickly?

Simply incredible!

Water is a cleansing agent.

DUH!!!

No wonder Christ took it to be "symbolic" in the nature of what it does, cleanse us of our sins! Not "symbolic" in that it is performed as a sign to others that one is saved (as an optional thing to do) but rather while it does indeed, save, the "symbol" of what it does is perfectly expressed is a substance that has been mankinds "universal solvent" from the time man first walked on the earth!

But nowhere does the Bible teach that water washes away sin. Jer.2:22 teaches the exact opposite. In fact that is where your pagan beliefs do come in. Hindus were washing in the Ganges river thinking that the holy water of the river would wash away their sins, before Christianity ever existed. No doubt this is where the Catholic concept of baptismal regeneration originated from

Well now, I thought 1 Peter 3:21 did quite a good job of it which you failed to address.

But water is a cleansing agent. What else is?

Yes, the "universal cleaning agent" that we all know of, that Christ used to signify a far more important cleansing - It's application with the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" per Matthew 28:19!

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
--The Word of God is also a cleansing agent. We are cleansed by the Word of God. Water is symbolic of the Word of God.

Indeed! And when one accepted the Word, believed in the Word, and came to believe in the author of the Word, Jesus Christ, he was immediately baptized. "Believe and be baptized" is the cry we see and read in Acts, is it not?

Ye must be born of water and of the Spirit. These are the only two agents mentioned.

And what do these two "agents" doe, DHK? What did Jesus say that must be applied (to be born of) in order that we may be "born again" (or "born from above")?

We all know that one must be born of the Spirit--the Holy Spirit. There is only one other agent left to be defined. John 15:3 identifies that as the Word.

"We must believe (in the Word) and be baptized." I have paraphrased several instances where this is stated in the New Testament, DHK.

I last said:

And when one comes to believe in the Word, baptism follows that closes the salvific efforts of the new Christian!

1Pet.1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Indeed! Believe in this Word and be baptized!

--We are born again through the Word of God. This verse is very plain. There are only two agents whereby a man is born again: the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. Clearly, the water in John 3:5 symbolically refers to the Word of God, and not to baptism. Baptism does not wash away sins; it just gets you wet.

In your narrow interpretation of scripture, DHK, shall we now tear out John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21?

What must we do when be believe in the word, DHK? I would suggest to you that what happened next for Paul is reflected perfectly in Acts 9:18.

It is a symbolic step of obedience symbolizing the believer's death to his old life, and rising again to a new life in Christ, after he believes in Christ as his Saviour.
DHK

The "symbolism" in the applied water shows the cleansing of the soul of sin, DHK. As water in the natural use of it, washes physical dirt from our bodies, it also supernaturally cleanses us from our sins in baptism in which also comes the holy Spirit as the water flows, and we are made heirs of the kingdom of God.

What did the early church teach about baptism, DHK? Here is a clue:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/borna.htm

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
The most interesting place i find the
33830 denominations is at
The Skeptic's Dictionary, the
MASS MEDIA BUNK page

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk10.html

Interesting!

Here is the precise link to the article I think you are refering to:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2001/03/17/national1215EST0499.DTL

I hope that works! What a long URL!

Anyhow, one has to ask this Barret fellow who did this thing what criteria he used to determine distinct denominations.

I think you could take 1,000 Catholic/Protestant scholars, isolate them to make a study on this and you would get 1,000 different figures as to the total number of christian denominations that exist!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


P.S. I took a sneak peek at your web site!

You seem to be a nice looking fella!

you are invited to explore mine:

http://bellsouthpwp.net/w/p/wputnam3/index.htm


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
"30. Bible forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden Books
by the Council of Toulouse .............................. 1229 "

Let's refute this lie for fun since it is so simple. The index of forbidden books didn't come in to being until 1559 so it would seem difficult for the bible to be on it in 1229.

gb do you know what the 8th (our 9th) commandment is. You have broken it many times above, though not knowingly perhaps. I hope not anyway. Or has your hatred blinded you.

blessings

So perhaps you found one you would disagree with. Would you mind refuting the rest if you could and show me where I am wrong with references so I can look them up for myself as well?

We do know there was a Council of Toulouse and the Bible was forbidden by that council. So it had to be placed on some kind of list. Yes, there is a forbidden list of boks that did come later in 1559.

I really don'tknow what there is to hate other than when someone or some entity tries to take God's place. God is still the final authority. He has authority over all people and all authorities. He is the authority.

I have Catholics in Bible studies that I have led for about 29 years now.

In one town I lived in you would think the RCC pastor was a Baptist. He gave a sermion and at the end he gave an invitation for people to receive Christ. The church ws very well attended,

Phil 2:10,11. "so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

It is the truth that sets us free. So why shouldn't through our dialog be able to come up to the truth.

I grew up going to the Catholic Church. As I got older I began to question some of the changes. I asked, "If God does not change, why does the Catholic Chruch change its doctrine?" I always got some kind of feeble explanation trying to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church. Finally my mother (who was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school) told me that at one time she believed many of those things but no longer did. Later I considered being a Catholic priest. But then I asked what was the purpose of a priest not being married. As I studied history I ralized that early in the RCC church a number of the priests were married. And so it seems that the RCC is in a constant doctrinal change. But God has not changed during that time.

If you were truly interested in seeking the truth you would cetainly take a look at one says in opposition to your faith. There is not one of us that could be wrong at times. Maybe it takes someone else to point out our wrongs.

So often we don't like what is said about what we believe. Neither did I when I was challenged about what Catholics believed because I was one of them.

Proverbs 27:17 says, "Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another."

So if I am wrong I am asking you to show me where I am wrong and refute everything I had listed.

Fair enough?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
[QB] DHK came back, where I originally said:

What will some think of next? Get rid of water baptism because it harks back to the pagan purification ceremonies before Christianity?

[/b]

"Well now, I thought 1 Peter 3:21 did quite a good job of it which you failed to address."

I Peter 3:21 is rather simple in the Greek text. In the first part, "Corresponding to that," is the word used that we use for antitype (antitupon).

Baptism is a transliterated word originally by the pedobaptists. The word baptizo always means to dip. immerse or wash. So in place of that word baptize just place the correct translation as immerse. There is no such word as baptism. It is an invented word that was transliterated.

Yes baptism goes way back. It was a word to descibe when a boat sank orsomeone washed clothes. In religious circles it was also in Judaism. If you lookk at the NT you will see that the NT church pulled things from their background and aplied them in a different context.