The Roots of Catholicism

[GraceSaves]

Philo was indeed a Helenized Jew living in Alexandria. Good point. Now, how about also realizing that the Gospels were written to helenized people, and that much of the language employed was written for these people to understand. In fact, the concept of LOGOS as employed by John in his Gospel is originally a Greek concept. Further, it was Philo who recognized and demonstrated the connection between the LOGOS of John and the LOGOS of Genesis, that is, that this same LOGOS of God which caused all things to exist (John 1 and Genesis 1) that is the LOGOS made flesh, which helped to demonstrate that not only is the LOGOS Jesus, and the LOGOS God, and that Jesus is God, but that Jesus is that same God the Creator, the creator of all life, for it was Jesus that CREATES NEW LIFE, as John states at the original ending of his Gospel, "But these things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through this belief you have have life in His name." (John 20:31)

It is John 1 that establishes (unlike the other Gospels, which merely claim that Jesus is the Son of God), that this Son of God is also GOD HIMSELF, and the same God of the Old Testament.

Again, Philo was very instrumental in this fundamental Christian understanding.

 

[GraceSaves]

I might add that Judaism doesn't take a strictly literalist approach to the creation story, so you are going to have to prove that this allegorical approach is the wrong way to interpret it, because the works you have quoted simply assume that this is true before it even begins and then feeds off of that.

I might also note, though, that the Catholic belief does in fact recognize the creation of all things by God by speaking His Word, and that the fall of man is because of our original parents, Adam and Eve. This does not require a literal six day creation, an actual plant that is the "tree of life" or "tree of knowledge of good and evil" or that God, who is Spirit, was physically "walking" through the garden, etc.

I wonder why no one has addressed how the world was created in six literal 24-hour periods when the sun wasn't even created until the fourth day. Without the sun, 24-hour periods do not exist, because one day being 24-hours depends on our position from the sun (which is why other planets have longer/shorter days than on earth).

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Wputnam,

The topic is the Alexandrian School of Theology in Egypt that taught strictly by the allegorical method of interpretation. I will take time to respond to your idea of the 'Body and blood of Jesus.'

I think that the allegorical method if quite valid...where it is applicable, and dthe literal interpretation is applicable.....where it too is applicable. The problem is, where is it allegorical and where is it literal?

No one actually believes what Jesus said in the 100% literalness of His words. You said, 'The scripture I quoted speaks . . . . but simply that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, period.

But the Jews and some of His own disciples took Him literally, else why would they leave Him? If Jesus meant it allegorically, why the fuss? Go back and consider which is the easier thing to believe in the quote I gave that Christ spoke literally of figuratively/allegorically?

Ray is saying, 'I say this respectfully of the Eucharist. If it was really His flesh it would taste like human tissue. If it were actually blood it would have that kind of flavor and not a wine or grape juice flavor.

Let me say it one more time: It is literally his flesh, but in a supernatural form not in the natural form. Therefore, the flesh would taste like the unleaven bread it once was but no longer is, and His blood would taste like the wine it used to be but no longer is.

I last said, partially quoted...

Christ solved the problem at the Last Supper. It was not His natural body and blood but rather His {b]supernatural[/b] body and blood . . .

Ray is saying, 'Christ's supernatural body is a spirit being that apparently has the form of a human man.

No, Christ had a natural body, born of a natural woman, Mary, His mother. It was his natural body that died on the cross, from which His soul (His spirit) departed from at His death.

You recall all the experiences of the apostles with the appearances of Christ after His resurrection. On the evening of the resurrection, He passed through the door without entering by turning the latchet or door handle.

Yet Thomas was able to touch his side and inspect his hands, which certainly was His natural body that Thomas could do that, couldn't he?

Christ's physical natural body passed through a door because Christ is God who can do anything He chooses to do, including His natural body passing through the molecules and atoms of the door!

It seems impossible to eat His flesh which is not flesh at all, but spirit.

That is your problem. What is impossible to you is not impossible with God! If the Eucharist is truly His flesh, under the appearance of bread, then the spirit must be there as well, specifically, instead of generally, as God is everywhere...

I don't pretend to understand it, by the way, I just believe it, as the remaining disciples and the apostles did. Jesus asked them in verse 67, "...do you also want to leave?" to which Sinon Peter, who always speaks up for the group, replied, "Master, to whom shall be go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God." (verses 68, 69)

It is obvious they did not understand what Jewsus has just expounded upon either, but they just believed Him. That is true faith, a blind faith in something they do not understand...not quite yet.

It is difficult to drink His blood, because His blood is real and efficacious to cover our sins while we are here on this earth. There is no such entity as spirit, blood.'

Again, you fail to understand just as the Jews and some of His disciplies who left him.

Hard to understand? Of course!

It requires a full submission of faith that Jesus wanted here.

It was a test that "separated the men from the boys."

I last said:

'Under the apearance of bread and wine!'

Ray is saying, 'It sounds like you are saying, that His blood mimics bread and wine, but is in fact not actually/literally His Body and blood.' I know you don't believe this, but it sounds like what I have just described.

No, because the senses cannot tell the difference between the unconsecrated bread and that which is consecrated and is no longer bread but now His body!

Ray, I am not claiming this is an easy thing to believe in! It took me quite a while for me, but when it hit me, it was the Coup de grace that brought me into Holy Mother Church!

We are expected to believe that the consecrated host is no longer what it used to be but his own body! We do not see any changes in the host at consecration! The finest microscopes of modern science could not tell the difference between it and an unconsecrated host. But then the "flesh" in this world could never discover it (harking to verse 63 where the flesh cannot discern what the spirit can (paraphrased meaning of the verse.)

It is pure faith that we Catholics believe this, Ray! I cannot prove it to you that this happens, other then the words of Christ who spoke literally in the verses I gave!

Either you believe it like Peter and the rest of the apostles, or you do not believe it as the departing Jews and some of His disciples, who could not abide by His words...

Think and pray about it Ray. Maybe, just maybe, the holy Spirit will enlighten you...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
WPutnam,

I think the other poster had a point. There have been secret believers throughout all of human history.

And I have little green men living under my front porch! Document them? Nope, I can't do that, any more then you can document thise "secret believers" either! Prove to me that they existed, Ray, that is all you have to do.

If they found copies of the Bible or copied a few verses from one, they cherished the new truth and light that the Spirit of God showed them. Remember those Bibles were chained to the priest's pulpit, perhaps so no one would steal them, but more importantly, because only an educated Latin student understood or presently understands the Word of God, the Bible.

Oh joy! That old canard!

Do you realize why the bible was chained to the pulpit, Ray? Do you have the slightest idea why?

Stand by.......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Because it was so valuable, it would be easy to steal it!

Please be advised that it was chained at the pulpit to be available for the priest to read to the congregation, who, for the most part could not read!

Christians hid from the keen eyes of the archbishops who controlled each town and brought to justice anyone who deviated from Catholic quasi-christian doctrine as in Purgatory, Penance, Prayers for the dead, Mariolatry, prayers to the saints, and so on. These were the real born again believers called the Christian Church, rather than those who chanted the prayers from the Rosary and nodded to the creeds of the church.

(Sigh!) Document those "Christians," Ray, please do this as I have been asking for this for nearly 20 years of Catholic apologetics, with nary a proof.

Good luck!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by MEE:
Apostolic Pentecostals were never a part of the tree. They are the 'ROOT.'

Why don't you and Ray work together and prove their existence, starting at Pentecost and for the next 1500 years of the history of Christianity.

You then quote from my previous:

....even the Catholic Church considers them "imcomplete members"....

That's right nice of you all Bill.

MEE

At least that is better then for me, a Catholic, being condemned by some (in other forums) of going straight to hell!

Here is the text from The Catechism of the Catholic Church that says this:

Quote...

838. "'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.'[LG 15.] Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'[UR 3.] With the ORTHODOX Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.'[Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.]"

Unquote...

To view the context, please visit

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/church3.html#CATHOLIC

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Someone said, ' . . . the Wesleyan movenent was itself an offshoot from those others who inturned, offshoots that originally broke away from Catholicism.

That was ME that said that!

Ray is saying, 'I may be incorrect but I think the Wesleyan Church broke away from the Methodist Church. Wesleyans don't hold to any add-on theology like: Mariolatry, Penance, Purgatory or other provocative errors. The Wesleyan Church is light-years away from Catholicism. The Wesleyan Church has produced some of the greatest Biblical preaching of this century and not merely a ten minute summary of the Gospel reading.

So what? From what Church did the Methodist Church spring from? See where I am going here?

Someone said, 'They are branches cut from the tree, lying on the ground, no longer a part of Holy Church!

Me again! But then, that was a bit of hyperbola on my part, as we do indeed consider you Christians, and in some way, a part, albeit incomplete, of the Church.

Ray is saying, 'No evangelical Christian that I know wants to stand before the Lord having been a part of an apostate church. A church should magnify all of the cardinal truths of the Holy Gospel and should excise all add-on theology. [Revelation 22:18-19]

Gee, I don't either! I would rather stand before God, having come to his original and true Church His Divine Son had established...

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHRUCH
Founder: Jesus Christ, circa AD 33
Present caretaker: John Paul II

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages
call me blessed. (Luke 1:46-48)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Lorelei:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
The scripture I quotes speaks nothing of a "dead man," but simply that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood, period.

Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. (John 6:53-56 Catholic NAB)

The part in bold is what you left out after your period. It says you have NO LIFE in you. Guess what, without life, you are dead. Your interpretation puts a period where there is not one. It is not good to ignore that line of scripture.

~Lorelei </font>[/QUOTE]It was an error on my part that I said "Verses 53-56 when I should have typed "53-56."

But thank you for extending it, as I think it makes the case even more!

What do you think it means that "you have no life in you," Lorelei? If he is speaking to a person with that statement, the person is obviously alive to hear it, don't yhou think?

Do you just suppose that it means that your spiritual life is dead, while you are alive in the flesh, and that you stand in danger of a garave judgment at your actual death?

The point is, we are to partake of his actual body and blood in the Eucharist! Me an dmy wife do this daily, or as often as we can, since I am fully retired!

I begin the day with the Eucharist as my first meal! Praise God for such a wonder Sacrament!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

[Ray Berrian]

WPutnam,

You said, 'Me again! But then, that was a bit of hyperbola on my part, as we do indeed
consider you Christians, and in some way, a part, albeit incomplete, of the
Church.

Ray is saying, We understood exactly what you said. Jesus said something quite different from your explanation. [John 15:5 & 16] Can I get an Amen from you for Jesus?

 

[BobRyan]

Ray - even the RCC itself admits that the errors of Catholicism took a while to evolve.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Ray Berrian]

Dr. George Holley Gilbert in his book, "The Interpretation of the Bible" p. 37 ff, said,

'To Philo Greek philosophy was the same as the philosophy of Moses . . . . And the aim of Philo was to set forth and illustrate this harmony between the Jewish religion and classic philosophy, or ultimately, it was to recommend the Jewish religion to the educated Greek world . . . '

Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost says on page 21 of his book, "Things to Come" that 'In order to effect this harmonization it was necessary for Philo to adopt an allegorizing method of interpreting the Scriptures.'

Dr. Farrar says, 'It was the great catechetical school of Alexandria, founded, as tradition says, by St. Mark, that there sprang up the chief school of Christian exegesis. It object, like that of Philo, was to unite philosophy with revelation, {meaning the Scripture} and thus to use the borrowed jewels of Egypt to adorn the sanctuary of God. Hence, Clement of Alexandria and Origen furnished the direct antithesis of Tertullian and Irenaeus . . . . Clement of Alexandria believed in the Divine origin of Greek philosophy, [Colossians 2:8] openly propounding the principle that all Scripture must be allegorically understood.'

The Apostle Paul warned about humanistic philosophy [Colossians 2:8] and in the second century in the 100's it came on the scene in the pagan nation of Egypt.

Dr. Farrar made this statement on page 238 of his book, "History of Interpretation."

'But in the days of Augustine the method had degenerated into an artistic method of displaying ingenuity and supporting ecclesiasticism.'

In other words, this allegorical method of view the Scriptures was not the child of orthodoxy but of heterodoxy. Thus, the Roman Catholic prelates had a perfect cover for their add-on theology which the Lord hates with a passion. {Assumption of Mary into Heaven, one final Judgment for all, Immaculate Conception, the Fable of Creation-as in the Genesis account, praying to saints, the co-redemptrix of Christ, penance, Purgatory and the list goes on and on and on}.

These men of God referenced here, many of them were writing their dissertations for their doctoral degrees. They researched these matters very, very carefully, because if they were wrong their superiors would have questioned them on these matters. So if you do not agree with any of this post, you have to prove me wrong and offer some scholastic response rather than the usual denials.

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

[mioque]

Ray
I've got 2 doctorates myself. They don't impress me any longer.
however I agree fully with the quotes of Dr. George Holley Gilbert and Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost.
Dr. Farrar on the other hand is taking a couple of questionable shortcuts.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Mioque,

Thanks! The only reason why I used these men with their doctorates is to indicate to all that these are not merely my thoughts but other men of scholarship.

Do you agree that some things in Catholicism are built on allegorization and human speculation coming out of the chambers of the Magisterium?

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
WPutnam,

You said, 'Me again! But then, that was a bit of hyperbola on my part, as we do indeed
consider you Christians, and in some way, a part, albeit incomplete, of the
Church.

Ray is saying, We understood exactly what you said. Jesus said something quite different from your explanation. [John 15:5 & 16] Can I get an Amen from you for Jesus?

Does your church fit that category, Ray?

In fact, when I made my original comment, I did not have that part of scripture in mind, but it just may be applicable.

I will again give you what the Catholic Church teaches from her Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Quote...

838. "'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.'[LG 15.] Those 'who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.'[UR 3.] With the ORTHODOX Churches, this communion is so profound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist.'[Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.]"

Unquote...

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 BobRyan:
Ray - even the RCC itself admits that the errors of Catholicism took a while to evolve.

What "errors," Bob?

Errors of doctrine, or errors of human judgment that is fallible as in all men?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Ray Berrian:
Mioque,

Thanks! The only reason why I used these men with their doctorates is to indicate to all that these are not merely my thoughts but other men of scholarship.

Do you agree that some things in Catholicism are built on allegorization and human speculation coming out of the chambers of the Magisterium?

I hope you do not mind my intervetion here, but if it is all true, the claim that paganistic thought permeated the Catholic Church in the periods specified in your quote, including the thought processes of Augustine and others, I have two questions:

1. Is there not some truth in paganistic thought, or is their thought processes totally in error? Aristotle may have been a pagan, but being so, does not necessarily make him ipso facto in error in all things, does it?

2. If indeed the Catholic Church was so permeated in error, then how is it that Christ allowed His Church to fall into such error and wallow in it for approximately 1500 years before the so called "Protestant Reformation"? If this is indeed so, then Christ apparently went back on His word and "the gates of hell prevailed" against his church (Matt. 16:18) and he ceased to be "with them until the end of time." (Matt. 28:20.) Remember, you people have yet to reveal in history and documentation that "true church" that supposedly existed during those first 1500 years which was NOT the Catholic Church.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[Ray Berrian]

WPutnam,

Did you know that the thief on the Cross did not get a dispensation from the Romans to be baptized in water? And how about the thousands of people in prisons in China who may have come into the faith before their imprisonment or afterward secure their salvation without a priest or minister to baptise them? Some undoubtedly were not officially baptized in water. I would hope that you would not say they were damned because they did not pass through the baptismal water.

Putnam said, '"…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

Berrian is saying, 'There you go again with your allegory/illustration, in this case it is the 'water' which reminds you of administered water baptism. The illustration is unwarrented, at least in Genesis, because Moses was merely trying to portray the fact that Noah's family was saved from a watery grave, when they entered the Ark and were secured in it. But, I must say that Pope Peter ties the two together but emphasizes the greater truths that Jesus has gone to Heaven, that everything is under His control, that the resurrection of Christ was and is true and that a clear conscience before the Lord is what really counts with Him. [I Peter 3:20-22]

{Signed} The Right, Reverend, Holy Father, the Elect one and first Pope,

The Apostle "Petros"

Be reminded that in II Peter 1:14 Petros was on his deathbed and still did not hold the above titles. Maybe Peter said, 'Brethren, how about we get a little tradition going here.' WPutnam, is this how the Petrine doctrine of Pope came into human reality? I do not think this is the way it happened.

If water was the introductory ministration to the sinner then why don't Catholics and other Christians baptize all adults first {securing their salvation} and then tell their clientele to obediently follow Jesus Christ through the life of the church? {after the fact}

By the way you are one of the very few Catholics who always attempt to answer our questions. I am impressed with your honesty in the area of human communication.

"Ray"

 

[thessalonian]

"I hope you do not mind my intervetion here, but if it is all true, the claim that paganistic thought permeated the Catholic Church in the periods specified in your quote, including the thought processes of Augustine and others, I have two questions:"


I hate to tell you this folks but pagan ideas are used by Paul and pagan writings are quoted in the scriptures. Try Paul in Acts 17 with the tomb of the unknown God.

Acts 17:23
"For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.

Now that is evanglization. Turn what they already understand in to truth.
You go with the false pretense that all that is in paganism is wrong. They cannot make the connection to the one true God but from nature they deduce much of what is true about God and it shows in their writings. Therefore Paul quoted from them.

"Acts 17:28, where Aratus, Phaenomena 5, is paraphrased.

Acts 26:14. The phrase "it hurts you to kick against the goad" is a Greek proverb (see Euripides, Bacchae, 794-795).

1 Corinthians 15:33, where Paul quotes Menander, Thais, Frg.218.

Titus 1:12, where Epimenides, De oraculis/peri Chresmon is quoted.

Conclusion:

(1) An Apostle of Christ was well read in non-Christian literature.

(2) At least four times, an Apostle of Christ included quotes from pagan writers in the New Testament

(3) Paul seemed to have no theological problem with quoting pagans, and the Holy Spirit must have concurred.

(4) We conclude then, that sometimes a pagan will say or write something that is useful, if not true, and that reading widely will not only not destroy your faith, but could enhance it.

Rowland Croucher

-----------------------------------

This is hardly revolutionary. Nor is it confined to the NT."


Read the whole article if you like.

http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm/abss/abss0148.htm

I know this will make people like Ray uncomfortable but Oh well, understanding is a gift. By the way Ray how are you coming on the Trinity doctrine. The UCOC still holding to modalism? I think your conversation with MEE (a Oneness sort) yesterday was telling. It is apparent that you do not think belief in the Trinity is neccessary for salvatoin. But in knowing your UCOC roots I suspect that it goes deeper. You reject the Trinity also is my guess. Take a stand Ray. I suspect most Baptists on this board will no longer consider you a Christian at that point so it is in your best interest to hide this. From a Catholic perspective I'll leave the judging up to God on that.


Blessings

Blessings

 

[Ray Berrian]

thessalonian,

One of the key ideas in debate is to try to destroy the testimony of the witness.

Your abilities in this area are weak.

I most assuredly believe in the Trinity and the one Godhead, namely, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I am sure if you are honest with yourself, you can see my evangelical and conservative view of things pertaining to the Lord.

By the way, if you are trusting your sprinkling as a baby to save your soul, you need to look again at the aging Nicodemus of John chapter three and see that even you must be 'born again' of the Spirit of God. Believest thou this?

Jesus said, 'Not every one who says Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith.

In Christ,
Ray

 

[thessalonian]

"One of the key ideas in debate is to try to destroy the testimony of the witness.

Your abilities in this area are weak."

Your pride in your own abilities is so noted.


"I most assuredly believe in the Trinity and t"he one Godhead, namely, the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. I am sure if you are honest with yourself, you can see my evangelical and conservative view of things pertaining to the Lord. "

At last I have an answer. So why do you hang around with the UCOC?

"By the way, if you are trusting your sprinkling as a baby to save your soul, you need to look again at the aging Nicodemus of John chapter three and see that even you must be 'born again' of the Spirit of God. Believest thou this?"

We don't sprinkle first of all. And yes I believe we must be born of WATER and SPIRIT, the way that every single Church father taught it with regard to the verse you quote. My baptism as a child when when the grace of Jesus Christ, won for us on the cross was first infused in to my soul, giving me a new start. A fighting chance against this world of sin and evil. I take up the cross and follow him and persevering in the crossess of life I will enter in to eternal glory. You say baptism isn't even neccessary so your arguement is nonsense. Especially in the Catholic context. I believe that I was saved at baptism and continue to be saved today and will be saved if I persevere. I trust in the Lord. Your arguements put in the Catholic context are nonsense.

"Jesus said, 'Not every one who says Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith."

It never ceases to amaze me how we Catholics are said to think we have to earn our salvatoin after baptism on one thread. Then on another it is said that we trust in our baptism to get us there. Examine ourselves? What do you think the sacrement of confession is about. What about the pentential rite of the Mass. You are a 1st grade Math teacher trying to explain Calculus to a mathemetician. You make flailing arguements about Catholicism that only display your ignorance about it and give you ever decreasing credibility with anyone who knows their Catholic Christian faith. What do you think your arguements are doing to convince me of anything. gooseggs.

Blessings

Thess

 

[Lorelei]

Originally posted by MEE:
The UPCI is just another organization, not the Church, which I might add that I'm not a member.

The NT Church was born on the Day of Pentecost!

The NT Church was formed on the day of Pentecost, but Pentecostalism and the belief that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was received with the evidence of speaking in tongues was not believed until around 1901. The organizations that teach this admit this fact because historically they know they can't prove their belief was taught before that time.

most researchers agree it was here that recipients of the experience, through study of the Scriptures, came to believe speaking in tongues is the biblical evidence for the baptism in the Holy Spirit

Until then, no one believed the speaking in tongues was the evidence for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Plain and Simple as admitted here by an organization who, if they could, would surely prove otherwise. After all, to do so would support their claims! But they can't prove otherwise because the pentecostal beliefs started at this time.

We have discussed the scriptures enough for you to know that Acts 2 is nothing like what you teach today. When you all speak in tongues, everyone does not understand you in your own language. We could go on and on.

This is off topic though, so we can start another thread if you would like to discuss this further.

most researchers agree it was here that recipients of the experience, through study of the Scriptures, came to believe speaking in tongues is the biblical evidence for the baptism in the Holy Spirit

So not only did the orginization start at this time, the beliefs that they held were new as well. They admit this here in this statement.


~Lorelei