What about the Roman Catholic religion and her daughters?

[SantoSubito]

Yet the very what you call protestant revolution occurred because the first time in the history of the roman church people were free to study scripture on their own. Just because some study and see catholicism does not mean all will. many do not.

Enough do. I also suggest that you look into the history behind the spread of Protestantism in Europe. Protestantism only really took of when some monarchs decided to make it the state religion. They did this for two reasons; first it allowed them to confiscate Church property for their own coffers, and second it allowed them to control who was appointed where in the Church instead of them being appointed by the Pope.

This can be easily seen by looking at the religious makeup of Europe. Protestantism is only the vast majority in countries where it was made the state religion. While Catholicism maintains sizable minorities (30 or more percent) in many Protestant majority countries. Not only that but in many areas where the established Protestant church is declining Catholicism is growing (England and the CoE for example).

Thats funny. I do not hate anyone, nor do I protest any church, yet you still call me a protestant. So who is still doing the hating?

It was a catch all term. It's not uncommon to find Protestants accuse Catholics of being "not Christian", while Catholics do none of the sort. More precisely you could say some forms of American Protestantism still carry hate from the Reformation period.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'll concede that we're not judged under that law, but that doesn't equate to Him getting rid of religion.

I never said it did. We are still commanded to obey the laws of Christ. and all the things of the law can be found under just two. Love the lord your god, and love your neighbor and in doing so you will not break the law. The problem is we can't do this 100 % of the time, because God did not remove our flesh.

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

You assume water means baptism. Baptism had not even been instituted yet, and it is a stretch to say Nicodemous would have thought baptism when jesus said this. Jesus responded by saying whoever "believes" will have eternal life. He did not say whoever believes and is baptized. so why would we insert the word baptism in what jesus said to nicodemous?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).

He also told them do not look for food which died, but which endures forever. Whoever eats this food will never hunger or thirst, will live forever. never die. Why continue to eat something which Jesus said we could eat and never hunger again.

As you read what you posted, you miss out on what Jesus said.

he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"

According to the eucharist doctrine. It does not give you eternal life. You have to ocntinue to eat it. and are not even assured of living forever. Thus it condradicts what jesus said.

You also skipped the words Jesus said, which prove what it is that really gives life:

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

His flesh, which gives life, are the words Jesus spoke. The words of eternal life. As peter said, you have the words of eternal life. He understood. Why does a church which claims to be Christ's bride not understand this for over 1000 years?

Sounds to me that Our Lord is telling us that we need to partake of baptism and communion to find salvation.

Only if we twist the words of God, Like the pharisees did with the OT, and why they crucified Christ.

"He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16)
"Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).
"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come." (John 16:13)

Hrmm, so we have Our Lord telling these men He appointed to lead His Church that they have authority to speak in His name, and to bind and loose. And He promises that the Holy Spirit will guide them into all the truth. Sure seems to me that He's promising that His Church will be protected and guided to all truth... Which is of course the definition of infallibility.

God never promised that the men who you claim to be apostolic succession would do what this says. he claimed his word would never fail. It is your assumption that all these men took Gods word and got it right. A mighty dangerous assumption I might add. Especially since Paul spent how many letters condemming people in the churches who were doing the very thing you claim would not happen?

One cannot find salvation through works alone. But the Apostle James tells us that we are not saved by faith alone either.

Can you show me how many works the apostle james said would save us? Can you show me where the apostle james said that these people who do these works might be saved, and people who do works might be lost?

James said this.

What does it prophet a man if he says he has faith (makes the claim) yet has no works. Can his faith save him. This is the context of the very passage you are using. James is not talking to people who are working, he is talking to people who have no works, yet claim to be saved. Yet again. like in john 6, you destroy and completely ignore context. yet tell us if we read it we would come to your belief

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Enough do. I also suggest that you look into the history behind the spread of Protestantism in Europe. Protestantism only really took of when some monarchs decided to make it the state religion. They did this for two reasons; first it allowed them to confiscate Church property for their own coffers, and second it allowed them to control who was appointed where in the Church instead of them being appointed by the Pope.


his can be easily seen by looking at the religious makeup of Europe. Protestantism is only the vast majority in countries where it was made the state religion. While Catholicism maintains sizable minorities (30 or more percent) in many Protestant majority countries. Not only that but in many areas where the established Protestant church is declining Catholicism is growing (England and the CoE for example).

Oh you mean like when the romans decided to make the church they claimed to be the true church a state religion? How many times do we have to go over the fact the very excuses you use can be used, or have been used by your very church. making your arguments invalid??

It was a catch all term. It's not uncommon to find Protestants accuse Catholics of being "not Christian", while Catholics do none of the sort. More precisely you could say some forms of American Protestantism still carry hate from the Reformation period.

The term is a hateful term. a person who protests something does it because they are against or hate it. So when you use it. you claim I am a hateful person, and am apposed to you, yet I am not.

My belief goes against many so called protestant beliefs, do i protest them also. why do they not call me a protestant as I protest them.

when you call someone a protestant, you show your arrogance and pride saying we reject and protest you.

instead of that. why don't you just call us Lutheran, or baptist, or whatever church we are affiliated with. this would be less objectionable, and less prideful. and less hateful!

 

[truthfull]

Right... Because nowhere in Scripture did Our Lord say that He wasn't going to do away with the Law (ie religion), but rather fulfill it. Nowhere did He command us to perform certain religious rituals like baptism, or celebrating communion. And He most certainly didn't appoint men to be leaders of His Church and give them authority to forgive sins in His name.... Oh wait!

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

did Jesus commanded communion??

to forgive others is no ritual, why do you see this as authority?

baptism is a ritual for men who are tired of their sins

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

did Jesus commanded communion??

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

to forgive others is no ritual, why do you see this as authority?

Joh 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

baptism is a ritual for men who are tired of their sins

Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

[SantoSubito]

Oh you mean like when the romans decided to make the church they claimed to be the true church a state religion? How many times do we have to go over the fact the very excuses you use can be used, or have been used by your very church. making your arguments invalid??

My point was that was how the Reformation spread the most. Christianity was already a geographically spread out and large religion when when Emperor Theodosius I made it the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD. Therefore Catholicism did not spread primarily by state enforcement as it was already the dominant religion of many regions of the Empire when it became the state religion.

It didn't go that way for Protestant countries like England and the Scandinavian countries. They made a form of Protestantism the state religion and then forced it on the staunchly Catholic populace. There were rebellions in England over this very issue.

In the Holy Roman Empire Lutherans had more rights than Catholics under the peace agreements. Lutherans living in a Catholic state of the Empire could remain Lutheran while Catholics living in a Lutheran state of the Empire could not remain Catholic.

The term is a hateful term. a person who protests something does it because they are against or hate it. So when you use it. you claim I am a hateful person, and am apposed to you, yet I am not.

My belief goes against many so called protestant beliefs, do i protest them also. why do they not call me a protestant as I protest them.

when you call someone a protestant, you show your arrogance and pride saying we reject and protest you.

instead of that. why don't you just call us Lutheran, or baptist, or whatever church we are affiliated with. this would be less objectionable, and less prideful. and less hateful!

I don't know the denominational affiliation of every poster, but I can generally know that they are Protestant (whether they identify as such or not), so I use the broadest form of categorization. If this site allowed us to identify our church affiliation then I would not have this problem, but as it stands I do.

 

[StephenDC]

It didn't go that way for Protestant countries like England and the Scandinavian countries. They made a form of Protestantism the state religion and then forced it on the staunchly Catholic populace.

To be fair, this happened in both directions (in the German states in particular, if I recall correctly) -- the local leader, who was either Protestant or Catholic, imposed his will on his subjects, forcing them toward his religion. Very ugly time in European history...

 

[SantoSubito]

To be fair, this happened in both directions (in the German states in particular, if I recall correctly) -- the local leader, who was either Protestant or Catholic, imposed his will on his subjects, forcing them toward his religion. Very ugly time in European history...

The main problem was that Protestantism had caught on with some of the aristocracy. The majority of the states were still predominantly Catholic, and there were no Lutheran majority states that were forced into Catholicism, but there were plenty of Catholic majority states forced into Lutheranism.

Really since quite a few of the nobles were not particularly religious Lutheranism provided them with a chance to profit heavily off the seizing of the goods stored in monasteries (that acted somewhat like banks back then). That and the ability to seize Church property was the main draw of Lutheranism for many nobles. But I will say that this was somewhat resolved at the end of the 30 Years War with the Peace of Westphalia since Lutheran nobles had to return all property that had been seized from the Catholic Church.

 

[truthfull]

Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.

I believe this is symbolical to be one with Jesus, like Adam said :this is now Flesh off my flesh and Blood of my blood, we have to accept Jesus as our Flesh and Blood, unless you believe that they litterly ate his body



Joh 20:23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."



Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

agreed.

but these are no arguments for following the RCC

 

[A-Omega]

Roman Catholocism has very little to do with Biblical Christianity.

Here is the Pope at an "adoration" of former Pope Calestio. There is nothing in the Bible that supports revering the dead.

Here is another "adoration" of the skull of a dead person by a Bishop during a church service.

If someone can show me the Biblical support for this, I'm all ears.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

Roman Catholocism has very little to do with Biblical Christianity.

Here is the Pope at an "adoration" of former Pope Calestio. There is nothing in the Bible that supports revering the dead.

Here is another "adoration" of the skull of a dead person by a Bishop during a church service.

If someone can show me the Biblical support for this, I'm all ears.

There is no such thing as strictly Biblical (Bible alone) Christianity. The Bible minus the Church equals error. Only in the hands of the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, the Church (1 Tim. 3:15), does the Bible make any sense. Outside of the Church Christ founded is mere human opinion(s).
If someone can show me the Biblical support for Sola Scriptura, I'm waiting, still waiting.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

My point was that was how the Reformation spread the most. Christianity was already a geographically spread out and large religion when when Emperor Theodosius I made it the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 AD. Therefore Catholicism did not spread primarily by state enforcement as it was already the dominant religion of many regions of the Empire when it became the state religion.

A state religion where if you did not believe what the state imposed religion was, you were jailed. mocked, banned from society, and eventually killed (put to death) by the state for your belief.

Keep trying my friend. You can't prove that all people followed this roman inspired form of christianity in 300 BC. Again, even if it was the majority, it does not prove anything. History shows that the majority of people followed a perverted gospel. not the true gospel.

I

t didn't go that way for Protestant countries like England and the Scandinavian countries. They made a form of Protestantism the state religion and then forced it on the staunchly Catholic populace. There were rebellions in England over this very issue.

two wrongs do not make a right. they were in error. God never told anyone to force Christianity on anyone, He wants us to come in peace. Not by the rule of law. like roman catholicisim and protestantism did for many many years.

In the Holy Roman Empire Lutherans had more rights than Catholics under the peace agreements. Lutherans living in a Catholic state of the Empire could remain Lutheran while Catholics living in a Lutheran state of the Empire could not remain Catholic.

again read my last comment.

Sadly enough, the catholic empire still remains. although she has lost most of her power. When Rome returns to power, she will get most of her power back, but then she will be destroyed on day by the very beast she rides on (Rome) though.

I don't know the denominational affiliation of every poster, but I can generally know that they are Protestant (whether they identify as such or not), so I use the broadest form of categorization. If this site allowed us to identify our church affiliation then I would not have this problem, but as it stands I do.

why not use the term Christian? Oh wait!!

 

[A-Omega]

There is no such thing as strictly Biblical (Bible alone) Christianity. The Bible minus the Church equals error. Only in the hands of the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, the Church (1 Tim. 3:15), does the Bible make any sense. Outside of the Church Christ founded is mere human opinion(s).
If someone can show me the Biblical support for Sola Scriptura, I'm waiting, still waiting.

2 Timothy 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Not only is the Bible all that is needed for doctrine and belief and completeness in Jesus Christ, it is the only way ANY good thing can be done by a Christian.

So I will again, ask my question, if you can show me the support for the doctrine of worshiping skulls and corpses, please let me know.

 

[OldOrthodoxChristian]

2 Timothy 3: 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Not only is the Bible all that is needed for doctrine and belief and completeness in Jesus Christ, it is the only way ANY good thing can be done by a Christian.

So I will again, ask my question, if you can show me the support for the doctrine of worshiping skulls and corpses, please let me know.

Dear AOmega, There is no Bible support for worshipping anyone/anything other than God Alone.
No support for worshipping the bodies of dead people. 2 Tim. 3:16 does not say "Scripture alone is given by inspiration of God"; so you have failed by citing that Scripture to prove "Scripture alone". Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[Consumed]

2 Timothy 3: 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

hmm only can find it in a bible, scripture that is

 

[eternally-gratefull]

2 Timothy 3: 16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,

hmm only can find it in a bible, scripture that is

lol according to Scott, ALL scripture is not scripture alone..I can't think of what else could be added to "ALL Scripture" to make it mean anything else but scripture. can you?

 

[Consumed]

lol according to Scott, ALL scripture is not scripture alone..I can't think of what else could be added to "ALL Scripture" to make it mean anything else but scripture. can you?

hmmmm we could have a "council" and add a few things then in a couple years have another one to correct ourselves and another again to correct our corrections maybe, its been done before

 

[eternally-gratefull]

hmmmm we could have a "council" and add a few things then in a couple years have another one to correct ourselves and another again to correct our corrections maybe, its been done before

lol. It was done by the Jews many many times, and done by those who call themselves Christ's church many many times. It seems to be a habit of mankind to add to Gods word, and call it from God.

Jesus purposely broke Jewish law through their counsels for a reason. And he purposely used scripture alone to prove who he was, and what he came to do. To show those of us who want to follow him. our true Guide. and warn us about mans feeble attempt to write our own laws and call them from God

 

[Consumed]

lol. It was done by the Jews many many times, and done by those who call themselves Christ's church many many times. It seems to be a habit of mankind to add to Gods word, and call it from God.

Jesus purposely broke Jewish law through their counsels for a reason. And he purposely used scripture alone to prove who he was, and what he came to do. To show those of us who want to follow him. our true Guide. and warn us about mans feeble attempt to write our own laws and call them from God

amen Eg, good point you have made for the Pharasies were following the "talmud" and not the written Word when Jesus came to point them into the right direction

since calvary, its been the same play book used to keep people away from the truth

 

[eternally-gratefull]

amen Eg, good point you have made for the Pharasies were following the "talmud" and not the written Word when Jesus came to point them into the right direction

since calvary, its been the same play book used to keep people away from the truth

Satan has had a few thousand years to figure us out. He knows us quite well. it is why his tricks work so well. History proves this. we keep making the same mistakes. yet each generation says it is from God. go figure.