right religion

"ive always learned that we were created in the mirror image of God, why the heck dont people act like it?"

Maybe we are actin like it. Ever think that if there is a God, it's as multifaceted as the rest of life?

 

Except, we do what they did... We follow their teachings, we pray as they did, we worship as they did, and we see the same miracles. We are obviously doing something right.

And yet you continue to forget that baptism is for forgiveness of sin. You can't ask for forgiveness without believing, and you can't believe when your an infant. Again... no one else can save you. They can pray for you, but YOU are the only one who can ask for forgiveness. A baby isn't capable of that. Sorry. Everyone gets the holy ghost the same way the apostles recieved the holy ghost.... Infants cannot speak. Children can indeed get the holy ghost, in fact, many of the children in my church have it. Why? The promise. But their parents didn't baptize them as babies and, "poof", they received it. Don't forget, in Acts when the apostles first recevied the Holy Spirit, they were in prayer for three days. These children received it the same way the apostles did, just as their parents did as well.

That is why the Holy Spirit is needed, to read what the verses say. If the Catholic church had the Holy Spirit, they would stick to Apostolic tradition.

 

saying only one religion is right is like saying there is only one true color, only one true language, but all colors are true colors, if you speak truth it doesn;t matter what language you speak, it is still the truth you are speaking.

 

Muhammad was illiterate. He could neither read nor write. Qu'ran means "recitation." Muhammad allegedly was given a message from Allah, memorized it word for word and then recited it to the people. Eventually, it was written down.

Where in scripture does it state that there is a *succession* of apostolic authority? Peter was an apostle, but that doesn't mean that his students and disciples had the same authority he had. Where does scripture support this idea?

Roman Catholism is just a split from the true Catholic church (which doesn't really exist any more). During the great schism, the church was torn in two. The old ceased to exist, and two DIFFERENT churches developed. Remember that BOTH Bishops excommunicated each other. If they both had authority, then both were removed from the true church. Anything that either bishop did as a church after that was not a part of the Catholic (meaning universal) church.

Did you ever wonder WHY the Apostles did miracles? Could it be that the miracles were a way of proving their apostolic merit? The miracles were a sign from God saying "This is MY messenger. You better listen to (or read) what he has to say." If that was the case, and I think that it is, then we wouldn't see apostolic gifts like miraculous healing today. And, frankly, we don't. We see wonderful things happen, things that should be rightfully attributed to God's mercy and grace. But we don't see pastors walk by quadruplegics and then, after being touched by the pastor's shadow, the cripple is instantly, immediately, and miraculously healed. We don't see people that are born blind suddenly being able to see. We don't see that kind of healing any more.

On the baptism line of reasoning. If it is symbolic, then I see nothing wrong with baptisin infants. If you are saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, then 1) I disagree, and 2) if that's true, then infants and children should not be baptized.

Oh yeah, the greek word for baptism means "immersion" generally in such a way that the substance in which the object is submerged permeates the object. Kind of like putting a dry cloth under water and the water soaks into the cloth. Either way, the greek says complete immersion. So, how do you get sprinkle baptism out of that?

 

No you dont...for the hundredth time. Answere my questions Epiphany. If you answere no to any of these then you don't follow them, and it's not just your church, it's many other churches as well.

Do you take communion in the literal sense? No, you don't. Guess what, the early church fathers did and I have cited numerous passages that prove this, but if you want to see more I can certainly do that.

Do you believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary? No you don't. The early church fathers did.

Do you beleive in infant baptism? Obviously not, but I love how you totally ignored my citations of just a few early church fathers...for the audience I will post them again, and you can argue it all you want, but facts are facts.

"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]). -----Irenaeus


"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). -------------Hippolytus

"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]). -----Origen

How am i forgetting? As Origen states quite clearly, "In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants." [see above]

Epiphany, you really have no place telling me that our church does not have the, "Holy Spirit" when you totally disregard over 1000+ years of church tradition taught by the apostoles and early church fathers, in exchange for your unbiblical doctrine of, "Sola Scriptura". I listed 3 quick ones off of the top of my head in the begginning of this post, now please, address the points being made.

 

This can go into a great detail, but for now, simply this: Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession, this is the first time we hear of it, more or less—his own generation, Timothy’s, the generation Timothy will instruct, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The Church Fathers, regularly used apostolic succession sort of as a test so to speak for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on the bible. They used this to put to rest Gnostics and other heretical groups that were threatening the actual survival of the early church.

Your incorrect somewhat. I know about both Great Schisms, the one in 1054 between the East/West (or Orthodox and Roman Catholic) and the one in the 1400's, which we are talking about. The Roman Church has ALWAYS been the Roman Catholic church, it has always been stationed in Rome, since the time of Peter, or even if you don't want to beleive Peter the pope, it is a historical fact the Church of Rome exsisted LONG before the Great Schism. I mean when Rome was sacked the Pope, Churches, Christians, and Christianity were spared, and the glorious coversion of Clovis of the Franks in the 700's secured Christianity in Europe.

The great schism occured when there ended up being 2 Popes, one in Rome and one in Avingnon, France. Their was a compromise and the church was eventually re-united, there was no split off.

 

I believe I have spoken about communion being served at times in my church in a previous post. What I don't agree with, is a priest, not filled with the holy spirit, according to how one is filled in the Bible, blessing bread.

Mary, a virgin, looked upon with favor by God (hey, the Bible says that, take a gander at it), for her devotion to him. Holy? yes, without sin, nope. If you believe that, then you contradicted what you said about every man being born with sin. Did you forget that Christ was half human? God came down, in the flesh, to experience what we, as mankind, experience. He was born of a woman, who had sin. Why? so he could experience human temptation. Was he not tempted? Did satan not come to him and tempt him while he prayed? That alone explains how Mary was born with sin as every other human on the face of the earth, just as the Bible itself states.

Early church fathers being? The leaders of the first Catholic church? The leaders who did not follow the same teachings that Peter simply laid out?

For salvation to take place, one must first understand the concept. Again.... I would like you to show me some infants who understand this. "Repent and be baptized"..... repent, on YOUR own. Not mommy, daddy, brothers, sisters, grandmother, grandfather. YOU must repent of your own sin. The very first step of salvation is faith in Christ. The second step is repentance. Did you believe in Jesus Christ while your mother was holding you? Did you ask for forgiveness while some priest was sprinkling your head? No, of course you didn't, because you could not comprehend anything at that age. "You must change and become like the little children." Like little children in the sense that your faith in God the father is strong, not little children in the sense that you are a child. When one repents and is baptized (in the name of Jesus, as commanded by the apostle Peter), a whole new consciousness of the things of God takes place.

Also.....everyone in the Bible was baptized, being fully submerssed in water.
When Jesus was baptized he, "went down into the water." "There was much water". When did the church change these rules? Because that is the same way the apostles baptized.

You cannot submit an infant in water... because, an infant should not be baptized until they can understand the concept of God. I'm sorry, but one cannot, "turn from their wicked ways", while the only thing they are capable of doing is eating, sleeping, and pooping.

More Catholic interpretation of the Bible? But since you want to use Leviticus 8:3 let's look at anointing oil. Hmmm... I see oil, but i don't see holy water. Interesting.....

It's interesting to see that these writings clearly state that the author's do not understand forgiveness. "I am sorry". Do you know any babies in cradles who can say that? I sure don't. Everyone is required remission from sin. However, you have to understand what sin is for remission to take place. Remission takes place, at the moment of baptism, after repentance. God doesn't send little children to hell who have no concept of him.

And again.... the evidence of the holy ghost is the same today as it was when the apostles first recieved it during pentecost. "unbiblical doctrine of sola scripture".... contradiction? The word of God is his very heartbeat. If a faith doesn't line up with scripture, then it's wrong to begin with. Again, I am seeing my faith line up with the same teachings of the apostles. The teachings given to them by Christ himself. I am seeing the same miracles taking place now, that took place during Christ's walk on earth. I have the holy ghost. I received the holy ghost by the biblical way of praying, being prayed over, and then speaking with another tongue that I had absolutely no control over. The holy ghost guides me in truth, because it's the spirit of Christ. The holy ghost points out false doctrine from a mile away. Who commanded that one recieve it? Jesus Christ. I've listed several other apostolic teachings that the Catholic church does not follow... the laying of hands (gave the verses which they did), baptism in his name (always cite these), the holy spirit (always cite these as well)... all of these things that your faith does not teach, that the apostles instructed. You have yet to answer why your church has changed these concepts!

On a futher note about what you said in regards to those not having the same apostolic succession. "These signs shall follow those that believe... in my name they shall drive out demons, they shall speak with other tongues". That is the same power that the apostles had when they were filled.

 

Jozak, I wouldn't worry too much about what your religion looks like to a person that claims to have spoken in tounges.

Everyone is intitled to their interpretation of the Bible. And just because someone thinks that they are right doesn't mean that they are.

 

i dont knwo wot u ppl are talin about as im mega tired and cant read all that writtin coz its makin my eyes blurry,but i wud just like to clarrify that the holy spirit is here and livin in ppl today!
and yes speakin in otunges does exist as i myself have that gift also!

 

How do you know our priests don't have the holy spirit? Is your church the only one that gets it? I have it, I was confirmed, every Catholic who is confirmed recieves it and becomes an adult in the church. Our priests have the ultimate authority to do the Lord's supper, becasue Christ instructed them to do so after he left this world. You also don't agree that communion is literal, that it is the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol of his grace or some nonsense like that. Once again, the early church fathers like St. Augustine and Jerome knew this, your church disregards it.

Mary sinned in her life, she was not perfect, but we beleive she was born without original sin in order to carry Christ in her womb. We beleive she was a pure woman. She bore no pain when delievering Christ, that was a punishment of original sin by Adam and Eve. We believe Mary was the, "New Eve"--as eve was born immaculate, so was Mary. The differnece is Eve disobeyed God, Mary did not.

Well, the Catholic Church WAS the first Church, even before it was called Roman Catholic. It was headed IN Rome. Are you honestly saying you have not seen writings and documents from the First, Second, and Third Centuries that use the term "CATHOLIC"??? THE NICENE CREED WAS WRITTEN IN 325, it says, "We beleive in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"--even most Prtoestants acknowledge this prayer, I guess you don't, more heretical than I thought. I am studying this even further in my college course, Vision of Christianty.

I can look at some of the first few pages in my book, "Documents of The Christian Church" (compiled by Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder) and pull out refrences: Here is one I'll type up on page 10! This speaks of the Martyrdom of the Bisoph Polycarp in 152 AD:
"When he had brought to an end his prayer, in which he made mention of all, small and great, high and low, with whom he had had dealings, and of the whole Catholic Church....."

Okay, that does not mean you shouldn't baptize them! I JUST SHOWED IN MY LAST post how the early church fathers SUPPORTED it. They were the closest to the teachings of Christ. You are not even addressing it.

"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]). -------------Hippolytus

EVEN THE BIBLE MENTIONS INFANT BAPTISM: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

I AM not trying to be redundant, but for pete's sake, anyone who can read can clearly see you and your church don't follow the Apostolic Teachings/Traditions, or even Christ on this one.

Are you serioulsy bitching about Catholics and just about everyone else who does Baptism for doing it in a fountain in a church? Water is water. You're out of your mind. At least our water is Holy Water which has been blessed, more than I can say for yours.


More Catholic interpretation of the Bible? But since you want to use Leviticus 8:3 let's look at anointing oil. Hmmm... I see oil, but i don't see holy water. Interesting.....[/quote]
How uninformed are you? We use Holy Oil in confirmation, when we recieve the holy spirit, not Baptism. I am really starting to doubt you were ever Catholic.

Do you even know what Sola Scriptura is? It means you only use the bible, you take every part literally, not taking into account the culture of the days, using a editied cropped bible, and disgregarding everything else taught by the early church and the fathers. Pretty dangerous if you ask me.

I beleive I have addressed everything you have said. You have not, including why you don't follow the Apostolic tradtion and teaching of literal communion. Even Martin Luther beleived in it, and you have countered the early church fathers and us belivers with nothing or any sort.

Can you drive out demons Epiphany? I believe the only record of people ever being able to do that are Catholic Priests. When your pastor can do that or starts having Stigmata, come talk to me, otherwise your speaking in tounges is a joke. Speaking in Tounges just means the people who were doing it most likely were speaking in languages that people could understand. I suppose it's possible that what you are describing could happen, but I would be pretty skeptical about that, considering the moronic 'church of Toronto" phenomenon, which included people laughing hysterically, barking, growling, and howling.

 

You have it according to? According to Catholic tradition. That is not how the apostles received it, how they received it is laid out clearly in Acts. How they received it is how they taught it. The Catholic church does not teach it the same way the apostles did. Don't see the apostolic tradition there. Acts 11:15, Paul says.... "The Holy Spirit came upon them as it had come upon us in the beginning." The Holy spirit has come upon the Pentecostal church (as well as others) just as it had in the beginning. It has not come upon the Catholic church that way. Meaning... the Catholic church does not posses it.

It's really not hard to see. Apostles spoke in tongues when filled, we speak in tongues when filled. The Catholic church doesn't speak in tongues. The Catholic church is not filled the way the apostles said to be.

 

If you all love the same God...whats the arguement guys?



roly.xxx

 

i dnt think the intention shud b to argue but to encourage and share wot u both learn from christ in ure experiences

 

Just remember the rule guys. In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.

To be frank, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean take all things literally. Christ uses hyperbole, allegory, and even apocolyptic vision when he speaks. To interpret these literally is an excercise in stupidity. Sola Scriptura doesn't even mean that we should abandon the traditions of the early church. What it means is that if there is ever a conflict between Tradition and Scripture, Scripture is the sole authority and ALWAYS trumps any Tradition. No Traditions have any sway over whether or not someone recieves salvation. Why? Because Scripture lays out pretty plainly what it takes to be saved.

Anyway, this is not an issue to divide over.

Oh yeah, I did hear something interesting. Scripturally, there are two types of baptism: by water and by the Holy Spirit. Re-read the passages in scripture regarding being baptized and instead of assuming that the author means water baptism, see if, by inserting the idea of being baptized (meaning immersed) in the Holy Spirit, the passage makes more sense. See if it fits more within the whole of scripture.

For example, if you say that water baptism is essential for salvation, you raise all sorts of questions and you begin to cause division. However, if you say that someone must be immersed in the Holy Spirit in order to be saved, well, I don't know any Christian who would disagree with that statement. I think that perhaps we may have been assuming too much that by "baptism" Christ and the Apostles meant "water baptism."

 

yeah there are two types of baptism,but as a christian there is a time wen u MUSt b baptised but it doesnt mean that if u r not baptised u are not saved....coz the bible says 'be saved and then be baptised'...not baptised and u are saved......water baptism is for wen sum1 sescides to follow christ with everythin they hav nad wants to commit to it,and leave theyre old life behind them,its a proclamation of faith and it symolises a new begining and a commitment to god.

 

ok jozak...
you roman catholics, and the eastern orthodox, and we lutherans, and the anglicans & presbyterians & methodists &c are all not REAL christians because we do not publicly manifest "all" the gifts of the holy spirit (including, obviously, glossolalia)...

(hey, didn't st paul say something about the GREATEST gift being love, & if we had not love, the other gifts of the holy spirit are as nothing?)

~

(& there are "charismatic groups" within the roman catholic (& anglican & lutheran & other) churches...)

 

wats glossolalia?

 

I personally am not a christian, but I think that it is terrible that someone who claims to be a christian would try to tell other christians that they are going to hell. Or that they are not true christians. Especially over things like speaking in tounges (which can be faked by anobody, including an infant).

It is important for christians (and anyone else who follows a religion) to konw and be familiar with all aspects of their religion. It is never smart to just regurgitate something you are told. Just because chance had it that you happened to go to one chuch with a paticular belief doesn't mean that everyone else's is wrong. That basically means had you went to a catholic church you would be more inclined to agree with Jozak. It is silly and nieve to base your beliefs off of what you have been told from one point of view...

BTW glossolalia just means speaking in tounges.

Below is a christian resource explaining, and a section I found interesting.
http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/

"Speaking with tongues in the early Church had limited practical value. Therefore, the Apostle Paul saw the need of laying down certain rules governing the use of this gift of the Spirit in the Church. These rules are found in 1 Corinthians 14. If contemporary glossolalia is a blessing of the Lord, we would naturally expect it to function in accordance with these rules.

First Corinthians 14:5, 27, 28. Tongues-speaking is only edifying in the Church if it is interpreted. "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church." Note from the context that Paul includes both speaking and praying in tongues in this rule.
Most tongues-speaking today is not interpreted as enjoined by Paul.
First Corinthians 14:22. "Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not."
The tendency of glossolalia Christians today is to impress fellow Christian believers with the need to being "Spirit-filled." Yet the Apostle said this gift was to be used primarily as a sign to unbelievers. The fact that the current usage of tongues largely ignores these two basic New Testament rules tends to cause this version of glossolalia to be suspect in the minds of many sincere Christians."



You guys are all christians. If you guys can't even treat eachother positively and with respect, do you expect the rest of the world to? Since christians are an example of their religion and faith, wouldnt you rather be a good example?

 

That's not my point at all. I don't care who thinks who speaks in tounges, because christianity is not a religion that I practice. I am not going to believe that anyone is really speaking in tounges (although I definitely believe that they think they are). But that is beside the point.

We got christians dooming other christians to hell here, becuase their interpretation of the Bible happens to be different.

I'm sorry guys, that the Bible isn't any clearer for you, but the fact is that it is an old book translated a kajillion times, leving things out here, there, whatever...There is no way anyone will ever have an absolute interpretation. We didn't live when these people lived, we don't know what exactly they ment by everything. But ripping people of the same faith down because they aren't speking in tounges or baptising their babies is rediculous. And shameful. And definitely a poor example to everyone else...Which I believe the bible is pretty clear on what it thinks of being an example...