Zone1 Catholics (real ones) do NOT go against Scripture or add to it. It's a lie.

[The Irish Ram]

Let the little children come to me.

so I can baptize them?

 

[Meriweather]

Do infants "bring forth fruit fitting of repentance"?

The more you talk the more I see the great gulf between Catholicism and Christianity.

On your side, I'm not seeing anything that is close to approaching Christianity; nothing that dates back to Adam and Eve and the lessons we learned there, that apparently some feel are not important enough to pass on. From the beginning, it is Kingdom living, in the Body of Christ. Catholics are the ones that enter the vineyard at the beginning of the day, while others choose to enter later. The end result is the same, so please stop carping on Catholicism. We know what we are doing and we are fine with whatever others choose.

 

[Meriweather]

so I can baptize them?

Did Jesus baptize anyone?

 

[Meriweather]

Here's the thing.

Catholics are fine with what other denominations choose to do because we are so comfortable in our own beliefs. I often wonder if the arguments against Catholicism is not so much an effort to convince Catholics they are wrong, but to convince themselves they are right. As I've said so many times before: God meets us where we are and takes us from there. The best thing that happened to me were my parents choosing to baptize me as an infant. Amazing things happened. So...peace...

 

[buttercup]

Catholics are fine with what other denominations choose to do because we are so comfortable in our own beliefs. I often wonder if the arguments against Catholicism is not so much an effort to convince Catholics they are wrong, but to convince themselves they are right. As I've said so many times before: God meets us where we are and takes us from there. The best thing that happened to me were my parents choosing to baptize me as an infant. Amazing things happened. So...peace...

We don't "choose" what to do....we care about what the bible says, and what God's will is Again, truth matters. I'm starting to think that truth is not paramount to you. What you seem to put first is Catholicism. And if that's the case, then ok! No one's stopping you. But if you truly have this "you can believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe" mindset, then why are you in the Religion section everyday, always debating people and defending Catholicism? That seems a bit contradictory to me.

If you don't want to discuss or debate biblical teachings, then no problem. But there's no need for the subtle swipes. And btw, when we debate these things, it isn't strictly for the person we are posting to. A lot of people read this site, and I can't speak for others but I for one don't like to see people misled. THAT is why I sometimes chime in to these discussions, because if someone is stating something that is blatantly unbiblical, I feel obligated to chime in and show from the bible that it's incorrect, so that others out there are not misled. Again, the truth matters.

 

[The Irish Ram]

when we debate these things, it isn't strictly for the person we are posting to. A lot of people read this site, and I can't speak for others but I for one don't like to see people misled. THAT is why I sometimes chime in to these discussions, because if someone is stating something that is blatantly unbiblical, I feel obligated to chime in and show from the bible that it's incorrect, so that others out there are not misled. Again, the truth matters.

Precisely. When dogma is promoted as being Biblical and it is not, then what IS Biblical should be presented, so readers here can be edified by the truth and not swayed by contrary religious doctrine.

 

[Meriweather]

We don't "choose" what to do....we care about what the bible says, and what God's will is Again, truth matters. I'm starting to think that truth is not paramount to you. What you seem to put first is Catholicism. And if that's the case, then ok! No one's stopping you. But if you truly have this "you can believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe" mindset, then why are you in the Religion section everyday, always debating people and defending Catholicism? That seems a bit contradictory to me.

Yes, you "choose". There are entire parts of the Bible left out and the proof-texting of certain verses. The whole truth is paramount to me, where a bit here and a bit there seems to be all some need.

If you don't want to discuss or debate biblical teachings, then no problem. But there's no need for the subtle swipes. And btw, when we debate these things, it isn't strictly for the person we are posting to. A lot of people read this site, and I can't speak for others but I for one don't like to see people misled. THAT is why I sometimes chime in to these discussions, because if someone is stating something that is blatantly unbiblical, I feel obligated to chime in and show from the bible that it's incorrect, so that others out there are not misled. Again, the truth matters.

There is no wish to discuss the entire Bible and Apostolic tradition. The wish is to convince yourself you are right and the Apostolic Catholic faith, including early Christian traditions is wrong. Your traditions began fifteen hundred years later. The fact that you think something is "unbiblical" tells me two things: Unfamiliarity of the entire Bible, and the refusal to acknowledge tradition came prior to the Bible. And that's like saying because a science book doesn't include an old family recipe, science is wrong.

Once again, I would no more tell your faith how and when to go about Baptism than I would tell Jews when and how to circumcise their children. I present why Catholics baptize babies, pouring living water over them (not your ridiculous "sprinkling".) You were not listening each time I explained the scriptures and traditions of baptizing (never sprinkling). And you are not listening still. I wonder how many more times and how little time will pass before I see "sprinkling" again.

 

[Meriweather]

Precisely. When dogma is promoted as being Biblical and it is not, then what IS Biblical should be presented, so readers here can be edified by the truth and not swayed by contrary religious doctrine.

Another who has no familiarity of the entire Bible. Another who dismisses Apostolic traditions that came before the Bible. Another who was not listening and is not listening still and who prefers to follow traditions that began fifteen hundred years after the Apostles, not the traditions in practice during the early church.

You and buttercup are not "correcting" Catholic dogma in place fifteen hundred years before your denomination(s) came into being, you are on a quest to correct the Apostles and early Christians. Again, if you don't wish to do things their way, fine. God meets us where we are. Some of us (right or wrong) are sticking with the traditions of the Apostles and early church. If you believe your church had a better revelation centuries years later, then hold to that belief and do it that way.

 

[buttercup]

Yes, you "choose". There are entire parts of the Bible left out and the proof-texting of certain verses. The whole truth is paramount to me, where a bit here and a bit there seems to be all some need.

There is no wish to discuss the entire Bible and Apostolic tradition. The wish is to convince yourself you are right and the Apostolic Catholic faith, including early Christian traditions is wrong. Your traditions began fifteen hundred years later. The fact that you think something is "unbiblical" tells me two things: Unfamiliarity of the entire Bible, and the refusal to acknowledge tradition came prior to the Bible. And that's like saying because a science book doesn't include an old family recipe, science is wrong.

Once again, I would no more tell your faith how and when to go about Baptism than I would tell Jews when and how to circumcise their children. I present why Catholics baptize babies, pouring living water over them (not your ridiculous "sprinkling".) You were not listening each time I explained the scriptures and traditions of baptizing (never sprinkling). And you are not listening still. I wonder how many more times and how little time will pass before I see "sprinkling" again.

That's one of the most arrogant posts I've read in a while. You're telling others what they think, how much they have studied, and what their motives are... as if you are God who knows all. Wrong on all counts, but your attitude makes me not even want to bother refuting those arrogant assumptions.

As for "tradition".... I'm glad you brought that up, because this shows yet another huge difference between Catholics and non-Catholics. Do I care about tradition? When it harmonizes with the bible, yes. If it goes against the bible? Then no, I have no use for it, and in fact Jesus specifically condemned putting tradition first. Numerous times! And elevating tradition sometimes even above God's word is what I've seen from the Catholic church, on a number of doctrines. That is just one of the reasons why I never went back to the Catholic Church which I went to as a child, once I became a believer many years later.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Catholic faith, including early Christian traditions is wrong. Your traditions began fifteen hundred years later

You again erroneously assume there are only two groups in this struggle -- Catholics and her daughter churches.

The Catholic Church rose up alongside the Church of God.

Both were Sabbath keeping churches until 325 AD.

Both kept the Passover until what became the Catholic Church instituted Easter

You also gave the world Christmas which The Church of God never observed. You borrowed it from Saturnalia.

No, you are not the original Church, but the counterfeit founded by the other "Peter" Simon Magus

 

[hadit]

Can you ask your loved ones to pray for you?

Holy Mary, Mother of God, PRAY FOR US.........

It's not that complicated. Jesus was a good Jewish boy and listened to his mother!!!

Greg

And therein lies the problem.
1. What makes you think that Mary is equipped and set up to handle millions of prayers coming at her simultaneously?
2. Why do you think Jesus is going to tolerate people using His mother so cynically, making her deal with their faults and frailties?

 

[hadit]

unfortunately, some are. I've had some bad experiences with priests who are rude, agitated... uncaring, not exactly what Jesus wants, I'd guess.

Also, there is a lot of heresy in the new church, meaning the church after Vatican II. The worst heresy of all IMO is that all religions lead you to God and Heaven. Did Jesus say that? No, he said that HE is the way, the truth and the life. . that no one goes to the Father except through Him. And I say no one goes to Jesus except through HIS Church, @ least not in a perfect way that is pleasing to God. The original is the Catholic Church, the only one that goes back to the Beginning, to the first century.

Do you realize that you just took what Jesus said and ADDED your own on top of it? Down that road lies destruction.

 

[buttercup]

No, you are not the original Church, but the counterfeit

I couldn't agree more.

That's why I think it's better to think of it as two different religions. And this is coming from someone who went through all the Catholic stuff. I've said this before but I'll say it again...even as a child, I was somehow able to know intuitively that something was not right. Unfortunately I threw out the baby with the bathwater for many years, but thankfully God didn't give up on me.

 

[The Irish Ram]

And elevating tradition sometimes even above God's word is what I've seen from the Catholic church, on a number of doctrines.

^Exactly.

Meri, instead of going after the messenger, listen to the message. Leave personalities out of it. No one here has gone after you. What you post here is open to examination, as is what others post.
When one tells us the Peter was the first Pope and we know that Peter was dead for 300 years before the Catholic church was formed, it is alright that we make that point known. When one makes the claim that the Catholic church was the first church, and we can provide the names of the churches that actually were the first, according to scripture, that isn't a personal attack, it is presenting facts that dispute what the Catholic church professes, and is done without personal animus.

 

[surada]

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.” — 1 John 2:18-19

 

[surada]

That's one of the most arrogant posts I've read in a while. You're telling others what they think, how much they have studied, and what their motives are... as if you are God who knows all. Wrong on all counts, but your attitude makes me not even want to bother refuting those arrogant assumptions.

As for "tradition".... I'm glad you brought that up, because this shows yet another huge difference between Catholics and non-Catholics. Do I care about tradition? When it harmonizes with the bible, yes. If it goes against the bible? Then no, I have no use for it, and in fact Jesus specifically condemned putting tradition first. Numerous times! And elevating tradition sometimes even above God's word is what I've seen from the Catholic church, on a number of doctrines. That is just one of the reasons why I never went back to the Catholic Church which I went to as a child, once I became a believer many years later.

The first church was the Coptic church in Egypt... Founded by Mark I think..in 42 AD.

 

[The Irish Ram]

And elevating tradition sometimes even above God's word is what I've seen from the Catholic church, on a number of doctrines.

Exactly.
Meri, instead of going after the messenger, listen to the message. Leave personalities out of it. No one here has gone after you. What you post here is open to examination, as is what others post.
When one tells us the Peter was the first Pope and we know that Peter was dead for 300 years before the Catholic church was formed, it is alright that we make that point known. When one makes the claim that the Catholic church was the first church, and we can provide the names of the churches that actually were the first, that isn't a personal attack, it is presenting facts that dispute what the Catholic church professes.

 

[surada]

Exactly.
Meri, instead of going after the messenger, listen to the message. Leave personalities out of it. No one here has gone after you. What you post here is open to examination, as is what others post.
When one tells us the Peter was the first Pope and we know that Peter was dead for 300 years before the Catholic church was formed, it is alright that we make that point known. When one makes the claim that the Catholic church was the first church, and we can provide the names of the churches that actually were the first, that isn't a personal attack, it is presenting facts that dispute what the Catholic church professes.

Most people were illiterate and there were no books. Why wouldn't they have tradition?

The Coptic church is older... 42 AD.. and they had no books either.

The Reformation was political. Martin Luther was ambitious and fell out with Rome.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The first church was the Coptic church in Egypt... Founded by Mark I think..in 42 AD.

The first Christian church was started in Jerusalem, by Peter, as soon as Christ ascended, and the disciples received the Holy Spirit.
Mark was one of Christ's 70 disciples and the four evangelists, He traveled with Saint Barnabas and Saint Paul on many religious missions, during which he founded the Church of Alexandria. He died circa April 25, 68 A.D. in Alexandria, Egypt

 

[surada]

The first Christian church was started in Jerusalem, by Peter, as soon as Christ ascended, and the disciples received the Holy Spirit.
One of Christ's 70 disciples and the four evangelists, He traveled with Saint Barnabas and Saint Paul on many religious missions, during which he founded the Church of Alexandria. He died circa April 25, 68 A.D. in Alexandria, Egypt

Did they have books or traditions?