Zone1 witnessing to a catholic

[Meriweather]

You're not Biblically literate, sorry to say.

Why? Because my studies/scholars don't agree with yours?

 

[Meriweather]

As for your "ahh" sacraments and Marian worship, we have this tidbit,

Study Jesus' life. Every single Sacrament is based on what he did or what he taught. All seven.

Baptism - What he did, what he commanded
Reconciliation/Repentance - What he did, what he taught, what he said
Holy Eucharist - What he did, what he commanded
Confirmation - What he instructed; who he sent
Matrimony - What he taught
Holy Orders - Who he appointed to a special priesthood
Sacrament of the Sick - What he did, what he instructed

Mary is honored and respected for the part she played in the life of Christ. That does not rise to worship and never has, never will--except in the imaginations of some non-Catholic Christians. Therefore, the accusation will continue. Shrug. We're used to it.

 

[Death-Ninja]

You're being an arrogant prick. Love ya anyway!!! lol

Greg

I have no idea what you are raging over, I merely feed you the book and its word, up above you apparently disagree that the Roman Catholic devotion to Mary as not being biblical, which you can easily back up with but a single statement by Jesus, just one, where he informs that his mother will be joining in with him as acting as your intercessor with God.

You could also enlighten all as to just where it is that Jesus ordains specific "sacraments" must be performed in perpetuity by all who would be saved, or that you can buy your way out of hell/purgatory with indulgences(often two for one at specific pagan holidays)???

Further, Peter, the claimed first pope of the Church of Rome, there is no historical evidence that he ever even traveled to Rome, nor was he the "rock" Jesus described his intention to build his church upon, that twisting of the words of Jesus are an outright fabrication, he was talking to Peter about building his church right on top of the rock/cave Jews of the age considered the gate to Tartarus!

One other thing, if you could travel back in time, say 500-600 years or so, and if you were able to read Latin, and the Church discovered you were in possession of a bible and reading it on your own, well they'd have burned your ass at the stake! Why might they feel such was necessary, might it be they did not want you knowing the real words of the book, and able to witness the actual context behind them???

Not a word I have spoken is false, you can easily substantiate every one of them with a bible and the time required to read it...

 

[gtopa1]

Study Jesus' life. Every single Sacrament is based on what he did or what he taught. All seven.

Baptism - What he did, what he commanded
Reconciliation/Repentance - What he did, what he taught, what he said
Holy Eucharist - What he did, what he commanded
Confirmation - What he instructed; who he sent
Matrimony - What he taught
Holy Orders - Who he appointed to a special priesthood
Sacrament of the Sick - What he did, what he instructed

Mary is honored and respected for the part she played in the life of Christ. That does not rise to worship and never has, never will--except in the imaginations of some non-Catholic Christians. Therefore, the accusation will continue. Shrug. We're used to it.

Some of my Prod friends asked about "Anointing of the sick". I always thought it was a Sacrament of HEALING; sorta last resort. What's your take on it? (had it as a 20 yo; I wasn't conscious at the time I don't think).

Greg

 

[Meriweather]

One other thing, if you could travel back in time, say 500-600 years or so, and if you were able to read Latin, and the Church discovered you were in possession of a bible and reading it on your own, well they'd have burned your ass at the stake! Why might they feel such was necessary, might it be they did not want you knowing the real words of the book, and able to witness the actual context behind them???

Let's have a source for this, please. There were issues over unauthorized translations into other languages, but having a Latin Bible?

 

[buttercup]

There are a couple of things you have wrong. First, no one is "sprinkled". Perhaps you know of an early Christian mural that shows a large shell that was used for pouring water over those being baptized? Some choose to ignore Biblical passages regarding children and families.

You missed the point. It doesn't matter if the baby was "sprinkled," dunked, or poured upon. Infant baptism is unbiblical. Water baptism is an outward symbol of something that already happened internally. A baby cannot choose to put put his or her faith in Jesus and receive the gift of salvation. A baby has no idea what is going on. So infant baptism doesn't 'save' the baby or do anything other than make the parents feel good about going through a religious ceremony.

Babies are immediately welcomed into the Body of Christ, and with their baptism, through the power of the Holy Spirit, become as the rest of us...priest, prophet, king. That is our faith.

You are deeply mistaken. Don't get me wrong though. If a baby dies, they go to heaven, because babies or young children are below the age of accountability and can't yet understand spiritual matters. So it doesn't matter if the baby is baptized or not, any baby who dies will go to heaven.

Now here's where something needs to be made clear. Correct me if I'm wrong about your position, but if you think that being baptized as a baby permanently welcomes the baby into the Body of Christ... in other words, gives the baby a lifelong guarantee of salvation, then that is not only unbiblical but nonsensical.*

That would be like saying a serial killer who raped and cannibalized innocent victims will be in heaven when he dies, simply because he had some water poured on him when he was an infant.

Now I doubt that is your view, but I said that to point out the absurdity of thinking infant baptism does anything. It's just a religious ceremony, it is not biblical.

Jesus taught us about water baptism, HE is our example and he was water baptized as a grown adult, not as a baby.

*We do have a guarantee of salvation and eternal life once we are saved / born again. But IIRC, you don't even agree with the biblical teaching of salvation or being born again, so I feel like this whole discussion is kinda pointless (except for the sake of those reading) because I'm sorry but IMHO Catholicism is like a whole different religion. I say that is someone who grew up going to Catholic Church, and went through all of the Catholic stuff.

 

[gtopa1]

I have no idea what you are raging over, I merely feed you the book and its word, up above you apparently disagree that the Roman Catholic devotion to Mary as not being biblical, which you can easily back up with but a single statement by Jesus, just one, where he informs that his mother will be joining in with him as acting as your intercessor with God.

You could also enlighten all as to just where it is that Jesus ordains specific "sacraments" must be performed in perpetuity by all who would be saved, or that you can buy your way out of hell/purgatory with indulgences(often two for one at specific pagan holidays)???

Further, Peter, the claimed first pope of the Church of Rome, there is no historical evidence that he ever even traveled to Rome, nor was he the "rock" Jesus described his intention to build his church upon, that twisting of the words of Jesus are an outright fabrication, he was talking to Peter about building his church right on top of the rock/cave Jews of the age considered the gate to Tartarus!

One other thing, if you could travel back in time, say 500-600 years or so, and if you were able to read Latin, and the Church discovered you were in possession of a bible and reading it on your own, well they'd have burned your ass at the stake! Why might they feel such was necessary, might it be they did not want you knowing the real words of the book, and able to witness the actual context behind them???

Not a word I have spoken is false, you can easily substantiate every one of them with a bible and the time required to read it...

I'm not raging; I'm amused. Been through this so many times; very 70s Bible Group stuff. You ain't heard NOTHING until you hear s Plymouth Brethren pound away!! lol. Even worse than Father Shannon...and you didn't DARE sin after one of his sermons!!!

We still loved each other Agape though.

As for Mary: "Hail Mary FULL OF GRACE; the Lord is with thee"......and I'm sure Mary smacked his little bottom when he was naughty IF required.

Greg

 

[Death-Ninja]

Except none have anything to do with John's Revelation...

You are not being nearly as cute as you think you are, I merely offer a point from whence you can begin to see the fraud that the Roman church is, the majority of revelation deals specifically with that subject, you and your friend are not nearly as cute as you think you are, I can see in the both of you, that you have NOT read it, there is nothing, not one thing that would make me, if I was a practicing Catholic, happy written within that book!

 

[gtopa1]

You missed the point. It doesn't matter if the baby was "sprinkled," dunked, or poured upon. Infant baptism is unbiblical. Water baptism is an outward symbol of something that already happened internally. A baby cannot choose to put put his or her faith in Jesus and receive the gift of salvation. A baby has no idea what is going on. So infant baptism doesn't "save" the baby or do anything other than make the parents feel good about going through a religious ceremony.




You are deeply mistaken. Don't get me wrong though. If a baby dies, they go to heaven, because babies or young children are below the age of accountability and can't yet understand spiritual matters. So it doesn't matter if the baby is baptized or not, any baby who dies will go to heaven.

Now here's where something needs to be made clear. Correct me if I'm wrong about your position, but if you think that being baptized as a baby permanently welcomes the baby into the Body of Christ... in other words, gives the baby a lifelong guarantee of salvation, then that is not only unbiblical but nonsensical.

That would be like saying a serial killer who raped and cannibalized innocent victims will be in heaven when he dies, simply because he had some water poured on him when he was an infant.

Now I doubt that is your view, but I said that to point out the absurdity of thinking infant baptism does anything. It's just a religious ceremony, it is not biblical.

Jesus taught us about water baptism, HE is our example and he was water baptized as a grown adult, not as a baby.

"if a baby dies, they go to heaven"....source??

"f you think that being baptized as a baby permanently welcomes the baby into the Body of Christ" Of course not. The Baby is welcomed in and Original sin is removed....good so far....but there is NO GUARANTEE OF ETERNAL LIFE!!! That depends on the life lived.

Greg

 

[Meriweather]

Some of my Prod friends asked about "Anointing of the sick". I always thought it was a Sacrament of HEALING; sorta last resort. What's your take on it? (had it as a 20 yo; I wasn't conscious at the time I don't think).

The Sacrament used to be called 'Extreme Unction' but was changed to the Anointing of the Sick and Dying sometime in the 1970s. It is considered a Sacrament of healing, especially as it pertains to spiritual healing. People may be anointed for physical ailments, mental states, and for better spiritual health.

As I recall, Extreme Unction was also often referred to as Last Rites, which may be why the Church thought it right to clarify the full purpose of this sacrament of healing--although as far as I know "Sacrament of Healing" is not the official name.

 

[Meriweather]

You missed the point. It doesn't matter if the baby was "sprinkled,"

It matters to Catholics. Proper baptism is pouring or immersing.

 

[Meriweather]

Water baptism is an outward symbol of something that already happened internally. A baby cannot choose to put put his or her faith in Jesus and receive the gift of salvation. A baby has no idea what is going on. So infant baptism doesn't "save" the baby or do anything other than make the parents feel good about going through a religious ceremony.

Baptism the outward sign of the inward reality. The reality is the baby is now a member of the Body of Christ. He is a redeemed person.

Yes, I know, non-Catholics prefer "saved" but Catholics dwell more on redemption and reconciliation. The baby is now a fully redeemed member of the Body of Christ and will be raised in the faith.

 

[Meriweather]

Now here's where something needs to be made clear. Correct me if I'm wrong about your position, but if you think that being baptized as a baby permanently welcomes the baby into the Body of Christ... in other words, gives the baby a lifelong guarantee of salvation, then that is not only unbiblical but nonsensical.*

Catholics believe upon death soul will be judged, based on one's life and one's heart. We are not a 'Once and Done' faith. Our faith is a way of living--Kingdom living. We are introduced to it as babies, brought up in this faith. We are also adamant about free will. One can choose to reject Christ at any point in one's life.

 

[Meriweather]

Jesus taught us about water baptism, HE is our example and he was water baptized as a grown adult, not as a baby.

He also instituted the Last Supper at his final meal. Shall we only partake and remember him at our last meal?

Jesus came to us as a baby. Do you truly think of him (or God) flipping a switch when he turned thirty and so that should be the year everyone decides to be baptized?

You may want to argue one needs to be older, but if following in Jesus' steps is the reason for this, then you should be advocating no baptism until one is thirty. If the family is already following Christ, you know that baby is fully with the family. There is no need to separate a child from the family.

 

[Meriweather]

you don't even agree with the biblical teaching of salvation or being born again

We fully believe in both. We just don't wait around for either. We jump right in as soon as possible, bringing our children along with us. We do see our salvation as the way of life taught by Christ.

Saying "I accept Jesus as Lord and Savior" and that's it misses so much. Catholics like--and thrive--with the whole shebang.

 

[gtopa1]

The Sacrament used to be called 'Extreme Unction' but was changed to the Anointing of the Sick and Dying sometime in the 1970s. It is considered a Sacrament of healing, especially as it pertains to spiritual healing. People may be anointed for physical ailments, mental states, and for better spiritual health.

As I recall, Extreme Unction was also often referred to as Last Rites, which may be why the Church thought it right to clarify the full purpose of this sacrament of healing--although as far as I know "Sacrament of Healing" is not the official name.

Yep; had it nearly 50 years ago and I'm not dead yet. lol Did it "cure" me? No idea, but it didn't do any harm.

Greg

 

[buttercup]

"if a baby dies, they go to heaven"....source??

When David's baby died, he said, "But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Am I able to bring him back at this point? I will go to him, but he cannot return to me!" (2 Samuel 12:23)

Also, in other scriptures the bible teaches that babies and young children do not yet understand how to reject the wrong and choose what is right, like Isaiah 7:16 and Deuteronomy 1:39, for example.

If those scriptures aren't enough for you, ask yourself... since a baby doesn't yet understand the concept of sin, do you really think that a God of love and justice would hold a baby accountable for something they don't even understand?

"f you think that being baptized as a baby permanently welcomes the baby into the Body of Christ" Of course not. The Baby is welcomed in and Original sin is removed....good so far....but there is NO GUARANTEE OF ETERNAL LIFE!!! That depends on the life lived.

Greg

NO, I'm sorry, I hate to say this because you seem like a good guy, but what you just said goes against the Gospel. It is not about what WE do. It's not about "being a good person." It's not about our works. It is about what JESUS did for us.

We are saved by God's grace, through FAITH, and part of faith is understanding we are sinners who can't save ourselves. We have to simply surrender to God, fully, put our faith and trust in HIM. God knows our hearts... so when we truly do that, He saves us, we become born again, or "born from above."

Please read this:

"He saved us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit"

Titus 3:5

 

[Meriweather]

I'm sorry but IMHO Catholicism is like a whole different religion. I say that is someone who grew up going to Catholic Church, and went through all of the Catholic stuff.

I see it the same way because unfairly or not, I see non-Catholic denominations as Christianity Lite. If there were no Catholic Church to attend, I would choose to attend Jewish worship over non-Catholic Christian worship.

 

[Meriweather]

You are not being nearly as cute as you think you are

I don't think I am being cute at all. I am deadly serious. John wrote Revelation with his own time in mind and addressing the issues of his own time using events from the past.

 

[buttercup]

Baptism the outward sign of the inward reality. The reality is the baby is now a member of the Body of Christ. He is a redeemed person.

Yes, I know, non-Catholics prefer "saved" but Catholics dwell more on redemption and reconciliation. The baby is now a fully redeemed member of the Body of Christ and will be raised in the faith.

Nope, infant baptism is flatly unbiblical. It doesn't matter what the RCC teaches. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to debate anymore here, but the RCC is wrong about numerous doctrines. You and I have already been through some of this before on other threads. I'll let someone else take over for now, because I really do have to sign off, real life stuff is calling.