Org Mobile Site
Thread: Why is OK to harrass mormons?
Oh drat!
Sunday Sabbath?
It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.
This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.
Sunday Sabbath?
It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.
This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.
I think that is just a coincidence, theres only 7 days in a week after all.
Originally Posted by Fisherking:
Oh drat!
Sunday Sabbath?
It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.
This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.
Ah yes, the Celtic Church, a favourite topic of discussion in Northern Ireland where the Protestants/Catholics want to prove they were there first.Oh drat!
Sunday Sabbath?
It is my understanding that it may have come from the Celtic Church and was adopted because that was the traditional holey day of the previous religion. As was preaching from a pulpit.
This may sound outrageous but remember who re-Christianized Europe after the fall of Rome.
Well, according to some pamphlets I have on St. Patrick (a Protestant and a Briton apparently, although he is seriously from my little hometown!), the early Celtic Church were Saturday Sabbatarians.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I am pretty sure every non-evangelical denomination agrees that he lost his salvation with his Bathsheba stunt.
non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel! I am pretty sure every non-evangelical denomination agrees that he lost his salvation with his Bathsheba stunt.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
Setting the infallible canon aside, all offspring of the original church worshiped on the first day of the week. If this was a Roman construct, then the orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches would still worship on a Saturday. Christ was resurrected on a Sunday and since the church was all about this event - it became the new day of worship. A new covenant under new rules (mosaic Sabbath strictness done away with). Obviously Christ wanted the breaking of bread to be done periodically and in remembrance of him and his work. A ceremonial worship of the father through Christ's sacrifice, and done on the first day of the week hence forth.
That they happened to worship on the first day of the week does not suggest any sort of superstitious reverence of a holy day. I go to church every Sunday, I also go to football every Saturday...Setting the infallible canon aside, all offspring of the original church worshiped on the first day of the week. If this was a Roman construct, then the orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches would still worship on a Saturday. Christ was resurrected on a Sunday and since the church was all about this event - it became the new day of worship. A new covenant under new rules (mosaic Sabbath strictness done away with). Obviously Christ wanted the breaking of bread to be done periodically and in remembrance of him and his work. A ceremonial worship of the father through Christ's sacrifice, and done on the first day of the week hence forth.
The observance of days is explicitly condemned by Paul (Galatians 4:9-11).
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
When the major obstacle a presidential candidate has is his religious affiliation, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.
Well in that case, it was a big deal to some that JFK was Catholic...When the major obstacle a presidential candidate has is his religious affiliation, I'd say it's a pretty big deal.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Well, according to some pamphlets I have..
I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel. Well, according to some pamphlets I have..
Originally Posted by :
non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel!
What should I call them? non-evangelical = bad and rejects the Gospel!
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.
We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel.
Heh, I didnt' say I believed them all, I just think they're interesting. Makes a change from the healf-hearted liberal tripe you get these days that seems to dominate mainstream Christianity.I would not trust "some pamphlets" that some self-proclaimed doctor of a church wrote on any subject. I have read pamphlets about Mormons that were utterly rubbish and based on clear lies. Also - some of these doctors have written about how Islam is a constructed religion and that the culprits were the Catholic Church. And let's not get into the pamphlets about how the Scots are really one of the lost tribes of Israel.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
What should I call them?
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.
@bolded bit in particular - "new age" I am not. Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...What should I call them?
It is the new age Christendom with their saved by grace, no need for baptism, just say the name Jesus three times and you are guarantied salvation even if you murder small babies the rest of your life, type of cults I am trying to not-name here.
All based on individuals that one day decides to interpret the not-so-infallible-anymore book of tampered-with text in a new way, that might have been the way the authors (or the not so helpful co-writers) intended it to be. Behold, a new sect has been born and can be added to the 35 000 others that each claim they are the only one that leads to salvation. All the rest can burn in hell.
Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.
tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.We are on the verge of getting an explosion of Christian extremists. The Bible is not infallible as it is. It never was.
Athanasius and cronies that suggested the compilation of books that ended up with "the book" would turn in their graves if they found out what came of their work.
The foundation on which these individuals build their church is flawed and for the sake of saving lives, you should tear these constructions down. It is what any sound inspector would recommend.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Paul said "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel". (1 Cor 1:17). Yes he baptised a couple of people, however note how he also says he is glad he didn't baptise any others. Most importantly, those that he did baptise were Jews, so their baptism was in keeping with the way in which early converts from Judaism kept their Jewish traditions. Paul did it for the same reason he had Timothy circumcised... so that he might be a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. We don't give that as proof that Christians ought to be circumcised, so why do it with baptism?
Also I think John 3:5 is symbolism, again looking to the example of Hebrews... the idea of the living water and never thirsting again.
God gave an ordinance to Peter to baptise the gentiles in Acts 10. Baptims replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant. 300 years later the Council of Nicea determined that baptism with water in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was necessary in order to enter into full comunion with the Church; they also determined that the act was effective even if the baptising priest was an Arian heretic.Paul said "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel". (1 Cor 1:17). Yes he baptised a couple of people, however note how he also says he is glad he didn't baptise any others. Most importantly, those that he did baptise were Jews, so their baptism was in keeping with the way in which early converts from Judaism kept their Jewish traditions. Paul did it for the same reason he had Timothy circumcised... so that he might be a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. We don't give that as proof that Christians ought to be circumcised, so why do it with baptism?
Also I think John 3:5 is symbolism, again looking to the example of Hebrews... the idea of the living water and never thirsting again.
Irrc the Sunday thing came in around 200 AD when Christians began celebrating the Resurrection rather than the Sabbath.
... because they wear very uncomfortable underwear...
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
... because they wear very uncomfortable underwear...
You've tried 'em, huh?... because they wear very uncomfortable underwear...
Ajax
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
God gave an ordinance to Peter to baptise the gentiles in Acts 10. Baptims replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant. 300 years later the Council of Nicea determined that baptism with water in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was necessary in order to enter into full comunion with the Church; they also determined that the act was effective even if the baptising priest was an Arian heretic.
Irrc the Sunday thing came in around 200 AD when Christians began celebrating the Resurrection rather than the Sabbath.
The baptism of Cornelius seems to be tied in with the rest of the chapter, where it is revealed to Peter that all things are clean etc. In giving Cornelius the Jewish custom of baptism, he was emphasising his point that Gentiles were no longer considered unclean and unfit to take part in Jewish ceremonies (see verse 28). Also, in verses 37-8, Peter actually refers to water baptism as the baptism that John preached, and distinct from the one preached by Jesus. It is not part of the Gospel and it can't be, otherwise the prisoner on the cross could not be saved.God gave an ordinance to Peter to baptise the gentiles in Acts 10. Baptims replaced circumcision as the mark of the covenant. 300 years later the Council of Nicea determined that baptism with water in the name of God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was necessary in order to enter into full comunion with the Church; they also determined that the act was effective even if the baptising priest was an Arian heretic.
Irrc the Sunday thing came in around 200 AD when Christians began celebrating the Resurrection rather than the Sabbath.
The verse also doesn't support the idea that baptism is the new circumcision. When Peter says he is to baptise them, he also notes that this is because they had received the Holy Spirit. Obviously this supports the idea of baptism if anything being an expression of faith, not a sacrament, and questions the practice of infant baptism.
Harass Mormons? Nah, I don't think that's okay.
Making fun of the Mormon religion? Oh heck yeah. That's perfectly fine.
Anything I could possibly say about religion, in jest, is less insulting than things I've been told about atheists by the faithful, and they weren't joking. Many of them truly believe I am immoral by default, deserve eternal torture, and am not equal to them unless I believe what they believe. I've been told such straight to my face on this very forum by posters in this very thread.
The first thing that allows me to do, is make jokes at the expense of religion. Ideas are worthy of being mocked, and if that's not allowed, then people shouldn't be out there attempting to convert others into believing their own ideas. If you can say that your idea is the greatest idea that's ever been had, and it's also fact without any real proof, and that my idea makes me evil and a lesser person than you, then I get to laugh at you as loudly and for as long as I like.
That applies to every belief, not just Mormonism.
Making fun of the Mormon religion? Oh heck yeah. That's perfectly fine.
Anything I could possibly say about religion, in jest, is less insulting than things I've been told about atheists by the faithful, and they weren't joking. Many of them truly believe I am immoral by default, deserve eternal torture, and am not equal to them unless I believe what they believe. I've been told such straight to my face on this very forum by posters in this very thread.
The first thing that allows me to do, is make jokes at the expense of religion. Ideas are worthy of being mocked, and if that's not allowed, then people shouldn't be out there attempting to convert others into believing their own ideas. If you can say that your idea is the greatest idea that's ever been had, and it's also fact without any real proof, and that my idea makes me evil and a lesser person than you, then I get to laugh at you as loudly and for as long as I like.
That applies to every belief, not just Mormonism.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...
I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace. Yes I believe in salvation by faith through grace like any Protestant does, and I don't agree with water baptism, so what. I most definitely do not agree with the modern Evangelical notion that you just say the 'sinners prayer' and that's all you need to do, its almost a form of salvation through works they have. Nope, you can't murder babies your whole life, faith without works is dead after all, the tree is known by its fruit, strive to make your calling sure etc...
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.
Originally Posted by :
Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...
You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God. Also, just to point out... Jesus agrees with the Evangelicas (and Mormons apparently) in that David did look to him for salvation. In Matthew 22:40-6, Jesus shows how David called to him, "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord"...
Originally Posted by :
tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.
So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible). tbh I think there's a lot of hype surrounding the formation of the canon. There was no conspiracy at Nicaea, it was more or less widely accepted throughout Christendom long before Hippo. Heck even within the Pauline epistles they refer to themselves as scripture.
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.
Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).I think all Christian denominations including Mormonism and Catholicism believes in salvation through the grace of God. If not they would deny the very scriptures they uphold as truth. The disagreement would be in how you become a Christan worthy of His grace.
But baptism? I think it odd that any Christian denomination would question the ordinance of baptism. Your very God did this. Why? if he was sinless without blemish? Why would he conform to a Jewish tradition if it was not necessary? Something along 'Jesus is the way and the light, follow his example', would be a clue. Or Jesus followed all Gods commandments, even though he didn't need to.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.
Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.You Christians should agree on this. Some say David didn't forfeit his salvation, others damn him to hell. Why is it so important that David retained his salvation despite of murder and adultery - sins that "the infallible bible" says will result in not inheriting the Kingdom of God.
Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).
That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.
Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.So you do hold to an infallible Bible? the 66 books, no more no less. You do realize that there are references to other books in the Bible, which are not a part of the Bible. Books and letters quoted as scripture, yet not found in the canon (yes even Pauline epistles referring to previous epistles which are not found in the Bible).
And... There were no compiled volumes of scriptures like the Bible at the time of Hippo. They were all separate books. I find it especially amusing when Christians believing in an infallible Bible quote Revelations to support a closed canon. Yeah.. John wrote revelations on the few blank pages left after they compiled the 65 books of the old and new testament.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).
Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached? Jesus, as a Jew, naturally observed the Jewish traditions. He came to fulfill the law after all. But now they are fulfilled, we are no longer bound by a ceremonial law but by the law of Christ, which the ceremonial law merely foreshadowed (see Hebrews).
Originally Posted by :
Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.
Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).
That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.
I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about. Why does it matter whether or not professed Christians agree on the matter, at the end of the day Jesus give a plain answer to the pharisees.
Also, so what if David committed murder and adultery, you think that puts him beyond salvation while we can still have it? Do you think we are not murderers and adulterers? If you have been angry at someone or insulted them Jesus says you will face the council just as if you killed someone (Matthew 5:21-2). And if you look upon a women with lust, you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:27-8).
That in all likelihood makes us both murderers and adulterers.
Originally Posted by :
Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.
You have faith in the canon, I understand. Yes I know the verse you are referring to and obviously John was only talking about the Book of Revelation. I trust the consensus that existed in early Christendom, and given the fact that 'core' scriptures refer to themselves as scripture and the idea of a New Covenant scripture to complement the old one is obvious, I trust God delivered the true scripture to the church.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?
Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?Right.. so by that logic, Jesus was the last who was baptized and there should be no baptisms following him. In Acts - which supposedly takes place after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension and into the Christian era and church, there would be no baptisms performed or preached?
Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.
Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.I would think this an important matter. It obviously is for Christians as they argue extensively about this. Me thinks someone down the line committed some of these sins and "invented" new doctrines to cover up their demise. Me thinks this is true for most of the issues Christians argue about.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.
Well, I suppose. I've wondered a bit about Sola Scriptura recently.You have faith in the canon, I understand.
IMHO Christians should be more sober regarding the origins of the Bible. They have painted themselves into many corners when they solely rely on it for authority and doctrine. It is a very frail thing to build a religion on.
The things is, even if there were other sources of authority, they would have to be consistent with scripture, but the scripture itself condemns pretty much anything and everything we associate with organised religion. It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.
Last reply today...
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.
I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?
Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.
Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established? Just like the early Christians suddenly stopped observing the other Jewish practices?
Matthew 3:11 makes it clear that the water of baptism is a shadow of baptism by the Holy Spirit, this is also the only consistent way to view the relationship between the ceremonial law and the promise of the Gospel.
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.
Originally Posted by :
Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.
It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on? Where down the line, those quotes were from Jesus, can't go back further than that.
I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.
Originally Posted by :
It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.
I don't follow...It is as I said about natural law and not positive law, so how can you add anything to that, its a creation ordinance.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.
No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.Not sure what you mean by your counter question? Do you agree that no-one was baptized in water after the new covenant and church was established?
Paul was not baptized? He did not preach baptism? Peter? That some disciples in Ephesus was not re-baptized after having been baptized by John?
It seems there are more evidence for than against baptism being practiced in the established early church.
And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?
I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?
Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.It only takes to look into history of the branching and re branching of Christian denominations, from the original church through Catholicism and Greek orthodox to reformation and protestantism and further re branching to about 35 000 different denominations. Look to their origins and what caused them to be. What do they build their identity on?
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.
IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).I gotta give that to the LDS. They have the best origin claim story, ever. In the gameroom we give awards for such ingenuity.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I don't follow...
The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14). I don't follow...
Even the existence of God is self-evident and something all people know by nature, although they rebel against it. See the appropriate bit from Romans 1:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As a side note, in the next bit, our ordained gender roles!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.
And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?
I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.
I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance. No, my point was that there is Biblical evidence of early Christians observing Jewish traditions, the important point is who is doing it. In every case, it is Jews. Note how the only figures Paul says he baptised were a synagogue ruler and his companion, while the rest of the baptisms are carried out by Peter, as Apostle to the Jews.
And did Paul preach baptism? Well, as he said himself, "Christ sent me not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel". The early apostles baptised for the same reason they observed other Jewish traditions... so that they might be Jews to the Jews, and Gentiles to the Gentiles. As I said, Paul had Timothy circumcised for that reason, so do you believe all Christians should be circumcised?
I mean, you can get baptised if you really want to make a point with the symbolism, but there is not need to go around baptising everbody as if it were essential to salvation or somehow virtuous in itself.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.
Originally Posted by :
Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.
Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated. Well Catholics/Orthodox identify by a mix of their scripture/their traditions, Protestants identify by returning to the purity of the early church.
Originally Posted by :
IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).
That part is no better than the Scandinavian origins. No I am not talking about the BoM story. IMO the British Israelite version is much better, you even get to mix lots of racial stuff in with it like saying ancient inhabitants of Ulster were Cruithin (Picts, and hence Germanic), whereas the Gaelic Irish were supposedly descended from black people (I'm not joking, that's the story, probably because the movement is quite tied in with the far-right).
I am talking about the Godhead visiting Joseph Smith as a boy of 14. Then the additional heavenly visitations by John the baptist (the Levite priesthood), Peter James and John (the higher priesthood) restoring their authorities back to the earth. Then successively the ancient prophets came and restored their authorities: Moses, "Elias", Elijah came with their keys and powers. In addition to a host of angels including Moroni - the last Christian of ancient America.
Now that is some claim for origin.
Originally Posted by :
The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).
By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?]. The law is not something arbitrary stuck down in a book. It is far more than words, Paul speaks of "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom 2:15), and so we "do by nature the things contained in the law" (Rom 2:14).
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.
I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.I don't know what spin you are trying to put on this. I thought you adhered to Presbyterianism and Calvin's teachings? I don't think Calvin saw baptism as an Jewish tradition. I think he argued that Baptism is to the Christians what circumcision was to the Jews. And on the dispute on infant baptism he argued: "To refuse infant baptism is to rage openly at God's institution". He also seems to argue that converts should be baptized after faith and repentance.
I was born a Lutheran and I know that the Lutheran Church teaches damnation if not baptized.
Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.
Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.Heh... protestants consists of a large portion of the diversity of branches I talked about. Apparently there is no agreement on what the early church was or how it operated.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.
Well as Paul said he said all that so that people will know they are without excuse for not following God, not that he expects them to follow him. It is because fallen man rebels against the knowledge that God gave them by nature, see how Paul says this corruption is why people turned knowledge of God into idolatry.By that logic - there should be only one way, one church. All Christians would naturally follow the only true way to salvation, not by books, but by their converted heart [guidance by the Holy Ghost?].
Yet 35 000 versions exist and there are by no means any agreement between them on many aspects of the Christian religion. It seems to me that many do use the letter of the law rather that what you suggest. Add to that - crazy interpretations, and you find yourself in the reality of the Christian world of today.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.
Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?
This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject. I disagree with Calvin on the issue. He isn't a prophet, I don't follow Calvin I follow Jesus Christ. Unlike many more hardline Protestants that look back to the glory days, I see the Reformation as still continuing and still to be completed. The more Romanist and Judaizing baggage we get rid of the better.
Also, what does the Lutheran Church have to do with this. If Jesus says the prisoner on the cross went to paradise, and Lutherans say he went to hell, who should I believe?
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:
Originally Posted by :
Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.
The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:Only because many people are Protestant in name only, few keep to the 5 Sola's.
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.
Good intentions from the first reformators. Did they realize that this opened up for and resulted in 35 000 versions of interpretations? (35 000 is an old number. I bet there are more). The self-interpreting is not as self-interpreting anyway, now is it? Which one is the right one? The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.
It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject.
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:
But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Chrisitians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.This is the classical example of adhering to infallibility of a canon. What if it isn't infallible? What if someone put the word 'paradise' where there was 'world of spirits' along the multitudes of iterations of translation and copying? Does paradise equate heaven? Why then is there contradiction between this and Peter and Pauline teachings on this very subject.
Logical answer: Either the scriptures are translated wrong/tampered with or they are not interpreted right. For those adhering to the infallible canon, it would be the latter. But that raises an issue regarding your next statement:
Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:
And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.The first Sola: Sola Scriptura states:
Sola scriptura is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all—that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting.
Good intentions from the first reformators. Did they realize that this opened up for and resulted in 35 000 versions of interpretations? (35 000 is an old number. I bet there are more). The self-interpreting is not as self-interpreting anyway, now is it? Which one is the right one?Still, I think the significance of the number of denominations are hyped up. Many of those churches share the same/almost identical beliefs and are only technically seperate denominations because of their geographic location. Most people are not worried about petty differences, I've been to Presbyterian, Baptist, Brethren services etc, they are all on the same tracks.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.
I'm working on it. The final reformation would best hurry up. According to mainstream, we live in the last minute of the 11th hour and Jesus' return is imminent. It would be rather sad, if say the reformation was not finished and for naught and that Mormons were right all along.
Anyway we're nearly done, my 'Ultra-Protestant' (for want of a better term) take on things is picking up ground. Even go to the religious section at the TWC and you will see several posters like myself that have a fascination with removing all pagan elements from the religion and following the example of the New Testament-era church. There's me, hellas, basics, squiggle and signifer_one are nearly there (well, the last one is a pesky Arminian, but...).
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?
But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic. The existence of God is just seen as a fact of reality (or something), the perfection of the scriptures is seen as self-evident. And as I said, the canon was formed by consensus amongst the very earliest followers of Christ, and we have the texts in the original languages, so...It seems that what the Reformation and Protestantism really lack, is divine inspiration or visitations. Heck, even Islam claims divine origins. All that the reformation can show for are a bunch of disgruntled old men re-interpreting a book slaughtered by centuries of copying and translations. All done by a Church the reformators say are corrupt. To trust that a corrupt church didn't change things in the canon to fit with their evil agenda is... blue-eyed?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic.
rational?But Protestantism isn't all about the great superstitions surrounding other religions, it is very rationalistic and materialistic.
Mormons, good people for the most part; don't agree with their theology, but then again I don't agree with any theology.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
rational?
Of course. How is it not?rational?
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Christians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.
We have discussed this before. At least I have at several points, even at [dare I say it] TWC. There is an excellent thread about the origins of the Bible written by one of TWC's regulars. I am in complete agreement with his article. But we have many of the texts in their original languages. People make it sound like translations are a massive source of problems for Christians but in fact the differences in the original texts and the ones we've been using are tbh not very significant and don't change any single notable doctrine.
You say original languages.. well that is light years away from originals. I have in previous engagements with you mentioned the Trinitarian problems and agenda ridden changes to scripture. I even gave you a concrete example of tampering of scripture (Erasmus).
Having something in an original language - does nothing to strengthen the argument of infallibility.
I have heard people claim that the originals are hidden in the Vatican... Sorry m8, these are copies. You might wonder why there are no originals if there is an unbroken chain back to the early church. Surely someone would see the value in keeping the originals preserved. For the Old testament, that would prove quite impossible, but for the New Testament era, at least some originals could have been preserved.
Originally Posted by :
Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.
No tension at all... Jesus forgave sins left and right during his ministry, but this was before the organization of his church, which I believe happened in the 40 day intermission after his resurrection. Before that time - the mosaic law was in force. Jesus' mission of bringing and end to the mosaic law did not end until he declared it 'finished' on the cross. The mosaic law was all about the event of slaughtering the lamb for the benefit of the earthlings and the martians. After the 40 days, there is a notable change in the disciples. They went from clueless to leaders and powerful miracle workers. Every conversion following that event involved baptism.Also, there was no tension between Jesus/Peter/Paul on baptism. Naturally, Peter performed more baptisms as apostle to the Jews.
Originally Posted by :
And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.
You are putting you neck on the chopping block here... remember Sola #1. And so what if there were ten million interpretations, maybe the problem is not with the text itself, but the people interpreting it.
Which guaranties do you have for you not misinterpreting the canon? Could it be that your Ultra-Protestant way is completely off the wall? How would you know? Will you just be the 35 001th wrong way?
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
rational?
wasnt protestantism anti material?rational?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO