Protestantism might just be Christianity

[Lalaki]

Because a the prayer of a saint can have more power. There are saints for specific situations, and we pray for their intercession when they happen.

But I will respectfully agree to disagree from this point.

So wait... God doesn't care about the merits of the request itself, or what it's for, he cares about the powerlevel of the person asking?

"You were never going to get that new car with Anselm, that's at least a level 600 request, I recommend Francis."

It's not that. Catholics just hold saints in high regard, that we ask them to pray on our behalf.

[Distruzio]

They do deny His authority. They deny it by denying the authority of the Church - which scripture describes as the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Moreover, by asserting that the Bible is the word of God but denying that the Body of God (the Church) has any say on what the word of God is and means, the Protestant usurps God's authority.

The Bible is the Inspired Word of God. The Church is a way to spread the Word and guide people to the Lord.

That is not Christian doctrine or dogma.

[Distruzio]

So wait... God doesn't care about the merits of the request itself, or what it's for, he cares about the powerlevel of the person asking?

"You were never going to get that new car with Anselm, that's at least a level 600 request, I recommend Francis."

It's not that. Catholics just hold saints in high regard, that we ask them to pray on our behalf.

Indeed. My own prayer cannot be trusted not to contain elements of ego-centric pride. A saints, however, can be. Thus the saints intercede in a manner that I cannot.

[Distruzio]

So....people who believe in Christ as our one true lord and Messiah aren't Christian?

That's not what I said. You might want to revisit the OP.

[Lalaki]

The Bible is the Inspired Word of God. The Church is a way to spread the Word and guide people to the Lord.

That is not Christian doctrine or dogma.

I respectfully and humbly ask this. How is it not?

[Distruzio]

That is not Christian doctrine or dogma.

I respectfully and humbly ask this. How is it not?

The Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Church is the Body of Christ - Christ is God. Ergo, the Church is not, merely, a way to spread it's voice and guide its constituent parts. It is, instead, according to doctrine and dogma, a hospital for the sick. According to doctrine and dogma, it isn't merely this or that. It's the Body of God incarnate.

[Distruzio]

I suppose the other question you may want to consider is how much do you have to bastardize dogma before you're not Christian anymore?

That's one of the questions asked in the OP - subliminally, but its there.

[Sun Wukong]

It's not that. Catholics just hold saints in high regard, that we ask them to pray on our behalf.

Indeed. My own prayer cannot be trusted not to contain elements of ego-centric pride. A saints, however, can be. Thus the saints intercede in a manner that I cannot.

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is something profoundly insulting to the character of God in this sentiment. It's sort of like with Pascal. You've grabbed on to the tradition too tightly, and all the wonder of it has slipped through your fingers.

[Lavan Tiri]

Indeed. My own prayer cannot be trusted not to contain elements of ego-centric pride. A saints, however, can be. Thus the saints intercede in a manner that I cannot.

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is something profoundly insulting to the character of God in this sentiment. It's sort of like with Pascal. You've grabbed on to the tradition too tightly, and all the wonder of it has slipped through your fingers.

Deep, man. I agree. Jesus shattered the traditions.

[Menassa]

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is something profoundly insulting to the character of God in this sentiment. It's sort of like with Pascal. You've grabbed on to the tradition too tightly, and all the wonder of it has slipped through your fingers.

Deep, man. I agree. Jesus shattered the traditions.

Did he though?
Of the Jewish parties which one did Jesus support? The ones that keep tradition.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. My own prayer cannot be trusted not to contain elements of ego-centric pride. A saints, however, can be. Thus the saints intercede in a manner that I cannot.

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is something profoundly insulting to the character of God in this sentiment. It's sort of like with Pascal. You've grabbed on to the tradition too tightly, and all the wonder of it has slipped through your fingers.

.... thank you? I honestly don't know how to respond to this (which isn't, necessarily, a bad thing).

[Distruzio]

I can't put my finger on exactly what it is, but there is something profoundly insulting to the character of God in this sentiment. It's sort of like with Pascal. You've grabbed on to the tradition too tightly, and all the wonder of it has slipped through your fingers.

Deep, man. I agree. Jesus shattered the traditions.

Don't be ridiculous. He adhered to the traditions and admonished his Apostles to do so as well.

[Lavan Tiri]

Deep, man. I agree. Jesus shattered the traditions.

Did he though?
Of the Jewish parties which one did Jesus support? The ones that keep tradition.

Really? Half the Gospels are Him showing the Pharisees how wrong their traditions are.

[Distruzio]

Did he though?
Of the Jewish parties which one did Jesus support? The ones that keep tradition.

Really? Half the Gospels are Him showing the Pharisees how wrong their traditions are.

The Pharisees are not Judaism. They were Jewish - but a particular position within Judaism. Much like Luther had legitimate reason for complaint about Catholic practices at the time, Jesus had legitimate reason for complaint (if we ignore His divinity).

Also... you might want to familiarize yourself with the words of the gospels... because they don't show that at all.

[Menassa]

Did he though?
Of the Jewish parties which one did Jesus support? The ones that keep tradition.

Really? Half the Gospels are Him showing the Pharisees how wrong their traditions are.

Half of all four gospels?
I highly doubt that.

And now a reading from the 23rd chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. (That is they have the authority of Moses, how do we know this interpretation is true? Look on.) So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus states you must listen to what the Pharisees, those who uphold the tradition.
He does say to not do as they do for they are hypocrite, he attacks the practice and the not belief of those that believed in the Oral Law.

[PC World News]

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Cath ... z3C5xTTXya

Catholicism is, according to the merriam-webster dictionary is

1. Roman Catholicism
2. the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity.

Roman Catholicism, according to the same dictionary, is

1. the faith doctrine of polity of the Roman Catholic Church

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholicism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... atholicism

Before I begin my arguement, let us first observe some important points about the foundations of the Catholic Church from a historical standpoint:

1. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by ROMANS (thus why it's called the ROMAN catholic church)
2. Catholicism is short for Roman Catholicism (unless you want to argue with the dictionary), thus, in reality Roman Catholism
3. Catholicism was a mixture of Christianity and Roman culture.

If some of you are going to accept the idea of Protestantism being a "false doctrine" on the grounds that protestants deny the spiritual authority of the apostles, then I think the same standards should apply to Roman Catholics as well.

For what history tells us (unless you want to argue with history, itself), Catholicism (or Roman Catholicism) was founded by Romans as an attempt to unite the Roman Empire. It had aspects from the pagan religion of Rome mixed with the original christian doctrine, and this is evident with the holidays of Roman Catholicism such as Easter and Christmas.

Like I said, this is the basic history of Catholicism, and is not my opinion.

My argument is not, necessarily, that the Protestant is not Christian because of theological and doctrinal conflicts but, rather, that the Protestant is not Christian because the Protestant, by definition rejects basic historical fact concerning the Church, issues of theology and science, and social milieus and outlooks.

And in accordance with that history, Catholicism was officially established in 325 AD.
Catholics didn't write the bible, Catholics didn't give the bible it's divine authority.
In fact, neither did the apostles. The divinity of the bible comes from God, himself.

Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Since this event happened before 325 AD, which was the date, by historical records, the Roman Catholic Church was founded, it would appear as if there were "Christians" before there were "Catholics (which are Roman Catholics, which are Roman)".

Based on these presented facts, one could, ironically, conclude that Catholics practice a "false doctrine" on the basis that they are not of the true Christianity of the apostles, but of the "Christianity" established by the Roman State. Now am I saying that protestants are the right way? No, but if you are going to dismiss them as "idolaters" and "borderline heretics", then perhaps you need to look at the history of the Catholic Church a little more in depth. Don't dig too deep, or you just might find that you, too, are a heretic.

[Tmutarakhan]

Deep, man. I agree. Jesus shattered the traditions.

Did he though?
Of the Jewish parties which one did Jesus support?

None.

The ones that keep tradition.

He was scathing about "tradition".

[Menassa]

Did he though?
Of the Jewish parties which one did Jesus support?

None.

The ones that keep tradition.

He was scathing about "tradition".

Really? Half the Gospels are Him showing the Pharisees how wrong their traditions are.

Half of all four gospels?
I highly doubt that.

And now a reading from the 23rd chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. (That is they have the authority of Moses, how do we know this interpretation is true? Look on.) So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus states you must listen to what the Pharisees, those who uphold the tradition.
He does say to not do as they do for they are hypocrite, he attacks the practice and the not belief of those that believed in the Oral Law.

[Shaggai]

For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity. Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Cath ... z3C5xTTXya

Catholicism is, according to the merriam-webster dictionary is

1. Roman Catholicism
2. the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity.

Roman Catholicism, according to the same dictionary, is

1. the faith doctrine of polity of the Roman Catholic Church

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholicism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... atholicism

Before I begin my arguement, let us first observe some important points about the foundations of the Catholic Church from a historical standpoint:

1. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by ROMANS (thus why it's called the ROMAN catholic church)
2. Catholicism is short for Roman Catholicism (unless you want to argue with the dictionary), thus, in reality Roman Catholism
3. Catholicism was a mixture of Christianity and Roman culture.

If some of you are going to accept the idea of Protestantism being a "false doctrine" on the grounds that protestants deny the spiritual authority of the apostles, then I think the same standards should apply to Roman Catholics as well.

For what history tells us (unless you want to argue with history, itself), Catholicism (or Roman Catholicism) was founded by Romans as an attempt to unite the Roman Empire. It had aspects from the pagan religion of Rome mixed with the original christian doctrine, and this is evident with the holidays of Roman Catholicism such as Easter and Christmas.

Like I said, this is the basic history of Catholicism, and is not my opinion.

My argument is not, necessarily, that the Protestant is not Christian because of theological and doctrinal conflicts but, rather, that the Protestant is not Christian because the Protestant, by definition rejects basic historical fact concerning the Church, issues of theology and science, and social milieus and outlooks.

And in accordance with that history, Catholicism was officially established in 325 AD.
Catholics didn't write the bible, Catholics didn't give the bible it's divine authority.
In fact, neither did the apostles. The divinity of the bible comes from God, himself.

Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Since this event happened before 325 AD, which was the date, by historical records, the Roman Catholic Church was founded, it would appear as if there were "Christians" before there were "Catholics (which are Roman Catholics, which are Roman)".

Based on these presented facts, one could, ironically, conclude that Catholics practice a "false doctrine" on the basis that they are not of the true Christianity of the apostles, but of the "Christianity" established by the Roman State. Now am I saying that protestants are the right way? No, but if you are going to dismiss them as "idolaters" and "borderline heretics", then perhaps you need to look at the history of the Catholic Church a little more in depth. Don't dig too deep, or you just might find that you, too, are a heretic.

The Roman Catholic church is called Roman Catholic because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

[PC World News]

Catholicism is, according to the merriam-webster dictionary is

1. Roman Catholicism
2. the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity.

Roman Catholicism, according to the same dictionary, is

1. the faith doctrine of polity of the Roman Catholic Church

Sources:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholicism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... atholicism

Before I begin my arguement, let us first observe some important points about the foundations of the Catholic Church from a historical standpoint:

1. The Roman Catholic Church was founded by ROMANS (thus why it's called the ROMAN catholic church)
2. Catholicism is short for Roman Catholicism (unless you want to argue with the dictionary), thus, in reality Roman Catholism
3. Catholicism was a mixture of Christianity and Roman culture.

If some of you are going to accept the idea of Protestantism being a "false doctrine" on the grounds that protestants deny the spiritual authority of the apostles, then I think the same standards should apply to Roman Catholics as well.

For what history tells us (unless you want to argue with history, itself), Catholicism (or Roman Catholicism) was founded by Romans as an attempt to unite the Roman Empire. It had aspects from the pagan religion of Rome mixed with the original christian doctrine, and this is evident with the holidays of Roman Catholicism such as Easter and Christmas.

Like I said, this is the basic history of Catholicism, and is not my opinion.



And in accordance with that history, Catholicism was officially established in 325 AD.
Catholics didn't write the bible, Catholics didn't give the bible it's divine authority.
In fact, neither did the apostles. The divinity of the bible comes from God, himself.

Acts 11:26 and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass that for a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught many people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Since this event happened before 325 AD, which was the date, by historical records, the Roman Catholic Church was founded, it would appear as if there were "Christians" before there were "Catholics (which are Roman Catholics, which are Roman)".

Based on these presented facts, one could, ironically, conclude that Catholics practice a "false doctrine" on the basis that they are not of the true Christianity of the apostles, but of the "Christianity" established by the Roman State. Now am I saying that protestants are the right way? No, but if you are going to dismiss them as "idolaters" and "borderline heretics", then perhaps you need to look at the history of the Catholic Church a little more in depth. Don't dig too deep, or you just might find that you, too, are a heretic.

The Roman Catholic church is called Roman Catholic because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Not according to the merriam-webster dictionary. Perhaps you would like to inform them of this historical error, since you are, in reality, arguing with the dictionary, not me.

[Shaggai]

The Roman Catholic church is called Roman Catholic because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome.

Not according to the merriam-webster dictionary. Perhaps you would like to inform them of this historical error, since you are, in reality, arguing with the dictionary, not me.

Definition of ROMAN CATHOLICISM

: the faith, doctrine, or polity of the Roman Catholic Church
First Known Use of ROMAN CATHOLICISM

circa 1823

The Roman Catholic Church is called the Roman Catholic Church because the head is in Rome, as opposed to Constantinople.

[PC World News]

Not according to the merriam-webster dictionary. Perhaps you would like to inform them of this historical error, since you are, in reality, arguing with the dictionary, not me.

Definition of ROMAN CATHOLICISM

: the faith, doctrine, or polity of the Roman Catholic Church
First Known Use of ROMAN CATHOLICISM

circa 1823

The Roman Catholic Church is called the Roman Catholic Church because the head is in Rome, as opposed to Constantinople.

Why is it's head in Rome? because it is a ROMAN church that was established by the ROMANS. Christianity began nearly 3 centuries before the Roman state established their church.

I'm not saying that Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity. I'm just saying that if people are going to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they reject the "doctrines" of true Christianity, then Catholics should be held to the same standard.

And according to historical accounts like the one I presented earlier, Catholics, in correspondence to their own (or at least the author of this thread's) standards, Catholics are not true Christians.

Of course, I, personally, find this position to be illogical, but that is the position some have taken on this thread in their attempts to make Protestants appear to be idolaters.

Ironic, isn't it?

[Constantinopolis]

Which, in combination with praying for intercession, is not the same as worship.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't intercession basically asking a saint to pray for someone? Why can't a person just pray directly to God?

We can, and we do. But in addition, we also ask others to pray for us. Sometimes those others are living people, and sometimes they are dead people, such as the saints.

Protestants also ask living people to pray for them. So why be opposed to asking the saints to pray for you as well?

[Shaggai]

The Roman Catholic Church is called the Roman Catholic Church because the head is in Rome, as opposed to Constantinople.

Why is it's head in Rome? because it is a ROMAN church that was established by the ROMANS. Christianity began near 3 centuries before the Roman state established their church.

I'm not saying that Roman Catholicism isn't Christianity. I'm just saying that if people are going to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they reject the "doctrines" of true Christianity, then Catholics should be held to the same standard.

And according to historical accounts like the one I presented earlier, Catholics, in correspondence to their own (or at least the author of this thread's) standards, Catholics are not true Christians.

Of course, I, personally, find this position to be illogical, but that is the position some have taken on this thread in their attempts to make Protestants appear as idolaters.

Ironic, isn't it?

No, it's because Peter went to Rome.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Why is it's head in Rome? because it is a ROMAN church that was established by the ROMANS. Christianity began near 3 centuries before the Roman state established their church.

Because that is what the English Protestant decided to call it. You know, because they think that their church is the" one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church"