NationStates

Menassa wrote:

Zanubiyala wrote:What a Christian is, a Christian is not a organization, nor is it a tradition.

A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus historically and Biblically, a Christian believes in the doctrine of Christ, that Jesus is God, and believes that Jesus was persecuted and that Jesus was crucified on the cross shedding his blood to forgive the sins of mankind, and that he was buried, and rose again on the third day.

Whoever believes in Jesus’s death on the cross and resurrection, that he is God, and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven is saved and therefore a Christian!

Christians faith brings about the Holy Ghost, which drives and urges repentance.

So my argument is Protestants are Christians and most of your Catholics are not Christians.

Although I do consider Eastern Orthodox churches Christian, very few Catholics are saved.

On what basis do you define a Christian as someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus?

The divinity of Christ, and his death and resurrection, and salvation by faith through Grace.

Zanubiyala wrote:

Menassa wrote:On what basis do you define a Christian as someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus?

The divinity of Christ, and his death and resurrection, and salvation by faith through Grace.

Pelagius would like to disagree with the Grace part.

Zanubiyala wrote:

Menassa wrote:On what basis do you define a Christian as someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus?

The divinity of Christ, and his death and resurrection, and salvation by faith through Grace.

Where does Christ say this?

Menassa wrote:

Zanubiyala wrote:

The divinity of Christ, and his death and resurrection, and salvation by faith through Grace.

Where does Christ say this?

Jesus, to be fair to those that don't consider him "the Christ".

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Menassa wrote:Where does Christ say this?

Jesus, to be fair to those that don't consider him "the Christ".

I understand your point, but I was talking to someone who does.

PC World News wrote:

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
And, you forget, almost everyone in the empire was a Roman, so every Christian who converted to the faith was, by definition, a Roman.

You're right. The only Christians ever to exist at that time were in Rome. No Christians could be found in Israel (Where Christianity began), Arabia, or anywhere else on the planet. Only in Rome, because the bible never talks about the little people who spread the gospel to other nations.

Do you honestly believe that every single Christian missionary went only to Rome? Most did, but few didn't.

To say that Rome was the only place that 100% of all Christian missionaries preached the gospel just simply can't be true.

Rome may have been the first nation to introduce Christianity as a political entity, but it was not the first nation to have Christians in it. That would be Israel.

Just because this isn't noted in the bible, doesn't mean this didn't happen. It just simply means that this isn't noted in the bible (by "this", I mean "the missionaries who preached the gospel to nations other than Rome").

Well, yes, they were in the Roman Empire. Of which the Levant was part.

Shaggai wrote:

PC World News wrote:
You're right. The only Christians ever to exist at that time were in Rome. No Christians could be found in Israel (Where Christianity began), Arabia, or anywhere else on the planet. Only in Rome, because the bible never talks about the little people who spread the gospel to other nations.

Do you honestly believe that every single Christian missionary went only to Rome? Most did, but few didn't.

To say that Rome was the only place that 100% of all Christian missionaries preached the gospel just simply can't be true.

Rome may have been the first nation to introduce Christianity as a political entity, but it was not the first nation to have Christians in it. That would be Israel.

Just because this isn't noted in the bible, doesn't mean this didn't happen. It just simply means that this isn't noted in the bible (by "this", I mean "the missionaries who preached the gospel to nations other than Rome").

Well, yes, they were in the Roman Empire. Of which the Levant was part.

What about Ireland? Ireland was never a part of the Roman Empire.

Cetatsenia wrote:

Shaggai wrote:Well, yes, they were in the Roman Empire. Of which the Levant was part.

What about Ireland? Ireland was never a part of the Roman Empire.

Which didn't get Christianity till...what, the late Roman period?

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Cetatsenia wrote:

What about Ireland? Ireland was never a part of the Roman Empire.

Which didn't get Christianity till...what, the late Roman period?

Fifth century. Which I'm pretty sure was prior to the schism at which point you could say that a separate "Roman Catholic" Church existed.

Cetatsenia wrote:

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
Which didn't get Christianity till...what, the late Roman period?

Fifth century. Which I'm pretty sure was prior to the schism at which point you could say that a separate "Roman Catholic" Church existed.

"Catholic", Roman was just applied by the Anglicans to distinguish between their Catholic Church and the actual Catholic Church.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Cetatsenia wrote:
Fifth century. Which I'm pretty sure was prior to the schism at which point you could say that a separate "Roman Catholic" Church existed.

"Catholic", Roman was just applied by the Anglicans to distinguish between their Catholic Church and the actual Catholic Church.

...I thought the conversation here was about the Roman part of the name and why it's called that.

Lavan Tiri wrote:

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
Because God only listens if there are enough people (or the right people) petitioning.

So.....because I'm a single non saint, God won't listen to me if I pray right to Him? The Apostles prayed directly to the Lord, why can't we?

According to Orthodoxy, all are saints. According to Catholicism, all can become saints (those who are revered as saints are merely the rockstars of sainthood). We can and do pray directly. As I said before, the saints intercede on our behalf at our request. We have shit to do sometimes.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

PC World News wrote:
You're right. The only Christians ever to exist at that time were in Rome. No Christians could be found in Israel (Where Christianity began), Arabia, or anywhere else on the planet. Only in Rome, because the bible never talks about the little people who spread the gospel to other nations.

Do you honestly believe that every single Christian missionary went only to Rome? Most did, but few didn't.

To say that Rome was the only place that 100% of all Christian missionaries preached the gospel just simply can't be true.

Rome may have been the first nation to introduce Christianity as a political entity, but it was not the first nation to have Christians in it. That would be Israel.

Just because this isn't noted in the bible, doesn't mean this didn't happen. It just simply means that this isn't noted in the bible (by "this", I mean "the missionaries who preached the gospel to nations other than Rome").

Dear God...do you mean to tell me that you would not consider Apuleius and Josephus Romans? Jesus and all his disciples and the entirety of Christiandom in those early days were, for the most part, restricted to the Roman Empire, and the citizens therein, or "Romans".

Jesus was Hebrew, not Roman. The Romans didn't actually completely conquer Israel until AFTER Jesus's death (You know, when Tiberius destroyed the second temple while INVADING Jerusalem?). Jesus, being Hebrew, was and is the authority of the gospel, not the Pope that was designated by Roman politicians centuries later.

Also, Josephus and Apuleius were never popes, and there weren't the only Christian missionaries on the face of the earth at the time.

And to wrap things up, the Holy Spirit would not be confined to the state of Rome (that is what you meant by "restricted to the Roman Empire", correct?). It went to other nations as well, centuries before the established Church of Rome.

Unless (if I hear you correctly) 100% of ALL Christians decided that Rome was a really comfortable Christian environment, concluding that they never fled the country in fear of persecution.

Obviously, this is not the case. Christians did flee Rome at times, taking the gospel with them. This is the same kind of migrations that occurred in Israel, inspiring Christians to come to Rome!

All Catholics may be Christian, but not all Christians are Catholics.

To disagree is to say that Jesus was not a Christian, because Jesus was not a catholic (a member of the ROMAN Catholic Church). This, of course, would make Jesus Christ, father of Christianity, a lunatic, and all Catholics who believed in the divinity of Christ would be delusional.

Don't you see how illogical it is to assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church?

Reminding you, once again, that I do not believe Catholicism is a "false doctrine". The point of all this is to reveal that all Christians are Christians. That's it.

I am not trying to bash Catholics in any way. I simply am trying to point out the irrationality of assuming only Catholics are Christian.

Cetatsenia wrote:

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
"Catholic", Roman was just applied by the Anglicans to distinguish between their Catholic Church and the actual Catholic Church.

...I thought the conversation here was about the Roman part of the name and why it's called that.

It is only called "Roman" because it is useful to distinguish it from the Anglican Church, which also considers itself "one, holy, catholic and apostolic".

PC World News wrote:

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Dear God...do you mean to tell me that you would not consider Apuleius and Josephus Romans? Jesus and all his disciples and the entirety of Christiandom in those early days were, for the most part, restricted to the Roman Empire, and the citizens therein, or "Romans".

Jesus was Hebrew, not Roman. The Romans didn't actually completely conquer Israel until AFTER Jesus's death (You know, when Tiberius destroyed the second temple while INVADING Jerusalem?). Jesus, being Hebrew, was and is the authority of the gospel, not the Pope that was designated by Roman politicians centuries later.

Also, Josephus and Apuleius were never popes, and there weren't the only Christian missionaries on the face of the earth at the time.

And to wrap things up, the Holy Spirit would not be confined to the state of Rome (that is what you meant by "restricted to the Roman Empire", correct?). It went to other nations as well, centuries before the established Church of Rome.

Unless (if I hear you correctly) 100% of ALL Christians decided that Rome was a really comfortable Christian environment, concluding that they never fled the country in fear of persecution.

Obviously, this is not the case. Christians did flee Rome at times, taking the gospel with them. This is the same kind of migrations that occurred in Israel, inspiring Christians to come to Rome!

All Catholics may be Christian, but not all Christians are Catholics.

To disagree is to say that Jesus was not a Christian, because Jesus was not a catholic (a member of the ROMAN Catholic Church). This, of course, would make Jesus Christ, father of Christianity, a lunatic, and all Catholics who believed in the divinity of Christ would be delusional.

Don't you see how illogical it is to assume that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church?

Reminding you, once again, that I do not believe Catholicism is a "false doctrine". The point of all this is to reveal that all Christians are Christians. That's it.

I am not trying to bash Catholics in any way. I simply am trying to point out the irrationality of assuming only Catholics are Christian.

Check your history there, lad, the Romans already conquered Israel, they just had to go at it again after Jesus' death because of the Jewish revolt. As in revolt against the ruling authority.

Why else would Jesus be tried by the Romans if they weren't the authority of the region?

Distruzio wrote:

Lavan Tiri wrote:
So.....because I'm a single non saint, God won't listen to me if I pray right to Him? The Apostles prayed directly to the Lord, why can't we?

According to Orthodoxy, all are saints. According to Catholicism, all can become saints (those who are revered as saints are merely the rockstars of sainthood). We can and do pray directly. As I said before, the saints intercede on our behalf at our request. We have shit to do sometimes.

Why ask petition a petitioner, when, in the same time, we can ask God directly? An almighty God, presumably, does not need prayers to go through a bureaucracy before giving his stamp of approval.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
According to Orthodoxy, all are saints. According to Catholicism, all can become saints (those who are revered as saints are merely the rockstars of sainthood). We can and do pray directly. As I said before, the saints intercede on our behalf at our request. We have shit to do sometimes.

Why ask petition a petitioner, when, in the same time, we can ask God directly? An almighty God, presumably, does not need prayers to go through a bureaucracy before giving his stamp of approval.

You might revisit that response I offered. Because I address your question specifically.

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:

Cetatsenia wrote:
...I thought the conversation here was about the Roman part of the name and why it's called that.

It is only called "Roman" because it is useful to distinguish it from the Anglican Church, which also considers itself "one, holy, catholic and apostolic".

I agree with you. I disagree with the person who said it was called that because it was founded by Romans.

Distruzio wrote:

Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:
Why ask petition a petitioner, when, in the same time, we can ask God directly? An almighty God, presumably, does not need prayers to go through a bureaucracy before giving his stamp of approval.

You might revisit that response I offered. Because I address your question specifically.

You said we can and do, but also that we can ask saints, like, say, St. Thomas, to intercede on our behalf- why the needs to have saints intercede for us, then? Life is not so busy that one can make time for Mother Mary, but not for God himself.

Remember, a lot of Protestants say Catholics aren't Christians. Most people here know that to be false. And on the same token, most people also know that Protestantism does quality as real Christianity.

I fail to see how Protestantism isn't a branch of Christianity. The church "accepts" Christ, which by definition, is essentially the qualification for being considered a Christian church.

The Scientific States wrote:I fail to see how Protestantism isn't a branch of Christianity. The church "accepts" Christ, which by definition, is essentially the qualification for being considered a Christian church.

I think there are some arguments in the OP...

The Scientific States wrote:I fail to see how Protestantism isn't a branch of Christianity. The church "accepts" Christ, which by definition, is essentially the qualification for being considered a Christian church.

I really detest it when people try to say that their denomination is the true denomination, and all other beliefs are false. That really pisses me off.

Menassa wrote:

The Scientific States wrote:I fail to see how Protestantism isn't a branch of Christianity. The church "accepts" Christ, which by definition, is essentially the qualification for being considered a Christian church.

I think there are some arguments in the OP...

All of which make decent points, but they're untrue. It seems that Distruzio's argument boils down to "They reject the pope and many other inherently Christian traditions." However, just because one rejects several traditions, that doesn't make them not Christian. One doesn't have to follow every doctrine to be a Christian, so why does a Church have to do?

The Scientific States wrote:

Menassa wrote:I think there are some arguments in the OP...

All of which make decent points, but they're untrue. It seems that Distruzio's argument boils down to "They reject the pope and many other inherently Christian traditions." However, just because one rejects several traditions, that doesn't make them not Christian. One doesn't have to follow every doctrine to be a Christian, so why does a Church have to do?

Perhaps it is his point that by rejecting tradition that makes them un-Christian.