but is not limited to,

the concept of the Trinity, - your wrong. Scripture
Jesus' Divinity, -Your wrong - Scripture
Communion, -RCC Perversion of last supper;
Infant Baptism,RCC- not christian
The Cross - Toughy... Jesus was killed on one
, Sunday as the Sabbath (vs. the original Saturday), RCC - non factor per Paul and Jesus

Invalidation of most Judaic law (selective), - Your wrong - scripture - Works, not moral law -

Original Sin, - Your wrong - scripture
Virgin Birth, Your wrong - scripture
The (entire) Bible as the actual Word of God - Your wrong - God
(not representative, not fallible), - ?
and the list goes on & on. Interestingly enough, most people don't even realise that the model for most Protestant church services, only dates back to around 1858, or so.
Stained glass windows, steeples on churches - 12th century
dunno..not on my church
Pews, church bulletins - 15th century - did they sit on the ceiling?
Choirs - 3rd & 4th century.....(I like this one) from the choirs in pagan temples.... David danced and sang..the psalms tell us to do it.

All are adoptions by the RCC (except, oddly, for pews, which is credited to the Reformation movement under Luther). Your wrong
Hardly ANY are practiced by protestants

It seems you are not up to date on the subject matter.
Might I suggest going to a protestant church for a while to find out a little bit?


You have 7 Your wrong's and I let the ify ones go.

You do not have a clue about the difference between the rcc and biblical christianity.

Originally posted by Lordling
Unfortunately, the RCC is the foundation of practically all religious observances practiced by Protestant Christianity. In essence, this includes, but is not limited to, the concept of the Trinity, Jesus' Divinity, Communion, Infant Baptism, The Cross as the symbol of Christianity, Sunday as the Sabbath (vs. the original Saturday), Invalidation of most Judaic law (selective), Original Sin, Virgin Birth, The (entire) Bible as the actual Word of God (not representative, not fallible), and the list goes on & on.

Trinity and Jesus Divinty-The catholic system has also elevated Mary to a position of near Godhood and place Mary between Jesus and people.

God is God alone and Christ is the mediator between man and God. The Holy Spirit is also God. Mary is not to be elevated nor is prayer toher or any other dead person Biblical.

Communion in the RCC is corrupted and seen as a must for salvation and lessening of one's time in purgatory and is presented as how Jesus is received.

In truth Communion is a symbolic physical way to demonstate a spiritual application.

There is nothing Biblical about infant baptism. It does not remove sins.

The cross as a symbol of christianity. The RCC has Jesus still on the cross.

In reality He is not there, He suffered on the cross and is now seated at the right hand of God. He has completed the payment and sacrifice for sin.

The symbol of the cross can be found in the early Bible it's not a Catholic invention. When God took the Israelites out of Egypt in the Exodus He told them to set up camp a certain way. The tabernacle was to be in the middle. From there, 3 tribes set up camp to the north, 3 to the south, 3 to the east and 3 to the west. Each tribe had different population amounts. I would have to go and look up the census amounts again but I have done this before. Anyway the total population of all the tribes was in the millions with men women and children. When all the tribes had set up camp do you know what shape that made? It formed a cross. When Balaam came to curse the Israelites but God wouldn't let Him the Bible tells us He went to a cliff overlooking the camp. Can you imagine the sight he saw, a huge cross of people spread out in the desert. Think about what this sight looked like at night with all the campfires burning. A cross probably miles long both ways illuminated and showing forth in the darkness.

God was proclaiming Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for sin long before the actual event took place.

Acts tells us the Apostles and the other followers of Christ began meeting on Sunday.

Judaic law, Christ fulfilled the law and the Holy Spirit in us gives us the ability to keep the law.

Original sin -not sure what the catholic meaning is of this but in actuality we are born seperated from God because sin dwells in us and will appear.

Mary was a virgin when she had Christ, but she didn't remain that way her whole life.

As far as the RCC saying the word of God is not fallible I don't know. I've never heard them claim it one way or the other. What I do know is they add other books to the interpretation of the Bible and that is not wise.

The Bible can stand alone as our instruction book.

There is some truth in the RCC to fool some into believing they are truthful in its representation of Christ, but there is also enough falsehood and deceit that millions are going to hell because they don't know the truth of salvation.

Originally posted by jake1997
but is not limited to,

the concept of the Trinity, - your wrong. Scripture
I take the hit for this one...I misstated. Rephrased: Established official definition of said Trinity. RCC (Council of Bishops) approved & dictated as dogma, after many rounds of heated debate

Jesus' Divinity, -Your wrong - Scripture
Scriptural Interpretation - Point has been debated by everyone interested, including leading theologians (many Christian) since Jesus walked the Earth up to this very moment. RCC (Council of Bishops) approved & dictated as dogma, after many rounds of heated debate

Communion, -RCC Perversion of last supper;
Still observed in various Protestant denominations.

Infant Baptism,RCC- not christian
Still observed in various Protestant denominations.

The Cross - Toughy... Jesus was killed on one
Still officially decided by the Council of Bishops (RCC) and dictated as dogma.

Sunday as the Sabbath (vs. the original Saturday), RCC - non factor per Paul and Jesus
Maybe - Scriptural Interpretation

Invalidation of most Judaic law (selective), - Your wrong - scripture - Works, not moral law -
Scriptural Interpretation

Original Sin, - Your wrong - scripture
Scriptural Interpretation & Translation

Virgin Birth, Your wrong - scripture
Scriptural Interpretation & Translation

The (entire) Bible as the actual Word of God - Your wrong - God
Scriptural Interpretation

(not representative, not fallible), - ?
Meaning that the Bible was written by the divinely inspired & is without error

and the list goes on & on. Interestingly enough, most people don't even realise that the model for most Protestant church services, only dates back to around 1858, or so.
Stained glass windows, steeples on churches - 12th century
dunno..not on my church
OK

Pews, church bulletins - 15th century - did they sit on the ceiling?
They had to kneel.

Choirs - 3rd & 4th century.....(I like this one) from the choirs in pagan temples.... David danced and sang..the psalms tell us to do it.
Defined & dictated having an organised group perform during services for the express purpose of inspirational music. Not an observance of the original church. Constantine thought it was a nice feature of the pagan temples' chanters, and copied it.

All are adoptions by the RCC (except, oddly, for pews, which is credited to the Reformation movement under Luther). Your wrong
Hardly ANY are practiced by protestants
I am humbled to hear this from someone who speaks for all 34,000 denominations of Protestantism.

It seems you are not up to date on the subject matter.
Not likely....Ever...Well, rarely then, lol!

Might I suggest going to a protestant church for a while to find out a little bit?
Do you honestly believe I would enjoin discussions on these topics if I had no practical experience with religions?

You have 7 Your wrong's and I let the ify ones go.
Personal Interpretation

You do not have a clue about the difference between the rcc and biblical christianity.
Apparently someone here doesn't know the difference between religious philosophy & organised religion.

Yours in Truth & with God my brother

people in jesus' own town/village didn't believe he was the son of god. that's why he left, was it not?

Originally posted by toolmaker
" Jesus was completely human but also completely pure and sinless; having a child with Mary would have been a sin. It never happened. Deny Ignorance. "




And why would having a child be a sin? Lord almighty extrapolate that, having children is a Sin, so anyone that believes in God should avoid children, so true believers would die out as they are the last generation..? where exactly did this belief come from...`

It would have been a sin because Jesus and Mary Magdelene were not married.

Sex is not a sin, children are not sins...youve been reading the writings of Paul the whack job a bit too much. Jesus may have married, as he is referred too as Rabbi in Hebrew, and to be Rabbi he must have been married. We dont know if he was, we dont know if he wasnt.

Rabbi is from Hebrew ,Rabboni, , which means "teacher". You do not have to be married to be a rabbi; who ever told you that you had to be married to be a rabbi?

We do have 18 years of his life missing, so i suspect there is a lot church leaders did not want getting out, it would destroy the little fable they were putting together. Maybe one day someone will find a book that contains the lost 18 years and we find Jesus had a raised a pretty good sized family.
what will happen then?

There is nothing written on those years because they do not pertain to His ministry on earth. The only thing that truly matter is what he did in the last 3 years of His life and death and resurrection.

Originally posted by lightseeker
There is nothing written on those years because they do not pertain to His ministry on earth. The only thing that truly matter is what he did in the last 3 years of His life and death and resurrection.

That is funny, so why include anything about his birth and early childhood in the NT? Why? Because there is an 18 span where very little is known of him, that is why. His 18 year gap may explain where he got his teachings from, and in the Vatican archive there may be information pertaining to this.

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker
There is nothing written on those years because they do not pertain to His ministry on earth. The only thing that truly matter is what he did in the last 3 years of His life and death and resurrection.

That is funny, so why include anything about his birth and early childhood in the NT? Why? Because there is an 18 span where very little is known of him, that is why. His 18 year gap may explain where he got his teachings from, and in the Vatican archive there may be information pertaining to this.

Frosty, when I said there was nothing written on "those years", I was referring to the missing eighteen years. What happened in His life during that time will not matter a whit uuless and untill you deal with what happened to Him and what He said and did durring the last three years; that which is written of in the Gospels.

Also, what might or not be in the Vatican archives is of no importance to the knowing who and what Jesus Christ was and is; you will only learn that from personally reading what He said, praying about it and actually meeting Him.


[edit on 7/18/2005 by lightseeker]

i heard jesus went to egypt to learn a lot about medicine, spiritual healing, all sorts really...was this the early or later part of his life?

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i heard jesus went to egypt to learn a lot about medicine, spiritual healing, all sorts really...was this the early or later part of his life?

What you are referring to is only conjecture, based on the years between His last recorded visit to the Temple in Jerusalem as a child and the beginning of His ministry; no one but God and Jesus know where he was or what He was doing during that time but church tradition says He lived with His Mother and brothers in Gallilee and worked as a carpenter like Joseph His earthly Father.



[edit on 7/18/2005 by lightseeker]

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by lightseeker
There is nothing written on those years because they do not pertain to His ministry on earth. The only thing that truly matter is what he did in the last 3 years of His life and death and resurrection.

That is funny, so why include anything about his birth and early childhood in the NT? Why? Because there is an 18 span where very little is known of him, that is why. His 18 year gap may explain where he got his teachings from, and in the Vatican archive there may be information pertaining to this.

Read Luke Chapter 2.
and
Mark 1:13.

Then you will know where Jesus got his teachings

lightseeker, if it is the later years Christianity is concerned with, then why does the New Testament include his birth and childhood years? Why not eviscerate completly everything not concerned with his later years?

Originally posted by Frosty
lightseeker, if it is the later years Christianity is concerned with, then why does the New Testament include his birth and childhood years? Why not eviscerate completly everything not concerned with his later years?

What I meant was this: the last 3 years of Jesus' life constitute His ministry, teaching. preaching, miracles, arrest, torture, death and resurrection, and assension, and so, make up the bulk of Christian teaching, but not all. The reason why the writers of the Synoptic Gospels record His birth and childhood is to show that His birth, the attempt to have Him killed by Herod and His flight into exile with Mary & Joseph to Egypt were a clear fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. All predicted
as a sign of the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled every one.!

The birth of Christ is kinda important being He is the Son of God.

It was fulfillment of porphecy which is a testament in itself

The bulk of christian teaching is almost no different from the bulk of Hare Krishna. What would you say if you knew without a doubt Christ was a follower of Krishna?

the only evidence we have that jesus was born of a virgin, furfilled any prophecy, performed miracles, resurected and ascended to heaven is in the four gospels. of which these four gospels were not eyewitness accounts. the four authors never met jesus. they were written decades after he ascended to heaven, yet somehow these four gospels are proof??

Dup post.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Frosty
The bulk of christian teaching is almost no different from the bulk of Hare Krishna. What would you say if you knew without a doubt Christ was a follower of Krishna?

My World Religions professor tried to draw the same parallels. Just because Krishna was benevolent, doesn't mean Jesus followed him. God on the other hand, is omnibenevolent, something that Krishna did not lay claim to from what I understand. It's been a while since I read the Bhagavad Gita so correct me if I'm wrong. Anyhow, Jesus makes clear who He follows and even if anyone feels he didn't, he stated for us to pray to God. The same God as found in the Old Testament. Why would a Krishna follower say "go pray to someone else"?

[edit on 19-7-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by shaunybaby
the only evidence we have that jesus was born of a virgin, furfilled any prophecy, performed miracles, resurected and ascended to heaven is in the four gospels. of which these four gospels were not eyewitness accounts. the four authors never met jesus. they were written decades after he ascended to heaven, yet somehow these four gospels are proof??

That's fine, put the Book down and pray to God. You're not going to find a personal relationship in the Book. Hang on to it though, because if you get the same response I did, you're going to need it.