the author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And you've stated that calling John "greater than" is in no way implying the other men born of women are less than fully human.

Right. It in no way implies that other men born of women are less than human.
I never disputed that! What post are you talking about?

I was explaining how when Jesus (supposedly) said that, he was saying that John was an example of the perfected "human" soul after it has passed all the classes.

That he was the "greater" of those born of women (living people), yet "the least in the kingdom (those souls who have passed and received their 'degrees') are greater than he"

So, it's his last (chosen or recruited) incarnation. He had his ducks in a row.

reply to post by colbe

This is how it works. Fundamentalists see history as a problem - a big problem - that if their people were exposed to, it would result in the loss of their followers. So how do you deal with such a problem? Simple. You just "change" history. That's right, you change the story, to make it fit your purposes.

Whoop whoop!

This is what they do, and they've been doing it for a very long time. They didn't start it you see. Their spiritual forefathers started it centuries ago.

Yes, they did!
Congrats, colbe, you're starting to get it! I'm so excited for you.....wow. Wowzees.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by colbe

 

This is how it works. Fundamentalists see history as a problem - a big problem - that if their people were exposed to, it would result in the loss of their followers. So how do you deal with such a problem? Simple. You just "change" history. That's right, you change the story, to make it fit your purposes.

Whoop whoop!

This is what they do, and they've been doing it for a very long time. They didn't start it you see. Their spiritual forefathers started it centuries ago.

Yes, they did!
Congrats, colbe, you're starting to get it! I'm so excited for you.....wow. Wowzees.

Take the post apart to go on more, vanity and to distort what was said.
The writer was referring to Protestant forefathers from the 16th century
not those taught by the Apostles, the first Catholic priests.

My little insulting friend.

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by The GUT
Yeah, I'll stay out of the Catholic/Paganism debate.

I will ask you, as a fellow believer, do you think the Catholic Church is a reflection of the first century church? I don't think so.

Yes, read up what the early church believed. You have the internet.

That's one of the silliest things things I have ever heard. I have the Bible and other writings, I can see and read for myself what the early church believed and it's not a super-rich entity full of iconography...just to name a couple of things that Jesus and the Apostles wouldn't go for.

Let me reiterate: I love the layman Catholic folk. They are full of love and good works. It's the 'religiosity' of the Church leadership itself that I can't find in the Word. Word.

No you can't because the early church believed in the same thing Catholics now do that are not in the bible. You have to read extra-biblical writings to know what early Christians believed. Once you read the history it will teach that Protestant claims are a hoax. How do you know Jesus wouldn't want glory for God? Catholics started universities, hospitals and orphanages, so you can't use "lack of charity" as an excuse.

The Church gave the bible, the bible did not give the Church. Even the bible says that not all things were written and that you must listen to oral tradition. How and what did Christians learn before the Catholic Church compiled the bible? We are fortunate that such writings exist.

reply to post by 547000

. . . the early church believed in the same thing Catholics now do . . .

For the simple reason that they burned all the writings they did not like.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 547000

 

. . . the early church believed in the same thing Catholics now do . . .

For the simple reason that they burned all the writings they did not like.

Pics or it didn't happen.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by colbe


By this method, the Lord himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the "sun of righteousness" (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called "the bright morning star" (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4)."


In contrast to Rev. Woodrow, anyone who *does* learn the facts of the matter and still insists that the Catholic Church has been "corrupted by paganism" is either incapable of intelligent reasoning (that is, mentally handicapped) or dishonest - period.

Rev:22:16
I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.

Bravo ~!!~

he discovered the Truth or at least part of it. Comparing similarities between paganism and Catholicism is stupid. You could do that with any belief and there are "some" similarities Protestant Christians accept.
Christianity is not the same as paganism. I included Revelation 22:16 at the bottom.

at the link, look to the right for the list of writings:

www.catholicthinker.net...
_ _ _

The author of "Babylon Mystery Religion" - one of the main, original sources alleging the "paganizing" of Catholicism from which *many* fundamentalist authors have drawn - changed his mind after learning the facts, displaying his intellectual honesty - his honest search for truth.
I'll repeat one long quote from Rev. Woodrow:


"My reason for pulling the original book out of print was quite basic: Citing similarities between Catholic practices and pagan practices proves nothing if there is no actual connection. One could take virtually anything—even McDonald’s golden arches—and do the same: The Encyclopedia Americana (article: "arch") says the use of arches was known in Babylon as early as 2020 B.C. As Babylon was called "the golden city" (Is. 14:4, KJV), can there be any doubt about the origin of the golden arches? As silly as this is, this is the type of proof that has been offered again and again about the supposed pagan origins of the Catholic Church.
It is the same method atheists use in seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Catholic Church. By this method, one also could condemn Protestant and Evangelical denominations such as the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist and Nazarene: Basic things such as prayer and kneeling in prayer would have to be rejected, as pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water. The list could go on and on.
By this method, even the Bible would have to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible were also known among pagans: raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, a city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, and tithes.
By this method, the Lord himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the "sun of righteousness" (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called "the bright morning star" (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4)."


In contrast to Rev. Woodrow, anyone who *does* learn the facts of the matter and still insists that the Catholic Church has been "corrupted by paganism" is either incapable of intelligent reasoning (that is, mentally handicapped) or dishonest - period.

Rev:22:16
I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by 547000

 

. . . the early church believed in the same thing Catholics now do . . .

For the simple reason that they burned all the writings they did not like.

Well, they were 1 generation removed from the apostolic fathers, who were disciples of the apostles themselves. That's extremely close to the sources themselves.

Originally posted by colbe

...By this method, the Lord himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the "sun of righteousness" (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called "the bright morning star" (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4)."

In contrast to Rev. Woodrow, anyone who *does* learn the facts of the matter and still insists that the Catholic Church has been "corrupted by paganism" is either incapable of intelligent reasoning (that is, mentally handicapped) or dishonest - period...

Rev:22:16
I Jesus have sent my angel, to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the root and stock of David, the bright and morning star.

4th time...

Look everyone, no one has replied to the above. I think our dear brothers and sisters get it. Alleluia.

It's going to happen, an understanding during the Great Warning. The "soon" Second Pentecost, also known as the "illumination of conscience." All the protests, misunderstandings, God is going to straighten out. God respects our free will, it still will be a choice to accept what God shows us all personally.

You've already started, take one objection off your list. To be kind, I admire our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, their devotion to Scripture.

A weight will be lifted there too. You'll be enlightened, private interpretation of Scripture is heresy. God gave the Church the authority to interpret Scripture not every person. Look at the fruit of that heresy. Yikes!

blessings and see you,


colbe

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Well, they were 1 generation removed from the apostolic fathers, who were disciples of the apostles themselves. That's extremely close to the sources themselves.

And . . so?
Are you a Catholic now?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well, they were 1 generation removed from the apostolic fathers, who were disciples of the apostles themselves. That's extremely close to the sources themselves.

And . . so?
Are you a Catholic now?

No, I'm finding your idea that burning heretical books was somehow bad is pretty absurd, I've still to date never prayed to Mary, or ate a delicious magic Jesus cookie.

reply to post by colbe

Their spiritual forefathers started it centuries ago. The first one to do this was Martin Luther of course, the father of the Protestant Reformation.

You keep bringing him up as the "first" to reject the RCC's authority.
Ever heard of this bloke?

John Wycliffe ( /ˈwɪklɪf/; also spelled Wyclif, Wycliff, Wiclef, Wicliffe, or Wickliffe) (c. 1328 – December 31, 1384) was an English Scholastic philosopher, theologian, lay preacher,[1] translator, reformer and university teacher who was known as
an early dissident in the Roman Catholic Church during the 14th century.
His followers were known as Lollards, a somewhat rebellious movement, which preached anticlerical and biblically-centred reforms. The Lollard movement,[1] was a precursor to the Protestant Reformation (for this reason, Wycliffe is sometimes called "The Morning Star of the Reformation"). He was one of the earliest opponents of papal authority influencing secular power.[2].

en.wikipedia.org...

or these guys?

There were a number of people who contributed to the development of the reformation, but lived before it, including:

John Hus
Jerome of Prague
Savonarola
Peter Waldo
Wessel Harmenz. Gansfort

colbe, do tell, how I am any more "insulting" a "little friend" than you are?
You have rather flimsy arguments and seem to be unaware of a lot of history. The 'reformers' have been around since the beginning... and if you'd just do some reading you'd know this. Even the Council at Nicea was held because the bishops couldn't agree on what to "teach". There's always been gainsayers....
after the RCC was finally "voted on" and "canon" was adopted (like a law that goes through House and Senate and eventually is a compromise), it was people in secret not complying, or giving it lip-service, because it was the LAW.
+When folks got brave enough to start making a public fuss, they encouraged those secret dissenters, and the "movement" picked up steam.

Protestant Reformation

Waldensians (I 12th century)
Avignon Papacy (1309–77)
John Wycliffe (E, 1320–84)
Western Schism (1378–1417)
Jan Hus (B, ~1369–1415)
Hussite Wars (1420–~34)
Northern Renaissance
German mysticism
The Ninety-Five Theses
German Peasants' War
Schmalkaldic League
Magisterial · Radical · Counter


-------------->.....and then......

reply to post by wildtimes

Even the Council at Nicea was held because the bishops couldn't agree on what to "teach". There's always been gainsayers....

Not exactly, but you are 100% correct on this, (and thank you from the bottom of my heart, most people completely screw this next part up), that the council was called primarily to address a doctrinal issue that arose from one bishop, not some competing quarrel amongst the bishops. The council was convened to address the Arian heresy.

Arius , bishop of Alexandria, began to teach that Jesus, was not God. That He was created by God. And he began to gain a cadre of followers and so the council came together to iron out this vitally important doctrinal issue. So this guy was going against what the apostles taught, what Christians in Rome WERE DYING FOR affirming by the thousands. (That Jesus is God, not Ceaser)

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Emperors Constantine and Licinius.

Brass balls I say..

The council did not create the doctrine of the deity of Christ (as is sometimes claimed) but it did settle to some degree the debate within the Early Christian communities regarding the divinity of Christ. This idea of the divinity of Christ along with the idea of Christ as a messenger from the one God ("The Father") had long existed in various parts of the Roman empire. The divinity of Christ had also been widely endorsed by the Christian community in the otherwise pagan city of Rome. The council affirmed and defined what it believed to be the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: that Christ is the one true God in deity with the Father."

So they didn't vote to 'make Jesus God' at Nicea, no, they voted on how to define His deity.

The agenda of the synod included:

1.. The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and
Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being
2 The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation
3 The Meletian schism
4 The validity of baptism by heretics
5 The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius

(#1 was the primary reason for the council being convened. The "Arian Heresy":

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as Homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation of God the Father. A third group (now known as Homoiousians) later tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.[32]

For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[33] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. According to many accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was slapped in the face by Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.[34]

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the same; followers of Alexander did not. The exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicea were still unclear to speakers of other languages. Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (prosopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics (who used it in their theology), and because it had been condemned at the 264–268 Synods of Antioch.

Which led ultimately to the Nicean Creed,::

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

Which had this added SPECIFICALLY at the end to address the Arian heresy:

"[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

Wiki ~ First Council of Nicea 325 A.D.

And btw, the only 2 people at the council to agree with the Arius position was his own two associates who accompanied him there.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And btw, the only 2 people at the council to agree with the Arius position was his own two associates who accompanied him there.

edit on 9-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

NTT, your posts don't hold water. You are protesting Catholicism again when all the Christian councils since the beginning are Roman Catholic.

One Lord, one faith, one baptism Ephesians 4:5, the reason Jesus established one Church. You can do this, don't care about what others think, human respect is worthless. God is sending you and everyone reading this...a "grace", MO.

Many Protestants, especially pastors have converted.

Serendipitous, Our Lord in private revelation (the prophetic) yesterday, He speaks of the first Church Council, Acts 15:1-12.

Link ~ join Yahoo Groups first, Seers 2, see message # 34708

_ _ _

Message to Father Melvin

March 8, 2012

The Council of Jerusalem


..."I love you, My brother Melvin, and all My brothers and sisters scattered over the whole earth. Some of you are suffering because of persecution, drought and earthly upheavals. Do not worry but remain close to Me and I will help you. The first Council of the Church was held at Jerusalem while the Apostles were still living. The big problem was this: should the Gentiles who wished to become Christians be circumcised before they are baptized. Some of the Jews were pushing that all be circumcised. However, with the power of the Holy Spirit St. Peter and the other Apostles decided that there would be no circumcision for the Gentiles as it was not necessary. So since that day this question never came up again. Yes, My Church has gathered many times in the past to decide on pressing questions. I was there to help them come to the right decision. All My followers are to follow the decisions of these councils for they came from Me through the Holy Spirit. I bless you all."

reply to post by colbe


Colby,
I'm not Christian, so I'm not asking this for myself,well, my curiosity, but, here goes; What would a God loving, good Protestant Christian need to do, or change, in order to be a Roman Catholic. Considering they HAVE been baptized, taken communion and confessed their sins to Jesus, what else would they need to do?

reply to post by colbe

NTT, your posts don't hold water.

Read it yourself, I copy/pasted from the Wikipedia article and linked it at the bottom.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe

 

Colby,
I'm not Christian, so I'm not asking this for myself,well, my curiosity, but, here goes; What would a God loving, good Protestant Christian need to do, or change, in order to be a Roman Catholic. Considering they HAVE been baptized, taken communion and confessed their sins to Jesus, what else would they need to do?

Apparently the gospel isn't "Jesus died for your sins, trust in Him" anymore huh?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe

 

Colby,
I'm not Christian, so I'm not asking this for myself,well, my curiosity, but, here goes; What would a God loving, good Protestant Christian need to do, or change, in order to be a Roman Catholic. Considering they HAVE been baptized, taken communion and confessed their sins to Jesus, what else would they need to do?

Hi windword,

To become Catholic, you have to take instruction for a period of time
before you receive the Sacraments. This instruction is The Rite of
Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) offered at every Catholic parish
sometime during the year.

There is another way, I personally think is better. You receive instruction from a priest and a lessor reason, it is faster, takes 1/4 the time. The RCIA program and not always but is often taught by a lay person (the parish priest may be teaching the RCIA class). RCIA takes almost a year for instruction.

Call your Catholic diocese office, ask them where the nearest Traditional
Latin Mass (the Tridentine Mass) is offered in the diocese? Get the
number and call the priest, talk to him, ask when he is offering instruction. There are two traditional orders of priests who offer the traditional Latin Mass recognized by the Church, the Fraternity of St. Peter and Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest.

And the "grace" factor, the traditional Latin Mass is more reverent than the New Mass, the Novus Ordo Mass.

Sharing again, lay people are wonderful and on fire but to hear the faith from a priest, MO is the best way. Check out both means, you may not have a traditional Latin Mass parish near you. If there is...do it.

Here is a link to Catholic diocese offices, a map, check your state.

www.parishesonline.com...


love,


colbe

reply to post by colbe


Ugh, sounds like signing up for the military or some kind of volunteer prison!

But, thank you, Colbe for your comprehensive answer. I had no idea it was that complicated and contrived. See, I grew up in a Pentecostal household. Salvation was easy, maintaining was a whole nother story.....