Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hawklore on January 12, 2005, 01:24:37 PM
-
Your view, got a history teacher telling me this...
She's also talking about the Crusades which happend pre-Renissance, in which that is the time period we are suppose to look over, granted it was only 200-250 years, but when you come to the fact of re-birth the Crusades, paid some part, not all.
-
not sure what you are asking here.
-
There are evangelical protestant christians that think they are pagans.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0082/0082_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1005/1005_01.asp
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0040/0040_01.asp
Kinda funny when they eat their own :)
Charon
-
oh, thats rich i say.
-
Don't worry, I'm gonna pound her with history books and quotes from Christian websites that attempt to disprove them as christians, and catholic.org that prove they are christian..
Fun fun fun..
The truth shall set ye free...
-
good luck.
-
Oh, just to watch her cringe too, when I read aloud...
Christianity was born from Judaism, and the Roman Catholic Church was the first form of true Christianity...
:D
-
I've seen this before. Sad that they pull this type of hate mongering.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Oh, just to watch her cringe too, when I read aloud...
Christianity was born from Judaism, and the Roman Catholic Church was the first form of true Christianity...
:D
Very true my first wife was a catholic amd indeed Catholicism came from Judaism.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Oh, just to watch her cringe too, when I read aloud...
Christianity was born from Judaism, and the Roman Catholic Church was the first form of true Christianity...
:D
First form of Christianity?!
Go read something about Nikei synod, 1054.
Orthodox Church officially states that Roman Catholic curch and other protestant churches that came from it are heretics and not Christians.
You can also find some info about Nestorians, who think that Christ was a man, not a god. Also try looking for info about Armenian church, that separated from "mainstream" Christianity in IV century.
In last 10 years the difference between "protestant ethics" and "orthodox community tradition" is widely discussed here. Many researchers find it the main reason for the difference in mentality between Russians and Europeans...
-
damn, and i followed the gourd.
-
Funny thing about all of this. I recall that Christ claimed only to be a Jew.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
First form of Christianity?!
Go read something about Nikei synod, 1054.
Orthodox Church officially states that Roman Catholic curch and other protestant churches that came from it are heretics and not Christians.
You can also find some info about Nestorians, who think that Christ was a man, not a god. Also try looking for info about Armenian church, that separated from "mainstream" Christianity in IV century.
In last 10 years the difference between "protestant ethics" and "orthodox community tradition" is widely discussed here. Many researchers find it the main reason for the difference in mentality between Russians and Europeans...
313
Emperor Constantine officially recognizes The Catholic Church when he issued the Edict of Milan.
Source (http://www.hist.edu/313milan.html)
The Edit of Milan was a proclamation, initiated by Constantine in the West, but agreed to by Licinius in the East, by which Christianity was given legal status, equal to paganism if not a little superior to it. Persecution in any form from 313 was supposed to come to a stop.
In the 200's there had been terrible persecutions, and since there were no complete records, we do not know how many Christians met their deaths, certainly there were hundreds, if not thousands, and some have claimed millions. Many were poor people whose names we don't even know. Besides torture and death, their property was taken away from them. Many Christians had no security, because disgruntled neighbors (often to get their property) would "turn them in" and defame them to the law. The persecution both East and West was revived and intensified under Diocletian, and later under Licinius. It would not be long, however, before persecution began to subside in the West, but not in the East.
Under Constantius Chlorus, Augsutus in Trier over Gaul and Britain, things began to change. He tolerated Christians (some of his best soldiers were Christian), as did his son, Constantine. After the Milvian Bridge battle and his miraculous victory which he attributed to the Christian God, Constantine's attitude toward Christians went from mere toleration to something rather positive. The toleration he had extended to Christians he felt had to have the force of law behind it. His attitude led to the Edict of Milan, and he was able to get Licinius also to proclaim it in the East by pointing out the political advantage, but later Licinius rescinded.
The Edict decreed that Christians were no longer to be persecuted, that is, not brought before judges, and not tortured or killed because they were Christian. The document went further than that: if their land or houses had been taken away, they were to be restored, without the necessity of going to court to get their property back. If new owners objected they were to receive recompense from the government.
Yes, Christians received legal status and were protected, but there is nothing in the decree which suggests that pagans were to be harmed in any way. Yet, paganism is not mentioned by name, only Christians, and so it can be concluded that there was some advantage for Christians. In fact the decree explicitly states that any toleration extended to other religions, comes to them by virtue of the fact that Christians are hereafter tolerated and protected.
Heres a source from same website that has Armenian Church
http://www.hist.edu/churches.html
-
It's amazing how much history can be found...
Man I'm such a history nerd...
:lol
-
korhhisti
-
Sorry Hawklore I can not se a single line about "Catholics" in that text. It mentiones christians, but does it really mention "Catholics". If it does, please point it out to me.
Thanks
-
Originally posted by Octavius
korhhisti
:confused:
-
Originally posted by patrone
Sorry Hawklore I can not se a single line abpout "Catholics" in that text. It mentiones christians, but does it reallu mention "Catholics". If it does, please point it out to me.
Thanks
Well if you consider that the only christians back then were umm, Catholics.
The Roman Catholic church was the only largely wide known christian community. Granted there were others..
Here, it may of been because it was hidden between the two quotes.
313
Emperor Constantine officially recognizes The Catholic Church when he issued the Edict of Milan. Then I posted the Edict of Milan, of course it's from a Catholic website, :o.
This thread is for learning History, so, if you disagree with me, find some crediable history behind it, and post it.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
It's amazing how much history can be found...
Man I'm such a history nerd...
:lol
It's real fun to dig for things that are not-so-obvious, especially to break the stereotypes that "every educated person knows". ;)
For me - Orthodox Church is an inheritor of the "original" Christianity. I find Othodox approach to life more positive. Being an atheist and an "existencial communist" (as some of my Christian friends call me ;)) I find my background more Orthodox then "communist", Russia always remained an Orthodox country.
St. Vladimir adopted Orthodox Christianity for Russia because it was more positive and optimistic then Western church, and, unlike Islam, didn't prohibit drinking ;) He invited representatives from all "global religions" at that time (988 AD), and have chosen the most appropriate religion for Russians ;)
-
Yeah I really don't know anything about Orthodox, that I know of...
Yeah, thanks for letting me know about the Armenian, I had no idea that there was a christian church before the RCC..
Of course, I can't find a solid beg. of the RCC..
-
To me and as far as I know history, the original Christian church was Orthodox. The Catholic church was created after and in the same way as Protostant church was created from Catolic church.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Being an atheist and an "existencial communist" (as some of my Christian friends call me ;))
LOL
-
Gimme a break.
You think they have different lines up to heaven?
"no sorry, you are in the Catholic line...wait your turn.."
"Protestants up front...dont shove...dont shove.."
Hawklore dont worry about what people say in this life, you will find out how it works eventually.
-
The first Christians were around for some 300 years before the Catholic church.
The chruches of the Pauline Epistles were very much connected. The apostles and other leaders toured them and kept them in touch with each other. Remember that much of what Paul did was to say that Christians did not have to follow Judism's dietary laws and other rules. This was a major break with the church in Jeruselam and Peter at the time. (Although Peter later came aroudn and agreed with Paul). There was a power struggle in the early church as the leaders in Jerusalem tried to maintain control of the teachings and churches throughout Greece and Asia.
The Catholic Church was what grew out of these churches after Constantine reduced the persecution. But it was just one of the denomations that started from that same source. Much as Protestantism's source is the Catholic Church by way of Martin Luther.
And many of Catholicism's rituals have mirrors in Judaism. Such as priestly intercession and confirmation.
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Your view, got a history teacher telling me this...
I thought you were home schooled? Shouldn't teacher be replaced with Mom?
-
They'e all Christian if they follow Christ, and acknowledge his divinity. The Bible says that salvation is dependant upon belief. The rest of it--all the different sects, including Catholicism--is Man's attempt to understand that which is so far beyond our ability to perceive that we haven't a chance.
That's the beauty and the hunger of it. We want to understand, but cannot. So we build up human institutions to try to figure it out. They are human, and therefore imperfect. But remember, if you are a Christian, it is your faith that saves you. The rest is window dressing.
By the way, I am a practicing Catholic, just in case anybody wants to know...
-
After the death and resurrection of Jesus, his disciples began travelling and spreading his message. At first they held with all the Jewish traditions and spread the word among their own people. With the conversion of Paul (Saul), who worked for the Roman govornment hunting down Christians and bringing them to trial, the "major doctrine" was developed. Paul said that ANY who believed and were Baptized could recieve salvation. Paul also added the theological point that Christians were the "true Israel", an Israel of faith rather than one of flesh (the Jews).
From the beginning, the leaders of the Christian faith (the apostles) agreed that only those they taught directly could teach others about the truths of this new religion. Each apostle specified a special student to take his place when he died. This student, in turn, taught others, and selected one to carry on for him when he died. This is called the Apostolic Line.
In the modern Catholic church, it is recognized that Peter was the chosen of Jesus to continue his ministry. According to the Scriptures, Matthew 16:13- 19, Christ said to Peter: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Each of the others was recognized as the equivalent of what we know of as Bishops in the Apostolic Line. The Pope is supposedly the direct heir to Peter. The Christian faith was not established in Rome until 380, after persecution was outlawed by Constantine in 313.
It's important to note that no matter what branch you are talking about of the Catholic Church, they all universally recognize that each has an unbroken Apostolic Line. Different denominations are called Rites, Catholic being a universal term to encompass them all. This includes Roman Rite, Anglican Rite, Celtic Rite, Orthodox Rite (Eastern or Western) and Gallican Rite. All are valid expressions of the Orthodoxy of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church (as considered by the Independent Catholic Union).
Personally, I'm Baptist, but one of my ex-wives was Catholic and I spent many a pleasant evening arguing with her Priest. Drunken bastige that he was. :D
-
A christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Doesnt matter what church they belong to as long as they follow the teachings of Christ they can be considered a Christian.
So yes, Catholics are christians and so are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans etc.
-
I don't know how much time you have to research this but if you can shoot down to a library or Borders Books or something, look up:
"The Faith: A History of Christianity" by Brian Moynahan. It might help you out.
-
Is she perchance a Presbyterian? As I understand it they are supposed to believe that not only are Catholics not Christians but as followers of the Pope they are also followers of the anti Christ which is how they see the Pope. I'm not making this up, honest! This applies to Roman Catholics I'm not sure if the Anglicans are included too.
One thing I will say that this kind of thinking has been used as a justification for persecution of Catholics over the years particularly at a place not so far away from where I sit.
I would also suggest that her job might be in danger as that kind of talk could be viewed as inflammatory paricularly coming from teacher. Dangerous stuff.
-
There were 4 crusades. The last two really did not count though. the 3rd only made it as far as Insatnbul (constantinople).
They must ahve got tired of riding and decided to just sack that place instead.
The 4th was the "Children's Crusade" It never made it out of France for the most part.
I may be off on the numbers I will check when I get home.
The Orthodox church is the off shoot of eastern christianity and Catholic is the western as defined by the guys who ran it for the arms of the Roman Empire. Basically it was politics and distance that defined the differances of the two sects
Heh the way to get folks to follow you at that time was to declare them pagan. As the guy said above I do not think there are seperate lines for different sects.
Some would even go as far to say that the two sects were dewfined by the quality of the coinage of both parts of the empire. I however do not ascribe to that view
-
Originally posted by Elfie
A christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Doesnt matter what church they belong to as long as they follow the teachings of Christ they can be considered a Christian.
So yes, Catholics are christians and so are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans etc.
What about jehova witness? I am asking you, Elfie-knower of it all: Is this considered Christans teaching?
-
Not 100% sure but I believe the definition of Christian is to be Christ like.
So If a person worships christ then he is christian.
No matter what church he does or does not attend.
-
http://www.carlspackler.com/sounds/046.wav
-
The terms "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" are not synonomous.
Edit: (synononononmous sp?)
-
I'm a recovering Catholic.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
They'e all Christian if they follow Christ, and acknowledge his divinity. The Bible says that salvation is dependant upon belief. The rest of it--all the different sects, including Catholicism--is Man's attempt to understand that which is so far beyond our ability to perceive that we haven't a chance.
That's the beauty and the hunger of it. We want to understand, but cannot. So we build up human institutions to try to figure it out. They are human, and therefore imperfect. But remember, if you are a Christian, it is your faith that saves you. The rest is window dressing.
By the way, I am a practicing Catholic, just in case anybody wants to know...
Originally posted by Elfie
A christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Doesnt matter what church they belong to as long as they follow the teachings of Christ they can be considered a Christian.
So yes, Catholics are christians and so are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans etc.
DING DING DING DING
FInally somone who actually gets it. You can throw words and labels around all you want but in all actuality the difference is quite simple and not many grasp it.
Religion in what ever form is a ideal created by MAN to be closer to god.
Christ is MAN created by GOD to be closer to MAN. It's our faith in this that overshadows any "religion". That is what it means to be a christian.....doesnt matter what rituals, proticals, or ceremonys ect. that you follow it all boils down to man JC! The only perfect person to suffer and die for an imperfect world so we may be absolved of our sins.
EDIT:
In addition this may shed some light as well.
Roman Catholic Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Roman Catholic Church (the term given as the title of this article) is most often spoken of simply as the "Catholic Church". Though the latter term has other meanings (for which, see Catholicism), it is generally used in this article, for the sake of brevity and to avoid confusion with the Latin Rite component of this worldwide body of Christians of East and West in full communion with the Pope. In fact, some give the first of these two terms ("Roman Catholic Church") an even narrower meaning: they link it with the Roman liturgical rite, one of several liturgical rites used by the Latin Rite or Latin particular Church, and accordingly consider that the term "Roman Catholic Church" is a misnomer when applied to the whole Church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The relationship between the Catholic Church and the Western or Latin and the Eastern Churches within it is dealt with below.
The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Church Lumen Gentium, 8,[1] (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) declared that “the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic” has a concrete realization (the Latin term is “subsistit”) "in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him". By "successor of Peter" is meant the Pope.
-
HAWKLORE i hate reading you ingorant posts but i thought you might have a good topic this time but yet again you are ill informed............home schooled or not! you schooling is obviously CATHOLIC (miss spelled on purpose) and its is biased and ignorant!
i want to say .........sooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo much because this kid needs it! he needs to develope a mind of his own and not that of his parents!
LIP BIT and watching..................... ........
Christ, Allaha Jahway(SP) , Krishna, Budda, ....etc maybe they are all the same god coming down in a form that the people they are coming to can Accept!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
i want to say .........sooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooo much because this kid needs it! he needs to develope a mind of his own and not that of his parents!
LIP BIT and watching..................... ........
Christ, Allaha Jahway(SP) , Krishna, Budda, ....etc maybe they are all the same god coming down in a form that the people they are coming to can Accept!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WWJCD?
Would Jesus use so many repeated characters and punctuation marks?
-
I'm going to drop a stink bomb on this thread and make some people uncomfortable.
A christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Doesnt matter what church they belong to as long as they follow the teachings of Christ they can be considered a Christian.
So yes, Catholics are christians and so are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans etc.
When I read things like above and hear people preach that "we can believe what we want, worship how we want, we're all going to heaven", well, I ask myself, how does this jive with the Bible? Seeings how the Bible is the inspired written word of God (if we claim to be a christian)
When I go to the scripture and see what Jesus teachings are, and the Apostles teachings are, I find a whole different way of thinking. ephesians 4:4 speaks of one church, one belief, one baptism. Well, ok, the "one belief" bit is talking about all the "denominations" (read divisions) right? well, what about 1 corinthians 1:10-13 ? Is paul ok with the church at corinth having divisions in itself? In verse 12 he points out that some were saying they were of paul, others of cephas, etc. Then he asks is Christ divided. Kinda sounds like "denominations" eh ?
This is ont a popular thing to bring up to believers because the denomination system is just second nature here 2000 years later. but if you're a student of the book you see that the apostles worked hard to be sure that the church kept the same doctrine. "You believe what you believe and I'll do my thing and we'll meet in heaven together!" was corrected real fast by Paul.
romans 16:16-18 tells us what the church was called back then and then tells us what to do with division and those causing it. Seems harsh by todays standard huh?
Some say denominations arent divisions? Well, then let the catholic priest come to the baptist church and sprinkle some babies. That wouldn't go over well? why? What about the church of God preacher go to mass and heal some people? that wouldn't go over well? why? they believe different things? why is that? doctrines of men maybe?
Still not convinced that denominations are all mans idea? Where is any denomination mentioned in the Bible? Now we know that the church is mentioned in the Bible. It is called "the church of our God", the "church of Christ", all names referring to deity. Nothing refering to methods or baptists etc. why is that?
There are several instances of people obeying the gospel and being added to "the church" in the new testament. Nobody was voted in. Acts 2: 47 tells of a different way they were added. It's good enough for me.
It's late and I gotta hit the sack, but look at john 17 from about verse 20 to the end of the chapter. Think of the setting. Jesus is in the garden praying to the father, he's going through the anguish of knowing whats gonna happen the next day, but what is he thinking about? the Apostles and those who will believe "through their word". How many times does he say he wants believers to be "one"? What's he trying to say?
So, the point of my post is denominations are mans invention. They were never meant to be.
All you need is a bible and an open mind and you will find the truth.
I am a member of the church of Christ. the one instituted in acts 2. I was also added to the church, not voted in, another one of mans inventions.
The church originated in Acts 2 and has been around for 2000 years. Whenever the word hits fertile soil, a member is soon added.
-
Man, where to start with all this?
clearly many of you need to get your facts straight, so here they are:
First off, Hawklore, your history teacher is an ignorant buffoon, and you'd probably benefit from not paying attention to her idiotic, presentistic, small-minded, ahistorical and fundamentalist-faith-based lack of vision of the past. Period.
A basic rule when dealing with cultures, institutions and movements, both present and past, is that --as far as possible (linguistically and evidentially) --you refer to them what they choose to call themselves. If you need to make divisions on top of that, on top of that, you adapt as neutral terms as possible.
There are plenty of exceptions and side cases to this, but if you've got a group that asserts to be X, all their sources point unequivocally to them considering themselves X, and all non-X contemporaries refer to them as X, then you call them X. And if you say they're non-X, well you better have a damn good historical argument.
"They don't think like I do" is not a good historical argument. Nor is the variation at hand here: "The definition of Christianity is one I hold on faith. Therefore, everybody who doesn't adhere to my definition, isn't Christian." As an historian, I don't give a flying **** what your faith is; you are explaining the past in terms that are supposed to be comprehensible regardless of faith. Faith is not a valid historical source. You can use it in any number of theological applications, but introducing it into history is a methodological error equivalent to using a child's drawing of a horsie in geometry to prove that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles. That child's drawing has value and interest, but not for geometry. The same for propositions held on faith -- they're great for all kinds of things, but not for history.
Okay, now to the rest of the mess:
What we call the "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" claims to be the universal (hence Catholic) Christian church, and traces a continuous tradition all the way back to Peter, the Apostles and Jesus.
Orthodoxy has the same roots, and the split between them was originally geographical, following the split in the Roman Empire between the Western Empire (Rome, then Ravenna) and the East (Constantinople).
There are some major sticking points between east and west, such as the West's introduction of the phrase "and the Son" concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Niceo-Constantinopolitan creed (just look up "filioque"). There's also the increasing insistence, from the late eleventh century on, on the part of the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) that he be recognized as the human leader of the Christian Church in virtue of being Saint Peter's successor. This idea was never fully accepted in the West (and even today the pope still doesn't wield the power over Catholics that he claims to), and in the East, was ill-received indeed. Nevertheless, in spite of many Orthodox claims, there were several attempts at union between the Orthodox and Catholic churches, and between the Armenian and Catholic churches. And in some places, they succeeded for a while. Heck, I've got tons of medieval latin theological texts on my desk that claim that Orthodox Christians are basically "Greek Rite Catholics".
So basically, the Catholics are Christians, and trace their history all the way back to Jesus. The same can be said for the Orthodox and Armenian churches. And yeah, the Copts and the Nestorians probably too.
Whether you consider Catholics "True Christians holding the one true faith" is your own affair and has nothing to do with history.
Now, the Crusades:
There were 4 crusades. The last two really did not count though. the 3rd only made it as far as Insatnbul (constantinople).
They must ahve got tired of riding and decided to just sack that place instead.
The 4th was the "Children's Crusade" It never made it out of France for the most part.
No offense, but if you're gonna talk out of your prettythang, use a toilet.
"Crusader" as a term (crucesignatus) first appears only in the early thirteenth century, around the time of what we refer to as the Fourth Crusade. By far, the most impressive and most successful crusade was the first, which left Western Europe in 1096 and resulted in the capture and occupation of a good deal of what is now Lebanon and Israel, including the sack and capture of Jerusalem in 1099. The concept of Crusade hadn't gelled -- basically the First Crusade set the model for later expeditions. Effectively, Crusades became armed pilgrimages for which those who undertook them were promised full indulgence of their sins (another specifically Latin Christian, aka Catholic, invention was Purgatory). After the First Crusade, there were many armed trips to the Holy Land, taken by individuals and small groups, but the next "general passage" occurred around 1147, was more or less a disaster with Louis VII and his knights wandering around Anatolia looking for a fight, and is called the Second Crusade. The Third Crusade, 1189 featured the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, leading his contingent to the Meander before drowning in 1190, and Philippe II Augustus and Richard the Lionhearted combining for the capture of Acre. The Fourth Crusade was an unmitigated disaster: death and politics back in France screwed thingsup from the start; the crusaders were heavily in debt to the Venetians (who'd built a bunch of ships for them), one of the leaders was married to the daughter of an emperor whose brother deposed him, threw him in jail, and gouged his eyes out. So they ended up sacking Constantinople (it wasn't called Istanbul until 1917), and establishing a latin empire there, taht lasted fifty years and still pisses off the Greeks today.
From then on, crusades were called for all kinds of things -- against heretics, in Spain, small ones, large ones, the oft-mentioned "Children's Crusade" (for which the evidence is pretty scanty), whatever seemed appropriate.
Anyway, there's plenty of information on the internet about this stuff. Some of it is even accurate.
-
Not quite on about the Crusades.
The was call for a crusade after jerusalum was taken by the muslims. So they started organizing armies to send. HOWEVER, some guy got really excited and just left to take Jerusalum, gathering people along the way. These people were not soldiers, not even fighters.
Those that made it to Jerusalum bounced off the muslims like flies.
Finally the real crusade left. They were not doing too well until finally a Bishop heard a message from god saying when to specifically attack and what to do. It worked. They had control of Jerusalum again.
The third one was a Children's crusade. A kid heard a message from god and left for Jerusalum gathering children (and a few adults) along the way. Most didn't survive nature, I think they dispersed and settled around Northern Italy.
The fourth one was full of Ill-funded soldiers. They had no way to pay for the trip at all. So some of the Ship owners said they would take them to Jerusalum if they would help to take a port on Africa. They did. Then the ship owners asked them to take somewhere else. They did. The whole mission petered out from them doing mercanary work. They never got t Jerusalum.
The fifth was armies sent by King Richard (of england) and the king of France to take Jerusalum. Along the trip, the big leader from France drowned in a stream, but the mission continued. They were successful, but many people died.
The sixth was another Children's Crusade. A kid heard a message from God and led children to Jerusalum. Many died just from Nature. But they had no way to get across the sea to Israel. So many poor ship owners took pity on them and carted them across. A good portion of the ships sank. Those that did make it to Jerusalum were assimilated instead of slaughtered (I believe).
-
(http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/tt2.jpg)
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again.
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Man, where to start with all this?
Good, glad I'm not the only one. :D
-
ls184, see my post, or come see me after class.
:D
-
Hblair, I am a baptist. I dont believe a catholic (or any member of another denomination) is any less of a christian than I am so long as he/she follows the teachings of christ.
I dont have time for anymore typing atm, gotta head to work.
-
elfie, what is a baptist?
-
Originally posted by hblair
elfie, what is a baptist?
You live in Alabama. You are surrounded by them!
-
I'm Roman Catholic, and it pains me terribly to see such hate mongering. I don't understand why people have to be so cruel to one another.
Someone should just step up and shoot her.
-
Baptists are actually recognized as an "almost" religion by the American Catholic church. In other words, they see us as Christian, but still confused blasphemers lol.
The Baptist church, of which there are several denominations - including Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist, Reform Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Primitive Baptist, etc. - holds a few views different from the Catholic church, and attempts to go towards the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ directly, rather than through the teachings of the disciples.
Main difference (in the view of Baptists) is that we believe in full body immersion Baptizing. The person makes a public profession of faith in front of the church, is Baptized to symbolize the spritual Baptism of the blood (just as John the Baptist did, and Jesus after him). We also believe in the innocence of the child, and that only an adult who can understand what they are doing and the consequences of it should come forward.
The main difference between us and Catholics (in the view of Catholics) is in Communion. In the Catholic church, when the Priest consecrates the Host and the Wine, they literally become the Body and Blood of Christ. Baptists (and most Protestants) see them as merely symbolic of the broken body of Christ and his Blood. It may seem to be splitting hairs to say its a symbol or it truly is, but its like the difference between sleight of hand and true magic. Many people dont believe in Magic. To them its all sleight of hand and illusion. Also, many churches (both Catholic and Protestant) take Communion every Sunday. Most Baptists observe Communion as a special night-time ceremony in rememberance of the Last Supper (where the whole idea of Communion comes from).
There are other differences as well, but these are the main ones.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Funny thing about all of this. I recall that Christ claimed only to be a Jew.
yeah he were somehow confused, thats why Muhammad had to come :D
-
Catholics can't be pagen cuz they won't let me in Church with my goat leggings on.
hh
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Your view, got a history teacher telling me this...
She's also talking about the Crusades which happend pre-Renissance, in which that is the time period we are suppose to look over, granted it was only 200-250 years, but when you come to the fact of re-birth the Crusades, paid some part, not all.
A history teacher telling you that Catholics are not Christians? Now I see why we where getting Morons fresh from Graduation in Boot Camp.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
The Baptist church, of which there are several denominations - including Southern Baptist, Free Will Baptist, Reform Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Primitive Baptist, etc. - holds a few views different from the Catholic church, and attempts to go towards the teachings of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ directly, rather than through the teachings of the disciples.
Of the ten or so conversions found in the new testament, which ones became baptists and which ones became catholics, and the ones that became baptists, how many were southern baptists? do you become a baptist when you become a christian or does that happen later?
-
hblair I attend a Baptist church, so I consider my self a baptist. Same as someone who attends a Catholic church considers themselves Catholic :). The church we attend, we attend because we believe it's where God wants us to attend.
I do agree with your first post.
-
Originally posted by loser
Gimme a break.
You think they have different lines up to heaven?
"no sorry, you are in the Catholic line...wait your turn.."
"Protestants up front...dont shove...dont shove.."
Hawklore dont worry about what people say in this life, you will find out how it works eventually.
Yes, I know.. but it's so fun to show people that who belive their way is the only way that their wrong..
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I thought you were home schooled? Shouldn't teacher be replaced with Mom?
I go to a co-op...
For socialization..:rolleyes: :aok
-
I appreciate it guys,
All of your information has been filed through...
And some may even make it to the step stones of arguing against this so called Christian women, who claims her self to be a Christian, yet refuses to seek the truth.
I appreciate yall kept this one as clean as Flight Sim possible..
:)
-
Originally posted by hblair
Of the ten or so conversions found in the new testament, which ones became baptists and which ones became catholics, and the ones that became baptists, how many were southern baptists? do you become a baptist when you become a christian or does that happen later?
Baptists basically believe that before Christians had true organization, they were all "Baptists", although the term was not used back then. The Welsh Baptists record a visit from Paul in about 64 AD and also record men who were taken prisoner to Rome during the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, who returned to preach the gospel. Baptists, therefore, also claim a direct link to the teachings of the Apostles.
The first organized churches to call themselves by that name appeared in the early 1600s after fleeing from England to Amsterdam, running from the separatists. They wanted to 'reconstitute', and not just reform the church. Most were British, influenced and led by John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. When they returned to England, they were differentiated by their unique name "Baptists", so called because of their style of immersion. Baptists heavily influenced those setting out to colonize the Americas, and were very influential in the forming of America in the 17th century. They have been here ever since.
They believe strongly that the Bible is the first and last word in all things. That even though it was written by men, they were divinely inspired and the scripture is always right. They believe in "individual priesthood", meaning that each individual can recieve the blessing of forgivness of sin directly from God through Jesus, and that the intercession of Priests was done away with. They also believe the only "institutions" left by Christ for us to carry on were Baptism of believers and Communion (rememberance of the Lord's Supper).
Southern Baptists are members of the Southern Baptist Convention, mostly in southern states (hence the name).
If you like, you can read the Baptist Faith and Message (on the SBC website). About halfway down the page you will find the views on Baptism, and just about anything else you would like to know about Baptists. I myself was raised Southern Baptist, and although many of my views have undergone changes as I grow older, I still hold with enough of their beliefs that I still consider myself Baptist.
Here is the link:
http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp
I'm not saying they have it all right, and I dont endorse the Baptist version of the Christian faith over any other denomination. My own life experience has lead me to the belief that most of the requirements you find in organized Religion are made from the rules of men, and that God's requirements are much simpler. I'm simply offering you the link as a peek into the world of Baptists.
I'd also like to include this. This statement pretty much sums up what it means in simple terms to be Baptist, rather that any other form of Christianity (as a frame of reference, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister, although his studies and his faith took him in other directions as well).
What makes us different from the others can be easily discussed by considering the Baptist Distinctives. These 'distinctives' are those beliefs and practices that establish the unique character of the New Testament faith, setting it apart as 'distinct' from any and all other faiths or systems of belief of religious thought.
These distinctives are easily remembered using the acrostic BRAPSISS... and here is a breakdown for us to better understand:
1. Bible, the only rule of faith and practice.
2. Regenerate, immersed church membership.
3. Autonomy and independence of the Local Church
4. Priesthood of the believer
5. Soul Liberty.
6. Immersion of believers and the Lord's Supper... the only two ordinances.
7. Separation of Church and State
8. Separation, ethical and ecclesiastical.
These distinctives in faith and practice have set those who have become known as Baptists (and their forefathers) as being distinct from all other forms of religion, including Catholics and Protestants. Our Baptist forefathers have held to the above noted distinctives since the time of Christ creating an unbroken "trail of Truth" from that day till this one.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
hblair I attend a Baptist church, so I consider my self a baptist. Same as someone who attends a Catholic church considers themselves Catholic :). The church we attend, we attend because we believe it's where God wants us to attend.
I appreciate your honesty elfie. To drive my point home, forget all things religious you've been taught or heard or whatever your entire life and answer this, Do you believe the bible is the inspired written word of God? If you do, Is the Bible all one would need to become a Christian? It says it is. Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed in matthew chapter 13 deals directly with this. read the parable then read verse 23. theres no getting around the fact that the word has the power to save. not what we believe in our hearts. not what some preacher tells people on sunday as the congregation blindly believes any old doctrine because the preacher said it was so. it's up to us to KNOW what the bible says on things and to go that way.
having said all that, there is no reference to there being different ways to heaven in the church. Was paul tolerant of people going their own way with their doctrine? Think about this.
Paul actually spent much time and energy trying to get all the churches (churches being the same church in different locales) on the same page.
If we were alive in 60 AD and hblair and elfie decided to start us up a "baptist" church because we believed a little different than others and we were teaching that baptism was an outward sign of obedience instead of it being for the remission of sins like luke-(an apostle of Jesus Christ, who in fact knew Jesus Christ personally) tells us in acts 2:38, and acts 22:16. If Paul heard about our church, do you think he'd want to come worship with us or would he write an epistle admonishing us for straying from the truth? that's a serious question.
we have to put ourselves in the first century. Because that's where we are. nothings changed in the church in these 2000 years. only man. doctrines of man mean nothing. they are mans way of fouling up what God gave us. the one true church.
-
Do you believe the bible is the inspired written word of God? If you do, Is the Bible all one would need to become a Christian?
There many problems that I see in this thread,(not this particular post) but I wont try to address them all at this time. What I'll start with tho, is this particular quote.
While the Bible is the inspired written word of God. It is a book that gives us the laws of God, the warnings from the prophets, as well as the life and death of the Messiah, Jesus.
The Bible is not "all one would need to become a Christian". While Christian does literally mean Christ-like, being a Christian is much more than a book. There is a saying that some of you might be familiar with, ..."going to church doesnt make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car.". Well the same thing applies here. The Bible doesnt make you a Christian, your personal relationship with Christ does. Without that relationship what do you have? Whether or not you go to church or what church that you go to does not make you a Christian. It is that relationship that you are building everyday. What going to church does help you with is being around other Christians. That in and of itself can help you to become a better Christian and a more focused-on-God Christian. By being around Christians, better helps you to battle the "World" by knowing that there are others that also believe.
The Word of God is what we learn from the Bible. As long as we use the Bible as a tool of God and not worship it "as" God, then you will walk in the Light of God. That Word leads us to God, and teaches us what Gods character is. It also teaches about the Commandments, again testifying to the character of God, the most important being, as taught by Jesus, to " '...love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40.
I apologize to everyone I didnt think I was going to write this much but seeing how I am long winded,....there it is... my opinion and my belief of fact.
<> to all and God bless. If ya dont believe then God bless anyway
:p :aok
-
Originally posted by hblair
Do you believe the bible is the inspired written word of God? If you do, Is the Bible all one would need to become a Christian?
There many problems that I see in this thread,(not this particular post) but I wont try to address them all at this time. What I'll start with tho, is this particular quote.
While the Bible is the inspired written word of God. It is a book that gives us the laws of God, the warnings from the prophets, as well as the life and death of the Messiah, Jesus.
The Bible is not "all one would need to become a Christian". While Christian does literally mean Christ-like, being a Christian is much more than a book. There is a saying that some of you might be familiar with, ..."going to church doesnt make you a Christian anymore than standing in a garage makes you a car.". Well the same thing applies here. The Bible doesnt make you a Christian, your personal relationship with Christ does. Without that relationship what do you have? Whether or not you go to church or what church that you go to does not make you a Christian. It is that relationship that you are building everyday. What going to church does help you with is being around other Christians. That in and of itself can help you to become a better Christian and a more focused-on-God Christian. By being around Christians, better helps you to battle the "World" by knowing that there are others that also believe.
The Word of God is what we learn from the Bible. As long as we use the Bible as a tool of God and not worship it "as" God, then you will walk in the Light of God. That Word leads us to God, and teaches us what Gods character is. It also teaches about the Commandments, again testifying to the character of God, the most important being, as taught by Jesus, to " '...love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the other commandments and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments." Matthew 22:37-40.
I apologize to everyone I didnt think I was going to write this much but seeing how I am long winded,....there it is... my opinion and my belief of fact.
<> to all and God bless. If ya dont believe then God bless anyway
:p :aok
-
Whoops I didnt mean to post that twice. Sorry fellers
-
Originally posted by AWkrull
Whoops I didnt mean to post that twice. Sorry fellers
You are forgiven! :D
-
Originally posted by AWkrull
The Bible is not "all one would need to become a Christian". While Christian does literally mean Christ-like, being a Christian is much more than a book.
Thanks for the reply AWkrull. I didn't make myself clear and that's my fault, sorry. What I mean is the Bible is all one needs to learn about God, the way he's dealt with man, what he wants us to do, etc.
For example, everything is in there pertaining to salvation. Wanna know how to become a christian?... well, lets look at the scripture, you gotta hear the word, romans 10: 17, you gotta believe the word, john 3:16, you gotta repent of sins luke 13:3 and 5, you gotta be baptized mark 16:16, 1 peter 3:21,then you have to be faithful, 1 corinthians 10:12, galatians 5:4. There are many other verses, these are the ones i could bring up right now.
The jist of my posts above is that in todays world people are inclined to think that what they belive or 'feel in their heart' is just as important (if not more important) as what the written word of God says. II timothy 3:16 shows us the error of that school of thought.
-
IMHO,
It isn't which church you attned, which version of the bible you read, which way you worship or which way you interpret all of the above. It's how you live them that is important. Actions based on your belief are the crucial issue, not apperances.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
IMHO,
It isn't which church you attned, which version of the bible you read, which way you worship or which way you interpret all of the above. It's how you live them that is important. Actions based on your belief are the crucial issue, not apperances.
Actually you are right according to the entire book of James. I'll summarize it in one sentence. Faith without action is futile.
However; it begins and ends with the faith and hope of God and the promise of the ressurection.:)
-
The written word of God?
You ever play post office?
Start on one end-someone says something, whispers to the next person and so on... the other end usually has a somewhat close, but entirely different interpretation..
My point is, the writings of the bible are many many years after most of the "events" hapened, passed on generation to generation
I am quite sure there are embellishments and stories that were "edited" to make things sound better, it is and always has been - a feel good, feel bad, here are some rules to live by book..
Nothing more, nothing less..
NwBie
Originally posted by hblair
I'm going to drop a stink bomb on this thread and make some people uncomfortable.
When I read things like above and hear people preach that "we can believe what we want, worship how we want, we're all going to heaven", well, I ask myself, how does this jive with the Bible? Seeings how the Bible is the inspired written word of God (if we claim to be a christian)
When I go to the scripture and see what Jesus teachings are, and the Apostles teachings are, I find a whole different way of thinking. ephesians 4:4 speaks of one church, one belief, one baptism. Well, ok, the "one belief" bit is talking about all the "denominations" (read divisions) right? well, what about 1 corinthians 1:10-13 ? Is paul ok with the church at corinth having divisions in itself? In verse 12 he points out that some were saying they were of paul, others of cephas, etc. Then he asks is Christ divided. Kinda sounds like "denominations" eh ?
This is ont a popular thing to bring up to believers because the denomination system is just second nature here 2000 years later. but if you're a student of the book you see that the apostles worked hard to be sure that the church kept the same doctrine. "You believe what you believe and I'll do my thing and we'll meet in heaven together!" was corrected real fast by Paul.
romans 16:16-18 tells us what the church was called back then and then tells us what to do with division and those causing it. Seems harsh by todays standard huh?
Some say denominations arent divisions? Well, then let the catholic priest come to the baptist church and sprinkle some babies. That wouldn't go over well? why? What about the church of God preacher go to mass and heal some people? that wouldn't go over well? why? they believe different things? why is that? doctrines of men maybe?
Still not convinced that denominations are all mans idea? Where is any denomination mentioned in the Bible? Now we know that the church is mentioned in the Bible. It is called "the church of our God", the "church of Christ", all names referring to deity. Nothing refering to methods or baptists etc. why is that?
There are several instances of people obeying the gospel and being added to "the church" in the new testament. Nobody was voted in. Acts 2: 47 tells of a different way they were added. It's good enough for me.
It's late and I gotta hit the sack, but look at john 17 from about verse 20 to the end of the chapter. Think of the setting. Jesus is in the garden praying to the father, he's going through the anguish of knowing whats gonna happen the next day, but what is he thinking about? the Apostles and those who will believe "through their word". How many times does he say he wants believers to be "one"? What's he trying to say?
So, the point of my post is denominations are mans invention. They were never meant to be.
All you need is a bible and an open mind and you will find the truth.
I am a member of the church of Christ. the one instituted in acts 2. I was also added to the church, not voted in, another one of mans inventions.
The church originated in Acts 2 and has been around for 2000 years. Whenever the word hits fertile soil, a member is soon added.
-
Originally posted by Nwbie
The written word of God?
You ever play post office?
Start on one end-someone says something, whispers to the next person and so on... the other end usually has a somewhat close, but entirely different interpretation..
My point is, the writings of the bible are many many years after most of the "events" hapened, passed on generation to generation
I am quite sure there are embellishments and stories that were "edited" to make things sound better, it is and always has been - a feel good, feel bad, here are some rules to live by book..
Nothing more, nothing less..
NwBie
Hmmm......
The dead sea scrolls? Seems after the find the writtings were compared with the current bible.
Anyone wanna guess what they found?
Note: If one wants an accurate understanding of the current bible one needs the concordance.
The concordance has the original aramaic and greek words and their meanings. Some words simply do not translate in a turely accurate manner. Also the way people lived makes a difference as well.
I saw a reference to baptisim being required. Yet my understanding of that term is "a baptisim of the spirit" more then the body.
2 more examples come to mind. Length of hair and dogs.
There is a statement regarding the length of a mans hair in the bible. It should be noted that the actual length of a man's hair is not overly important as the actual reference was put forth due to male prostitutes at the time wearing their hair long. The reason was to avoid looking like, or giving the impression that one was a male prostitute and a christian.
Dogs ...
OK this one is .... a family thing that happened to me long ago. Got it sorted out as soon as I could. I knew what I heard from a certain family member was not correct at the moment I heard it.
She claimed one could not buy or sell dogs. The scripture she refered to says something like whoa unto those that enter the synagoge with the price of a dog in their pocket.
Well hey....... the actual reference uses the price of a dog, dogs were unclean and sold for like 1/2 a cent, as being too much to have in your pocket if you and not paid your teth.
So much can get twisted if tha actual way things were then vs the way things are not is NOT taken into account.
The eye of the needle? Anyone wanna take that one?
-
Originally posted by Hawklore
Well if you consider that the only christians back then were umm, Catholics.
The Roman Catholic church was the only largely wide known christian community. Granted there were others..
Here, it may of been because it was hidden between the two quotes.
313
Emperor Constantine officially recognizes The Catholic Church when he issued the Edict of Milan. Then I posted the Edict of Milan, of course it's from a Catholic website, :o.
This thread is for learning History, so, if you disagree with me, find some crediable history behind it, and post it.
Both Roman Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox churches claim to be 'catholic' (=universal), both use this term.
So we should compare the Roman Christian Church and the Eastern Christian Orthodox Church.
-
Nwbie, if you do some research on the history of the canon of the bible, you'll find it stands up. wrag mentioned the dead sea scrolls. very good point, also taking into account the extreme strict discipline of the teams of scribes who were given the responsibility of copying. There was no "interpret it as you feel" going on. And also josephus, an ancient historian, mentions the books of the OT in his works.
Jesus quotes OT scripture in the gospels, thousands of years after the pentateuch was penned. And what about the hittites?
wrag, there are ten examples of conversions in the NT. All ten were baptized in water. Christ commands baptism in mark 16:16. 1 peter 3:20-22 peter uses an illustration from the OT to show that indeed water baptism is essential. of course in this day, we, man, know that water can't save, so we say "God I thank you for Jesus, I see in the bible where it says to be baptized, but hey, this is the new millenia, and a lot of people just don't think it's essential, so I'll just believe in my heart that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that'll be good enough for you God."
If our boss at work tells us to do something that makes no sense to us we do it anyway (if we wanna keep our job) We'll buy our wives rings that make no sense to us because we know they want it. But when God, creator of all, and the one who sacrificed Jesus Christ puts an easy simple command in the scripture, most "believers" try to find any way they can out of it or explain it away?
And many that are baptized have no idea what the point of it is.
water baptism is a symbol of christs death burial and ressurection romans 6:3-5. Remission of sins, acts 22:16.
Now don't think i'm saying baptism is the only thing one must do. of course not. It's just the most misunderstood thing today in our "have it your way" religious world.
-
And the thief on the cross wasn't under the new testament... hebrews 9:12-18