Nondenominational Christianity

[FHII]

Let me be clear: I DO NOT think December 25th was “enforced” (chosen) for pagan reasons or paganism played a part. I used the word “enforced” with quotes to emphasize what OTHERS think, not what I think. I realize my wording on this was confusing so I hope this clears it up.

In Hippolytus commentary on Daniel he makes it clear HOW he came to that date. It is NOT my job to explain HIS reasoning. I was only merely stateing a FACT and the FACT is that Hippolytus concluded December 25th HUNDREDS of years BEFORE Constantine. I don’t care how he came to that conclusion I am only repeating what he said. If you care then by all means research it.

Mary

You haven't even read it, have you?

 

[Marymog]

You haven't even read it, have you?

Post #139 should answer that question!

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You haven't even read it, have you?

Let me try ONE MORE TIME: I don’t care HOW he came to the conclusion. The FACT is he came to the conclusion of December 25th which is the ENTIRE reason I brought it up. It shows that the 25th was chosen HUNDREDS of years before Constantine.

You are debating the discussion, not discussing what its about. (Recognize those words?)

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I am a non denominational bible only Christian. I reject all denominations and their creeds.

Christ and the apostles never encourage such things. In fact, Paul condemned it.

So I cannot the protestant or a catholic. I am a Christian.

Society is in love with hyphenated people. No hyphen here.

What are you?

There are many denominations but only one True Church that is the pillar and foundation of Truth which was built upon a rock.

You and your "bible only Christians" can't even agree what it means to be a bible believeing Christian sooooo back to the theory (drawing) board for you.

Bible study Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

There are many denominations but only one True Church that is the pillar and foundation of Truth which was built upon a rock.

You and your "bible only Christians" can't even agree what it means to be a bible believeing Christian sooooo back to the theory (drawing) board for you.

Bible study Mary

It was built on Petra, which is Christ, not Petros, which is Peter.

The church is identified as all the born-again regardless of denomination.

Fact is Roman Catholicism isn't Christian, it's a cult.

Are there some within Roman Catholicism that are born again? Yes there are, which means they are not true Roman Catholics.

 

[Marymog]

It was built on Petra, which is Christ, not Petros, which is Peter.

The church is identified as all the born-again regardless of denomination.

Fact is Roman Catholicism isn't Christian, it's a cult.

Are there some within Roman Catholicism that are born again? Yes there are, which means they are not true Roman Catholics.

All religions are a cult sooooo back to the theory drawing board for you.


You and your "bible only Christians" can't even agree what it means to be a bible believing Christian, what born again means or what it takes to be saved sooooo back to the theory (drawing) board for you.

Good luck....Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

All religions are a cult sooooo back to the theory drawing board for you.


You and your "bible only Christians" can't even agree what it means to be a bible believing Christian, what born again means or what it takes to be saved sooooo back to the theory (drawing) board for you.

Good luck....Mary

There are some who claim to be Bible only that are cults, therefore not Christians.

Be careful about slinging mud because Catholics are not unified either.

 

[Marymog]

There are some who claim to be Bible only that are cults, therefore not Christians.

Be careful about slinging mud because Catholics are not unified either.

View attachment 5069

Catholics (The Church) are unified. All others, like you and your ilk, have broken away from The Church.

Please take the time to learn YOUR Christian history.

Historical Mary

 

[CoreIssue]

Catholics (The Church) are unified. All others, like you and your ilk, have broken away from The Church.

Please take the time to learn YOUR Christian history.

Historical Mary

I studied extensively. All you studied is what the Catholics told you.

 

[Enoch111]

Catholics (The Church) are unified.

That's just like saying that Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs are unified. Unity in a false religion cannot be commended.

The scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers were all unified in their false religion. And the Lord Jesus Christ pronounced woes on all of them. Were He to be here bodily on the earth at this time, He would also pronounce woes on the Pope and the Vatican.

BTW, the Catholic church is not equivalent to "the Church " (the Body of Christ).

 

[CoreIssue]

That's just like saying that Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs are unified. Unity in a false religion cannot be commended.

The scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers were all unified in their false religion. And the Lord Jesus Christ pronounced woes on all of them. Were He to be here bodily on the earth at this time, He would also pronounce woes on the Pope and the Vatican.

BTW, the Catholic church is not equivalent to "the Church " (the Body of Christ).

Islam, I will kick this in.

 

[FHII]

Let me try ONE MORE TIME: I don’t care HOW he came to the conclusion. The FACT is he came to the conclusion of December 25th which is the ENTIRE reason I brought it up. It shows that the 25th was chosen HUNDREDS of years before Constantine.

Well you ought to care because the fact that he noted the date before Constantine mafe it something official is not new. Its not like everyone doesn't know that already. It also doesn't prove the date wasn't picked because of pagan influences UNLESS Hippoclytus actually figured out the date.

He didn't. This is why I continously asked if you actually read it. You didn't read it. He didn't come up with the date from studying Daniel. He randomly mentioned that date trying to prove something not related.

In short.... The fact he picked the date and gave no explanation doesn't disprove pagan origins. Even if he didn't pick it for pagan reasons, it doesn't mean Constantine didn't pick it for pagan reasons either. Afterall, he had several proposed dates to choose from.

 

[Enoch111]

Islam, I will kick this in.

While there are many sub-groups in Islam, they are all unified under the Koran and Mohammad. There is no Muslim who will oppose Jihad against the infidels, just as there was no Catholic who opposed *Jihad* against the Reformers.

 

[CoreIssue]

While there are many sub-groups in Islam, they are all unified under the Koran and Mohammad. There is no Muslim who will oppose Jihad against the infidels, just as there was no Catholic who opposed *Jihad* against the Reformers.

That is not correct. There are some branches of Islam that do not interpret jihad as you are saying.

There are several schools even, even within a sect, that do not agree on what the Koran says.

Some don't even agree on Mohammed's life.

 

[Marymog]

I studied extensively. All you studied is what the Catholics told you.

Stop it....you don't have a clue what I have studied. Is that what this conversation has come down to? Throwing out baseless accusations that have ZERO merit or evidence? How sad

The men of the Catholic Church, Baptist Church Lutheran Church etc. etc. "studied extensively" also and they all came to a different conclusion than you on various passages from scripture. What makes you right and all of them wrong? Out of a graduating class of 100 doctors some got all A's and others got average or below average. However, they all got degrees. Just because you "studied extensively" it still doesn't make you the sharpest tool in the shed or the doctor I would go to for medical advise. Stop thinking so highly of yourself and come back down to earth with us common folk.....

Did your 'extensive studies' lead you to the same conclusion as the men who walked and talked with the Apostles; Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't come to the same conclusion as them. Their letters containing their interpretation of scripture mirrors The Churches interpretation of scripture. Who is more reliable on their 'extensive studies'? Them, or you?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

That's just like saying that Muslims or Hindus or Sikhs are unified. Unity in a false religion cannot be commended.

The scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers were all unified in their false religion. And the Lord Jesus Christ pronounced woes on all of them. Were He to be here bodily on the earth at this time, He would also pronounce woes on the Pope and the Vatican.

BTW, the Catholic church is not equivalent to "the Church " (the Body of Christ).

Hi Enoch,

Your post is a bit confusing. Are you saying ANY Church that is unified (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc.) equals false religion?

I never said that the Catholic Church is equivalent to the Church. As you can see I called it "The Church", which is spoken of in Scripture; the one Jesus built on a rock.

Christians are members of Jesus Body and we all make up the Church but there is only one head to a body and one head to The Church. Jesus said he was going to build his Church on one person, a rock, and he gave that person the keys to the kingdom of heaven. After that person died who was the next rock in that foundation? To whom did those keys get passed onto Enoch?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Well you ought to care because the fact that he noted the date before Constantine mafe it something official is not new. Its not like everyone doesn't know that already. It also doesn't prove the date wasn't picked because of pagan influences UNLESS Hippoclytus actually figured out the date.

He didn't. This is why I continously asked if you actually read it. You didn't read it. He didn't come up with the date from studying Daniel. He randomly mentioned that date trying to prove something not related.

In short.... The fact he picked the date and gave no explanation doesn't disprove pagan origins. Even if he didn't pick it for pagan reasons, it doesn't mean Constantine didn't pick it for pagan reasons either. Afterall, he had several proposed dates to choose from.

I now understand what you are saying. Even though he came up with that date in his commentary on Daniel he didn't come up with that date by using Daniel.

I NEVER said that Hippolytus actually figured out "the" date......READ WHAT I SAID IN CONTEXT to the entire conversation. Read post #183 AGAIN.

The FACT is there were several "birthday" dates floating around at the time of Hippolytus. I have already made it VERY CLEAR WHY I quoted Hippolytus.

You have ZERO evidence that Hippolytus had a pagan influence when picking that date. The evidence is he DID NOT have a pagan influence sooooo PLEASE stop with you silly word games.

Mary

 

[Enoch111]

Your post is a bit confusing. Are you saying ANY Church that is unified (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist etc.) equals false religion?

Sorry. What I meant simply is that unity in any religion is not the criterion by which to determine whether it is true or false.

Jesus said he was going to build his Church on one person, a rock, and he gave that person the keys to the kingdom of heaven. After that person died who was the next rock in that foundation? To whom did those keys get passed onto Enoch?

The keys of the kingdom were in fact the Gospel preached first to the Jews at Pentecost and then to the Gentiles gathered with Cornelius. It is the Gospel itself which is the key which opens the door to the Kingdom of God, since Peter calls the Gospel the incorruptible seed for the New Birth (1 Pet 1:23-25).

However the Rock on which the Church is built is Christ Himself (Petra), not Peter (Petros). Jesus made that very clear, and all of Scripture supports that. So the keys have been passed on to the Church, which has been given the mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature.

The RCC made a huge mistake in trying to make Peter the Rock and the first pope. And now it's too late to admit that mistake.

 

[CoreIssue]

Stop it....you don't have a clue what I have studied. Is that what this conversation has come down to? Throwing out baseless accusations that have ZERO merit or evidence? How sad

The men of the Catholic Church, Baptist Church Lutheran Church etc. etc. "studied extensively" also and they all came to a different conclusion than you on various passages from scripture. What makes you right and all of them wrong? Out of a graduating class of 100 doctors some got all A's and others got average or below average. However, they all got degrees. Just because you "studied extensively" it still doesn't make you the sharpest tool in the shed or the doctor I would go to for medical advise. Stop thinking so highly of yourself and come back down to earth with us common folk.....

Did your 'extensive studies' lead you to the same conclusion as the men who walked and talked with the Apostles; Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch or Polycarp of Smyrna? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you didn't come to the same conclusion as them. Their letters containing their interpretation of scripture mirrors The Churches interpretation of scripture. Who is more reliable on their 'extensive studies'? Them, or you?

Mary

I base my statement on the fact that Catholicism does not encourage independent Bible study. It encourages you to learn Catholic doctrine and so-called Bible study from strictly Catholic sources.

You do realize there were others that disagreed with what those you named said, I hope.

They were very Catholic.

And who says they studied with the apostles other than themselves?

Clement of Rome Was at the close of the first century. How many apostles were still alive at that time? What age did that make them if they were?

Yes, there is evidence he did know Peter.

When there was a conflict he was involved with he did not encourage him to look to Rome or Peter for guidance, but to Jesus in the Bible. He adhered to justification by grace alone, not by church authority.

So don't hold him up as a model for Catholicism. He wasn't.

Ignatius of Antioch Died in 110 AD and was probably born in 50 AD. He stressed the authority and organization of the local church, not the Catholics thinking of church.

Basically the same for Polycarp.

Polycarp the man is not the Polycarp of Catholicism.

 

[CoreIssue]

Sorry. What I meant simply is that unity in any religion is not the criterion by which to determine whether it is true or false.

The keys of the kingdom were in fact the Gospel preached first to the Jews at Pentecost and then to the Gentiles gathered with Cornelius. It is the Gospel itself which is the key which opens the door to the Kingdom of God, since Peter calls the Gospel the incorruptible seed for the New Birth (1 Pet 1:23-25).

However the Rock on which the Church is built is Christ Himself (Petra), not Peter (Petros). Jesus made that very clear, and all of Scripture supports that. So the keys have been passed on to the Church, which has been given the mandate to preach the Gospel to every creature.

The RCC made a huge mistake in trying to make Peter the Rock and the first pope. And now it's too late to admit that mistake.

You may find it interesting but listening to a debate between Walter Martin and a Catholic theologian, he admitted the Catholics are wrong and Saint Peter was a rock the church is built on. That it was built on Petra, not Petros.

But then he defended Catholicism by saying that tradition stating Peter was the first pope was sufficient to make it true.

Fact is Peter was never the Bishop of Rome. And there is no proof and it is seriously doubted he ever was in Rome.