Catholicism v. Protestantism

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, it was correct the first time.

Many people use the circular reasoning of this for various reasons but ..

There is a significant difference between "reading" and doing a detailed analytical study complete with vetting and other tests for the data.

Then we have the other influences such as personal belief, organizational agenda, accuracy/availability of the source data, limits of the 'read', prevalent social order of the times and so forth.

What we have ( barring nothing truly "original" I grant) is what we have.

That's even excluding anything alleged to be "supernatural (revelations of the Spirit)

At the end of the day, Scripture is what we have and base everything on- therefore it is the authority. The rest (due diligence) is on us.

So, no, all opinions and conclusions are not "equal" in that regard
Hold on....wait a minute. This is confusing. So now that you have added more twists to your theory. So now I have to ask you: WHO has the ability and the "due diligence" to do a "detailed analytical study complete with vetting and other tests for the data"?? You? Me? Martin Luther? The Baptist Church? Catholic Church? Lutheran Church....etc etc etc?

Previously I asked you: Who decides what a false doctrine is? Your answer was "Scripture"!!! Your answer is a text book example of "circular reasoning". Can you not see that? Scripture doesn't decide what a false doctrine is. Men, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decide that. Your theory that all we have to do is read Scripture to determine what false doctrine is IS circular reasoning. We are just going in ONE BIG CIRCLE when I disagree with you about your doctrine and I point to Scripture to prove my point. You then point to Scripture to prove your point!!! I then point to another passage to prove you wrong. You point to a passage to prove me wrong. One big circle..... Surly you can see that? :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: GaryAnderson

An Apologetic Sheepdog

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
975
348
83
66
Atlanta, Ga
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hold on....wait a minute. This is confusing. So now that you have added more twists to your theory. So now I have to ask you: WHO has the ability and the "due diligence" to do a "detailed analytical study complete with vetting and other tests for the data"?? You? Me? Martin Luther? The Baptist Church? Catholic Church? Lutheran Church....etc etc etc?

I don't doubt that for a minute. Think about it for a while and see if the lights come on. ( thinking is how you get better at it)



Previously I asked you: Who decides what a false doctrine is? Your answer was "Scripture"!!! Your answer is a text book example of "circular reasoning". Can you not see that? Scripture doesn't decide what a false doctrine is. Men, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decide that. Your theory that all we have to do is read Scripture to determine what false doctrine is IS circular reasoning. We are just going in ONE BIG CIRCLE when I disagree with you about your doctrine and I point to Scripture to prove my point. You then point to Scripture to prove your point!!! I then point to another passage to prove you wrong. You point to a passage to prove me wrong. One big circle..... Surly you can see that?

No, I avoided a trap. I explained the process in detail (and you know that). Scripture sets the standard, The Spirit provides anything else, the "heart" of the individual then accepts. ( or rejects)

There is no "mans authority" ( especially the RCC)

I'm going exactly where the facts are and its infuriating you because you cant derail it and you certainly cant refute any of it.

Like your buds, you talk in circles all spouting RCC dogma from a self imposed belief of some type of intellectual superiority that in reality you simply don't have,
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't doubt that for a minute. Think about it for a while and see if the lights come on. ( thinking is how you get better at it)





No, I avoided a trap. I explained the process in detail (and you know that). Scripture sets the standard, The Spirit provides anything else, the "heart" of the individual then accepts. ( or rejects)

There is no "mans authority" ( especially the RCC)

I'm going exactly where the facts are and its infuriating you because you cant derail it and you certainly cant refute any of it.

Like your buds, you talk in circles all spouting RCC dogma from a self imposed belief of some type of intellectual superiority that in reality you simply don't have,
Lol...Ok!! I will think about it for a while and see if the lights come on. (how condescending)

Oh, you avoided a trap???? (translation, I have no answer so I am using this excuse)

I KNOW that you explained in detail your theory? (you didn't, but you feel you did)

There is no "mans authority"? (well, except YOUR authority to tell everyone else on this forum YOUR truth from Scripture)

Thank you for your time....bud!!

Mary
 
  • Like
Reactions: GaryAnderson

An Apologetic Sheepdog

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
975
348
83
66
Atlanta, Ga
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Lol...Ok!! I will think about it for a while and see if the lights come on. (how condescending)

Good, let me know if I can help you

Oh, you avoided a trap???? (translation, I have no answer so I am using this excuse)

That's correct and your translation is in error as is your doctrine

There is no "mans authority"? (well, except YOUR authority to tell everyone else on this forum YOUR truth from Scripture)

oh please tell us all, who is a "mans authority" if you think there is one? Be specific now. Give the reference and commission for this "authority" too.

I am waiting anxiously to hear this.


Thank you for your time....bud!!

Very welcome now stop waffling and answer that question above
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
That's correct and your translation is in error as is your doctrine

oh please tell us all, who is a "mans authority" if you think there is one? Be specific now. Give the reference and commission for this "authority" too.

I am waiting anxiously to hear this.
Dear anxious Sheepdog,

You have made it clear that YOU are the authority since you KNOW that the translation and doctrine that I repeat from The Church is in error! Since you KNOW that my buds at the Catholic Church are in error then logically YOU know what is not an error! But I suspect you tell everyone that disagrees with you that THEY are in error now don't you? That makes YOU (a man) the authority on what 'translations and doctrine is in error'!

Ooops, No!! Wait....In post #62 you said...and I quote...."There is no "mans authority". :eek:

Soooo how can you, a man, tell me that ANYONE'S (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, John Calvin, Martin Luther etc. etc) translation or doctrine is in error if there is no mans authority??? Can you not see how nonsensical your theory is?

Keeping it real...Mary
 

An Apologetic Sheepdog

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
975
348
83
66
Atlanta, Ga
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You have made it clear that YOU are the authority since you KNOW that the translation and doctrine that I repeat from The Church is in error!

You are finally catching on, good

Since you KNOW that my buds at the Catholic Church are in error then logically YOU know what is not an error! But I suspect you tell everyone that disagrees with you that THEY are in error now don't you?

No, I prove my case just as i have done here and leave them waffling just as you are when they cannot refute what I have said.

Soooo how can you, a man, tell me that ANYONE'S (Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, John Calvin, Martin Luther etc. etc) translation or doctrine is in error if there is no mans authority??? Can you not see how nonsensical your theory is?

No, just another poor snare of yours to avoid. I am not 'the authority" ( as in certifying authority) I am simple the assigned vessel for this task as an adjutant or deputy.

You are welcome and invited to refute me from scripture as you have tried and failed.

I await it with bated breath.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are finally catching on, good



No, I prove my case just as i have done here and leave them waffling just as you are when they cannot refute what I have said.



No, just another poor snare of yours to avoid. I am not 'the authority" ( as in certifying authority) I am simple the assigned vessel for this task as an adjutant or deputy.

You are welcome and invited to refute me from scripture as you have tried and failed.

I await it with bated breath.
Dear Bated breath,

Lol.....YOU are an "assigned vessel"? Soooo what authority assigned you to this "task"? Was it another man or God?

You sure do speak like a man with a lot of authority for a man who doesn't recognize authority! o_O

Obviously no man can refute you in Scripture since you are the authority on Scripture.

I know your pride will never let you see how nonsensical your argument (theory) is!

Mary
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,655
13,033
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The noun term baptism by (or in/with/of) the Holy Spirit does not appear in scripture...


It is of No advantage to present an argument of what IS NOT IN Scripture...

Trust what "IS" in Scripture...


Matt 3:
[11] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Mark.1

[8] I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

Luke.3

[16] John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose:he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEN2REV

An Apologetic Sheepdog

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
975
348
83
66
Atlanta, Ga
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Lol.....YOU are an "assigned vessel"? Soooo what authority assigned you to this "task"? Was it another man or God?

I'll let you figure that one out based on Scripture and lets see what you learned.

You sure do speak like a man with a lot of authority for a man who doesn't recognize authority!

I am and I recognize authority quite well- just as well as those who claim authority but dont have it. Feel free to scripturally refust my premise. Your ad hom has certainly failed.

Obviously no man can refute you in Scripture since you are the authority on Scripture.

No, just your argument so far

I know your pride will never let you see how nonsensical your argument (theory) is!

My "pride" is not the source or cause of the weakness of your entire position so blaming me for the complete failure of the RCC doesn't really go anywhere. I'm here and you have yet to scripturally refute any point and thats all thats going in the scorebook.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,284
5,342
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
An interesting historical perspective on Catholicism is its earliest beginnings. The Roman Emperor Constantine made the decision around 300 A.D. to mix a Roman-based pagan religion with Christianity as a means to dilute Christianity, or, you might even say, in a sense, to breed them out.

This is wrong. There are many books written on this and I cannot give it justice here. Emperor Constantine was no saint but he became a believer. One of his first act in power was to stop the horrors of the Christian persecutions. His next effort was to standardize Christian beliefs.. The next step was tied to the belief that Christ taught one belief. So they believed that there should be only one Church. At the time the Roman Empire was the power so he made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire so that he and the emperors that followed would have the legal authority to defend the Church. And if you know history you know that is what the Roman Empire did. Hordes of armies attacked Christianity from every direction.

As far as mixing? Most of the mixing had already occurred. The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in 70 A.D. brought an end to the Jewish-Christian sects....pretty much the end of the apostolistic era.. Pagan converts called Gentiles in the Bible took the helm of the Church very early on but not as a unified belief. Each region had their favorite texts that they were calling scripture. These Gentiles came from different regions and although they converted to Christianity, they did not abandon all their customs.

When Emperor Constantine took over the helm, Christianity is anything but unified. Being a Roman, one of the first things he is going to do is standardize the beliefs and unite them into a single Church, and at that point take measures to preserve the Church. So one of things he did was form a council of Christian Bishops and leaders to come to those agreements and take the list of preferred New Testament texts and bind them into the first Bible. The councils did not pick the books of the New Testament, they affirmed the existing popular list.

Emperor Constantine did not dilute anything...he preserved it. The Jewish-Christians the apostolistic sect, had long died out. After the first century, there are no Jewish-Christian writings that survived. Now if you find any writings after the first century from a Jew that converted to Christianity...you will be the first, and please let me know!

As far as mixing, the Gentile Christians were already living in a society where the calendar is Roman and the days of the week and months are named after Greco-Roman mythologies. What is left is the holidays. The councils decided on the placement of Easter and its name. Technically the name of the goddess of the spring and then the rest followed. No one had cars back then so travel and things like that made religious holidays a disruption of commerce. So they combined the holidays of Christians and Pagans.

The Catholic Church embraced all manner of pagan rituals, and in many ways still do

No they did not and no they do not. The Gentiles on their own had modified some of their regional holiday customs to be mostly compatible with Christian beliefs...that happened over a two hundred year period before Constantine.

This was an effort to control and/or ultimately destroy Christianity since nothing else to date had been effective.

The last thing that Emperor Constantine wanted was to destroy Christianity. In fact Constantine built the Roman Empire around Christianity. Norms have a tendency to become accepted, no matter how horrific it is. The Protestants do not see fracturing the Church into 30,000 denominations as a bad thing. The Catholic Church over the years were certainly guilty of horrible atrocities against people, but the fracturing of the Church into 30,000 pieces was an atrocity against God. They meant well but it did not turn out that way. Which when you get back to sola scriptura, how can there be such a thing if the Protestants could and can not agree on it. Logic, the dreaded human reasoning, dictates that these two groups could learn a lot from each other, but because of hate logic cannot be applied.

As far as evil influences...would God want the Church fractured into 30,000 pieces or would the devil? It is called confusion, a characteristic of the devil's work. Not that that was their intent, but it was the end result. Lots of bad blood between the Catholics and the protest churches...as we see here....wars....killing for Christ. The Protest churches formulated their beliefs on the foundation of hate and that just did not work out.

The only way to be 100% in alignment with God and His Ways is to study scripture for yourself with a sincere heart and prayerful diligence.

2000 years later it is not an easy study. One of the miracles of the Bible is that the details have never been agreed on, but the message of salvation...survived! The biblical era would be alien to anybody that lives today. The New Testament was written in a Pagan language from a Christian perspective living in a Pagan culture and then you have various translations, which make the possibilities of misunderstands very possible. As far as the Holy Spirit and pure hearts....messages vary and it is hard to find a pure heart.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mungo

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,462
1,704
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I'll let you figure that one out based on Scripture and lets see what you learned.



I am and I recognize authority quite well- just as well as those who claim authority but dont have it. Feel free to scripturally refust my premise. Your ad hom has certainly failed.



No, just your argument so far



My "pride" is not the source or cause of the weakness of your entire position so blaming me for the complete failure of the RCC doesn't really go anywhere. I'm here and you have yet to scripturally refute any point and thats all thats going in the scorebook.
Oh, well thank you. Your going to let me figure that out...how kind of you. I think you think your some kind of prophet? Chosen by God to reveal the truth? Am I close?

You keep me in stitches Sheepdog.....you really do.

WHAT? You recognize authority? Who’s authority do you recognize Sheepdog?
 

An Apologetic Sheepdog

Well-Known Member
Aug 12, 2021
975
348
83
66
Atlanta, Ga
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Oh, well thank you. Your going to let me figure that out...how kind of you. I think you think your some kind of prophet? Chosen by God to reveal the truth? Am I close?

No

You keep me in stitches Sheepdog.....you really do.

Well, ignorance is bliss

WHAT? You recognize authority? Who’s authority do you recognize Sheepdog?

Scripture, God, Jesus, The Spirit. Give me the name of another one recognized by scripture
 

GEN2REV

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2021
3,850
1,436
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is wrong.
I don't agree with all of this, but arguing historical details that cannot be validated with scripture is a waste of time, in my opinion.
GEN2REV said:
The only way to be 100% in alignment with God and His Ways is to study scripture for yourself with a sincere heart and prayerful diligence.
2000 years later it is not an easy study. One of the miracles of the Bible is that the details have never been agreed on, but the message of salvation...survived! The biblical era would be alien to anybody that lives today. The New Testament was written in a Pagan language from a Christian perspective living in a Pagan culture and then you have various translations, which make the possibilities of misunderstands very possible. As far as the Holy Spirit and pure hearts....messages vary and it is hard to find a pure heart.
This is yet another of countless posts on Christian forums that intends to discredit and invalidate scripture and I couldn't disagree more.

Nobody said reading/studying the Bible was easy. It isn't supposed to be. It's literally a lifestyle. It's not on par with so many of life's meager accomplishments that you achieve and then move on to something else. It's a communion with the Divine that you engage in for the rest of your life. If you can't trust in the Holy Spirit to guide you through God's Word, your faith is in question.

The details of the Bible, many of the most amazing, have been proven, with science I might add, over ... and over ... and over ... throughout history. These findings are never today, and rarely ever have been, announced in the mainstream. They are silenced and ridiculed by the world at large.

The Bible is labeled as Literature by many modern Universities, claiming it is a book of Poetry and Folk Tales handed down by laymen as they sat around the fire over the centuries. Nothing could be further from the Truth. The Bible is THE most important book ever to be produced, and its history of how it was produced and how it was made available to the common man, not to mention how it's been supernaturally protected through centuries of world leaders trying with great might and money to completely destroy it and eradicate it from the face of the earth, is one of the greatest true stories known to man.

If you don't accept that God Almighty wrote the Bible Himself through His most faithful disciples and prophets, and that He protects the most important details of it with His Mighty Hand, then Christianity might as well be a mere hobby for you, or something you just use as a fodder-topic for writing about when you have nothing else to do.

There is a real POWER in the Word of God. A power that is unlike anything else and when read with a pure desire for God, it enlightens the very soul and teaches much more than is written on each sacred page.

Any lesser description of it, or any of a million explanations of how/why it isn't a legitimate source of historical facts or Divine Truth, is simply the ravings of a faithless member of our modern society and serves no purpose but to demean the very Words of God Almighty.

Sorry you see things this way.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,284
5,342
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't agree with all of this, but arguing historical details that cannot be validated with scripture is a waste of time, in my opinion.
That is problem....65 years of Christian history in the New Testament....Then Christian continued on for 1935 years...If you discount the majority of Christian history....no thing I can do about that and no skin off my tail. Conversation done.
 

Desire Of All Nations

Well-Known Member
Jun 23, 2021
748
408
63
Troy
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Immersion is not required.
Your argument fell completely flat with this 1 sentence.

"After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him." - Matt. 3:16

"For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:" - 1 Pet. 2:21

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. " - Rom. 6:3-4

The Bible is pretty straightforward that full immersion is the only acceptable kind of baptism.

This is wrong. There are many books written on this and I cannot give it justice here. Emperor Constantine was no saint but he became a believer. One of his first act in power was to stop the horrors of the Christian persecutions. His next effort was to standardize Christian beliefs.. The next step was tied to the belief that Christ taught one belief. So they believed that there should be only one Church. At the time the Roman Empire was the power so he made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire so that he and the emperors that followed would have the legal authority to defend the Church.
Constantine was a pagan tyrant who wasn't that different from the Roman emperors who ruled before him. Furthermore, God already established a united Church in A.D. 31, which is clearly documented in Acts 2.

Throughout the time Constantine claimed to be a Christian, he was in reality a member of the sun-worshiping Mithra cult that kept the same "Christianized" festivals that are still celebrated as Christian by Catholics and Protestants today. Notice this unambiguous statement from Edward Gibbon concerning Constantine:

"The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius(worship) of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the god of light and poetry...The altars of Apollo were crowned with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelar deity...The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine".

There is an incredible amount of idolatry to be found in this statement that automatically disqualifies both the belief that Constantine was a true Christian and that he legalized biblical Christianity. Not only does it expose Constantine as continuing his status as a sun-worshiper after his supposed conversion to Christianity, but his idolatry even went so far as to allow people to worship him like the ancient Pharaohs!

The last thing that Emperor Constantine wanted was to destroy Christianity. In fact Constantine built the Roman Empire around Christianity.
This statement couldn't be more wrong:

At this meeting the question concerning … Easter was discussed …. First of all, it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this … feast we should follow the practice of the Jews(Constantine is referring to the NT Passover observance as something the Jews invented, which they didn't) …. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd(as you can clearly see, Constantine has no problem displaying his hatred towards Jews). … It has been determined by the common judgment of all, that the … feast of Easter should be kept on one and the same day(notice that 1. Constantine gives no biblical justification for Christians to celebrate a Satan-inspired festival in the place of Passover and 2. he says the Catholic Church decided on its own authority that Easter should be kept).”

“[T]o speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give …. Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure?"

Imagine that, a sun-worshiping emperor referring to practicing biblical Christianity as "mischief" and a crime that should be punished.

“Forasmuch, then, as it is no longer possible to bear with your pernicious errors, we give warning by this present statute that none of you henceforth presume to assemble yourselves together. We have directed, accordingly, that you be deprived of all the houses in which you are accustomed to hold your assemblies: and [we] forbid the holding of your superstitious and senseless meetings, not in public merely, but in any private house or place whatsoever …. [T]ake the far better course of entering the Catholic Church…. [W]e have commanded … that you be positively deprived of every gathering point for your superstitious meetings, I mean all the houses of prayer … and that these be made over without delay to the Catholic Church; that any other places be confiscated to the public service, and no facility whatever be left for any future gathering; in order that from this day forward none of your unlawful assemblies may presume to appear in any public or private place. Let this edict be made public”.

“Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. … Let us with one accord walk therein, my much-honoured brethren, studiously avoiding all contact with that evil way
(in other words, the "unity" Constantine sought was unified opposition against biblical Christianity). They boast that without their instructions we should be unable to commemorate the festival properly(the Bible clearly shows they were God's instructions, not the Jews'). This is the highest pitch of absurdity. For how can they entertain right views on any point who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them.”

Does any of that read like Constantine had no desire to destroy biblical Christianity, or even that he built the Roman Empire around biblical Christianity? The answer is a definite "no" if you're honest with yourself and what the Bible says.

In Christ's message to the Smyrna era of the true Church(Rev.2:10), He told the Christians of that era that the devil would throw them in prison for 10 days. When you apply the "day for a year" principle, Christ was telling them that there would be a 10 year period of persecution under the reign of this false Christian emperor. And that is exactly what happened after the Council of Nicaea. Not only did Constantine not center the empire around biblical Christianity, it turns out the only people who were freed from persecution were the ones who went along with the Catholic program. Remember Constantine's own words: "Take the far better course of entering the Catholic Church".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GEN2REV

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Your argument fell completely flat with this 1 sentence.

"After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him." - Matt. 3:16

"For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:" - 1 Pet. 2:21

"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. " - Rom. 6:3-4

The Bible is pretty straightforward that full immersion is the only acceptable kind of baptism.
That doesn't prove full immersion.
John baptised in a river
Rivers have banks; the land is higher than the water. So coming up out of the water could just mean he came out onto the river bank.

Gen 41-103 Pharoh's dream
After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows sleek and fat, and they fed in the reed grass. And behold, seven other cows, gaunt and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile.
Were the cows immersed in the Nile or just standing in the water having a drink?

And Acts 8:36-39 Philip baptising the eunuch.
And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! What is to prevent my being baptized?” And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water, Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
There were on a desert road (vs 26) and they found "some water". Do you really think that on a desert road there was a deep pool to immerse in?


And note they both went down into the water. Did they both immerse themselves?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
This is wrong. There are many books written on this and I cannot give it justice here. Emperor Constantine was no saint but he became a believer. One of his first act in power was to stop the horrors of the Christian persecutions. His next effort was to standardize Christian beliefs.. The next step was tied to the belief that Christ taught one belief. So they believed that there should be only one Church. At the time the Roman Empire was the power so he made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire so that he and the emperors that followed would have the legal authority to defend the Church.

The highlighted statement is incorrect.
Actually It wasn't Constantine who made Christianity the state religion. He he tolerated Christian worship in his empire – the edict of Milan (313 AD). This gave no preferential treatment of Christians but put them on the same footing as pagans as regards taxes etc .

After Constantine the empire was at times split and at other times united. After Constantine I, the empire was again split in two with Constantius II in the east and Constantine II in the west.

Constantine II was followed by Constans I and then Constantius II (from the east) became emperor of the west as well.

He was followed by Julian the Apostate (a pagan) and he was followed by Jovian (both sole emperors).

Then in east Valens and Theodosius I; in the west Valentinian II , Gratian and Valentinun II. And Theodosius I

In 379 Theodosius I became Emperor of the East. In 380 he and Gratian (in the west) made Christianity the state religion – some 43 years and many Emperors after Constantine (6 in the east, 8 in the west). But after the death of Valentian in 392 there was an attempt to restore paganism until Theodosius swept in and took power in the west to unite the Empire.
 

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,284
5,342
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The highlighted statement is incorrect.
Actually It wasn't Constantine who made Christianity the state religion. He he tolerated Christian worship in his empire – the edict of Milan (313 AD). This gave no preferential treatment of Christians but put them on the same footing as pagans as regards taxes etc .

After Constantine the empire was at times split and at other times united. After Constantine I, the empire was again split in two with Constantius II in the east and Constantine II in the west.

Constantine II was followed by Constans I and then Constantius II (from the east) became emperor of the west as well.

He was followed by Julian the Apostate (a pagan) and he was followed by Jovian (both sole emperors).

Then in east Valens and Theodosius I; in the west Valentinian II , Gratian and Valentinun II. And Theodosius I

In 379 Theodosius I became Emperor of the East. In 380 he and Gratian (in the west) made Christianity the state religion – some 43 years and many Emperors after Constantine (6 in the east, 8 in the west). But after the death of Valentian in 392 there was an attempt to restore paganism until Theodosius swept in and took power in the west to unite the Empire.

Like I said I could not do it justice. But definitely and ultimately Christians and Christianity were given preferential treatment....but it was not an overnight thing...struggles....the preferred religion did ultimately became the Roman Empire.

The history of Rome is one thing but politics and culture of the Roman Empire is another.

As far as Emperor Constantine making Christianity the state religion, that is a loose term, but here ya go...

In 313 AD, the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which accepted Christianity: 10 years later, it had become the official religion of the Roman Empire.

In 313 Constantine and Licinius announced "that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best," Basically freedom of religion...Funny that the Greeks were the first to practice the concept of democracy. A good part of the Roman Empire was still Pagan....it was a logical choice not to declare war on them because it would have brought the Christians under the "gun" again.
Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia

Various Emperors contribute to continuing Christianity in the Roman Empire
State church of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

Nothing happens like a light switch.
In 313 CE, the emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, which granted Christianity—as well as most other religions—legal status. While this was an important development in the history of Christianity, it was not a total replacement of traditional Roman beliefs with Christianity.
In 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, which was a gathering of Christian leaders to determine the formal—or orthodox—beliefs of Christianity. The result of this council was the Nicene Creed, which laid out the agreed upon beliefs of the council.
In 380 CE, the emperor Theodosius issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which made Christianity, specifically Nicene Christianity, the official religion of the Roman Empire. Most other Christian sects were deemed heretical, lost their legal status, and had their properties confiscated by the Roman state.

Constantinople (330-1453) founded under the direction of Emperor Constantine was not only the largest and richest urban center in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, it was jewel of Christendom. Dedicated to the advancement of Christianity in worship...study... schools and art.

And still this is just a thimble full of information.
 
Last edited:

Grailhunter

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2019
11,284
5,342
113
66
FARMINGTON
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do reason to argue over immersion Baptism. Immersion Baptism is the custom and preferred method, it was that way from the beginning.
"Come up, out of the water." That person that dies in Christ...going underwater is not the same spiritual person that comes out of the water. All well and awesome! A visual and physical experience of what is happening in the spiritual.
But, and I say but, the lack of immersible water never stopped Baptisms and they were valid.
In the winter Baptisms continued.
Indoor Baptismal.
The pouring of water three times over the head could be done...particularly for the ill and elderly. Baptism on the person's death bed. This practice as far as history can tell was always used.

Then again Baptizing babies? What could that mean? They did it, and do it, for several reasons and most were with good intentions.... to start with it had to do with the beliefs of the time period. If Christ returned what would become of the souls of babies? No biblical indication that they get a free pass. Does it work? I have no idea!

I like the idea....as a christening. Then they can get Baptized when they are old enough to decide.
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,686
767
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
I just want to ensure I am truly saved

Jesus sacrificed his life for the whole world; not just part of the world, but
everybody who has ever lived, and everybody who will ever live, down to the
last born on Earth. That says quite a bit about how Jesus feels about me.

He may not like me-- at all. In point of fact Jesus just may quite despise me,
and candidly declare that I am not the kind of people with whom he cares to
associate. Nevertheless, Jesus went to the cross for me too in spite of his
disgust for me as a person.

Now, as I said-- in so many words --Jesus may not be especially fond of me,
but there's no doubt in my mind that he at least cares for me. So I played
upon his Father's sympathies back in February of 1968 when I prayed a very
selfish prayer that went something like this:

"God; I know I'm a sinner. I would like to take advantage of your son's
death."

Seeing as how Jesus gave his life for the whole world, then God couldn't
very well refuse my request; now could He.

Rom 5:6-8 . . Christ died for the impious. Very rarely will anyone die for a
righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.
But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still
sinners, Christ died for us.
_