CHRISTIAN / ROMAN CATHOLIC (VERY QUESTIONABLE)??? this is not rude...?

Question

hate to ask this question but? CHRISTIAN or ROMAN CATHOLIC (changing names every century) is a very questionable religion..,, TELL ME IF YOU FIND THESE WORDS ON THE BIBLE (christian, catholic, (CREATED JUST TO SAY THAT JESUS IS THE LORD, for truly JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF tell you, you do not know what you are doing?).... This is a challenged to every one!!! and maybe next year, AND SURELY THE BIBLE WILL BE REVISED AGAIN FOR YOU?..

Answer 1

cATHOLIC?

God? He or She?

Church? Christianity? Jesus? Dying?

What is the Imacculate Conception supposed to mean?

(NOT A VIRGIN BIRTH! - Google Imacculate Conception. What else do you falsely believe? ) Immaculate Deception?

Jesus, the basis of Christianity? .

If Jesus died, he could NOT have been God.

Gods do not die? Do they?

If Jesus 'died' on Friday and 'undied' on Sunday, what else besides Saturday was sacrificed?

Did Jesus give up Saturday for us? Big deal!

If Jesus died for our sins, there should not be any more sins, else why go through with it?.

If Jesus really DIED, he should be dead, dead, dead!

Life after death is like virginity after childbirth.

If the flesh of Jesus died, what was seen walking and talking on Sunday?

If you swallow this stuff, you are not going to like the folks who don't. You want them to swallow it too.

Christians want everyone to convert to their non-thinking in order to be 'saved'.

Believing and not thinking is like choosing a mental illness and becoming truly lost.

Answer 2

Actually, the Bible DOES use the word "Christian". It says the term was first used in Anthioch. This is evidence that the movement, as a new religion, was a Gentile matter. Gentiles who did not know Jesus, and did not know any better. The movement in Jerusalem among Jews was not a new religion at all, but a movement within Judaism. It was ignorant Gentiles who paganized it into a new religion.

As for Catholic, contrary to Catholic claims, it did not really exist until the fourth century, when Constantine made it the State Religion. Before that, the Bishop of Rome was NOT recognized as the head of the entire church. He was no more important than the Bishop of Byzantium, or Alexandria, or Antioch. He did not claim the power to pronounce doctrine binding on everyone.

Answer 3

Being Christian is not necessarily Catholic. Protestants are considered Christian as well. The word Catholic is used to refer to the religion of Roman Catholicism, which is headed by the Pope, but the word catholic in the bible means universal.
Jesus was part of the Holy Trinity of the Father God, Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, 3 persons in one God.

Answer 4

Contrary to what kreevich said, the word Catholic has existed in Christendom since the first century.
Ignatius of Antioch:

"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Another example:
The Martyrdom of Polycarp-

"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Answer 5

Hashiman,
Your question is incoherent. Please reword it.

Chazerai,
How many times have you copied and pasted the same list of lame excuses for rejecting Christianity.

Kreevich,
Where do you get your ideas? Are you simply spewing lies and bigotry that you heard at Sund'y Meet'n? Where is the historical evidence to substantiate your claims?

Actually, the Catholic Church was synonymous with Christianity for over a thousand years. Just as the followers of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch, the Church was first called Catholic in Antioch during apostolic times. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was appointed by Peter before heading to Rome. Ignatius, who was also a contemporary of John, writing about a decade after the death of the beloved apostle, called the Chuch Catholic.

"Flee from schism as the source of mischief. You should all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ did the Father. Follow, too, the presbytery as you would the apostles; and respect the deacons as you would God's law. Nobody must do anything that has to do with the Church without the bishop's approval. You should regard that Eucharist as valid which is celebrated either by the bishop or by someone he authorizes. Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Without the bishop's supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted. On the other hand, whatever he approves pleases God as well. In that way everything you do will be on the safe side and valid. It is well for us to come to our senses at last, while we still have a chance to repent and turn to God. It is a fine thing to acknowledge God and the bishop. He who pays the bishop honor has been honored by God. But he who acts without the bishop's knowledge is in the devil's service. (Letter to the Smyrnaens: A.D. 110)"

So, we can see that your claim that the Catholic Church did not exist before the fourth century is totally baseless.

The bishop of Rome was no different than any of the other bishops before the fourth century? That's not what Irenaeus wrote in the second century. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons, in modern France. He was the student of Polycarp, bishop of Alexandria, who was a close companion of Ignatius.

"We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time. But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us. The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the church… handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus... (Against Heresies – Book III: A.D. 180)."

And also in the third century Cyprian, bishop of Carthage wrote:
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity… If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition: A.D. 251).

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source (Letters 59:14; A.D. 253)

Even the heretics of that time recognized the authority of the bishop of Rome. They wrote letters trying to convince the Pope that their position was correct. So, why don't the heretics of today "hold fast to the traditions" (1Cor. 11:2)?

Kreevich, by your ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims you have destroyed your own credibility.

Answer 6

Righteousness and the bulk don't seem to be continuously at the identical aspect. That was once a few learn, and I was once taken again by means of a few. No it isn't side of God's folks ever. Such speak. Nor will it ever be a side of his tradition. I do feel we must shun the ones willful sinning, in order that we do not initiate God to anger or believe harm by means of us ; for this can be a reality it's rough to receive forgiveness for sins that had been willfully dedicated. And that involves dangerous or dangerous institutions. Even our silence regularly helps sin and you notice by means of answer after settling on fine reply. We ought to hinder indecent phrases, and filthy jokes of which reputable folks could be ashamed. *That undoubtedly does not imply simply stand there and say not anything approximately it neither. "How does that seem to others while you say your a Christian however say not anything while any one says some thing like that? It offers them a foul message of you and your religion. Like a silent approval. I'm no longer amazed the poster made a observe of that during answer on the finish. Lewd dialog of this variety is outward evidence of an unregenerate middle; "For out of the abundance of the guts the mouth speaketh" (Matt. 12:34). And smutty humor and conceited phrases tender the street to dishonorable deeds. Such mirth is naturally forbidden by means of God's Word. "Neither filthiness, nor silly speaking, nor jesting, which don't seem to be effortless," says the Apostle Paul, are to be authorized. "For due to the fact of those matters cometh the wrath of God upon the kids of disobedience" (Eph. five:four, 6). Through such evil speak and useless mirth the Holy Spirit of God is grieved. Eph. four:29-30. So God ought to had been deeply grieved there. I understand a few may not like to listen to that. Maybe they'll say good we did not say it however is status there while others are pronouncing how flawed it's any larger? Saying not anything your self does make you seem a side of the opposite corporation. Maybe a few did not come again however I consider such a lot did and a few possibly determined I may not get into that like silence makes it larger. Better for whom? I consider of the gang In Exodus who would possibly not have mentioned whatever themselves while a few had been behaving badly, possibly they proposal by means of pronouncing not anything that could excuse them too, pleasant each. It did not. They needed to make a stand. Sometimes we do and it is Shame we must be instructed as Christians while. We are so prejudiced in our possess prefer customarily that we can't see our possess errors and shortcomings as quite simply as the ones of others. And will customarily will rebuke if others say whatever, you are going to get that too, now we have the entire excuses for it, and but it is vitally essential that we have got their support, considering the fact that they may be able to see our demands a lot more naturally than we ourselves can Again, such foul speak is "no" side of a Christian existence. Nowhere within the Bible are we instructed to tolerate sin, and to be quiet approximately it exceptionally while it has turn out to be an trouble round us and we're there. I can see why you requested this and I felt the query was once a well one for a few watching in and must be addressed. Actually I understand many Unbelievers and Atheists who've larger manners than to mention some thing like that on a public location or at any place. I did learn it and stored it, to look how so much folks admit to, disguise, be taught and difference in time to come back.

Answer 7

Just ask the question-don't try to set it up-we have at least some intelligence.
You question is unclear.
Just ask it again in few words as possible.

Answer 8

What? What are you babbling about? Changing the bible? Sure it gets changed. When it is translated from Aramaic to greek, greek to latin, latin to english, french, german, etc.
What's your point?

Answer 9

Hey, in your religion, don't they cut people's tongues out for blaspheming?

Answer 10

Okay, scripture clearly states that the word Christian was first used at Antioch and can be found in Act 11:26.

As to the term Roman Catholic, it is in fact first used by Anglicans as an insult during the reformation. Prior to that the entire Church simply described itself as Catholic (in English) or simply the Church. There was no real need prior to the divisions to use the adjective much.

The English word Catholic is in fact two Greek words merged as an adjective. They mean "all embracing." They can also mean "according to the whole." The surviving use of the word as an adjective first appears in the year 107 by Irenaeus, the bishop of Antioch. He was a disciple of both Peter and John. He succeeded Evodius as bishop when Evodius died. Evodius succeeded Peter as bishop and leader of the Antiochean Church. Like the bishop of Rome, the bishop of Antioch is a successor to an apostolic see of Peter. As such, was often considered the "second see," when important questions came up and early Christians needed to consult an early community.

It does not appear that Ignatius coined its usage, rather it looks like he was simply using what was in common parlance. He used it in a letter to the Church at Smyrna in the year 107. The letter is still extant.

The word is important for two reasons. First, the meaning "all embracing," means what many Protestants mean as non-Denominational. If you are Lutheran, then you are saying you follow Luther. Denomination means to name. You are naming what you will follow and what you do not. The word Catholic means you will accept the diversity of your brothers and sisters. You can follow anyone, as long as they get you to Christ and follow the ancient apostolic message. There is far greater diversity within Catholicism than accross all of Protestantism.

As to where does it affirmatively appear in sacred scripture, it does not in exact phrasing but Paul is very close. In 1 Corinthians 10:31 Paul writes:

10 I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.
11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you.
12 I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.
16 (I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning.
18 The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside."
20 Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
26 Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27 Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
28 and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something,
29 so that no human being might boast 11 before God.
30 It is due to him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, as well as righteousness, sanctification, and redemption,
31 so that, as it is written, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."

In particular the phrase "I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose." encompasses both meanings of the word Catholic.

First, no divisions are permitted. Protestant denominations are banned by Paul. If you must fight, you must do it inside the whole Church not split off and form your own doctrine.

The second meaning of Catholic is "according to the whole." Catholic decisions are decisions accepted by all Christians in union with the Church across all time and place. In other words, it was believed that way in 300, 843, 1145, 1865, 2006. It was believed in Smyrna, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, Jersusalem, Kerala, Bagdad, Mexico City, Corinth and in America. Protestants only accept their own denominations decisions and reject the others.

Which do you think is true, your Protestant denomination, the 45,999 other current independent denominations or the one Catholic Church which still proclaims the same message today it proclaimed throughout its history. If you divide the Protestant denominations by the total number of Protestants, there are not many people who agree in each group. There are over a billion Catholics and if you include the Orthodox, who are the same denomination as Catholics but we are in schism, then 75% of Christianity is Catholic and can agree despite the diversity.

Do you truly believe that God has abandoned 75% of Christianity? Do you believe that 75% of Christianity,when it reads the bible, does not read the same passages as you? Is it possible that you are reading into those passages what you need and not what the apostles meant?

Think about it.