Catholic or Christian? Can we be both at the same time?

[@bibleman8010]

Being Christian is being Catholic--one, holy and universal. Sadly my friend, you are a disciple of John Calvin, and Martin Luther born in the 1500's. No other denominations can trace back their lineage from the apostles "Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name." Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D..😉

[@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur]

Questions. How did you get saved? (scripturally). Book; chapter and verse. Have you been baptised by full immersion? Do you speak in tongues?

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur What I must do to be saved: 🤔 *I must be baptized with water and the Spirit. Mark 16:16, John 3:3-5, Titus 3:5, I Peter 3:20-21. (Exceptions: [1] If I desire Baptism but die before I can be baptized with water and the Spirit, God accepts my desire to be baptized, and [2] If I am killed (martyred) because of my faith, but I have not had the opportunity to be baptized, God accepts my death as my baptism, called the Baptism of Blood). * I must do the will of God the Father. Matthew 7:21 * I must keep the Commandments of God. Matthew 5:19-20, Matthew 7:21, Matthew 19:17, 1 Timothy 6:14, and others. * I must accept the Cross (suffering). Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24-25, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27. Phil 1:29, and others. * I must be a member of God's true church. Acts 2:46-47. * I must confess my sins. James 5:16, I John 1:9, John 20:19-23 * I must heed the words of St. Peter, the first Pope. Acts 11:13-14, Acts 15:7. * I must eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus Christ. John 6:51-58, I Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-30. * I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me and love my neighbor as myself. I must feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit the sick and those in prison or give other aid to those in need. Luke 10:33 ff, Mt 25:31-46. "Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are very pleasing to God" Hebrews 13:16. Good works don’t save us, but we will be judged by them. *I must strive to be holy. "Strive for peace with everyone and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14 *I must endure (persevere) to the end. Matthew 10:22, Matthew 24:13, Mark 13:13. And ... ? What else must I do? Catechism #432 The name "Jesus" signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name that alone brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke his name, for Jesus united himself to all men through his Incarnation, so that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Tongues🤦‍♂️ Here...let St. Paul answer for us: Spiritual Retardation and Speaking In Tongues "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all gifts of healing? ****Do all speak with tongues?**** Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet I shew unto you a more excellent way." - Cor. 12: 29-31 **** The answer to this rhetorical question, is, of course: "NO!" Speaking in tongues (in the form of strange and unknown tongues) is a relatively new phenomenon in the Protestant churches, of less than a hundred years old. in the scriptures this strange form of Speaking in unknown tongues, was sharply criticized by St. Paul. "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." - 1 Jn.. 4:1 "I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues" - 1 Cor. 14:5 "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." - 1 Cor. 14:9 "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me." - 1 Cor. 14:11 "For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." - 1 Cor. 14:14 "Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." - 1 Cor. 14:19 "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues (I.E strange and unknown tongues), and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" -- 1 Cor. 14:23 Source(s): "Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all gifts of healing? ****Do all speak with tongues?**** Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet I shew unto you a more excellent way." - Cor. 12: 29-31 **** The answer to this rhetorical question, is, of course: "NO!"

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Here's just a few for you:😉😉 It teaches that baptism is immersion instead of pouring (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). Actually, the Catholic Church does not teach against immersion, and that is obviously a valid way for baptism. That said, neither of those passages say in order for a baptism to be valid, it must be done only in immersion. Actually, the Bible speaks quite clearly that other ways of baptism are valid as well. For example, when Ezekiel specifically speaks of the New Covenant, God says, Eze. 36:25-27: 25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Notice that in the new covenant, the water that is sprinkled brings the Holy Spirit. Obviously, it can not be limited to immersion. Another example, in Acts 16, when the jailer is baptized with his whole household (Acts 16:30-34). Paul goes with the jailer to his home, and baptizes the household there, in the middle of the night. There was no lake where they were immersed. In the houses back then, there were no facilities anywhere in a house, where they could get immersed. It is obviously that either sprinkling (as written by Ezekiel) or pouring could be the only way that the jailer and his family could get baptized.

[@DUZCO10]

@5:58 Read early church and tell me who believed of the Communion host like you do

[@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur]

Not sure what you want me to read? Book of Acts. Matthew 26:26-28. 1 Corinthians 11:23-27.

[@rebeccacampbell8851]

Catholics are among some of the most devout people I've ever met but so was Cornelius. Cornelius pray to God always, gave alms, feared God, and even saw visions. He saw an angel that told him to send for Peter who would come tell him words by what she would be saved. Peter came and preached Jesus and while Peter was still preaching the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius in his house and all of them spoken tongues just like Peter and the other 120 originals on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Then Peter commanded them to be baptized by full immersion (as the Greek word means to plunge or submerge). Baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is the same message Jesus preached in John 3:1-8 and Mark 16: 15-17. Same salvation the experienced in Acts 2 and that Peter preached has the gospel in Acts2:38-41. It's the same salvation Samaria experienced in Acts 8, Paul experienced in Acts 9, and the 12 men of Ephesus experienced in Acts 19. And we know Paul stated enrollments 8:9 that if anyone doesn't have the spirit they don't belong to Christ. We also know that to them is equated with a burial service in the Bible and that no one is buried by sprinkling or pouring but rather being completely covered. Praise the Lord that we have the opportunity to turn from our way to God's in repentance, bury our old life through full immersion baptism, and be reborn into new life through the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in new tongues.

[@user-hr5of7pi3j]

What about exodus 25:18 where God wanted Moses to make two gold cherubim, kinda like golden calfs but for holiness instead. The reason why this is fine is that it glorifies God, idols are meant to be used for blasphemy, holy statues are meant to bring you closer to God Tell me: Out of all the saints, which ones condemned images? Why do none of the great people of Christ, who sacrificed their lives for him, condemn images, and on the contrary venerate them. The iconoclast heresy is imported from Islam, if you hate icons become a Muslim, this was not a view held among Christians up until 700

[@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur]

It was also Moses on God's instructions to create the Brazen Serpent - but he never told them to worship it. Numbers 21. So what did God mean when he said in Exodus 12:4-5 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

[@user-hr5of7pi3j]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Well the Catholic church agrees that people shouldn't worship statues, doing so is 100% forbidden according to Catholicism, praying in front of statues / bowing or whatever is not worshipping the statues, there is no life in them, since Jesus and Mary is not here on earth, we bow down to statues, and God see our devotion to them on earth, not insinuating that the statue itself is Jesus or Mary. For example some people prostrate or bow down to pray, but God is not literally sitting in a throne in the skies, nevertheless he sees us If bowing to a statue is idolatry, so is bowing normally while praying, because it insinuates that God is in the skies, where he is not and according to this logic statues are idolatry since you assume God is in the statues But when we bow before statues, we do it as an act of reverence for God, he sees it, just like people bow down without statues No true Catholic thinks that God is literally in the statues, we are not idolators

[@DUZCO10]

Read early church You will not find your interpretation there

[@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur]

Not quite sure what you are saying here? Can you find transubstantiation anywhere in the scriptures?

[@DUZCO10]

@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur in scripture AND in early church. Whereas your briefs are simply protest the Catholic church and divide amongst yourselves. And we know division is the fruit of the devil

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Can you find the words Bible or Trinity in scriptura👏👏

[@spazz3696]

Look sir I am not Catholic but your arguments seem either not completely thought through or uncharitable. For the graven images concern look at the context leading to that commandment. The Israelites had just made a golden calf and worshiped it. The commandment right before it is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” This clearly means not to worship anything or anyone other than God. Now if images or sculptures of things in heaven was forbidden, why did God command Moses to make gold cherubims on the mercy seat? (Exodus 25:18) Same with Solomon’s temple (1 Kings 6:23-35) There is a difference between veneration and worship. As for intercession of the Saints: look at Stephen the Martyr in (Acts 7:56-60). Saul who later is Paul was interceded for by Stephen appealing to our Lord and Savior. If you have a problem with the Saints being “dead” then I fear you may lack faith. Are they not alive in Christ? This is his promise and he is faithful. Don’t get me started on the real presence of Christ. I can’t say much for any other points. I will say however this doesn’t accomplish anything except going after other Christians with your own self righteousness. As a consequence there will only be more division and less unity. If we Christians spent less time picking apart each other and working on being like Christ and spreading the Gospel, this world would be much better. God bless you, God bless the Catholics, may we all be united unto him. In the name of Jesus Christ amen.

[@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur]

You should study the actual formation of the Catholic Church at the time of the 'conversion ' of Constantine the Great - moving from pagan Rome to Papal Rome - far more pagan than Christain.

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Constantine never merged a Thing pagan into the Church In fact he did the opposite he destroyed Pagan temples what liarThere is zero proof of a "pagan" merge of Christianity in theological practices. There isn't a serious (emphasis added) historian secular or religious that would substantiate that claim. If what you claim is true, then the Holy Bible was canonized by pagans. The official New Testament books were canonized by the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church in the year 382 with the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). This "pagan influence illusion" blossomed in the nineteenth century. Publications such as Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (the classic English tract accusing the Catholic Church of paganism) prepared the ground for years of hostility toward the Church. During this period, entire new sects (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses) emerged, all of which saw conventional Catholicism and Protestantism as tainted by paganism. During this time period, atheistic "freethinkers" like Robert Ingersoll wrote volumes criticizing Christianity and Judaism. In short, this idea of an infused pagan Church wasn't an idea until the 19th century as a tactic to discredit the RCC. The Catholic Church confirmed the doctrine of the trinity was established well into the 4th century, in the year 325, exactly where you claim that the Church went pagan. So, did a pagan Church give you the very bible you are reading today and substantiated your own belief in the trinity? These illogical fallacies just don't work due to the conflicting historic counter arguments that have actual proof other than misinterpreted Catholic doctrines that are challenged today. I hope this sparks you to read further into accurate historical data,...

[@spazz3696]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur So do you believe the church apostatized at the time of Constantine? If so, is the Nicene Creed or are the later Creeds and councils wrong or fallible? That presents some problems as the Bible wasn’t canonized until 397 AD but Nicaea was 325 AD. What I have read is the men who were disciples of the Apostles, who defend things such as the the real presence in the Eucharist. These men lived way before Constantine.

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Constantine never merged a Thing pagan into the Church In fact he did the opposite he destroyed Pagan temples what liarThere is zero proof of a "pagan" merge of Christianity in theological practices. There isn't a serious (emphasis added) historian secular or religious that would substantiate that claim. If what you claim is true, then the Holy Bible was canonized by pagans. The official New Testament books were canonized by the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church in the year 382 with the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). This "pagan influence illusion" blossomed in the nineteenth century. Publications such as Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (the classic English tract accusing the Catholic Church of paganism) prepared the ground for years of hostility toward the Church. During this period, entire new sects (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses) emerged, all of which saw conventional Catholicism and Protestantism as tainted by paganism. During this time period, atheistic "freethinkers" like Robert Ingersoll wrote volumes criticizing Christianity and Judaism. In short, this idea of an infused pagan Church wasn't an idea until the 19th century as a tactic to discredit the RCC. The Catholic Church confirmed the doctrine of the trinity was established well into the 4th century, in the year 325, exactly where you claim that the Church went pagan. So, did a pagan Church give you the very bible you are reading today and substantiated your own belief in the trinity? These illogical fallacies just don't work due to the conflicting historic counter arguments that have actual proof other than misinterpreted Catholic doctrines that are challenged today. I hope this sparks you to read further into accurate historical data,🤔🤔

[@jedroueche8161]

You are ridiculous. It says any image as well, so you better not have a picture of a family member. You really need to advance your understanding of the history of Christianity, and the Bible.

[@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur]

I agree. You too should actually see the formation of the Papal Church out of Pagan Rome. Far more pagan than Christian.

[@bibleman8010]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Constantine never merged a Thing pagan into the Church In fact he did the opposite he destroyed Pagan temples what liarThere is zero proof of a "pagan" merge of Christianity in theological practices. There isn't a serious (emphasis added) historian secular or religious that would substantiate that claim. If what you claim is true, then the Holy Bible was canonized by pagans. The official New Testament books were canonized by the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church in the year 382 with the Council of Rome, which was convened under the leadership of Pope Damasus, promulgated the 73-book scriptural canon. The biblical canon was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), and then definitively reaffirmed by the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442). This "pagan influence illusion" blossomed in the nineteenth century. Publications such as Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons (the classic English tract accusing the Catholic Church of paganism) prepared the ground for years of hostility toward the Church. During this period, entire new sects (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses) emerged, all of which saw conventional Catholicism and Protestantism as tainted by paganism. During this time period, atheistic "freethinkers" like Robert Ingersoll wrote volumes criticizing Christianity and Judaism. In short, this idea of an infused pagan Church wasn't an idea until the 19th century as a tactic to discredit the RCC. The Catholic Church confirmed the doctrine of the trinity was established well into the 4th century, in the year 325, exactly where you claim that the Church went pagan. So, did a pagan Church give you the very bible you are reading today and substantiated your own belief in the trinity? These illogical fallacies just don't work due to the conflicting historic counter arguments that have actual proof other than misinterpreted Catholic doctrines that are challenged today. I hope this sparks you to read further into accurate historical data,🤔🤔

[@jedroueche8161]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur You worship the Bible, that is idolatry. It's easy to make stupid accusations.

[@jedroueche8161]

@@FullGospelRevival-ye5ur Do you trust the Bible you read as the inerrant Word of God?Then you submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. I would bet you have never looked at the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and seen what she teaches and why.