Where Did these Beliefs Come From?

[Deeje]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?


Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?

Is infant baptism a scriptural?

Should images be used in worship?

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?


One at a time, or altogether.....please provide scripture in your response....

 

[epronovost]

Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?

Not specifically no. But there is a little scene in the Gospel of John where Jesus declares himself the Son of God and one and the same with the Father which almost gets him stoned to death for blasphemy by Jews.

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?

He did solicit worship for God, the Father, so it doesn't take much of a stretch that if you put stock on the Gospel of John story above to believe he, de facto, requested worship for himself.

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?

Nobody is owed "undue honor" by definition. That's what undue means. The question is more do you believe Mary has been given undue honors and why?

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?

There is no specific mention on the nature of the afterlife though there is mention of an eternal life as some reward for following the reed

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?

Nope and neither in the Catholic Church anymore. You can thank Benedict XVI, now unbaptized baby rot in hell like everybody else.

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?

Some allusion to it Revelation and the OT which are debatable and an entire apocryphal Gospel that describes hell.

Is infant baptism a scriptural?

Baptism is supposed to be some sort of rite of passage and entry point into Christianity inspired by John the Baptist practice of immersion to purify the soul, a ritual by witch Jesus passed. There is no age requirement nor limit. Infant baptism vs child baptism vs adult baptism is simply a question of practice.

Should images be used in worship?

There is no prohibition or demand on that. It seems to be mostly a cultural practice.

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?

The cross became a symbol of Christian before the formation of what we would call the Catholic Church by about 20 years.

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?

No, they were not numerous enough and sometime subject to persecutions. Cathedrals are just really big churches. They emerged when Christian faith became very common and pretty much the norm for the needs of large congregations in major cities.

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?

Neither though titles were common from early Christianity forward with the most prestigious one being that of Apostle of course. The garbs are something much newer that changes depending on time and era, but has remain fairly consistent since the Church established itself.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?


Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?

Is infant baptism a scriptural?

Should images be used in worship?

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?


One at a time, or altogether.....please provide scripture in your response....

Quick question...are you suggesting Christians should be sola scriptura?

 

[Bree]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?


Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?

Is infant baptism a scriptural?

Should images be used in worship?

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?


One at a time, or altogether.....please provide scripture in your response....

answer is no to every question.

 

[pearl]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?

When it comes to Scripture, once again you claim for the Church that which the Church does not claim for itself.

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?

My soul doth magnify the Lord:
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour
Because He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmaid:
For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is His Name.
And His mercy is from generation until generations, to them that fear Him.
He hath showed might with His arm: He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the lowly.
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath received Israel His servant, being mindful of His mercy:
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?

Faithful to His religion Jesus worshiped God, the Church worships God, in Jesus' name.

Is infant baptism a scriptural?

Where in Scripture is it forbidden? Households were baptized.

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?

In fear of Roman persecution crosses were disguised;
Early Christian Symbols of the Ancient Church from the Catacombs (jesuswalk.com)

 

[Deeje]

Quick question...are you suggesting Christians should be sola scriptura?

Jesus promoted “sola scriptura” and so did the apostles.....”it is written” was his response to the devil’s temptations. These all quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures which Paul confirmed were inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Acts 17:2; Titus 1:9)
The apostles admonished other Christians to “preach the word” which was “the word of God”....the scriptures.

Jesus said that none his teaching originated from himself, (John 7:16-18) therefore what he taught came straight from the Creator who was his God and Father. No Christian can teach anything that is contrary to what is written.

 

[Deeje]

When it comes to Scripture, once again you claim for the Church that which the Church does not claim for itself.

“The church” is not a source of truth IMO. On deeper investigation, it has proven itself to be the “weeds” of Jesus parable. (Matthew 13:24-30; 36-42)
Corruption of the church was what was foretold and it happened just as Jesus and the apostles warned. Pretending that it never happened when the evidence is there right under everyone’s nose is an extraordinary kind of blindness. (2 Corinthians 4:3-4)

My soul doth magnify the Lord:
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour
Because He hath regarded the lowliness of His handmaid:
For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He that is mighty hath done great things to me: and holy is His Name.
And His mercy is from generation until generations, to them that fear Him.
He hath showed might with His arm: He hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the lowly.
He hath filled the hungry with good things: and the rich he hath sent empty away.
He hath received Israel His servant, being mindful of His mercy:
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Yes, Mary was a good choice for God to produce his Messiah.
The criteria was that she had to be a virgin, betrothed because her pregnancy had to be accepted as legitimate, (not the result of immorality) so Joseph was encouraged to take Mary as his wife in full knowledge of this child’s origins.......and the parents as a unit had to be devout Jews, lovers of God and faithful worshippers in order to raise their children to worship their God according to the scriptures.

God’s son would grow up in a typically large Jewish family and his adoptive father would play as greater role in Jesus upbringing as his mother did in his birth. He was a good family head in taking his family to Jerusalem for their festivals and in worship at the synagogue where Jesus himself taught.

Nowhere are we told to venerate Mary as anyone but the chosen vessel through whom God chose to bring his son into the world. What Catholics do with regard to Mary is IMO, a disgusting example of idolatry. Was she as important as Jesus in the scriptures? Looking at her place in Catholicism you would think so.......but Jesus and the apostles hardly mentioned her....why? Because her role had been fulfilled. As a disciple of her son, she definitely has a place in heaven, but the foundations of the heavenly kingdom are the 12 apostles, (Revelation 21:14) Mary is not mentioned....one of the lesser mentioned apostles was more important in the kingdom, than Mary.

Faithful to His religion Jesus worshiped God, the Church worships God, in Jesus' name.

This is not what your trinity teaches though is it?
Jesus worships his God still, even in heaven (Revelation 3:12) so if Jesus is God, that means that he worships himself......

We worship Jesus’ God “through his name” because he is our only mediator. There are no others....not Mary, not the saints...there are no other intercessors. (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

Where in Scripture is it forbidden? Households were baptized.

Since full immersion was required for baptism, I believe that infants were not baptized for two reasons......
1) holding an infant under water in itself would be physically dangerous, leading to the possibility of aspiration and possible pneumonia.
2) Very small children were covered under their parents because no one can be baptized by proxy. It has to be a decision made by a person who has learned what it means to become a Christian and who voluntarily submits to baptism, and all this this signifies.
The act of baptism itself is meaningless without the personal commitment.

In fear of Roman persecution crosses were disguised;
Early Christian Symbols of the Ancient Church from the Catacombs (jesuswalk.com)

Like the Jews, the early Christians did not use any visual aids in the way of holy images, statues or pictures in their worship. True, there are symbols of a dove, a shepherd, and so forth, in the catacombs. But none of these are of a ‘holy’ nature, venerated like the cross, until the latter years of the fourth century. (Coinciding with the advent of Roman Catholicism) And when these appeared, there also appeared mythological figures, indicating that apostasy had crept into the ranks of professed Christians, as Jesus had said it would.

Anything else you’d like to add? There were so many more questions.....

The purpose of this thread is to examine all these questions to see if they are actually valid and scripturally supported and if not, to track down their origins. Which we will get to later no doubt.

 

[epronovost]

Since full immersion was required for baptism, I believe that infants were not baptized for two reasons......
1) holding an infant under water in itself would be physically dangerous, leading to the possibility of aspiration and possible pneumonia.

Full immersion is practiced in Eastern Orthodox traditions and baptism of infants is the norm there. I doubt that reason is of any concern. As for your second point, considering the precise meaning of baptism is itself extra-scriptural, its purely a question of convention. If the ritual is seen as a simple symbolic entry in the Christian community, infant baptism is perfectly logical since infants are part of the community. If seen as a ritual purification ritual from original sin, it's also the case. As a ritual designating a profession of faith, it would be ridiculous to baptize infants. That's why sects with infant baptism have other rituals to fulfil that role like communion and confirmation for example.

Like the Jews, the early Christians did not use any visual aids in the way of holy images, statues or pictures in their worship. True, there are symbols of a dove, a shepherd, and so forth, in the catacombs. But none of these are of a ‘holy’ nature, venerated like the cross, until the latter years of the fourth century. (Coinciding with the advent of Roman Catholicism) And when these appeared, there also appeared mythological figures, indicating that apostasy had crept into the ranks of professed Christians, as Jesus had said it would.

Actually, we have no clue if the holy images used by early Christians as early as the early 2nd century, thus predating several parts of the NT, were used in ritualistic or for the purpose of veneration like the cross or other liturgical art is used today. It shows very similar themes too. Some of the eldest Christian images in he catacombs of Rome are that of Mary nursing Jesus dating back from the early 2nd century. It's probable that those early symbols had the same use than the modern one's especially since most of them are the same as the ones used today.

 

[Deeje]

Full immersion is practiced in Eastern Orthodox traditions and baptism of infants is the norm there.

So what? There is no biblical precedent for infant baptism because infants cannot commit themselves to becoming a disciples of Christ by proxy. They must decide for themselves when they fully understand what baptism means. It requires an understanding that baptism is a commitment, not just a physical act involving water.

As for your second point, considering the precise meaning of baptism is itself extra-scriptural, its purely a question of convention. If the ritual is seen as a simple symbolic entry in the Christian community, infant baptism is perfectly logical since infants are part of the community.

Who said it was "extra scriptural"? Those who went to John to be baptized were presenting themselves publicly in repentance over sins committed against the Law. (Luke 3:3)

Since Jesus had no sin, what was his baptism a symbol of? (Matthew 3:13-15)

And what happened when those who were baptized by John, wanted to become followers of Jesus?
The apostle Paul asked two of Jesus' disciples...."Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began speaking in foreign languages and prophesying." (Acts 19:1-7)

Baptism was then done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, meaning that those who had received John's baptism, needed to be baptized again.
Those who became Christ's disciples were baptized as footstep followers of Jesus.....which meant accepting his teaching and preaching his message. (Matthew 28:19-20) Infants can hardly do that.

If seen as a ritual purification ritual from original sin, it's also the case. As a ritual designating a profession of faith, it would be ridiculous to baptize infants. That's why sects with infant baptism have other rituals to fulfil that role like communion and confirmation for example.

Empty and meaningless. No one can commit another to Christ and no infant baptism has any meaning to God.
1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter spoke of ...."Noah’s day, while the ark was being constructed, in which a few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.

21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, is also now saving you, not by the removing of the filth of the flesh, but by the request to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Christian baptism is not what cleanses us from sin....Jesus' blood does that....(1 John 1:7) ....baptism is likened to Noah's ark, carrying us safely through the end of another world that is incorrigibly wicked. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Actually, we have no clue if the holy images used by early Christians as early as the early 2nd century, thus predating several parts of the NT, were used in ritualistic or for the purpose of veneration like the cross or other liturgical art is used today.

But we do. Since images were forbidden to God's worshippers under his law, no sacred objects were to be venerated at all by Christ's followers. Those who did, betrayed the fact that they were not followers of Christ.

It shows very similar themes too. Some of the eldest Christian images in he catacombs of Rome are that of Mary nursing Jesus dating back from the early 2nd century. It's probable that those early symbols had the same use than the modern one's especially since most of them are the same as the ones used today.

The foretold apostasy was well under way in the second century. It began to gain momentum with the death of the apostles and the corruption of the early "church fathers".

Mother goddess worship is way older than Christianity.

1) Ankh Nes Meryre and Son Pepi. 2) Cyprus. 3)Madonna Guanyin, Goddess of mercy 4) Matrika from Tanesara of India 5) Yasoda and Krishna. 6) Mother and son 2000-1850 B.C. 7) Mexico, Jalisco 200 B.C.- 500 A.D. 8) Maya. 9) Mexico, Colima 200 B.C.- 500A.D. 10) Mykene, Greece 11) Sun Goddess, Arinna. 12) Virgin Mary (this is not the real Virgin Mary)

 

[pearl]

Nowhere are we told to venerate Mary

Mary has no merit of her own, only as a disciple of Christ par excellence. Was there a time in the Church when the cult of Mary took on a life of its own, yes, but many of those popular devotions were from the laity. There in one mediator, Christ.

We worship Jesus’ God “through his name” because he is our only mediator.

"Through Him, With Him, and in Him, all power and glory are yours Almighty Father for ever and ever".
From the Liturgy.

Jesus worships his God still, even in heaven (Revelation 3:12) so if Jesus is God, that means that he worships himself......

May have more to do with the changing of the name of place, the several times the city's name was changed.
the victors will become pillars of the heavenly temple, upon which three names will be inscribed: God, Jerusalem, and Christ

The act of baptism itself is meaningless without the personal commitment.

On the commitment of the parents, no set age limit

The purpose of this thread

Your purpose is quite clear to all I'm sure!

 

[epronovost]

So what? There is no biblical precedent for infant baptism because infants cannot commit themselves to becoming a disciples of Christ by proxy. They must decide for themselves when they fully understand what baptism means. It requires an understanding that baptism is a commitment, not just a physical act involving water.


Who said it was "extra scriptural"? Those who went to John to be baptized were presenting themselves publicly in repentance over sins committed against the Law. (Luke 3:3)

Since Jesus had no sin, what was his baptism a symbol of? (Matthew 3:13-15)

And what happened when those who were baptized by John, wanted to become followers of Jesus?
The apostle Paul asked two of Jesus' disciples...."Did you receive holy spirit when you became believers?” They replied to him: “Why, we have never heard that there is a holy spirit.” 3 So he said: “In what, then, were you baptized?” They said: “In John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said: “John baptized with the baptism in symbol of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they got baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul laid his hands on them, the holy spirit came upon them, and they began speaking in foreign languages and prophesying." (Acts 19:1-7)

Baptism was then done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, meaning that those who had received John's baptism, needed to be baptized again.
Those who became Christ's disciples were baptized as footstep followers of Jesus.....which meant accepting his teaching and preaching his message. (Matthew 28:19-20) Infants can hardly do that.

If baptism is a symbol of repentance to wash away sins and accept Jesus. Infants can do it provided you believe in the doctrine of Original Sin. Since Infants have sinned they can be purified. Plus, faith is sometime defined in Christian doctrine not as an act of will of one person, but as a gift from God to the soul, thus infant can have faith under such a view. It's all a matter of interpretation and yours is just as fantasist as the others. In the end, it remains a prototypical magical ritual of cleansing that was common in ceremonial magic pretty much everywhere in human history.

Btw, the idea of "two baptisms" one in repentance and one in the name of Jesus is the theological basis for infant baptism and a later first communion where one receives the Holy Spirit.

But we do. Since images were forbidden to God's worshippers under his law, no sacred objects were to be venerated at all by Christ's followers. Those who did, betrayed the fact that they were not followers of Christ.

Incorrect. Veneration of images was forbidden to Jews and most early Christians were not Jews, but gentile and Jesus himself made no specific prohibition against the use of images in worship. That wasn't even a concern of his at that point. He was more interested and involved in defining his reformed faith than he was on the exact rituals that would constitute it.

Mother goddess worship is way older than Christianity.

Of course it is. With totemic worship of animal and nature, it's the eldest form of religious worship in human history. Motherhood has been seen as a symbol of life, love, security and community throughout the ages. Christianity borrows from a lot of different tradition both in its rituals, in its symbols, in its narrative and in its theological concepts. It's its specific combination of traits that makes it unique not the presence of one specific trait.

 

[Deeje]

Mary has no merit of her own, only as a disciple of Christ par excellence. Was there a time in the Church when the cult of Mary took on a life of its own, yes, but many of those popular devotions were from the laity. There in one mediator, Christ.

What has that got to do with the truth?
Please do not offer excuses. This thread was posted to gain scriptural evidence for the validity of the questions listed. One glaring omission from the responses so far is the absence of scripture.

There are no scriptural grounds for the Catholic church’s veneration of Mary....none. It is clearly idolatrous.

"Through Him, With Him, and in Him, all power and glory are yours Almighty Father for ever and ever".
From the Liturgy.

“From the liturgy”? Where is the scripture?
To the church, there are three Almighty gods contained in one entity, yet this god is nowhere to be found in any part of the Bible.
Where then did he come from?

May have more to do with the changing of the name of place, the several times the city's name was changed.
the victors will become pillars of the heavenly temple, upon which three names will be inscribed: God, Jerusalem, and Christ

Did you miss the point of Revelation 3:12? Jesus called his Father “my God” four times in that one verse....he was in heaven when he said that. What you said hardly responded to the question. How is the Father the “God” of Jesus even in heaven? Does this part of God worship another part of his equal self?

On the commitment of the parents, no set age limit

Because the infant’s standing with God does indeed depend on the standing of their parents with God, baptism of babies is unnecessary. It is an empty ritual and the sprinkling of water on an infant achieves nothing. No one can commit another person to God by proxy.

Your purpose is quite clear to all I'm sure!

My purpose is to tell the truth....sorry if it is not convenient...but truth can never be overpowered by lies.

My disdain for the lies told by Christendom, (all denominations being originally spawned by the Catholic Church) has a lot to do with being raised in that religious system myself, and discovering through careful Bible study, how many lies are fed to people who unwittingly accept them as truth, never imagining the magnitude or consequences of the deception. Even if one person is moved to examine their beliefs, and look into God’s word, it’s worth it.

There will be no excuses accepted by Jesus who is appointed as the judge of all of us. (Matthew 7:21-23)

 

[John1.12]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?


Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?

Is infant baptism a scriptural?

Should images be used in worship?

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?


One at a time, or altogether.....please provide scripture in your response....

Some of those are not unique to Roman Catholicism..

 

[Deeje]

If baptism is a symbol of repentance to wash away sins and accept Jesus. Infants can do it provided you believe in the doctrine of Original Sin.

What? Baptism as a Christian is NOT to wash away sins...please pay attention. The blood of Christ does that.

Since Infants have sinned they can be purified. Plus, faith is sometime defined in Christian doctrine not as an act of will of one person, but as a gift from God to the soul, thus infant can have faith under such a view. It's all a matter of interpretation and yours is just as fantasist as the others. In the end, it remains a prototypical magical ritual of cleansing that was common in ceremonial magic pretty much everywhere in human history.

And again the atheist is an expert on Christianity...
You have no idea what original Christianity was all about. You are spouting “church” history, which is not Christianity at all. Not even close.

Btw, the idea of "two baptisms" one in repentance and one in the name of Jesus is the theological basis for infant baptism and a later first communion where one receives the Holy Spirit.

Hogwash. John’s baptism only applied to Jews, as a preparation for acceptance of the one who came after him....the Messiah.
Gentiles would be added who did not submit to John’s baptism.
Why are you even here? The thread is in “Scriptural Debates” and you post no scripture, just your own opinions, which are basically useless.

Incorrect. Veneration of images was forbidden to Jews and most early Christians were not Jews, but gentile and Jesus himself made no specific prohibition against the use of images in worship. That wasn't even a concern of his at that point. He was more interested and involved in defining his reformed faith than he was on the exact rituals that would constitute it.

Good grief! Does this unsupported nonsense ever stop?
As with Gentiles coming into Judaism, who had to leave every vestige of their former religion behind, so too with Christianity, all vestiges of idolatry, previously practiced, were to be abandoned.

As a devout Jew, Jesus condemned idolatry because it was part of the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20:4-5)

Of course it is. With totemic worship of animal and nature, it's the eldest form of religious worship in human history. Motherhood has been seen as a symbol of life, love, security and community throughout the ages. Christianity borrows from a lot of different tradition both in its rituals, in its symbols, in its narrative and in its theological concepts. It's its specific combination of traits that makes it unique not the presence of one specific trait.

You are confusing “Christianity” with “Christendom”....that is a big mistake.

So any future posts from you without scripture, will be ignored. Your opinions and views here contribute nothing relevant to the OP.

 

[Deeje]

Some of those are not unique to Roman Catholicism..

Some of those are not unique to Roman Catholicism..

Please read the opening words of the thread...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Jesus promoted “sola scriptura” and so did the apostles.....”it is written” was his response to the devil’s temptations. These all quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures which Paul confirmed were inspired by God. (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Acts 17:2; Titus 1:9)
The apostles admonished other Christians to “preach the word” which was “the word of God”....the scriptures.

Jesus said that none his teaching originated from himself, (John 7:16-18) therefore what he taught came straight from the Creator who was his God and Father. No Christian can teach anything that is contrary to what is written.

Sounds like a yes to me.
I've got no dramas with that view, but Roman Catholicism doesn't subscribe to sola scriptura. Why would you expect them to be able to identify all of their beliefs in the Bible?
It's much like a Quranist demanding a Sunni or Shia ignores hadith.

 

[epronovost]

What? Baptism as a Christian is NOT to wash away sins...please pay attention. The blood of Christ does that.

You provided the quotes that established that baptism was a repentance ritual designed by John the Baptist and then provided reasons for why Jesus went through it. There is no reason why a infant couldn't either if you perceive it as a repentance ritual which you can. That Jesus doesn't need to repent because he is God and perfect doesn't mean you don't.

As for salvation the requirements vary from interpretation to interpretation. All agree that to receive salvation one must be Christian, accept Christ sacrifices, but many also believe it requires good work inspired by Jesus' actions and moral. There is even theological arguments on the "level of salvation" with Jesus proclaiming that those who follow the Law will be first amongst equals. There is a lot of wiggle room for various interpretations.

Similarly, to satisfy your canonical scriptural fetishism, there is mention in Act of the Apostles and in Corinthians of household being baptized, specifically for the purpose of receiving the grace of God. Infants and children are considered part of households thus infant baptism has scriptural support else it would specify the exception to it as it would be important.

And again the atheist is an expert on Christianity...
You have no idea what original Christianity was all about. You are spouting “church” history, which is not Christianity at all. Not even close.

The history of Christianity is very much part of Christianity and the most well known and quoted expert on Christianity is a self-described agnostic. Being part of Christianity doesn't make you an expert on it any more than being Greek makes you an expert on Greek history. That's just bigotry on your part. That you don't know it and don't want to know about due to your own dogmatism is of little concern to me.

You haven't even discussed any of the apocryphal scriptures either which could be of interest to your question. They certainly shaped the way early Christians defined Christianity and yet you ignore them so far, probable because you don't know them.

Hogwash. John’s baptism only applied to Jews, as a preparation for acceptance of the one who came after him....the Messiah.
Gentiles would be added who did not submit to John’s baptism.

Again that's not mentioned anywhere. That's just your opinion. The fact is some Apostles have passed through two baptism, one in repentance and another one is devotion. The question is "do you do what Jesus and the Apostle did" or "do you do as they say". Both are equally valid standpoint. Why couldn't infant baptism stand for baptism in repentance and communion baptism unto Jesus? That's a perfectly reasonable arrangement that follows the doctrine of the texts.

As with Gentiles coming into Judaism, who had to leave every vestige of their former religion behind, so too with Christianity, all vestiges of idolatry, previously practiced, were to be abandoned.

As a devout Jew, Jesus condemned idolatry because it was part of the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20:4-5)

And the use of images in art or as group identifier isn't idolatry. Idolatry would be the belief that the image is also the deity like it was the case for temple statues in Egyptian and Mesopotamian which were considered extension of the god's body. That's what idolatry means. Praying to God in front a beautiful depiction of him as an inspiration isn't idolatry nor is wearing a cross to identify yourself as part of Christendom. For that matter, producing artwork inspired by your own religion isn't idolatry either. The worship of relics or the belief that some icons possess miraculous powers is idolatry. The idea that the text of the Bible is perfect and inspired by God is widely considered a form of idolatry.

Also if gentiles who become Christians must follow the Mosaic Law, why do they not circumcise themselves or eat pork. the 10 Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law and Jesus himself, when quoting from the 10 Commandments only make mention of adultery and murder in completely different kind of conversation.

 

[Deeje]

Sounds like a yes to me.
I've got no dramas with that view, but Roman Catholicism doesn't subscribe to sola scriptura. Why would you expect them to be able to identify all of their beliefs in the Bible?

Its got to do with Christianity, not "Churchianity"....there were no divisions in original Christianity (1 Corinthians 1:10) and no doubts about what Jesus taught. When the "church" decided to add things that were not scriptural, how convenient to deny sola scriptura?

Without scripture, we have not a shred of information about the God of Abraham and his connection to Jesus Christ. We have no record of what Jesus taught or in fact how the apostles' teachings reinforced what he said...they never altered it or taught anything that contradicted it.
What Christendom teaches is a complete bastardization of it.

So for those who want to know what Jesus taught, we have only one reference.....those who teach outside of that whilst claiming to be servants of the master, are kidding themselves IMO.

According to Jesus he will reject those who do that, as those he "never knew". (Matthew 7:21-23)

It's much like a Quranist demanding a Sunni or Shia ignores hadith.

A person's religious beliefs or lack of them are often inherited, as mine were. But there comes a time when you look around at what you are part of, and start to worry that its all a big contradictory mess. In my case I threw it all out and started from scratch, which is why I was drawn to JW's, probably one of the most hated but misrepresented Christian organizations in the world. They were doing exactly what I was attempting to do without success, so when they offered to study the Bible with me I accepted and it changed my whole view of what Christianity was supposed to look like. Where there was division in Christendom, I saw global unity in the brotherhood of Jehovah's Witnesses no matter what country they lived in. Where there was only partial acceptance of what Christ taught in the churches (meaning that there was acceptance of the easier things but rejection of the more difficult stuff) I saw JW's doing all that was required of them, despite the fact that they were hated for doing it. (John 15:18-21)

As far as Muslims are concerned, we only have to look at the mess that Islam is in, just the same as Christendom. People fleeing the strife in their own homelands are often fleeing the violence of fanatical Muslims.
What does Islam really have to offer anyone? If you cannot control your own members, what kind of a God are you?

God supports those who obey him...its that simple. According to scripture, there are only two kinds of people who have something to fear about "the end" of this current "system of things" foretold by Jesus as a sign of his impending return...."those who do not know God" (because they don't want to) and those who know, but "do not obey" Christ's teachings. (all of them) These will not fare well.

Jesus' return was not bring peace, but a continuing escalation of all that is wrong with this world. This situation will force people to make decisions.....about God...about their beliefs...and about what is happening and why.

But then, out of the chaos, it says there will be a proclamation of "Peace and Security".....there will appear to be a man-made solution.......but it will be false and destruction of the current world system will soon follow.

We are all in the situation of evaluating our position with regard to what is happening in the world right now, and how we see God (or the lack of him) and where we and our own loved ones might find themselves in the foreseeable future. Does this all mean something?....or does it mean nothing? That is for us to decide. God said there would be a separation of people in this "time of the end"......he is not deciding who gets to live and who doesn't....we are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For those who are students or readers of God’s word, can anyone tell me where these beliefs, some of which are largely, (but not all) unique to Roman Catholicism, are found in the Bible?

You dumped so many large topics that I almost passed this up. Really, this should have been separate threads. I am not going to give each its due, as it would make for an obscenely long post. But I'll touch on each.


Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?
No. However, there is a point where the gospel refers to baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and other scriptures that allude to the possible deity of Jesus. IOW it is not clear, and it took the church several centuries to work it out.

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?
Well, he didn't stop Thomas from calling him God and worshiping him, did he.

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?
Your question is already imbedded with bias when you say "undue" honor. Who are you to say what honor is undue. If she is the mother of the messiah, and if Christians are correct that her "Yes" to God helped bring salvation to the world, I'd say she is due a lot of honor. The question would rather be, why do protestants try to reduce her to nothing? Sounds like knee-jerk anti-Catholicism to me.

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?
Again, it depends on which verses you stress. I think there's a verse that says to be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord.

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?
Jesus taught about Gehenna. The Jewish concept of Gehenna is a temporary hell in which we are purified for the resurrection. That sure sounds an awful lot like purgatory to me.

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?
Again, Christian scriptures teach the lake of fire.

Is infant baptism a scriptural?
Unless I'm mistaken, the church baptized whole families. It never says infants were excluded.

Should images be used in worship?
Are you going to exclude pictures as well as statues? No cross at the front of the church? No stain glass windows? How far are you going to go with this?

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?
The Church identified itself as Catholic in the first century -- Ignatius used the phrase "Catholic Church" in his writings. The early church traced a cross on their foreheads. There are also crosses in the catacombs.

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?
My undertanding is that etymology of the English word Priest comes directly from Presbyter aka the Greek word Presbyteros which means elder. Such Presbyters did exist in the apostolic church, and their descendents via the unbroken chain of laying on of hands do exist today. It's just that this doesn't matter to you the way it matters to some.

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?
Dinstinctive garb? I have no idea. Titles? Yes absolutely: Presbyters, Bishops, and Deacons (Presbyteros, Episkopos, and Diakonos).

In addition to this, I'd like to mention that the early church also:

* believed in salvific baptism

* believed in real presence in the eucharist (communion)

* accepted the authority of the Presbytery (IOW was not scripture alone)

Again, each of these items is subject for a thread of its own, so I'm not willing to go into detail on any one of them, since this is a kind of gloss over them thread.

 

[Deeje]

You dumped so many large topics that I almost passed this up. Really, this should have been separate threads. I am not going to give each its due, as it would make for an obscenely long post. But I'll touch on each.

Did Jesus ever claim to be part of a three headed god?
No. However, there is a point where the gospel refers to baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Spirit, and other scriptures that allude to the possible deity of Jesus. IOW it is not clear, and it took the church several centuries to work it out.

Did he ever solicit worship for himself?
Well, he didn't stop Thomas from calling him God and worshiping him, did he.

Was Mary a figure in the Bible to be adored and given undue honor?
Your question is already imbedded with bias when you say "undue" honor. Who are you to say what honor is undue. If she is the mother of the messiah, and if Christians are correct that her "Yes" to God helped bring salvation to the world, I'd say she is due a lot of honor. The question would rather be, why do protestants try to reduce her to nothing? Sounds like knee-jerk anti-Catholicism to me.

Was there a teaching that an immortal soul would depart from the body at death?
Again, it depends on which verses you stress. I think there's a verse that says to be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord.

Is there such a place as Purgatory in the Bible?
Jesus taught about Gehenna. The Jewish concept of Gehenna is a temporary hell in which we are purified for the resurrection. That sure sounds an awful lot like purgatory to me.

Is there a "hell" of eternal fiery torment for the wicked?
Again, Christian scriptures teach the lake of fire.

Is infant baptism a scriptural?
Unless I'm mistaken, the church baptized whole families. It never says infants were excluded.

Should images be used in worship?
Are you going to exclude pictures as well as statues? No cross at the front of the church? No stain glass windows? How far are you going to go with this?

Was the cross a religious symbol for Christians before Catholicism introduced it?
The Church identified itself as Catholic in the first century -- Ignatius used the phrase "Catholic Church" in his writings. The early church traced a cross on their foreheads. There are also crosses in the catacombs.

Were there "priests" officiating in massive cathedrals in original Christianity?
My undertanding is that etymology of the English word Priest comes directly from Presbyter aka the Greek word Presbyteros which means elder. Such Presbyters did exist in the apostolic church, and their descendents via the unbroken chain of laying on of hands do exist today. It's just that this doesn't matter to you the way it matters to some.

Were those who were shepherds in the congregation to wear distinctive garb and headgear and accept titles?
Dinstinctive garb? I have no idea. Titles? Yes absolutely: Presbyters, Bishops, and Deacons (Presbyteros, Episkopos, and Diakonos).

In addition to this, I'd like to mention that the early church also:

* believed in salvific baptism

* believed in real presence in the eucharist (communion)

* accepted the authority of the Presbytery (IOW was not scripture alone)

Again, each of these items is subject for a thread of its own, so I'm not willing to go into detail on any one of them, since this is a kind of gloss over them thread.

Well, I've had an atheist and a Jew tell me that the questions I've asked are out of line with the scriptures....but I have yet to see a single scripture from either of you....

Since when are Jews and atheists experts on Christianity? I did not ask for opinions...I asked for scripture.....OK? Was it too much to ask?

And the thread title was "Where Did These Beliefs Come from?

Perhaps I will get into that question more tomorrow......