Well, I'll say this. I don't have the strength nor the time to debate. I know that G-D will lead you down the path he has for you as long as you desire to follow.

As for this whole Israel bit. I don't understand why so many Christians support the people that their theology contradicts when you boil it down.

The real reason I see that we are supporting Israel is we (US) have so many jews making allyah to Israel and they are enrolled in the IDF. It is out of interest of our own people as well. You didn't see us rescuing people from Israel now did ya? They be coming from Lebanon. JMO

On second thought I will give you stuff to read so that you will understand my perspective better and also for you to be educated and make your own decisions based upon the knowledge given.

www.maranathamedia.com.au/start/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&Itemid=0&gid=3

" What is your foundation? What do you hang your hat on? Your intellectualism? Somebody's opinion? Tradition?"

That's all you hang yours on. You didn't devise your beliefs. It would be quite the coincidence that you came to the same conclusions that it took your religion 2000 years to refine. You most certainly didn't translate your bible and come up with the doctrine based upon it all by your lonesome.

"I never said anywhere who is and isn't Christian. I, as Dr Guy correctly stated, have never slammed Catholics or any other person. Not even you or those who make it a habit to slam me. I refrain from that. "

You associate your beliefs with first century Christians, and then cite that Catholicism rejects them. You mention people who have switched from Catholicism and suddenly underwent amazing changes. You've made it quite clear that churches are full of people that aren't Christians, even if they think they are.

You asked me if people who rarely pick up the Bible or go to church are Christians. So even if the RELATIONSHIP makes a Christian, the indicators are there to judge for yourself. You set yourself apart from "modern religions", even if refuse to say which are the "false" ones. You use the word APOSTASY to mean rejecting YOUR religious ideals, not those of their church.

"so you're saying it's the majority rules?"

Show us where Jesus defined the word Christianity. Sure, being in a garage doesn't make me a car. Being in the minority doesn't make your beliefs more valid, either. Phelps and his crew are vindicated by the idea that they are the small minority facing the masses bound for hell, too.

In terms of definitions, you don't have the right to hijack the word Christian and make it mean people who have an acceptable relationship with God in your terms. The word has a real definition, yet people try to apply it only to people who believe and worship as they do, Everyone else is evidently in danger of apostasy.

You associate your beliefs with first century Christians, and then cite that Catholicism rejects them

I'm glad you're going after the "ism" instead of the people here. Well here's a few examples for you....you tell me...are they the same or different?

1.The Apostles taught that all have sinned except Jesus (Rom 3:10-12, Heb 4:15) but tradition says that Mary was sinless.
2.The Apostles taught that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Heb 7:27, 9:28, 10:10, 18) but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.
3.The Apostles said that all Christians are saints and priests (Eph 1:1, 1 Peter 2:9) but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community.
4.The Apostle said that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5) but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ.
5.The Apostle said that all Christians should know that they have eternal life 1 John 5:13, John 5:24), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.

Luther and the reformers before him with great care and depth than the church had done in centuries began to discover that tradition contradicted the bible. You're forgetting the dark ages. There was no belief but what the CC put forth. No ifs, ands or buts. I forget now (I can look it up) but the bible had been translated in 500 languages by such and such a time and by 400 or 500 AD or so it was done to one.....Latin. All others were destroyed and so were the attempts in translating it in any other language.

It would be quite the coincidence that you came to the same conclusions that it took your religion 2000 years to refine. You most certainly didn't translate your bible and come up with the doctrine based upon it all by your lonesome.

well at least you should discount the dark ages where no one had the right to define it outside the RCC. As soon as they were able to read it for themselves, define it they did.

When the devil quoted scripture at the temptation (Luke 4) Jesus did not turn to tradition or some authority rather he said…”It is written.” When the evil one or those that represent him misuse the Bible or imply that it is unclear, Jesus teaches us that we must look deeper into the written word not away from it.
Hey Dude, I'll get back to you after I read your link....but after being a 7th Day Adventist (and baptized in it) and having a very good friend still in it I think I know most of the arguments. But I'll check it out.

I could sit here and argue catholic positions with you, and then I could turn around and argue your position. You have no idea how many of these discussions I have been in over the years, KFC. I appreciate that you are pointing these things out, but they don't really mean anything in terms of what we are talking about.

People aren't required to follow particular subsets of Christianity to be Christians. That's like saying unless you are a Chihuahua you aren't a dog. Can you point out a biblical standard of what requirements you must meet in order to be called that? Nope. In reality the term "Christian" didn't even come from within Christianity, it was a name non-Christians used for us.

It's in the bible three times, twice in reference to non-Christians talking about Christians, and a third when it refers to the possibility we might "suffer as a Christian"; i.e. be persecuted with "Christian" being the label the persecutors used.

You pretend to dislike man-made religious traditions, but your use of the word Christian is nothing but that. You've converted it to mean people who you feel fit the requirements to be saved according to your beliefs, not the real dictionary definition.

"well at least you should discount the dark ages where no one had the right to define it outside the RCC. As soon as they were able to read it for themselves, define it they did. "

No offense intended, but your assertions about history here are totally, completely false; protestant mythology (Lies?). Venerable Bede was translating the Bible into old English in the 600s and no one was burning him at the stake. There are remnants of copies translated into Old German smack in the middle of the Dark Ages; Charlemagne had a vernacular translation of the vulgate; the Wessex Gospels date to like 1000.

The Catholic church even chained down copies of the Bible for people to read in the churches so that they would not be stolen and always be there for people to read. It took two monks YEARS to make a Bible and any book was highly valued. You think they'd issue library cards to a population wherein maybe 1 in 10,000 people could read? Even so, they made copies publicly available.

Your mistaken idea that they didn't want people to read the Bible arises from the fact that they didn't want self-serving and heretical translations of the Bible being passed around. Would you? If someone was going to change the wording of the Bible to say that Mary wasn't a virgin, would your church sanction it in the name of freedom of religion? How dare you question people's right to translate the Bible!!

No. The Catholic Church then believed there was one appropriate translation of the Bible, just as millions of protestants believe now. How many times have you heard that it's the good, old KJV or nothing? They didn't prevent people from learning Latin, nor did they prevent people from owning Bibles. They simply didn't want their Bible perverted any more than you would.

Format error.

"Bakerstreet"

fact the Catholics she knows don't go to church or read the Bible often enough.

Well, the part about the bible is correct.  Catholics are notorious for not reading it.

"KFC"

but tradition says that Mary was sinless.

No, it teaches that she was born without original sin, not that she never sinned.

"KFC"

but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass.

No, the priest re-enacts the sacrafice and turns the bread and wine into his body and blood.  Nowhere are we 'resacraficing' Christ.

"KFC"

3.The Apostles said that all Christians are saints and priests (Eph 1:1, 1 Peter 2:9) but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community.

No, Priests are merely teachers, not a special caste.  Acknowledged Saints (note the difference) are those the church has found to have been without sin when they died and therefore are known to be in heaven.  Neither is a special caste.  INdeed, there are many more saints than those acknowledged as living man does not know who all of the saints are.  They only know that the handful that are cannonized are saints.

"KFC"

4.The Apostle said that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5) but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ.

Again, no it does not.  Mary is not (nor are the saints) co-mediators.  They are simply in heaven with God and Jesus and we ask for their intercession (hence the name of the prayer) on our behalf.

"KFC"

5.The Apostle said that all Christians should know that they have eternal life 1 John 5:13, John 5:24), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life.

This one I just plain do not know where you got it from.  We DO know we have eternal life, either in heaven of in damnation.

I am a bit surprised that you still hold to these myths.  I do not begrudge you your disdain for these, but to attribute them to Catholicism of today is bad research.  At one time, these may have been the myths that were beleived.  They have never been the offical teachings of the church.  Not even in the despotic mid evil days.

Catholics are notorious for not reading it.

Yep. 22 years a Catholic and I've never got past the first page. Far too much talk of "and ishmael beget saul who beget begin who beget boris etc".

No, the priest re-enacts the sacrafice and turns the bread and wine into his body and blood

Yeah. It's through God's will that transubstantiation happens. It's not a result of the priest's actions; it's simply the gift of a loving god to his (generally) unfaithful flock.

They are simply in heaven with God and Jesus and we ask for their intercession (hence the name of the prayer) on our behalf.

Exactly. Mary gets called on more often because she was chosen by God to give birth to his son, so presumably has a bit of influence there. Catholics are bandits for politcal power plays.

Uhhmm, ok, now Im corn-fused. Mary was without ORIGINAL sin, but later sinned, yet Acknowledged Saints lived and died without sin?

All Catholics die without sin (all are forgiven) so long as they are fully confessed, contrite and are given the last rites. It's a perk of membership in the world's oldest Christian organisation.

I had thought saints were simply ordinary people granted miracles by God - I do know a saint can't be created unless there's evidence of at least three miracles.

"It's a perk of membership in the world's oldest Christian organisation."

Oh, great. Now you and KFC will have to duke it out over who can claim the first century.

no, I'm not going to duke it out...like you Baker I've hit this subject many times over the years. As an ex-Catholic and in a family of back slidden as well as devoted Catholics I think I can debate with the best of them. I'll just leave it as I've said many times, it's not about religion but relationship. The questions we all need to ask are

Why are we here?
Where are we going?
What is my purpose in life?
What are we doing with Jesus?

Doc, I hope I did not offend you. I did not mean to but only to show where I'm coming from. I do have an Italian friend who left the RCC church in her 50's that would tell you what I just did. In fact she showed me in the back of her DR bible in ian index under Mary was the definition as co-redemtrix. There has always been a movement in the RCC to make Mary an offical co-redeemer and I was told she was as much by my devoted mother in law as well. So I guess it depends on who you ask.

Nope. In reality the term "Christian" didn't even come from within Christianity, it was a name non-Christians used for us.

Yes Christians first were called so in Antioch. One of the most respected Roman source historian Tacitus wrote this statement about Nero's first great persecution of the Christians in Rome in 64 AD...keep in mind Tacitus was hostile to Christians.

"To suppress the rumor that he had set fire to Rome, Nero fabricated as culprits and punished with the most refined cruelties a notoriously depraved class of people whom the crowd called "Christians." The originator of the name, Christus, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus......First, the self-acknolwdged members of the sect were arrested. Then on their information, a vast multitude was condemned."

You asked if Jesus defined the term "Christian"...knowing full well the term did not origniate from him.....but in all actuality he really did define what a Christus follower would be known for many times

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me. And I gave to them eternal life and they shall never perish neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

LW

Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish...

yes, all Jesus requires is belief. This is true. But we need to examine ourselves to see if we truly believe. Even the demons believed and trembled remember. If you look at John 8:30-31 it says they "believed on him" sounds good until you realize yes they believed him but not enough to follow him. It was not a saving faith, they were unwilling to commit.....notice in v37 to these "believers" Jesus said this: "I know you are Abraham's seed, but you seek to kill me because my word has no place in you." Later he tells them they are of their "father the devil." These are the ones that said they believed in him.

Many say they believe but will not pass thru the refining fire.....they will be found with no substance behind their claims and all their works and beliefs will not make it....because they were not built on the foundation that Christ put forth.

All Catholics die without sin (all are forgiven) so long as they are fully confessed, contrite and are given the last rites. It's a perk of membership in the world's oldest Christian organisation.

Only if they repent.  SOme, like John Wayne, do so on their death bed - just to cover all the bases.

For the record, this is why I don't get into these discussions online. this really isn't the best format for deep, meaningful debate, IMO.

I see some validity to both sides, but I see some points of KFC's that I could expound on if I had the chance to do so face to face. I'm not going to attempt, however, to sort through scripture in this format, when scholars more learned than I have been unable to do so in about 2000 years of discussion.

If a group of people believe that only by accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour, only by believing in and willfully submitting to his sacrifice and consequent resurrection as the bridge between man and God, and the only means of sin forgiveness, are they Christians?

If this same group follows the above, but also believes the only true method of committal to this acceptance of Christ is sacrifice of their firstborn son on an altar, to God, are they Christians?

"yes, all Jesus requires is belief. This is true. But we need to examine ourselves to see if we truly believe. "

That's exactly what annoys me about most religious people. I've had this discussion with Aeryck and preacherman, too. I've been told that I 'hate God', that once I really get right with the Lord I'll come around to their way of thinking, etc.

Then, in the same breath, the same people will tell you that they aren't judgmental. Evidently only God knows someone's heart, and yet our fellow Christians can see better than we can whether or not we really "believe" according to how much our beliefs look like theirs. Of course no one could actually be saved and not come to the same conclusions.

I'm not necessarily putting that off on you, KFC, but I think you do a good job of sprucing up a lot of things you know I'd leap on with both feet. This has gone way astray from my point concerning Israel, though, and I didn't mean to totally sidetrack the discussion. I apologize.

Again, my point concerning this wasn't intended to, I just felt that it merited mentioning that the view of the apocalypse expressed here isn't necessarily "Christian", rather a subset of Christianity. Just because they read revelations doesn't mean the majority of Christians believe such. It's just that KFC doesn't consider most Christians to be Christians, which got me sidetracking the whole thing. Again, I apologize.