When was the term Christian started?

In Matthew 27:51, the tearing of the curtain of the temple signified that a way was now open into the presence of God. The curtain separating the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place barred the way into the presence of God. Through the death of Christ, the curtain was removed and the way into the Most Holy Place (i.e. God's presence) was open for all who believe in Christ and his saving word.

We do not need someone like Mary who is a human to pray on our behalf.

While i don't fully agreed to some of the points raised by two of you, I would like to quote a passage from Book of James James 1:19-27 (NIV).

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard but doing it - he will be blessed in what he does. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

No doubt Protestants come 1600 years later than "Catholic" or even "Orthodox", one has to ponder why there is Protestants in the first place. I believe wikipedia.org summarized it well here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism

All Protestant denominations reject the notion of papal supremacy over the Church universal and generally deny the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but they disagree among themselves regarding the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.[8] The various denominations generally emphasize the priesthood of all believers, the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) rather than by or with good works, and a belief in the Bible alone (rather than with Catholic tradition) as the highest authority in matters of faith and morals (sola scriptura).[9] The "Five solae" summarize the reformers' basic differences in theological beliefs in opposition to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church of the day.[10]

traditions better than truth....more than 2000 years of traditions

[quote=yeeck,Apr 13 2016, 05:26 PM]
>> Oh wow...so this part is worthless to you. I learnt something new today about Protestant respect of the Bible.

Your lying spirit is at hand right now. And it is so obvious. I have never ever indicated that verse is not important. All I ever indicated is that the extra things that Jesus did but was not mentioned in scripture was not included was probably not instructive and doctrinal. The fact that you are accusing me of "ignoring" this verse tells me that you have the habit of "ignoring" many verses as well. I even stated the issue at hand which shows that I take every verse of the bible seriously. You did not even bother stating the exact part you are talking about indicating to me that scriptures are never important.

>> I'll let you call me whatever names you want coz it hurts me not, but everything that Jesus did and taught has meaning and instruction for us, be it written in a book or taught to His Apostles by word. That's my point.

>> Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thess 2:15). The verse you quoted above didn't say Scripture alone. Again....alone!

If you read the context(the whole chapter), 2 Thessalonians is speaking of the period of the Anti Christ. A period of deception. Paul is addressing the Thessalonica congregation to hold to the traditions whether by word or by epistles so as not to fall into deception like the rest . It's pretty clear that Paul was telling the church to remain true to the doctrines from the scripture and not to the traditions similar to the one practiced by the catholic church. It's pretty clear that traditions followed by the catholic church does not prevent one from falling into deception.

>> Your fallacy here is that scripture as you know it wasn't even written down yet when Paul wrote that, and that make-up extra of "traditions practiced by the catholic church". I rest my case.

>> Shown above. Not mentioned in this part, doesn't mean it doesn't exist elsewhere.
Traditions as you speak is also rarely shown. And if it is shown, it does not refer to the traditions of the catholic church which you described.

>>Let him who has eyes to read read what has been presented.

>> The Word here refers to Jesus Himself, not a book! And if it's not for the Catholic Church preserving and her monks copying the scriptures [painstakingly by hand, you wouldn't even have scriptures today. Oh, and sorry to inform you that it is the Catholic Church which defined which books are part of Scripture and which aren't.
Shows your understanding. Why is "THE WORD" being used in the first place. "THE WORD" is being used because scripture has always been about Jesus Christ. Everything that has ever been written in scripture speaks of Jesus, even the old testament. So it does imply the Godly nature of scriptures as well. I am not saying that the book itself is Godly. But the message in the book.

>> I don't deny that the whole of scripture is inspired of God, but you miss the point I'm making. Nowhere does the bible says "bible alone", so that makes "bible alone" unbiblical!

Not really. There were a few canons of the new testament and the source of those canons may not come from the catholic church. There's also the Textus Receptus which is being used to translate the KJV which does not really originated from the catholic church.

>> Here's what the scholars who translated the (Protestant) Revised Standard Version had to say about the KJV.

"...the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, make it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for the revision of the English translation" (Preface to the RSV, page xi).

"The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was married by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text. Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.
We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." (ibid, page xiv).

Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Revised Standard Version

I leave it to you for the inference since you have your own understanding.

>> It is not only the Catholics who have a history of atrocities. Those who don't live by the tenets of their faith are legion, be Catholic or non-Catholic. And your point is?
It's ok. Arguing this is a never ending story. But then, the catholic system has always been establish in a way that gives the pope political power. I dun think you can deny this. But then, this is not crucial.

>> The only reason for the pope to have political power is to avoid influence from another political entity. Else it easily becomes a state church, like what the ROC is to Russia, or CoE is to England, or the Patriotic Association is to the PRC.

>> Show me where were these people before the 16th century.
The baptist church has been around during this time.

>> Oh so are you a Baptist? Doesn't believe in infant baptism? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists originated from the 17th century. My question remains...where are the people before Luther and the rest came.

>> Oh really? Which one? Luther? Lulz
If you brush up on your history which is pretty easy since we have the internet, you would have known that countless of people have died during the reformation period. It's not very difficult. For example the issue with bloody marry who killed thousands of protestants for not converting to catholism. It's laughable that you make the claims that you are seeking the truth when you do not even know something as basic as this.
2 Timothy 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

>> Again, you quote an example of a Catholic as example of atrocity contradicting what you said above. I could easily do the same for Elizabeth I, but I don't because it is besides the point.

>> Be specific.
Throughout the scripture, there are many cases whereby Satan used rulers to kill many people to prevent God's purposes from being fulfilled.
In fact even right now, it seems that Satan is having the upper hand.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
But in this case, I am referring to Satan's influence through the Catholic church

[/quote]
>> Satan will obviously try to exert his influence everywhere. That I agree. Individuals may fall, but not the Church as a whole. This Christ guarantees it. Will post something up on this later.

[/quote]

Correct me if i'm wrong. Historically the catholic church has fallen times and times again.

[quote=yeeck,Apr 13 2016, 05:44 PM]
Correct me if i'm wrong. Historically the catholic church has fallen times and times again.

[/quote]
Nope. Individuals fall, never the Church.

[/quote]

the church buildings not fall. the church falls times and times again.

You are actually putting tradition and church above the Bible.

Book of Revelation 22:18-19 says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book. If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

The good tradition under the guidance of God is the living faith of the dead.

Those bad and unbliblical tradition is the dead faith of the living.

Not familiar with Catholics but it seems Catholics do not read bible but merely listen to the messages from Pope. Looks like true lor!

Notwithstanding this, I do respect them in a sense that the "Church" has a systematic responses to Protestants' challenges. Just simply google for catholic websites, you can see their responses are pretty systematic, which the Protestants do not have.

This post has been edited by shioks: Apr 14 2016, 09:29 PM

I have read articles written by Protestants comparing Catholics and Protestants but have never actually heard from Catholics until now.

Am doing more readings on Church history now and also the Reformation. Hopefully these will shed more lights.

Actually you should only quote Pope messages instead of quoting bible since the church is the ultimate authority.

true. you are so high up there.

that's good mah. Save time.

there is one thing i can't accept is praying through Mary, a human being, and/or other saints.

Timothy 2: 4-6 says there is only one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. If we are "appointing" other mediators, then Christ Jesus died on the cross is in vain. "It is finished" becomes half finished.

Book of Hebrew 7 and 8 also talks about Jesus as our intercessor and high priest of a new covenant.

oh...you need another person to intercede for you....hmm...very complicated. Too bad you have layers after layers.

Would worshiping of Mary resembles Exodus 32?

The scriptures say:

Philippians 4:6,7, "Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 6:18, "And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people." (I would like to believe it's believers praying for other believers around the world in their present times).

Daniel 9:17, "Now, our God, hear the prayers and petitions of your servant. For your sake, Lord, look with favor on your desolate sanctuary."

We can go to God directly on our requests in the name of Jesus. Why would we want to create layers to present our requests? This literally translate into Jesus died in vain for our sins. The veil had never been broken.

To me, what you are saying is sounded like typical Chinese Taoist praying to and/or praying through their ancestor.

I think the simple question one is to ask "why was there reformation"?

Theological issues or political powers or moral corruptions or something else?

There are certainly good traditions and there are definitely bad traditions.

If I'm not wrong, Roman has many traditions which follows mythological beliefs.