Christian Churches Read Quran from Pulpits across America

GodFatherPolitics.com ^ | 10/31/2011 | GodFatherPolitics.com

[MeganC]

Thank you. That took character.

[Salvavida]

My dictionary defines a heretic as a dissenter from established religious dogma, a baptized member of the Roman Catholic church who disavows a revealed truth, one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine, a nonconformist.....pretty much describes old Martin doesn't it???.....what issue was he correct on that the infallible church was wrong on???

I'd get another dictionary, and then study the etymology of the word.

It is first used in Titus 3:10, long before the RCC came into existance, so any definition attaching itself to the RCC is proven wrong.

Here is Webster's definition, which is more accurate:

The word “heretic” is now commonly applied to one who holds some fundamental error of doctrine, “a person who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy.” Webster. The Greek word here used αἱρετικὸς hairetikos occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.

The only issue left to decide, is whether or not the RCC is fundamental or otherwise orthodox. That has already been decided. Blessings.

[Gritty]

HEADLINE: "Christian" Churches Read Quran from Pulpits across America

There. I fixed it.

These aren't Christian churches. They are apostate shadows of what used to be Christian churches.

Jesus would not share his Bride with the Devil. It is wicked men who have crept in to do it.

[terycarl]

I'd get another dictionary

Merriam Websters 11th edition, C/R 2004 and your statement that the RCC is fundamental or otherwise orthodox has been decided......by whom?????and what were their credentials??? I'm sorry, but when you are a member of an organization that God Himself promised would never be in error...you are on pretty good ground against those who would challenge your opinions. I'm there, you're not.

[Salvavida]

Yeah. Websters is a lexicon. What of it?

You really have no idea that orthodox Christianity has long decided that the RCC is outside of fundamental doctrine? Really? That surprises you?

http://www.born-again-christian.info/catholics.htm

Do you actually study the Bible and history, or do you keep repeating what others have told you?

I’m still looking for the verse that states God promised the church would never be in error.

I bring to your rememberance that I actually studied the etymology of the word “heretick”. You bring nothing to the argument but your pride.

[terycarl]

I’m still looking for the verse that states God promised the church would never be in error.

among others, how about the statement to the effect that whatsoever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. That would indicate to me that the church is protected from error (wouldn't want errors made on Earth to be carried over into Heaven) Orthodox Christianity had decided that RCC is outside of fundamental doctrine??????yes, that surprises me. After all is was the Catholic church that compiled, edited, organized, protected, copied, and saved the bible for humanity. Without the Catholic church, we would not have the bible as we know it today. Someone might have come along somewhere in time and attempted to organize Christianity and write what they thought the bible would represent, but by protecting and copying the bible, by hand, throught the years, we pretty much have the real thing. How anyone could possibly put RCC outside of what someone else considers fundamental doctrine is beyond me. Catholicism is by far the most accurately biblical church on Earth.

[Salvavida]

Friend,

You dodge the facts I state, then you parrot a history that has been taught to you without consulting other sources. I became a Christian not because someone pounded dogma into me. I did the research, looked at the two possibilities, and chose the logical, most supported hypothesis.

Then you take a verse which doesn’t state that the church and its pastors are prone to error. We have the benefit of looking at church history and seeing many errors, both on the part of Protestants and Catholics. To say otherwise is to be in total denial.

Not to go into the binding and loosing passage; but it is one of the most misunderstood passages in the NT. I suggest you do more study: because what you are stating cannot be true simply by using the Law of Non-contridiction (logic).

Finally, the RCC didn’t produce the Bible. Jesus did, through the power of the Holy Spirit working in the people. In 367 A.D. Athanasius of Alexandria published a list of 27 New Testament books which were accepted in his time, and these are the same twenty-seven which are recognized today. The Bible had grown in relative proportion to its divine revelation - gradually - and its books likewise had gradually assumed the roles which their inherent authority demanded.

It is important to note that no council or organized body decreed the Canon. The 27 books and letters were named because they were in use by the people, fulfilling a prophecy by Jesus Himself: “My people hear my voice, and they follow it.”

Those are the facts. They are a part of history. They are indisputable.

[beomagi]

What exactly was the context to which it was read?

If they want to compare and contrast scripture as a learning experience so what?

If they want to read as if it’s christian belief, then yes that’s going against the church.

But you make no mention on the context to which it was used. Leaving it as “quran read in church” is almost cruel, as you are putting half the fact up in a statement which people would be thinking the worst.

So do you know what was read? in what manner was it conveyed?