Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Nope. It's only the shedding of blood that cleanses us from sin. Getting wet doesn't do that. All baptism is is an outward profession of the inward act of grace through faith that the believer experienced.
Jesus said, *I am the way, the truth, the life. No man comes to the Father but through me.*
If righteousness could be gained through the Law (works) then Christ died for nothing.
Barret (the SAME source) tags The Roman Church's persecutions were responsible for over 5 MILLION deaths since the 33 AD.
The SAME source also lists The Roman church with over 240 denominations.
We are in the New Covenant aren’t we?
Baptism replaces circumcision from the Old Covenant.
Which is why Catholics baptize babies.
Were only male babies saved in the Old Testament?
That is preposterous. Your concern should be with the truth, not whether any single group is OK with revisionism, distortion and lies.
Here is a point to ponder. The royalty of the medieval period ruled by what they claimed to be divine right, as determined and predestined by God. Anyone not believing in God represented a threat to their authority.
To this end inquisitions were called by secular authorities as a litmus test for loyalty. The standard was Christianity and the Church's participation in the Inquisitions only determined whether an accused was Christian or not. The Church passed and carried out no sentences. That is why your Professor Rummel did not include the victims of the inquisitions in the category of Religious Genocide.
Now ask yourself if you believe that Christ is satisfied or happy with you distorting the history of the Church.
Jesus tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man and how Lazarus is carried by angels to the bosom of Abraham when he died.
Moses is with Jesus at the Transfiguration.
Is the story of Abraham just a ghost story?
Was Moses a vision conjured up Jesus?
And what happened to all those who rose from their graves at the time of the crucifixion?
What we read in Scripture is not just a telling or retelling of stories, they are lessons to be learned, in them we learn of the glory of God, the history of His relationship to His Children and how He has redeemed us with His own Son. Scripture is written so that we can grasp these things and believe.
These discussion remind me of the Saducees and Pharisees and the scribes who sought to trip Jesus up with “tests” regarding Scripture. They knew their Scripture by heart and thought to use it to prove that Jesus couldn’t possibly be who He said He said He was.
Jesus says to them, 39Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
They knew Scriptures backwards and forwards and yet could not see Jesus as the Christ even when He stood right before them. They were hard of heart and tied to their book and could not see past what they thought the Messiah was and would do. Scripture gives testimony of Jesus, but it did not contain all that there was to know of Him and because it didn’t they did not know Him.
So many here are like scientists who study the minutiae of the physical world and how it works, yet still do not know how it came to be. How something came from nothing and because they cannot know that, they do not see God in His creation and so they do not believe.
They study Scripture thinking it is only in the book that God is found and there is no more to Him than what is written. Yet, He is not bound by book, they are.
In John’s gospel, the same one quoted above, Jesus also says
20For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
Other translations say it this way,
19 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I assure you, the Son cannot do anything by himself, but only what he sees the Father do. And whatever he does, the Son also does. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does; and he will show him even greater things than these, so that you will be amazed.
21 As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whom he wills. 22
Also in John’s gospel...
20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”
23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?”
And in John’s gospel....12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.[c]
God will reveal what He will reveal, when He will reveal it.
Nope, the shedding of blood is for atonement. Water is necessary for cleansing. Jesus and His disciples were baptized in the River Jordan, not pools of blood. Ritualistic washing (Ablution) is well established throughout the Old and New Testaments.
St. John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407) taoght on this subject: If any enquire, "Why is water included?" let us also in return ask, "Wherefore was earth employed at the beginning in the creation of man?" for that it was possible for God to make man without earth, is quite plain to every one. Be not then over-curious. That the need of water is absolute and indispensable, you may learn in this way. On one occasion, when the Spirit had flown down before the water was applied, the Apostle did not stay at this point, but, as though the water were necessary and not superfluous, observe what he says; "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47). Scritpure too is filed with many calls for water Baptism.
"Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." - Ezekiel 36:25
"As they went along the road they came to some water; and the eunuch *said, “Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?” [And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”] And he ordered the chariot to stop; and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him." - Acts 8:36-38
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" - John 3:3-5
Thank you for this post.
We do get lost in the argument sometimes don’t we?
So you too are among those avoiding answering the premise question; what is your working definition of a faction, a sect, an order and a denomination.
When you define "denomination" as a religious organization with a unique authority, which is how Catholicism defines it, we may well find that the number of Protestant demoninations has achieved a number very near the actual number of professed Protestants.
well, it isn’t the magisterium giving the numbers. WOW over 240 denominations in the RCC! Who’s got the keys?
"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first-begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and WASHED US FROM OUR SINS IN HIS OWN BLOOD." Rev. 1:5.
With much appreciation to CynicalBear!!
Do you always make it a habit of not reading the posts you respond to? Without an agreed upon definition of "denomination" you sound like Charlie Brown's mother....Whahh, wawa, whawha.......
You are both profoundly,fundamentally and sadly WRONG! The words of Revelation do not trump the actual words and deeds of Jesus. They must augment them or they are being interpreted incorrectly.
And now, how are going to get to an "agreed upon definition of denomination". Who is going to be the final authority in a question this serious? Perhaps we should just convene a council or ten and decide through the years what "denomination" means. But first we would need to decide if we are fallible or infallible. Because if we are not infallible, then who is going to trust our final answer? It just gets so complicated...
If you are calling anyone WRONG, it is Jesus Christ. Good luck on that one..
Working definitions are useful because they establish that when one party says "X" they mean."Y", or "Z". No one has to agree that that is the "right" definition, but it facilitates communications.
So to start this off, when Catholics say "Denomination" they are referring to a religious group that shares a unique authority. Within the Roman See we recognize that authority is the Pope. What is YOUR definition of "denomination"?
Not all Catholics agree on everything, but we must agree on that or we are not in communication with the Roman See. Those who don't, like the SSPX are receive latae sententiae excommunication by their own actions.
Jesus, being infinitely perfect, NEVER contradicted himself. If there is a flaw, it is yours, not His.
He said what He said, NL, in Rev. 1:5. You can tear it out of your Bible or use a marker to scratch the verse out, but that doesn’t change it. He said it. It’s there. And you cannot change that fact.
They are going to come back with all the verses about water baptism. Water is symbolic of the word of Jesus and being washed in the blood. “all who drink from this water will never thirst again”
I pinged you to this because it mentioned your name in the content of the post. I like to obey the general rules of posting courtesy. Nobody is forcing you to read it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.