Paganism and Catholicism.

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
Summary: Many Roman Catholic practices are not based on Scripture or even on the life of Christ, but rather on ancient pagan doctrines.

According to the dictionary, theologically "tradition" is a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures.

The Catholic Church makes tradition above or equal to Scripture, but in actuality many of its traditions actually stem from pagan sun worship. Its teachings, beliefs and practices come from Mithraism—a form of paganism that existed in Babylonian times.

These pagan practices are symbols of apostasy against God. Of this, the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism says the following:

"The missionary history of the [Catholic] Church clearly shows her adaptability to all races, all continents, all nations. In her liturgy and her art, in her tradition and the forming of her doctrine, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of pagan origin. In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them."

In the book of Daniel Chapter 7, there are four beasts that represent four successive world powers. These powers took the religious rites and ceremonies from each preceding kingdom as it fell, so that Babylonian traditions continued through the ages. Rome, the final kingdom, still clings to these pagan traditions today.

The Papacy claims that its system of worship has been handed down through tradition. They are absolutely correct. But these are not the teachings of Jesus, but rather the traditions of Babylon.

Roman Catholic doctrines such as infant baptism, sprinkling during baptism, teachings on death and immortality, tonsured and celibate priests with power over the dead, prayers to the dead and to relics, repetitive prayers with the use of beads, doctrines on forgiveness of sins, teachings on hell, the mass, and Sunday worship are doctrines actually derived directly from ancient Babylon, not the Bible.



When Constantine married paganism and Christianity, the door was opened for false doctrines to creep into the early Christian Church, and they were gradually introduced into the system. The Church became divided into the Catholic Church who accepted the pagan doctrines, and the true Christian Church who resisted Constantine’s indoctrination.

"Like the successive strata of the earth covering one another, so layer after layer of forgeries and fabrications was piled up in the Church." Janus, The Pope and the Council (London: Rivingtons, 1869): 117.

The church historian Philip Schaff says, "No church or sect in Christendom ever sank so low as the Latin church in the tenth century." Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Volume 4 (New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1885): 280.

Many of Rome's documents used to validate its authority and origin have been established as fakes. These unusable sources include The Donation of Constantine, which claim to establish the papal domain and jurisdiction, and The Decretals of Isidore, which were touted as establishing pontifical supremacy. According to J. A. Wylie's book The History of Protestantism, the Greeks reproachfully named the fledgling Roman Church as "the native home of inventions and falsifications of documents." James Aitken Wylie, The History of Protestantism Volume 1 (Hartland Publications, 2002): 12-13. These forgeries, nevertheless, succeeded in establishing Catholic doctrines.
 
Last edited:

Mr.Anderson

Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
992
Pagan gods were rebel angels and therefore knew about the first coming so they presented a bastardized interpretation of the prophecy and rites, so 6 or 5 thousands years later we'd be having this kind of discussion after the real deal came by.

Opinions welcome.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,427
It's not about accepting pagan doctrines and traditions instead of making them Christian. That quote you shared from the Catholic Encyclopedia gives you the answer:

"In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them."

Pagan means many things, from polytheism to worship of the wrong God to being godless altogether and differs from context to context. The Christian thing to do is not to make paganism disappear by crushing down on it, through violence or ridicule., but by proselytism. By baptizing paganism the Church brought it in line with Christianity and rendered it good by aiming worship to Christ and the Father. That's how divine providence operates, taking evil or sinfulness and turn it into something good, and so did the Catholic Church.

Christ / God did the same thing with a "pagan" tradition, namely Passover, and rendered it good, for if it wasn't pagan (or if it was good) Christ / God wouldn't have changed it. Passover didn't disappear after Christ baptized it. Its meaning was changed from celebrating infanticide or the sacrifice of the newborn to celebrating the resurrection and the Son of God's own sacrifice. Its celebration became the most important tradition in Christianity, despite its origins being pagan.

Same thing for the sabbath. Originally a day (the sixth day, not seventh) of calamity in worship of Nimrod, before the Israelites adopted it, with for example the prohibition to heal, in Catholicism it no longer obligated Christians to cease good works, but encouraged Christians to congregate in common worship of the Lord and cease the worldly works that are subservient to the powers of money and usury (2172). The fact that it was moved from the sixth day, the day of Nimrod to the seventh day, the day of Jesus' resurrection, speaks for itself. Sabbath was rendered good.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
It's not about accepting pagan doctrines and traditions instead of making them Christian. That quote you shared from the Catholic Encyclopedia gives you the answer:

"In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them."

Pagan means many things, from polytheism to worship of the wrong God to being godless altogether and differs from context to context. The Christian thing to do is not to make paganism disappear by crushing down on it, through violence or ridicule., but by proselytism. By baptizing paganism the Church brought it in line with Christianity and rendered it good by aiming worship to Christ and the Father. That's how divine providence operates, taking evil or sinfulness and turn it into something good, and so did the Catholic Church.

Christ / God did the same thing with a "pagan" tradition, namely Passover, and rendered it good, for if it wasn't pagan (or if it was good) Christ / God wouldn't have changed it. Passover didn't disappear after Christ baptized it. Its meaning was changed from celebrating infanticide or the sacrifice of the newborn to celebrating the resurrection and the Son of God's own sacrifice. Its celebration became the most important tradition in Christianity, despite its origins being pagan.

Same thing for the sabbath. Originally a day (the sixth day, not seventh) of calamity in worship of Nimrod, before the Israelites adopted it, with for example the prohibition to heal, in Catholicism it no longer obligated Christians to cease good works, but encouraged Christians to congregate in common worship of the Lord and cease the worldly works that are subservient to the powers of money and usury (2172). The fact that it was moved from the sixth day, the day of Nimrod to the seventh day, the day of Jesus' resurrection, speaks for itself. Sabbath was rendered good.
It's not about accepting pagan doctrines and traditions instead of making them Christian. That quote you shared from the Catholic Encyclopedia gives you the answer:

"In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and "baptizing" them."
In the context in which I'm posting about the Catholic church and its traditions, its about that which is not biblical. Only God purifies anything not man and not a Church. We have been told through God's word how we can be cleansed from the inside out when we accept Christ as our personal Saviour. There is no compromise in the Bible. I'm going to post more about specific traditions that stem from paganism in Catholicism and how they differ from the Word of God.

Pagan means many things, from polytheism to worship of the wrong God to being godless altogether and differs from context to context. The Christian thing to do is not to make paganism disappear by crushing down on it, through violence or ridicule., but by proselytism. By baptizing paganism the Church brought it in line with Christianity and rendered it good by aiming worship to Christ and the Father. That's how divine providence operates, taking evil or sinfulness and turn it into something good, and so did the Catholic Church.
I don't agree. As Christians we are to do God's will. The Bible is full of warnings about what will happen to those who do not do His will.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.”

1 John 2:4, "He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." T

1 John 2:17, “The world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.”

If we are following God’s will, His commandments we have eternal life.

Christ / God did the same thing with a "pagan" tradition, namely Passover, and rendered it good, for if it wasn't pagan (or if it was good) Christ / God wouldn't have changed it. Passover didn't disappear after Christ baptized it. Its meaning was changed from celebrating infanticide or the sacrifice of the newborn to celebrating the resurrection and the Son of God's own sacrifice. Its celebration became the most important tradition in Christianity, despite its origins being pagan.
You can't say something like this and not provide proof. Please show me proof that the passover was a pagan tradition.

Same thing for the sabbath. Originally a day (the sixth day, not seventh) of calamity in worship of Nimrod, before the Israelites adopted it, with for example the prohibition to heal, in Catholicism it no longer obligated Christians to cease good works, but encouraged Christians to congregate in common worship of the Lord and cease the worldly works that are subservient to the powers of money and usury (2172). The fact that it was moved from the sixth day, the day of Nimrod to the seventh day, the day of Jesus' resurrection, speaks for itself. Sabbath was rendered good.
I think we discussed this before on my forum about the Sabbath. The Sabbath is not a Jewish institution, but was established at Creation. Genesis 2:1-3, "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." Before the Israelites existed, before Nimrod and paganism ever existed in this world, God had already instituted the Sabbath. Actually the Sabbath commandment serves as a reminder of God’s creative act (Exodus 20:11).

The Bible also tells us, "For I am the LORD, I change not" (Malachi 3:6). When Christ was here on earth He said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). He being God did not change
the commandments including the Sabbath one. As a matter of fact He kept the Sabbath day faithfully (Luke 4:16).
The disciples of Jesus also kept the Sabbath (Acts 13:14, 16:13). The Sabbath is taught throughout the Bible, while Sunday sacredness is not mentioned once.

If God did not destroy or change the law but actually observed it, no one no matter how well intentioned they are have the right or power to change God's law. God's law stands forever (Psalms 111:7-8).
 
Last edited:

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
Is Infant Baptism Biblical?

Summary: Does infant baptism fit in the Biblical paradigm?

Baptism is a symbol of our willingness to accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a conscious decision and proclamation.

Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Infants cannot make a conscious decision. Therefore, to baptize them defeats the whole purpose of the ceremony. Also, infant baptism is never taught in the Scriptures.

The doctrine of infant baptism is of pagan origin and was brought into the Church by Roman Catholicism. As with most Catholic doctrines, infant baptism has its origins in the Babylonian mysteries.

In Babylon, new birth was conferred by baptism of infants. European pagans sprinkled their newborns or immersed them, and to this day the "holy water" used for baptism in some circles is still prepared according to the pagan custom of plunging a torch from the altar into the water. Having introduced infant baptism, the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to adults being baptized and even issued the following decree:

"Let him be accursed who says adults must be baptized." History of Romanism: 510.

Some modern Bible translations are also written in such a way as to leave leeway for subversive doctrines. The King James Version of the Bible was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus in 1611, but modern Bibles also make use of other texts of which the context may be dubious.

Origen was one of the first Biblical scholars (200 AD) to corrupt Biblical manuscripts to accommodate his humanistic and allegorical ideas. Throughout the ages, many of these manuscripts have been tampered with to create a highway for pagan philosophies.

In Acts 8, the King James Version gives a full description of the baptism of the eunuch. The eunuch was a high official from Ethiopia (Acts 8:27) and had come to worship in Jerusalem. He was reading the book of Isaiah when Philip was sent to him and explained to him the passages pertaining to the Messiah.

When he had grasped their significance and recognized Jesus Christ in these verses, he was ready to be baptized (Acts 8:27-35). The KJV continues with the following verses:

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water. And the eunuch said, 'See, here is water. What doth hinder me to be baptized?' And Philip said, 'If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may.' And he answered and said, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him" (Acts 8:36-38).

The question of the eunuch, "What doth hinder me to be baptized?" is answered by Phillip in verse 37:

"If thou believeth with all thine heart, thou mayest."

Modern translations leave out verse 37, and the eunuch is thus denied his answer. It is stated in these translations that certain manuscripts do no contain this verse, and therefore the verse should not be included.

However, these modern translations do not do justice to the chiastic structure of the passage in question. The passage is written in question-answer chiasm and leaving out verse 37 would destroy this literary structure.

Omission of the verse is however convenient for those who propagate infant baptism, because the condition for baptism mentioned in this verse—believing with one’s whole heart—cannot be met by infants. Both infant baptism and baptism by pouring have been introduced by Roman Catholicism into the Church, but they find no support in the Scriptures.

amazingdiscoveries.org
 

Mr.Anderson

Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
992
infant baptism, I was told, began when the christians were being killed and they baptized their children when they were born because they could very well die before they could get baptized. That's why we have the chrism, which is the confirmation of the baptism
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
infant baptism, I was told, began when the christians were being killed and they baptized their children when they were born because they could very well die before they could get baptized. That's why we have the chrism, which is the confirmation of the baptism
I've never heard of that. Those who would have understood the Bible would not have baptised their babies because they would have known babies aren't capable of making choices. It was a pagan ritual before Catholicism was created. Many Catholic traditions come directly from paganism. That's no coincidence.
 
Last edited:

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
Purgatory

Purgatory is a Catholic doctrine established at the eighth session of the Council of Florence on November 22, 1439. It was also decreed at the Council of Trent on December 4, 1563:

"...the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted and received buy the Father and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached." Rev. H. J. Schroeder (trans.), "Twenty-Fifth Session: Decree Concerning Purgatory," The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1978): 214.

The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that purgatory "is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions." Kevin Knight, "Purgatory," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia.

Catholic teaching says that purgatory is a place of purification. This cleansing occurs because salvation does not actually purify God's people enough that they can enter heaven:

"All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven…The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned." Article 12 Part III: The Final Purification, or Purgatory," Catechism of the Catholic Church 2nd Edition.

This doctrine is not Scriptural, but instead has pagan origins. Historian Alexander Hislop tells us that every pagan system from the Egyptians to the Greeks includes a belief in purgatory. He says that, "in every system, therefore, except that of the Bible, the doctrine of a purgatory after death, and prayers for the dead, has always been found to occupy a place…Paganism leaves hope after death for sinners, who, at the time their departure, were consciously unfit for the abodes of the blest. For this purpose a middle state has been feigned, in which, by means of purgatorial pains, guilt unremoved in time may in a future world be purged away."Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons (Ontario: Chick Publications): 2.

The Bible says nothing about purgatory, or about the concept that our souls continue to live—in another place—immediately after we die, which is reinforced by belief in purgatory. However, it does tell us that only through Christ can we be saved; there is no other way to get to God (John 14:6). His sacrifice is enough to purify us from all our sins—big or small (1 John 1:7-9). There is no need for further purification after death. Our own works or suffering, whether here or in an afterlife, can never bring about our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
According to the dictionary, theologically "tradition" is a doctrine believed to have divine authority though not in the scriptures.
What is scripture? start with that one.
How do you, Phipps, determine "scripture" from "Not-scripture"?
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
What is scripture? start with that one.
How do you, Phipps, determine "scripture" from "Not-scripture"?
Scripture are the writings in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments. They are the writings that the Bible tells us were given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I explained to you in my other thread how powerful Scripture (the Word of God) is and why.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
Scripture are the writings in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments. They are the writings that the Bible tells were given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17). I explained to you in my other forum how powerful Scripture (the Word of God) is and why.





Ok, lets try that again. How do you determine that the "Canonical" books in the collection of what you collectively titled "The Bible" are scripture? how do you determine this against the Bible being in the category of "non-scripture"?
Where does this authority come from?
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
2 Timothy 3:16-17 is a fascinating quotation however because it doesn't specify what is talking about (it cannot for certain be referring to the Catholic's canonization of texts four centuries later), it could be talking about anything without any further information. "All scripture", such an open statement, could definitely be interpreted universally if you wanted.
However historically it is known that the only thing the New Testament writers referred to by the term "scripture" was the Book of Deuteronomy. Whereas the Book of Isaiah was considered the primary Prophetic text of religious insight (hence it's quotations in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
QUOTE="Infinityloop, post: 246151, member: 4588"]Ok, lets try that again. How do you determine that the "Canonical" books in the collection of what you collectively titled "The Bible" are scripture? how do you determine this against the Bible being in the category of "non-scripture"?
Where does this authority come from?[/QUOTE]

I can only speak for myself. Reading the Bible has increased my faith. By reading the Bible which is how we get to know Christ, I found out about His love and sacrifice for me. I found love, my faith and trust in Him grew as I began to live my life according to His Word. I am so far from living completely according to His Word but the little I've experienced is incredible. My life changed for the better. There is a spiritual aspect to believing in the Word of God and its something we must all experience individually if we surrender our wills to Him. People who haven't experienced it can't understand because the Bible is just words to them. They have not experienced the power of God through His Word. This authority comes from God.

That is how I know biblical scripture is the truth and other so called "holy books" aren't. Give it a go and you will see what I mean!
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
I've never heard of that. Those who would have understood the Bible would not have baptised their babies because they would have known babies aren't capable of making choices. It was a pagan ritual before Catholicism was created. Many Catholic traditions come directly from paganism. That's no coincidence.
You seemed to be forgetting about this, the Pagan references in the Bible itself: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/what-is-sin-according-to-the-bible.6605/post-245775
You may also want to pay attention to this post: https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/exchistians-who-converted-to-hinduism.6415/post-238231
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
2,622
I can only speak for myself. Reading the Bible has increased my faith. By reading the Bible which is how we get to know Christ, I found out about His love and sacrifice for me. I found love, my faith and trust in Him grew as I began to live my life according to His Word. I am so far from living completely according to His Word but the little I've experienced is incredible. My life changed for the better. There is a spiritual aspect to believing in the Word of God and its something we must all experience individually if we surrender our wills to Him. People who haven't experienced it can't understand because the Bible is just words to them. They have not experienced the power of God through His Word. This authority comes from God.

That is how I know biblical scripture is the truth and other so called holy books aren't. Give it a go and you will see what I mean!
Here's the thing, you're arguing from an obvious Protestant position (the instigation of sola scriptura in your OP to form the basis of your arguments), which in order to validate requires stepping outside the circular reasoning of your own doctrines of which use anti-Catholic polemic as the justification of it's own separation from Catholicism - which itself is a form of self-affirmation in order to present the illusion of superiority.

You have to realize that this doesn't work:

 
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,427
In the context in which I'm posting about the Catholic church and its traditions, its about that which is not biblical. Only God purifies anything not man and not a Church. We have been told through God's word how we can be cleansed from the inside out when we accept Christ as our personal Saviour. There is no compromise in the Bible. I'm going to post more about specific traditions that stem from paganism in Catholicism and how they differ from the Word of God.
Don't we have to live in the spirit of Christ? If Christ purified the impure, what tells us we're not supposed to strive for the same? Does that which we eat (reinterpret) defile us?

You can't say something like this and not provide proof. Please show me proof that the passover was a pagan tradition.
The proof is in the explanation. Do you disagree that the meaning of Passover was changed by Christ? If not, why was it (both meaning and practice) changed if it wasn't pagan? Would you have Passover return to its pre-Christian symbolism as the Jews of today still interpret it, ie. their Lord "passing over" the Hebrew homes to crush Egyptian babies?

I think we discussed this before on my forum about the Sabbath. The Sabbath is not a Jewish institution, but was established at Creation. Genesis 2:1-3, "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made." Before the Israelites existed, before Nimrod and paganism ever existed in this world, God had already instituted the Sabbath. Actually the Sabbath commandment serves as a reminder of God’s creative act (Exodus 20:11).
The biblical sabbath is derived from the Enuma Elis, the Babylonian creation myth which contains the description of the Babylonian Shabattu. It is older than the Torah. It is the progenitor of the Hebrew sabbath. It was in devotion of Nimrod (or equivalent Mesopotamian deities, like Marduk) prior to it being in devotion to the Hebrew god. This is history. The circular reasoning of "the bible said so" has no legitimacy in such debates.

"For I am the LORD, I change not" (Malachi 3:6). When Christ was here on earth He said, "Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matthew 5:17). He being God did not change the commandments including the Sabbath one. As a matter of fact He kept the Sabbath day faithfully (Luke 4:16). The disciples of Jesus also kept the Sabbath (Acts 13:14, 16:13). The Sabbath is taught throughout the Bible, while Sunday sacredness is not mentioned once.

If God did not destroy or change the law but actually observed it, no one no matter how well intentioned they are have the right or power to change God's law. God's law stands forever (Psalms 111:7-8).
You say Jesus kept the sabbath, but Jesus was rebuked by the Jewish priesthood for breaking it. Jesus' healing on the sabbath even initiated the Pharisees' plot to kill Him. Here's what Jesus had to say about the sabbath:

Luke 13
14 Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”

15
The Lord answered him, “You hypocrites! Doesn’t each of you on the Sabbath untie your ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? 16 Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?”

Matthew 12
11 He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”

Mark 3
4 Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.


John 7
23 Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? 24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”


The last verse hits the nail on the head. The law of the priests approved of making the body unwhole (cutting off flesh by means of circumcision) on sabbath in order not to break the law of Moses. Jesus made whole (by means of healing) the body on sabbath, which is the exact opposite. So yes, He changed sabbath. He rendered it good.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
The pagan references in the Bible are to show us how abominable God finds paganism. God abhors the worship of other gods and their revolting rituals. The Bible tells us that, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work"
(2 Timothy 3:16-17). Through the Bible we learn what is right and what isn't.

The crucial words in the link about converting to Hinduism, is "ex Christians". Unfortunately there are many Christians who never really get to know God. There are many reasons for that. It could be they were in the wrong religions like Catholicism that I'm posting about here, where they never studied their Bibles or prayed which is how get close and communicate with God, and that led them to leave and find another false religion like Hinduism which is about worshipping other gods
 
Last edited:

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
4,254
Here's the thing, you're arguing from an obvious Protestant position (the instigation of sola scriptura in your OP to form the basis of your arguments), which in order to validate requires stepping outside the circular reasoning of your own doctrines of which use anti-Catholic polemic as the justification of it's own separation from Catholicism - which itself is a form of self-affirmation in order to present the illusion of superiority.

You have to realize that this doesn't work:

I disagree and as I wrote, you would have to have had a spiritual experience by studying the Word of God, putting it into action and allowing God into you heart to change it. You clearly haven't but I pray you do.

I know Catholicism is steeped in paganism than in the Bible. Many Catholics and non Catholics don't know these facts. We are told in the Bible to preach the gospel to the world and all throughout history the truth has never been popular but that should never stop a Christian from preaching the truth.
 
Top