High Demand Religions?

[Josh]

They hold the true "interpretations" which I certainly trust more than Reformation era. Celestial flesh? Really?

#1, there is only one Anabaptist denomination that even holds to celestal flesh. (Do you know which one it is?) The Amish don't hold to it.

#2, can you explain how "celestial flesh" is unbiblical or wrong?

Sorry, if the Anabaptists were the Church God waited for for 1500 years I don't think the representation of truth and being of one mind is at all close to trustworthy in interpretation.

No I came here as a seeker to Anabaptism, that was my direction long ago- in fact it was an Orthodox who led me here, knowing I was a seeker.
The forum and more searching for truth is why I don't agree the Holy Spirit guided Anabaptists in interpretation but they are very good at many things Christian, but I do know they are not free from grievous sin among them too, not widely known to the public.

I see no spiritual fruit from Orthodox of having any kind of "true faith". Currently, their denomination is represented by gross corruption, pointless, endless wars, killing, and ugly displays of wealth in otherwise poor countries.

[Valerie]

Yet you can’t be part of this church.

You speak often of the value of the Old Testament, are you blind to the historical accounts? Faithful, children faithful and their children fell away?
I can trust the men the apostles taught, but their followers not so much. Also, none of these early church writings predate 500 AD… how do you know they are authentic? Why do we have different versions of a few of the writers? Why do we have writings by these authors branded as false?

They are first, second, 3rd century bishops, writers, theologians contending for the faith.
How do you know you can trust those were guided by the Holy Spirit when your sect arrived at their various conclusions? They certainly were not all on the same page from the start. Splits from the very beginning, Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite should be an obvious indication this was not the Holy Spirit but "reaction" & everyone doing what was right in their own eyes.

We were convinced about the Church baptizing infants & children but it took us not being stubborn to life long beliefs and prayer for help-
We didn't "stay" for other reasons besides this (for now) but I do admire the Anabaptists that were able to overcome their life long understanding & joined the Orthodox Church-

Because we find its views heretical. Anabaptists have long regarded infant baptism as the greatest abomination of popery. Eastern Orthodoxy is essentially a fusion of church and state.

The big question is_If the Orthodox Church is the “one true church” why don’t you join it?

They hold the true "interpretations" which I certainly trust more than Reformation era. Celestial flesh? Really?
Sorry, if the Anabaptists were the Church God waited for for 1500 years I don't think the representation of truth and being of one mind is at all close to trustworthy in interpretation.

No I came here as a seeker to Anabaptism, that was my direction long ago- in fact it was an Orthodox who led me here, knowing I was a seeker.
The forum and more searching for truth is why I don't agree the Holy Spirit guided Anabaptists in interpretation but they are very good at many things Christian, but I do know they are not free from grievous sin among them too, not widely known to the public.

Our own pastor debated a well known Presbyterian pastor on infant baptism.
So- people can be convinced they're right without actually being right & like Muslims, be willing to die for wrong beliefs.

Prophetically speaking, the falling away from the faith happens at the end so I sure wouldn't make infant baptism a hill to die on.

[Soloist]

Prophetically speaking, the falling away from the faith happens at the end so I sure wouldn't make infant baptism a hill to die on.

Well, the Anabaptists didn’t make it the hill to die on, the Catholics and Lutherans did.

[Ken]

If you are constructing a world in which the church and state are one, and the expectation is that everyone is Christian because Europe is "Christendom" then infant baptism makes perfect sense. Of course every citizen of medieval France or Italy will be Catholic because there is nothing else but heresy. So you baptize infants. Catholics don't follow the doctrine of infant baptism because they gave an honest reading of Luke 18 and reached that conclusion. Rather, they do infant baptism because of 2000 years of church history, during much of which the church and state were inextricably intertwined and Catholicism was the only faith allowed.

PSA for Ken: In the first 400 years of Christianity, Catholics were persecuted with death sentences by the state. The Early Church Fathers also baptised infants during those centuries as noted in their writings and readings of Scripture (see the link). As a persecuted minority, this was not a political theocratic maneuver to perpetuate a theocracy as Christians had no political power. Rather it was a matter of belief in the graces imparted by the Sacrament of Baptism and an acknowledgement that due to the persecutions and high infant mortality rates, their children may not live to see the age of reason.

Nonsense. For the first 400 years of Christianity there were no Catholics in their current form. There were only Christians who held a wide variety of conflicting views and doctrines. At best, the Roman Catholic church in its current organization form and doctrine draws its origins to the 5th Century.

As for infant baptism? Christianity was still debating infant baptism at the time of Augustine in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. Augustine was an advocate of infant baptism because of his doctrine of original sin. But at that time he was still writing under the presumption that it was not yet settled and universal church doctrine.

[Sudsy]

'Nonsense' ? Wouldn't 'I disagree' be less offensive ?

[Ken]

'Nonsense' ? Wouldn't 'I disagree' be less offensive ?

It is nonsense to say that CATHOLICS were persecuted during the early days of the church when no such Catholic identity or church as we understand the term existed. It would be just as accurate to say that Mennonites were persecuted by the Romans during the 1st Century. Mennonites have just as much claim to early Christianity as Catholics do.

[ohio jones]

Many people don't accept oral teachings of the Church, however Scripture itself conveys there were oral teachings not written down, (2 Thessalonians 2:15)I can accept that.

Plenty of Anabaptists accept the oral traditions of their Church.

I've asked before and don't remember getting an answer: Are these "oral teachings" all still oral, or have they been written down somewhere along the way?

[Soloist]

Many people don't accept oral teachings of the Church, however Scripture itself conveys there were oral teachings not written down, (2 Thessalonians 2:15)I can accept that.

Plenty of Anabaptists accept the oral traditions of their Church.

I've asked before and don't remember getting an answer: Are these "oral teachings" all still oral, or have they been written down somewhere along the way?

They have a way of being written down after whoever said it is long dead, just like Mohammed.

[Judas Maccabeus]

'Nonsense' ? Wouldn't 'I disagree' be less offensive ?

No, historically, it is nonsense. The Catholic Church, as we understand it, likly came in existence shortly before 390 AD, when Theodosius was excommunicated for the “incident” at Thessalonica. That was largely the beginning of Roman Catholicism, principally through the display of Ceaseropapism.

[Judas Maccabeus]

They are first, second, 3rd century bishops, writers, theologians contending for the faith.
How do you know you can trust those were guided by the Holy Spirit when your sect arrived at their various conclusions? They certainly were not all on the same page from the start. Splits from the very beginning, Amish, Mennonite, Hutterite should be an obvious indication this was not the Holy Spirit but "reaction" & everyone doing what was right in their own eyes.

We were convinced about the Church baptizing infants & children but it took us not being stubborn to life long beliefs and prayer for help-
We didn't "stay" for other reasons besides this (for now) but I do admire the Anabaptists that were able to overcome their life long understanding & joined the Orthodox Church-

Because we find its views heretical. Anabaptists have long regarded infant baptism as the greatest abomination of popery. Eastern Orthodoxy is essentially a fusion of church and state.

The big question is_If the Orthodox Church is the “one true church” why don’t you join it?

They hold the true "interpretations" which I certainly trust more than Reformation era. Celestial flesh? Really?
Sorry, if the Anabaptists were the Church God waited for for 1500 years I don't think the representation of truth and being of one mind is at all close to trustworthy in interpretation.

No I came here as a seeker to Anabaptism, that was my direction long ago- in fact it was an Orthodox who led me here, knowing I was a seeker.
The forum and more searching for truth is why I don't agree the Holy Spirit guided Anabaptists in interpretation but they are very good at many things Christian, but I do know they are not free from grievous sin among them too, not widely known to the public.

Our own pastor debated a well known Presbyterian pastor on infant baptism.
So- people can be convinced they're right without actually being right & like Muslims, be willing to die for wrong beliefs.

Prophetically speaking, the falling away from the faith happens at the end so I sure wouldn't make infant baptism a hill to die on.

Heresy began while the apostles were still alive, guess you have never read 1 John. The problem that orthodoxy has is that their lives do not line up with the Bible at all. You have the majority group proclaiming that the state they are in harmony with claiming that they have the “right “ to rule over all Russian speakers, and the church enthusiastically supports this heresy of the highest order, that they endorse murder in the name of Jesus. Added to the abomination of infant baptism, real presence of Jesus in their worship and monasticism. None of this is remotely endorsed in the New Testament. These claims that “oral tradition “ is endorsed by those verses you cite is proof texting without any context. If you understood the simple principles of interpretation, that will always lead to errors.

“A text without a context is a pretext for a a proof text”