Celebrating Lent

Dave, I think he knows why people do it and what it represents. He, like me, cant find in the bible where we are called or even suggested to do this at this time.

I see nothing wrong with fasting and giving things up for God, but in the manner that Lent is observed, I find nothing biblical about it.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Traditions that are Biblically sound are GOOD

I would say that Church traditions that don't contradict the Bible are acceptable, but not necessary. Nor are they an indication of righteousness. If someone chooses not to observe them, then it should NOT be used as a reflection upon their devotion to or faith in GOD.

As Christians we should use every day to honor and reflect upon GOD. Lent is unnecessary. Plus, it's links with Easter (which is a festival in honor of the Saxon "Great Mother Goddess" Eostre, not Jesus Christ) and the vernal equinox bring it more in line with pagan traditions.

Originally Posted by NateR

I would say that Church traditions that don't contradict the Bible are acceptable, but not necessary. Nor are they an indication of righteousness. If someone chooses not to observe them, then it should NOT be used as a reflection upon their devotion to or faith in GOD.

As Christians we should use every day to honor and reflect upon GOD. Lent is unnecessary. Plus, it's links with Easter (which is a festival in honor of the Saxon "Great Mother Goddess" Eostre, not Jesus Christ) and the vernal equinox bring it more in line with pagan traditions.

I love you bro. I can usually just sit back and wait for you to post and I dont even have to type. God bless you brother.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Rev

Dave, I think he knows why people do it and what it represents. He, like me, cant find in the bible where we are called or even suggested to do this at this time.

I see nothing wrong with fasting and giving things up for God, but in the manner that Lent is observed, I find nothing biblical about it.

We arent called to do it at a specific time...but the Church thinks its good to remember...so slotted it in before Easter as a preparational season...just like Advent is to Christmas

they thought that a good feast should be surrounded by a time to reflect on why its important before it happens, and to celebrate its importance after it happens.

I dont see whats so wrong with that

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

I would say that Church traditions that don't contradict the Bible are acceptable, but not necessary. Nor are they an indication of righteousness. If someone chooses not to observe them, then it should NOT be used as a reflection upon their devotion to or faith in GOD.

As Christians we should use every day to honor and reflect upon GOD. Lent is unnecessary. Plus, it's links with Easter (which is a festival in honor of the Saxon "Great Mother Goddess" Eostre, not Jesus Christ) and the vernal equinox bring it more in line with pagan traditions.

I didnt say it was necessary I said it was scripturally sound, and a good idea to remember key events

When do you reflect upon the Axe-head of Elisha?

half the Christians on this forum celebrate the ressurection of Christ on GOOD FRIDAY!!!!!!! and FORGET how important the Crucifixition was...werent you around the year Ricky made a siggie saying "The Lord Is Risen" and put it into his Siggie BEFORE THE START OF PASSION TIDE...obviously he spent next to NO time reflecting on the death of Christ...choosing only to remember his ressurection...that can lead to warpped theology...the belief that Christs offer of Eternal Life was somehow FREE and the debt of Sin just written off

thats NOT True...there was nothing "free" about Christ dying, except his acceptance and fulfilment of Mission...the debt of sin wasnt "written off" it was paid....now had he spent a while to reflect on The Passion...he might have taken that more to heart.

As for the Festival of Easter...The Church DELIBERATLEY put the celebration at the same time. They were trying to be CONSIDERATE of a new group of people who had recently converted and wanted to celebrate at that time of the year. They gave them a CHRISTIAN REASON to do it, in order to DETRACT from the original clebration...rather then having Easter sometime else...and all those struggling converts being tempted to celebrate at a point they are used to. Bizzarely enough...it was a strategy to avoid temptation...thats a theme of Lent...which you'd understand if you bothered to research it.

Its True Name is The Feast of The Ressurection. But thats not something you're going to hear much outside of the Roman Tradition.

Understand...I dont care if you observe it or not...but I DO care about you pronouncing judgement without bothering to find the information, and then changing your mind slightly, the more information I give you, because you cant be bothered to listen to a five min video I prepared especially for people like you. Thats irritating, and its rude Nathan. Its part of the reason that makes me feel like I put effort in, which is under appreciated here.

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Crisco

Please don't take offence to this but...

Why are you still a catholic exactly?

If you believe in Christ and the bible why do you still stay with that church?

Please dont take offense to this but

if you dont believe Roman Catholicism is Christian...why do you believe in the Bible?

It was the Roman Church that classified your Scripture....and before you say the early church could do without...I challenge you by saying the Early Church believed a lot of things that most Christians would now consider...not biblically sound...I can show you some of the texts if you wish.

[NateR]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

It was the Roman Church that classified your Scripture....

That's a misleading way to phrase it. The Biblical canon was pretty well set before the Roman Catholic Church ever existed. The Old Testament was compiled in 400 BC and canonized in 90 AD. 64 of the 66 books in the Bible (Old and New Testament) were canonized in 206 AD. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until 324 AD and they simply confirmed the work of the Council of Jamnia and the Codex Barococcio, and added two more books (Esther and Revelation) in 373 AD. You phrase it as if the Catholic Church did all the work itself, when instead they simply stood on the shoulders of those who came before them.

There also needs to be a distinction between the Church in Rome (a congregation in a geographical location) and the Roman Catholic Church (the government-sponsored form of Christianity). They are not necessarily the same thing. Roman Catholicism didn't exist until centuries after all the Apostles were dead.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Tyburn

Please dont take offense to this but

if you dont believe Roman Catholicism is Christian...why do you believe in the Bible?

It was the Roman Church that classified your Scripture....and before you say the early church could do without...I challenge you by saying the Early Church believed a lot of things that most Christians would now consider...not biblically sound...I can show you some of the texts if you wish.

You Catholics believe things that others dont. Infant baptism, Purgatory, believe in offering prayers to Mary and to the Saints. And the idea of priest as mediator.

Do you Catholics ever have a altar call at the end of the service?

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by NateR

That's a misleading way to phrase it. The Biblical canon was pretty well set before the Roman Catholic Church ever existed. The Old Testament was compiled in 400 BC and canonized in 90 AD. 64 of the 66 books in the Bible (Old and New Testament) were canonized in 206 AD. The Roman Catholic Church didn't exist until 324 AD and they simply confirmed the work of the Council of Jamnia and the Codex Barococcio, and added two more books (Esther and Revelation) in 373 AD. You phrase it as if the Catholic Church did all the work itself, when instead they simply stood on the shoulders of those who came before them.

There also needs to be a distinction between the Church in Rome (a congregation in a geographical location) and the Roman Catholic Church (the government-sponsored form of Christianity). They are not necessarily the same thing. Roman Catholicism didn't exist until centuries after all the Apostles were dead.

...and the New Testament ...The Gospels? The Pauline Texts? Revelation?

Your just as missleading! The Jewish Scriptures were Cannonized but the Christian Scriptures AND Christian adoption of the Jewish Scriptures, IN THEIR TOTALITY (including what the Jewish then rejected in their reformational view on their own scriptures) was pulled together by The Roman Catholic Church.

No

[Tyburn]

Originally Posted by Mark

You Catholics believe things that others dont. Infant baptism, Purgatory, believe in offering prayers to Mary and to the Saints. And the idea of priest as mediator.

Do you Catholics ever have a altar call at the end of the service?

Firstly, I'm not a Roman Catholic myself The reason for that is, I dont believe the Scriptures actually allude to Apostolic Succession. I do like their style and tradition...so I'm Anglo-Catholic...which means Rome...without Rome...if that makes sense...the style is Roman...but the content is all anglican

Secondly, Infant Baptism is indeed supported in the Scriptures...for its a dedication to the Lord as a Child when the Children cant actually decide for themselves...and you only need to ask what Jesus Christs Parents were doing Forty Days after his Birth to see that the Jewish did have an infant dedication service.

The Roman Catholics dont believe in purgatory anymore, I think that was overturned by John-Paul, or Vatican Two...cant remember which one.

The Roman Catholics dont exactly pray to Mary or the Saints...they ask Mary and the Saints to pray with and for them. If I asked you to pray for me, then I wouldnt be praying TO you would I...I'd simply be asking for your help. Thats what they do. The Roman Catechism states tht Worship of Mary is Abhorant.

Roman Catholic Services dont have Altar Calls Mark