Protestants follow many Catholic traditions that began during the 1st century

sparkman · Jul 21, 2015

If you are suggesting that Christians today are required to observe the Sabbath, you are in error and in violation of Colossians 2:16-17 and its teachings regarding judging Christians regarding these observances.

In addition, the presupposition that Sunday was a day when pagans worshipped the sun is not tenable. They worshipped the sun every day, and there is good reason to doubt whether they observed a seven week cycle with Sunday being a day of worship to the sun. My understanding is that they had a different weekly cycle than we do.

Regarding Colossians 2:16-17 I have described the situation involving those verses here:

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...ebrews-10-1-2-judging-non-sabbathkeepers.html

Comparing Colossians 2:16-17 with Hebrews 10:1-2 makes it clear that they are placed in the same category of applicability to a new Covenant Christian as animal sacrifices.

Christianity is distinctly different than Judaism, and I believe the early church intentionally made a break from Judaism to make sure they did stay distinct. We worship Jesus Christ, not the Old Covenant and its ceremonial and ritualistic laws.

Having been a Sabbathkeeper for over a decade, I realize that the arguments of Sabbatarianism are convincing at a shallow level but not when critically examined. Basically it is one big conspiracy theory involving a false view of history.

Again, i would also point to the excellent works of the Sundaygoers I attend fellowship with. They do more to alleviate the suffering of the world than the Sabbathkeepers I fellowshipped with, and their focus is on Jesus Christ and salvation through Him, not keeping ceremonial and ritualistic aspects of the Old Covenant.

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-old-covenant-observance-causes-division.html

sparkman · Jul 21, 2015

just-me said:

Many religious customs within the Christian churches are based on counsel of the “early post- apostolic writers” like Ignatius, Marcion, and Tertullian. The fact is that these men have shaped Christianity into what it is today. The most common theme from these founders of the Gentile church is that they severely opposed Jewish culture and law, as do most Christian pastors today. Most church founders appear to have been utterly unable to distinguish between Rabbinical Tradition and Torah observance as taught by Christ Jesus and the Apostles.

For starters, first I will present Ignatius of Antioch 35-107 AD.

He was considered an “auditor” and “disciple” of John, although he never met John personally nor studied under him. Ignatius pioneered the Greek-based Christian religion. He was very instrumental in the assimilation of paganism into early Christianity, and packaged Christianity for a Greco-Roman Hellenic culture. He saw Jewish followers of Christ Jesus as nothing but legalists and Judaizers. He despised the observance of the Sabbath in favor of the Ishtar sunrise “Lord's day” Sun Day. He promoted the “infallibility of the church” and the “universal church.” If there ever was a hierarchy loving “Christian” politician with a Hellenistic autocratic mindset, it was Ignatius who taught that deacons, presbyters and bishops were a separate category of people infused with Jesus-like authority to be lords over the people. He also taught that (quote) “without the bishop's supervision, no baptisms or love feasts are permitted” and he believed Mary to be the eternal virgin mother of God.

There's much more in letters recorded by these founders that I will post later, if people are interested in their religious heritage.

“For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” James 1:23-24

Another point is that it makes no more sense to claim those who attend worship services on Sunday are worshiping the Sun than it does to claim that a person who attends services on Saturday is a Saturn worshipper.

The critical reasoning of some of these arguments is laughable. I am ashamed that I was naive enough to fall for this sort of argumentation as a younger person.

Jason0047 · Jul 22, 2015

Roman Catholicism is a Biblical cult. Also, I don't think people should call themselves Catholic (Even though they are not of the RCC). For if they want to be a holy and separate people, then they would want to naturally distance themselves from Roman Catholics. I grew up knowing the word "Catholic" just meant those who pray to Mary instead of just praying to God alone. Even as a kid I knew that. Most people today say if you are Catholic understand this, too.

Anyways, Catholicism is wrong because they communicate with the dead (Which is Necromancy or the dark arts), and they also bow down to idols. In fact, there are many other problems within the Catholic Church, but the two that I mentioned should be suffient enough to anyone who knows their Bible to steer clear of such an obviously false institution.

flob · Jul 22, 2015

Judaizing, and mixing Christ with pagan things,..........both stink

M33 · Jul 22, 2015

Hi Jason.

Obviously we agree on most all points. But as an ex-Roman Catholic, I would like to point out that it is critically important that we remember to reach out to RC's and share the truth of the Gospel. Christ is our example, and He loved all He came into contact with, and shared the Truth. We need to remember this, even with the false teachings they have embedded in their minds. Just continue to hold firm to the Bible, and God may use you to reach an unsaved person...

Maranatha

Nick01 · Jul 22, 2015

There are several text critical problems with the letter to the Magnesians, with a number of variants, and whole sections that were expanded in the third century. If you would like to cite particular parts of the letter that you see as informing your argument, we can discuss those in detail. This does not necessarily go to the central point of your post regarding Sunday worship, but I feel if we're going to discuss patristics, let's at least make sure we're talking about sections that are actually second century, and are actually the works of early fathers.

fredjames · Jul 22, 2015

Sadly, as being taught by the Help of the HOLY SPIRIT the HOLY BIBLE, and to distinguish between the 'spirit of error' and 'spirit of truth', and 'to know them by their fruit', Roman Catholicism 'papacy' taught their followers a religion of traditions and doctrine of men to follow, yet having the HOLY BIBLE, but denying the authority of the BIBLE from the Kingdom of GOD, through the 'MESSIANIC' reign over 'all'.

On the other hand, the Protestant's singular goal actually 'translated' and 'taught' the HOLY BIBLE to all rich or poor and their followers, 'ministering' and 'imparting' in them 'spiritual Heavenly Kingdom doctrinal faith and that faith in action 'witnessing' Grace and Truth, a religion acted in faith to only GOD's 'as it is written' Word/Teaching, in 'practice' and to 'abide' in all of them and 'bear much fruit' and also their future fruit to abide in them as well'.

When the 'Protestant' followers decided to according to the New Testament/Covenant, elect Biblically unqualified 'leaders' and 'officials', therefore divisions and compromising to the authority of the HOLY BIBLE, to act in faith, increased, even to the establishment of many 'denominations' over the years until now without cease. Not surprisingly 'conformed' to traditions and doctrine of men as well.

They are the 'fruit' and have acted out of their 'fruit' of carnal/flesh/self's passions and desires authority, mixed with alo suiting picked and chose Holy Scripture to their faith.

And i am also 'partly' one of them 'modern hypocrites/lukewarm Christian', am against GOD and fellow men, acting in faith of 'conditional founded men doctrine of love'. For my every 'Good works' i have 'witnessed' to others, if judged by the New Testament/Covenant/Agreement, have only so far, 'strained out a small fly for GOD and yet have swallowed a camel', in my given redeemed and liberated life and called, 'to serve and not to be served'.

As it is written;

"The road that leads to the Kingdom of GOD is narrow and very difficult to follow and only a few will make it."

"Many are called but only a few chosen."

Please all of us take this tread as a valuable lesson to all 'Protestant' and evaluate their 'right standing' with GOD according to the New Covenant/Testament/Agreement, in 'practicing' and 'abiding' according to 'everyone' word/teaching of them?

And not in continuation 'running down' others, when while 'both', 'to know them by their fruit', are 'equal' and remain in 'lawlessness'.

GOD the FATHER bless you all with HIS kindness and peace in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.

MarcR · Jul 22, 2015

Magenta said:

Matt 16:15-18
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

κἀγὼ δέ... σοι. λέγω ὅτι εἶ.....
and.......also..unto you..I say.....that..thou art

Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ

Pebble ...........and..upon......this......(the) rock

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν
I will build.................my.....(the)

ἐκκλησίαν... καὶ πύλαι ἄδου
church (assembly) and.....gates.........of Hell

οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς
not shall prevail against........it

Peter is not the rock upon which the church is to be built!

Peters confession( in verse 16) coupled with the principle that this knowledge is Spiritually discerned (in verse 17) is the rock upon which the Church is to be founded.

crossnote · Jul 22, 2015

M33 said:

I'd be very interested in seeing the source, not doubting, just highly interested.

Atwood · Jul 22, 2015

Many Catholics Non-Papists, Non-Prots Follow God's Word

Catholic = kata + hol + ic = pertaining to what is according to the whole, in other words, universal. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, the universal Church, not some Roman sect. The papists try to get a patent on Catholic & Church -- but they fail.

There is no pope in the Bible. If Peter (Petros) were the rock (Petra) on which the Church was founded (& he is not), that would not imply that there should be an office of Peter with successors. It ain't there. When we see Peter in action in Acts & Galatians 2, Peter hardly looks like any pope. See Acts 15, etc.

As to traditions: The Lord Jesus was against the religious traditions as an authority. And He rebuked those who followed traditions at the expense of obeying God's word, which is clearly distinguished from the traditions.

Where Paul endorses tradition, the context indicates that tradition there means the word of God which Paul delivered in person or by letter, not human sayings. In no case is any future "tradition" endorsed in the NT -- it always refers to something past. Thus the few times that "tradition" is endorsed, it has nothing to do with future sayings of those we call "church fathers" or of the papacy.

If we speak of the present time "catholic traditions," meaning the ways of the papists, that then would include child rape, idolatry, worship of Mary, elevating the "host," pretending that bread was Christ's body. it would mean being impressed by fancy duds, ecclesiastical robes & calling some man a priest & "father," when all Christians are priests, there being no special order of NT priests.

Protestant is an abused word. Many Christians do not trace their heritage back to those who came out of Rome with Luther at all.

Ye have made void the Word of God by your tradition.

fredjames · Jul 22, 2015

MarcR said:

Matt 16:15-18
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. KJV

κἀγὼ δέ... σοι. λέγω ὅτι εἶ.....
and.......also..unto you..I say.....that..thou art

Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ

Pebble ...........and..upon......this......(the) rock

οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν
I will build.................my.....(the)

ἐκκλησίαν... καὶ πύλαι ἄδου
church (assembly) and.....gates.........of Hell

οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς
not shall prevail against........it

Peter is not the rock upon which the church is to be built!

Peters confession( in verse 16) coupled with the principle that this knowledge is Spiritually discerned (in verse 17) is the rock upon which the Church is to be founded.

Please tell us what is the meaning to the name Chepas?

Israelite children are named by names with 'meanings', names with meanings, prior to their birth or at their birth. It has been 'practiced' from generation to generations and GOD will.

Thank you and GOD bless you in the name of LORD JESUS CHRIST.

fredjames · Jul 22, 2015

fredjames said:

As how others and i have been 'taught' from the beginning, in Hebrew the name 'Chepas' means 'rock'.

Peter is a name translated from the original Hebrew text given name as Chepas.

Surprisingly Apostle Paul took the 'risk' going back to Jerusalem in order to consult the council Apostle Peter, regarding the matter of 'circumcision' burdening the Gentiles. And Apostle Peter firmly finalized this matter and not any others who tried at first, and 'as it is written' and by the 'authority' already given to him by the MESSIAH to 'run' for HIM that, according to verse 19,

"'....................................................... what you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven."

And so, in 'context', verse 18 and 19, isn't it referring to the Apostle Peter/Chepas, as the 'pebble' who is going to be the 'rock' where after CHRIST, CHRIST's church and matters where 'built' upon from.

Only Chepas/Peter recieved that 'key'.

And one more thing, when Mary Madelene met JESUS after 'resurrection', JESUS gave her 'a message' to tell HIS disciples. HE said;

"Go and tell My disciples and especially Peter/Chepas, ........................................................"

We believe Apostle Chepas/Peter, meaning the 'rock', was chosen and made as the 'authority' figure for CHRIST after HIM and for HIS church, where HIS church will be 'built' upon.

Thank you and may the Good GOD, the FATHER of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, bless you all with HIS kindness and peace.

Angela53510 · Jul 22, 2015

I would have to see the sources for the OP's posts. There is absolutely nothing suggesting that all his information is not made up.

Just like his posts that the New Testament was written in Hebrew, which he recently changed to Aramaic, when there is not a shred of evidence for this nor any original manuscripts in existance for either language. Greek has thousands of early manuscipts, from scraps and pieces to whole books. And all dated back to the 1st century.

Too much Hebrew Roots Movement going on in this thread for me!

Magenta · Jul 22, 2015

fredjames said:

Jesus said that the rock He would build His church on was not the
masculine "petros" (which would be Peter) but the feminine "petra."

The Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek, or possibly Aramaic, not Hebrew.
The oldest known manuscripts of Matthew are in Greek.
The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock

(petra)I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."

Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

Peter says Petra is Jesus. This is consistent with Scripture elsewhere where
the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God but never of a man.

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."

2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is

there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

valiant · Jul 22, 2015

just-me said:

Ignatius was not a Roman Catholic. He was bishop in the independent church of Antioch. He spoke only for himself. But he was rightly fearful of Judaisers (as Paul was) who were trying to Judaise the church.

In the original text he did not actually mention the Lord's day, and he certainly did not relate it to Ishtar. If he referred to it he spoke of it in the light of the resurrection. We have to be careful what we impute to Ignatius for his letters were later added to and altered, and there were many forgeries.

It is doubtful if his letters had much effect at all. It is foolish to think that as a second century bishop he had widespread influence, except possibly in the churches to whom he wrote. His letters were seized on centuries later, and manipulated and forged, so as to promote false teaching. Little or none of modern day teaching is based on his letters..

valiant · Jul 22, 2015

Angela53510 said:

The Gospels as we have them to day were written in Greek. They are NOT translations from Aramaic or Hebrew. There is no great difficulty in discerning translation Greek. Jesus' actual words are translated from Aramaic. But that was necessary. He spoke in Aramaic. But apart from those Matthew is pure Greek (as are Mark, Luke and John).

I fully agree with your comment about the Hebrew Roots Movement.

valiant · Jul 22, 2015

just-me said:

Nonsense. Marcion was an out and out heretic and recognised as such. Ignatius, (in so far as we have his genuine letters), had little influence on the early church as a whole. Both of them are 2nd century so the heading of the thread is misleading. Tertullian is late 2nd century/early third century.

It is not a fact at all. It is purely your theory in order to support your own heresies.

Ignatius and Tertullian did not oppose Jewish culture and law. But they certainly opposed the Judaisers who were trying to turn the church Judaistic. as Paul had before them.

The Apostles did not teach 'Torah observance'. Indeed they warned against putting too much emphasis on Torah observance. Their emphasis was on walking with Christ, ad they warned against being bound by rituals, feasts and Sabbaths. That is not to say that they were against the Torah properly used as a moral guide.

your dating is far too early. probably 50-110 would be closer to the truth, some seeing his death as occurring in 117 AD. But whatever his dates his letters were 2nd century documents.

.

There are differing views on this among scholars. He certainly knew Peter.

You do make wild claims. We know NOTHING of Ignatius ministry apart from his letters written in 2nd century AD. It was Paul who pioneered what you call 'Greek based religion'.

That is simply untrue. where is your proof? You are long on talk, short on evidence.

Again this is untrue. What he saw as Judaisers and legalists were those who were trying to turn the church back to Judaism contrary to Paul's teaching..

Ignatius never mentioned 'the Lord's day'. His reference was far more vague - kuriake (the way of the Lord). He nowhere mentions Ishtar in relation to it, and laid great stress in context on the resurrection. So you are being totally misleading.

If you mean he promoted a hierarchical church ruled over by one person you are wholly wrong. He certainly tried to give bishops unusual authority, but it was his own personal opinion. He recognised that the Roman church at that time did not have a sole bishop. As to the universal church, don't we all believe in that? A church made up of all true believers.

Did not Paul teach that bishops (overseers), presbyter (elders) and deacons (church servants) were to be obeyed? Ignatius was concerned to flout heretics. In his enthusiasm he may have overstated his case, but it was not authoritative.

I am not aware that most churches today would see themselves bound by either of these.

It appears to me that you totally overstate your case, in favour of what I suspect most would also see as an extreme doctrine.

eternally-gratefull · Jul 22, 2015

another thread to push mosaic law down everyone throats. Something told me not to look, but curiosity got to me. I should have stayed away.

news flash. Catholicism did not start until the 3rd century. not the first.

not following the law is the LEAST of the modern churches problems. There are many more problems which need to be taken care of than this.

didymos · Jul 22, 2015

using catholic bashing to judaize
(and bash protestantism in the proces too), thats new.

just-me · Jul 22, 2015

Angela53510 said:

I would have to see the sources for the OP's posts. There is absolutely nothing suggesting that all his information is not made up.

Just like his posts that the New Testament was written in Hebrew, which he recently changed to Aramaic, when there is not a shred of evidence for this nor any original manuscripts in existance for either language. Greek has thousands of early manuscipts, from scraps and pieces to whole books. And all dated back to the 1st century.

Too much Hebrew Roots Movement going on in this thread for me!

Look up Ignatius on line.

Ignatius of Antioch

Protestants follow many Catholic traditions that began during the 1st century

sparkman

Guest

sparkman

Guest

Banned

flob

Guest

M33

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

eternally-gratefull

Guest

didymos

Guest

Banned