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

[ember]

ok...sorry, but this is a debate I am not going to participate in

my head has no room for this

 

[passing_through]

ok...sorry, but this is a debate I am not going to participate in

my head has no room for this

It's quite alright, some things or over my head I'll admit.

 

[Elin]

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes.........

They allow not that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which flesh suffered for our sins, and which the Father of His goodness raised up.

(Ignatius teaches that the Eucharist and “flesh” of Jesus is “holy,” and cannot distinguish between the tangible aspects of life, the soul, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, he maintains his pagan ideology and simply projects it onto Messiah.)

Pagan ideology, baloney. . .HRM Greek vs. Christ heresy

Continuing, he writes...
Do ye all follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; and to the deacons pay respect, as to God's commandment?
Let no man do aught of things pertaining to the church apart from the bishop.
Let that be held a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one to whom he shall have committed it. Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be, there is a universal church.

(Ignatius is credited for being the first person to mention the “Catholic Church” but notice also how he twists “God's commandment” to elevate the authority of his hierarchy.

Like HRM Greek vs. Christ heresy twists him into a pagan?

Continuing, he writes....
It is not lawful apart from the bishop either to baptize or hold a love feast; but whatsoever he shall approve, this is well-pleasing also to God.

Ignatius is one of the biggest heroes of Christo-Paganism

Baloney. . .you are deceived by the HRM Greek vs. Christ heresy.

because he installed variation of the hierarchy of man. His followers wear labels such as Pope and Reverend which is high-handed blasphemy as these titles are exclusive to God the Father and Jesus Christ. Every religion has one form of Priesthood or another but, of course, those who are called of Messiah are given their authority through Messiah, and certainly not according to man's hierarchy.

And what does HRM Greek vs. Christ heresy call the group to whom Messiah gives his authority?

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" Exodus 34:14

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

Accusing of twisting God's commandments in one breath and then twisting the words of others in the next breath. . .

 

[fredjames]

Further more, who is the 'only one' given the 'key' of 'binding' and letting 'loose' and as Heaven will follow?

And while CHRIST 'ascended', witnessed by the 'disciples' themselves for our 'witnessing', even 'today' and have 'remain' there in Heaven by the will of GOD, as 'Great High Priest', 'pleading' and 'praying' for all 'saints' to HIS FATHER, 'who art in Heaven', for 'chosen ones' to continue after HIM and 'selected' by HIM?

 

[Elin]

I've only begun. Denying Torah, and Sabbaths (with God ordained feast days) I have quoted previously which the protestant Churches deny also. (for the most part)
Pope Gregory also denied the Biblical calendar and now we all abide by the Gregorian calendar. Every day is named after some pagan god, along with 8 months out of 12. Or there abouts.

HRM Greek vs. Christ heresy. . .

The also denied Jesus was of illegitimate birth.
Were they wrong about that also?

Baloney. . .

 

[KennethC]

I'd actually put their date of starting somewhere about 600 AD. Until then, they were just one bishopric of about six bishoprics of the church. Rome made boastful claims for a few hundred years prior to that. They really didn't have the power that their boastful claims merited.

Sorry but both of you are wrong as catholicism started in the 2nd century (101-200 AD).

The word catholic (with lowercase c; derived via Late Latin catholicus, from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]) comes from the Greek phraseκαθόλου (katholou), meaning "on the whole", "according to the whole" or "in general", and is a combination of the Greek words κατά meaning "about" and ὅλος meaning "whole".[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] The word in English can mean either "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing" or "of the Roman Catholic faith" as "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church."[SUP][5][/SUP] ("Catholicos", the title used for the head of some churches in Eastern Christian traditions, is derived from the same linguistic origin.)
The term Catholic (usually written with uppercase C in English) was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages. In non-ecclesiastical use, it derives its English meaning directly from its root, and is currently used to mean the following:

• universal or of general interest;
• liberal, having broad interests, or wide sympathies;[SUP][6][/SUP] or
• inclusive, inviting and containing strong evangelism.

 

[ember]

It's quite alright, some things or over my head I'll admit.

well, I don't want to fill up any extra room with this....I have heard enough about early church fathers and what have you...from debating in another forum, that I think I understand the futility of it all

 

[Elin]

If we refuse to learn from history, we are bound to make the same mistakes as the previous generations. What I am presenting is documented. I could never make all this up. It wasn't a dream or a vision either. LOL

It's pure baloney. . .

 

[passing_through]

well, I don't want to fill up any extra room with this....I have heard enough about early church fathers and what have you...from debating in another forum, that I think I understand the futility of it all

ember, I fail to see what was the point of using my quote.

 

[just-me]

2. Marcion teachings 110-160 AD

I quote Marcion........
“Moses' form of law was “eye for an eye” but Jesus reversed this.”

(Exodus 21:23-26 says “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it parish; he shall let him go free for the eye's sake.”

refuting Marcion.........
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth means to render equivalent compensation toward the value of loss, even set the servant or maid free. Eye for eye does NOT ever suggest physical punishment to avenge the loss; this is NOT what God instructs nor was this ever practiced within the Israel of the plural attributes of God Almighty, (Jesus Christ being the right hand of God). In Marcion's day, Gentiles were an easy prey to his false teachings because, as today, most have very little or no Torah consciousness to determine even basic practical application of the original commandments given to Israel via Moses.

Continuing to quote Marcion........
“Elisha caused bears to devour the little children, but Jesus said “let the little children come to me.”

refuting Marcion..........
The scripture says that Elisha cursed the mocking children in the name of the Almighty God and Father, and 42 children were torn apart by she-bears. The number 42 represents disaster (Israel's oppression) toward those that rebel against God. There were 42,000 Ephraimites slain in Judges 12:6 and 42 relatives of Ahaziah were killed by Jehu in 2 Kings 10:14. According to Revelation 11:2, the Gentiles wreak havoc, and do all manner of blasphemy for 42 months. The number 42 is suggesting, or making reference to pagan Gentiles, forcing people to worship their Jesus god (threatening) the pain of death. Elisha raised a child from the dead and showed great compassion for children; but Marcion, levied a wicked judgment against God.

 

[just-me]

3. Marcion teachings 110-160 AD

He taught that Joshua stopped the sun in its path to continue a slaughter of the enemy, but Paul said “don't let the sun go down on your wrath.”

refuting Marcion.........
Joshua would have no success in “stopping he sun” by his own strength. More people died when God sent hailstones down on them, than were slain by Joshua's armies (Joshua 10:11-13). The hailstones of Joshua 10:11 also remind us of Sodom and Gomorrah, not a popular motif with Marcion and friends who lived in a culture where sodomy was commonplace. Joshua and Jesus share the same Hebrew name; Joshua is a very powerful type of Messiah. (I emphasize TYPE). God instructed the Israelites to go to war and “destroy their altars, break their images, and cut down their groves (statues)” so His people wouldn't be tempted to sacrifice unto pagan gods or make molten images (see Exodus 34: 12-17) “And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he gives his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.” (Leviticus 20:4-5)

Molech means “king.” Nimrod worshiped the pagan sungod named Molech. (see Genesis 10:9) Henceforth the term “Sunday” is incorporated into the Gregorian calendar that we are all forced to abide by concerning times and seasons. Children were scarified to Nimrod's “sungod,” engineering the building of the “Tower of Babel.” Do we not do the same with “abortion? (Genesis chapters 10 and 11)

God commanded that such wickedness be wiped off the face of the earth for the purpose of His ultimate justice. Those who disapprove of God's righteous judgment are both ignorant and rebellious towards the intent of God's commandants and His Messiah, CHRIST THE LORD.

 

[passing_through]

Joshua stopped the rotation of the Earth, since the Sun doesn't rotate saying it stopped is dumb. Joshua in the KJV is called Jesus, but it is Joshua.

 

[secularhermit]

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...

Did Jesus really mean to say He was going to build His church on a fallible man?

Surely NOT, but try to convince those who belived in the RCC´s teachings.

Just for me:

Jesus chose common men as apostles (not as new priests?) and soon after Paul appeared to "organized" what common men did not arrange the way Catholic liked...

 

[sparkman]

If this thread is degenerating into another accusation that non-Sabbathkeepers are following a false religion, I would like to repost something I've done on another thread. The position that observing the Sabbath and Holy Days is required for New Covenant Christians amounts to a false accusation. Those who worship on Sunday or any other day are not to allow themselves to be judged per Colossians 2:16-17. The reasoning below makes it very clear. I have other threads that refute common Sabbathkeeper accusations in this regard.

It seems like they are driven to make such false accusations continually.

An additional point I'd like to make with regards to Colossians 2:16-17..this point involves considering three different Scriptures (not of necessity but for support):

Colossians 2:16-17 [SUP]16 [/SUP]Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. [SUP]17 [/SUP]These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

Hebrews 9:10-12 [SUP]10 [/SUP]but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. [SUP]11 [/SUP]But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come,[SUP][a][/SUP] then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) [SUP]12 [/SUP]he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Galatians 3:16-25 [SUP]16 [/SUP]Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. [SUP]17 [/SUP]This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. [SUP]20 [/SUP]Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. [SUP]21 [/SUP]Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. [SUP]22 [/SUP]But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. [SUP]23 [/SUP]Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. [SUP]24 [/SUP]So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. [SUP]25 [/SUP]But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian,

Here is the reasoning:

1. Colossians 2:16-17 groups food and drink offerings, the Sabbath and annual festivals together.

2. Food and drink offerings were imposed until the time of Reformation..which was when Christ came and died for our sins
per Hebrews 9:10-12.

3. Galatians 3:16-25 provides further support that the Old Covenant was only in effect until Christ came and died for our
sins. It is no longer in effect.

4. Since Colossians 2:16-17 groups food and drink offerings, the Sabbath and annual festivals together, they are under the
same level of applicability to the New Covenant believer.

5. Additionally, Hebrews 10:1-2 uses the same language of "shadows of things to come" in reference to animal sacrifices that
is applied to the Sabbath and Holy Days, placing them in this same category of inapplicable things.

As indicated on other posts, an additional point is that Hebrews 10:1-2 uses the same reference of "shadow of things to come" in reference to the animal sacrifices as Colossians 2:16-17 uses in regards to the Sabbath, Holy Days, food and drink offerings.

Hebrews 10:1-2 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. [SUP]2 [/SUP]Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins?


The reasoning that the Sabbath and Holy Days do not apply to New Covenant Christians is inescapable. If someone wants to observe them, fine, but don't accuse other non-observant individuals of being false Christians or being in sin.

 

[just-me]

Joshua stopped the rotation of the Earth, since the Sun doesn't rotate saying it stopped is dumb. Joshua in the KJV is called Jesus, but it is Joshua.

It's all Hebrew dialect. Joshua bar Yoseph, is Jesus the son of Joseph in English. An yes, the earth rotates around the Sun. Id the sun stands still, it is because the earth stopped rotating. You are right about that.

 

[just-me]

If this thread is degenerating into another accusation that non-Sabbathkeepers are following a false religion, I would like to repost something I've done on another thread. The position that observing the Sabbath and Holy Days is required for New Covenant Christians amounts to a false accusation. Those who worship on Sunday or any other day are not to allow themselves to be judged per Colossians 2:16-17. The reasoning below makes it very clear. I have other threads that refute common Sabbathkeeper accusations in this regard.


It seems like they are driven to make such false accusations continually.

Are you a Catholic, or do you just wish to adopt their original doctrines? Colossians 2:16-17 is referring to pagan's accusations against Christians keeping the feasts that God originally ordained for good reason. God doesn't change in midstream. Those original things that God gave us are for our own edification, so it's not by our works, but His.

 

[just-me]

4. Marcion teachings 110-160 AD

“The Old Testament permitted divorce and polygamy; but the New Testament denies both.”

refuting Marcion.........
It is written that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the heart, and most Christians are unaware of the process and/or consequences of seeking release from a marriage covenant. The John 8 fallacy of a woman caught in adultery was inserted into Christian Bibles as a theological proof text that there are no consequences for Christian adulterers. This is a true story in the Bible, but it has been severally distorted. The levels of adultery within the Christian churches was as uncontrollable in the early days of the Gentile churches as it is today; so the “post apostolic” founders made it appear that adultery will be forgiven by “Jesus.” In terms of polygamy God states in Deuteronomy 17:17 that “you shall not multiply wives.” (John 7:53 is not in the original text of the Gospel of John)

The reason that Henry VIII (king of England) founded the “Church of England” was because he wanted a divorce so he could marry another, and the Catholic Church would not allow it. The rituals stayed the same as the Catholics (for the most apart) but allowed for divorce unlike the Catholic doctrine did at that time in history.

The story of the adulterous woman is noted by translators of the Aramaic text of the New Testament to be inserted at a later date than the original writings of John, (John 8:1-11) neither does it appear in the 4 earliest Greek manuscripts of John. The later Greek translations have the story about the woman caught in adultery. I also question this one, but it very well could be true from what I have studied.

Taken from this website
scripture

[7:53–8:11] The story of the woman caught in adultery is a later insertion here, missing from all early Greek manuscripts. A Western text-type insertion, attested mainly in Old Latin translations, it is found in different places in different manuscripts: here, or after Jn 7:36 or at the end of this gospel, or after Lk 21:38, or at the end of that gospel. There are many non-Johannine features in the language, and there are also many doubtful readings within the passage. The style and motifs are similar to those of Luke, and it fits better with the general situation at the end of Lk 21: but it was probably inserted here because of the allusion to Jer 17:13 (cf. note on Jn 8:6) and the statement, “I do not judge anyone,” in Jn 8:15. The Catholic Church accepts this passage as canonical scripture.

 

[mwc68]

Yall don't have enough fun treating Catholics like second class citizens on the other hate threads? This is pathetic

 

[Galahad]

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

All Christians follow Christ. If Catholics for whatever reason find themselves practicing a doctrine of the pope and the Vat that aligns with the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is coincidental. Perhaps even accidental.

Following Christ is not following Catholicism. The former leads to life. The latter to destruction.

 

[Magenta]

Joshua stopped the rotation of the Earth, since the Sun doesn't rotate saying it stopped is dumb. Joshua in the KJV is called Jesus, but it is Joshua.

The sun is not stationary... it revolves around galactic central point