Difference between Catholic and Protestant.

[Taken]

Difference between Catholic and Protestant.
OP ^

One Teaches:
Only the catholic church, is Christ’s Church.

One Teaches:
Christ’s Church; is ONLY men IN Christ.

 

[Taken]

Difference between Catholic and Protestant.
OP^

One Teaches:
Peter is the rock of Christ’s church.

One Teaches:
Christ IS the Rock of Christ’s Church.

 

[amigo de christo]

Follow Christ and stand firm upon all sound biblical doctrine by which we grow wise unto salvation through faith in Christ
and by which we shall test all men by those holy scriptures . So simple indeed .

 

[Marymog]

Soooo, according to you your church couldn't rely on the holy Spirit to teach them truth as Jesus promised, showing a lack of faith in Jesus' promise, and you then double down in declaring such a concept as an actual relationship with God through the holy Spirit is impossible for protestants.

Sooooo braklite your statement makes no sense. The men I mentioned, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were students of the Apostles. They walked and talked with the Apostles. They had the opportunity to ask clarifying questions to the Apostles about the things they wrote and said. Clements letters, back in the early 2nd century, were treated as Scripture. Equivalent to letters from the Apostles. Those are the men The Church relies on! What evidence do you have that those 3 men were NOT guided by the Holy Spirit? You have ZERO evidence and what you have suggested is your OPINION!

Now, compare those men to the men YOU FOLLOW from the Protestant Revolution that has divided Christianity for the last 500 years. Your Protestant men from the 16th century rely on their personal opinions (they all disagreed with each other) when interpreting the "Scriptural Text" to "teach and induct members/congregates".

Keeping it real....Mary

 

[Marymog]

There is no Dan. 3:52-90. It is apocryphal nonsense.

Psalms 136 is not a prayer. It's a song, with a refrain.

Mark 11:9 is not a prayer. It's a statement of excitment, for a King coming to reign.

Revelation 4:8 is not a prayer. It's a symbolic phrase, in the midst of symbols, showing that all the unfallen kingdoms of the unfallen universe (4 = universal; beasts = kingdoms, and they Heavenly) gives glory to God at all times.

Hey ReChoired. Thanks for your opinion.

I know that some people reject some books of the bible. It appears you reject Daniel. Christianity does not.

When you take the time to actually read Psalms 136 you will notice it is a thanksgiving to God. According to the Jews, the Book of Psalms is an ancient anthology of poetic prayers originally written in Hebrew. According to YOU it is not. Whom should I believe?
The Great Hallel – The Everyday Prayer
(The Book of Psalms | My Jewish Learning)


When you take the time to read Mark 11:9 you might notice the word "Hosanna". The Hebrew word, “hoshi’a na,” is translated in Greek as “(h)osanna.” In English, we known it as “hosanna.” The original intent of the bible is “Save!” It is viewed as a plea for help. Whenyou plea for help you are praying.
Hosanna - Wikipedia Hosanna Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Strong's Greek: 5614. ὡσαννά (hósanna) -- save, we pray (biblehub.com)


I will let you figure out Revelation 4:8 on your own. I suggest you read ALL of Revelations 4 and you will see that it is, in fact, a prayer.

None the less.... Thank you for your opinion......Mary

 

[amigo de christo]

Sooooo braklite your statement makes no sense. The men I mentioned, Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius were students of the Apostles. They walked and talked with the Apostles. They had the opportunity to ask clarifying questions to the Apostles about the things they wrote and said. Clements letters, back in the early 2nd century, were treated as Scripture. Equivalent to letters from the Apostles. Those are the men The Church relies on! What evidence do you have that those 3 men were NOT guided by the Holy Spirit? You have ZERO evidence and what you have suggested is your OPINION!

Now, compare those men to the men YOU FOLLOW from the Protestant Revolution that has divided Christianity for the last 500 years. Your Protestant men from the 16th century rely on their personal opinions (they all disagreed with each other) when interpreting the "Scriptural Text" to "teach and induct members/congregates".

Keeping it real....Mary

You almost had that last line right . Keeping it real . But in your case its keeping it ROME.
Rome is your HOME , CHRIST IS MINE . Some of us have did what we could to help you .

 

[Wrangler]

Now, compare those men to the men YOU FOLLOW from the Protestant Revolution ... they all disagreed with each other

Not when it came to the corruption of the RCC.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are indeed a "Romanist".
Strong's definition is pretty much in total error, and is contradictory to the verses and reasons I already cited. if the Pharisees had been using 'aramaic' they could not have possibly confused Jesus words about "Eloi", for "Elias".

Act 21:40 επιτρεψαντος δε αυτου ο παυλος εστως επι των αναβαθμων κατεσεισεν τη χειρι τω λαω πολλης δε σιγης γενομενης προσεφωνησεν τη εβραιδι διαλεκτω λεγων

Act 22:2 ακουσαντες δε οτι τη εβραιδι διαλεκτω προσεφωνει αυτοις μαλλον παρεσχον ησυχιαν και φησιν

Act 26:14 παντων δε καταπεσοντων ημων εις την γην ηκουσα φωνην λαλουσαν προς με και λεγουσαν τη εβραιδι διαλεκτω σαουλ σαουλ τι με διωκεις σκληρον σοι προς κεντρα λακτιζειν

Not a single one in the "Greek" read 'syriac' or 'aramaic'.
When the Bible wants to specify a nation or language from another it never confuses the two:

2Ki_18:26 Then said Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and Shebna, and Joah, unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, to thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and talk not with us in the Jews' language in the ears of the people that are on the wall.
2Ki 18:26 καὶ εἶπεν Ελιακιμ υἱὸς Χελκιου καὶ Σομνας καὶ Ιωας πρὸς Ραψακην Λάλησον δὴ πρὸς τοὺς παῖδάς σου Συριστί, ὅτι ἀκούομεν ἡμεῖς, καὶ οὐ λαλήσεις μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν Ιουδαϊτί, καὶ ἵνα τί λαλεῖς ἐν τοῖς ὠσὶν τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους;

Dan_2:4 Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.

Dan 2:4 καὶ ἐλάλησαν οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τῷ βασιλεῖ Συριστί Βασιλεῦ, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ζῆθι· σὺ εἰπὸν τὸ ἐνύπνιον τοῖς παισίν σου, καὶ τὴν σύγκρισιν ἀναγγελοῦμεν.

Isa_36:11 Then said Eliakim and Shebna and Joah unto Rabshakeh, Speak, I pray thee, unto thy servants in the Syrian language; for we understand it: and speak not to us in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.

Isa 36:11 καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτὸν Ελιακιμ καὶ Σομνας καὶ Ιωαχ Λάλησον πρὸς τοὺς παῖδάς σου Συριστί, ἀκούομεν γὰρ ἡμεῖς, καὶ μὴ λάλει πρὸς ἡμᾶς Ιουδαϊτί· καὶ ἵνα τί λαλεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐπὶ τῷ τείχει;

Luk_4:27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian.


Luk 4:27 και πολλοι λεπροι ησαν επι ελισσαιου του προφητου εν τω ισραηλ και ουδεις αυτων εκαθαρισθη ει μη νεεμαν ο συρος

When the Bible says "Hebrew" tongue/language it means "Hebrew", never 'Syriack', 'Syrian' or 'Aramaic'.

Thus Paul:
Php_3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Php 3:5 περιτομη οκταημερος εκ γενους ισραηλ φυλης βενιαμιν εβραιος εξ εβραιων κατα νομον φαρισαιος

Paul was not an "Aramaic of the Aramaics", but an "Hebrew of the Hebrews".

Soooo, the linguists at Strong’s are in “total error” – so I should just take YOUR word for it.
The uneducated opinion of an ignorant poster on an obscure little online forum?
You’re not only ignorant – you’re arrogant. So, when the EXPERTS prove you wrong – THEY are wrong – is that it??

Your repeated argument that the Pharisees couldn’t fully understand what Jesus was saying on the cross is your MOST desperate and moronic. Were YOU there? Did you hear Jesus shout out “Eli, Eli, Lama sabachthani” is a CLEAR voice?

Are you SURE that He wasn’t in such pain that it may have come out somewhat garbled? The Bible says He shouted out in a loud voice – it DOESN’T say that He spoke in a CLEAR voice.
I know that when I’m in pain – my wife RARELY understands what I’m shouting about.

With regard to your argument involving OT verses like Dan 2:4, 2 kings 18:26, Isa_36:11, etc. - the word “Syriack” is Old English from the KJV. In the HEBREW text, however, the word used here is ארמית which translates as “ARAMAIC”:
ארמית - 'Aramiyth
Pronunciation: ar-aw-meeth'
Definition: Aramaic = "language" 1) the language of Aram, Aramaic
feminine of 761; (only adverbial)in Aramean:-in the Syrian language (tongue), in Syriac.
see HEBREW for 0761

As for the NT verses like Acts 21:40, Acts22:2, Acts 26:14, etc. – this is translated in the Greek as “heb-rah-is'”. This goes back to what I explained to you before. That it is talking about the “Chaldee Hebrew” and NOT the Hebrew in which the OT was written. Chanldee is another name for ARAMAIC.

You are arguing from a point of ignorance here because, although you fancy yourself as a linguist – you AIN’T one . . .

 

[Marymog]

Not when it came to the corruption of the RCC.

There are corrupt men in Protestant denominations Wrangler. What you have to look at is doctrine.

 

[Marymog]

You almost had that last line right . Keeping it real . But in your case its keeping it ROME.
Rome is your HOME , CHRIST IS MINE . Some of us have did what we could to help you .

YOUR interpretation of Christ is your home. Your interpretation comes from YOU.

Keeping it really real......mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your CURRENT catholic church LOOKS NOTHING LIKE Christ’s Church, YET YOU REMAIN “IN HER”.
Protestants.....Absolutely continue establishing Churches IN Christ...
AND WHEN a Protestant Church runs amuck and NO LONGER LOOKS LIKE Christ’s Church...The Congregates COME OUT OF HER...and establish a NEW organization, IN Christ.

Ummmmm – WHICH Protestants?? WHICH flavor??

The faction that teaches –
The Holy Trinity – or one that doesn’t?
Eternal Security (OSAS) – or one that doesn’t?
Homosexuality is okay to practice – or one that doesn’t?
An “Invisible Church” – or one that doesn’t?
Baptismal Regeneration – or one that doesn’t??
Imputed Righteousness– or one that doesn’t??
Soul Sleep – or one that doesn’t?
A Pri-Trib “Rapture” – or one that doesn’t?
Unconditional Election – or one that doesn’t?
Limited Atonement – or one that doesn’t?
Irresistible Grace – or one that doesn’t?
Perspicuity of Scripture – or one that doesn’t?

Soooooo – WHICH one??

 

[BreadOfLife]

“The Rock” is CHRIST.
“Christ’s Church” is “The Church”.
“Men “IN” CHRIST” are “The Church”.

Ahhhhh, I see. So, I should simply reject 2000 years of Church teaching from some of the most brilliant Scripture and linguistic scholars - and just take YOUR word for it.

And YOU call ME “arrogant” . . .

“The WAYS of the WORLD IS CORRUPT.

The World’s WAYS is; nations, kings, clerics, heads of households, people, promoting, advocating, immorality, tolerance of abominations, support of immorality and abominations.


The WAY of the Lord God Almighty IS TO COME OUT OF HER.

The WAY of the Lord God Almighty IS TO COME IN TO CHRIST.


TO COME OUT OF HER, MEANS: * STOP *

Advocating, Promoting, Tolerating;

AND Supporting; Immorality, Abominations.

Yes, Jesus established HIS Church.

Yes, Jesus FIRST, MADE some Jews members of HIS Church.

Yes, Jesus SECONDLY, MADE some Gentiles members of HIS Church.

Yes, Jews and Gentiles congregated IN Synagogues.

Yes, Jews and Gentiles were Becoming MADE “IN” Christ’s Church.

Yes, Gentiles CAME OUT, of Synagogues, that REJECTED Christ’s WAY.

Yes, Gentiles built, buildings called Churches.

Yes, Gentiles Churches BEGAN REJECTING Christ’s WAY.

Yes, Gentiles CAME OUT, of Churches, that REJECTED Christ’s WAY.

Yes, Gentiles continue Building Churches.

Yes, Gentiles continue Becoming MADE “IN” Christ’s Church.

Yes, Gentiles continue COMING OUT, of Churches, that REJECT Christ’s

AY.

YOU, have elected to REMAIN, in a Gentile Church Organization, THAT WHICH REJECTS and TEACHES AGAINST Christ’s WAY.

YOU, have elected to DEROGATORILY CRITICIZE, Gentile Church Organizations, THAT WHICH ARE being established According TO: Christ’s WAY.

INDIVIDUAL GENTILES, have elected to SEARCH, SEEK, PARTICIPATE, SUPPORT, Churches THAT WHICH ARE According TO Christ’s WAY........and COME OUT of such Churches, which FAIL to REMAIN IN Christ’s Way.

You, obviously DO NOT, know, recognize, comprehend what COME OUT OF HER means.

HER......IS THE WORLD, HER WAYS, “IS corruption”. “IS following, advocating, supporting HER corruption”


And “NOT” following, advocating, supporting “IN” Christ!

HERE IS YOUR WARNING:

Col 2:

[8] Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

A mix of sad and laughable you think, believe, say that is wrong.

Your attempts, of catholic philosophy, your personal vanity, your personal deceit, your catholic traditions, are rudiments of the world.

Another psychotic rant from the KING of psychotic rants . . .
Too much idiotic and Godless nonsense to address here in one post – so I’ll just address the manutr in RED.

I don’t criticize the “Gentile” Church. there is only ONE Church – and I am IN it. It is the ONLY Church that is doing it “Christ’s way”,. because it is the ONLY Church NOT established by MEN – like every single Protestant flavor.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The first century church was apostolic. The second century church was Spirit filled and traveled the world as far as they could to preach the gospel... Except for a few individuals here and there, they were all on the same page. Sadly, those few individuals who were drifting into apostasy, the few who John said had even in his time came out from themselves, from within the church, became a multitude, and by the time the Roman empire had abandoned Rome for Constantinople, there remained a large number who saw the political vacuum as an opportunity to incorporate into their religious practise the civil authority as well. The letters from Justinian to the Pope of that time helped create a union of church and state which gathered pace in it's moral and spiritual slide into the Papacy...a persecuting corrupt institution which needed reform but refused. That refusal isn't the fault of the reformers.

And the word of the reformers still echoes thoroughly Christendom... Seek Jesus and repent.

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2-7:1 [A.D. 107]).

This sounds nothing – absolutely NTHING like YOUR SDA sect, nor does it sound like ANY of the Protestant factions.

Were there some bad Catholics in history? YUP.
Were there sone bad SDA adherents? YUP
Were there bad people and leaders in virtually EVERY Protrestant sect in history? You BET there were.

Does this mean that makle the beliefs and teachings of these groups “Bad”?
NO. Those people were bad.

As for the non-Catholic factions - what makes their teachings bad is that they strayed from the Church’s teachings – from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Wrangler]

There are corrupt men in Protestant denominations Wrangler. What you have to look at is doctrine.

I do look at doctrine. The only reason Christ came to Earth was not to establish the supremacy of the RCC.

He came to reconcile corrupt men, which includes the RCC fathers.

 

[Marymog]

I do look at doctrine. The only reason Christ came to Earth was not to establish the supremacy of the RCC.

He came to reconcile corrupt men, which includes the RCC fathers.

You crack me up Wrangler. Whoever said Christ came to earth to establish the Roman Catholic Church? No one. Ever.....!!

Scripture makes it clear that Christ established The Church, and he chose 12 men to help him establish The Church. Those men had "supremacy" after he was crucified (Luke 10:16) and they enforced that "supremacy" (Acts 15). Your men have taught you that "supremacy" died when the last Apostle died. Your men lied to you.

 

[Marymog]

Follow Christ and stand firm upon all sound biblical doctrine by which we grow wise unto salvation through faith in Christ
and by which we shall test all men by those holy scriptures . So simple indeed .

You and @Taken follow YOUR interpretation of what Christ and the Apostles taught. But when someone does stand firm upon all sound biblical doctrine you tell them they are wrong because YOU are always right! Aren't you amigo?

 

[Taken]

Ummmmm – WHICH Protestants?? WHICH flavor??

The faction that teaches –
The Holy Trinity – or one that doesn’t?
Eternal Security (OSAS) – or one that doesn’t?
Homosexuality is okay to practice – or one that doesn’t?
An “Invisible Church” – or one that doesn’t?
Baptismal Regeneration – or one that doesn’t??
Imputed Righteousness– or one that doesn’t??
Soul Sleep – or one that doesn’t?
A Pri-Trib “Rapture” – or one that doesn’t?
Unconditional Election – or one that doesn’t?
Limited Atonement – or one that doesn’t?
Irresistible Grace – or one that doesn’t?
Perspicuity of Scripture – or one that doesn’t?

Soooooo – WHICH one??

You are the one always talking about the tens of thousands of Protestant Churches.
Make a list of all those churches so your questions can be answered.

 

[Taken]

Ahhhhh, I see. So, I should simply reject 2000 years of Church teaching from some of the most brilliant Scripture and linguistic scholars - and just take YOUR word for it.

Did my statement say YOU SHOULD do anything? Uh no.

And YOU call ME “arrogant” . . .

Well you are, but in this post you are being “ignorant”. Pretending you are commenting on something, I never said!

 

[Taken]

You and @Taken ...when someone does stand firm upon all sound biblical doctrine you tell them they are wrong because YOU are always right! Aren't you amigo?

What a ridiculous statement!

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are the one always talking about the tens of thousands of Protestant Churches.
Make a list of all those churches so your questions can be answered.

First of all – I NEVER say how many Protestant factions there are because that number changes every day.
Protestantism is a collection of continually and perpetually-splintering sects based on the interpretational whims of whoever claims to know “better”..

Secondly – my source for “tens of thousands” is a PROTESTANT source - World Christian Encyclopedia by Barrett, Kurian, Johnson (Oxford Univ. Press, 2nd edition, 2001).

The claim from this source is 33,000+ denominations. I NEVER give a number. It could be slightly less or a LOT more. This number doesn’t include the millions of “Lone Ranger” believers like YOU who march to their own tune.

Finally – the very short list of competing doctrines that I presented in my last post id FAR too many . . .

The BIBLE says of Christ’s Church. . .
Phil. 2:1-2
So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the SAME MIND, having the SAME LOVE, being in FULL ACCORD and of ONE MIND.