Who Do I Confess My Sins To?

[BreadOfLife]

Remember the word is 'Office', not bishop. Besides you are making up rules as you go. Nowhere does it say that that office wouldn't have those requirements 'After that'.

Uhhhh, no.
The word used in Acts 1:20 is "Bishopric" (Episkopay).

The Church is not Israel.

And WHO said the Church was Israel??
The Church is the FULFILLMENT of Judaism.

The three levels of Priests of Judaism are perfected in Christ's Church.

Yes, but these are not 'successive'. Their qualifications (e.g. elders) were different than that listed in Acts 1.
Your Jude 1:11 reference is bogus...
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah. Jude 1:11

Yes, and Jesus is the fulfillment of types and prophecies.

WRONG.
The office of Bishop IS successive. Not only do we see this in Acts 1 with the succession of Judas's Bishopric and described in 2 Tim. 2:1-2, we also see it in the first century of the Church.

In his treatise, Against Heresies (180 AD), Irenaeus lists the succession of ALL of the Bishops of Rome from Peter all the way to his own time a century later.
When James was martyred in Jerusalem - Simeon succeeded his Bishopric in that city.
Ignatius of Antioch succeeded Peter, who went to Rome.

The idea that there simply ceased to be a Bishop in a certain region after the death of a previous Bishop is ludicrous and historically-bankrupt.

Finally - as to the reference in the Epistle of Jude - it is an illustration of the Ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant.
In this Epistle - we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

 

[BreadOfLife]

well lets see if "Pastor" is a Biblical term. Jeremiah 3:15 "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding".

strike #1

as asked, was Paul the apostle, the one in the bible, was he a Pastor yes or No?.

PICJAG.

Mistake #1:
Although "Pastor" is a term that was eventually derived from the word "shepherd" - the word itself is NOT found in Scripture. The Hebrew word used in Jer. 3:15 is ra`ah, which means "shepherd" or "herdsman".

As for Paul and the rest of the Apostles - they were shepherds of the flock with Peter as the Chief Shepherd commissioned by Christ (John 21:15-19).

 

[101G]

Mistake #1:
Although "Pastor" is a term that was eventually derived from the word "shepherd" - the word itself is NOT found in Scripture. The Hebrew word used in Jer. 3:15 is ra`ah, which means "shepherd" or "herdsman".

As for Paul and the rest of the Apostles - they were shepherds of the flock with Peter as the Chief Shepherd commissioned by Christ (John 21:15-19).

well first off thanks for the reply, second, you can try and run that word scheme of Pastor/shepherd on someone who just walked off the street, but it want work with me... the only thing you did was a. contridicted yourself, and b. exposed yourself to being uneducated in the term. which is strike #2.
H7462 רָעָה ra`ah (raw-aw') v.
1. to tend a flock i.e. pasture it.
2. (intransitively, literally or figuratively) to graze.
3. (generally) to rule.
4. (by extension) to associate with (as a friend).
[a primitive root]
KJV: X break, companion, keep company with, devour, eat up, evil entreat, feed, use as a friend, make friendship with, herdman, keep (sheep)(-er), pastor, + shearing house, shepherd, wander, waste.

to pasture it is to "PASTOR" meaning to "FEED", as it is translated in the scripture, which God clearly himself said is to "FEED" his sheep with KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING which is lacking on those men and women part who are ignorant of who the Pastor is and what they do.

third strike #3.... "Peter as the Chief Shepherd". are you seur? lets see, 1 Peter 5:1 "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1 Peter 5:2 "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1 Peter 5:3 "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:4 "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

when who "appear"?. not "peter", as some claim, no the Lord JESUS.

did any of you want to be cloking as Pastors/Shepherd get that? U, yes you, are not lords over God's heritage. it simple as this, EVIL, ignorant men trying to usurp authority over God. and "usurp authority", means to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: and a lot of men and women has done just that IN THEIR CONGREGATIONS, not in the TRUE CHURCH of GOD, thanks God. men set THEMSELVES up as gods... lol, not GODS, but as gods. in their congergations. and not IN the TRUE Church. ...... notice how I said that, thank God.
not lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. and from reading some of the responses it just atrocious as to some are in leadership, or just holding leadership positions. ... in their congregations and not in the TRUE CHURCH, it's ashame duping people, but the goats will be separate from the sheep.

I just glad that none of these are in the TRUE CHURCH of GOD.

so again another strike out again. as the bible states, there's nothing new unders the sun.

PICJAG.

 

[prism]

Uhhhh, no.
The word used in Acts 1:20 is "Bishopric" (Episkopay).

We've been over that already. The quote was from the Psalms, written in Hebrew, meaning 'office'.

And WHO said the Church was Israel??
The Church is the FULFILLMENT of Judaism.

The three levels of Priests of Judaism are perfected in Christ's Church.

By you trying to link a litany of OT passages regarding the Israelite priesthood to the Church is implying a similar setup with both Israel and the Church.
The three levels of priests of Judaism are fulfilled in Christ. The Church, as it stands, remains imperfect.

WRONG.
The office of Bishop IS successive. Not only do we see this in Acts 1 with the succession of Judas's Bishopric and described in 2 Tim. 2:1-2, we also see it in the first century of the Church.

In his treatise, Against Heresies (180 AD), Irenaeus lists the succession of ALL of the Bishops of Rome from Peter all the way to his own time a century later.
When James was martyred in Jerusalem - Simeon succeeded his Bishopric in that city.
Ignatius of Antioch succeeded Peter, who went to Rome.

The idea that there simply ceased to be a Bishop in a certain region after the death of a previous Bishop is ludicrous and historically-bankrupt.

There is a succession by qualifications set out in Scripture e.g. 1Tim 3 and Titus 1, not some kind of hocus pocus waiting on (black-white) smoke from a tower. BTW how is Francis doing as your ecological pope?

Finally - as to the reference in the Epistle of Jude - it is an illustration of the Ministerial priesthood of the New Covenant.
In this Epistle - we read the warning about those who would usurp Church Authority by assuming the ministerial priesthood without the Church’s consent (Jude 1:11). In this passage he compares them to the rebellion of Korah and their subsequent punishment (Numbers 16:1-35; 31:16).

So the pope usurped authority from the 11 other Eastern Bishops OR who usurped what from who?
Any cult leader can claim they are the head hauncho of the show.

 

[BreadOfLife]

We've been over that already. The quote was from the Psalms, written in Hebrew, meaning 'office'.

By you trying to link a litany of OT passages regarding the Israelite priesthood to the Church is implying a similar setup with both Israel and the Church.
The three levels of priests of Judaism are fulfilled in Christ. The Church, as it stands, remains imperfect.

There is a succession by qualifications set out in Scripture e.g. 1Tim 3 and Titus 1, not some kind of hocus pocus waiting on (black-white) smoke from a tower. BTW how is Francis doing as your ecological pope?

So the pope usurped authority from the 11 other Eastern Bishops OR who usurped what from who?
Any cult leader can claim they are the head hauncho of the show.

Nonsense.
The quote from Psalms says "office". The quote in Acts 1:20 was changed to say "Episkopay" (Bishopric).
This was NOT an accident - as NOTHING in God's Word is an accident.

As for the three levels of priests in the OT being fulfilled by the three levels of priests in the NT - this is a plain as day.
YOU falsely state that ALL THREE levels are fulfilled in Christ. What, then was Peter talking about when he called Christ's followers "royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9)??

As for the succession of Bishops - unless you want to call Christ a liar - you really need to learn how to understand Scripture.
Jesus gave His Church SUPREME earthly Authority. He stated that "WHATEVER" His Church declares on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:26, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-22).

The succession of clergy, requirements for reception of the Eucharist and ALL the sacraments, binding and loosing, etc., has always been a matter for His Church to decide and NOT the individual.

Remember what Paul told the Thessalonians:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from US."

He never said to usurp Church Authority by interpreting Scripture for ourselves and defying what Christ instituted.
Flawed, pride-filled MEN did that in the 16th century - and now we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines because they ALL have interpreted Scripture for themselves.

What a mess . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

well first off thanks for the reply, second, you can try and run that word scheme of Pastor/shepherd on someone who just walked off the street, but it want work with me... the only thing you did was a. contridicted yourself, and b. exposed yourself to being uneducated in the term. which is strike #2.
H7462 רָעָה ra`ah (raw-aw') v.
1. to tend a flock i.e. pasture it.
2. (intransitively, literally or figuratively) to graze.
3. (generally) to rule.
4. (by extension) to associate with (as a friend).
[a primitive root]
KJV: X break, companion, keep company with, devour, eat up, evil entreat, feed, use as a friend, make friendship with, herdman, keep (sheep)(-er), pastor, + shearing house, shepherd, wander, waste.

to pasture it is to "PASTOR" meaning to "FEED", as it is translated in the scripture, which God clearly himself said is to "FEED" his sheep with KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING which is lacking on those men and women part who are ignorant of who the Pastor is and what they do.

third strike #3.... "Peter as the Chief Shepherd". are you seur? lets see, 1 Peter 5:1 "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1 Peter 5:2 "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1 Peter 5:3 "Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:4 "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

when who "appear"?. not "peter", as some claim, no the Lord JESUS.

did any of you want to be cloking as Pastors/Shepherd get that? U, yes you, are not lords over God's heritage. it simple as this, EVIL, ignorant men trying to usurp authority over God. and "usurp authority", means to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: and a lot of men and women has done just that IN THEIR CONGREGATIONS, not in the TRUE CHURCH of GOD, thanks God. men set THEMSELVES up as gods... lol, not GODS, but as gods. in their congergations. and not IN the TRUE Church. ...... notice how I said that, thank God.
not lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. and from reading some of the responses it just atrocious as to some are in leadership, or just holding leadership positions. ... in their congregations and not in the TRUE CHURCH, it's ashame duping people, but the goats will be separate from the sheep.

I just glad that none of these are in the TRUE CHURCH of GOD.

so again another strike out again. as the bible states, there's nothing new unders the sun.PICJAG.

Besides being dishonest - your other problem is that you are a Scriptural cherry-picker and do NOT read Scriptures in their proper context.

First of all - the word "Pastor" is NOT in the Bible. This has been my point ALL along.
"Pastor" is a word that grew etymologically from the term "shepherd" (sorry for the big word).

Now, as to your reference to 1 Pet. 5:3 in bold RED above - this is NOT a reference to Peter himself. This is referring to the elders of the Churches to whom he is writing.
Here is the verse in CONTEXT . . .

1 Pet. 5:1-3
So I exhort the presbyters among you, as a fellow presbyter and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed. Tend the flock of God in your midst, overseeing not by constraint but willingly, as God would have it, not for shameful profit but eagerly. Do not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock.

Cherry-picking will only make you more confused that you already are . . .

 

[prism]

Nonsense.
The quote from Psalms says "office". The quote in Acts 1:20 was changed to say "Episkopay" (Bishopric).
This was NOT an accident - as NOTHING in God's Word is an accident.

As for the three levels of priests in the OT being fulfilled by the three levels of priests in the NT - this is a plain as day.
YOU falsely state that ALL THREE levels are fulfilled in Christ. What, then was Peter talking about when he called Christ's followers "royal priesthood" (1 Pet. 2:9)??

As for the succession of Bishops - unless you want to call Christ a liar - you really need to learn how to understand Scripture.
Jesus gave His Church SUPREME earthly Authority. He stated that "WHATEVER" His Church declares on earth will also be declared in Heaven (Matt. 16:19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:26, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-22).

The succession of clergy, requirements for reception of the Eucharist and ALL the sacraments, binding and loosing, etc., has always been a matter for His Church to decide and NOT the individual.

Remember what Paul told the Thessalonians:
2 Thess. 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from US."

He never said to usurp Church Authority by interpreting Scripture for ourselves and defying what Christ instituted.
Flawed, pride-filled MEN did that in the 16th century - and now we have tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that ALL teach different doctrines because they ALL have interpreted Scripture for themselves.

What a mess . . .

Like I said I think we have run this topic to the ground.

The main difference is that you trust in Church edicts and traditions,
I trust in the Scriptures. Yes, it may be my interpretation as I see Scripture interpreting Scripture but on Judgment Day it will be between me and God, I won't be able to say, "But Pope Francis said" or "But the Westminster Confession said". No, it will come down to 'what does God's Word say?'.
The only Traditions that count are the ones in accord with His Word (not man made ones).

Hasn't the apostasy which the institutional High Churches are experiencing convinced you that something is askew with their teaching?
Are you of the persuasion that your Church can say no wrong or do no wrong?
How do you judge your Church's actions/teachings? By what standard?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Like I said I think we have run this topic to the ground.

The main difference is that you trust in Church edicts and traditions, I trust in the Scriptures. Yes, it may be my interpretation as I see Scripture interpreting Scripture but on Judgment Day it will be between me and God, I won't be able to say, "But Pope Francis said" or "But the Westminster Confession said". No, it will come down to 'what does God's Word say?'.
The only Traditions that count are the ones in accord with His Word (not man made ones).

Hasn't the apostasy which the institutional High Churches are experiencing convinced you that something is askew with their teaching?
Are you of the persuasion that your Church can say no wrong or do no wrong?
How do you judge your Church's actions/teachings? By what standard?

No - the main difference is that I trust what Christ himself said about His Church on the occasions where He gave it supreme authority. I trust what Scripture says about His Church - that it is:
- the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
- the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- the Body of Christ and HE is the Head (Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12)
- Christ Himself (Acts 9:3-4)

YOUR problem - as is the problem with EVERY anti-Catholic is that you actually believe that you must choose between Christ OR His Church.
They are INDIVISIBLE.

PS - WHEN did the Catholic Church go into "apostasy"??

 

[prism]

No - the main difference is that I trust what Christ himself said about His Church on the occasions where He gave it supreme authority. I trust what Scripture says about His Church - that it is:
- the pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
- the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).
- the Body of Christ and HE is the Head (Col. 1:18, 1 Cor. 12)
- Christ Himself (Acts 9:3-4)

YOUR problem - as is the problem with EVERY anti-Catholic is that you actually believe that you must choose between Christ OR His Church.
They are INDIVISIBLE.

PS - WHEN did the Catholic Church go into "apostasy"??

The Church and Christ are indivisible when those coming together abide in the teachings of the Apostles.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
(Act 2:42)
It is self defeating to use Scripture as proof that the Church has Supreme authority...especially twisted Scripture.
No, my problem is when cults and cult leaders raise their authority above or equal to God and His Word, hoping to bring the illiterate into submission (convenient power) while they roam (rome) around in luxurious vehicles, clothing, decked with gold unlike the apostles of old. Even a blind person could tell they are a farce.

 

[101G]

The Church and Christ are indivisible when those coming together abide in the teachings of the Apostles.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
(Act 2:42)
It is self defeating to use Scripture as proof that the Church has Supreme authority...especially twisted Scripture.
No, my problem is when cults and cult leaders raise their authority above or equal to God and His Word, hoping to bring the illiterate into submission (convenient power) while they roam (rome) around in luxurious vehicles, clothing, decked with gold unlike the apostles of old. Even a blind person could tell they are a farce.

I admire your attention to the truth, but as said there is an end when one will not listen to the truth. after you have told a brother or a sister the truth, and they refuse, as the bible say, "leave them alone", or brush the dust off your feet.

PICJAG.

 

[prism]

I admire your attention to the truth, but as said there is an end when one will not listen to the truth. after you have told a brother or a sister the truth, and they refuse, as the bible say, "leave them alone", or brush the dust off your feet.

PICJAG.

Good advice, especially in this case.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Church and Christ are indivisible when those coming together abide in the teachings of the Apostles.
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
(Act 2:42)
It is self defeating to use Scripture as proof that the Church has Supreme authority...especially twisted Scripture.
No, my problem is when cults and cult leaders raise their authority above or equal to God and His Word, hoping to bring the illiterate into submission (convenient power) while they roam (rome) around in luxurious vehicles, clothing, decked with gold unlike the apostles of old. Even a blind person could tell they are a farce.

No - YOUR problem is that you have a real aversion to the truth.

Because you're an anti-Catholic - it's obvious that your references to "cults" are about the Catholic Church.

The problem, however, is that you claim that the Church raises its authority OVER God and His Word. This is a flat out LIE - and is a textbook example of what it means to be "anti Catholic". Anti-Catholics aren't interested in the truth - they are ONLY interested in the biggest dirt clod they can hurl at the Church whether it's true or not.

What you've done here is elevate your simple ignorance to dishonesty . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I admire your attention to the truth, but as said there is an end when one will not listen to the truth. after you have told a brother or a sister the truth, and they refuse, as the bible say, "leave them alone", or brush the dust off your feet.

PICJAG.

Or, as in the case of the two of you - when you refuse to listen to His Church, you refuse to listen to HIM and the ONE who sent HIM (Luke 10:16) . . .

 

[Enoch111]

PS - WHEN did the Catholic Church go into "apostasy"??

Almost immediately. It began with the misinterpretation of baptism and the Lord's Supper with Justin Martyr, and then just continued with all the false teachings by the ECF, followed by Constantine's incorporation of paganism into the church of Rome. This is all historical and documented, so there is no need to try and refute the truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Almost immediately. It began with the misinterpretation of baptism and the Lord's Supper with Justin Martyr, and then just continued with all the false teachings by the ECF, followed by Constantine's incorporation of paganism into the church of Rome. This is all historical and documented, so there is no need to try and refute the truth.

Okay - Justin Martyr wrote most of his works during the mid to late 2nd century (150-175 AD).
So you're saying that the Catholic Church started with Justin Martyr?

Are you familiar with Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch from the FIRST century?? He was a student of the Apostle John.
EVERYTHING Justin Martyr taught was also taught by Ignatius, who was martyred around 207 AD, while John was still presumably alive.

He preached on:
- The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 207 AD)
- The hierarchy of the clergy (Bishop, Priest, Deacon) (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 207 AD)
- The Authority of the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 207 AD)
- Apostolic succession(Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 207 AD)
- Confession(Letter to the Philadelphians, 207 AD)
- The Primacy of Peter and the Church at Rome (Letter to the Romans, 207 AD)
- The fact that there is NO salvation outside the Church and on and on (Letter to the Philadelphians, 207 AD) . . .

MOST anti-Catholics will have us believe that the Catholic Church was started by Constantine in the 4th century.
YOU, on the other hand have admitted that it goes ALL the way back to Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.
I have just given you PROOF of the Church going back to the FIRST century.

Now - if Christ's Church from the FIRST century went into apostasy as YOU claim - then Jesus Christ is a LIAR because He guaranteed that HIS Church would NOT succumb to the gates of Hell (Matt. 16:18).

Are YOU willing to call Him a "Liar"??

 

[prism]

No - YOUR problem is that you have a real aversion to the truth.

Because you're an anti-Catholic - it's obvious that your references to "cults" are about the Catholic Church.

The problem, however, is that you claim that the Church raises its authority OVER God and His Word. This is a flat out LIE - and is a textbook example of what it means to be "anti Catholic". Anti-Catholics aren't interested in the truth - they are ONLY interested in the biggest dirt clod they can hurl at the Church whether it's true or not.

What you've done here is elevate your simple ignorance to dishonesty . . .

When all else fails...ad hominems.

 

[Illuminator]

Almost immediately. It began with the misinterpretation of baptism and the Lord's Supper with Justin Martyr, and then just continued with all the false teachings by the ECF, followed by Constantine's incorporation of paganism into the church of Rome. This is all historical and documented, so there is no need to try and refute the truth.

Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics; by Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics; and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.

The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this “pagan influence fallacy.” Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism toward the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic “freethinkers” such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan. THIS IS THE ROOT OF YOUR PHONEY "HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION".

The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears...

...Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented from primary sources or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. (anti-Catholics rarely do this, they just assert it is "historical") After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:

Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not.
The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source...

Is the parallel dependent or independent?
Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views. For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this.

The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.

Is the parallel antecedent or consequent?
Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas.

Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively?
Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative? read more here

Historical truth prevails
Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism “pagan” fail. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.

In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices.

As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”

 

[Illuminator]

Almost immediately. It began with the misinterpretation of baptism and the Lord's Supper with Justin Martyr, and then just continued with all the false teachings by the ECF, followed by Constantine's incorporation of paganism into the church of Rome. This is all historical and documented, so there is no need to try and refute the truth.

There is no need to even try to refute such a load of falsehoods. a cartoonish view of early church history. Anti-Catholics avoid citing the source of their false histories. No reputable Protestant historian supports nonsensical Baptist mythology.
"the misinterpretation of baptism and the Lord's Supper with Justin Martyr," no evidence. name one ECF who disagreed with Justin Martyr. All the ECF had a general consensus on the essentials. You have no evidence to the contrary, just empty assertions.
"all the false teachings by the ECF" the canon of scripture, completed in 397 AD, is a false teaching?
"followed by Constantine's incorporation of paganism into the church of Rome" did you at least finish high school? again, no evidence, just insulting ignorant assertions.

 

[BreadOfLife]

When all else fails...ad hominems.

I gave you a Church history lesson - not ad hominems.

If the historical truth offends you - you should ask yourself why.
If the Scriptural truth about Christ's church offends you - you should ask yourself why you believe in the first place . . .

 

[Illuminator]

When all else fails...ad hominems.

I'm sure you are a very nice person, but BofL is correct. The false (and standard) accusation raise their authority above or equal to God and His Word is a lie. The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God’s inspired revelation, the Bible; yes. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).

Accusing the CC of being a cult is not only dishonest, it's stupid, absurd and uncharitable.

This is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, (schism, sectarianism, and division) and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because anti-Catholics know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.