A Simple Yet Irrefutable Reason The Catholic church Is Not Rooted In Christ's Church

[Michiah-Imla]

Really?
Show me the verse that makes this claim.

The onus is on YOU to do so as a Sola Scripturist.

Oooh, I’m so scared! [not]

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18)

GOAL!!! GOAL!!! GOAL!!!

Now avoid any “church” that stands condemned by this scripture.

Choose what you will FOLLOW: the holy scriptures or a church built on the extra-biblical words of men.

I choose the holy scriptures!

 

[Illuminator]

2 Thessalonians 2:13-15 [NASB95]

But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. It was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word [of mouth] or by letter from us.​

• What traditions were YOU, personally, taught by word of mouth from the Apostles?
• Then all you really have is their writings … Sola Scriptura.

2 Thessalonians 3:6-13 [NASB95]

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we [kept] working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right [to this,] but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in quiet fashion and eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good.​

• The “tradition” spoken of is how they lived, not what they taught in secret but never wrote down.
• The context is a condemnation of much of the clergy (not just in the RCC), and a good many professing Christians … but has nothing to do with “Sacred Tradition”.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 [NASB95]

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has [something] on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have [a symbol of] authority on her head, because of the angels. However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man [has his birth] through the woman; and all things originate from God. Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God [with her head] uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.​

• Why do you pay such lip service to the first verse and spit on the rest of the paragraph?
• That was what the other poster objected to as “SOLO SCRIPTURA” … one verse plucked, and misused.
• What traditions did Paul deliver to you that are not found in Scripture?
• What traditions did Paul deliver to YOU PERSONALLY?
• Why has the RCC so often CHANGED traditions if you claim to place such great value on “holding on” to the traditions of the Apostles (who never prayed to Mary, they prayed to God)?

1. No where does the Bible say that all or even most of the oral tradition was committed to Scripture, so your premise is erroneous. The major dogmas of Christianity, such as the Trinity, is not explicitly stated in Scripture, for example. Same for the two wills and natures of Christ, the hypostatic union, the canon of Scripture, etc. That God commands us to obey both the oral and written tradition through St. Paul also demonstrates that sola Scriptura is invalid.

2. There is no difference between “did” and “taught” because what the Savior “did” and “taught” were for our salvation. That means they are both part of divine revelation, but not all of these things were recorded in Scripture. Scripture accounts for only about 100 days of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Moreover, Jesus never commanded any of the apostles to write anything down during His ministry, and only five of them chose to write at the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Jesus commanded all of them to hand on the gospel orally, which is Sacred Tradition.

3. If no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation, then that means Scripture itself is not a matter of private interpretation because Scripture is divinely inspired and hence must be interpreted by a divine authority. The countless divisions among Protestantism prove the point. Neither Christ nor any of the apostles ever intended for Scripture to be our only authority. In fact, sola Scriptura was a concept unheard of until 1500 years after Christ’s ascension into heaven.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Oooh, I’m so scared! [not]

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18)

GOAL!!! GOAL!!! GOAL!!!

Now avoid any “church” that stands condemned by this scripture.

Choose what you will FOLLOW: the holy scriptures or a church built on the extra-biblical words of men.

I choose the holy scriptures!

Okay - now, show me where the Bible says what YOU originally claimed
“The oral statements have ALL been documented in the New Testament.”

The passage above does NOT make this claim. There is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
Go BACK to the drawing board . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

The “infant” church were Jews.

No way...the only "church" that matters to the NT is the one Jesus built - the Jews hate Jesus and call Him "son of a whore" and "the Great Imposter".

They were expressly sent to Jews, beginning with them going to established “synagogues”, and sure along the way-sides as they met individuals along their travels they spoke the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Cain was punished for killing Abel, Abraham knew not to lie, Rachel knew not to steal, Joseph knew not to covet, etc., all of which lived long before the first Jew. It's silly to think the Ten Commandments were only for the Jews, ESPECIALLY since the New Testament repeats every single commandment for Christians to keep.

We see a DIVISION.

The church of the 1st century was ONE - with just a few problems. It gets the HIGHEST marks of all 7 churches in Revelation's prophecy of the 7 churches.

Christ’s Church, (by Gentile men) is NAMED, the “Catholic Church”.

Did you read what I said? The first century church founded by Jesus taught Christians to keep the Ten Commandments, as Scripture clearly shows. The Catholic church BREAKS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and teaches their faithful to do the same, therefore it cannot trace its roots back to Jesus.

Christ’s the Head of His Church, is REPLACED, (by Gentile Catholic men) called “a Pope”, exalted as that Church’s “holy father”.

There's only one problem with that - no Scripture to support it. BTW, "holy" and "reverend" are HIS NAMES, not the names of misguided men who think they are gods.

We have LONG passed the day of reliance TO HEAR (without ability to Verify)... Men can read. Complied Scriptures are available. Men can cipher and reason the difference of what they Hear, is or is not according to Scripture.

Yes, and when men see the commandments Catholicism teaches are different from the commandments the church Jesus founded teaches in Scripture, they automatically know that Catholicism can't be traced to Jesus.

For breaking alway from centuries of man-made nonsense...... Whelp...there we be, DIVIDED.

If all would base their beliefs on the whole of Scripture, and not just certain parts of it, we'd be all one in the Body of Christ.

 

[Illuminator]

Oooh, I’m so scared! [not]

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Yes, LEARNED, which means doctrines were taught by those in authority to TEACH. It doesn't say doctrines which ye have READ.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18)

GOAL!!! GOAL!!! GOAL!!!

Now avoid any “church” that stands condemned by this scripture.

Choose what you will FOLLOW: the holy scriptures or a church built on the extra-biblical words of men.

I choose the holy scriptures!

Where does scripture say the Church Jesus builds is a temporary structure, needing to be re-built? Does Jesus build junk, or is His building have an eternal warranty? You SELECTIVELY choose the holy scriptures, and ignore His promises that He would protect His Church from teaching error.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Okay - now, show me where the Bible says what YOU originally claimed
“The oral statements have ALL been documented in the New Testament.”

The passage above does NOT make this claim. There is NO expiration date on 2 Thess. 2:15.
Go BACK to the drawing board . . .

I see you have Step #4 down pat!

 

[Illuminator]

No way...the only "church" that matters to the NT is the one Jesus built - the Jews hate Jesus and call Him "son of a whore" and "the Great Imposter".
Cain was punished for killing Abel, Abraham knew not to lie, Rachel knew not to steal, Joseph knew not to covet, etc., all of which lived long before the first Jew. It's silly to think the Ten Commandments were only for the Jews, ESPECIALLY since the New Testament repeats every single commandment for Christians to keep.
The church of the 1st century was ONE - with just a few problems. It gets the HIGHEST marks of all 7 churches in Revelation's prophecy of the 7 churches.
Did you read what I said? The first century church founded by Jesus taught Christians to keep the Ten Commandments, as Scripture clearly shows. The Catholic church BREAKS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and teaches their faithful to do the same, therefore it cannot trace its roots back to Jesus.
There's only one problem with that - no Scripture to support it. BTW, "holy" and "reverend" are HIS NAMES, not the names of misguided men who think they are gods.
Yes, and when men see the commandments Catholicism teaches are different from the commandments the church Jesus founded teaches in Scripture, they automatically know that Catholicism can't be traced to Jesus.
If all would base their beliefs on the whole of Scripture, and not just certain parts of it, we'd be all one in the Body of Christ.

If Adventists are correct that Christians are still obliged to keep Saturday as their day of corporate worship, isn’t it strange that Jesus underscored exactly the opposite by appearing to his disciples after his Resurrection nearly exclusively on Sunday?

RUN, FOREST, RUN!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

protect His Church from teaching error.

He does this by his uncorrupted holy scriptures which are preserved in our Holy Bible.

Full stop.

 

[Illuminator]

I see you have Step #4 down pat!

View attachment 25211

Right click on the image
Left click on "search the web for image"
It's made by ATHEISTS.
good job

 

[Michiah-Imla]

It's made by ATHEISTS.
good job

Especially since it exposes the error of churches teaching extra-biblical doctrines and those who defend them…

 

[Wrangler]

Your biggest mistake is equating traditions of men with Sacred Tradition. They are not the same.

LOL

 

[Illuminator]

He does this by his uncorrupted holy scriptures which are preserved in our Holy Bible.

Full stop.

If it weren't for the Tradition of the episcopate, you would have no Bible in the first place. This truth compels you to invent bible origin fantasies because you are too proud to admit that it was by the authority of the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. Worse than that, you are faced with the impossible task of writing early church history based on the bible alone. Full stop.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

If it weren't for the Tradition of the episcopate, you would have no Bible in the first place.

God uses men to fulfill his will. He guided men in putting the Holy Bible together through the ages.

“For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree…” (Revelation 17:17)

Man is just a tool for God. He uses us however way he chooses.

 

[Phoneman777]

Special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament.

Sorry, but no.

Christ rose from the dead on Sunday
And he first appeared to his disciples that Easter Sunday evening (John 20:19)
One week later—and from the context we can see that this meant the following Sunday—Jesus appeared to them again when Thomas was present (John 20:26).

And? He suffered and died on Friday - as important as is His resurrection - so should we keep that? All NT references to "Sunday" are simply a matter of chronological record, not to change if from the first day of the week we "shalt do all thy labor and all thy work".

Luke records that Sunday was observed by the Christian community from the very beginning: “On the first day of the week when we gathered to break bread” (Acts 20:7). To “break bread” refers to the celebration of the Eucharist (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22).

Not an observance of anything. They got together SATURDAY NIGHT after the 7th day Sabbath sun set "and many light were burning in the chambers". Sabbatarians do to this day also meet to close the Sabbath and open the new week on Saturday night, because the 1st day of the week Biblically speaking begins when the Sabbath sun sets. "Break bread" is found throughout the Bible to simply mean "eat a meal". Acts 20 says they "broke bread" again after Paul revived Eutycus - what happened, the "Eucharist" needed to happen twice that night? They merely ate a meal twice, earlier and then again later.

Paul ordered the Corinthians to gather their offertory collections on Sunday (1 Cor 16:2); that set the scriptural precedent we follow today of gathering our offerings on Sunday during Mass.

The text says "lay by him in store" - which means "set aside individually at your house"...because the congregation does not live and sleep at the church, but at home. Jews got paid on Friday, rushed home to prepare for Sabbath, and only after the Sabbath sun set did they concern themselves with bills and finances, which is why Paul told them to lay aside offerings for the saints then. THERE WAS NO CHURCH BUILDING OR CHURCH TREASURER. "That there be no collections when I come" refers to time wasted selling a cow or running to the bank - Paul needed to knock on each Christian door, grab the cash they set aside "by him in store" and hurry away to the suffering saints in Jerusalem.

John records in Rev. 1:10 that he was granted a vision of heaven’s own worship while he was at worship (“caught up in spirit”) on “the Lord’s day.” John’s disciple Ignatius of Antioch tells us in his Letter to the Magnesians that “the Lord’s day” is not the ancient Sabbath; therefore, “the Lord’s day” must refer to Sunday.

There's only ONE day which is the "Lord's Day" and it ain't Sunday. "If thou turn away thy foot from the SABBATH, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY..." Also, "Therefore, the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath".

Jesus, being God, knew whether or not his Church would apostatize by changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.

Foreknowledge of the apostasy is not in any way the same as "acceptance" of apostasy.

If Adventists are correct that Christians are still obliged to keep Saturday as their day of corporate worship, isn’t it strange that Jesus underscored exactly the opposite by appearing to his disciples after his Resurrection nearly exclusively on Sunday?

Stop trying to defend Sunday sacredness with Scripture - the Catholic church plainly tells you that Sunday sacredness is not found in Scripture, but is exclusively a law of the Roman Catholic church, which is blasphemy. The Ten Commandments plainly teach the 7th day Sabbath as God's day of worship, and days 1 - 6 as plain old blood, sweat, tears work days....which is why we have the Sabbath to take a break and spend the day with God and the brethren.

 

[Illuminator]

Especially since it exposes the error of churches teaching extra-biblical doctrines and those who defend them…

Sorry, we don't think the words of Jesus and the Apostles are extra-biblical, because their words and letters come from the same source. "extra-biblical doctrines" is a fundie mantra with no basis in reality. Is the Nicene Creed extra-biblical?
Sorry I made you think.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

This truth compels you to invent bible origin fantasies

Actually the truth of God’s word forces men to make many foolish doctrinal inventions to keep his flesh that makes him feel soo good.

 

[Wrangler]

It is one thing to wrongly assert that Catholic tradition (the beliefs and dogmas which the Church claims to have preserved intact passed down from Christ and the apostles) is corrupt, excessive and unbiblical.

It is not an assertion. The organization as now constituted did not begin until the 12th century. The connection to Peter as the 1st Pope is specious. And there is no Apostolic writing that supports the RCC Hierarchy as currently constituted.

 

[Wrangler]

Special honor is shown to Sunday throughout the New Testament.

Strawman. ‘Special honor’ a Sabbath does not make.

 

[Wrangler]

isn’t it strange that Jesus underscored exactly the opposite by appearing to his disciples after his Resurrection nearly exclusively on Sunday?

Not at all. ‘The Lord’s Day’ is the new creation through Christ which parallels the original Creation of God.

 

[Illuminator]

Sorry, but no.

And? He suffered and died on Friday - as important as is His resurrection - so should we keep that? All NT references to "Sunday" are simply a matter of chronological record, not to change if from the first day of the week we "shalt do all thy labor and all thy work".
Not an observance of anything. They got together SATURDAY NIGHT after the 7th day Sabbath sun set "and many light were burning in the chambers". Sabbatarians do to this day also meet to close the Sabbath and open the new week on Saturday night, because the 1st day of the week Biblically speaking begins when the Sabbath sun sets. "Break bread" is found throughout the Bible to simply mean "eat a meal". Acts 20 says they "broke bread" again after Paul revived Eutycus - what happened, the "Eucharist" needed to happen twice that night? They merely ate a meal twice, earlier and then again later.
The text says "lay by him in store" - which means "set aside individually at your house"...because the congregation does not live and sleep at the church, but at home. Jews got paid on Friday, rushed home to prepare for Sabbath, and only after the Sabbath sun set did they concern themselves with bills and finances, which is why Paul told them to lay aside offerings for the saints then. THERE WAS NO CHURCH BUILDING OR CHURCH TREASURER. "That there be no collections when I come" refers to time wasted selling a cow or running to the bank - Paul needed to knock on each Christian door, grab the cash they set aside "by him in store" and hurry away to the suffering saints in Jerusalem.
There's only ONE day which is the "Lord's Day" and it ain't Sunday. "If thou turn away thy foot from the SABBATH, from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY..." Also, "Therefore, the Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath".
Foreknowledge of the apostasy is not in any way the same as "acceptance" of apostasy.
Stop trying to defend Sunday sacredness with Scripture - the Catholic church plainly tells you that Sunday sacredness is not found in Scripture, but is exclusively a law of the Roman Catholic church, which is blasphemy. The Ten Commandments plainly teach the 7th day Sabbath as God's day of worship, and days 1 - 6 as plain old blood, sweat, tears work days....which is why we have the Sabbath to take a break and spend the day with God and the brethren.

Ellen G. White needs to correct Jesus for having the audacity to rise from the dead on Sunday. Informed Christians are not fooled by your SDA polemics.