Difference between Catholic and Protestant.

[Phoneman777]

My mistake. the remnant of her seed includes the Israelites, not the church in isolation. You are forcing it to mean "church" when it doesn't say that, so you are adding to the Bible.

No, I'm not adding to the Bible. The "Israel of God" refers to the church (Galatians 6:15-16 KJV) which are those who "be Christ's" or "belong to Christ" (Galatians 3:29 KJV).

I accept the polyvalent nature of this verse. That means "the woman" can have 3 meanings: Isreal, the Church, and a woman. 5 And she was delivered of a son, a man child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and unto his throne. So Jesus' mother obviously gave birth to a son, a man child, which is a much stronger interpretation (but not the only one) than a collective giving birth to a Person. I won't use the "M" word, some people get violent over it. Rev. 12:17 and Genesis 3:15 are the only two verses in Scripture that contain a woman and a dragon. Think about it.

We're dealing with the symbolism of Revelation. Therefore, we know full well we're not dealing with a literal woman, we're not dealing with Israel for reasons stated above...so what is the only logical meaning of "woman" in the context of Christ and the end times? The church.

That's an evasion, not an answer. "Then you should be able to find, and name, any Sabbatarian in the 2nd century. Cite any Ph.D. early church historian that agrees with your myth making." You can't, because none exists.

I've evaded nothing, friend. I assure you the Bible and history more than adequately prove Sabbath observance by the church long after Christ returned to heaven.

Then Jesus violated the Peshita by rising on Sunday and not Saturday. Jesus appeared to the Apostles mostly on SUNDAY! The nerve!!!

Not sure how Jesus' Sunday resurrection violates the Peshitta. He was never found in the carpenter shop on Sabbath.

But you refuse to stick to the facts. A Saturday Sabbath was for the JEWS. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, not your 'pope' E.G. White, who thinks man was made for the Sabbath, and not the other way around. . I'm still waiting for scholarly evidence of 2nd century Christian Sabbatarians. You're stumped.

Jesus directed Christians to pray that our escape would not be on Sabbath, meaning He expected the church to continue observing it. Socrates Scholasticus already told you Christians were universally keeping Sabbath in the 5th century, so what does that say about the 2nd century? They Sabbath was made for man, not the Jews, but you seem to think that "M-A-N-" is an acceptable way to spell Jew.

This kind of stupid hate speech is why discussion with you is impossible.

I think you better lay off throwing around the "h" word, pal. History is drenched with the blood of faithful Christians who were murdered by the papacy, most commonly for refusing to confess that a piece of "dead bread" is the actual body of our Bread of Life, Jesus. Was it hateful when the pope had the timepiece trademaster Hugenots driven from France across the Alps and into Switzerland in the dead of winter where many of them died of exposure, which is how Switzerland became the timepiece capital of the world? Or Bartholomew's Massacre when the papal lies lulled faithful Protestants to sleep with promises of peace, while plotting their death at the stroke of midnight, and the streets ran red with their blood? Remember when the massacre so pleased the pope, he had a commemorative coin struck in honor of it?

Let's stick to truth and not your rhetoric, because you'll lose on not only one, but two fronts.

​

 

[Wrangler]

I think Protestants would consider the validity of the RCC if the following modifications were actually in Scripture:

Matthew 28:19m Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, devoted to lifelong fielty to the Roman Catholic Church, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,.
1 COR 11:3m But there is one thing I want you to know: The head of every man is the Roman Catholic Church, the head of the Roman Catholic Church is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.​

The absence of such reference seems germane to the claim of validity of this 12th century institution, as current organized.



m - modified for RCC delight.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Commentaries outside of the Bible are helpful, but scripture tells us what the first century and every century was to believe and follow.
" Deranged hatred?"Your accusation is wrong and offensive to me. You do not know me. In my post, I claimed that I value Catholics as my brothers and sisters - even though some of you are boneheads.

First of all – I didn’t see ONE sentence about how you “value Catholics as your brothers and sister”.
Instead, I saw THIS:
“So please, don't try to push your "Catholic only" faith to me or anyone.”

I wasn’t trying to push anything on ANYONE.

To call the 1st century Catholic, Ignatius of Antioch, “insignificant” shows me a level of deranged Catholic hatred. You know NOTHING about him other than the fact that he was a disciple of the Apostle John and he went to his martyrdom in Rome for his faith in Christ.
The insight that we glean from his 1st century witness of the Church makes him anything BUT “insignificant” – except to a Catholic-hater.

Also – your understanding of evolution of bizarre, to say the least. You concede that there ARE changes within the species – but that this is NOT “evolution.” – which is DEAD wrong.
“Adaptive changes” within a species is the very definition of “Evolution”.
Just because one species doesn’t “change” into a completely different species DOESN’T mean that evolution DIDN’T occur.
As for your comment that 1st century commentaries about the Church are worthless because the Bible tells us ALL we need to know is false.
The following is a short list of Protestant teachings that are NOT in the Bible.
Are they “insignificant” to Protestants?
- Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior
- Altar Calls
- A Pre-Tribulation “Rapture”
- Age of Accountability
- Invisible Church
- Limited Atonement
- Eternal Security (OSAS)
- Sola Scriptura
- Sola Fide

So, show a little more respect to those brothers and sisters cin Christ who laid down their lives to spread the Gospel so that YOU could hear it.

 

[Wrangler]

The following is a short list of Protestant teachings that are NOT in the Bible.
Are they “insignificant” to Protestants?
- Accepting Jesus as Personal Lord and Savior
- Altar Calls
- A Pre-Tribulation “Rapture”
- Age of Accountability
- Invisible Church
- Limited Atonement
- Eternal Security (OSAS)
- Sola Scriptura
- Sola Fide

I wish this thread was more like this. The items in red, I never even heard of before. Can you elaborate on them please?

Regarding 'A Pre-Tribulation “Rapture”' I hope someone more knowledge than I replies in defense. Honestly, Revelation is the hardest book for me to wrap my head around.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What a louf. I can quote Scripture to my heart’s desire WITHOUT your approval or permission!

I didn’t give an interpretation......YOU attempted to give one FOR me...
And per usual when you speak for others...it’s a FAIL!

I clarified what Jesus said in that passaged because YOU perverted it.

And I’m WELL within my rights to admonish ANYONE who perverts the Word of God – especially when you twist the Scriptures to your OWN destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wish this thread was more like this. The items in red, I never even heard of before. Can you elaborate on them please?

Regarding 'A Pre-Tribulation “Rapture”' I hope someone more knowledge than I replies in defense. Honestly, Revelation is the hardest book for me to wrap my head around.

Altar Calls – the part of the service when people come up to the front of the church and surrender their lives to Christ.
Protestants reject the very notion of “sacrifice” – yet they use this term, “Altar” call, when there is NO altar in their churches.

Invisible Church – The idea that the Church is NOT a visible entity – that it is made up of “ALL believers, regardless of whether they openly profess Christ.
Jesus nixed that idea in Matt. 5:14, when He said that HIS Church was the “Light of the world”, “a city on a hill that cannot be hidden.”

Limited Atonement is a Calvinist belief – part of their 5-Point T.U.L.I.P” theology. It posts that Jesus’s sacrifice ONLY atoned for a select few – the “Elect” and that everybody else is doomed to Hell.

As for the “Rapture” – this is taken largely from 1 Thess. 4:16-17, which talks about the Resurrection of the Dead:
1 Thess. 4:16-17
For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

This event happens at the END of the world – and NOT at some point BEFORE. Jesus only comes back ONCE – not multiple times.

 

[Wrangler]

As for the “Rapture” ...This event happens at the END of the world – and NOT at some point BEFORE. Jesus only comes back ONCE – not multiple times.

Just so I understand the Catholic position on this; the dispute is over when the rapture happens? Honestly, the churches I've attended do not focus on this.

Altar Calls – the part of the service when people come up to the front of the church and surrender their lives to Christ.

My church encourages such people to meet with staff after service, not going up to the alter during service.

Protestants reject the very notion of “sacrifice” – yet they use this term, “Altar” call, when there is NO altar in their churches.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that. Seems confused with works. My church defines love as sacrificial action, which we do it as part of our DNA.

Invisible Church – The idea that the Church is NOT a visible entity

Never heard this before.

Limited Atonement is a Calvinist belief – part of their 5-Point T.U.L.I.P” theology. It posts that Jesus’s sacrifice ONLY atoned for a select few – the “Elect” and that everybody else is doomed to Hell.

Unless Universalism is correct doctrine, this limited Atonement idea is correct in practice, if not theory. To say, "in theory" Jesus died for everyone must mean universalism or Christ's death only benefits those who turn to him, which again, is not all. In practice, in the end only the elect will be saved, right? (Not merely, all 'could be' in theory saved). If it is not true that only the elect will be saved, the term 'elect' had no practical application.

 

[BreadOfLife]

How come i can send out his prayer for twenty sixteen and others can see he clearly is saying

that muslims , buddists and other religoins are finding thier own way to GOD

This sentence makes ABSOLUETLY NO sense.
Please rewrite it using correct grammar . . .

YET YOU cannot see this . YOU are glued to your own traditoins . You dont want to beleive it .
ITS way too obvious for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that this pope is deadly dangerous
and is spouting a false gospel . AND just like others THEY always try and fall back on the line THEY BELIEVE IN JESUS
but its clear they obvisously dont believe HIS teachings

That’s funny.

For about 10 days now, I’ve been asking YOU why YOU cling to the Catholic Tradition of the New Testament Canon – And you have been completely UNABLE to answer me.

HOW is it that you reject my Church – yet you stake your very salvation on our Tradition of the New Testament?
Can you answer this?

 

[Taken]

I clarified what Jesus said in that passaged because YOU perverted it.

And I’m WELL within my rights to admonish ANYONE who perverts the Word of God – especially when you twist the Scriptures to your OWN destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).

YYaaawnnn.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just so I understand the Catholic position on this; the dispute is over when the rapture happens? Honestly, the churches I've attended do not focus on this.

Many DO focus on it.

That’s my point – the many different doctrines of the many different factions of Protestantism.

My church encourages such people to meet with staff after service, not going up to the alter during service.

My point is the NAME, “Altar Call” – not the practice of conversion.

Hmmm. Not sure I agree with that. Seems confused with works. My church defines love as sacrificial action, which we do it as part of our DNA.

I’m talking about “sacrifice” as something WE do because Jesus’s sacrifice did it ALL. Protestants reject the need for an “Altar” – yet use this term in the conversion portion of their services.

Never heard this before.

VERY strange.
What faith tradition or denomination are you affiliated with?

Unless Universalism is correct doctrine, this limited Atonement idea is correct in practice, if not theory. To say, "in theory" Jesus died for everyone must mean universalism or Christ's death only benefits those who turn to him, which again, is not all. In practice, in the end only the elect will be saved, right? (Not merely, all 'could be' in theory saved). If it is not true that only the elect will be saved, the term 'elect' had no practical application.

WRONG.
Jesus died for ALL.

John 3:16
“For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1 Tim. 2:3-4
This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Jesus dies as payment for the sins of ALL people – and God desires that ALL people be saved. But - NOT all people will accept this gift.
Limited Atonement is therefore, Anti-Biblical.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

First of all – I didn’t see ONE sentence about how you “value Catholics as your brothers and sister”.
Instead, I saw THIS:
“So please, don't try to push your "Catholic only" faith to me or anyoneboneless...

To call the 1st century Catholic, Ignatius of Antioch, “insignificant” shows me a level of deranged Catholic hatred. You know NOTHING about him other than the fact that he was a disciple of the Apostle John

My very first answer to the OP places value on Catholics - but you missed that.
I learned about Jesus by reading through Bible. I didn't need to confer with the teachings of Augustine, Ignatius, Tertulian, Polycarp, Josephus or anyone else - their commentary IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD. And unless the Pope or any of the Popes were reading the Bible word for word, it is not scripture and is to be tested by scripture.
Preaching is often guided by the Holy Spirit,, but sometimes things get added to the sermon that God did not intend. I questioned and tested what my Pastor said,, prayed about it and usually agreed with 98% of what He taught. He was Spirit filled. But sometimes he was wrong. I don't think there's a Pastor out there that I agree with 100 %. They are human and they err. We are all sinners, including the Pope, cardinal, Bishop or Priest. Or maybe you think pedophilia was ordained by God??? Did Ignatius teach that?

Also – your understanding of evolution of bizarre, to say the least. You concede that there ARE changes within the species – but that this is NOT “evolution.”

I wrote thesis futing the Theory of Evolution and so am very familiar with it. Changes within the kinds can be understood as adaptive mechanisms designed into the genetic code. This can be called micro-evolution but not at all in the same sense as the TOE where nature selects beneficial mutations that develop iver time. Macro-evolution (changes from one kind into another) does not exist and I already stated that. But you can believe what you want. I will believe what is written in the Bible. I think we are done and so I'm putting a lid on the can of worms.
I'm sure Ignatius will clear some things up for you when you get up there as Jesus did for him.

 

[Phoneman777]

If you’re are looking for a Church that is “identical” to the 1st century Church – then you are looking for the WRONG thing.
Christ’s Church is the Mustard Seed that because the large Mustard Plant – the Acorn that because the Oak.

It CANNOT and SHOULD NOT look like the Church in the 1st century – but it should have the same BELIEFS. HIS Church has been growing and spreading for 2000 years. To expect it to look the same is beyond silly.

When Ignatius of Antioch describes the Church of the 1st century – he describes –
- Following your Bishop
- Obeying the clergy
- Celebrating the Eucharist - which is the SAME body and blood of Jesus that was crucified and raised up again
- The “Catholic Church”

The Church didn’t “change” the Commandments – anymore that Jesus “abolished” the Law.
In BOTH cases, it’s a matter of FULFILLMENT, as Paul describes in Colossians:
Col. 2:16-17
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. These are a SHADOW of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

It's time for you to embrace Christ.

A "remnant" is always identical to that which was there in the beginning - Christ's church of the end times is to be identical to the one He founded - keeping the same commandments of God and having the same testimony of Jesus Christ.

Catholicism admittedly does not keep the same commandments as the church Christ founded, nor does it have the same "testimony of Jesus Christ" which is "the Spirit of Prophecy" (Revelation 19:10 KJV) -- the "Spiritual Exercises of Loyola", for instance, are completely unBiblical. They are identical to those of occult Eastern religious systems, but foreign in Scripture. Loyola was not acquainted with the "Spirit of Prophecy" but with another kind of spirit from below.

We don't need rituals, priesthoods, confessionals, or mediators to draw close to God...we can go straight to Christ - because, like the father of the Prodigal Son, our Lord is watching and waiting and ready to run to us before we even finish turning our steps toward Him

 

[BreadOfLife]

I wrote thesis futing the Theory of Evolution and so am very familiar with it. Changes within the kinds can be understood as adaptive mechanisms designed into the genetic code. This can be called micro-evolution but not at all in the same sense as the TOE where nature selects beneficial mutations that develop iver time. Macro-evolution (changes from one kind into another) does not exist and I already stated that. But you can believe what you want. I will believe what is written in the Bible. I think we are done and so I'm putting a lid on the can of worms.
I'm sure Ignatius will clear some things up for you when you get up there as Jesus did for him.
God Bless and don't forget to say some Hail Mary's before bed

And if you actually READ your Bible – you would know that it is largely SILENT ojn this matter. The belief or disbelief in evolution is really a matter of Faith – and NOT what is explicitly on the pages of Scripture.

That being said - I tend to AGREE with you on the matter – but I do NOT believe that ALL species are devoid of any king of evolution. As the Catholic Church has taught - I reject that HUMANS evolved from something another species.

 

[amigo de christo]

This sentence makes ABSOLUETLY NO sense.
Please rewrite it using correct grammar . . .

That’s funny.

For about 10 days now, I’ve been asking YOU why YOU cling to the Catholic Tradition of the New Testament Canon – And you have been completely UNABLE to answer me.

HOW is it that you reject my Church – yet you stake your very salvation on our Tradition of the New Testament?
Can you answer this?

HOW is it that you cannot see that your church no longer follows the truth of said scriptures in new testament .
I DONT Know when it happened . All i know is that by the time of constantine that church was no longer THE CHURCH .
Long ago in the days of peter , paul and others THE CHURCH was the CHURCH , but something happened
between those days and the time of constantine . CAUSE that CHURCH WAS TANKED BY THEN .
THAT IS WHY i dont follow IT .
THE CHURCH started out good , wholesome and right
BUT by the time of constantine and probably before that , though as i said i dont know when , IT TANKED
and a monster was born . THAT is why i refuse it . We should have kept it like peter , paul , james and others DID .
BUT men will be men and men have always loved the pre eminence .
Somehwere between peter and the formation of the church of constantine
PETER went from telling men not to KNEEL before HIM and to get up , TO SITTING IN A CHAIR and having men KISS THE RING .
THAT ALONE SHOULD HAVE TOLD YA SOMETHING WENT DEAD WRONG .

 

[BreadOfLife]

A "remnant" is always identical to that which was there in the beginning - Christ's church of the end times is to be identical to the one He founded - keeping the same commandments of God and having the same testimony of Jesus Christ.
Catholicism admittedly does not keep the same commandments as the church Christ founded, nor does it have the same "testimony of Jesus Christ" which is "the Spirit of Prophecy" (Revelation 19:10 KJV) -- the "Spiritual Exercises of Loyola", for instance, are completely unBiblical, calling for methods that are identical to those of occult Eastern religious systems, butforeign in Scripture. Loyola was not acquainted with the "Spirit of Prophecy" but with another kind of spirit from below.
We don't need rituals, priesthoods, confessionals, or mediators...we can go straight to Christ

Rev. 12:17 doesn’t say, “remnant”.

The Greek word used in Rev. 12:17 is Λοιποθ (loy-poy'), which is defined as “the rest” - which your SDA sect has absolutized as “remnant” and added a strict definition to it.
What this word does NOT do is to convey an exact replica of the 1st century Church. That is an SDA invention concocted by your founder-goddess, Ellen White. Here is the verse:
Rev. 12:17
Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood on the sand of the sea.

So – by YOIUR standards, they would be the SAME people from the 1st century Church. Only an idiot would believe that they lived to be 2000 years old.

Additionally – YOUR idiotic charge that the “Catholicism admittedly does not keep the same commandments as the church Christ founded” isn’t worth the time it took you to type it,

 

[Phoneman777]

In BOTH cases, it’s a matter of FULFILLMENT, as Paul describes in Colossians:
Col. 2:16-17
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. These are a SHADOW of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.

It's time for you to embrace Christ.

The weekly Sabbath of Ten Commandments is no shadow of anything "to come" - it's a memorial to the past, namely Creation Week. Furthermore, the shadow "sabbaths" which Colossians speaks of refer to the ceremonial Feast Day sabbaths, called such in Leviticus 23.

It is those ceremonial sabbaths, along with the rest of the ceremonial "meats, drinks, new moons, holy days" which the ceremonial passage in Colossians 2:14-16 KJV speaks of ceremonially. Did I mention the passage is speaking of the Mosaic ceremonial law, not the Moral Law of the Ten Commandments which "stand fast forever and ever" (Psalms 111:7-8 KJV)???

 

[BreadOfLife]

HOW is it that you cannot see that your church no longer follows the truth of said scriptures in new testament .

I DONT Know when it happened . All i know is that by the time of constantine that church was no longer THE CHURCH .
Long ago in the days of peter , paul and others THE CHURCH was the CHURCH , but something happened
between those days and the time of constantine . CAUSE that CHURCH WAS TANKED BY THEN .
THAT IS WHY i dont follow IT .
THE CHURCH started out good , wholesome and right
BUT by the time of constantine and probably before that , though as i said i dont know when , IT TANKEDand a monster was born . THAT is why i refuse it . We should have kept it like peter , paul , james and others DID .
BUT men will be men and men have always loved the pre eminence .
Somehwere between peter and the formation of the church of constantine
PETER went from telling men not to KNEEL before HIM and to get up , TO SITTING IN A CHAIR and having men KISS THE RING .
THAT ALONE SHOULD HAVE TOLD YA SOMETHING WENT DEAD WRONG .

If you DON’T know “what happened” or WHEN “it happened” – and you are willing to walk away from Christ’s Church WITHOUT knowing – then your faith is pathetic.

Not only do you NOT know who Constantine was – you have absolutely NO idea what you THINK he did to the Church. And if you think he destroyed or perverted the Church – then you believe Jesus is a big fat LIAR for guaranteeing that His Church would NOT succumb to darkness (Matt. 16:18).

You are without a doubt, the more ignorant and faithless person I’ve debated on this forum. Well, maybe a close second to your buddy, @Taken . . .

 

[Taken]

If you DON’T know “what happened” or WHEN “it happened” – and you are willing to walk away from Christ’s Church WITHOUT knowing – then your faith is pathetic.

Not only do you NOT know who Constantine was – you have absolutely NO idea what you THINK he did to the Church. And if you think he destroyed or perverted the Church – then you believe Jesus is a big fat LIAR for guaranteeing that His Church would NOT succumb to darkness (Matt. 16:18).

You are without a doubt, the more ignorant and faithless person I’ve debated on this forum. Well, maybe a close second to your buddy, @Taken . . .

You are so out of your league pretending you are an expert on everyones’ beliefs. Face the facts, Your accusations and conclusions only apply to you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The weekly Sabbath of Ten Commandments is no shadow of anything "to come" - it's a memorial to the past, namely Creation Week. Furthermore, the shadow "sabbaths" which Colossians speaks of refer to the ceremonial Feast Day sabbaths, called such in Leviticus 23.

It is those ceremonial sabbaths, along with the rest of the ceremonial "meats, drinks, new moons, holy days" which the ceremonial passage in Colossians 2:14-16 KJV speaks of ceremonially. Did I mention the passage is speaking of the Mosaic ceremonial law, not the Moral Law of the Ten Commandments which "stand fast forever and ever" (Psalms 111:7-8 KJV)???

WRONG.

The Sabbath isn’t even mentioned in Scripture until Exodus 16 – and it points to the EUCHARIST.

The very FIRST mention of the Sabbath in ALL of Scripture is when the Israelues are in the desert Ex 16:23-30. God commands them to take a day of rest and eat what they gathered.

WHAT did they gather? Jesus tells us about that in John 6:
John 6:31-34
“Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” Jesus then said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

Read CAREFULLY what Jesus says next . . .
John 6:35
Jesus said to them, “I AM THE BREAD OF LIFE; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

HE is the entire reason for the Sabbath – and He FULFILLED it with His death and resurrection.

We no longer observe the Sabbath of the Law because it has ben FULFILLED in Christ and the Eucharist.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You are so out of your league pretending you are an expert on everyones’ beliefs. Face the facts, Your accusations and conclusions only apply to you.

Just giving him some advice – that maybe YOU should heed as well:
If you don’t know what you’re talking about – or WHY you believe it – then don’t bring it up in a conversation.
It makes you look like a fool . . .