Divisions

[BreadOfLife]

You, being a devout Catholic, know no doubt of a man named Marco Polo yes? In his travels and as an appointed governor in China (Cathay) he wrote extensively of the many Christian churches to be found in every city of China, and all along the trade routes between China and the Middle East. There are numerous historians, even contemporary to the times as was Marco Polo, that testify of the Christian church existing throughout those lands from as early as the 7th century. It must be assumed that missionaries began their preaching of the gospel there much earlier. Those missionaries did not come from Rome. They originated in places like Antioch in Syria, Goa in India, and Bagdad in Persia. Please do not allow your prejudice against a particular church blind you to history that your own church attests to. Even the Pope himself in the times of the Mongolian empire used the Metropolitan of the church in Persia (at one time a brother to Kublai Khan, Hulagu Khan) as an intermediary to quell any ambitions of the Mongolian rulers from entering Europe.
You are so keen on exalting your own intellectual prowess by calling upon others to do their homework as if you are the epitome and fount of all knowledge, yet you repeatedly fail in that respect yourself.

According to Tradition, the Apostles were dispersed throughout the world.

Thomas went to Persia and India, Nathaniel to Armenia, Matthew to Ethiopia, and so on. They no doubt had disciple/students - like Peter had Mark and Paul had Silas and Timothy. These men spread the ONE Church throughout the world. They didn't start multiple churches with multiple doctrines - but the SAME Church with the SAME doctrines.

YOUR fantasy that these churches sprouted up by "themselves" is a fairy tale. - and the doctrines and perversions spread by your false prophetess and founder Ellen G. White is simply evidence of the factionism that is condemned in Scripture (1 Cor. 1:10-17).

 

[marksman]

There is no such thing as the "Roman" Catholic Church.
Where do you get your information??

From about 100 books and articles about it.

 

[marksman]

I agree that the evidence I provided was too overwhelming for you to be able to respond.

I can see that Roman Catholics are always right and Protestants are always wrong.

 

[brakelite]

According to Tradition, the Apostles were dispersed throughout the world.

Thomas went to Persia and India, Nathaniel to Armenia, Matthew to Ethiopia, and so on. They no doubt had disciple/students - like Peter had Mark and Paul had Silas and Timothy. These men spread the ONE Church throughout the world. They didn't start multiple churches with multiple doctrines - but the SAME Church with the SAME doctrines.

Finally, you are beginning to see a little sense to what I am trying to tell you. You do realise don't you that there was no hierarchal church in Rome at that time huh? And those churches that were established outside of Europe where the Papal church held dominion, never recognised the pope as their bishop, certainly not head bishop, and contrary though to your statement above, they did indeed hold to different beliefs that your Roman apostate whore, who changed the commandments, changed the doctrines, and murdered anyone within the jurisdiction who dared to say otherwise. Those churches outside of Papal power remained true to their apostolic origins. One of those was in their keeping of the Sabbath...the 7th day, not the 1st. There is much historical evidence confirming that in various places...Ethiopia, Persia, and China.

YOUR fantasy that these churches sprouted up by "themselves" is a fairy tale.

You just love making false charges against people then "proving" them wrong. Not once did I intimate, suggest, or hint, at any idea that these churches sprouted up "by themselves". In fact, if you had taken the time to actually read any of my posts and respond accordingly, you would have discovered that I was saying precisely the opposite. Not from a myth laden tradition and Catholic folk-lore, but from reliable historical records.
Yes, those churches were Catholic in that they all held to one belief, they all used the scriptures as the basis for those beliefs, their foundation was in Christ and Christ alone, He being the Rock, the Cornerstone of the church, in fact the common term for their overall leader in Persia was Catholicos.
@BreadOfLife It is long overdue that you humble yourself and give a little consideration to the fact that you do not know all things, your church is not omniscient, nor has it ever been omnipresent, it was never the only shop in town where the gospel was preached, and Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the truth, against His people, was indeed fulfilled, but not in the Romans church, but in all the other churches round about that did not fall into the apostasy so typical of your tradition.

 

[mjrhealth]

I can see that Roman Catholics are always right and Protestants are always wrong.

What we should say, is the catholic church is right and everyone including God , Jesus and the Holy Spirit are wrong. Since they created god in there own image.

 

[BreadOfLife]

From about 100 books and articles about it.

Why don't you just go to the source??
In your ignorance, you have named the RITE - not the Church.

The Catholic Church is comprised of 20 Rites. Among these are the Melkite, Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, and Latin (Roman).
The official name of the Catholic Church is . . . "The Catholic Church".

Melkite Catholics are not Roman Catholic.
Byzantine Catholics are not Roman Catholic.
Coptic Catholics are not Roman Catholic.
Maronite Catholics are not Roman Catholic.

HOWEVER - we are ALL in full communion with each other.
"RCC" simply refers to ONE of TWENTY Rites - not the entire Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I can see that Roman Catholics are always right and Protestants are always wrong.

Not always.
Only in matters of faith.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Finally, you are beginning to see a little sense to what I am trying to tell you. You do realise don't you that there was no hierarchal church in Rome at that time huh? And those churches that were established outside of Europe where the Papal church held dominion, never recognised the pope as their bishop, certainly not head bishop, and contrary though to your statement above, they did indeed hold to different beliefs that your Roman apostate whore, who changed the commandments, changed the doctrines, and murdered anyone within the jurisdiction who dared to say otherwise. Those churches outside of Papal power remained true to their apostolic origins. One of those was in their keeping of the Sabbath...the 7th day, not the 1st. There is much historical evidence confirming that in various places...Ethiopia, Persia, and China.

You just love making false charges against people then "proving" them wrong. Not once did I intimate, suggest, or hint, at any idea that these churches sprouted up "by themselves". In fact, if you had taken the time to actually read any of my posts and respond accordingly, you would have discovered that I was saying precisely the opposite. Not from a myth laden tradition and Catholic folk-lore, but from reliable historical records.
Yes, those churches were Catholic in that they all held to one belief, they all used the scriptures as the basis for those beliefs, their foundation was in Christ and Christ alone, He being the Rock, the Cornerstone of the church, in fact the common term for their overall leader in Persia was Catholicos.
@BreadOfLife It is long overdue that you humble yourself and give a little consideration to the fact that you do not know all things, your church is not omniscient, nor has it ever been omnipresent, it was never the only shop in town where the gospel was preached, and Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the truth, against His people, was indeed fulfilled, but not in the Romans church, but in all the other churches round about that did not fall into the apostasy so typical of your tradition.

As I stated before - those Churches were set up by Catholic Bishops like Timothy.
The Apostles all appointed Bishops to different regions around the known world who started these Churches.

As for Ethiopia and Persia - they were planted by Matthew and Thomas.

 

[brakelite]

As I stated before - those Churches were set up by Catholic Bishops like Timothy.
The Apostles all appointed Bishops to different regions around the known world who started these Churches.

As for Ethiopia and Persia - they were planted by Matthew and Thomas.

Indeed, and in one sense, quite true.
But to all who may be reading this....please take careful note....

Do not be deceived or beguiled by BoL's sophistry and lies. None of the apostles, nor any of those bishops they appointed, had anything whatsoever to do with any connection to what later became that hierarchal monstrosity now centered in Vatican City.
Do not for a moment believe BoL's suggestions that all the churches of the world, in those early centuries, from Ireland to China, were "Catholic", in the sense BoL would have you believe. Those churches were not in any way submitted to any authority in Rome. They had their own leaders, who cleaved to the apostolic roots, and shunned the political and philosophical inroads that the world of Gnosticism was making in Rome...that mystery of iniquity that Paul spoke of, that the apostle John 40 years later specifically addressed in his gospel and in his letters, was destroying truth, and corrupting the church in Rome...no where else, because elsewhere, the gospel was victorious. Entire kingdoms became Christian in the far East...Genghis Khans own children and grandchildren became Christian and ruled nations in the name of Christ; not in coercion and force as was the case under medieval rule in Europe, but in freedom of conscience and benevolence. The same was I the Celtic church in Britain. Missionaries such as Patrick, Dinooth, Aiden, Columbanus and others, were NOT Catholics, in the sense they belonged to that denomination. They were Christians who upheld the apostolic faith and spread the gospel in truth and love throughout Britain, and in some cases, back into Europe where they were persecuted by the Catholic church because they spoke truth devoid of the pagan and political influences and traditions that were slowly but surely eroding away any vestige of truth in the Roman system.
Anyone wishing to read a brilliant historical book on this subject you may PM me and I will give you a link where you may download it in PDF format. A book which describes these churches, their leaders, their exploits, and their beliefs. It is one of the most encouraging books I have read.

 

[epostle]

Yes I know that you believe the Roman Catholic Church is the final Authority and having worked in the Catholic education system I can see that it is up the creek without a paddle.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH is the final authority on matters of faith and morals for Catholics, NOT PROTESTANTS OR OTHER. "Having worked in the Catholic education system" does not qualify you as an informed critic. I agree with BofL. You use the prefix "Roman" in the derogatory sense, not in the sense of universality. You are an anti-Catholic. The Church has always had problems, but is in a constant state of renewal and reform. That's what anti-Catholics are blind to.

 

[Marymog]

Quite simple really. Every reference to baptism in scripture is by immersion.

The problem with your "simple" theory is that that the word means to dip OR submerge.

The earliest writings from your Christian brothers (The Didache) who walked and talked with the Apostles shows that they did NOT practice immersion ONLY even though it was the preferable method. Sooooo the people who lived the NT disagree with you by their actions and their words.

If one practices immersion only they are practicing the traditions of the Reformation. Besides that according to Protestant tradition baptism does NOTHING to or for the person being baptized........soooooo what does it matter if one is immersed or sprinkled or dipped? If it does nothing then why do it at all? If it does nothing why do you care if one is sprinkled or dipped?

Mary

PS....Love and agree with the "EVERY abortion kills a baby" statement!!!

 

[Marymog]

Well Bible study Mary, the entire point of baptism is to die and be buried. See Romans 6. I have never heard of anyone dieing and being sprinkled with dirt and people in general finding such an acceptable practice.

Hi Brakelite,

You should read scripture instead of Protestant theories:

Acts 22:16 be baptized, and wash away thy sins

1 Peter 3:21 even baptism doth also now save us

Mark 16:16 and is baptized shall be saved

Nothing in those three verses from Scripture about "the entire point of baptism is to die and be buried".

You wanna try again?

Bible Study Mary

 

[epostle]

Yea, and on Pentecost 3000 were baptized in Jerusalem where there is no natural source or body of water large enough to immerse that many people. Did they rent baths from the Romans??? Don't forget the tubs they had in the Roman jails!!! see Acts 16:33
Acts 10:47-48 – Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius. Of course every house had swimming pools and hot tubs. DUH!
Immersion is a valid form of baptism, but it is not always practical. "Immersion only" is a scruple. It doesn't work well in the North Pole.

 

[Marymog]

Or perhaps some of them simply were not around during the Reformation known as Protestant and have made decisions or drawn conclusions or have had revealed by God a direction to go without even considering the reasons for that event or series of events in history. Why would be important to understand it correctly if we know Jesus?

Hi Amadeus,

Because you and those of your ilk "know" a Jesus that is different than what the Apostles taught. Scripture speaks of heresy and false prophets IN the Church.......That is why it is important to understand.

Mary

 

[amadeus]

Hi Amadeus,

Because you and those of your ilk "know" a Jesus that is different than what the Apostles taught. Scripture speaks of heresy and false prophets IN the Church.......That is why it is important to understand.

Mary

Well you already know my belief [or perhaps opinion according to you] in this regard. I believe that I do understand, although you seemingly have doubts. Keep on seeking until you have it all...

Give God the glory in all things! Praise His name!

 

[BreadOfLife]

Indeed, and in one sense, quite true.
But to all who may be reading this....please take careful note....

Do not be deceived or beguiled by BoL's sophistry and lies. None of the apostles, nor any of those bishops they appointed, had anything whatsoever to do with any connection to what later became that hierarchal monstrosity now centered in Vatican City.
Do not for a moment believe BoL's suggestions that all the churches of the world, in those early centuries, from Ireland to China, were "Catholic", in the sense BoL would have you believe. Those churches were not in any way submitted to any authority in Rome. They had their own leaders, who cleaved to the apostolic roots, and shunned the political and philosophical inroads that the world of Gnosticism was making in Rome...that mystery of iniquity that Paul spoke of, that the apostle John 40 years later specifically addressed in his gospel and in his letters, was destroying truth, and corrupting the church in Rome...no where else, because elsewhere, the gospel was victorious. Entire kingdoms became Christian in the far East...Genghis Khans own children and grandchildren became Christian and ruled nations in the name of Christ; not in coercion and force as was the case under medieval rule in Europe, but in freedom of conscience and benevolence. The same was I the Celtic church in Britain. Missionaries such as Patrick, Dinooth, Aiden, Columbanus and others, were NOT Catholics, in the sense they belonged to that denomination. They were Christians who upheld the apostolic faith and spread the gospel in truth and love throughout Britain, and in some cases, back into Europe where they were persecuted by the Catholic church because they spoke truth devoid of the pagan and political influences and traditions that were slowly but surely eroding away any vestige of truth in the Roman system.
Anyone wishing to read a brilliant historical book on this subject you may PM me and I will give you a link where you may download it in PDF format. A book which describes these churches, their leaders, their exploits, and their beliefs. It is one of the most encouraging books I have read.

And, as I have corrected you before - Patrick was SENT to Ireland by Pope St. Celestine I, having been referred by St. Germain, circa, 433 AD. This is attested to by St. Germain's 9th century biographer, Heric of Auxerre:

"Since the glory of the father shines in the training of the children, of the many sons in Christ whom St. Germain is believed to have had as disciples in religion, let it suffice to make mention here, very briefly, of one most famous, Patrick, the special Apostle of the Irish nation, as the record of his work proves. Subject to that most holy discipleship for 18 years, he drank in no little knowledge in Holy Scripture from the stream of so great a well-spring. Germain sent him, accompanied by Segetius, his priest, to Celestine, Pope of Rome, approved of by whose judgement, supported by whose authority, and strengthened by whose blessing, he went on his way to Ireland."

Any SDA source you have would be about as "trustworthy" as the many false prophecies of your founders, William Miller and Ellen G. White. Remember - ALL it takes is ONE false prophecy to make a false prophet . . .

 

[Marymog]

Well you already know my belief [or perhaps opinion according to you] in this regard. I believe that I do understand, although you seemingly have doubts. Keep on seeking until you have it all...

Give God the glory in all things! Praise His name!

I have no doubts. Your beliefs (opinions) are opposite of Scripture.

Mary

 

[amadeus]

I have no doubts. Your beliefs (opinions) are opposite of Scripture.

Mary

We don't agree but I'm not biting on this any more. I live by faith. I could give you scriptures but you would disagree with my take, be it fact or opinion or...? God gives the increase, so let us pray that He increase each of us He sees the need.

 

[Marymog]

We don't agree but I'm not biting on this any more. I live by faith. I could give you scriptures but you would disagree with my take, be it fact or opinion or...? God gives the increase, so let us pray that He increase each of us He sees the need.

Amadeus,

I don't care if you "agree" with me. You disagree with Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian teaching from The Church. You deny Scripture, I don't. You have faith that you are right I have faith that you are wrong and 2,000 years of the teaching of The Church support my belief, not yours.

I pray that He increases your knowledge and that He increases my patience with prideful men who THINK they know the Truth and that do not adhere to sound doctrine. May your ears be tickled no more. Stop shopping around for what you THINK is true and listen to the pillar and foundation of Truth....The Church.

Mary

 

[brakelite]

the pillar and foundation of Truth....The Church.

The church may have been the pillar and foundation of truth then, but the church you trust in now is a completely different kettle of smelly rotten fish.