King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Perversions

[Marymog]

No you called me a 'wolf', said I don't follow RCC teaching, said that Tyndale was tried as a heretic and since I as a protestant follow the same doctrines that Tyndale taught, as do all protestants, that would make me what and make protestants what?

Dear sir,

I asked you: Who do you choose to decide what is heretical?

You answer was: It is "every persons responcibility [sic] to know what is and is not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheeps clothing spreading false teaching."

Since, according to your own statement, it is 'every persons responsibility to know what is and is not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheep’s clothing spreading false teachings' I decided to alert everyone that you were a wolf. I am one of every person and I know what is and is not Christianity. I have met YOUR criteria.

In post #50 I answered your question ".....that would make me what and make protestants what?"

Respectfully, Mary

PS.....I believe you are a Christian. I am just trying to show you the fallacy of your "every persons responsibility" statement. I believe and follow scripture. Scripture says The Church decides who is a heretic and it does not say that every person decides. Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not every person. (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15)

Scripture also says that ignorant and unstable men will twist scripture to their own destruction(2 Pet. 3:16). Every single person can't decide who is twisting scripture OR who is not twisting scripture.

Scripture warned us to beware so that we are not carried away with the error of lawless men and we lose your own stability (2 Pet. 3:17). Scripture does not say that every person can decide what is "the error" of lawless men.

Who decides that man is refusing to obey what is in scripture? Who decides that we should have nothing to do with him and that he should be ashamed? Who decides that we should warn him as a brother that he is refusing to obey scripture? (2 Thess. 3:14–15). Every person can decide that? I don't think so and scripture backs me up.

 

[Windmillcharge]

I believe and follow scripture. Scripture says The Church decides who is a heretic and it does not say that every person decides. Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth, not every person. (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15)

And what is the 'Church'? When Jesus was talking the 'Church' was the Jewish synagoge and when Paul was writting to Timothy it was the Local gathering of believers that were the 'Church'.

So yes I agree with your application of scripture, but disagree with your unspoken understanding that the 'Church' is a particular body or organisation.

If Christians are to be able to give a reason for their faith, they have to know what and why they believe and are justified in checking what they are taught against scripture as Paul commended the bereans.
That then means that the ordinary Christian in the pew can and should protest about false or erronious teaching.

As Peter said
2Peter3:16. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We are to be on our guard against false teaching.

Thank you for concidering me a Christian.

 

[Marymog]

And what is the 'Church'? When Jesus was talking the 'Church' was the Jewish synagoge and when Paul was writting to Timothy it was the Local gathering of believers that were the 'Church'.

So yes I agree with your application of scripture, but disagree with your unspoken understanding that the 'Church' is a particular body or organisation.

If Christians are to be able to give a reason for their faith, they have to know what and why they believe and are justified in checking what they are taught against scripture as Paul commended the bereans.
That then means that the ordinary Christian in the pew can and should protest about false or erronious teaching.

As Peter said
2Peter3:16. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We are to be on our guard against false teaching.

Thank you for concidering me a Christian.

Hi,

The Church is the one that Jesus started when he said to Peter: you are rock and on this rock I will build my church.

Timothy was taught to entrust to faithful men what he was taught so that those faithful men will be able to teach others also. Even though at the time it was a "local gathering of believers that were the Church" that "local gathering" soon became a worldwide church. That world wide church taught that The Church was the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Church, at that time, was in Jerusalem where the first Council was held to decide what all Christians were to practice (Council of Jerusalem).

I 100% agree with you and scripture. We are to be on guard against false teachings. The question is who decides what is false?

The Berean's were Hellenistic Jews and for them the Scriptures were held as sacred. They had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Bereans had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching to them as "divinely inspired" since they had just met him. When this new teaching from Paul sprang up that claimed to be a new development of Judaism the Berean rabbis researched the Torah to see if Paul's teachings could be verified. The Bereans accepted Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God. The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, examined the Scriptures to see if what he was telling them was true. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness". They did not rely SOLEY on scripture. They relied on the words of Paul, oral tradition, just like scripture teaches. The Berean story has NOTHING to do with Christians in the pew checking scripture to see if what they were told is "false or erroneous [sic] teaching". The Thessalonians REJECTED Paul's oral teaching. That is why the Bereans were more noble minded than them. Paul had the authority to teach. The men that Timothy taught had the authority to teach. Those men had authority to teach other men and so on and so on (Apostolic Succession). Not all men have that authority since scripture is hard to understand and some men twist it.

I am a ordinary Christian in the pew. Do I have the right to protest the false or erroneous teachings of the Methodist Church?

Mary

 

[Davy]

Thank you. The 3rd century is when the word "pope" started first being used to describe the leader of the Christian Church. However, historically we know that from the 1st century there was always a leader of the Christian churches.

We know from Tertullian's writings that Clement was ordained by Peter in Rome. Clements writings show authority over all the other churches. Historically we also know that the head of the church in Rome has, from the 1st century, been the church that settle differences with all the other churches.

Can you provide your historical evidence when the office of the Pope began?

Pope = leader of the Christian Churches

Mary

Nah, they weren't called popes, they were called 'bishops', as per NT doctrine.

Your Catholic Church system keeps back-labeling anyone ordained by Peter and later as popes when the office of a pope didn't even exist yet.

 

[Davy]

An irrelevent comment and one that Marymog answered.

If you were invited to meet the Queen of England you would follow protocol when you met her. It is the same with the pope.

It's not irrelevant at all. I WILL NOT KISS THE HAND OF A POPE.

I wouldn't kiss the hand of the Queen of England either. I have no intention of meeting her either. And if I did, I'm sure she would be standing on the same level, and not high up on throne like the pope who actually has NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD to sit upon a throne in this world.

Apostle Peter would never sit high up on a throne over his Christian bethren, because the throne Jesus promised him is for the world to come, and is over one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

 

[Marymog]

Nah, they weren't called popes, they were called 'bishops', as per NT doctrine.

Your Catholic Church system keeps back-labeling anyone ordained by Peter and later as popes when the office of a pope didn't even exist yet.

Irenaeus was the first to list the Popes (bishops of Rome) from Peter to Eleutherius.

The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father" or patriarch. The earliest record of the use of this title is in a letter written by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria in the mid 200's. The office existed since Peter. They just didn't have the name Pope for several hundred years.

Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century recognizes the “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro

Historical Mary

 

[Davy]

The Berean story has NOTHING to do with Christians in the pew checking scripture to see if what they were told is "false or erroneous [sic] teaching".

That's where you are wrong, because Apostle Paul approved of those at Berea verifying for themselves in The Word of God, that means God's Holy Writ is to be available in the hands of ALL believing Christians, and this is why after King James made The Bible available to his English speaking subjects, that version then really took off later in being translated to many, many languages for the nations. It is obvious that God wants believers on Him and His Son to be able to read and understand His Word.

As for oral tradition - the unbelieving Jews at Thessalonica that heard about Paul preaching at Berea came there and stirred things up and Paul was immediately sent away. So if oral tradition was so important to the Jews, then why did the Bereans really succumb to Paul's teaching? It's because they checked in God's Holy Writ, not in another oral tradition of the Jews. The way the other Jews stirred things up was BECAUSE of their own traditions that came from their OWN oral traditions (a false oral tradition, and they even put it in their Babylonian Talmud and followed it instead God's Holy Writ)!

 

[Davy]

Irenaeus was the first to list the Popes (bishops of Rome) from Peter to Eleutherius.

The word pope is derived ultimately from the Greek πάππας (páppas) originally an affectionate term meaning "father" or patriarch. The earliest record of the use of this title is in a letter written by Pope Dionysius of Alexandria in the mid 200's. The office existed since Peter. They just didn't have the name Pope for several hundred years.

Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century recognizes the “presidency,” in particular of the Church at Rome:

Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the greatness of the Most High Father and in Jesus Christ, his only son; to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is; to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father; here therefore do I salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. —Letter to the Romans, Intro

Historical Mary

You said it (in red), I didn't.

What I said still stands. They were called bishops in Peter's era, not popes. And the office of the one you call the Pope was a "pope of popes" office created around the 3rd century A.D. So in reality, the "Pope" has no more authority than any other brother in Christ Jesus, which is exactly the way the KJV translators saw that office also, and I heartedly agree with them, especially since they were part of getting God's Holy Writ in the hands of the people.

 

[Marymog]

That's where you are wrong, because Apostle Paul approved of those at Berea verifying for themselves in The Word of God, that means God's Holy Writ is to be available in the hands of ALL believing Christians, and this is why after King James made The Bible available to his English speaking subjects, that version then really took off later in being translated to many, many languages for the nations. It is obvious that God wants believers on Him and His Son to be able to read and understand His Word.

As for oral tradition - the unbelieving Jews at Thessalonica that heard about Paul preaching at Berea came there and stirred things up and Paul was immediately sent away. So if oral tradition was so important to the Jews, then why did the Bereans really succumb to Paul's teaching? It's because they checked in God's Holy Writ, not in another oral tradition of the Jews. The way the other Jews stirred things up was BECAUSE of their own traditions that came from their OWN oral traditions (a false oral tradition, and they even put it in their Babylonian Talmud and followed it instead God's Holy Writ)!

Thanks Davy,

The Bereans accepted the ORAL tradition from Paul which supplemented their WRITTEN tradition and the Jewish ORAL TRADITIONS. They didn't accept one over the other.

Google Shebaal Peh so you can learn for yourself instead of me teaching you.

The Thessalonian's REJECTED the oral teachings of Paul. They relied on "the bible alone".

I agree with you: God wants believers on Him and His Son to be able to read and understand His Word. He also warned us that unstable men will twist His word to their own destruction.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You said it (in red), I didn't.

What I said still stands. They were called bishops in Peter's era, not popes. And the office of the one you call the Pope was a "pope of popes" office created around the 3rd century A.D. So in reality, the "Pope" has no more authority than any other brother in Christ Jesus, which is exactly the way the KJV translators saw that office also, and I heartedly agree with them, especially since they were part of getting God's Holy Writ in the hands of the people.

Hi Davy,

Just because the name changed doesn't mean the title or the authority that goes with the name changed.

If you call a Law Enforcement Officer a cop or a police officer or a bobby or a Constable, it doesn't matter. They are still a Law Enforcement Officer. Their authority to enforce the law doesn't change just because you changed their name over time.

Hope that clears things up.

Mary

 

[Windmillcharge]

Hi,

The Church is the one that Jesus started when he said to Peter: you are rock and on this rock I will build my church.

Timothy was taught to entrust to faithful men what he was taught so that those faithful men will be able to teach others also. Even though at the time it was a "local gathering of believers that were the Church" that "local gathering" soon became a worldwide church. That world wide church taught that The Church was the pillar and foundation of Truth. The Church, at that time, was in Jerusalem where the first Council was held to decide what all Christians were to practice (Council of Jerusalem).

I 100% agree with you and scripture. We are to be on guard against false teachings. The question is who decides what is false?

The Berean's were Hellenistic Jews and for them the Scriptures were held as sacred. They had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Bereans had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching to them as "divinely inspired" since they had just met him. When this new teaching from Paul sprang up that claimed to be a new development of Judaism the Berean rabbis researched the Torah to see if Paul's teachings could be verified. The Bereans accepted Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God. The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, examined the Scriptures to see if what he was telling them was true. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness". They did not rely SOLEY on scripture. They relied on the words of Paul, oral tradition, just like scripture teaches. The Berean story has NOTHING to do with Christians in the pew checking scripture to see if what they were told is "false or erroneous [sic] teaching". The Thessalonians REJECTED Paul's oral teaching. That is why the Bereans were more noble minded than them. Paul had the authority to teach. The men that Timothy taught had the authority to teach. Those men had authority to teach other men and so on and so on (Apostolic Succession). Not all men have that authority since scripture is hard to understand and some men twist it.

I am a ordinary Christian in the pew. Do I have the right to protest the false or erroneous teachings of the Methodist Church?

Mary

Paul's 'oral teaching' became the NT and the reason Paul comments on them is he wants us all to do as they did.

All Christians have authority to teach as all Christians are to explain what and why they believe as 1Peter 3 :15 says.

If the Methodists come into your church, or if I came into your church and start trying to make RC into protestants then yes you should protest about it.

 

[Marymog]

Paul's 'oral teaching' became the NT and the reason Paul comments on them is he wants us all to do as they did.

All Christians have authority to teach as all Christians are to explain what and why they believe as 1Peter 3 :15 says.

If the Methodists come into your church, or if I came into your church and start trying to make RC into protestants then yes you should protest about it.

OK....Thank you.

If Jesus walked into a Methodist Church and heard their doctrine and then he walked into a RCC and heard their doctrine (which are opposite) which would He protest?

Are you of Paul or Appolos?

Mary

 

[kiwimac]

While this latter discussion is interesting. It does not deal with the heretical belief that is KJV Onlyism.

 

[mjrhealth]

OK....Thank you.

If Jesus walked into a Methodist Church and heard their doctrine and then he walked into a RCC and heard their doctrine (which are opposite) which would He protest?

Are you of Paul or Appolos?

Mary

Well christians are called Christians because they follow Christ, catholics are called catholics because they belong to the catholic chruch, what is it you do not understand...

Gen_7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

a catholic church cannot produce mormans, nor can a morman church produce catholics, only Christ cam make Christians, have you not read

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

so be joined to, and baptized into your religion while Christ seeks those who will give them selves to Him.

Joh_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

it broad that road of the religious, so many on it.

 

[APAK]

1 Peter 3:15 is one of the common suite of verses abused and misused for those attempting to validate their authenticity as being a true Christian when they are only a very good religious person. These are the same people who usually get very confused when confronted with the question whether they are a Christian first and their religion takes a back seat, or vis-a-versa.

1 Peter 3:15 is all about knowing you have salvation and eternal life because you have accepted God’s grace and the grace of Jesus Christ who resides in your heart as your Lord and Savior. And it says we are to give an account to anyone who asks why this is, with humbleness and a healthy reverence of God.

And one would have to explain why, using the words of scripture, the words of the gospel and how the spirit of God dwells within them and their personal experiences of this new life of faith.

There is no place here to add how ‘good’ you have been as a citizen or as part of your ‘church.’ How loyal you have been to the ‘church’ and its ways. How many times you have confessed your sins in this ‘church,’ and done penance. How many times you have devoted your time to community work, especially under the guise of your religion and its leaders and to the outer mind of your corrupt human nature.

You must be ‘straight’ and speak from the heart that is stirred up by the Spirit from above that resides within you. The Kingdom is within and not outside someplace in a ‘church.’

If you don’t have it, I would suggest you get it ASAP. and then 1 Peter 3:15 applies to you.

APAK

 

[Taken]

PS.....I believe you are a Christian. I am just trying to show you the fallacy of your "every persons responsibility" statement. I believe and follow scripture.

Disagree with you.

Individuals IN Christ, absolutely ARE responsible to have an open ear, to those WHO are committing "Heresy", Which is to Deny Christ the Lord Jesus.

2 Pet 2: 1-22
1 John 4:1
Titus 3:10
2 Cor 11:4
Gal 1:17

Scripture says The Church decides who is a heretic and it does not say that every person decides.

The Individual IN Christ, can determine, if others around him, OR the clergy of "the church" are speaking heresy; in denial of Christ; and against His Word.

THAT determination, CAN lead the Individual to depart from that "church building", it's congregates and leadership counsel

Scripture says The Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth,

"The Church" is those IN Christ.
"The TRUTH" is Christ, who IS:
The Head of His Church;
The Pillar IS Christs Absolute Truth;
The Foundation IS Christ's Word.
Christ's Church IS NOT built or being built with hands of men.
Christ' Church is an "on going build-ING", by and through men becoming added daily TO the membership/ brotherhood, of Christ's Church.

not every person. (Matthew 18:17, 1 Timothy 3:15)

Read the whole of Matt 18.
It is speaking of "brothers" (relatives, men of one of the 12 tribes, ie men who were called Israelites and Jews).

Then it speaks of a Trespass between "those" "brothers".

Then it speaks of the "accuser";
First going personally to the Trespasser...
To allow the Trespasser opportunity to Correct his Trespass.

If that fails;
The accuser can take the matter to the clergy of the church.
When the accuser takes the matter to the clergy, the accuser is to bring with him, wittnesses regarding the Trespass.
The clergy of the church, hears the matter of Trespass, and the witnesses, and decides if a Trespass occurred or not.
If the clergy concludes a Trespass was committed. They will direct the Trespasser to correct the Trespass, according to the Jewish Religious Law.
If the Trespasser refuses; then treat him like a heathen.
If the Trespasser agrees; THEN the one "Trespassed Against" has GAINED a "brother", who is a "brother" in belief and adherence to the Jewish Religious Law.

Scripture also says that ignorant and unstable men will twist scripture to their own destruction(2 Pet. 3:16). Every single person can't decide who is twisting scripture OR who is not twisting scripture.

You neglect to consider the TIME-frame.
Individual men certainly could know if another Trespassed against them; then as today.

However NOT ALL MEN could read, or had access to Scripture. They specifically took the matter to THOSE; the counsel clerics of the church, who were SUPPOSED to be able to read, and have access to the Scriptural Laws.
The Book of Positive Laws, given by Moses.
(Of What one is supposed TO DO)
The Book of Curse Laws, given by Aaron
(Of The penal consequences of What one receives for NOT DOING What one is supposed TO DO);

Today - Men CAN read and CAN have and Do Read and DO have numerous copies of Scripture. And can DO exactly what Scripture teaches.
If a man trespasses against another man...
Take the matter to the man to resolve the matter.

If that fails....AND the men are congregants of the same church, under the same counsel of clergy...take it to the church clergy.

If that fail...a man trespassed against can treat the other man AS A HEATHEN.

Additionally;
It that fails...Men have the option to take the matter to Civil authorities, in order to Civily make the Trespasser be Ordered to Correct his wrong doing.

Scripture warned us to beware so that we are not carried away with the error of lawless men and we lose your own stability (2 Pet. 3:17). Scripture does not say that every person can decide what is "the error" of lawless men.

That is a contradiction.
Men are warned to not get carried away..
But men can not decide if another is attemting to carry them away?

Who decides that man is refusing to obey what is in scripture?

The man who KNOWS Scripture, and KNOWS what another man has done toward him.

Who decides that we should have nothing to do with him

The individual who has been Trespassed against. (And no rectifying of the Trespasser) The individual who hears another preaching Against God and His Word.
The individual who hears another preaching For another god.

and that he should be ashamed?

Actually the "attempt" should First be to "enlighten" the other person....believer or not.

Shame is accounted to one WHO proclaims they Believe and Obey...and then doesn't..or teaching rejection of the Lord.

Who decides that we should warn him as a brother that he is refusing to obey scripture?

"As a brother" ?

What brother? A relative who doesn't believe? Sure they should WARN them.

What brother? One who claims To Believe in Christ and another who claimed Belief in
Christ....THEY are Spiritual brothers...less one is saying THEY are IN Christ.....while Rejecting Christs word. Warn them? Absolutely.

(2 Thess. 3:14–15). Every person can decide that? I don't think so and scripture backs me up.

1 Thes 3:14-15
Is about "brethren"....Spiritual brethren...brethren by having declared the Same belief in Christ.......but yet one deflecting on believing the Word of God.
Yes he should be ashamed.

And Yes, he should keep learning, the Word of God and the Precepts of God.

You appear to not understand;
The whole point of God establishing a clergy, was so the clergy could HEAR and WRITE and READ and SPEAK to the people (who did not hear, write or read); of , Who God IS, Gods Precepts and What God has Prepared for the people, that they Become "His" people.

You appear to not understand;
The clergy themselves BECAME CORRUPT.

Jesus said to do as the cleric SAYS, but not as they DO.

Scripture also teaches to VERIFY what your cleric says IS according to Gods Word.

Today...men can read. Problem is THEY DO NOT READ, and DO NOT verify.

Today...MANY clerics are SAYING and DOING, things in CONTRAST to Scripture.
And MANY men are BLINDLY following what their clerics are SAYING and DOING.

BECAUSE men foster their own Ignorance, BY not reading and BY NOT verifying what their clerics are Saying and Doing.

I would suggest that you do a study on the words "brother" and "brethren", to see what they mean in the context of scripture.

If my suggestion does not fancy you;

Matt 18:15 should spark your interest, of
HOW "A" brother, speaking to his "brother", can "GAIN" his "brother" to "be" his "brother".

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Davy]

An irrelevent comment and one that Marymog answered.

If you were invited to meet the Queen of England you would follow protocol when you met her. It is the same with the pope.

Not going to happen. We have no king or queen in the U.S.

 

[Davy]

Thanks Davy,

The Bereans accepted the ORAL tradition from Paul which supplemented their WRITTEN tradition and the Jewish ORAL TRADITIONS. They didn't accept one over the other.

That's an abosolutely incorrect statement.

Apostle Paul was a scholar of God's Holy Writ, having been learned under the best Hebrew scholar of his day, Gamaliel. So Paul was not teaching them from an oral tradition, because The Gospel which Jesus revealed to Paul was also actually written in the OT prophets. And that is WHY... those at Berea believed Paul, not because of an oral tradition, but because The Word of God they referred to aligned with The Gospel of Jesus Christ that Paul was preaching. Their understanding had NOTHING to do with an oral tradition of the unbelieving Jews. Verifying for themselves in God's Holy Writ is what caused them to believe Paul, not some oral tradition of the Jews. And Paul commended those at Berea for going into God's Word to check him out!

It was the unbelieving Jews from Thessalonica that stirred things up at Berea afterwards when they heard about Paul preaching in the synagogue at Berea. They did that because they WERE following their OWN traditions not written in The Word of God. Now if you deny those unbelieving Jews had created their OWN set of traditions, then it means you deny what our Lord Jesus said about it:

Matt 15:3-9
3 But He answered and said unto them, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4 For God commanded, saying, 'Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.'
5 But ye say, 'Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.' Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8 'This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and honoureth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me.
9 But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
KJV

This is why the Protestant Church separated from the Catholic Church, because of the many man-made oral traditions the Catholic Church had created outside of The Word of God. In that respect, their system is not much different than the oral traditions of the Jews.

 

[Windmillcharge]

If Jesus walked into a Methodist Church and heard their doctrine and then he walked into a RCC and heard their doctrine (which are opposite) which would He protest?

Are you of Paul or Appolos?

I suspect that Jesus would be disappointed with any church he walked into, no matter how zealous they are.
Every church has area where they fall down on, whether its doctrinal or practical help.

I seek to follow Jesus.

 

[Marymog]

Well christians are called Christians because they follow Christ, catholics are called catholics because they belong to the catholic chruch, what is it you do not understand...

Gen_7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

a catholic church cannot produce mormans, nor can a morman church produce catholics, only Christ cam make Christians, have you not read

1Co 6:16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
1Co 6:17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

so be joined to, and baptized into your religion while Christ seeks those who will give them selves to Him.

Joh_10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

it broad that road of the religious, so many on it.

I don't understand you because the question wasn't for you and you didn't answer it