Protestants and Catholics

[Bill]

Dear Bill,

When you talk of man's stubborness, you should first look at the errors of the catholics, which are against The Truth in The Word, many, not all, have been listed in previous posts by many of us.

You cannot call others stubborn when they are choosing not to accept the errors of the RCC, clear and serious errors.

Do you accept the pope is nkt of a line go Peter?

Do you accept the RCC has changed the 10 commandments that were written in stone and not one dot or titter can be changed in the Word of God?

Do you accept they are worshipping idols, putting Jesus back on the cross and idols of Mary?

Do you accept these and those noted by brother B-A-C are errors by the RCC, and are still carried out today by the CC?

If you accept they are errors, can you not see why others cannot be part of them?

If you do not accept them as errors; I say no more, because I reply in his love, points have been made which are clearly wrong I cannot follow or be attached to such errors.

Righteousness and sin cannot mix, they are opposites. I pray to the Father, through Jesus, not Mary, not a priest, through Jesus Christ our Lord, our Saviour, our Intercessor of all prayers.

Peace be with you

The Catholics can trace thier lineage back to Peter.

I guess my question is, why cant you? Because all Christians should be able to trace thier churches to Peter.

 

[Bill]

Dear Bill,

When you talk of man's stubborness, you should first look at the errors of the catholics, which are against The Truth in The Word, many, not all, have been listed in previous posts by many of us.

You cannot call others stubborn when they are choosing not to accept the errors of the RCC, clear and serious errors.

Do you accept the pope is nkt of a line go Peter?

Do you accept the RCC has changed the 10 commandments that were written in stone and not one dot or titter can be changed in the Word of God?

Do you accept they are worshipping idols, putting Jesus back on the cross and idols of Mary?

Do you accept these and those noted by brother B-A-C are errors by the RCC, and are still carried out today by the CC?

If you accept they are errors, can you not see why others cannot be part of them?

If you do not accept them as errors; I say no more, because I reply in his love, points have been made which are clearly wrong I cannot follow or be attached to such errors.

Righteousness and sin cannot mix, they are opposites. I pray to the Father, through Jesus, not Mary, not a priest, through Jesus Christ our Lord, our Saviour, our Intercessor of all prayers.

Peace be with you

First, please forgive me for going through your questions one at a time.

You said to me, i can not call others stubborn when they are choosing not to accept the errors of the RCC.

Why not?

There are plenty of errors on both sides. And plenty of stubborness too.

When i hear The Prodigal Son story the first thing I think about are the Protestants in the Catholics because they too are brothers and sisters.

If the Protestants consider themselves the brother that stayed with the father are you going to be the same as in the story when the other brother returns to God are you going to be the same attitude.

And I asked this very question to the Catholics that I know as well.

It isn't up to me how the Catholics and the Protestants come back together it is up to you and the Catholics. As for myself I am doing the work that the Lord has set out for me.

 

[Bill]

Dear Bill,

When you talk of man's stubborness, you should first look at the errors of the catholics, which are against The Truth in The Word, many, not all, have been listed in previous posts by many of us.

You cannot call others stubborn when they are choosing not to accept the errors of the RCC, clear and serious errors.

Do you accept the pope is nkt of a line go Peter?

Do you accept the RCC has changed the 10 commandments that were written in stone and not one dot or titter can be changed in the Word of God?

Do you accept they are worshipping idols, putting Jesus back on the cross and idols of Mary?

Do you accept these and those noted by brother B-A-C are errors by the RCC, and are still carried out today by the CC?

If you accept they are errors, can you not see why others cannot be part of them?

If you do not accept them as errors; I say no more, because I reply in his love, points have been made which are clearly wrong I cannot follow or be attached to such errors.

Righteousness and sin cannot mix, they are opposites. I pray to the Father, through Jesus, not Mary, not a priest, through Jesus Christ our Lord, our Saviour, our Intercessor of all prayers.

Peace be with you

The Roman Catholic church has never changed the Ten Commandments.

The Roman Catholic church does not worship idols. They do not worship statues. And the figure of Jesus on the cross is there as a reminder of what he did for us.

 

[Bill]

Gal 1:19; But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

Jude 1:1; Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ:

You know, when in doubt, it is always good to do some research.

Well i found something interesting. Actually a few things, interesting.

There was a letter written called Protoevangelium of James. Written in 150 AD it speaks of Mary the consecrated virgin but it also talks about Joseph being a widower before he knew Mary.

You guys always make me think.
So here are some dilemmas. In Scripture we see Lot and Abraham talking. " Let there be no dispute between me and you, nor between my herdsmen and yours, for a we are brothers " Gen 13:8

Yet Abraham was Lots uncle.

Another curious thing. When people are mentioned, as in making someone distinguished. Sons of Zebedee, or Simon son of Jonah. We only hear ' the mother of Jesus ' John 2:1 or Mary, mother of Jesus Acts 1:14

And there were more than 1 Mary running around.

 

[Brother-Paul]

The title of Pope, the head of the RCC?

The title pope, did not come from the pages of the Bible.

Tertullian, in the early part of the third century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to originally apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. He used the term, however, in sarcastic rebuke of Pope Callixtus I (who had authority over the church from 217 to 222) whom he felt was exercising to much unilateral power in the church.

Where did Tertullian which became the title of Pope?
- Did it come from a lengthy doctrinal analysis of Scripture?
- Was it related, at all, to the apostle Peter's status in the early church?


One of the foundational dogmas of the RCC is that, the current Pope, is part of an unbroken chain, and have received their authority to rule the church directly from the apostle Peter.

Nineteen years after the death of Jesus, 49 A.D., the early church was in turmoil. An all-out doctrinal war erupted between those who firmly believed that a person must be circumcised before they can be saved and those who felt the ritual had no bearing on a person's salvation. The discussions in the churches got heated, it was decided that the matter needed to be settled, once and for all, through a gathering of church elders and brethren in Jerusalem.

This gathering (known as the Jerusalem conference, Acts 15), included Jesus' original apostles (Peter, John, etc.), was also attended by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, Titus, and many others (see Galatians 2).

If ever there was a time for Peter to assert his authority over the church and to let everyone know 'who is the boss' it was now.
The first century church would never again gather in the way it did in 49 A.D., with all the well-known church leaders in attendance.

After heated debates regarding the circumcision issue, and testimony from Paul, Barnabas and Peter regarding what God had done through them toward the Gentiles, a decision is arrived at.

Was it Peter that announced to the church, from a position of spiritual authority, what the church would now teach regarding the circumcision question? NO!

It was JAMES, one of the other apostles, who not only renders a final decision the assembled church agrees it, but who also writes a letter summarizing the decision to be read in the churches (Acts 15:13 - 32)!.

The RCC claimed line is RCC created for themselves, NOT from scripture as most people know, but catholic's won't accept

If the early church never used the exalted title of Pope for Peter, or even recognized that HE was the final authority on all church matters, where did it come from?

Read on...

The origin of the title of Pope for the head of the Catholic Church is much older than even the first century church.

In ancient Rome, the term Pontifex Maximus was used well before 254 B.C. for the highest position within the Roman Republic's PAGAN religion.

Over the years the position became highly politicized until, beginning with the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.), it became one of the many Imperial titles.

Today, according to the Catholic Church, the title Pontifex Maximus is the most noteworthy one used for the Pope. It is considered the distinctive mark of honour bestowed on the Bishop of Rome as head of the church worldwide.

Catholics officially and readily admit that the title of Pope bestowed on its most powerful leader came directly from paganism.

"As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome" (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope).

Taken from
Where did the Pope get his title?
www.biblestudy.org

Shalom

The Catholics can trace thier lineage back to Peter.

I guess my question is, why cant you? Because all Christians should be able to trace thier churches to Peter.

Bill, let us not forget, you started the discussion, the post.

I believe thexquestion is, why can't you back up your statement that the catholics, as you say, can trace the popes lineage back to Peter?

You are saying, what every other catholic says, that the catholics can, but there is no substance to that statement, because you none of you do so.

Tell me, tell us, using scripture, how the catholics can state it and pro e it in all truth using God's Holy Word.

Please, thank you in advance.

 

[Brother-Paul]

@Bill

A message I added earlier in the thread, please do read it all. Thank you.

The title of Pope, the head of the RCC?

The title pope, did not come from the pages of the Bible.

Tertullian, in the early part of the third century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to originally apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. He used the term, however, in sarcastic rebuke of Pope Callixtus I (who had authority over the church from 217 to 222) whom he felt was exercising to much unilateral power in the church.

Where did Tertullian which became the title of Pope?
- Did it come from a lengthy doctrinal analysis of Scripture?
- Was it related, at all, to the apostle Peter's status in the early church?


One of the foundational dogmas of the RCC is that, the current Pope, is part of an unbroken chain, and have received their authority to rule the church directly from the apostle Peter.

Nineteen years after the death of Jesus, 49 A.D., the early church was in turmoil. An all-out doctrinal war erupted between those who firmly believed that a person must be circumcised before they can be saved and those who felt the ritual had no bearing on a person's salvation. The discussions in the churches got heated, it was decided that the matter needed to be settled, once and for all, through a gathering of church elders and brethren in Jerusalem.

This gathering (known as the Jerusalem conference, Acts 15), included Jesus' original apostles (Peter, John, etc.), was also attended by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, Titus, and many others (see Galatians 2).

If ever there was a time for Peter to assert his authority over the church and to let everyone know 'who is the boss' it was now.
The first century church would never again gather in the way it did in 49 A.D., with all the well-known church leaders in attendance.

After heated debates regarding the circumcision issue, and testimony from Paul, Barnabas and Peter regarding what God had done through them toward the Gentiles, a decision is arrived at.

Was it Peter that announced to the church, from a position of spiritual authority, what the church would now teach regarding the circumcision question? NO!

It was JAMES, one of the other apostles, who not only renders a final decision the assembled church agrees it, but who also writes a letter summarizing the decision to be read in the churches (Acts 15:13 - 32)!.

The RCC claimed line is RCC created for themselves, NOT from scripture as most people know, but catholic's won't accept

If the early church never used the exalted title of Pope for Peter, or even recognized that HE was the final authority on all church matters, where did it come from?

Read on...

The origin of the title of Pope for the head of the Catholic Church is much older than even the first century church.

In ancient Rome, the term Pontifex Maximus was used well before 254 B.C. for the highest position within the Roman Republic's PAGAN religion.

Over the years the position became highly politicized until, beginning with the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.), it became one of the many Imperial titles.

Today, according to the Catholic Church, the title Pontifex Maximus is the most noteworthy one used for the Pope. It is considered the distinctive mark of honour bestowed on the Bishop of Rome as head of the church worldwide.

Catholics officially and readily admit that the title of Pope bestowed on its most powerful leader came directly from paganism.

"As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome" (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope).

Taken from
Where did the Pope get his title?
www.biblestudy.org

Shalom

 

[Brother-Paul]

First, please forgive me for going through your questions one at a time.

You said to me, i can not call others stubborn when they are choosing not to accept the errors of the RCC.

Why not?

There are plenty of errors on both sides. And plenty of stubborness too.

Dear Bill,

I totally agree there are errors on all sides, but the main points we are duscussing here are those of tbe RCC/CC with regards to scripture.

- The popes lineage to Peter
- Idol worship/the use of graven images
- The changing of the 10 commandments
- Praying through Mary as an mediator to God, when Jesus is the intercessor of ALL prayer.
- Repenting through a priest!
- During communion, called mass by the RCC/CC actually believing the bread and wine is Jesus' body and blood

All these and more, those listed by B-A-C and other in the 95 theses.

They are catholic practices and do not stack up with scripture, in fact they stack up against.

 

[Bill]

Bill, let us not forget, you started the discussion, the post.

I believe thexquestion is, why can't you back up your statement that the catholics, as you say, can trace the popes lineage back to Peter?

You are saying, what every other catholic says, that the catholics can, but there is no substance to that statement, because you none of you do so.

Tell me, tell us, using scripture, how the catholics can state it and pro e it in all truth using God's Holy Word.

Please, thank you in advance.

I'm not quite sure I follow your question. Are you asking me to prove to you in Scripture that the Catholics can follow their history back to Peter.

The only thing that really comes to mind is Melchizedek that the priest consider themselves in the line of Melchizedek. Where is Jesus was called the High Priest in the line of Melchizedek

 

[Bill]

@Bill

A message I added earlier in the thread, please do read it all. Thank you.

The title of Pope, the head of the RCC?

The title pope, did not come from the pages of the Bible.

Tertullian, in the early part of the third century A.D., is believed to have been the first person to originally apply the term Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff or Pope) to the head of the Catholic Church. He used the term, however, in sarcastic rebuke of Pope Callixtus I (who had authority over the church from 217 to 222) whom he felt was exercising to much unilateral power in the church.

Where did Tertullian which became the title of Pope?
- Did it come from a lengthy doctrinal analysis of Scripture?
- Was it related, at all, to the apostle Peter's status in the early church?


One of the foundational dogmas of the RCC is that, the current Pope, is part of an unbroken chain, and have received their authority to rule the church directly from the apostle Peter.

Nineteen years after the death of Jesus, 49 A.D., the early church was in turmoil. An all-out doctrinal war erupted between those who firmly believed that a person must be circumcised before they can be saved and those who felt the ritual had no bearing on a person's salvation. The discussions in the churches got heated, it was decided that the matter needed to be settled, once and for all, through a gathering of church elders and brethren in Jerusalem.

This gathering (known as the Jerusalem conference, Acts 15), included Jesus' original apostles (Peter, John, etc.), was also attended by the Apostles Paul and Barnabas, Titus, and many others (see Galatians 2).

If ever there was a time for Peter to assert his authority over the church and to let everyone know 'who is the boss' it was now.
The first century church would never again gather in the way it did in 49 A.D., with all the well-known church leaders in attendance.

After heated debates regarding the circumcision issue, and testimony from Paul, Barnabas and Peter regarding what God had done through them toward the Gentiles, a decision is arrived at.

Was it Peter that announced to the church, from a position of spiritual authority, what the church would now teach regarding the circumcision question? NO!

It was JAMES, one of the other apostles, who not only renders a final decision the assembled church agrees it, but who also writes a letter summarizing the decision to be read in the churches (Acts 15:13 - 32)!.

The RCC claimed line is RCC created for themselves, NOT from scripture as most people know, but catholic's won't accept

If the early church never used the exalted title of Pope for Peter, or even recognized that HE was the final authority on all church matters, where did it come from?

Read on...

The origin of the title of Pope for the head of the Catholic Church is much older than even the first century church.

In ancient Rome, the term Pontifex Maximus was used well before 254 B.C. for the highest position within the Roman Republic's PAGAN religion.

Over the years the position became highly politicized until, beginning with the reign of Emperor Augustus (27 B.C. to 14 A.D.), it became one of the many Imperial titles.

Today, according to the Catholic Church, the title Pontifex Maximus is the most noteworthy one used for the Pope. It is considered the distinctive mark of honour bestowed on the Bishop of Rome as head of the church worldwide.

Catholics officially and readily admit that the title of Pope bestowed on its most powerful leader came directly from paganism.

"As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the p. there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome" (1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Pope).

Taken from
Where did the Pope get his title?
www.biblestudy.org

Shalom

My understanding of the concept of Pope is nothing more than being a shepherd to the flock.

And as Shepherd of the flock still under Jesus who is God.

Now there are plenty of Protestant churches that have a shepherd some call them Bishops and although they don't use the term Pope they are still leaders of their flock.

Another name for the Pope is the bishop of Rome.

 

[Bill]

Dear Bill,

I totally agree there are errors on all sides, but the main points we are duscussing here are those of tbe RCC/CC with regards to scripture.

- The popes lineage to Peter
- Idol worship/the use of graven images
- The changing of the 10 commandments
- Praying through Mary as an mediator to God, when Jesus is the intercessor of ALL prayer.
- Repenting through a priest!
- During communion, called mass by the RCC/CC actually believing the bread and wine is Jesus' body and blood

All these and more, those listed by B-A-C and other in the 95 theses.

They are catholic practices and do not stack up with scripture, in fact they stack up against.

As you pointed out this is the threat I started and I don't recall it being called just the Catholics but I titled it Protestants and Catholics.

But I'm glad you are willing to at least acknowledge that there are errors on both sides. And to be quite frankly I didn't start this chat to find out who's right and who's wrong but to talk about things to understand why people think the way they do when it comes to simple things like how did Catholics claim to be able to talk to those that have passed on. And how that is scriptural.

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Yup, doing OTR some 40 yrs now

I did it for ten years until my head fell apart...I'd still be doing it if that had not happened. I loved it

 

[Brother-Paul]

I'm not quite sure I follow your question. Are you asking me to prove to you in Scripture that the Catholics can follow their history back to Peter.

The only thing that really comes to mind is Melchizedek that the priest consider themselves in the line of Melchizedek. Where is Jesus was called the High Priest in the line of Melchizedek

I say this in love my friend, you seen to agree with a lot you don't actually understand, you don't actually know about

There is a definite link between Melchizedek and Jesus as High Priest but not with Peter and the pope.

If we look at Hebrews 4:14 we can will see that Jesus is called there a “great high priest.” And throughout this section, from 4:14 to 7:28, various arguments are made to show that Jesus is a great High Priest. But back in chapter 5, verses 6 and 10, for the first time Jesus is connected with Melchizedek. But nothing is made of that.

The thesis by Aquinas, argues that “there is a necessary continuity between the law, priesthood, and sacrifice of the old and new covenants.”
But there exists a fundamental difference between the priesthood of the old law.

This is the only link I see, there is no link to Peter and the pope, other than the one invented by the RCC.

 

[Bill]

I did it for ten years until my head fell apart...I'd still be doing it if that had not happened. I loved it

Head fell apart . ? Didnt eat enough junk food and coffee . Like glue for the body..

Sorry to hear you had issues. With the right company driving can be a lot of fun . I. E. Old Keen

 

[Brother-Paul]

My understanding of the concept of Pope is nothing more than being a shepherd to the flock.

And as Shepherd of the flock still under Jesus who is God.

Now there are plenty of Protestant churches that have a shepherd some call them Bishops and although they don't use the term Pope they are still leaders of their flock.

Another name for the Pope is the bishop of Rome.

Your understanding of shepherd of a flock is totally different to saying the pope is on the line of Peter and the church.

A shepherd can be a saved or lost souls looking after a flock, believers or unbelievers, they are still shepherd if they look after a flock.

The issue is what the RCC proclaim Bill, the pope is from the line of Peter. It is RCC intervention my friend

I am aware another name is bishop of Rome. Bishop is in scripture, pope is not, to call himself bishop of Rome is fine, but not to say the bishop of Rome is of a line with Peter.

The issue is RCC created, that is the point.

 

[Brother-Paul]

As you pointed out this is the threat I started and I don't recall it being called just the Catholics but I titled it Protestants and Catholics.

But I'm glad you are willing to at least acknowledge that there are errors on both sides. And to be quite frankly I didn't start this chat to find out who's right and who's wrong but to talk about things to understand why people think the way they do when it comes to simple things like how did Catholics claim to be able to talk to those that have passed on. And how that is scriptural.

Regarding the title your title was fine.

Now I am not sticking up for protestants Bill, and I cannot believe the RCC statements. The issue is that the RCC are quoting things which cannot be justified by scripture.

B-A-C included are list of the main items, he showed the catholic beliefs, he showed the protestants do not agree and that the RCC/CC was in error.

It is wonderful that you would love to see the RCC and Protestant churches come together, put their differences to one side, full credit my friend, but how can you expect other denominations, not just protestants, to come together when the RCC has so many practices and beliefs that do not line up with scripture.

The next part I would add now, which I stayed away from earlier, is what are you thinking when you say the churches come together?

The church Bill, the ekklesia, is the baptised born again from above washed and spiritually generated souls, in any denomination. Denominations are man made, caused by the RCC errors and created after the reformation.

I will go deeper Bill, the RCC has caused part of the confusion today, in the early RCC church the Greek word kuriakon was introduced, this word was used for the building so in effect causing the brethren and the building to both be called church.

- The brethren of born again souls - is the church, the ekklesia, the body of Christ.
- The building using the word kuriakon, IS NOT in scripture

kuriakos is, but kuriakon IS NOT

The building only commenced being called a church by a NONE Scriptural term, created by the RCC.

The congregation in a place of worship is also not the church, the church, using the term in scripture, which from memory I think is quoted over 100 times is the ekklesia, it consists of the born again from above souls, who have been washed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. John 3:1-21, 1 Peter 3:21. Therefore the church is already one Bill, as it is the born again from above souls across the world, regardless of age, sex, colour or tongue. That is wisdom from above my friend

A building called a church, none scripture based is in fact, a place of fellowship, a place of prayer and worship, it is the Father's house, and many places of worship, mainly Pentecostal are changing to this name. No I am not Pentecostal either Bill, but I am proud to be a member of the Body of Christ in which Jesus is the Head, part of the Body of Christ His church, a Spiritual stone in the Body of Christ, which will be the Bride of Christ, which is what our Lord will return in Glory for Bill.

Shalom

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

Head fell apart . ? Didnt eat enough junk food and coffee . Like glue for the body..

Sorry to hear you had issues. With the right company driving can be a lot of fun . I. E. Old Keen

Head fell apart....Lewy Body Dementia....LOL

 

[Downunder]

As you pointed out this is the threat I started and I don't recall it being called just the Catholics but I titled it Protestants and Catholics.

The name Anabaptist means "one who baptizes again".
Their persecutors named them this, referring to the practice of baptizing persons when they converted or declared their faith in Christ even if they had been baptized as infants.

Anabaptists require that baptismal candidates be able to make a confession of faith that is freely chosen and so rejected baptism of infants. The New Testament teaches to repent and then be baptized, and infants are not able to repent
and turn away from sin to a life of following Jesus.
The early members of this movement did not accept the name Anabaptist claiming that infant baptism was not part of scripture and was therefore null and void. They said that baptizing self-confessed believers was their first true baptism:

I have never taught Anabaptism. ... But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ. — Hubmaier, Balthasar (1526)

Roman Catholics and Protestants alike persecuted the Anabaptists, {including the Lutherans] resorting to torture and execution in attempts to curb the growth of the movement. The Protestants under Zwingli were the first to persecute the Anabaptists, with Felix Manz becoming the first Anabaptist martyr in 1527.
On May 20 or 21, 1527, Roman Catholic authorities executed Michael Sattler. King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) "the best antidote to Anabaptism".
Even the Protestant monarchs (Edward VI of England and Elizabeth I of England), persecuted Anabaptists as they were deemed too radical and therefore a danger to religious stability.

With the burning of a 16th-century Dutch Anabaptist, Anneken Hendriks, who was charged with heresy the persecution of Anabaptists was condoned by the ancient laws of Theodosius I and Justinian I which were passed against
the Donatists, and decreed the death penalty for anyone who practised rebaptism.
"Martyrs Mirror" by Thieleman J. van Braght, describes the persecution and execution of thousands of Anabaptists in various parts of Europe between 1525 and 1660. Continuing persecution in Europe was largely responsible for the mass emigrations to North America by the Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites.
Unlike Calvinists, Anabaptists failed to gain recognition in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and as a result, they continued to be persecuted in Europe long after that treaty was signed.

Within the inspirationist wing of the Anabaptist movement, it was not unusual for charismatic manifestations to appear, such as dancing, falling under the power of the Holy Spirit, "prophetic processions"
(at Zurich in 1525, at Munster in 1534 and at Amsterdam in 1535) and speaking in tongues.

 

[Bill]

Regarding the title your title was fine.

Now I am not sticking up for protestants Bill, and I cannot believe the RCC statements. The issue is that the RCC are quoting things which cannot be justified by scripture.

B-A-C included are list of the main items, he showed the catholic beliefs, he showed the protestants do not agree and that the RCC/CC was in error.

It is wonderful that you would love to see the RCC and Protestant churches come together, put their differences to one side, full credit my friend, but how can you expect other denominations, not just protestants, to come together when the RCC has so many practices and beliefs that do not line up with scripture.

The next part I would add now, which I stayed away from earlier, is what are you thinking when you say the churches come together?

The church Bill, the ekklesia, is the baptised born again from above washed and spiritually generated souls, in any denomination. Denominations are man made, caused by the RCC errors and created after the reformation.

I will go deeper Bill, the RCC has caused part of the confusion today, in the early RCC church the Greek word kuriakon was introduced, this word was used for the building so in effect causing the brethren and the building to both be called church.

- The brethren of born again souls - is the church, the ekklesia, the body of Christ.
- The building using the word kuriakon, IS NOT in scripture

kuriakos is, but kuriakon IS NOT

The building only commenced being called a church by a NONE Scriptural term, created by the RCC.

The congregation in a place of worship is also not the church, the church, using the term in scripture, which from memory I think is quoted over 100 times is the ekklesia, it consists of the born again from above souls, who have been washed and regenerated by the Holy Spirit. John 3:1-21, 1 Peter 3:21. Therefore the church is already one Bill, as it is the born again from above souls across the world, regardless of age, sex, colour or tongue. That is wisdom from above my friend

A building called a church, none scripture based is in fact, a place of fellowship, a place of prayer and worship, it is the Father's house, and many places of worship, mainly Pentecostal are changing to this name. No I am not Pentecostal either Bill, but I am proud to be a member of the Body of Christ in which Jesus is the Head, part of the Body of Christ His church, a Spiritual stone in the Body of Christ, which will be the Bride of Christ, which is what our Lord will return in Glory for Bill.

Shalom

A lot of claims .

Getting into a finger pointing arguement gets a little silly in my mind, at this point. Almost as bad as Republicans and Democrats in the USA setting blame for many things that set us where we are today.

Do you really believe the RCC had so much power as to " create " so much from almost the beginning till the reformation. Almost where God isnt involved . That is how it comes across to me.

Your examples of the word " Pope " not being in scripture , so what.

Using your analogy, the United States must be an evil emipre. We have a President. And the word President isnt found in the Bible. You drive an automobile, it must be from the devil, that word is not found in scripture, therefore we all worship Satan. Cell phones, toilets, riding mowers, shall i go on. All these things from the devil, as the words are not found in the Bible.

 

[Bill]

The name Anabaptist means "one who baptizes again".
Their persecutors named them this, referring to the practice of baptizing persons when they converted or declared their faith in Christ even if they had been baptized as infants.

Anabaptists require that baptismal candidates be able to make a confession of faith that is freely chosen and so rejected baptism of infants. The New Testament teaches to repent and then be baptized, and infants are not able to repent
and turn away from sin to a life of following Jesus.
The early members of this movement did not accept the name Anabaptist claiming that infant baptism was not part of scripture and was therefore null and void. They said that baptizing self-confessed believers was their first true baptism:

I have never taught Anabaptism. ... But the right baptism of Christ, which is preceded by teaching and oral confession of faith, I teach, and say that infant baptism is a robbery of the right baptism of Christ. — Hubmaier, Balthasar (1526)

Roman Catholics and Protestants alike persecuted the Anabaptists, {including the Lutherans] resorting to torture and execution in attempts to curb the growth of the movement. The Protestants under Zwingli were the first to persecute the Anabaptists, with Felix Manz becoming the first Anabaptist martyr in 1527.
On May 20 or 21, 1527, Roman Catholic authorities executed Michael Sattler. King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) "the best antidote to Anabaptism".
Even the Protestant monarchs (Edward VI of England and Elizabeth I of England), persecuted Anabaptists as they were deemed too radical and therefore a danger to religious stability.

With the burning of a 16th-century Dutch Anabaptist, Anneken Hendriks, who was charged with heresy the persecution of Anabaptists was condoned by the ancient laws of Theodosius I and Justinian I which were passed against
the Donatists, and decreed the death penalty for anyone who practised rebaptism.
"Martyrs Mirror" by Thieleman J. van Braght, describes the persecution and execution of thousands of Anabaptists in various parts of Europe between 1525 and 1660. Continuing persecution in Europe was largely responsible for the mass emigrations to North America by the Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites.
Unlike Calvinists, Anabaptists failed to gain recognition in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 and as a result, they continued to be persecuted in Europe long after that treaty was signed.

Within the inspirationist wing of the Anabaptist movement, it was not unusual for charismatic manifestations to appear, such as dancing, falling under the power of the Holy Spirit, "prophetic processions"
(at Zurich in 1525, at Munster in 1534 and at Amsterdam in 1535) and speaking in tongues.

It doesnt say in the scripture, that the method is a must, set in stone.

That would be like saying , you have to speak with your lips , Jesus is Lord. What about people who cant talk are they created for hell?

God doesnt create falsehood

 

[Bill]

Head fell apart....Lewy Body Dementia....LOL

Hope all is better for you now