The antichristian Church

[Carbon]

That's the bit I know... We can never take their communion. Something is terribly wrong with that.

To think, they believe their priests has the power to call Jesus down into a piece of bread and wine.

 

[David1701]

Well, at one time, the Catholic church was the only Christian church. The Roman Catholic Church started as corrupt. We still have the catholic church, it started as faithful and still is.

Yikes! No!

The RC organisation (I don't like to call it a "church") did not exist until the 4th C. A.D..

The early church (before Roman Catholicism existed) consisted of local assemblies of disciples of Jesus Christ (one per town).

Edit: Wait, are you distinguishing between the catholic church (the church universal) and the "Catholic Church" (the organisation that calls itself by that name)?

 

[Eleanor]

Transubstantiation is not blasphemy?

Good point. . .

Probably has its roots in the OT sacrificial system where they ate of the sacrifice in a fellowship meal.

 

[Eleanor]

How about:

But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 1 Timothy 4:1.
who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. 1 Tim 4:3.
Ask yourself. Of all the religions and systems in the world, which has become apostate concerning faith, and who forbids to eat?
Do not the RCC and her pope forbid male and female members of the clergy to marry? Don't they also forbid the eating of meat and eggs on Fridays during their feasts?

I'm familiar with fasting from meat for a period of time, but not from eggs.

Do we not find fasting in the NT?

 

[David1701]

Good point. . .

Probably has its roots in the OT sacrificial system where they ate of the sacrifice in a fellowship meal.

It's very likely that the RC transubstantiation heresy has its roots in the cult of Mithras, in which they would eat their "god", in the form of a sun-shaped wafer.

 

[Eleanor]

It's very likely that the RC transubstantiation heresy has its roots in the cult of Mithras, in which they would eat their "god", in the form of a sun-shaped wafer.

I'm thinkin' it has more to do with Jn 6:53-56.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm familiar with fasting from meat for a period of time, but not from eggs.

Do we not find fasting in the NT?

I believe @Carbon is talking about creating laws which people are required to follow - like a requirement to abstain from eating meat on Fridays...

Fasting is voluntary.

 

[Eleanor]

I believe @Carbon is talking about creating laws which people are required to follow - like a requirement to abstain from eating meat on Fridays...

Fasting is voluntary.

Yes, it has it ordinances.

 

[David1701]

I'm thinkin' it has more to do with Jn 6:53-56.

That's the justification they give for transubstantiation; but, there's nothing to suggest that that's where the sun-shaped wafer came from; however, the practice of eating one's "sun god", in the form of a circular wafer, was already known from sun worship cults.

 

[Eleanor]

That's the justification they give for transubstantiation; but, there's nothing to suggest that that's where the sun-shaped wafer came from;
however, the practice of eating one's "sun god", in the form of a circular wafer, was already known from sun worship cults

You do not see it as an evolvement from the NT loaf when congregations got large?

Do we find anything in historical records to indicate that the sun was worshipped by them?

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[David1701]

You do not see it as an evolvement from the NT loaf when congregations got large?

Do we find anything in historical records to indicate that the sun was worshipped by them?

It's common knowledge that RCism incorporated many pagan elements (they don't deny it). This does not mean that they openly worshipped the sun, of course; but, in the 4th C. A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion, and he allowed the pagans to keep many of their "holy days", and other practices. The backslidden "church" simply re-named them, so that a very compromised "church" and the new pagan members would both find it acceptable.

 

[Carbon]

It's common knowledge that RCism incorporated many pagan elements (they don't deny it). This does not mean that they openly worshipped the sun, of course; but, in the 4th C. A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine declared Christianity to be the official religion, and he allowed the pagans to keep many of their "holy days", and other practices. The backslidden "church" simply re-named them, so that a very compromised "church" and the new pagan members would both find it acceptable.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nevermind... I just thought of the Mary stuff...

 

[David1701]

Are we being overly legalistic here on the holidays?

I mean, we remember Christ's birth and death, isn't that all they do,?

There are ten "Holy Days of Obligation", in the RC organisation's calendar. Not all of these are observed in every country, however. There are other days that are not obligatory.

Catholic Holy Days of Obligation - Scripture Catholic

The Catholic Holy Days of Obligation are a number of important days in a calendar year when a Catholic is obliged to attend mass. The word ‘obligation’ is used because celebrating these feast days is thought to be the minimum level of commitment of someone who is Catholic. On a Holy Day, along...

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[Carbon]

Yikes! No!

The RC organisation (I don't like to call it a "church") did not exist until the 4th C. A.D..

Yes, around that time.

The early church (before Roman Catholicism existed) consisted of local assemblies of disciples of Jesus Christ (one per town).

Okay

Edit: Wait, are you distinguishing between the catholic church (the church universal) and the "Catholic Church" (the organisation that calls itself by that name)?

Yes, the first churches were actually called "the way." As you say, they were scattered around Asia Minor. They were pretty much all independent so to say, they each had a copy of the Apostles Creed, and as the epistles were coming around, they made copies. I think as history seems to show, God united the curches for her protection, and each was given a copy of the OT books, along with copies of the NT as it was written and copied. This was the catholic church. It wasn't until probably the 4th century that it started to become corrupt. And of course, much later 1400's, God used Martin Luther to start the Reformation as he tried not to leave the RCC at first, but to turn it back to the bible, unsuccessfully, of course.

 

[Carbon]

Good point. . .

Probably has its roots in the OT sacrificial system where they ate of the sacrifice in a fellowship meal.

Yes, and from a seriously bad understanding of scripture.

 

[David1701]

Yes, around that time.

Okay

Yes, the first churches were actually called "the way." As you say, they were scattered around Asia Minor. They were pretty much all independent so to say, they each had a copy of the Apostles Creed, and as the epistles were coming around, they made copies. I think as history seems to show, God united the curches for her protection, and each was given a copy of the OT books, along with copies of the NT as it was written and copied. This was the catholic church. It wasn't until probably the 4th century that it started to become corrupt. And of course, much later 1400's, God used Martin Luther to start the Reformation as he tried not to leave the RCC at first, but to turn it back to the bible, unsuccessfully, of course.

The local churches (assemblies of disciples of the Lord) have always been united, not in a man-made organisation, like Catholicism, but in Christ, by the Holy Spirit.

Any "church" that you can join, by any means other than being born of God, then attending and participating in, is a man-made organisaton, not a biblical church, which does not mean that there are no genuine Christians in it, of course.

The churches had begun to become corrupt long before the 4th C. A.D., since most major heresies existed by the 2nd C. A.D..

Neither Luther, nor anyone else, can turn RCism back to the Bible, since it is the Whore of Babylon and is destined for destruction. Come out of her, my people, that you be not partaker of her sins, nor receive of her plagues (from memory, so that might not be verbatim).

 

[Eleanor]

You guys all hate me, but if you would of looked closely at what I previously wrote, my forensic analysis of the Bible documentation proves that they edited the Bible to promote Peter. Y'all don't want to consider that because it messes with your Bible inerrant theology--even though the Catholics assembled the Bible! Weird. If you go into the Catholic Catechism book it will support all of the claims written here. I can prove specific numbers to focus on if anyone would like.

There is even a key language error made by the false teachers when they edited Matthew 16:17-19 that reveals their fraud.

I'm gonna post a summary of the differences between me and those on your site and pretty much everyone in the Church. I'd appreciate it if you allow comments on it so that I can see if I'm missing anything. You don't like what I write and don't bother to investigate it for it's accuracy, but regardless I always want to capture everything correctly and only print the truth.

Are you Catholic, is that why you think you are hated?

 

[Hazelelponi]

You guys all hate me, but if you would of looked closely at what I previously wrote, my forensic analysis of the Bible documentation proves that they edited the Bible to promote Peter. Y'all don't want to consider that because it messes with your Bible inerrant theology--even though the Catholics assembled the Bible! Weird. If you go into the Catholic Catechism book it will support all of the claims written here. I can prove specific numbers to focus on if anyone would like.

There is even a key language error made by the false teachers when they edited Matthew 16:17-19 that reveals their fraud.

I'm gonna post a summary of the differences between me and those on your site and pretty much everyone in the Church. I'd appreciate it if you allow comments on it so that I can see if I'm missing anything. You don't like what I write and don't bother to investigate it for it's accuracy, but regardless I always want to capture everything correctly and only print the truth.

We aren't Catholic... I've been the hardest on you and I'm just a Baptist.

We are just strict Protestants (eg: we protest Rome).

So you know, I'm a convert to Christianity and have my own personality attached. I'm not great at this saint business yet, but I'm good at spotting what I came out of, generally speaking of course.

I have not always been Paul's cheerleader myself.