Featured Catholic tradition, not the Bible, teaches a change to Sundaykeeping.

The Bible recorded down to us that it was changed in Acts time, correct? Being raised under Judaism, since God gave that sabbath to Israel, who among them had authority from Jesus to reinstate it now as Sunday in Church Age? Apostles!

 

Nope! sabbath was only given to israel to keep, now we are under the Church Age iof grace, and so we worship Sunday as day Lord Jesus ushered in that new era!

 

Except the Eucharist is not valid!

 

This brand new idea first appeared 1500 years later. Not one squeak against Pope, Eucharist, or Infant baptism.

You wanted to talk to a Christian they are called Catholics. Christian means Catholic.

The first squabble over baptism was people baptizing infants before they were 8 days old.

Your point of view has existed less then 500 years.

Even your SAINTS MARTIN LUTHER JOHN CALVIN is pro infant baptism and Eucharist

The BAPTIST idea of believers baptism came much later when a ANGLICAN PRIEST invented the BAPTIST denomination.

HE BAPTIZED HIMSELF, because there was no trace to Jesus Christ. HE KNEW IT. Later REPENTED, DUMPED his made up denomination, left to join the menno anabaptists.
here you are at is a fringe radical hyper liberal portion of Christianity. Not even most baptist would agree with you, westboro maybe.

Catholic>Anglican>Baptist>Indepedent>Calvinist>hyper-calvinist.

Even among the MAJORITY of Calvinist. which is the Presbyterians that OUT NUMBER baptist by 50 million. Their version of Calvinism is SAINTLIKE in comparison.

How do presbyterians feel about baptism?

"Presbyterian, Congregational and Reformed Christians believe that baptism, whether of infants or adults, is a "sign and seal of the covenant of grace", and that baptism admits the party baptised into the visible church."

You guys got a PLANK to fix first. When your own camps leaders are against you, when the FOUNDER of your denomination JUMPS SHIP.

At this point Criticisms are just laughable.

 

We are Baptists, people of the Bible. and none of the Apostles would know those catholic false doctrines!

 

Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Are all Catholics.

 

catholic as in meaning the Universal church, not the Church of Rome!

 

You said the word "protos" is in the New Testment - Well it is logical to assume that you were talking about the King James Version or some other MV.

I did not realize that you were using the greek Bible.
Now in the KJV - it does NOT say protos -it say first. Apparently, he was the first chosen of the apostles.

Still it has nothing to do with being a pope.





that has been asked and answered - so lets move on.[/QUOTE]
if peter was 'Pope" to the jews, was paul "Pope" to the gentiles then?

 

Thats us!.... We don't call ourselves ROMAN CATHOLICS.

I know the meaning of the words. Im saying they were thrown interchangeably As the word MEN and PEOPLE. Islamic and muslim.

It was the same thing for 1500 years.

A distinction is a LATE PROTESTANT IDEA in response to NOT EXISTING AT ALL prior to 1500s.
Which is why they are called PROTESTANT............what are they protesting? REFORMIST what are they reforming?

It is a LATTER idea

Catholic was never a BRAND name.

When the Muslims fought Christians, They didn't ask which ones...they are ALL CATHOLIC.

I don't believe HINDU religion. That doesn't mean I start a BRAND NEW FAITH called PROTEST DURR HINDUS.

No everyone was Catholic/Christian there is a INTERNAL SPLIT inside the western rite.

If we ask who taught you and asked that person who taught them, and kept asking over and over. Its going to get traced to a Catholic.

 

If its any consolation we believe you are part of the same church. We would call you brother and sisters.

The distinction as you understand it didn't come from us nor was it a global majority vote(we've always would have won).

We are Christians. The one and only Catholics.

Papists, Roman Catholics, the misnomer that a Catholic and a Christian are two different things, are ALL protestant inventions.

 

No roman church officially until Apostasy movement centuries later!

 

Actually Andrew was the first pope by your logic, John 1:40

40 One of the two who had heard Yochanan and had followed Yeshua was Andrew the brother of Shim‘on Kefa.
41 The first thing he did

Andrew brought the first convert to God.

Andrew was the first disciple mentioned, and the first one to do a blessed thing.

Therefore only Andrew can be the first and last pope. The office was not predicated on Andrew, thus all links to Peter are null and void.

Now that is settled, did the disciples ever worship Jesus or have a service with Andrew on the Sabbath? Show me the verse, and then we can decide if any one changed worship from Sabbath to Sunday.

Otherwise the disciples worshiped on the first day of the week in the upper room with Andrew, because they were waiting for Peter to get out of prison. Peter kept getting himself into sticky situations. See how easy it is for people hundreds of years after the fact to presume anything. All my points have a Bible verse, just do not have time to prove useless facts.

Useless facts became additives after 200 AD, and later became doctrines. Why, because facts make better defensive positions than Truth. Something to do with disobedience and the fallen nature of the very first human to disobey, Adam. Of course Satan sitting in Rome, after the Romans conquerored the Greeks, did not help any.

Perhaps Paul made the wrong choice to appeal to Ceasar, and should have just let the Roman Church die. Peter could not stand it and moved to Iraq. The cuisine was better than pork.

 

How many centuries later. Slap an actual date down. And I'll show you CATHOLICS teaching CATHOLIC things NOT EVEN 1 century after Jesus Christ ascended.

Name for us all the early legit Christians not mentioned in the bible. Give us the names of any 5 Christians not mentioned in the bible prior to the "apostasy movement".

Also why isnt there any complaint? Every debate, heresy, opposition that popped up was recorded from both sides.

You never hear about some group a Christians saying....gee who the heck are these new guys called CATHOLICS.

 

Turtullian and Justin Matyr may have been the first two apologist who did not agree, in a public forum, but united against how Rome treated the church. Justin was a philosopher from Shechum Samaria whom Turtullian claimed to be "of Athens" and not a true Christian, and Turtullian was a son of a Roman Centurion from Carthage. They both defended Christianity against the attacks of the Emporer. But they both had their own opinions on the writings of the Apostles. I do not think that it was until Eusebius and his works that the church leadership saw an universal church.

Quote from wiki:
Other critics of Eusebius' work cite the panegyrical tone of the Vita, plus the omission of internal Christian conflicts in the Canones, as reasons to interpret his duties as a reliable historian.

Being close to Constantine and the one to write his "biography", a universal church ideology would come in handy. Despite all the infighting back and forth for years.

I find it hard to see a "united" church until after Constantine. That it was called universal after that was probably just a Roman wish. The church was always one body in Christ, but hardly one body in belief. Like today, everyone seemed to think the "other" group had heresy in it.

 

I already stated there heresies and opposition recorded in history. I'm saying give me names. give me some legit CHRISTIANS who are not Catholic not mentioned in the bible.

 

Could you explain this a bit more?

 

Those names I gave are not Catholic, that is the point. You do not see, any one claiming "universal" . Can you find any early church father making that claim before Nicene?