Featured 'Tradition'

utilyan,

You have a way of cutting right to the chase... Keep it up, brother.

Herbert

 

Bible believing churches, but not the RCC.

The fact that the "Eucharist" so-called is not found in the Bible demonstrates that the doctrine of the RCC is wrong.

Why does the RCC advocate murder of any kind?

It is the Bible that never changes.
The RCC is like a chameleon. It changes according to culture, and is not afraid to change either practice or doctrine.
Take a look at history:
At the beginning of the eleventh century the common person had a part in the election of the pope, to the consternation of the bishops.
The Cluny reforms of that century changed this practice (which they considered evil) by placing the appointment of the Pope in the hands of the College of Cardinals, a small body of high advisers to the Pope (the system still used today in the Roman Catholic Church).
This is practice of course. But the former method was considered "evil." It had to be changed.

Things change because they have to. Right? The earlier history (only one century earlier)
Twenty Popes succeeded each other in what became generally known as the “Rule of the Harlots.” Popes made their sons successors to the papacy. Murder, assassination, fighting, prostitution, and bribery were the order of the day.
An end to this immorality, debauchery, and infamy came in 962-963 when Otto the German cleared out the remnants of this papal line, set up a new Pope, and took for himself and his successors the right of papal nomination

--Quite a noble and upstanding report of the Catholic leadership of the time don't you think?
But Otto's solution? Set up a new line of popes and allow for he and his successors the right of papal nomination. Now the pope is chosen by a king more for his statesmanship rather than spiritual qualities. But they were never spiritual in the first place were they?
Hey, if does't work, change it.

The RCC never had God on its side. That is why others, like the Reformers, left it.

And Luther stood alone when he nailed his 95 Theses on that church door. There was no one cheering him on, when he did that which was right by standing for the truth.

Standing for the truth set forth in the Bible is more important than standing for the error of the RCC.

The Bible sets forth one faith, and only one faith. The Book of Jude commands the Christian to "Contend for that faith." Thus the RCC position is wrong.

We believe those doctrines which are clearly taught in the Bible as the trinity is.
Most RCC doctrine is not; it is man-made tradition such as purgatory, indulgences, etc.

The sad thing is that the RCC doctrine is not found in the Bible at all. Thus "interpretation" doesn't even come into question. You can't "interpret" a computer from the Bible because it isn't there. The same is true with RCC doctrine as purgatory and indulgences. It isn't a matter of interpretation. It isn't even in the Bible in the first place. It is pagan.

It does. It means the Scriptures. That is our final rule of faith and practice.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

I suppose that indicates how shallow the doctrine of the RCC really is.

The Bible has only one meaning--God's meaning. Man's responsibility is to determine what God is revealing to him, saying to him, in His Revelation, the Scriptures. There is only one meaning.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

The Church is not a result of the bible, The bible is a result of the church.

You don't even know what the bible is, A church put it in your hands.

Jesus Christ runs the church. For hundreds of years there was no bible.

Denial of the Eucharist is prime example of lack of sincerity.

There are thousands of means of communication, No where has God stated that the written form is superior to other forms of communication. The Eucharist is called COMMUNION for a reason.

Jesus Christ instituted a communication with specific tools and a command to use the same tools.

Bread, wine and people. It is equivalent of scripture in form, instead of paper it is people, instead of pen its wine and instead of ink it is bread.

Where do you get off telling Jesus that your method of communicating with the church is superior?

Jesus chose a humble method that the blind and illiterate can understand. In form it is equivalent to scripture. In content it is superior to scripture because JESUS WROTE IT.

Because Jesus wrote it, IT is the prime work. We don't check the bible to see if Christ is correct, We check with Christ to see if the bible is correct.

The motive we do Eucharist is the same he and the apostles did it.

Jesus and the apostles did not practice Sola Scriptura. Even your best theologians will admit this, just ask them.

Look close this encounter.

Mark 12
18Some Sadducees (who say that there is no resurrection) came to Jesus, and began questioning Him, saying, 19“Teacher, Moses wrote for us that IF A MAN’S BROTHER DIES and leaves behind a wife AND LEAVES NO CHILD, HIS BROTHER SHOULD MARRY THE WIFE AND RAISE UP CHILDREN TO HIS BROTHER. 20“There were seven brothers; and the first took a wife, and died leaving no children. 21“The second one married her, and died leaving behind no children; and the third likewise; 22and so all seven left no children. Last of all the woman died also. 23“In the resurrection, when they rise again, which one’s wife will she be? For all seven had married her.” 24Jesus said to them, “Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?


They both have scripture. The CHURCH that is ONE FLESH with Jesus Christ has to intervene to explain the same passages.

As scripture itself states 2 peter 3:16 . Scripture is HARD to understand and a person without PROPER guidance will only end up distorting SCRIPTURE to their own destruction.

DHK you never had proper guidance, You are like a drop out being taught by a drop out. NONE of your teachers has the apostolically approved understanding of the bible.

Luther's teachers, Calvin's teachers......FAILING GRADE. They have no idea how to read scripture. They have no teachers.

Right before them who had the proper understanding of scripture? NNE?

Just leapfrog 1500 years from Jesus then Calvin?

 

The Bible represents the Word and will of God, and the "Bible" was given to men by God, not the Church. The Church was not even present when the first "books" were written. The Wordand will of God does not begin with the Torah, or Job, but from the Beginning.

While it might be argued the current canon/s are a result of the Church, that too can be argued.

The Church is without doubt a result of the Bible, because the Church is built upon the Foundational Principles of the Doctrine of Christ given in the Hebrew Scriptures, revealed and clarified in the New Testament,and continues to exist based on the Inspired Word of God.


God bless.

 

So you think there should be dialogue, is that right?

Can you explain why you don't really quote your antagonists but usually just give little sermonettes of your view?




God bless.

 

The Body of Christ, despite her failures, yes, for they cannot undermine God's Sovereignty.

Churches, though? That is another story altogether. And that is one of the primary issues in the debate about Tradition.

One group consistently relies on God's authority, while another adds Man to the mix, imputing an authority I/we do not see.

Leadership is still a member, not the Head. And until leadership recognizes the Head and gives Him sole authority, then we have a problem.

Anything with two heads is a freak of nature, lol.

But when remission of sins is sold...that is wrong.

From a Catholic Encyclopedia:

An indulgence is valid both in the tribunal of the Church and in the tribunal of God. This means that it not only releases the penitent from his indebtedness to the Church or from the obligation of performing canonical penance, but also from the temporal punishment which he has incurred in the sight of God and which, without the indulgence, he would have to undergo in order to satisfy Divine justice.

Link

Now...who was it you say runs "the Church?"

The sinner is indebted to...who?

Who...removes the "obligation of performing canonical penance, and temporal punishment?"

Who...has to be satisfied? Does this not conflict with the disclaimer given...


It is not the forgiveness of the guilt of sin; it supposes that the sin has already been forgiven.


So yes, Utilyan, if you are selling something your Church teaches...it makes your Church wrong, lol.


Continued...

 

Wouldn't matter if it was because people were Muslim or even gay (as a recent preacher seeks fame from)...it's wrong. And if it is your church...you should recognize the error (which you do) and take steps to correct it.

Sure it can.

Your Church changed when it began imposing doctrines created by men, that have no Biblical support (and often come into direct conflict with what is taught in Scripture), if, in fact, the "Catholic Church traces its roots back to Peter.

I agree. Except its a little hardd to know the rules when rules are created based on temporal.carnal motivation.

So the name of the church is more important than that which God has instructed us out of his word.

Do you look to the Church for forgiveness of temporal punishment?

Not at all, because Catholic churches can be found that range from conservative to charismatic. Same is true for "Baptist" churches, lol.

I agree with that fully.

But Martin Luther was not such a man, was he...?

Oh, I see, you are the man of integrity going it alone.

This is what you have to believe:

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.


Would you mind where "God gave" the Church this?

And you can use your Canon if you like.


Continued...

 

Thought Christ ran the Church, Utilyn?

True, but then double-speak is not secluded to Catholics.

You are straying from Catholic Doctrine, Utilyan, and changing it:


CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

(quote is the link)

You are accursed by your own Church's doctrinal position.

So you believe that men are saved by faith in Christ...alone?

The Catholic Church teaches that specifically?

Could you quote Catholic Doctrine which is recognized as authoritative on this?

A redeeming aspect of the Catholic Church.

You wouldn't, if you truly believed that God is able to preserve His Word...despite the efforts of men.

I've always found them to be a this and that kind of group, but hey, that's just me.



Not sure how that is relevant of your post, which really is this and this, lol, seeing you seem a little fragmented in your statements.

You have ignored my own statement concerning Sola Fide, which pertains to a salvific context, rather than a context of progressive sanctification.

I have not insisted on predestination as something relevant to that issue.

I have not insisted man, that he participates through works his own salvation.


CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.


To be fair there is an underlying context which addresses free will and the assumption that an "impious man" (which I see as a reference to an ungodly man) can claim to be justified through Christ without evidence, but, two things to consider: most Protestant/Reformed/Evangelicals also affirm that, which has not led to a reconciliation in an Ecumenical effort for centuries.

The position of the Catholic Church is fairly well understood by those that embrace Sola Fide.


Continued...

 

Yet we are usually open to criticism and do not claim that something is properly interpreted because our church says so, lol. True, we do see a similarity among Protestants and Reformed in this respect, but personally I see numerous similarities between them and Catholics.

That's why I am an Independent (in the truest sense of the word, lol) Fundamental Baptist.

Yeah, they got up when that Catholic Priest Luther tried that funny business, all right.

Only?

Again, Utilyan...context.

Sola Fide does not nullify Sola Gratia, or Sola Scriptura.

Faith alone is relevant to the concept of works which follow salvation which are given salvific merit.

You, my friend, would need to pay your church for their remission of your guilt and temporal punishment.

Or you will end up in Purgatory...you sinner!



Me, I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this...


Hebrews 9:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


...cannot be hijacked by the Catholic Church, nor any other group.

I can say, though at times I yet sin, that the blood of Christ is sufficient, and that by His resurrection I am now saved. I know this because of His continuance in my upbringing as His child.

As the song says...there are no orphans of God.


Continued...

 

If you want examples of things given by GOD to man. The Eucharist and The Ten COMMANDMENTS.


How is it the TEN COMMANDMENTS, actual scripture written with the finger of GOD is not the first page of your bible. Independently its own work.

I HAVE the Ten commandments. You only have a mention of it in exodus and other works, reference to it. But I HAVE IT. I have the Ten commandments.

On its own the ten commandments is holy scripture. SO HOLY the fragments of tablets were INSIDE the ARK.

You would have to review MAN MADE scripture to certify the TEN COMMANDMENTS. While I would do it the other way around because the CLEARANCE of GOD and Jesus is higher.

God told you to write a note, I'm holding a note GOD WROTE himself. Which is greater?

The EUCHARIST prime example of "scripture" you toss aside as inferior, because it involves humble tools of communication that are not to your uppity standard of ink and paper.

This is even after scripture itself tells you INK and PAPER is a inferior method, 2 Corinthians 3.


Jesus is not a separate entity of church, One flesh.

I'm more acceptable for you to believe we are not it (the church) rather then for you to believe THE CHURCH takes orders from the bible. Because Jesus Christ is the church that is his body.

If the church was not one flesh with Jesus Christ, there is no way I would belong to any church organization, not catholic, not Baptist or anything.

 

Uh, yeah, that's why we give you guys such a hard time.

And no-one likes a bully...

And the Catholic Church doesn't do that, do they? lol

Well, let everyone who does...be anathema. But then, how will we know if it isn't a case of a man of integrity standing up against error, or...the playground bully?




God bless.

 

And how is it that you have this knowledge?

Perhaps read it somewhere?

That's easy, because under Old Testament Economies God gave instructions for man to find Christ, and in the New Covenant relationship Christ indwells us.



Secondly, God Himself ha abrogated the physical with the Spiritual Realities which were given in shadow, parable, figure, and type:


2 Corinthians 3:3

King James Version (KJV)

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


If you "interpret" this to mean God is disavowing Scripture, then I am truly sorry for you, my friend. And I would ask you to give me any Catholic teaching that states Scripture is unnecessary for the Church.

Here's a heads up, Utilyan, even Gentiles who did not have the Law had the Ten Commandments:



Romans 2:11-16

King James Version (KJV)


11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


Does this mean that Paul is trying to say...the Word of God is irrelevant?

Not at all:


Romans 3

King James Version (KJV)


3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?



Romans 2:17-23

King James Version (KJV)


17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;

19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,

20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.

21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?


Kind of a theme of its important to properly understand what God has revealed, don't you think?


Continued...

 

The important thing, Utilyan, is that it is the Word of God. Whether written on tables of stone, or written on the heart, swaying from the intent of the Word of God is always criticized in Scripture.

And the Ark was...earthly.


Hebrews 9

King James Version (KJV)


1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.

2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.

3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Could you describe "the other way around?"

Could you explain why God and Christ make it a point to validate the Word of God yet you are saying...it is irrelevant? I don't think many Catholics who are familiar with Scripture would back you up on that.

Definitely the writings of men God appointed as writers of Scripture.

Only you can validate the note you have was written by God. There are no Apostles or Prophets to verify that God has chosen you to convey revelation.

Two examples:


2 Peter 1:21

King James Version (KJV)

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.




2 Peter 3:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.


The suggestion that I am writing is the note is almost as absurd as you suggesting you can speak out of your heart, apart from Scripture, the Word and will of God.

The "note" is found in the above passages on this point. What do you have? And why, when it is so conflicting with that written by men approved of God, and validated by approved men of God...

...would anything think you have a "note from God?"


Continued...

 

?

I partake of Communion. And do so according to that which is written.

It is the interpretation of Communion which was written with ink and paper by men who only have their colleagues and followers to validate what they wrote is Biblical.

So your interpreatation of this...


2 Corinthians 3

King James Version (KJV)


1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?

2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.


...is Paul is saying his Epistles are irrelevant? lol


Let me ask you this, Utilyan...is it okay if men become followers of Paul? Apollos?

Peter?

Please explain from your heart your views on this.

We are not "one flesh," lol, we are one in spirit and Spirit.

Communion is a memorial, my friend, the Lord died once, He offered up His flesh once.


Continued...

 

Very sorry to hear that. Apparently you have not spent much time in Scripture, that you might know that obedience to the Word of God is just basic to a Biblical understanding.


Deuteronomy 12:32

King James Version (KJV)

32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.


Deuteronomy 13

King James Version (KJV)

1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,

2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.


Deuteronomy 18:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.


Revelation 22:17-19

King James Version (KJV)

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


The Book is important, my friend. Your note?

Not so much.

My commentary? Not so much.

He is the Head of the Body, not an equal.

He is Sovereign God.

So you will fellowship with only what adheres to what you want to believe.

You often make statements that even Catholics would reject, I have commented on that before.

If you are one flesh with Christ, would you mind sending me a picture of the holes in your hands, and the hole in you side?


God bless.

 

Darrell if your church is not one flesh with Jesus, DUMP IT.

Scripture says Jesus is ONE FLESH and head of the church. he runs it.

If CHURCH says does not equal Jesus says then its not really church is it?

Its not pretend church, Jesus is not taking applications for true church, because he already instituted and created the group.

All you got to figure out is where is it?

Putting on a fake mustache .......look here I am. That doesn't cut it. If God almighty comes down and says ok you are the church. Then you got game.

That's why Joe Smith, Ellen white, Muhammad all had some story about angel show up and God talking to them. They knew Without God there is no exception to a group he put together himself.


All your anathema quotes are defending against one extreme. Notice how you assume they hold the opposite extreme? Can you maybe read the text again slowly as possible.

You are mistaken in what they are really saying......same ways you do with scripture.

Not black does not mean only white.


"Yet we are usually open to criticism and do not claim that something is properly interpreted because our church says so, lol."


Every time you say "our church" why doesn't it have Jesus running it?

If "Our Church says" doesn't equate to "Jesus says" you should investigate your church on a deeper level.

 

The "Church" is not greater than God! It is God that is greater. And it is God that gave His revelation, the Bible, to the churches. There was no RCC until the fourth century, that is, the time of Constantine, but the canon of Scripture was completed when John wrote the Book of Revelation ca. 98 A.D. Only 50 years after that we have some translations of the Bible.

There is no such thing as "the church," only "churches," of which Christ is the head of each and every "Biblical local church." But the RCC is not a biblical church and never has been. It has been divorced from Christ from its very inception. A description of the RCC is given in Revelation 17:1-6.
God gave the Bible to His churches. I take it that you have never heard of the Peshitta or the Itala?

There is no Eucharist, at least not in the Bible, and that is a fact.
It is a pagan practice as can be seen by others The Aztecs of Central America were practicing something similar when Europeans discovered them in the sixteenth century. They had been doing this for centuries:

The high priest, in a long crimson robe, poised aloft the sacrificial knife, then with a single surgeon’s stroke lay open the naked breast of the offering, tore out the still-beating heart and showed it to the sun and the populace before casting it at the feet of the idol. The body of the sacrificial victim was then prepared as a feast for all, regarded as a sacrament similar to the Christian Eucharist and not degrading to the partakers of it. This ritual cannibalism in their religion may indicate an earlier general cannibalism among these people, because it is unlikely that a sacrifice unpalatable to man would be offered to the god. (Religions of the Word, Berry, p.25)

The same is true with the Incas, and even more so.
The Incas had a Holy Communion ritual, using a sacred bread called the sancu sprinkled with the blood of a sacrificial sheep. The following is a quotation from the ritual:
Take heed how you eat this sancu; for he who eats it in sin, and with a double will and heart, is seen by our Father, the Sun, who will punish him with grievous trouble. But he who with a single heart partakes of it, to him the Sun and the Thunderer will show favor, and will grant children and happy years, and abundance of all he requires.
--Pagan rituals or the Aztecs and Incas that are also found in other pagan religions like Mithraism. The pagan concept of the Eucharist came from pagan religions, not the Bible.

The Eucharist is called "communion" because paganism called it the same thing. RCC is a copy-can religion, a form of Christianity that has been paganized. This is well known.
In the OT God spoke through the prophets.
In this day and age God has spoken through the apostles via their revelation as it is recorded in the NT through inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God. Any other method is extra Biblical and prone to error.

And what would that be? God's ordained institution of this day and age is the local church.
Paul established over 100 churches on 3 different missionary journeys.
Every epistle that Paul wrote, was written either to a local church or a pastor of a local church.
Jesus wrote to seven pastors of seven local churches in the Book of Revelation.
God has put his blessing on the local church and ordained it for his method of carrying out his word in this day and age.

It is not scripture, nor any form of communication.

Jesus tells us in his Word (as does Paul) what the Lord's Supper is all about. The RCC disobeys this teaching, and opts for mysticism and superstition instead.

The only thing that Jesus wrote were some words in the sand recorded in John 8:8
John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
--You don't know what they were; neither do I.
The only written Word we have that tells us of Jesus is the Bible. It is inspired and preserved by God himself. Jesus rebukes those who are not acquainted with it.

This is mysticism and Gnosticism. Are you a Gnostic? How do you "check with Jesus?" What method do you use?

Pagans "do Eucharist." The apostles never heard of such a thing. It is not in the Bible. Show me where it is in the Bible.

I did. They said: Look in Acts 17:11; Isa.8:20; 2Tim.2:15, just for starters.

There is no "Church" in the passage or in the Bible, only "churches."
Jesus rebuked them. They knew not the "Scriptures." What was the problem? If they had known the scriptures, they could have used sola scriptura.

You have not quoted this properly
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Now the part that you seem to have deliberately left out is this part:
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest
--Those that are unlearned and unstable will often deliberately wrest the scriptures to their own destruction. Those sincerely seeking the truth will no doubt find it. But one thing is painfully obvious. The RCC does not and never has had "the truth." They are leading people away from the truth down a road of spiritual destruction.

Are you the courtyard bully? Do you have a personal vendetta to call people out?
I had very good guidance, first in a false religion. Then I was saved--born again by the Holy Spirit of God, wherein by the power of Christ, the Holy Spirit came and indwelt me. Then, I was able to understand the Scripture like I was never able to before. Placing the Bible beside the teachings of the RCC it was so clear to me that they were two distinct paths; two distinct teachings, each opposing each other. One or the other had to be chosen. Both could not be followed at the same time. I chose the Bible and I thank God every day that I did. A mixture of paganism and Christianity was not for me.

What has that got to do with me? I am neither a Lutheran nor a Presbyterian.

Wrong! The Baptists or like minded groups which have existed since the apostles. Not even the RCC has existed that long.

The RCC began in the time of Constantine, and not a minute before.

 

Ephesians 5
28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body. 31FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

No one ever hated his OWN FLESH, but nourishes and cherishes it, JUST AS CHRIST ALSO DOES THE CHURCH.

We are members of HIS BODY.

Two become one flesh. The mystery is He is talking in reference to JESUS and the CHURCH.
How they are one flesh.


The Eucharist.

You say it doesn't exist until Constantine 300ad-ish and that we are cannibals.


Well here we have the years 150-ish before Constantine was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.


Your accusation of cannibalism that's exactly the charge that was brought up on early Christians by Romans during the persecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Apology_of_Justin_Martyr


65. We, however, after thus washing the one who has been convinced and signified his assent, lead him to those who are called brethren, where they are assembled. They then earnestly offer common prayers for themselves and the one who has been illuminated and all others everywhere, that we may be made worthy, having learned the truth, to be found in deed good citizens and keepers of what is commanded, so that we may be saved with eternal salvation. On finishing the prayers we 286greet each other with a kiss. Then bread and a cup of water and mixed wine are brought to the president of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of the universe through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length that we have been deemed worthy to receive these things from him. When he has finished the prayers and the thanksgiving,816816Or, one could equally well say "the Eucharistic prayer." the whole congregation present817817Literally, "all the people present," i.e., those present as being a gathering of the people of God (laos), the laity in the positive sense; cf. Neh. 8:5, 6. assents, saying, "Amen." "Amen" in the Hebrew language means, "So be it." When the president has given thanks and the whole congregation has assented, those whom we call deacons give to each of those present a portion of the consecrated818818Literally, "eucharistized," i.e., blessed by the solemn prayer of thanksgiving, in accordance with the Jewish form of prayer, in which offering thanks to God for his gifts also blesses them for human use (cf. Mark 14:22, 23 and I Tim. 4:4, 5); but eucharisteo as a transitive verb in this connection seems to be Christian and Gentile. bread and wine and water, and they take it to the absent.
66. This food we call Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by God's word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.819819"Eucharistized food," see note 84; "by the word of prayer which comes from him" (di’ euchēs logou tou par’ autou) refers to the pattern of the Eucharistic prayer as instituted by Christ—para for the source of a tradition also, e.g., in ch. 42, fin., and in ch. 61—the logos of baptism learned from the apostles, which probably means its rationale, but may mean the threefold formula. For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, thus handed down what was commanded them: that Jesus, taking bread and having given thanks, said, "Do this for my memorial, this is my body"; and likewise taking the cup and giving thanks he said, "This is my blood"; and gave it to them alone.820820Mark 14:22–24 and I Cor. 11:23–25; quoted as from the Gospels, but perhaps representing in brief what Justin was used to hearing recited at the celebration of the Eucharist. This also the wicked 287demons in imitation handed down as something to be done in the mysteries of Mithra; for bread and a cup of water are brought out in their secret rites of initiation, with certain invocations which you either know or can learn. --1st apology

"820Mark 14:22–24 and I Cor. 11:23–25; quoted as from the Gospels, but perhaps representing in brief what Justin was used to hearing recited at the celebration of the Eucharist."


Who are these BAPTIST who believe in the REAL PRESENCE of the EUCHARIST?

What KIND of BAPTIST is JUSTIN?



You just accused Catholics of the exact same thing the Romans did. And here is a Christian explaining to an emperor that the EUCHARIST and the "cannibalism" involved.

This 150 ad before Constantine.

2 birds one stone.

 

Not the apostate RCC. The passage does not have the RCC in mind.
Paul is writing to the local church at Ephesus not to the RCC. Thus he is writing to biblical local churches every where, not to a denomination, not to the RCC, but to local churches such as the church at Ephesus of which he was the head.

Jesus was the head of the church at Ephesus and that being so He also is the head of the local church I attend. But he has nothing to do with the RCC. He never did.

Did I use those words? Quote me.
There may have been accusations of cannibalism by others. That is not strange. People call Christians all kind of things.
However, there is no Eucharist in the Bible. You can't make statements without proof.
Learn where the word came from:

From Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Eucharist
What does the word mean? If traced back to the Greek it simply means grace or favor, or to rejoice. It is the RCC that has taken the word and mangled it into some mystical superstitious meaning that it never had of: transubstantiation. Sad! What a distortion of the truth!

Don't accuse me of something I didn't say. Quote me.

Justin Martyr is a man and that is all. Many of the ECF were the very one's that introduced heresies into Christianity. If you want truth look to the Bible not to Justin Marty. You are looking in the wrong places. His works are neither inspired, nor does it look like they are correctly translated since the word "eucharist" never even came into existence until middle English. It has a different meaning than what the RCC assign it.

 

Well heres a matter of pick your poison.

You claim RCC is an apostasy, when did it start? Where is the uproar against this new heresy called "Catholicism".

You say many ECF introduced heresies. I bet you can't name ONE early church father that had it right.

Fact......You can't name ONE SOUL not mentioned in the bible that has the faith correct between 50ad to 1000ad.

Baptists did not exist.

You mention no sources. The Baptist religion only started last week by a guy who was a ANGLICAN PRIEST.

You can claim that's not your religion. Get a better name instead of ripping off the name and scriptures of others.