Mary, Salvation, and Sin Offering

[Adonia]

"Jesus said 'it is his body,'" so you say. Your misled opinion is wrong. You don't see the metaphor when it is set right before you. You are blind to it.

Jesus also said:
I am the light. (but he is not a candle).
I am the door (but we don't literally knock on him).
Note, that Jesus says in Rev.3:20 Jesus says you have a door (in your life--body, soul and spirit). He says to you: "I stand at the]door and knock, if any man open the door I will come into him..."
Where is that door? Do you hear the knock? Does it sound the same as the rap on the door of your house? How do you know when Jesus is knocking on your door? How big is that door?
Perhaps you would like to explain that verse to me:

Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
--Please explain.

Jesus spoke in many metaphors. You deny some and and accept others. Your method of interpretation is very inconsistent. It is a method only convenient to RCC theology and not to true Biblical hermeneutics which "rightly divides the Word of truth (2Tim.2:15).
Thus the RCC, as well as yourself, is just plain wrong. We can say that standing on the authority of the Word of God.

If I had a wrong assessment you would be able to through my post point by point and demonstrate how it is wrong. Instead you find just one point of disagreement and instead of showing how it is wrong you simply parrot the RCC position. Sad.

I see, so for almost 1500 years all of Christendom was wrong on this issue and you are right? And it's not just the Roman Rite that believes this doctrine. In the 11th century when the first great schism happened in Christianity between East and West, our Eastern Orthodox brothers never abandoned this belief and they too kept on with this basic Christian truth. The only thing with them is they don't try to explain it (transubstantiation), they consider the mechanics of it a "mystery".

No, you are the one's who have rejected this reality, following the teaching of one man (Zwingli) who came up with this false doctrine (15th/16th century). For me to reject the truth of the "Real Presence" would have me believe that God would allow such a falsehood to be perpetrated for so long, leading so many people astray and that is just not possible.

Yes, sometimes Jesus spoke in metaphors and sometimes he was direct and to the point and this time he was direct and to the point. At times you believe the Scriptures literally (a 24hr/7 day creation period, a talking burning bush etc.) but when it comes to this particular issue, you are suddenly a stickler for reading around what is exactly said.

As the Catholic Church so rightly teaches: "The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life....For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch". "It is the culmination both of Gods action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Article 3 - The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Catechism of the Catholic (Universal) Church)

 

[Adonia]

Additionally we know it is a sin to eat or drink blood.

But when we realize the meaning behind the third cup served at the Passover dinner, it makes SO much more sense. This is the cup that is offered after the dinner is finished. It is the cup of redemption. Jesus is our redeemer and it was His blood that bough our redemption. It was not the wine but the symbolism of what the cup represented in the Passover remembrance.

John 6: 52-66

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirite and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Why did these disciples turn away? Because many could not accept the literal words he was speaking. Jesus meant what he said and this reality was passed down to us from the very beginning of the Christian faith and somewhere along the line this was changed by a man who suddenly thought he knew better. We accept this basic truth and you reject this basic truth - it's that simple.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

John 6: 52-66

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirite and life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

Why did these disciples turn away? Because many could not accept the literal words he was speaking. Jesus meant what he said and this reality was passed down to us from the very beginning of the Christian faith and somewhere along the line this was changed by a man who suddenly thought he knew better. We accept this basic truth and you reject this basic truth - it's that simple.

I love this chapter. It's one of my most favorite in the Scripture. But Adonia, do you realize that the Lord Jesus Himself explained His meaning? Jesus says there in verse 63 that the flesh profits nothing. Do you believe Him? It is the Spirit that gives life, and His words are spirit and they are life. So what is the food according to Jesus? And how do we eat it? His words are the food and we eat them by believing.

 

[DHK]

I see, so for almost 1500 years all of Christendom was wrong on this issue and you are right? And it's not just the Roman Rite that believes this doctrine. In the 11th century when the first great schism happened in Christianity between East and West, our Eastern Orthodox brothers never abandoned this belief and they too kept on with this basic Christian truth. The only thing with them is they don't try to explain it (transubstantiation), they consider the mechanics of it a "mystery".

You don't know what a mystery is.
The word "mystery" is used 22 times in the Bible, and all in the NT. None are used in the superstitious and mystical way that you as you use the word.
Here are some definitions of the word "mystery" from some well know Bible scholars:

Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary
MYSTERY. The Greek word μυστηριον denotes,
1. Something hidden, or not fully manifest. Thus, 2Th 2:7, we read of the "mystery of iniquity," which began to work in secret, but was not then completely disclosed or manifested.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Mystery: A truth undiscoverable except by revelation, long hid, now made manifest

Once hidden, now revealed as in Col_1:26 which see. See also Col_2:3. (Robertson)

“Mystery” is a previously hidden truth unveiled by God’s revelation (cf. Rom_16:25; see Mat_13:11 for a list of “mysteries” in the NT). (Walvoord)

Your entire argument is: Deny, Deny, Deny--even to the very denial of history itself. This is not the history forum. However, if you want to debate church history, I would be more than glad to, and so would many others. What you have presented, or more accurately affirmed, is that "Christendom" (meaning the RCC) has always believed in transubstantiation. As long as you define Christendom as Catholicism of course you are right. But that is just arrogance on your part.
First, there have been churches from the time of Christ that have believed otherwise.
Secondly, the RCC didn't even come into existence until the fourth century.
Third, Catholicism is one small part of Christendom.
Fourth, your knowledge of Church history is very narrow, and lacking. Any one of us can show you that there existed many outside of the RCC dozens of denominations that believed contrary to the heresies that the RCC promote. Don't be so smug in your long-held heresies.
Fifth, you simply proclaim this heresy as truth; you can't support it by the Bible. You haven't even tried.

No, you are the one's who have rejected this reality, following the teaching of one man (Zwingli) who came up with this false doctrine (15th/16th century). For me to reject the truth of the "Real Presence" would have me believe that God would allow such a falsehood to be perpetrated for so long, leading so many people astray and that is just not possible.

A false accusation. Zwingli had nothing to do with Paul's teaching on the remembrance of the Lord's Supper, as I have demonstrated to you through the Scriptures. Paul explained it very clearly. If it were otherwise you would be able to refute the apostle Paul, but you can't. Your argument is with God, not me.
This is not a historical argument. Either you believe God or the erroneous RCC teaching. Which one?

Yes, sometimes Jesus spoke in metaphors and sometimes he was direct and to the point and this time he was direct and to the point. At times you believe the Scriptures literally (a 24hr/7 day creation period, a talking burning bush etc.) but when it comes to this particular issue, you are suddenly a stickler for reading around what is exactly said.

"This is my body, take ye and eat."
Is it a metaphor, or did they take a chunk of his arm while he was standing before him, and eat it, all the Pharisees and many others being witnesses to this gruesome and gross act of cannibalism? Which one?

As the Catholic Church so rightly teaches: "The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life....For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch". "It is the culmination both of Gods action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father and the Holy Spirit. (Article 3 - The Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, Catechism of the Catholic (Universal) Church)

First, the word "Eucharist" is never found in the Bible, as the word "sacrament" is never found in the Bible. I have pointed this out to you before.
However the phrase "The Lord's Supper" is found many times, as is the word "ordinance." The command to "remember this" is also found. The RCC "does not rightly teach."
It uses foreign words to teach a foreign doctrine that the apostles never taught.
It is paganism and was introduced by pagans. Google it. Find out the origin. It does not have a Christian origin.
There is no such thing as "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in the Bible. It is pagan in origin.

Read carefully:
The RCC was simply imitating ancient pagan rites:

We find one pagan writer who had intelligence enough to ridicule this senseless ceremonial custom, called "the sacrament." Cicero, some forty years before Christ, shows up the doctrine of the sacrament, or substantiation, in its true light. He asks, "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?" A writer quoted above says, "Mass, or the sacrifice of bread and wine, was common to many ancient nations." (Anac. vol. ii. p. 62.) According to Alnetonae, the ancient Brahmins had a kind of Eucharist called "prajadam." And the same writer informs us that the ancient Peruvians, "after sacrificing a lamb, mingled his blood with flour, and distributed it among the people." Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink. Nor is there any evidence that Christ and his followers made a better use, or different use, or a more spiritual application of the sacrament, or ceremonial offering of bread and wine, than the pagans did, though some have claimed this.

http://infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap27.html

 

[annsni]

I love this chapter. It's one of my most favorite in the Scripture. But Adonia, do you realize that the Lord Jesus Himself explained His meaning? Jesus says there in verse 63 that the flesh profits nothing. Do you believe Him? It is the Spirit that gives life, and His words are spirit and they are life. So what is the food according to Jesus? And how do we eat it? His words are the food and we eat them by believing.

I was going to say the same thing. Right in what Adonia posted from the Scriptures, we see that it is not the literal eating of flesh or drinking blood that saves. Again, understanding the Passover meal makes a big difference in understanding the significance of the cup (the third cup) and the bread (the bread that is hidden and broken). When you understand the meaning of the elements of the seder, you understand what Jesus was saying.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I was going to say the same thing. Right in what Adonia posted from the Scriptures, we see that it is not the literal eating of flesh or drinking blood that saves. Again, understanding the Passover meal makes a big difference in understanding the significance of the cup (the third cup) and the bread (the bread that is hidden and broken). When you understand the meaning of the elements of the seder, you understand what Jesus was saying.

Excellent point to remind that this was a Passover celebration.

 

[Adonia]

You don't know what a mystery is.
The word "mystery" is used 22 times in the Bible, and all in the NT. None are used in the superstitious and mystical way that you as you use the word.
Here are some definitions of the word "mystery" from some well know Bible scholars:

Watson's Biblical and Theological Dictionary
MYSTERY. The Greek word μυστηριον denotes,
1. Something hidden, or not fully manifest. Thus, 2Th 2:7, we read of the "mystery of iniquity," which began to work in secret, but was not then completely disclosed or manifested.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Mystery: A truth undiscoverable except by revelation, long hid, now made manifest

Once hidden, now revealed as in Col_1:26 which see. See also Col_2:3. (Robertson)

“Mystery” is a previously hidden truth unveiled by God’s revelation (cf. Rom_16:25; see Mat_13:11 for a list of “mysteries” in the NT). (Walvoord)

Your entire argument is: Deny, Deny, Deny--even to the very denial of history itself. This is not the history forum. However, if you want to debate church history, I would be more than glad to, and so would many others. What you have presented, or more accurately affirmed, is that "Christendom" (meaning the RCC) has always believed in transubstantiation. As long as you define Christendom as Catholicism of course you are right. But that is just arrogance on your part.
First, there have been churches from the time of Christ that have believed otherwise.
Secondly, the RCC didn't even come into existence until the fourth century.
Third, Catholicism is one small part of Christendom.
Fourth, your knowledge of Church history is very narrow, and lacking. Any one of us can show you that there existed many outside of the RCC dozens of denominations that believed contrary to the heresies that the RCC promote. Don't be so smug in your long-held heresies.
Fifth, you simply proclaim this heresy as truth; you can't support it by the Bible. You haven't even tried.

A false accusation. Zwingli had nothing to do with Paul's teaching on the remembrance of the Lord's Supper, as I have demonstrated to you through the Scriptures. Paul explained it very clearly. If it were otherwise you would be able to refute the apostle Paul, but you can't. Your argument is with God, not me.
This is not a historical argument. Either you believe God or the erroneous RCC teaching. Which one?


"This is my body, take ye and eat."
Is it a metaphor, or did they take a chunk of his arm while he was standing before him, and eat it, all the Pharisees and many others being witnesses to this gruesome and gross act of cannibalism? Which one?

First, the word "Eucharist" is never found in the Bible, as the word "sacrament" is never found in the Bible. I have pointed this out to you before.
However the phrase "The Lord's Supper" is found many times, as is the word "ordinance." The command to "remember this" is also found. The RCC "does not rightly teach."
It uses foreign words to teach a foreign doctrine that the apostles never taught.
It is paganism and was introduced by pagans. Google it. Find out the origin. It does not have a Christian origin.
There is no such thing as "the sacrament of the Eucharist" in the Bible. It is pagan in origin.

Read carefully:
The RCC was simply imitating ancient pagan rites:

We find one pagan writer who had intelligence enough to ridicule this senseless ceremonial custom, called "the sacrament." Cicero, some forty years before Christ, shows up the doctrine of the sacrament, or substantiation, in its true light. He asks, "How can a man be so stupid as to imagine that which he eats to be a God?" A writer quoted above says, "Mass, or the sacrifice of bread and wine, was common to many ancient nations." (Anac. vol. ii. p. 62.) According to Alnetonae, the ancient Brahmins had a kind of Eucharist called "prajadam." And the same writer informs us that the ancient Peruvians, "after sacrificing a lamb, mingled his blood with flour, and distributed it among the people." Writers on Grecian mythology relate that Ceres, the goddess of corn, gave her flesh to eat, and that Bacchus, the God of wine, gave blood to drink. Nor is there any evidence that Christ and his followers made a better use, or different use, or a more spiritual application of the sacrament, or ceremonial offering of bread and wine, than the pagans did, though some have claimed this.

http://infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap27.html

I know, you just can't accept the true history of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. In order to justify what you believe, you have to ignore what really happened in the early church. Tell me, who were the Baptists or members of other sects who were involved in all the great councils and synods that were held as the Christian Church evolved? Are these hidden leaders known as any of the Early Church Fathers? You know, the Bishops of the Church that were intimately involved with coming up with thebasic Christian doctrines that just about every Christian believes today? Come on, give me the names of these hidden leaders as I am anxious to know who they are.

Zwingli is the "reformer" who came up with the idea that Holy Communion was not what had been taught since day one. He even disagreed with the chief "reformer" Martin Luther who continued to belive in the "Real Presence".

And if the RCC follows paganism, then the whole of Christianity follows it - including you! You cannot separate yourself from Catholic (Universal) Christianity because the very concept of the most basic belief in something called "the Trinity" comes from orthodox Christianity and what the Early Church Father's figured out.

You have to call us out, you have to deny everything that came before your particular Baptist sect came into being (the 1700's I believe) to justify yourself and your new belief's. That's it in a nutshell, right?

 

[Zenas]

I have a few history books. I find that men like J.T. Christian and Thomas Armitage do a fairly good job of tracing Baptists or those who held Baptists beliefs back down to the Apostles. They even quote a Catholic Bishop agreeing to the fact.
Most Catholics have their own revised history born out of false premises that cannot be proved--i.e., Peter was a bishop/Pope in Rome. The fact is: he wasn't. And there is no evidence that he was. It is a myth. So this history, built on Peter, is all built on fables and nothing more.

DHK, if you look around it’s not too hard to find people who sincerely believe that no man has ever walked on the moon.

It is relatively easy to find people who deny that the Nazi holocaust ever happened.

A little more rare are those people who think Elvis Presley faked his own death and went into hiding for the rest of his life, but they exist in fairly large numbers in their totality.

Likewise, there are a lot of people who sincerely believe that the first Christians held baptistic beliefs and that throughout the Christian era there have always been sects who held to baptistic beliefs. For the most part those same people believe the Catholic church did not come into being until sometime in the Fourth Century.

These people all have a common mindset. They are utterly convinced of the truth of their positions. They are not interested in any facts that contradict those positions. They don’t just disbelieve the true facts, they literally have no interest in learning about them.

You mention J. T. Christian and Thomas Armitage. I’m sure they were decent men but their conclusions about the beliefs of the early church are nothing but their own opinions. I believe Christian even admits as much. And these ideas have been thoroughly debunked by several Baptist historians of the last 75 years.

I can go on but you and your ilk will continue to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. Of course any other model of the early Church causes your house of cards to tumble, so in a way you are afraid to look at the truth of the matter.

A pity.

 

[DHK]

DHK, if you look around it’s not too hard to find people who sincerely believe that no man has ever walked on the moon.

It is relatively easy to find people who deny that the Nazi holocaust ever happened.

A little more rare are those people who think Elvis Presley faked his own death and went into hiding for the rest of his life, but they exist in fairly large numbers in their totality.

And then it is very easy to find those who superstitiously believe that Christ actually gave his body and blood to his disciples, as if they were all cannibalistic. The belief in transubstantiation is both pagan and superstitious. As the evidence states, it predates Christ as pagan in origin.

Likewise, there are a lot of people who sincerely believe that the first Christians held baptistic beliefs and that throughout the Christian era there have always been sects who held to baptistic beliefs. For the most part those same people believe the Catholic church did not come into being until sometime in the Fourth Century.

When did the RCC come into being as the RCC stands as an entity today?
There was no organized "church" in the apostles day; only "churches." In fact there was no such thing as a denomination in the time of the apostles. The RCC did not could not exist.
Baptist churches are independent, especially the ones I attend. In exact opposition to the monster of the organization of the RCC, the independent Baptist church can claim a kinship or an identity with the first century churches because we pattern ourselves after them. You know very well there is no such thing as "the sacrifice of the mass" in the NT.
But the things we have in our service one does find in the Bible. We are a NT, Bible-believing, local church that has patterned itself after NT churches and NT teaching. The RCC has not done so, but rather has amalgamated paganism and Christianity together.

These people all have a common mindset. They are utterly convinced of the truth of their positions. They are not interested in any facts that contradict those positions. They don’t just disbelieve the true facts, they literally have no interest in learning about them.

The only mindset the RCC has is in a revised RCC history book. They don't want the truth.

You mention J. T. Christian and Thomas Armitage. I’m sure they were decent men but their conclusions about the beliefs of the early church are nothing but their own opinions. I believe Christian even admits as much. And these ideas have been thoroughly debunked by several Baptist historians of the last 75 years.

Catholic revisionist has been on the rise in the last 75 years. That is what you meant to say, isn't it?

I can go on but you and your ilk will continue to believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. Of course any other model of the early Church causes your house of cards to tumble, so in a way you are afraid to look at the truth of the matter.
A pity.

It is a pity to go on putting your faith in the ECF rather than the Word of God itself.
The ECF were the very ones that introduced most of the error that Christendom now carries as its baggage. What a shame.

 

[DHK]

I know, you just can't accept the true history of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. In order to justify what you believe, you have to ignore what really happened in the early church. Tell me, who were the Baptists or members of other sects who were involved in all the great councils and synods that were held as the Christian Church evolved? Are these hidden leaders known as any of the Early Church Fathers? You know, the Bishops of the Church that were intimately involved with coming up with thebasic Christian doctrines that just about every Christian believes today? Come on, give me the names of these hidden leaders as I am anxious to know who they are.

The history of the RCC is propaganda, and is not true history at all. It is full of lies and it is sanitized.
The Bible has some good condensed truths about the RCC:
Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--This is what John prophetically saw, and this is what came to pass as the RCC carried out its grisly Crusades, Inquistions, etc. As an organization it has killed and maimed more people than ISIS has, even peace=loving Christians like the Albigenses they carried out a Crusade against and slaughtered them with the utmost cruelty--a terrible act of genocide. They are no better than ISIS of today.

Zwingli is the "reformer" who came up with the idea that Holy Communion was not what had been taught since day one. He even disagreed with the chief "reformer" Martin Luther who continued to belive in the "Real Presence".

Zwingli persecuted the Baptists. And though he may have differed with Luther, I am not a follower of either. Your objection is just a distraction. You are unable to answer from the Word of God.

And if the RCC follows paganism, then the whole of Christianity follows it - including you! You cannot separate yourself from Catholic (Universal) Christianity because the very concept of the most basic belief in something called "the Trinity" comes from orthodox Christianity and what the Early Church Father's figured out.

Utter nonsense. We follow the Word of God no matter what the rest of the world does. Your beliefs do not affect ours. The RCC was not around at the time of the apostles contrary to the thinking of most Catholics, and you have no evidence that it was. You just keep parroting that line. It is propaganda, and that is all. Either put up or shut up. Give evidence IOW.

You have to call us out, you have to deny everything that came before your particular Baptist sect came into being (the 1700's I believe) to justify yourself and your new belief's. That's it in a nutshell, right?

You cannot provide evidence of the existence of the RCC during the time of the apostles because it wasn't there. It is simply assumed. There has no evidence been provided. Now stop with the propaganda, provide the evidence, or don't post things that aren't true.

 

[Adonia]

And then it is very easy to find those who superstitiously believe that Christ actually gave his body and blood to his disciples, as if they were all cannibalistic. The belief in transubstantiation is both pagan and superstitious. As the evidence states, it predates Christ as pagan in origin.

When did the RCC come into being as the RCC stands as an entity today?
There was no organized "church" in the apostles day; only "churches." In fact there was no such thing as a denomination in the time of the apostles. The RCC did not could not exist.
Baptist churches are independent, especially the ones I attend. In exact opposition to the monster of the organization of the RCC, the independent Baptist church can claim a kinship or an identity with the first century churches because we pattern ourselves after them. You know very well there is no such thing as "the sacrifice of the mass" in the NT.
But the things we have in our service one does find in the Bible. We are a NT, Bible-believing, local church that has patterned itself after NT churches and NT teaching. The RCC has not done so, but rather has amalgamated paganism and Christianity together.


The only mindset the RCC has is in a revised RCC history book. They don't want the truth.


Catholic revisionist has been on the rise in the last 75 years. That is what you meant to say, isn't it?


It is a pity to go on putting your faith in the ECF rather than the Word of God itself.
The ECF were the very ones that introduced most of the error that Christendom now carries as its baggage. What a shame.

Your claim that the Scriptures describe the RCC (Revelation) is pure supposition - you read into the Scriptures what you want to read into them and that is all. The Apostles were the beginning of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church and they passed the powers given to them by Christ on to their successors. Denying this historical reality is not doing yourself any good at all.

But here is Paganism and Christianity. I posted this stuff sometime back but you never commented on it. If Catholic doctrine derives from paganism, so does every facet of Christianity and you are up to your eyeballs in it also.

Mithraism.

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.' The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church." (Gerald Berry, Religions of the World)

"It is also worth noting that two faiths developing in the same area of the world at the same time are likely to have similar ideas and practices, regardless of their level of interaction. Ritual communal meals and the theme of sacrifice for salvation, for instance, were common not only to Mithraism and Christianity but much of the ancient world". (Religion Facts)



"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."
(Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth)

None of this affects my faith in Jesus Christ and the truth of Christianity in relation to the story of man and his presence in this world.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And then it is very easy to find those who superstitiously believe that Christ actually gave his body and blood to his disciples, as if they were all cannibalistic. The belief in transubstantiation is both pagan and superstitious. As the evidence states, it predates Christ as pagan in origin.

When did the RCC come into being as the RCC stands as an entity today?
There was no organized "church" in the apostles day; only "churches." In fact there was no such thing as a denomination in the time of the apostles. The RCC did not could not exist.
Baptist churches are independent, especially the ones I attend. In exact opposition to the monster of the organization of the RCC, the independent Baptist church can claim a kinship or an identity with the first century churches because we pattern ourselves after them. You know very well there is no such thing as "the sacrifice of the mass" in the NT.
But the things we have in our service one does find in the Bible. We are a NT, Bible-believing, local church that has patterned itself after NT churches and NT teaching. The RCC has not done so, but rather has amalgamated paganism and Christianity together.


The only mindset the RCC has is in a revised RCC history book. They don't want the truth.


Catholic revisionist has been on the rise in the last 75 years. That is what you meant to say, isn't it?


It is a pity to go on putting your faith in the ECF rather than the Word of God itself.
The ECF were the very ones that introduced most of the error that Christendom now carries as its baggage. What a shame.

A quick perusal of the bible and they will find that the churches written to were, in fact, local. The church at Rome, the church at Ephesus, the church at Colossae, then the 7 churches were local assemblies that Christ addressed in the first 3 chapters of Revelation.

What is sad is that a Baptist, FBC, is actually a RCC. Since when did the FBC...or any Baptist for that matter, accept Roman Catholicism in their ranks?

 

[DHK]

Your claim that the Scriptures describe the RCC (Revelation) is pure supposition - you read into the Scriptures what you want to read into them and that is all. The Apostles were the beginning of the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church and they passed the powers given to them by Christ on to their successors. Denying this historical reality is not doing yourself any good at all.

It is true that there is a certain amount of speculation in the Book of Revelation. Having said that we look at the facts presented and we ask ourselves what fits this scenario best.
1. "She" sits on "seven hills"
Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
--The word "mountains" can be translated "hills," and Rome does sit on seven hills.

2. Revelation 17:6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
--As explained before, no religion in the history of mankind has killed more saints of God than the RCC. This is a fact. Just go back and study some non-RCC history, history that hasn't been white-washed by the RCC.

3. The RCC has, from it inception committed immorality both literally and spiritually with pagan rulers, starting with Constantine.

4. Popes are called "holy" but history indicates how immoral they have really been. Thus the accurate picture of the "whore."

5. Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
--This expression identifies her worldwide reach where she has her tentacles all over the world spreading her false doctrine, She is called the mother of harlots committing spiritual fornication with pagan religions all over the world. Do you remember when the pope entertained the terrorist Yasser Arafat?

I challenge you to look at the many reasons given here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/how_revelation_17_pictures.html
If the shoe fits wear it.

But here is Paganism and Christianity. I posted this stuff sometime back but you never commented on it. If Catholic doctrine derives from paganism, so does every facet of Christianity and you are up to your eyeballs in it also.

No, not at all. I will give you that reason in a minute.

Mithraism.

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.' The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church." (Gerald Berry, Religions of the World)

I have this book. Berry lived here in Alberta. He wrote this book shortly after WWII in 1947 using the libraries in Alberta (which are not many available to him. He wanted to produce a text at that time for the public schools that would be suitable enough to teach "World Religions." He didn't have a bone to pick with any one, but there are certain things that must be noted about his character and spiritual condition. At the beginning of chapter 12, page 69, when he starts to talk about Christianity, he says:

"The historicity of Jesus is not definitely established, but the probability is that he is a historical character. Although the Christian era dates from the supposed time of his birth, there is some evidence of error in this date. He was born during the time of Augustus, probably about 4 B.C. in the town of Bethlehem in Judea. ...He never claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, he was hailed by many as such....On a trumped up charge of political conspiracy, they had Jesus tried before the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate. Following the execution his disciples were dispersed, and for a time no more was heard of this sect, but the cross was destined to become a symbol of love rather than disgrace. ...Paul was the real founder of Christianity. "

--This puts things in perspective. He is not a saved man. He reports things as he sees them, but is very biased towards Christianity per se, that is true Biblical Christianity, which he probably knows nothing about.

The rites that he speaks of he observed in the RCC. This is clearly observable. Remember that Canada is mostly a Catholic nation. You quoted only part of the last part on Mithraism. Why didn't you finish that paragraph. You didn't want to condemn yourself, right? Here is the way he concludes that paragraph on page 58 that you started on page 57.

"Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is. Midnight services were found in both services. The virgin mother Isis was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the "Christian" Church. (Cf. the New Testament, Mat.16:18). The robe of Mithras, absorbed from the older Osiris cult, was always described as in one piece represented universal light, ..."
--This doesn't describe the Baptist faith, or evangelical Christianity in any way. It is far removed from it. It describes the RCC very closely. We don't have midnight services, worship Mary, and our foundation is not Peter. Only the RCC believes in these things. The RCC is based on paganism, not true Christianity.

"It is also worth noting that two faiths developing in the same area of the world at the same time are likely to have similar ideas and practices, regardless of their level of interaction. Ritual communal meals and the theme of sacrifice for salvation, for instance, were common not only to Mithraism and Christianity but much of the ancient world". (Religion Facts)

He is speaking of the Catholic Church. Those outside of the RCC had nothing to do with paganism as you well know. They repudiated it in all of its forms. It is too bad that you don't.

"Mithra or Mitra is...worshipped as Itu (Mitra-Mitu-Itu) in every house of the Hindus in India. Itu (derivative of Mitu or Mitra) is considered as the Vegetation-deity. This Mithra or Mitra (Sun-God) is believed to be a Mediator between God and man, between the Sky and the Earth. It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... [The Sun's] great festivals are observed in the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox—Christmas and Easter. His symbol is the Lamb...."
(Swami Prajnanananda, Christ the Saviour and Christ Myth)

This type of paganism was introduced into the RCC starting with Constantine in the early 4th century and has been growing ever since. You are a part of it. It does affect your faith. You are a part of this idolatry.

None of this affects my faith in Jesus Christ and the truth of Christianity in relation to the story of man and his presence in this world.

Disobedience to God always affects a person's faith:

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

The RCC is not a Christian Church, and never was. It is full of idolatry, and you are a part of it.