Catholicism vs Christianity

[Starise]

33 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

What is lost? The function of the priesthood as a TEACHING BODY in AUTHORITY. All Protestants seem to see there is their role with regards to the alter and mediation of sin. NO! They were an abosolute teaching body over the people. So, when you see the Apostolic assembly in ACTS, you are infact seeing a very real and active operation of the priesthood.

How so, when we have teachers and preachers in authority in our churches today? At least they are in every church in my area. I'm just curious what your exposure has been to protestant churches ?

39 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

De 21:5  And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried

 Were not OT priests given special roles in the temple and maybe roles in Jewish law. Remember Israel was a theocracy, so those men often filled the roles of modern day judges and lawyers. Religion and government were inseparable in that culture.

We no longer live in a theocracy.

42 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

So when the HISTORIC CHURCH speaks o0f Apostolic succession it is speaking of the authority of the priesthood in its deliberative AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A SENTENCE  OF JUDGEMENT IN A DISPUTE.

Historic church?? This could be referring to several different things. Can you clarify please?

I see similarities today to what you are referring to. Also many differences.

 Where do you see us drawing the line between OT practice in a theocratic government and modern day church structure? 

Priests were appointed to the OT temple.  You probably won't find a priest in a protestant church today. Not because it might not be practical but because it is unnecessary. Pastors and teachers fill those roles in leadership. Deacons and elders fill yet other roles.

As I understand it, there were two main roles in ancient Israelite religious structure. To carry out the sacrifices in the temple and to manage legal affairs. 

Two big things have happened since- The advent of the Son Of God into this world and His sacrifice for us all on the cross. The dissolution of the Jewish state in 70AD. 

This broke up the theocracy that existed then. Paul set up gentile churches with a different structure. No theocracy. Men answered to their respective governments laws and regulations. The internal affairs of the churches were simply "shepherds" or pastors over those churches along with deacons and elders. We still see this in place today.

Apostles according to the strict early definition of the word, are not something we see in churches today. The title is there. The God give position IMHO is not.

I believe most of these titles are man given to denote authority in many large godless institutions. The Catholic church has priests cardinals and bishops. IMO name given to the various person who govern in various areas.

[appy]

Just because a denomination claims to be a “Christian denomination”, does not mean that they actually are truly a Christ believing church. Anyone can say... I believe there is a God, or I believe in Jesus and NOT really believe what they are saying in their heart. Just knowing about God and Jesus isn't enough, for then we must go on to fully trusting Christ with our lives. The most glaring and obvious difference lies in their Christology.

When any denomination refuses to accept that Jesus' death on the cross is the perfect and complete payment for our sins, or that by faith in Jesus alone, God declares a sinner righteous, where does that leave them? Refusal to accept that Christ paid the debt, is in fact unbelief and distrust in the Savior. No one here denies, that such a denomination or individual person needs a radical change of heart, after hearing the gospel message.

Realize this, that a person who claims to be a believer of Christ, but yet denies the work of Christ is unable to explain what the gospel message is about when asked of them. The conversation always points to something other than Christ. Only a believer who is “born again” and has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is able to share the gospel message as preached by the apostles in Scripture.

In the OT the people of Israel and Judah, believed in God, true... but also fully embraced the gods of the nations around them too. As a matter of fact, those other beliefs crowded out God from their lives. God explicitly says.... He will NOT share His glory with another. There is NO room for any form of venerating others PERIOD. I will say it again, there is no excuse for giving anyone other than God the glory, the honor, and the praise.

Church history, and tradition is NOT the authority when it comes to spiritual things and conduct.  Scripture alone is.

 

[Anne2]

19 minutes ago, appy said:

I don't disagree, that Roman Catholics are humans who are in desperate need of hearing the gospel message as preached by the apostles in Scripture

I disagree they need to hear the gospel. We weaken ourselves with this divisiveness.

[appy]

No matter who is preaching and teaching; We are still called to be like the Bereans, and take everything they teach and preach to the word of God. 

Galatians 1:8
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!

Compromising for the sake of unity, leads down the path to error.  This is what the rcc did early on.  They compromised with pagan belief's such as accepting the doctrine of "queen of heaven", in order to make the church more appealing to pagans of their time. This happened very early in the rcc history.   The early writers after the apostles died, allowed roman and Egyptian philosophy to dominate and blend in with their newfound faith in Christ.  They never fully let go of their pagan beliefs. And thus, lots of error was introduced into the body of Christ.

[Anne2]

18 minutes ago, Starise said:

How so, when we have teachers and preachers in authority in our churches today? At least they are in every church in my area. I'm just curious what your exposure has been to protestant churches

Yes, but you don't call them priests. There's the point. You all see them as something distinct. Do all the Churches in the area assemble in one accord with each other as equals

 

23 minutes ago, Starise said:

 Were not OT priests given special roles in the temple and maybe roles in Jewish law. Remember Israel was a theocracy, so those men often filled the roles of modern day judges and lawyers. Religion and government were inseparable in that culture.

We no longer live in a theocracy.

Who said OLD testament priests? And the Church is not ruled by Christ? The Church is not separate from Christ our Lord. Somethings wrong here. Do you think Gods pattern and shadow in the earthly worldly things are not real in the spiritual things?

The Church is not a theocrasy? Christ does not rule in the Church?

No wonder we have those who speak of a real passover as that which adds Rabbinic traditions to the Lord's supper. This is how far we have gone down the rabbit hole. We can't even consider the lord's supper as a real passover anymore.

It isn't about my exposure to Protestantism, which exposure has been practically my whole life. Really it was my exposure to Messianic Judaism which brought this about.

God blessing and sanctifying with his commandments. Nothing less than sacrament there. But keeping the traditions of the Pharisees at the Passover (Lord's supper) made it a real sacrament to them. But people here don't bat an eye at that. Some even amen and swoon over it. That is why I warned of hypocritical judgement.

[appy]

The rcc teaches that mary is "the" queen of heaven.  And I'm being told here in this thread, to compromise with what is  blasphemy? For the sake of unity. Absolutely NOT! 

[Anne2]

9 minutes ago, appy said:

The rcc teaches that mary is "the" queen of heaven.  And I'm being told here in this thread, to compromise with what is  blasphemy? For the sake of unity. Absolutely NOT! 

And the protestant Church teaches Holy laughter, Holy Barking. Hmm let me see what else I can think of that some protestants do and teach to rail against you all. When is this stuff gonna stop?

[B-B]

11 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

Hmm let me see what else I can think of that some protestants do and teach to rail against you all. When is this stuff gonna stop?

I could be wrong @Anne2 (please correct me if I am), but you seem to have taken folks' comments re: the RCC religion, rather  personally?

(I hope I'm wrong).

Why would you want to have a go at Protestants?

Edited May 20, 2022 by B-B

[Anne2]

1 minute ago, Rosie1jack2pauline3 said:

And the protestant Church teaches Holy laughter, Holy Barking. Hmm let me see what else I can think of that some protestants do and teach to rail against you all. When is this stuff gonna stop?

There was a movement in the Church, It was in the 90's I think. The Brownsville revival? Which stated with people being slain in the spirit, Then uncontrollable laughter, came in, then (this is disgusting) Holy vomiting. Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland etc. on Christian networks showed these things. I had become involved with Messianic Judaism at the time. Though I did know of Churches getting into it.

But I am not gonna lay that on everyone. It has died out. I think probably even those involved don't think much of it anymore. I don't know.

[Starise]

12 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

Yes, but you don't call them priests. There's the point. You all see them as something distinct. Do all the Churches in the area assemble in one accord with each other as equals

 

Who said OLD testament priests? And the Church is not ruled by Christ? The Church is not separate from Christ our Lord. Somethings wrong here. Do you think Gods pattern and shadow in the earthly worldly things are not real in the spiritual things?

The Church is not a theocrasy? Christ does not rule in the Church?

No wonder we have those who speak of a real passover as that which adds Rabbinic traditions to the Lord's supper. This is how far we have gone down the rabbit hole. We can't even consider the lord's supper as a real passover anymore.

It isn't about my exposure to Protestantism, which exposure has been practically my whole life. Really it was my exposure to Messianic Judaism which brought this about.

God blessing and sanctifying with his commandments. Nothing less than sacrament there. But keeping the traditions of the Pharisees at the Passover (Lord's supper) made it a real sacrament to them. But people here don't bat an eye at that. Some even amen and swoon over it. That is why I warned of hypocritical judgement.

I will answer some of this  short because I have to leave in a few minutes.

The Church is certainly ruled by Christ. JESUS is our high priest. This is why we no longer need a priest. We never needed a pope.

The point I was attempting to make is Israel WAS a theocracy, basically the government and religion all rolled into one. You were referring to a theocracy.

I was attempting to explain such a thing no longer exists.

When Jesus returns for believers one day, He will establish a new kingdon where He will be the head of it. We will once again be in a theocracy but it will be utopian.

I will follow whatever commands in scripture I am told to the best of my ability.  I was looking for your answer as to where you draw the line since we don't presently live in and practice in a theocracy nor do we need to repeat vain religious practice eliminated by the blood of our savior. Where are you drawing the line? There was a change from how things were to the way things are. Where do you draw the line and why? 

The succession of a priesthood does no longer exist to my knowledge. My high priest is Jesus Christ. The succession of an apostleship does no longer exist in that early form. You apparently draw a different line here?

There is no longer a Jew nor a Greek with respect to the gospel. We are all in the same boat worshiping the same God the same way.