Ppm, This statement you make,is based on your own bias and assuming your view on things is correct.
This comment is based on the assumption the Rcc is the christian church,and represents christianity.
Ive replied to these points in earlier posts
The trouble seems to be,i address replies and give considered answers back to you and wafflehead,alot of what i reply to dosent get addressed back to me.
Mainstream christianity today came out from catholocism,you are correct in saying the protestants did,ive never argued this point,i agree with it.
In fact,Rcc claims to be the mother church,Rcc means universal
Revelation 17 Talking about the whore,which in bible prophecy means an impure woman ie false doctrine
yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so. judges 2.17
A pure woman means Gods church/people pure doctrine Jeremiah 6.2 I have likened the daughter of Zion To a lovely and delicate woman
Revelation 17 calls Rome the mother of harlots
If she is the mother(mother church)who are her harlots?
The protestant churches,even though they are protesting against the MOTHER CHURCH,they still hold near and dear to her God,the trinity,and her false doctrines and beliefs ie penal substitution,sunday sacredness,easter,xmas etc etc
These churches and beliefs,as you have stated are returning to Rome,i fully agree with your opinion on this issue.
But saying i have to be defined as a protestant,is based on your own bias of thought,your indoctrination of your denomination,as stated and evidence presented in my earlier posts,not just opinion.
Christianity was around a long time before the Rcc even existed,as i stated on earlier posts,papal Rome,came out of pagan Rome.
Pagan Rome persecuted and killed christians in the colloseums and fed them to wild animals for entertainment,this is historical fact.
So your opinion is based on an assumption taught to you by Rome,that they were the first christians and they represent christianity,when clearly this is not true.
There are several origins of all different lines of christianity
Yours comes out from Pagan Rome and Constantine
My beliefs and practices come out from Isreal and the woman
And the dragon(satan) was wroth with the woman(Gods intended beliefs church), and went to make war with the remnant(same as the first christians) of her seed, which keep the commandments of God(Historical fact,these were changed by Rome,i presented Romes challenge to protestants here on this forum many times,the issue was ignored,because it is a very uncomfortable fact and truth to face that Rome even admits this in historical documents), and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 12:17, KJV).
Truth will never be popular,will never be mainstream When Jesus was here on this earth,in his day it wasnt a big issue Same in our day,just a side issue,people follow denominations and men,not what the bible says,because it uncomfortable when looking at history and facing where the basis to denominational beliefs originated on God.
As in the days of Noah,so shall it be in the coming
Not my words,im just parroting what the bible says
Noah was a fool in his day and was in the very minority,because as Hebrews 11 says,he believed God and it was added unto him as rightousness
Rightousness is believing what God says Its a free gift,lest any man should boast What the bible says on these issues,i read them and believe them,im a frail faulty pathetic human being like any of us,but if we believe what God says,it is added unto us as rightousness,a free gift,believing what God says on these issues is rightousness
So when the bible says THIS is life eternal,that they might believe in the only true God,and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent
I believe it
When the bible says but unto us there is but 1 God,the father 1 corinthians 8.6
I believe it
Now contrast the above statements about who God is,and what eternal life is,against the following statements made by Rome on the same subject from the catholic catechism.
234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith".
This above statement contradicts who the bible says God is
Below is another example from a catholic website on the subject calling God a mystery
God isnt a mystery the bible says In fact the the whore is called mystery babylon the mother of whores
Because by her concept of God She takes away the plain truths of scripture and makes God a mystery
Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds
by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).
It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.
