Catholics and Protestant Christian

Originally posted by rpggal
What are the differences?
And can anyone give me some historical background information on them, such as why there are these two types of christianity?

Click to expand...

Greetings,

A very brief background of the history of the Roman Catholics and the Protestants~~Starting with the Apostles and on the day of Pentecost was the birth of the Christian church. At that time there was absolutely no difference in Christian religions, there was only one christian church.

As time went by several heads of the Christian church started to have their own ideas of how to manage, what to teach and what to believe~~They deviated themselves from the original church. Consequently, around the year 300AD,the church split. Causing Constantine The Great, to become the Emporer of the Byzantine Empire. While at the same time there arose in Rome the Bishops, who ruled Rome. At this time the church of Rome became known as the Roman Catholic church. As the years went by the Roman Catholic church became so corrupted that one day Martin Luther, A Roman Catholic German Priest, saw the corruption of the church and also became aware that "Justification is by Grace alone"~~From then on he went against the Roman Catholic church and he bacame the first Protestant. Whereby, he followed only the guide lines of the Bible and not the laws, decrees, or guidelines of the Roman Catholic church. As a Protestant, that I am, I also, follow the guidelines of the Bible~~King James Bible~~and NO other!!

As a Protestant, I believe that I am, what is known, as a "Born Again Christian." Why? Because, first I have believed with all of my heart that Jesus is the son of God. That He is the ONLY one that can save me from my sins, being that He was the one that died for my sins. I have repented for ALL of my sins! According to His Word, which I know that I am saved!!

It is very hard to answer your question concerning the difference between the Catholics and the Protestants. It would almost require a book. However, some of the basic differences are:
1. Roman Catholics believe that the Pope is god on earth, Protestants do not!
2. Roman Catholics are trying to make Mary, the mother of Jesus, a goddess, Protestants do not!
3. Roman Catholics believe that salvation is only through the church. Protestants believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation, and to believe on Him ONLY!
4. Roman Catholics believe that salvation is also through good works. Protestants believe that salvation is by Grace through Faith in Jesus.
5. Roman Catholics believe that the church can forgive sins. Protestants believe that Jesus is the ONLY one that can forgive sins, Jesus died for our sins and NOT the church. The Christian church was born several days after the resurrection of Jesus.
6. Roman Catholics believe that baptism saves. Protestants believe that baptism is ONLY an outward sign of what something has already happened inside the person, and that is repentance.
7. Roman Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the actual sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ. Protestants believe that the bread and wine that we take are symbols ONLY of the crucifiction, body and blood of our Savior, which this sacrament we must keep.
8. Roman Catholics believe that all of the saints are intercessors for us. Protestants believe that we ONLY have one intercessor for our sins and that one is Jesus Christ.
9. Roman Catholics pray to all of the saints and to the dead, which is totally against God. We ONLY pray to God or Jesus our Savior.
10. Roman Catholics believe to confess sins to the priest. Protestants believe in confessing our sins ONLY to God.
11. Roman Catholics have many man made rituals and many man made traditions which have absolutely nothing to do with either God the Father, God the Son or God the Holy Spirit. This man made rituals and traditions are TOTALLY against our Lord!!

There are many more, these are just a few. If you wish you can answer me back and I can give you scripture from the Bible.

Originally posted by rpggal
Thank you for your information. I know, then that I am a Protestant Christian.
One more question.
I heard that the catholic christianity has a different bible from ours. Can you tell me more on that? Also, any additional information from the bible are welcomed.

Click to expand...

~~Hi~~

THIS IS A CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS TRANSMISSION

Yes, you are correct, the Roman Catholic Bible is different from the King James Bible. In order to inform you of the differences, I have to go all the way back into the Old Testament times. Around 132BC, the commom language was Greek througout the Middle East, including Egypt. Being that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramic, some Jewish Rabbi's, who spoke Greek decided to translate the Old Testament into the Greek language, which is now known as the Septuagint.

Several years after the death of Jesus Christ and during a severe persecution of Christians, many Christians found refuge in Antioch Syria. At this time the letters of the Apostles were put together to form a book, which is called the Bible. Also, in Antioch, it was the first time that the Christians were called Christian.

Some how this new book made its way into Egypt. It was put together with the Old Testament. By this time there was a Catholic Bishop, by the name of Origin in Egypt around 230AD. This Bishop turns out that he belonged to a sect, which was called, Gnostics. Without going into a lot of explanations of who the Gnostics were~~I can say that they were not true Christians, in spite of the fact that he was a Catholic Bishop. He and his followers corrupted the books so severely that we as Protestants do not consider them as the preserved Word of God. In addition to that they added other books which are called, The Apocrypha. They are not considered inspired writings. There are two famous Bibles that fall into this category. One of them is Vaticanus, which is in Rome. The other one is Sinaticus and those writings are in London. From those two writings we get all of the modern day Bibles. Which have been proven to be extremely corrupted. The exception is the "King James Bible."

The King James Bible was translated from ancient Greek manuscripts. It is the only one that is not translated from the corrupted versions, as mentioned above. King James of England, gathered fifty-four British scholars, who were extremely knowledgeable in Aramic, Hebrew and Greek languages. For instance, some of the translators and their qualifications: Doctor Lancelot Andrews, he was conversant in 15 languages. All his writings were in Greek. Doctor William Bedwell, he was "An eminent Oriental scholar." Many doctor's of language sought his assistance. Doctor Miles Smith, he read and studied some 300 Greek and Latin father's writings and made notes of them all. He was very well acquainted with Rabbinical in Hebrew. He was an expert in Babylon, Syriac and Arabic. John Bois, by the time he was five years old he read the Bible in Hebrew. By the age of six he wrote Hebrew legibly. He also became a great scholar in Greek. He wrote his master's letters for the college, in Greek.

These are just a few of the people out of the fify four who translated the Bible from Greek to English.

At the present time the Roman Catholic church uses the Vulgate Bible for the Old and New Tetament. The Vulgate is the Latin translation from the Septuagint. The Vulgate was translated by Jerome, who was a Roman Catholic Priest. In mainland Greece the Orthodox church use the Textus Receptus which is the Greek scriptures where King James used to translate the "King James Bible." Incidently, being that we do not believe that the Apocrypha books were not inspired~~We do not have them in the "King James Bible."

Hope this helps you out a little! God bless you!!

Hello Holycanaan,

Great post and reply! Just one small thing.

The Christians, prior to Constantine becoming Emperor of Rome, were persecuted badly and were a minority group. Constantine became Emperor of Rome not thru the help of the Roman Catholic church (which had not been established) but thru battle with another rival Roman army (plus some divine help).

As for the split in the church and the creation of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today, it didn't occur even then.

You have to remember that the Christian church in those days was a mixed bunch of groups. They didn't have easy contact with each other : Poor literacy, No printing presses, no proper mail service does not help, etc.. The New Testament as we know it had also not been complied yet. Some groups had copies of Paul's letters and probably some of John's teachings and biography of Jesus. But there were some groups, like the Gnostics, who had different teachings altogether. The Christians back then felt it was necessary to have a central authority to direct the affairs of the church; and Rome, then the centre of the Western world, was the best place to do it from. Unfortunately, the church became corrupted with the materialism of Rome.

When exactly I'm not too sure. But I guess it occured when they started to elevate the status of Mary, the mother of Jesus. And start teaching people to pray to Mary and the "saints" instead of through Jesus.

Thank you for the post,

YM

Originally posted by Holycanaan
As time went by several heads of the Christian church started to have their own ideas of how to manage, what to teach and what to believe~~They deviated themselves from the original church. Consequently, around the year 300AD,the church split. Causing Constantine The Great, to become the Emporer of the Byzantine Empire. While at the same time there arose in Rome the Bishops, who ruled Rome. At this time the church of Rome became known

Click to expand...

In a nutshell....Catholic beliefs are based oin thier church and prodenstant beliefs are based on the bible. The bible is the prodenstants final authority, the pope is the catholics final authority.
We don't even have the same 10 commandments.
Some one posted that there was so many differances that a book could be written...and they are right. I was raised catholic and the lord lead me to HIS word. Because of all the contradictions of the catholic church...i left.
GEL

Originally posted by Yauming
Hello Holycanaan,

No not exactly, the Christians, prior to Constantine becoming Emperor of Rome, were persecuted badly and were a minority group. Constantine became Emperor of Rome not thru the help of the Roman Catholic church (which had not been established) but thru battle with another rival Roman army (plus some divine help).

As for the split in the church and the creation of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today, it didn't occur even then.

You have to remember that the Christian church in those days was a mixed bunch of groups. They didn't have easy contact with each other : Poor literacy, No printing presses, no proper mail service does not help, etc.. The New Testament as we know it had also not been complied yet. Some groups had copies of Paul's letters and probably some of John's teachings and biography of Jesus. But there were some groups, like the Gnostics, who had different teachings altogether. The Christians back then felt it was necessary to have a central authority to direct the affairs of the church; and Rome, then the centre of the Western world, was the best place to do it from. Unfortunately, the church became corrupted with the materialism of Rome.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Yauming,

You are totally correct! Of pointing out the short comings of my article. However, my intentions were not of getting into every detail. My object was just to get the message across. Thank you ~~ God bless I do appreciate your scrutiny <>< "Jesus Is The Way"

If I may suggest and excellent book on the subject:

Church History in Pain Language. 2nd ed.
by Bruce L. Shelley
Thomas Nelson Publishers
ISBN 08499-3861-9

It gives an excellent account of the history of the church, not following any particular denomination, from acts, to present day 1994ish.

Originally posted by rpggal
Thank. One more question.
Can anyone refer me to more sources for more information. Like websites or books.

Click to expand...

~~~Greetings~~~
You asked for some web sites. Below are a few where you can find information concerning Roman Catholics, Protestants. Also, concerning information on various Bibles.

www.jesus-is-lord.com/index.htm (There are TONS of info on that site)
www.dtl.org.alpha-list.htm (Click into the C listing)
www.dtl.org/versions/article/vulgate.htm
www.av1611.org/melton
www.infoplease.com (This has to do with Origin, the one who messed up all of the Bibles)

You can also click into www.chick.com and ask for their publications as follows:
Sabotage-Double Cross--The God Fathers--The Big Betrayal--

A very good book that I have enjoyed very much, concerning the Roman Catholic church, and is not very hard to read. The name of it is ~~ " Understanding Roman Catholicism" by Rick Jones

That's OK. I just want to get the facts straighten out so that the truth stands by unblemished.

Since we are on the topic of early church history. Did you know that the cross did not become an acceptable Christian symbol until the 7th century?

The cross and crucification were symbols of horror, torture and oppression to the early Christians and Jewish converts. Moreover, Deuteronomy 21:23 stated that a person hung on a tree was cursed by God. This verse was a major stumbling block that prevented many Jews from accepting Jesus as Messiah. Later on when the memory of this ghastly form of execution had faded, the cross became used as a symbol. It seems the first appearance of a cross in Christian art is on a Vatican sarcophagus from the mid-5th Century. It had a Greek cross with equal-length arms but Jesus' body was not shown. The first crucifixion scenes didn't appear in Christian art until the 7th century. (B.M. Metzger, M.D. Coogan, "The Oxford Companion to the Bible," Oxford University Press, (1993), Page 57)

Originally posted by Holycanaan
Greetings, Yauming,
"Jesus Is The Way"

Click to expand...

I think it is very intresting that churchs put up the crosses. I can never understand that. As for the catholics...there are MANY symbols that are dirrived from the ancient druids and pagans that were meshed together in history. Halos are painted on people to show that they were saints or the annionted, however this symbol is from the sun god. There are so many other things you can find in the seearch engines.
GEL

Originally posted by GreenEyedLady
I think it is very intresting that churchs put up the crosses. I can never understand that. GEL

Click to expand...

The reason churches put up crosses in the sanctuary is to remind us of the terrible price that salvation cost the Son of God.


God Bless

I think that we should be remembering that Christ fullfilled the prophesy of raising from the dead. That was the big moment, not his death. Like he said on the cross.....It is finished.

I don't know about being "totally correct" but I think is somewhere there.

Thanks for the long detailed post.

I just want to get the facts straight so non-believers can't nitpick at the Truth.


Cheers,

YM

Originally posted by Holycanaan


Greetings, Yauming,

You are totally correct! Of pointing out the short comings of my article. However, my intentions were not of getting into every detail. My object was just to get the message across. Thank you ~~ God bless I do appreciate your scrutiny <>< "Jesus Is The Way"

Click to expand...

As a Protestant, that I am, I also, follow the guidelines of the Bible~~King James Bible~~and NO other!!

Click to expand...

Why King James? It's hard to understand, and I hear NASB is supposed to be closer to word for word than other versions (I don't know about King James...but I am assuming NASB is closer than King James?).

Originally posted by Josh

Why King James? It's hard to understand, and I hear NASB is supposed to be closer to word for word than other versions (I don't know about King James...but I am assuming NASB is closer than King James?).

Click to expand...

~~Hi Josh~~

I just want to make a little side comment~You have a very nice name!! I have a grandson by the name of Joshua too.
These are the reasons why I am a 100% pro King James Bible Only:
There are two very ancient Bible manuscripts, one of them is called ~Vanticanus~and the other is called, Sinaiticus. Both of these together are known as the Alexandrian manuscripts. All modern Bibles, in one way or another, have been translated from these two manuscripts. Now, take note, these two manuscripts disagree with each other 30,000 times. As you can see, they are very well corrupted. These two manuscripts are called Alexandrian because they were corrupted by a man named Origen, while he was in Egypt. On the other hand, the King James Bible was translated from other manuscripts that came directly from the city of Antioch in Syria, where in previous times that city was a honey comb of Christians. Consequently, there were many original documents written by the Apostles themselves.

There are two men and one of them was Erasmus. The other one is Stephanus. They managed to compile the manuscripts from Antioch and came out with a Greek edition named, Textus Receptus, which King James used to translate into English.

The Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Textus Receptus or the King James, 90 to 95% of the time. Not only that but King James used 54 of the most knowledgeable educated men of England, in the ancient languages used in the Bible, including Hebrew, Aramic and of course the Greek. Let me add a note that also, the New King James version is just as horribly corrupted. My husband has in his possession the Textus Receptus in the Greek language. I know for a fact that in the mainland Greece, they also use the Textus Receptus New Testament.

If you really love the Word of God, you would be shocked in horror by the discovery of the corruptions that I have mentioned. For instance, depending on which corrupted Bible you use, you will discover that even the deity of Jesus has been taken out. You can take any version that you wish and compare it with the King James Bible and look at some selected portions of scripture. You will find that some of the most important doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a New International Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of scripture (including the New King James Version), you will see the difference.

King James: Mt. 1:25--First born son
New International Version: Mt: 1:25--A son
New American Standard: Mt: 1:25--A son

King James: Eph. 3:9--Created all things by Jesus Christ
NIV Eph. 3:9--Created all things (they took Jesus Christ’ name out)
NAS Eph 3:9--Created all things (they took Jesus Christ name out)

Another very important verse is Colossians 1:14 from the King James version --”In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:” IT IS THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT “blood” from the text.
The New International Version states in Colossians 1:14--in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The New American Standard version says the same thing. Many more~~~

Not another KJV ONLY proponent! I consider "KJV only" people to be cultic to say the least.
It gets tiresome to hear people make these untrue remarks about "corrupted" versions of the bible. Where did you get your information from? I hope it is not from the atrocious book by Gail Riplinger. Go to James White's web site and do a search on this subject, you will learn the real truth. http://www.aomin.org/

Originally posted by Apologist
Not another KJV ONLY proponent! I consider "KJV only" people to be cultic to say the least.
It gets tiresome to hear people make these untrue remarks about "corrupted" versions of the bible. Where did you get your information from? I hope it is not from the atrocious book by Gail Riplinger. Go to James White's web site and do a search on this subject, you will learn the real truth. http://www.aomin.org/

Click to expand...

~~Apologist~~

You would like to know where I get my information from. I will tell you. I have the Textus Receptus in the Greek language and the King James Bible on one side and on my left hand side I have the NIV, the New King James Bible, The New World Translation, The Book Of Morman, Roman Catholic Bible, The Living Bible, American Standard Version, The Septuagent, King James 21st Century and I also have the Kuran. Plus I also search the web for more Bible comparisons and verse translations.

It is a known fact that the Alexandrian scriptures are corrupted. And that all modern Bibles, including the ones I have already mentioned have been translated from those scriptures, whether you accept it or not. You say that I am a cultic, well, that is what the early Christians were called too. I will take it as a compliment.

Now, concerning, James White, I have read some of his papers and I have heard him on the radio. I do not like what he has to say because his whole thinking of Biblical knowledge, I do not agree with. He goes along with the Alexandrian train of thought. I did click into the web site you pointed out and it just runs totally against what I believe.

You give a lot of credit to James White, I agree that he has tons of credentials and Biblical knowledge, but so did Origin and Arius. Both of these people were Bishops. Origin was the main character who corrupted the Alexandrian scriptures. Origen believed that Jesus was a second God. Arius was classified as a heretic by the first counsel of Nicaea in 325AD. There were between 225 and 318 Bishops resolving the problem of Arianism. He denied the eternality of Jesus Christ the Son of God as the logos. The early Church Fathers ~ In order to combat the teachings of Arius, they formulated the Apostles Creed.

You have a computer, you can check me out on everything that I have said.

John 8:32 ~ And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ~ <><