Adventism refuted by Orthodoxy

[BobRyan]

The church in Constantinople was most closely influenced by Antioch; Rome was isolated in the early church by virtue of its use of Latin rather than Greek. Constantinople, ecclesiastically speaking, was bootstrapped from Antioch; the Constantinopolitan li .

Not in the 4th century - Rome was dominant at that time. The Roman Empire used Greek as the international language which is why the NT letters are written in Greek in the first century instead of Latin. Latin did not dominate for many centuries later. Rome was communicating in both Greek and Latin.
=======================
from: Languages of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire, but other languages were important regionally. The language of the ancient Romans was Latin, which served as the "language of power".[2] Latin was pervasive in the Roman Empire[3] as the language of the law courts in the West, and of the military everywhere.[4] After all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were universally enfranchised in 212 AD, a great number of Roman citizens would have lacked Latin, though they were expected to acquire at least a token knowledge, and Latin remained a marker of "Romanness".[5]

Koine Greek had become a shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great.[6] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula.[7] Educated Romans, particularly those of the ruling elite, studied and often achieved a high degree of fluency in Greek, which was useful for diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire.

=======================
The point remains.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

The key point is "the not responded to" statement - By ignoring almost every detail in the post - you do not "Sovle it" you make it necessary to - "point to the Bible details again"

I only respond to remarks which I find on a personal level to be intellectually stimulating.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Not in the 4th century - Rome was dominant at that time.

This is of course incorrect. The church of Rome and the city of Rome were both well past their prime in the fourth century. It was Alexandria, not Rome, that was at the epicenter of the great Christological controversy surrounding Arius. It was Antioch, not Rome, that by virtue of its proximity to Constantinople and similiarity of language and culture shaped the liturgy of the Byzantine church and provided its most noteworthy patriarchs.

Note that this is a matter of historical fact. See: the aforementioned Blackwell Companion, see The Oxford Handbook of Christian Worship; also the Eucharistic Liturgies by Bradshaw and Johnson.

The Roman Empire used Greek as the international language

Only in the Eastern Empire, which was formerly a predominantly Greek-influenced area. In North Africa (except Egypt and to a lesser extent Libya), and in the Western Empire, and even in provinces such as Pannonia, the language was Latin.

which is why the NT letters are written in Greek in the first century instead of Latin.

In the First Century, most of the Empire spoke Latin. The exception was, as always, the former Greek sphere of influence, which included Judea, and thus, Greek was the main language of the early Church. However, this inhibited expansion into areas such as Gaul, Hispania, Baetica, Lusitania, Brittania and Germany, thus:

Latin did not dominate for many centuries later.

This is quite wrong; in the second century, Archbishop Victor of Rome (at the time, only the Patriarch of Alexandria was a Pope), transitioned the Roman church to use Latin. The last major father in the Roman church I can recall who wrote exclusively in Greek was St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

By the fourth century, the Roman patriarchate relied upon legates who were fluent in Greek in order to participate in the ecumenical councils.

Rome was communicating in both Greek and Latin.

Only through the aforementioned proxies.

The point remains.

Alas, the point does not remain, for herein you are mistaken gravely about the history of the early Church.

The reality is that Rome tended to resent the Byzantine church; I can think of only one Roman pope who actually was on extremely good terms with Constantinople, and that was St. Gregory the Great, who had before becoming Pope been the legate to Constantinople and nad grown rather fond of it.

Thus, the main local influence on the Byzantine church was from Antioch. Jerusalem influenced all of the churches after having been rebuilt in the fourth century; the common Paschal liturgy derives from St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Alexandria was the source of both the Arian heresy and the main defender of Orthodox Christology and the Trinity, St. Athanasius. But it was from Antioch that the most important Byzantine patriarchs hailed, and it was from Antioch that Constantinople acquired its liturgical usages.

This can be verified quite easily by comparing the Syriac Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox liturgical forms, which show a common Antiochene ancestor; the old Roman Rite is quite unlike either. It can also be verified through the sources I have provided, although I daresay my erudition on the subject makes me eminently quotable as a primary source for purposes of discussion on CF.com.

 

[BobRyan]

The church in Constantinople was most closely influenced by Antioch; Rome was isolated in the early church by virtue of its use of Latin rather than Greek. Constantinople, ecclesiastically speaking, was bootstrapped from Antioch; the Constantinopolitan li .

Not in the 4th century - Rome was dominant at that time. The Roman Empire used Greek as the international language which is why the NT letters are written in Greek in the first century instead of Latin. Latin did not dominate for many centuries later. Rome was communicating in both Greek and Latin. Luke 23:38 the three languages for the writing at the cross were Greek, Latin and the local language - Hebrew. The government was communicating both Greek and Latin. And Greek was the "language of business" that the Romans frequently used.

=======================
from: Languages of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire, but other languages were important regionally. The language of the ancient Romans was Latin, which served as the "language of power".[2] Latin was pervasive in the Roman Empire[3] as the language of the law courts in the West, and of the military everywhere.[4] After all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were universally enfranchised in 212 AD, a great number of Roman citizens would have lacked Latin, though they were expected to acquire at least a token knowledge, and Latin remained a marker of "Romanness".[5]

Koine Greek had become a shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great.[6] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula.[7] Educated Romans, particularly those of the ruling elite, studied and often achieved a high degree of fluency in Greek, which was useful for diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire.

=======================
The point remains.

This is of course incorrect. The church of Rome and the city of Rome were both well past their prime in the fourth century.

Totally false when it comes to the Church of Rome which had not yet begun to dominate as it would for the next 1260 years by the early 4th century. Today the Church of Rome heavily influences 1.1 billion Christians - far more than in the 4th century -- and we all know it.

You are free of course to quote yourself and believe whatever you wish.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I only respond to remarks which I find on a personal level to be intellectually stimulating.

Contradicted by the facts in the thread where it is YOU that pose the skewed spin-doctored revisionist-history statement being contradicted by the "inconvenient factual details" in the response below.

It is a factual response to your OWN intitiatve - that you find "inconvenient" being in that case uninterested-in-the-details regarding your own statement!

It is clear you don't respond because the facts contradict the spin you had hope to place on the topic below.

Were we all supposed to "lose interest" in your own topic-and-speculation simply because you were refuted?? really??

=========================================

Back to a key point - not responded to you in the flurry of posts yet --

The Protestants were not protesting most of what SDAs protest.

The "protesting Catholics" -- such as Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin were ... "Catholics" demanding that their own church get back to Bible basics - NT church basics, ... testing all doctrine an tradition against the Bible. SDAs do insist on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition. But we do not do it from "within" the Catholic church as the early "protesting Catholics" were doing it.

The "protesting Catholics" were choosing the Bible over veneration of saints, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the sale indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making at the time.

SDAs also object to CCC958 "Communion with the DEAD" and Purgatory , the immaculate conception, the sale of indulgencesm, the entire system of indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making etc.

We also oppose the formal earthly priesthood, bowing down before images in church and promising to serve and venerate those they represent and many other things of that sort.

We prefer the sola scriptura model of Mark 7:61-3 and Acts 17:11

And of course there is the American form of the Protest including Roger Williams' focus on the separation of church and state in the form of granting religious liberty. Freedom to worship God according to the dictates of the conscience.

The SDA objection is not focused primarily on the corruption of Rome, but rather on various doctrines shared by most Protestants.

Certainly it is true that the SDA set of doctrines do not just focus on opposing errors unique to the RCC They include correction of errors specific to the RCC alone - but also the correction of errors shared by some of her daughter churches.

Now a purist, puritanical form of Calvinism, which is basically what Calvin practiced in Geneva, is almost like Adventism with Sunday worship.

SDA doctrine rejects Calvinism

So I cannot criticize Calvinism for ignoring Orthodoxy, whereas Adventism appears to do so.

consider this

There is a somewhat me-centered view that other religions arise just because they don't like yours -- they simply get up on the wrong side of the bed and say "hey -- today we don't like Methodists... or Baptists, ... or this particular Orthodox church .... or that particular Catholic church".

In that somewhat mythical world you could argue for "someone else not to like" and give some reasons.

But 'in reality" most protestant groups came into being based on "sola scriptura" reasons - where this or that doctrine is found to be Bible based and then it is also found that the Bible specifically identifies key players in history that promote truth - or promote persecution and error.

So it is not at all of the form "hey we woke up today really miffed about such-and-such a denomination".

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Contradicted by the facts in the thread where it is YOU that pose the skewed spin-doctored revisionist-history statement being contradicted by the "inconvenient factual details" in the response below.

Beg pardon?

It is a factual response to your OWN intitiatve -

Counter-factual rather; my statements on the subject are backed by scholarly sources.

that you find "inconvenient"

No, rather, uninteresting. I do not in any sense feel threatened by your posts.

being in that case uninterested-in-the-details regarding your own statement!

No, what I am uninterested in is responding to a copy-pasted, vacuous post whicn amounts to your private opinion combined with unsolicited historical commentary, which fails to add anything new to the main discussion. I suppose next you might copy paste Mark 7 as if we did not know what it said. You mignt just as well have Rickrolled me.

It is clear you don't respond because the facts contradict the spin you had hope to place on the topic below.

Nay, the lack of response owed itself to the lack of facts. It does grow tiresome having to reply to something simply by going "No," "Wrong," "read Blackwell," et cetera. So with particularly wrong posts its best in my experience to simply dismiss them outright.

Were we all supposed to "lose interest"

No; this thread is a gift that keeps giving.

in your own topic-and-speculation

There is no speculation in my OP.

simply because you were refuted??

I have provided scholarly citations for my statements from Oxford University Press and other leading sources. On the other hand, you quoted a cheap encyclopedia no one uses, and an episcopi vagante.

really??

Ya rly.

But since you insist on a reply:

=========================================

Back to a key point - not responded to you in the flurry of posts yet --

Meh.

The "protesting Catholics"

What is a Catholic to you?

-- such as Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin were ... "Catholics"

Do you believe in the Nicene Creed?

demanding that their own church get back to Bible basics - NT church basics, ...

Was St. Athanasius Catholic? He worshipped on Sunday and helped define the Paschal computus at Nicea, yet you rely on his canon of NT books.

testing all doctrine an tradition against the Bible. SDAs do insist on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition.

Apparently not. See St. Athanasius.

But we do not do it from "within" the Catholic church as the early "protesting Catholics" were doing it.

The "protesting Catholics" were choosing the Bible over veneration of saints,

LOL.

SDAs also object to CCC958 "Communion with the DEAD" and Purgatory , the immaculate conception, the sale of indulgencesm, the entire system of indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making etc.

We also oppose the formal earthly priesthood, bowing down before images in church and promising to serve and venerate those they represent and many other things of that sort.

We prefer the sola scriptura model of Mark 7:61-3 and Acts 17:11

And of course there is the American form of the Protest including Roger Williams' focus on the separation of church and state in the form of granting religious liberty. Freedom to worship God according to the dictates of the conscience.

Now herein your post demonstrates the reason why I did not wish to reply to it: it is offtopic, addressing once more the Adventist contempt for the Roman church while utterly ignoring the Orthodox.

Certainly it is true that the SDA set of doctrines do not just focus on opposing errors unique to the RCC They include correction of errors specific to the RCC alone - but also the correction of errors shared by some of her daughter churches.

The Orthodox are in no sense "daughter churches" of Rome, having always been autocephalous and autonomous (if you do not believe me, google the word "autocephalous," or read Blackwell, The Orthodox Church by H.E. Kallistos Ware, or any other scholarly treatment of the Orthodox church).

Now, please do us, and the readers, a tremendous favor, and kindly refrain from copy-pasting replies. If you wish to refer to a previous post you made, simply paste in a link to that post in your subsequent reply, which is rather better Netiquette.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Not in the 4th century - Rome was dominant at that time.

Yes, in the fourth century! The very same century! Rome was not dominant in that epoch, ecclesiastically or otherwise, not after St. Constantine relocated the capital.

It takes by the way a certain "chutzpah," or perhaps, impertinence, that when someone makes a point and specifically refers you to three separate scholarly publications by respected theologians, historians and researchers, at major universities (including Oxford, by the way) published by the presses of said universities, and furthermore, provides you with instructions on how to independently verify the claims of those scholars, to then claim it to be false.

Its very much like the people who claim the world is flat.

There is not one scholar of early Christian history who would tell you the liturgy of Constantinople was based on that of Rome. The Roman Catholics do not even claim that. And no one would deny the historical fact that Antioch supplied Constantinople with its most important Patriarch, in St. John Chrysostom, in addition to several other vital figures.

We are not discussing opinions open to debate, we are not discussing the vagaries of the interpretation of prohech or ambiguous scripture, we are discussing historical fact.

Religious opinion, no matter how pious in intent, becomes delusion if it is held in opposition to all established facts.

The Roman Empire used Greek as the international language

Nay. They used Greek exclusively in dealing with primarily Roman-controlled territory in the Eastern Empire, and perhaps to some degree as a lingua franca for relations with Persia.

Latin was the language with which the Romans did business in the bulk of their territory, and with the various tribal powers of Europe, which would ultimately defeat the Empire militarily.

which is why the NT letters are written in Greek in the first century instead of Latin.

Incorrect, for the reasons I explained.

Latin did not dominate for many centuries later.

No...

Rome was communicating in both Greek and Latin. Luke 23:38 the three languages for the writing at the cross were Greek, Latin and the local language - Hebrew. The government was communicating both Greek and Latin. And Greek was the "language of business" that the Romans frequently used.



=======================
from: Languages of the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire, but other languages were important regionally. The language of the ancient Romans was Latin, which served as the "language of power".[2] Latin was pervasive in the Roman Empire[3] as the language of the law courts in the West, and of the military everywhere.[4] After all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were universally enfranchised in 212 AD, a great number of Roman citizens would have lacked Latin, though they were expected to acquire at least a token knowledge, and Latin remained a marker of "Romanness".[5]

Koine Greek had become a shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great.[6] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula.[7] Educated Romans, particularly those of the ruling elite, studied and often achieved a high degree of fluency in Greek, which was useful for diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire.

=======================
The point remains.

It does not; the Wikipedia article is entirely in accord with my argument; by the way, please link to such articles rather than copy-pasting the text.

Now, with a bit of further digging on Wikipedia, you would find that Archbishop Victor made Latin the language of the Church of Rome, in the second century. Not the fourth, certainly not after the fourth.

Totally false when it comes to the Church of Rome which had not yet begun to dominate as it would for the next 1260 years by the early 4th century. Today the Church of Rome heavily influences 1.1 billion Christians - far more than in the 4th century -- and we all know it.

And the Orthodox influence 300 million. And the Anglicans, over 200 million.

You are free of course to quote yourself and believe whatever you wish.

Says the man who routinely copy-pastes his own posts.

At any rate, I do not quote myself; I simply wish to point out that what I post I warrant to meet a certain level of quality.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, in the fourth century! The very same century! Rome was not dominant in that epoch, ecclesiastically or otherwise, not after St. Constantine relocated the capital.

Is it your claim that one of the Orthodox factions are now the head of 1.1 billion Catholics?

Its very much like the people who claim the world is flat.

Indeed we seem to be having a problem of that sort.

There is not one scholar of early Christian history who would tell you the liturgy of Constantinople was based on that of Rome.

Strawman - misdirection. Granted there were factions no one is claiming that there was perfect unity between Byzantium and Rome at every point - but Rome was the capital of the empire right up until that point and so now it is 1.1 Billion "Roman Catholics" and not "1.1 billion Greek Orthodox" as you and I both know - all the flat earthers not withstanding.

The Roman Catholics do not even claim that. And no one would deny the historical fact that Antioch supplied Constantinople with its most important Patriarch, in St. John Chrysostom, in addition to several other vital figures.

A point I have neither complained about or commented on. You seem to be off on your tangent.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Is it your claim that one of the Orthodox factions are now the head of 1.1 billion Catholics?

Now this is a genuine strawman, as opposed to my statement which you mischaracterized as such.

Indeed we seem to be having a problem of that sort.

Quite.

Strawman - misdirection.

I daresay either you did not read my post, or reacted to it in a knee-jerk manner, because what follows is literally an example of what you complain I am doing:

Granted there were factions no one is claiming that there was perfect unity between Byzantium and Rome at every point - but Rome was the capital of the empire right up until that point and so now it is 1.1 Billion "Roman Catholics" and not "1.1 billion Greek Orthodox" as you and I both know - all the flat earthers not withstanding.

Nowhere did I make any point approaching this, which is why I must urge you to reread my post, in addition to the scholarly work I referred you tl.

A point I have neither complained about or commented on. You seem to be off on your tangent.

There would appear then to be an ambiguity in your posts as to what you were referring to.

To avoid a dialectical-syntactic impasse, might I suggest you consider rephrasing it as a list of questions, without extraneous copy-pasting of other material?

 

[BobRyan]

Nay. They used Greek exclusively in dealing with primarily Roman-controlled territory in the Eastern Empire, and perhaps to some degree as a lingua franca for relations with Persia.

We are not talking about "just the eastern empire" when we talk about the Roman Empire. And we both know it.

The languages at the cross - are Greek, Latin, Hebrew - and we both know it.
Hebrew because it is the local language.
Greek because it was the language of the former Greek empire
Latin because it is the legal language of the Roman Empire.

History does not change just because one might "wish it so".

 

[Paul Yohannan]

It appears you had an editing mishap Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

The Roman Catholics do not even claim that. And no one would deny the historical fact that Antioch supplied Constantinople with its most important Patriarch, in St. John Chrysostom, in addition to several other vital figures.

A point I have neither complained about or commented on. You seem to be off on your tangent.

There would appear then to be an ambiguity in your posts as to what you were referring to.

How am I being ambiguous to never mention any complaint at all about a connection between Antioch and Byzantium?

To avoid a dialectical-syntactic impasse, might I suggest you consider rephrasing it as a list of questions, without extraneous copy-pasting of other material?

The questions are to the point -- if you answer them - then the discussion moves forward. It does no good to simply talk past each other.

 

[Monk Brendan]

So then - as Roman Catholics those "protestors" could not possibly have been protesting against those writings that they were not even reading.

Until he left the Catholic Church, Luther was a Catholic. True. Neither Calvin or Zwingli were, ever.

 

[BobRyan]

Until he left the Catholic Church, Luther was a Catholic. True. Neither Calvin or Zwingli were, ever.

on the contrary Calvin was in fact Catholic and was not at all Greek Orthodox or any other eastern religion/denomination

==================================
from - John Calvin - Wikipedia

Young Calvin was particularly precocious. However, by age 12, he was employed by the bishop as a clerk and received the tonsure, cutting his hair to symbolise his dedication to the Church. He also won the patronage of an influential family, the Montmors.[3] Through their assistance, Calvin was able to attend the Collège de la Marche (fr), Paris, where he learned Latin from one of its greatest teachers, Mathurin Cordier.[4] Once he completed the course, he entered the Collège de Montaigu as a philosophy student.[5]

...
By 1532, Calvin received his licentiate in law and published his first book, a commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. After uneventful trips to Orléans and his hometown of Noyon, Calvin returned to Paris in October 1533. During this time, tensions rose at the Collège Royal (later to become the Collège de France) between the humanists/reformers and the conservative senior faculty members. One of the reformers, Nicolas Cop, was rector of the university. On 1 November 1533 he devoted his inaugural address to the need for reform and renewal in the Roman Catholic Church.

The address provoked a strong reaction from the faculty, who denounced it as heretical, forcing Cop to flee to Basel. Calvin, a close friend of Cop, was implicated in the offence, and for the next year he was forced into hiding. He remained on the move, sheltering with his friend Louis du Tillet in Angoulême and taking refuge in Noyon and Orléans. He was finally forced to flee France

=============================

I mentioned Wycliffe, Huss, Jerome, Luther, Calvin.

But you switch to Zwingli in our response - not sure why - not sure it helps your case

from - Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia

In 1518, Zwingli became the pastor of the Grossmünster in Zurich where he began to preach ideas on reform the Catholic Church. In his first public controversy in 1522, he attacked the custom of fasting during Lent. In his publications, he noted corruption in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, promoted clerical marriage, and attacked the use of images in places of worship. In 1525, Zwingli introduced a new communion liturgy

Details matter.

===================

BTW you seem to be floundering.

The whole point was supposedly to argue that the SDA study of the Bible in Daniel 7, 8 and Rev 12,13, 17 etc where key historic events are predicted and details show the part that the Catholic Church played in those event - culminating in the work of the RCC - ... is a mistake and should have focused on what some faction/sect of the Orthodox church was doing instead. But where do you make your case for that?

You seem to show very little concern for where Protestants get their doctrinal POV - the Bible.

For your argument to be compelling/persuasive you need to start at some point of common ground. As we all would agree.

 

[Monk Brendan]

according to the Encyclopedia.

According to "your" encyclopedia, maybe.

Nasrani Foundation, an organisation of Mar Thoma Nasranis has developed a dynamic Calendar based on the liturgical seasons of Syro-Malabar Church. The calendar is a handy tool for those who want to organize their life according to the liturgical seasons of the Church. The calendar contains almost all the information on the liturgical year of the Syro-Malabar Church. The calendar also provides instant access to daily Bible verses and short articles on important feasts of the Syro-Malabar Church. Pre-recorded Bible verses (from Peshitta Bible) and biblical reflections written by well-known theologians on Sundays and feast days are of most help to the faithful. Moreover, one can opt for receiving email alerts based on the calendar. Using this calendar, Syro-Malabar faithful can keep themselves updated with the liturgical life cycle of the Church. (from Wikipedia)

I could not find a calendar from 600 A.D. that showed the worship days of the Syro-Malabar (and to some extent all of the East Syria Churches) However, I did find a calendar of the Weeks of Annunciation. Note, all of the dates are for Sunday worship and not Saturday. Non-Sunday worship is shown in Italics

Weeks of Annunciation (Subara)
It is a season of Good News, viz., the Season of the Annunciation of Salvation.

November 30, 2014 First Sunday
December 1, 2014 25-day Fast begins
December 6, 2014 Shliha Mar Andreos

December 7, 2014 Second Sunday
December 8, 2014 Immaculate Conception of Blessed Virgin Mary

December 14, 2014 Third Sunday
December 18, 2014 Miracle of St. Thomas Cross

December 21, 2014 Fourth Sunday
December 25, 2014 Nativity of Isho
December 27, 2014 Shliha Mar Yohannan

December 28, 2014 Fifth Sunday Holy Infants
January 1, 2015 Name Iso
January 2, 2015 Mary, Mother of Jesus

Please note that there is only one day of worship on Saturday, and that is because it is a fixed date Feast.

 

[Monk Brendan]

You seem to show very little concern for where Protestants get their doctrinal POV - the Bible.

For your argument to be compelling/persuasive you need to start at some point of common ground. As we all would

I do pay attention to where the Protestants get their doctrinal POV. As I pay attention to the Bible.

The whole point was supposedly to argue that the SDA study of the Bible in Daniel 7, 8 and Rev 12,13, 17 etc where key historic events are predicted and details show the part that the Catholic Church played in those event - culminating in the work of the RCC - ... is a mistake and should have focused on what some faction/sect of the Orthodox church was doing instead. But where do you make your case for that?

Okay, how is a Bible translated by Protestants, published by Protestants going to show where the RCC made history fit THEM?

I have been very careful when quoting the Bible to use a Protestant source, the KJV. So where did the RCC stick their oar in?

 

[mmksparbud]

Until he left the Catholic Church, Luther was a Catholic. True. Neither Calvin or Zwingli were, ever.

Zwingli was ordained in Constance, the seat of the local diocese, and he celebrated his first Mass in his hometown, Wildhaus, on 29 September 1506. As a young priest he had studied little theology, but this was not considered unusual at the time. His first ecclesiastical post was the pastorate of the town of Glarus, where he stayed for ten years.Huldrych Zwingli - Wikipedia

 

[Monk Brendan]

For your argument to be compelling/persuasive you need to start at some point of common ground. As we all would agree.

How can I find common ground with you when it is absolutely clear that you HATE the Catholic Churches, and are trying to do all you can to pull down people on these fora.

 

[BobRyan]

How can I find common ground with you when it is absolutely clear that you HATE the Catholic Churches,

Do you "hate Jewish synagogues" just because you are not a Jew or don't choose to believe everything they believe?

Why emotionalize the fact that I do not agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches. You pivot from "Differ with the doctrines of the Catholic denomination" to - "hate Catholic Churches" with no quote at all from me in support of your false accusation.

Why do that?

and are trying to do all you can to pull down people on these fora.

On the contrary - your statement is explicitly ad hominem - and it is specifically I who do not choose to do that.

For example you referred to one person as "that crazy woman" - but you never find me talking about that "crazy - this-or-that Catholic person"

In addition I have never started a "xyz-denomination refuted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church" thread

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The whole point was supposedly to argue that the SDA study of the Bible in Daniel 7, 8 and Rev 12,13, 17 etc where key historic events are predicted and details show the part that the Catholic Church played in those event - culminating in the work of the RCC - ... is a mistake and should have focused on what some faction/sect of the Orthodox church was doing instead. But where do you make your case for that?

Okay, how is a Bible translated by Protestants, published by Protestants going to show where the RCC made history fit THEM?

I have been very careful when quoting the Bible to use a Protestant source, the KJV. So where did the RCC stick their oar in?

Since you are willing to use Protestant Bibles - I assume you freely admit that the RCC is not the only place to find good scholarship in Greek and Hebrew - and OT and NT studies.

Fine that is common ground.