The Great Deception of the Bible - Foretold in Christianity

[Maximus]

What...???

Since the advent of Sola Scriptura, Christianity has splintered into over 30,000 denominations, and every year, that number grows.

Yes but of course, as you likely know, there we many different "versions" of Christianity from very early on after the Resurrection. Many died out on their own and the most of the rest of the communities were declared heretic and put down by the end of the 4th century - though many lived on (Copts, etc.).

 

[Cooky]

Yes but of course, as you likely know, there we many different "versions" of Christianity from very early on after the Resurrection. Many died out on their own and the most of the rest of the communities were declared heretic and put down by the end of the 4th century - though many lived on (Copts, etc.).

I don't believe that the Roman (Latin) Church possesses exclusivity as The Church.

...I do believe Sola Scriptura is a Christian heresy though. What's worse is when the Bible-only Christian's become militant toward Traditionalists... Which is usually when I begin to spout off.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

St. Paul reminds us that Jesus Christ is the head of his body, the Church (Colossians 1:18), and that the Church’s holiness is derived from her mystical union with Him (1 Corinthians 12:12-13).

On the Feast of Pentecost, Jesus poured out the promise of his Holy Spirit upon the Church and filled her with supernatural life (Acts 2:1-4).

But then that life was murdered at the council of nicaea

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

He (Jesus) has made the Church herald of his holy gospel, teacher of his holy doctrine, and minister of his holy sacraments... Until the end of the world. (Matthew 28:19-20).

“Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the Church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:25-27).

Yes, those are very nice.
But what is the “church” spoken of here?

I dare say, probably to the distress of many, that it is me. Yes, me. I am the church.
And any other true follower of the Lord.
Regardless of where we live.
Regardless of what religion we belong to, or none at all.
A follower of the Lord is the one who follows the Lord’s commandments.

The church spoke of in the Bible is NOT a human made organization.
It is NOT a religion.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

I don't believe that the Roman (Latin) Church possesses exclusivity as The Church.

...I do believe Sola Scriptura is a Christian heresy though. What's worse is when the Bible-only Christian's become militant toward Traditionalists... Which is usually when I begin to spout off.

One should never become ‘militant’ toward ANY other group or person.
That is just wrong.
Such a mindset is what can bring about such things as crusades, inquisitions, and the evils we’re witnessing today from some christian religions in America.

True followers of the Lord would not choose to be ‘militant’ towards others.

 

[Wandering Monk]

 

[Deeje]

You're not used to anyone critiquing the JW religion, I know. You would surely have Catholicism on constant defense if you had it your way.

...Welcome to my world.

Are you serious? No one gets more “critique” than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True Christians expect what Jesus told them to expect....
John 15:18-21....(NRSV Catholic Edition)
"If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me before it hated you. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own. Because you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world—therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘Servants are not greater than their master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me."

The kind of hatred engendered by the activities of Christ's first century followers, was not deserved. The kind of hostility aimed at the Roman Catholic Church was because of her disgusting history and the present situation exposing systemic child abuse in Catholic institutions all over the world for probably hundreds of years. The church became a haunt for pedophiles and homosexuals because it gave then safe haven....and absolution.
No organization is safe from sexual predators, but when it becomes a 'culture', turning a blind eye just spreads the problem like a virus.

 

[Deeje]

Thank you...finally something to address. I will answer them one at a time.

Please state your preferred Bible translation so that we have no miscommunication.
I will use the NRSV Catholic Edition for now, since the Catholic Douay seems to be unacceptable to you.

TRINITY:
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Corinthians 13:14, Hebrews 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, which I can provide upon request*.

This command by Jesus in no way links the Father, son and holy spirit as one entity. The Bible speaks quite freely about all three, but never does it place them all in a "Godhead". Each plays a role but the Father alone is God......"the only true God" as Jesus clearly stated in John 17:3 without including himself.....
"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

Eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, as well as his son who was "sent" to redeem mankind...not a concocted triune god that can be traced directly to paganism. And the holy spirit is missing from that statement.

As for 2 Corinthians 13:14, I could not get a Catholic Bible to quote this verse....so I will quote it from the ASV
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

Again....it mentions all three as contributing to a Christian's faith, but nowhere are these three components expressed as "one God".

Hebrews 9:14? I'll include the previous verse for context...
" For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!"

Again, no trinity there. Christ offered his blood to God...two separate entities in two different places at the same time. God's spirit is the means by which his will is accomplished. It empowered Jesus and his disciples and no doubt was the means used to resurrect Jesus from his tomb so that he could return to heaven and resume the worship of his God. (Revelation 3:12)

* The writings of the "earliest Christians" ( Church Fathers) are not scripture. The great apostasy was to take place after the death of the apostles, so anything written after the first century is to be treated with reservation if it contradicts what Jesus and the apostles taught.

INFANT BAPTISM:
(Acts 2:38). -not restricted to adults- He added, “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (Acts 2:39, emphasis added).

How old are the "children" here? As previously stated those who offered themselves to God as disciples of Jesus Christ first had to be students, as this is the meaning of a disciple....The Hebrew word for a disciple (lim·mudhʹ) basically refers to one who learns, is taught, or is trained. The Greek word ma·the·tesʹ (disciple) primarily denotes one who directs his mind to something. However you look at it, one cannot baptize an infant because they are not of an age to learn and make a decision about faith. There is no 'proxy' arrangement.

 

[Deeje]

INNERANCY OF THE BIBLE:
...I don't think you need this explained.
If you do, let me know.

This was the only one I agreed with...remember? But the inerrancy also has to be understood in how the Bible is interpreted. The Bible itself is inerrant, but the interpretation depends on the bias of the interpreter and the translator.

PURGATORY:
The word purgatory is derived from the Latin purgatio, which means “cleansing” or “purifying.” Scripture teaches that we are to be purified of all that is sinful or unclean. For instance, Psalm 51:7–10 reads:

Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
Fill me with joy and gladness;
let the bones which thou hast broken rejoice.
Hide thy face from my sins,
and blot out all my iniquities.
Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and put a new and right spirit within me.

Likewise, John writes, “Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure” (1 John 3:2–3).

Psalm 51:7-10 is "A melody of David, when Nathan the prophet came in to him after David had relations with Bath-sheʹba."
His request was for God's forgiveness in this life because as a Jew, David had no belief in an immortal soul or even in going to heaven, let alone a hell or purgatory. Asking for 'a clean heart and a new spirit' was a request to be a new man, putting his grave sins behind him, assured of God's forgiveness, and trying to be someone who was acceptable to God. His prayer was answered when Bathsheba gave birth to Solomon...a man whose kingship over Israel delivered many blessings to God's nation.

1 John 3:2-3 speaks about those whom God chose for life in heaven (not something that all Christians will experience) When Jesus was to come to take his "bride" "home" I assure you that it has nothing to do with nuns in wedding dresses. These will be transformed into spirit beings in order to exist in the same realm as God and his son. That means that their sinful flesh is gone with no need for purification. Sin is inescapably tied to the flesh. There are no sinners in the grave. The two resurrections spoken of in the scriptures, means eternal life in heaven for the "chosen ones" and everlasting life on earth for their subjects. At death, one is acquitted or "freed" from sin. (Romans 6:7)

MARYS PERPETUAL VIRGINITY
the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Samuel 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Samuel 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

The "Protoevangelium"?......So this belief is based on an apocryphal book that is not really recognized as part of the Bible canon? IOW, there is no accepted "scripture" that reinforces the belief that Mary was not "married" in the true sense to Joseph, or that she bore no other children, or that she had an "immaculate conception" herself?

I find no statements to that effect in any recognized scripture. It would be a different story altogether if there was mention of Mary serving at the Temple, or being forever virgin, but that is clearly not the case. The ones you mention were never applied to Mary. So it appears to be an assumption on the part of the RCC to make Mary fit the "Mother Goddess" criteria. It is principally through devotion to Mary that mother-goddess worship has survived in the lands of Christendom down to the present day.

The titles given to Mary applied to pagan mother-goddesses. Ishtar was hailed as the “Holy Virgin,” “my Lady,” and “the merciful mother who listens to prayer.” Isis and Astarte were called “Queen of Heaven.” Cybele was styled the “Mother of all the Blest.” All these titles, with slight variations, are applied to Mary by the RCC. How do Catholic people not know this?

I'm sorry Landon Caeli, but I believe that your church has lied to you, as it has lied to all of its uninformed flocks, kept in ignorance for centuries.

 

[Cooky]

But then that life was murdered at the council of nicaea

Well, Constantine was trying to resolve the quarrels between the Arians and the Christians... Arius was a bad heretic, who heralded the dawn of Islam due to his radical, super-monotheistic stance, which Islam later adopted. The Christian's would have nothing to do with him, or his theology. So they excommunicated him as a mixed group.

4 years prior to the 1st Council of Nicea:

(St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, convoked a council at Alexandria at which more than one hundred bishops from Egypt and Libya anathematized Arius.)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

 

[Cooky]

Thank you...finally something to address. I will answer them one at a time.

Please state your preferred Bible translation so that we have no miscommunication.
I will use the NRSV Catholic Edition for now, since the Catholic Douay seems to be unacceptable to you.



This command by Jesus in no way links the Father, son and holy spirit as one entity. The Bible speaks quite freely about all three, but never does it place them all in a "Godhead". Each plays a role but the Father alone is God......"the only true God" as Jesus clearly stated in John 17:3 without including himself.....
"And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."

Eternal life is dependent on knowing the only true God, as well as his son who was "sent" to redeem mankind...not a concocted triune god that can be traced directly to paganism. And the holy spirit is missing from that statement.

As for 2 Corinthians 13:14, I could not get a Catholic Bible to quote this verse....so I will quote it from the ASV
"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

Again....it mentions all three as contributing to a Christian's faith, but nowhere are these three components expressed as "one God".

Hebrews 9:14? I'll include the previous verse for context...
" For if the blood of goats and bulls, with the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, sanctifies those who have been defiled so that their flesh is purified, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to worship the living God!"

Again, no trinity there. Christ offered his blood to God...two separate entities in two different places at the same time. God's spirit is the means by which his will is accomplished. It empowered Jesus and his disciples and no doubt was the means used to resurrect Jesus from his tomb so that he could return to heaven and resume the worship of his God. (Revelation 3:12)

* The writings of the "earliest Christians" ( Church Fathers) are not scripture. The great apostasy was to take place after the death of the apostles, so anything written after the first century is to be treated with reservation if it contradicts what Jesus and the apostles taught.

We believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate, both fully God, and fully man.

Some of these ancient quotes are from the 1st century..! The year 70..! The year 110, 151, 181, 189, etc..! Why dismiss it..? But with the rejection of Tradition, and only the acceptance of the bible, through the man-made theory of Sola Scriptura, you're missing out on quite a bit of the real Christian faith!

The Didache
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Ignatius of Antioch
“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch
“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus
“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

“And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (ibid.).

“Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (ibid., 9).

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25).

Origen
“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

Hippolytus
“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

 

[Cooky]

(...continued)

Pope Dionysius
“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate” (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

“Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd” (ibid., 1–2).

“Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’” (ibid., 3).

Gregory the Wonderworker
“There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever” (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Sechnall of Ireland
“Hymns, with Revelation and the Psalms of God [Patrick] sings, and does expound the same for the edifying of God’s people. This law he holds in the Trinity of the sacred Name and teaches one being in three persons” (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 22 [A.D. 444]).

Patrick of Ireland
“I bind to myself today the strong power of an invocation of the Trinity—the faith of the Trinity in unity, the Creator of the universe” (The Breastplate of St. Patrick 1 [A.D. 447]).

“[T]here is no other God, nor has there been heretofore, nor will there be hereafter, except God the Father unbegotten, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things, as we say, and his Son Jesus Christ, whom we likewise to confess to have always been with the Father—before the world’s beginning. . . . Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe . . . and who has poured out on us abundantly the Holy Spirit . . . whom we confess and adore as one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name” (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).

Augustine
“All the Catholic interpreters of the divine books of the Old and New Testaments whom I have been able to read, who wrote before me about the Trinity, which is God, intended to teach in accord with the Scriptures that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance constituting a divine unity with an inseparable equality; and therefore there are not three gods but one God, although the Father begot the Son, and therefore he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, himself, too, coequal to the Father and to the Son and belonging to the unity of the Trinity” (The Trinity1:4:7 [A.D. 408]).

Fulgence of Ruspe
“See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another; in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard he says: ‘The Father and I, we are one’ (John 10:30). He teaches us that onerefers to their nature, and we are to their Persons. In like manner it is said: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one’ (1 John 5:7)” (The Trinity 4:1–2 [c. A.D. 515]).

“But in the one true God and Trinity it is naturally true not only that God is one but also that he is a Trinity, for the reason that the true God himself is a Trinity of Persons and one in nature. Through this natural unity the whole Father is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, and the whole Holy Spirit, too, is in the Father and in the Son. None of these is outside any of the others; because no one of them precedes any other of them in eternity or exceeds any other in greatness, or is superior to any other in power” (The Rule of Faith 4 [c. A.D. 523).

What the Early Church Believed: The Trinity

 

[Cooky]

How old are the "children" here? As previously stated those who offered themselves to God as disciples of Jesus Christ first had to be students, as this is the meaning of a disciple....The Hebrew word for a disciple (lim·mudhʹ) basically refers to one who learns, is taught, or is trained. The Greek word ma·the·tesʹ (disciple) primarily denotes one who directs his mind to something. However you look at it, one cannot baptize an infant because they are not of an age to learn and make a decision about faith. There is no 'proxy' arrangement.

...And the Holy Scripture explicitly states that baptizing children is sinful? I don't think it does...

Yet according to the Sola Scriptura theory, it is somehow... And they fail to see that this is a man-made doctrine.

 

[Cooky]

It's almost as if Sola Scriptura can become...Evil...When taken to the extremes...

Denying a child BAPTISM in God's name? How could such a pure, holy and good thing be considered wrong?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a “tradition of men” that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

I like many things about the Catholic Church and the Baha’i Faith shares some important beliefs with Christians generally and Catholics in particular.

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113

Obviously there will be some core differences too.

 

[Deeje]

We believe Jesus Christ is God incarnate, both fully God, and fully man.

And I will find that doctrine clearly stated in which book of the Bible?

Any wonder the Catholic Church is so against "sola scriptura". No doctrine of the Catholic faith is based on God's word....all of it is based on man-made tradition.

The Didache
“After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

Certain currents of early “Christian” thought actually deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles, as it was foretold. As an example, contrary to the practice instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the author of The Didache advised the passing of the wine before the bread. (Matthew 26:26-27) This is out of harmony with what Jesus instituted.

This unnamed writer also stated that if no body of water was available to perform baptism by immersion, pouring water on the head of the baptism candidate would suffice. Where will I find that in the Bible? (Mark 1:-10; Acts 8:36, 38) Full immersion was the method of Christian baptism as it symbolized a 'death and resurrection' of the person accepting Christ as their savior...dying and being buried under the water to a former life, and being raised from the water as a new person, forgiven and ready and willing to start afresh. If you lose the immersion, you lose the symbolism.

The same text encouraged Christians to observe such rituals as obligatory fasting twice a week and recitation of the Our Father exactly three times a day. (Matthew 6:5-13; Luke 18:12) Since when was mindless repetition and ritual fasting part of Christian worship?
The Didache is not in agreement with God's word.

Ignatius of Antioch
“[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, lived from about the middle of the first century C.E. to early in the second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit. At best what one can glean from his writings is a duality, not a trinity.

In the second century C.E., false gospels spread spurious accounts of Jesus’ life, and the Church Fathers frequently lent credence to them. Ignatius, for instance, quoted from the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews.
The Church Fathers it seems came to know Christ, not through the Gospels, but through non-canonical writings. We are given scripture so that men's thoughts don't get mixed up with God's thoughts....something that the Pharisees also failed to practice.

Justin Martyr
“We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

By combining Christianity with philosophy, Justin Martyr disregarded the inspired command to adhere to what is written. (1 Corinthians 4:6) Other so-called Church Fathers followed his example, thereby accelerating the foretold apostasy. (Matthew 13:38-39; 2 Peter 2:1)
Because Justin lived soon after the death of the apostles, his writings have historical value. For example, they show that he accepted the established Jewish canon and rejected the apocryphal books....something the Catholic Church did not do.

Theophilus of Antioch
“It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom” (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Like other early Christian writers (c. 120–220) Theophilus defended biblical teachings brought up by critics, even in his own faith.
He used his acquaintance with the inspired writings to exhibit their immense superiority over popular pagan philosophy.
To what extent the foretold apostasy may have affected the accuracy of his views, its hard to say, (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12) but by the time of his death, about 182 C.E., Theophilus had apparently become a tireless apologist, whose writings are of interest to genuine Christians of our modern age.

 

[Deeje]

Continued...

Irenaeus
“For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Irenaeus personally testifies that in his early youth, he was acquainted with Polycarp, who was an overseer in the Smyrna congregation.
I see no support for a trinity in this quote.

Polycarp was a living link to the apostles. He expounded copiously on the Scriptures and strongly recommended adherence to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles.
Irenaeus boldly spoke out against erroneous doctrine. For instance, in the introduction to his extensive literary work entitled “The Refutation and Overthrow of the Knowledge Falsely So Called” (commonly referred to by the name “Against Heresies.”) he wrote: “Certain men, rejecting the truth, are introducing among us false stories and vain genealogies, which serve rather to controversies, as the apostle said [1 Timothy 1:3-4], than to God’s work of building up in the faith. By their craftily constructed rhetoric they lead astray the minds of the inexperienced, and take them captive, corrupting the oracles of the Lord, and being evil expounders of what was well spoken.”

Tertullian
“We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit” (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

Though Tertullian intended that his writings defend the truth and uphold the integrity of the church and her doctrines, he actually corrupted true teachings. His key contribution to Christendom turned out to be a theory upon which later writers built the doctrine of the Trinity. But Tertullian showed that the Scriptures made a clear distinction between the Father and the Son.

After quoting 1 Corinthians 15:27-28, he reasoned: “He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected—must necessarily be two different Beings.” Tertullian called attention to Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28)

Using portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Psalm 8:5, he showed how the Bible describes the “inferiority” of the Son. “Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son,” Tertullian concluded. “Inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.”

Origen
“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

“For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages” (ibid.).

Not everyone held Origen in high esteem. Some viewed him as 'an evil root from which heresies sprang'. In the words of a 17th-century writer, Origen’s critics asserted: “His doctrine in general is absurd and pernicious, a Serpentine deadly poison, which he vomited into the world.” About three centuries after his death, in fact, Origen was formally declared a heretic.

Hippolytus
“The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God” (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus."

Pope Dionysius

Gregory the Wonderworker

Sechnall of Ireland

Patrick of Ireland

Augustine

Fulgence of Ruspe

I won't bother with the rest because it is just a steady decline into full blown apostasy after the 2nd century. The 'weeds' all but choked out the 'wheat'....as weeds are want to do, just as Jesus said they would. I cannot see anything biblical in Catholic teachings...they are all based on man-made traditions and adopted religious concepts gleaned from pagan worship.

Jesus left us all we need to know, to do, and to believe. Those who deviate from those things will not qualify for life according to Paul. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18) You can't mix the truth with lies.

 

[Deeje]

...And the Holy Scripture explicitly states that baptizing children is sinful? I don't think it does...

No one said it was sinful...just invalid. It is meaningless to baptize a baby.

Yet according to the Sola Scriptura theory, it is somehow... And they fail to see that this is a man-made doctrine.

Infant baptism is a man-made and often hypocritical practice. It fits no scriptural criteria and has no scriptural reason.

 

[3rdAngel]

Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a “tradition of men” that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

Although popular with many “Bible Christian” churches, the “Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth

Nice OP name did you come up with it yourself? I cannot get anyone to tell me why my OP was deleted. Anyhow, for me this OP is a load of nonsense that has no truth in it whatsoever if you believe the teachings of JESUS, the Apostles and the prophets written in the scriptures of the old and new testament.

 

[3rdAngel]

No one said it was sinful...just invalid. It is meaningless to baptize a baby. Infant baptism is a man-made and often hypocritical practice. It fits no scriptural criteria and has no scriptural reason.

It is only one of many teachings that are not biblical or follows the Word of God in my opinion.