Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists and Christian Science all originated in the same part of the US (so-called "burnt over district) within a few years of each other.

I don't know about Illuminati, but it's enough to make you wonder about things.

I would have thought that Catholicism was the Illuminati "Christian" religion, when it was combined with paganism by Emperor Constantine.

And Protestantism was formed against Catholicism.

My understanding is that Constantine passed an edict (law?) establishing tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Theodosius than made it the state religion.

Council of Nicaea decided what literature would be included in the official Bible.

Inclusion of pagan practices took place over a long period of time as Catholic Church sought to gain converts and keep the religion growing.

There are no pagan practices in the Catholic Church. There are some who are not orthodox in their beliefs or praxis, but all the teachings of the Catholic Church are biblical and follow sacred tradition.

Praying to Mary, the mother, queen of heaven, etc, to intercede, is a pagan practice. Confessing to a fellow man, is not a biblical practice. Those are two of the main issues as I know of, but I'm not Catholic so I can't say definitively on all of the teachings.

I agree that that teachings are rooted in, and are the majority of, the biblical teachings.

My understanding is that Constantine passed an edict (law?) establishing tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire.

That's my understanding too. Though I believe that's only half of the story, as the pagan beliefs weren't tossed out, so that when Theodosius made it the state religion, "it" was a conjunction between the two practices - half Christian, half pagan.

Then the Council of Nicaea confirmed that religion/denomination.

I guess what I'm saying is, is that the half-pagan practices/beliefs of Catholicism denomination of Christianity came from Rome, which my understanding is that the Illuminati are part of Mystery Babylon that the book of Revelation speaks of, which includes the Roman Empire beliefs.

Catholicism is the original Christianity.

Though some have infiltrated Catholicism, it remains the original form of Christianity.

The OP is correct about the other 'denominations'.

Catholicism is the original Christianity.

The OP is correct about the other 'denominations'.

Huh. So what is Eastern Orthodoxy, then? Chopped liver?

See, they have the same Bible and the same Father, Son and Holy Ghost. They also a chain of Bishops that goes back to the Apostles. They just decided that the Pope wasn't the only Bishop that rules over all Christendom. So why should I believe you instead of them?

See, that whole schism in 1054 makes this claim as pointless grandstanding. If the Orthodox aren't "original" then you aren't. If they are, that doesn't mean that Protestants aren't either because we all teach Christ crucified.

What you did here is a petty "I'm better than you" tactic. It's something you Catholics have been using to attack the the legitimacy of Protestants as Christians since 1521. You seem to think that by doing this, we Protestants will lose our courage to resist your manufactured title claim and we will just crawl back to the Papacy. But I'm calling this out for what it is. Propaganda.

As a Lutheran, I'm already livid at the blatant lie that OP made here about us. But here you come to pat him on the back and give him a helping hand. This is predatory. And it seems to confirm my conspiracy theory that I stated below. Catholics use exactly this method to sow dissent against Protestant soteriology for their own gain.

If you had any honor, you'd recognize that the poison you're crafting here is being used against you also. By cheapening the concept of "faith" you've fostered the growth of anti-religious beliefs of every kind. All to punish Martin Luther and those who agreed with his view of Christianity because you cannot fleece them into joining your sect.

You read a hell of a lot into my post.

Well, I don't see you correcting any misconceptions with your claim that "Catholicism is the original Christianity" and you're certainly feeding the anti-Protestant atmosphere that OP has created. What do you think I should have seen your post as?

1) You should know that 'catholic' simply means 'universal'. It comes from the Greek word 'καθολικός (katholikos).

2) As early as the 1st C., Christians were referring to themselves as 'universal' or 'catholics'. It was just a designation meaning 'for the universal body of Christians'. Here is Ignatius of Antioch writing from 107 A.D. using the term 'catholic', as well as presenting a thoroughly catholic understanding of the eucharist.

3) The 'Roman' part of the name got tacked on because of course the birth of Christianity occurred within what was then the Roman Empire.

4) The Great Schism shifted the use of the word 'Roman Catholic' to the Western part of the Empire and 'Byzantine' to the Eastern part. Of course the Byzantine is today better known as 'Orthodox'.

5) While some of what caused the Great Schism involved the filioque clause, the better part (and we see this affecting the Orthodox Churches even today) of the controversy was over submission to a bishop with primacy, that is, the bishop of Rome. Yet we see that the bishop of Rome has had primacy however since the book of Acts, chapter 15, where St. Peter is called upon at the First Council, the Council of Jerusalem. So the see of Peter traces its roots back to the earliest days of the Church and to Peter. We also have, of course, Our Lord, making Peter essentially 'prime minister' of His Kingdom in Mt. 16:18.

When the Orthodox (or Protestants) rejected the primacy of the bishop of Rome, they therefore rejected the Biblical precedent set up by Jesus Himself.

No one is saying that Orthodox or protestants might not also be Christians. Only that they are Christians in imperfect communion with the Church that Christ founded.

'catholic' simply means 'universal'.

the 1st C., Christians were referring to themselves as 'universal Christians' or catholics

what caused the Great Schism involved the filioque clause, the better part... of the controversy was over submission to a bishop with primacy, that is, the bishop of Rome.

I agree wholeheartedly with these statements that I've cited. I can't really vouch for the discussion of the evolution of the terms Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox as you discuss, but they seem reasonable enough.

So, let me clarify. I've got no objection to the word catholic. We ourselves use it in our doctrinal corpus because they contain the Ecumenical Creeds. The term is fine.

But there's a connotative implication which Roman Catholicism does not distance itself from that subtly suggests that the "universal Christian faith" consists ultimately of the churches that submit to the Roman Pontiff exclusively and that those that aren't are somehow in an inferior communion. This connotation is one of the elements of the objection that you've rightly identified.

In the sense we would use the term catholic, it refers to the invisible communion that all Christians have regardless of their denomination or sect. We may believe ours is the most accurate interpretation, but we don't reject that other Christians are just as worthy to be called that. You've mollified this part of my objection when you say "No one is saying that Orthodox or protestants might not also be Christians." We reject your Pontiff's claims about his authority, but we vigorously maintain our membership in the Body of Christ.

But this is what leads to the real focus of my concern and what led me to make the post initially. You said "The OP is correct about the other 'denominations'." When it is coupled with the above connotation, it appears like you're giving ammunition to OP making these spurious claims which claim that Protestantism is an invention of devil worshipers. Absolutely not.

That you chose to back his statement in this way is what led to my response. All the rest of my objections rest upon the Treatise on the Power and Primacy which rejects the Papal claim and sees it acting in a manner hostile to Christianity. A fact I hold no Catholic, even the Pope, directly guilty of. That point is merely a matter of doctrine.

those that aren't are somehow in an inferior communion

They are. There is no salvation outside the catholic Church. To the extent that protestant and orthodox believers have salvation and communion with Christ, it is because elements of the Catholic faith have seeped out of the 'four walls' so to speak of the Church proper. Our Lord, who is rich in mercy, has brought people to Himself even though they are in imperfect communion with His Church.

This 'seepage' is due to the heretical and nefarious influence of conversos, marranos, and illuminati who bolstered up half-truths and false claims and made them appealing to certain Catholic dissidents (ie - from what I understand, moreso the case of Calvin than of Luther).

purious claims which claim that Protestantism is an invention of devil worshipers

Anything good in protestantism is there because of what it retained from Catholicism. Anything bad in protestantism is there because of what it picked up from these nefarious elements.

I need to get some sleep but will attempt to get more info. together later. God bless.

There is no salvation outside the catholic Church

Salvation only comes from Jesus/Yeshua Christ, no matter the body of believers ("church", aka denomination). The people do not save the people, God-the-Son/Messiah Jesus/Yeshua is the salvation, and by grace alone, not works.

Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church, so yes, that means salvation through Christ.

We are saved by grace alone, but not by a grace that stays alone. Our Lord says to "produce fruit in keeping with repentance." Plenty of Bible passages state that we are to use that grace to good effect.

Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church, so yes, that means salvation through Christ.

Agreed. Especially considering the "church" is meant as the "body of believers".

The Catholic Church is a specific faction/denomination. Jesus is also the founder of all the other churches that believe in Him, including non-denominational churches.

All I am saying is: pay attention to the scriptures. The Church is, according to scripture, a VISIBLE body.

The Catholic Church was founded by Christ and has been around for 2000 years.

Who founded your church?

All I am saying is: pay attention to the scriptures

I am paying attention to scriptures. I quoted scripture in another reply to you:

Acts 24:5 "5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:" Acts 9:2 "2 and [Saul who became Paul] asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem," Acts 11:26 "26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch," Colossians 3:12-13 "12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."

Please pay attention to scriptures also. Where in scripture does it state the word "catholic"?

Who founded your church?

Is this an accusation that I am not a "true Christian"?

As I stated:

Jesus is also the founder of all the other churches that believe in Him, including non-denominational churches.

I am a non-denominational Christian, follower of Jesus.

Who founded your church? Is this an accusation that I am not a "true Christian"

No. But it is an accusation that your church is not the true church.

Answer the question....who founded your church? Can you trace its roots back to Jesus?

No. But it is an accusation that your church is not the true church. Answer the question....who founded your church? Can you trace its roots back to Jesus?

I did answer it:

I am a non-denominational Christian, follower of Jesus.

Do you not know what a "non-denominational Christian" is?

Jesus Christ is my savior.

So your church has no founder?

I answered your question about scriptural references.

As I said, Jesus Christ is the founder of the church I belong to.

Not if it isn't the Catholic Church.

So that means if it's a "Baptist" church, or "Methodist" church, or "Non-denominational" church, it is not a "Catholic" church, thus not a "church" of followers of Jesus Christ?

Is that what you are really saying? That every believer in Jesus Christ except "Catholic" believers in Jesus Christ, is not a believer in Jesus Christ?

thus not a "church" of followers of Jesus Christ?

I would not say that people in these organization are not followers of Jesus Christ. I would say that the organizations of which they are a part are not true Churches.

They are fragments of the Catholic Church. Believers from other denominations are, according to Catholic teaching, in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

We would like for you to be in perfect communion and join the Church that Jesus personally founded Himself! :)

No thanks, I'm firm in my non-denominational beliefs.

I don't pray to Mary to intercede, as that is Jesus' job to intercede to God-the-Father, nor do I confess to a man who I've done no wrong to (ask forgiveness from Jesus directly and the person I wronged).

Jesus founded my faction/denomination!

Catholics only ask intercession from Jesus.

You are misunderstanding that.

I said that the Catholic Church has 'seeped out' of her four walls, so to speak. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

However, the Church has been fragmented or has seeped out into the factions you describe.

OUR LORD WEEPS OVER DISUNITY IN THE BODY; you celebrate it! Please think about that...

Catholics only ask intercession from Jesus

Not from what I've heard. They pray to Mary, to ask Jesus to intercede, in the name of Jesus.

And they ask forgiveness from a priest, you're misunderstanding to not do that.

And there is but one father, The Father in Heaven. Not the pope, meaning "papa"

And only humans can become saints, not angels, as in Gabriel. definition of saint "a person acknowledged as holy or virtuous and typically regarded as being in heaven after death."

You are the one who stated "Not if it isn't the Catholic Church.". Not me.

And where do you find me celebrating the disunity? Please point to the post. If not, you are putting words into my mouth, as well as false accusing me.

You do not get to speak for the LORD with your opinion. That is arrogance.

Please stop saying foolish things.

It is not arrogance to explain that Jesus is sad over disunity as Jesus Himself prayed for this in John 17. Jesus' main prayer is for UNITY!!: "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity."

You LITERALLY just said that 'Jesus founded my faction/denomination!' when He clearly did not FOUND it. He may be a part of individual believers' lives, but He did not FOUND your church. So you are celebrating a falsehood and promoting an untruth and factiousness.

And your understanding of asking for 'intecessory prayer' is woefully misguided, perhaps because your Bible took out the verses and books of the Old Testament which described saints doing this very thing!

Would you ask your grandma to pray to Jesus for you?

What about your mother?

Well, Catholics rightly understand that people who are in heaven are more fully alive in the presence of Jesus than people on earth who still wrestle with sin and the devil. https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-intercession-of-the-saints

This is outlined also in II Maccabees: "For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them."

...But your Bible has been tampered with by individual men and has had original books removed from it, so you twist and distort the Scriptures.

You have your beliefs, I have mine.

Jesus is my savior and leader.

Please forgive me for any insult or accusation. God/Jesus bless.

I'm not interested in playing the game 'show me the word in the Bible, or I won't believe it' because it is a false and dangerous game to play.

However, I will send this: Acts 9:31 (Greek Bible), "ai men oun ekklēsiai kath olēs tēs ioudaias kai galilaias kai samareias eichon eirēnēn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tō phobō tou kuriou kai tē paraklēsei tou agiou pneumatos eplēthunonto" EKKLESIA KATH'OLES.

The term "Catholic", derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), which means "universal" or "general", was also used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century. The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole". Thus the full name Catholic Church roughly means "universal" or "whole" church. END QUOTE

The "whole" church there, is specific to three locations, as stated in Acts 9:31 "31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied."

Those three locations were the boundaries of the "church"/followers-of-Jesus, at that time, then multiplied outward. As you stated, the term for "whole", also was "universal", but then "catholic" came about in the second century, meaning later.

At that time, the Church was ONLY IN the a few persecuted places of the Middle East!

That WAS the whole Church at the time.

In other words, this was the universal church in its infancy stages.

Only later, did the Church and gospel spread. It still however retained the name 'catholic' -- and indeed TO THIS DAY is the ONLY church with members on all continents.

At that time, the Church was ONLY IN the a few persecuted places of the Middle East!

That is exactly what I just said:

Those three locations were the boundaries of the "church"/followers-of-Jesus, at that time

I don't agree that only "Catholics", as commonly used today, are the only believers in Jesus Christ. If you want to assume that no other faction/denomination are followers/believers of Jesus Christ, that's up to you.

I do believe all factions/denomination of Jesus Christ, are followers/believers of Jesus Christ.

What started this argument was regarding the later combination of the pagan beliefs of Emporer Constantine into the "Catholic" church, resulting in the beliefs of Catholicism today, which is rooted in beliefs in Jesus Christ (and acknowledging beliefs of pagans as well in that faction).

Agree to disagree. God bless.

are the only believers in Jesus Christ. If you want to assume that no other faction/denomination are followers/believers of Jesus Christ, that's up to you.

I never said that they weren't believers of Jesus.

Again, and for the last time, I said, that those followers of Jesus are in the wrong 'church' and need to join up with the true Church!

They are not, your exclusionary beliefs are not correct: Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Non-denominational are all true churches; they are not false churches. Your opinion does not make it so. As long as they follow/believe in Jesus Christ, they are a part of the "true church".

I hope you have a good one.

You are free to be wrong.

Methodists, Baptists, Lutherans, Non-denominational are all true churches, including Catholics (the non half pagan part). They are not false churches.

I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong...

As long as they follow/believe in Jesus Christ, they are a part of the "true church".

"True church" = Catholic Church.

So as long as they follow Jesus, they are part of the Catholic Church in a certain sense; just in imperfect communion, as I have been saying.

I believe differently, but thanks anyway.

If the arguments against Catholicism interest you, try this website: http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?45087-Ex-Catholics-Anonymous!-Share-your-Testimony!

If the arguments against Catholicism interest you

Has anything of what I've said sounded like I'm against Catholicism?

Honestly, now you're just being an ass. Stop apologizing for 'creating arguments' and then post ridiculous stuff like that.

CATHOLICISM IS THE TRUE FAITH. Protestantism is heresy.

I don't know how much more clear to be about that. Please stop writing.

Has anything of what I've said sounded like I'm against Catholicism?

No, you're arguing for it. The link I posted were for arguments against Catholicism, if you're interested.

Honestly, now you're just being an ass.

And now I see you insulting yet again.

Stop apologizing for 'creating arguments' and then post ridiculous stuff like that.

I'm not apologizing for "creating arguments" now.

CATHOLICISM IS THE TRUE FAITH. Protestantism is heresy. I don't know how much more clear to be about that. Please stop writing.

And now "Catholicism is the true faith", not just the "true church"?

I'll stick with my beliefs. I hope you have a good one.

I'm blocking you.

Thank you.

I'm thankful heaven is large enough we can be in opposite ends of it.

Acts 24:5 "5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:" Acts 9:2 "2 and [Saul who became Paul] asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem," Acts 11:26 "26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch," Colossians 3:12-13 "12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved,

These ARE descriptions of Christians in the Bible. That does not mean that there are not also other descriptions to describe them too.

I appreciate that this is just a good-natured debate/discussion.

Thank you for saying so.

God bless.

There is no salvation outside the catholic Church.

Accurate enough, but for different reasons. There is no salvation outside Christ. The Body of Christ is the Church containing all believers. Thus, there's no salvation outside of the universal Church. We just don't share that idea of "walls" you have.

There's certainly doctrine, but disagreement in doctrine isn't damnation unless someone lacks faith in Christ.

have seeped out of the 'four walls' so to speak of the Church proper

Anything good in protestantism is there because of what it retained from Catholicism.

I don't agree, but what you say makes sense from your ecclesiological perspective.

Anyway, peace to you and sorry for the case of defensive crossfire earlier.

spurious claims

Case in point.

Aliester Crowley was not born until 12 October 1875. The Illuminati did not exist until 1776.

Neither Martin Luther nor John Calvin had any knowledge of this. It's slander. Plain and simple.

See, I know the Teutonic Order existed but it's a Catholic monastic order. Citation needed for the claim that they have an intentional connection to Luciferian practices.

I disagree that Catholicism is the original Christianity.

The first Christians had a few names, such as "Followers of the Way", "Nazarenes"

https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/sect-of-the-way-the-nazarenes-christians-names-given-to-the-early-church/

Wikipedia lists the "Early Church" (body of believers) as preceding Catholicism:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church

• "The Catholic Church teaches that it is the continuation of the early Christian community established by Jesus Christ" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Catholic_Church

Either way, God/Jesus bless you, and all of us believers.

Wikipedia is not an authority in these matters. Certainly not one I would rely on.

Again, the early church member themselves called themselves 'catholic', meaning 'universal from the earliest days of the church. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about this in 107 A.D. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm In section 8 he says, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

God bless you as well.

Wikipedia is certainly not an authority I would rely on.

That's a summary of the information. Let's go with the Holy Bible, scripture itself:

Acts 24:5 "5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:"

Acts 9:2 "2 and [Saul who became Paul] asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem,"

Acts 11:26 "26 and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch,"

Colossians 3:12-13 "12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering; 13 Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye."

Again, the early church member themselves called themselves 'catholic' from the earliest days of the church, meaning 'universal'. Ignatius of Antioch wrote about this in 107 A.D. in his letter to the Symrneans http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm In section 8 he says, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." That is him writing not even 50 years after the death of St. Paul!

Please point to the book, chapter, and verse(s) of scripture that utilize the word "Catholic". There is not one usage of that word in any scripture in any English version of the Holy Bible.

You referenced "section 8" of Ignatius of Antioch from 107 AD, however, that is not a scriptural reference, just an interpretation of scripture; an update, if you will. A man who wasn't even a disciple of Jesus, yet Paul was, as quoted above.

God bless you as well

I hope our debating here is looked-upon by you and I as just that, good debate. I'm not trying to insult or attack you, if I have, please forgive me.

God/Jesus bless us all.

Please point to the book, chapter, and verse(s) of scripture that utilize the word "Catholic"

This is not a game that we can play.

Plenty of words are not 'in the Bible' -- that does not make them untrue.

The word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible. ...does that mean there is no Trinity?

The word 'Bible' is not in the Bible....does that mean the Bible is untrue?

The exact word 'preacher' is not in the original Bible...does that mean that the office of preaching does not exist?

You also make a strange request: that these words show up in an English (?) Bible. English was not the original language of the Bible. As we all know, Hebrew was for the OT and Greek was for the New. So it is entirely acceptable to discuss a Greek word that was in wide usage already by 107 A.D.

It is a false argument to say 'show me this exact English word in the Bible, or I won't believe the concept exists'. If we used that logic, there would be no Trinity or other truths of the faith that have been derived from sacred scripture and sacred tradition.

Also, on a slightly different note, have you ever thought of the fact that the New Testament did not exist as a book until about 390 A.D.? For almost three-hundred years, what did Christians go off of?

Sacred tradition and oral tradition was largely keeping the Church going until the Bible was fully canonized.

Also, when the NT finally did become canonized, it contained verses like this: "1 Timothy 3:15: “but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Timothy...

...is stating that the CHURCH is the pillar of truth.

The words "Trinity" (a Latin word, after Greek writings) and "Bible" (referring to the "inner bark of the papyrus plant", meaning what the text was written on) did not exist when the text of the papyrus were written, therefore is not a valid comparison. Same with the word "catholic", it did not exist yet, yet there are scriptural references to the "early church", and none include nor mean "universal" or "catholic".

Timothy......is stating that the CHURCH is the pillar of truth.

Church means "The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” : https://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-church.html

It IS a valid comparison.

And I also provided this Bible verse in the original Greek with derivative form of 'catholic': QUOTE:

Acts 9:31 (Greek Bible), "ai men oun ekklēsiai kath olēs tēs ioudaias kai galilaias kai samareias eichon eirēnēn oikodomoumenai kai poreuomenai tō phobō tou kuriou kai tē paraklēsei tou agiou pneumatos eplēthunonto" EKKLESIA KATH'OLES.

The term "Catholic", derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), which means "universal" or "general", was also used to describe the Church in the early 2nd century. The term katholikos is equivalent to καθόλου (katholou), a contraction of the phrase καθ' ὅλου (kath' holou) meaning "according to the whole". Thus the full name Catholic Church roughly means "universal" or "whole" church. END QUOTE

Derivative (later time) of "whole", or "universal", which is what was written originally in that verse, as well as the other verses brought up ("followers of the Way", "sect of the Nazarene", etc).

Protestantism

No. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It's utterly inconceivable to make that claim with a straight face unless you're a Papist that thinks the Catholic Church did nothing wrong, ever...

The Protestant Reformation was about returning to the Biblical teachings of salvation. Martin Luther was a Catholic monk who had become fed up with the Church teaching things that contradicted the Bible in order to fleece the people through selling indulgences. He wrote an academic thesis criticizing the abuses. However, the money was being used by the Pope to fund wars and build expensive cathedrals. His proposed reforms, which he had continued to improve and develop through various debates, upset the Pope's money makers which is why the Pope eventually had him excommunicated. Subsequently, Martin Luther had to flee from the Pope and the Emperor and go into hiding for a few years where he translated the Bible so people could read it in their own language. Then, after the Pope and Emperor got distracted by their own petty Medieval politicking over who got to rule Italy and the fight with the Turks, Luther developed his doctrines and taught people about Christ. The Lutheran princes developed a defensive alliance against the eventual war that the Pope and the Emperor were preparing. And boy did that war come. In the city of Magdeburg, the Lutherans were slaughtered by a deceitful general who came under a flag of peace and murdered them all.

Sorry, but that ain't no Illuminati. The real conspiracy in the Middle Ages was the fact that the Pope was able to shut down entire kingdoms (Interdict) for being "heretics" and had a puppet Empire burning people that criticized it under its corrupted form of Excommuncation process like happened to John Wyclif (posthumously defiled) and Jan Hus. (burned at the stake despite a vow of protection) The Hapsburgs were the conspiracy, not the Reformation.

The first reason for creating sects: ensure robotical control of believers.

You mean, like the Pope who banned dissent? Protestantism was about reclaiming what the Bible taught and letting the believers really have a crack at understanding it for themselves rather than bowing to what some elitist Bishop tells them to do.

starting by preventing the members of the church (everybody) to be confronted with the truth by simply never ever allowing evolution to be questioned in schools and media.

The theory of evolution didn't exist until the 1700s. Martin Luther can be excused for resorting to a preference to literalism when his opponents were abusing allegory to prop up its money making lies.

The Protestants might sometimes have a lot of antipathy towards evolutionary theory, but that's not a necessary requirement and many Protestants are able to think otherwise because they're not an ignorant monolith.

Dude, I fucking go to a Lutheran Church. This is my history. You back the fuck off, liar.

Quote exactly what statement where I supposedly "rewrite Lutheran history".

You did it right here: "All religions created by the illuminati were strongly sectarian, starting with the first major religion they created, Protestantism."

Utter falsehood. The Protestant Reformation originated in Martin Luther's criticism of the sale of indulgences in 1517. There were no Illuminati, if we go by the historical record, until 1 May 1776. That's 200 years after Martin Luther was buried!

the Ordo Illuminatus secret society

Ah, but here you say "there's a secret Ordo Illuminatus secret society" that nobody knows about except you. Citation needed.

See, we know what Martin Luther was. He was an Augustinian monk. His monestary still exists in Erfurt to this day.

establish fake Christian churches and infiltrate the Catholic Church, starting with the papacy.

Utter horse manure. The Catholics excommunicated the Protestants. They made a church Council to condemn our teachings. They violently attacked Protestants. There is no "infiltration" there even if we had wanted to.

Speaking as a Lutheran, all we've ever been concerned is defending our interpretation of the Christian faith from people who slander it and try and undermine our freedom to worship Christ. Our historical documents that we sent to the Emperor are recorded in the Augsburg Confession and its defense against the Roman confutation. For goodness's sake, these texts have literally been incorporated as part of our normative interpretation of the Bible and there are hard copies.

We have enough documentation to corroborate our side of this... Where is yours to corroborate your claim that we're somehow the product of an evil elite?

All "popes" after 1959 were illuminati agents.

Yeah, you would use that claim. It's necessary to avoid the fact that the Pope supported evolutionary theory since then.

This is a key piece of your narrative because you've somehow subscribed to the false idea that evolution is somehow anti-Creator. Evolution, if it is correct, has no bearing on the existence of a Creator because the fact that a Creator instituted a natural process that can have a degree of variance is already implicit in the tenet that humans have free will which you evidently embrace.

Meh, the LCMS is officially YEC anyway. That's another a huge hole in your claim because Protestants that reject evolution undermines your idea that it's a huge satanic conspiracy to destroy belief in the Creator. For me, evolutionary theory is a huge nothing burger anyway. God created everything; evolution would simply be one means.

By the way, have you even read Martin Luther's Small Catechism:

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them; in addition thereto, clothing and shoes, meat and drink, house and homestead, wife and children, fields, cattle, and all my goods; that He provides me richly and daily with all that I need to support this body and life, protects me from all danger, and guards me and preserves me from all evil; and all this out of pure, fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me; for all which I owe it to Him to thank, praise, serve, and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

Do you know what the first word on the first page of the Book of Concord is? יהוה

I know who my God is. And it's not Satan. Hell, the only reason I'm here is because, by God's grace, I reject Satan.

Since you're alleging that the foundation of my religious tradition was a crime, you are bound by God's Law to establish the testimony. "One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. (Deuteronomy 19:15)"

Anything may, then, as a matter of course be discounted if you do not back it up. Every single one of my posts has citations. Yours are rather lacking.

As correctly stated in the Wikipedia page about the last Grand Master of the ORDER: [in 1525 he] "converted to Lutheranism".

Finally, a citation that can be sourced as a reference. But a member of the Teutonic Knights converting to Lutheranism is irrelevant since your claim depends on two points:

1. The assertion that the Teutonic Knights were devil worshipers.
2. The assertion that Martin Luther was a member of them.

Neither one of these claims has been substantiated. So, I'll propose a counter-hypothesis. The Duke converted to Lutheranism because he saw the opportunity to be free of the oppressive yoke of the Papacy and maybe even agreed with what Luther was teaching about salvation being founded on faith in Christ rather than faith in the Papal institution.

Also, let me provide you these citations:

I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:3)

Self evidently, Martin Luther confesses this in spades. Directly quoting his Small Catechism, "I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord"

Truly I tell you, the sons of men will be forgiven all sins and blasphemies, as many as they utter. 29But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of eternal sin.” 30Jesus made this statement because they were claiming, “He has an unclean spirit.” (Mark 3:28-30)

You're risking your own salvation if you're bearing false witness against us. At the very least with /u/StGabriel5, he acknowledges we might be Christian. You, on the other hand, are claiming that I, a worshiper of Christ since He has saved me from the clutches of Satan, am not what I know I am by undermining the very theology by which I found such salvation. Which leads me to my final citation...

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. (Isaiah 5:20)

I can substantiate my hypothesis is that the Pope is the true malevolent agent. The Pope wielded all the political power in Europe. You're claiming that somehow there was an organization more powerful than the Pope that just wanted to destroy Christianity by defending its tenets vigorously against a perceived corruption. That's a logical contradiction.

My model has no such contraction. What is Luther? A simple monk. His "crime" was speaking his mind in order to confess Christ's teachings faithfully. The Pope generated Exsurge Domine and Decet Romanum Pontificem to coerce Luther to stop speaking his mind because it caused people to question his money racket built upon the blood and tears of the saints. We know the Archbishop of Mainz backed Johann Tetzel in his indulgence hawking. We know the Pope turned a blind eye to the doctrinal errors. Yet, you accuse us of the devilry. Just remember what I said. Christ will judge you as He will judge me. And I'm confident in my salvation.

I'm going to respond to this when I've had some more rest.

I work long hours and this is too much extraneous information to respond to at the moment.

Peace.

I'm seeing a whole lot of claims with no backing other than your word. cf. Deuteronomy 19:15.

For the purposes of expedience, let's collapse this back to the thread where I focused on this point since this doesn't seem to add anything else to the witness box other than your own assertions.

My understanding is that Constantine passed an edict (law?) establishing tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Theodosius than made it the state religion.

Council of Nicaea decided what literature would be included in the official Bible.

Inclusion of pagan practices took place over a long period of time as Catholic Church sought to gain converts and keep the religion growing.

Catholicism is the original Christianity.

Though some have infiltrated Catholicism, it remains the original form of Christianity.

The OP is correct about the other 'denominations'.