1. Historical Fact: The Christian Bible commands Christians to “Test Everything.” 1 Thess 5:21-22

Technically, this is not a "historical" fact, but it is true that the scriptures tell us to test everything, including the traditions which have been created by the Catholic Church and Protestant churches as well, against the teachings of the Bible.

2. Logic Fact: If an idea/doctrine was invented in the last few hundred years, it is impossible for the idea to have existed in antiquity. This would violate the “Law of non-contradiction.” For example, the electric light bulb did not exist in antiquity. It was invented in the last few hundred years. To claim for example, that “the Apostles wrote scripture by electric lights” is logically impossible for the light bulb did not exist in antiquity. It violates the “Law of non-contradiction:” where something new is at the same time old.

I agree this is logical and consistent.  This is a good argument for rejecting such bogus teachings as original sin, sinner’s prayer, and many Protestant teachings you believe are innovations.  Again, I do not think this is a historical fact, but it is a logical statement with important implications for Christian teachings.  I would challenge you to apply this to any teaching created by the Roman hierarchy as well in order to be consistent.  For example, the wearing of special clothing by priests, or church calendars or the teacing on Purgatory are certainly not found in the Bible or the teaching of the church in the first two hundred years.  To be consistent it is really rather transparent hypocricy if you arbitrarily apply the time limit to "the last few hundred years" as this rather obviously includes the Protestant movement and excludes innovations brought about by the Roman church before this date.

3. Historical Fact: The Protestant belief system and all the Protestant theologies did not exist in the first 1000 years of Christianity in any shape or form. They, like the electric light bulb, were invented in the latter half of the second millennium. One cannot find a single Christian or Christian group who espoused any Protestant idea on Christianity in any manner whatsoever in the first millennium. (Test this.) This is because Protestant ideas/doctrines on Christianity do not predate the renaissance era. (1450-1600) This is an indisputable historical, and to some, surprising fact in Christianity. Test it as the Holy Bible commands:
“Test Everything.” 1 Thess 5:21-22
See: THE ORIGINS & AUTHORS OF THE MODERN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIES. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/dates.html

Fact, at least in many examples.   However, you cannot simply dismiss all Protestant beliefs by this statement.  SOME Protestant teachings DID exist in the first 1000 years.  For example, the teaching of the priesthood of all believers, a Protestant teaching, which is opposed by the Roman teaching, is definitely a primitive teaching.  Again, I challenge you to be consistent and not hide behind the unfalsifiable claim that Roman Catholic teaching is, by definition always correct while the teaching of others is, by definition wrong simply because it is different.  Such circular reasoning is so obviously not logical so as to make all your conclusions a bit suspect.  Having said that, I still agree with the basic premise here.   However the statement  One cannot find a single Christian or Christian group who espoused any Protestant idea on Christianity in any manner whatsoever in the first millennium.   is a blatant lie.  For example, one Protestant idea is that Jesus is the Son of God.  Surely you agree that this was taught in the first millennium!  Let us apply the golden rule to our opponents!

4. Historical Fact: History tells us that modern Protestantism, e.g., Pentecostalism, SDA, Evangelicalism, Prosperity Gospel’s, and Baptist theology/Bible churches/non-denominational churches (which more or less all embrace the same theology), etc. etc., did not even exist during the Protestant reformation (16th century) much less during the time of the Apostles (1st century).
See chart at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Movements_within_Protestantism

True.  This is a reason to be suspicious of all these groups, but please apply the Golden Rule and admit that this, in and of itself, does not prove that everythign taught by these groups is by definition false.  Let us take every teaching and doctrine one at a time.   For example, I strongly object to Pentacostalism, but even I will admit that speaking in tongues was in fact practiced in the first century.   I agree that the prosperity gospel is a false gospel.   Preach that one!!!   However I do not believe that I am. by definition, lost and going to hell because I do not submit to the pope, who is not authorized in the Bible.

5. Historical Fact: Most ideas in modern Protestantism were not even embraced by the first Protestants in the 16th century much less the Apostles. Why does modern Protestantism reject the faith of their own reformers and instead embraced traditions of man from the last few hundred years/last few decades? What follows is but a partial list of beliefs from the first Protestants in the 16th century. Most modern Protestant communities today are theologically 180 degrees out from their Protestant founders as demonstrated below.
The first Protestants embraced ALL of the following, they:
(Hyperlinks enabled)
1. Baptized Infants as well as adults.
2. Baptized by immersion, sprinkling and pouring.
3. Did not embrace the “Once Saved Always Saved” idea because it was not invented yet.
4. Embraced the saving power of Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and considered it a sacrament. "Baptism…now saves you" (1 Pet. 3:20–21)
5. They embraced the Holy Eucharist as a Sacrament and believed in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.   ( John 6:52-54, Mark 14:22-24. Matt. 26:26-28, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Cor. 10:16)
6. The first Protestants embraced the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary and her historic Christian title "Mother of God" (Luke 1:43).
7. They did not embrace the belief in the Rapture, the seven-year Tribulation or the literal thousand-year reign of Christ, i.e. Dispensationalism or the "Left Behind" idea because it was not invented yet.
8. They decried civil divorce by a secular and pagan state authority, and on that state’s authority they decried the RE-marriage of Christians against what God has previously joined together in a Holy Christian marriage, a practice enjoyed by all Protestant communities today. (See Mark 10:9; Luke 16:17-18)
9. They would not even consider Female Clergy, which is embraced by many Protestant communities today.
10. And they would be aghast that many Protestant churches today openly accept homosexual clergy and homosexuality in general.
The Apostles and your own Protestant reformers would “roll over in their graves” if they learned what Modern Protestantism and your pastor is teaching today as “The Gospel of Jesus Christ.” If you believe or your pastor teaches any idea above is “Biblical,” why is it your own reformers didn’t teach these "Biblical" ideas in the 16th century?? The Holy Scriptures tell us that Christ’s Gospel does not change, so how did it change for your pastor?
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings." Hebrews 13:8-9

I agree that all ten of these are excellent examples of recent innovations.  Most of them,. but not all of them are movement in the wrong direction.  My only objection is with the non-biblical teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary which is certainly not supported by the Bible.  Neither is it supported by any early church father before the fourth century.  This is a Roman innovation and I am thankful for Protestant teachers restoring the correct biblical teaching in that particular case.  Obviously, I also do not agree with infant baptism.  This is never taught in the Bible.  There is no evidence of this practice before the third century.  This, too, was an innovation which began about two hundred years after the church began.   Salvation is by faith, not by sacrament.  I do not have a problem with calling baptism and communion sacraments as I do not want to argue over words, but the word sacrament is not necessarily a biblical word.

6. Historical Fact: the Christian Bible states explicitly that not everything is “in the Bible.”
"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book" (John 20:30) ****
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

A very misleading "fact"  Clearly the Bible teaches that it is complete and sufficient for a Christian to be "thoroughly equipped" (2 Tim 3:16).   Anyone can see where you are going on this and you cannot blame a non-Roman Catholic for being very suspicious of you motivation for making this point.  You want to be able to claim that the tradition of the Catholic Church is somehow "inspired."  OK, if you want to say this, then you ought to accept that it is possible that other traditions are also from God.  Personally, I do not want to go there.   Your argument is so obviously biased here that you will forgive me for smelling a rat.

7. Historical Fact: The definition and understanding of God in the "Holy Trinity" is not in the Christian Bible. Nowhere does the Holy Bible teach us the definition of the Holy Trinity: One God, three persons, all eternally coexistent with each other. Or explicitly teach that the Holy Spirit is Divine and the 3rd person of the Blessed Trinity, and that it proceeded from the Father and the Son as most Christian churches profess. In fact the very word "Trinity" is unbiblical. History records that it was Christ’s Church at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century that finalized the definition of God and the Holy Trinity. History records they used the Holy Scriptures, but not "Solely" to define GOD.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#Formulation_of_the_doctrine

You are right that the early church helped to define the biblical teachings about the nature of God and of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.  Tertullian in the 190’s AD invented the use of the word trinity to explain biblical theology.  Of course, Tertullian was not a Roman Catholic.  Neither were the other church fathers who helped put together the Nicene Creed.   My position is that to the extent that these church fathers helped us to acheive a correct understand of the biblical teaching about God it is a good thing.  I do not have a problem with the Nicene Creed, but I do not accept the authority of these bishops to determine truth.  The only authority is the Bible.   Nevertheless, your historical fact is accurate as stated above.

8. Historical Fact: The Christian Bible does not teach the nature of Christ at the incarnation. Was He born man and became God, born God and became man? Was he half God and half man? Did he have one nature or two? Was he one person or two: i.e., was one person God and the other person man?… Only Christ’s Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit gives us this information. "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.  But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” John 16: 12-13. Christ at the incarnation is defined as: One Person with two natures, one fully human and one fully divine. This understanding of Jesus Christ is outside the Holy Bible yet salient to our understanding of His Gospel and God Himself. History records that it was Christ’s Church at the Council of Chalcedon that defined the nature of Christ believed by Christians today, for the Holy Bible did not provide this information.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnation_(Christianity)#Description_and_development_of_the_traditional_doctrine

There is a grain of truth here.  Of course, you and all Protestants are united in accepting the implications of Niceae.   I do not believe that Chalcedon decided the nature  of Christ, but I do agree that they provided an extra-biblical definition which is essentially biblical, and therefore accurate.  I reject Jehovah’s Witness teaching, but because it rejects Nicaea, but because it rejects the biblical teaching about Jesus in Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and John 1 among many others.

9. Historical Fact: The Christian Bible never states that Christ commissioned His Apostles to write a book(s). History tells us that Christ commissioned His Apostles to "build His Church" (Matt 16) and to “teach all nations” (Matt 28). There is no knowledge of Him ever writing anything Himself, and we did not have a completed Bible in its present form until the 4th century. For over 300 years Christ’s early Church flourished without the complete Bible we know today. Since 99.99% of the ancient world was illiterate, Christians learned of Jesus Christ and His Gospel primarily through the oral teachings of the Church He founded in Matt 16:16-19, just as Christ commanded in Matt 28:20 “teach all nations.”

I suppose this is narrowly true, but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.  This is a VERY weak argument.  You must have a very low opinion of the Scripture.  Do you not believe God inspired the New Testament.  I am afraid you are cutting your own throat here.  Peter called the writings of Paul "scripture."   ALL the early church fathers accepted the Bible as authoritative.   You do Christianity a big disservice by undermining the authority of scripture.

10. Historical/Logic Fact: The original manuscripts of the Holy Bible do not exist anymore . All Christians have today are “copies of copies of copies,” for the original manuscripts are dust. Logic dictates that either Christ’s Holy Church was infallible in coping these copies or it wasn’t. If Christ’s Church was not infallible in this endeavor, then the Bible is not infallible either, for mistakes were possible and probable. How can Christians trust it to be the accurate Word of God, if Christ’s Church was not infallible in this endeavor?

True, but what is your point?  We do not have the original of your friends Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas or any of the popes.  What is the argument here?  If you want to make this argument than why do you quote the New Testament or any of the church fathers you love to quote.   The Bible, in its original, is infallible and documentary evidence shows that we have virtual autographs.  God is powerful enough to preserve his inspired scripture.  Where is your faith here?   Your motives are very suspect here.

11. Historical/Logical Fact: Nowhere in the Christian Bible does it tell Christians what books belong in the Bible. Again, either Christ’s Holy Church was infallible in this endeavor or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, perhaps one of those books shouldn’t be there or vise versa. This information on the canon of scripture is outside the writings of the Holy Bible. It was decided by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 419AD. See link from Protestant Calvin College: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xv.iv.iv.xxv.html

Duhhhh   Neither does the Old Testament record the process by which the OT canon was created.  Yet, Jesus accepted it as authoritative.  Do you question Jesus’ authority here?   Do you believe that God cannot determine what books will end up in his Bible.  Is this a lack of faith on your part or is it a blatant attempt to undermine the Bible.  I do not respect you at all for pulling this bogus argument.   It is a bold faced lie to say that the canon of the New Testament was decided at Carthage in AD 419.  You definitely need to take this bogus claim out!!!!!    The NT canon was set at least two hundred years before this time.

12. Historical Fact: The Christian Bible repeatedly speaks of Christ’s disciples “teach[ing] all nations.” "Teach them to observe all I have taught you and behold I am with you always until the end of the world” Matt 28:20. **** "The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others." (2 Tim, 2:2) **** "Hold fast to the traditions whether they come in oral or written form." 2 Thess 2:15 Etc.

True.  The apostles were told to disciple the nations, teaching them to obey all that Jesus taught.   Yes, they did pass along "traditions" from Jesus.

13. Historical Fact: The Holy Bible never mentions or implies the "Sola" in Sola Scriptura or the “ONLY” in the Bible Only idea. Never does the Holy Bible teach us to use ONLY or SOLA the Bible. Not only is the phrase unbiblical, but the concept is unbiblical as well as being absent from Christianity until the renaissance era. See:
History 101, An Exercise in Logic. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/#sola

The Bible never teaches the word trinity either.  In fact, you used this argument above, yet you believe in the trinity.  This is poor logic to prove your point.  The question is not whether you can find a passage which literally says scripture only.  Clearly the Bible gives authority to scripture. This is a case of turning the logical argument on its head.   Obviously, the scripture has authority.  You and the Protestants agree on this.  What is in play is whether the traditions of the Roman church are authoritative.  The authority of scripture is not the issue, it is the authority of the bishops.  I see no biblical reason that I need to accept the authority of a pope or an ecumenical council.  Ecumenical councils are definitely not mentioned in the scripture, yet you accept them.   Your argument is not logical at all, but is a rather obvious circular argument created to reach your own pre-conceived conclusion.  It will convince absolutely no one except those who accept your tradition.  To not expect non-Catholics to accept this illogical argument.  Your historical fact is a fact, but it is virtually irrelevant to the conclusion you want it to produce.

14. Historical Fact: The Holy Bible states in 2 Peter 1:20 that “personal interpretation” of Scripture is forbidden:
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation."

True.  That is why I cannot accept the "personal interpretation of Augustine or Aquinas.

15. Historical Fact: In the Christian book of Acts, it is recorded that the Bereans “searched the Scriptures,” but so did the Thessalonians (See Acts 17 again). The former accepted ST Paul’s message and the extra-biblical revelations about Jesus Christ from the Apostle, where the Thessalonians rejected the Apostle’s teachings, sticking SOLELY to the Scriptures.
See Did the Bereans "Search the Scriptures" and thereby follow the "Bible Only"theory? Or did the Thessalonians? http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/bereans.html

Is this supposed to be a logical argument to defend that Christians must accept the tradition of the Roman Church???   Please forgive me for not accepting this fact as leading to this conclusion.   Are you trying to imply that the Thessalonians fell into heretical teachings because they only accepted the scripture?    

16. Historical Fact: ALL Christian Bibles before the 16th century (without exception) contained "73" inspired books. In the 16th century, Martin Luther removed 7 Old Testament books from the canon of Scripture. Again, every single Bible before Martin Luther had 73 books in its canon. There does not exist a Bible before Luther’s time that is missing the 7 books he removed. Even Tyndall’s Bible had 73 books. “Test Everything.” 1 Thess 5:21-22 This means that modern Protestants are missing 7 inspired books enjoyed by all Christians for a millennium until a man named Martin Luther, by his own authority, removed these books from the canon of Sacred Scripture.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha#The_Luther_Bible

True, although the Jewish Bible removed these books long before Martin Luther.  If we allow that the Jews have a right to determine what is canonical for the OT, you might need to rethink this a bit.  Add to this the fact that Jerome, the one who produced the Vulgate felt very strongly that these extra seven books definitely were not canonical.  Jesus quoted the 66 books, and never quoted the extra books, so the argument can go either way.  Neither did the apostles or any writer of the New Testament.  This is a strong argument that the "Apocrypha" is on a different level than the 66 other books.  Nevertheless, I agree that if you ignore the Jews, your statement is close to accurate.  However, I believe the evidence is strong that your canon was not the canon of Jesus himself.

17. Historical Fact: Although Luther removed these 7 Old Testament books from the canon of Scripture, they still remained part of his Bible; he allocated them to an appendix in his German translation. Even the original KJV had these 7 books in an appendix. They were totally removed from the Holy Bible in the 1820’s by the British Bible Society. Hence, all Protestant Bible’s today are missing what all Christian Bibles embraced for 1000+ years before Martin Luther: 7 more inspired books from the finger of God. "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in the prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book." Rev. 22:18-19
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Apocrypha

True.

18. Historical Fact: There was only One Christian faith in the first millennium, it was called the "Catholic Faith." There were not two Christian faiths or twenty thousand+ as we have today. There was but one Christian Faith as the Holy Bible dictates: "There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism, One God." (Eph 4:5-6 ) In the first millennium, the same millennium the Apostles lived, there was but one Christian (Catholic or Universal) faith. Test this.

Praise God for this fact  Actually, it is not completely true.  There were the Nestorians and the Copts and the Paulicians and the  Byzantine Church and the Donatist church and the Montanists.  In fact, Tertullian was a Montanist.  I would guess that as of AD 500 well under half the Christians acknowledged the authority of Rome.  But perhaps you forgot this inconvenient truth.  I only wish that the church in Rome was a faithful Christian church today.  I am afraid that it is not.  If it is to be taken literally true that there is only one church, then it must be a group other than the Roman fellowship.  Perhaps it is the Moravian Church or the Christian Church.   I think that the church is composed of all those who are saved by the blood of Jesus.

19. Historical Fact: “Catholic” or “Katholikos” is the Greek word for “Universal,” as in the Universal Church. The Church of Corinth did not differ in beliefs from the Church in Rome or the Church in India. Christ’s Church is a Universal Church.

This is not a "historical" fact, but it is a correct dictionary definition of the word Katholikos.  Dictionary definitions are not historical facts.  The also do not prove that the Catholic heirarchy today is the only acceptable church under which one can go to heaven but….

20. Historical Fact: Christ’s Church was called Catholic in written form as early as 110AD. Therefore it was logically called Catholic in verbal form before this date. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of St John the Apostle, and second Bishop of Antioch wrote in 110AD:
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). Read more quotes at: http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

True.  This is a historical fact.  I am not sure it proves anything as far as who is a Christian, but it is a historical fact.

21. Historical Fact: There are more authors of the New Testament who were NOT Apostles then there were Apostles.
(Authors who were Apostles: John, Matthew, Paul, Peter. Authors who were not Apostles: James [not written by the Apostle James], Jude, Luke, Mark and the anonymous writer of Hebrews.) These non-Apostles were part part of Christ’s early Church who embraced the only Christian Faith of the first millennium: the Catholic Faith. The Christian Bible states: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and the Apostle commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6). To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, the Christian Bible has Paul telling Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage the Christian Bible refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—Paul’s own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach. [1]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament authors.

Fact.  Are you saying this as a logical reason that we cannot accept the Bible as an authority?  Where are you going on this one?   I an argument from the number of writers who were or were not apostles a good argument?  If you want to use numbers, then a large majority of the books were written by apostles, while a small majority of the authors were not apostles.   Is this an argument for something?

22. Historical Fact: History is absent of any evidence supporting what some modern Christians claim, that there was a secret sect of “true believers” who carried the true faith for 1500+ years to the reformation. There is more evidence for Bigfoot and the Lock Ness Monster than there is for this underground fantasy sect theory. It just doesn’t exist. “Test Everything.” 1 Thess 5:21-22

I agree that this is largely a myth.   It is worth noting that both the Greek and the Roman churches viciously persecuted and killed literally hundreds of thousands for not accepting their authority.  If I were you, given that this is a rather blatant embarrassment for the Catholic church, I would not emphasize this historical fact.  The Inquisition was started, not to round up and kill Jews and Muslims, but to murder tens of thousands of Albigense Christians who were simply trying to express their devotion to Jesus in a way not accepted by Rome.  So, I advise you to really downplay this "fact."  It is true that the slaughter of tens of thousands of the Bogomils and Paulicians is not on the hands of Rome.  That distinction goes to the Partiarch in Byzantium.  Again, if you want to lift up the Roman church you might not want to stress fact #22 too strongly.

23. Historical Fact: History confirms the Apostle Peter was the leader of the NT Church; in the Holy Bible he is always mentioned first, he was the only Apostle Christ gave the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" to (Matt 16:16-19) and it was he who presided over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. In fact in all of recorded history, (Christian and secular alike), history tells us he was Christianity’s first pope as any encyclopedia will demonstrate. See http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-popesTABLE.html

True.  It is apparent that this choice came from no less that Jesus himself.   However, there is zero evidence that Peter was called pope.  In fact, I believe I can say it is a historical fact that Peter was not called pope by anyone.   Peter was not a pope, as that title was not used before the fifth century.  Besides, since the consensus of history is that Peter was married, which is required in order for him to have been an elder, I think that he would not be qualified to be a pope.

24. Historical Fact: The Christian Bible speaks of Christ’s Church in glowing terms of authority and mission: **** "The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth" 1 Tim 3:15. **** “ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt 18:17-18 **** "Teach them to observe all I have taught you and behold I am with you always until the end of the world” Matt 28:20. **** "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.   "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.” John 16:12-13 Etc.

True.

25. Logic Fact: Logic prescribes that if we take Christ’s Word to be true, the “Gates of Hell” never prevailed against His Church. "And I say that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, I give you the keys to kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loosen on earth will be loosened in Heaven." Matt 16:16-19. If the Gates of Hell did prevail against Christ’s Church and it became apostate necessitating the Protestant reformation, Christ was a fraud who’s "word" means nothing. Conversely, if Christ’s Word is true, then the Gates of Hell never overcame Christ’s Church and the Protestant reformation, as it changed Christ’s Gospel, was an aberration. Logic dictates either Christ is true to His Word or He is not.

True.  Of course, our application of this verse depends on our interpretation of the word church.  Obviously, I do not accept your interpretation of church.

26. Historical Fact: The Catholic Church in 2000 years has never countermanded its position on faith or morals. It has never capitulated to social pressure or politics or a “vote from the congregation” and reversed itself on what is right or moral. Or declared what was a sin yesterday,,, not a sin today as every other Christian organization has. E.g., divorce and remarriage, abortion, homosexuality, female clergy, birth control (even the first reformers unanimously decried birth control as a grave sin.) Just as the Holy Spirit guides the Holy Bible from error, the same Spirit guides Christ’s Church from error in matters of Faith or Morals. "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth” John 16:13. **** “And behold I am with you always until the end of the world” Matt 28:20

True and the Catholic Church today is to be commended for this.

27. Historical Fact. The Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church embraces all that the Apostles "historically" taught. Only the Catholic Faith embraces without exception what history records as the teachings of Christ and His Apostles to His infant Church. Only the Catholic Church embraces the only Faith of the first millennium, because the only faith of the first millennium was the Catholic Faith. (Test this).
See: Two Part Challenge:
1. Find one doctrine "Christ’s early Church believed" that His Church today "no longer" does. and

2. The Catholic faith has "Never" countermanded or reversed any of its doctrines. Find one it has. http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/3challenge.html

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.   A thousand times wrong.   The faith of the Roman church today is so obviously not the faith of the church in the first and second century that only a blind man cannot see that.  I read the New Testament and Ignatius and Polycarp and Irenaeus and see so many things in modern Roman Catholicism not in these early writings that you cannot possibly expect anyone with a grain of intelligence to accept this blatantly false statement.  Can you at least be honest about this?  Are there primitive teachings of the church preserved in the Roman Church of today?  Yes.  Are there false teacings in mainstream Protestantism not found in Catholicism?  Yes.  Why not be like Jesus, be humble, and accept that you are not completely right.     Why not apply the Golden Rule and treat others the way you would like to be treated?    If you choose to make this deceitful statement, you undermine everything you are legitimately trying to do.  Please do yourself and your hearers a favor and take back this untruth.

28. Historical Fact: There is absolutely no support in the Christian Bible for any of the following 45+ unbiblical ideas and doctrines.
"Bible Only" Christian or "Bible Believing" Christian?
Click Here: 45+ Modern Christian Practices and Doctrines not found in the Holy Bible…
http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/unbiblical.html

I do not have time for all these.  Based on experience with your work, my guess is that about 80%of your examples are good, but about 10-20% are not correct.

29. Historical Fact: As far as other gospels, the Christian Bible declares:
"As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8-9. Scripture dictates that we should reject ALL other gospels not taught by the Apostles to Christ’s early Church. If a theology or belief system did not exist in the first millennium, (Mormon, JW, Protestant etc), how did the Apostles teach these ideas to Christ’s early Church? It’s historically impossible on a linear and sequential timeline for these ideas to be apostolic or biblical, for history prescribes the origin and the author of each idea in the latter half of the second millennium. Logic dictates that we should reject all of these theologies for the exact same reason, and that reason is that they didn’t exist in antiquity for the Apostles to teach to Christ’s early Church.

Amen!!!!!   Please apply this to yourself before you apply it to others.  Is this not what Jesus taught.  We should take the plank out of our own eye before we try to take it out of others.  Please obey Jesus in this.  

30. Logic Fact: Logic dictates that if the Apostles did not teach an idea or doctrine, (because it was not in existence yet), it would be impossible for them to write it into the New Testament Bible.

A historical fact?   Hmmm….   Where are you going with this one?

31. Historical Fact: Modern Protestantism embraces over 20,000+ new and distinct belief systems or "Statements of Faith." A simple search for "church" in any cities "Yellow Pages" demonstrates this plurality of gospels. Yet the Christian Scriptures say: “God is not a God of confusion but of peace” 1 Cor 14:33
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Movements_within_Protestantism

OK and Roman Catholics do as well.  The main distinction is that you have a circular and unfalsifiable argument which magically makes them all go away.  I do not buy it.

32. Historical Fact: The Christian Scriptures state:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God,
because many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4

That is why I am not a Protestant or a Catholic.