Arguing with a Protestant?

[Rosinante]

In Acts 21:39, Paul described himself as a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia. Where does it say that he is a Catholic?

If the Roman church is so sure about its history, there should be no need to second-guess important historical facts, right? I suggest you do a search on Yahoo with the following keywords: “Solemnity of the holy apostles Peter and Paul Sunday 2009.” Please read the information dated Sunday, 28 June 2009.

For your convenience, I have pasted an interesting excerpt here: “We have gathered at the tomb of the Apostle whose sarcophagus, preserved beneath the papal altar, was recently the object of a careful scientific analysis. A tiny hole was drilled in the sarcophagus, which in so many centuries had never been opened, in order to insert a special probe which revealed traces of a precious purple-coloured linen fabric, with a design in gold leaf, and a blue fabric with linen threads. Grains of red incense and protein and chalk substances were also found. In addition, minute fragments of bone were sent for carbon-14 testing by experts unaware of their provenance. The fragments proved to belong to someone who had lived between the first and second centuries. This would seem to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition which claims that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul.”

How is it that the body of someone who lived between the first and second centuries turned out to be Paul’s? Couldn’t there be many people who lived at that time? How is it that the discovery “seems to confirm” not a fact but a “unanimous and undisputed tradition”? Since when did traditions become fact? Is that how accurately these meticulous historical records are maintained, that they “seem to confirm” things that are not even factual? Either it is Paul’s tomb or it’s not. What other “authoritative facts,” which you believe to be true, are not categorically confirmed by historical records?

What a bizarre post. First, you insinuate that the Cat. Church is afraid to subject herself to 3rd party scrutiny…then, to buttress your point, you cut and paste a concrete example of the Church…

…subjecting herself to 3rd party, scientific scrutiny.

Since the obvious appears to be lost on you, let me spell it out for you:

The Church had ZERO obligation to expose the remains of St. Paul to 3rd party examination, or scientic testing (carbon dating). Yet, per your own C&P job, that’s exactly what she did…

…and lo’n’behold, science confirmed the Church’s claim!

(at the very least, it did NOT excluded it).

One other note–do you realize that when you seek to discredit teh Cat. Church–especially the early church–you discredit teh Bible, don’t you?

Say what oyu want about who ‘wrote’ the Bible–it was preserved, by the Cat. Church–not just agasint the elements, but agaisnt the Romans, the jews, barbarians, vandals, visigoths, and all kinds of extrinisic attackers.

It was at HER mercy, for centuries.

If you don’t trust her about her claims vis a vis St’s Peter and Paul…

…how do you pretend to trust her about her claims about who wrote which book of the Bible, when, which books were inspired, which were not, etc., etc.,???

 

[fbl9]

Yes… I think I might have noticed that vacancy under the bridge!

Do you realize how AWFUL it is to tell a Catholic they don’t merit!?

now you know why i stated “do you get it yet”
As usual guanophore your postings are impeccable.

 

[fbl9]

not at all. if you want to claim that jesus had to restore the eyesight of that man to make him see you apply materialist thinking. Jesus presence would have made you see in ways that are never accessible to your eye.
so why would your God have to turn water into wine? Does he need to bragg about his powers to make others belief?

He Himself took up our infirmities and bore the burden of our ills. Did Jesus fufill this prophecy? Why yes He did.
It was by His miracles that the people were convinced of Christ’s divinety.

 

[Azygos]

He Himself took up our infirmities and bore the burden of our ills. Did Jesus fufill this prophecy? Why yes He did.
It was by His miracles that the people were convinced of Christ’s divinety.

And Godly wisdom!

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

What a bizarre post. First, you insinuate that the Cat. Church is afraid to subject herself to 3rd party scrutiny…then, to buttress your point, you cut and paste a concrete example of the Church…

…subjecting herself to 3rd party, scientific scrutiny.

This shows how casually you read any given article/post. The reference I copied and pasted (C&P, in your terminology) was from the Vatican website. Read my reference once again, and see how unsure the Vatican is of its “famous” discovery. My short response to your long-winded claim about the Roman Catholic church writing the Bible is this: It did not write the Bible, it’s silly to believe so and it’s very inappropriate to make such a false claim. In Mark 10:19 Jesus reminds people of some of the commandments, and “Do not bear false witness” is among them. (Also see Exodus 20:16). Get your facts straight about where the Bible came from.

 

[swplan76]

I don’t know how many people have had arguments with Protestants about Our Faith, whether that we don’t abide by the bible, or that we follow man made tradition. After hearing Apologists like Michael Cumbie, Scott Hahn, Stephen Ray, John Martignoni, Marcus Grodi, and reading documents about the Early Church Fathers, my mind is clear that our Catholic Church is the One True Church that Jesus Christ established.
Having said that, Protestants will argue about our beliefs. As CAF members when arguing with a Protestant, has anybody ever showed 1Timothy 3:15 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. If you have, How did the Protestant react? Paul states that the Church (he is speaking of 1 church, not churhes) is the Truth.
Also when they mention that we have man made tradition, the correct is, Yes, by those that the Apostles passed on to us. As Paul states in 2Thessalonian 2:14-15 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. Paul basically destroys Sola Scriptura alone in this verse.
Having said that, has anybody read the Church Fathers by Jimmy Akin, Early History tells you that the Catholic Church is the 1 and only. These 2 verses alone destroy Sola Scriptura and it also shows that Tradition was the way Jesus intended for his church to be.
What do you think?

I think the the Protestant movement came out of the modern era that demanded to see the formula - everything had to add up and be argued down to specific dimensions. Mystery was almost a dirty word. I think, in most protestant denominations it is thought that we can understand the mind of God using our logic - as far as we push ourselves is as far as we can go. To some degree I think its true, but the problem is that we cannot put faith in our own ability - cunning comes in and ruins everything. Sola Scriptura is a very flawed idea for the reasons you suggest, but also when it comes to the Holy Spirit - what role does the Holy Spirit play in things? There is a lot more to Christ than any of us can fully fathom. We have to trust in the Mystery of God.

I come from a Protestant background and I think my biggest problem was that I wasn’t listening - I was critical even before I heard word one. Legalism made it impossible to consider that Catholicism might be equal, or superior to the tradition I came from. Vatican II and other things I am beginning to understand have opened my eyes so much. Its so sad that Protestants miss out on the tradition and heritage of the church - 2000 years of history and tradition to be celebrated and experienced. I’m still figuring things out, but Its coming clearer all the time.

 

[Azygos]

This shows how casually you read any given article/post. The reference I copied and pasted (C&P, in your terminology) was from the Vatican website. Read my reference once again, and see how unsure the Vatican is of its “famous” discovery. My short response to your long-winded claim about the Roman Catholic church writing the Bible is this: It did not write the Bible, it’s silly to believe so and it’s very inappropriate to make such a false claim. In Mark 10:19 Jesus reminds people of some of the commandments, and “Do not bear false witness” is among them. (Also see Exodus 20:16). Get your facts straight about where the Bible came from.

Might as well say the Catholic Church didn’t have anything to do with the Bible. Basically by your biased that’s what your insinuating. If that were true then I’m sure you would love it. Too bad for you the Catholic Church brought you the Holy Bible. So if the Catholic Church is somehow in error then your Holy Bible is in error. If your Holy Bible is in error then your Religion is in error. If your Religion is in error then so if your protestantism.

 

[Azygos]

Quote:
Originally Posted by m3rc3d3s190 View Post
The cross is empty! Jesus rose from the dead. That is why I said that sometimes we have a cross and sometimes we do not. The cross in our church, when it is displayed, does not have Jesus on it, like in your church. He doesn’t live in tabernacles like the ones you have in your church, because “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.” (Acts 17:24).
**Close Quote.
**

Tisk, Tisk. If you followed out your own logic then you would have no image. No where in the Bible does it say that a cross without Jesus is acceptable. In fact exodus 20:4 says not in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth. So with that I call you a hypocrite. In all love and charity of course!

You also said that God does not live in temples built by hands then what does that make your Church? Was it not built by hands? Seems to me you haven’t followed out your logic and yet again you are guilty of being a hypocrite. Also the Catholic Church was not built (Established) by hands of men but by God himself.

Matthew 16:18
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will Build (Establish) MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Why don’t you tell me which Church you attend so I can look up the date it was Established. I place all my bets that it was not established around 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ.

Hmmm… You never justified your own hypocrisy…

 

[swplan76]

Might as well say the Catholic Church didn’t have anything to do with the Bible. Basically by your biased that’s what your insinuating. If that were true then I’m sure you would love it. Too bad for you the Catholic Church brought you the Holy Bible. So if the Catholic Church is somehow in error then your Holy Bible is in error. If your Holy Bible is in error then your Religion is in error. If your Religion is in error then so if your protestantism.

One thing I’m convinced of is that people and imperfect - everything we touch gets dirty and is flawed. The church was never meant to be fragmented (scripture is super clear on that). Sure the Church had problems before the reformation, but they were not solved through the process that shattered Christians into sects/denominations like broken glass. There is truth in Protestant churches - they may be on to some things that are not entirely clear in Catholicism in this era, but Protestant churches can never be whole unless they stop arguing and embrace the Mystery of God and embrace the Catholic faith as well as their own. We don’t have to agree - Does Jesus encourage his followers to shut down the man who was unknown to them, but was healing people in Jesus name? - it doesn’t matter who is right - God is the only one who is right. Vatican II points that out… we are not to judge other Christians and we are not to claim to have any knowledge of who will be in heaven or not - within every tradition and faith, God will be the judge - we are not invited/called to sit in judgement of others - we are called to bear His good news and live that out and stop fighting. Jesus’ disciples had to constantly learn how to be humble - they often didn’t understand him AND THEY WERE WITH HIM ALL THE TIME - how much more difficult must it be for us - we have to humble ourselves and learn to listen. I fear that many of us more so resemble the Pharisees than disciples of Jesus.

 

[Azygos]

One thing I’m convinced of is that people and imperfect - everything we touch gets dirty and is flawed. The church was never meant to be fragmented (scripture is super clear on that). Sure that Church had problems before the reformation, but they were not solved through the process that shattered Christians into sects/denominations like broken glass. There is truth in Protestant churches - they may be on to somethings that are not entirely clear in Catholicism in this era, but Protestant churches can never be whole unless they stop arguing and embrace the Mystery of God and embrace the Catholic faith as well as their own. We don’t have to agree. Vatican II points that out… we are not to judge other Christians and we are not to claim to have any knowledge of who will be in heaven or not - within every tradition and faith, God will be the judge - we are not invited/called to sit in judgement of others - we are called to bear His good news and live that out and stop fighting about who is right

It’s going to be a lot harder to get to heaven without receiving the body and blood of Christ.

John 6:53
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

I apologize if you feel I’m being judgmental. I am not judging this person just pointing out his failed philosophy and hypocrisy. Why do this? Because it is truly Right and Just. If we love them we will try to tell them the Truth. Also I disagree with you sir. Protestant Churches will never be whole because they are something less than whole. If they want to have wholeness then they need to join the Catholic Church. You also call this fighting about what is right. Actually I call it the Good News. Jesus Christ established a Church and left it with the Keys to the Kingdom. Protestants should take advantage of those keys!! Is that not good news?

 

[Azygos]

It’s almost like your saying we shouldn’t talk about it or correct protestants. We should just let them continue in error. I find this quite stupid.

 

[swplan76]

It’s going to be a lot harder to get to heaven without receiving the body and blood of Christ.

John 6:53
53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

I apologize if you feel I’m being judgmental. I am not judging this person just pointing out his failed philosophy and hypocrisy. Why do this? Because it is truly Right and Just. If we love them we will try to tell them the Truth. Also I disagree with you sir. Protestant Churches will never be whole because they are something less than whole. If they want to have wholeness then they need to join the Catholic Church. You also call this fighting about what is right. Actually I call it the Good News. Jesus Christ established a Church and left it with the Keys to the Kingdom. Protestants should take advantage of those keys!! Is that not good news?

Actually I agreed with what you were saying for the most part… to reject the Catholic church poses a huge problem for non-Catholics because God entrusted the Catholic church with the Bible… how could it be that God abandoned his people since the time of Christ (or the early church) until the reformation when his truth was rediscovered - which is something some non-Catholics believe.

…But you need to keep in mind, a lot of people just love to argue. They don’t come on threads like this to learn anything, they just enjoy feeling superior to others - they aren’t listening - I used to be one of them (its not easy to let go). I love discussion - and I am learning a lot.

I applaud you for caring enough to speak - I just hope people are listening.

I agree with what you’ve said about the Protestant church… kind of… Whenever factions happened in Christianity (protestant denominations included) people split up and went their own way and gave themselves new names (Baptist, United…). Did that hold any weight with God? Did God decide, that he was on one side or the other? People did that, but I don’t think God joined in on that. God remained constant. I think that is why Vatican II says that the Protestant Church has the truth, but it does not have fullness of the truth. Purgatory will sort us all out, but, yeah, in the mean time we need to “hold out the truth in love.”

“You also call this fighting about what is right. Actually I call it the Good News.”

The Good News is that God has made a way for us. The Good News is that God is not angry with us, but invites us to come to him. The Good News is that we are called into healing - God wants to save us from ourselves, from our broken, selfishness. He did this so we might join him in what he is doing to bring restoration to those in need, so we might learn how to love from the author of love. John III tells us that God is love - its his character - its his way …and its what he invites us into. No matter what area of our lives we might be dealing with, God’s way will lead us in the right direction. In the end, Love wins… Now and forever. This all happened through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Fighting about what is right is not the good news and when we fight I think most people are only listening to themselves.

There might be a quote about pearls and pigs that applies here…

Take care!

 

[guanophore]

No, you didn’t touch any nerve. But this is not the church that Jesus founded. The household of God has been “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.” (Ephesians 2:20) Your contorted stories have been reverse-engineered to perpetuate lies.

You clearly have some very sensitive nerves. You seem like an individual who has been hurt, and is very angry. You don’t seem to be able to comply with the forum rules that require you to be respectful of our faith. I don’t expect you will be able to continue posting for long. I hope you are able to find the healing and the answers you seek. I will pray for you.

 

[guanophore]

do you want to say the bible was written by god so it is inerrant?

Technically, it was written by men, who were moved by the Holy Spirit. We believe that the primary author is God, yes.

Thought that was islamic tradition whilst Christians believe it was written and in particular translated by man and not God. Think high of Luther but definitely not that he was God and he clearly didn't claim to be either.

Perhaps, since you don’t espouse Lutheran doctrine, you will consider changing your affiliation so as not to misrepresent the faith?

sounds like you feeling a bit clay like today. Does God in your understanding not want his children to ask questions or are you afraid of questions because it might be uncomfortable to the church? Looks like your God picture is more the authoritarian than the loving God. Only those who haven't claim or insist on authority

You seem to be more than questioning. You are rejecting the Christian faith, and demanding to know why God did not do what you think makes more sense. We believe in the authority of the Scriptures because that is what Jesus taught us.

If you wish me good luck with finding somone here who can make a rational case for why it would make sense that Jesus would made wine was a good thing and how it would be coherent with his teachings instead of thinking that he would have been seen as having spoilt the ritual cleaning vessels in the eyes of the jews by putting wine into them and that it would make him look like being ashamed of poverty,  do you mean it needs luck to find someone for a rational discussion about it?

Catholics (and Lutherans) accept the Apostolic teaching that the Scripture is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. We can have an intelligent discussion with you, but we will always proceed from that premise. I thought you said you were going to another forum to find such a discussion. If you find a forum where the Christian faith is repudiated, then you may be able to have such a discussion. Maybe try a Muslim board? I don’'t think they consider the NT inspired or inerrant.

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your response. I’m guessing only Roman Catholics can have idols all over their churches, bow down to them, and watch their bishops and cardinals lie down on the ground in front of Peter’s tomb, and still claim not to worship idols.

No, actually some non-Catholic worshippers in this picture of an altar call appear to be bowing down as well.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So, clearly, bowing down in churches is not just a Catholic practice.

 

[guanophore]

 "Penned by Catholics, for Catholics"? What a joke! Who were the Aaronic priests, then?

I think they are the ones who were converted by the preaching of the writers of the NT, and their disciples.

Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Who did the Roman church blame for the black plague?

I don’t know. Do you have any Catholic documents that might shed some light on this?

 Look up the Catholic Encyclopedia and refer to "Heretics," and see if you can answer why it is recommended that Roman Catholics should not visit certain physicians.

Sorry m3. I dont know which encycl. you are using, but the current one does not have this entry.

There are some opinions in Catholic encyclopedias that may not be consistent with Catholic faith.

 If you h You have misunderstood what you stand for, because by euphemistically re-writing history, your church has attempted to make itself look like it has done no wrong. If the external conflict wasn't bad enough, read up on internal strife: the cadaver synod, and the time when there were three popes at once.

The Church is the Holy and infallible Bride of Christ. She cannot err because Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that prevent her from error.

Plenty of Catholics through the centuries have erred, and made some anti-Catholic choices, and acted in contradiction to the Teaching of the Church. It seems that you are not able to understand that human beings are fallible and sin, where God does not.

In Acts 21:39, Paul described himself as a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia. Where does it say that he is a Catholic?

The Church founded by Christ is Catholic. Saul of Tarsus became a member of that Church when He was baptized into the faith.

If the Roman church is so sure about its history, there should be no need to second-guess important historical facts, right? I suggest you do a search on Yahoo with the following keywords: “Solemnity of the holy apostles Peter and Paul Sunday 2009.” Please read the information dated Sunday, 28 June 2009.

It is not appropriate for you to come here trying to send members on wild goose chases. If you found an article you would like to discuss, the appropriate thing to do is to copy and paste the section that concerns you, or include a link with your issue. Every time one searches google, the results can be different. It is unlikely that people will be able to guess what it was you were reading.

 

[guanophore]

"We have gathered at the tomb of the Apostle whose sarcophagus, preserved beneath the papal altar, was recently the object of a careful scientific analysis. A tiny hole was drilled in the sarcophagus, which in so many centuries had never been opened, in order to insert a special probe which revealed traces of a precious purple-coloured linen fabric, with a design in gold leaf, and a blue fabric with linen threads. Grains of red incense and protein and chalk substances were also found. In addition, minute fragments of bone were sent for carbon-14 testing by experts unaware of their provenance. The fragments proved to belong to someone who had lived between the first and second centuries. This would seem to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition which claims that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul."

How is it that the body of someone who lived between the first and second centuries turned out to be Paul’s?

You have it backwards, m3. The body under the altar that is believed to be that of Peter or Paul was tested, and it was found that the fragments of bone in the sarcophagus were from the time when the Apostles were alive.

Couldn’t there be many people who lived at that time?

Of course, but no one else is said to have been buried in that spot.

How is it that the discovery "seems to confirm" not a fact but a "unanimous and undisputed tradition"? Since when did traditions become fact?

Perhaps you hostility is interfering with your ability to reason?

The discovery seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition.

  Is that how accurately these meticulous historical records are maintained, that they "seem to confirm" things that are not even factual?

Since we were not present when the bodies in the sarcophagus were placed there, we must rely on records and testimony from that time until this.

Either it is Paul's tomb or it's not. What other "authoritative facts," which you believe to be true, are not categorically confirmed by historical records?

The location of the bodies of Peter and Paul are not part of the doctrine of the faith.

However, we do believe a great many unanmious and undisputed traditions for which we have no scientific proof.

What do you think about the holy foreskin, or the holy prepuce? I think that’s an interesting topic of discussion. Any idea why it disappeared so suddenly? What do you think could be the reason for that?

Honestly, until you brought it here, I have never heard it before. Perhaps if you can produce a Catholic document on the matter we could discuss it. You have already posted so many legends, superstitions and erroneous ideas that it is difficult to believe that there is any basis to the idea besides your own very active imagination.

 Any idea why some Roman Catholic priests support women priests?

Their consciences have been seared, as with a hot iron, and they have fallen from the faith.

Why was Father Ray Bourgeois dismissed from the Maryknoll religious order? This is news from the past month or so, do you think this indicates that your church has people with conflicting views as well?

The doctrine of the faith is One. The Church is One. It is not a democracy, and not a matter for majority vote. Either people accept the doctrine of the faith, and are obedient to it, or not. The Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

If you don’t know why Christian churches have “thousands of denominations,” it’s thanks to the persecution of the Roman church. Read about the Waldensians, the Albigenses, and the Cathars. It would help if you were to read a little bit of history that has not been touched up by your church.

You seem to have a great deal of anti-Catholic bigotry. Perhaps your own resentments toward Catholicism have been fueled by getting misinformation from other hostile sources. However it happened you appear to be in need of a lot of healing. I will pray for you.

Any idea why some Roman Catholic priests support women priests? Why was Father Ray Bourgeois dismissed from the Maryknoll religious order? This is news from the past month or so, do you think this indicates that your church has people with conflicting views as well? If you don’t know why Christian churches have “thousands of denominations,” it’s thanks to the persecution of the Roman church. Read about the Waldensians, the Albigenses, and the Cathars. It would help if you were to read a little bit of history that has not been touched up by your church.

 

[Reuben_J]

m3rc3d3s190:

The cross is empty! Jesus rose from the dead.
Reuben J:

If you want to symbolize that Jesus rose from the dead then it should be an empty tomb; not an empty cross. The cross was empty because Jesus was taken down from it to be buried. Or does your church not believe that Jesus was buried?

I would refer to this post again. Maybe m3rc3d3s190 missed it.

Some Protestants perhaps those from m3rc3d3s190’s church use the empty cross because Jesus is not there anymore, he has risen from the dead.

I said the empty cross does not symbolize that Jesus has risen from the dead but rather if we read the Scripture or refer to the Nicean Creed, it merely symbolizes that Jesus was being taken from the cross to be buried. Therefore it is more appropriate to say that it is a symbol of a buried Jesus. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day when the apostles found that the tomb was empty. Thus the empty tomb symbolizes better the risen Jesus.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered (and died), and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, (Nicean Creed)

As we can see from the Creed and Scripture too, there are three stages of Jesus passion, death and resurrection – (1) suffered and died, (2) buried and (3) risen from the dead. We have to acknowledge the buried part in our profession of faith. Without acknowledging it then we are no different that Islam that believe Jesus was taken from the cross to heaven and not buried. Muslims believe that someone else was buried in Jesus’ place. I hope m3rc3d3s190 did not mean that when he talked about the empty cross to mean Jesus has risen.

 

[PRmerger]

You have misunderstood what you stand for, because by euphemistically re-writing history, your church has attempted to make itself look like it has done no wrong.

I think you are operating under the misapprehension that the CC declares herself to be a perfect institution?

If so, you are misinformed.

This is what the Church claims for herself:

“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” CCC 825

 

[PRmerger]

If you want to symbolize that Jesus rose from the dead then it should be an empty tomb; not an empty cross. The cross was empty because Jesus was taken down from it to be buried. Or does your church not believe that Jesus was buried?

Interesting. If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”.

One other reason I like to give for why we have Christ on our cross is because we are saved by Christ, not by a cross.