Arguing with a Protestant?

[Azygos]

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.

I have noticed something about people. When you corner them with Truth they usually call you a liar. I have heard the same thing from countless Atheist among other people. You should be careful not to call anyone a liar especially the same people that believe lying will send them to hell (Catholics). It’s also funny that you say this has been reverse-engineered when it was taught exactly this way for 1,500 years by itself. So if your logic were true then it would of had to be reversed engineered at the time of Jesus and that ludicrous.

Also, after the Protestants sprung up they started teaching something different and they cannot even agree among each other. Hence the thousands of denominations now. Over the last 500 years the Protestant Churches have been splitting and changing doctrines.

The Catholic Church has taught in line with the gospel of God for 2,000 years now and that is testimony that God is who he says he is. Also testimony that God is serious when he says that Hell will not prevail against his Church.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

What is really comical about this whole situation is that they took everything they know from Catholics (Including Scripture). If the Catholic Church is in error then so is the bible. If the bible is in error then so is your religion. If your religion is in error then so is your protestantism.

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?

 

[guanophore]

 You misunderstand the verse in John 20:23. Jesus told His disciples to spread the Good News, and they did this.

They also listened to the confessions and communicated the forgiveness of Christ to those who wished to be reconciled to God. They continued to do so after the people had accepted the Good News, and had become Christians.

The reason we understand this verse differently is because Catholics read the scriptures from the point of view of those who wrote them. Your posts make it very clear that you have been separated from this way of understanding what is written.

   They explained to people the doctrine of reconciliation and of condemnation, based on what Jesus taught them. Christ did not "disobey Himself," as you sarcastically state. The Roman Catholic priests disobeyed Christ, simple as that.

I am not sure what you are referencing here, but there were no Roman Catholic priests present at that time, retaining and remitting sins. The Latin Rite was actually one of the later Rites to develop. That his why the sacrament of reconciliation began first in Palestine, and Syria. The practice was passed from the Apostles to their successors, the Bishops. That is why the Eastern Orthodox also have this practice, kept from the time it was committed to them from the Apostles.

Here’s how: If Jesus gave His disciples authority to forgive sin, as you erroneously believe, then how would you explain the account of Ananias and Sapphira? They were not transparent in a simple financial matter, and you doubtless know what became of them.

I think I don’t understand your point. It seems clear that Peter did not remit their sins. When sins are retained, it causes death. This passage seems to be one of the strongest support of the power to retain sins.

How is it that today’s Roman Catholic priests/bishops/cardinals did not know that there is/was wrongdoing going on in the church that Jesus allegedly founded?

I am sure that many of them are aware of a great deal of wrongdoing. Most of them go to confession at least once a week.

Should they not have known? If Ananias and Sapphira were called out, how hard would it have been for priests who had Jesus' own authority to do what His own disciples did, since the Roman priests are in fact their successors?

It seems that you are angry that certain persons, calling themselves Catholic, have sinned against God, the Church, and the society (not to mention the victims). Do you believe that “true” followers of Christ do not sin?

Could it be that they are not the successors of Jesus’ disciples? How else would you explain the fact that they cannot heal the sick, give sight to the blind, make the lame walk, and raise the dead?

The sick are healed, and the dead are raised in every confessional across the world as often as sins are remitted in the name of Jesus.

Now, what might be a really cool miracle is if your misconceptions and bigotry toward the Catholic Church would be healed!

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

Also, after the Protestants sprung up they started teaching something different and they cannot even agree among each other. Hence the thousands of denominations now. Over the last 500 years the Protestant Churches have been splitting and changing doctrines.

.

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? 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.

 

[Azygos]

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?

Truly you’re just avoiding the fact that the only Church around for 1500 hundred years was the Catholic Church (Easter Orthodox is a Catholic Sister). To put it simply. Whatever your problem is with Paul does not matter. Logically the only Church that Christ could of established was the Catholic Church.

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be;
even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church’’ Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

The reason we understand this verse differently is because Catholics read the scriptures from the point of view of those who wrote them. Your posts make it very clear that you have been separated from this way of understanding what is written.

Your posts make it very clear that you need to justify what you practice, instead of practicing what is instructed by scripture. Buut since you read scriptures “from the point of view of those who wrote them,” please explain why Exodus 20:4 doesn’t mean anything to you. If the saints are in heaven, then doesn’t Exodus 20:4 cover them? Doesn’t that passage cover things on earth, too? Then what exactly are images doing in your church?

 

[Azygos]

Your posts make it very clear that you need to justify what you practice, instead of practicing what is instructed by scripture. Buut since you read scriptures “from the point of view of those who wrote them,” please explain why Exodus 20:4 doesn’t mean anything to you. If the saints are in heaven, then doesn’t Exodus 20:4 cover them? Doesn’t that passage cover things on earth, too? Then what exactly are images doing in your church?

Do you have a cross in your Church?

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

Truly you’re just avoiding the fact that the only Church around for 1500 hundred years was the Catholic Church (Easter Orthodox is a Catholic Sister). To put it simply. Whatever your problem is with Paul does not matter. Logically the only Church that Christ could of established either was the Catholic Church.

You didn’t even reference what I included, because if you did, it would give you something to think about. The rhetoric used by an authoritative source should not use words that “seem to suggest” anything, but of course this doesn’t matter to you. Questioning would be similar to doubting, and doubting will get you excommunicated and we can’t have that. Thomas doubted Jesus’ ability to raise Lazarus and was particularly disrespectful, but did Jesus “excommunicate” him for his disbelief? Read John 11:16 for reference, and then make up your own mind.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

Do you have a cross in your Church?

Your church has a cross with Jesus on it. He rose from the dead, and everyone celebrates Easter with much joy. In Roman churches, people are baptized into the Roman faith on Easter. But why is Jesus on the cross in your church? Did He or did He not conquer death?

 

[Azygos]

Your church has a cross with Jesus on it. He rose from the dead, and everyone celebrates Easter with much joy. In Roman churches, people are baptized into the Roman faith on Easter. But why is Jesus on the cross in your church? Did He or did He not conquer death?

This is funny. You have a cross in your Church and you completely sidestepped the question. Nice one.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

This is funny. You have a cross in your Church and you completely sidestepped the question. Nice one.

The fact is, sometimes we have a cross, and sometimes we do not. Hope that makes you happy. My church has no idols or statues in it. Isn’t it surprising that the Roman Catholic church claims that it is the church founded by Jesus, and yet it ignores Exodus 20:4, and also Jesus’ own words when He said “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24).

 

[Azygos]

The fact is, sometimes we have a cross, and sometimes we do not. Hope that makes you happy. My church has no idols or statues in it. Isn’t it surprising that the Roman Catholic church claims that it is the church founded by Jesus, and yet it ignores Exodus 20:4, and also Jesus’ own words when He said “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24).

So sometimes your idolators and sometimes your not then? That’s interesting.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

So sometimes your idolators and sometimes your not then? That’s interesting.

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).

 

[Azygos]

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).

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!

 

[guanophore]

Read Exodus 20:4. Also read 1 John 5:21, and various other places in the New Testament. And then read John 4:24, which says “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” Idol worship is always what other people are doing, right?

Actually the CC does not judge the intentions of the heart. We leave this duty to God. She teaches that idolatry is against the commandments of God, and teaches the flock how to worship in Spirit, and in Truth.

Amazing! There are still people out there who think Catholics worship statues?

Yes, ignorance and bigotry is actively and taught in some ecclesial communities.

Not sure what “get it yet” means but

I am not sure either, but for sure I can say that there seems to be quite a bit about the Catholic faith that you don’t “get”. That is ok, because that is one of the reasons CA is here.

it looks like you haven't got it and never will.

This seems like rather hopeless and derogatory remark. How can you say that anyone will not have a moment of enlightenment?

Anyone is welcome to become member here and post on the threads, but there is an expectation that everyone be respectful of the faith of others. CAF is not a place for you to vent your disparagements of the Catholic faith.

Stop following the traditions of men, and stop creating images. Did you or did you not read Exodus 20:4?

Neither is it appropriate for you to come here and command us about how we practice our faith.

Can you show me where the “office” of the pope is in the Bible?

First of all it is important for you to understand that our faith is not extracted out of Scripture as yours is. Our faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. That means we hold fast to what the Apostles committed to the Church, whether it is explicit in Scripture, or not.

The pope is a bishop. You have already cited the passage in Acts where Peter refers to the office of a successor to an apostle as a “bishopric”.

In fact, where is “pope” mentioned?

Anyway, the term “pope” is Latin for “papa”. It did not come into use until much later, but probably before the term “Trinity” is mentioned.
m3rc3d3s190;10126035:

Do you know when Mary was last mentioned? What made her attain her current position?

She is mentioned very day at Mass.

God made her attain her current position.

The answers are all based on fabrications/contortions.

It is curious that you seem to be asking questions, and yet, you have such a closed attitude toward the answers. Should I understand your “questions” are actually rhetorical? Are they really just accusations, couched in the guise of questions? Do you know who the “Accuser of the Brethren” is? Is that the kind of company you wish to keep?

If you were to examine specific commands and check whether they are being followed by the so-called “church founded by Christ,” why not look at Mark 9:42? Jesus said “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

I fear some of those you referenced above who caused little ones to stumble may, indeed, meet such a fate. Let us pray that they will repent before they come to the judgement!

When was the last time you saw a young child valued more than the reputation of your church? Where did the tradition of turning a blind eye come from?

You seem to have a lot of anger around the sexual abuse scandal. Perhaps you are a victim yourself, and that is the source of some of your anger. Have you considered praying for those involved? Praying for others, including our enemies, goes a long way to healing resentment.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

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!

Actually, the cross is a Roman torture device so it belongs in your church, because your church is an extension of the Roman empire. Did you or did you not read that sometimes my church has a cross, and sometimes it does not? We do not have a cross displayed permanently, we have no pictures, and we have no idols. In all the Roman churches I have been to, however, I see an adult image of Mary (in a picture or in a sculpture) and she is holding a child. What do you think is the rhetorical expression of the theme of a mother and child? One possible expression is that the child is helpless, in the arms of his mother. Another expression shows the same child as an adult, but hanging from a cross. How interesting! You think about it, because I already have.

 

[Azygos]

You also said that God does not live in temples built by hands then what does that make you 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.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

Actually we have empty crosses too. You can only look at Catholics churches to see the crosses erected high and mighty on their roof for everyone to see.

We also have the crucifix to show Jesus died on the cross. This is a historical fact and we should not forget what Jesus had done for us to save us. That we should always be ashamed of our sin and regret them because it was paid with a price.

We also know that Jesus had paid for the price and is victorious by his death and resurrection. The empty cross can symbolize Jesus was taken down from the cross to be buried, no? That’s why it is empty.

How do you symbolize an empty tomb? Do you have empty tomb in your church?

 

[Azygos]

Why don’t you tell me which Church you can 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.

 

[m3rc3d3s190]

You also said that God does not live in temples built by hands then what does that make you 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.

How is it that the only time you look to the Bible is when you refere to Matthew 16:18, the verse that you have incorrectly interpreted? What about Exodus 20:4? What about 1 Timothy 2:5?