C
chet
Guest
Hi Iambic Pen, If I can help clear up any of your confusion please let me know. Chet, Welcome to Jesus’ Church.
Catholic Apologetic Challenge: Refute this if you are up for it
- Status
A
Athanasiy
Guest
What I can say about this article :This is an article I found from Alpha and Omega Ministries title Why I left?
Since I have no time to take the time to refute it. Can anyone who is up to the challenge refute it.
It is written by Benny Diaz…
Enjoy your refuting.
aomin.org/why_I_left.html
Benny Diaz experience is interesting experience.
Spiritual peace , assurance, contact with Jesus , with whom it is possible to communicate
personally , and in whom there is all what we need.
Well , let me write in the figurative language
I mean …
Let the Benny Diaz ask the ‘’ Evangelical Jesus’’ what does he thinks about the divorce ?..or contraception ?
About cloning ?..embryonic stem cell issue ?
What does he thinks about the prophesies and todays events in the Middle East ?
What does he think about the Salvation and free will ?
What does he thinks about sin ?
Is it more like psychological failure , the lack of self-esteem , or the sin is revolt against God ?
Has the Evangelical Jesus a sufficient view of the place of the suffering in the Christian Life ?
Is he a ‘’cosmic bellhop’’, subject to man’s frivolous whims and desires of the moment , or He is a Lord, with his Sovereignty and prerogative to turn down any of man’s improper prayer request ?
Is the Evangelical Jesus expert in the socio-economics ?.. Politics ? …or Philosophy ?
Ask if the Evangelical Jesus can call the non-sinful endeaverors as a good in itself ?
Ask if the Joy or beauty is evil or good ?..
Oh, many many questions he can ask the Evangelical Jesus…
Well , I do not mean that , they have totally different Jesus , but the ‘’Catholics are much more discernable to the Jesus voice and can hear it in l truth, definitely and loudly.
And there are the reasons for that.
Because , Jesus left the Church through whom he can speak.
This is how understand it.
D
DJim
Guest
It would seem to me that the short answer to this “challenge” (and best response to anything from the James White operation) is to simply ask Alpha and Omega to give due credit to the people who brought them the Bible in the first place–the Roman Catholic Church.
Without the Roman Catholic Church and her authority, there simply would be no “Bible” as we know it.
Why, then, would one think or believe that the Bible in any way stands in opposition to the Church to whom the Book really belongs?
Imagine the absurdity of getting into this kind of argument with someone who authors, edits, and publishes a book about himself. Let’s say a reader claims that the book in question actually does NOT reflect the author’s real views and identity while the author is saying openly that it does. The reader goes on to take passages from the book to “prove” the errors of the author based upon the author’s own book!
That’s ultimately what Sola Scriptura does to the Catholic Church…sems a bit absurd to me…
DJim
Without the Roman Catholic Church and her authority, there simply would be no “Bible” as we know it.
Why, then, would one think or believe that the Bible in any way stands in opposition to the Church to whom the Book really belongs?
Imagine the absurdity of getting into this kind of argument with someone who authors, edits, and publishes a book about himself. Let’s say a reader claims that the book in question actually does NOT reflect the author’s real views and identity while the author is saying openly that it does. The reader goes on to take passages from the book to “prove” the errors of the author based upon the author’s own book!
That’s ultimately what Sola Scriptura does to the Catholic Church…sems a bit absurd to me…
DJim
P
PhilVaz
Guest
All I see are the typos…
<< In October of 1981, while visiting a friend in the hospital, I was confronted with the question, “Are you a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Word at God?” >>
Word AT God? New phrase. Here, let me re-state in BORAT / YODA language:
In the October month of 1981 year, while friend visiting a hospital, confronted was I with question, “Are you again born believer in Jesus, the Lord at God, the Son at God, according to the Word at God?”
<< You see, my friend happened to be a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. I wasn’t. >>
Baptism is where you are born again, according to the Bible, the Fathers, saints, and all Christians prior to the 16th century.
<< In his hospital room he shared with me from the Bible how God in us Supreme love and grace, provided a way for me to have all my sins forgiven and washed away. He shared with me how God sent us only-begotten Son to die for me. >>
Us should be His. BORAT / YODA translates as:
In Us hospital room me shared with us from the God how the Bible in his Supreme love and grace, provided a page for me to have all my forgiven washed sins away. Me shared with Us how God sent Us only-begotten Son at God to die for Us.
Much better!
Phil P
<< In October of 1981, while visiting a friend in the hospital, I was confronted with the question, “Are you a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ according to the Word at God?” >>
Word AT God? New phrase. Here, let me re-state in BORAT / YODA language:
In the October month of 1981 year, while friend visiting a hospital, confronted was I with question, “Are you again born believer in Jesus, the Lord at God, the Son at God, according to the Word at God?”
<< You see, my friend happened to be a born again believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. I wasn’t. >>
Baptism is where you are born again, according to the Bible, the Fathers, saints, and all Christians prior to the 16th century.
<< In his hospital room he shared with me from the Bible how God in us Supreme love and grace, provided a way for me to have all my sins forgiven and washed away. He shared with me how God sent us only-begotten Son to die for me. >>
Us should be His. BORAT / YODA translates as:
In Us hospital room me shared with us from the God how the Bible in his Supreme love and grace, provided a page for me to have all my forgiven washed sins away. Me shared with Us how God sent Us only-begotten Son at God to die for Us.
Much better!
Phil P
R
runandsew
Guest
Mark 1:4-5It is written by Benny Diaz…
The Bible makes it clear that “ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
First of all we can see that “All” doesn’t necessarily mean all in an absolute sense. As I don’t think that absolutely every single person of Judea and Jerusalem were baptized by John. He would have been extremely busy for a very long time if that were the case. All is used through out the bible to mean a great number of people or a particular group and so forth.
Second, there are exceptions for the Passage in Romans.
Jesus was fully human, and fully divine.
So if this was talking that every single person has sinned, then we would have to say that Jesus sinned.
Has a baby in the womb sinned? (remember that this passage is talking about personal sin, not original sin)
Has a severely retarded person sinned?
So I think that we can see that there are exceptions to the “All have sinned” rule.
Mary was declared by an angel of God, to be ‘full of grace’ which shows that she must be in complete favor of God to have earned the fullness of God’s grace. Also normally when an Angel appears to humans the human bows to worship the Angel because of the Angels superior nature, if one were to appear to us know, we wouldn’t know if it were Jesus, or the devil or what. So for this creature of a superior nature to be speaking these words, give them extra credence.
If God decided to cleanse Mary of Sin at the moment of her conception, then so be it.
quoting the Old Testament here.
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Maybe Benny Diaz had left the Church because he wouldn’t be granted a marriage annulment, who knows?
This was the case with an old friend of mine who then joined the Cavalry Assembly church and became a vehement anti-Catholic bible thumper. As has been the constant pattern with evangelical fundamentalists, he always ended up hitting himself in the head with his own bible by contradicting the sacred text. 
Benny Diaz claims that there is no scriptural evidence that Peter had established himself in Rome to preach and minister, and so he could not possibly be our first pope nor be the start of the institution of the papacy. Yet we have historical evidence in the writings of notable early Christians that both Peter and Paul went to Rome where they were eventually martyred. There are even documents written by the Prefect in Rome recording their death sentences. Concerning the scriptures, some modern biblical scholars contend that the “two witnesses” in Revelation allude to the martyrs Peter and Paul. But that is beside the point. Historical records prove that Peter and Paul went to Rome to complete their ministries. Let us examine two letters at least:
An early witness to papal authority is the ‘Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’, a letter written in 96 AD in Rome by our third Pope, Clement. The letter was written with the purpose of restoring order in the church of Corinth. Exhibiting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at the time, he intervenes to help settle differences and even apologizes to the community for not having responded to their appeals for help much sooner. In Chapter 5 of this letter he speaks of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
In 190 AD, St. Irenaeus of Lyons compiled a list of the Bishops of Rome tracing the lineage of popes beginning with St. Peter:
‘The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church in Rome, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place of the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus; then sixtus…(the list continues)…In this order , and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition of the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.’ [Against Heresies lll 3,3] Apostolic succession was a fact of life in the early Church. The Bishop of Rome, whose primacy was recognized by the other churches and Apostolic Sees, was succeeded one pontificate after the next beginning with St.Peter.
Linus succeeded Peter, not Paul, for the scriptures make it clear that Christ’s intimate apostle, one of the original twelve, held a prominent position. His name is always first in the lists of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).
Finally, the fourth century Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea quotes St. Irenaeus’ list of succeeding popes in his work ‘The History of the Church’. He also cites 1 Peter 5:13 as proof that St. Peter was in Rome, a.k.a. Babylon (ll,15): “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.” Rome was referred to as Babylon, just as it is in the Book of Revelations.
It seems Benny Diaz is unacquainted with both early Church history and the scriptures.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
This was the case with an old friend of mine who then joined the Cavalry Assembly church and became a vehement anti-Catholic bible thumper. As has been the constant pattern with evangelical fundamentalists, he always ended up hitting himself in the head with his own bible by contradicting the sacred text. Benny Diaz claims that there is no scriptural evidence that Peter had established himself in Rome to preach and minister, and so he could not possibly be our first pope nor be the start of the institution of the papacy. Yet we have historical evidence in the writings of notable early Christians that both Peter and Paul went to Rome where they were eventually martyred. There are even documents written by the Prefect in Rome recording their death sentences. Concerning the scriptures, some modern biblical scholars contend that the “two witnesses” in Revelation allude to the martyrs Peter and Paul. But that is beside the point. Historical records prove that Peter and Paul went to Rome to complete their ministries. Let us examine two letters at least:
An early witness to papal authority is the ‘Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians’, a letter written in 96 AD in Rome by our third Pope, Clement. The letter was written with the purpose of restoring order in the church of Corinth. Exhibiting the primacy of the Bishop of Rome at the time, he intervenes to help settle differences and even apologizes to the community for not having responded to their appeals for help much sooner. In Chapter 5 of this letter he speaks of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.
In 190 AD, St. Irenaeus of Lyons compiled a list of the Bishops of Rome tracing the lineage of popes beginning with St. Peter:
‘The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church in Rome, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place of the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus; then sixtus…(the list continues)…In this order , and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition of the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.’ [Against Heresies lll 3,3] Apostolic succession was a fact of life in the early Church. The Bishop of Rome, whose primacy was recognized by the other churches and Apostolic Sees, was succeeded one pontificate after the next beginning with St.Peter.
Linus succeeded Peter, not Paul, for the scriptures make it clear that Christ’s intimate apostle, one of the original twelve, held a prominent position. His name is always first in the lists of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13).
Finally, the fourth century Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea quotes St. Irenaeus’ list of succeeding popes in his work ‘The History of the Church’. He also cites 1 Peter 5:13 as proof that St. Peter was in Rome, a.k.a. Babylon (ll,15): “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.” Rome was referred to as Babylon, just as it is in the Book of Revelations.
It seems Benny Diaz is unacquainted with both early Church history and the scriptures.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I find it difficult to believe that these testimonies are from ex-Catholics. If a person will misrepresent what the Church teaches, then what is to stop that person from misrepresenting himself as having been Catholic at some time. It just sounds like a sales pitch to me. One not to be trusted.
First of all, if someone believes he or she has truly found the Truth outside the Church, then why would he or she expend so much anger and indignation bellowing strawmen at Catholics? No it is not to convert them. Conversion doesn’t involve so much undifferentiated anger.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
No it is not to convert them. Conversion doesn’t involve so much undifferentiated anger…because it makes points with his new friends at church?:irish1:
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Absolutely. I suspect a lot of this is about rite of passage and scoring points back with the home boys and girls. Too bad they don’t score any points. So sad.
- Status