Cleveland street preacher is super anti Catholicism. Please help reply information

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DictatorCzar

Guest
They So I’ve been emailing Cleveland street preacher and he’s super anti Catholicism. Please answer all questions in number format so he can change his mind. He’s not a Protestant, and doesn’t go to any church. He’s one of those Jesus believers. What Jesus does I do. Just why?
  1. You said PRAYING to Mary. Where does God want us PRAYING to anyone else? Secondly, you did not listen carefully to what Jesus says. He says very clearly in Matthew 6:6 to pray to who? God the Father. Did Jesus say to go to anyone else? NO! Jesus says God has the power to hear and see what you do in the secret. Does Mary suddenly have that power too? So Mary is now like God to you? I am alive. You can ask me to pray for you because I can hear you. Yet if 1 million people right now around the world communicate to Mary she suddenly is now God and has the Almighty power to hear them??? So you give God’s Almighty to Mary now? And you are falling for the Catholic twisted lies against Jesus’ teachings so you can follow theirs?
  2. Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus commands the 12 Apostles to go and preach “Whatsoever I COMMAND you.” SO they preached what Jesus commands. Did any other epistle ever mention to talk to the saints who are already deceased? No. Did Paul do it? No. He never mentions it. If it was such a crucial part of the faith, wouldn’t they have mentioned it? Yes. Why didn’t Peter? Jude? John? Nobody? Hmmm… So why should I follow dead people 100 years after Jesus when I can follow Jesus Himself? Do you not see what you are doing? You are following people, not Jesus DIRECTLY. You are falling for the twistings of Catholics and following after other people’s faith. We are to follow the faith Jesus had on this earth, Hebrews 5:9. So why do you want to disobey Jesus’ perfect faith and follow people’s faith thousands of years ago? I don’t care what those church “fathers” did in their faith because they were wrong in some ways. They did not have the Gospels completely perhaps, which means some of their faith was in error. Why do you want some of your faith to be in error like them? Why don’t you ask the Holy Spirit to teach you DIRECTLY? Jesus commands that, John 16:13. Why do you listen to Catholics and go to them? Why do you let the Catholics take the place of the Holy Spirit for you? Why do you demote the Holy SPirit and put Him under the Papacy? Don’t you see you are falling for the trap of the devil himself?
  3. Just because there are bishops in the Catholic church does not make it a valid institution.
 
  1. “Call no man on this earth father for you have 1 Father in heaven," Mt 23:9. I follow Jesus my friend. If you want to follow Catholics and what they say and do, you will end up in hell with the vast majority of them for disobeying Jesus. Jesus says, “The blind follow the blind and they both fall into the ditch.” People back then had word of mouth faith, no the complete Bible like we have. There were already errors being done by people. Look at Apostle John even! John made a HUGE mistake in Revelation. He bowed down to an angel! So even John who was with Jesus even goofed up! How much more could your beloved “church fathers?” So why do you choose to put your trust in men? Why don’t you follow the faith of Jesus Himself?
  2. IF IT WAS SO IMPORTANT THEN WHY WASN’T IT MENTIONED??? SO JESUS IS A FAILURE? JESUS DID NOT TEACH US THE PERFECT FAITH AND ALL WE HAVE TO KNOW IN HIS GOSPEL??? THAT’S WHY YOU WANT TO RELY ON PEOPLE? What’s wrong with you? Why do you want to disobey Jesus and follow people??? He commands you to follow who in Matthew 16:24?
    6.No, you need the word pope if it was to be correct. Nowhere does it say that there is to be a church office of pope followed by cardinals. The church offices are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11. Those are the 5 offices ordained by the Holy Spirit to put His leaders in the Body. The man made titles of pope and cardinal are ordained by men. YOu do not know the Holy Spirit nor His ways. You prove to be clueless of who the Holy Spirit is and how He operates His Body. Instead you listen to people and replace the Holy Spirit with them. What a shame.
 
  1. No, priest and pastor is different. You are twisting God’s Word now. Why doesn’t God use the word, “priest” in Jeremiah 23? Why did God Himself use the word, “Pastor?” The priesthood is done away with according to the NT in Hebrews. Jesus is our Only High priest. Why weren’t any of the Apostles referring themselves as “priests?” Why do you follow what people are telling you instead listening to the Holy Spirit reveal to you what He means in the written Word? Why do you allow people to interpret the Spirit’s wisdom for you? Why do you worship the people instead of the Spirit?
    8.Where did I say I was a Protestant? They are just as wrong in some areas of the Bible as Catholics! And I prove it in many videos. Peter did not teach baptism to babies. Babies have no sin. Jesus says children go to heaven in Mt 18 and 19. Sinners cannot go to heaven. See? You are not listening carefully to what Jesus says. You are listening to what Catholics, what people say. You are following them instead of the Lord Himself by His Spirit. You are allowing the flesh twist and take you down to hell. Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and had power. Peter had the power so much that the Spirit in Him healed people through shadow in Acts 3. Does the Pope have that power? Why don’t priests have that power? Hmmmm…Do you know why? Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and taught what the Holy Spirit teaches. Priests and Pope do not. They teach what you learn, things from men put into their minds from the demons whispering lies. Remember, the devil knew the Word and twisted it against Jesus. That’s what Catholics do. Peter never communicated to Mary. Nor did he to any other deceased saint. Nor did he teach it. Nor did he teach how to conduct a mass service. Nor did he teach communion was LITERALLY body and blood. Neither did he teach to wear robes. Neither did he teach a purgatory. Neither did he teach Eucharistic adoration. Neither did he himself pray to any saints. You should ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what Peter taught in his epistles.
 
  1. How do you know Mary was still alive? Why didn’t the Apostles say, “When Mary leaves this earth pray to her! When she goes to heaven she will become a queen and have power like GOd to hear you!” Catholics promote these ideas of Mary CONSTANTLY. This is because it is such a crucial part of being a Catholic. So if this was the TRUE faith, wouldn’t the APostles have mentioned these things too??? So why didn’t they? Because Jesus never taught them this, nor does He teach us this. Again Matthew 6:6 and Matthew 4:10
  2. Jesus is the Word made flesh. Why didn’t the Apostles take Jesus down from the cross and drink His blood all over His dead body? Why did Jesus promise the woman with 2 sons in Matthew 20 He drank His own blood? Didn’t Jesus keep the OT laws? Yes. I thought drinking blood was against the OT law? It is. You should ask the Holy Spirit to teach you what it means in John 6. He will tell you “the flesh of a spirit is knowledge.” Who is the Word again??? (Hint: see John 1:1)
    11.There are 9 gifts of the Spirit. Catholics believe there are 7. 1 Cor 12:8-10 lists how many? 7 or 9? Why don’t you see the Pope and cardinals of Satan doing big miracles like the Apostles? I thought they were supposed to be successors according to the Catholics??? So where is their power? They have none.
 
12.“Yes, but. Peter was the substitute of Christ.” This statement you made shows your heart is blasphemous. Peter was not a Catholic per the proofs given in point 8. Jesus is the Rock Deut 32:4 and 1 Cor 3. When I need help, I go to Jesus, not Peter. Peter is not God. Peter can do nothing for you. Peter had people worship him and he rebuked them saying, “I am only a man,” in Acts. ", it says, so then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. Well the written tradition is clearly the Bible. " The written traditions were in the Bible??? NO THEY WERE NOT! LOOK AT ALL THE QUESTIONS I POINT TO OF PETER AND PAUL AND JOHN AND JUDE NEVER TEACHING ANY OF THESE TRADITIONS CATHOLICS TEACH. SATAN USES CATHOLICISM TO PRODUCE TWO FOLD CHILDREN OF HELL JUST AS MUCH AS PROTESTANTS (Which almost always are reformed/Calvinists.
 
To paraphrase our Lord, he will not change, even if one should rise from he dead. His heart sounds as though it is poisoned against Christ’s Church. Very very little you can do except pray. Let the Holy Spirit do the heavy lifting. Maybe do a few holy hours for him.
 
Some of these were already covered in your last post, and my reply to that still stands. Also, if you’re just copy/pasting this from stuff he sends you, beware that this is a gish gallop. The intent is to overwhelm, not have a reasonable discussion, and that can cause problems for any necessarily-deep discussion like this.

Anyways, I’m just going to cover some general flaws in logic, because I don’t want to give in to addressing each point of the gish gallop individually.
DictatorCzar said:
Did any other epistle ever mention to talk to the saints who are already deceased? No. Did Paul do it? No. He never mentions it.
Click to expand...
First of all, the epistles were all written in the first century. The earliest of saints were alive, and the vast majority had yet to be born. This was probably not something under deep consideration at the time.

And that’s one of the biggest issues with the logic here: It ignores how much of the Scriptures came about. The Scriptures were written often in response to ongoing problems with the early Christians. The epistles are deeply contextual. For instance, read Acts 14 - 15 and then read Romans and Galatians, and a lot of what Paul is talking about will make far more sense than if his epistles were read in isolation. Why? Because Acts offers the historical context behind one of the major issues Paul wrote about, covered heavily in both those epistles. However, this also leads to the flip side: If something didn’t warrant comment, it probably wouldn’t be put in an epistle. I mentioned it in the last thread, but infant baptism just sort of appears in writings with no discussion or debate. It’s entirely possible that that was never something the Apostles had to address in writing.

Further, consider that the earliest epistles would have been written after about 20 years of ministry for the Apostles. They had a lot of time to establish teachings and practices. In fact, the vast majority of what they did is never recorded. If they frequently baptized infants or pray to deceased Christians, it may never have been an issue, and 20 years to establish that before putting anything into writing.

The problem with a lot of this guy’s logic is that he’s almost treating Scripture as a vacuum, as if Paul sat down one day and said, “I think I’m going to codify all of Christian teaching!” That’s not how it happened, and saying, “It isn’t in Scripture,” is a horrible argument, not only due to being argument from ignorance but for being wholly ignorant of history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top