If you are a Christian, what is the real reason for you not being a Catholic? - 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BloodWashed said:
Matthew 25 deals with post-tribulation judgment, and that’s way too confusing for me to think about at this hour. I need to talk to my friends dad before I can say anything about that, because I’ll end up saying something wrong.
Click to expand...
No problem, you’re new around here. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of time to discuss this if you’re interested in learning a thing or two about Catholicism that you might have missed before. You won’t learn the truth about the Catholic Church from the Baptists, I promise you that! 😦

And as for telling the difference between baptism of water and spirit: John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but the one who came after him would baptize with spirit. Baptizing with spirit is the same as getting born again.
Jesus said we must be born again ‘of water and the Spirit’ - contrary to what the Baptists will tell you, baptism does both. Check out what happened when Jesus was baptized! John the Baptist’s baptism was not a Christian, Trinitarian baptism.
 
Pixie_Dust said:
No problem, you’re new around here. I’m sure we’ll have plenty of time to discuss this if you’re interested in learning a thing or two about Catholicism that you might have missed before. You won’t learn the truth about the Catholic Church from the Baptists, I promise you that! 😦

And as for telling the difference between baptism of water and spirit: John the Baptist said that he baptized with water, but the one who came after him would baptize with spirit. Baptizing with spirit is the same as getting born again.
Click to expand...
Jesus said we must be born again ‘of water and the Spirit’ - contrary to what the Baptists will tell you, baptism does both. Check out what happened when Jesus was baptized! John the Baptist’s baptism was not a Christian, Trinitarian baptism.

Like i said to the above post, when he mentioned water and spirit to Nicodemous, he was talking about water from the womb. They didn’t even mention baptism in the conversation.
 
Originally Posted by BloodWashed:
Click to expand...
Yeah, as far as those other books, I have absoloutely no idea. I haven’t even read all the 66 books in my KJV yet, because I’ve only been saved since September. The only thing I really know about how we chose our books is that for the old testament we used anything Jesus quoted…and that’s about as far as my study has gone 🤷
Click to expand...
It’s a complicated history. 🙂 Basically, rest assured that the 4 gospels were always regarded as canonical. Most of the epistles were also openly accepted and read in the churches from an early date. All the books in the OT that you have in your Bible have always been accepted by Jews and Christians alike. The additional books in the Catholic Bible were in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, which was used widely by Jews, but they were rejected eventually by the Jews after the time of Christ. The people who reject these books do so for several reasons: because no original Hebrew manuscript exists, because of supposed historical errors, because of supposed Hellenizing tendencies. The Graham book mentioned by Pixie Dust is a good introduction. You can read it online by following her link.
 
Madaglan said:
It’s a complicated history. 🙂 Basically, rest assured that the 4 gospels were always regarded as canonical. Most of the epistles were also openly accepted and read in the churches from an early date. All the books in the OT that you have in your Bible have always been accepted by Jews and Christians alike. The additional books in the Catholic Bible were in the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, which was used widely by Jews, but they were rejected eventually by the Jews after the time of Christ. The people who reject these books do so for several reasons: because no original Hebrew manuscript exists, because of supposed historical errors, because of supposed Hellenizing tendencies. The Graham book mentioned by Pixie Dust is a good introduction. You can read it online by following her link.
Click to expand...
Thank you much 🙂
 
BloodWashed said:
Like i said to the above post, when he mentioned water and spirit to Nicodemous, he was talking about water from the womb. They didn’t even mention baptism in the conversation.
Click to expand...
This is where it’s handy to know how the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ words. Nowhere in Scripture is “water” a euphemism for “amniotic fluid” - so that interpretation doesn’t ahem hold water. (Please pardon the pun.)

Water & the Spirit
 
Pixie_Dust said:
This is where it’s handy to know how the earliest Christians understood Jesus’ words. Nowhere in Scripture is “water” a euphemism for “amniotic fluid” - so that interpretation doesn’t ahem hold water. (Please pardon the pun.)

Water & the Spirit
Click to expand...
But lets just look at the verses

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

They don’t mention baptism at all, they are simply talking about physical and spiritual birth. Why would Jesus answer the question of Nicodemus of how he can enter back into his mother’s womb by saying that he needs to be dunked under water?
 
catholiconce said:
Oh Jimmy B You seem to know it all and why others have left the RCC. To assume all who leave have had several marriages is wrong. Millons have left. Have you asked 51% of those who left about their marriage status? No I did not think so. So where does your data come from.
Click to expand...
No…What do you think? 😃
 
Originally Posted by BloodWashed:
Click to expand...
They don’t mention baptism at all, they are simply talking about physical and spiritual birth. Why would Jesus answer the question of Nicodemus of how he can enter back into his mother’s womb by saying that he needs to be dunked under water?
Click to expand...
Because Nicodemus is thinking in way too literal terms. He is thinking *only *of physical rebirth, when Jesus is speaking about spiritual rebirth. If you come to this verse already understanding spiritual rebirth as separate from water baptism, then it will not help you; however, if you understand spiritual rebirth as what happens in water baptism (the Spirit present in and working through the water, as the Spirit hovered over the waters in Genesis) then the spiritual rebirth spoken of here does not negate water baptism.
 
BloodWashed said:
I don’t know what kind of Baptist church you went to, but it is much different from mine. I also don’t know what kind of Catholic church you’re going to that you’re getting any Bible. My preacher reads from the Bible all the time, we all bring our own Bible, and we are encouraged to read it daily.

Now on the the questioned scriptures. Ephesians and James both say that we ought to do good works BECAUSE we’re saved, not to GET saved Are We Justified by Faith and Works?

Matthew 25 deals with endtimes and the tribulation and all that good stuff. I’m not precisely sure of everything it touches on, but this link faithalone.org/news/y1988/88march1.html describes it pretty well. I’m not sure if this guy believes in the pre-trib rapture, however, so I’m not sure I can agree with everything he says.

Philippians says to work out youre OWN salvation. This is dealing with once someone gets washed in the blood (God’s salvation) becoming spiritual instead of carnal.

Jesus is the Lord God in the flesh. He cannot lie. He said “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Not whosoever gets baptized, becomes a church member, feeds the poor. Whosoever believeth.

And the Catholic Bible, if I remember correctly, comes from the Alexandrian documents while my KJV comes from textus receptus, so I don’t see what they have to do with eachother.

And for the poster who asked, yes my church does believe that the Bible-believers have been around all along. My church is called Baptist, but I slightly object to the term, and prefer Bible-believer. I don’t believe in any religion–I believe in the savior.
Click to expand...
Same old anti -Catholic nonsense thats been batted around by anti -catholics for many years, Don’t you guys ever get tired of hearing yourselves say the same old garbage all the time, Can’t you come up with something new to throw at us. Our Catholic Church continues to march on with the TRUTH , and has for 2,000 years, while your sects keep splitting and splitting. Division is not the work of God, so you must NOT be doing something right, with all your self interpretation and twisting verses and history to suite yourself. You know nothing about the Catholic Church except your lies. If you were sooooo convinced you got it all right, you would have no need to try to bash us like you do. But you can’t fight GOD, HE will win every time. Think what you want, we can’t help that, but if your truly seeking the TRUTH, and if you were really interested in what Jesus taught, you would read the Sacred Scriptures with an open heart and there you will find the Catholic Church in all its beautiful teachings. You might try reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers too. God Bless, Memaw. You can’t fight the TRUTH.
 
NEW YORK, APRIL 20, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI is looking for a “commitment of honesty” from Christians engaged in ecumenical dialogue, according to a Vatican aide.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, said this Saturday in comments to the press on the address the Pope gave to ecumenical leaders Friday evening.

The meeting of over 300 religious leaders involved in ecumenical dialogue gathered at St. Joseph’s Parish in Manhattan. According to organizers, some 250 represented various Protestant churches, 50 were Orthodox leaders and 50 were Catholics.

Father Lombardi said the Pope wants “to go to the foundations,” “to move all Christians of every community to reflect on the importance of seeking the truth together,” without being satisfied with “a certain ‘well wishing,’ let us say, a certain generic goodwill, but to seek out that which is our duty to revealed truth.”

What the Pontiff is promoting, he added, is therefore “a commitment of honesty, of honesty and reflection in which the true Christian faith is brought to light …] by seeking the essential elements of the profession of faith that Scripture and Tradition uphold and on the basis of which, then, we must come together.”
 
vocatio said:
Catholiconce, what event caused you to leave the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...

I have not left the catholic church. Just the Roman Rite. There are many Rites of the catholic church. . I am a Catholic Lutheran Rite
 
BloodWashed said:
But lets just look at the verses

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

They don’t mention baptism at all, they are simply talking about physical and spiritual birth. Why would Jesus answer the question of Nicodemus of how he can enter back into his mother’s womb by saying that he needs to be dunked under water?
Click to expand...
What do you call being born of “water and the Spirit,” if not baptism??? Self interpretation again. without even knowing the fullness of truth.
 
Memaw said:
Same old anti -Catholic nonsense thats been batted around by anti -catholics for many years, Don’t you guys ever get tired of hearing yourselves say the same old garbage all the time, Can’t you come up with something new to throw at us. Our Catholic Church continues to march on with the TRUTH , and has for 2,000 years, while your sects keep splitting and splitting. Division is not the work of God, so you must NOT be doing something right, with all your self interpretation and twisting verses and history to suite yourself. You know nothing about the Catholic Church except your lies. If you were sooooo convinced you got it all right, you would have no need to try to bash us like you do. But you can’t fight GOD, HE will win every time. Think what you want, we can’t help that, but if your truly seeking the TRUTH, and if you were really interested in what Jesus taught, you would read the Sacred Scriptures with an open heart and there you will find the Catholic Church in all its beautiful teachings. You might try reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers too. God Bless, Memaw. You can’t fight the TRUTH.
Click to expand...
Take it easy, Memaw. Put the gloves down. 🙂 I believe we’re engaging conversation with a teenager/young adult who only just in September became a “born again” Baptist. It’s all new to him/her, and certainly not their own interpretation of Scripture but what they’ve been told is the “correct” interpretation of Scripture according to their particular brand of Baptist.
 
Memaw said:
Sorry my dear but there is NO such thing!
Click to expand...
as defined by who. ? Understand the meaning of the word catholic and you will understand what I mean. understand the history of the church and the reformation and you will see. Understand the roman empire and what they have done and again you will see
 
Hello Bloodwashed, nice to meet you.
Lets get started, shall we?

Let’s start with Daniel Chapter nine (the foundation of dispensationalist theology).

(KJV I assume you are KJV-only):

Quote:
24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

?

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
  1. Disys say that there is a ‘church age gap’ between verse 26 and 27.
    Where is the gap? IN THE TEXT.
  2. Dispys say that the ‘prince that shall come’ in verse 26 is different than ‘Messiah the Prince’ of verse 25.
    How do you know it is speaking of two different people from a simple reading of the text? Why would Daniel suddenly change his mind and start talking about a different person? How does this make logical and grammanical sense? Please find it IN THE TEXT.
Also:

3.Please find ANY referance of the ‘rapture’ in Scripture or in church history prior to the 19th century.
  1. Dispys (like Harold Wilmington of Libery University) say that during the millenniam, resurrected people and non-resurrected people with sin natures will live side by side on the earth.
    PLEASE, find this ANYWHERE in the Bible.
  2. Find ‘seven year tribulation’ in the Bible.
  3. Find ‘revived Roman Empire’ anywhere in the Bible.
  4. Please find anywhere in the Bible that says the Jews will return to the land in 1948.
A verse no fundamentalist has ever properly explained:

John 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, **Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? **
  1. Why did Jesus expect Nicodemus to know what He was talking about?
  2. Where do you find, in the Bible or in 1700 years of Church history, salvation as a past ‘crisis event’ that must ‘happen’ and not a process?
This should keep you busy for a while.
:cool:
 
Pixie_Dust said:
Take it easy, Memaw. Put the gloves down. 🙂 I believe we’re engaging conversation with a teenager/young adult who only just in September became a “born again” Baptist. It’s all new to him/her, and certainly not their own interpretation of Scripture but what they’ve been told is the “correct” interpretation of Scripture according to their particular brand of Baptist.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe Bloodwashed is a teenager/young adult. I just stated the truth.
 
Memaw said:
I don’t believe Bloodwashed is a teenager/young adult. I just stated the truth.
Click to expand...
Blood Washed:
I was raised Catholic, and I became an atheist somewhere between 14 and 15, and was an atheist for about a year and a half. My baptist friend drug me along to church with her, and I got saved.
Click to expand...
Became an atheist at age 14/15 and was so for a year and a half until a Baptist friend took him/her to church and s/he mentioned in another post that s/he “got saved” just last September, which would make Blood Washed approximately 16, maybe 17 years old right now, if I’m doing the math correctly.

My point with your post was that Blood Washed, as a brand-new believer, would have no idea that what they were posting was the “Same old anti -Catholic nonsense thats been batted around by anti -catholics for many years” nor does Blood Washed admit to knowing much at all about Church history.

I’m not saying don’t speak the Truth, I’m just suggesting that you speak the Truth in love, otherwise, as St Paul says, we are “a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.” The best way to get an anti-Catholic to think about their position is to ask questions, not bombard them with cold, hard facts. Setting them on the defensive immediately is just going to turn them away from Christ’s Holy Church, and that’s the last thing we want to do! 🙂
 
You’ve got it all wrong. I’m not anti-Catholic. I love Catholic. I’m anti-error, and I believe a lot of what Catholics say is error. I may not be able to answer all your questions, because I’m a new Bible student. And, apparently what I was saying about the water being the physical birth was wrong: heres a link jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Baptismal%20Regeneration/bap_reg-refuted.htm. Sorry bout that, could’ve sworn I read it somewhere

I’m not sure with the Daniel or what doctrinal statement you are talking about, so I’m sorry.

Rapture is 2 Thessolonians 4: 14-18. Also, Jesus talks about a time when two women will be working and one will be taken up and the other remain.

7 year tribulation: jesus-is-savior.com/End%20of%20the%20World/tribulation_evidence.htm

It doesn’t matter to me whether the Bible said 1948 or not–it said the Israelites would be united again, and I’ve read before that the number of years given comes to 1948.

I’m not exactly sure on John 3:10, I’d have to get back to you. My /guess/ would be that Jesus might be trying to make a point that even though this man was a religious man, he was still not on his way to heaven because he had never been born again.

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 1:13

That ye may /know/. That that ye may hope, and pray and work for, but that ye may /know/. The malefactor on the cross didn’t go through a process, and just asked forgiveness and got saved.

I’ve read the scriptures, and I’ve found the truth. I’ve lived in the Catholic church, and the fundamental Church, and the teachings of the fundamental church are the ones that saved my life. As for all the divisions: I’m not a protestant. Plenty of protestants are heretics. I don’t subscribe to any church. I believe the Bible. No frills.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top