Kujo313's Assertions About Catholic Marian Beliefs (Isis!?...Goddess!?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Church_Militant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Jaypeeto3:
RyanL, I like your answer to my post.
Still, it just seems that some of these fundamentalists come here just to fight, not to discuss and learn with an open mind.

Jaypeeto3
Click to expand...
Protestants was invited here “Why aren’t you Catholic?” Then we was badgered because we aren’t Catholic.
 
40.png
Eden:
Catholics don’t say Mary is necessary for your salvation either. It is an option there for those who want to get as many people involved in praying for them on their journey to Him.

Catholic comes from the Greek “katholikos” which means “universal”. And the word “Christians” is first used in Antioch. The Bishop of Antioch famously said:

Ignatius of Antioch was Bishop of Syria about 70-105 AD, and is one of the Apostolic Fathers of the Catholic Church. He followed St. Peter and Evodius as the third Bishop of Antioch, and served just after the time Matthew wrote his Gospel there. Tradition has it St. Peter, on his trip to Antioch to meet St. Paul [Galatians 2:11], designated Ignatius to become Bishop. St. Ignatius was the first to use the term “Catholic Church” in his Letter to the Smryneans [8:2].

***Wherever the bishop appears let the congregation be present; ***
***just as whereever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. *********

***Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans 8 ***

****Conclusion: Catholics were the first Christians

I know you already know that because this is about the third time we’ve visited that quote. I just posted it for the benefit of those who have not been following all of your posts.
Click to expand...
The word “Christian” was first used in one of Paul’s journeys between 50 - 60 AD (it’s in Acts).
 
40.png
kujo313:
Ooo! “Don’t confuse me with facts.”

I just don’t see what so-and-so “said” in the 2nd century as a “fact”. The “fact” only lies that that perticular person existed and wrote something. We can say that they may have had contact with one of Jesus’ disciples, too. But we DO know is that they lived AFTER the disciple died. Upon the death, the person can say or do whatever he wants and won’t have the first-hand witness to correct them.
THAT’S why I trust the written, first-hand account from an actual witness of Jesus Christ. That is the safest thing to base a tradition on.
Click to expand...
Peace.

But how do you know that the Bible is true? What is your evidence that it is accurate?

Peace.
 
40.png
kujo313:
Protestants was invited here “Why aren’t you Catholic?” Then we was badgered because we aren’t Catholic.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of Protestants on these forums who don’t get badgered at all. YOU are badgered because you persistently misrepresent our beliefs as well as disrespecting them, and you trash Mary. Jesus couldn’t conceivably be happy about someone who claims to follow him doing any of those things.
 
40.png
kujo313:
The word “Christian” was first used in one of Paul’s journeys between 50 - 60 AD (it’s in Acts).
Click to expand...
That was in Antioch. Read it again.

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
 
40.png
kujo313:
Protestants was invited here “Why aren’t you Catholic?” Then we was badgered because we aren’t Catholic.
Click to expand...
Peace.

Personally, I do not think that you are badgered. What is happening is that you post a position, the position is discussed and often refuted because your stance is based on misinterpretation and/or misinformation, but then you stick with your original presumption as if the information shared with you by others did not exist. Many MANY people are putting a lot of time and effort into you, sharing with you information, but you are choosing to dismiss it. And because of that, people are getting frustrated and impatient.

Please.

Peace.
 
40.png
kujo313:
It has never been proven wrong. It does not contradict itself.
nor.com.au/community/mychurch/bible/bible.html
Click to expand...
Peace.

You are basing your entire authority on the Bible, but what is YOUR evidence that the Bible is accurate (I am not interested in a Web site)? I want to know how YOU know, based on YOUR evidence, that the Bible is right. If you are living in the year 200 you do not have a Bible so how do you know of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit? That is all that I am asking.

Peace.
 
40.png
jim1130:
Peace.

Personally, I do not think that you are badgered. What is happening is that you post a position, the position is discussed and often refuted because your stance is based on misinterpretation and/or misinformation, but then you stick with your original presumption as if the information shared with you by others did not exist. Many MANY people are putting a lot of time and effort into you, sharing with you information, but you are choosing to dismiss it. And because of that, people are getting frustrated and impatient.

Please.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Well, if I answer with Scripture, I get the “Sola Scriptula” arguement, as if “traditions” made up AFTER Scripture was written filled in the “holes”.
I don’t believe that the Bible has “holes” but that whatever it doesn’t mention we should not be concerned about.
I just tend to believe the actual witness of first-hand accounts, those who walked with Jesus and actually heard Him speak. Those words have never been refuted.
 
40.png
Eden:
That was in Antioch. Read it again.

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Click to expand...
I’m not disputing WHERE, just WHEN. Paul was in Antioch in the 1st century.
 
40.png
jim1130:
Peace.

Personally, I do not think that you are badgered. What is happening is that you post a position, the position is discussed and often refuted because your stance is based on misinterpretation and/or misinformation, but then you stick with your original presumption as if the information shared with you by others did not exist.
Click to expand...
Many MANY people are putting a lot of time and effort into you, sharing with you information, but you are choosing to dismiss it. And because of that, people are getting frustrated and impatient.

Please.

Peace.This man told you right! I’ve been reading this thread for a while, and I can’t understand how you can reject historic facts, just because they don’t support what you have been taught. You’ll believe what D.L.Moody or some other dead evangelist wrote, but you won’t accept the guys who were trained by an apostle and then gave their lives for what they believed? There’s a lot more to Christianity than you know sir.

That makes absolutely NO sense to me…
 
40.png
kujo313:
I’m not disputing WHERE, just WHEN. Paul was in Antioch in the 1st century.
Click to expand...
So, you are saying that the Bishop of Antioch who knew Paul and Peter was wrong when he said the Church was called “Catholic”?
 
40.png
kujo313:
Well, if I answer with Scripture, I get the “Sola Scriptula” arguement, as if “traditions” made up AFTER Scripture was written filled in the “holes”.
I don’t believe that the Bible has “holes” but that whatever it doesn’t mention we should not be concerned about.
I just tend to believe the actual witness of first-hand accounts, those who walked with Jesus and actually heard Him speak. Those words have never been refuted.
Click to expand...
Peace.

I visited that link you sent me. No offense, but the statement that the Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years completely discredits the entire site.

Next, what I am trying to get at is that there was an authority that put together the Bible and this authority used the historical evidence available. If you accept that Bible is true because it says so then the same can be said for the Book of Mormon and the Koran. That’s not good. You want to verify what is in the Bible. As a Catholic, we have verifiable evidence, through the Early Church Fathers and their writings, that Christianity, Christ, the Apostles, the Bible, etc. are true. That is why the Catholic Church is like a stool, sturdy and stable, supported by three legs: Bible, Magesterium and Tradition.

That is all I am trying to get across to you.

Peace.
 
40.png
kujo313:
Well, if I answer with Scripture, I get the “Sola Scriptula” arguement, as if “traditions” made up AFTER Scripture was written filled in the “holes”.
I don’t believe that the Bible has “holes” but that whatever it doesn’t mention we should not be concerned about.
I just tend to believe the actual witness of first-hand accounts, those who walked with Jesus and actually heard Him speak. Those words have never been refuted.
Click to expand...
Of course there are holes - ‘many things Jesus said and did have not been written in these books’ etc etc. Not to mention new technologies and philosophies which simply didn’t exist in his time. The holes occur when we try to figure out how to apply the old teachings to new circumstances. If the Bible itself is all you need then how come you won’t get even two sola scripturists agreeing on its interpretation or its application?
 
BlackKnight said:
This man told you right! I’ve been reading this thread for a while, and I can’t understand how you can reject historic facts, just because they don’t support what you have been taught. You’ll believe what D.L.Moody or some other dead evangelist wrote, but you won’t accept the guys who were trained by an apostle and then gave their lives for what they believed? There’s a lot more to Christianity than you know sir.

That makes absolutely NO sense to me…
Click to expand...

I don’t follow Moody or anybody else without checking the Scriptures
Acts 17:11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Look it up.
Acts 18:28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ.
Show it to the “wise”
Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
They bring us comfort and hope.
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.
Scriptures point directly to Jesus.
Luke 24:45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
He showed Himself in the Scriptures.
(isn’t that enough?)
Matt 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘ The stone which the builders rejectedHas become the chief cornerstone.This was the LORD’s doing,And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
Note verse 43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.

There has been more “fruit” in the 20th century than the 2nd thru the 19th combined. With the advancement of technology, we can preach the Gospel in all the world. When Jesus comes back, truly ALL eyes can see Him at the same time.
Medicines have been made and killer diseases have been cured (working on more!) Knowledge has increased as prophesysed by Daniel thanks to the computer. (Geeks working on 100 TRILLION bits per SECOND!)

I don’t want to say that it was the Pentecostal movement within the Body of Christ that had something to do with it. Rather, it’s the Body of Christians as a whole.
Indeed, though, we ARE in the Last Days and it was prophecised by Joel that God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh in these Last Days.
Maybe the Catholic religion needs a true Pentecostal experience. I can imagine a worship service there where the people speak in other tongues and appear to be drunk.
It CAN happen there.
 
Kujo, you are non-denominational. This is a religious movement created in the 1990s. You speak with no authority.
 
40.png
LilyM:
Of course there are holes - ‘many things Jesus said and did have not been written in these books’ etc etc. Not to mention new technologies and philosophies which simply didn’t exist in his time. The holes occur when we try to figure out how to apply the old teachings to new circumstances. If the Bible itself is all you need then how come you won’t get even two sola scripturists agreeing on its interpretation or its application?
Click to expand...
I guess it’s a “left hand/right hand” thing. The Holy Spirit calls you to one temple. If you try another where He don’t want you, He will let you know.
Where one does healing, another does evangilism. One with the gift of healing should go to where the Holy Spirit guides them. But He cannot say that one is wrong. He should use his Gift where he is told by the Holy Spirit to use it.
 
40.png
Eden:
Kujo, you are non-denominational. This is a religious movement created in the 1990s. You speak with no authority.
Click to expand...
I once heard “once Catholic, always Catholic.” With that, call me a Catholic who’s had a Pentecostal experience (Azusa Steet Revival. Early 1900’s).

The origional disciples of Jesus could not go into a Catholic temple to worship because they appeared drunk in the “upper room”. That kind of behavior is not allowed during a Mass.
I’ve been to Catholic funerals within the past 10 years so I know that it’s still the same old thing. I don’t know if the priest, bishops or the Pope will ever allow a “mighty rush of wind” to flow during a Mass.
 
40.png
Eden:
So, you are saying that the Bishop of Antioch who knew Paul and Peter was wrong when he said the Church was called “Catholic”?
Click to expand...
Can you answer this please? You stated that the word “Christians” is in the Bible but not “Catholic”. I just want to know if you think the Bishop of Antioch was wrong for using the term “Catholic Church”?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top