Name 3 reasons you are not Catholic (yet).

[Lively_Stone]

If you think there’s any relationship between the modern Pentecostal denomination and what the Apostles were teaching at Pentecost you’re sadly deluded

Why? If you mean the Pentacostal Church maybe. I am pentecostal in my beliefs and belong to no church except the church of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible. I pay my tithes and offerings to a local Assemble of God pastor because Ihe teaches the truth and gives account of every penny to the church. They have a hierarchy and council of which my Pastor is a well respected, trusted and Godly member to keep order in the church. I do not involve myself with these matters as I have been called to teach. We have wonderful Godly teaching based on Gods word. Our churchs mission is to:

Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Everyone would do well to follow this scriptual advice when considering any church.

SCRIPTUALLY MANDATED TO TEST TEACHINGS!
(Search, Study, Prove, Beware!!!)

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing
the word of truth. (note: the word study will not be found in any alledged bible using the corrupted Alexandria text or Aleph B manuscripts in their translation.

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I would not sit under authority of anyone unless I did the above because of all mens inherent sin nature and infallibility. Only the word of God is given to sort out the false doctrine.

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Come Jesus and straighten out this (mass) confusion.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Come Jesus and straighten out this (mass) confusion.

Alright, I appreciate this is a passionate discussion. But quips like this have been flung from both sides. This does NOT lead to productive discussion, and if you find yourself putting these in posts to try to gain ground in the debate, I ask that you refrain from posting in this thread.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

Rachel

 

[kujo313]

You are going outside the Bible to make your points with all these links you continue to post. Can’t you use the Bible alone to refute Catholics instead of posting others false interpretations?

The Catholic Church has led me to Christ and has showed me how to love our neighbors. To step out from the Church would be downgrading my faith which I will never do.

The Bible led me to Christ.  The Gospel of John, to be exact.  No building, no congregation.  Just Scripture alone.

Every disciple of Christ is obedient to the Lord and is committed to believe and obey His Word. The Christian will not permit any man or creature to usurp the throne of his Lord. Moreover, every Christian believes that the Bible is the Word of God. He is therefore committed to its teachings, commands and instructions.

You may respond, ‘Yes, the Christian should be obedient to the Bible. But why insist on the Bible alone as his ultimate authority?’

To answer, let me ask some questions myself. What would you add to the Bible? ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not whether the Bible is the infallible Word of God or not (we all agree that it is). The question is whether the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith or not; whether we should add something else of equal authority along with the Bible.

Well then, would you add human reason and philosophy, as the liberals do? No, because the word of man could never be equal to the word of God. ‘Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar’ (Proverbs 30:5).

 

[kujo313]

First of all, regarding “foundation of our faith”: You may want to look up 1 Timothy 2:15, to find out what the foundation of truth is actually supposed to be.

Secondly: Do you believe that God is Three Persons, but one Substance? Where is that in Scripture, please? Remember: Quoting anyone outside of the Bible isn’t going to cut it.

Thirdly: Do you believe that Matthew’s Gospel, Titus, Ezekiel, and the Book of Job (just to choose at random) are supposed to be in the Bible? Where is the Scripture listing those as part of the Bible, please?

Fourthly: Regarding Paul’s use of “traditions” (from a previous post): the word SCRIPT-ure implies writing. Paul wasn’t referring to writings, but to the teaching of the Church of God in Christ (as he himself calls it).

In other words: Your own teaching on the Trinity–your own teaching on the Scriptural canon–your own use of Paul’s reference to “traditions”–all of these are Catholic. I realize you don’t accept the Church’s teaching on Mary. However, you may think to yourself (as I did), “You know, all these things I regard as ‘foundations of faith’ came from the Catholic Church. Could it be possible they could also be right about–” After that, you just start filling in the blanks.

My foundation is Christ (Matt 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1Peter 2:6-7)

(filling in the blanks)

“The Trinity is Biblical. Paul’s ‘traditions’ was what he taught (Scripture fulfilled through Christ). The catholic church put these writings together, called it the Bible and hid it from the people for hundreds, if not a thousand, years. THEN they interpreted it their own way to keep control of the people. It took a protestant to translate the Bible into a different language and the catholic church went on a rampage: ordering the destruction of the Bible translated in other languages, arresting and killing people.”

I’ll have to look it up to be sure.

 

[Mommyof02green]

What is the “word” of God?

Let us turn to first chapter of John. In the first chapter of John we see that the “word” was with God and the “word” is God. In the first chapter of John we see that the “word” became flesh.

This “word” of God is Jesus Christ!! How does Christ express Himself? Is the “word” of God, Jesus Christ, limited to pieces of paper bound in a book?

Christ is the “word” of God. Christ is NOT limited to pieces of paper bound in a book. Christ is living. Christ is in us and is with us.

Yes the Bible is scared scripture. Yes the Bible is the “word” of God. However the “word” of God, that is to say Christ, is not limited to pieces of paper bound in a book. (In my opinion of course)

 

[kujo313]

What is the “word” of God?

Let us turn to first chapter of John. In the first chapter of John we see that the “word” was with God and the “word” is God. In the first chapter of John we see that the “word” became flesh.

This “word” of God is Jesus Christ!! How does Christ express Himself? Is the “word” of God, Jesus Christ, limited to pieces of paper bound in a book?

Christ is the “word” of God. Christ is NOT limited to pieces of paper bound in a book. Christ is living. Christ is in us and is with us.

Yes the Bible is scared scripture. Yes the Bible is the “word” of God. However the “word” of God, that is to say Christ, is not limited to pieces of paper bound in a book. (In my opinion of course)

True, you cannot hold back the Holy Spirit. However, we’re told to test the spirits. How do you test them? By Scripture. The people listening to Paul searched the Scriptures. Jesus said that too.
We’re to stay away from “traditions of men” that take us away from Scripture: God’s “blueprint”, words of Jesus, Acts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Mommyof02green]

True, you cannot hold back the Holy Spirit. However, we’re told to test the spirits. How do you test them? By Scripture. The people listening to Paul searched the Scriptures. Jesus said that too.
We’re to stay away from “traditions of men” that take us away from Scripture: God’s “blueprint”, words of Jesus, Acts of the Holy Spirit.

It is your opinion that Catholicism take people away from scripture.
It is my opinion that Catholicism brings people closer to scripture.

That is why I am Catholic. That is why I will always be Catholic.
I love being close to God, I wouldn’t trade that for the world.

I am close to God because of Scripture.
I am close to God because of my walk with God.
I am close to God because of my Catholic Faith.
I am close to God because of the faith of others.
I am close to God because of…

I can listed endless reasons why I feel that I am close to God.

Praise be Jesus Christ, Now and forever.

God Bless!

 

[Lively_Stone]

The Gothic Bible had to be translated into the Gothic language. This means that it was NOT written in Gothic. This means the Gothic Bible would have been a “second” translation. What language was the Bible written in?? What language did they use to get the translation from??

The same as most early translations, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic-Syriac, and Latin.

 

[Mommyof02green]

The same as most early translations, Koine Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic-Syriac, and Latin.

Okay so what was the point of stating you can’t trace your bible back to 1st century Gothic, when Gothic is translation of the original?

Do you think oral tradition is the answer? Too easy to corrupt. I can trace the language of my Bible back to the 1st century Gothic.

The bible was not originally written in Gothic. The Gothic bible is a translation from Greek.

There is no doubt that the Gothic Bible was translated from Greek
wulfila.be/gothic/browse/

 

[Lively_Stone]

Alright, I appreciate this is a passionate discussion. But quips like this have been flung from both sides. This does NOT lead to productive discussion, and if you find yourself putting these in posts to try to gain ground in the debate, I ask that you refrain from posting in this thread.

Thank you all for your cooperation.

Rachel

Rachel: You are absolutely correct and I sincerely apologize for my offense. Please forgive me.
Danny

 

[Lively_Stone]

Okay so what was the point of stating you can’t trace your bible back to 1st century Gothic, when Gothic is translation of the original?

The bible was not originally written in Gothic. The Gothic bible is a translation from Greek.

I don’t understand the confusion. The words in the King James Bible are the same as the words in the Gothic translation, the Covendale, the Geneva Bible, The Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, and early Latin Bibles before Jerome as far as word meaning and synonyms… Of course they all have their roots in the languages of the originals. Never said they didn’t. Did you read my post on the Gothic origens of English as a language. I simply don’t understand what it is that you don’t understand.

Danny

 

[Lively_Stone]

That’s just a first few paragraphs of the link re: Papal Infalibility.
Feel free to read it all when you wish. (PS: There’s more scripture quotes in the link.)

I’m here to share the Truth but I’m also here to learn what my Non-Catholic Christian brothers and sister believe and why.

“Treat others the way you want to be treated”. If I want someone to listen and be open to my faith then I need to listen and be open to their faith.

God Bless

Thank you very much. Very informative.Thank you for your loving disposition. Everyone could learn from your example. God bless you
Danny

 

[Mommyof02green]

I don’t understand how you can date something to the 1st century when other sources say things like this:

The earliest extant document in Gothic preserves part of a translation of the Bible made in the 4th cent. A.D. by Ulfilas, a Gothic bishop

Link: answers.com/topic/gothic-language

We know that Ulfilas used the Greek for his translation.

There is no doubt that the Gothic Bible was translated from Greek
wulfila.be/gothic/browse/

We also know that he (Ulfila) did this in the 4th century.

Knowledge of it is derived primarily from the remains of a Bible translation made in the 4th century by the Visigothic bishop Wulfila or Ulfilas
Link: wulfila.be/gothic/gotica/

We don’t have extant documents of 1st century Gothic. Does that mean it wasn’t written then? I don’t know. I just know we do not have extant examples that date back to the 1st century. The earliest example we have of Gothic documents dates to the 4th century.

So at best you can say your bible dates back to 4th century Gothic Bible. This is because there is no way of proving that the translation used in the 1st century (if there was a translation) is the same translation used in the 4th century.

The reason there is no way of proving this is because there are 0 examples of Gothic documents prior to the 4th century.

Each century is 100 years. 300 years is along time. Many things can change in 300 years. There is no way of proving that the Gothic Bible (if there was one for that long) did not change in those 300 years. What is the reason for this? There just are just 0 existing examples of Gothic documents prior to the 4th century.

Also that begs the question why was Ulfilas, a Gothic bishop, doing a tanslation of the Bible into Gothic from Greek in the 4th Century if that was already done in the 1st century?

 

[guanophore]

how can you treat Mary the same way you treat the Creator of the universe? THIS is very inconsistent, to treat the Creator and his creation in the same way.

Clearly you have a misunderstanding of the reverence for the Blessed mother.

ALL honor should belong to God and God only.

This is not a very scriptural attitude:

Prov 11:16
16 A gracious woman gets honor…

Prov 21:21
21 He who pursues righteousness and kindness
will find life and honor."

Prov 29:23
but he who is lowly in spirit will obtain honor."

Matt 15:3-5
4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ "

1 Tim 5:17

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor,"

1 Peter 2:16-17
17Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor."

The point is that God was picking and chosing people and that He had plans with each one of them.

Yes, and His plan for Mary was that she would be blessed among women.

Luke 1:42-43
“Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

If Elizabeth can be honored by the presence of Mary, why can you not?

 

[guanophore]

EXACTLY the point ! You defend Mary so much! “Mother of Our Lord”, “Mother of God”, “Do you even pray the Hail Mary”.

Don’t you pray scripture?

The words that Jesus used in His prayers didn’t even include Mary. Note what you call the “Lord’s Prayer”. No Mary. How about our Lord’s Prayer in John 17? Nope. Not there, either.

With respect, you really don’t have any idea what type of communication there was between Jesus and His mother. Do you think He treated her with less honor than his ancestor solomon treated his mother?

19 So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right."1 Kings 2:19-20

Yet, it’s the catholic religion and denomination that not only makes statues of Mary but carries it around in public celebrations and protests (as in Latin America). It’s the catholic religion and denomination that would also carry paintings of Mary. it’s the catholic religion and denomination that would wear scapulars and pray roseries because Mary said so.
it’s also the catholic religion and denomination who’s Pope John Paul II gave honor to when he survived an assasain’s bullet. It was him who had written on his outfits an honor to Mary. It was him who had on his desk a decree (order) saying that Mary is a co-Mediatrix to Jesus (pope almost bowing to the wantings of MILLIONS of people, not the Will of God). It was a pope who said that Mary did not die.

The assumption of Mary was believed by Christians long before there was anything called the Roman Church.

It’s even at the top of this very web page, the way you look at Jesus and Mary: Jesus is a helpless human baby and has to be taken care of completely by Mary.

Do you deny that this was true?

You, personally, may not wear a scapular or pray a rosary (how many times is Mary referred to?), but countless millions are treating her as some kind of goddess.

In Christ, we are all a royal priesthood. Mary was the very first Christian, since she placed her hope in Him as saviour when the angel Gabriel came to her.

Don’t talk about some Protestant denominations going off the deep end. Trust me, I don’t belong to them. The RCC is off, too. That’s why I don’t belong to them, either.

Sounds like you feel very strongly about his, kujo!

If the mother of Jesus came to your house, would you give her that earful?

He didn’t come as a baby to show me that it’s ok to put my trust and confidence in Mary. Jesus came into this world the same way I did, as a baby, to show me the Way to God… His Way.

On the way, He shows all of us that if we love our mother or father more than Him, we’re not worthy of Him. He told us, through His Word, that we’re to leave our mother and father and follow Him. He also said that if we do the Will of God, then we can call ourselves His brother and His mother!

No one ever said you should love Mary MORE than Jesus. We are a family. Trying to squeeze Jesus’ mother out of the picture is not very family minded! Jesus also affirmed that the commandments are still valid.

4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.’ 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God." Matt 15:4-6

When somebody mentioned Mary, in Luke, Jesus used the word “rather” or “instead of that”. Mary heard and obeyed. John heard and obeyed. Paul heard and obeyed.

Yes, and it was Mary’s obedience that is the model for us. She is eternally saying to us “do whatever He tells you”.

You go ahead and admire Mary and she may point you to Jesus. I’LL go to Jesus, Himself as He said to do.

By the way, the subject of the picture at the top of this page is NOT: Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It’s: Mary, the mother: the focus of the RCC.

I’d rather focus only on the King.

I think you are a little out in left field here. Mary is not the focus of the RCC, except to the extent that she helps us bring our focus on to her beloved Son. Above, Jesus affirms that honor should be given to mother and father. He is talking about earthly parents.

 

[kujo313]

It is your opinion that Catholicism take people away from scripture.
It is my opinion that Catholicism brings people closer to scripture.

That is why I am Catholic. That is why I will always be Catholic.
I love being close to God, I wouldn’t trade that for the world.

I am close to God because of Scripture.
I am close to God because of my walk with God.
I am close to God because of my Catholic Faith.
I am close to God because of the faith of others.
I am close to God because of…

I can listed endless reasons why I feel that I am close to God.

Praise be Jesus Christ, Now and forever.

God Bless!

Catholicism brought me to Scripture, too. I’d look for myself couldn’t find some traditions in Scripture. If Scripture is infallible, then why go outside it?

 

[Mommyof02green]

Catholicism brought me to Scripture, too. I’d look for myself couldn’t find some traditions in Scripture. If Scripture is infallible, then why go outside it?

Again is Christ limited to scripture only? Is scripture the only way of knowing Christ?

Let us mediate on the last verses of the Gospel of John

This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true. Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25 NIV)

The world does not have room to hold all the books that could be written about Christ. That’s a powerful verse to mediate on and pray about in my opinion.

God Bless.

 

[Lively_Stone]

I don’t understand how you can date something to the 1st century when other sources say things like this:

Depends on your sources and who you believe. My source Dr. G. Riplinger author of 6 university text books, 2 very good Christian books, and an expert in linguistics believes the Goths had writing in their own languge before Ulfilas. Of course they would have been translated from the Koine Greek, Hebrew etc.

We know that Ulfilas used the Greek for his translation.
Yes he did you are correct.

We also know that he (Ulfila) did this in the 4th century
Correct again…I stated that in my post.

We don’t have extant documents of 1st century Gothic. Does that mean it wasn’t written then? I don’t know. I just know we do not have extant examples that date back to the 1st century. The earliest example we have of Gothic documents dates to the 4th century.

The word of God was given in the “language”
of “every nation under heaven.” The Bible, once complete,
was translated so that each man could have a Bible “in his
own language” (Acts 2:4, 5, 6, 7).

We have no extant manuscripts of any language of scripture dating to the 1st certury except possibly dead sea scrolls and some Nag Hamadi scrolls. Not sure about any of the Alexandrian text that are very few in number.

So at best you can say your bible dates back to 4th century Gothic Bible. This is because there is no way of proving that the translation used in the 1st century (if there was a translation) is the same translation used in the 4th century.

You could look at it that way I suppose if you dissagree with the Bible that says every nation recieved it in their own tongue.

The reason there is no way of proving this is because there are 0 examples of Gothic documents prior to the 4th century.

There are certainly Historians that know the Goths had written language, one can deduce from the fact they are recorded at least 300 years before Christ that they must have written somthing.

Each century is 100 years. 300 years is along time. Many things can change in 300 years. There is no way of proving that the Gothic Bible (if there was one for that long) did not change in those 300 years. What is the reason for this? There just are just 0 existing examples of Gothic documents prior to the 4th century.

Also that begs the question why was Ulfilas, a Gothic bishop, doing a tanslation of the Bible into Gothic from Greek in the 4th Century if that was already done in the 1st century?

Also in my post:All of these vernacular Bibles, written during the first
centuries after Christ, were destroyed during the
persecution of Roman Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 303.
John Foxe writes in 1583 of the worldwide persecution,
testifying, Could this be why Ulfilas had to use the Greek?

I tried to post something I thought of value for Contrary or what ever the episcopal that wanted to get close to the Catholic Church posted. I did his bidding as he challenge me said he was calling my bluff insinuating I was lieing. No one ever answered my questions, just more questions to try to put me on the deffensive to avoid tough questions and it worked. But everything seems to go in circles on this forum. What isn’t disputed and attacked is picked to death. The posting isn’t even congruent with anything of value. I have found my short experience on this forum to most distressing. No Biblical answers accepted. Some have been polite and other very rude like the episcopal contrary. I got in the flesh with him and for that I appollogize to him and to all. Staying on this forum will only lead me to more ungodliness and strife on my part. I must not neglect my studies and others whom I teach that recieve with all readiness of mind. I must not neglect my prayer life. I will be praying for all those on this forum and would appreciate the same if you all would be kind enough to pray for me. I will ask God to please return me to my former self before getting involved in this forum which is to win souls for Jesus Christ and not for any denomination and avoid strife as it only leads to ungodliness. I cannot express how truly sorry I am for not having presented a better example of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Though I failed, I know that the blood of Jesus and the work at the Cross has made me whole again.

Farewell and God bless everyone

 

[Mommyof02green]

Now I’m really confused. I don’t remember you posting what follows before. Of course I could have missed it. Can you tell me original post number is so I can read it in its original post? What I mean is: What is the post number in which I can also find this info at? Thanks!

Also in my post: All of these vernacular Bibles, written during the first
centuries after Christ, were destroyed during the
persecution of Roman Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 303.
John Foxe writes in 1583 of the worldwide persecution,
testifying, Could this be why Ulfilas had to use the Greek?

No one ever answered my questions, just more questions to try to put me on the deffensive to avoid tough questions and it worked.

Not to sound rude, but what questions? I went through this thread and I do not feel that I have over seen something. Although it’s possible. To be honest I had a hard time with your one post.

see link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2215268&postcount=411

For me it wasn’t written in a clear matter. I tried to make the best out of it that I could. Honestly I hated research papers in High School and what bit of college I did because of “citations”. I never could do them right… and to this day have a hard time with them.

I did try looking up what I thought was possibility the author of one of the sources, Bruce Metzger, and tried to find what I thought was the book sited. Of course because I have never been good at this I had no luck.

Things do go in circles from time to time. Often I find its due to A) people are taking pass each other and don’t grasp what the other is saying or B) People are here to hammer way their point without stopping to hear what others have to say.

Of course looking at my past posting I’ve been guilty of both and other things time to time. That’s why time to time I just PM someone and talk with them that way.

God Bless.

 

[Lively_Stone]

Now I’m really confused. I don’t remember you posting what follows before. Of course I could have missed it. Can you tell me original post number is so I can read it in its original post? What I mean is: What is the post number in which I can also find this info at? Thanks!

Not to sound rude, but what questions? I went through this thread and I do not feel that I have over seen something. Although it’s possible. To be honest I had a hard time with your one post.

see link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2215268&postcount=411

For me it wasn’t written in a clear matter. I tried to make the best out of it that I could. Honestly I hated research papers in High School and what bit of college I did because of “citations”. I never could do them right… and to this day have a hard time with them.

I did try looking up what I thought was possibility the author of one of the sources, Bruce Metzger, and tried to find what I thought was the book sited. Of course because I have never been good at this I had no luck.

Things do go in circles from time to time. Often I find its due to A) people are taking pass each other and don’t grasp what the other is saying or B) People are here to hammer way their point without stopping to hear what others have to say.

Of course looking at my past posting I’ve been guilty of both and other things time to time. That’s why time to time I just PM someone and talk with them that way.

God Bless.

Post # 411