Plz Xplain

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would take a crack at any one of those… is there one that really concerns you?

-D
 
That site is fairly long, but uses some pretty old attacks on the Church. The first thing you must do is decide: By what authority can you judge the debate? The writer sets the tone by saying:
“The claim of the Catholic church to be the true and original church is a valid claim if and only if the teaching and practice of the Catholic church agrees with the New Testament” - says who? Once you “assume” his definition of right and wrong - he’s got you. Then he “guides” you along paths that show the teaching and practice of the Church doesn’t “agree” with the New Testament. He goes on and on, like attacking the Eucharist.

Check out this page for some help:

brocs.org/articles/index.html

I’ll pray that the Holy Spirit helps you in your journey to understand the one true Church.

-JohnDeP
 
Trust. I’ve already found the True church…and its not the Catholic church, or any denomination. But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God? This site…is an excellent resource into getting Catholics to explain their doctrines…it gives word for word, answer for answer on why the Catholic church is not scriptual. And it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.
 
Obviously, you had no real desire to seek the Truth when you started this thread. However, I will pick one of the topics on the link you gave and show the error. It’s funny that you say that the Catholic Church is not scriptual - I’ve seen Protestants attack it as being to literal in its following of the Bible!

From the website you link:
Note on Matt. 16:18 - The “rock” on which Jesus built His church is not Peter, but it is the truth that Jesus is the Son of God (v13-17). In this context, Jesus is not confessing and exalting Peter; rather, Peter is confessing and exalting Jesus! The “rock” on which the church is built (Greek PETRA) is a solid ledge of stone. It is not the same as Peter (Greek PETROS, a stone), but is contrasted to Him. This agrees with I Cor. 3:11 and other verses listed above, which show Jesus is the foundation of the church.

From catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp :
The words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

“Well,” I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, “I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek.” He smiled some more and nodded. “But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic.”

“The what?” he asked.

“The Aramaic,” I said. “As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place.”

“I thought Greek was.”

“No,” I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

“I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Matthew’s Gospel was written by him in Aramaic or Hebrew—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek.”

"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

“What’s more,” I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a large, massive stone, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is evna.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

“When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock.”

…to be continued…
 
…continued from above…

“Wait a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?”

“Because he had no choice,” I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

“I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek.”

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Maybe you should just keep looking through catholic.com; or do I have to quote line by line defeating your website? 😃

-JohnDeP.
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
Trust. I’ve already found the True church…and its not the Catholic church, or any denomination. But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God? This site…is an excellent resource into getting Catholics to explain their doctrines…it gives word for word, answer for answer on why the Catholic church is not scriptual. And it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.
That’s not true at all. You were given the opportunity above to select any particular topic from the lengthy websight for a rebuttal.

For example, if you would like to discuss the scriptural basis for the Eucharist, you may want to take a look at:
The Eucharist in Scripture

I suggest that you bring your lunch, however, as the amount of scripture may require a few hours of your time.

Peace in Christ…Salmon
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
Trust. I’ve already found the True church…and its not the Catholic church, or any denomination. But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God? This site…is an excellent resource into getting Catholics to explain their doctrines…it gives word for word, answer for answer on why the Catholic church is not scriptual. And it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.
You claim the Church is not sciptural, well know this the Church begot the Bible the Bible did not beget the Church. There was the Church that our Savior Jesus Christ started before the first book of the New Testament was written ( 1 Thess. about 65 A.D.). :confused:
 
I believe it’s important to be able to clearly explain ones own beliefs before slamming those of other people. If you’d like to debate a certain issue, name it. The website you refer to deals with a whole lot of arguments, which are rather tired, misleading, and completely false. But if you’d like, take your pick of any of these issues if you want and if there’s anywhere to have a friendly debate, you’ve come to the right place. I don’t know if any of us have the time to refute every single point but if you’re interested in the Faith, ask away and I’m sure you’ll have many, many replies!
 
Fisrt thing is we can explain things with boock chapter and verse, se sere doing so before there were books chapter and verse (chapter and verse are a relatively recent invention you know), secon when you start using sola scriptura you must also be albe to show me where in scripture is the list of books that belongs in scripture since that would be part of the teachings of a self-containing document…(the table of content does not count:) )
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
Trust. I’ve already found the True church…and its not the Catholic church, or any denomination.
I take it that you are what is known as “non-denominational” and that you feel it is not necessary for you to go to church to meet Jesus. Well, if you don’t believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, then you probably wouldn’t feel that you were meeting Christ at church anyway. However, Jesus did say “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I will be.” Now why would you forego that opportunity? Something to think about, eh?
But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God?
Would that be the same Bible which was originally compiled by the Catholic Church? I guess we know the truth when we see it.
And it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.
By the way, Jesus died for all mankind, not just for His church. Everyone has a chance at redemption. Can you see how the fullness of truth makes a difference?
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
Trust. I’ve already found the True church…and its not the Catholic church, or any denomination. But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God? This site…is an excellent resource into getting Catholics to explain their doctrines…it gives word for word, answer for answer on why the Catholic church is not scriptual. And it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.
…it gives deceiving word for deceiving word, lofty answer for lofty answer on “why the Catholic church is not scriptural.” I’m not sure what background you are coming from but can you show me where some noncatholic beliefs are scriptural? Where does the Bible say that the Eucharist is symbolic? Where does it say that Baptism is symbolic? Where does is say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith? Where does is say that the Apostles wrote down everything we are supposed to know? The last question can be directly contradicted (as they all can) 2 Thess. 2:15 says that we should hold fast to traditions either written *or spoken. *We do agree on one thing though. The christian faith should be soley based on the word of God. However, the word of God is contained not only in the Bible, but also in Sacred Tradition. The Bible makes this clear for us. 1 Thess. 3:13 “And for this reason we too give thanks to God unceasingly, in receiving the word of God from hearing us, you received not a human word, but as it truly is, the word of God…” These christians heard the word of God before the entire Bible was even complete. mmmm We are supposed to follow whatever the apostles wrote down or spoke and both seem to be the word of God.

If you think the Catholic Church went wrong then you really have no argument against it using the Bible. If the Bible is alll sufficient then why did it need an outside authority to recognize what was in fact inspired and was not. The Bible had to depend on some outside authority and therefore is not sufficient in and of itself. Also, if the Catholic church went wrong, then how do you know it did not go wrong when it recognized what books belonged in the Bible. How do you know exactly what books God wanted you to read in the Bible, if an erroneous Church made the decision? and if the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in recognizing the canon (which must be true for you to even argue anything from the Bible) how do you know the Holy Spirit doesn’t guide the same Church into all truth? If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, you would have no Bible.
 
Hi,

The Bible describes the True Church.
  1. Matt 16:18, The gates of hell will not prevail,
    That means the Church is infallible. Does your Church teach it is infallible? No. Only the Catholic Church accepts this promise from Jesus as applying to itself.
  2. John 6 “My Flesh is real food, My Blood is real drink”. Does your Church teach this. Probably not. Only the Catholic Church, the Orthodox and the Lutheran teach this truth. But only the Catholic and Orthodox teach it as the summit of our faith.
  3. The Bible tells us that man has authority to forgive sins. “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven and whose sins you retain are retained.” Only the Catholic Church accepts this promise from God.
  4. “Go and make disciples of the whole world” Only the Catholic Church is universal.
  5. Peter, feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed my sheep. Only the Catholic Church accepts the authority of Christ’s shepherd.
  6. “they followed the apostles and daily broke bread” Only the Catholic Church gives you your daily bread. Mass is provided on a daily basis where ever possible.
ETC, etc etc.

The Catholic Church is described in the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria
 
Plz Explain.

If you have indeed found the true church, as you claim, then I suspect you feel called to spread the truths you have learned? If so, then start a dailogue that has the potential to progress toward an end. It is you obligation isn’t it, to inform the unlearned?

Is the Eucharist the decided topic of this thread?
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
and if you can please explain your reasonings that would be great…
I’d like to see you explain a couple of things as well.
The Roman Catholic Church Compared to the Bible
Who is doing the comparing and is the comparison infallible? Why should we trust the authority of the one doing the comparing? Are the interpretations of scripture you put forth 100% infallible?

Remember, you are trying to sell us an extra-biblical authority (the one making judgments) so let’s find out if this is Sola Scriptura or Sola Mirrora being sold here.
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
Trust. I’ve already found the True church…and its not the Catholic church, or any denomination. But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God? This site…is an excellent resource into getting Catholics to explain their doctrines…it gives word for word, answer for answer on why the Catholic church is not scriptual. And it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.
You are very dishonest. :tsktsk: You claim to have a desire to understand what Catholics believe, link to an anti-Catholic website, ask us to explain all church teachings that you disagree with and then on the very same day make a statemtent “…it seems that you honestly cannot give why the Catholic church would be the church that Jesus died for.”
I really hope that you weren’t expecting to draw away any Catholics like that. You’ll have to do much better like actually engaging us! Sheesh! :rolleyes:
If all you are going to do is link a website then that is all you should get in return.
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
This is not an attack on the catholic church…i’m just simply trying to get an understanding…and if you can please explain your reasonings that would be great…
Troll. Just used the opportunity to link to an anti-Catholic screed. The troll has been fed.
 
40.png
Plzxplainwbcv:
But how do you explain what you believe without book chapter and verse from the Bible…the only inspired Word from God?
Plz, remember in Scripture where it explains that our Lord, Jesus the Christ, “opened” all of the Scriptures to His Apostles? Oh that must have been wonderful, what a wonderful gift to His Church. Please, could you help me find those explainations in Scripture? I’ve been looking for years and can’t seem to find them. They must be there IF the Bible is the sole reference. So where are they? Why does it repeatedly say “not all is written here” that must be some code, for surely all must be written there. And keep in mind our Lords own words, you are Peter, and on this rock I will write my book… oh well no that wasn’t it… what did He say??? sorry my memory is slipping.
 
The Barrister:
Troll. Just used the opportunity to link to an anti-Catholic screed. The troll has been fed.
He apparently lacks the courage of his convictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top