Protestants, can a Catholic Priest forgive sins?

[llblarosa]

Then why won’t you be forthcoming about the name of the Bible you prefer or about the church you attend, or do you not attend?

Lisa

 

[Ginger2]

So, do believe whatever Catholics tell you? If so I wish I had known that sooner, as it would save us a lot of time.

lol Just trying to start out on common ground.

Okay, but seriously folks … I find it a little offensive that you think that the fact that some Catholic told you something, somehow proves something. I mean, if you look you can some Catholic to tell you that contraception is okay. (How would it be if I started saying “Well you’re wrong about X, because I once knew a Protestant who told me Y”? Something to think about.)

Not one. The last time I discussed this, those were the “facts”. Not one Catholic disputed that the NT original documents no longer existed and they all seemed to agreed they were originally written in Aramaic. I thought that was something that was taught by the Church. I’m certain that is where I learned it.

I love to debate with Catholics, because I learn so much. I never take anyone’s word, but verify the information for myself. Catholics have so much information. Through our discussions I learn how to defend the faith. I think it is important to know why we believe what we believe. And to discover things we did not know.

Can you be a little more specific about what I allegedly changed?

I don’t really have a strong opinion on that one way the another. (I wouldn’t want to rule out the possibility that some of it was originally written in Greek.)

You are just stating a different history for the original languages then I have experienced in the past. Which means I need to research from a different viewpoint. That is frustrating right now because it means most everything I have needs to be thrown out and I need to start from scratch, but in the end I will be glad because I will have new information and be better prepare next time.

In all sincerity, until you brought it up I assumed that we agreed that the NT (or most of it, anyways) was originally written in Greek. Don’t know.

At one time it seemed everyone believed the NT was first written in Aramaic. But in recent times that is being disputed. If we go from the point of Greek being the original language, it will slow me down considerably because I will have to study on that. I am online this forum while I am working and don’t have alot of time for researching these days. (I am self employed so I am not cheating anyone. However, the more time I spend on this the less money I make )

There are some that say the original Aramaic was preserved. Not the original documents, but copies made in Aramaic. It shines light on some of the tougher verses and even makes a case for Mary’s genealogy when read in Aramaic. Unfortunately, I don’t read Aramaic so I can’t draw any real conclusion to the validity of the claim.

I believe the original language was Aramaic. But since we, you and I that is, are not really debating the NT, does it make a difference. The OT was written at a different time and we both agree all OT Scriptures were written first in Hebrew, don’t we?

 

[Ginger2]

Then why won’t you be forthcoming about the name of the Bible you prefer or about the church you attend, or do you not attend?

Lisa

I am not attending a church right now. I have attended Catholic, Baptist, non denominational, Lutheran and Methodist. That’s all I remember off the top of my head.

And I don’t see the big doctrinal differences Catholics keep claiming about the Protestant churches.
The two bibles I used the most are the KJ, NIV and of course I still have my Catholic Bible.

Now does this satisfy you or are you going to keep bringing it up?

 

[llblarosa]

Ginger:

I just want to know what you hope to accomplish? Are you planning to look for a church, leaning toward any? Do you think Christians should stand independently of any authority, i.e. your own authority?

Why are you so defensive? I have tried not to be accusatory? You just seem to spend a lot of time arguing here on this particular thread. Why?

Blessings,

Lisa

 

[Ginger2]

Ginger:

I just want to know what you hope to accomplish?

I just want to know what you hope to accomplish by knowing what Bibles I read.

Why are you so defensive?

Why call me a JW?

I have tried not to be accusatory?

What basis you have to call me JW? What have I said that sounds like watch tower doctrine?

If there was no basis for the accusation, why make it?

You just seem to spend a lot of time arguing here on this particular thread. Why?

You (and a few others) just seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what church I go to and what Bible I read. Why?

 

[Peter_J]

lol Just trying to start out on common ground.

Alright, I don’t object to that.

Not one.

Fair enough, multiple Catholics.

The last time I discussed this, those were the “facts”. Not one Catholic disputed that the NT original documents no longer existed and they all seemed to agreed they were originally written in Aramaic. I thought that was something that was taught by the Church. I’m certain that is where I learned it.

I love to debate with Catholics, because I learn so much. I never take anyone’s word, but verify the information for myself.

And yet it sounds like you did take their word for it, in the discussion you were describing.

I believe the original language was Aramaic. But since we, you and I that is, are not really debating the NT, does it make a difference. The OT was written at a different time and we both agree all OT Scriptures were written first in Hebrew, don’t we?

Actually, I don’t know one way or the other.

 

[Ginger2]

Alright, I don’t object to that.

And yet it sounds like you did take their word for it, in the discussion you were describing.

Because I don’t see any point arguing over which way it was.

Most of the time truth prevails despite unknown little details.

There are some things I will concede to keep a profitable discussion moving along and others that cannot be conceded because it would effect our ability to reach true conclusions. Still others I concede because I don’t know and can’t verify them one way or the other.

 

[llblarosa]

I just want to know what you hope to accomplish by knowing what Bibles I read.

You say you have a superior text. I just want to know how it came about, what its history is. Seems fair enough to me if were are comparing translations. What I do not understand is why you are so cryptic about it.

Why call me a JW?

You seemed to to be discounting both your Catholic bibles as well as your Protestant ones, so I quite naturally wondered why.

What basis you have to call me JW? What have I said that sounds like watch tower doctrine?

You have some similar arguments for dismissing the DC books.

If there was no basis for the accusation, why make it?

I made it because I thought maybe it would encourage you to be a little more forthcoming about your affiliations/Bible. What reason could you possibly have for not wanting to disclose it?

You (and a few others) just seem to spend a lot of time worrying about what church I go to and what Bible I read. Why?

I was not aware that others had wondered about these questions, but I am not surprised. It seems to me a legitimate question.

I reiterate that I have not been angry/retaliatory with my words. I merely want to know who you are religiously? Why do you want to hide it?

Blessings,

Lisa

 

[Ginger2]

I made it because I thought maybe it would encourage you to be a little more forthcoming about your affiliations/Bible. What reason could you possibly have for not wanting to disclose it?

Because when I answer, the dialog always turns to the presumed doctrine of Protestant churches. Altho we are off-topic already, I did not join this thread to talk about nor defend Protestant churches.

If you wish to discuss Protestanism, may I suggest you either join a Protestant thread, or start one?

I was not aware that others had wondered about these questions, but I am not surprised. It seems to me a legitimate question.

It is irrelevant because God does not change. God’s Word does not vary from one denomination to the next. Like I’ve pointed out before, if they don’t believe in the basic doctrines of Christianity, they are not really Christians. And nothing in the Holy Scriptures says we must have perfect understanding right from the beginning to be Christians.

I reiterate that I have not been angry/retaliatory with my words.

No just annoying. Just like Cinette. You ask a question and then keep asking and asking and asking. Did I not tell you once I do not belong to a specific church at this time? Then you ask again. So I state clearly I am not even attending a church at this time and you STILL are asking:

Why do you want to hide it?

I’ve hidden nothing. I can’t give you information that does not exist.

I use several translations, including the Catholic Bible I received as a child.

I merely want to know who you are religiously?

Blessings,

Lisa

Well, I thought I already answered that, too.

I’m a Bible-thumpin’ Jesus freak.

If you want to convince me of anything, please reason with me from Scriptures, because the wisdom of men is foolishness concerning spiritual things.

Finally, if you want to talk about me, go to this link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=290726

I will do my best to answer any and all question about ME!!!

But in this thread I have given my your duplicate questions the maximum allowed times.

 

[Ginger2]

PeterJ,

It’s been pleasant talking with you.

 

[celticcrusader]

I hear people say the ECF’s said this and that, have you really read and pondered what they said? There is some good info here at www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/confess.htm and also good info at The St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology @ www.salvationhistory.com look in the library for the apoligetic sect. on confessions. and if you read Tertullian his early writings are good but his later writings, I think after 212AD? were heretical. Oh yes , GINGER & LISA calm down go have a coffee break

 

[Peter_J]

Most of the time truth prevails despite unknown little details.

There are some things I will concede to keep a profitable discussion moving along and others that cannot be conceded because it would effect our ability to reach true conclusions. Still others I concede because I don’t know and can’t verify them one way or the other.

I have no objection to the practice of accepting some things as true for the sake of the present discussion.

What I do have a problem with (and I’ve seen this a number of times on the internet) is when Protestants say “I know such-and-such is true about the Catholic Church, because I heard it from a Catholic”.

Because I don’t see any point arguing over which way it was.

If you’re talking about the question of whether the NT was originally written in Greek or in Hebrew, then I agree: I don’t think it’s very relevant to this discussion.

In an attempt to get back on track, let me point you to the question I put to SyCarl:

You realize, of course, that the same criticism you’re making against Catholics can also be made against Protestants: there certainly wasn’t, in the early Church, a consensus that the “Apocryphal” books should be excluded, either. If “development” isn’t alright in Catholicism, why is it alright in Protestantism? (And, let’s face it, we Catholics at least admit to our developments.)

 

[ac_claire]

I have no objection to the practice of accepting some things as true for the sake of the present discussion.

What I do have a problem with (and I’ve seen this a number of times on the internet) is when Protestants say “I know such-and-such is true about the Catholic Church, because I heard it from a Catholic”.

Good point. Well what about this…what if we make an official rule in this discussion that nobody brings any hearsay evidence or information to the table? Present research you’ve verified, or things you actually know for a fact, or ask sincere questions if you don’t. But no trying to bolster your argument with “Catholics I know have done or said this” or “I know Protestants believe x, w and z because a Protestant I used to know told me so,” etc., etc.

Seems like that might help fascilitate a good discussion instead of just…frustration lol.

 

[Peter_J]

Good point. Well what about this…what if we make an official rule in this discussion that nobody brings any hearsay evidence or information to the table?

Yes. Or, at least, let’s all try not to.

Present research you’ve verified, or things you actually know for a fact, or ask sincere questions if you don’t. But no trying to bolster your argument with “Catholics I know have done or said this” or “I know Protestants believe x, w and z because a Protestant I used to know told me so,” etc., etc.

x, w and z? How un-alphabetical of you. :bigyikes:

 

[ac_claire]

x, w and z? How un-alphabetical of you. :bigyikes:

argh by the time I noticed that, it was too late to edit lol. Thanks for pointing it out for those who might have missed it!

 

[Ginger2]

I have a question…

Rev 21:14 says “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Can you name the twelve Apostles please?

Bear with me. This question is related to the topic. I just need to be sure we are all on the same page.

Thanks

 

[Ginger2]

…“I know Protestants believe x, w and z because a Protestant I used to know told me so,” etc., etc.

I think this was a Freudian slip.

 

[Peter_J]

I have a question…

Rev 21:14 says “And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

Can you name the twelve Apostles please?

Bear with me. This question is related to the topic. I just need to be sure we are all on the same page.

Thanks

The names of the twelves Apostles are different in different Gospels.

 

[Ginger2]

The names of the twelves Apostles are different in different Gospels.

Give me a list. I’ll go along with whatever you come up with as long as it resembles the Scriptures.

Who are the twelve in Rev. 21:14?

Once this is established I can comment on this thread.

 

[Peter_J]

Who are the twelve in Rev. 21:14?

Once this is established I can comment on this thread.

The Scriptures don’t say exactly, but the most reasonable answer would seem to be the eleven original Apostles, excluding Judas, plus Paul – although an alternative theory would say Matthias (cf. Acts 1:26).