Questions for Catholics

[porthos11]

1. No apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy, which would serve to confirm divine inspirations

This is a false assertion, and you must insist that he is applying his own criteria, therefore his own Tradition, defeating his claim of “Bible alone.”

The books of Chronicles, Nehemiah and Esther contain no predictive prophecies either. The Book of Wisdom, on the other hand, have many passages that point uncannily to Christ.

1. No new testament writer quoted from any of the apocyphal books as Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books

No New Testament writer ever quoted Nahum or Obadiah either, nor gave them the slightest authority as inspired books.

1. bible alone Jesus rebuked some of the Pharisees this Neglecting the commandment of God you hols to the traditions of men (Mk 7:8)

Read the context; Christ was condemning their corrupt tradition. St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15 clearly states to “hold fast to the traditions we have handed on to you, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

1. When Paul list the authority structure in the early Church in (1cor12:28) there is not mention of a pope"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers"

But Christ gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom. To see a parallel on how the “keys” work in the Old Testament, read Isaiah 22. He also tells Peter three times to “feed my sheep…feed my sheep…feed my lambs.”

Sounds like a primacy to me. Ask him why he exclusively quotes Paul and not Christ.

1. Paul corrects Peter in (Gal 2:11-14) If Peter had been a supreme pontiff during this time Paul would have been out of order. Pauls correction shows Peter was not considered suprem

So? Popes get corrected all the time. St. Catherine of Siena told the Pope to go back to Rome. Popes make mistakes and commit sin all the time. That does not detract from their supremacy when teaching on faith and morals.

1. Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prohets and apostles eph 2:20. Once a foundation is built no further foundation is needed and theref ore there is no need for apostolic successors

But how can the foundation of the apostles and prophets be sustained once they die? First of all, through their teachings, recorded in Scripture. But how can we be sure that these teachings in Scripture are not corrupted as many have tried to do?

That’s why St. Paul said this to Timothy: Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. 1 Tim 4:14. Also “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” 2 Tim 2:22.

1. in view of the tremendous attention paid to Mary in the Catholic church she is metion very few times in the new testament

So? It’s not a matter of how many times. Goodness, that guy Jabez was an obscure character who said a fairly selfish prayer, and look at all the attention he got among Protestants!

Mary on the other hand, was the Mother of the Lord, kept these things in her heart, and served as a model for us all; the best model of a Christian in the entire New Testament!

Why should we not honor the woman God chose as worthy to bear his own nature in her womb?

Some guys have their priorities wrong.

1. Jesus never exalted his mother as Catholic do. He is often seen downplaying her like calling her woman instead of mother

Your friend shows his ignorance. “Woman” in Jesus’ time is a title of honor, unlike the way many Americans degrade the word when addressing their wives and mothers.

The Angel called her “Hail! perfectly graced!” and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit said “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” And Jesus himself said, “Rather [meaning, “also”], blessed are they who hear the Word of God and keep it.” (oh wait, what does Luke say? “Mary kept all these things in her heart.”).

1. Jeus unique qualificaton as Redeemer is precisely what disqualifies Mary from being co redeemer she her self need a redeemer(Lk 1:48)

Yes, Mary needed a redeemer like all of us. Yet when you pray for another’s salvation, you are a co-redeemer. When you cooperate with grace, you are your own co-redeemer. Mary is just that, although the closest we have to Christ.

 

[porthos11]

1. Mary was the mother of Jesus the man not his devine nature of God.

This is the Nestorian heresy. Mothers are not mothers of natures. They are mothers of PERSONS. Who is the Person that is Christ? That Person is the Second Person of the Trinity: God the Son. If Mary was the mother of Christ the man but not Christ the God, then we have to Christs, two persons.

If that was the case, WHO WAS THAT WHO DIED ON THE CROSS?

1. God looks at us through the Lord Jesus Christ he sees us in all pure white holiness of his son. he does not see our sins

Yes, because we believe that we are truly cleansed of our sins. God just does not overlook them. He actually removes them.

1. Good works are a by product of salvation. We do works not to get salvation but because we have already gotten it.

Good works mean something only when we are in God’s grace. But we can sin by omitting to address people’s legitimate and basic needs. Read Matthew 25 and James 2:24.

1. Leviticus 3:17 says drinking blood is forbidden. In view of the scriptural teaching that drinking blood is forbidden do you think the deciples schooled in the commandments would have understood Jesus to be instructing them to go directly against the commandments?

Jesus said, “it is not what enters the mouth but what comes out of it that makes a person unclean.” Matthew 15:11

1. If The Church al over the world holds mass wouldnt jesus human body have to be everywhere present? Doesnt scripture teach that only christ divine nature not his human nature is everywher present. Christ body is in heaven (Rev 1:13-16)

Christ is now both God and man. His natures are inseparable. So where Christ is, both his natures are.

1. How can Jesus statement “It is finished” (Jn 19:30) be reconciled with the continual re-presenting of Christ sacrifice in the Mass?

Because the Mass is not another Sacrifice; it is the same Sacrifice which God makes present to us at Mass. Because Christ is in heaven, and heaven is beyond time, Calvary can be brought to us wherever and whenever we are. So indeed, it is finished. But it is now applied to us.

1. Instead of belivers having the full assurance of coplete forgivness of sins through the once for all sacrifice the Mass gives a constant reminder of sins and remaining guilt to be atoned for week after week

No. The Mass is thanksgiving and worship for his Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Yes, we should be aware of our sins and always repent for them. “Once saved, always saved” is contrary to the Bible.

1. The bible teaches that all sins not just mortal sins cause spiritual death or spiritual seperation from God

St. John disagrees. 1 John 5:16.

But yes, before baptism, all sin does separate us from God.

1. the apostles proclaimed Gods forgivness of sin based on belief in Christ as savior(Atcs 5:31) They merly announced what heaven already announced.

Read more: Acts 2:32. Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

The people had to wilfully accept the forgiveness offered.

 

[Bishopite]

[Odell;2232153]
I think this will be good and could branch off into some good threads.

1. No apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy, which would serve to confirm divine inspirations

Where in Scripture does it say “predictive prophecy” is the criteria for a book being inspired?

1. No new testament writer quoted from any of the apocyphal books as Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books

1/3 of the Old Testament isn’t quoted from the Apostles so does that eliminate those portions of the OT?

1. bible alone Jesus rebuked some of the Pharisees this Neglecting the commandment of God you hols to the traditions of men (Mk 7:8)

Not all traditions are bad, some are traditions of men others are from God…2 Thes 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” (NKJV) Also, 2 Thes 3:6,1 Cor 11:2 speak of Traditions handed down from God.

1. When Paul list the authority structure in the early Church in (1cor12:28) there is not mention of a pope"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers"

Peter was an Apostle and the head of all the other Apostles for only he received the “keys to the kingdom” (Mt 16:15-19).
The word “Pope” is a title given to the Bishop of Rome. I wonder if Sunday School is biblical since that word isn’t in the Bible either?

 

[Bishopite]

1. Paul corrects Peter in (Gal 2:11-14) If Peter had been a supreme pontiff during this time Paul would have been out of order. Pauls correction shows Peter was not considered suprem

The Pope can be corrected (he is not without sin) as St. Catherine of Sienna did in the 14th century by writing a letter telling the Pope to go back to Rome; the Pope did eventually go back because of Catherines perseverence.

1. Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prohets and apostles eph 2:20. Once a foundation is built no further foundation is needed and theref ore there is no need for apostolic successors

 

[jmcrae]

One thread one topic. I’d be happy to tackle these one at a time, but each one deserves more than a one or two sentence answer.

What he is looking for is memorizable one-liner "think-about-it"s that he can fire back whenever anti-Catholics come up with these statements in conversation - you know how at the dinner table or at a party when the subject of the Church comes up, and someone makes one of these kinds of statements, and you’ve got ten seconds to fire off a thought-provoking response before everyone says, “Oh, yeah, that bad Catholic Church!!” and then changes the subject - the idea is to get them thinking, “Hmm, maybe I don’t know everything there is to know about the Church.”

As he has pointed out several times already in this thread, under those kinds of circumstances, there is simply no time (and it’s also not really very appropriate) to get into a long discourse of apologetic proofs - you’ve got to punch in really quick and hard with one or two lines that get the point across.

Makes sense?

 

[Tom]

1. No apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy, which would serve to confirm divine inspirations

Impossible to answer, no person has ever read ever Aprocryphal book. Now if they are referring to the books of Scripture that the post reformation left out, they are absolutely incorrect. Read Wisdom 2,10-25, a chillingly accurate prophesy of the passion and death of Jesus.

 

[JoeyWarren]

What he is looking for is memorizable one-liner "think-about-it"s that he can fire back whenever anti-Catholics come up with these statements in conversation - you know how at the dinner table or at a party when the subject of the Church comes up, and someone makes one of these kinds of statements, and you’ve got ten seconds to fire off a thought-provoking response before everyone says, “Oh, yeah, that bad Catholic Church!!” and then changes the subject - the idea is to get them thinking, “Hmm, maybe I don’t know everything there is to know about the Church.”

As he has pointed out several times already in this thread, under those kinds of circumstances, there is simply no time (and it’s also not really very appropriate) to get into a long discourse of apologetic proofs - you’ve got to punch in really quick and hard with one or two lines that get the point across.

Makes sense?

EXACTLY!

 

[porthos11]

Tom;2234593**:

Impossible to answer, no person has ever read ever Aprocryphal book.

Now if they are referring to the books of Scripture that the post reformation left out, they are absolutely incorrect. Read Wisdom 2,10-25, a chillingly accurate prophesy of the passion and death of Jesus.

Many have read apocryphal books. I have read a few apocrypha myself.

Nevertheless, I think you know what the poster is referring to, and the wisecrack isn’t really necessary.

 

[Odell]

thanks everyone for your post they where very helpfull.

 

[Margita]

"Odell:

If some of you guys dont care to respond than fine. But I didnt think I would get so much rudeness out of my own faith group.

Odell, I am so sorry. I didn’t check your profile and went defensive with my first post. Again, please forgive me.
I’ll try again with some of these.

1. bible alone Jesus rebuked some of the Pharisees this Neglecting the commandment of God you hols to the traditions of men (Mk 7:8)

He also promised to keep the law in its fullness. He rebuked the Pharisees for abusing and altering the law to their hearts’ content. Church traditions are not “traditions of men”, they are divinely inspired rules and rites.

1. When Paul list the authority structure in the early Church in (1cor12:28) there is not mention of a pope"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers"
   Christ called Peter the rock on which He builds His church. The authority of the pope is based on what Jesus said and Paul believed. Paul knew what Christ said, therefore, he cannot have written anything contrary to it.
2. Paul corrects Peter in (Gal 2:11-14) If Peter had been a supreme pontiff during this time Paul would have been out of order. Pauls correction shows Peter was not considered suprem
   His authority was not that of a tyrant. He worked together with the apostles to build the church, they helped and counselled each other in their work. But that does not mean that Peter was not the Head of the Church in a theological sense.
3. Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prohets and apostles eph 2:20. Once a foundation is built no further foundation is needed and theref ore there is no need for apostolic successors
   There is a need - a generation comes, a generation passes away, there will always be a flock in need of a pastor.
4. in view of the tremendous attention paid to Mary in the Catholic church she is metion very few times in the new testament
   The Holy Spirit, as a character, does not speak a line in the Bible. Does that mean we shouldn’t worship him?
   Catholics pay attention to Mary just because her silence is so telling, so appropriate. She was doing her duty, playing her appropriate role in God’s plan by being silent. She was doing this faithfully, even in times of great trial. Therefore, she deserves our reverence.
5. Jesus never exalted his mother as Catholic do. He is often seen downplaying her like calling her woman instead of mother
   This is no downplaying, just a matter of language use. Calling someone “woman” in modern English sounds rude, it may well have been customary in Jesus’ age, in His language.
6. Jeus unique qualificaton as Redeemer is precisely what disqualifies Mary from being co redeemer she her self need a redeemer(Lk 1:48)
   But then, who said Mary was co-redeemer? She had her own unique role in God’s plan for man’s salvation, but each and every Christian has such a role. We are all working together to fulfill God’s plan.
7. Mary was the mother of Jesus the man not his devine nature of God.
   This is an age-old heresy. Jesus was both divine and human, if He came into this world in one nature only, as man, how could He have saved us?
8. God looks at us through the Lord Jesus Christ he sees us in all pure white holiness of his son. he does not see our sins
   The epistles of Paul and John teach us that whoever says they are without sin are lyers. God sees our hearts and our sins. Jesus himself exhorts us to repent.
9. Good works are a by product of salvation. We do works not to get salvation but because we have already gotten it.
   We do good works because we are told to do so by God. We cannot ignore His wish.
10. Leviticus 3:17 says drinking blood is forbidden. In view of the scriptural teaching that drinking blood is forbidden do you think the deciples schooled in the commandments would have understood Jesus to be instructing them to go directly against the commandments?
    That passage refers to the blood of animals.
11. If The Church al over the world holds mass wouldnt jesus human body have to be everywhere present? Doesnt scripture teach that only christ divine nature not his human nature is everywher present. Christ body is in heaven (Rev 1:13-16)
    The Eucharist is a miracle, and this means we cannot comprehend how it works.

 

[runandsew]

1. No apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy, which would serve to confirm divine inspirations
2. No new testament writer quoted from any of the apocyphal books as Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books

Jude 1:14
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints

We see that there is a predictive prophecy from the book of Enoch, and it is quoted in a New Testament book by a New Testament writer.

By the standards mentioned in your questions 1 & 2, then the book on Enoch should be in the canon.

First of all, around 300 out of the 350 quotes of the Old Testament that are found in the New Testament are worded the same as from the Septuagint, and not from the Hebrew Old Testament. The most famous one is from Isaiah where it says that the Messiah would be born of a virgin, the Hebrew Old Testament words it to be a young women.

So they either used the Septuagint or else they were too lazy to translate from the Hebrew to the Greek, and used the Greek version of the Old Testament to save time when writing their quotes.

Second of all, no matter what criteria protestants might give for them to consider a book to be inspired, the Church had the authority to determine this, no matter if the protestants agrees with it or not. The Church had this authority given to it from Christ himself, and with this authority, the Church determined which books were inspired and which were not inspired.

We see this authority in** Matthew 16:19**
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[JudieK]

I am reading Scott Hahn’s new book Reasons To Believe. This book is so amazing, and addresses ALL of these questions in a way that is easily understandable. Scott Hahn is a former Presbyterian minister who used to seek out Catholics in order to “save” them. He is now one of our greatest apologists. If you sincerely want answers to these objections (which do not lend themselves to quick and easy answers, because anything worth knowing is worth more than a “sound bite”), take the time to read this book. Catholics don’t usually throw around “proof-texts” to make points, because most are taken out of context. Quick and easy answers are rarely either.

 

[Odell]

Odell, I am so sorry. I didn’t check your profile and went defensive with my first post. Again, please forgive me.
I’ll try again with some of these.

its ok im sorry I knew they are offensive and I should of made my self more clear.

You do have some good responses though

 

[Odell]

I am reading Scott Hahn’s new book Reasons To Believe. This book is so amazing, and addresses ALL of these questions in a way that is easily understandable. Scott Hahn is a former Presbyterian minister who used to seek out Catholics in order to “save” them. He is now one of our greatest apologists. If you sincerely want answers to these objections (which do not lend themselves to quick and easy answers, because anything worth knowing is worth more than a “sound bite”), take the time to read this book. Catholics don’t usually throw around “proof-texts” to make points, because most are taken out of context. Quick and easy answers are rarely either.

Ill check it out thinks

 

[JudieK]

I’m so glad! Even if you do not accept what he is saying, at least it helps foster understanding!

One more point… when you did the PETER thing as the rock, and Jesus on top… I would say that Peter is the foundation of the CHURCH, the body of Christ. But Jesus is the HEAD, the high priest. Peter is not above Christ in anyway. Just like we have a head and a body (and the head controls the body!), Christ is the head and the Church is His body.

 

[JoeyWarren]

I’m so glad! Even if you do not accept what he is saying, at least it helps foster understanding!

One more point… when you did the PETER thing as the rock, and Jesus on top… I would say that Peter is the foundation of the CHURCH, the body of Christ. But Jesus is the HEAD, the high priest. Peter is not above Christ in anyway. Just like we have a head and a body (and the head controls the body!), Christ is the head and the Church is His body.

C___ H___ U__ R C H
JESUS Apostles & Prophets
P__ E __T E R

This pretty accurate according to scripture. But I left out the invisible parts and those parts that are visible when one magnifies it. All of the above rests on something invisible, and that is God’s love for us as stated in the first Part of John 3:16. So let me make the invisible visible.

C___ H___ U__ R C H
JESUS Apostles & Prophets
P__ E __T E R
GOD’S ETERNAL
L O V E F O R U S

Now let us magnifiy the church and see what holds the church together.

C*** HURCH

---

JESUS** Apostles****Prophets

---

PETER
GOD’S ETERNAL
L O V E F O R U S

See the red asterisks? That is the Mortar that holds the church together. It has three ingredients.

Dry stuff is Holy Spirit.
The fluid that is added is the Blood of Jesus.
The catalyst is the faith of Believers.

 

[Tom]

Many have read apocryphal books. I have read a few apocrypha myself.

Nevertheless, I think you know what the poster is referring to, and the wisecrack isn’t really necessary.

Typo, i meant " no person has read “EVERVY”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What he is looking for is memorizable one-liner "think-about-it"s that he can fire back whenever anti-Catholics come up with these statements in conversation - you know how at the dinner table or at a party when the subject of the Church comes up, and someone makes one of these kinds of statements, and you’ve got ten seconds to fire off a thought-provoking response before everyone says, “Oh, yeah, that bad Catholic Church!!” and then changes the subject - the idea is to get them thinking, “Hmm, maybe I don’t know everything there is to know about the Church.”

As he has pointed out several times already in this thread, under those kinds of circumstances, there is simply no time (and it’s also not really very appropriate) to get into a long discourse of apologetic proofs - you’ve got to punch in really quick and hard with one or two lines that get the point across.

Makes sense?

Two resources come to mind:

1. John Martignoni’s “Two Minute Apologetics” talk which is available as a free download from www.biblechristiansociety.com
2. Dave Armstrong’s new book, One Minute Apologetics, due out this month.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Odell]

Two resources come to mind:

1. John Martignoni’s “Two Minute Apologetics” talk which is available as a free download from www.biblechristiansociety.com
2. Dave Armstrong’s new book, One Minute Apologetics, due out this month.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

thanks Randy

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

these are some questions that I have seen. there real quick questions that I would like real quick answers to. They are anti Catholic questions than many people may run into I need help comeing up with a quick responce to each question for my notes. Kind of like John Martinoni’s 2 min apologetics. But these are more questions that he does not cover.

anyway please answer all the questions if you are going to respond I dont want to search all over the thread and only get some of the quesitons answered. Also if any Protestant has an issue with someones answers feel free to start a thread on the particular questons dont debate on this thred please all I want is quick answers to these quick questions

I think this will be good and could branch off into some good threads.

1. No apocryphal book contains predictive prophecy, which would serve to confirm divine inspirations

Most books in the Bible don’t - why must they ? There are better arguments against the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books than that ​

1. No new testament writer quoted from any of the apocyphal books as Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books

Matt. 27 at least echoes Wisdom 2 - whereas no NT book quotes the book of Esther as contained in Protestant & Jewish Bibles.​

1. bible alone Jesus rebuked some of the Pharisees this Neglecting the commandment of God you hols to the traditions of men (Mk 7:8)

That is a weak argument for Scripture Alone - He quotes Isaiah, but does not say that tradition as such has no value; it is the use of tradition to muzzle Scripture that He finds fault with.​

He says “traditions of men” - that is not an argument against traditions which are from God.

1. When Paul list the authority structure in the early Church in (1cor12:28) there is not mention of a pope"God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers"

Bishops are successors to the apostles - and the person who is called the Pope, is a bishop.​

St.Paul was writing for the Church as it was in his own time - the Papacy is a form of the Petrine ministry which developed later on, as did many other things, such as missionary societies. They aren’t named in the Bible either, which is precisely why some Christians have not approved of them. Neither is infant baptism - that’s why Baptists disapprove of that; Anglicans don’t. Calvinists don’t. Lutherans don’t. If Catholics can baptise infants, despite lack of Scripture for it, why can’t we have a Papacy, despite lack of Scripture for it ?

St. Paul wrote for the Church as it was in his day, not as it would be. He does not mention the commission of St.Peter either; but we have that, in Matt. 16; & that is the root of the Papacy.

1. Paul corrects Peter in (Gal 2:11-14) If Peter had been a supreme pontiff during this time Paul would have been out of order. Pauls correction shows Peter was not considered suprem

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Blessed Columba of Rieti, & Venerable Robert Grossteste had profound veneration for the Papacy; as their words show - & all criticised Popes. Why not ? Popes are not immune from sin or error, & it is an act of love to correct them “in Christ”. This is a million miles away from opposition to the Papacy as such.​

It is not true that because X is superior to Y in rank, Y is disqualified from correcting X. Attitude is everything here. Desiring to criticise others is dangerous - to do so in obedience to a Divine inspiration, is another matter. Without love, there is no holiness - & this love is what kept them from pride & hatred. They were anything but the sort of people who saw sin everywhere but in themselves.

1. Scripture indicates that the church is built on the foundation of the prohets and apostles eph 2:20. Once a foundation is built no further foundation is needed and theref ore there is no need for apostolic successors

No one today is that foundation; none is said to be.​

1. in view of the tremendous attention paid to Mary in the Catholic church she is metion very few times in the new testament

Not understood, sorry​

1. Jesus never exalted his mother as Catholic do. He is often seen downplaying her like calling her woman instead of mother
2. Jeus unique qualificaton as Redeemer is precisely what disqualifies Mary from being co redeemer she her self need a redeemer(Lk 1:48)

Mary is a gloriously holy creature. The Holy One has made her holy. He has become her own Son. Moses was a blessed man - yet even Moses did not see God face to face on earth; Mary did, not for a moment, but for many years. Peter said “Depart from me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man” - Mary nowhere says that. As “all Scripture is written for our learning” (Rom. 15.4), what must she not be, for whom God has done so much.​

[cont’d]