"Smoking Gun" Found: Catholic Church False

  • Thread starter Thread starter GerardPaul
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LOL I give up until i can get a time machine and take you back and prove otherwise lol
You can’t prove it, even with a time machine – because it isn’t true.

If it were true, you could offer solid evidence in the form of ancient writers attesting to some method of preserving grape juice. You could find ancient texts telling how to do it. You could find copious mention in letters and books of that era of people drinking grape juice, not wine.

But you can’t show a single such source – because none exist.
 
You can’t prove it, even with a time machine – because it isn’t true.

If it were true, you could offer solid evidence in the form of ancient writers attesting to some method of preserving grape juice. You could find ancient texts telling how to do it. You could find copious mention in letters and books of that era of people drinking grape juice, not wine.

But you can’t show a single such source – because none exist.
And isn’t this whole line of reasoning interesting—when Scripture is inconvenient to a 20th century doctrine (Pentecostal Church prohibition on alcohol), why, we simply change the Scripture, absent any historical evidence whatsoever!

Forget trying to convince Catholics of sola scriptura—try convincing Protestants to keep from “tweaking” Scripture!

I simply am agog that anyone would try to claim that Jesus transformed water into grape juice, much less try to justify such a claim.
 
Buy some grapes at your local Wal-Mart and make grape juice. Let it sit out, unrefridgerated and tell us what happens to it.😛

Grapes and grape juice won’t keep – but wine will. It wouldn’t make sense to grow more grapes than you could consume before fermentation started if you didn’t make wine out of it.

And finally, read the account of the marriage at Cana – notice how the steward was impressed that the host saved the best wine for last – everyone else got the guests tipsy on good wine, then served the poor wine. Which indicates it was wine, not “grape juice” the guests were drinking.
I suppose somebody will now claim that it was actually fresher juice that was considered better by the steward and that the tipsiness was a sugar high.
 
I suppose somebody will now claim that it was actually fresher juice that was considered better by the steward and that the tipsiness was a sugar high.
Grape juice and Twinkies would made a wild party.😃
 
lol only in my dreams, actually it would be easier to keep fruits dry underground in a desert climate, now bugs etc that a whole other issue…But we do know from scriptire they had mastered storing grains. why not assume they mastered other things as well… Just because we have modern things dont mean we are super thinkers and better than those before us, matter of fact I think people back then had to be Intelligent to be able to do what they did without all the machines and electricity etc
The Romans were meticolous in keeping records. In addtion the Literature from that era is voluminous. Not once in any records ,writings, etc of the times is there any mention of grape juice . The idea Jesus and his apostles drank grape juice is another one of those myths, like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fideleis, that sprung up some 1,500 years after Christ founded his Church. Like much of Proetestanism they first developed the doctrine and then twisted scripture to supposedly uphold it.
 
The Romans were meticolous in keeping records. In addtion the Literature from that era is voluminous. Not once in any records ,writings, etc of the times is there any mention of grape juice . The idea Jesus and his apostles drank grape juice is another one of those myths, like Sola Scriptura and Sola Fideleis, that sprung up some 1,500 years after Christ founded his Church. Like much of Proetestanism they first developed the doctrine and then twisted scripture to supposedly uphold it.
wait I never said he drank grape juice and actually never heard anyone thought they had lol I said it was and still stand by what i said POSSIBLE

If he comes and tells me he never had any grape juice then i will say it isnt possible 😉
 
Ask him to show you where in the Bible that they are numberd as he has them rather than the way the rest of Christianity, including the Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic and all of the Apostolic Churches, number them. Don’t let him skirt the issue. He is making a false claim that he cannot back up. Make him prove, using “scripture alone” that the numbers he uses are more valid than the numbering used by 3/4 of all Christians.
He keeps saying the way the Jews list them must be correct because God first gave it to them. He also said the they are like an official document and altering it is promoting a lie.
 
The List of the Ten Commandments
The main 3 faiths to sort them out into “Ten” are:
Code:
1- The Jews:
    - First Commandment, Ex.20:2.
    - Second, Ex.20:3-6.
    -Tenth: The whole verse 17 (Ex.20:17)
2- St. Augustine (Catholics and Lutherans):
    - First Commandment: Ex.20:2-6.
    - Second: Ex.20:7
    - Ninth: Ex.20:17... Tenth, the second half of the same verse... v.17 ought to be divided into two because our culture does not consider a wife as a chattel. So she should not be listed with the neighbor's ox and *** as an item of his property.
3- Origin (Orthodox and other Reformed churches):
    - First Commandment: Ex.20:2.
    - Second: Ex.20:3-6
    - Tenth: The whole v.17 (Ex.20:17)
 
He keeps saying the way the Jews list them must be correct because God first gave it to them. He also said the they are like an official document and altering it is promoting a lie.
So does he number them the way the Jews number them?
10 commandments "Jewish":
1. I am the Lord your G-d who has taken you out of the land of Egypt.
Exodus 20:2
2. You shall have no other gods but me.
Exodus 20: 3-6
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your G-d in vain.
Exodus 20:7
4. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
Exodus 20: 8-11
5. Honor your mother and father.
Exodus 20:12
6. You shall not murder.
Exodus 20:13
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14
8. You shall not steal.
Exodus 20:15
9. You shall not bear false witness.
Exodus 20:16
10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Exodus 20:17
Or does he uses the numbering done by Origen?
10 Commandments "Origen":
**1.**You shall have no other gods but me.
Exodus 20:3
**2.**You shall not make unto you any graven images.
Exodus 20: 4-6
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Exodus 20:7
4. You shall remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy.
Exodus 20: 8-11
5. Honor your mother and father.
Exodus 20:12
6. You shall not murder.
Exodus 20:13
7. You shall not commit adultery.
Exodus 20:14
8. You shall not steal.
Exodus 20:15
9. You shall not bear false witness.
Exodus 20:16
10. You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor
Exodus 20:17
Sources: The Catholic Church Changed The Ten Commandments?
And Which Ten Commandments?
 
The numbering of the commandments and the list are just “SHORT HAND”. It’s way to help the people remember them. (Especially children). We all have Bibles we can look up the whole verses and read more then the short hand list.
Catholicism for Dummies page 197:
There is no theological reason but merely the historical fact that Catholics AND Lutherans have always numbered their Commandments this way and other Protestant have numbered them their way. It’s like the reason the British drive on the left side of the road and Americans drive on the right; a matter of custom, that’s all
If he prefers Origen’s numbering and SHORT HAND fine! If he prefers the Jewish numbering and SHORT HAND fine! If he prefers Augustine’s numbering and SHORT HAND fine.

Let it be and ask him to do the same because at the end of the day it’s like this:
“Ten Commandments” are part of the sacred scriptures that we all share, and should not be controversial.


It should NOT matter what SHORT HAND we use… what matters is that we understand them and follow them.

Maybe he should just read the WHOLE section from the CCC regarding the 10 commandments. Ask him to forget about the short hand and the numbering just for a moment. Tell him that you just want to find out what exactly he doesn’t like about the ACTUAL teachings.

CCC: Commandements 1-3
CCC: Commandments 4-10
 
The problem is, if you ask certain Protestants if coveting a wife is different than coveting a donkey, they will say, “No difference.”

All of the groups of evangelical Protestants that I was associated with over the years said that no sin was greater or less than another sin. I remember someone gave us the example once that stealing a pencil from work is no different than raping and murdering a child.

So don’t ask the question about coveting the wife vs. the donkey, because you might not like the answer and you will probably want to punch the Protestant in the face. (I wanted to when they gave the pencil vs. child rape/murder example.)
As a Catholic, I think burning them at the stake is more appropriate than punching them in the face, don’t you think? 😉
 
So don’t ask the question about coveting the wife vs. the donkey, because you might not like the answer and you will probably want to punch the Protestant in the face. (I wanted to when they gave the pencil vs. child rape/murder example.)
Ask them how they would feel if you stole a pencil from them, and how they would feel if you murdered their child. I’m sure there is a difference.
 
They really do not as they do not treat it as Christ is present. Granted there are plenty of Catholics who do not either, but faithful, orthodox Catholics who follow Catholic teaching realize that Jesus is present, so He requires adoration.

I am not so sure about Coptic Christians.

In Christ
Scylla
Old style Lutherans do believe the Eucharist is Christ. They err in thinking that Christ exists in the Eucharist ALONGSIDE the elements, whereas Catholics believe the elements have been changed to Christ’s body and blood.
 
All of the groups of evangelical Protestants that I was associated with over the years said that no sin was greater or less than another sin. I remember someone gave us the example once that stealing a pencil from work is no different than raping and murdering a child.
I had a good friend turn red in the face arguing the same point to me. I calmly asked him to take out his trusty KJV and read the following from 1 John aloud. He obviously had no reply. 😃

5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not leading to death,
he shall ask, and God will give him life for those who sin not leading to death.
There is a sin leading to death.
I don’t say that he should make a request concerning this.
5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
 
Let’s not forget that Jesus told Pilot that the one who handed Jesus over to him was guilty of the GREATER sin. If there are greater sins, then that implies that there are lesser sins and if there are greater sins and lesser sins, then not all sins are equal.
 
As a Catholic, I think burning them at the stake is more appropriate than punching them in the face, don’t you think? 😉
well tons of catholics believed that way centuries ago thats for sure ask the aztecs and mayans
they almost became extinct.

I personally dont feel that way though, if someone dont want to believe in something its not my job to force them or as you say Burn them because they dont feel as i do thats kind of judgemental in my opinion…
 
I had a good friend turn red in the face arguing the same point to me. I calmly asked him to take out his trusty KJV and read the following from 1 John aloud. He obviously had no reply. 😃

5:16 If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin not leading to death,
he shall ask, and God will give him life for those who sin not leading to death.
There is a sin leading to death.
I don’t say that he should make a request concerning this.
5:17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
That is if you really understand what this is really teaching…this is teaching of a complete and utter rejection of the gospel…now, it may take the form of premeditated sin that is enjoyed and continued without conviction and without chastisement…but the root of that sin is unbelief. And if you continue in the context…

1 John 5:18-19 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. 19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

This cannot mean that they never sin - but that they will never commit this sin…Mortal sin is not the loss of salvation as some say but a sin that is commited by unbelievers…one who has been born again will not commit mortal sin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top