the way to 'win debates' with non-catholics

[traillius]

Use ‘sola scriptura’ Yes I know its faulty, but indulge it and you can’t lose. Quote the bible. If you quote bible directly, the opposition is left with only three choices, unless they want to argue the bible is false. The choices are

1. admit you are right, based on scripture
2. say nothing
3. resort to ad hominems.
   An honest debate is always possible, but if you go directly to scripture, they can’t use scripture against you, and remain legitimate. And they don’t have much else, since they cling to sola scriptura.

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but I find that it doesn’t always work that way. Here’s an example I am dealing with today, and I chose the less hateful and ugly post to share here. So in the spirit of staying on topic, how would you approach this ‘sola scriptura’ fella?

I was wondering how more experienced Catholics might respond to a post such as this, if at all. I just acknowledged that he hates my faith and asked if he had any more hate to get off his chest. I would like to address it, but I have a hard time ducking ALL the bird shot at one time. Thanks for any help. By the way, this is all posted in bold, using red and black and blue fonts. I removed the detail on each of the references he quoted, moslty presenting his anti-trinitarian, and anti Catholic baptism arguments…I think he’s missing his meds, but…help?

Learning & truth is an insult & shutdown to catholics & muslims…

we can already see this…catholislamics never OPENLY discuss the topiX of facts…

The FACT is …in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA reads the following…

…There has been theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. St. Paul commands disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name:

“They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.

Philip ordered to baptized in the name of Jesus Christ". We have the explicit command of Peter "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts, ii).

Some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only.
Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person

has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father & Son & Holy Ghost”

End of Quote

So we have the HOLY BIBLE declaring that the APOSTLES baptised in the Name of Yashuah…the Anointing / Christ…

We have 14 - 15 other Encyclopedia FacTs declaring that this is a FACT…

We have the entire bible declaring that Jesus is the NAME & MORPH of the Father & of the Son & Spirit…

You have the Roman Tic scriblings ( FORGED, FAKE & FRAUD doccuments )

of a perverted cult church THAT Jesus never mentioned .

If Jesus never mentioned a ROMAN catholic church…THE BIBLE never mentiones a ROMAN caTholic church…or a church in ROME

Paul Was murdered trying to esTablish a church in ROME…where THIS church, When Jesus sent his Apostle John To send his word to the churches ?

Your Church has no record of having anything to do with the bible intill 400 yrs after Jesus ?

Jesus never MENTIONED a Catholic OR A ROMAN church to receive the bible he COMMANDED John to send to his 7 main churches …

He named all his 7 main TOP CHURCHES by LOCATION…

Rome was not on the list…Why ?

Encyclopedia of Religion & Ethics (1951). II, 384, 389:
Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (1962), I 351:
tto Heick, A History of Christian Thought (1965), I, 53:
Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (1947), page 58:
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1957), I, 435:
Canney’s Encyclopedia of Religions (1970), page 53:
Encyclopedia Biblica (1899), I, 473:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1920), II 365:
FAUSSETS BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, page 359 -
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967 Edition, Vol.13, p.1021
World Book Encyclopedia, 1975 Edition, Vol. T, p.363 (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).
(New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 304. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
NEW INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA, Vol 22, Pg 477

 

[TimothyH]

You don’t win. If you go into an apologetics debate trying to “win” you are going to lose. We are all God’s children. We are Mary’s children. Parents hate it when their children fight. Other Christians are not people whom we need to beat in arguments and besides, you are always going to get some guy who is going to bash you over the head with Bible verses.

Stick to one topic that you know. Keep bringing the conversation back to that topic by simply saying you don’t know how to answer to their arguments, that you haven’t looked into that aspecct of your faith in enough depth to be able to articulate it effectively (or whatever) and then turn the conversation back to what you know. Just try and plant a seed… impress upon the non-Catholic that there is one point of truth or beauty in Catholicism and let it go. My goal is always to have them say, “Wow, that’s pretty cool. I never understood why Catholics believed that but now that you have explained that, it does kinda makes sense” or something similar and then my work is done. If I think they are receptive then I may invite them to Mass.

Here in the deep south, just articulating a Catholic position in a way which is understandable is likely send the non-Catholic reeling. Often it’s the first time they have every heard a Catholic explain anything Catholic and the first time they have every heard any of the steriotypes they have been taught refuted. It can be shocking and I have learned to be gentle as it can actually scare people off.

Anyway, you can’t try to win. You can try to plant a seed and then pray, pray, pray… I have had several people, including one Methodist pastor, who, after hearing me explain some Bible passage from the Catholic perspective, has called me to ask what the “Catholic position” is on some subject of morality or some Bible passage. Just articulate one or two subjects clearly, leave a Catholic bible and a picture of Mary on your desk at work and people will come to you and start asking questions. Then go get the answer and get back to them - and when the time is right, invite them to Mass.

Always invite people to Mass. Go to a big parish with huge crowds all saying “Amen!” in unison, Masses with eleven priests and seven deacons and six altar servers and full chior and elaborate liturgies - it blows Evangelical’s minds.

-Tim-

 

[rinnie]

I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but I find that it doesn’t always work that way. Here’s an example I am dealing with today, and I chose the less hateful and ugly post to share here. So in the spirit of staying on topic, how would you approach this ‘sola scriptura’ fella?

I was wondering how more experienced Catholics might respond to a post such as this, if at all. I just acknowledged that he hates my faith and asked if he had any more hate to get off his chest. I would like to address it, but I have a hard time ducking ALL the bird shot at one time. Thanks for any help. By the way, this is all posted in bold, using red and black and blue fonts. I removed the detail on each of the references he quoted, moslty presenting his anti-trinitarian, and anti Catholic baptism arguments…I think he’s missing his meds, but…help?

I have learned that when someone is like that, it does not matter what you show them. or try to show them they will not accept the truth no matter what.

I had a cousin like that once, she would argue and argue until the cows came home. She would swear that the Pope is the devil and the Blessed Mother had other kids. No matter what I showed her she would not accept the truth. We actually had to part ways.

She was the first person ever that I can say that happened with, and I hope the last. But I learned she was like that with everyone.

I even e-mailed a Monk once for advice.

He told me for some People if Jesus Christ himself stood in front of the Church and taught it they would not accept the RCC. When people are blind with hate the best you can do is as our Dear Lord tells us shake the dust and move on. Trust me they will not listen no matter what you say or do. Maybe in time, but probally not in OUR TIME

 

[Saul_DelTarso]

I decided not to engage him beyond this, and used the KJV just to remove that objection.:

Matthew 28: 18-20

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

II Corinthians 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

and left it at that.

 

[Barbkw]

Winning is a confrontational theology.

I enjoy listening to prior Sola Scriptura Christians on the EWTN program “Journey Home” because many know Scripture very very well. They remind me of how Jewish oral tradition was passed generation to generation.

It’s the bright light that remains from the Reformation.

People growing up in protestant faiths rarely realize that Christianity was Catholic at its roots.

With study, some slowly come to that realization and then they start weighing their protestant denominational practices against the practices of the Early Church and Catholicism.

 

[JRKH]

Use ‘sola scriptura’ Yes I know its faulty, but indulge it and you can’t lose. Quote the bible. If you quote bible directly, the opposition is left with only three choices, unless they want to argue the bible is false. The choices are

1. admit you are right, based on scripture
2. say nothing
3. resort to ad hominems.
   An honest debate is always possible, but if you go directly to scripture, they can’t use scripture against you, and remain legitimate. And they don’t have much else, since they cling to sola scriptura.

Actually there is another choice that is quite common

1. You are understanding the passages wrong. (wrong interpretation)

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

I decided not to engage him beyond this, and used the KJV just to remove that objection.:

Matthew 28: 18-20

II Corinthians 13:14

and left it at that.

Good…plant the seed, and show your faith by your actions and humility. You cannot win him over by arguing, only through love and charity and our example.

Romans 11:15-22 (New King James Version)

15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” 20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. 22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness,[a] if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.

 

[jlhargus]

I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but I find that it doesn’t always work that way. Here’s an example I am dealing with today, and I chose the less hateful and ugly post to share here. So in the spirit of staying on topic, how would you approach this ‘sola scriptura’ fella?

I was wondering how more experienced Catholics might respond to a post such as this, if at all. I just acknowledged that he hates my faith and asked if he had any more hate to get off his chest. I would like to address it, but I have a hard time ducking ALL the bird shot at one time. Thanks for any help. By the way, this is all posted in bold, using red and black and blue fonts. I removed the detail on each of the references he quoted, moslty presenting his anti-trinitarian, and anti Catholic baptism arguments…I think he’s missing his meds, but…help?

JL: Mark

 

[Sufjon]

You don’t win. If you go into an apologetics debate trying to “win” you are going to lose. We are all God’s children. We are Mary’s children. Parents hate it when their children fight. Other Christians are not people whom we need to beat in arguments…

:
Sufjon likes that.

 

[GeorgeTheWild]

Use ‘sola scriptura’ Yes I know its faulty, but indulge it and you can’t lose. Quote the bible. If you quote bible directly, the opposition is left with only three choices, unless they want to argue the bible is false. The choices are

1. admit you are right, based on scripture
2. say nothing
3. resort to ad hominems.
   An honest debate is always possible, but if you go directly to scripture, they can’t use scripture against you, and remain legitimate. And they don’t have much else, since they cling to sola scriptura.

First, you shouldn’t be trying to win the disagreement. Using that mindset will only cause your “opponent” to entrench more in their views and be completely closed off to your point of view because they feel like they’re being attacked.

Second, simply quoting scripture at someone isn’t going to work because you forgot the fourth option: they can assert that your interpretation of the scripture is not completely correct. Simply quoting scripture will also not work very well if you’re using an old translation like the douay rheims translations which many Protestants will contest. You’d be much better using the NAB translation which is actually very similar to the Protestant NASB from what I’ve seen. When discussing differences with my Catholic brothers and sisters on this forum, I try and use the NAB when at all possible since it’s a translation we can both generally agree upon even though I personally use the NIV translation.

 

[KathleenGee]

I don’t think about winning debates, but see it more as sanctifying grace active in a person’s soul that readies him/her to hear the truth and embrace it.

 

[adelore]

I really don’t want to “Win” a debate with non-catholics. I do however enjoy talking about my religion and I enjoy hearing about theirs. No one Wins a Debate! (they only think they do, at the time.)

To “Win” a debate, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong. (Or one or the other has to “score” more points.)

When two people can talk and share thougths, chances are we will “Plant” a seed for Jesus. Then we let the Holy Spirit take it from there. It doesn’t matter if “We” ever know the out come, it’s not for us. It’s for Jesus and His True Church.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

First, you shouldn’t be trying to win the disagreement. Using that mindset will only cause your “opponent” to entrench more in their views and be completely closed off to your point of view because they feel like they’re being attacked.

In a way your right you shouldn’t be trying to win a disagreement, because the whatever the issue is it probably already won by some apologist, theologian or writer. So the goal shouldn’t be to win oneself an argument but to learn what is won. A person should be trying to learn as much as they possible can. Disagreements aren’t bad in themselves, really what it comes down to is the attitude of people involved and who they treat each other. I think it’s ok to engage in a debate, as long as it is done civilly, and it ok to set a goal for oneself (but like sports it better to compete against yourself to do the best you can than to try to defeat your opponent). The best thing to do is to articulate what you know the best you can then let go and let God.

 

[PLAT]

Actually there is another choice that is quite common

1. You are understanding the passages wrong. (wrong interpretation)

Peace
James

 

[jlhargus]

I don’t intend to hijack the thread, but I find that it doesn’t always work that way. Here’s an example I am dealing with today, and I chose the less hateful and ugly post to share here. So in the spirit of staying on topic, how would you approach this ‘sola scriptura’ fella?

I was wondering how more experienced Catholics might respond to a post such as this, if at all. I just acknowledged that he hates my faith and asked if he had any more hate to get off his chest. I would like to address it, but I have a hard time ducking ALL the bird shot at one time. Thanks for any help. By the way, this is all posted in bold, using red and black and blue fonts. I removed the detail on each of the references he quoted, moslty presenting his anti-trinitarian, and anti Catholic baptism arguments…I think he’s missing his meds, but…help?

JL: Catholic Encyclopedia, Click here newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm Move down click on Matter and forms of the Sacrament. Move down to FORMS then move down 8 paragraphs for baptism in Jesus’ name only. Then move down to paragraph 10 Pope Stephen I, this is what you are quoting or rather misquoting.

Adversary: Learning & truth is an insult & shutdown to catholics & muslims…
we can already see this…catholislamics never OPENLY discuss the topiX of facts…
The FACT is …in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

JL: Well you got something right in this post, The FACT is …in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. Now all you need to do is read it.

Adversary: Here the Catholics acknowledged that baptism was changed by the Catholic Church. – Vol. 2, pg. 263.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA reads the following…

…There has been theological controversy over the question as to whether baptism in the name of Christ only was ever held valid. St. Paul commands disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ’s name:

JL: I added bold print to the above. The COMMAND of our Lord IS to baptize in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Mt28:19. The Church has always done so from apostolic times and will continue until the END. Notice the QUESTION was not over baptizing in the name of the Trintiy, but WHETHER baptizing in the name of Christ only WAS EVER HELD as VALID. The question was if one was baptized in the name of Christ only, by a heretical group and came into the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm3:15, would they need to be baptized again. When scripture says they were baptized in the name of Jesus, it means they were baptized in the name of Jesus’ authority. Just as when one says, I arrest you in the name of the king, they are being arrested in the name of the kings authority.

Adversary: “They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” In Acts 10, St. Peter ordered others to be baptized “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.
Philip ordered to baptized in the name of Jesus Christ". We have the explicit command of Peter "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts, ii).

Some theologians have held that the Apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father & Son & Holy Ghost” End of Quote

JL: End of misquote. Notice SOME not the Church. Where, in this so called quote, does it EVEN say the Church changed baptism? this so called quote rings like a made up out of context statement. it really makes no sense, for instance the statement, “Pope Stephen required an explicit mention of the Trinity in baptism, for he quotes the pontiff as declaring that the sacramental grace is conferred because a person has been baptized “with the invocation of the names of the Trinity, Father & Son & Holy Ghost”.

Stephen was the pontiff, your so called quote is totally out of context as can be seen in the original, click on Matter and form of the sacrament Move down to FORM then move down to paragraph 10 Pope Stephen. This is what is being quoted or rather misquoted. I would like to see the source for this so called quote. I bet it would be an unreliable anti-Catholic group. There has NEVER been a controversy or CHANGE in the Church about baptizing in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. The controversy was should those baptized in the name, of the Lord Jesus Christ only, be baptized again.

Adversary: So we have the HOLY BIBLE declaring that the APOSTLES baptised in the Name of Yashuah…the Anointing / Christ…
We have 14 - 15 other Encyclopedia FacTs declaring that this is a FACT.
We have the entire bible declaring that Jesus is the NAME & MORPH of the Father & of the Son & Spirit…

JL: We also have the bible declaring thru the mouth of our Lord and God Jesus Christ in Mt28:19 to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as the apostles did. I bet none of those Encyclopedias listed say what you tell us they say. it’s window dressing to appear you have evidence. I bet you have NEVER even seen one of those Encyclopedias little lone read one. I challenge you go to a library and verify.
CONTINUED

 

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED:

Adversary: You have the Roman Tic scriblings ( FORGED, FAKE & FRAUD doccuments )
of a perverted cult church THAT Jesus never mentioned .

JL: You are incorrect we don’t have your cult’s documents the Roman Tic scriblings, THAT Jesus never mentioned. I don’t even know what Tic scriblings mean, you will have to tell US? Jesus didn’t mention the church at Jerusalem or Antioch, where we were first called Christians did he? He certainly didn’t mention your cult.

Adversary: If Jesus never mentioned a ROMAN catholic church…THE BIBLE never mentions a ROMAN caTholic church…or a church in ROME
Paul Was murdered trying to esTablish a church in ROME…where THIS church, When Jesus sent his Apostle John To send his word to the churches ?

JL: Now your ignorance of scripture is showing clearly. So your cult”s bible doesn’t have the book of Romans.

Adversary: Your Church has no record of having anything to do with the bible intill 400 yrs after Jesus ?

JL: You do know the Church was up and proclaiming the gospel, conveting and baptizing thousands, at lest twenty years, before the first letter of the New Testament was ever written? To whom do you think those letters were written, non-believers? When and what bible did your cult use before 400AD, the King James version, tee hee? Name the people in you cult who decided which books where and where not inspired.

Adversary: Jesus never MENTIONED a Catholic OR A ROMAN church to receive the bible he COMMANDED John to send to his 7 main churches

JL: So your cult’s bible is the book of Revelation ONLY?
I see you have posted no evidence to support your statement. Since you don’t know there was a church at Rome, you obviously have never read the book of Romans, evidently it isn’t part of your cult’s bible.

Rms1:1 1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 … 3 … 4 … 5 … By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be IN ROME, BELOVED OF GOD, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I THANK my GOD through Jesus Christ FOR YOU ALL, that YOUR FAITH IS SPOKEN OF THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD.

[Rms15:14 And **I myself also am persuaded of you, MY BRETHREN, that YE ALSO ARE full of goodness, FILLED WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE, able also to admonish one another. 15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. 17 I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God. 18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, 19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. 20 Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation: 21 But as it is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall see: and they that have not heard shall understand. 22 For which cause also I have been much hindered from coming to you. 23 But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come unto you; 24 Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I TRUST TO SEE YOU IN MY JOURNEY, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. 25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.] The Church in Rome was, FILLED WITH ALL KNOWLEDGE, up and proclaiming the gospel when Paul (who had never been there) wrote to them. Paul was going to VISIT as he passed thru Rome on his way to Spain to evangelize. Long story short Paul was arrested in Jerusalem. As a Roman citizen he appealed his case to the emperor and was taken to Rome in chains. He was under house arrest but had the freedom to receive people and preach as his case had not yet been heard by the emperor. Paul was latter martyred, having his head cut off and Peter was crucified upside down, both at Rome around 64AD. CONTINUED

 

[jlhargus]

CONTINUED:

Adversary: He named all his 7 main TOP CHURCHES by LOCATION

JL: Where IN SCRIPTURE does it say 7 TOP CHURCHES, you are following a tradition of men to nullify the Word of God. Where are those so called 7 TOP CHURCHES today? If you read your bible of Revelation you will read those 7 churches are part of the ONE CHURCH Christ is building. [Mt16:18 And I say also unto thee, That THOU ART PETER, AND UPON THIS ROCK **I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.] Chirst never mentions the name of any individual congragation, he is BUILDING ONE TEMPLE THE CHURCH the ONE body of Christ. I don’t know of any person who has more than ONE BODY, do you? Christ isn’t building a tower of babel as sola scriptura does. Scattering people of faith into thousands of contentious faith groups, no longer understanding the ONE FAITH language ONCE delivered to the saintses, Jude1:3. All those groups claiming to be led by the same Holy Spirit in the thousands of different interpretations of the same scriptures.

Rv2:1 to the angel of THE church OF Ephesus, [not a church but THE one church. Verse8 to the angel of THE church IN Smyrna, Verse12 to the angel of THE church IN Pergamos**, Verse18 to the angel of THE church IN Thyatira, Rv3:1 to the angel of THE church IN Sardis, Verse7 to the angel of THE church IN Philadelphia, Verse14 to the angel of** THE church OF the Laodiceans**. John was writing to the congragations, churches, of which he was overseer]. ONE and the SAME CATHOLIC CHURCH. I belong to THE church IN Columbus, but I don’t live in Columbus, my Bishop is in Columbus. May congregation is in a small town twenty miles from Columbus.

Rome was not on the list…Why ?

JL: Well guess what other CHURCHES weren’t named in Revelation, besides the Church in Rome, the Church in Jerusalem, Antioch, Damascus, Samaria, Alexandria, Corinthians, Galatia (Galatians), the church in Crete, Thessalonica, Colossae (Colossians), Philippi, Berea you do know Breans don’t you? etc… None of these are on the list either, does that mean they didn’t exist or of no importance? Go to a library and read for yourself in an Encyclopedia stop accepting cult traditions of men, verify on your own.

[Mt16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 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.]

I’ll give you scriptural evidence for the Catholic Chuch in the following links. I bet you can’t provide any for your cult.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447593&postcount=987

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447600&postcount=988

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447604&postcount=989

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447619&postcount=990

 

[Dokimas]

Use ‘sola scriptura’ Yes I know its faulty, but indulge it and you can’t lose. Quote the bible. If you quote bible directly, the opposition is left with only three choices, unless they want to argue the bible is false. The choices are

1. admit you are right, based on scripture
2. say nothing
3. resort to ad hominems.
   An honest debate is always possible, but if you go directly to scripture, they can’t use scripture against you, and remain legitimate. And they don’t have much else, since they cling to sola scriptura.

Wouldn’t it be easier to say that ‘my church goes all the way back to the first century. My church has all the correct teaching’? That would eliminate all other, slightly different, understandings. End of discussion with that approach.

BTW, is it about winning a debate or ‘loving others to Jesus’? Does a non-catholic Christion not know Jesus?

 

[Dokimas]

I have learned that when someone is like that, it does not matter what you show them. or try to show them they will not accept the truth no matter what.

Are you sure those trying to convince you you are wrong don’t feel the same way?