To Protestants: Why aren't you Catholic?

[Eden]

Here is where I see a major error from the Catholic Chruch

The “deposit of faith” that was handed down through apostolic succession is not in error. The Holy Spirit has always protected the Church from teaching error, just as we were promised.

Some translations indicate that this incident happened Saturday evening…not during the daytime…as Jewish reckoning of time goes and as Dr. Luke was apt to do…As a result, I see a glowing error here…

Please note, that in the OT, God calls Abraham “His friend”. Friends inform friends of how they like to be treated…God told Abraham’s children how He wanted to be treated, in the 10 Commandments…The 4 commandment says to Remember the Sabbath…It is specific and there is no command in the bible, OT or NT that shows a change in the Sabbth …

Does history show that the Catholic Church is holy, just and righteous and good? I don’t think so…in fact, I know it is not…

Only God is allowed to change that Law…And I dont see where He has written it down that it was changed…

O.K. You are again adding a new topic. This alone could be one thread. Do you see why you are not justified in calling my responses “spam”? You are all over the map here.

Firstly, look in the New Testament. The Gospels show us both that Jesus observed the Sabbath and that in several incidents he is accused of violating Sabbath law (Jn. 9:16, Jn 7:23, Mk. 3:4).

You will also notice in the Bible that Jesus restates all of the 10 Commandments except for one “And Jesus replied, You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, honor your father and mother, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mt. 19:18–19). “It is written: ‘The Lord your God shall you worship, and him alone shall you serve’” (Mt. 4:10). Finally, “But I say to you, do not swear at all; not by heaven, for it is God’s throne” (Mt. 5:34).

Which one does Jesus exclude? That’s right. Keep holy the Sabbath.

“For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (Mt. 12:1–8).

“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27).

Jesus also rebukes a too severe an interpretation of Sabbath law (Lk. 13:10–16, 14:1–5; Jn. 5:9–18, 7:22) which suggests that the he was not pleased with the way that the Sabbath was being observed.

Jesus does perfectly observed the Sabbath as he did all of the old covenant. But the New Covenant begins at the Last Supper. We see the theme of Sunday beginning.

Sunday was the day his Resurrection was discovered.

His first two appearance to the twelve disciples were on the following two Sundays (Jn. 20:19, 20:26).

Five weeks later—on Sunday—the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles.

Col. 2:17–19: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” Paul is referring to the weekly Sabbath here.

Paul again “For one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. Whoever observes the day observes it to the Lord” (Rom. 14:5–6).

Only in Antioch, did the origional teachings of the Apositles survive until around 500 ad…And then the CC church took control of Chrisitanity…and molded it to it’s current form…

Looks like in Antioch they were worshipping on Sundays as far back as 110 A.D. The Bishop of Antioch calls the Sabbath “antiquated”.

“Do not be led astray by other doctrines nor by old fables which are worthless. For if we have been living by now according to Judaism, we must confess that we have not received grace. The prophets . . . who walked in ancient customs came to a new hope, no longer Sabbatizing but living by the Lord’s day, on which we came to life through Him and through His death.” - Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 110 A.D.

The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 130–135) is the first explicit mention of Lord’s day worship being based on the Resurrection. Barnabas writes: “Finally He [God] says to them: ‘I cannot bear your new moons and Sabbaths.’ You see what he means: It is not the present Sabbaths that are acceptable to me, but the one that I have made; on that Sabbath day, which is the beginning of another world. This is why we spend the eighth day in celebration, the day on which Jesus both arose from the dead and, after appearing again, ascended into heaven.”

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9902fea1.asp

So, you see, there is good reason why I am not a Catholic…And there is good reason why you should not be either…

What was that good reason, again? Because we go to church on Sunday?

 

[St.Eric]

kujo313:

Please explain. I’ve prayed. I’ve meditated. I’ve discussed it. I want to hear YOUR interpretation.

My own personal interpretation is irrelvant. It means nothing. I put my faith in the interpretation through Christ’s Church. Why was Peter made the 1st Pope? Even though he had all of those short comings? Well:

1 Corinthians 1:27 NIV
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.

and also:

Primacy of Peter
Mt 16:18 - upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
Mt 16;19 - give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
Lk 22:32 - Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
Jn 21:17 - given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
Mk 16:7 - angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
Lk 24:34 - risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
Acts 1:13-26 - headed meeting which elected Matthias
Acts 2:14 - led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
*Gal 2:11-14 - I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

 

[kujo313]

I just love Peter! I love to hear what he says in Acts. With boldness and authority.

It has been realized to me that Peter was around the other disciples before anything was written. They remained in Jerusalem while Paul went to the Gentiles. For a while, even Paul met with the disciples.
While Peter does write that prophecies were not made for one’s own interpretation, he was speaking about the Jewish prophecies for the coming Messiah.
Peter said that he was a WITNESS to the Messiah! He told the Jews that he was THERE and that he KNEW what he SAW.

So for the prophecies of the Messiah, let them stand and don’t apply them to any other than Jesus.

Peter was there when the other disciples spoke and when things was written. There is no indication that he didn’t approve of those teachings or writings. It was the Gospel of Jesus Christ! Why would he disapprove?

But the catholic religion wandered from Peter’s teachings and writings.
Peter didn’t lift anybody else up but Jesus. He prayed to God alone. He, himself, didn’t want to be “lifted up”.

THAT’S good to follow, I think. AND… it is written.

 

[Eden]

kujo313:

But the catholic religion wandered from Peter’s teachings and writings.
Peter didn’t lift anybody else up but Jesus. He prayed to God alone. He, himself, didn’t want to be “lifted up”.

THAT’S good to follow, I think. AND… it is written.

What do you mean “lifted” up? He was chosen to be the leader - by Jesus. Why do you deny that Jesus chose Peter to lead his visible Church?

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

This is the last time I’m going to allow the conversation to proceed. The next time this thread gets off topic- it will be closed.

Please take your debates to another thread.

Thanks!

 

[Doreen]

DARichards:

The reason that Jesus revealed the meaning of John 6 in the institution of the Last Supper. They then put together what Jesus had said to them in John 6.

…

19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

…

It is quite interesting that in this passage, after the “bread was broken”(the Eucharist) the people gained grace from that as noted by the fact that “they were all encouraged”. They first ate a meal, then they celebrated the Eucharist.

I am ENCOURAGED at the remembrance of what Christ has done for me in the shedding of His blood. I know that I have “gained grace” because of His sacrifice…which paid the price for my iniquity.

 

[kujo313]

Eden:

What do you mean “lifted” up? He was chosen to be the leader - by Jesus. Why do you deny that Jesus chose Peter to lead his visible Church?

“Lifted up”, as in worshipped.

Acts 10:25-26

As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

To worship him after that is not what he wanted or wished for. He may have been a leader, but he ordered people not to worship him.

 

[Hispanobizantin]

Michigan was treated to another visit from a group of women from a so-called Baptist church (Westboro Baptist, Topeka KS) who came to protest at a Catholic funeral of a soldier who recently died of his wounds. Protesters bore signs saying things such as: The Pope is a Fag, I hate America, and God hates Fags. See a report here:

breitbart.com/news/2006/03/12/060312122104.pgrezzqi.html

What better evidence does anyone need that the Magisterium is there for a reason: to rein in enthusiasms and errant so-called prophets (and profits) like the Rev. Fred Phelps. This Phelps is considered a psycho-path and a loony by legitimate Baptists. But doesn’t he take the idea of personal exegesis of the Bible (a Protestant tenet) to its logical terminus?

His church is anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-gay, and anti- anything Mr Phelps doesn’t happen to like. Some of these sentiments are echoed not only by white supremacists, but with nodding recognition of many Protestants. If only the Protestants could have their own Reformation and subject themselves and their churches to an examination of conscience, perhaps Catholics might be more willing to accept Protestants (especially fundamentalists) as partners in addressing the downward spiral the West, and the US, seems destined to follow.

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

But the catholic religion wandered from Peter’s teachings and writings.
Peter didn’t lift anybody else up but Jesus. He prayed to God alone. He, himself, didn’t want to be “lifted up”.

THAT’S good to follow, I think. AND… it is written.

Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—Mark 9:5

Tell me where Jesus or God rebukes Peter for saying this.

You know, as I have stated before in other threads which you are so invovled with, we can all throw around Scripture to support our views. You bring up something, 5 other people bring up something that refutes you, and it goes on and on.

Tell us, with boldness and AUTHORITY, tell us how is it your interpretation is the truth.

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

To worship him after that is not what he wanted or wished for. He may have been a leader, but he ordered people not to worship him.

I don’t worship Peter, nor do I worship Mary, nor do I worship the Pope, and there was no rule anywhere in the Catholic Church that commands me to worship them.

So whats your point?

 

[Eden]

“Lifted up”, as in worshipped.

Acts 10:25-26

As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

To worship him after that is not what he wanted or wished for. He may have been a leader, but he ordered people not to worship him.

Now we worship Peter, too? I could say from your responses that you worship the Bible. But I wouldn’t make loony statements like that and expect to remain credible.

 

[St.Eric]

“Lifted up”, as in worshipped.

Acts 10:25-26

As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”

To worship him after that is not what he wanted or wished for. He may have been a leader, but he ordered people not to worship him.

Would you PLEASE STOP IT ALREADY!!! You have been told over and over again that the Catholic Church teaches that ONLY GOD IS WORTHY OF WORSHIP. We are to ONLY WORSHIP GOD. If you see a Catholic doing otherwise, he is NOT following church teaching and is guilty of idolatry. PLEASE STOP WITH THESE ACCUSATIONS. Forgive my yelling but you just don’t get it. :banghead:

You are on the borderline of being harrassing here.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

To worship him after that is not what he wanted or wished for. He may have been a leader, but he ordered people not to worship him.

:bigyikes:

Thanks for the advice. I will keep that in mind the next time I find myself worshipping Peter

Anyways getting back on topic, how about pride? I have known a few protestants that when asked why they don’t convert admit that they would be to prideful to do so.

 

[Ahimsa]

You guys need to define “worship” before you start arguing over “worship”.

 

[kujo313]

onesimplemind:

Then Peter answered and said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; and let us make three tabernacles: one for You, one for Moses, and one for Elijah”—Mark 9:5

Tell me where Jesus or God rebukes Peter for saying this.

You know, as I have stated before in other threads which you are so invovled with, we can all throw around Scripture to support our views. You bring up something, 5 other people bring up something that refutes you, and it goes on and on.

Tell us, with boldness and AUTHORITY, tell us how is it your interpretation is the truth.

Finish the scene!

Mark 9:6-

6 because he did not know what to say, for they were greatly afraid.
7 And a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”

WAS there tabernacles built? Jesus simply told Peter to tell nobody about the scene until His resurrection. IF there was tabernacles built, somebody would’ve seen them.

About my interpretation: it’s simply in the Bible. I don’t have to wonder who SAID what: it’s written down in a Book that we all accept as true.

Overall inside Mark 9:6-10 I see the message that God is telling us: “This is My Son. Listen to Him!”
I really, REALLY think that Peter did just that. His words and actions are written in the Bible.

I think I’ll take THAT and not what somebody said hundreds of years later.

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

About my interpretation: it’s simply in the Bible. I don’t have to wonder who SAID what: it’s written down in a Book that we all accept as true.

So your interpretation is in the Bible? Your interpretation is true?

I’ll tell you why you have to wonder who said what.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:18

Jesus commanded his Apostles to teach what he commanded. Since Jesus ascended and has not been back since, those teachings HAVE NOT CHANGED. If those **teachings **did not change, those who taught the teachings should be teaching the same thing throughout history.Your interpretation of Christian faith should be easily reproducible.

That brings me to a request of mine that you have been dodging:

…I would like to know how you have the most correct interpretation of the Bible, and if you or your church has the most correct understanding of Christian faith, and I would like examples of people from the death of the last Apostle to 1500 a.d. who have had an interpretation of the Scripture and an understanding of Christian faith that is closely in common with yours(or your church’s).

I am very eager to see how you dodge this request again.

 

[kujo313]

onesimplemind:

So your interpretation is in the Bible? Your interpretation is true?

I’ll tell you why you have to wonder who said what.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore[c] and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. Matthew 28:18

Jesus commanded his Apostles to teach what he commanded. Since Jesus ascended and has not been back since, those teachings HAVE NOT CHANGED. If those **teachings **did not change, those who taught the teachings should be teaching the same thing throughout history.Your interpretation of Christian faith should be easily reproducible.

That brings me to a request of mine that you have been dodging:

…I would like to know how you have the most correct interpretation of the Bible, and if you or your church has the most correct understanding of Christian faith, and I would like examples of people from the death of the last Apostle to 1500 a.d. who have had an interpretation of the Scripture and an understanding of Christian faith that is closely in common with yours(or your church’s).

I am very eager to see how you dodge this request again.

When I see the word “teach” or “teaching” and it pertains to Jesus, I see red letters. Those red letters are followed.
All I see is the apostles preaching the Gospel of Jesus and “repent and be baptized”.
From Acts to Jude, I don’t see anything else.

Why 1500 AD? Why not up to date?

        Jesus said the Gospel He preached came from the Father. He said, ". . . I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak" (John 12:49–50).

Christ’s Gospel is the Gospel Jesus preached, the message sent from God the Father. The message Jesus taught was the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Red letters. Words spoken by Jesus Christ. Acts. Actions taken by the disciples. Letters written by Paul, Peter, James and John. Answers to questions and instructions to the believers that Jesus is the Messiah.

It’s all about the Kingdom of God and the One Way to get there.

Not through a scapular. Not through any other name. One.

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. NO ONE goes to the Father but by Him.

Whosoever follows THAT, has a better interpretation of the Bible. It IS true: actions speak louder than words. All since the apostles have decreased while Christ increases. Everybody.

I can’t really tell you what you want to know. But, with a little research, I can tell you which people of YOUR religion distort the Gospel, which all of us are instructed NOT to follow.

 

[kujo313]

That brings me to a request of mine that you have been dodging:

…I would like to know how you have the most correct interpretation of the Bible.

I am very eager to see how you dodge this request again.

It’s so good I want to answer it twice!

stpaulstluke.org/whatwebe.htm

That link should appeal to you.

Anybody who teaches THAT, and does not wander from it, that is correct. Anybody who looks further into other characters of the Bible is off on a tangent.

With that, I know you can list those who are on that tangent. The number might be over a billion.

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

It’s so good I want to answer it twice!

stpaulstluke.org/whatwebe.htm

That link should appeal to you.

Anybody who teaches THAT, and does not wander from it, that is correct. Anybody who looks further into other characters of the Bible is off on a tangent.

With that, I know you can list those who are on that tangent. The number might be over a billion.

Actually you only answered that request once with that particular link.

And that link appeals to me greatly.

So let me entertain that answer with a quote from that website you linked to…

“St Paul’s and St Luke’s churches believe in nothing more and nothing less than the straightforward Christianity which is set out in the Bible and which has been followed by faithful men and women since the days of the New Testament.”

That little quote right there just discredited your entire claim that you know Christian truth.

Exactly how did those faithful men and women who lived after the New Testament was written know what was Biblical. How did they know what was real Biblical Christianity without the Bible. How did they keep the real Christian message going for 300 years until the Bible was canonized? I highly doubt that Christianity back in the 2nd century was a sola scriptura, bible study based, no tradition church. How did sola scriptura exist without an official bible?

I hate to break this to you but no one knew what books should be in the Bible until a certain Church decided the issue in the late 4th century. Was it your church? Here is a nice neutral site.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

There is no reference in the Bible which books should belong in the Bible. I wonder who decided which books should be in the Bible? St Paul and St Luke Finchley Church?

And an addition to that, YOUR Protestant Bible wasn’t decided on until the Reformation by Luther and his followers, so I wonder how those faithful men and women believed in nothing more or nothing less than the 66 book Bible after the last public revelation.

I HIGHLY doubt it was Stpaulstluke.org that canonized the Bible. I HIGHLY doubt that St Paul and St Luke Finchley Church was even around 300 years after the 66 book Protestant Bible was officialized.

Your theory, your Doctrine, and your understanding of Christianity is so full of holes, I am gonna pretend you didn’t answer my original request and l am going to give you another try.

 

[onesimplemind]

kujo313:

Why 1500 AD? Why not up to date?

I can’t really tell you what you want to know. But, with a little research, I can tell you which people of YOUR religion distort the Gospel, which all of us are instructed NOT to follow.

I can’t take you seriously until you tell me what I want to know. Until then you really don’t know anything and your accusations of the Church only make you look ignorant and desperate.

Anyways, I’ll consider your request and make the question up to date…but do try to include some examples of early Christians, it will really help your argument.

…I would like to know how you have the most correct interpretation of the Bible, and if you or your church has the most correct understanding of Christian faith, and I would like examples of people from the death of the last Apostle to 2006 a.d. who have had an interpretation of the Scripture and an understanding of Christian faith that is closely in common with yours(or your church’s).

Take another shot, your last was a little off. You really should take time and research your response.