Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[Justy90]

Why do Protestants dismiss these words in Scripture?

James 2
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[e] and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

John 6
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

How do I dismiss these Scriptures, can you tell everyone here being as you just made the allegation??

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bible does have all the answers and I rely on them daily.

What about the 400 years people spent without a Bible after the death and resurrection of Christ? How did they get the answers?

Martin Luther:

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

 

[Justy90]

Let’s get something straight right away. I am not dismissing scriptures, nor am I trying to use ‘snippets’ of the Bible to tell a complete story. These are interpretational differences.

What you seem to be doing now is telling me what I, and every Catholic, believes. Our faith is based on scriptures.

No, I am telling you that you are dismissing what the Bible clearly says regarding the issues of this thread. This has nothing to do with interpretation.

 

[Monica4316]

You’re wrong. You are stereo-typing me. I never said I believed in a symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. That’s what you think of all Protestants. That’s an abject ignorance of other faiths.

I never said I think that. I know some Protestants believe in the real presence and others see Communion as entirely symbolic. I was just making an example.

If you wish to look at original Biblical writings, let’s look at how Jesus called Peter Petros but referred to his Church being founded upon Petras. Hmm. Looks like a real difference from what you believe to be true about peter doesn’t it.

this is in Greek, but they spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, there’s only one word for “rock”. If you were to hear Jesus saying the words, in Aramaic, He would have said: “You are the rock, and on this rock I will build My Church.”

Later, when the Bible was written in Greek, they couldn’t call Peter “Petra” because that’s a feminine noun and Peter is a man… so they altered the ending to “Petros”. But this wasn’t the case in the original language.

for more info:
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

 

[Dokimas]

Where does the Bible say ‘Trinity’? Do you believe in the Trinity?

I’m sure you know this is a silly argument. If the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and there are none other that is God, the term ''Trinity" is perfectly useful in understanding the Godhead (I found this term in the Bible).

 

[Justy90]

What about the 400 years people spent without a Bible after the death and resurrection of Christ? How did they get the answers?

Are you saying that the authors of the NT didn’t write their books until 400 years after Christ’s death? What did they do?? Did they all get together and write them all at the same time while attending mass?

 

[Monica4316]

How do I dismiss these Scriptures, can you tell everyone here being as you just made the allegation??

I was talking to Protestants in general, not to you in particular.

Most Protestants believe in salvation by faith alone and that Communion is a symbol.

Anglicanism has a different origin than other forms of Protestantism… that’s why you don’t share these beliefs.

the question is, - if sola scriptura is true, why do all the Protestants have different interpretations of Scripture?

 

[Justy90]

I never said I think that. I know some Protestants believe in the real presence and others see Communion as entirely symbolic. I was just making an example.

this is in Greek, but they spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, there’s only one word for “rock”. If you were to hear Jesus saying the words, in Aramaic, He would have said: “You are the rock, and on this rock I will build My Church.”

Later, when the Bible was written in Greek, they couldn’t call Peter “Petra” because that’s a feminine noun and Peter is a man… so they altered the ending to “Petros”. But this wasn’t the case in the original language.

for more info:
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

This is a sham. You said Protestants. You didn’t say just some Protestants. You stereotyped because you don’t know.

As far as Peter goes, this has been debated since the Early Church. You have a lock on nothing.

 

[carpentercb]

So this will turn in to a communion and who was the first church and where did the bible come from thing right? Here we go. Talk about getting off topic.

Respectfully,

Chris

 

[Dokimas]

What about the 400 years people spent without a Bible after the death and resurrection of Christ? How did they get the answers?

You know better than that question. You know that the 27 books of the NT were letters written in the 1st century AD. You also know they were copied and passed around.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re wrong. You are stereo-typing me. I never said I believed in a symbolism of the Lord’s Supper. That’s what you think of all Protestants. That’s an abject ignorance of other faiths.

If you wish to look at original Biblical writings, let’s look at how Jesus called Peter Petros but referred to his Church being founded upon Petras. Hmm. Looks like a real difference from what you believe to be true about peter doesn’t it.

It’s hard to understand each and every aspect of thousands of denominations, each with slight to great differences of doctrines, all based on someone’s private interpretation. So, I sincerely disagree with your choice of terms, ‘abject ignorance’.

Have you read through this thread entirely? It really doesn’t appear as if you have, with some of the repeated objections being raised? With that said, I invite you to pick an objection for discussion and start a thread. Then send me a private message and I’ll be more than happy to present a scriptures supporting Catholic beliefs. I’d also like to suggest you limit each thread to one objection per thread. Some like to use the ‘laundry list’ objections to simply overwhelm someone so they cannot respond properly.

 

[Monica4316]

I’m sure you know this is a silly argument. If the Father is God and Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God and there are none other that is God, the term ''Trinity" is perfectly useful in understanding the Godhead (I found this term in the Bible).

did you know there were people in the early Church (and others today) who tried to use Scripture as ‘evidence’ against the Trinity?

the reason we believe in the Trinity now is because the early Church Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, made it dogma.

‘sola scriptura’ leads to all kinds of interpretations… only the Church gives the right one. As it says in the Bible, “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth”

 

[Justy90]

You know better than that question. You know that the 27 books of the NT were letters written in the 1st century AD. You also know they were copied and passed around.

He knows, he just won’t admit.

 

[Justy90]

did you know there were people in the early Church (and others today) who tried to use Scripture as ‘evidence’ against the Trinity?

the reason we believe in the Trinity now is because the early Church Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, made it dogma.

‘sola scriptura’ leads to all kinds of interpretations… only the Church gives the right one. As it says in the Bible, “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth”

Without the Bible, How would you know that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[Monica4316]

This is a sham. You said Protestants. You didn’t say just some Protestants. You stereotyped because you don’t know.

actually I do know cause I used to be a Protestant.

I said “Protestant” because the majority of Protestants do believe in sola fide etc.

As far as Peter goes, this has been debated since the Early Church. You have a lock on nothing.

only the heretics in the early Church did not believe in the Papacy

 

[Cristian_B]

I was always wondering… if the dead in Christ are in heaven right now, why is there a need for resurrection?

And please, if it has already been responded be kind, and tell me approximately in what post, because there are +1000 in this thread.

 

[Justy90]

actually I do know cause I used to be a Protestant.

I said “Protestant” because the majority of Protestants do believe in sola fide etc.

only the heretics in the early Church did not believe in the Papacy

What about the Orthodox church and the 100,000 Protestant denominations today that refute it?

 

[Monica4316]

He knows, he just won’t admit.

the books of the Bible were written early on in Church history but they were only declared to be inspired at the Church Councils, later on. Until then, there were all kinds of false “books” going around, all claiming to be inspired.

Without the Bible, How would you know that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth?

the Church has taught this from the beginning, before the Bible was written.

the Apostles also said there - to hold on to what they passed down through word OR letter. This means Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, not* just *Scripture.

the Bible is a Catholic book, and if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, the Protestants wouldn’t have the Bible right now

 

[carpentercb]

So this will turn in to a communion and who was the first church and where did the bible come from thing right? Here we go. Talk about getting off topic.

Respectfully,

Chris

 

[Dokimas]

did you know there were people in the early Church (and others today) who tried to use Scripture as ‘evidence’ against the Trinity?

the reason we believe in the Trinity now is because the early Church Councils, guided by the Holy Spirit, made it dogma.

‘sola scriptura’ leads to all kinds of interpretations… only the Church gives the right one. As it says in the Bible, “the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth”

Lots of groups over the yrs have misused the Bible and might I add, most likely to their own destruction and the destruction of their followers.​

The term ‘Trinity’ may have come from an early church council, but the idea came from the teachings of Jesus and the early (1st century) disciples/apostles.