Why do non-Catholics try to use our Scriptures against us?

[Chancellare]

I wasn’t referring to you.

You quote my post and put your reply right there and you’re not referring to me.

Right.

 

[6YRSHOME]

Satan’s church is the Catholic Church.

Want me to leave? Fine but don’t say on Judgment Day that you didn’t know you were in the false church.

Daro,
If your intention is truly evanglize us, you have your work cut out for you. But I don’t think that is your intention, because you are regurgitating all of the old tired arguments that have been addressed already. When you can’t answer something, you spout off more unrelated nonsense. You don’t listen to anything or anyone, unless is is a prelude to an attack.

Now if you expect people ot listen and take you seriously, then you need to listen. If you don’t agree, that’s one thing, but to say that we belong to the Church of Satan is insulting.

I know that I belong to the Church of Christ. I am exactly where I am supposed to be, God has made that abundantly clear. If you are where you feel you belong, fine, but don’t come here and attack and then have the nerve to act surprised that we reject your claims.

I will not respond to your posts because I know that you are blind to anything other than the SDA rhetoric. I hope you prove me wrong.

 

[contramundum7]

As a non Catholic I think I can answer this question even though I personally don’t use the bible against folks, I just don’t know it well enough.

A lot of my fellow Atheists use scriptures against folks like you because thats all a lot of you know. At least thats true for the Christians who come harass us on atheist forums. We ask for sources other than your scriptures to back up “scientific facts” that they present…and time and time again all we get is more verses from the bible. Yes, the Christian that come on the atheist forums to harass us are typically pretty dumb, you guys don’t seem nearly as bad. Also, your beliefs are rooted in your scriptures so it only makes sense that we use those to try to make at least you see where we’re coming from.

Not to offend any of you, I don’t mean offence at all…thats just what I’ve observed and experienced.

Gee - if you want respect, maybe u came to the wrong place…
Either that or you haven’t read all the posts in all the different forums yet … I guess if you have to out-right ask for respect, well… hmmm… maybe you HAVE read a lot of the posts after all??
Anyway, i am curious as to how you were raised, why you call yourself an atheist, etc…? Were your parents atheist? I don’t know any outspoken atheists, so, again, i am curious…

 

[contramundum7]

I don’t feel any different after you cussing me.

Satan’s church is the Catholic Church.

Want me to leave? Fine but don’t say on Judgment Day that you didn’t know you were in the false church.

OK - so what’s YOUR story??

Why do you say that? Do you have any evidence to substantiate your allegations (which, by the way, have not been stated as allegations but as facts)?
Where’s your proof?
OK, i agree that certain PEOPLE in the Church can ACT like they’re from Satan (you may want to look at other Posts 2 get a clearer picture of what i mean here… such as the ones in the Evangelization forum, under “Human Life Factors into…” )but to say that the whole Church is from the devil… hmmm…
I have met Catholic individuals who seem to serve Satan (no exaggeration, sad to say ) but the teachings of the Church are far from being anything the devil would want… I mean, you know, the teachings on indissoluble marriage, no abortion, etc…
wouldn’t the devil want marriages to fall apart? Wouldn’t the devil want people to kill their own children? Wouldn’t the devil want us playing God by manipulating stem cells and human embryos??
I just don’t get it…
And no, i am not being “sarcastic”… I really would like for you to explain what you mean…

 

[contramundum7]

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months.

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:1-7

Does a beast champion the rights of the unborn? Does a beast read more scripture in its Masses than any other church every Sunday? Does a beast speak out on the sanctity of human life when most other “churches” remain virtually silent?? Does a beast create institutions whose sole purpose is to encourage a life of prayer (monestaries, convents…). Hmmm… this is a very strange “beast”… and one that doesn’t seem so frightening… like the one you talk of…

 

[hosemonkey]

Attacks against the Church by “Bible Christians” and others, citing “Sola Scriptura” and other justifications is an inevitable outgrowth of individual interpretation. If every man interprets Scripture, he will almost invariably put his own spin on it. Scripture Itself warns against this (St. Paul etc.) Scripture can be made to say almost anything and can attack or support almost any position. Only the teaching authority of the Church, granted by Jesus Christ Himself, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit can interpret Scripture correctly and authoritatively. Private interpretation of Scripture has given us over 20,000 protestant denominations, “all led by the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit must be very, very conflicted.

 

[fullofzeal]

The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become catholic. If it is false, the whole catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, “But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21). "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work: (II Timothy 3:16-17). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with catholics.
When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He used the demonstrative “this” (taute), pointing to Peter’s confession, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the rock. Jesus said, “Thou are Peter (petros, a stone - all believers are stones, see I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21), and upon this rock (petra, a huge rock foundation - the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church”. He did not promise to build His Church upon Peter. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei). In the Bible we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit.

error: the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit, not Jesus’ replacement. He is the expression, as it were, of love between Father and Son, but He is God nonetheless and “The Lord the Giver of life” who proceeds from the Father and Son. With the Father and Son He is worshipped and glorified.

the pope has never had the title “vicar of the Son of God” this is a made up title to set up the pope as the anti-christ by fundamentalism.

peace

 

[hosemonkey]

error: the Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit, not Jesus’ replacement. He is the expression, as it were, of love between Father and Son, but He is God nonetheless and “The Lord the Giver of life” who proceeds from the Father and Son. With the Father and Son He is worshipped and glorified.

the pope has never had the title “vicar of the Son of God” this is a made up title to set up the pope as the anti-christ by fundamentalism.

peace

You are correct. It looks as though Daro has plagarized his citation directly from the pages of Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”, a notorious Anti-Catholic diatribe, whom many protestants cite as their authority for calumnies against the Church.

 

[Bennie_P]

Petros and Petra are Greek. Did Jesus and his disciples speak in Greek?

No they didn’t, this from Robertson’s Word Pictures elaborates on that point,
*“On this rock (**epi tautēi tēi petrāi) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in Matthew 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petros is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (Kēphā).” *

*The Aramaic word Kepha does not a have a feminine equivilent. (GK -petros/petra) Kepha, it means Rock, period. *

Even protestant resource material debunks the validity of the arguments over this word game about Peter our first Pope.

 

[RNRobert]

the pope has never had the title “vicar of the Son of God” this is a made up title to set up the pope as the anti-christ by fundamentalism.

The “Vicar of the Son of God” I believe orginated from a medieval forgery called “The Donation of Constanine.”

You are correct. It looks as though Daro has plagarized his citation directly from the pages of Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism”, a notorious Anti-Catholic diatribe, whom many protestants cite as their authority for calumnies against the Church.

He probably also borrowed from the writings of Ellen G. White, the founder of Seventh Day Adventism.

 

[Holly3278]

Ummm, the Scriptures do not belong exclusively to Catholics. They belong to other Christians just as much as they belong to Catholics. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

 

[colliric]

The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become catholic. If it is false, the whole catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, “But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (II Peter 1:21). "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work: (II Timothy 3:16-17). “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with catholics.
When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” He used the demonstrative “this” (taute), pointing to Peter’s confession, “Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the rock. Jesus said, “Thou are Peter (petros, a stone - all believers are stones, see I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21), and upon this rock (petra, a huge rock foundation - the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church”. He did not promise to build His Church upon Peter. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei). In the Bible we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit.

Your assumption assumes that Christ must have then pointed to himself and said “and upon this rock”, because otherwise your arguement is actually illogical. Let me use another example. consider the following sentence…

“You are a banana, and soon I shall eat this banana”. What does that say to you? That says very clearly what it says, there is only one banana, it is you. I have simply called you the Banana, then indicated I will eat the banana I mentioned in the first half of the sentence. There is no change of subject gramatically, in film, of which I am a student, we call a change of subject or pace a “beat change” there is no such thing here. I have called you a banana, and then said I am going to eat you.

Ok.

Now consider this:

And he said “you are a banana,” then he pulled out another banana from his pocket and said “and soon I shall eat this banana”.

Now and only now is it clear that I am now referring to a diffrent banana as there has been what we call in the Filmmaking world a “Beat”, I.e a change of subject or topic. In the passage Matthew 16:18, there is no beat, it is one continous beat that has not changed.

Why would Christ have pointed to himself and compleatly changed the subject of the sentence in the middle of it? Why would the bible not say “He then pointed to himself”?

That is truly reading into scripture your own interpretation and not listening to Christ’s blatent and obvious commandment.

Excuse me, but where does the bible in matthew 16:18 say “and then Christ pointed to himself and said”? The true meaning of the passage is grammatically clear, He called Peter, a rock, then said he’d use that rock to build his church all in one beat without a subject change.

Also Jesus did not talk to his disciples in Greek. He spoke to them in Aramaic. And that only makes the fact there is no beat change(even in the Greek version of it) even more obvious because the Aramaic for Rock as is well known is Kepha, this translates as Petra into Greek, a Woman’s name. And therefore when it was translated as Peter’s name it was necessary to use Petros instead.

Lets go back to Aramaic:
Thou art Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church.

No beat change… Please if you practice sola scriptura do it without reading your own stretchy unsupported grammatical argument into the passage.

Oh I forgot, that would make you have to convert to Catholicism!

 

[kellie]

Your assumption assumes that Christ must have then pointed to himself and said “and upon this rock”, because otherwise your arguement is actually illogical. Let me use another example. consider the following sentence…

“You are a banana, and soon I shall eat this banana”. What does that say to you? That says very clearly what it says, there is only one banana, it is you. I have simply called you the Banana, then indicated I will eat the banana I mentioned in the first half of the sentence. There is no change of subject gramatically, in film, of which I am a student, we call a change of subject or pace a “beat change” there is no such thing here. I have called you a banana, and then said I am going to eat you.

Ok.

Now consider this:

And he said “you are a banana,” then he pulled out another banana from his pocket and said “and soon I shall eat this banana”.

Now and only now is it clear that I am now referring to a diffrent banana as there has been what we call in the Filmmaking world a “Beat”, I.e a change of subject or topic. In the passage Matthew 16:18, there is no beat, it is one continous beat that has not changed.

Why would Christ have pointed to himself and compleatly changed the subject of the sentence in the middle of it? Why would the bible not say “He then pointed to himself”?

That is truly reading into scripture your own interpretation and not listening to Christ’s blatent and obvious commandment.

Excuse me, but where does the bible in matthew 16:18 say “and then Christ pointed to himself and said”? The true meaning of the passage is grammatically clear, He called Peter, a rock, then said he’d use that rock to build his church all in one beat without a subject change.

Also Jesus did not talk to his disciples in Greek. He spoke to them in Aramaic. And that only makes the fact there is no beat change(even in the Greek version of it) even more obvious because the Aramaic for Rock as is well known is Kepha, this translates as Petra into Greek, a Woman’s name. And therefore when it was translated as Peter’s name it was necessary to use Petros instead.

Lets go back to Aramaic:
Thou art Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church.

No beat change… Please if you practice sola scriptura do it without reading your own stretchy unsupported grammatical argument into the passage.

Oh I forgot, that would make you have to convert to Catholicism!

Well worded. I like that analogy with the banana, and also the beat change reference.

 

[dessert]

Petros and Petra are Greek. Did Jesus and his disciples speak in Greek?

Actually I believe that I have read that they spoke or understood many languages, greek,aramaic,lebanese,hebrew , that is what is brought out in the film ‘The passion (of Christ)’
Much like us today can converse a little in several languages today if you tried you see that you know more than you think.

Petra being femine would refer to the Church,she. Dessert

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Ummm, the Scriptures do not belong exclusively to Catholics. They belong to other Christians just as much as they belong to Catholics. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

You are incorrect. We’ve demonstrated that throughout the thread. It’s nice that others wish to use them and we don’t mind but then don’t turn around and try to use them against the Chruch. It is not nice. It is an offense to the Lord of the Church.

CDL

 

[Angainor]

Why do non-Catholics try to use our Scriptures against us?

Which are your scriptures again? The CCC, the articles of Trent, or what?

 

[Angainor]

Why did Christ use Scripture against the Pharisees?

uch:

If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?
John 5:46-47

 

[Angainor]

Before Luther, there was no distinction between “Christian” and “Catholic” and there were no “denominations”.

So far so good.

It was only when Protestants decided that they were not “Catholic” that they suddenly relabelled everything as anything but Catholic.

Please illustrate for me when Lutheran Protestants “decided they were not catholic”.

 

[Angainor]

That’s rather a silly approach. How could Protestants precede Catholics?

That’s easy. Catholicism as we know it today was born in A.D. 1545 in a little town called Trent.

 

[Chancellare]

That’s easy. Catholicism as we know it today was born in A.D. 1545 in a little town called Trent.

Let’s say you were born January 1st and for many reasons caused by your relatives your father decided to settle your official name in the baptism registry February 1st. Does that mean you did not exist for 1 month?