Question for Catholics

[Trogool]

And you CHOOSe to believe this?

That my friend is your choice and your SOUL hangs in the balance.

ROFL what?

 

[asiyreh]

I think he means that we are commanded to proselytize.

The Jews refused to spread the gospel and were cut off. The commandment to "proselytize," then passed to the gentiles - me and you.
God told us the Jews were the apple of his eye and they were struck off. How much more could happen to you?

There are at least two interesting scriptures that correspond to this dilemma

Go and make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19) i.e. proselytize

Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them (Ephesians 5:11)

So who should I obey Trog? You or my Lord?

Hmmm so if I tell people anyone interested in this topic

This first doc explains how the various bibles came to exist.

213B - Battle of the Bibles / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith

This one explains how and where the Word has been sabotaged by the forces of Satan

214B - Changing the Word / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith

I'm doing Gods work. You can be a scoffer while you roll on the floor but we know what happens to them. 2 Peter if you're interested.

 

[SMA12]

It could. But most of what is doctrine in the Catholic churches today has nothing to do with the Bible.

In fact, the replacement of Scripture by "Sacred Tradition," as is done in the RCC, owes to the a need to accomodate non-Scriptural myths and legends into the doctrine stream. Othewise, the church would just claim that "the Bible says" by using a translation that supports whatever it is (as the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation does for them) and make the membership believe that it does.

This is a silly claim that "most of what is doctrine in the Catholic churches today has nothing to do with the Bible." Maybe you should study Catholic doctrine before making such a claim?

 

[Albion]

This is a silly claim that "most of what is doctrine in the Catholic churches today has nothing to do with the Bible." Maybe you should study Catholic doctrine before making such a claim?

Maybe you should know to whom you are writing such a silly retort before reaching for the keyboard. However, I'll concede that "nothing" was too strong a word, and it would be better to say that much of what is doctrine in the RCC today has little to do with the Bible. Of course it is true that some of her better-known doctrines do not have anything at all to do with the Bible.

 

[SMA12]

Maybe you should know to whom you are writing such a silly retort before reaching for the keyboard. However, I'll concede that "nothing" was too strong a word, and it would be better to say that much of what is doctrine in the RCC today has little to do with the Bible. Of course it is true that some of her better-known doctrines do not have anything at all to do with the Bible.

Sorry but you are very wrong. They may not have much to do with your "personal interpretation" of the Bible, but why trust your interpretation when there are a thousand different people with a thousand different interpretations. That is why the Church is "the Pillar of Truth."

The truth is there is NO Catholic doctrine that contradicts Scripture. Challenge me on this.

You do know you would not even have the Bible if not for the Catholic Church, correct?

Sorry I get a little worked up over your claim, but I care about my faith and I care about truth, and when someone says that the church that Christ established, the original Christian church, the church that gave you the Bible, isn't based on the Bible... I have trouble biting my tongue.

God bless.

 

[Albion]

Sorry but you are very wrong. They may not have much to do with your "personal interpretation" of the Bible, but why trust your interpretation when there are a thousand different people with a thousand different interpretations. That is why the Church is "the Pillar of Truth."

You can have your personal interpretation, and the rest of us can have ours. it doesn't have anything to do with whichever denomination each of us belongs to. The point here not to be missed, however, is that the Bible is not the source for many Catholic doctrines, whereas it is the basis for all Protestant doctrines. It's not a lot more difficult than that.

 

[Unix]

How do You know that? Maybe Catholic teaching is in accordance with the more original Bible that some Early Church Fathers had?

The point here not to be missed, however, is that the Bible is not the source for many Catholic doctrines,

½ of the doctrines of the Protestant Church are based on counterfeit books in the Bible.

whereas it is the basis for all Protestant doctrines.

 

[Albion]

How do You know that?

We've discussed it here, in one way or another, many times. That's the nature of "Sacred Tradition."

Maybe Catholic teaching is in accordance with the more original Bible that some Early Church Fathers had?

It's not.

½ of the doctrines of the Protestant Church are based on counterfeit books in the Bible

.
Now THAT's going to require some additional explanation. We're normally accused of not using all the dubious books your church does.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

How do You know that? Maybe Catholic teaching is in accordance with the more original Bible that some Early Church Fathers had?½ of the doctrines of the Protestant Church are based on counterfeit books in the Bible.

Very interesting, considering that the Catholic Church provided the canon, which includes all 66 of the Protestant books + 7 more.

 

[SMA12]

You can have your personal interpretation, and the rest of us can have ours. it doesn't have anything to do with whichever denomination each of us belongs to. The point here not to be missed, however, is that the Bible is not the source for many Catholic doctrines, whereas it is the basis for all Protestant doctrines. It's not a lot more difficult than that.

You keep saying this, yet you don't back up the claim. I am curious what doctrines you believe are not biblically supported? Please tell me...

And no actually it is not the source of all Protestant doctrines. If it was how can there possibly be so many disagreements among the 40,000+ denominations. Sola Scriptira is not even Biblical, which in itself is a contradiction.

 

[Albion]

You keep saying this, yet you don't back up the claim. I am curious what doctrines you believe are not biblically supported? Please tell me...

OK, try the Assumption of Mary or Purgatory.

And no actually it is not the source of all Protestant doctrines. If it was how can there possibly be so many disagreements among the 40,000+ denominations.

Different interpretations of the Bible. Duh.

Sola Scriptira is not even Biblical, which in itself is a contradiction.

Only according to Catholic talking points. That different churches interpret it differently does not in any way show that it isn't our authority. Meanwhile, the RCC follows Tradition as well as the Bible and 40,000+ (to use your figure) churches disagree with its interpretation of both of them, proving--according to your reasoning--that it can't be correct either.

 

[SMA12]

OK, try the Assumption of Mary or Purgatory.



Different interpretations of the Bible. Duh.


Only according to Catholic talking points. That different churches interpret it differently does not in any way show that it isn't our authority. Meanwhile, the RCC follows Tradition as well as the Bible and 40,000+ (to use your figure) churches disagree with its interpretation of both of them, proving--according to your reasoning--that it can't be correct either.

Assumption of Mary
Rom 5:12... Sin enters the world and thus death is a consequence.
Rom 6:23... "For the wager of sin is death"
Gen 3:15... "I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring and hers (Christ)."

Since Mary is free of sin, in fact the enemy of Satan the father of sin, death is not a consequence for Mary.

For any additional questions about Mary and the SCPRITURAL basis for them, please visit this link: [Edit- wont let me post link due to low post count], but search "The truth about Mary and Scripture- Must See" on YouTube.

Purgatory
Matthew 12:32, "And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whosoever speaks a word against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come."
If a soul is in hell, forgiveness cannot be attained, it is too late. If a soul is in Heaven forgiveness has already been attained, it is no longer necessary. So tell me what is Christ speaking of when discussing forgiveness in the next age?

Other Scripture supporting the existence of Purgatory: Isaiah 6:5-7; 1Cor 3:11-15; Heb 12:6,10.

*Whether or not you agree with said doctrines, you can no longer claim the Catholic Church does not base them in Scripture.

You said according to my reasoning Catholic interpretation cannot be correct either. False.
According to my reasoning, there can only be ONE TRUTH. So if there are 40,000 different "truths" out there, only one can be FULLY TRUE. Would you find this truth in a church that, at the earliest began in the 1500's? Or would you find it in the Church that was founded by Christ himself, historically traced back to the Apostles themselves? Would Christ and the Holy Spirit, lead the Church astray for 1500 years? I think not. And the BIBLE confirms this. (Matthew 16:18-19)

Sola Scriptura
No where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only authority. The Bible did not exist until FOUR CENTURIES after Christ, so how could it be.

In Matthew 16:15 Jesus commands to preach the Gospel to every creature. Did Jesus want preaching to stop after the Apostles died? Obviously not. The Word of God was transferred orally. This is what Sacred Tradition is.

When you say different churches interpret it differently, this proves the shakiness of its authority apart from the Church. Scripture needs the Church, just as the Church needs Scripture, if you wish to find Truth. Again, Matthew 16:18-19.

God bless.

 

[Albion]

Assumption of Mary
Rom 5:12... Sin enters the world and thus death is a consequence.
Rom 6:23... "For the wager of sin is death"
Gen 3:15... "I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Mary), and between your offspring and hers (Christ)."

Since Mary is free of sin, in fact the enemy of Satan the father of sin, death is not a consequence for Mary.

For any additional questions about Mary and the SCPRITURAL basis for them, please visit this link: [Edit- wont let me post link due to low post count], but search "The truth about Mary and Scripture- Must See" on YouTube.

No, I don't have additional questions about Mary. I didn't have any in the first place, if you recall. But you could profit from a little research, it appears, since the above cited verses don't deal with the Assumption in any way and this doctrine of the Assumption doesn't mean that Mary didn't die, just that her body was assumed into heaven. It's a good idea to understand your own church's obligatory dogmas before debating them online.

Likewise, there is no scripture that supports the Treasury of Merit or most of the other concepts that were invented only in the Middle Ages to make the idea of Purgatory work.

Sola Scriptura
No where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only authority. The Bible did not exist until FOUR CENTURIES after Christ, so how could it be.

This is silly. You actually think that if the books of the Bible were not gathered into one volume until the fourth century, this means the contents of them were unknown before then? Whew.

When you say different churches interpret it differently, this proves the shakiness of its authority apart from the Church. Scripture needs the Church, just as the Church needs Scripture, if you wish to find Truth.

Again, a very strange notion. Do you seriously think that only one denomination has studied scripture...and, meanwhile, the members of every other one are on their own as individuals to try to understand it?

 

[lulu88]

Just an idea, that the Orthodox could be the true Church and they are accepted by the RCC as having a valid apostolic succession and priesthood (Holy Orders).


The same cannot be said of any Protestant or other Christian sect existing today. In many cases the typical independent fundamentalist or evangelical church has an all too brief history.


lulu

 

[Albion]

Just an idea, that the Orthodox could be the true Church and they are accepted by the RCC as having a valid apostolic succession and priesthood (Holy Orders).


The same cannot be said of any Protestant or other Christian sect existing today. In many cases the typical independent fundamentalist or evangelical church has an all too brief history.


lulu

So the Roman Catholic Church is empowered to determine which other churches are valid? What a strange notion. Why don't we ask one of them which other denominations THEY consider to be valid?

 

[lulu88]

So the Roman Catholic Church is empowered to determine which other churches are valid? What a strange notion. Why don't we ask one of them which other denominations THEY consider to be valid?

The Bible,Church and Tradition are all of a piece: a "three-legged stool" of authority. But the Bible is inspired, whereas Church and tradition are infallible, so in that sense the Bible is "higher"; but in terms of authority all three are in play, and harmonious. You simply miscomprehend the Catholic view of the Bible and authority.

lulu

have a good day,

 

[Albion]

The Bible,Church and Tradition are all of a piece: a "three-legged stool" of authority.

Where in the Bible do we find that explained to us? Or is it a nice theory that some men came up with long after the Ascension?

But the Bible is inspired, whereas Church and tradition are infallible, so in that sense the Bible is "higher";

There's no basis for thinking that any church or the Christian church generally is infallible. Certainly neither Christ nor the Bible taught such a thing.

but in terms of authority all three are in play, and harmonious. You simply miscomprehend the Catholic view of the Bible and authority.

Oh no, I understand the church's theories. Explaining them doesn't do a thing to make them correct, you know. But by the way, your church does not believe that it is infallible. It believes that certain things are infallible under certain circumstances (not that I'm agreeing to this notion by mentioning it to you).

 

[lulu88]

[/b]

Where in the Bible do we find that explained to us? Or is it a nice theory that some men came up with long after the Ascension?




There's no basis for thinking that any church or the Christian church generally is infallible. Certainly neither Christ nor the Bible taught such a thing.



Oh no, I understand the church's theories. Explaining them doesn't do a thing to make them correct, you know. But by the way, your church does not believe that it is infallible. It believes that certain things are infallible under certain circumstances (not that I'm agreeing to this notion by mentioning it to you).

To the Roman Catholic, statments are as infallible as the BIBLE.
/B> Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "I will build My church." The Roman Catholic Church claims to be that one true church established by Christ. There is no denying that, as an organization, it has its roots in the early church of the New Testament.

Lulu

 

[Albion]

To the Roman Catholic, statments are as infallible as the BIBLE.
/B> Matthew 16:18, Jesus said, "I will build My church." The Roman Catholic Church claims to be that one true church established by Christ. There is no denying that, as an organization, it has its roots in the early church of the New Testament.

Lulu

What statements?

It certainly is not the case that the RCC teaches that it is incapable of making any errors ever. Not every devout Catholic who wants to believe that his or her church is always right knows this, however.

 

[lulu88]

What statements?

It certainly is not the case that the RCC teaches that it is incapable of making any errors ever. Not every devout Catholic who wants to believe that his or her church is always right knows this, however.

Jesus is the only person who ever lived who was perfect and did not sin. He is the only one who should be looked upon as being holy. We dont see the pope as incapable of sin, however we feel doctrine, regarding apostolic sucession is infalliable.Therefore the final authority on all matters of faith should come from the church. The RCC therefore feels it alone has the keys to properly understand the Bible.

lulu