Questions For A Catholic
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Yeah, I know. Markmans post was about the pope. Catholic's wrongly teach that the pope has "Apostolic Succession" from Peter.
Selene
New Member
I don't see anything in here saying that you can ask your friend Joe or Mike to pray for you.
Selene
New Member
Jesus was a Jew, and I trust His word over yours.
Actually, I know the Scriptures much more than you think. You asked if God was telling Moses to make a brass serpent so that those who looked at it would be healed? Below are the biblical scriptures. Read for yourself and figure it out. We already know exactly what the First Commandment was really saying. So read the two biblical verses below, then go ahead and tell God that He broke His own commandments.
Numbers 21:8-9 And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
You tell me. You seem to be the expert in Catholic doctrines.
Hi Aspen,
I already gave Marksman the biblical verse showing Apostolic Succession. He did not know what to make of it.
2 Timothy 2:2
In Christ,
Selene
The real issue is since Monday I've been back to work I don't have time to be on this forum at my personal leisure. Pointing out the RCC differences in doctrine is as easy as opening the catholicism and pointing at a statement. If the Pope came here and opened his mouth like Mr Word did you would have been on your knees in reverance to every word. The truth is the Pope doesn't look act or sound anything like Peter, John or Paul. I'm off to my second job, my fleshly job.
Quick translation;
I trust the Pope and body of cardinals for my salvation.
It is easy to poke holes in any doctrine, especially when you use a standard developed by a group of people who wanted to break away from the very church you are judging. The fact is, your entire basis for denouncing Catholicism and separating yourself from the church is based on sola scriptura, which is not only a new doctrine, it is not even supported by scripture; not to mention it relies on the tradition of the Catholic church because without it, Luther wouldn't have had a NT cannon to base his new doctrine on. Oh the irony....
Selene
New Member
This is the very reason why there is no openess and honest dialogue with you. I say, "Jesus was a Jew, and I trust His word over yours" to a poster and look at this comment. You put YOUR own words in, which is nothing of what I said. And we are accused of twisting Sacred Scripture? What do you call this when you put in YOUR own translation? If you can do this to my words, how much more Sacred Scripture? Shame...shame....shame!
Many people love their Catholic religion, but some people love the Word of God.
Catholics make unauthorized statues. I guess the scriptures about Aaron's sons being destroyed for trying to add their own form of worship that God did not command, didn't put any fear in you?
I must say I'm absolutely amazed at the blatant ignoring of Biblical evidence done here.
Catholic: "The sky is red!"
Response: "Go outside and look at the sky"
Catholic: "The sky is red!"
There's just absolutely no dealing done with the scriptures contrary to your teachings. None. It's ignored. I thought we were supposed to be learning of Catholic doctrine, I don't see how that's possible when we can't see how Catholics deal with certain texts, unless they just CAN'T.
This denominational nonsense is ridiculous, honestly. Was the Catholic church at one time, mostly correct and following Scripture? Yes. Have they become corrupted and favoring teachings of men over Sacred Scripture the past 1,000 years? Yes.
And I also thought the canonization was done by Christians and not "The Catholic Church". The Council of Trent didn't assemble what they had willy-nilly, they officially put their stamp of approval upon that which the Church (Christians) considered to be Scripture. Do some research on Irenaeus... Here's a hint, he lined out MOST of the NT we had today back in 200ADish, he's just the most prominent, others during this time came up with similar results. The books in question were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. That's it! As early as 200AD the church was fairly unified on what they felt was inspired... The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. As little as 100 years later we see the first appearance and regards of the NT we have today being solidified.
Of course, this is a different debate all together upon how the NT was formed, but this denominational promotional crap is ridiculous.
Catholic: "The sky is red!"
Response: "Go outside and look at the sky"
Catholic: "The sky is red!"
There's just absolutely no dealing done with the scriptures contrary to your teachings. None. It's ignored. I thought we were supposed to be learning of Catholic doctrine, I don't see how that's possible when we can't see how Catholics deal with certain texts, unless they just CAN'T.
Actually I claim no denomination and from the sounds of it you *are* part of the Body of Christ, I just can't comprehend how one can blatantly ignore scripture for teachings of men.
Is this not promoting one denomination over the other?
This denominational nonsense is ridiculous, honestly. Was the Catholic church at one time, mostly correct and following Scripture? Yes. Have they become corrupted and favoring teachings of men over Sacred Scripture the past 1,000 years? Yes.
And I also thought the canonization was done by Christians and not "The Catholic Church". The Council of Trent didn't assemble what they had willy-nilly, they officially put their stamp of approval upon that which the Church (Christians) considered to be Scripture. Do some research on Irenaeus... Here's a hint, he lined out MOST of the NT we had today back in 200ADish, he's just the most prominent, others during this time came up with similar results. The books in question were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. That's it! As early as 200AD the church was fairly unified on what they felt was inspired... The Catholic Church had nothing to do with it. As little as 100 years later we see the first appearance and regards of the NT we have today being solidified.
Of course, this is a different debate all together upon how the NT was formed, but this denominational promotional crap is ridiculous.
I don't think aspen meant to imply that you were part of any denomination, merely that Sola Scriptura ("by Scripture alone") was, at its inception, a specifically protestant doctrine.
Bud/Anastacia - you cannot know the inner motives for why this thread was set up. Unless you claim divine revelation direct from God.
Therefore, we have to assume that the first large comment by Aspen is Actually the Reason it was set up. To discuss and clarify Catholic doctrine.
Since I joined the site, I have seen a number of inappropriate comments, particularly directed at Selene, if you cant keep it civil and try to avoid offending
others, then you really should fight the urge to post. This site should be for people who want to share ideas, not attack and criticise others -
lets leave the atheists to that. Any Christian denomination can put down or critique aspects of one another. I thought Christians were meant to work to
understand each other?
When I said un-Christian way of communicating, I meant the ethos, spirit and manner of the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
It strikes me that you both have agendas towards this thread - or you would stick to the clear instructions at the start of the thread -
This thread is not called Defend Your Catholic Faith Then, If You Can! ...is it?
If you wish to attack Papists, set up your own thread for that! Simple!
Alternatively, engage in open minded, thoughtful dialogue, and leave the rest of the sniping to the Atheists. They do it well.
In Christ, M
Therefore, we have to assume that the first large comment by Aspen is Actually the Reason it was set up. To discuss and clarify Catholic doctrine.
Since I joined the site, I have seen a number of inappropriate comments, particularly directed at Selene, if you cant keep it civil and try to avoid offending
others, then you really should fight the urge to post. This site should be for people who want to share ideas, not attack and criticise others -
lets leave the atheists to that. Any Christian denomination can put down or critique aspects of one another. I thought Christians were meant to work to
understand each other?
When I said un-Christian way of communicating, I meant the ethos, spirit and manner of the words of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
It strikes me that you both have agendas towards this thread - or you would stick to the clear instructions at the start of the thread -
This thread is not called Defend Your Catholic Faith Then, If You Can! ...is it?
If you wish to attack Papists, set up your own thread for that! Simple!
Alternatively, engage in open minded, thoughtful dialogue, and leave the rest of the sniping to the Atheists. They do it well.
In Christ, M
Did Luther simply share his ideas, or did he create a specific list of reasons why the RCC was wrong?
I think the earlier commenter was spot on about the "politically correct" comments. Simply smiling at each other and not "offending" doesn't accomplish anything. Do you suppose Paul ended up in prison for telling people what they wanted to hear? What of when Peter was teaching the wrong idea regarding circumcision?
Did Jesus just smile at the Pharisees or did he call them vipers? Did he just wink at the people doing business in the temple or did he physically trash their businesses?
Why did Paul include "rebuking" in his list to Timothy if you're just support to "share" and never correct?
Does Paul speak of a pardon when the gospel message is change or eternal condemnation? Now, I realize we aren't discussing core Christian values here, but my point should be made by now... High value is placed on keeping the integrity of Word.
1 Timothy 4:16
And I'd disagree. Not with the doctrine, but with applicability of it in this argument. I think it's irrelevant. We aren't speaking of "that which is left out of Scripture", which is where that may come into play.
But that which CONTRADICTS Scripture, if we truly believe it to be God's word than that which contradicts it is not of God.
An In law of my is Catholic and made a statement that what had angered him about going to public schools was the prayers. What is wrong about being led in a public prayer to Jesus in a public school? He attended the same school system as I did and all the prayers that I prayed in the system were christian and most were the Lords prayer.
Selene
New Member
Here is another example of twisting my words again. I said, ""Jesus was a Jew, and I trust His word over yours" to a poster and look at this comment."
You want to know about Araon's sons? Why? Because they used incense and you know that the Catholic also used incense. So, you put two and two together and you think that using incense is against God's commandment? It was God who commanded the Israelites to use incense in their worship. As a matter of fact, in God's kingdom, incense is ALSO used (See Rev. 8:3-4). He commanded the use of incense on Earth and in Heaven.
Exodus 30:1 Thou shalt make also an altar to burn incense, of setim wood.
You think that Araon's sons were destroyed because of a different worship....when it does not even say that. So, now, YOU go figure out why God commanded the burning of incense on Earth and in Heaven and then figure out the reason why God destroyed Araon's sons. I already know the answer.
Where in any of our posts have we said anything contrary to Scripture when we have even used Scripture to support our doctrines. It is not my problem that you NEVER knew that those Scriptures existed in the Bible.
Where? You resort to prooftexting. Prooftexting is not "scriptural support". I can prove that God doesn't exist if I could prooftext.
You try to use Mary's Prayer as evidence of Mary being blessed, but ignore the line immediately after that statement by Mary which gives the reason why she's to be considered blessed.
You try to use a passage by David as support of praying to angels, but ignore the continued thought within the same sentence which would support praying to trees.
You try to use a verse written from Paul to Timothy and yet out of the blue apply that verse to Peter and Peter alone.
You try to use a passage in James as evidence that those in heaven are more righteous than those on earth which it doesn't support in any way whatsoever.
In other words, your teachings of the Catholic church (IE, TRADITIONS OF MEN) conflict with what's found in Scripture.
You try to use Mary's Prayer as evidence of Mary being blessed, but ignore the line immediately after that statement by Mary which gives the reason why she's to be considered blessed.
You try to use a passage by David as support of praying to angels, but ignore the continued thought within the same sentence which would support praying to trees.
You try to use a verse written from Paul to Timothy and yet out of the blue apply that verse to Peter and Peter alone.
You try to use a passage in James as evidence that those in heaven are more righteous than those on earth which it doesn't support in any way whatsoever.
In other words, your teachings of the Catholic church (IE, TRADITIONS OF MEN) conflict with what's found in Scripture.
Selene
New Member
So go ahead and prove that He does not exist through Scripture.
I already know the reason why she is blessed. The prophecy in the Bible says that "all generations will call her blessed." That prophecy was fulfilled in us and through us because we have always honored her by calling her "Blessed Mother." You, on the other hand, put her down.
Are you saying that David was wrong to address the trees to bless the Lord? If you do, then you go against Scripture. You don't know that what David said here in the Old Testament is also true in the New Testament.
Philippians 2:10 That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in Heaven, on earth, and under the earth.
Do you know of any man or woman who lives under the earth that will bow to the name of Jesus? So, even in the New Testament, the Apostles understood that trees (which is a living thing) and all creatures in the water are subject under God.
St. Paul left successors and so did the rest of the Apostles. All Apostolic Churches can trace their lineage to an Apostle or a saint of an Apostle. The Orthodox Church in Antioch can traced their lineage to the Apostle Peter because Peter also left a successor there. The Roman Catholic Church can traced their lineage to the Apostle Peter. The Coptic Church of Egypt can trace their lineage to St. Mark. The Patriarch of Constaniople can trace their lineage to the Apostle Andrew. The Russian Orthodox Chruch can trace their lineage also to the Apostle Andrew. The Patriarch Church of Jerusalem can trace their lineage to the Apostle James. The Assyrian Church of the East can trace their lineage to the Apostle Thomas. The Ethiopean Orthodox Church can trace their lineage to the Apostle Philip. The Armenian Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Bartholomew and Jude Thaddeus.
And you? You don't even know what "Apostolic succession" means.
I see..... you are saying that people in Heaven are NOT righteous at all and are sinners like those on earth. That is your belief? You have a grave misconception of Heaven if you think that sin exist in Heaven. If sinful people are in Heaven, then who is in Hell?
- Status
