PDA

View Full Version : What would make you Catholic?



Pages : [1] 2 3

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 04:42 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Bright Raven
November 3rd, 2015, 04:44 PM
Nothing!

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 04:47 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

The Catholics would have to repent of the idols first.

chrysostom
November 3rd, 2015, 04:48 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

kind of like asking an atheist what would make them believe in God

the evidence is there
but
it has to be something that you want

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 04:49 PM
The Catholics would have to repent of the idols first.

But if the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, then we don't have idols.

I am not asking what teachings you personally would change. I am asking what evidence could convince you that the Catholic Church, as it exists today, was and is the Church founded by Christ.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 04:56 PM
Nothing!

Is it possible for a theological doctrine to be objectively true, even if you don't think it is?

nikolai_42
November 3rd, 2015, 05:00 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Getting rid of the Papacy would be a big step in that direction...

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
...
But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
Matthew 23:9,11

Then there's transubstantiation...

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:01 PM
One BILLION dollars.

http://robertkaplinsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/drevil_cover.jpg

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:10 PM
Basically what I'm hearing from others, gj, is that the Church will have to become Protestant at its core.

Robert Pate
November 3rd, 2015, 05:16 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Jesus would have to come down from heaven and say that it is so.

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:17 PM
Jesus would have to come down from heaven and say that it is so.

Bah, how would you know it wasn't an imposter?

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:24 PM
Bah, how would you know it wasn't an imposter?

So Christ Himself would be tested against your own personal religious beliefs?

He could only truly be Christ if he agreed with you?

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:26 PM
Jesus would have to come down from heaven and say that it is so.

Honest answer.

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:27 PM
So Christ Himself would be tested against your own personal religious beliefs?

He could only truly be Christ if he agreed with you?

Hey, what incontrovertible proof could he give? We're already warned there'll be false Christs in the end times.

It isn't about agreeing with me. It's about what empirical evidence he could provide. If signs and wonders are within the province of even the false Christs, what acid test could I use to prove the true Christ?

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:31 PM
It isn't about agreeing with me.

Then why declare Him an impostor, if He agreed with the Catholic Church?

Robert Pate
November 3rd, 2015, 05:32 PM
So Christ Himself would be tested against your own personal religious beliefs?

He could only truly be Christ if he agreed with you?

In the last days the anti-Christ will come out of the Catholic church and will deceive many, Revelation 13:13, 14.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:33 PM
Hey, what incontrovertible proof could he give? We're already warned there'll be false Christs in the end times.

It isn't about agreeing with me. It's about what empirical evidence he could provide. If signs and wonders are within the province of even the false Christs, what acid test could I use to prove the true Christ?

Is it possible for a theological doctrine to be objectively true, even if you personally believe it is false?

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:34 PM
Then why declare Him an impostor, if He agreed with the Catholic Church?

You're missing the point. I would need some sort of acid test authenticating he was who he said he was before I'd believe what he has to say about the RCC.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:36 PM
In the last days the anti-Christ will come out of the Catholic church and will deceive many, Revelation 13:13, 14.

Yet... you said if Christ Himself declared the Catholic Church to be the Church He founded, you'd believe Him.

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:38 PM
Yet... you said if Christ Himself declared the Catholic Church to be the Church He founded, you'd believe Him.

Go back and re-read. You're conflating my post with someone else's.

dialm
November 3rd, 2015, 05:38 PM
In the last days the anti-Christ will come out of the Catholic church and will deceive many, Revelation 13:13, 14.

This would go with world peace. The Roman church has the power right now to create world peace. It might not be a lasting peace but it would be long enough to get the job done.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:39 PM
You're missing the point. I would need some sort of acid test authenticating he was who he said he was before I'd believe what he has to say about the RCC.

Would you have believed Jesus to be the Christ when He walked the earth in the first century?

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 05:40 PM
Go back and re-read. You're conflating my post with someone else's.

No. I was responding to Robert Pate. Go back and re-read. :)

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:42 PM
Would you have believed Jesus to be the Christ when He walked the earth in the first century?

I don't know--too many variables. I like to think I would. If I was born in the same place--Tulsa, Oklahoma--then probably not, unless the Mormons are right about things. Am I a Gentile or a Jew? Again, there are a lot of variables.

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 05:45 PM
Is it possible for a theological doctrine to be objectively true, even if you personally believe it is false?

Sure. One of us--or neither of us--believes things about Jesus that are objectively true.

Robert Pate
November 3rd, 2015, 05:45 PM
No. I was responding to Robert Pate. Go back and re-read. :)


There is nothing, absolutly nothing in the New Testament about a Catholic church in Rome.

John wrote to the seven churches in Asia, Revelation 1:11.

Nothing to a church in Rome. Why is that?

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 05:51 PM
But if the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, then we don't have idols.
And the opposite argument is that since you have idols, you cannot be Christ's Church.



I am not asking what teachings you personally would change. I am asking what evidence could convince you that the Catholic Church, as it exists today, was and is the Church founded by Christ.
Right now the biggest evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic Church is not and never was the Church founded by Christ is the idols.

Therefore, it is not possible to convince me until you remove the idols.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 06:06 PM
And the opposite argument is that since you have idols, you cannot be Christ's Church.



Right now the biggest evidence that proves without a shadow of a doubt that the Catholic Church is not and never was the Church founded by Christ is the idols.

Therefore, it is not possible to convince me until you remove the idols.

So if all the statues (and paintings and stained glass windows?) were removed from Catholic churches... you'd convert?

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 06:06 PM
This is an odd thread. Just about all of the participants here are convinced by the Church as it currently stands is not Christ's Church, mainly because of how it currently stands. The obvious answer is the Church would have to become more "Protestant," to a degree in which the Catholic Church would lose much of its present identity.

Catholicism isn't going to do that, and Protestants aren't going to swim the Tiber unless they're somehow convinced the Catholic Church is more biblical than their own (and that using their biased interpretations of the text).

I just don't see the point. Maybe God likes a Christianity of many shades and hues.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 06:08 PM
There is nothing, absolutly nothing in the New Testament about a Catholic church in Rome.

There's nothing about Robert Pate either. Yet you are real. And you are (I assume) genuinely who you claim to be.


Do you believe that every theological truth is contained in the Bible?

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 06:09 PM
Maybe God likes a Christianity of many shades and hues.

Probably not...

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 06:11 PM
Probably not...

Well, He's certainly taking His time getting us to convert to the true Church.

Which, by the way, is the Eastern Orthodox.

God's gonna be so ticked at you--missed it by this || much.

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 06:32 PM
So if all the statues (and paintings and stained glass windows?) were removed from Catholic churches... you'd convert?
The next problem preventing my conversion would be the Augustinian Heresies.

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 06:37 PM
Jesus would have to come down from heaven and say that it is so.
Is that what Jesus has done regarding your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? :think:

ok doser
November 3rd, 2015, 06:38 PM
What would make you Catholic?

big screen tv for sunday night football

free munchies

and

cold beer on tap

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 06:40 PM
There is nothing, absolutly nothing in the New Testament about a Catholic church in Rome.
Why do you assume that there would or must be?

republicanchick
November 3rd, 2015, 06:41 PM
The Catholics would have to repent of the idols first.

he who points his finger at others has 3 pointing back @ himself

the sins of ANY church have NOTHING to do with the TEACHINGS of the Church

Logic 101

But this is especially true in the Catholic Church. Jesus abides in His Catholic Church, tangibly. IF people ignore him, it is by choice and has nothing to do with how awesome Jesus is






___

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 06:41 PM
Is that what Jesus has done regarding your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? :think:

EOC, est. circa 33 AD. As valid a claimant as anyone to Christ's sandals, wouldn't you concur?

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 06:43 PM
EOC, est. circa 33 AD. As valid a claimant as anyone to Christ's sandals, wouldn't you concur?
Not even close (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/eastern-orthodoxy).

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 06:43 PM
Jesus would have to come down from heaven and say that it is so.

Not me. Satan could fake that.

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 06:48 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

That's not exactly what the title asked, now is it.

To answer that question: such evidence does not exist.

To answer the title: if Rome permanently took Christ off the cross and stopped pretending to daily crucify Him afresh...that would be a start. Maybe.

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 06:50 PM
the sins of ANY church have NOTHING to do with the TEACHINGS of the Church
Sure it does.
When the church is more known for its sins than for its teachings, then the only thing the church is teaching is its sins.

However, in the case of the Catholic Church, the sin of idolatry is compounded by the teachings of Augustinian heresies.

It turns it into a lose-lose situation.

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 06:51 PM
EOC, est. circa 33 AD. As valid a claimant as anyone to Christ's sandals, wouldn't you concur?
The Eastern Orthodox is definitely closer than the Roman Catholic.

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 06:52 PM
To answer the title: if Rome permanently took Christ off the cross and stopped pretending to daily crucify Him afresh...that would be a start. Maybe.
Straw Man Fallacy. Try again.

QUESTION: What does the term "Other" specifically stand for in your religious affiliation?

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 06:55 PM
QUESTION: What does the term "Other" specifically stand for in your religious affiliation?

Saved and UESIC.

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 07:02 PM
Saved and UESIC.
...which stands for...?

musterion
November 3rd, 2015, 07:12 PM
Google. Was defined at length about 2 weeks ago.

IOW,

Answered post#_____.

republicanchick
November 3rd, 2015, 07:22 PM
if I weren't Catholic I would look @ those BEAUTIFUL cathedrals... all that ancient art... DaVinci, etc...

and I would just feel... inspired...

and would want to investigate...

also, i would look at the Church's BEAUTIFUL teachings on the sacredness of human life, how all are created in God's image and worthy of dignity

and I would want to investigate...

and then I would go into a Church and feel the tangible Presence... and...

that would be that


+++

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 07:24 PM
Google. Was defined at length about 2 weeks ago. IOW, Answered post#____.
Google is no help at all, offering any number of possible meanings, none of which is in any way religious or Christian. Please define "UESIC," or perhaps post the number of the post in which an explanation appears.

HisServant
November 3rd, 2015, 07:30 PM
if I weren't Catholic I would look @ those BEAUTIFUL cathedrals... all that ancient art... DaVinci, etc...

and I would just feel... inspired...

and would want to investigate...

also, i would look at the Church's BEAUTIFUL teachings on the sacredness of human life, how all are created in God's image and worthy of dignity

and I would want to investigate...

and then I would go into a Church and feel the tangible Presence... and...

that would be that


+++

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...I doubt God is impressed with anything you hold of value in your religion.

The only thing of beauty to God is his son... Who died on the cross...

Nick M
November 3rd, 2015, 07:33 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

For Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters, and Peter's comment about Paul to be removed from the Bible and we are told "oops" with a straight face. Something like that.

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 07:33 PM
The next problem preventing my conversion would be the Augustinian Heresies.

So any Church, in order to be Christ's true Church, must conform to your specifications?

G.O., is it possible for a theological doctrine to be objectively true, even if you think it's false?

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 07:34 PM
For Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters, and Peter's comment about Paul to be removed from the Bible and we are told "oops" with a straight face. Something like that.

Is it possible for an individual to misunderstand Scripture?

patrick jane
November 3rd, 2015, 07:34 PM
For Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters, and Peter's comment about Paul to be removed from the Bible and we are told "oops" with a straight face. Something like that.

What's Peter's comment about Paul ?

republicanchick
November 3rd, 2015, 07:36 PM
One BILLION dollars.

http://robertkaplinsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/drevil_cover.jpg

Is this Bright Raven?



:)


+

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 07:37 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Ok, yes.



I doubt God is impressed with anything you hold of value in your religion.

Of course you would know the mind of God, right?




The only thing of beauty to God is his son... Who died on the cross...

The only thing? I doubt that.

Right Divider
November 3rd, 2015, 07:37 PM
But if the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, then we don't have idols.

Oh that wonderful false logic of the RCC.


I am not asking what teachings you personally would change. I am asking what evidence could convince you that the Catholic Church, as it exists today, was and is the Church founded by Christ.
The evidence is complete that the RCC is a false faith and completely opposed to what the Bible teaches.

republicanchick
November 3rd, 2015, 07:37 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...I doubt God is impressed with anything you hold of value in your religion.

The only thing of beauty to God is his son... Who died on the cross...

God was the one who told the Israelites to make the temple ornate... lots of gold and brass and purple cloth...

so tell HIM



++

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 07:50 PM
Oh that wonderful false logic of the RCC.

Which Catholic doctrine, specifically, is illogical?




The evidence is complete that the RCC is a false faith and completely opposed to what the Bible teaches.

Is that true just because you said it?

Let me try.

The evidence is complete that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and is His true historic Church.

See how easy it is to speak without supporting your claims?

Dona Bate
November 3rd, 2015, 07:50 PM
Google is no help at all, offering any number of possible meanings, none of which is in any way religious or Christian. Please define "UESIC," or perhaps post the number of the post in which an explanation appears.

Unconditional eternal security in (other) Christ.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113615

God Bless!

glassjester
November 3rd, 2015, 08:13 PM
Sure. One of us--or neither of us--believes things about Jesus that are objectively true.

I agree. It's possible for us, as fallible individuals, to hold false beliefs.

So what are we to do when two of us disagree on the meaning of a passage in Scripture, or on theology? We can't both be right.

Brother Vinny
November 3rd, 2015, 08:20 PM
I agree. It's possible for us, as fallible individuals, to hold false beliefs.

So what are we to do when two of us disagree on the meaning of a passage in Scripture, or on theology? We can't both be right.

I don't know. What if we're both wrong and theology is a big waste of time? Who do we use as arbiter of the real?

Right Divider
November 3rd, 2015, 08:37 PM
Which Catholic doctrine, specifically, is illogical?


But if the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, then we don't have idols.
That's just silly and illogical. Just like both the RCC and so many poster here on TOL.


Is that true just because you said it?

Let me try.

The evidence is complete that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, and is His true historic Church.

See how easy it is to speak without supporting your claims?
More rhetoric in place of an actual argument in favor of your position.

I'll try to make this simple for you.

The church on Pentecost was completely Israel. It was NOT something new.

The body of Christ was revealed to Paul when Israel, as a nation, continued to reject Christ.

Someday, they (Israel) will be restored.

The RCC is an abomination attempting to steal what Israel was promised and teaches evil doctrine in the place of God's revelation to and through Paul and those that follow his sound doctrine.

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 08:51 PM
So any Church, in order to be Christ's true Church, must conform to your specifications?
No, the church must conform to the specifications of the Bible.


G.O., is it possible for a theological doctrine to be objectively true, even if you think it's false?
There are many theological doctrines that I once thought were true that I discovered were false when I actually studied the Bible.

It is possible that studying the Bible can free you from the many false theological doctrines that came from the quill of Augustine.


Is it possible for an individual to misunderstand Scripture?
Yes, Augustine is a great example of an individual that misunderstood Scripture.

genuineoriginal
November 3rd, 2015, 08:54 PM
God was the one who told the Israelites to make the temple ornate... lots of gold and brass and purple cloth...

so tell HIM
The Roman Catholic church is not the Israelites, and God never told the Roman Catholic church to make a temple with lots of gold, brass, purple cloth, and many many idols.

That is the error of strange fire that Nadab and Abihu were killed for.

intojoy
November 3rd, 2015, 09:47 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Satan

Mocking You
November 3rd, 2015, 10:30 PM
I'd have to have a time machine and make several jumps back to the first through fourth century. It may well be that long ago the Catholic Church was once the true church of Christ, though I doubt it. It's so far off the rails nowadays that nothing short of personally witnessing its early history with my own eyes would convince me.

BTW, the thread title and the actual question in the post are two different questions. I answered the question in the post in my first paragraph (above.) To answer the thread title - - nothing could make me become a Catholic.

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 10:41 PM
Unconditional eternal security in (other) Christ.
Thanks for the clear answer. Don't know why that was so difficult for musterion to spit out... :doh:

brewmama
November 3rd, 2015, 10:47 PM
I would have been a Catholic, but they wouldn't let me in because I was divorced and remarried. I became Orthodox instead and am very happy thank you very much! We have changed even less than you!

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 10:52 PM
I became Orthodox instead and am very happy thank you very much!
Your personal feelings about it are hardly the point, are they. Your comments here merely dodge the truth question.

brewmama
November 3rd, 2015, 10:59 PM
Your personal feelings about it are hardly the point, are they. Your comments here merely dodge the truth question.


Hey, my Church is totally grounded in truth. Your Popes seem to think so too. Catch up!

Cruciform
November 3rd, 2015, 11:31 PM
Hey, my Church is totally grounded in truth. Your Popes seem to think so too. Catch up!
I'm fully there, believe me; I know what the Catechism says on this point. And yet, only one of the two---Catholicism or Orthodoxy---is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Jesus vowed to build his "Church"* (not "churchES"), and it matters whether or not one is connected with Christ's one Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+


_______
*Matthew 16:18-19; 1 Tim 3:15.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:40 AM
Yes, Augustine is a great example of an individual that misunderstood Scripture.

Ok, so how can you know which of you two rightly understood Scripture?

You can't prefer your own interpretation simply because it's your interpretation. The NT commands us to be of one faith, so we're expected to reconcile theological differences, not revel in them - founding new "churches" whenever a new interpretation or doctrine is thought up by any individual on the planet.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:43 AM
I don't know. What if we're both wrong and theology is a big waste of time? Who do we use as arbiter of the real?

We could scale our conversation back to the realm of philosophy and natural theology, I guess, but I figured we had something of a common ground in those areas, and any conversation would progress from that common ground.

The NT tells us to be of one faith, right?

Brother Vinny
November 4th, 2015, 06:57 AM
We could scale our conversation back to the realm of philosophy and natural theology, I guess, but I figured we had something of a common ground in those areas, and any conversation would progress from that common ground.

The NT tells us to be of one faith, right?

I believe so.

Going to be on the road for work for the next couple weeks. I'll check in here when I can.

Tweety134
November 4th, 2015, 10:28 AM
When they first repent of all their sins and stop doing everything that Jesus did not teach. God has no mother. So stop saying Mary mother of God! The idol worshipping is off the table too. And all those pagan holidays needs to go too. But that will never happen.

chrysostom
November 4th, 2015, 10:31 AM
When they first repent of all their sins and stop doing everything that Jesus did not teach. God has no mother. So stop saying Mary mother of God! The idol worshipping is off the table too. And all those pagan holidays needs to go too. But that will never happen.

mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
therefore mary is the mother of God

Tweety134
November 4th, 2015, 10:32 AM
Jesus is not God! Bible never says such mess.

OCTOBER23
November 4th, 2015, 10:36 AM
PAGAN ROMAN CATHOLICS WILL NOT BE IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

WHAT THEY DO IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD.

Depart from me Catholics into utter darkness.

OCTOBER23
November 4th, 2015, 10:39 AM
TWEETY 2342,

Technically Chrystomper is correct.

BUT THAT DOES MEAN THAT THESE PAGAN ROMAN CATHOLICS

HAVE TO WORSHIP HER OR MAKE HER THE MEDIATOR BETWEEN

GOD THE FATHER AND MAN. THEY ARE SO STUBBORN AND BACKWARD.

Right Divider
November 4th, 2015, 11:14 AM
mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
therefore mary is the mother of God
Typical RCC nonsense.

Jesus was BOTH God and man. Mary had NOTHING to do with His deity, only His humanity.

Get out of that "church".

HisServant
November 4th, 2015, 12:13 PM
There is nothing appealing about Roman Catholicism at all..

It has degraded so far from the pure gospel taught by Jesus and the Apostles that it is irrelevant.

Desert Reign
November 4th, 2015, 12:33 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

It's like asking your enemy what their weaknesses are. The onus is on you to show that your church was founded by Christ. You obviously haven't. The numbers of converts to Catholicism are miniscule compared to those who are members by virtue of their cultural or family circumstances.
And as others have said, it isn't evidence that will convince anyone. Catholicism needs to be attractive first.

Jamie Gigliotti
November 4th, 2015, 12:46 PM
Only God, His Spirit could make me at my submission to Him. He hasn't told me that yet.

Right Divider
November 4th, 2015, 12:53 PM
It's like asking your enemy what their weaknesses are. The onus is on you to show that your church was founded by Christ. You obviously haven't. The numbers of converts to Catholicism are miniscule compared to those who are members by virtue of their cultural or family circumstances.
And as others have said, it isn't evidence that will convince anyone. Catholicism needs to be attractive first.
I would mostly agree with you. But for many people, Catholicism (RCC) is very attractive as they love to be religious.

They love:


Rituals
Ceremonies
Symbols
Feeling like they are righteous
Belonging to a large organization
Going through the motions
Repeating memorized phrases
Repeating canned "prayers"

Your point about "culture and family" is also dead on. My mother-in-law says, "I was born a Catholic and I'll die a Catholic".

chrysostom
November 4th, 2015, 01:30 PM
There is nothing appealing about Roman Catholicism at all..

It has degraded so far from the pure gospel taught by Jesus and the Apostles that it is irrelevant.

is that why the media and the masses follow the pope around?

ok doser
November 4th, 2015, 01:37 PM
is that why the media and the masses follow the pope around?

to be honest, they pay an awful lot of attention to serial killers, too

and the kardashians



just sayin'

SaulToPaul
November 4th, 2015, 01:49 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

I would need to see a church resembling the RCC in the Holy Bible.
I don't. The only thing similar to it is Baal worship.

HisServant
November 4th, 2015, 02:17 PM
is that why the media and the masses follow the pope around?

It just proves they are idiots.

Ask Mr. Religion
November 4th, 2015, 02:39 PM
I am already catholic. Making me Catholic would mean Romanists have finally repented of their apostacy (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4325869#post4325869).

AMR

PureX
November 4th, 2015, 02:43 PM
Catholicism would have to become a completely different phenomena before I would return to it. I will not accept men as 'stand-ins' or go-betweens for God. That's a deal-breaker for me. Nor will I make an idol of a collection of old Jewish religious texts. Which leaves out most of the rest of your religions, too, from my perspective.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:11 PM
I would need to see a church resembling the RCC in the Holy Bible.

Ok. What/how many resemblances would you need to see before you became convinced that the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ?


On the other side of the coin - how many dissimilarities would you need to see between your own chosen denomination and the first century Church before you were convinced that it is not the Church founded by Christ?

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:12 PM
No, the church must conform to the specifications of the Bible.

Namely?

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:14 PM
nothing short of personally witnessing its early history with my own eyes would convince me.

What specific events would you need to witness in the Church's history in order to be convinced?

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:15 PM
I would have been a Catholic, but they wouldn't let me in because I was divorced and remarried.

Why did you want to be a member of the Catholic Church?

SaulToPaul
November 4th, 2015, 03:15 PM
Ok. What/how many resemblances would you need to see before you became convinced that the Catholic Church was the one founded by Christ?


On the other side of the coin - how many dissimilarities would you need to see between your own chosen denomination and the first century Church before you were convinced that it is not the Church founded by Christ?

Neither the RCC nor it's Protestant counterparts resemble any church in the Holy Bible.

chrysostom
November 4th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Neither the RCC nor it's Protestant counterparts resemble any church in the Holy Bible.

Jesus didn't say He will build His churches on a rock

SaulToPaul
November 4th, 2015, 03:18 PM
Jesus didn't say He will build His churches on a rock

Thou hast well said.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:21 PM
I believe so.

So we're commanded to be of one faith. Yet, as human beings, we're bound to disagree on many theological truths and scriptural interpretations.

I could say something as plainly true as "the Earth is round," and there will be people who deny it.

There's always bound to be individuals who will not or cannot consent to an objective truth. How can we be of one faith?

dreadknought
November 4th, 2015, 03:23 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?There is no evidence the Roman catholic church could provide that would validate Trent, nor it's inherent 'rite' to dictate man's traditions upon the gospel of grace. The "catholic" church of scripture, I do abide.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 03:29 PM
There is no evidence the Roman catholic church could provide that would validate Trent, nor it's inherent 'rite' to dictate man's traditions upon the gospel of grace. The "catholic" church of scripture, I do abide.

So after Trent, Christ had no Church?

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 04:16 PM
Thou hast well said.

One Church, right?

And was it a visible Church?

What was its structure?

What did His Church have the authority to do or teach?

Bright Raven
November 4th, 2015, 04:20 PM
Jesus didn't say He will build His churches on a rock

On the Rock, Christ?

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 05:28 PM
Why did you want to be a member of the Catholic Church?

I had wanted to ever since I saw the Sound of Music when I was young, but I drifted away before I was old enough to join. However, it's changed quite a bit since then, and my church doesn't and hasn't changed, which to me is better. I harbor no ill will towards the Catholic Church, however it seems most people here harbor hateful feelings towards both the Catholic and Orthodox Church. Even Catholics here who look down on the Orthodox Church, which I have found to be rare. It's sad. Not much Christian community here.

genuineoriginal
November 4th, 2015, 05:29 PM
Namely?

You asked whether a church must conform to my specifications.

My reply is that the church must conform to the specifications of the Bible, not to my specifications.

There are many things the Catholic church could change to conform to the specifications of the Bible.

After you purge the church of idolatry and the heretical Augustine doctrines, we can discuss the rest.

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 05:32 PM
Neither the RCC nor it's Protestant counterparts resemble any church in the Holy Bible.

That's only because you only look at the Bible for it, when it isn't put in the Bible, because everyone in the Church knew what it was. And they still do. You really miss out on a lot that way. Not to mention that everything in the Church IS Biblical, you just don't or won't see it.

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 05:33 PM
Typical RCC nonsense.

Jesus was BOTH God and man. Mary had NOTHING to do with His deity, only His humanity.

Get out of that "church".


He was still God. She was still His mother. If you deny that, you deny Christ is God.

genuineoriginal
November 4th, 2015, 06:03 PM
everything in the Church IS Biblical
Idolatry is Biblical, it is mentioned 119 times.
That does not mean that idols should ever be seen in a Christian church.

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 06:20 PM
Idolatry is Biblical, it is mentioned 119 times.
That does not mean that idols should ever be seen in a Christian church.

Icons are a representation of spiritual things, not idols. God became man, which means he can be represented. Tradition has it that St. Luke painted the first icon (of the Virgin Mary) as he had become very close to her-as evidenced by the Gospel of Luke. Icons are found in the Roman catacombs.

Iconoclasm is as offshoot of the influence of Islam, which is very iconoclastic. Protestant iconoclasm joins Muslim iconoclasm in heresy.

oatmeal
November 4th, 2015, 06:38 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Are you referring to the Roman Catholic church or the catholic (universal) church?

Right Divider
November 4th, 2015, 07:30 PM
He was still God. She was still His mother. If you deny that, you deny Christ is God.
Another stupid response..... and illogical too!

She had NOTHING to do with His divinity, therefore she is NOT the mother of God. There is NO such thing.

Now go back to worshiping your idol.

P.S. The only queen of heaven in the Bible is a pagan goddess.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 07:49 PM
Are you referring to the Roman Catholic church or the catholic (universal) church?

There's only one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church.

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 07:50 PM
Another stupid response..... and illogical too!

She had NOTHING to do with His divinity, therefore she is NOT the mother of God. There is NO such thing.

Now go back to worshiping your idol.

P.S. The only queen of heaven in the Bible is a pagan goddess.

Oh, you are SO much smarter than the doctors of the Church who dealt with the heresy of Nestorianism. Are you Nestorian? I guess so. The same council which gave us the Nicene Creed made the determination that Mary was Theotokos. Do you also deny the Nicene Creed?

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 07:53 PM
Another stupid response..... and illogical too!

She had NOTHING to do with His divinity, therefore she is NOT the mother of God. There is NO such thing.

Now go back to worshiping your idol.

P.S. The only queen of heaven in the Bible is a pagan goddess.

If you were incorrect about this (or about any theological truth), who would correct you?

Is it possible for you to believe a false doctrine, or conversely, to disbelieve a true one?

Or... is every religious belief you hold 100% true, simply because it's your belief.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 07:55 PM
Oh, you are SO much smarter than the doctors of the Church who dealt with the heresy of Nestorianism. Are you Nestorian? I guess so. The same council which gave us the Nicene Creed made the determination that Mary was Theotokos. Do you also deny the Nicene Creed?

I agree with you. But be careful - it's not a matter of IQ. It's a matter of authority.

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 08:08 PM
I agree with you. But be careful - it's not a matter of IQ. It's a matter of authority.

True, but a response that deems the title of Theotokos "stupid" is severely lacking in IQ.

The Church declared that both Divine and human natures were united in the person of Jesus, the son of Mary. Hence, Mary may be called Theotokos, since the son she bore according to the flesh, Jesus, is truly one of the Divine persons of the Trinity. This Marian title is really a Christological statement, which affirms that the second person of the Trinity, who was born into history as fully human, is really 'God with us'.
Mary is the Theotokos, the one who gave birth to God. This single word sums up the meaning of Luke's phrase: 'Mother of the Lord' (Lk 1:43)

genuineoriginal
November 4th, 2015, 08:16 PM
True, but a response that deems the title of Theotokos "stupid" is severely lacking in IQ.

The Church declared that both Divine and human natures were united in the person of Jesus, the son of Mary. Hence, Mary may be called Theotokos, since the son she bore according to the flesh, Jesus, is truly one of the Divine persons of the Trinity. This Marian title is really a Christological statement, which affirms that the second person of the Trinity, who was born into history as fully human, is really 'God with us'.
Mary is the Theotokos, the one who gave birth to God. This single word sums up the meaning of Luke's phrase: 'Mother of the Lord' (Lk 1:43)

I see you are trying the old ploy of claiming that Mary is greater than God because she changed God's diapers.

Angel4Truth
November 4th, 2015, 08:16 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

None, the evidence that already exists has already borne out that it isnt.

Right Divider
November 4th, 2015, 08:21 PM
If you were incorrect about this (or about any theological truth), who would correct you?

Is it possible for you to believe a false doctrine, or conversely, to disbelieve a true one?

Or... is every religious belief you hold 100% true, simply because it's your belief.
Do you ever get tired of talking nonsense?

Mary is NOT the "mother of God". That idea comes from paganism.

Marys relationship to Jesus Christ in regards to HIS DEITY is ZERO.

God's WORD, the Bible, is the measure of true doctrine. It is GOD BREATHED and therefore fully able to allow me to determine what is good and bad doctrine.

2Ti 3:16-17 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Your "church" constantly rejects scripture in favor of your corrupt 'tradition'.

glassjester
November 4th, 2015, 08:44 PM
Do you ever get tired of talking nonsense?

Mary is NOT the "mother of God". That idea comes from paganism.

Marys relationship to Jesus Christ in regards to HIS DEITY is ZERO.

God's WORD, the Bible, is the measure of true doctrine.

Feel free to respond to the questions I actually asked.


Specifically:
If you were incorrect about this (or about any theological truth), who would correct you?

Is it possible for you to believe a false doctrine, or conversely, to disbelieve a true one?

Or... is every religious belief you hold 100% true, simply because it's your belief?

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 10:40 PM
I see you are trying the old ploy of claiming that Mary is greater than God because she changed God's diapers.

No one ever said Mary was greater than God. She is the mother of the second person of the Trinity however, which makes her the mother of God the second person of the Trinity.

Angel4Truth
November 4th, 2015, 10:44 PM
No one ever said Mary was greater than God. She is the mother of the second person of the Trinity however, which makes her the mother of God the second person of the Trinity.

Its impossible for her to be the mother of God, since God includes the Father and the Holy Spirit.

She is not the mother of His Deity. She bore the flesh that He took on. She did not bear His Spirit.

brewmama
November 4th, 2015, 10:50 PM
Do you ever get tired of talking nonsense?

Mary is NOT the "mother of God". That idea comes from paganism.
Paganism?? :rotfl:


Marys relationship to Jesus Christ in regards to HIS DEITY is ZERO.

Divorcing Jesus' divine nature from his human nature is an old heresy, as I have already documented.


God's WORD, the Bible, is the measure of true doctrine. It is GOD BREATHED and therefore fully able to allow me to determine what is good and bad doctrine.

Um hmm. So why do Protestants have so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations? How do you know yours is right and the other Protestant's isn't?



2Ti 3:16-17 KJV All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Your "church" constantly rejects scripture in favor of your corrupt 'tradition'.
Not at all true, and shows the depth of your ignorance about what my church teaches and believes. And your quote above in NO WAY says that the Bible is the only thing to abide by. In fact Jesus never said that. He only talks about establishing the Church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to only go by the Bible. Which of course was given by the Church in the first place (the NT). I have already given Scripture to show why Bible only is a fallacy.

And doesn't that remark about "good works" make you a little itchy?

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Right Divider
November 5th, 2015, 09:57 AM
Feel free to respond to the questions I actually asked.

Specifically:
If you were incorrect about this (or about any theological truth), who would correct you?

God



Is it possible for you to believe a false doctrine, or conversely, to disbelieve a true one?

True for everyone


Or... is every religious belief you hold 100% true, simply because it's your belief?
Ha ha ha ha

The church that Jesus had with His twelve apostles for the TWELVE tribes of Israel was NOT handed down to Rome. That is a thieving myth made by evil men.

HisServant
November 5th, 2015, 10:19 AM
No one ever said Mary was greater than God. She is the mother of the second person of the Trinity however, which makes her the mother of God the second person of the Trinity.

Jesus existed way before Mary ever came on the scene... so she is not his mother in the same sense that our mothers are to us.

God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit created this universe.. they spoke and it came into existence.... to infer that Mary created part of the creator is nonsense.

HisServant
November 5th, 2015, 10:26 AM
Paganism?? :rotfl:



Divorcing Jesus' divine nature from his human nature is an old heresy, as I have already documented.



Um hmm. So why do Protestants have so many conflicting and contradictory interpretations? How do you know yours is right and the other Protestant's isn't?


Not at all true, and shows the depth of your ignorance about what my church teaches and believes. And your quote above in NO WAY says that the Bible is the only thing to abide by. In fact Jesus never said that. He only talks about establishing the Church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to only go by the Bible. Which of course was given by the Church in the first place (the NT). I have already given Scripture to show why Bible only is a fallacy.

And doesn't that remark about "good works" make you a little itchy?

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Almost all of Romes 'developed' doctrines have their roots in pre-Christian Roman traditions.

Sacraments are not in scripture, nor is it something that 1st century Jews would be involved in... yet Sacrimentalism was a core concept of Mithraism which was the required religion of the Roman Army. As a matter of fact, scripture is pretty plain that we should not be involved in such things.

Transubstantiation also has it's roots in pre-Christian Roman pagan traditions. In Mithraism, a tauroctony was a core concept where they fed on the flesh of a sacrificed bull and the flesh became the flesh of Mithras.. sound familiar? Mithras was born of a rock... Peter is the rock... and I could go on.

The immaculate conception and perpetual virginity doctines are pretty much direct copies of the doctrines that arose around the god Diana/Artimis... where she gave birth, yet petitioned Zeus to restore her virginity perpetually.

You really need to understand just how much Rome has negatively influenced RCC doctrine.

genuineoriginal
November 5th, 2015, 10:46 AM
No one ever said Mary was greater than God. She is the mother of the second person of the Trinity however, which makes her the mother of God the second person of the Trinity.

Catholics may have avoided saying the words, but their action of praying to Mary proves that is what they believe.

Nick M
November 5th, 2015, 11:47 AM
Is it possible for an individual to misunderstand Scripture?

Why, is there something you don't understand?

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 11:53 AM
Catholics may have avoided saying the words, but their action of praying to Mary proves that is what they believe.

Do you not agree with the Apostle's Creed?

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 12:05 PM
Almost all of Romes 'developed' doctrines have their roots in pre-Christian Roman traditions.

Sacraments are not in scripture, nor is it something that 1st century Jews would be involved in... yet Sacrimentalism was a core concept of Mithraism which was the required religion of the Roman Army. As a matter of fact, scripture is pretty plain that we should not be involved in such things.

Transubstantiation also has it's roots in pre-Christian Roman pagan traditions. In Mithraism, a tauroctony was a core concept where they fed on the flesh of a sacrificed bull and the flesh became the flesh of Mithras.. sound familiar? Mithras was born of a rock... Peter is the rock... and I could go on.

The immaculate conception and perpetual virginity doctines are pretty much direct copies of the doctrines that arose around the god Diana/Artimis... where she gave birth, yet petitioned Zeus to restore her virginity perpetually.

You really need to understand just how much Rome has negatively influenced RCC doctrine.


Even if true, (which I do not grant), how does that explain the same beliefs in all the rest of Christendom outside of Rome? (Byzantine, Palestine, Africa)
You do know that Luther and Calvin also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

And Luther said:

". . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."

John Wesley:
"The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

You guys have no idea how unhistorical you are, do you?

Right Divider
November 5th, 2015, 12:12 PM
Even if true, (which I do not grant), how does that explain the same beliefs in all the rest of Christendom outside of Rome? (Byzantine, Palestine, Africa)
You do know that Luther and Calvin also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

And Luther said:

". . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."

John Wesley:
"The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

You guys have no idea how unhistorical you are, do you?
So there you have it!

How could Luther and Wesley and Calvin possibly be wrong?

Mary was His BIOLOGICAL mother and she had NOTHING to do whatsoever with His DEITY (i.e., His divine nature). Therefore it is blasphemous to call her the "mother of God".

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 12:16 PM
So there you have it!

How could Luther and Wesley and Calvin possibly be wrong?

Mary was His BIOLOGICAL mother and she had NOTHING to do whatsoever with His DEITY (i.e., His divine nature). Therefore it is blasphemous to call her the "mother of God".

Suit yourself and separate yourself from thousands of years of Christian doctrine. It's no skin off my nose!

Right Divider
November 5th, 2015, 12:25 PM
Suit yourself and separate yourself from thousands of years of Christians doctrine. It's no skin off my nose!
You are part of an ungodly organization that does everything that it can to deceive. If that's what you want, go for it.

The 'Christian doctrine' in the RCC is anything but true Biblical Christian doctrine.

SaulToPaul
November 5th, 2015, 12:26 PM
Suit yourself and separate yourself from thousands of years of Christians doctrine. It's no skin off my nose!

By the middle of the first century, all that were in Asia had turned away from Paul's teachings.

Is it possible that the things you've read from 100ad and forward are not entirely correct?

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 12:34 PM
You are part of an ungodly organization that does everything that it can to deceive. If that's what you want, go for it.

The 'Christian doctrine' in the RCC is anything but true Biblical Christian doctrine.

Your hostility towards the historical church that includes so many martyrs and saints, is shocking. Even in the 20th century more Orthodox believers have been martyred than the whole total of martyrs since Jesus' time. They died for the faith you mock and disparage. Suffered terrible deprivation and torture. Yet you have the arrogant nerve to say they were part of deception and ungodly. :cry:

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 12:37 PM
By the middle of the first century, all that were in Asia had turned away from Paul's teachings.

Is it possible that the things you've read from 100ad and forward are not entirely correct?

Do you ever have any kind of facts, reasons, or evidence to back up your assertions?

Any "history" you go by is certainly far, far removed from 100 AD. I'll stick to the people who actually knew the Apostles.

SaulToPaul
November 5th, 2015, 12:57 PM
Do you ever have any kind of facts, reasons, or evidence to back up your assertions?

Any "history" you go by is certainly far, far removed from 100 AD. I'll stick to the people who actually knew the Apostles.

Does the scripture not jump out at you?

By the middle of the first century, all that were in Asia had already turned away from Paul's teachings. Is it possible that you what you've read from 100ad and forward is not entirely correct?

genuineoriginal
November 5th, 2015, 01:16 PM
Do you not agree with the Apostle's Creed?

The Old Roman Symbol is more accurate than the Apostle's Creed.

genuineoriginal
November 5th, 2015, 01:21 PM
Your hostility towards the historical church that includes so many martyrs and saints, is shocking.
All Christians everywhere are saints.

The Roman Catholic version of "saints" are ways of allowing Roman Catholics to worship idols as minor gods the same way the Romans worshiped their pagan idols of minor gods.

HisServant
November 5th, 2015, 01:30 PM
Even if true, (which I do not grant), how does that explain the same beliefs in all the rest of Christendom outside of Rome? (Byzantine, Palestine, Africa)
You do know that Luther and Calvin also believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?

And Luther said:

". . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."

John Wesley:
"The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin."

You guys have no idea how unhistorical you are, do you?

Luther was a Catholic Priest, so it would be logical for him to carry on a lot of its beliefs.

John Wesley was an Anglican... there was not much difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism when he lived.

The Early church fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries didn't have much to say about any of the Marian doctrines of today... so its no suprise that the Pagan Romans imposed this on Christianity

So history isn't on your side.

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 02:01 PM
Luther was a Catholic Priest, so it would be logical for him to carry on a lot of its beliefs.

John Wesley was an Anglican... there was not much difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism when he lived.

The Early church fathers of the 1st and second centuries didn't have much to say about any of the marian doctrines of today.

So history isn't on your side.

History is most certainly on my side. You won't even listen to Protestant leaders, so I guess that puts you way out on the fringe.

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 02:02 PM
Does the scripture not jump out at you?

By the middle of the first century, all that were in Asia had already turned away from Paul's teachings. Is it possible that you what you've read from 100ad and forward is not entirely correct?

So, that would be a "no" on your producing anything to back up your claims.

SaulToPaul
November 5th, 2015, 02:04 PM
So, that would be a "no" on your producing anything to back up your claims.

Do you not know the scripture?
Does it not jump out at you? Paul wrote it.

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 02:04 PM
All Christians everywhere are saints.

The Roman Catholic version of "saints" are ways of allowing Roman Catholics to worship idols as minor gods the same way the Romans worshiped their pagan idols of minor gods.

You really are deep in the propaganda, aren't you? Right, the martyrs in ancient Rome were secretly embracing Roman paganism as they were being killed for the faith.

HisServant
November 5th, 2015, 02:17 PM
History is most certainly on my side. You won't even listen to Protestant leaders, so I guess that puts you way out on the fringe.

Why should I listen to them?

Who is the ultimate authority? Jesus and the Apostles or someone trained in a RCC seminary on romanized doctrine?

My beliefs would be more along the lines of what the Refomer John Calvin had to say on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin%27s_views_on_Mary

No perpetual virginity, not the mother of God and no immaculate conception and she plays no part in the economy of salvation.

So I am firmly grounded in the early churches beliefs in with one of the more preeminent Reformers of the Reformation.

Anyhow, what Jesus and the Apostles taught trumps anything the RCC or Calvin has to say.... and they sure didn't teach any of your church's Marian doctrines... not even a little bit.

genuineoriginal
November 5th, 2015, 02:31 PM
You really are deep in the propaganda, aren't you? Right, the martyrs in ancient Rome were secretly embracing Roman paganism as they were being killed for the faith.
The martyrs that died for their faith are not the ones that sat with Constantine in the Nicene council.

I am assuming from your statements that you don't know anything about Christianity before the apostates in the Church of Rome under Constantine sold their inheritance for a bowl of pottage.

HisServant
November 5th, 2015, 02:54 PM
You really are deep in the propaganda, aren't you? Right, the martyrs in ancient Rome were secretly embracing Roman paganism as they were being killed for the faith.

Wow... just WOW... that is without a doubt the stupidest thing I read today... wow.

glassjester
November 5th, 2015, 08:01 PM
Wow... just WOW... that is without a doubt the stupidest thing I read today... wow.

Either you didn't perceive her sarcasm, or...

why is that stupid?

Desert Reign
November 5th, 2015, 08:11 PM
I would mostly agree with you. But for many people, Catholicism (RCC) is very attractive as they love to be religious.

They love:


Rituals
Ceremonies
Symbols
Feeling like they are righteous
Belonging to a large organization
Going through the motions
Repeating memorized phrases
Repeating canned "prayers"

You point about "culture and family" is also dead on. My mother-in-law says, "I was born a Catholic and I'll die a Catholic".
Thanks, yes, I'm in no way trying to suggest that Catholicism is not attractive to some.
And a lot of people with no religious faith at all invent rituals for themselves or piggy back on the rituals of others because it gives them some kind of kick. Perhaps it makes them feel that they are a good person so that they don't have to confront their need of God.

rougueone
November 5th, 2015, 08:38 PM
Nothing exist in Catholisim or Protestantism, that would compell me to align with either.

My life is about Jesus. Because that is what what we lacked due to sin. Holy fellowship with the Father. God so incredibly merciful in HIS love gave mankind the opportunity of eternal salvation and Restoration of Holy Fellowship with God through Jesus.

John 14: 5 6 7

The Way, the Truth, and the Life
5Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" 6Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. 7"If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him."…

Only through our Christ....Not Catholicism nor Protestantism:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-only-way.html

Right Divider
November 5th, 2015, 09:39 PM
is that why the media and the masses follow the pope around?
Worldly people follow worldly people around. No big surprise here.

Right Divider
November 5th, 2015, 09:44 PM
Do you not know the scripture?
Does it not jump out at you? Paul wrote it.
Like most RCC'ers, brewmama has probably never opened a Bible.

Cruciform
November 5th, 2015, 10:21 PM
The 'Christian doctrine' in the RCC is anything but true Biblical Christian doctrine.
...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway... :yawn:

Cruciform
November 5th, 2015, 10:24 PM
Almost all of Romes 'developed' doctrines have their roots in pre-Christian Roman traditions.
Try again (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan).

HisServant
November 5th, 2015, 10:53 PM
Try again (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/is-catholicism-pagan).

You want us to accept the uncooberated testimony of the criminal?

You are clueless.

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 11:34 PM
Like most RCC'ers, brewmama has probably never opened a Bible.


Would you like to place a bet? You are embarrassingly ignorant about Catholics, and especially about me.

brewmama
November 5th, 2015, 11:53 PM
Why should I listen to them?

Who is the ultimate authority? Jesus and the Apostles or someone trained in a RCC seminary on romanized doctrine?

My beliefs would be more along the lines of what the Refomer John Calvin had to say on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin%27s_views_on_Mary

No perpetual virginity, not the mother of God and no immaculate conception and she plays no part in the economy of salvation.

So I am firmly grounded in the early churches beliefs in with one of the more preeminent Reformers of the Reformation.

Anyhow, what Jesus and the Apostles taught trumps anything the RCC or Calvin has to say.... and they sure didn't teach any of your church's Marian doctrines... not even a little bit.

I would bet you know nothing about my church, much less the Marian doctrines of it.

Sodor72
November 6th, 2015, 12:02 AM
My parents made be a Catholic as a child. I was until my 2nd child was born and the church refused to baptize him because I didn't give enough money. A few words where exchanged, needless to say I was excommunicated. Best thing that ever happened to me.

ok doser
November 6th, 2015, 07:39 AM
What would make you Catholic?


massive brain trauma?

HisServant
November 6th, 2015, 07:41 AM
I would bet you know nothing about my church, much less the Marian doctrines of it.

What kind of response was that?... I was showing that my beliefs are heavily rooted in the protestant reformation when you claimed they weren't.

And you respond with something totally irrelevant.

And yes, I have read extensively about your Marian doctrines and how and why they developed. Its a pagan myth integrated into Roman Catholicism to appease certain ethnicities.

SaulToPaul
November 6th, 2015, 07:44 AM
Would you like to place a bet? You are embarrassingly ignorant about Catholics, and especially about me.

"all they which are in Asia have turned away from me"

mid first century

SaulToPaul
November 6th, 2015, 07:55 AM
massive brain trauma?

Even with massive brain trauma, or in a comatose state, the Spirit of God within you would be grieved by the catholic idolatries.

brewmama
November 6th, 2015, 11:37 AM
What kind of response was that?... I was showing that my beliefs are heavily rooted in the protestant reformation when you claimed they weren't..
And you respond with something totally irrelevant.

I responded quite logically to this quote of yours:

"Anyhow, what Jesus and the Apostles taught trumps anything the RCC or Calvin has to say.... and they sure didn't teach any of your church's Marian doctrines... not even a little bit."



And yes, I have read extensively about your Marian doctrines and how and why they developed. Its a pagan myth integrated into Roman Catholicism to appease certain ethnicities.

What have you read? A bunch of anti-Catholic spewing? Do you even know what my church is?

HisServant
November 6th, 2015, 12:05 PM
I responded quite logically to this quote of yours:

"Anyhow, what Jesus and the Apostles taught trumps anything the RCC or Calvin has to say.... and they sure didn't teach any of your church's Marian doctrines... not even a little bit."




What have you read? A bunch of anti-Catholic spewing? Do you even know what my church is?

Unlike you, who seem to rush ignorantly into judgement, I have had extensive talks with a couple of priests from the local parish.. and actually have breakfast with them a couple times a month.. I have also read pretty much everything on Catholic.com and Catholic.org about it.

It's a bunch of superstitions based on myth and ancient pagan beliefs... nothing more and nothing less.

Brother Vinny
November 6th, 2015, 01:57 PM
You want us to accept the uncooberated testimony of the criminal?

You are clueless.

I am so adopting this into my vocab!

JonahofAkron
November 6th, 2015, 02:43 PM
Even with massive brain trauma, or in a comatose state, the Spirit of God within you would be grieved by the catholic idolatries.:rotfl:

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 04:14 PM
You want us to accept the uncooberated testimony of the [Catholic Church]?
Hardly "uncorroborated," since the testimony of both Divine Revelation and Christian history consistently and fully demonstrate that the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Bright Raven
November 6th, 2015, 04:23 PM
Hardly "uncorroborated," since the testimony of both Divine Revelation and Christian history consistently and fully demonstrate that the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

Why did you exchange the truth for a lie?

everready
November 6th, 2015, 04:26 PM
Hardly "uncorroborated," since the testimony of both Divine Revelation and Christian history consistently and fully demonstrate that the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).

The Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ told us about your church

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.


everready

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 05:05 PM
The Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ told us about your church

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Nope. Try again (http://www.brantpitre.com/documents/Who-is-the-Whore-of-babylon.pdf).

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 05:06 PM
Why did you exchange the truth for a lie?
Post your proof.

brewmama
November 6th, 2015, 05:11 PM
The Divine Revelation of Jesus Christ told us about your church

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
everready

:doh: And you just KNOW that that verse is referring to the Catholic Church, and not the Roman Empire killing the Apostles and Christians?
:darwinsm:

Right Divider
November 6th, 2015, 05:12 PM
Hardly "uncorroborated," since the testimony of both Divine Revelation and Christian history consistently and fully demonstrate that the Catholic Church is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).
John Salza has spoken! Who could possibly refute that?

That page is filled with illogical propaganda. Get over it!

The ROCK is Christ and not Peter.

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 05:14 PM
:doh: And you just KNOW that that verse is referring to the Catholic Church, and not the Roman Empire killing the Apostles and Christians?
:darwinsm:
He "knows" it because his favored recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect has fed it to him as a supposedly self-evident tradition of men.

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 05:20 PM
John Salza has spoken! Who could possibly refute that?
Salza has outlined the authoritative teaching of Christ's one historic Church---who could possibly refute that? Certainly not the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


That page is filled with illogical propaganda. Get over it!
...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. Don't worry, I'm definitely over it. :yawn:


The ROCK is Christ and not Peter.
Categorically refuted here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) and here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Right Divider
November 6th, 2015, 05:28 PM
Salza has outlined the authoritative teaching of Christ's one historic Church---who could possibly refute that? Certainly not the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. Don't worry, I'm definitely over it. :yawn:


Categorically refuted here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) and here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+
Your refutations are full of the same hot air that your "church" has been expelling since its evil foundation as it attempted to steal Jesus Christ for itself.

Peter NEVER claimed the sort of authority that your sect of Satan wants.

Peter will, one day, sit with ALL twelve of the representatives of the TWELVE tribes of Israel. Whereas, your synagogue of Satan will all be cast into the lake of fire along with your boss.

Cruciform
November 6th, 2015, 05:31 PM
Your refutations are full of the same hot air that your "church" has been expelling since its evil foundation as it attempted to steal Jesus Christ for itself.
Once again: ...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.


Peter NEVER claimed the sort of authority that your sect of Satan wants.
Already answered (Post #175).

JonahofAkron
November 8th, 2015, 11:38 AM
Salza has outlined the authoritative teaching of Christ's one historic Church---who could possibly refute that? Certainly not the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of RD's preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. Don't worry, I'm definitely over it. :yawn:


Categorically refuted here (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html) and here (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You're just like a good lawyer: you bury your opposition in information that holds little bearing on your point.

If it's important to your point, I want to read what you wrote-not what someone else wrote. Unless that's the new style: refute someone's point by posting a website. I'm down to do that if that's how we play this game now....I just don't like it.

musterion
November 8th, 2015, 12:39 PM
I am so adopting this into my vocab!

What's a coober, and how does one become uncooberated? Now I'm worried.

musterion
November 8th, 2015, 12:40 PM
My parents made be a Catholic as a child. I was until my 2nd child was born and the church refused to baptize him because I didn't give enough money. A few words where exchanged, needless to say I was excommunicated. Best thing that ever happened to me.

So where you at now? (re: 'other')

glassjester
November 8th, 2015, 09:18 PM
My parents made be a Catholic as a child. I was until my 2nd child was born and the church refused to baptize him because I didn't give enough money. A few words where exchanged, needless to say I was excommunicated. Best thing that ever happened to me.

Which doctrine(s) of the Church suddenly became false at that moment?

Right Divider
November 8th, 2015, 09:28 PM
Which doctrine(s) of the Church suddenly became false at that moment?
They were false all along. Some take longer to realize it than others.

patrick jane
November 8th, 2015, 09:57 PM
If the Pope dunked a basketball. That might make me catholic

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 10:43 PM
I am already catholic.
In fact, you are neither "catholic"---your chosen man-made sect was invented by a mere man barely five centuries ago---nor "Catholic," since you remain in a state of formal schism from Christ's one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html).


Making me Catholic would mean Romanists have finally repented of their apostacy.
The "heresy" lies with the some 50,000+ competing and contrasting entirely non-authoritative, recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today---including yours---with more being concocted every week.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
November 8th, 2015, 10:53 PM
You're just like a good lawyer: you bury your opposition in information that holds little bearing on your point.
Post your proof for this entirely unsubstantiated assertion, especially since the post to which you're responding wasn't even directed to you. In fact, I directly addressed and answered RD's claims, most notably his declaration that "The ROCK is Christ and not Peter" in Mt. 16:18, for which I provided two informed sources on precisely that point. Try again.


If it's important to your point, I want to read what you wrote-not what someone else wrote.
The information would be exactly the same either way, so your complaint here smacks of little more than simple quibbling.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

SaulToPaul
November 9th, 2015, 09:33 AM
If the Pope dunked a basketball. That might make me catholic

Catholics have been known to levitate.

patrick jane
November 9th, 2015, 09:53 AM
Catholics have been known to levitate.

If Benny Netanyahoo becomes catholic, I will.

ok doser
November 9th, 2015, 10:04 AM
Catholics have been known to levitate.

i thought only levites could do that

OCTOBER23
November 9th, 2015, 10:07 AM
If the Pope could Levitate , then he could Dunk a Basketball.

Of course, the game of basketball was invented in Canada

and thus the Pope has to come to Canada to Dunk that ball

and make it "Catholic in Canada" .:thumb:

SaulToPaul
November 9th, 2015, 11:03 AM
i thought only levites could do that

I'm sure there are a few nuns that could make the Kansas City Royals. Some of the nun softball players make Ty Cobb look like a softy.

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 01:46 PM
Post your proof for this entirely unsubstantiated assertion, especially since the post to which you're responding wasn't even directed to you. In fact, I directly addressed and answered RD's claims, most notably his declaration that "The ROCK is Christ and not Peter" in Mt. 16:18, for which I provided two informed sources on precisely that point. Try again.


The information would be exactly the same either way, so your complaint here smacks of little more than simple quibbling.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Ok.

I was talking about you looking at my posts that will now include refutations by other people-I have one that still needs to be refuted that is about papal infallibility.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 02:36 PM
I have one that still needs to be refuted that is about papal infallibility.
Which one is that...?

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 02:50 PM
Here: http://www.apostlesteaching.net/PapalInfallibility.htm

disturbo
November 9th, 2015, 02:55 PM
If the Pope could Levitate , then he could Dunk a Basketball.

Of course, the game of basketball was invented in Canada

and thus the Pope has to come to Canada to Dunk that ball

and make it "Catholic in Canada" .:thumb:

I wrote an essay on the history of basketball some 50 years ago. Basketball was invented by Canadian James Naismith at a local YMCA in Springfield, Mass.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 02:57 PM
Nothing, why exchange the truth for a lie?

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 03:03 PM
I wrote an essay on the history of basketball some 50 years ago. Basketball was invented by Canadian James Naismith at a local YMCA in Springfield, Mass.

that is where the college basketball hall of fame is

been there
done that

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 03:07 PM
Or this: http://www.romancatholicism.co.uk/popesdisprovedinfallibility.html

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 03:08 PM
Here: http://www.apostlesteaching.net/PapalInfallibility.htm
Answered here (http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html) and here (http://www.dfwcatholic.org/wikatechesis-for-december-3rd-2009-papal-infallibility-1234/.html).

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 03:11 PM
Or this: http://www.romancatholicism.co.uk/popesdisprovedinfallibility.html
Post #198 above.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 03:13 PM
Nothing, why exchange the truth for a lie?
Still waiting for your answer to Post #171 above.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 03:17 PM
Still waiting for your answer to Post #171 above.

I am a "Bible Only" believer. I do not and could not believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church. There is no mention of the Catholic Church or its traditions in scripture.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 03:34 PM
I am a "Bible Only" believer.
The question is "WHY?, since sola scriptura is a thoroughly unbiblical, self-refuting notion that did not even exist in the Christian Church until being invented by mere men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Please disprove the information provided here (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html).


I do not and could not believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church.
Only because your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow you to contradict its particular traditions of men.


There is no mention of the Catholic Church or its traditions in scripture.
First, your comment here assumes the validity of the unbiblical and self-refuting---and therefore false---notion of sola scriptura, and so your claim simply falls flat.
Second, all Catholic teaching is contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, so your claim is straightforwardly false.
Third, as far as there supposedly being "no Catholic Church in Scripture," you're simply and demonstrably wrong [SOURCE (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)][SOURCE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm)].



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

HisServant
November 9th, 2015, 03:39 PM
The question is "WHY?, since sola scriptura is a thoroughly unbiblical, self-refuting notion that did not even exist in the Christian Church until being invented by mere men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Please disprove the information provided here (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html).


Only because your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow you to contradict its particular traditions of men.


First, your comment here assumes the validity of the unbiblical and self-refuting---and therefore false---notion of sola scriptura, and so your claim simply falls flat.
Second, all Catholic teaching is contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, so your claim is straightforwardly false.
Third, as far as there supposedly being "no Catholic Church in Scripture," you're simply and demonstrably wrong [SOURCE (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)][SOURCE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm)].



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform... an undefeated legend in his own mind... that 95% of the people that use this site know to be a lunatic.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 03:49 PM
Cruciform... an undefeated legend in his own mind... that 95% of the people that use this site know to be a lunatic.
Come back if you ever manage to stumble upon an actual argument---sorry, but Ad Hominem Fallacies of the kind you're attempting here just don't count. :yawn:

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 03:50 PM
The question is "WHY?, since sola scriptura is a thoroughly unbiblical, self-refuting notion that did not even exist in the Christian Church until being invented by mere men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Please disprove the information provided here (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html).


Only because your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow you to contradict its particular traditions of men.


First, your comment here assumes the validity of the unbiblical and self-refuting---and therefore false---notion of sola scriptura, and so your claim simply falls flat.
Second, all Catholic teaching is contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, so your claim is straightforwardly false.
Third, as far as there supposedly being "no Catholic Church in Scripture," you're simply and demonstrably wrong [SOURCE (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html)][SOURCE (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm)].



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I do not have to disprove what is posted on your Catholic Websites.
Disprove scripture, what else do we need;

2 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

HisServant
November 9th, 2015, 04:06 PM
Come back if you ever manage to stumble upon an actual argument---sorry, but Ad Hominem Fallacies of the kind you're attempting here just don't count. :yawn:

All I am doing is giving you a dose of your own medicine.

I've been here for quite a few years and have never seen you put for a valid argument... not even once. Yet you call for others to do so.

Such hypocrisy.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 04:10 PM
I do not have to disprove what is posted...
So, then, no actual disproof whatsoever---not even an attempt at it. That's what I thought. Your utter inability to refute the counterargument to your core assumption (sola scriptura) is noted. Therefore, your reliance upon sola scriptura simply collapses.


...what else do we need:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
According to Scripture itself, we also need the Church's apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html). Indeed, if you were truly a "Bible-Only" believer as you claim, you would eagerly reject sola scriptura as unbiblical!



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Nick M
November 9th, 2015, 04:11 PM
I am a "Bible Only" believer. I do not and could not believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church. There is no mention of the Catholic Church or its traditions in scripture.

Some of the traditions are there. You have to look in the right place. Like instructions for Levi on how to dress.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 04:12 PM
Some of the traditions are there. You have to look in the right place. Like instructions for Levi on how to dress.

:darwinsm:

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 04:15 PM
All I am doing is giving you a dose of your own medicine.I've been here for quite a few years and have never seen you put for a valid argument... not even once.
Try again. I post arguments all the time (see Post #208 just above, for example), as opposed to the contralogical joke you attempted in Post #203.

Back to Post #204 above.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 04:16 PM
So, then, no actual disproof whatsoever---not even an attempt at it. That's what I thought. Your utter inability to refute the counterargument to your core assumption (sola scriptura) is noted. Therefore, your reliance upon sola scriptura simply collapses.


According to Scripture itself, we also need the Church's apostolic Tradition (http://scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html). Indeed, if you were truly a "Bible-Only" believer as you claim, you would eagerly reject sola scriptura as unbiblical!



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+His Servant is correct. Will you ever answer a question without the aide of a Catholic based website. Show some scholarship and do it yourself.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 04:17 PM
:darwinsm:
Post #207

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 04:21 PM
His Servant is correct. Will you ever answer a question without the aide of a Catholic based website. Show some scholarship and do it yourself.
Nice Red Herring Fallacy---you really are desperate to avoid facing the utter bankruptcy of your naive reliance upon the hopelessly self-defeating notion of sola scriptura, aren't you. Back to Post #207.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 04:33 PM
Nice Red Herring Fallacy---you really are desperate to avoid facing the utter bankruptcy of your naive reliance upon the hopelessly self-defeating notion of sola scriptura, aren't you. Back to Post #207.

You have nothing but your Catholic websites. No scholarship of your own.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 04:34 PM
You have nothing but your Catholic websites. No scholarship of your own.
Already decisively answered (Post #213). Back to Post #207 above.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 04:41 PM
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Check this out! http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 05:10 PM
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Check this out! http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
Utterly undone and categorically refuted here (http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num6.htm) and here (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html). Back to Post #207 above.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 05:14 PM
Utterly undone and categorically refuted here (http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num6.htm) and here (http://scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html). Back to Post #207 above.
Same thing I would say to you. How about an answer from you and not a website?

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 05:33 PM
Same thing I would say to you.
Then the only question left is which of our chosen doctrinal tradition's is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and therefore teaches in his own name and by his very authority? Is it [1] the one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), or is it [2] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?

Please post your proof in support of your preferred non-Catholic sect.

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 05:39 PM
Then the only question left is which of our chosen doctrinal tradition's is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and therefore teaches in his own name and by his very authority? Is it [1] the one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), or is it [2] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?

Please post your proof in support of your preferred non-Catholic sect.

Certainly is not the Catholic Church. You have not been able to post scripture to prove it, only Catholic websites. The church I attend believes in Sola Scripture, Sola Fide.

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 06:08 PM
Certainly is not the Catholic Church. You have not been able to post scripture to prove it,

on this rock He will build His church

who else claims peter?

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 06:11 PM
on this rock He will build His church

who else claims peter?

Peter is not the Rock, Christ is.

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 06:16 PM
Peter is not the Rock, Christ is.

that is your interpretation
not ours
so
you cannot say we do not have scripture backing our claims

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 06:19 PM
that is your interpretation
not ours
so
you cannot say we do not have scripture backing our claims

And who is it that says that Christ is the cornerstone of the Church? Peter. How interesting.

brewmama
November 9th, 2015, 06:20 PM
Peter is not the Rock, Christ is.

Then how do you explain Christ changing his name from Simon to Peter? And Paul referring to him as Cephas?

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 06:21 PM
And who is it that says that Christ is the cornerstone of the Church? Peter. How interesting.

so you are using peter's words to trump the words of Jesus

how interesting

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 06:23 PM
so you are using peter's words to trump the words of Jesus

how interesting

I believe that Peter is reinforcing Christ's claim to be the Rock, chief cornerstone of the Church. When are you guys going to get it right.

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 06:26 PM
I believe that Peter is reinforcing Christ's claim to be the Rock, chief cornerstone of the Church. When are you guys going to get it right.

you are free to believe whatever
we got this big church in rome with peter's name on it
and
billions paying attention to what the pope says

Bright Raven
November 9th, 2015, 06:31 PM
How come Jesus ain't in that big Church? Everyone has a choice to listen to who they want to.

Wick Stick
November 9th, 2015, 06:32 PM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?
Question for a question:

What evidence would convince YOU that the protestant churches are all part and parcel of the same single (little 'c') catholic church, along with the Orthodox and (big 'C') Catholic churches?

chrysostom
November 9th, 2015, 06:42 PM
How come Jesus ain't in that big Church? Everyone has a choice to listen to who they want to.

Jesus said He would be with any two or more gathered in His name
and
Jesus asked peter to feed His sheep


three times

patrick jane
November 9th, 2015, 06:52 PM
you are free to believe whatever
we got this big church in rome with peter's name on it
and
billions paying attention to what the pope says

It's not billions

Cedarbay
November 9th, 2015, 07:09 PM
Jesus said He would be with any two or more gathered in His name
and
Jesus asked peter to feed His sheep


three timesHow the RCC can mess up these passages is beyond me.

John 21:15-17 says nothing about the RCC papacy and it being founded on Peter, nothing.

The blessed apostle Peter continues to claim Christ as the chief Shepherd. I Peter 5:4

JonahofAkron
November 9th, 2015, 07:16 PM
Answered here (http://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html) and here (http://www.dfwcatholic.org/wikatechesis-for-december-3rd-2009-papal-infallibility-1234/.html).





Post #198 above.

But they don't answer them. That's the point. The articles you posted are actually the articles my articles are disproving. You didn't even read it.

glassjester
November 9th, 2015, 07:20 PM
Question for a question:

What evidence would convince YOU that the protestant churches are all part and parcel of the same single (little 'c') catholic church, along with the Orthodox and (big 'C') Catholic churches?

Fair question.


I would believe that...

if Jesus had intended to form many different churches, with varying and contradictory beliefs.

if sola scriptura was true.

if Jesus had not adamantly defended the real presence in John Chapter 6.

if it weren't philosophically impossible to do a "plain reading" of Scripture, devoid of any subjective interpretation.

if every one of those churches hadn't formed by some shmuck deciding that he had higher teaching authority than the Church given its authority by Christ, Himself.

if the possibility of human error didn't necessitate an infallible orthodoxy.

if the whole protestant philosophy wasn't, "I'll believe whatever I want, and just find/create a church that fits my own personal theological opinion."


Bla bla bla, you get the idea.

turbosixx
November 9th, 2015, 08:22 PM
Fair question.


I would believe that...

if Jesus had intended to form many different churches, with varying and contradictory beliefs.

if sola scriptura was true.

if Jesus had not adamantly defended the real presence in John Chapter 6.

if it weren't philosophically impossible to do a "plain reading" of Scripture, devoid of any subjective interpretation.

if every one of those churches hadn't formed by some shmuck deciding that he had higher teaching authority than the Church given its authority by Christ, Himself.

if the possibility of human error didn't necessitate an infallible orthodoxy.

if the whole protestant philosophy wasn't, "I'll believe whatever I want, and just find/create a church that fits my own personal theological opinion."


Bla bla bla, you get the idea.

I'm curious why you do not believe in sola scripture?

brewmama
November 9th, 2015, 10:27 PM
How come Jesus ain't in that big Church?

Now that's a big lie.

brewmama
November 9th, 2015, 10:28 PM
It's not billions

More people listen to the pope than just Catholics. Case in point, the last visit by Francis.

brewmama
November 9th, 2015, 10:32 PM
How the RCC can mess up these passages is beyond me.

John 21:15-17 says nothing about the RCC papacy and it being founded on Peter, nothing.

Who do you think "the lambs" are?


The blessed apostle Peter continues to claim Christ as the chief Shepherd. I Peter 5:4


As do all the popes. Sheesh. Peter said that AS A BISHOP, just like the popes do.

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 11:13 PM
Certainly is not the Catholic Church.
Post your proof, then, that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of hell would never prevail (Mt. 16:18). Proof, please.


You have not been able to post scripture to prove it, only Catholic websites.
That is, web sources containing lists of biblical texts demonstrating the Catholic position, so you can stop lying about me supposedly not posting Scripture. In any case, it hardly matters that the sources are Catholic---did you actually expect them to be ANTI-Catholic?---since truth is truth, whatever the source. Your desperate Red Herring, however, is noted---you must avoid facing the facts at all costs, after all. Anything to cling to the opinions of your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. How pathetically sad.


The church I attend believes in Sola Scripture, Sola Fide.
Two 16th-century Protestant doctrinal inventions, neither of which can be found in the Scriptures, and so merely refute themselves. Both are hopelessly unbiblical.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Cruciform
November 9th, 2015, 11:16 PM
The articles you posted are actually the articles my articles are disproving. You didn't even read it.
Rather, the articles you posted are actually the articles my articles are disproving. You didn't even read them. :yawn:

Nick M
November 10th, 2015, 07:43 AM
on this rock He will build His church

who else claims peter?

What does that have to do with the Vatican?

HisServant
November 10th, 2015, 08:29 AM
More people listen to the pope than just Catholics. Case in point, the last visit by Francis.

Really?... Philadelphia was a ghost town... people left in droves because they didn't want to deal with the lunacy... and the crowds were less than 1/4 of what was planned for.

HisServant
November 10th, 2015, 08:30 AM
you are free to believe whatever
we got this big church in rome with peter's name on it
and
billions paying attention to what the pope says

I can build a church in my back hard and name it after Peter.. then it's just a matter of marketing.

Billion?... its less than a billion these days, but hey, don't let reality get in the way of your delusions.

WonderfulLordJesus
November 10th, 2015, 08:33 AM
Non-Catholics - what evidence would convince you that the Catholic Church was and is the Church founded by Christ?

Repudiate all false extra-Biblical doctrines in the Catechism; wear Catholic garb only on Halloween; fire Pope Francis, for that matter get rid of Popes, period; stop addressing anybody but God as Father; try simply resembling the first century faith of Jesus Christ and the apostles; sell all the statues of Mary on eBay, using the proceeds to distribute free Bibles, with a pamphlet insert, explaining why Sola Scriptura was always a sound approach to true faith... Sorry, this will just turn into much too long a post. Shall we simply sum it up thus? When pigs fly.

Matthew 15

8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

HisServant
November 10th, 2015, 08:33 AM
Then the only question left is which of our chosen doctrinal tradition's is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and therefore teaches in his own name and by his very authority? Is it [1] the one historic Catholic Church (http://scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html), or is it [2] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?

Please post your proof in support of your preferred non-Catholic sect.

There is no historic evidence between the 1st and 3rd century that the RCC is Christ's Historic church. (Unless you believe that self confessed liar.. Eusebius)

That has been proven to you many, many times, but in your cognitive dissonance you refuse to accept facts.

The RCC is nothing more that the state sponsored invented religion of the Roman Empire.. and that is all.

Cedarbay
November 10th, 2015, 08:39 AM
Who do you think "the lambs" are?

As do all the popes. Sheesh. Peter said that AS A BISHOP, just like the popes do.How you people exalt man. It is disgusting.

You do not believe Scripture is infallible. You place your traditions of men (the ECF and Councils) above Scripture by calling them infallible. At least up to the 9th century.

You don't even believe in papal authority, so what's your beef with my post?

chrysostom
November 10th, 2015, 09:14 AM
How you people exalt man. It is disgusting.

You do not believe Scripture is infallible. You place your traditions of men (the ECF and Councils) above Scripture by calling them infallible. At least up to the 9th century.

You don't even believe in papal authority, so what's your beef with my post?

answer the question

Who do you think "the lambs (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=lambs&begin=50&end=50)" are?

Cedarbay
November 10th, 2015, 10:00 AM
answer the question

Who do you think "the lambs (https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=lambs&begin=50&end=50)" are?The believers God meant for Peter to pastor.

We consider believers to be of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

chrysostom
November 10th, 2015, 10:01 AM
The believers God meant for Peter to pastor.

We consider believers to be of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

who is feeding the others?