Protestant post in blue. Catholic replies in italics.
In the same manner that I do believed before what you believe now. Thanks God, a messenger of God counselled me to empty myself of what tradition has rooted in my mind. I can still remember him using a glass of water as his illustration. God can no longer pour in fresh water unless I empty myself. He told me God can no longer speak to me clearly because I already have these traditions and fallacies rooted in my heart and mind. In fact, it was painful but liberating to leave and finally forsake those traditions and false, deceptive doctrines. Paul was right when he wrote about it in Colossians 2:8. And only then when I followed his counsel that I clearly understand what the Bible says that -
• The Bible is the only source of God's revelation. There is no such thing as traditions.
"Brethren, stand firm, and hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or by letter of ours (2 Thes 2:15)."
Likewise 2 Tim 1:13; 1 Cor 11:23; 2 Tim 2:1; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 2 Thes 3:6.
Outside of the scriptures, everything is lie.
"First of all you must understand this, that no prohecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no propehcy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20)."
Likewise see Acts 8:30-31; 2 Peter 3:16. It's not even the Bible that should be the final arbiter in all questions. First, because nowhere is it found in the Bible that says the Bible is. Second, because the Bible SAYS, it's the Church, or Matthew lies in Mt 18:15-18.
Peter is the great apostle to the Jews. Paul was for the gentiles. As such, Peter was never been in Rome.
Protestants have certain strange peculiarities. They see "alone" where none exists, as in Rom 3:28. They don't see "alone" when "alone" is clearly there (James 2:24). They have this tendency to see things as mutually exclusive. For them, since it's God who does the good act, it cannot be man. They just couldn't see that it can be God AND man, which is what it is.
Here, they demostrate once more this peculiarity: Since Peter is the apostle to the Jews, he couldn't , just possibly couldn't have been in Rome.
There is no such thing as Petrine supremacy and papal succession. It's a big black lie.Then Bible lies. What a blasphemy. Isaiah 22 is very clear. And, while the power of binding and loosing was given to others, the power of the keys wa given to Peter alone. It's all Scriptural, all you have to do is accept that you might have been wrong. Even at hiring time, the apostles were already given fantastic powers to have authority over unclean spirits, drive them out, heal the sick, cleanse lepers, raise the dead, BUT it was ONLY to Peter that was given the power of the keys.
And what about Acts: "Let his office another take."?
Everything rome displayed as relics of Peter, from bones to chains to robe are all findings of rome, confirm by rome and validated by rome and rome wants the world to believe.
For a while, the secret was shared by the Pope then with Constantine, who was emperor, but who was not Christian. How can you say it was Rome?
Rome is never, and can never be the center of Christianity. Rome made "christianity" [roman version]
It's plain you did not even bother to check out what obviously was information merely passed on to you. Constantine the Great NEVER made Christianity the "official religion" of the Roman empire. All he did was to ALLOW it alongside all others.
the official religion of the roman empire to unify both early christians and pagans to protect the interest of roman empire. That's why there is a mixture of "christian" and pagan way of worship done in roman catholic church even today.
The bible never mention about pope.
We've been through this (please refer to earlier posts).
So, there can never be such an office or a leader.
I think it's in acts, that part where - Peter says "Let his office somebody else take," upon which they chose between - was that Joseph?- and Matthias.
This is invented by rome to take hold of mankind. They want mankind to worship rome in the pretense of worshipping God. And they want the world to believe that pope is God's vicar here on earth. And so anyone who want to see God must look at the pope.
I must be dreaming, hearing this from you.
New Testament believers don't need priests.
Unless you have another source, I will have the Bible. John 6 clearly describes the institution of the priesthood by Jesus Christ himself at the Last Supper. The word "priest" itself is not mentioned, but who do you think would execute Christ's command "Do this in remembrance of me" except priests?
Pope and priests are never mentioned in Ephesians 4:11.
You will not see “priest” in Scripture except as referring to Old Testament priests.
Again, this does not mean “priests” do not exist. Take a look at 2 Tim 2:1-2. You might not believe it, but the “grace” referred to by Paul here is the sacramental grace of Order, in other words, grace associated with priestly ordination. Taking this passage alone will not show how this claim is true. You have to go back a lot to the history of Paul, right down to the time Timothy, the son of a pagan father and a Jewess mother, then a mere strapping youth, so impressed Paul that Paul marked him off as someday becoming a good priest.
Here Paul makes use of military, athletic, and farming examples to impress upon Timothy the need for effort in Timothy’s work as a minister if it is to produce results, in the manner that Paul applies to himself.
In 2 Cor 12:15, for instance, Paul says: “I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls.” This exhortation is classic, and encapsulates the spirit of solicitude which should be the hallmark of every priest.
The institution of the priesthood by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper is the usual given in answer to Protestant questions about priests, but you’ve heard about it countless times before I’m sure, so I thought of doing it through the example of Timothy. There’s only one problem: you won’t appreciate it unless you’ve become more or less intimate with the life of Paul, in which case you’d have gotten to know better the other people Paul’s worked with.
We only have one great high priest who ministered in the true tabernacle in heaven and that is none other than Jesus Christ [Hebrews 7-10]
True, but what should keep Jesus Christ from assigning special human beings he himself has chosen from all eternity to celebrate Holy Mass in his stead?
Transsubstantiation is rome's invention to take control of worshippers. They want people to believe that they can only "receive" and "take hold" of Christ through communion done only in the hands of priests. I cannot imagine by the request of priest, the Holy Spirit can make the bread and wine as body and blood of Christ. Only fools believe on this.Protestants scoff at the Church’s teaching of the Real Presence, claiming that it’s metaphorical. They cling to 1 Cor 3-4: “And all of them ate from the same spiritual manna and all drank from the same spiritual drink” claiming this clearly speaks against a literal translation of John 6. Let’s see.
A literal translation is necessary , and is evident:
1. From the Greek original. The v.55 Greek refers to “true, real food,” and “true, real drink.”The Greek v.54 refers “to gnaw, to chew, to munch.”
2. From the difficulties created by a figurative interpretation. In Biblical language, to eat a person’s flesh and drink his blood in the metaphorical sense is to persecute him in a bloody fashion, to destroy him. See, for instance, Ps 26:2 “When the wicked rush at me to devour my flesh. . .” Is 9:20 “Manasseh devours Ephraim, Ephraim devours Manasseh, and against Judah together they march.” Is 49:26I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and be drunk with their own blood as with wine.” Mic 3:3 “Those who eat my people’s flesh . . .”
3. From the reaction of the listeners, they petered away, finding the teaching difficult to accept, and Jesus did not do anything to call them back, which would have been the natural thing for him to do if all that was involved was a misunderstanding. But there was no misunderstanding – the people heard correctly: Christ was telling them to literally eat his flesh, and literally drink his blood. Note, further, how Jesus persisted in doing all these knowing fully well that his own apostles and disciples are already grumbling at the teaching , and would probably desert him (v.60).
4. By the wording. Nothing in the text suggest a figurative interpretation: v.50, v.51, v.53, v.54, v.55, v.56, v.57, v.58, v.64. In verse 55, as if to make sure that he is not misconstrued, Jesus even says: “For my flesh is food INDEED, and my blood is drink INDEED.” In these passages, Christ couldn’t be more emphatic nor clear, especially if we note that there is nothing in the nature of bread and wine, nor by current speech usage of the listeners at that time, to connect bread and wine as symbols of a man’s body and blood. Neither is there inherent contradiction in the literal interpretation, unless, of course, one doubts the divinity of Christ, in which case many things will be impossible for him.
5. By what I have already told you: how can a metaphor threaten one’s salvation? The only explanation is that St. Paul lies when he warns the consequences to one who UNWORTHILY takes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ 1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the bloody and the blood of the Lord.” Or 1 Cor 10:16: “The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of ‘Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”
6. By the inadequacy of the arguments advanced against it. When “is” in many passages of Scripture means “designates” or “symbolizes,” the figurative sense is immediately apparent from the nature of the matter. For instance, when Jesus says in Mt 13:38 “The field IS the world,” right away we know that he speaks here in the figurative sense. Similarly, when Jesus says “I AM the gate of the sheep” (John 10:7) right away we know that he speaks here figuratively. Or in John 15:1 “I AM the true vine . . .”
Not so with John 6.
Infant Baptism is rome way of controlling the mind and loyalty of every human being. They secretly call this doctrine - FROM CRADDLE TO GRAVE principle. They want to impose control in every human being from his birth until his death.
You know Lydia the seller of purple? She had her entire household baptized by Paul. Purple used to be made from tons of shellfish, as dyes then use only natural colors. After reading Paul (still reading Paul), I have become a Lydia fan.
Praying the Rosary is a paganist prayer.
Mary is never and can never be the mother of God.
Then you doubt that Jesus Christ is God, for indeed, Jesus Christ has Mary for his biological mother.
Satan is diverting man's knowledge of the true mediator Jesus Christ by drawing their attention to another mediatrix as they call her. Mary was a virgin before Christ's birth and bore other children after Christ's birth. She was a great example of purity, faith and devotion to God.
Note that nowhere in Catholic teaching can you see that.
Exalting Mary beyond how the Bible describes her is not sanctioned by God's Word. Rome is inventing everything to draw man's attention away from Jesus Christ.
Nowhere in Catholic teaching can you see that.
That's why a lot of catholic today are "EXPERTS" in praying the rosary and yet ignorant about the Bible.
I pray. If I'm also ignorant of the Bible, thank you for calling my attention.
One become SAINT the moment he believes in Jesus. No such thing as beatification or canonization by pope. It's a total lie.
See Isaiah 22 please.
Now tell me Sir, can your human intellect make you understand all these things. Unless you become humble enough to admit that you cannot understand spiritual things and you need God's revelation, you will never agree with me or anybody speaking the TRUE WORD OF GOD. Let Paul's counsel in 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 open your heart and mind.
As soon as I'm done answering your questions, I will have to ask the same question of you.
And as I close, my prayer is for you to search the truth NOT FROM A ROMAN PAPIST point of view but from a point of view of someone who is empty and longing, hungry and thirsting of God's revelation of truth.
Thanks again.
No comments:
Post a Comment