Read this non-sense


#1

I wrote to the people who own the website, exorthodoxforchrist.com to “help” them out a little. Here is our correspondence:

My first letter:

Hello,

You are right on some aspects of your website. Like the layman not knowing the full truth of the faith. That is why I am a convert to ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

However, you said they have no unity and always fighting amongst thereselves. Protestants have the MOST dis-unity out there. Martin Luther shattered Christianity. Now you have the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and 38,000 denominations of protestants who are chasing there tails trying to figure out the meaning of every little verse. The Catholic Church is ONE church.

There response:

Hi),
Hmmm,

Well if we thought you were historically accurate, we might be Roman Catholics as well.

We said that Roman Catholics are fighting amongst themselves ?

Really ?

Where did we say that ??

You sound like you think that we are saying that lay Roman Catholics are fighting amongst each other. That, to be sure, was not our point.

But if you are talking about different Orders and power centers within Roman Catholicism, then yes, we would agree that those orders are rivals and that they are competing with each other.

Examples of rival orders in the Roman Catholic Church would include benedictines against Fransiscans, Franciscans against Jesuits, Jesuits against Opus Dei, Opus Dei against Knights of Malta, etc…

Most of the time, these various orders both compete with each other on some levels, and yet still cooperate with each other on different projects.

As to the issue of the many denominations of Protestants, it is not nearly as exiting as 38 000 denominations. There just isn’t that much variety and its not possible to sustain that many denominations. That charge is basically a Roman Catholic (Church) invention.

What is true is that there are around 25 denominations. But what many people do not understand is that the reason they are “different” does not have to do with their theology as much as it has to do with the church structure for the governance of that church.

For example, the Baptists pretty much want the pastor and mostly the pastor to have the final responsibility for decisions. But for the Presbyterians, most of them want to have all the congregation vote on most decisions that are made. They not only want “democracy”, but they want the decisions of the church to be voted on and approved by all the members (or the majority) of the congregation.

When it comes to Protestant denominations, one has to look at what they taught PRIOR to 1850. After that time, many protestant denominations were subverted by those who actually were anti-Christian, anti-protestant, and anti-God. They were militant secularists dedicated to harming those groups.

But the origins of Protestantism are not nearly so confused as people today would have us believe. 95% of Protestants all believed the same thing, and always have.

Between 1850 and 1930, Protestant denominations drifted very far from their own theology, because they trusted their leaders without verifying their claims of history (which is the very mistake that most Roman Catholics continue to make).

The Church in the Bible is not a denomination but a group of physical people. Only the Holy Spirit knows who is in this group and who is not. But the idea that people must be baptized to belong to a church simply goes against the historic record.

It was really very shocking to discover that the people that the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) claim to be “Church Fathers” did not make this claim themselves, and most were NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church in their day, nor is there any record to substantiate that they were.

It is just that the RCC CALLS them “Church Fathers” and then tries to pretend that those people were officially part of the RCC, which most of them never were.


#2

First Part Continued:

As to the rest of the Church Fathers, many of them have contradictory theology one from the other. That is also a part of history that the RCC (the Hierarchy) uses to confuse people, so that they will stop trying to find historic answers.

But the answers are there, and they do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church. The First Church Council was never convened by Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church did not exist until it was founded and FUNDED by Constantine.

Even that issue of the Church Councils is a major problem. The RCC often implies that the First Church Councils came about because of the Roman Catholic Church. Yet the records of the Church Councils demonstrate that they were called into existence by the Roman Emperors. Whatever else this proves, it demonstrates that if the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican had existed PRIOR to those councils, that THEY are the ones who would have convened those councils. But they didn’t and there was no official church structure to call a council together.

Most converts to the RCC have no idea just how rich the historical record is, and how much it disproves the RCC. We sell many works, that were originally printed with the help of the RCC and their advocates. Even those works - published by the Vatican tend to DISPROVE the claims of the Roman Catholic Church of today.

We encourage you to continue to investigate the claims and to research the historical record in much greater detail. If you do, you will find most of it does not agree with the claims of Roman Catholicism.

Write anytime,

Regards,

XOFC

exorthodoxforchrist.com/about_us.htm

exorthodoxforchrist.com/nag_hamadi.htm


#3

Second Part:

My second response:

I’m sorry, but I meant to say the Orthodox. However you must admit that the RCC is ONE. It is made up of 1.1 Billion people. You cannot just dismiss that number off as meaningless. That is a huge following topped by no other. They have one belief. It is all explained in the catechism, it is all footnoted and cross-examined. All of it. I know because I am reading it. Everything is written out and explained. The written Word of God and Sacred Tradition go hand in hand and are inseparitable and make up the deposit of Faith. Before the written Word, what did you have? Oral Tradition. It is a fact of life. They the bible came out thanks to the Catholics.

As far as Baptism goes:

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” When Jesus said “water and the Spirit,” He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.

Acts 10:47 - Peter says “can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people…?” The Bible always links water and baptism.

Matt. 28:19-20 - Jesus commands the apostles to baptize all people “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Many Protestant churches are now teaching that baptism is only a symbolic ritual, and not what actually cleanses us from original sin. This belief contradicts Scripture and the 2,000 year-old teaching of the Church.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”

John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God. The Greek word for the phrase “born again” is “anothen” which literally means “begotten from above.” See, for example, John 3:31 where “anothen” is so used. Baptism brings about salvation, not just a symbolism of our salvation.

Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin. This is a powerful text which demonstrates the salvific efficacy of water baptism, even for those who decide to give their lives to Christ.

I CAN LIST MANY MORE.

As far as the Eucharist goes:

Gen. 14:18 - this is the first time that the word “priest” is used in Old Testament. Melchizedek is both a priest and a king and he offers a bread and wine sacrifice to God. Psalm 76:2 - Melchizedek is the king of Salem. Salem is the future Jeru-salem where Jesus, the eternal priest and king, established his new Kingdom and the Eucharistic sacrifice which He offered under the appearance of bread and wine.

Psalm 110:4 - this is the prophecy that Jesus will be the eternal priest and king in the same manner as this mysterious priest Melchizedek. This prophecy requires us to look for an eternal bread and wine sacrifice in the future. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Catholic Church.


#4

Second Part Continued:

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term “bread.” In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38;


#5

and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where “sarx” means flesh. It is always literal.

John 6:55 - further, the phrases “real” food and “real” drink use the word “alethes.” “Alethes” means “really” or “truly,” and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus’ flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.

John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus’ disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, “Who can ‘listen’ to it (much less understand it)?” To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.

John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.

John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of “spirit versus flesh” to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the “spirit/flesh” comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still “in the flesh.”

John 6:63 - Protestants often argue that Jesus’ use of the phrase “the spirit gives life” shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, Protestants must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where “spirit” means “symbolic.” As we have seen, the use of “spirit” relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.

John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn’t Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn’t Jesus say, “Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!”? Because they understood correctly.

Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.

John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe.

John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

John 6:64,70 - Jesus ties the disbelief in the Real Presence of His Body and Blood in the Eucharist to Judas’ betrayal. Those who don’t believe in this miracle betray Him.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, “He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life.” This, of course, is absurd.


#6

John 10:7 - Protestants point out that Jesus did speak metaphorically about Himself in other places in Scripture. For example, here Jesus says, “I am the door.” But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.

John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, “I am the vine.” Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus’ disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.” In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean Jesus’ blood. In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Rom. 14:14-18; 1 Cor. 8:1-13; 1 Tim. 4:3 – Protestants often argue that drinking blood and eating certain sacrificed meats were prohibited in the New Testament, so Jesus would have never commanded us to consume His body and blood. But these verses prove them wrong, showing that Paul taught all foods, even meat offered to idols, strangled, or with blood, could be consumed by the Christian if it didn’t bother the brother’s conscience and were consumed with thanksgiving to God.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says we must become like children, or we will not enter the kingdom of God. We must believe Jesus’ words with child-like faith. Because Jesus says this bread is His flesh, we believe by faith, even though it surpasses our understanding.

Luke 1:37 - with God, nothing is impossible. If we can believe in the incredible reality of the Incarnation, we can certainly believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. God coming to us in elements He created is an extension of the awesome mystery of the Incarnation.

I CAN LIST MORE IF YOU LIKE…

I can go on and on. I believe the Protestants are wrong when they say everything is symbolic (I really hate that word) and most of them do. They are still stuck on interpretation. They also think that good works mean nothing, but when Jesus starts asking these questions:

When I was hungry, did you feed me?

When I was naked, did you clothe me?

And so on and so on…


#7

Hi Jason,

Good to know you were talking about the Orthodox.

I think we will take your issues one by one, and try to respond to them that way (or at least keep the topics more constrained …in each email). That way we can still respond to them, but without getting lost

Our basic contention is that you are being conned. You are believing that Roman Catholicism has actual origins before 325 AD, and then taking that belief as a sign of authenticity.

Is that not the case ?

We believe that the Church existed, by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit. We reject the idea that the Church is an organization that Humans can be the head of, and we see that attempt as a method to rob God of credit.

We actually are advocates for Orthodoxy, Not the kind that is practiced today, but rather the kind that was originally there. So what the historic and archeological records demonstrate and substantiate, then that is what we are in favor of.

All the extra stuff that has been added, that is the stuff we would not want to keep nor agree with.

No doubt what you have read Is cross-referenced and footnoted. But that is a Far far cry from it being accurate.

The Roman Catholic Church is an immense corporation. As such they can afford all the skills and the work to produce things that are well footnoted. However, when we examine the historic record, we do not find that it agrees with the RCC.

Don’t kidd yourself. Just because they call it “sacred” doesn’t mean it is. And it will turn out that a great deal of it is not “tradition” either. Much of it is invented tradition.

Where is the data that demonstrates conclusively the link between the Apostles and the Roman Catholic Church ?

What about contradictory lines of succession between Peter and 325 AD (325 being the time of the First Church Council - the Council of Nicea) ?

What if the RCC has published lines of succession about that period 0 to 325, but those lines of succession published at different times, are contradictory ?

What about all those Bibles that existed BEFORE the Council of Nicea ?

The thing is that you asked about what we believe. We rely on Eastern Orthodox Manuscripts for the answer.

There are 5000 copies of portions of the New Testament in ancient Koine Greek, and there are 20,000 lectionaries - portions of the New Testament - also written in Ancient Koine Greek, that are quotes from the New Testament.


#8

Those manuscripts are called “Byzantine” manuscripts [or byzantine uncial, to be technical].

They are called Byzantine manuscripts because they come from the geographic area - largely - that the Byzantine empire had jurisdiction over, EVEN THOUGH those greek manuscripts of the New Testament PRE-DATE the Byzantine empire.

And those fragments ARE the Eastern Orthodox Heritage, and No one else has those. The only other people who can claim that heritage, are the Protestants, who use Byzantine Uncial manuscripts for their own New Testament in Greek, the Textus Receptus.

So we rely on history, archeology and forensics to establish the Ancient Koine Greek text of the New Testament. The premise advanced these days is to give the impression that there are many contradictions in these manuscripts. That is not true.

99% of these manuscripts agree with each other, AND they contain portions of the 27 books of the New Testament.

overwhelmingly, what is striking is the ABSENCE of apocryphal books, that were not even CLAIMED to be scripture by the RCC, until 1500 years after Christ.

So, how can the RCC have legitimacy without being able to demonstrate actual links to Peter ?

How can it have legitimacy when the manuscripts found DISAGREE with the RCC version of the Bible (even though those Koine Greek Byzantine manuscripts have been the Legitimate basis for Eastern Orthodox claims until recently) ???

And, there are no serious ties between the RCC and the first Church Council of Nicea, nor did the RCC call or Convene that council ? So how much authority could they really have had ?

You mention that you are reading the actual records.

Interesting that you should say that. We offer the actual records for sale. And they do not agree with the RCC.

Take a look at the material that we offer. WHat it proves is where we are drawing our material and sources from:

exorthodoxforchrist.com/catholicism_books.htm

exorthodoxforchrist.com/patrologica_orientalis_patrologica_syriaca.htm

(We offer patrologia Latina also. The links above are just samples of what we do have).

And we do not just offer recent sources in English.

We offer books in Ancient Greek, in Latin, in Syriac, as well as German and other languages. We know the ancient sources and we study them, and they do not say what the RCC alleges that they do. We do not believe that the sources you cite will end being older than the ones we cite. And we do believe that the weight of history is much more on our side, than any side the RCC would claim.

But I will stop long enough for you to reply to these points, and find out what your answer is.

What do you think? How would YOU respond? Does he have any good points or not? Thank you for your responses…


#9

Protestants agree on very little actually. hahaha


#10

You are wasting your time.

This person is making a fortune selling anti-Catholic rubbish. Do you think there is a snowball’s chance in heck that he can be moved by discussion to give up his gold mine?

Thal59


#11

[quote=Thal59]You are wasting your time.

This person is making a fortune selling anti-Catholic rubbish. Do you think there is a snowball’s chance in heck that he can be moved by discussion to give up his gold mine?

Thal59
[/quote]

Actually it doesn’t matter whether he is moved or not, there are also 100’s of people who lurk on sites that will also read the discussion. Often it isn’t the person you are debating who will be moved, but those in the audience. And on the internet there is always quite an audience lurking.

If even one is moved in the right direction or God touches them in some way then the time wasn’t wasted.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#12

[quote=jay29]Second Part Continued:

Malachi 1:11 - this is a prophecy of a pure offering that will be offered in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting. Thus, there will be only one sacrifice, but it will be offered in many places around the world. This prophecy is fulfilled only by the Catholic Church in the Masses around the world, where the sacrifice of Christ which transcends time and space is offered for our salvation. If this prophecy is not fulfilled by the Catholic Church, then Malachi is a false prophet.

John 6:4,11-14 - on the eve of the Passover, Jesus performs the miracle of multiplying the loaves. This was prophesied in the Old Testament (e.g., 2 Kings4:43), and foreshadows the infinite heavenly bread which is Him.

Matt. 14:19, 15:36; Mark 6:41, 8:6; Luke 9:16 - these passages are additional accounts of the multiplication miracles. This points to the Eucharist.

Matt. 16:12 - in this verse, Jesus explains His metaphorical use of the term “bread.” In John 6, He eliminates any metaphorical possibilities.

John 6:4 - Jesus is in Capernaum on the eve of Passover, and the lambs are gathered to be slaughtered and eaten. Look what He says.

John 6:35,41,48,51 - Jesus says four times “I AM the bread from heaven.” It is He, Himself, the eternal bread from heaven.

John 6:27,31,49 - there is a parallel between the manna in the desert which was physically consumed, and this “new” bread which must be consumed.

John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?

John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Protestants, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.

John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word “phago” nine times. “Phago” literally means “to eat” or “physically consume.” Like the Protestants of our day, the disciples take issue with Jesus’ literal usage of “eat.” So Jesus does what?

John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as “trogo,” which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, “trogo” is never used metaphorically in Greek. So Protestants cannot find one verse in Scripture where “trogo” is used symbolically, and yet this must be their argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus’ words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).

John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says “For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.” This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus’ flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as “sarx.” “Sarx” means flesh (not “soma” which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38;
[/quote]

Those quotations don’t prove anything about the CC. At most, they express the Will of God for it - and this is no proof the CC corresponds to that Will.

Having a blueprint of a rocket which can travel to Venus, is not the same as going by that rocket to Venus. Your correspondent wants evidence that you have been in the rocket - you’re doing no more than give him the blueprint; which is another thing entirely. ##


#13

Jay, it seems to me that your correspondent wants to avoid the arena you chose to defend the claims of the Roman Catholic church.

You went to Holy Scripture and dived into showing it’s authentic meaning as much as possible in hope that their next moves would be in showing a more authentic meaning that would rebutt your claims.

They seem to prefer relying on enterpretations of historic documents and the behaviour of church members as a means to prove that it isn’t the true church. The study of history is far from stable eneogh to make it a standard nor does human behaviour have a bearing on the authenticity of a teaching or the Church.

I don’t think they have anything substantial to offer. They have a secular sword and seemed smart eneogh to not let it clang against the sword of scripture you raised.


#14

They lose all claims to historical accuracy by saying that the Church first accepted the deuterocanon at the council of trent. Sure, that’s when it became official, but to say that it wasn’t CLAIMED to be scripture is a blatant misrepresentation of history.


#15

Gotta love them people who want to claim how Constantine started the Roman Catholic Church. I wonder if St. Sylvester new this was happening?

Sorry, but I sorta breezed over your Scripture Arguements. I’m not knowledgable enough to get into that with you.

Overall, I agree with others, it’s a waste of time. I note that when he started saying things about archeology, history, etc, he failed to provide any primary sources.

I shouldn’t be surprised, it’s very typical.

Nice switch to the Orthodox angel. 9.5 from the Kansas judge. You stuck the landing. So hard that he had to try and deflect the Orthodox Catholics as well. And as is typical, he tried to say how the modern Orthodox weren’t the same as the “early” orthodox. :yawn:

Overall, interesting, but again, I have to agree with the others, you are wasting your time with this bozo.


#16

Just a thought, and I have not thought it through yet either, so bare with me.

They claim to be Orthodox, and use acient scripture from the byzintine area, where does he think it came from? The oral teachings that devoled into the written documents.

And Constantine only made Christianity legal, he saw it as a vehicle to great harmony along with some Holy Spirit help. The Christian Movement was going on for sometime before him, he just reduced all the killings to try to wipe out or control it. Does this person understand all the killings that happened before Constantine?

What about church structure supported in Acts and the epistles. How the apostles were sent out two by two by Peter’s authority? How Paul must speak to Peter about converting the Greeks without making them Jewish first, they did not want to be circumsized.

Where does he come up with three contradictory lists of the succession of the popes?

Does he really think Jesus would go through all he did only to abandon us for 325 years to mull it over before starting the catholic church? I believe he told them to spread the word immediatly, along with baptism, forgivness of sins, etc.

If he wants to argue name, the coining of the name Catholic Church, and later Roman Catholic Church is brought on by man as a way to distinguish a group from another group. In the beginning it was the Universal Church, the Christians. Again a name to seperate them from the pagans, and Jewish faith. The RCC was from the Byzintines or Eastern Rite from the Roman or Latin Rite. Again not put on by the RCC but by everyone else trying to show how they were different from them.

I think he only wants to argue archeology and historical references because he is banking on you not knowing the real information to argue with him. Not many really know this area well enough to argue, but you have this board and 2000 years of structure to give you the information you need. Truth is on your side and will defend you once you know where to look.

I wish I could be more helpful, but I think all I did was voice some things that popped out at me. Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to the information you are searching for!


#17

I used to be a Fellowship Christian, which is basically just another Protestant denomination.

The Protestants are HUGELY bible-based. They LOVE studying scripture. You won’t convert Protestants quoting Church history or statistics. You won’t convert them by quoting Church Fathers, Popes, or the Catechism. They’ve got counter-arguments for those.

Their faith is based solely on the Bible, so it is the bible that you must use. You’ve done good so far, but I think you need to use more than NT references. You need to use the Old Testament, too.

The best way to get through to Protestants is to link Old Testament prophecies/histories to fulfillment in the New Testament. There exists no counterargument to good old-fashioned truth. To convert these folks, you have to go back to the foundation: the Bible.

The Old Testament is a great tool to use in Protestant evangelization, just because it’s been around before Christianity. If you can prove Catholic Dogmas, Sacraments, and Traditions by linking Old Testament precursors with New Testament fulfillment, then you’ve got them. If they see the OT/NT parallels, they’ll likely see the truth and convert.

Every Catholic Dogma, Sacrament, and Tradition has a precursor in the Old Testament. Example: The Jews used to confess their sins to the Priests before giving the sin-offering at the temple. Example: the Holy of Holies of the Old Testament is equivalent to the Tabernacle that stores consecrated communion hosts AND to Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant. Etc…

As a former Protestant (though I never embraced anti-Catholicism) I recommend this approach in evangelizing with them. Also take one topic at a time–and literally dissect it. The Catholic Answer bible has GREAT footnotes and inserts that’ll help you cross reference to the OT. You’ll literally blow them away with the truth, because each topic (eg. the Immaculate Conception) can be supported by about ten Old Testament precursors.

I know I’m just a beginner at apologetics … but I do know Protestants. If you use the Bible and patiently prove each topic using the OT in concert with the NT, you’ll literally blow their minds away with the truth.

Thing is … there is no counter-argument to the OT, except perhaps for the deutero-canonical texts. The one topic you may have most trouble with is Purgatory … but I’m sure you can find other OT references if you dig.

God bless you!


#18

I’ve thought of a metaphor to better explain what I mean:

Think of the OT and the NT as Islands. These Islands are so close together that you can link them together with a bridge. This bridge, once complete, will embody the Catholic Church.

In order to begin building this bridge, one must begin with the OT island. Try to build the Catholic Church with an exegesis of the OT, building it outwards toward the NT brick by brick, or plank by plank if you like.

Then complete this exegesis by connecting the bridge with the NT Island, linking OT events, people, and prophecies with their fulfillments in the NT.

Once you’ve made the link between the OT and the NT, then you’ve built the Catholic Church.

Later on, people and vehicles will occupy this bridge. These represent the Church Fathers, Dogmas, Traditions. Some folks will even jump off the bridge: those who’ve succumbed to schism. Leave this stuff out of the argument for now. You can get into this later.

Just present to our Protestant brothers and sisters the bridge, alone with the bare truth as its nature. If the Spirit is in them, they won’t be able to deny that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Jesus Christ.

God Bless!


#19

GoldenArrow:
Do you really think that the Protestants ignore the Old Testament?
Do you think that Protestant do’nt understand types and anti-types in the OT and NT. Get with it girls, they are not a bunch of dummies.

Serving the Master:
allischalmers


#20

Do you really think that the Protestants ignore the Old Testament? Do you think that Protestant don’t understand types and anti-types in the OT and NT. Get with it girls, they are not a bunch of dummies.

No, no. You misunderstand my meaning. I meant the opposite.

Protestants that I’ve come across know the entire bible very well, but have not been exposed to the various ways inwhich the Catholic Church’s teachings and the Mass are alluded to, prefigured, in the writings of the Old Testament. They DO know many NT/OT parallels, granted, but they’ve not been specifically educated in the ways these parallels specifically point to the Catholic Mass and to our dogmatic teachings. You can’t connect the dots if you don’t know you should be connecting dots.

That is, many Protestants are unaware of Catholic Teachings because they’ve been brainwashed into avoiding the RCC like the plague. They’ve been taught that we’re Paganists. They’re told the RCC is the Whore of Babylon and that we should all “come out of her” before it’s too late. They’ve been told we’re not really Christians. I’ve heard many of them use the misnomer the “Roman Constantine Church,” rather than the “Roman Catholic Church,” because they didn’t think the RCC existed before the Holy Roman Empire. The brainwashing is deeply engrained, too, I’m afraid.

We have to approach them from the book that has been the very foundation of many faiths: the Old Testament. Protestants DO know their OT–in and out–in fact. But for the aforementioned reasons, they are not seeing the Catholocity of the OT. That is, they’ve been blinded in this area, mostly by fear.

Now, I believe that if a Catholic Apologist knows his Old Testament well enough, he can prove the truths of the Catholic Church without even using the New Testament. That is, one can build that bridge I was referring to earlier without even using bricks or planks from the New Testament—though using both to connect the bridge makes it even more sturdy—like a rock. If one can build this bridge, prove the RCC is the true church without even touching the NT, it basically disproves the “Roman Constantine Church” idea and PROVES the RCC is the true Church, all the way back to Pentecost.

And, if one were to use BOTH the NT and the OT together to prove the truths of the Catholic Faith, then one hearing these connections one would be unable to deny that the Catholic Church is the church established by Christ. The Truth would sink into their hearts and minds. They may not feel the call to convert immediately, but the Holy Spirit will tug on their soul, in the direction of the nearest RCC; and they may convert a year or two on down the road.

I think that Catholic Apologists would be even more effective if they studied the Old Testament. The reason I’m stressing the OT is because I think it’s underutilized in evangelizing to Protestants.

I’m studying scripture right now. I want to know it in and out, but I don’t—yet. The reason I’m studying Scripture (besides knowing Christ better), especially the OT, is because I actually feel initimidated by Protestants’ knowledge of the Bible. Right now, I wouldn’t want to play a game of Bible Trivia with any of my Protestant relatives, because I’d probably lose! Just being honest here. In a year or two, I hope I’ll be able to kick everyone’s behind at Bible Trivia, and by doing so, make them think twice about criticizing the RCC. HA! :wink:

So, you misunderstood me, Sir (or Madame). I was saying the exact opposite. Sorry for the confusion.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.