Why would anyone become Catholic?

I tend to agree with your point that Protestantism, which by history was born an angry, bitter, and abusive rebellion, would tend to reproduce itself. Rebels breed rebellion. It is not a good model for holiness or peace.

The Catholic church did a pretty good job with the inquisition.

Then why did Jesus tell them to buy a sword?

Catholics really ought to try following Him alone.

Heck, you can't even get a Catholic to bite on simply not paying attention to Mary and focusing on on Jesus for merely ONE MONTH, much less give up the whole kit and kaboodle.

They get the DT's and vapors just thinking about it.

Yes they are. They present their specific intentions to the saints, with the understanding that the saints will be able to do effective intercessory prayer to God for them, and for those specific needs they present.

And so what's up then? Don't Catholics believe that THEY can offer up effective intercessory prayers?

Of that their living here on earth in the here and now friends of relatives can't offer up effective intercessory prayers?

Why would dead people whose souls are supposedly in heaven be more able to offer up effective intercessory prayers than any child of God here on earth?

Didn't Jesus promise that if we prayed in His name, that the FATHER would hear and grant us our requests? What more do Catholics need than the word of Jesus to settle the matter? Or don't they really believe that He really meant it?

Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If an apparition appeared and told me to follow traditions and teachings contrary to that recorded in Scripture, it would NOT be Jesus.

How about whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain, they are retained..........what do you imagine that Christ was talking about??? it explains the Sacrament of reconciliation EXACTLY....

No it doesn't because sherry picking a phrase out of context to support a doctrine is a tactic of the enemy. Take some Scripture out of context and make a doctrine out of it by adding a little bit of the truth with a whole bunch of lie.

There's no where in Scripture that gives any man the authority to forgive sins on God's behalf. We can only forgive what has been sinned against us. We can't forgive a person for their sins against another.

How about whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven, whose sins you shall retain, they are retained..........what do you imagine that Christ was talking about??? it explains the Sacrament of reconciliation EXACTLY....

No it doesn't because sherry picking a phrase out of context to support a doctrine is a tactic of the enemy. Take some Scripture out of context and make a doctrine out of it by adding a little bit of the truth with a whole bunch of lie.

There's no where in Scripture that gives any man the authority to forgive sins on God's behalf. We can only forgive what has been sinned against us. We can't forgive a person for their sins against another.

Which is the reason that priests can't forgive sin committed against God. The sin have to be confessed to God, and HE is the one who then forgives. The priest is not God and was not sinned against that ha can forgive it.

Maybe they’re like former Catholics who just make up stuff? Oh right, we can’t say that truth on here. Oops sorry.

“No it doesn’t because sherry picking a phrase out of context to support a doctrine is a tactic of the enemy”

Sorta like what you do? Haha guess I can’t say that either. Guess that make you the enemy? Funny how that works.

How does that answer any of the questions?

Same way you do. Or rather, don’t. But you keep going along thinking you’re intelligent and Christian and those of us who disagree will continue to disagree.

Funny thing about those anti Catholic questions on this forum...they really can’t be answered since the questions are lies anyway.

It’s entertaining for me to read and sometimes reply. :)

Pretend that Jesus did not speak in Aramaic,

Not pretending anything. The exact language Jesus spoke in any given circumstance is unknown except for where the text directly identifies it. Indeed, given His close proximity to the multicultural nexus of Cesarea, it is possible He spoke in Greek, Latin, Hebrew AND Aramaic at various times and circumstances. You have shared a great many links with me, but they do not seem to be up to date on the latest developments in this area. Please take a look at this link for a more current perspective:

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html

Indeed, you should worry a bit about accepting the Aramaic Primacy premise uncritically, as it appears to be a fairly recent aberration brought to the fore by one George Lamsa. Lamsa has been involved with James Trimm of Hebrew Roots fame, a group notorious for it's efforts to discredit the Greek New Testament that you and I both hold in common. I don't hold you to account for not knowing any of this. The position has been widely popularized but I believe as the scholarship runs full circle Aramaic Primacy will fall back to a minority position.

BTW, logic is neither Protestant or Catholic. It amuses me, in a droll sort of way, that you think fallacies have denominational preferences. :)

1. Pretend that Jesus did not speak in Aramaic, where there is absolutely no distinction in those two terms that Jesus Christ was actually saying to Peter (like that which showed up later in those two Greek terms, which were obviously used by the person translating the words of Jesus from the Aramaic to the Greek so as not to give Peter an effeminate female name in the Greek). (In other words, to pretend that, they have to lie to themselves about it.)

I am sorry to disappoint you, but as I said above, no pretense is necessary to see Petros and Petra as two distinct words. The only pretense is that anyone thinks they know what Jesus said in Aramaic, as there is no extant Aramaic text which preceded the Greek. Therefore, anyone confidently proclaiming they know with certainty that anything was said in Aramaic in Matthew 16:18 is talking through their hat.

But even if, in a fit of dubious generosity, we granted them their Aramaic speculation, there were other terms in Aramaic for Rock than Kepha that may well have occupied the second slot, and there is evidence from the Syriac that this is exactly how those early translators perceived the situation, using, not Kepha, but Tnra (another Aramaic word for stone) in the second slot, to preserve the distinction. Two. Different. Words.

But hey, maybe you'll be the first. Show me the Aramaic. I can read Hebrew, some, and I suppose I could learn to read the "original" Aramaic. All I need is someone to show me the authentic, pre-Greek text, and I'm good to go. So where's your Aramaic? Because I'm totally sure you're not just repeating uncritically something somebody else told you was so. Right?

2. They have to pretend to themselves that there were Calvinists before Calvin, Lutherans before Luther (etc.), going all the way back to the time of Christ and His apostles. (In other words, to pretend that, they have to lie to themselves about it.)

Well not you've jumped the rails and moved to a discussion we're not ready to have yet. You've got a secret Aramaic text the world is waiting to see. Let's get that over with before we move on to even more difficult subject matter, eh?

Peace,

SR

Way to weasel out of answering....

Really? It was a simple, clarifying question. If I say a prayer for the health and safety of the State of Israel and the Jewish people is that support enough for the protestant?

Or maybe the protestant it looking for something more tangible? A good work on the order of attending the annual AIPAC conference and rubbing shoulders with Netanyahu? Donate to CUFI, perhaps? Or even adopt Christian Zionism and be declared a righteous Gentile. I don't think so. The Church is the New Israel.

Tacit admission that the Catholic church does NOT support Israel.

Is this a secular or spiritual concern of yours?

A new term coined by Catholicism.

So was Trinity.

Show us where the term [Redemptive Suffering] is found in Scripture....

38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me (Mt 10:38).

24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church (Col 1:24)

16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.

17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us (Ro 8:16-18)

You've been shown.

It’s that you CAN’T do that because they don’t exist.

I would have made the offer if I couldn't. I am just not going to give you all a springboard to say really ignorant things, over and over.

You mean Jesus blood isn't enough to cleanse us from all sins after all?

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14).

In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God. [1]

[1] Hanna, E. (1911). Purgatory. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 16, 2014 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

That does not say that Ted Cruz is a democrat (in the English language). (You have to read things in context.) <>P>That is rich, you should realize that prots are incapable of reading in context.

<>I>The Catholic church did a pretty good job with the inquisition.

And you all should be grateful, otherwise the prots would the ones kissing the Koran.

Should read: I would NOT have made the offer of I could not.

You mean Poster Boy #2?