Why would anyone become Catholic?

https://www.indiegogo.com ^ | October 2, 2014 | Indiegogo

[NKP_Vet]

Why would intelligent, successful people give up their careers, alienate their friends, and cause havoc in their families...to become Catholic? Indeed, why would anyone become Catholic?

As an evangelist and author who recently threw my own life into some turmoil by deciding to enter the Catholic Church, I've faced this question a lot lately. That is one reason I decided to make this documentary; it's part of my attempt to try to explain to those closest to me why I would do such a crazy thing.

Convinced isn't just about me, though. The film is built around interviews with some of the most articulate and compelling Catholic converts in our culture today, including Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Taylor Marshall, Holly Ordway, Abby Johnson, Jeff Cavins, Devin Rose, Matthew Leonard, Mark Regnerus, Jason Stellman, John Bergsma, Christian Smith, Kevin Vost, David Currie, Richard Cole, and Kenneth Howell. It also contains special appearances by experts in the field of conversion such as Patrick Madrid and Donald Asci.

Ultimately, this is a story about finding truth, beauty, and fulfillment in an unexpected place, and then sacrificing to grab on to it. I think it will entertain and inspire you, and perhaps even give you a fresh perspective on an old faith.

[Elsie]

Let’s see your rebuttal.

Get your milk and sugar ready...

[Elsie]

Perhaps you'll draw upon that 2,000 years of unbroken Catholic scholarship and tell us about “Pope Peter” the first Pope and his garments.

I just posted something about this...

[Elsie]

Maybe?

Did GOD really say...

[Elsie]

 It seems to me like cherry-picking. The KJV has And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

 

HMMMmmm...

[Elsie]

If you always use a translation that has a different rendering (there are a few), what is it, for you are basing your reading on another’s scholarship ?

Like the Magisterium group?

[Elsie]

oh you'll be getting a picture soon! :)

I shudda read ahead!

[Elsie]

when you make a ststement like this,
without referring to what I said in the first place,
I have no idea of what you are talking about...sorry..

..or I would successfully refute your statement.

[Elsie]

in second grade I learned to read and interpret the message......

HMMMmmm...

[Elsie]

Hail, full of grace THE LORD IS WITH THEE...pretty much spells it out to me since the angel was announcing that she was with child (That would be Jesus you know)

Thanks for illustrating that you've interpreted it on your own.

[Elsie]

correct....so believe Him when He says THIS IS MY BODY....what part of that confuses you????

You'll finally get to the post where I pasted Scripture where Jesus calls the Pharisees VIPERS.

I hope that you do not get confused by Jesus' very plain words when you read it.

[Elsie]

Some things are more stupa than others. To judge between them; one must exercise a certain amount of stupity.

[Elsie]

a couple of things come to mind, how about "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven"...or what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven and whet you shall loose...etc.

Is THIS an example of cherrypicking?

[Elsie]

Cathoics have been following Christ for 1,600 years before there was a protestant....we have ALWAYS led people to Christ, it was the "reformation" that decided to lead people away from the truth.....PERIOD.

And how long has it been since MARY has been part of the path to Jesus?

[Elsie]

"...your Father knows what you need before you ask him." Matthew 6:8

But it REALLY helps if MARY knows, too!

[metmom]

In my case I left the Catholic Church based on ignorance, and emotion, but returned based strictly on evidence, logic, and facts + thinking.

Oh? Whatever happened to *everyone who leaves the Catholic church leaves because they don't like the Church's teaching on morals, divorce, remarriage, birth control, because they didn't want to hear the priest tell them they were sinning, yada,yada,yada*?

[metmom]

All you are going to hear from Catholic FReepers is

****CRICKETS****

Absolutely they believe it. Not one has denied it yet, as you see.

[metmom]

You may trust the church but that is not proof of its infallibility.

[Resettozero]

One doesn't NEED to be a language expert because of the diligent work of those who followed God's leading to do that for us all. A good student of the Bible has at his/her fingertips the knowledge of hundreds of "experts" with which to understand the truths of Scripture.

This is something we non-scholarly, non-ordained, everyday believers can be deeply thankful for. It's a crookstaff ready for the use of The Good Shepherd in keeping us from wandering away too far.

This FR thread has been a little like the friends of Job stopping by for a few days of speculating what sins Job must have committed, and yours and SR's responses have been akin to The Almighty showing up and setting matters straight.

[af_vet_1981]

we can go to the expert Greek and Hebrew scholars' publications and see what words were actually used from the start.

There are several problems with this approach
1. Except one is using the same translation all the time for a particular language, or except one (still) dreams in the original language(s), which it seems to me only a few of us here do, one is reduced to a couch ensconced sports fan, as it were, composing a fantasy team to assist oneself in forming doctrine in the National Polemics League.
2. It seems to me that this also opens up the question of whether the Textus Receptus and it's English KJV is the inspired words of the Holy Spirit, which I had thought the traditional Protestant, Fundamentalist, while perhaps not Evangelical (that team is free agent all the way) persuasions.
3. It seems to be one should use the same translation for a native tongue, except your Hebrew and Greek are flawless, and be consistent. Do not cherry-pick translations to argue doctrine.

[af_vet_1981]

The New American Standard Translation, in keeping with other literal or quasi-literal translations, does render the future perfect passive as CB is rendering it. This is not simply the opinion of some anonymous poster, but the credible view of a panel of Greek translation experts whose credentials are open to public review:

We both know that, and there are at least two others IIRC. Can you tell me which English translation those, for whom you seem to me to be a spokesman who gives straight answers, use in their assemblies ? And what was wrong with the original ASV that it was an improper and inaccurate translation of the words of God ? The ASV renders Matthew 16:19 like the KJV does. Or should we just cobble together our own English translations for any passage subject to debate in the religious wars. Or should we just converse and argue the points in Hebrew (pure language ?), and perhaps Greek, without any translation. It saddens me every time I read an English translation that I am persuaded was deliberately rendered to argue a point with which I am persuaded otherwise. And yet the children of men do whatsoever they desire. "How long" is not just a lyric coined by a Canadian poet.