I Hated the Idea of Becoming Catholic

Aleteia ^ | JUNE 20, 2014 | ANTHONY BARATTA

[CynicalBear]

>>NO way any organization with men like this allowed to be in charge is the actual body of Christ.<<

Nor the ongoing cover up of molestation that has been occurring for who knows how long.

[CynicalBear]

Oh that was really, really sad Heart-Rest.

Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

That is NOT Old Testament or Mosaic Law. It hasn't been superseded or obsolete under the new covenant. And please don't come back with that lame comment about the blood being from animals sacrificed. It says and from blood, not and their blood.

[CynicalBear]

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

But Catholics insist it IS the flesh. The Catholic Church teaches only part of what Jesus says just like Satan misquoted scripture. That should be a hint to those who choose to follow that apostate organization.

[verga]

Back attcha!

[BipolarBob]

Forget the blood, the other day I ALMOST ate some bread that had the leaven of the Pharisees in it. That’s a big no-no there.

[Heart-Rest]

"NO way any organization with men like this allowed to be in charge is the actual body of Christ."

=============================================================

With that kind of reasoning, there would be "NO way any group with men like this [see below] would be allowed to be in charge of starting the Church of Jesus Christ (also called His body, and which He was the Head of - Colossians 1:18), or of writing the New Testament, the Holy Written Word of God.

(All of these guys who wrote the "books" of the New Testament or who helped to begin and build the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, were sinners.)

• St. Peter the First Pope (who had denied Jesus three times)

• The other 10 apostles (minus Judas Iscariot) of the initial "twelve" (who had all abandoned Jesus Christ at His crucifixion, except for John)

• St. Paul (who helped persecute Jesus Christ and His followers in His Church)

• Every man who wrote any of the "books" of the New Testament

That kind of reasoning just does not hold up under scrutiny.

(By the way, Jesus allowed Judas Iscariot to stay in His closest group for most of His public ministry, right up till the end, even though Jesus knew Judas was a wicked thief and betrayer.)

[Heart-Rest]

"Oh that was really, really sad Heart-Rest."

"Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. That is NOT Old Testament or Mosaic Law. It hasn't been superseded or obsolete under the new covenant. And please don't come back with that lame comment about the blood being from animals sacrificed. It says and from blood, not and their blood."

=============================================================

CynicalBear, your claim sounds exactly like the same one the Jehovah's Witnesses often make and like to ask Catholics about, and I think it will be very helpful to you to read the response given to their similar claim and question by the staff of "Catholic Answers" at this link and shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------

Is Jesus' command to drink his blood a violation of God's law?

Full Question

Jehovah's Witnesses told me that Jesus' commands to eat his flesh and drink his blood in John 6 could not be literal because Jesus would be advocating something against God's law by commanding us to eat blood (cf. Gen. 9:4, Acts 15:28-29). What can I say to this?

Answer

You can say four things. First, any divine command that comes later modifies divine commands that came earlier. When Jesus declared all foods clean (Mk 7:19), his command superseded the earlier command that certain foods be regarded as unclean (Lv 11:1-8). If Jesus today commands us to drink his blood, his command supersedes any prior command concerning drinking blood.

Second, the command against drinking blood, like all of the Old Testament dietary regulations, has passed away, for "These are only a shadow of what is to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink" (Col 2:17, 16).

The mention of not eating blood in Acts 15:20, 29 was a pastoral provision suggested by James to keep Jews from being scandalized by the conduct of Gentile Christians. We know that these pastoral provisions were only temporary. One concerned abstaining from idol meat, yet later Paul says eating idol meat is okay so long as it doesn't scandalize others (Rom 14:1-14, 1 Cor 8:1-13).

If it is objected that blood is not a food (though it is in some cultures), note that Jesus was asked (Mk 7:5) why his disciples ate with unwashed hands. He replied, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body" (7:18-19). In context this refers to a non-food substance (the dirt on one's unwashed hands).

Third, the Old Testament is very specific about why one was not to eat blood: "The life of every creature is the blood of it; therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood" (Lv 17:14, cf. Dt 12:23). The Israelites could not eat animal blood because it contained the animal's life, but there is one Person whose life you must have in you, "Christ who is your life" (Col 3:4).

Finally, even if the Jehovah's Witnesses were right that drinking blood were intrinsically evil instead of the subject of a temporary prohibition, they would still have problems with John 6 because, in their interpretation, Jesus would be commanding us to eat his flesh symbolically and to drink his blood symbolically. He would be commanding us to act out symbolically an intrinsically evil deed as part of a sacred worship service. But this leads us to a ludicrous conclusion, so it must be that drinking Christ's blood is permissible (not to say desirable).

Answered by: Catholic Answers Staff

------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'll say goodnight to everyone, and may God bless all of us with greater and clearer understanding of all His revealed truths.

[wardaddy]

This is your post I replied to

To: delchiante
You and I agree..
Actually, probably not as I think you belong to one of the many Protestant cults.

338 posted on Sat Nov 29 2014 23:23:53 GMT-0600 (CST) by af_vet_1981 (The bus came by and I got on, That’s when it all began.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

You can clarify which many Protestants are cults if you want...

[verga]

But; since you DO disagree; can you explain how Jesus could be holding a piece of His flesh in His hand when He said the words you know so well?

We can explain it to you, we just can't understand it for you.

God is omnipotent. He thinks or says something and it happens.

How do YOU explain 3 persons with one divine nature that is still one God? How do YOU explain one person (Jesus) with two natures, One divine, one human, that are in full accord?

One you (protestants) accept that God is omnipotent, and I mean really accept, not just pay it lip service, the scales will fall from them your and eyes will be opened.

[Elsie]

Elsie, have you ever posted anything that was honest and true?

 

 

 

 

---

 

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

---

John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?

 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

---

1 John 3:21-23
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him.
And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

---

James 1:27

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 

---

 

 

 

[Elsie]

I am convinced in my heart that when Jesus says "This is My Body," the only fitting response is, "Amen."

"Get thee behind me, Satan."

[Elsie]

I am convinced in my heart that when Jesus says "This is My Body," the only fitting response is, "Amen."

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Matthew 23:33

[Elsie]

The Bible itself, in God's own words, proclaims how we are saved:

 

Romans 8:24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?

 

 

[Elsie]

God is omnipotent. He thinks or says something and it happens.

Your pope is impotent.

He can't say or think anything without at least half of you Catholics complaining about it!

Seems like you ALL want to be pope!

[Elsie]

God is omnipotent. He thinks or says something and it happens.

Let's try some easy math:

There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;

If merely 1% of them  'ask' Mary for help just once each day;

that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.

Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)

...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!

Purty good fer someone NOT 'devine'!

[Gamecock]

You would be amazed what she could do if she was devine!</sarc>

[metmom]

With that kind of reasoning, there would be "NO way any group with men like this [see below] would be allowed to be in charge of starting the Church of Jesus Christ (also called His body, and which He was the Head of - Colossians 1:18), or of writing the New Testament, the Holy Written Word of God.

You're getting it!

No organization, or denomination is the body of Christ.

The body of Christ is a spiritual body comprised of all born again believers throughout the church age, encompassing 2,000 and the entire world.

It is not located in one geographical place, headquartered anywhere, run by anyone.

There is the body of Christ in every denomination and there are tares in every denomination because the body of Christ is PEOPLE making an organism, not an organization.

BTW, if you're going to address what someone said, please have the courtesy to represent what they said correctly.

What you seemed to claim is my reasoning, this statement, which is not and I did not even imply it, and started with the quotation marks was not what I said. What I said was this No way any organization with men like this allowed to be in charge is the actual body of Christ.

What you stated here With that kind of reasoning, there would be "NO way any group with men like this [see below] would be allowed to be in charge of starting the Church of Jesus Christ (also called His body, and which He was the Head of - Colossians 1:18), or of writing the New Testament, the Holy Written Word of God. is NOT *my kind of reasoning.

Are you also equating the men who started the body of Christ, the writers of the gospels, are peers with those men of debauchery whom you guys own as popes?

[af_vet_1981]

You can clarify which many Protestants are cults if you want...

There are some 30,000 plus denominations, sects, and cults derived from the main Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.). Rebellion breeds rebels and Protestantism continues to calve new sects and movements each year. Many of these are cults. They have no root in themselves. They don't regard their parent denomination as competely genuine or legitimate and yearn to restore some branch of Christianity that they think will be.

Many of the nonCatholics posting refuse to disclose their affiliation while they attack Catholics, which is hypocrisy. You, and a few others, are not ashamed of your affiliation. In the apologetics list I posted there are many examples of cults, among them Adventism and Sabbatarianism.

Some examples of cults descended from Protestantism:
1. Adventism: Widespread trans-denominational movement inspired by William Miller's prediction that Jesus' "advent" (return) would take place in 1844. Even after the Great Disappointment (the date's failure), many people in the movement continued to believe. Some suggested revised chronologies and new dates, eventually forming groups such as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. Others, notably Hiram Edson and Ellen G. White, suggested that the 1844 date was accurate but that a heavenly (thus invisible) event had taken place. Their teachings became the basis of Seventh-day Adventism, which eventually spawned its own offshoots, including Armstrongism and the Branch Davidians.
2. Apostolic Churches: A branch of Pentecostalism including several denominations as well as independent churches with the name "Apostolic"; many (but not all) Apostolic churches adhere to Oneness Pentecostalism.
3. Apostolic Overcoming Holiness of God, Inc., Birmingham, AL: Pentecostal church, stresses the oneness of God while accepting the Triune Being of the Godhead. Salvation depends upon baptism, tarrying to receive the Holy Spirit, and holiness. Publishes The People's Mouthpiece magazine.
4. Apostolic United Brethren: See Corporation of the Presiding Elder of the Apostolic United Brethren.
5. Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA), Washington, DC: The largest Adventist church. Ellen G. White, who claimed to have "the spirit of prophecy," was an important early leader of the movement and taught a number of distinctive SDA doctrines, including the Investigative Judgment and Sabbatarianism. While the church's official theology now appears to be generally in the tradition of evangelical Christianity, certain SDA claims and unique doctrines continue to raise questions. These doctrines include the SDA belief that Sunday worship will result in the "Mark of the Beast," imbalanced teachings on keeping the commandments (baptism, Sabbath observance) that often implies a kind of salvation by works, the "Remnant Church" doctrine that implies that the SDA is or will be God's only true church, and the doctrine of the Investigative Judgment. Profile available.

[Resettozero]

Have just read the post that started this thread again and then a third time. Even though the account may be factual to a large degree, something does not ring true about his testimony.

I think the author has left out some very key information that could change the impact of his story, which sounds like a revised college creative writing project, by virtue of the back and forth in time manner of telling.

Although the author’s religious background is evident, and even though he has experience several changes in his life direction, I found no evidence he has experienced the kind of second birth that Jesus said is a requirement and that he is now a believer in and follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and Him alone.

His story is sappy and lacks both conviction and persuasion.