Are you born again ? Then here you are...

[Augustin56]

Jesus didn't use the word "Catholic" ever, so how could he have founded the "catholic church"?

Besides, why did the Protestant Reformation even happen? Do you know the reasons for it? It's easy to dismiss Protestantism because you BELIEVE the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church but assertions without reasons are easily dismissed. You would have to tell us why the Reformers broke away from Rome. It might have something to do with all that extra Biblical revelation that came centuries after the canon was closed?

That's hillarious. Jesus also never used the word "Trinity" either. Does that mean the Trinity doesn't exist?

Not everything Jesus did and said is in Scripture. See John 21:25, that says, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

And, yet, Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach "all" that He had taught. See Matt. 28:20, that says, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

So, if Jesus commanded that everything be taught, and everything He taught is not in Scripture, where's the rest?! Holy Tradition (aka Oral tradition) as explained by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15, which says, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." ("Tradition" in this sense does not mean common practices. It means "teaching.") Therefore, St. Paul gives equal importants to both the written and spoken word.

Keep in mind the following facts:

1. The books of the New Testament weren't decided until the late 4th century, when the Catholic Church, in the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) decided so. During these times, they prayed to the Holy Spirit and then analyzed over 300 documents, letters, etc., and came up with the 27 that we call the New Testament today. We have the New Testament based on the authority given the Catholic Church by Christ. (True authority is always given, not taken.)
2. Before the last hundred years or so, the vast, vast majority of earth's population was illiterate! So, creating a Bible-only approach to Christ's message would have necessarily excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity from Christ's message. No. Christ didn't write a book to spread His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so. And this Church has been in existence since Christ founded it almost 2000 years ago. And, it holds the majority of Christians in the world.
The Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church (they didn't break away from the Italian city of Rome) because they wrongly assigned themselves authority they didn't have. And the Reformation would have never happened had the German feifdom's in northern Germany, who were poor, not sided with Luther. They lusted after the Catholic monasteries in their territory that had lush vineyards, etc., in order to swell their coffers. It wasn't, in any way, for theological reasons. Even Martin Luther was discouraged by all of the schisms that begin with Protestantism from the beginning.

The Catholic Church has always had issues that cropped up from within. From the very first century, there were heresies that had to be defeated. The Church would hold councils and declare the truth, and move on. As Christ said, in Matt. 16:18, "...and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." He never said they wouldn't attack Christ's Church. He only said they would not prevail. We are, and have been, at war, not between flesh and blood, but between principalites and powers, light and darkness, good and evil. Christ's Church will be standing in the end when He returns. As He promised, at the end of Matt. 28:20, "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

That's hillarious. Jesus also never used the word "Trinity" either. Does that mean the Trinity doesn't exist?

Not everything Jesus did and said is in Scripture. See John 21:25, that says, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

And, yet, Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach "all" that He had taught. See Matt. 28:20, that says, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

So, if Jesus commanded that everything be taught, and everything He taught is not in Scripture, where's the rest?! Holy Tradition (aka Oral tradition) as explained by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15, which says, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." ("Tradition" in this sense does not mean common practices. It means "teaching.") Therefore, St. Paul gives equal importants to both the written and spoken word.

Keep in mind the following facts:

1. The books of the New Testament weren't decided until the late 4th century, when the Catholic Church, in the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) decided so. During these times, they prayed to the Holy Spirit and then analyzed over 300 documents, letters, etc., and came up with the 27 that we call the New Testament today. We have the New Testament based on the authority given the Catholic Church by Christ. (True authority is always given, not taken.)
2. Before the last hundred years or so, the vast, vast majority of earth's population was illiterate! So, creating a Bible-only approach to Christ's message would have necessarily excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity from Christ's message. No. Christ didn't write a book to spread His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so. And this Church has been in existence since Christ founded it almost 2000 years ago. And, it holds the majority of Christians in the world.
The Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church (they didn't break away from the Italian city of Rome) because they wrongly assigned themselves authority they didn't have. And the Reformation would have never happened had the German feifdom's in northern Germany, who were poor, not sided with Luther. They lusted after the Catholic monasteries in their territory that had lush vineyards, etc., in order to swell their coffers. It wasn't, in any way, for theological reasons. Even Martin Luther was discouraged by all of the schisms that begin with Protestantism from the beginning.

The Catholic Church has always had issues that cropped up from within. From the very first century, there were heresies that had to be defeated. The Church would hold councils and declare the truth, and move on. As Christ said, in Matt. 16:18, "...and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." He never said they wouldn't attack Christ's Church. He only said they would not prevail. We are, and have been, at war, not between flesh and blood, but between principalites and powers, light and darkness, good and evil. Christ's Church will be standing in the end when He returns. As He promised, at the end of Matt. 28:20, "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

I could rebut all of this but I will simply just say - If Mary is a mediatrix, and all the Marian dogmas and visions along with the extra Biblical revelation from the so called "saints" and mystics of the Catholic church constitute any contradictions to the Bible in any way, shape or form, it is unnecessary for anybody to defend any of those things.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

That's hillarious. Jesus also never used the word "Trinity" either. Does that mean the Trinity doesn't exist?

Not everything Jesus did and said is in Scripture. See John 21:25, that says, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

And, yet, Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach "all" that He had taught. See Matt. 28:20, that says, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

So, if Jesus commanded that everything be taught, and everything He taught is not in Scripture, where's the rest?! Holy Tradition (aka Oral tradition) as explained by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15, which says, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." ("Tradition" in this sense does not mean common practices. It means "teaching.") Therefore, St. Paul gives equal importants to both the written and spoken word.

Keep in mind the following facts:

1. The books of the New Testament weren't decided until the late 4th century, when the Catholic Church, in the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) decided so. During these times, they prayed to the Holy Spirit and then analyzed over 300 documents, letters, etc., and came up with the 27 that we call the New Testament today. We have the New Testament based on the authority given the Catholic Church by Christ. (True authority is always given, not taken.)
2. Before the last hundred years or so, the vast, vast majority of earth's population was illiterate! So, creating a Bible-only approach to Christ's message would have necessarily excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity from Christ's message. No. Christ didn't write a book to spread His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so. And this Church has been in existence since Christ founded it almost 2000 years ago. And, it holds the majority of Christians in the world.
The Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church (they didn't break away from the Italian city of Rome) because they wrongly assigned themselves authority they didn't have. And the Reformation would have never happened had the German feifdom's in northern Germany, who were poor, not sided with Luther. They lusted after the Catholic monasteries in their territory that had lush vineyards, etc., in order to swell their coffers. It wasn't, in any way, for theological reasons. Even Martin Luther was discouraged by all of the schisms that begin with Protestantism from the beginning.

The Catholic Church has always had issues that cropped up from within. From the very first century, there were heresies that had to be defeated. The Church would hold councils and declare the truth, and move on. As Christ said, in Matt. 16:18, "...and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." He never said they wouldn't attack Christ's Church. He only said they would not prevail. We are, and have been, at war, not between flesh and blood, but between principalites and powers, light and darkness, good and evil. Christ's Church will be standing in the end when He returns. As He promised, at the end of Matt. 28:20, "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Something else for you -

hilarious

1. extremely funny and causing a lot of laughter: 2. extremely funny and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Augustin56]

I could rebut all of this but I will simply just say - If Mary is a mediatrix, and all the Marian dogmas and visions along with the extra Biblical revelation from the so called "saints" and mystics of the Catholic church constitute any contradictions to the Bible in any way, shape or form, it is unnecessary for anybody to defend any of those things.

There are absolutely no contradictions between any Catholic doctrine and the Bible. Only contradictions between Catholic doctrine and someone's personal interpretation of Scripture, which as I've said earlier, St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

So, if you want to prove that the Catholic Church is wrong, and you are right, you have to prove that Jesus or an angel came down and made some corrections to the teachings that Jesus gave the Apostles, who passed it on to their successors, the bishops, etc., for 2000 years. The Catholic Church does not claim the right to change the teachings of Christ given her. I guess the Mormon's try that, but their whole approach is sketchy, at best. Otherwise, were would the information come from? You rely on the Bible, which you got from the Catholic Church, to try to twist the Scriptures to fit your own desires. Not a good idea. Refer to Gal. 1:8, which says, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!" In other words, if you change anything in the deposit of faith that was originally handed down, you're in trouble.

 

[Augustin56]

Something else for you -

hilarious

1. extremely funny and causing a lot of laughter: 2. extremely funny and…

dictionary.cambridge.org

I'm happy you learned how to use a dictionary. I'm sorry my word choice was such that you had to resort to a dictionary, however.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I'm happy you learned how to use a dictionary. I'm sorry my word choice was such that you had to resort to a dictionary, however.

Based on your last two responses, I will have to bow out of responding to you from now on. I was waiting for you to address the Marian doctrines and extra Biblical revelation, but you weren't able to do that. Kindly do not attack people with your venom.

 

[Augustin56]

Based on your last two responses, I will have to bow out of responding to you from now on. You don't seem like a kind person at all. I was waiting for you to address the Marian doctrines and extra Biblical revelation, but you weren't able to do that. Kindly do not attack people with your venom.

No problem, Dave. Christ wasn't always kind, either. (example: chasing away the money changers in the temple) It's about truth. Anything someone says can be found offensive these days.

Which Marion doctrines did you have in mind? The Immaculate Conception, perhaps? Mary was conceived without sin. Where does that come from? Holy Tradition and the New Testament. (The New Testament comes from Holy Tradition. Some of what was taught orally was eventually written down.) If you will look at Luke 1:28, where the angel Gabriel appears before the Virgin Mary, "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.” But, unfortunately, translations are often more art than science, and much has been lost into the translation of this verse into English from the original Greek. Gabriel’s salutation, “Hail, full of grace,” (kaire, kecharitomene, Greek) is not an ordinary greeting. The angel doesn’t call Mary by her given name (Miryam), but instead gives her a new name or title: “full of grace.” The renaming of Mary also conveys how names communicate something that is permanent about the character of the one named (Abram changed to Abraham—Gen. 17:5, l5; Jacob changed to Israel—Gen. 32:28).

To understand the significance of this name change and how it points to Mary being conceived without sin, we look to the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”), a perfect passive participle, coming from the root word charitoo, or grace, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” It denotes an action having taken place in the past, before the announcement of the angel, and one that continues throughout her existence. Understood in this way, the words of the angel “full of grace” (free from all stain of original and actual sin) extend to the moment of Mary’s conception and throughout her earthly life. Hence, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is upheld.

 

[Arial]

That's hillarious. Jesus also never used the word "Trinity" either. Does that mean the Trinity doesn't exist?

Not everything Jesus did and said is in Scripture. See John 21:25, that says, "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

And, yet, Jesus commanded His Apostles to teach "all" that He had taught. See Matt. 28:20, that says, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

So, if Jesus commanded that everything be taught, and everything He taught is not in Scripture, where's the rest?! Holy Tradition (aka Oral tradition) as explained by St. Paul in 2 Thes 2:15, which says, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." ("Tradition" in this sense does not mean common practices. It means "teaching.") Therefore, St. Paul gives equal importants to both the written and spoken word.

Keep in mind the following facts:

1. The books of the New Testament weren't decided until the late 4th century, when the Catholic Church, in the Councils of Rome (382 A.D.), Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397 A.D.) decided so. During these times, they prayed to the Holy Spirit and then analyzed over 300 documents, letters, etc., and came up with the 27 that we call the New Testament today. We have the New Testament based on the authority given the Catholic Church by Christ. (True authority is always given, not taken.)
2. Before the last hundred years or so, the vast, vast majority of earth's population was illiterate! So, creating a Bible-only approach to Christ's message would have necessarily excluded the vast, vast majority of humanity from Christ's message. No. Christ didn't write a book to spread His truth. He founded a (one) Church to do so. And this Church has been in existence since Christ founded it almost 2000 years ago. And, it holds the majority of Christians in the world.
The Reformers broke away from the Catholic Church (they didn't break away from the Italian city of Rome) because they wrongly assigned themselves authority they didn't have. And the Reformation would have never happened had the German feifdom's in northern Germany, who were poor, not sided with Luther. They lusted after the Catholic monasteries in their territory that had lush vineyards, etc., in order to swell their coffers. It wasn't, in any way, for theological reasons. Even Martin Luther was discouraged by all of the schisms that begin with Protestantism from the beginning.

The Catholic Church has always had issues that cropped up from within. From the very first century, there were heresies that had to be defeated. The Church would hold councils and declare the truth, and move on. As Christ said, in Matt. 16:18, "...and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." He never said they wouldn't attack Christ's Church. He only said they would not prevail. We are, and have been, at war, not between flesh and blood, but between principalites and powers, light and darkness, good and evil. Christ's Church will be standing in the end when He returns. As He promised, at the end of Matt. 28:20, "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Please stop hijacking threads unrelated to Catholicism with Catholicism. The title of this OP is "Are you born again?" and this is unrelated to the topic. There are areas for denominational specific posts and comments.

 

[Arial]

No problem, Dave. Christ wasn't always kind, either. (example: chasing away the money changers in the temple) It's about truth. Anything someone says can be found offensive these days.

Which Marion doctrines did you have in mind? The Immaculate Conception, perhaps? Mary was conceived without sin. Where does that come from? Holy Tradition and the New Testament. (The New Testament comes from Holy Tradition. Some of what was taught orally was eventually written down.) If you will look at Luke 1:28, where the angel Gabriel appears before the Virgin Mary, "And coming to her, he said, “Hail, full of grace! The Lord is with you.” But, unfortunately, translations are often more art than science, and much has been lost into the translation of this verse into English from the original Greek. Gabriel’s salutation, “Hail, full of grace,” (kaire, kecharitomene, Greek) is not an ordinary greeting. The angel doesn’t call Mary by her given name (Miryam), but instead gives her a new name or title: “full of grace.” The renaming of Mary also conveys how names communicate something that is permanent about the character of the one named (Abram changed to Abraham—Gen. 17:5, l5; Jacob changed to Israel—Gen. 32:28).

To understand the significance of this name change and how it points to Mary being conceived without sin, we look to the Greek word kecharitomene (“full of grace”), a perfect passive participle, coming from the root word charitoo, or grace, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” It denotes an action having taken place in the past, before the announcement of the angel, and one that continues throughout her existence. Understood in this way, the words of the angel “full of grace” (free from all stain of original and actual sin) extend to the moment of Mary’s conception and throughout her earthly life. Hence, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is upheld.

Please stop hijacking threads that are not denominational specific with denominational specific posts. There are areas for that.