Durden said:

Hey there, I have some difficulty with the Catholic Church. I have a lot of questions, and all of my Catholic friends just get angry at me when I question their faith. I'm really not trying to start a fight, I just have some questions for Catholic people, I would really apreciate some answers

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?...

2. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

3. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

4. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon?

5. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

6. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon? ...exactly, the catholic church is under a different guidence, and not that of God nor the Holy Spirit. Study how the catholic church even came into existence and by what influences is their beliefs originate.

7. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?...Follow the tradition of Jesus Christ and not a religon, which are man made entities.

8. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

9. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

10. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?...they each fear the truth. All three religons pratice a form of mind control and they are more of a cult than a Holy Spirit guided church.

11. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD? ...

12. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

13. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general? ...and you know what is more disturbing than your statement? Is no one from the catholic religon questions it at all!!! They are brain-washed by the catholic religon so much they'd believe anything and forgive everything, without doubt and without question.

14. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

15. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?...its one of many facts that prove that the catholic church is not part of the succession.

16. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

17. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

18. If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

19. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

20. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

21. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

22. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

23. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?

24. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church....a new believer needs to get a Holy Bible and study it, with prayer. Also, baptism is to be done at an age of accountability...babies and small children are not of that age...and baptism is to be done by submerging, unless for some reason that is impossible.

25. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

26. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

27. Why is Mary portrayed as a Virgin when there is proof that she had other children?...she had other children after Jesus was born, some even think that Mary may have very young actually when she became pregnant with Jesus.


...and if The Bible is a Catholic Book, as my Catholic friends AND their families claim, then:
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28.).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church? ...did you forget that many in the catholic church don't even really believe in satan and demons? They don't even believe that people can become possesed. That also cantradicts the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ Himself!!!

And Finally, why did the Catholic Church put up doctrines that you had to kiss the Pope's feet and that public school is wrong?...they want everyone to worship the pope as God Himself. There are written and recorded quotes where the pope claims to be God!!

I have a lot more questions, but I didn't want too long a list... Or else then anyone wouldn't answer me...

Please don't just say, "shut up you *******" because I really am curious, my best friend is Catholic and I am trying to understand her church without offending her till the point that she leaves me for good...maybe you should just let her go then, because I have found that catholics are so brainwashed that it is extremely rare when a catholic leaves that religon. And it's funny that they won't fight you to the death defending Jesus, God, nor the Holy Spirit, but they'll fight you tooth and nail defending the pope and the catholic teachings!!! Brainwashing cult practices!!!

Thanks!

cere1964 said:

Durden said:

Hey there, I have some difficulty with the Catholic Church. I have a lot of questions, and all of my Catholic friends just get angry at me when I question their faith. I'm really not trying to start a fight, I just have some questions for Catholic people, I would really apreciate some answers

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?...

2. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

3. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

4. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon?

5. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

6. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon? ...exactly, the catholic church is under a different guidence, and not that of God nor the Holy Spirit. Study how the catholic church even came into existence and by what influences is their beliefs originate.

7. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?...Follow the tradition of Jesus Christ and not a religon, which are man made entities.

8. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

9. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

10. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?...they each fear the truth. All three religons pratice a form of mind control and they are more of a cult than a Holy Spirit guided church.

11. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD? ...

12. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

13. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general? ...and you know what is more disturbing than your statement? Is no one from the catholic religon questions it at all!!! They are brain-washed by the catholic religon so much they'd believe anything and forgive everything, without doubt and without question.

14. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

15. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?...its one of many facts that prove that the catholic church is not part of the succession.

16. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

17. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

18. If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

19. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

20. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

21. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

22. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

23. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?

24. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church....a new believer needs to get a Holy Bible and study it, with prayer. Also, baptism is to be done at an age of accountability...babies and small children are not of that age...and baptism is to be done by submerging, unless for some reason that is impossible.

25. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

26. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

27. Why is Mary portrayed as a Virgin when there is proof that she had other children?...she had other children after Jesus was born, some even think that Mary may have very young actually when she became pregnant with Jesus.


...and if The Bible is a Catholic Book, as my Catholic friends AND their families claim, then:
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28.).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church? ...did you forget that many in the catholic church don't even really believe in satan and demons? They don't even believe that people can become possesed. That also cantradicts the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ Himself!!!

And Finally, why did the Catholic Church put up doctrines that you had to kiss the Pope's feet and that public school is wrong?...they want everyone to worship the pope as God Himself. There are written and recorded quotes where the pope claims to be God!!

I have a lot more questions, but I didn't want too long a list... Or else then anyone wouldn't answer me...

Please don't just say, "shut up you *******" because I really am curious, my best friend is Catholic and I am trying to understand her church without offending her till the point that she leaves me for good...maybe you should just let her go then, because I have found that catholics are so brainwashed that it is extremely rare when a catholic leaves that religon. And it's funny that they won't fight you to the death defending Jesus, God, nor the Holy Spirit, but they'll fight you tooth and nail defending the pope and the catholic teachings!!! Brainwashing cult practices!!!

Thanks!

The catholic church gave the world their version of the bible. Their bible is based upon their teachings with have a shadow of their early gods. The 10 Commandments in the catholic are actually, I believe number 13 and one maybe two are deleted out from the Holy Bible. Also, the catholic religon accepts the so called Lost Books of the Bible, which are NOT of divine inspiration, as truth and extensions of the Holy Bible. The catholic religon even contradicts what the Holy Bible says, like worshipping heavenly things and beings, praying to the dead...to which prayers can ONLY be heard by God, the treat the pope as God, their priests can forgive sins? Only God can forgive sins. The catholic church passes judgement, to which Jesus say" thou shalt not judge lest thee shall be judged", and if the Holy Spirit fills the catholic churches, then why so much child molestation? Do they think the Holy Spirit just turned the other cheek? [/i][i]it all has to do with timing and faith. Besides, why question GOD on what and why He does what He does and when?

forrest52 said:

However most of your questions and arguments are involved completely with the higherarchy of the church, being the priests then bishops then whatver is next then the pope. The followers have no idea about most of these things and just want to worship God and Jesus like any protestant or other Christian denomination.

Durden said:

forrest52 said:

However most of your questions and arguments are involved completely with the higherarchy of the church, being the priests then bishops then whatver is next then the pope. The followers have no idea about most of these things and just want to worship God and Jesus like any protestant or other Christian denomination.

I can understand that.. Still, if they just want to worship Jesus like any Protestant, and not heed the rules that the higherarchy makes up as it goes along, then why stay with the church?

Durden said:

cere1964 said:

Durden said:

Hey there, I have some difficulty with the Catholic Church. I have a lot of questions, and all of my Catholic friends just get angry at me when I question their faith. I'm really not trying to start a fight, I just have some questions for Catholic people, I would really apreciate some answers

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?...

2. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

3. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

4. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon?

5. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

6. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon? ...exactly, the catholic church is under a different guidence, and not that of God nor the Holy Spirit. Study how the catholic church even came into existence and by what influences is their beliefs originate.

7. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?...Follow the tradition of Jesus Christ and not a religon, which are man made entities.

8. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

9. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

10. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?...they each fear the truth. All three religons pratice a form of mind control and they are more of a cult than a Holy Spirit guided church.

11. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD? ...

12. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

13. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general? ...and you know what is more disturbing than your statement? Is no one from the catholic religon questions it at all!!! They are brain-washed by the catholic religon so much they'd believe anything and forgive everything, without doubt and without question.

14. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

15. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?...its one of many facts that prove that the catholic church is not part of the succession.

16. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

17. The Church Fathers believed what Paul said in Eph 3:3-5, that the scripture could be understood by merely reading it. They indicated that the scriptures themselves were clear, so clear, they even criticized the heretics for getting it wrong. If those outside the church and common pew dwellers are unable to understand the Bible themselves as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches teach, then why did the apostolic fathers expect the heretics to understand the Bible with their own human skills? (Tertullian, The Flesh of Christ, ch 20), (Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 1, 35), (Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, 16)

18. If each individual possessing a copy of the scriptures is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? If illiterate Catholics and Orthodox can have the Catechisms read to them, then why not the scripture?

19. If universal distribution of the Bible in every home is an essential pre-condition of sola Scriptura, then how could Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the message of the Pope before the time of modern instant live communication?

20. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do illiterate Catholic and Orthodox pew-dwellers know the Catholic and Orthodox Catechisms? Would not the same logic apply to illiterates in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches? If Catholic and Orthodox laity can "know the truth" by hearing the catechism read to them, then why not illiterate Christians when they hear the Bible read?

21. If the ability to read is an essential pre-condition to sola Scriptura, then how do the illiterate Catholic and Orthodox commoner know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they could not read the documents?

22. How do the Catholic and Orthodox commoners who can read, know for certain that the priest is faithfully teaching the dogma, canons and edicts of councils if they did not possess copies of such documents?

23. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day?

24. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church....a new believer needs to get a Holy Bible and study it, with prayer. Also, baptism is to be done at an age of accountability...babies and small children are not of that age...and baptism is to be done by submerging, unless for some reason that is impossible.

25. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

26. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

27. Why is Mary portrayed as a Virgin when there is proof that she had other children?...she had other children after Jesus was born, some even think that Mary may have very young actually when she became pregnant with Jesus.


...and if The Bible is a Catholic Book, as my Catholic friends AND their families claim, then:
1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28.).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church? ...did you forget that many in the catholic church don't even really believe in satan and demons? They don't even believe that people can become possesed. That also cantradicts the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ Himself!!!

And Finally, why did the Catholic Church put up doctrines that you had to kiss the Pope's feet and that public school is wrong?...they want everyone to worship the pope as God Himself. There are written and recorded quotes where the pope claims to be God!!

I have a lot more questions, but I didn't want too long a list... Or else then anyone wouldn't answer me...

Please don't just say, "shut up you *******" because I really am curious, my best friend is Catholic and I am trying to understand her church without offending her till the point that she leaves me for good...maybe you should just let her go then, because I have found that catholics are so brainwashed that it is extremely rare when a catholic leaves that religon. And it's funny that they won't fight you to the death defending Jesus, God, nor the Holy Spirit, but they'll fight you tooth and nail defending the pope and the catholic teachings!!! Brainwashing cult practices!!!

Thanks!

The catholic church gave the world their version of the bible. Their bible is based upon their teachings with have a shadow of their early gods. The 10 Commandments in the catholic are actually, I believe number 13 and one maybe two are deleted out from the Holy Bible. Also, the catholic religon accepts the so called Lost Books of the Bible, which are NOT of divine inspiration, as truth and extensions of the Holy Bible. The catholic religon even contradicts what the Holy Bible says, like worshipping heavenly things and beings, praying to the dead...to which prayers can ONLY be heard by God, the treat the pope as God, their priests can forgive sins? Only God can forgive sins. The catholic church passes judgement, to which Jesus say" thou shalt not judge lest thee shall be judged", and if the Holy Spirit fills the catholic churches, then why so much child molestation? Do they think the Holy Spirit just turned the other cheek? [/i][i]it all has to do with timing and faith. Besides, why question GOD on what and why He does what He does and when?

Okie... but I didn't say,

"maybe you should just let her go then, because I have found that catholics are so brainwashed that it is extremely rare when a catholic leaves that religon. And it's funny that they won't fight you to the death defending Jesus, God, nor the Holy Spirit, but they'll fight you tooth and nail defending the pope and the catholic teachings!!! Brainwashing cult practices!!!"

Did I miss something?

I'm not saying that I don't agree totally, but me saying that would have been starting a fight, and that's exactly what I am trying NOT to do.

Longshot said:

Durden said:

forrest52 said:

However most of your questions and arguments are involved completely with the higherarchy of the church, being the priests then bishops then whatver is next then the pope. The followers have no idea about most of these things and just want to worship God and Jesus like any protestant or other Christian denomination.

I can understand that.. Still, if they just want to worship Jesus like any Protestant, and not heed the rules that the higherarchy makes up as it goes along, then why stay with the church?

For most people, it's how they were raised and it's all they know. I was raised Catholic. My parents and grandparents were Catholic. Growing up I didn't even know what a Prodestant was. I thought you had to be British to be Prodestant or something like that.

And when you grow up you've spent your entire life calling yourself a Catholic it's just easier to stay with it and if you do not agree or even understand everything, then you just don't focus on those parts.

It's so much easier being athiest.

cere1964 said:

...I understand what you're saying, maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say more emphatically...I lived with a catholic woman for a little more than three years, and it's enevitable(SP?)...you are GONNA fight. And it will drive a wedge between you and your friend. I can inderstand your point because I've been there. Now, my point on religon is that there are just way too many religons with so much man made rules and teachings and so much twisted truths, exaggerations and lies. There are religons based on one little sentence from the Bible and beliefs based on the same thing. Mormons believe if you are not a mormon-you aren't getting into heaven. Jehova Witnesses believe that only 144,000 are getting into heaven and when I asked one once, how many Witnesses worldwide and she said, I think around a million or so, I asked her if she is part of the 144,000 or the 856,000? There is ONLY one truth, only one Jesus, one Holy Spirit and one God...so why so much religon and truths and beliefs and practices? Good luck with your friend, hope it works out for ya.

forrest52 said:

I am Catholica and I don't heed the rules of the church in the slightest in fact I don't think very many people at my church do. I went to a protestant church camp, I don't take confession because i don't think I need a mediary to talk to God. I will not kiss anything on some priest, bishop or pope, I disagree completely with a majority of the holy days and the obligation to go to church on those days. I am not a fan of the hierarchy. I just like that old fashion feel at church and it is still to me the best example of feeling God in my presence when I walk into one. BUt don't get me wrong I have felt the same feeling in other churches and in other places so to me its more a venue for worship then a belief system.

Durden said:

cere1964 said:

...I understand what you're saying, maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say more emphatically...I lived with a catholic woman for a little more than three years, and it's enevitable(SP?)...you are GONNA fight. And it will drive a wedge between you and your friend. I can inderstand your point because I've been there. Now, my point on religon is that there are just way too many religons with so much man made rules and teachings and so much twisted truths, exaggerations and lies. There are religons based on one little sentence from the Bible and beliefs based on the same thing. Mormons believe if you are not a mormon-you aren't getting into heaven. Jehova Witnesses believe that only 144,000 are getting into heaven and when I asked one once, how many Witnesses worldwide and she said, I think around a million or so, I asked her if she is part of the 144,000 or the 856,000? There is ONLY one truth, only one Jesus, one Holy Spirit and one God...so why so much religon and truths and beliefs and practices? Good luck with your friend, hope it works out for ya.

Well, it really isn't working out with us at all, to be honest, it is like trying to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room whenever we talk, everything just seems awkward. I really do have a lot of problems with the Catholic Church, and how the hardcore *like she is* ones have the mentality of saying, "Well, if I think for myself, then I will go to Hell, so I'm not even going to risk it." That bothers me a lot, so our friendship is truly fading.

I agree with you on ever count of that. One of my friends called me a biggot for saying that I would never marry a staunch Catholic woman, but I really don't think that's true, I just know already that there would be too many problems that would arise and don't even bother.

Durden said:

[Yeah... but you're so damn smart

Passionate said:

It's quite clear that you want answers, when you get your questions from a list called "Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox cant answer."

I don't think I believe that you really have a Catholic best friend. I think that you just want to convince people to leave their religion.

However, if you aren't lying, and you really want someone to answer your questions, read Catholicism and Fundamentalism , by Karl Keating.

If this friend really exists, and you've been hounding her with questions like these, I'm rather surprised that she still considers you a friend. Perhaps the reason seeing her is awkward is that she isn't very happy with you.

Read the book with an open mind. I did, and I'm now Catholic. You, of course, don't have to convert, but if you value your friendship, at least try to understand her faith.

Durden said:

cere1964 said:

...I understand what you're saying, maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say more emphatically...I lived with a catholic woman for a little more than three years, and it's enevitable(SP?)...you are GONNA fight. And it will drive a wedge between you and your friend. I can inderstand your point because I've been there. Now, my point on religon is that there are just way too many religons with so much man made rules and teachings and so much twisted truths, exaggerations and lies. There are religons based on one little sentence from the Bible and beliefs based on the same thing. Mormons believe if you are not a mormon-you aren't getting into heaven. Jehova Witnesses believe that only 144,000 are getting into heaven and when I asked one once, how many Witnesses worldwide and she said, I think around a million or so, I asked her if she is part of the 144,000 or the 856,000? There is ONLY one truth, only one Jesus, one Holy Spirit and one God...so why so much religon and truths and beliefs and practices? Good luck with your friend, hope it works out for ya.

Well, it really isn't working out with us at all, to be honest, it is like trying to ignore the proverbial elephant in the room whenever we talk, everything just seems awkward. I really do have a lot of problems with the Catholic Church, and how the hardcore *like she is* ones have the mentality of saying, "Well, if I think for myself, then I will go to Hell, so I'm not even going to risk it." That bothers me a lot, so our friendship is truly fading.

I agree with you on ever count of that. One of my friends called me a biggot for saying that I would never marry a staunch Catholic woman, but I really don't think that's true, I just know already that there would be too many problems that would arise and don't even bother.

Passionate said:

It's quite clear that you want answers, when you get your questions from a list called "Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox cant answer."

I don't think I believe that you really have a Catholic best friend. I think that you just want to convince people to leave their religion.

However, if you aren't lying, and you really want someone to answer your questions, read Catholicism and Fundamentalism , by Karl Keating.

If this friend really exists, and you've been hounding her with questions like these, I'm rather surprised that she still considers you a friend. Perhaps the reason seeing her is awkward is that she isn't very happy with you.

Read the book with an open mind. I did, and I'm now Catholic. You, of course, don't have to convert, but if you value your friendship, at least try to understand her faith.

Cosmo_Kramer said:

Passionate said:

It's quite clear that you want answers, when you get your questions from a list called "Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox cant answer."

I don't think I believe that you really have a Catholic best friend. I think that you just want to convince people to leave their religion.

However, if you aren't lying, and you really want someone to answer your questions, read Catholicism and Fundamentalism , by Karl Keating.

If this friend really exists, and you've been hounding her with questions like these, I'm rather surprised that she still considers you a friend. Perhaps the reason seeing her is awkward is that she isn't very happy with you.

Read the book with an open mind. I did, and I'm now Catholic. You, of course, don't have to convert, but if you value your friendship, at least try to understand her faith.

oh thanks for that..that was a great read

Longshot said:

The Bible has a few too many wacky things in it for me to take it too literally though, so the fact that any church changes it to suit their needs doesn't phase me.

cere1964 said:

Cosmo_Kramer said:

Passionate said:

It's quite clear that you want answers, when you get your questions from a list called "Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox cant answer."

I don't think I believe that you really have a Catholic best friend. I think that you just want to convince people to leave their religion.

However, if you aren't lying, and you really want someone to answer your questions, read Catholicism and Fundamentalism , by Karl Keating.

If this friend really exists, and you've been hounding her with questions like these, I'm rather surprised that she still considers you a friend. Perhaps the reason seeing her is awkward is that she isn't very happy with you.

Read the book with an open mind. I did, and I'm now Catholic. You, of course, don't have to convert, but if you value your friendship, at least try to understand her faith.

oh thanks for that..that was a great read

...I'd like to recommend a great book you may read, it's called the Holy Bible!!!

cere1964 said:

Longshot said:

The Bible has a few too many wacky things in it for me to take it too literally though, so the fact that any church changes it to suit their needs doesn't phase me.

It's too bad you feel and think that way, maybe you never had someone really explain things to you and teach you about the Holy Bible. The Bible is the only thing that makes any sense. This world, this life is what has too many whacky things in it...just seriously think about it................

Longshot said:

All I am saying is that people quote the Bible as being the reason they believe whatever they believe. Whether it is that gays are living in sin or that abortion is wrong or that premarital sex is immoral.

And they do not simply quote the New Testiment. They also quote the Old Testiment, which as far as i know is part of the Bible. It is certainly in every Bible I have ever seen.

So when I say that you can not go off the Bible for everything and people ask why, I list some examples. Heck, I even skipped a few crazy examples (stoning your wife, the condoning of slavery) just becasue I was getting bored.

But here you come to denounce me. You certainly can not refute that these things are in the Bible, so instead you attack me. Good plan. Let me know how that works out for you.