Renouncing the Catholic faith formally

[Doubting Thomas]

You may also want to consider a conservative classical Anglican or confessional Lutheran church.

 

[JonC]

JonC,.........

Hey Lakeside. When you say things "like the Bible says" you really should provide where the Bible says. What you are really saying is "like the Catholic Church says." You can't start with a passage where Jesus gives to the disciples authority and finish by saying that this authority is passed down and call it Scripture. That is not only dishonest, it is heresy (I would even think for a Catholic). I've already told you that you are not in a position to debate (different foundations) but that we can make observations of each other's views and beliefs. Please at least try to be honest in your observations.

 

[lakeside]

DHK But, tell me which Books were written by the Apostles , stop skirting around my questions all the time.

 

[lakeside]

JonC, usually I always give Book, Chapter and Verse, maybe I just thought that you being a Sola Scriptura that you knew where to find the verse or passage. Check back thru my Post's and you will see that I usually give Book, Chapter and Verse, If you have the wrong interpretation [ which you do have } then you will never be able to comprehend the correct 'One " Interpretation as was used by the first early Century Christians. Why don't you start a new Thread on " the correct Interpretation' and give your attempt at it's origin/ early history.

 

[JonC]

JonC, usually I always give Book, Chapter and Verse,.

That is certainly the appropriate and usual thing to do. - perhaps we just caught you on an unusual day. Why don't you just supply the text (in your translation) with the reference and we can go from there. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that one can match a poor interpretation with the original (or translated) text. It does mean that we believe the revelation of God to be superior to the interpretation or opinion of man.

 

[lakeside]

JonC ,good idea , here it is, now study it please, it is the only correct interpretation as understood by all those early Christians including those bishops at the early councils that decided the Books found in are Bibles, including the Table of Contents

See here - click on johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

 

[JonC]

JonC ,good idea , here it is, now study it please, it is the only correct interpretation as understood by all those early Christians including those bishops at the early councils that decided the Books found in are Bibles, including the Table of Contents

See here - click on johnsalza@scripturecatholic.com

Thank you, lakeside. But you need to check the link (it's an email to a Catholic apologetics site....which is a bit ironic).

 

[DHK]

DHK But, tell me which Books were written by the Apostles , stop skirting around my questions all the time.

Matthew (Levi)
Mark (from Peter), an associate of an Apostle
Luke--The gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were both written by Luke as one volume. Luke was an eyewitness to much of Acts as he traveled with Paul. Most believe that he both witnessed some of the events of the gospel and also had access to documents of the life of Christ.
John was an apostle.

13 epistles written by the Apostle Paul. Romans--Hebrews.
The Book of Hebrews could have been written by Paul, but to this day the writer is not known for sure.
James is written by the half brother of Jesus.
Jude is written by the half brother of Jesus
Two epistles of Peter are written by Peter.
Three epistles of John and the Book of Revelation are written by the Apostle John.

The books of the NT have their source in the Apostles and their associates. No matter which way you look at it the source goes back to the apostles. Even when Paul wrote his epistles he had an amanuensis write for him. One could say the same thing about the relationship between Peter and Mark, though Mark had a bit more liberty than most amanuenses.

The only two that are not are the two half brothers of Jesus, and no one, I mean absolutely no one, would call their credentials into question.

Of course don't take my word for it. The inspired Word of God is much more authoritative than me.
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--They were to remember those things which were written by the prophets (authors of the OT), and of them, the apostles (authors of the NT). That is what made up the Bible.

 

[Rebel]

Matthew (Levi)
Mark (from Peter), an associate of an Apostle
Luke--The gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were both written by Luke as one volume. Luke was an eyewitness to much of Acts as he traveled with Paul. Most believe that he both witnessed some of the events of the gospel and also had access to documents of the life of Christ.
John was an apostle.

13 epistles written by the Apostle Paul. Romans--Hebrews.
The Book of Hebrews could have been written by Paul, but to this day the writer is not known for sure.
James is written by the half brother of Jesus.
Jude is written by the half brother of Jesus
Two epistles of Peter are written by Peter.
Three epistles of John and the Book of Revelation are written by the Apostle John.

The books of the NT have their source in the Apostles and their associates. No matter which way you look at it the source goes back to the apostles. Even when Paul wrote his epistles he had an amanuensis write for him. One could say the same thing about the relationship between Peter and Mark, though Mark had a bit more liberty than most amanuenses.

The only two that are not are the two half brothers of Jesus, and no one, I mean absolutely no one, would call their credentials into question.
Of course don't take my word for it. The inspired Word of God is much more authoritative than me.
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--They were to remember those things which were written by the prophets (authors of the OT), and of them, the apostles (authors of the NT). That is what made up the Bible.

Of course you're going to be told that those were not His half brothers, that they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph by another woman prior to Mary. Talk about reading Catholic dogma back into scripture while scripture refutes it.

 

[lakeside]

Mark and Luke were not among the twelve chosen by Jesus.

 

[vooks]

Of course you're going to be told that those were not His half brothers, that they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph by another woman prior to Mary. Talk about reading Catholic dogma back into scripture while scripture refutes it.

You can always adduce evidence to that effect and we would be agreeable

 

[DHK]

Mark and Luke were not among the twelve chosen by Jesus.

So? They were both chosen by Peter and Paul. Are you going to question their credentials?

 

[JonC]

Here is a quick glance into the unchanging doctrine of the Catholic Church.

593 - the doctrine of Purgatory (present in the Apocrypha, which is at that time yet Scripture) accepted into Catholic doctrine by Gregory the Great.
607 - first “official” pope as Boniface III takes the title of “universal bishop” by decree of the Byzantine Emperor.
753 - Baptism by sprinkling for bedbound candidates officially accepted.
995 - Canonization of dead saints (first by pope John XV)
1009 - “invention” of holy water
1022 - introduction of penance
1268 - Priestly power of absolution
1439 - Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed
1495 - papal control of marriage rites
1545 - Apocryphal books added to Bible
1547 - Confirmation
1864 - Syllabus Errorum
1870 - Infallibility of Pope
1930 - Public schools condemned by pope Pius XII
1954 - Immaculate conception of Mary by pope Pius XII

It doesn't matter that they have a low view of the Apostles and Scripture when placed against their religion because their "church" is their religion. The teaching of the Apostles have no sway over them.

 

[Rebel]

Here is a quick glance into the unchanging doctrine of the Catholic Church.

593 - the doctrine of Purgatory (present in the Apocrypha, which is at that time yet Scripture) accepted into Catholic doctrine by Gregory the Great.
607 - first “official” pope as Boniface III takes the title of “universal bishop” by decree of the Byzantine Emperor.
753 - Baptism by sprinkling for bedbound candidates officially accepted.
995 - Canonization of dead saints (first by pope John XV)
1009 - “invention” of holy water
1022 - introduction of penance
1268 - Priestly power of absolution
1439 - Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed
1495 - papal control of marriage rites
1545 - Apocryphal books added to Bible
1547 - Confirmation
1864 - Syllabus Errorum
1870 - Infallibility of Pope
1930 - Public schools condemned by pope Pius XII
1954 - Immaculate conception of Mary by pope Pius XII

It doesn't matter that they have a low view of the Apostles and Scripture when placed against their religion because their "church" is their religion. The teaching of the Apostles have no sway over them.

Yes, a good list. There is more, but this is sufficient to prove the point.

 

[lakeside]

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

 

[lakeside]

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

 

[DHK]

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

You know they haven't. The annunciation in and of itself proves you wrong.
So does all the facts about Peter being the Pope in Rome which I demonstrated to you just using the Bible alone. That is your biggest problem, and the RCC biggest lie. It is their foundation, and their foundation is all a lie.

You have proven yourself to be the gullible one on this board, by entering into a religion full of superstition and paganism.
You have gone out of your way to post RCC propaganda and are not able to defend any of your doctrines with the Bible itself.

 

[Rebel]

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

There were no popes in the early church, and no monarchial bishops, either. Scripture proves that.

Start with a false premise, and a false conclusion will always follow.

 

[JonC]

Wrong, these events listed had always been part of early church history just the labels were not yet coined , similar to the word Trinity. Your bias fiction writers remind me of Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Dan Brown, [ Da Vinci Code ] Jj Carroll [ Trail of Tears/ Blood ? ] and all other anti-Catholic fiction writers that have been proven as frauds that know how to make a sleazy dollar to the gullible and ignorant.

No, they were debated - often in detail (sometimes even rejected by the Church in earlier periods before being accepted later). some were instituted only to be reversed. Your response is as baseless as Dan Brown and Baptist Landmarkism. You also believe a mythology. I would like to discuss this with you, but just came out of anesthesia and am a bit groggy. Maybe later.

 

[Rebel]

You know they haven't. The annunciation in and of itself proves you wrong.
So does all the facts about Peter being the Pope in Rome which I demonstrated to you just using the Bible alone. That is your biggest problem, and the RCC biggest lie. It is their foundation, and their foundation is all a lie.

You have proven yourself to be the gullible one on this board, by entering into a religion full of superstition and paganism.
You have gone out of your way to post RCC propaganda and are not able to defend any of your doctrines with the Bible itself.

I also showed how a Catholic scholar and priest found Peter's tomb in Jerusalem, and how the pope tried to keep it quiet. Hard to have been the first pope of Rome when you never lived there.

The Roman church is built on a house of cards.