Marcin, I respect your fervor. I have a copy of your email with all the Bible verses, and I believe that it has some misconceptions of Catholicism embedded in it, probably due to the way you see us. I think Catholics, especially those in this forum, are tired of people trying to "witness" to them as you call it, when in reality, if they are faithful Catholics, they know that they are in the one true Church.

To anyone who is a faithful Catholic (ie. studies their Bible & church history), your comments will go in one ear and out the other, because these people know that what you are saying is not true. Besides, the message you brought carries the stereotype of those who wish to "share" but will not listen and "receive" in return. The "discussion" has too often been one-sided in which the Protestant participant refuses to listen to our reasons. I hope that you are different, but your post may have been deleted because it appeared to them that you were just another one of those people. It is most likely less a personal thing against you, and more a general thing of being sick and tired of such "attacks" to our faith.

I am a Protestant who may convert, after much study and consideration. I realized that Catholicism is actually wonderful, and not a mere religion or dictatorship as you described it, and as I used to see it. Would you be open to hearing our side of the story about Catholicism, and perhaps considering that it may be you whose ideas are wrong, rather than us?

I wish that your post had been preserved on this board, so that we could show you what we believe about Catholicism as it relates to those verses. That is why I saved your original post. Would you be open to having people address it (not as a debate, but hearing our side of the story). If so, let me know.

Blessings in Christ,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 15, 2004

Answers

Sure, as long as you don't try to get off topic, and always use the Bible to support yourself. This is what the Bible says about a "one true church."

Luke 9:49-50 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

There you have it folks. God never inteded for there to be a "one true Church," but the church to be the body of Christ, all believers working together to make disciples of all nations.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Mark 9:38-41 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

Before I go on, the supposed "anti-catholic hateful rhetoric" post with "skepticism" in the title, was directed only at the moderators. The whole fact that they deleted it shows their lack of objectivism. Which is what EVERY one should be. Everyone should examine their faith, to see if its legit. Whenever a atheist starts on a quest to definately once and for all disprove God, he always gets saved. And this "in one ear and out the other" comment shows cult mentality. If anyone is unwilling to look at the facts, and decide from there, but only to listen to the facts that support their beliefs, is stuck inside something. One shouldn't be faithful to an organization, because man makes organizations. God made the Bible. Remain faithful to one.

Here is a quick story. I am a KJV only person. My brother told me that I'm just being stupid and that my misconceptions about his NIV were wrong. So I showed him Isaiah 14:12-15 and Revelation 22:16. His said Lucifer and Jesus are the same, mine said Lucifer and Jesus were opposites. It took this one fact, to make him throw away his NIV. Even though I had more cold hard facts, it only took this one verse to make him get rid of it.

And quit calling me a Protestant. I go to a fundamentalist, non-denominational, independant, chicken-eating, bible church. No one ever mentions Protestantism.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Always use the bible to support yourself Hold on there, Marcin! Before we go on and on and on rehashing what anyone who takes time to read the archives would actually find quite quickly: it is first time for you to support yourself using the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the sole authority? As far as I know, we are all Christians and we take our authority from Christ, whether it is written in the Bible or not. We know the early Christians didn't look to the Bible alone for their answers. They didn't have a cannonized 'New Testament' after all. That didn't happen until the Catholic Church established one. I didn't see a thank you in your note for that, by the way ;)

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

No, its not the first time I used the Bible to support my claim. You responded to my first post. The original was probably 90% Bible quotes. "Rehashing the archives" WHAT archives? The moderators deleted it all! What I mean by the Bible being the sole authority, is that if it goes against the Bible, its wrong. The New Testament never contradicts the old. Another mistake most Catholics make is that the Catholic Church is the same as the early church. The transformation was when Emporer Constantine forced everyone to become a Christian. And many continued in their pagan ways, they still do.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

From EWTN:
The Latin Vulgate did use the Latin equivalent of “Lucifer” (Light Bearer) in a few texts of the Bible, including to render “the morning light” (Job 50:17), to describe the fall of the preeminent King of Babylon from power, (also applied to Satan) in Isaiah (14:12), and the word is used by St. Jerome and other Fathers as a name to applied to the devil, in his fall from grace and power. The Douay-Rheims reflects this usage, whereas more modern versions have abandoned this association and follow more literally the original language texts. References to the Morning Star, as in Revelation, are properly understood as applying to Jesus Himself. The confusion is understandable, and results, in part, from the association of morning light in Isaiah with the fall of Satan and the Morning Star of Revelation. In a sense, they can be related insofar as Satan fell from grace and glory, all of which comes from God.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

What archives?

Actually, defending sola scriptura and other Protestant myths has taken up a lot of band width on this list. You can read all about it by scrolling down to the archives, here.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Oops, make that for the archives here.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

oops again, I meant here!!!!

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

not sure why it isn't working. cut and paste this: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Catholic

and go to the lower part of the page

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

The Latin Vulgate is based mainly on a few older, supposedly more accurate texts. The KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text. If I have a New World Translation (Jehovah Witness Version) and a KJV, the KJV will be worn out, copied, replaced, etc. Just because the NWT is older, doesn't mean its more accurate.

Another thing, Catholics have included into their bible what non-Catholics call the Apocrypha. The KJV and probably most non-catholic bibles stop at Job 42. My bible doesn't have 43-50 and beyond. Same with your last two chapters of Daniel.

But even if that was in the bible, Morning light and Mrning star are not the same. In Isiah 14, it says Lucifer is the son of the morning. Angles are often times refered to as "sons of God." Another thing, quoting EWTN doesn't mean anything, they're just as fallible as i am.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

I copy and pasted it, and it took me to the main page of the forum. Why is it that anything non-Catholics believe is a myth, but can't be an arguement, or a belief. Well, Catholics are "permitted" to believe in evolution. The fact that you need someone to allow you to believe in something shows a lack of Bible study and personal research. Secondly, evolution (macro-evolution) isn't scientifically possible, only "micro-variation" is. This is another example of the Church screwing up the Bible. The bible says the Earth is a circle Isaiah 40:22, and that it hangeth on nothing Job 26:7. Yet the Catholic Church gave into the majority of scientists and agreed about geocentricity, and that the earth is flat. Don't get me started on the Big Bang. But I don't want to argue against evolution, even though its very easy. evolution-facts.org drdino.com icr.org are all very good websites if anyone is interested in reading.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

In Hebrew, the original, doesn't use the word Lucifer

By the way, the original, 1611, Kings James Version did have the Deuterocanonical Books in it.

Are you relying on a translation of a translation as the sole foundation of your faith? Not a very wise thing to do.

Still waiting for an answer to my original question. ;)

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

I copy and pasted it, and it took me to the main page of the forum.

Cool! Now scroll down, you will see the archive separated in distinct categories. Just about anything you will ask has been answered already there. Read through it, if you really have a question that hasn't been answered there, then post it. We would be more than willing to answer it. But put a little effort in.

Thanks,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

No, it uses "helal", that word is not used anywhere else in the Hebrew, just as "Lucifer" is not used anywhere else in the English.

"Translation of a translation." I don't understand. The only consistent problem with Textus Receptus is that names don't agree with each other, like Peter and Pedro. Otherwise, there are very few inconsistencies. Anything other than the Textus Receptus has very many changes, taking away the meaning from the deity of Christ, etc.

Outside the Catholic Church they're Apocrypha. By calling them Dueterocanonical doesn't make them legit. They could be, i don't know, even if they are, you don't really have an arguement. The Protestants argued about that long time ago. But before that they had many disagreements with the Catholic Church, theological ones.

Stop getting off topic, The "arguement" is that the Catholic Church is legit. The burden of proof is on you to show me how I am wrong in my "accusations". Not to me that I'm wrong in being a Protestant or using a KJV. Save that for another day. Satan likes to have people argue about the wrong thing.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

What was your original question? I either missed it, or thought i answered it.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Where in the Bible does it say the Bible is the sole authority?

You don't have to answer it... it was a retorical question, the Bible dosn't directly say it. You can pretend there is a statement in the Bible supporting such a position, but it would be a stretch, to say the least. There is only one place a Christian places their faith, and it is in Christ.

But you have a lot of reading to do in the archives. Enjoy.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

What is relevant is this one question. "Is the Catholic Church legit." I gave my verses to support my side, which was deleted. The only thing anyone can do is attack me personally, attack my belief, or some other irresponsible method of getting off topic. Stop trying to argue against me by attacking my faith and/or Bible version, and start answering my criticism.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

What is relevant is this one question. "Is the Catholic Church legit." I gave my verses to support my side, which was deleted.

It has been covered in the archives. Look up the stuff about the early Church, the Church fathers, Apostles, and the Pope.

If you have a specific question after that, bring it up.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

bill, i urge you to ignore these posts from marcin.

i do this for several reasons. this is our home. he is not one in a million, he is merely one OF a million. countless protestants who think that THEY have the answer that somehow 1.2 BILLION catholics seemed to miss. there is NOTHING new that is going to be pointed out to marcin that has not been pointed out a hundred times in the archives.

second... he states "the burden of proof is on you to prove that it [the catholic church] is legit." as i have instructed this boy, we do not defend ourselves here. we do not have a burden of proof for ANYTHING here. more often than not we will humor respectful protestants, but not boys who come demanding us to submit to their will. he is a child that assumes because he is not catholic that he knows more (theologically) than any catholic.

this attitude is NOT in keeping with the principles of this forum. by humoring his demands you only build us another of those jeanettes (or whatever her name was, i forgot) who was so destructive to our sanctuary before her being banned forever.

Marcin, i suggest you develope the level of respect required of a GUEST to our forum, then perhaps people MIGHT talk to you more...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 15, 2004.

"Mark 9:38-41 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward."

Odd that these verses should be mentioned, because I have always thought that these particular verses were what allowed Catholics to be able to get along peacefully with other Christians....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 15, 2004.

this will be my last post. Instead of showing me my error, you show me some website and tell me to look for it. Then you say that majority opinion is of any value. Not in this case. the majority aren't catholic, so that must mean they're right according to your logic.

All 1.2 billion of them aren't going to heaven according to this. Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

GT, that verse shows that there isn't a one true church. And i always keep hearing how the Catholic Church is it. If you want to elaborate more on that verse, you can go right ahead.

and again, instead of answering my criticism, you attack the messenger, calling me a child, a know it all etc. I'd prefer if you call me names, to call me the worst ones.

As for Sola Scriptura. I don't recall saying the bible is the only authority, please quote me. Maybe I did. God uses his Word, circumstances, people, and revelation to speak to us. But never ever ever does he contradict himself. Many teachings of the Catholic Church are contradictory to the Bible. The Bible is a check system to make sure we aren't tricked by people claiming to be Christians but are really false teachers, Mary apparitions and Mary appearing on highway signs etc. The Bible doesn't have all the information in the universe. Knowing the Word of God completely is itself an unending task.

Maybe through all this one person might have been reached. Thats all that matters. You with too much pride to examine your religion, I suggest you become a little more skeptical of what the closest people to you tell you.

i would suggest this pretty good website, once more www.jesus-is-lord.com lots of harsh reality, some might think its anti this and anti that, what it really is, is anti-Satan.

Good night. *shakes the dust of his feet.*

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

Marcin,
You are a guest here. Treat this forum as you would someone elses' home. Be respectful, listen before speaking. Read the archives. Realize we have cover this ground many times before and many of us do not have the patience to cover it again (we have just covered it very recently). Show you can be courteous.

Then if you truely have a new question, that is not covered in the archive, present it respectfully, and not as a challenge.

I am not sure the reception you will receive here, so you are free to email be privately (I use a real email address.)

If you can't do that, then go in Christ's peace, but I am confident you can find the courage and will within yourself to do what is just.

When you present another question, start a new thread with the subject being that question.

I will not expect anything for a few days while you digest the archives.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 15, 2004.

If you had any knowledge of the history of the Bible; if you realized that the Bible was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church, for use by the Catholic Church; if you knew that the Catholic Church alone decided which of its writings would go into the Bible and which would not; then you would also realize that the only way anything in the Bible could conflict with Catholic teaching is if the Catholic Church, after studying a particular text, realized it contradicted Catholic teaching, but decided to put it into the Bible anyway! How likely do you suppose that is? Of course, most Protestants have no idea how the Bible actually came into existence. They seem to think it just floated down from heaven one day, ready-made. They don't seem to realize that the ONLY way they have of knowing which writings are scripture and which are not is the infallible word of the Catholic Church, which defined the canon of scripture once and for all time at the end of the 4th century.

It is of course true that true beliefs cannot contradict scripture. This should cause you to give some serious thought to your Protestant tradition, since denominationalism is riddled with conflicting and contradictory teachings, most of which obviously cannot be true, since truth cannot conflict with truth; and since they are obviously not true, they cannot be in agreement with the Bible, which is truth. You think that Catholic beliefs contradict the Bible. As explained above, that is impossible. But it seems that way to you because (1) you have no understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches, having gotten your information from unauthoritative, bigoted sources, and (2) you have no authoritative way of knowing what the Bible means. So actually all you can say with certainty is that what you think Catholics believe conflicts with your own guesses about what the Bible might mean. And what possible value is there in that?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 15, 2004.

It was very hard trying not to post again.

There you go again confusing the original Church with the Church that Emporer Constantine started.

Yes there are many denominations of "other-than-catholics." But only minor differences are between them. A Christian Church is a Christian Church. They all agree that salvation is by grace, baptism comes after salvation, good works don't save you, but show that you are saved, etc. The Bible is inspired word of God, etc. Minor differences are how the churches are organized, who makes decisions (a council, the pastor, or the congregation,) the emphasis of certain aspects of Christianity, etc. that don't necessarily contradict with the bible, like calling the pope the "Holy Father," which is blasphemy.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Matthew 23:8-9 But be not ye called Rabbi [or Teacher]: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

taken from http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/solascri.htm

Another desperate attempt to justify tradition, is the statement that the early church did not have the New Testament. The Apostle Peter speaks about the writings of the Apostle Paul when he states, "…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter also declares that he was writing so that the believers could remember what he said. So he wrote, "Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth" (2 Peter 1:12).

From the earliest times a substantial part of the New Testament was available. Under the inspiration of the Lord, the Apostle Paul commands his letters to be read in other churches besides those to which they were sent. This clearly shows that the written word of God was being circulated even as the Apostles lived. The Lord's command to believe what is written has always been something that the believers could obey and did obey. In this matter we must have the humility commanded in the Scripture not to think above what is written. "…that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another" (1 Corinthians 4:6).

-- marcin from chicago (coolis00@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

Marcin

You are using a site, which is wholly opposed to Catholicism. Just look at the the homepage

It is all fundementalist bigotry.

-- Andrew (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

Marcin, Maybe I missed it, but I don't see how you answered Paul M.'s point that the Church put the books of the Bible together from among all the writings of the Apostles and others that were being circulated at the time. Has this already been addressed in the archives? To me this shows that the Holy Spirit worked through Christ's bride, the Church, to bring us Scripture. Thanks.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), January 16, 2004.

Not all books, Andy.

The Catholic Church is not responsible for all the books.

The Catholic Church(Back then East(Greek) and West(Rome-Latin)) only added addedto the the 22 books of the Jews we call now the Masoretic Text, which equal 39 of ours, the deuterocanonicals and The New Testament by 381 AD.

These original 22 Jewish books (39 of ours) represent more than 65 % of our Bible.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), January 16, 2004.

Good point Elpidio. Thanks.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), January 16, 2004.

Here's a list of the books canonized at the Council of Carthage (for the first time) I might add. Note that the books of our N.T. found in our present day Bibles were not canonized until this time, ALONG with the deuteros. The Reformers took out what had always been there.

Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).

The Third Council of Carthage was not a general council but a regional council of African bishops, much under the influence of Augustine. The English text below is from Bruce Metzger (noted Protestant apologist).

Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the CHURCH ACROSS THE SEA SHALL BE CONSULTED. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

Probably Marcin does not realize that the 1611 edition of the KJV did INCLUDE the deuteros. It was several hundred years after its first printing, that they were slowly phased out. Interestingly, the first publications of the KJV also listed "feast days of the Saints."

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

Marcin wrote: Another mistake most Catholics make is that the Catholic Church is the same as the early church. The transformation was when Emporer Constantine forced everyone to become a Christian. And many continued in their pagan ways, they still do.

Marcin also wrote: There you go again confusing the original Church with the Church that Emporer Constantine started.

Now Marcin, it's clear that you don't like Constantine. You don't have to. But even shoddy or slanted history would reveal beyond doubt that he didn't *start* the Catholic Church. Third-party historical accounts tell us it started much earlier.

But my question is, where do you find this in the bible (the only source you consider reliable)?

Peace, my troubled friend...

-- Greg (gadas@nc.rr.com), January 16, 2004.

Constantine did, however, have much to do with the canonization of the N.T. scripture, in that he applied tremendous pressure on the bishops to come to a concensus on the canon of the N.T.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

It really is hard not to like Constantine, he promoted Christianity in the West, after all.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

He also stopped the beheading and wholesale slaughter of Christians! I'm sure Christians in those days held him in high regard.

Wasn't he the one who refused to take communion until his death bed because he was "a man of war"?

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 16, 2004.

No one knows for sure if he did convert on his deathbed. There are a number of stories. Realize this was not that same time as now, when we know all the 'dirt' about our leaders :)

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 16, 2004.

There's no reason to doubt he converted. We are able to disagree if we wish, but tradition leans heavily to that deathbed conversion. He was definitely a believer in Christ and the Church. He has come down in history as Constantine the Great; and that says a lot.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 16, 2004.

"Deathbed conversion" is not the correct term here. Constantine was clearly converted to the Catholic faith long before his death, and allowed his Catholic faith to be the guiding force in his life. He also made Catholicism the official religion of the empire. One may or may not agree with that move from a political perspective, but it surely demonstrates the certainty and totality of his conversion. However, like many other Catholics of the time, he postponed his Confession until near the time of his death. This common practice was due to the Church's teaching at the time regarding the sacrament of Confession, namely that an individual could receive the sacrament only once during his lifetime, and that mortal sins committed after reception of the sacrament would therefore be unforgivable. If that were still the rule today, I daresay many Catholics today would approach the sacrament the same way Constantine and his contemporaries did. In fact, this practice was a major reason why the Church eased the rules regarding Confession, allowing for repeated reception of the sacrament.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 17, 2004.

Paul,
There is no record he was ever baptized prior do his death.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

Gail said, "He also stopped the beheading and wholesale slaughter of Christians! I'm sure Christians in those days held him in high regard."

I heard that Constantine ordered the persecution/execution of anyone who was not a Christian, which would make him just as bad as those who murdered Christians. Is this true about him?

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), January 17, 2004.

I heard that Constantine ordered the persecution/execution of anyone who was not a Christian, which would make him just as bad as those who murdered Christians. Is this true about him?

No, Constantine didn't do that. As pontifex maximus he watched over the heathen worship and protected its rights. He did suppress divination and magic. Many heathen emperors did so as well because these practices directly threatened the throne.

You may be mixing him up with Constantius, Constantine's son and an all around jerk.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 17, 2004.

2Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Tim. 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

"This tells me ALL the bible is true and is inspired by God himself, and it IS my only means of truth, besides God telling me himself"

2Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 2Tim. 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2Tim. 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

"Sound Doctrine is the word anything outside of it is man made and could be false,this simple"

2Pet. 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

"this means that ALL can read and understand, and ALL can interpret, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, You all have the ability to read and understand don't let yourselves become dependant on other interpratators of the bible if you have one at home pray and ask for revelation"

1Tim. 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

"The reason I don't bother with Worshipping Mary or saints, the reason I don't believe in transubstantiation, raises way to many questions and arguments"

"

-- dave (thisisnotmyadress@whoever.com), January 19, 2004.

So sorry, Dave: As to --2 Tim. 3:16 ''All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2Tim. 3:17 ''That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.'' And:
"This tells me ALL the Bible is true and is inspired by God himself, and it IS my only means of truth, besides God telling me himself''

There's a problem. YOU are not a man of God.

Paul's context appears to be an exhortation to a ''Man of God,'' --an ordained priest; a bishop. Timothy was being told the scriptures -- Old Testament actually, --would prepare him well for his work for Christ as a minister. He was not addressing the self-ordained protestant minister, nor a ''born again'' non-Catholic Bible student. They were all Catholic.

Therefore, you may be presuming too much. this passage is not a seal of approval strictly for cramming on scripture, but on preparing for Catholic holy orders! Are you planning to enter the holy priesthood in Christ's Church? OK! We couldn't be gladder!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2004.

Having grown up as an Atheist, I came at this thing from a unique perspective. Over the last 20 years I began to notice when I was driving around town, alone in my car, when I drove past a Catholic Church I would get this feeling like butterflies but the good kind not the "your in trouble kind." There were a couple of times where I didn't spot the Church so I drove around the block and then looking more closely, there it was. The first time I had experienced this feeling was many years before when I was about 15 and a friend from school invited me to her Catholic Church with her. It was the 1960 and I just kept going on about what "good vibes" the place had. Something eventually happened that caused me to believe in Christ but as far as what Church he wanted me to go to, this is how I know. No amount of logic or reasoning could have made up my mind, but I know I'm right.

-- Robyn Cain (adaire@aros.net), January 20, 2004.

That is truly wonderful Robyn. It seems clear your soul is receiving vibes from a divine source; maybe an angel, or one of your blessed ancestors who was in the Church ages ago.

If ever you should read the story of Saint Catherine Laboure, and the Miraculous Medal; in it are various testimonies of miraculous events credited to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who had a special medal struck. A ''Miraculous Medal.''

One of them is a standout. It was the conversion of a Jew, named Ratisbonne; in Paris. He took a ''dare'' to wear her medal and say a particular prayer; and see whether or not the miracles were genuine. One day, he happened to drive past a Catholic church, and felt an impulse-- such as yours! --to go inside.

The testimony he later gave was quite a sensation. He said that prayer, wearing the medal. I think it was ''The Memorare''.

Then he approached the holy sacristy, on the left side where there was a ''Mary Chapel'', and, he saw the Mother of God! Alive, and looking straight at him! She was seated above the altar, truly present and living; and he said that Mary was the most beautiful creature he had seen in all his life! Ratisbonne was immediately converted. He was shocked out of his former skepticism, by Our Lady herself, who favored him so; with such a loving apparition in person! He testified before the bishop on oath; he had been converted by the Virgin Mary on the spot.

You might find the book, read it, and I hope realise; we are called to faith and the worship of Jesus Christ in strange ways, sometimes. But, believe me, Robyn; it is to the Catholic faith you'll always be drawn. The true Church of Jesus in this world. God bless you always!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 20, 2004.

Marcin, you said that some teachings of the Catholic Church go against the Bible. But again that all depends on your interpretation of the bible. Just like Protestant Churches say the same about each other. "They worship on Sunday instead of Saturaday, that's against scripture" or "They believe man is saved by free will instead of election, that is against scripture."etc. It just goes on forever.

But (so you can understand it this way) NOTHING the Catholic Church teaches goes AGAINST the Bible. As for the churches interpretation goes. But again I say it like that so you understand.

I myself was ANTI-CATHOLIC once. I was Protestant. But I did alot of study and became amazed. Sometimes it's different when you actually talk to a priest or read a Catholic writers book on Catholicism instead of just a mere Catholic talking like in this forum. ( Although that's still great)

-- Jason Baccaro (LegendsRborn@aol.com), January 24, 2004.

Hi, I was browsing some stuff on 'Christian unity' and somehow ended up reading this debate. I was brought up in the Catholic church in the UK, where I first found Jesus, and have walked with him since I was a child. I never considered being a Catholic to be anything different from being a Christian, and was shocked when, at university I came accross some of the attitudes expressed by marcin.. I currently attend a Charasmatic, non-denominational church- there is no catholic charasmatic church round here, and I have grown in faith and wisdom in that church, but still feel very frustrated at the opinions and misunderstandings that people have about catholics. Marcon said of protestant denominations:

'They all agree that salvation is by grace, baptism comes after salvation, good works don't save you, but show that you are saved, etc'

a) I havnt trawled through the archives of this site but surely someone nwill have pointed out that catholics DO believe in salvation by grace (Its in the creed- that we believe that Jesus died for the salvation of mankind)- good works are an evidence of our faith, not passports to heaven.

b) Some protestant churches have infant baptism, and many catholics are baptised as adults

It breaks my human, fallable heart to see Gods people bickering and in disunity, when there are millions of lost sheep who need to hear the Good news.. ..I cant begin to imagine how broken God must feel at the state of the body of Christ...

God bless you all

Maria x

-- Maria Hogan (m.t.k.hogan@ncl.ac.uk), January 09, 2005.