Ask a Catholic

[PackJason]

You're just interpreting scriptures to suit your fancy. All of Christendom believed in the trinity then in 1870 some dude drops some acid and everyone else is wrong.

You have to be a real moron to believe that 1800 years after the death of Christ everyone else had it wrong and the truth was finally found.

I was wiling to say you guys were good people and entitled to respect (just don't claim to Christians by the academic definition) but you've been such a douche all of that has been thrown out the window.

I mean you aren't even in the ballpark of reality on some of your claims.

A Catholic calling another denomination of Christians, "not real Christians" is hilarious considering how many Pagan rituals you folks perform and observe.

 

[PackJason]

Oh cut the crap you almost were baptised JW and you are overly sensitive about the subject because it's personal. If people were jumping on Mormons you would be leading the pack so don't get all self righteous. It isn't a good look for you.

Everything is a good look on me.

 

[The Mormonator]

A Catholic calling another denomination of Christians, "not real Christians" is hilarious considering how many Pagan rituals you folks perform and observe.

 

[Serenity Now]

A Catholic calling another denomination of Christians, "not real Christians" is hilarious considering how many Pagan rituals you folks perform and observe.

Let's see 2,000 of history verses 146 years.
99.99999% of other Christian denominations agree with me and would not recognize JWs as Christians.

Get the wad out of your panties and man up to the truth. You're acting like an atheist with daddy issues.

 

[PackJason]

Let's see 2,000 of history verses 146 years.
You're acting like an atheist with daddy issues.

Nah, I'm laughing hysterically at your hypocrisy.

LOL

 

[Katzpur]

Do you find it peculiar that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 16th century English?

He translated it into 16th century English. And no, I don't find it peculiar. He translated it into the only language 19th-century Christians would have expected to see scripture written in. It might seem odd today, but to Joseph Smith's contemporaries, it was completely logical that it be in 16th century English. That was, to them, the language that scripture was supposed to be written in.

 

[Deeje]

Let's see 2,000 of history verses 146 years.
99.99999% of other Christian denominations agree with me and would not recognize JWs as Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist before the 4th century. Jesus was not Catholic.
The "weeds" of false Christianity were sown as Jesus said, and gained extraordinary power which as we know, thoroughly corrupts men.
The foretold apostasy happened just as Jesus and the apostles said it would, but apparently nobody noticed.

If we are talking percentages, do you know what percentage of Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah? Do you understand how confident they were about their opposition?
When Jesus was presented to them as their king, they said "we have no king but Caesar"....when Pilate offered to release Jesus because he found no fault with him, they chose a real criminal to set free. And when Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair he told them they had to see to it themselves....."And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt 27:25)

Do you have that kind of confidence SN? You are so sure who the real Christians are? (Matt 7:15-23)

Get the wad out of your panties and man up to the truth. You're acting like an atheist with daddy issues.

You aren't allowed to make personal attacks on people here even if you disagree with them. Please mind your manners and behave like a good Christian...rather than what you are doing at present. (Gal 5:22-24) It is possible to disagree without the personal slurs if one has 'fruitage of the holy spirit'.

 

[First Baseman]

The Catholic Church claims its roots in St. Peter and the Apostles. So the Catholic Church considers itself founded by Peter, not 4 centuries later.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The true Christians of the first century would not recognize the church that took shape in the fourth century. By the fourth century, many beliefs and practices were completely diffferent from the first century.

 

[Serenity Now]

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist before the 4th century. Jesus was not Catholic.
The "weeds" of false Christianity were sown as Jesus said, and gained extraordinary power which as we know, thoroughly corrupts men.
The foretold apostasy happened just as Jesus and the apostles said it would, but apparently nobody noticed.

If we are talking percentages, do you know what percentage of Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah? Do you understand how confident they were about their opposition?
When Jesus was presented to them as their king, they said "we have no king but Caesar"....when Pilate offered to release Jesus because he found no fault with him, they chose a real criminal to set free. And when Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair he told them they had to see to it themselves....."And all the people answered, “His blood be on us and on our children!” (Matt 27:25)

Do you have that kind of confidence SN? You are so sure who the real Christians are? (Matt 7:15-23)



You aren't allowed to make personal attacks on people here even if you disagree with them. Please mind your manners and behave like a good Christian...rather than what you are doing at present. (Gal 5:22-24) It is possible to disagree without the personal slurs if one has 'fruitage of the holy spirit'.

1. The assertion that the Catholic Church didn't exist until the 4th century is ludicrous and a completely false statement. I have already addressed that nonsense on another thread that you are posting on as well.

2. I'll address PJ how I want and he is free to do the same and neither of us have thin skins. Should we desire a Hall Monitor you will be the first one we call.

 

[First Baseman]

The true Christians of the first century would not recognize the church that took shape in the fourth century. By the fourth century, many beliefs and practices were completely diffferent from the first century.

The true Christians of any century would not recognize the church that took shape in any other century. The basic belief in Jesus Christ remains the same throughout the centuries but the practices have changed over time, sure.

 

[Desert Snake]

The Catholic Church claims its roots in St. Peter and the Apostles. So the Catholic Church considers itself founded by Peter, not 4 centuries later.

The real Church of Jesu, was founded by Jesu.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Yes, many places in the Bible refer to Jesus as the rock. God's church would be founded on the rock of Jesus and not on some human like Peter. But of course Catholics ignore the Bible when it contradicts their ideas and "traditions".Oh, and the Bible warns against following human traditions so of course that is ignored also.

 

[4consideration]

JS didn't write it silly, he translated what was written on the magic gold tablets.

Are you really Mormon?

 

[First Baseman]

The real Church of Jesu, was founded by Jesu.

If you say so, bro.

 

[First Baseman]

Yes, many places in the Bible refer to Jesus as the rock. God's church would be founded on the rock of Jesus and not on some human like Peter. But of course Catholics ignore the Bible when it contradicts their ideas and "traditions".Oh, and the Bible warns against following human traditions so of course that is ignored also.

Actually Jesus founded the Church on the rock that is Peter. Reread the scripture, dude.

Name the church that is without sin. Only Christ is without sin.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you say so, bro.

Therefore, you claim to be following a religion that adheres to a Character, who did not even start the church you claim.....; yet you claim it is the correct, or first church? How does that work? And, if you are talking about that verse, about Peter, then, you are inferring, that the //Church of Jesus, was not existant, until after it was 'created', by others?

I would have a problem, with that, personally.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Actually Jesus founded the Church on the rock that is Peter. Reread the scripture, dude.

Name the church that is without sin. Only Christ is without sin.

Can I ask. How can both Peter and Jesus be the head (rock) of the Church (Body of Christ)?

Did the Church became the body of Peter?

Why does the Church say Peter is the rock yet Jesus as the Eucharist? Wouldnt it make logical sense if Peter were given the keys to god's kingdom that the Eucharist would be Peter given he would be now he rock?

The Church means body of Christ. The whole congregation comes together to take Jesus in the Eucharist not Peter. The teachings of the Church are based on Jesus "and" his apostles not just Peter.

The apostles were the start of the Church (more than one). They, as the Body and their converts make up the Body of "Christ."

If Peter holds the gates of heaven and earth, then through Peter one would go to heaven not Jesus.

There is a contradiction within the Church teachings. Either Peter is the rock and the Eucharist or Jesus is the rock and the Eucharist.

It is Jesus' "keys" and always will be. How does the Church reconcile Peter being the rock when its through the body of Christ (Eucharist and Church/sacraments) one gets to god?

 

[First Baseman]

Therefore, you claim to be following a religion that adheres to a Character, who did not even start the church you claim.....; yet you claim it is the correct, or first church? How does that work? And, if you are talking about that verse, about Peter, then, you are inferring, that the //Church of Jesus, was not existant, until after it was 'created', by others?

I would have a problem, with that, personally.

Where did you come up with all of that? Jesus built the church on the rock that is Peter. Jesus built it, no one else.

 

[First Baseman]

Can I ask. How can both Peter and Jesus be the head (rock) of the Church (Body of Christ)?

Did the Church became the body of Peter?

Why does the Church say Peter is the rock yet Jesus as the Eucharist? Wouldnt it make logical sense if Peter were given the keys to god's kingdom that the Eucharist would be Peter given he would be now he rock?

The Church means body of Christ. The whole congregation comes together to take Jesus in the Eucharist not Peter. The teachings of the Church are based on Jesus "and" his apostles not just Peter.

The apostles were the start of the Church (more than one). They, as the Body and their converts make up the Body of "Christ."

If Peter holds the gates of heaven and earth, then through Peter one would go to heaven not Jesus.

There is a contradiction within the Church teachings. Either Peter is the rock and the Eucharist or Jesus is the rock and the Eucharist.

It is Jesus' "keys" and always will be. How does the Church reconcile Peter being the rock when its through the body of Christ (Eucharist and Church/sacraments) one gets to god?

Jesus built the church. Without Jesus there is no church. If He hadn't built it on the rock that was Peter He would have built it on someone else. Many theologians think that Jesus figuratively built the church on Peter, as in He built it on Christians like Peter.