a former Evangelical "born again" explains why Protestantism isn't true

Originally posted by colbe

One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5), you can't run away from this verse.

Notice that it does not say three lords, one faith, one baptism only if you would like to.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

One Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph 4:5), you can't run away from this verse.

Notice that it does not say three lords, one faith, one baptism only if you would like to.

Jesus Christ is God, God is our Lord, like it says, ONE God. Christianity accepts ONE God...in three divine persons. Notice the Truth of God's revelation is not contained in ONE sentence.

Continue on, try to reject the rest of this very clear verse...

See what pride does, people sadly go to their deaths rejecting the Truth.


how come you left of my "we love you" stated three times nj?


colbe

Originally posted by colbe

Jesus Christ is God, God is our Lord, like it says, ONE God. Christianity accepts ONE God...in three divine persons.

Which of the three gods/persons is Lord?

Originally posted by colbe

how come you left of my "we love you" stated three times nj

Is the plural "we" and the phrase being typed three times supposed to represent that you have three personalities?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

Jesus Christ is God, God is our Lord, like it says, ONE God. Christianity accepts ONE God...in three divine persons.

Which of the three gods/persons is Lord?

JESUS CHRIST IS LORD, SECOND PERSON OF THE BLESSED TRINITY

Originally posted by colbe

how come you left of my "we love you" stated three times nj

Is the plural "we" and the phrase being typed three times supposed to represent that you have three personalities?

YOU ARE SO MOCKING, EVEN WHEN SOMEONE, MYSELF, IS TRYING TO BE LOVING TO YOU.
THE 'WE' WAS REFERENCE TO THE CATHOLICS REPLYING TO YOU ON THIS THREAD.

You can't remain Protestant. Martin Luther's heresy, "Sola Scriptura" bites the dust. You need an authority
to decide the Canon and an authority to interpret Scripture:


"If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over these various books? Why was there any disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if the books were allegedly so readily discernible? The answer that one is compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.

Even more interesting is the fact that some books in the Bible do not identify their authors. The idea of self-authentication – if it were true – might be more plausible if each and every Biblical author identified himself, as we could more easily examine that author’s credentials, so to speak, or at least determine who it was that claimed to be speaking for God. But in this regard the Bible leaves us ignorant in a few instances.

Take St. Matthew’s Gospel as one example; nowhere does the text indicate that it was Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, who authored it. We are therefore left with only two possibilities for determining its authorship: 1) what Tradition has to say, 2) Biblical scholarship. In either case, the source of determination is an extra-Biblical source and would therefore fall under condemnation by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Now the Protestant may be saying at this point that it is unnecessary to know whether or not Matthew actually wrote this Gospel, as one’s salvation does not depend on knowing whether it was Matthew or someone else. But such a view presents quite a difficulty. What the Protestant is effectively saying is that while an authentic Gospel is God’s Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, the person has no way of knowing for certain in the case of Matthew’s Gospel whether it is Apostolic in origin and consequently has no way of knowing it if its genuine (i.e., God’s Word) or not. And if this Gospel’s authenticity is questionable, then why include it in the Bible? If its authenticity is certain, then how is this known in the absence of self-identification by Matthew? One can only conclude that the Bible is not self-authenticating.

The Protestant may wish to fall back on the Bible’s own assertion that it is inspired, citing a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 – "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable..." However, a claim to inspiration is not in and of itself a guarantee of inspiration. Consider the fact that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science sect, claim to be inspired. The writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect, claim to be inspired. These are but two of many possible examples which demonstrate the that any particular writing can claim just about anything. Obviously, in order for us to know with certainty whether or not a writing is genuinely inspired, we need more than a mere claim by that writing that it is inspired. The guarantee of inspiration must come from outside that writing. In the case of the Bible, the guarantee must come from a non-Biblical source. But outside authentication is excluded by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura."...


www.catholicapologetics.info...

Originally posted by colbe

YOU ARE SO MOCKING, EVEN WHEN SOMEONE, MYSELF, IS TRYING TO BE LOVING TO YOU.
THE 'WE' WAS REFERENCE TO THE CATHOLICS REPLYING TO YOU ON THIS THREAD.

I think your love is as fake as your faith with no action. It is not nice to yell.

In response to your second post... I am not Protestant.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by adjensen

The Apostles didn't "preach Acts 2:38" -- that was written after the fact.

What is your proof that they did not preach Acts 2:38.

Which Apostle wrote the book of Acts? (Hint: none of them.) And when did this person write the book of Acts? (Hint: decades after Pentecost.)

So how could an Apostle "preach Acts 2:38"? Peter was probably already dead when that book was written.

Oh boy. Well historically many researchers attribute Luke to much of the writing. I often wonder if that is Lucius whom Seneca wrote to. Since he was in Rome when Paul and the discliples were there and wrote a play that is akin to the gospels.

I believe (since disbelieving without proof or soul memory is like bearing false witness against the most wonderful example of love there is) in Christ's message but know to pay attention to the mystery schools codes in the bible. Ie. I read Genesis 32 30 and understand that Jacob met God in his pineal.

Go within the kingdom of God is within you. Christ was a Buddha or like Bruce Lee, be water my friend. The Ancient Tao, that had teachers in Egypt, was about the precious pearl, forming your light body, your inner journey to Infinity, the fractal containing the whole.

www.thenazareneway.com...

This is a very good article that goes into the Acts following the life of Christ, and how the clues are given in them to a discerning reader as to why they don't sense and in fact lays out a kind of Trojan Horse by Rome.

its good.

I wouldn't personally go to Church, of any kind, since TPTB perform satanic ritual murders in them from what I believe, faith is a personal thing, don't put your brain in a box of pyramid, patriarchal, authority beliefs. kings and thrones are not Love side, but Dark side.

God is Love.


The Real Tuesday Weld - Last Words

I don't think its really wise to bring children into Church's.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

YOU ARE SO MOCKING, EVEN WHEN SOMEONE, MYSELF, IS TRYING TO BE LOVING TO YOU.
THE 'WE' WAS REFERENCE TO THE CATHOLICS REPLYING TO YOU ON THIS THREAD.

I think your love is as fake as your faith with no action. It is not nice to yell.

In response to your second post... I am not Protestant.

edit on 2-2-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I have asked and asked you not to separate my posts but you continue. I replied with caps to your separated comments because it shows I am replying and is faster way to respond to each one of your sectioned off replies. I wasn't yelling. I answered your question about Lord and you leave it off. See why it's
important to keep people's posts together.


love,

colbe

Originally posted by colbe
You can't remain Protestant. Martin Luther's heresy, "Sola Scriptura" bites the dust. You need an authority
to decide the Canon and an authority to interpret Scripture:


"If Scripture were actually "self-authenticating," why was there so much disagreement and uncertainty over these various books? Why was there any disagreement at all? Why was the canon of the Bible not identified much earlier if the books were allegedly so readily discernible? The answer that one is compelled to accept in this regard is simply that the Bible is not self-authenticating at all.

Even more interesting is the fact that some books in the Bible do not identify their authors. The idea of self-authentication – if it were true – might be more plausible if each and every Biblical author identified himself, as we could more easily examine that author’s credentials, so to speak, or at least determine who it was that claimed to be speaking for God. But in this regard the Bible leaves us ignorant in a few instances.

Take St. Matthew’s Gospel as one example; nowhere does the text indicate that it was Matthew, one of the twelve Apostles, who authored it. We are therefore left with only two possibilities for determining its authorship: 1) what Tradition has to say, 2) Biblical scholarship. In either case, the source of determination is an extra-Biblical source and would therefore fall under condemnation by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Now the Protestant may be saying at this point that it is unnecessary to know whether or not Matthew actually wrote this Gospel, as one’s salvation does not depend on knowing whether it was Matthew or someone else. But such a view presents quite a difficulty. What the Protestant is effectively saying is that while an authentic Gospel is God’s Word and is the means by which a person comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, the person has no way of knowing for certain in the case of Matthew’s Gospel whether it is Apostolic in origin and consequently has no way of knowing it if its genuine (i.e., God’s Word) or not. And if this Gospel’s authenticity is questionable, then why include it in the Bible? If its authenticity is certain, then how is this known in the absence of self-identification by Matthew? One can only conclude that the Bible is not self-authenticating.

The Protestant may wish to fall back on the Bible’s own assertion that it is inspired, citing a passage like 2 Timothy 3:16 – "All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable..." However, a claim to inspiration is not in and of itself a guarantee of inspiration. Consider the fact that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Christian Science sect, claim to be inspired. The writings of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon sect, claim to be inspired. These are but two of many possible examples which demonstrate the that any particular writing can claim just about anything. Obviously, in order for us to know with certainty whether or not a writing is genuinely inspired, we need more than a mere claim by that writing that it is inspired. The guarantee of inspiration must come from outside that writing. In the case of the Bible, the guarantee must come from a non-Biblical source. But outside authentication is excluded by the doctrine of Sola Scriptura."...


www.catholicapologetics.info...

The Bible does NOT interpret itself AND God did not make each person His authority on it's meaning.
He gave the authority to interpret Scripture to the Church.

Pope Damasus inspired by God decided the Canon. The Church was given the authority by God to interpret Scripture not each person reading the Bible. Read the footnotes of a Catholic Bible for tough verses. And the footnotes are a help to understand why the Church teaches what she does.

So often you see people questioning the meaning of a verse in discussion forums and nine times out of 10, there is a footnote to explain in the Douay-Rheims Bible.

for the English translation of the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate see...the Douay-Rheims Bible www.drbo.org...

Same as old, some modern sects reject the Trinity but in their Protestant way often ask, where is the Trinity in Holy Scripture?

God the Father, Son an Holy Spirit, Amen. Here is a verse on God the Holy Spirit, third person of the Blessed Trinity.

It states the Holy Spirit is a person. A person feels grief, experiences mourning.

Ephesians 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.


www.drbo.org...

reply to post by colbe


None of the different Christian religions make sense. All off shoots of the same thing, so why is there
so much bigotry towards each of them from each of them..

Stupid

If your a Christian ,, your a Christian why does it matter what name you give your self.

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

YOU ARE SO MOCKING, EVEN WHEN SOMEONE, MYSELF, IS TRYING TO BE LOVING TO YOU.
THE 'WE' WAS REFERENCE TO THE CATHOLICS REPLYING TO YOU ON THIS THREAD.

I think your love is as fake as your faith with no action. It is not nice to yell.

In response to your second post... I am not Protestant.

edit on 2-2-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I have asked and asked you not to separate my posts but you continue. I replied with caps to your separated comments because it shows I am replying and is faster way to respond to each one of your sectioned off replies. I wasn't yelling. I answered your question about Lord and you leave it off. See why it's
important to keep people's posts together.


love,

colbe

I quoted your entire post after the quote. There was no answer to my question about Lord there.

It is very well known that typing in all caps on the Internet is yelling. It is also against the ATS rules.

Originally posted by colbe
Same as old, some modern sects reject the Trinity but in their Protestant way often ask, where is the Trinity in Holy Scripture?...

You are not seeing that the Holy Spirit is the Father. The Father is holy. The Father is Spirit. The Father is the one and only Holy Spirit.

Again, I am not Protestant.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

YOU ARE SO MOCKING, EVEN WHEN SOMEONE, MYSELF, IS TRYING TO BE LOVING TO YOU.
THE 'WE' WAS REFERENCE TO THE CATHOLICS REPLYING TO YOU ON THIS THREAD.

I think your love is as fake as your faith with no action. It is not nice to yell.

In response to your second post... I am not Protestant.

edit on 2-2-2013 by truejew because: (no reason given)

I have asked and asked you not to separate my posts but you continue. I replied with caps to your separated comments because it shows I am replying and is faster way to respond to each one of your sectioned off replies. I wasn't yelling. I answered your question about Lord and you leave it off. See why it's
important to keep people's posts together.


love,

colbe

I quoted your entire post after the quote. There was no answer to my question about Lord there.

It is very well known that typing in all caps on the Internet is yelling. It is also against the ATS rules.

Yeah...."after the quote"...

You left off part of my words about Our Lord. Be nice and do as I suggest, keep the entire post together, then people can see all of it and refer to it instead of taking a person's post apart to reply and leaving parts off.
No more CAPS, alright.

I used the CAPS, like I shared, because it takes too long to do as you do with the separations and seeing my response in caps helps those reading it know I am responding. I explained already.

You protest the Truth, that makes you Protestant AND your question of where is that in the Bible. There is more to God's revelation than is written in the Bible. "Bible Alone" is a Protestant heresy.

Enough with arguing the Holy Trinity. The proof of the Trinity has been explained over and over. Why ignore history, 2000 years of teaching and the fact it is believed by most all (99.8%) of Christianity! Non-Trinitarian sects pridefully say no. You worry about ATS rules and reject God's revelation to follow some nut who protests
the Trinity.

The Great Warning is soon, just remember when God lovingly shows you Himself truejew.

Originally posted by rigel4
reply to post by colbe

 

None of the different Christian religions make sense. All off shoots of the same thing, so why is there so much bigotry towards each of them from each of them..

Stupid

If your a Christian ,, your a Christian why does it matter what name you give your self.

It's not bigotry on Catholics part but the great desire for those who reject the faith to find it. Your last
sentence, your question, there is a division in Christianity (the faith which is Roman Catholicism, the Orthodox and the Protestant) this division offends God very much. It is "stupid", stupid pride.

Believe ALL of God's revelation and receive all of the grace He wishes to give you. Roman Catholicism has the
fullness of God's revelation and His grace given. It is the one and only. The other two accept part of the faith.

God wants us all to believe the same. We are living in a time that God is going to show the entire world dramatically, this fact. Remember when it happens.


God bless you rige14,

Originally posted by colbe

You left off part of my words about Our Lord. Be nice and do as I suggest, keep the entire post together, then people can see all of it and refer to it instead of taking a person's post apart to reply and leaving parts off.
No more CAPS, alright.

I quoted all of your words that were outside of the quote. Since you quote the entire previous post, I do not have time to reread what you have in your quotes. Therefore any words that you incorrectly add into your quotes of my words will go unnoticed.

Originally posted by colbe

You protest the Truth, that makes you Protestant AND your question of where is that in the Bible. There is more to God's revelation than is written in the Bible. "Bible Alone" is a Protestant heresy.

You protest the truth. Should I call you Protestant?

Only the apostles have authority to create doctrine. The Bible is the writings of the apostles. Your idea that a pope also has authority to create doctrine is heresy.

Originally posted by colbe

Enough with arguing the Holy Trinity. The proof of the Trinity has been explained over and over.

Your "proof" is all assumed and is not real proof.

Originally posted by colbe

You worry about ATS rules and reject God's revelation to follow some nut who protests
the Trinity.

I do not follow "some nut". I follow the apostles.

Originally posted by colbe

It's not bigotry on Catholics part but the great desire for those who reject the faith to find it.

Is burning at the stake, bigotry?

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by colbe

You left off part of my words about Our Lord. Be nice and do as I suggest, keep the entire post together, then people can see all of it and refer to it instead of taking a person's post apart to reply and leaving parts off.
No more CAPS, alright.

I quoted all of your words that were outside of the quote. Since you quote the entire previous post, I do not have time to reread what you have in your quotes. Therefore any words that you incorrectly add into your quotes of my words will go unnoticed.

Originally posted by colbe

You protest the Truth, that makes you Protestant AND your question of where is that in the Bible. There is more to God's revelation than is written in the Bible. "Bible Alone" is a Protestant heresy.

You protest the truth. Should I call you Protestant?

Only the apostles have authority to create doctrine. The Bible is the writings of the apostles. Your idea that a pope also has authority to create doctrine is heresy.

Originally posted by colbe

Enough with arguing the Holy Trinity. The proof of the Trinity has been explained over and over.

Your "proof" is all assumed and is not real proof.

Originally posted by colbe

You worry about ATS rules and reject God's revelation to follow some nut who protests
the Trinity.

I do not follow "some nut". I follow the apostles.

The faith, Roman Catholicism which is Apostolic, that gave you your Bible truejew says God is Trinitarian, one God in three divine persons, always was, always will be. You got your "Pentecostal Oneness" from a mistaken preacher named Reckart not the Apostles.

I'll stick to three sentences, I hope not, you will still find away to section them off too so you can say more, take out of context, distort.

Yesterday afternoon I was thinking about the feast day of Our Lady of Lourdes, it is coming up on February 11th. In the years since my conversion/reversion to the faith which previously I didn't know very well or practice as an adult. Mary helped me, she was the one. I have read so many testimonies about Our Lord's mother's intercession. She sends graces to people who once disbelieved/ who are far from God. Ask her to help you to believe, she will do it. truejew, speak to Mary in prayer, trust that in God's will, she can help you come to belief in the Trinity...and all of the faith.

Everyone, you have to ask, it would make Our Lord very happy, speak to His mother.

Here's part of the story of Bernadette,the young seer at Lourdes, France. If you read her quotes, you love her humility and wit. Go to the link to read about all of Mary's appearances to Bernadette Soubirous.


..."She was the daughter of poor parents, who were very devoted to one another. The improvident nature and erratic generosity of her father kept the family in dire poverty at all times, but it did not affect in any degree the love of husband for wife and vice versa. At the time Our Lady appeared to Bernadette in the Grotto of Massabielle, Bernadette was fourteen years old and living at home, which was part of an old abandoned jail. She was the most innocent type of moral character, scrupulously honest, obedient, who never committed a deliberate venial sin during her entire life.

On February 11, 1858, Bernadette Soubirous, her sister, 'Toinette Soubirous, and a friend, Jean Abadie, were walking alongside a narrow stream, thirty or forty feet wide. It was a cold day, and they were about the business of gathering firewood for the hearth. Passing along the left bank of the stream, they came opposite the grotto of Massabielle, ("the rock"), at which point one of the girls suggested they take off shoes and stockings, wade across the stream and continue searching on the opposite side. Bernadette never seemed to enjoy good health and was reluctant to go wading in cold water, fearing an attack of asthma 'Toinette and Jean, having no such scruples, took off shoes and stockings to cross immediately. Bernadette asked Jean to take her on ha shoulders, but Jean refused bluntly, told Bernadette, "If you won't come, stay where you are."

Bernadette relates the incident:# "As we could not go any further, my two companions went through the water in front of the Grotto, so I was left alone on the other side. I asked the two others to help me throw stones into the water to see if I could cross without taking off my shoes and stockings, but it was no good. So I came back in front of the Grotto. Hardly had I taken off my first stocking when I heard a noise as if a sudden wind blew. I turned my head and looked at the meadow and I saw that the trees were still. I went on taking off my stockings and again I heard the same sound, and as I lifted up my head to look at the Grotto, I saw a Lady in white. I was a little frightened and, thinking it must be an illusion, I rubbed my eyes, but in vain. I still saw the Lady. Then I put my hand in my pocket and took out my rosary. I wanted to make the sign of the Cross but I could not lift my hand to my forehead. Then I was seized by a great fear. The Lady took up the rosary she held in her hands and she made the Sign of the Cross. I tried again to make it and this time I could. My great fear went as soon as I had made the Sign of the Cross. I knelt down and said the rosary before this beautiful Lady. When the rosary was ended she beckoned me to go nearer but I did not dare to. Then she disappeared. I set about taking off my other stocking so as to cross the narrow stream in front of the Grotto and went home." ("St. Bernadette," Aileen Mary Clegg, Cath. Truth Society, Dublin, by permission.)

Bernadette was questioned interminably on the apparitions at Massabielle. Another account quotes her words on another occasion in more detail: "I had just begun to take off my first stocking when suddenly I heard a great noise like the sound of a storm. I looked to the right, to the left, under the trees of the river, but nothing moved; I thought I was mistaken. I went on taking off my shoes and stockings, when I heard a fresh noise like the first. Then I was frightened and stood straight up. I lost all power of speech and thought, when, turning my head toward the grotto, I saw at one of the openings of the rock a bush, one only, moving as if it were very windy. Almost at the same time there came out of the interior of the grotto a golden colored cloud, and soon after a Lady, young and beautiful, exceedingly beautiful, the like of whom I had never seen, came and placed herself at the entrance of the opening above the bush. She looked at me immediately, smiled at me and signed me to advance, as if she had been my mother. All fear had left me, but I seemed to know no longer where I was. I rubbed my eyes, I shut them,....

continued:

...I rubbed my eyes, I shut them, I opened them; but the Lady was still there continuing to smile at me and making me understand that I was not mistaken. Without thinking of what I was doing, I took my rosary in my hands and fell on my knees. The Lady made a sign of approval with her head and took into her hands a rosary which hung on Her right arm. When I attempted to begin the rosary and tried to lift my hand to my forehead, my arm remained paralyzed, and it was only after the Lady had signed herself that I could do the same. The Lady left me to pray all alone; she passed the beads of her rosary between her fingers but she said nothing; only at the end of each decade did She say the 'Gloria' with me.
"When the recitation of the rosary was finished, the Lady returned to the interior of the rock and the golden cloud disappeared with her."

The Lady had the appearance of "a young girl, sixteen, or seventeen years old. She wore a white dress drawn in at the waist by a blue ribbon whose ends hung down. On her head she wore a long white veil so as almost to cover her hair. Her feet were bare but nearly covered by the folds of ha dress, except at the tip where a yellow rose shone on each.

On her right arm she carried a rosary of white beads on a golden chain, shining like the roses on her feet."...



www.ewtn.com...