Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Reasons why I could personally never chose to be Catholic:
Baptist prospective

1st of all, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, I feel that as old as the Roman Catholic Church is; it still has not worked out it's kinks.
- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV Bible)

I feel like if I'm going to partake congregationally to worship, it is a absolute must that i am 100% comfortable with the Church and its Doctrines, all elements combined.
- Galatians 1:6-7 (of Galatians 1:1-12) (KJV Bible)

It is well known most Baptist have issues with Catholicism because of the Catholic claim of: transubstantiation. Within the ritual of a catholic mass, the pope holds a piece of bread, turns his back, and while his back is turned. Proclaims that it "literally" turns into the physical flesh of Christ.

3rdly, Christ is the head of the Church, There is absolutely no need for a Pope. It is opposite of scriptural and from what Iv heard, Pagan derived.
- 1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV Bible)

God Bless you,
I have large hopes that you find a profitable King James Version Only proud and preaching Church near you & find the Bible way to Heaven.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our ultimate authority is the Scriptures.

Romes ultimate authority is the Pope, Councils and church Tradition ...big difference.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 2
  • Praise God! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's part of what started the Reformation.

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, walla299 said:

And that's part of what started the Reformation.

The heart and soul of it.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deleted even though quoted

My apology for first having chosen to participate.

 All come to Jesus the same way, through the specific call to them by the Holy Spirit revealing Jesus to them as the only way to God and to life eternal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Neighbor said:

I like to think I am of the catholic church that the Holy Spirit made me a part of when He revealed to me that Jesus is God Lord and savior of all that  were foreknown to God the Father and predestined through Christ Jesus  and given to Him as our Shepherd, of which He does not lose a one.

Here is good reality in truth,  and actually a description of ekklesia.   What later became 'church' and 'Catholic' are not ekklesia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2018 at 11:27 PM, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Reasons why I could personally never chose to be Catholic:
Baptist prospective

1st of all, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, I feel that as old as the Roman Catholic Church is; it still has not worked out it's kinks.
- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV Bible)

I feel like if I'm going to partake congregationally to worship, it is a absolute must that i am 100% comfortable with the Church and its Doctrines, all elements combined.
- Galatians 1:6-7 (of Galatians 1:1-12) (KJV Bible)

It is well known most Baptist have issues with Catholicism because of the Catholic claim of: transubstantiation. Within the ritual of a catholic mass, the pope holds a piece of bread, turns his back, and while his back is turned. Proclaims that it "literally" turns into the physical flesh of Christ.

3rdly, Christ is the head of the Church, There is absolutely no need for a Pope. It is opposite of scriptural and from what Iv heard, Pagan derived.
- 1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV Bible)

God Bless you,
I have large hopes that you find a profitable King James Version Only proud and preaching Church near you & find the Bible way to Heaven.

 

My new friend, I am TRULY grateful for your POST.

1st a Question: WHY would {or should} I use the King James Bible “ONLY” when it authors were rewriting it and used the Catholic Douay Bible to do so?

1st of all, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, I feel that as old as the Roman Catholic Church is; it still has not worked out it's kinks.
1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV Bible)

 [13] Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 

The RCC is pragmatic and ORGANIC {alive and always growing}. Your comment is too vague to really comment on it.  While not surprised {I’ve been sharing my faith for about 30 years} I am amazed that with your knowledge of the bible that your understanding of it is so incomplete..

There is no possible way to compare spiritual “things” of the RCC. We Do have Jesus Christ in Person in every RCC. Nothing {though there is still much good possible} can compare with this reality. {Mt 26: 26-28; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22: 17-20; John 6: 47-58 & 66-70; Paul 1st. COR 11:23-30}

Catholic Holy Communion is:

FROM God the Father

OF God the Son

BY God the Holy Spirit

I feel like if I'm going to partake congregationally to worship, it is a absolute must that i am 100% comfortable with the Church and its Doctrines, all elements combined.
Galatians 1:6-7 (of Galatians 1:1-12) (KJV Bible)

[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ

A Beautiful thought; thanks for sharing it. My new friend; but this only proves my point shared above, you seemingly know the bible without really understanding it. In all Catholic Churches one is truly {literally} in the Presence of Jesus Christ reserved in the Tabernacle {Ark} … One ought to be filled with AWE and Wonder; not so much “comfort”; though many Catholics have come to take this reality as  an  unrecognized Gift.

1 The Bible is a Catholic book:

It was early Catholic Fathers; guided by the Holy Spirit {2 Tim. 3:16-17} and it was men known today to be Catholics who AUTHORED the entire New Testament. Six of whom are Catholic Apostles. This is historically Provable.

2 Todays RCC predates Calvin and his TULIP by about 1,500 years when the RCC was up until the Great Easter Schism of 1054 AD; the ONLY “Christians” on planet earth. This too is historically provable.

3 This means that logically; historically and even Biblically {Mt 10:1-8; Mt 16:15-19; John 17:17-20; Eph. 2: 19-22; Eph. 4: 1-6 and Mt 28:18-20}, which my new FRIEND, I suspect you’ll be able to grasp it true meaning given your Baptist training. But these few passages {the SHORT course} evidence that today’s RCC is the One True Faith, and Church and faith desired and established by Jesus.

Here are the questions that logically need to be asked:

Can I accept that there cannot {its impossible} that there be your truth and my truth; as then there would be NO TRUTH {Benedict XVI}

Do I know and recognize that the RCC predates the Baptist Church by about 1,500 YEARS? And that the RCC is the One Church and Religion desired, established by Christ personally; and is basically the SAME One Faith 2,000 years ago as it is today. And that For at least the 1st. Thousand years after Christ; today’s RCC was THE ONLY “Christian Faith” on planet earth.  … ALL Protestants churches and faiths {EVERY CHURCH IS SELF-IDENTIFIED BY ITS OWN FAITH} are manmade versions of the RCC from which they were grounded in. Hence ALL of them actually are in competition not only with each other; BUT literally with Jesus Himself.

Eph. 4: 1-6 “1] I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you that you walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called, [2] With all humility and mildness, with patience, supporting one another in charity. [3] Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. [4] One body  {means One Church} and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. [5] One Lord, one faith, {means only one true set of faith beliefs exist} one baptism. [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”

So my new friend, if today’s RCC somehow lost its PROMISED protection; then which other “church” is Christ One True Church and based on WHAT evidence? {Mt 16:15-19; John 17: 17-20; Mt 28:19-20}

It is well known most Baptist have issues with Catholicism because of the Catholic claim of: transubstantiation. Within the ritual of a catholic mass, the pope holds a piece of bread, turns his back, and while his back is turned. Proclaims that it "literally" turns into the physical flesh of Christ.

Thank you; I within the past week just replied in DEPTH to this issue; on this same FORUM. Please take the time to read it as the evidence of our TRUTH is very evident & compelling. Then ALSO GOOGLE Eucharistic Miracles.

3rdly, Christ is the head of the Church, There is absolutely no need for a Pope. It is opposite of scriptural and from what Iv heard, Pagan derived.
1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV Bible)

[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. END QUOTE

REPLY:

Eph. 2: 19- 22“[19] So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, {singular; identified by its FAITH] [20] built upon the foundation of the[Catholic] apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, [21] in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [22] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

GOD always choose just one MAN to lead His Chosen People {Exo. 6:7; Mt 16:18}

Noah, Abram, Moses, Jacob, the Judges, the Kings like David and Solomon, and the Prophets like Isaiah, and Zephaniah who lead to John the Baptist who led to Jesus, who choose 12 MEN with Peter as the HEAD {Mt 16:15-19; John 21: 13-17}

 John 21: [13] And Jesus cometh and taketh bread, and giveth THEM and fish in like manner. [14] This is now the third time that Jesus was manifested to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.[15] When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep”

I can provide a list of  50 Peter First if you’d caré to see it?

 God Bless you,
I have large hopes that you find a profitable King James Version Only proud and preaching Church near you & find the Bible way to Heaven.

My new friend; I was deeply touched by your sincerity and charity. THANK YOU!

 And Easter Blessings on this Ascension Sunday: “GLORY & Praise to You Lord Jesus Christ; King of everlasting Glory.”

 Patrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to go there Patrick, I will tell you why I use the KJV Bible only.  It is based on the actual manuscripts accepted by the church at the time.  The modern translations are based on fragments found in caves.  They are the Alexandrian and Ethiopian manuscripts, and they are not complete, which is why in many modern English translations, portions of the text, accepted as cannon, are left out.  They have reduced Mark 16:9-20 to Apocrypha in the mind of many in the church today.  They are completely discrediting and re-opening the canon to debate and causing confusion.

The KJV Bible is not a Catholic Bible.  As a matter of fact, the RCC has created a modern English translation that promotes their own doctrine.  They don't use the KJV Bible anymore.  The modern translations have changed the meaning in many places, often times to differ from the other translations for the purpose of getting a copyright.  Some churches have taken advantage of the modern English craze to write translations that help promote their agenda, as the RCC has done and the Jehovah's Witnesses have done.  

I agree with the OP, in that I have no desire to be part of the RCC, and I also agree with the person that started this thread that the only reliable English translation of the Bible is the KJV Bible.  The next best would have to be the Geneva Bible.  

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RCC is the product of an attempt to unite all the world's religions.  They took some truth and mixed it with paganism.  The Bible is not a Catholic Book.  It is a compilation of manuscripts that pre-date the RCC that were used by the early church, but were compiled into one volume.  That was by the leading of God.  

  • Praise God! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By KiwiChristian
      ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD).   Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ.   Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins."   Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ.   1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood.   2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic context?   John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No.   John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No.   John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No.   John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No.   John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No.   John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."   Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”.   3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because:   a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not.   b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD."   In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood."   4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL.   The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it.   Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation.   5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME."   Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17.   6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction.   Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood?   Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD.   John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."   John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh."   John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life."   The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s inner being.   Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus:   "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68.   "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25.   Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood.   Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell?   Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell?    No! Jesus said he went to paradise.
    • By KiwiChristian
      Many catholics are arrogant enough to say that THEY "gave" us the Bible.
      The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible was.
       
      Long before the council of hippo "gave us the bible", Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named ALL the books of the Bible in his writings and  Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists ALL of the books of the NT.
       
      The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth.
       
      It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.
      God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?
    • By KiwiChristian
      If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?
       
      If the Bible is a Catholic book,
      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?
       
      Now, please my friend, when you reply to this, please stick to just a couple of points per post, then it will be easier to respond to, unless you want to make a VERY long post answering ALL these points in one post, hoping that no-one will take the trouble to address your points.
       
    • By KiwiChristian
      A study of the New Testament reveals that ALL Christians are priests. Peter said,"Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house,a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5).Thus,all Christians are of that holy priesthood and can offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.There is not a man or group of men on earth who can offer unto God spiritual sacrifices for others.   ALL Christians have the right to go to God through Jesus Christ, our High priest (Heb. 4:14-16). There is no priesthood on earth that has the right to forbid each Christian to go directly to God through Christ, or to assume the authority to administer graces and obtain mercy for others.   A Roman Catholic priest is one who acts in the place of Christ, supposedly making unbelievers into Christians by "baptising" them. He converts the bread into Christ's flesh in the mass, and he forgives sins in the confessional.   In the Bible, all ministers are called elders, bishops or pastors, all referring to the one office, but there is no office of "priest". Christ is our Great High Priest, the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), so there is no need for other priests to mediate for us. Peter never called himself a priest, but did call himself a "fellow elder". 1 Peter 5:1.   In Acts, there is no reference anywhere to a sacrificing priesthood. In Revelation 1:6 ("hath made us kings and priests unto God"), and in 1 Peter 2:5,9 ("ye are a holy priesthood", "ye are a royal priesthood"), all believers are priests and have direct access to God through Christ. We don't offer an atoning sacrifice because only Christ did this on the cross. The only sacrifices we offer to God are prayers (Ephesians 6:18), praise and money (Hebrews 13:15,16), and ourselves in service to God (Romans 12:1). This Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers was rediscovered in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's.   A pastor's real job is to preach the gospel, teach the Word of God and pray, not to hear confession, or change bread to flesh etc. Peter in 1 Peter 5 when he instructed fellow preachers, made no mention of any Roman Catholic priest’s practices of today.
    • By KiwiChristian
      How muslim friend, OneGodBeliever believes the Bible has been corrupted.
       
      He states:
      "You said bible isn't corrupted. Shall we discuss that? I say its clearly is with verses & whole books removed and also contradictions!"
      So, lets have a friendly, loving, open discussion on this
       
×