Catholics VS Protestants Debate Thread

[pocaracas]

^^^
He's right, you know?

(I never thought I'd say this about this Edward John guy...)

Now ask why is he 'right?'
The 'church' in the 3rd/4th century called to have all manuscripts turned over to them in order to compile the first 'bible.' After it was compiled the church hung on to those manuscripts and issued a final draft which took decades, then as subsequent popes began to reign they began to add to scripture or rather add to the Septuagint (the Latin only bible) which it took a priest to decipher. (one bible per perish) That is why all Christians answered to the catholic church because they had they only symbolance of authority from God.

What's more if anyone challenged the church they were skined alived and they and thier families were burned at the stake for heresy. Until a monk who could read both the greek and latin did, and saw how corrupt the latin was from the original greek. Then one day that monk wrote out all the different contradictions and nailed them to the door of the cathedral in his parish. Which is where the reformation movement got it's start.

He is right, but only because the truth of God's word was suppressed.

So you're saying that the Latin bible, used by the Catholic Church,  had been changed to suit some purpose?
Isn't that very very similar to the bible you use?
Is the issue of "sola scriptura" addressed by that monk who managed to read both the Greek and Latin versions of the text?
Hey, weren't some of those texts written in Hebrew? Did he read Hebrew, too?

In that Bible of yours, how do they refer to that god?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's often the God of Abraham (& Company™ ).

So, why not follow in the tradition taught by the bible you wish to follow?

---

Jesus was asked a similar question after he healed a man.

2 Then behold, they brought to Him a paralytic lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, “Son, be of good cheer; your sins are forgiven you.”

3 And at once some of the scribes said within themselves, “This Man blasphemes!”

4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Arise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”—then He said to the paralytic, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” 7 And he arose and departed to his house.

8 Now when the multitudes saw it, they marveled[a] and glorified God, who had given such power to men.

So I ask you which is easier to say? the God of Abraham which connotes all of the religious traditions I am trying to tell you is not necessary to have close relationship with God.. Or the God of the bible which has you stop and think what is different between the aspects of God I am speaking of and what religion has taught you?

---

The God of the bible is indeed the God of Abraham, but not the God of religion.

---

(look at how jesus treated the most 'religious' of his day) However the term 'the God of abraham' has been adopted by religion and it automatically conjurers up the sterotypes of the religious version of God. Which again does not reflect the picture of God the bible draws. So to separate and try and get you guys to draw a line between the biblical version of God and the religious view I use the term the God of the bible or the God the bible describes.

For example the religious god is an omni max god. Omnipresent, omnibenovelent, omnieverything...

The problem with that? the bible does not make the claim for an omni max God. For one thing no where in scripture does it say God is omnibenovelent... It says God love is indeed boundless, but only for those who accept Christ. John 3:16 outlines the 'conditions' of God's love. which contradicts the idea of unconditional and limitless love.

No the God of the bible is the Alpha and Omega. Not omni max.

The difference?

An Alpha and omega can be whatever He wants when ever He wants. There are no rules or limits to his will. An omni-max God is plagued with paradoxes. For instance Can an omnimax God create a rock so big he can not lift it? or the epicurean Paradox...

Now can a Alpha and Omega do the same? Only if He wants to. If not then no, if so then yes.

Omni-max is man's limited understanding trying to describe attributes he does not understand to a God he is trying to worship. Religion is man's effort or attempt to worship and describe God in a way we can understand.

Alpha and Omega is a term God used to describe Himself. It is complete and without paradox.

---

The 'God of Abraham' is a omni-max

The God of the bible is an Alpha and Omega.

(my hide tags to bring out the bit I want)
Aren't you contradicting yourself a bit?

I think you want to say the "god of religion" (catholic religion... who knows about the Orthodox, huh?) is a omni-max.

The thing, as I see it is that the God of Abraham is the big guy. And you want to follow that big guy, but with all the caveats introduced by Jesus and the subsequent traditions, like the trinity and stuff like that. That's why you call it the "god of the bible".
Calling it "God of Abraham" feels incomplete, to you, huh? It's like you're just mentioning "God , the Father"... and leaving the other 2 out.