Catholics VS Protestants Debate Thread

[Edward John]

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.

Exactly, I am not a troll but here to give a logical and reasonable arguments. You are raising false accusations against me, just as Jesus was falsely accused.

---

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

2 Timothy 3:16 NASB

1) The Greek word ophelimos ("profitable") used in verse 16 means "useful" not "sufficient." An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as "all," actually means "every," and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2)  In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every "Scripture" is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

3) The "Scripture" that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term "scripture." If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

So again, Protestantism is false because Sola scriptura is taught nowhere in the Bible its unbiblical and above all, The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Did Not Exist Prior to the 14th Century. So up to the 1400 every christian submited to the authority of the Catholic Church.

[Crossless2.0]

In a moment of characteristic Christian humility, Edward John gives us this:

"You are raising false accusations against me, just as Jesus was falsely accused."

[I_am_not_mafia]

I'm not a pacifist so it's not a good fit for me, but it seems the Quakers are uniquely positioned to embarrass both sides in this cripple fight.

Oh yeah I forgot about Quakers. I do actually have a lot of genuine respect for them for their pacifist beliefs. Some of my best friends are Quakers. Well, one actually. Assuming she still is one, I haven't actually seen her for a few years. But they make good porridge!

[I_am_not_mafia]

Star Wars is a typical story of good versus evil.
Star Trek is a commentary on social, political, economical and inter-species issues... if we forget about the movies and focus on the series.

But Star Wars recognises the dangers of authoritarianism and the inevitability of decay whereas Star Treks' Federation is an unrealistic utopia.

[Faith No More]

It's like a cripple fight in mud.

I see it as more of a Christian dick-measuring contest.

[pocaracas]

Star Wars is a typical story of good versus evil.
Star Trek is a commentary on social, political, economical and inter-species issues... if we forget about the movies and focus on the series.

But Star Wars recognises the dangers of authoritarianism and the inevitability of decay whereas Star Treks' Federation is an unrealistic utopia.

Like Coruscant was portrayed as a very realistic utopia...
Star Trek also addresses authoritarianism on multiple episodes... the inevitability of decay... hmmm... can't remember... For that, we have the Foundation saga!

[Crossless2.0]

I'm not a pacifist so it's not a good fit for me, but it seems the Quakers are uniquely positioned to embarrass both sides in this cripple fight.

Oh yeah I forgot about Quakers. I do actually have a lot of genuine respect for them for their pacifist beliefs. Some of my best friends are Quakers. Well, one actually. Assuming she still is one, I haven't actually seen her for a few years. But they make good porridge!

I have a lot of respect for Quakers, as well, despite my not being a pacifist or a Christian. They seem to walk the walk.

And their porridge rocks. I had some this morning.

[Drich]

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?

Actually no.
apples and oranges. Some changes are simple as word phrases and minor deletions to the additions of whole books whole's lineage is questionable to say the least. the following is a comparison of the Geneva bible/the first protestant and the R/C vulgate.
https://www.thisisyourbible.com/index.ph...diaid=3013

Ironically the Vulgate coincides with papal decree where as the Geneva simply trys to reproduce the available greek texts that can be vetted to that time period.

Is the issue of "sola scriptura" addressed by that monk who managed to read both the Greek and Latin versions of the text?

The monk is martian Luther, the Doctrine of Sola scripture is another religious effort to try and trump the idea of paple decree.

Jesus himself discourages the following of blind or 'new' traditions to the written word.
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus. They came from Jerusalem and asked him, 2 “Why do your followers not obey the traditions we have from our great leaders who lived long ago? Your followers don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3 Jesus answered, “And why do you refuse to obey God’s command so that you can follow those traditions you have? 4 God said, ‘You must respect your father and mother.’[a] And God also said, ‘Whoever says anything bad to their father or mother must be killed.’[b] 5 But you teach that a person can say to their father or mother, ‘I have something I could use to help you. But I will not use it for you. I will give it to God.’ 6 You are teaching them not to respect their father. So you are teaching that it is not important to do what God said. You think it is more important to follow those traditions you have. 7 You are hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he spoke for God about you:

8
‘These people honor me with their words,
but I am not really important to them.
9
Their worship of me is worthless.
The things they teach are only human rules.’”

The 'pope' when they introduce doctrines of indulgences, or purgatory, forbidding priests to be married ect, or really anything not written in the original Greek manuscript are guilty of what Jesus is charging the pharisees in doing here!

For instance The bible tells use our deacons/elders should be married with a well behaved family. The R/C church says those in service of God can not marry. Jesus used 'scripture' to refute the oral traditions of the pharisees. Then called them fools for following their traditions over what was written.

What more authority do you need to scrap a 'church tradition' over that of a command given in scripture?

Hey, weren't some of those texts written in Hebrew? Did he read Hebrew, too?

The Vulgate was translated from the Greek.. Except for the Latin only texts that had no provenance that was included in the R/C bible.

---

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.
[/quote]
more or less if I understand you correctly.

[Angrboda]

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.

The Septuagint is written in Koine Greek and was composed between 300 BCE and 200 CE.

[Angrboda]

Exactly, I am not a troll but here to give a logical and reasonable arguments. You are raising false accusations against me, just as Jesus was falsely accused.

I did no such thing, Mr. Christ. You asked for a definition of troll and I provided it.