One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Do People Really Go To Hell ?
Page <<first <prev 8 of 16 next> last>>
Feb 17, 2019 13:01:46   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
No Rose42,

You gave the Protestant fake-information facts, reformation fact's found in your comments and retort.

Matt Slick, carm.org is an anti-Catholic and routinely spout's anti-Catholic rhetoric.

My suggestion, to you rose42, is to stop being so disingenuous with trying to justify your personal religious beliefs, and your Man-Made Berean church theology and philosophy and stick to the truthful-verifiable facts.\

Do the true honest research, and not repeating some lying Protestant Man-Made Berean Church website anti-catholic rhetoric.

Again rose42,
You are "dishonest, devious, deceitful and are religiously Protestantly disingenuous"... "DDDND" !!!


Do the actual truthful research on world history facts, And Christian Church history facts. Stop Lying...

Development of the Christian biblical canon:
We can say with some certainty that the first widespread edition of the Bible was assembled by St. Jerome around A.D. 400. This manuscript included all 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament in the same language: Latin. This edition of the Bible is commonly referred to as The Vulgate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon

Early collections
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

Rose42,
You don't know what you are talking about historical and with actual Catholic Church records prove you wrong, go to these two web sites and you will see where you error's, and where your Protestant personal Berean church is lying to you.

Rose42,
Your mind is crippled and hobbled, Please use actual truthful URL links to articles and webpages that are verifiable and honest verifiable reporting of facts. As I have done.

You're Protestant Berean facade is loosing this argument, once again.



Rose42 wrote:

No Doc. I gave you fact.
In 1546 the Catholic church declared the Apocrypha as inspired where scholars before then said they were not. Why?
To support some of their doctrine which Luther said was false.
The Apocrypha is also never cited in the New Testament as scripture.
It does not mean they have no value.
Rejection by many in the Catholic Church
6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4
7. Many church Fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, and many just used them for devotional purposes. For example, Jerome, the great Biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture though, supposedly under pressure, he did make a hurried translation of it. In fact, most of the church fathers in the first four centuries of the Church rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Along with Jerome, names include Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
8. The Apocryphal books were placed in Bibles before the Council of Trent and after but were placed in a separate section because they were not of equal authority. The Apocrypha rightfully has some devotional purposes, but it is not inspired.
A more complete list of why the Apocryphal books are not in the bible -
https://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-bible
br No Doc. I gave you fact. br In 1546 the Cat... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 13:39:58   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Council of Rome, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rome

rose42,
Please try and, refute these historical books, authors and Catholic Church Historical records.


(See Below) For additional other Source reference material on the Codifying the Catholic Church Bible Canon.


Not to be confused with the Easter Council held at Rome in 1099.

The Council of Rome was a meeting of Catholic Church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I, the current bishop of Rome.

It was one of the fourth century councils that "gave a complete list of 73 canonical books of both the Old Testament 46 and the New Testament 27."


The previous year, the Emperor Theodosius I had appointed the "dark horse" candidate Nectarius as Archbishop of Constantinople.

The bishops of the West opposed the election result and asked for a common synod of East and West to settle the succession of the see of Constantinople, and so the Emperor Theodosius.

Soon after the close of the First Council of Constantinople in 381, summoned the Imperial bishops to a fresh synod at Constantinople; nearly all of the same bishops who had attended the earlier second re assembled again in early summer of 382.

On arrival they received a letter from the synod of Milan, inviting them to a great general council at Rome; they indicated that they must remain where they were, because they had not made any preparations for such long a journey;

However, they sent three—Syriacus, Eusebius, and Priscian—with a joint synodal letter to Pope Damasus, Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, and the other bishops assembled in the council at Rome.


Decretum Gelasianum and damasine
The Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366–384) reads thus:

Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament begins here:
1. Genesis one book,
2. Exodus one book,
3. Leviticus one book,
4. Numbers one book,
5. Deuteronomy one book,
6. Josue Nave one book,
7. Judges one book,
8. Ruth one book,
9 Kings four books,
10. Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books,
11. Psalms one book,
12. Solomon three books,
13. Proverbs one book,
14. Ecclesiastes one book,
15. Canticle of Canticles one book,
16. Likewise Wisdom one book,
17. Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.
Total: 22


Likewise the order of the Prophets.
18. Isaias one book,
19. Jeremias one book,
20. With Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations one book,
21 Ezechiel one book,
22. Daniel one book,
23. Osee one book,
24. Amos one book,
25. Micheas one book,
26. Joel one book,
27. Abdias one book,
28. Jonas one book,
29. Nahum one book,
30. Habacuc one book,
31. Sophonias one book,
32. Aggeus one book,
33. Zacharias one book,
34. Malachias one book.
Total books 17


Likewise the order of the histories.
35. Job one book,
36. Tobias one book,
37. Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah],
38. Esther one book,
39. Judith one book,
40. Machabees two books.
Total Books 8.
Grand Total Old Testament Books 46


Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports.

Of the Gospels, according to:
1. Matthew one book,
2. According to Mark one book,
3. According to Luke one book,
4. According to John one book.
Total Books 4

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen.
5. To the Romans one,
6. To the Corinthians two,
7. To the Ephesians one,
8. To the Thessalonians two,
9. To the Galatians one,
10. To the Philippians one,
11. To the Colossians one,
12. To Timothy two,
13. To Titus one,
14. Tto Philemon one,
15. To the Hebrews one.
Total Books 14

Likewise the
16. Apocalypse of John, one book.
17. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.
Total Books 2

Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven.
18. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles,
19. Of James the Apostle one epistle,
20. Of John the Apostle one epistle,
21. of another John, the presbyter, two epistles,
22. Of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.
Total Books 7
Grand Total, New Testament Books 27
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states:

A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at Trent.


Historian William Jurgens writes:
The first part of this decree has long been known as the Decree of Damasus, and concerns the Holy Spirit and the seven-fold gifts.

The second part of the decree is more familiarly known as the opening part of the Gelasian Decree, in regard to the canon of Scripture: De libris recipiendis vel non recipiendis.

It is now commonly held that the part of the Gelasian Decree dealing with the accepted canon of Scripture is an authentic work of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D. and that Gelasius edited it again at the end of the fifth century, adding to it the catalog of the rejected books, the apocrypha.

It is now almost universally accepted that these parts one and two of the Decree of Damasus are authentic parts of the Acts of the Council of Rome of 382 A.D.

Development of the Christian biblical canon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon


Amen, Amen, Let it be so, I believe, Amen, Amen.

(Note) Additional other Source reference material on the Codifying the Catholic Church Bible Canon.

1. (Jurgens, Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 Book Set)
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Faith_of_the_Early_Fathers.html?id=WTswAAAAYAAJ,

2. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - Oxford Reference
www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/...001.0001/acref-9780192802903

3. Decree of Council's of Rome A.D. 382
http://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

4. 4th-century Christian church councils:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:4th-century_Christian_church_councils

5. "The Decretum Gelasianum and Damasine List.
http://www.tertullian.org/decretum.htm

6. The Muratorian Fragments and the Development of the Canon e.g. Bible
https://books.google.com/books?id=0HKOJt33wLYC&pg=PA158#v=onepage&q&f=false

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 14:37:10   #
Rose42
 
That's a long post to try and change history Doc. Funny you claim my links are wrong but yours are magically correct. At any rate, people will either believe they are part of the bible or not regardless of what we think.

"Did the Church fathers recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't."

"It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council."


https://carm.org/catholic/apocrypha-it-scripture

Reply
 
 
Feb 17, 2019 16:28:35   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
Rose42,

You are DEAD WRONG, on this topic and many other Catholic errors and you have but a childlike mentality and understanding on the topic,... in your religious argument defense theory... and when researching the true facts to the date origin's of the 73 book Catholic Cannon, codified in A.D. 397...


Since you can't refute, the historical record and ancient Catholic Church historical documents, and or provide research material, to support your argumentation theory and unable to provide additional a verifiable reputable information URL website and links.

For a fuller Greek translation of the Catholic and Protestant bible go to this URL page link.
(See) When Choosing your next Bible learn the details. Know the Bible Canon: Translation Principle; Formal Equivalence; Dynamic Equivalence; Paraphrase; and Biblical Greek Translation Text Type.
https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-152940-1.html

Rose42,
You lost the argument as to the historical authenticity of the codified 73 Bible Catholic Canon books in A.D. 397.

1. All you can prove is to the origin's of the A.D. 1522 German Protestant Reformation Lutheran Bible translation and the complete Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha. Also the A.D. 1534 removal of the 6 Apocrypha books, chapters, verses and words old testament and the 9th Century A.D. Jewish translation of the Greek text and the WRONG argumentation theory you are espousing.

2. And to the the origin's of the A.D. 1611 English King James Bible version translation (KIV) and revision in A.D. 1769.

rose42,
Why can't you read more than a paragraph... ?
Can't you also not go to the directed URL links that you were provided, to prove where you are "DEAD WRONG" on the actual codification date of the 73 book Catholic Church Bible?


You bring nothing to the table of discussion of facts and idea's of the origin and codification of the 73 books in the Bible, 46 Old Testament Books and 27 New Testament Books, Canon final origins and codification of the Catholic Bible in A.D. 397.

You keep repeating the same ("False Personal, Berean Church, Protestant Errors of Omission') A.D. 1522 Protestant bible 66 books found in the German Martin Luther Bible and the A.D. 1611 King James Version (KIV) Bible.

You keep on repeating the same inaccurate religious information URL link, and false material that you and provide by Matt Slick, carm.org which espouses anti-Catholic hate speech and routinely spout's false anti-Catholic rhetoric.

All you are doing is digging, a deeper hole for your personal religious personal, Berean Church and Protestant, FALSE LYING Man-Made Religious Beliefs on this subject.

Decretum Gelasianum and damasine, The A.D. Origins of the Catholic Canon Bible A.D. 397.
a. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum
b. http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
c. https://archive.org/details/dasdecretumgelas00dobs/page/n4
d. http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/decretum%20gelasianum.htm

The Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Canon of Scripture during the reign of Pope Damasus I (AD 366–384) reads thus:

Now indeed we must treat the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament begins here:
1. Genesis one book,
2. Exodus one book,
3. Leviticus one book,
4. Numbers one book,
5. Deuteronomy one book,
6. Josue Nave one book,
7. Judges one book,
8. Ruth one book,
9 Kings four books,
10. Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books,
11. Psalms one book,
12. Solomon three books,
13. Proverbs one book,
14. Ecclesiastes one book,
15. Canticle of Canticles one book,
16. Likewise Wisdom one book,
17. Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.
Total: 22


Likewise the order of the Prophets.
18. Isaias one book,
19. Jeremias one book,
20. With Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations one book,
21 Ezechiel one book,
22. Daniel one book,
23. Osee one book,
24. Amos one book,
25. Micheas one book,
26. Joel one book,
27. Abdias one book,
28. Jonas one book,
29. Nahum one book,
30. Habacuc one book,
31. Sophonias one book,
32. Aggeus one book,
33. Zacharias one book,
34. Malachias one book.
Total books 17


Likewise the order of the histories.
35. Job one book,
36. Tobias one book,
37. Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah],
38. Esther one book,
39. Judith one book,
40. Machabees two books.
Total Books 8.
Grand Total Old Testament Books 46


Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports.

Of the Gospels, according to:

1. Matthew one book,
2. According to Mark one book,
3. According to Luke one book,
4. According to John one book.
Total Books 4

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen.
5. To the Romans one,
6. To the Corinthians two,
7. To the Ephesians one,
8. To the Thessalonians two,
9. To the Galatians one,
10. To the Philippians one,
11. To the Colossians one,
12. To Timothy two,
13. To Titus one,
14. Tto Philemon one,
15. To the Hebrews one.
Total Books 14

Likewise the;
16. Apocalypse of John, one book.
17. And the Acts of the Apostles one book.
Total Books 2

Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven.
18. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles,
19. Of James the Apostle one epistle,
20. Of John the Apostle one epistle,
21. of another John, the presbyter, two epistles,
22. Of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle.
[b]Total Books 7
Grand Total, New Testament Books 27
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, states:

A council probably held at Rome in 382 under St. Damasus gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (also known as the 'Gelasian Decree' because it was reproduced by Gelasius in 495), which is identical with the list given at the ("Council of Trent, between 1545 and 1563.)

Amen, Amen, Let it be so, I Believe, Amen, Amen.


Rose42 wrote:
That's a long post to try and change history Doc.

Funny you claim my links are wrong but yours are magically correct.

At any rate, people will either believe they are part of the bible or not regardless of what we think.
"Did the Church fathers recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha.

Jerome (340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either.
In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't."
"It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council."
https://carm.org/catholic/apocrypha-it-scripture
That's a long post to try and change history Doc. ... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 18:47:46   #
Rose42
 
Doc110 wrote:
Rose42,

You are DEAD WRONG, on this topic and many other Catholic errors and you have but a childlike mentality and understanding on the topic,... in your religious argument defense theory... and when researching the true facts to the date origin's of the 73 book Catholic Cannon, codified in A.D. 397...


lol I don't have a childlike mentality. I've looked at both sides and have seen it wasn't until 1546 that they made it official. Before then it was not nor was it accepted outside the Catholic church. You should read both sides not just how you want it to be.

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 22:03:51   #
Radiance3
 
Rose42 wrote:
That's a long post to try and change history Doc. Funny you claim my links are wrong but yours are magically correct. At any rate, people will either believe they are part of the bible or not regardless of what we think.

"Did the Church fathers recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't."

"It is true that the Catholic Church accepted the Apocryphal books at earlier councils at Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (A.D. 393), Carthage (A.D. 397), and Florence (A.D. 1442). However, these were not universal Church councils and the earlier councils were influenced heavily by Augustine, who was no Biblical expert, compared to the scholar Jerome, who rejected the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament Canon. Furthermore, it is doubtful that these local church council's decisions were binding on the Church at large since they were local councils. Sometimes these local councils made errors and had to be corrected by a universal church council."


https://carm.org/catholic/apocrypha-it-scripture
That's a long post to try and change history Doc. ... (show quote)

=================
Rose42, your Gospel is man-made. It is fake.

Rose42 here is Matt Slick you used as the defender of your Apocrypha.
https://carm.org/catholic/apocrypha-it-scripture[/quote]

Matt Slick is a FAKE MAN. He is a Calvinist and also part of the 47,000 Luther, Calvinist selling the Scriptures of Christ all over the world. Invented and misinterpreted the Scriptures of Christ. Matt Slick opened his Not-for-Profit business in 1995, now owns several billions dollars in his enterprise system by faking and selling God's words to the world.

Here are more of Matt Slick.
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. The Christian Research Ministry is a Calvinist organization in the United States, founded in 1995. Matthew J. Slick is the president, and over thirty writers contribute to the CARM website.

Matt J. Slick the Owner of CARM is Not a Christian - www3.telus.net
www3.telus.net/trbrooks/mattslick.htm


Matt Slick worships a false Christ so he is not born-again, but a Calvinist, amillennial, ... They preach the word, share manythings in the Scriptures, yet they are not saved, so it ... Salvation is a gift from God and freely obtainable by any of us.

Matt Slick defends “honor killing”: a woman's hymen is worth more ...

https://freethoughtblogs.com/.../matt-slick-defends-honor-killing-a-womans-hymen-is...


The Matt Slick Fallacy – Update
On the 10th of January 2016, I went on a YouTube show / podcast, called the BibleThumpingWingnut and talked to Matt Slick for about 2 hours on the subject of his TAG argument, and how it is guilty of the fallacy of begging the question or false dichotomy:


https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/the-matt-slick-fallacy-update/

Reply
Feb 17, 2019 23:51:41   #
Doc110 Loc: York PA
 
rose42,

An Ignorant spoiled brat like, Protestant Berean church child mentality. . .

You still can't produce the historical research.

Until you do this rose42, you loose the argument, and you are only talking hyperbole; exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

You are so ignorant of
a. World history,
b. Church history, and
c. Biblical history.

You never post facts, that can be corroborated and or can be verified.

You never post website information, with NO Website URL... to verify your opinions...

You loose, the argument position every time, all you ever do, is give is personal information and biased protestant and false Berean church rhetoric, minus the facts...

Amen, Amen, Let it be so, I believe, Amen, Amen.


Rose42 wrote:
lol,
I don't have a childlike mentality.
I've looked at both sides and have seen it wasn't until 1546 that they made it official.
Before then it was not nor was it accepted outside the Catholic church.
You should read both sides not just how you want it to be.

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2019 09:23:04   #
Rose42
 
Doc110 wrote:
rose42,

An Ignorant spoiled brat like, Protestant Berean church child mentality. . .

You still can't produce the historical research.

Until you do this rose42, you loose the argument, and you are only talking hyperbole; exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

You are so ignorant of
a. World history,
b. Church history, and
c. Biblical history.

You never post facts, that can be corroborated and or can be verified.

You never post website information, with NO Website URL... to verify your opinions...

You loose, the argument position every time, all you ever do, is give is personal information and biased protestant and false Berean church rhetoric, minus the facts...

Amen, Amen, Let it be so, I believe, Amen, Amen.
rose42, br br An Ignorant spoiled brat like, Prot... (show quote)


Oh yes I did post links Doc. Links that can be verified. You never look at them - you pretend they don't exist. Instead of lying about what I post you should research more thoroughly. Here's a place you can start. It has numerous cross references and mention of Catholic historians that support forgeries.

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/forged-documents-and-papal-power/

Reply
Feb 18, 2019 13:30:15   #
Radiance3
 
Rose42 wrote:
Oh yes I did post links Doc. Links that can be verified. You never look at them - you pretend they don't exist. Instead of lying about what I post you should research more thoroughly. Here's a place you can start. It has numerous cross references and mention of Catholic historians that support forgeries.

http://www.bereanpublishers.com/forged-documents-and-papal-power/


=================
Rose42, This is another false and questionable claims and teachings of a Protestant Apologist named William Webster.

Example:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/william-websters-astonishing-claims.html

William Webster astonishing claims about Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide. The Sola Scriptura became operative in the "post apostolic age". Confirmed that Sola Scriptura was NOT operative during the time of the Apostles. When questioned, Did the Bible teach this concept that Sola Scriptura would be "operative" after the Apostolic age? Of course, the answer is "nowhere". Therefore Webster is laying out a foundation not derived from Scriptures but from Men.

More questionable claims of William Webster.

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/04/03/is-william-webster-telling-the-truth/

http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/WilliamWebstersPickle.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/william-websters-misunderstanding-development-doctrine.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/william-websters-misunderstanding-development-doctrine.html

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/10-point-biblical-refutation-of-sola-scriptura

Reply
Feb 18, 2019 14:34:50   #
flash
 
0

Reply
Feb 18, 2019 15:02:23   #
Rose42
 
Radiance3 wrote:
=================
Rose42, This is another false and questionable claims and teachings of a Protestant Apologist named William Webster.

Example:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/10/william-websters-astonishing-claims.html

William Webster astonishing claims about Sola Scriptura, and Sola Fide. The Sola Scriptura became operative in the "post apostolic age". Confirmed that Sola Scriptura was NOT operative during the time of the Apostles. When questioned, Did the Bible teach this concept that Sola Scriptura would be "operative" after the Apostolic age? Of course, the answer is "nowhere". Therefore Webster is laying out a foundation not derived from Scriptures but from Men.

More questionable claims of William Webster.

https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2007/04/03/is-william-webster-telling-the-truth/

http://www.angelfire.com/home/protestantchallenges/WilliamWebstersPickle.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/william-websters-misunderstanding-development-doctrine.html

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/06/william-websters-misunderstanding-development-doctrine.html

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/10-point-biblical-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
================= br Rose42, This is another false... (show quote)


Same author on different sites does not a rebuttal make. Especially considering Dave Armstrong is weak on biblical doctrine. I've read a lot of his stuff.

Instead of trying to attack the author - and Dave Armstrong fails in his attempt - you should actually look at the material cited and think for yourself.

Also cited is Peter de Rosa who is a Catholic and former Catholic priest. He was able to research Vatican archives which revealed acknowledgement of forgeries.

If you look at sources it lists more Catholics - not protestants. There are other sites as well which list the forgeries. The Catholic church has acknowledged some of them.

Remember this isn't trying to say all protestants are perfect. They have their own garbage in their history.

Reply
 
 
Feb 18, 2019 16:47:56   #
Radiance3
 
Rose42 wrote:
Same author on different sites does not a rebuttal make. Especially considering Dave Armstrong is weak on biblical doctrine. I've read a lot of his stuff.

Instead of trying to attack the author - and Dave Armstrong fails in his attempt - you should actually look at the material cited and think for yourself.

Also cited is Peter de Rosa who is a Catholic and former Catholic priest. He was able to research Vatican archives which revealed acknowledgement of forgeries.

If you look at sources it lists more Catholics - not protestants. There are other sites as well which list the forgeries. The Catholic church has acknowledged some of them.

Remember this isn't trying to say all protestants are perfect. They have their own garbage in their history.
Same author on different sites does not a rebuttal... (show quote)


==================
Dave Armstrong's stance on his conversion to Catholicism, was a result of the analysis of reading largely John Henry Cardinal Newman's Essay on the "Development of Christian Doctrine." For Example: "To be Deep in History is to Cease to be a Protestant". The facts were based upon is history. It revealed the truth.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/cardinal-newman-said-to-be-deep-in-history-is-to-cease-to-be-protestant-why-dont-more-protestant

However various authors have different claims, each of them had different motives. But the fact of the matter is they could not change the root of history. Sola Scriptura, no matter how they defend it, has no history. That it was created by men.

There is no such thing as perfect. As time went by, events could not be perfectly carried forward, since we human beings are not perfect. But the fact of the matter is the source from the beginning was authentically established.

It got corrupted through human errors as it transpired from different stages of events. These human shortcomings have been criticized and attacked by various authors, with motives of publishing books for material gains. Others for malcontents, self- promotion, and advancement. E.g. Matt Slick's "CARM".
The Christian Research Ministry is a Calvinist organization. This is not a Christian church.
They created their own Scriptural interpretations apart from Christ.

Reply
Feb 18, 2019 17:07:01   #
Rose42
 
Radiance3 wrote:
==================
Dave Armstrong's stance on his conversion to Catholicism, was a result of the analysis of reading largely John Henry Cardinal Newman's Essay on the "Development of Christian Doctrine." For Example: "To be Deep in History is to Cease to be a Protestant". The facts based upon here is history. It revealed the truth.


I've read Newman's essay too. Have you? This looks like a copy and paste from somewhere. You should cite your source.

It's interesting to note that Dave Armstrong was not swayed by God's word but by man's word. That says a lot.

Quote:
However various authors have different claims, each of them had different motives. But the fact of the matter is they could not change the root of history. Sola Scriptura, no matter how they defend it, has no history. That it was created by men.


Nope. It is only the Catholic church that forged documents to create its own history. If you'd bother to research it you'd find that is true. I'm not putting up links again because you don't research anything.

Quote:
It got corrupted through human errors as it transpired from different stages of events. These human shortcomings have been criticized and attacked by various authors, with motives of publishing books for material gains. Others for malcontents, self- promotion, and advancement. E.g. Matt Slick's "CARM".
The Christian Research Ministry is a Calvinist organization. This is not a Christian church.
They create their own Scriptural interpretations apart from Christ.


It's a Christian apologetics site which puts Christ at the forefront where he should be. You never tire of making things up.

You are trying to refute documented fact with opinion and that never works.

Reply
Feb 18, 2019 17:11:22   #
Rose42
 
Here you go Radiance. I meant to include this for you should you want to read it.

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine by John Henry Newman

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35110

Reply
Feb 18, 2019 17:28:30   #
Radiance3
 
Rose42 wrote:
It's a Christian apologetics site which puts Christ at the forefront where he should be. You never tire of making things up.

You are trying to refute documented fact with opinion and that never works.


===============
Rose, there are tens of thousands of Luther and Calvin interpretations, each one of them competes with the other to attract more people for material gains. Worldwide, there are now 47,000.

While Christ was very specific of carrying one meaning of his Doctrine to be presented to the whole world.
Matthew 16:18-20.

The Protestant Reformation
Today there are many types of Protestant Churches. For example, Baptist is currently the largest denomination in the United States but there are many dozens more. How did this happen? Where did they all begin? To understand the Protestant Reform movement, we need to go back in history to the early 16th century when there was only one church in Western Europe -

What we would now call the Roman Catholic Church - under the leadership of the Pope in Rome. Today, we call this "Roman Catholic" because there are so many other types of churches (ie Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican - you get the idea There were no forgeries but those were attacks made by the Reformers.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1MKDC_enUS772US772&q=ARe+forgeries+of+Catholics+credible+or+just+attacks+of+reformers?&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRm76dqMbgAhWzFjQIHU1yD9MQBQgpKAA

Reply
Page <<first <prev 8 of 16 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.