A Historical Dare to Protestants

[Protestant101]

So, you are saying that it does not matter how I interpret Scripture?

No. I said that because two parties do not see a given txt the same; it does not mean that one of them knows Christ, or has Christ, and the other one does not.

Do you have even one scripture text to prove this wrong?

 

[nsper7]

No. I said that because two parties do not see a given txt the same; it does not mean that one of them knows Christ, or has Christ, and the other one does not.

Do you have even one scripture text to prove this wrong?

Well, then why do you argue against Catholicism?

 

[Protestant101]

And I fail to see a belief in the Bible that borders on idolatry in the first century of the Church.

As a matter of fact, there was no Bible as such in the first century of the Chruch.

Study history. I mean really study church history. Minus the blinders.

History cannot be counted as Truth. While there may be some true facts in a given history; history is often interpretive and activist in nature. This was easy for me to see, even years ago before I became a Christian, in my grade 11 history classes.

Do you know how many religions all say they have “historical proof” that they are “the true church?” This is why Catholic history cannot be relied upon in determining Bible truth; it has to be the other way around. Some history cannot be verified in Scripture; such as the name “Catholic.”

 

[w_stewart]

No. I said that because two parties do not see a given txt the same; it does not mean that one of them knows Christ, or has Christ, and the other one does not.

What if the interpretation of one contradicts from that of the other?

Do you have even one scripture text to prove this wrong?

Is that necessary in the first place?

 

[catholic_daddy]

In Aramaic, the language Jesus and St. Peter would have spoken, it would be the same word. The only reason it is Petros/Petra (two different words) in Greek, is because it would be incorrect to translate St. Peter’s (new) name in the feminine, but in Aramaic, their lingua franca, it is the SAME WORD.

Nice try. The scripture is clear and, again, the Bible says elsewhere that the Church is built on Christ. How silly to think otherwise. If God had meant for us to understand it differently we would have the same word used in the original text.

 

[Protestant101]

Well, then why do you argue against Catholicism?

I don’t argue against Catholic beliefs in all cases. Some things we are in agreement upon. If I am wrong about either side, I will be happy to admit it as soon as I am thoroughly convinced from the Bible.

 

[nsper7]

History cannot be counted as Truth. While there may be some true facts in a given history; history is often interpretive and activist in nature. This was easy for me to see, even years ago before I became a Christian, in my grade 11 history classes.

Do you know how many religions all say they have “historical proof” that they are “the true church?” This is why Catholic history cannot be relied upon in determining Bible truth; it has to be the other way around. Some history cannot be verified in Scripture; such as the name “Catholic.”

Where in Scripture does it say it is the only source of Truth?

 

[w_stewart]

History cannot be counted as Truth. While there may be some true facts in a given history; history is often interpretive and activist in nature. This was easy for me to see, even years ago before I became a Christian, in my grade 11 history classes.

Do you know how many religions all say they have “historical proof” that they are “the true church?” This is why Catholic history cannot be relied upon in determining Bible truth; it has to be the other way around. Some history cannot be verified in Scripture; such as the name “Catholic.”

Do you read the Bible to trace the history of the organization you belong?

Do you read the Bible to know how the Bible was compiled?

 

[Protestant101]

What if the interpretation of one contradicts from that of the other?

Is that necessary in the first place?

No. it is not necessary; it is only for those who are interested in knowing.

Often, when one interpretation contradicts the other, it still does not mean that one has Christ, and the other does not. I would like to see anyone prove otherwise from Scripture!

 

[nsper7]

Nice try. The scripture is clear and, again, the Bible says elsewhere that the Church is built on Christ. How silly to think otherwise. If God had meant for us to understand it differently we would have the same word used in the original text.

1. As far as I know, there is no extant ‘original Aramaic’ version of the New Testament.
2. You seem to fall into a fallacy of false dichotomy. Why could it not be that Christ is the Head of the Church and St. Peter (and his Apostolic Successors) is the representative of Christ here on Earth (the so-called Vicar of Christ).

 

[Protestant101]

Do you read the Bible to trace the history of the organization you belong?

Do you read the Bible to know how the Bible was compiled?

I read the Bible to see what God is saying to me. And the Bible does talk about both subjects, yes, but never in the sense of a specific denomination called “Catholic.”

 

[nsper7]

I read the Bible to see what God is saying to me. And the Bible does talk about both subjects, yes, but never in the sense of a specific denomination called “Catholic.”

The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. It predates all denominations. After all, before Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, et. al. were even glimmers in their respective father’s eyes, the Catholic Church was the Church in the West (and before the 11th century East-West Schism, it was the only Church…PERIOD).

EDIT: ‘Catholic’ is simply means ‘Universal’. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, but do you believe in it?

 

[Protestant101]

Where in Scripture does it say it is the only source of Truth?

This has typically been a circular argument on this forum, and with Catholics in general.

The Scriptures actually come out and say that there are other sources of truth - but if it is “truth” then it has to still be a Biblical truth. No doctrine can be allowed to contradict it, or to be independent of it. If it is truly God’s Word, how can Christians ever allow other things to dictate to it?

 

[w_stewart]

I read the Bible to see what God is saying to me. And the Bible does talk about both subjects, yes, but never in the sense of a specific denomination called “Catholic.”

Nor does it talk about Protestantism.

Nor does the Bible talk about the books to be included in the Bible.

Nor does the Bible talk being inspired, infallible, inerrant.

 

[nsper7]

This has typically been a circular argument on this forum, and with Catholics in general.

The Scriptures actually come out and say that there are other sources of truth - but if it is “truth” then it has to still be a Biblical truth. No doctrine can be allowed to contradict it, or to be independent of it. If it is truly God’s Word, how can Christians ever allow other things to dictate to it?

No Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture. If you can find one that does, please show it and EXPLAIN why it contradicts it.

 

[Protestant101]

The Catholic Church is NOT a denomination. It predates all denominations. After all, before Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, et. al. were even glimmers in their respective father’s eyes, the Catholic Church was the Church in the West (and before the 11th century East-West Schism, it was the only Church…PERIOD).

EDIT: ‘Catholic’ is simply means ‘Universal’. The word Trinity is not in the Bible either, but do you believe in it?

Sounds like “denomination” is something Catholics are scared to admit to, but it sure doesn’t predate all denominations.

“Catholic” means Roman Catholic Church, while “catholic” means “universal.”

 

[MariaG]

The Scriptures actually come out and say that there are other sources of truth - but if it is “truth” then it has to still be a Biblical truth. No doctrine can be allowed to contradict it, or to be independent of it. If it is truly God’s Word, how can Christians ever allow other things to dictate to it?

Absolutely! And no doctrine of the Catholic Church does contradict scripture.

 

[Protestant101]

No Catholic doctrine contradicts Scripture. If you can find one that does, please show it and EXPLAIN why it contradicts it.

Every Church makes this claim about their doctrine.

 

[w_stewart]

This has typically been a circular argument on this forum, and with Catholics in general.

The Scriptures actually come out and say that there are other sources of truth - but if it is “truth” then it has to still be a Biblical truth.

So you believe the Scriptures are the sources of truth because the Scriptures say so?

Well, that is not much of a circular reasoning, don’t you think?

 

[nsper7]

Sounds like “denomination” is something Catholics are scared to admit to, but it sure doesn’t predate all denominations.

“Catholic” means Roman Catholic Church, while “catholic” means “universal.”

As I have come to learn, there is no “Roman Catholic Church”. There is the Catholic Church, which is commonly called “Roman” because it is headquartered out of Rome. Technically, the Latin (some might say Roman) Rite of the Catholic is but one Rite out of a couple dozen.