V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And with a cognomen like “Strabo” you have to wonder if he knew what he was looking at.
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Great, thanks Vern, now I have to go look up cognomen…And with a cognomen like “Strabo” you have to wonder if he knew what he was looking at.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
The Roman practice was that a man (usually) had three names.
The first name (the prenomen) was his personal name – as Gnaeus.
The second name was the nomen (the family or gens name) – as Pompeius.
The third name was the cognomen (the nickname) – as Magnus
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus – Pompey the Great.
His father had an unfotunate condition. He was cross-eyed and was therefore known as Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo.
R
rwoehmke
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I think that’s a typo for “wholla.” As in, “I believe in sola scriptura but not wholla da scriptura.”What may I ask is the “sola”?
B
BlestOne
Guest
I think that’s a typo for “wholla.” As in, “I believe in sola scriptura but not wholla da scriptura.”
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
It’s a kind of eclipsa. There’s a sola eclipsa and a luna eclipsa.What may I ask is the “sola”?
R
RobHom
Guest
Revelation 22: 18-19 Does say that, and that being said…its obvious that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and others are not in heaven and never will be. They and others that took it upon themselves to strip the books from the original bible.
It wasn’t. She is in possession of a “stripped down bible”. Perhaps what would benefit her is this…if she is bold enough to face the truth!: newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm#III
As to the “canon of the OLD Testament”… newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
As to the “canon of the New Testament”… newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
Ask her why she is using a bible that has its form & content based upon uninspired men who were politically motivated? Ask her what the original source for the bible she has is?
As to this question: newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
So then what she is saying is that “Martin Luther”, the founder of the reformation was an idiot? Post this link for her: davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm
The above is a very important piece of information, because of its origin…the very writings and sermons of Martin Luther.
A purely “heretical” teaching. The truth is also in the link above… by Martin Luther, which agrees with Catholic belief.
Read here: newadvent.org/summa/5072.htm
No holes in our Church…she is the victim of false teachings. Ask this: If her beliefs are so “sure and infallible”, why are there thousands of “protestant denominations” all of whom declare “they are right, and all others are wrong”?
There are no “holes” in the Catholic Church. There is only the “completeness of the Truth”. What appears to be holes to you may be, no offense intended, the incompleteness of your knowledge of the Church, its history, foundations, traditions and beliefs. To help in your quest for knowledge bookmark this site: newadvent.org/
The best way that I can explain that is that Mormonism is a recent convention of beliefs started in the 19th century in the US; you can read here: newadvent.org/cathen/10570c.htm
She’s not saying anything…she’s parroting what she was told by some other ill informed individual… Can you imagine someone who doesn’t speak “old Latin” saying a Catholic Scholar would mis-translate Latin?
You have to remember something important… When protestants attack the Catholic Church…they do so of pure ignorance, or to try to validate their own misguided beliefs, otherwise they would have to accept that they are wrong and the only cure for the wrong is to become Catholic. One way they do this is claim that sola scriptura is the only way to believe, yet they decry Catholic traditions which are biblically supported…yet they adhere to a “man-made tradition” established in the 16th century. Go figure
A question for you to pose to here: If her way is so right, which stems from the reformists…WHY do Luther, Calvin and Zwingli disagree so greatly and vehemently?
I hope I have given you some useful information. Remember though…getting a protestant to admit error is much like getting a pathological liar to recant their lies. She has already told you that she is suffering from “lockjaw” of the brain…I venture to guess that she is new at the game…and merely asking “canned” questions…and is trying them out. DO NOT be surprised if she starts dodging bullets by answering questions with questions or ignoring your questions altogether.
A couple more questions to ask her:
- Is she of the belief that the bible is the “inerrant word of God”?
- Is she of the belief that “salvation is by faith alone”, or “once saved always saved” (OSAS)?
- Does she believe all that is written in the bible?
- If she answers “yes” to the first three, then ask her why she does not believe and adhere to James 3: 14-26.
R
RobHom
Guest
And yet:
At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.
And what of the literally thousands of protestants who can’t agree on most anything…in the bible??
R
RobHom
Guest
:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: Good one!!!I think that’s a typo for “wholla.” As in, “I believe in sola scriptura but not wholla da scriptura.”
Do you mind if I steal it and use it???
U
Unitas
Guest
Excellent post, I just wanted to add one small bit:
The current canon was also listed in its entirety by the Council of Rome in 382AD.
Decretum Gelasianum
Not that big of a deal, even without it your argument still stands firm.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Be my guest.:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: Good one!!!
Do you mind if I steal it and use it???
C
Calvinator
Guest
The point is that the books you call the deutero’s never belonged in the canon in the first place.
Plus, as you probably know, the canon dogmatized by Trent does not match the OT canon listed in some of the earlier councils.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Says who?
R
RobHom
Guest
Yes, says who? And based on what “authority”?
And as you probably know, those “councils”, being local and “non-binding” were not the final arbiters, therefore the point is “moot”, is it not?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Does it seem hazy in here to you? Because I think somebody’s using a smoke screen.
R
RobHom
Guest
Uh-huh, and they’re trying to use the smoke screen to cover their pointless “sniping”…Does it seem hazy in here to you? Because I think somebody’s using a smoke screen.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Rob, do you mind re-phrasing that? I’m not sure you have the authority to make that claim…
N
NotWorthy
Guest
They don’t match Hippo and Carthage, the two local councils that the Pope approved early in the 5th century? Where is that, or are you referring to some other councils? When and where?
R
RobHom
Guest
Ok,… “it would seem logical and likely that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli would not be in heaven…as they clearly violated the prohibition against changing, removing or adding to the bible as specified in Revelations 22: 18-19.”
It was my opinion…not so much a judgment. Tis not mine to “judge”.
- Status