R
RomanRiteTeen
Guest
How do you deal with Protestant apologetics like these? What do you guys think?
aomin.org/Morrow.html
aomin.org/Morrow.html
- Status
R
RSiscoe
Guest
This is the answer to how to deal with such a person:
“A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, being condemned by his own judgement” (Titus 3:10-11).
Avoid them; and if you are ever faced with one, rebuke them as strongly with as possible. It is different with someone who is seeking the truth sincerely, and may be slightly against the Catholic Church through ignorance. With them, it may be good to be kind and gentle as you explain things to them. But to those evil people such as James White, refute them strongly with the sharpest words you can find. That is the way the Church Father’s dealt with such heretics and that is the way we should.
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
Ahh James White what a great man of God who backs everything up with Scripture.
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
Be careful who you call a heritic and let the Bible judge them not yourself.
G
geezerbob
Guest
The bible doesn’t judge anyone. God does. And Mr. White backs up what he says with his own erroneous interpretation of scripture.
T
TNT
Guest
Christ's friend:
Read the scripitures. NOWHERE, is the book “HEBREWS” even mentioned as part of the bible!
The 1st 200yrs of christians NEVER put it up as scripture either.
Therefore, you have a false bible, which means no true bible that can judge.
All you have is your opinion about some bible, which is 2,000 yrs too late.
At least Mohammed was only 500+ years too late.
BTW:Christ’s "friend":
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Posts Total Posts: 32 (32 posts per day)
**30+ posts / day…aren’t we the busy little trolls
I do, but not the book of hebrews, which does NOT belong to the NT.
Read the scripitures. NOWHERE, is the book “HEBREWS” even mentioned as part of the bible!
The 1st 200yrs of christians NEVER put it up as scripture either.
Therefore, you have a false bible, which means no true bible that can judge.
All you have is your opinion about some bible, which is 2,000 yrs too late.
At least Mohammed was only 500+ years too late.
BTW:Christ’s "friend":
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Posts Total Posts: 32 (32 posts per day)
**30+ posts / day…aren’t we the busy little trolls
**
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
I will research Hebrews, but you tell me about Maccabees and how it got into your canon.
And Hebrews is not the only book that talks about judgement.
My who point is James White is an amazing man of God who really’s on Christ’s works for salvation and not his own. He writes books and articles based on Scripture not tradtion that devoloped outside Scripture and his interpretation is Biblical because he uses the whole Bible in context not singel verses. (e.g. “hail full of grace” and “you will be blessed” and you get imaculately concieved when bible preaches if you say you have no sin the truth is not in you.)
And Hebrews is not the only book that talks about judgement.
My who point is James White is an amazing man of God who really’s on Christ’s works for salvation and not his own. He writes books and articles based on Scripture not tradtion that devoloped outside Scripture and his interpretation is Biblical because he uses the whole Bible in context not singel verses. (e.g. “hail full of grace” and “you will be blessed” and you get imaculately concieved when bible preaches if you say you have no sin the truth is not in you.)
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Christ's friend:
A man of God would not go around villifying others in such a vile manner.
N
Newman60
Guest
Christ's friend:
Protestant variations with fewer old testament books are only 500 years old. Even they have essentially the same new testament except for the word “alone” which Martin Luther added to a Pauline epistle to counter James chapter 2. The King James even had the same Catholic old testament for many years but then moved the Martin Luther OT omissions first to an appendix and then finally dropped them altogether in the 19th century to agree with the other shorter protestant bibles.
Moreover duelling bible verses, while a relatively easy “game” to play, is certainly not the intent of the inspired authors nor our Holy God Who inspired them.
The bible was never intended as the sole source and arbiter for our faith in God. Nor was individual interpretation intended as the way for it to be used. That in fact is why there are so many thousands of protestant variations today.
Obviously all Christians went hundreds of years without any bible. Then the vast majority went more than a thousand years after that without their own individual bibles. Most because they could neither read nor afford them. It wasn’t until many many years after the invention of the printing press that the collection of books known as the bible became both readily available and affordable.
Dr. James White and anyone claiming “sola scriptura” are merely shorting themselves because they have neither the complete bible nor the correct interpretation of it.
Newman60
Backing everything up with scripture isn’t even claimed in scripture as the answer. Nor was it meant to be when the several hundred year old Catholic and Apostolic Church in its synods determined what is inspired and included in (or not inspired therefore excluded from) the bible. Council of Hippo, 393, affirmed by the Council of Carthage, 397, and reaffirmed by a second Council of Carthage, 419, presided over by Augustine and forwarded to Boniface, Bishop of Rome for his confirmation. Catholics have the same bible today as then.
Protestant variations with fewer old testament books are only 500 years old. Even they have essentially the same new testament except for the word “alone” which Martin Luther added to a Pauline epistle to counter James chapter 2. The King James even had the same Catholic old testament for many years but then moved the Martin Luther OT omissions first to an appendix and then finally dropped them altogether in the 19th century to agree with the other shorter protestant bibles.
Moreover duelling bible verses, while a relatively easy “game” to play, is certainly not the intent of the inspired authors nor our Holy God Who inspired them.
The bible was never intended as the sole source and arbiter for our faith in God. Nor was individual interpretation intended as the way for it to be used. That in fact is why there are so many thousands of protestant variations today.
Obviously all Christians went hundreds of years without any bible. Then the vast majority went more than a thousand years after that without their own individual bibles. Most because they could neither read nor afford them. It wasn’t until many many years after the invention of the printing press that the collection of books known as the bible became both readily available and affordable.
Dr. James White and anyone claiming “sola scriptura” are merely shorting themselves because they have neither the complete bible nor the correct interpretation of it.
Newman60
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Christ's friend:
Maggie
Can you prove any of what you are saying? I think not. I doubt that Mr. White would know how to quote in context.
Maggie
E
e-catholic
Guest
It is difficult, there are some who are filled with hate for the Church. Mr. White is one of those who is filled with hate for the Church, and has little idea of what she teaches, and what has been known of christ from the beginning.
The advice to ignore him is good advice. If someone wants to have questions answered, we should answer them, those who just want to Catholic bash do not deserve our attention.
I’m sure you will find others that you should also ignore. Gee where could they be???
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
James chapter 2 does not contradict faith alone as means of justification.
This is just amazing. I can not believe you actually believe this junk. Now I know why you believe so strongly that word of man is some how supreme to the word of God. Amazing where you base your beliefs and principles. Good luck with all your traditions. Soon maybe you will even traditionalize Christ out of the Gospel fully because already you have added Mary as co-redeemer. How much farther will ignorant men try to overpower God’s word?
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
Maggie you are one of the most ignorant people I have met when it comes to knowing and interpreting Scripture. So please do not add any more of your comments.
C
Christ_s_friend
Guest
O I do not mind if you ignore me. You are just avoiding truth by ignoring true Scriptural teaching and you are excepting mans word. I trust in Gods word as athority why don’t you join me in ignoring the teachings of man and start listening to the teachings of God ; )
T
TNT
Guest
Christ's friend:
So was ARIUS (320ad) “amazing man of God”. And, he converted a lot more people than White. Unlike White, I think he also was able to KEEP IS OWN SISTER FROM CONVERTING INTO THE TRUE CHURCH…sheesh…amazing, yea., whatever.
R
RSiscoe
Guest
Christ's friend:
The Christian Bible use the Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures, for its Old Testament canon. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament is what Christians have always used. This can be confirmed by many writings of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine’s “City of God” wherein he lists the books of the Bible.
When the so called reformers came along, they rejected these books since they confirmed doctrines the reformers no longer beleived (purgatory, for instance). But Luther not only rejected the 7 books from the Old Testament, but also at least 4 from the new: revelation, Hebres, 2nd Peter and Jude (and three more I think). But the New Testament books were included in the King James Version of the Bible of 1611.
Often times you will hear that the Council of Trent “added” the seven books to the Old Testament. That is exactly the opposite of what occurred. The Concil of Trent did not add what was not already there, but rather confirmed that the books the reformers rejected were to remain in the Bible. One century earlier, the Council of Florence gave us the same list of books as Trent; and over 1000 years before Florence the Council’ of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, also confirmed the books that the reformers rejected.
It was not the Catholic Church that added the books, but the reformers that rejected books that had been there all along.
The books of the Machabees have been in the Bible since the very beginning. The Latin Vulgage of St. Jerome, that I mentioned in an earlier post to you, contained 1st and 2nd Machabees as well as the other 5 books the “reformers” removed from the Bible.
The Christian Bible use the Septuagint, which was the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures, for its Old Testament canon. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament is what Christians have always used. This can be confirmed by many writings of the Church Fathers, such as St. Augustine’s “City of God” wherein he lists the books of the Bible.
When the so called reformers came along, they rejected these books since they confirmed doctrines the reformers no longer beleived (purgatory, for instance). But Luther not only rejected the 7 books from the Old Testament, but also at least 4 from the new: revelation, Hebres, 2nd Peter and Jude (and three more I think). But the New Testament books were included in the King James Version of the Bible of 1611.
Often times you will hear that the Council of Trent “added” the seven books to the Old Testament. That is exactly the opposite of what occurred. The Concil of Trent did not add what was not already there, but rather confirmed that the books the reformers rejected were to remain in the Bible. One century earlier, the Council of Florence gave us the same list of books as Trent; and over 1000 years before Florence the Council’ of Rome, Hippo and Carthage, also confirmed the books that the reformers rejected.
It was not the Catholic Church that added the books, but the reformers that rejected books that had been there all along.
T
TNT
Guest
Christ's friend:
You mean that you have NOT researched your own “scriptures” ??
Come now, just pick the verse that tells you “hebrews” is part of scripture. IF you go beyond scripture, then you are playing the hypocrite .
Prove what NT scripture is FIRST, then dazzle us with it. Until then, you don’t even have Scripture. You have an OPINION (or tradition of mere men) about some bible outa nowhere. I say there are LESS than 27 NT “books” in the true bible. From your so called bible, prove otherwise.
**
**Say what??
You mean that you have NOT researched your own “scriptures” ??
Come now, just pick the verse that tells you “hebrews” is part of scripture. IF you go beyond scripture, then you are playing the hypocrite .
Prove what NT scripture is FIRST, then dazzle us with it. Until then, you don’t even have Scripture. You have an OPINION (or tradition of mere men) about some bible outa nowhere. I say there are LESS than 27 NT “books” in the true bible. From your so called bible, prove otherwise.
**
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Christ's friend:
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
Maggie
Thank you for the compliment. I will just ignore what you have to say because I am reading exactly what is in the Scripture.
“Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Christ's friend:
Maggie
actually I think that your words are hypocritical. I think that because you claim Scripture alone yet you rely upon the commentaries of mere men to form your own tradition and opinions. Please prove to me that I am wrong. Prove to me that you do not rely upon people like James White when you form your opinions. I do not think that you can prove that you use Scripture alone. Neither can the majority of those who claim the title of Christian, when they fail in showing Christian charity to others.
Maggie
M
MaggieOH
Guest
Christ's friend:
The word “co” means to co-operate with. In this case the Scripture clearly tells us that Mary co-operated with God through her fiat to bring into the world the Messiah. It is through the obedience of Mary and of Jesus that we were redeemed. The Sacrifice on the Cross and the Resurrection could not happen without the co-operation of the Woman by agreeing to bring the Messiah into the World.
Yes, ther are indeed ignorant men who are trying to overpower the Word of God and they have achieved this objective by removing certain books from the Scripture. They think that they can hide the Truth from the people by all sorts of subterfuge about why these Scriptures have been removed. All of their excuses are hollow, or at the very least, shallow.
MaggieOH
How much further can ignorant people go when they seek to bring down the Divinity and Humanity of Jesus Christ, and when they seek to destroy the full meaning of the Redemption as it is played out in Salvation History.
The word “co” means to co-operate with. In this case the Scripture clearly tells us that Mary co-operated with God through her fiat to bring into the world the Messiah. It is through the obedience of Mary and of Jesus that we were redeemed. The Sacrifice on the Cross and the Resurrection could not happen without the co-operation of the Woman by agreeing to bring the Messiah into the World.
Yes, ther are indeed ignorant men who are trying to overpower the Word of God and they have achieved this objective by removing certain books from the Scripture. They think that they can hide the Truth from the people by all sorts of subterfuge about why these Scriptures have been removed. All of their excuses are hollow, or at the very least, shallow.
MaggieOH
- Status