R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, you reasserted your position, but you did not actually refute the doctrine of purgatory.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Are you saying that the Bible Alone is the pillar and foundation of the truth?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And the passages which I posted earlier (which you claim to have refuted in your post #16) illustrate the principle of purgatory.
As for the man in 1 Corinthians, he is absolutely being purged of all that is not worthy of entering heaven by passing through a fire which burns off all that is not acceptable to God.
He himself is saved, but his works which are straw do not.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yes, the Magisterium is protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit.
“He who hears you, hears me” (Luke 10:16)
However, if the Bible is as clear as you claim, why do some non-Catholics baptize infants and some do not?
Shouldn’t this be obvious to all who can read?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So, let me understand you…
Some denominations within the Body of Christ teach one thing and others teach the exact opposite on matters such as infant baptism, the Real Presence in the Lord’s Supper, ordination of women, etc.
Are conflicting and contradictory doctrines acceptable in the one Body of Christ?
Moreover, how can you be sure that the church you are attending is teaching the truth if NONE of the denominations are completely biblical as you have just acknowledged?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No, that verse does not prove sola scriptura. In fact, if you read ALL of what Paul ACTUALLY wrote, you will find that he actually supports the Catholic position…
2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium
When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:
2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it (Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) , 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.)16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.
Another point to consider is that Paul’s disciple, Timothy, was a Greek, and the Old Testament that Timothy would have been most familiar with from the time of his youth was the Greek Septuagint. Because of his travels outside of Israel, Paul, too, would have been familiar with and would have used the Greek version of the Old Testament writings. Therefore, in this passage of scripture, Paul encouraged Timothy to continue in what he had learned from the Septuagint.
This has important implications for a controversy concerning seven books of the Old Testament now known collectively to Catholics as the “Deuterocanonicals” and to Protestants as the “Apocrypha”. Catholics consider the Deuterocanonicals to be inspired scripture while Protestants reject them. The Greek Septuagint contains these seven books while the Hebrew version of the Old Testament does not.
There is no doubt that the Septuagint was known to and used by Jesus, Paul and Timothy and yet, in the 16th century, Martin Luther removed these seven books from the Bible because they contain passages that support distinctly Catholic doctrines like praying for the dead and purgatory—doctrines which he rejected. Luther justified his action in part upon the fact that the Jews themselves rejected the Deuterocanonicals as part of their canon.
This development in the history of the Jewish canon is interesting in itself. Beginning as early as 90 A.D. at the so-called “Council of Jamnia”, Jewish leaders began to re-think which books of the Bible should and should not be considered scripture. In the second century, the Jews finally removed the Deuterocanonical books from their canon of scripture, and this was due in large part to the fact that the early Christian Church was using the Deuterocanonicals to support the Christian belief in the resurrection from the dead. The Jewish scriptures were being used to win converts to the Christian faith! Consequently, the Jews ultimately rejected the Deuterocanonical books some two centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection. Martin Luther used their decision to justify his own.
This leads to a couple of obvious questions: “Why would the Holy Spirit guide a group of rabbis on matters related to the Old Testament canon when there was already a Christian Church in existence that was under His infallible guidance as Jesus had promised? And why should Luther accept the revised Hebrew canon instead of the canon of the Septuagint that had been in continuous use in the Church for over fifteen centuries?
Luther picked that truncated canon for the same reason the rabbis did: in order to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church which did not fit his new theology.
R
RazzsMom
Guest
God Bless noobio. Because - do you know what he has done? He has sparked this wonderful thread of ***proof ***of the Catholic Church! It is very interesting reading and I will continue to read and follow it in more depth.
noobio - You say (pretty vehemently, I might add) that you are not a Protestant. The word “Protestant” comes from the word “protest” and describes those who protested against the Catholic faith. “Protestant” is a rather generic term for any Christian who is not Catholic Christian. Therefore - yes, you are a Protestant.
BTW: Could you please correct your spelling of “Catholic”? The other misspellings (including my own in many cases!) do not bother me - but that one does. Thank you. God bless you!
noobio - You say (pretty vehemently, I might add) that you are not a Protestant. The word “Protestant” comes from the word “protest” and describes those who protested against the Catholic faith. “Protestant” is a rather generic term for any Christian who is not Catholic Christian. Therefore - yes, you are a Protestant.
BTW: Could you please correct your spelling of “Catholic”? The other misspellings (including my own in many cases!) do not bother me - but that one does. Thank you. God bless you!
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
Well, I’m confused. Noobie, you said
Will you please quote book, chapter, and verse which tells us we are to accept the Jews as our authority on which books belong in the Bible? Please note: since you accept what the Bible says only, nothing but a quote from scripture will do.
But when Randy Carson asked you why you do not accept the book of Maccabees, you said
Noobie, if you accept what the Bible says only, why did you not quote the Bible when you answered Randy? Why did you refer to the Jews, not the Bible, as your authority for a refusal to accept that book?
Will you please quote book, chapter, and verse which tells us we are to accept the Jews as our authority on which books belong in the Bible? Please note: since you accept what the Bible says only, nothing but a quote from scripture will do.
O
onenow1
Guest
Hi, Noobio,
Everything is not found in the bible obi, if it were we would have no need for, so many differing opinions, that deny each others understanding of scripture, this is why Jesus establihed One Church. HERE:>Matthew 16: 16- 20.
Opinion: It appears your faith in Jesus words to St. Peter, have been abrogated by someone or something, or even your own understanding in Historical and Biblical, truths.
God Bless,
may your quest for the truth be most successful here on CAF.
C
Cinette
Guest
GOING BEYOND
By Patrick Madrid
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp
…n saying, “do not go beyond what is written,” [Paul] was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.
The difficulties with these options are immediately clear. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine. Nor would he accept option two, for this would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. Hence, John’s Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation would all have to be jettisoned as non-authoritative.
Option three fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a “biblical” doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one Bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we’ll see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception.
Option four is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul’s express command in to “Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.
And then there’s that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the apostles. If Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura in 1 Corinthians 4 he would have been in conflict with the practice of the rest of the apostles. Most of the apostles never wrote a single line of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally. Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?
None of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said, “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John 12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior to oral Tradition?
The already flimsy case for sola scriptura is further weakened by Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 11:2 where he praises the Christians in Corinth for holding fast to the traditions just as he had handed them on to them. It’s clear from the context that he was referring to oral Tradition because the Corinthians had as yet no New Testament Scriptures, 1 Corinthians being the very first letter Paul had sent them. Prior to this letter all his teaching had been oral.
The same is true in the case of the Ephesians to whom Paul said, “I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God” (Acts 20:27). This statement undercuts sola scriptura. Paul remained in Ephesus for over two years teaching the faith so diligently that “all the inhabitants of the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10), yet his epistle to the Ephesians is a scant four or five pages and could not even begin to touch upon all the doctrines he taught them orally.
What’s more, if Paul had included sola scriptura among the doctrines which comprised “the entire plan of God” – especially in the sense of option three – why didn’t he simply say so? Why didn’t he tell the Ephesians, “Now that I’ve written you this letter, you can disregard my two years worth of oral teachings and consider this document to be your sole authority”? Nowhere in his epistles does Paul even hint at such a thing.
An examination of first-, second-, and third-century Church writings shows the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura (in fact Irenaeus of Lyons [A.D. 140-202] delivered a withering attack on the notion in Against Heresies, as did Vincent of Lerins in Commonitoria [435]). It was not a subject of discussion in any early Church councils, nor was it mentioned in any of the many creeds formulated by the early Church.
Sola scriptura is the Reformation version of the emperor’s new clothes. In their attempt to evade the biblical and historical evidence of the Church’s magisterial authority the Reformers insisted on seeing in the Bible a doctrine which simply isn’t there.
*Thanks for that Randy. Patrick Madrid is an excellent apologist - this commentary goes into my archives.
*
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
If you accept what the bible says as the “final authority” then why not cut off your own hand? Jesus mentions “If you right hands commits a sin, cut if off, for it is better to enter into eternal life maimed than your entire body into Gehenna…” Of course I probably left out other stuff but otherwise why not do this? After all we are sinners right? you, me, everyone in here. If you are going to go by what the bible says and follow it “sola scriptura” style then why not cut off any part of our bodies when it sins? You asked for proof on the thread you posted and many times, heck a MULTITUDE of times has proof been presented to you and you still refuse to accept it.
I
N
noobio
Guest
I am going to be honest, I have nothing left to say.
But I have a few more questions left. Can you guys please answer.
How can you call “Mary the Mother of God”?
If Mary is the Mother of God wouldn’t that mean God (who is eternal) had a beggining. Also, Jesus existed before his birth ( John 8:58). Woudln’t it make more sense that Mary is the mother of God’s human body? Instead of “Mary the Mother of God”. How can you give birth to a God who is spirit?
Is Mary without sin?
If Mary is without sin then why would she call Jesus “my savior” (Luke 1:47). In the Bible there is only one person without sin. This person is obviosly Jesus.
Hebrews 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
2 Corinthians 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Also, why do we need to pray to Mary or to Saints? How can they here the prayers of millions of people? They are not omnipresent.
Hebrew 4:16
Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
This verse says we can go to God with confidence. It does not say we can go to God through saints. It just says approach God. Does this prove praying to the saints is not neccesary.
Also, the OT says God HATES people talking to those who are dead.
Isaiah 8:19
When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Deu 18:11
or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Please try to answer.
Sorry for spelling.
But I have a few more questions left. Can you guys please answer.
How can you call “Mary the Mother of God”?
If Mary is the Mother of God wouldn’t that mean God (who is eternal) had a beggining. Also, Jesus existed before his birth ( John 8:58). Woudln’t it make more sense that Mary is the mother of God’s human body? Instead of “Mary the Mother of God”. How can you give birth to a God who is spirit?
Is Mary without sin?
If Mary is without sin then why would she call Jesus “my savior” (Luke 1:47). In the Bible there is only one person without sin. This person is obviosly Jesus.
Hebrews 4:15
15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.
2 Corinthians 5:21
21 God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Also, why do we need to pray to Mary or to Saints? How can they here the prayers of millions of people? They are not omnipresent.
Hebrew 4:16
Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
This verse says we can go to God with confidence. It does not say we can go to God through saints. It just says approach God. Does this prove praying to the saints is not neccesary.
Also, the OT says God HATES people talking to those who are dead.
Isaiah 8:19
When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
Deu 18:11
or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Please try to answer.
Sorry for spelling.
E
ESMDHokie77
Guest
Mary is “Full of Grace”, and if you’re full of grace you have no room for sin, she IS sinless.
God saved her from original sin by her Immaculate Conception. Mary needed God to do this for her to be sinless.
If you truly are done with this discussion, I hope you have learned something about the Catholic viewpoint and how it IS biblical.
Peace,
Phil
God saved her from original sin by her Immaculate Conception. Mary needed God to do this for her to be sinless.
If you truly are done with this discussion, I hope you have learned something about the Catholic viewpoint and how it IS biblical.
Peace,
Phil
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You are espousing Nestorianism - an ancient heresy that was defeated (temporarily, apparently) in the fifth century. Here are the basics:
- Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
- Jesus is God.
Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.
In 431, the Council of Ephesus met, under Cyril’s leadership, and solemnly proclaimed that Mary is indeed rightly to be honored as the Theotokos, the Mother of God. It proclaimed that from the moment of his conception, God truly became man. Of course Mary is a creature and could never be the origin of the eternal Trinity, God without beginning or end. But the second person of the blessed Trinity chose to truly become man. He did not just come and borrow a human body and drive it around for awhile, ascend back to heaven, and discard it like an old car. No, at the moment of his conception in the womb of Mary, an amazing thing happened. God the Son united himself with a human nature forever. Humanity and divinity were so closely bound together in Jesus, son of Mary, that they could never be separated again. Everything that would be done by the son of Mary would be the act both of God and of man. So indeed it would be right to say that a man raised Lazarus from the dead and commanded the wind and waves, that God was born that first Christmas day and that, on Good Friday, God died.
The Council of Ephesus, once confirmed by the Pope, became the third ecumenical council of the Catholic Church, and its teaching in this matter is dogma, truth revealed by God which all are bound to accept.
Because Mary was saved by Jesus. God is not bound by space or time - He lives in an eternal NOW. Therefore, Mary could be conceived without sin because God chose to apply the merits of Christ’s death and resurrection to her BEFORE she was conceived. In short, I can save you from drowning by pulling you out of a swimming pool, or I can save you by preventing you from falling into the pool in the first place. God used the latter method for Mary.
Have you ever asked a friend or your pastor to pray for you? Don’t the prayers of the righteous availeth much?
Hard to say. Either God has given their glorified bodies unique capabilities, or they listen to them one at a time…they are not bound by time, remember? They have all of eternity to respond, and it’s all NOW for God and those in heaven.
Sure. It does not say we can’t pray to the saints, though, does it?
Not exactly. Otherwise, Jesus did something wrong by talking to Moses at the Transfiguration.
“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)
Done.
F
FCEGM
Guest
And very nicely at that, Randy.. . .Done.
I’ve been following the discussion and a thought came to me today regarding the OP’s stance re “soul sleep”. Looking at the scene in Acts 26:14 where Our Lord asks of Saul, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” we see that persecuting Christians is the same as persecuting Christ because He lives within them by grace. Thus how can it be that those same Christians, once they have died, are not still identified by and with Him and thus alive in Him? Did His sanctifying Spirit leave them at the end of their mortal existence?
E
EricFilmer
Guest
Randy has already done a great job of answering the latest questions. So I will just elaborate on a couple of them, adding to what he posted.
Here is how I described it earlier this month in another thread…
The intercession of the saints is based upon the idea of Christian fellowship and virtuous living. If I pray to the saints for their help, I exercise the virtue of humility. If they help me with their intercessions, they exercise the virtue of charity. What goes on all the time among Christians on earth (asking others for their prayers and praying for others as well) is simply extended to include the community of saints in heaven. The Letter of James tells us to pray for one another, and states that the prayers of the righteous are powerful in their effects (James 5:16). Obviously, the saints in heaven are certainly righteous beyond our imagination. I am sure lots of 1st Century Christians asked St. James to pray for them, especially after reading his letter. Why can’t I ask St. James to pray for me as well? Sure, he has experienced earthly death, but he has also triumphed over death through the power of Christ and is living in heaven, more fully alive now than he ever was on earth. The same is true for all the saints in heaven.
Seeking the intercession of the saints in heaven (in accordance with proper Catholic teaching) is not done to the exclusion of Christ, because there is one Body in Christ. The Church exists in heaven and on earth, and whereas the members of the body of the Church can pray for and assist one another, such activity is done in conjunction with the head of the Church, Jesus. By his power such communication between earth and heaven is possible, and it is his grace that responds to the prayers. Going back to my example involving St. James, the only difference between me asking for his intercession today and the people of the 1st Century who asked him, is that he is now in a different location within the Church, within the Body of Christ (because he is in heaven and I am on earth). But we still exist as members of the same Body, united within Christ (and consequently we are united in a sacramental way during the reception of the Eucharist).
It is not something that is specifically necessary, but it is something that can be beautiful, enriching and helpful on a spiritual level.
Here is how I described it earlier this month in another thread…
The intercession of the saints is based upon the idea of Christian fellowship and virtuous living. If I pray to the saints for their help, I exercise the virtue of humility. If they help me with their intercessions, they exercise the virtue of charity. What goes on all the time among Christians on earth (asking others for their prayers and praying for others as well) is simply extended to include the community of saints in heaven. The Letter of James tells us to pray for one another, and states that the prayers of the righteous are powerful in their effects (James 5:16). Obviously, the saints in heaven are certainly righteous beyond our imagination. I am sure lots of 1st Century Christians asked St. James to pray for them, especially after reading his letter. Why can’t I ask St. James to pray for me as well? Sure, he has experienced earthly death, but he has also triumphed over death through the power of Christ and is living in heaven, more fully alive now than he ever was on earth. The same is true for all the saints in heaven.
Seeking the intercession of the saints in heaven (in accordance with proper Catholic teaching) is not done to the exclusion of Christ, because there is one Body in Christ. The Church exists in heaven and on earth, and whereas the members of the body of the Church can pray for and assist one another, such activity is done in conjunction with the head of the Church, Jesus. By his power such communication between earth and heaven is possible, and it is his grace that responds to the prayers. Going back to my example involving St. James, the only difference between me asking for his intercession today and the people of the 1st Century who asked him, is that he is now in a different location within the Church, within the Body of Christ (because he is in heaven and I am on earth). But we still exist as members of the same Body, united within Christ (and consequently we are united in a sacramental way during the reception of the Eucharist).
True, the saints are not omnipresent, and how this happens is ultimately a mystery. But I believe the answer is that Jesus, who is omnipresent, allows the saints to share in this power to some degree. Plus, being in heaven frees the saints from the constraints of time and space.
Once again, I do not see Catholic teaching in this matter as a discussion of what is necessary, but rather viewing this along the lines of Christian fellowship. Jesus can, and does, provide grace in a variety of ways, and one of these ways is through Christian fellowship (when we pray for others) and I think all Christians agree that Christian fellowship is a very important part of Christian living. I simply see the intercession of the saints as being part of the “big picture” of what such fellowship entails.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I must have missed this…where does the OP mention soul sleep?And very nicely at that, Randy.
Is he SDA or JW?
P
pablope
Guest
I will just respond additional points to this portion:
Those who go to heaven are like angels, so says Matthew 22:
30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
So those in heaven are not dead, they are alive with God, and have the attributes of angels, who does God’s bidding.
Revelation 5:8 (New King James Version)
Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
And Revelation 8:3 (New King James Version)
3 Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.
Actually, there is an an account of God wanting intercession from a righteous man:
Job 42:7-8
7 And so it was, after the LORD had spoken these words to Job, that the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My wrath is aroused against you and your two friends, for you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has. 8 Now therefore, take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, go to My servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and My servant Job shall pray for you. For I will accept him, lest I deal with you according to your folly; because you have not spoken of Me what is right, as My servant Job has.”
Mary and the saints, and the angels, are following God’s command. I forgot where it is in the Bible but it is stated “that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much” which is very much in agreement with this account from Job.
So God wanted Job to pray for his friends, Mary and the Saints, and angels do the same, so wouldn’t you then follow God’s command? To go ask for the intercession of the Saints and angels for us here on earth?
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
Someone already listed many quotations from the Bible which draw from sources you claim, by your own personal judgement to be non-canonical. This is a bit circular in nature, don’t you think?
If you’re Jewish, I apologize, but it’s rather plain anyway as you go through scripture, that a fairly significant number of our Jewish brothers and sisters also did not accept Jesus as the Christ of God. There are many who still do not. So, with this logic, I’m afraid we’d have to toss out the whole little collection of books tacked on by the Church after a few frivolous councils of Bishops as the New Testament. So, for clarification then, are you representing a position of Judaism vice Christianity in that you also accept only the canonical Jewish scriptures? It’s fine if you are, of course. It just changes the nature of many of the sub-conversations going on in the thread, and would be an important clarification to make in debate. From the standpoint of Judaism, you are relavent in your position, though I personally am Christian, and would have to be of the opposing arguments regarding the divinity of Christ and His Church, and would urge us to keep His divinity as a certainly reasonable point of view, even if one doesn’t personally share it. It is the central tenet of the Christian adherents that you’ll most often be debating with here at CA.
I’m sure you’ve most likely been asked already what those may be. Did you have a chance to jot down a few history references that those of us on the other end of the debate might be able to read and think about?
Blessings,
Steve
F
FMX500
Guest
Hmm, nice, the apologetics section. I wonder if I can make it through another day?
¬.¬
¬.¬
- Status