Questions they can't answer.

  • Thread starter Thread starter sadie2723
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sadie2723

Guest
Well, I finally got tired of people who hate my faith sending me links to anti-Catholic hate sites. So, today I decided to do something about it.

I was on a popular, “Bring Catholics to Jesus Site” and I sent them an email asking them the following questions. Should be interesting to see how they get back to me on this. Now, to be fair, I stole these quesitons off of the Defenders of the Catholic Faith site. Still should be fun to see what the response is…if I get on.

Here are some of the questions I sent.
  1. Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
  2. Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?
  3. Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?
  4. some Protestants claim that Jesus condemned all oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8 13). If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them to obey the scribes and Pharisees when they “sit on Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2)?
  5. Some Protestants claim that St. Paul condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8). If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thes 2:15) and praises the Corinthians because they “hold firmly to the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2)?
(And why does the Protestant NIV change the word “tradition” to “teaching”?)
  1. If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura, why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God’s Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?
  2. Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?
  3. How do we know who wrote the books that we call Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, and 1, 2, and 3 John?
  4. On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we know were not written by one of the twelve apostles?
  5. Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)
  6. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?
  7. How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the letters of St. Paul, who wrote to first-century congregations and individuals, are meant to be read by us as Scripture 2000 years later?
  8. Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
  9. Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?
  10. If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?
  11. If the meaning of the Bible is so clear—so easily interpreted—and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it for themselves, then why are there over 33,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
  12. Who may authoritatively arbitrate between Christians who claim to be led by the Holy Spirit into mutually contradictory interpretations of the Bible?
  13. Since each Protestant must admit that his or her interpretation is fallible, how can any Protestant in good conscience call anything heresy or bind another Christian to a particular belief?
  14. Protestants usually claim that they all agree “on the important things.” Who is able to decide authoritatively what is important in the Christian faith and what is not?
  15. How did the early Church evangelize and overthrow the Roman Empire, survive and prosper almost 350 years, without knowing for sure which books belong in the canon of Scripture?
Should be fun to watch!

Brad
 
Hi Brad even my driver can answer number 4.

The seat of Moses was the civil legal system of the day. Romans 13.

Exodus 18:13
The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening.
 
You should also ask if it there is ANY possibility that anyone has ever said, done, or declared anything outside of what is written in the Bible that could be considered infallible or “inspired”. I have yet to get a protestant answer on this.

Maybe they know where I’m going and just don’t want to hop on the bus. 😉
 
Brad, when you pop a loaded question on someone in writing, even if he’s not a quick debater, he has time to see through it and dismiss it.

Instead of a written form such as email, you should memorize this list and use it to befuddle your Protestant friends in person. It won’t change them, of course, but flummoxing them should make you feel better; which, if I understand your OP, is the goal anyway.
 
or someone reading this could think that hmm the catholics say they are right and the protestants say they are right and they both seem to fight about it. Soo they must cancel out each other if they dont agree, arnt they supposed to follow God. Just a bunch of man made ideas.

oh well Im befuddled Im not having anything to do with this religion garbage its brainless anyway… . . .I can have better respect than these guys.

(I have alot of atheists I know and this arguement comes up endlessly) ps alot of atheists are just mad at God and His people.
 
40.png
IanS:
You should also ask if it there is ANY possibility that anyone has ever said, done, or declared anything outside of what is written in the Bible that could be considered infallible or “inspired”. I have yet to get a protestant answer on this.

Maybe they know where I’m going and just don’t want to hop on the bus. 😉
Click to expand...
Where is the bus going?
 
40.png
Kevan:
Brad, when you pop a loaded question on someone in writing, even if he’s not a quick debater, he has time to see through it and dismiss it.

Instead of a written form such as email, you should memorize this list and use it to befuddle your Protestant friends in person. It won’t change them, of course, but flummoxing them should make you feel better; which, if I understand your OP, is the goal anyway.
Click to expand...
These are actually quite clear questions. If you can not answer them then you should consider the Catholic position. NOne of them is loaded, they are straight forward.
 
Kitty Chan:
or someone reading this could think that hmm the catholics say they are right and the protestants say they are right and they both seem to fight about it. Soo they must cancel out each other if they dont agree, arnt they supposed to follow God. Just a bunch of man made ideas.

oh well Im befuddled Im not having anything to do with this religion garbage its brainless anyway… . . .I can have better respect than these guys.

(I have alot of atheists I know and this arguement comes up endlessly) ps alot of atheists are just mad at God and His people.
Click to expand...
And those atheists are not using common sense. In a debate, if both sides think the other side is wrong that does not indicate that they are both wrong. It has no bearing on what is true. Instead both sides should be examined on their own merit.
 
40.png
jimmy:
And those atheists are not using common sense. In a debate, if both sides think the other side is wrong that does not indicate that they are both wrong. It has no bearing on what is true. Instead both sides should be examined on their own merit.
Click to expand...
ya havent spoke to atheists, those that believe in God are incapable of any clear thought because they are enslaved to their religion and do what it tells them to do.

(I know its wrong and a case of blinded eyes, I just dont like seeing “us” apply the same blinded eyes to each other. Im sure we get along better than we know. If there was a common ememy arguements would be out the door)

oh ps the reason you got my response is some of the questions you have are what atheists use to disprove the bible. If ya wanna do that ga head, in favor that its all oraly handed down to catholic church, but what fruit is gonna come of it??
 
Kitty Chan:
ya havent spoke to atheists, those that believe in God are incapable of any clear thought because they are enslaved to their religion and do what it tells them to do.

(I know its wrong and a case of blinded eyes, I just dont like seeing “us” apply the same blinded eyes to each other. Im sure we get along better than we know. If there was a common ememy arguements would be out the door)

oh ps the reason you got my response is some of the questions you have are what atheists use to disprove the bible. If ya wanna do that ga head, in favor that its all oraly handed down to catholic church, but what fruit is gonna come of it??
Click to expand...
I have very little doubt that this aspect of atheism is a direct result of Protestantism. For one, Protestantism does tend toward the more blind faith way of looking at things. For two, we had 1500 years without a real problem with atheists, then comes the Reformation, and 500 years later, its all over the place.
 
The point that I was making with my post, and with my email, is that Catholics ARE right. We can debate this all day, but really all you have to do is look at a history book. Why were there so many changes to ideology and the scripture itself durring the reformation? Simple, because the reformers were being pushed to justify their actions. There was no way that they could split with Rome and still teach what Rome did. Thus, they had to come up with their own set of rules.

I know that there are those who think I am wrong, but it in all of the history books on the subject.

Think of it this way. If I were to form a new political party, I would have a hard time getting people to join if I just had the same set of ideology that the Republican party has. Nobody would join. But, if you came up with something new…people will follow it.

The difference, of course, is that the reformation was a far larger issue than forming a new political party. Why is there so much anti-Catholic stuff out there today? Because the Protestants are doing what they have done for the last 500 years…trying to justify their decision to leave. And, that decision was based on rhetoric that was created by man. That is the purpose of the questions, friends. I hope to make a few people see that the position of the reformers cannot be justified. And, if it cannot, then they made a mistake 500 years ago. And, if they made a mistake, people should know it so that they can come home.

God bless.

Brad
 
the bus is heading to sixth and broadway.

Yes, there is a possiblity of something being inspired outside the bible. Jude quoted two non-biblical souces that I can think of, The Assumption of Moses and Enoch. Because one claims they are inspired or infallible does not make them so, just read the threads of those who says they hear Jesus personaly.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Yes, there is a possiblity of something being inspired outside the bible. Jude quoted two non-biblical souces that I can think of, The Assumption of Moses and Enoch. Because one claims they are inspired or infallible does not make them so, just read the threads of those who says they hear Jesus personaly.
Click to expand...
No, this is not the case. An Apostle or even Jesus merely quoting from some source not considered inspired and infallible in no way makes that source inspired and infallible. That was not a part of the criteria used to determine which of the writings being used in the liturgy of the early Church were and weren’t inspired.

The reason the books of the Bible are considered inspired and infallible does not rest solely on the criteria used to determine their being inspired. Rather, it rests on the authority Christ gave the Church to decide matters of faith and morals, and, in the final analysis, nothing else and nothing less.
 
I guess what I’m getting at is the whole idea of sola scriptura. Based on this belief that there is nothing infallible outside of the Bible, I see only one of three conclusions:
  1. Jesus did not ever say, do, or teach anything outside of what is written in Sacred Scripture.
  2. Jesus did say, do, and teach things that were not written in Sacred Scripture but those things were fallible, therefore making God Himself imperfect.
  3. Jesus did say, do, and teach things that were not written in Sacred Scripture and those things were also infallible, therefore making sola scripture a bogus teaching.
John 21:25: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top