The Rc Challenge

[Strength]

Have you guys seen this? It probably contains way too much information regarding the CC to discuss here…but it is very interesting to read. I thought it would be great for both C’s and P’s to have and to look at.

ENJOY!

ntrmin.org/rcchallenge.htm

 

[coralewisjr]

Hello, Strength! It’s good to see you again. (We haven’t met in person but I saw a lot of your posts in another thread or two.)

That’s a great challenge. I would have to research before answering almost all of those questions. It seems a bit biased against Catholics, but then again, I’m a Catholic so I’m biased against Protestant beliefs that differ from Catholics’. God bless you!

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[Strength]

Hello! Good to see you too. I thought it was interesting nonetheless. I’m not sure how biased it is, as opposed to just questioning. I come from the school of thought that you cannot even begin to understand something unless you deeply question it. There are a lot of posts that swarm around the protestant vs. catholic discussion onh here…the guy who offered up this challenge is obviously pretty strong in his knowledge base, and should offer great food for thought with both sides…

coralewisjr:

Hello, Strength! It’s good to see you again. (We haven’t met in person but I saw a lot of your posts in another thread or two.)

That’s a great challenge. I would have to research before answering almost all of those questions. It seems a bit biased against Catholics, but then again, I’m a Catholic so I’m biased against Protestant beliefs that differ from Catholics’. God bless you!

my Mother my Confidence,
Corinne

 

[jaz1976]

Whoever this man is, he is just trying to toy with the Catholics who write in. His $100k reward is a joke and he has no intention of paying it. His whole objective is to make sport of the fact that many Catholics cannont explain their faith all that well. For my response to his challenge I would hand him a Catechism.

I do want to address a few of his points.

1. he claims that Catholic appologists made up the line of reasoning that since there are so many denominations and interpretations that protestantism cannot be legitimate. I would argue that no appologist came up with this, it is logic in its purest form that argues against protestantism.
2. his claim that the Catholic Church has different interpretaions in it is so wrong that it hurts. Catholics may have different interpretations but the Church does not. We may view a passage in more than one way, but this is not the same thing.

 

[mercygate]

jaz1976:

For my response to his challenge I would hand him a Catechism.

If he had a Catechism, he wouldn’t have asked some of those silly questions.

1. his claim that the Catholic Church has different interpretaions in it is so wrong that it hurts. Catholics may have different interpretations but the Church does not. We may view a passage in more than one way, but this is not the same thing.

Not only that but there are many points on which the Church specifically states that it will not declare a definitive interpretation (at least until something arises that forces an interpretation. In Scripture, for example, there are only 7 or 8 texts which have been definitively interpreted and binding for the Catholic faithful.

 

[Strength]

jaz1976:

Whoever this man is, he is just trying to toy with the Catholics who write in. His $100k reward is a joke and he has no intention of paying it.

Not to start a fight…but Sungenis (who I would guess has a big following on this board) also has a monetary reward for anyone who can disprove his geocentrist model…Is Sungenis just toying with people? Is his reward a joke? …I think you guys are failing to grasp the “gist” of his protestant/catholic contest.

 

[Genesis315]

Strength:

Not to start a fight…but Sungenis (who I would guess has a big following on this board) also has a monetary reward for anyone who can disprove his geocentrist model…Is Sungenis just toying with people? Is his reward a joke? …I think you guys are failing to grasp the “gist” of his protestant/catholic contest.

With either case, who decides when something is proven? Does Sungenis or this guy have to admit that they have been proven wrong? I guess someone could take them to court over it.

 

[juno24]

The problem with so many of his questions is that he poses them as either/or when in fact the answer is “yes and yes”. (e.g. the question about revelation ending with the death of the apostles or does doctrine develope-- welllllll… yes and yes.) It seems as though he just wants to see how many Catholics he can “trip up” with his questions. He shows a great lack of understanding of the Catholic faith in many of his questions, and apparently hopes that those who answer will have an even greater lack.

 

[Strength]

First…(since everyone is on the attack)…this guy does not have a lack of understanding regarding theology…and I wouldn’t quite say he is “anti-catholic”…even though people like to toss that word round like it means something. I do believe that he has slight issues with catholic authority, knowledge, history, claims etc…If you go to the home site, and click the catholicism button…and read his responses to Armstrong and Sungenis…you would be foolish to say that the guy has a lack of understanding…His Peter being the first pope - using that same logic why couldn’t another apostle be the first pope based on scriptural text alone is actually pretty profound…something I hadn’t even thought about.

 

[LSK]

Actually, Strength, his argument about Peter is not very profound at all. It is circulator and presents premises that I don’t accept. It also claims scriptural interpretation that I do not accept.

But then again, I’m just an ignorant Catholic…lololol

 

[Della]

Strength:

First…(since everyone is on the attack)…this guy does not have a lack of understanding regarding theology…and I wouldn’t quite say he is “anti-catholic”…even though people like to toss that word round like it means something. I do believe that he has slight issues with catholic authority, knowledge, history, claims etc…If you go to the home site, and click the catholicism button…and read his responses to Armstrong and Sungenis…you would be foolish to say that the guy has a lack of understanding…His Peter being the first pope - using that same logic why couldn’t another apostle be the first pope based on scriptural text alone is actually pretty profound…something I hadn’t even thought about.

This Eric Svendsen a well-known anti-Catholic. Want proof? Read this from his blog:

In March 2000, Dr. Mohler told Larry King:

“I believe that the Roman church is a false church and it teaches a false gospel. And indeed, I believe that the pope himself holds a false and unbiblical office.”

Mohler is, of course, correct; and he is to be commended for his stance on this.

People like him LOVE to use Scripture alone to disprove Catholic teaching. But, since Catholic teaching wasn’t derived from Scripture (not the NT for certain) alone, but from the fullness of Sacred Tradition of which the Bible is but one part in three, his “proofs” mean little to nothing.

For every verse he could cite I could cite another contradicting his verses, and I’m not a professional apologist. It’s an endless game of quotesmanship that is a total waste of time for any serious student of the Catholic Church and its teachings. The thing is he will never recognize the authority of the Church as passed down to the successors of the Apostles because he will not be convinced not because by faith and reason one cannot be convinced.

 

[Strength]

Hey…you said it. Anyway…To toot my own horn, I’m fairly versed in things of a biblical nature…so maybe “profound” isn’t the best choice of words…but to make the statements about “premise” or “interpretation” can only mean that you just glanced at it…because if I remember correctly he responds to this critique in a very strong way here: members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul512.htm

LSK:

Actually, Strength, his argument about Peter is not very profound at all. It is circulator and presents premises that I don’t accept. It also claims scriptural interpretation that I do not accept.

But then again, I’m just an ignorant Catholic…lololol

 

[Catholic_Dude]

jaz1976:

Whoever this man is, he is just trying to toy with the Catholics who write in. His $100k reward is a joke and he has no intention of paying it. .

ITs a joke, nobody has that kind of money to pay, nor would anyone pay it, Your right on jaz, its a hoax. Its no different than an typical pop the lid and win $1M games on foods. Dont waste you time trying to get paid.

 

[Strength]

Della…it all starts with scripture whether you want to believe this or not…there are no outs…It’s elitist, and highly offensive to claim that someone doesn’t understand srcipture or interprets it incorrectly because they are “protestant”…you’re right it is the great divide…and it is a shame. That’s kind of like using god as an excuse…and you’re also making some judgments…

Della:

This Eric Svendsen a well-known anti-Catholic. Want proof? Read this from his blog:

People like him LOVE to use Scripture alone to disprove Catholic teaching. But, since Catholic teaching wasn’t derived from Scripture (not the NT for certain) alone, but from the fullness of Sacred Tradition of which the Bible is but one part in three, his “proofs” mean little to nothing.

For every verse he could cite I could cite another contradicting his verses, and I’m not a professional apologist. It’s an endless game of quotesmanship that is a total waste of time for any serious student of the Catholic Church and its teachings. The thing is he will never recognize the authority of the Church as passed down to the successors of the Apostles because he will not be convinced not because by faith and reason one cannot be convinced.

 

[Strength]

That is so hilarious…thanx for making my day… You get the " I can’t see the dang forest cause there’s trees in my way" AWARD…

Did you ever think that LIKE SUNGENIS he knew in advance that obviously no one could win it…and if you tap into some brain power this should lead you to a very interesting problem…please feel free to think deeply.
Catholic Dude:

ITs a joke, nobody has that kind of money to pay, nor would anyone pay it, Your right on jaz, its a hoax. Its no different than an typical pop the lid and win $1M games on foods. Dont waste you time trying to get paid.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Strength:

That is so hilarious…thanx for making my day… You get the " I can’t see the dang forest cause there’s trees in my way" AWARD…

Did you ever think that LIKE SUNGENIS he knew in advance that obviously no one could win it…and if you tap into some brain power this should lead you to a very interesting problem…please feel free to think deeply.

What are you saying? Your out to prove what here? That something is going to come from wasting you time answering him? So why did he know nobody could win it?.. Because he was having fun with people like you.

 

[Della]

Della…it all starts with scripture whether you want to believe this or not…there are no outs…It’s elitist, and highly offensive to claim that someone doesn’t understand srcipture or interprets it incorrectly because they are “protestant”…you’re right it is the great divide…and it is a shame. That’s kind of like using god as an excuse…and you’re also making some judgments…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Della
This Eric Svendsen a well-known anti-Catholic. Want proof? Read this from his blog:

People like him LOVE to use Scripture alone to disprove Catholic teaching. But, since Catholic teaching wasn’t derived from Scripture (not the NT for certain) alone, but from the fullness of Sacred Tradition of which the Bible is but one part in three, his “proofs” mean little to nothing.

For every verse he could cite I could cite another contradicting his verses, and I’m not a professional apologist. It’s an endless game of quotesmanship that is a total waste of time for any serious student of the Catholic Church and its teachings. The thing is he will never recognize the authority of the Church as passed down to the successors of the Apostles because he will not be convinced not because by faith and reason one cannot be convinced.

I’m afraid you have totally misread what I wrote, dear Strength. I said nothing whatsoever about the need to be Catholic to understand Scripture or interpret it. In fact, I went out of my way not to say that.

I wrote that in order to understand Catholic teaching one needs more that a knowledge of the Bible. One needs to see Catholic teaching in the light of the whole of Sacred Tradition of which the Bible is but the third part. That is what I wrote.

Nowhere did I judge the ability of Protestants to interpret Scripture. I did judge the ability of an anti-Catholic like Svendsen to interpret Catholic teaching based on his reading of the Bible alone, from his own perspective without regard for Sacred Tradition.

 

[Strength]

Bwahahahhahaha…bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahaha

You are special…very special indeed.
Catholic Dude:

What are you saying? Your out to prove what here? That something is going to come from wasting you time answering him? So why did he know nobody could win it?.. Because he was having fun with people like you.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Strength:

Bwahahahhahaha…bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaahahaha

You are special…very special indeed.

Oh, I get it.

I just sent a 38 page response to the challenge, I await his feedback.
Hmm, what am I going to do with 100k?

I also included this…

NewTestament SCHOLAR1
NT SCHOLAR2

(wait for them to load)

 

[Strength]

Look…if it’s stupid to you -then don’t respond…you don’t have to respond to me either?..I just thought it was interesting that’s all.

peace
Catholic Dude:

Oh, I get it.

I just sent a 38 page response to the challenge, I await his feedback.
Hmm, what am I going to do with 100k?

I also included this…

NewTestament SCHOLAR1
NT SCHOLAR2

(wait for them to load)