The Top 2 Most Ignored Apologist Topics

  • Thread starter Thread starter havana1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

havana1

Guest
#1. “Constantine invented the Roman Catholic Church.”
#2. “The Catholics ‘added’ the ‘apocrypha’ to the bible.”

Why, pray tell (pardon the phrase), don’t more fundamentalists come out and admit they believe these two points? And, why, to the issue at hand, don’t more apologists take a more pro-active approach in refuting these two points when it’s an inherent belief system among fundamentalists - so much so that they don’t even feel a need to ask about it, because they just naturally presume it’s true? If only I had a quarter for every time I had to hear, “But even the Jews rejected the Apocrypha!” and “But Constantine started the Catholic church!”

Why can’t Catholic Answers and any of its staff take a more pro-active approach in adding these two ignored topics to its books and merchandise? And before someone from Catholic Answers says, “Well, nobody ever asks about either of these things on the Open Forum For Non-Catholics and nobody ever asks about it on the messages boards,” let me say… no, of course they haven’t, nor will they anytime soon. It’s not like someone who truly believes the Book of Maccabees is on par with the Gospel of Thomas would take the time to ask, “Hey, is it true your guys’ church was founded by Constantine?”

I just don’t see why the majority of apologetics material still overlooks what so many fundamentalists take as a given. Any reason for the absence of any substantial Constantine-related and deuterocanonical-related Catholic apologetics?
 
Hmm. I personally answer the “Catholics added books to the Bible” canard about every other week.

Constantine is less common, I think I’ve only actually addressed it here twice, and maybe a couple of times back in the old “ask an expert” forum.
 
havana1 said:
#1. “Constantine invented the Roman Catholic Church.”
#2. “The Catholics ‘added’ the ‘apocrypha’ to the bible.”

Why, pray tell (pardon the phrase), don’t more fundamentalists come out and admit they believe these two points? And, why, to the issue at hand, don’t more apologists take a more pro-active approach in refuting these two points when it’s an inherent belief system among fundamentalists - so much so that they don’t even feel a need to ask about it, because they just naturally presume it’s true? If only I had a quarter for every time I had to hear, “But even the Jews rejected the Apocrypha!” and “But Constantine started the Catholic church!”

Why can’t Catholic Answers and any of its staff take a more pro-active approach in adding these two ignored topics to its books and merchandise? And before someone from Catholic Answers says, “Well, nobody ever asks about either of these things on the Open Forum For Non-Catholics and nobody ever asks about it on the messages boards,” let me say… no, of course they haven’t, nor will they anytime soon. It’s not like someone who truly believes the Book of Maccabees is on par with the Gospel of Thomas would take the time to ask, “Hey, is it true your guys’ church was founded by Constantine?”

I just don’t see why the majority of apologetics material still overlooks what so many fundamentalists take as a given. Any reason for the absence of any substantial Constantine-related and deuterocanonical-related Catholic apologetics?
Click to expand...
I’ve heard ignorant people say #1 about the CC in general. But then, they don’t really know history all too well; he helped, but didn’t invent it.
And #2 is ludicrous, there were no Catholics when the apocrypha was written, I’ve never heard that.
 
snowbee said:
And #2 is ludicrous, there were no Catholics when the apocrypha was written, I’ve never heard that.
Click to expand...
Actually the vast majority of the apocryphal books were written after the Church was instituted, however, you seem to have a confusion in terminology.

The apocrypha include the Gnostic gospels and many other questionable or heretical writings and the Church has always rejected them.

The Deuterocanonical books, (the 7 books that the early church included in the OT canon) are now and have always been part of the Catholic Bible and we accept them as inspired.

In fact, to this very day, you can find actual 1611 edition King James Version Bibles that also contain them. The truth is that most KJV only types who make a big deal about only accepting and using the 1611 KJB generally do no such thing and it toasts them pretty crispy if you look over their Bible and enlighten them that what they have in hand is not a real 1611 KJB.

“5 Myths about 7 Books” might help out a bit.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Church_Militant said:
Actually the vast majority of the apocryphal books were written after the Church was instituted, however, you seem to have a confusion in terminology.

The apocrypha include the Gnostic gospels and many other questionable or heretical writings and the Church has always rejected them.

The Deuterocanonical books, (the 7 books that the early church included in the OT canon) are now and have always been part of the Catholic Bible and we accept them as inspired.

In fact, to this very day, you can find actual 1611 edition King James Version Bibles that also contain them. The truth is that most KJV only types who make a big deal about only accepting and using the 1611 KJB generally do no such thing and it toasts them pretty crispy if you look over their Bible and enlighten them that what they have in hand is not a real 1611 KJB.

“5 Myths about 7 Books” might help out a bit.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, haha, thanks for the correction. Secular University is rubbing off their protestant terminology on me. lol sigh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top