are Papist's good debators?

[Tantor]

The language that Jesus spoke is irrevalent... what matters is what language the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to use... and the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes.

[desertknight]

So you are then saying that the Holy Spirit used a poor choice of words?

Anyhow, what you are saying is just human conjecture and not fact... so it's pretty irrevalent to those that believe the bible.

Oh, absolutely to the contrary!  I read the text of Matt. 16 exactly as it is written, it is the critics who have to include such astonishing text such as "[pointing to Himself]" after the "and" in Matt. 16:18 to make their exegesis "fit".  It is the critics and pure personal conjecture that lead them to such erroneous arguments as to how big the rocks were in a Greek dialect that was not used nor the NT written in, that Jesus is refering to, LoL.  How silly that your accusation is the opposite of that fact.  We Catholics do no such thing.  We read the text as it is written, the Holy Spirit makes no mistakes.

[desertknight]

The language that Jesus spoke is irrevalent... what matters is what language the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to use... and the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes.

Absolutely correct...

"And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[c]"

  a. 1. Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
  b. 2. Matthew 16:18 Or hell
  c. 3. Matthew 16:18 Or not prove stronger than it


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=NIV

John 1:42...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:42&version=NIV

...a nice Protestant Bible site presenting the Bible just as the writers recorded from the Holy Spirit.  

[Tantor]

The language that Jesus spoke is irrevalent... what matters is what language the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to use... and the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes.

Absolutely correct...

"And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[c]"

   a. 1. Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
   b. 2. Matthew 16:18 Or hell
   c. 3. Matthew 16:18 Or not prove stronger than it


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=NIV

John 1:42...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:42&version=NIV

...a nice Protestant Bible site presenting the Bible just as the writers recorded from the Holy Spirit. 

And then you go on to try and prove your point by posting the verse in a language that the Holy Spirit did not write in...

Kind of funny.. if you ask me.

[desertknight]

The language that Jesus spoke is irrevalent... what matters is what language the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the New Testament to use... and the Holy Spirit does not make mistakes.

Absolutely correct...

"And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[c]"

  a. 1. Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
  b. 2. Matthew 16:18 Or hell
  c. 3. Matthew 16:18 Or not prove stronger than it


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16%3A18&version=NIV

John 1:42...

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:42&version=NIV

...a nice Protestant Bible site presenting the Bible just as the writers recorded from the Holy Spirit.  

And then you go on to try and prove your point by posting the verse in a language that the Holy Spirit did not write in...

Kind of funny.. if you ask me.

And what original Greek copy of the Gospel of Matthew do you have?  I think I remember you saying that you believe that no translation of the NT is anything but hearsay?  So no English translation is inspired?  You realise don't you that every copy of any of the Gospels are just that...copies.  The earliest parchment of any piece of Matthew dates from AD 150-200, in other words, even if you believe that the original Gospel was written close to the events, the only actual fragment, (just six verses), of writing that exist is just a copy from around 100 years later.  The earliest complete copies of Matthew were of course, from the codex's compiled into the canon by the Catholic Church and date from no earlier than 300 years after the fact...so which one do you claim as the only one that is authoritative and inspired?  I'm interested in knowing where this inspired text you use comes from and what the scribes had to say in their translations, which is what they had to do, of these pertinent passages.  

Where are you getting your biblical basis that only Greek translations of the NT are written by the Holy Spirit?  Is that somewhere in scripture or just personal opinion?  I find that really, kinda' funny.

[Tantor]

I would say the earliest fragment untouched by the catholic church (i.e pre Romanization.. pre 300AD) would probably be the most authoritative on the issue.

Due to the circumstances revolving around the romanization of the church, I would say everything post 300AD is totally corrupt.

But then again, my God is not held accountable to the text.. as his spirit lives in his elect.  So all scripture is nothing more then an approximation that the RCC and other denominations like to build castles in the sand from.

[desertknight]

I would say the earliest fragment untouched by the catholic church (i.e pre Romanization.. pre 300AD) would probably be the most authoritative on the issue.

Due to the circumstances revolving around the romanization of the church, I would say everything post 300AD is totally corrupt.

But then again, my God is not held accountable to the text.. as his spirit lives in his elect.  So all scripture is nothing more then an approximation that the RCC and other denominations like to build castles in the sand from.

So in this case, as there is no surviving text of the Gospel of Matthew 16 that is older than approximately AD 350, you simply omit that part of sacred scripture?  And because of this, you don't actually use or have a NT that you consider authoritative or inspired?  There is no complete text of any of the Gospels before the AD 325-350's btw, and the only complete text of the NT is either the Codex Sinaiticus or the Codex Vaticanus from about AD 325-350 and that is the only actual copy of Matthew that exist.

Are you saying that you consider yourself a Christian without an authoritative NT?  And you just decide what you consider orthodox based on?  

[Tantor]

Are you saying that you consider yourself a Christian without an authoritative NT?  And you just decide what you consider orthodox based on?  

Where in any of ths scriptures.. inspired or not.. does it say that an authoritative NT is a requirement for salvation?

I'm neutral on the matter.. I read the text as what is the 'best estimate' of what the originals might have contained... and I am totally open to the fact that new archeological discoveries may change the text at any time. (i.e. the dead sea scrolls for example).

Building an entire religion off of a best estimate and trying to be authoritative about it is pretty tenuous... don't you think?

Or do you believe man made up doctrines like preservation of scriptures and other assorted dogma to make us complacent?

Anyhow.. in the end, God is the authority.. not a piece of paper or a funny man in a robe sitting on a throne in the Vatican.

And the more the Vatican squeezes.. the more the Lord is going to cause division and reformation.

[desertknight]

Where in any of ths scriptures.. inspired or not.. does it say that an authoritative NT is a requirement for salvation?

I never said it did, I'm just curious because you stated that only certain NT texts were written by the Holy Spirit, you stated specifically that the Holy Spirit wrote only in Greek.  The very oldest copies of the Greek text that exist today are the two Codex's that I mentioned.  The Codex Vaticanus is considered slightly older than most but still only dates from the middle of the AD 300's.  You've criticised my giving the account of Matt. 16 that these scribes gave, and that translations such as the KJV or NIV repeat, ok, fine...so what translation do you posses that tells you they are wrong?  That's what I'm getting at.  

[Tantor]

Where in any of ths scriptures.. inspired or not.. does it say that an authoritative NT is a requirement for salvation?

I never said it did, I'm just curious because you stated that only certain NT texts were written by the Holy Spirit, you stated specifically that the Holy Spirit wrote only in Greek.  The very oldest copies of the Greek text that exist today are the two Codex's that I mentioned.  The Codex Vaticanus is considered slightly older than most but still only dates from the middle of the AD 300's.  You've criticised my giving the account of Matt. 16 that these scribes gave, and that translations such as the KJV or NIV repeat, ok, fine...so what translation do you posses that tells you they are wrong?  That's what I'm getting at.  

And i am getting to the fact that you are straining at gnats about ONE verse in the entire bible to back up your theology... and try and take authority from it.  While ALL main themes of doctrine in the scriptures are repeated many times to emphasize their importance.. Why do you think we have the 4 gospels?.. remove 1 or up to 3 and the one can stand on it's own.  But having 4 give more credance to their contents.

Then go take a look at the rest of the New Testament books, most reinforce one another, but from different perspectives.

My point being, that since you are arguing over ONE verse that isn't cooberated anywhere else in scripture.. I find it a useless point to debate... so which ever version I use.. or ancient text I find a the best possible link to the original author is irrevalent.   If the way you say that verse is to be translated and understood then there should be other scriptures to back it up.. and there just isn't.

Which all comes down to the beauty of the way the Holy Spirit inspired the scriptures... he never put his eggs in one basket when it comes to what is really important about faith.

[desertknight]

And i am getting to the fact that you are straining at gnats about ONE verse in the entire bible to back up your theology... and try and take authority from it.

Oh, I'm way off that.  You actually have me solely curious about your.....religion.  I've just never have heard of your approach before.   The, "if it only appears once in the Bible, it doesn't count" idea is novel.  We could invent lot's of different "churches" based on that alone.    

[Tantor]

And i am getting to the fact that you are straining at gnats about ONE verse in the entire bible to back up your theology... and try and take authority from it.

Oh, I'm way off that.  You actually have me solely curious about your.....religion.  I've just never have heard of your approach before.   The, "if it only appears once in the Bible, it doesn't count" idea is novel.  We could invent lot's of different "churches" based on that alone.    

I never said it didn't count... it counts.. but as something that is not a major point of faith.

And like I have said in other threads 'churches' and denominations are something that came centuries after Jesus death... so your concern is a modern concern not a biblical one.   It's always seems funny how the RCC and other denominations try their darndest to get all their ducks in a row and then become so ridgid about them that they chain the Holy Spirit to their doctrines... they never take into account that they might actually be wrong..

I might be wrong on a lot of things... but I do not cling to my opinions so tightly that I will refuse to change them should the Holy Spirit direct me to do so.

What about you?... are you clinging to the teachings of the RCC to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit?

[desertknight]

What about you?... are you clinging to the teachings of the RCC to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit?

No, because they are not exclusive.  I believe the Holy Spirit keeps the Church from error in faith and morals as Christ promised it would.  I also do not believe that you can base Christianity on the Bible alone and the facts that I outlined in the actual texts and the compiling of the cannon by the Church in history is a good example of why.

Protestants must cling to Sola Sriptura because they know they no longer have an authoritative "Church".  You're a different breed of cat altogether though.  I'm still not sure how you decide that your interpretation of orthodox belief is correct and someone else, with no more or less authority than you, decides it is something different.  

The irony is that I can read texts that are not considered canonical, such as HH Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which is far older than either of the two main NT Biblical codexes, and the "Church" described is the same Catholic Church that I am a member of...

"Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of Bishops and Deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure."  Pope Clement I, ordained by St. Peter, Epistle to the Corinthians  AD 96.

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by the Apostle John.  AD 110.

"Give heed to the Bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs  that are submissive to the Bishop, to the Presbyters, and to the Deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God."

"If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the Bishop, he is ruined."  Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, baptized by the Apostle John.  AD 110.

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).  AD 150.  The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.

[Tantor]

What about you?... are you clinging to the teachings of the RCC to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit?

No, because they are not exclusive.  I believe the Holy Spirit keeps the Church from error in faith and morals as Christ promised it would.  I also do not believe that you can base Christianity on the Bible alone and the facts that I outlined in the actual texts and the compiling of the cannon by the Church in history is a good example of why.

Protestants must cling to Sola Sriptura because they know they no longer have an authoritative "Church".  You're a different breed of cat altogether though.  I'm still not sure how you decide that your interpretation of orthodox belief is correct and someone else, with no more or less authority than you, decides it is something different.  

The irony is that I can read texts that are not considered canonical, such as HH Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which is far older than either of the two main NT Biblical codexes, and the "Church" described is the same Catholic Church that I am a member of...

"Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of Bishops and Deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure."  Pope Clement I, ordained by St. Peter, Epistle to the Corinthians  AD 96.

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by the Apostle John.  AD 110.

"Give heed to the Bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs  that are submissive to the Bishop, to the Presbyters, and to the Deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God."

"If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the Bishop, he is ruined."  Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, baptized by the Apostle John.  AD 110.

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).  AD 150.  The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.

Thanks for proving my point.

Jesus never started a church... never intended to start what we call a church.

In essense, you still have faith in humankind.. in spite of the example portrayed in the scriptures.

[mclees8]

What about you?... are you clinging to the teachings of the RCC to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit?

No, because they are not exclusive.  I believe the Holy Spirit keeps the Church from error in faith and morals as Christ promised it would.  I also do not believe that you can base Christianity on the Bible alone and the facts that I outlined in the actual texts and the compiling of the cannon by the Church in history is a good example of why.

Protestants must cling to Sola Sriptura because they know they no longer have an authoritative "Church".  You're a different breed of cat altogether though.  I'm still not sure how you decide that your interpretation of orthodox belief is correct and someone else, with no more or less authority than you, decides it is something different.  

The irony is that I can read texts that are not considered canonical, such as HH Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, which is far older than either of the two main NT Biblical codexes, and the "Church" described is the same Catholic Church that I am a member of...

"Discipline and subordination are necessary as in an army and in the human body, while arrogance is absurd for man is nothing. The Apostles foresaw feuds, and provided for a succession of Bishops and Deacons; such, therefore cannot be removed at pleasure."  Pope Clement I, ordained by St. Peter, Epistle to the Corinthians  AD 96.

"See that you all follow the Bishop, as Christ does the Father, and the presbyterium as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as a command of God. Let no one do anything connected with the Church without the Bishop. Let that be considered a certain [βεβαια, "valid"] eucharist which is under the leadership of the Bishop, or one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as where Christ Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church."  St. Ignatius of Antioch, ordained by the Apostle John.  AD 110.

"Give heed to the Bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs  that are submissive to the Bishop, to the Presbyters, and to the Deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God! Labour together with one another; strive in company together; run together; suffer together; sleep together; and awake together, as the stewards, and associates, and servants of God."

"If he begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the Bishop, he is ruined."  Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, baptized by the Apostle John.  AD 110.

"For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Saviour was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1-20).  AD 150.  The descriptions of the Mass liturgy in Rome by Hippolytus (died c. 235) and Novatian (died c. 250) are similar to Justin's.

And Night can you not see how bishops centuries later can use these to the point of abuse of authority. such as inventing doctrines and giving themselves the authority to do so. giving your self absolute power in all matters of the church without question. Authority is good if it  knows its place. But to use authority for your own purpose and using letters like these to as some sort of proof of authority is shameful

God bless

[desertknight]

Yes, one must not use proof...what would any of those guys know about Christianity?  

[Tantor]

Yes, one must not use proof...what would any of those guys know about Christianity? 

He is saying that they are not proof of anything... but you are saying they are... and I agree with him.

[desertknight]

So a Christianity that is devoid of any Scripture that is not "authoritative", that we can trust was written by the Holy Ghost before the AD 300's, and then, only if it is in the original Greek, (NT), but only those few passages that existed before the Catholic church compiled the cannon.  One that states that in addition to having no confidence in things like Bibles in English, that further, no organised "Church" can be part of the picture, and of course, one in which we cannot trust those saints and martyrs for the faith because they have it all wrong as well.    

Well....OK, if you think that makes sense...

[Tantor]

So a Christianity that is devoid of any Scripture that is "authoritative", that we can trust was written by the Holy Ghost, and then, only if it is in the original Greek, (NT), but only those few passages that existed before the AD 300's.  One that states that in addition to having no confidence in things like Bibles in English, that further, no organised "Church" can be part of the picture, and of course, one in which we cannot trust those saints and martyrs for the faith because they have it all wrong as well.   

Well....OK, if you think that makes sense...

What did Jesus specifically promise?... in multiple places in scripture?

Of course we cannot trust humans.. why would you ever think in the first place that you could if you actually have ever read the bible?... has the Bible ever had a favorable view of human decisions?.. even the Apostles argued.. and at one point Paul actualy scolded Peter for bad behavior... that Peter you hold as infallible sure didn't act it.

So we do not trust men, we certainly do not trust instututions.. we trust what Jesus promised to give us... the Comforter.. the Holy Spirit.

I don't know about you, but I would trust cooberated accounts of Jesus' own words more then I would trust anything else.. doesnt that make sense?

As far as martyrs.. if you die for the wrong faith does it matter?.. again, you are putting more trust in the deeds of men then God.

[desertknight]

Yes, that sounds Biblical...Jesus so distrusted those "fallible" men that he went out and anointed twelve of them to act and speak in His name...

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, (men), you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."  1 Thessalonians 2:13.

"As the Father has sent me, so I send you.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."  John 20:21-23.

"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the One who sent me."  Luke 10:16.

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Matt. 18:18.

Of course, I guess we can't trust that is really authoritative Scripture though...

[Tantor]

Yes, that sounds Biblical...Jesus so distrusted those "fallible" men that he went out and anointed twelve of them to act and speak in His name...

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, (men), you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe."  1 Thessalonians 2:13.

"As the Father has sent me, so I send you.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."  John 20:21-23.

"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the One who sent me."  Luke 10:16.

"Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  Matt. 18:18.

Of course, I guess we can't trust that is really authoritative Scripture though...

But the infallible Holy Spirit inspired those words... those words are not of sinful men.

Beyond the originator of the words.. you end up with the 'purple monkey dishwasher' syndrome.. which is exactly what the RCC has done.

If you don't know what purple monkey dishwasher is.. look it up on you tube.

[desertknight]

But the infallible Holy Spirit inspired those words... those words are not of sinful men.

But you state, in your just previous post to this one, that you don't believe them.  You state, in contradiction to what those words claim, that Peter for example and any other mere human, you state clearly, cannot be trusted with the truth of the faith.  How is that?  Not to mention of course, that those passages are from English Bibles and most appear only once in Scripture.

If you don't know what purple monkey dishwasher is.. look it up on you tube.

And risk an incurable virus or getting inadvertently signed up for a lifetime supply of dyed, home delivered primates who do laundry?  Not chancing it.

[mclees8]

But the infallible Holy Spirit inspired those words... those words are not of sinful men.

But you state, in your just previous post to this one, that you don't believe them.  You state, in contradiction to what those words claim, that Peter for example and any other mere human, you state clearly, cannot be trusted with the truth of the faith.  How is that?  Not to mention of course, that those passages are from English Bibles and most appear only once in Scripture.

If you don't know what purple monkey dishwasher is.. look it up on you tube.

And risk an incurable virus or getting inadvertently signed up for a lifetime supply of dyed, home delivered primates who do laundry?  Not chancing it.

Surely we can trust the teachings of the apostles. They were the closest to Jesus. and yes they were of the Holy Spirit  Its a bunch of guys way down the line who like to abuse there position, that exploit the scriptures for their own gain: they are the ones we can't trust. 

God bless

[Tantor]

Exactly, Its pretty plain that from the 2nd bishop of Rome onward they kept injecting new doctrines into the teachings of the Apostles... forsaking the tradition that the original Apostles laid down for them to follow.

[desertknight]

Surely we can trust the teachings of the apostles. They were the closest to Jesus. and yes they were of the Holy Spirit

Exactly, Its pretty plain that from the 2nd bishop of Rome onward they kept injecting new doctrines into the teachings of the Apostles... forsaking the tradition that the original Apostles laid down for them to follow.

LoL.  You guys need to stick to one line of argument.  I'm getting whip-lash!  

Ummm...

Of course we cannot trust humans.. why would you ever think in the first place that you could if you actually have ever read the bible?... has the Bible ever had a favorable view of human decisions?.. even the Apostles argued.. and at one point Paul actualy scolded Peter for bad behavior... that Peter you hold as infallible sure didn't act it.

[Ryan2010]

Exactly, Its pretty plain that from the 2nd bishop of Rome onward they kept injecting new doctrines into the teachings of the Apostles... forsaking the tradition that the original Apostles laid down for them to follow.

I'm curious, why the 2nd bishop of Rome?  What things that that particular Bishop taught weren't in accordance with the Traditions/scripture?

Examples are helpful.  Also, we will have to look at Antioch, Egypt, and all the other regions where there were Bishops and see if they were saying the same kind of thing.  If they were then it's likely the second Bishop didn't invent it.  They didn't have phones back then and lived some distance apart.  So they got it from the first line of Bishops.  Who then get it from?  (who ordained the first overseers?)

Let the tracing begin... 

[Rob, PGK]

This is actually really funny read, to in a very sad way.

1st off, the premise of the thread to begin with is absurd, but I'm going to answer it anyway. NO. Papist's are not good debaters. However, from reading threads all over this website, neither are members of any other denomination.

2nd, straw man arguments are not arguments at all. People should quit using them.

3rd, don't come on this, or any other site, without an open mind. Nothing can enter a closed mind.

4th, and this is the big one, I have been all over this site. The one thing that I have found is that everyone seems to be very friendly with everyone else except for the Catholics and the 7th Day Adventists. The people in these forums seem to be very critical and judgmental towards the people of these beliefs. Very few want to learn about people of different faiths, they just want to bash them with the limited knowledge that they have of them. I am pretty sure that is not the attitude that a Christian should have. If you really believe that us Catholics are wrong and are going to hell for it, the way to changing our hearts and minds is not the way you are going about it. If, however, all you want to do is bash us, then mission accomplished. That's a pretty sad mission, but, hey, congratulations on your success. I'm sure Jesus is very proud of you.

[desertknight]

Nice post, Rob, and welcome brother Knight!  I'm here to try and explain some of the misconceptions of the Catholic faith to those Christians outside of it and try my best to give orthodox answers to questions.  I enjoy learning about what others believe and have found that most are respectful.  It certainly does, (occasionally), get heated and you will find it normally comes from the same folks.      I'm not very good at debate, I try to be respectful, but I will not continence behaviour that is blasphemous and attacks Christ our King, His Blessed Mother or Holy Mother Church, but I hope people see that I am honest in what I say.  Is less expected of any knight?  Welcome again!

 

[zoonance]

This is actually really funny read, to in a very sad way.

1st off, the premise of the thread to begin with is absurd, but I'm going to answer it anyway. NO. Papist's are not good debaters. However, from reading threads all over this website, neither are members of any other denomination.

2nd, straw man arguments are not arguments at all. People should quit using them.

3rd, don't come on this, or any other site, without an open mind. Nothing can enter a closed mind.

4th, and this is the big one, I have been all over this site. The one thing that I have found is that everyone seems to be very friendly with everyone else except for the Catholics and the 7th Day Adventists. The people in these forums seem to be very critical and judgmental towards the people of these beliefs. Very few want to learn about people of different faiths, they just want to bash them with the limited knowledge that they have of them. I am pretty sure that is not the attitude that a Christian should have. If you really believe that us Catholics are wrong and are going to hell for it, the way to changing our hearts and minds is not the way you are going about it. If, however, all you want to do is bash us, then mission accomplished. That's a pretty sad mission, but, hey, congratulations on your success. I'm sure Jesus is very proud of you.
[/quote


Fortunately, we don't all have a condemning attitude.  However, passion for the "truth" is admirable.