Replies

You wrote:

“This is not diatribe? (Definition: A speech or discussion bitterly and violently directed against some person or thing. Synonyms: Denunciation, Invective, Tirade) I will let the readers decide.”

Nope, not a diatribe. I posted a sentence - that’s the example you used. It was not a speech. It was not bitter or violent. It was a statement of simple historical truth: “Actually Luther did not respond to a need. Luther deliberately distorted scripture to agree with his theology. His Bible was propaganda.”

All of that is absolutely true, undeniable, and irrefutable. And none of it is a speech, or bitter, or violent. Thus, according to even the definition you used, it was not a diatribe.

“I made no presentation.”

You posted nothing? What you posted was what you were presenting.

“I asked reasonable questions to which you somewhat gave answer, and then pointed out that you were changing the subject - which indeed you did, your denial notwithstanding!”

Your questions had little or nothing to do with the subject at hand, and if I changed the subject, you did nothing less than that too so why would you care about changing the subject?

“It is interesting to note your statement: “I need to present no evidence to correct it since the correction itself shows the (sic: that) your presentation was lacking.” Again, I made no presentation.”

If you presented nothing, then you posted nothing. But you did post something, so you did present something.

“The rest of what you pontificate here, again, I leave to the readers to evaluate the worth thereof.”

Yes, let them evaluate, by all means. Let them see how you’ve apparently read no books whatsoever on the subject, no reputable articles at all.

“Your point stands? I see. Your conception of the Word of God given to men through the apostles and prophets is akin to the Calvinist conception of how Jesus Christ gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, that is, ultimately there is no presence of Jesus Christ, God and Man, in the Sacrament.”

Your comment here makes no sense - which is to be expected.

“It is all symbolic, His plain and clear words being dismissed as nonsense by our superior understanding and wisdom.”

You’re completely wrong, of course, but why would a Protestant let facts get in the way of attacking a Catholic?

“By an analogous logic the effort that went into the Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament, for example, was unnecessary and wasted.”

Wasted, no. But unnecessary? Yes, for the faith. No Christian has ever been saved - and few or any people even brought to a belief in Christ most likely - by Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament. Christianity did not begin with the New Testament being written and it does not hinge upon the production of any 19th or 20th or 21st century edition of the Greek text or lexicon or commentary of the New Testament.

I have nothing against detailed academic work. I have produced such work myself - including detailed translation work. The Benedictines who produced a new Vulgate in the 20th century sifted through so many mss. that their full edition of the Vulgate was something like 1,200 volumes long. And that product, like every other one you listed - Hort-Westcott, Nestle-Aland, and UBS Greek texts of the New Testament - never died on the cross for anyone, never saved anyone, and most likely never even inspired anyone to hold to faith in Christ if he lacked that faith previously. That’s just a fact. Does that bother you? The truth of this doesn’t bother me in the least. Do facts bother you? Was all that effort wasted? No, it served its purpose. Was it necessary? No, not for the faith. Men were saved BEFORE it was produced and men will be saved AFTER and none of them will be saved by it. No academic work ever died on the cross for your sins. No academic work was sent by God to teach, or baptize, or minister to men.

“You appear to be saying that God gave His Word only symbolically,”

That is not only not what I said, it also is not what I appear to have said. Your approach, however, was already expected. It follows a certain pattern used by many Protestants in arguments over historical topics. First, the Protestant anti-Catholic attempts to engage in debate regarding a particular historical topic. It very quickly doesn’t go his way because he has not actually read any books or reputable articles on the subject. Once his sciolism is exposed, he insists his points or questions - which almost always have nothing to do with any substantive argument pertaining to the topic - are really worthwhile somehow anyway. When that fails, which is always the case, the Protestant anti-Catholic will always either resort to, 1) simply making things up out of thin air - things which are, in fact, logically impossible - while claiming all along those things are based squarely on the Catholic’s beliefs, posts, comments, etc., and, or 2) make a mocking attack against the Catholic (taking his ball and crying all the way home, so to speak) before making a parting shot which strongly implies either that the Protestant is a better person, or that everyone should believe him over the Catholic for whatever reason even though he completely failed to make a reasonable and sourced argument of any relevance. This is generally how it goes, again, and again, and again.

“to whit: Since the autographs are not extant the concrete words of God never quite attained reality.”

False. That is an inference not made or intended by this author but apparently invented out of whole cloth by you.

“That is almost Gnostic in its ultimate unreality. On the other hand, Christians have had to deal with Gnosticism in its many manifestations for a very long time. It makes me wonder a little about the christological assumptions under which you labor.”

Oh, and there we go. The Protestant anti-Catholic, apparently unable to actually make an argument against what I actually wrote - about Luther and Bible translations in the Middle Ages - now has to imply I hold “christological assumptions” which are some how wrong. As someone I know once said, if this were a racist incident, and the Protestant anti-Catholic were the racist, this is when he would call me “boy” and accuse me of whistling at his wife.

“So, you are truth driven? Was this insight given you from heaven (do you have an autograph of the certification you received?) or did you just conclude it on the basis of your own insight?”

Wow. I said the Protestant anti-Catholic resorts to mocking, and there it is. It’s always this way. This is all they know.

“It is quite convenient in a discussion to assume the position not only of a participant, but also of the referee and the judge. I guess you are more formidable a personage than I could have imagined. So, I guess we are all forced - and I mean forced! - to agree that you have succeeded in all respects. Again, I will let the readers draw their own conclusions.”

And again, I was right. This went as it always seems to go when a Protestant anti-Catholic enters the fray without, apparently, having actually done any research on the subject at hand. Sciolism, making things up out of thin air, false claims and accusations, mocking the Catholic for things he actually does not do, believe, nor hold, and then the Protestant anti-Catholic takes his ball and cries all the way home.