Just trying to raise the level of discussion here on the RF. Catholics claim the Bible is allegory with a lot of inconsistencies. Protestants did away with that and claim the literal meaning is sufficient. The New Church claims the entire Word is significative beginning to end - Genesis to Revelation and is totally consistent; water means truth or in it’s opposite sense, falsity.
Good luck there.
Before we begin discussing whether what you claim about Catholics v Protestant views of the Bible, we should settle the question of why Protestants don’t accept the entire Bible but only a subset.
If Luther had sufficient authority that a group of people would accept his throwing out portions of the Old Testament, why haven’t they also thrown out the portions of the New Testament he didn’t think should be there?
Either the Catholic Church has the authority to define the canon of the New Testament in spite of what Luther thought, they have the authority to define the canon of the Old Testament as well.
So, before getting into the little quiz you propose, how about we discuss just why it is that so many people refuse to accept the entire Bible rather than the Luther subset of the Old Testament and the complete Catholic New Testament?
A word of advise: Don't go prattling on about what other folks claim, particularly when you don't get it right. It just makes you look foolish.
How condescending of you.
Catholics claim the Bible is allegory with a lot of inconsistencies.
Really? Where do you see them do that?
Protestants did away with that and claim the literal meaning is sufficient.
Really? Where did you see them do that?
The New Church claims the entire Word is significative beginning to end - Genesis to Revelation and is totally consistent; water means truth or in it’s opposite sense, falsity.
You were actually doing OK with this sentence until you got to the water part. Then you lost all coherence.
you of course mean the Swedenborgians