Why don’t you consider my point instead of lecturing me on the form my argumentation? I made an extemporaneous comment while packing for a trip. Be sure I am fully capable of writing a more scholarly critical analysis of the Jesus found in the Roman system. Perhaps I will take the time to do just that when I get back to Memphis, but until then I stand by my thesis-—Rome’s Jesus is not The Lord Jesus Christ of Scripture. Rome has another Jesus, another spirit, another gospel.
In the end it matters not one whit what I say or believe and it doesn’t what you say or believe. All that will matter at the Judgment is the truth. The only source of truth worth staking your eternal destiny on is the truth of Scripture. We had both better get our beliefs for God’s Word, not from men.
"Your belief, "X" is wrong."
But I don't believe "X".
"My scholarly analysis shows that you believe "X", and it's wrong.
You can see that, can't you? Your "scholarly analysis," whatever it is, must be off if it doesn't yield an interpretation of Catholicism which can be recognized by Catholics.
One good rule for this type of discussion is that you must be able to restate the belief of other person in such form that they can say, "Yes, that's it, that's what I believe as a Catholic."
Otherwise we get stuck in sheer absurdity, as happens so often on these forums:
"You worship Mary, and it's wrong."
But I don't worship Mary.
"Yes, you do."
No, I don't.
"Yes, you do."
No, I don't.
"Yes, you do, and it's wrong."