Replies

No Apostle ever said there was anything in the Septuagint that shouldn't be there and the Bereans were praised for searching the Scriptures, Scriptures that for the Greek Bereans were without a doubt the Greek Septuagint. It's laughable to claim anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees who survived the destruction of Jerusalem and therefore could not possibly have had any legitimate authority from the then dead Jewish priesthood have more authority than Jesus Christ. The only authority this theoretical group had was whatever they granted their themselves.

What are you talking about?
Who's saying anything about the Septuagint?

If you believe that, so be it. What logically follows is that the Holy Spirit is imperfect and therefore cannot be a part of the Trinity.

I don't follow: I've not said a thing regarding the Septuagint, nor do I disbelieve the [existence of the] Holy Spirit, and your connection of these seems to be very tenuous.

Do as you see fit but you when you hear Jesus Christ say, "I never knew you", you won't be able to plead ignorance since neither Christ or the Apostles ever told anyone to throw out a portion of His Holy Word.

Are you saying that God cannot use a single book, or a single passage, to bring someone to himself?
Scripture itself seems to illustrate the contrary with the story recounted in Acts 8 of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isiah.

All attempts to change the subject aside, what I said is very clear.

If you only accept a subset of the Old Testament because you assert that those portions you throw in the garbage are not inspired by God, you are denying the power and perfection of the Holy Spirit and in doing so elevating yourself above the Holy Spirit. PERIOD.

What Protestantism throws out is the question, not whether or not God can use the subset they retain in spite of their obstinate belief in Self and Self Alone. The false doctrines such folks accept directly contradict what is clearly spelled out in Scripture and has been there since before Christ. That's exactly the reason why Christ makes a point of saying that many will say, "Lord, Lord" and be told, "I never knew you".

We are to follow Christ, not what Self and Self Alone sees fit to accept. Following false doctrine is not following Christ, especially when that includes railing against and preaching against what is clearly spelled out in Scripture.

The whole Bible is available and anyone who honestly prays for help from the Lord when they read the portions Protestants throw out will have the contradictions between what they believe and what Scripture says jump right out at them.

Play all the games you like, I won't participate. Those who earnestly and prayerfully read the Scriptures see the error of their ways, I've seen it happen a dozen times.

What are you talking about?
Who's saying anything about the Septuagint?

(Hint: #15)

Pay attention now; as I only going to say this once.

(Unless this thread gets REALLY long)

Logical fallacies hide the truth, so pointing them out is very useful.

1. Ad Hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument.
Example: You are so stupid your argument couldn't possibly be true.
Example: I figured that you couldn't possibly get it right, so I ignored your comment.

2. Appeal to Force - Telling the hearer that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument.
Example: If you don't want to get beaten up, you will agree with what I say.
Example: Convert or die.

3. Appeal to Pity - Urging the hearer to accept the argument based upon an appeal to emotions, sympathy, etc.
Example: You owe me big time because I really stuck my neck out for you.
Example: Oh come on, I've been sick. That's why I missed the deadline.

4. Appeal to the Popular - Urging the hearer to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.
Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.
Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

5. Appeal to Tradition - Trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.
Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.
Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.

6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.
Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.
Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple: I will vouch for him.

7. Cause and Effect - Assuming that the effect is related to a cause because the events occur together.
Example: When the rooster crows, the sun rises. Therefore, the rooster causes the sun to rise.
Example: When the fuel light goes on in my car, I soon run out of gas. Therefore, the fuel light causes my car to run out of gas.

8. Circular Argument - See Begging the Question
Fallacy of Division - Assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts.
Example: That car is blue. Therefore, its engine is blue.
Example: Your family is weird. That means that you are weird too.

9. Fallacy of Equivocation - Using the same term in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings.
Example: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Therefore, a bird is worth more than President Bush.
Example: Evolution states that one species can change into another. We see that cars have evolved into different styles. Therefore, since evolution is a fact in cars, it is true in species.

10. False Dilemma - Giving two choices when in actuality there could be more choices possible.
Example: You either did knock the glass over or you did not. Which is it? (Someone else could have knocked the glass over)
Example: Do you still beat your wife?

11. Genetic Fallacy - Attempting to endorse or disqualify a claim because of the origin or irrelevant history of the claim.
Example: The Nazi regime developed the Volkswagen Beetle. Therefore, you should not buy a VW Beetle because of who started it.
Example: Frank just got out of jail last year; since it was his idea to start the hardware store, I can't trust him.

12. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone whom is disliked by another.
Example: Hitler liked dogs. Therefore dogs are bad.
Example: Your friend is a thief. Therefore, I cannot trust you.

13. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion.
Example: We know why it rained today: because I washed my car.
Example: I don't care what you say. We don't need any more bookshelves. As long as the carpet is clean, we are fine.

14. Poisoning the Well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument.
Example: Frank is pompous, arrogant, and thinks he knows everything. So, let's hear what Frank has to say about the subject.
Example: Don't listen to him because he is a loser.

15. Red Herring - Introducing a topic not related to the subject at hand.
Example: I know your car isn't working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you'd not be having problems.
Example: I know I forgot to deposit the check into the bank yesterday. But, nothing I do pleases you.

16. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: Those rules don't apply to me since I am older than you.

17. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument about a weaker representation of the truth and attacking it.
Example: The government doesn't take care of the poor because it doesn't have a tax specifically to support the poor.
Example: We know that evolution is false because we did not evolve from monkeys.

18. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. Attributing facts of one kind are attributed to another kind. Attributing to one category that which can only be properly attributed to another.

Example: Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
Example: Saying logic is transcendental is like saying cars would exist if matter didn't.

Despite being many times corrected as in threads linked here, along with the main one , you are dealing with a poster who is one of the RCs whose resortion to rants (followed by one of two pictures) has rendered him to be one you cannot have an objective intelligent exchange with, and simply continues to posts the same fallacies after being refuted.

Rather than Protestantism rendering Holy Spirit to be imperfect based upon the premise that the Holy Spirit did not protect Scripture from the inclusion of error, He can be seen doing just that, as there simply was no infallible indisputable canon until after Luther's death, and the fact is that scholarly dispute about books continued down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Thus by the time the enlarged RC canon was made binding, the Prot. Bible with its ancient OT canon had been printed in the common tongue.

Yet an infallible magisterium was never necessary to recognize and est. writings as being of God, nor does even being the instrument and steward of Scripture mean such magisterium is infallible.

In addition, the Vulgate was not uniform in all its editions and contained errors, and Trent did not specify which edition was to be used, and also was corrected more than once, Trent ordering one itself with the fewest possible faults, leading to the disastrous Vulgata Sixtina , which may have gotten the pope killed, and a coverup of his erroneous work ensued. And Rome's present Bibles have their own Catholic critics.

Meanwhile, to be consistent with himself, Rashputin can charge the EOs with rendering Holy Spirit to be imperfect since the canon generally held by EOs is larger than that of Rome.

The idea that Luther with his non-binding canon removed books from an infallible indisputable canon is simply a fabrication RCs love to parrot, as is the idea that we follow him as a pope. And which refutation Rashputin has been shown, but would not look at.

Which includes arguments regarding the Septuagint, for as has been substantiated, the evidence is contrary to the LXX of the time of Christ containing the apocrypha, among other problems with the LXX argument.

And the Lord enjoined obedience to the scribes and Pharisees, (Mt. 23:2) except where they deviated from Scripture, and never corrected them for rejecting the apocrypha, while Lk. 24:44 best indicates conformity to the tripartite 22 book (=39) canon, and impugns the argument for the Lord's sanction of the apocrypha.

And as also has been said, the logic behind rejecting the Scribes and Pharisees, who sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) due to their rejection of the apocrypha as Scripture, also means we should reject all they held. And yet, as said, it is actually Rome that is most like the Pharisees, with the magisterium being supreme.

..the Pharisees introduced rites in the Temple which originated in popular custom and were without foundation in the Law. Such was the water-procession of the people, on the night of Sukkot, from the Pool of Siloam, ending with the libation of water in the morning and the final beating of the willow-trees upon the altar at the close of the feast. .. For the decision of their Scribes,... they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). ...They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). ..Nothing could have been more loathsome to the genuine Pharisee than Hypocrisy....It is such types of Pharisees that Jesus had in view when hurling his scathing words of condemnation against the Pharisees, whom he denounced as "hypocrites," calling them "offspring of vipers"...Exactly so are hypocrites censured in the Midrash..— http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees