Replies

[paladinan]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "starting in ourselves"; can you clarify/unpack that? And again: do you mean "Scripture"? And when referring to Scripture, do you mean the 66-book Protestant Bible?

[metmom]
If you impugn the 66 books of the *Protestant* Bible, you also impugn the very same books of the *Catholic* Bible.

(?!?) Where on earth do you get THAT?

I impugn the FACT that the Protestant Bible is fragmentary and incomplete (and that many Bibles used by Protestants, such as the KJV, are riddled with errors--which Protestants and Catholics both admit, but that's an additional point), NOT that it contains the books that it DOES! Isn't that clear? I would also "impugn" a car for having no wheels; but it would be just as illogical for you to see me do that and reply, "If you impugn that car, then you impugn all its parts... and parts which YOUR car has, I'd add!" A summary of my reply, at this point, is: are you kidding?

Is that a bit more clear? I do not fault the Protestant Bible for containing the 66 books (or more accurately, 64 + fragments of Esther and Daniel) that it has; I fault it for NOT containing the other seven (and fragments of the two others)! I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain that; you'll have to tell me what you still don't understand about that, so that I can try again, if necessary...

You cannot cast doubt on the veracity of the word without it affecting ALL versions of Scripture.

Who's "casting doubt on the veracity" of Scripture? I'm not.

That is also a dangerous row to hoe. It's the first tactic that the enemy used with Adam and Eve, and it's the same one that he used against Jesus when he tempted HIM in the wilderness.

(*sigh*) And here we go, again. What is it with some anti-Catholics, who--in the middle of an otherwise earnest discussion about the substance--can't resist the urge to draw allusions between their opponent and Satan? Why do you feel the "itch" to inject illogical and inflammatory drama into what should be a discussion of the facts?

Is that a bit more clear? I do not fault the Protestant Bible for containing the 66 books (or more accurately, 64 + fragments of Esther and Daniel) that it has; I fault it for NOT containing the other seven (and fragments of the two others)! I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain that; you'll have to tell me what you still don't understand about that, so that I can try again, if necessary...

Oh but you are shining a light on the fundamental weakness of the diverse Protestant, Evangelical, and Fundamentalist positions, which will make them very uncomfortable. For centuries they relied on the Authorized Version (King James authorized it) based on some manuscripts commonly called the Textus Receptus as the "Word of God." Yet the modernists have abandoned the KJV and denied it really is the inerrant "Word of God." They do not share a common platform and definition other than opposing the tradition of the holy catholic apostolic church with the traditions of rebellious men, and thus their positions deteriorate with subsequent rebellions.