Posted on 11/26/2001 2:49:05 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Rhetorical Questions to myself and other Catholic Apologists here:
After reading numerous threads of what I term the "Freeper Wars," I'm going to state an assumption (which might well be terribly wrong) then ask a few rhetorical questions.
If a "Freeper Wars" thread (you know the type, starts out as a thread of interest to Catholic freepers, then turns into the standard anti-Catholic posts with attempts to defend the faith by the regular Catholic Apologists here) is several days old and several hundred posts long, the "undecided" will be few.
Your apologetics are not intended to convert those whose hearts and minds are closed (although, by the Grace of God it does indeed happen). They are intended to illuminate the intellect and soul of those still open to Truth, and still willing to learn. I doubt that many of those make it to that point in threads here, i.e., when threads are 200 to 300 posts or longer, several days old, etc.
Therefore, your time is being spent only on those you are directly responding to, when they do their own self search.
Is that an effective use of your time and talent? Or would prayer, not words, be more effective at this point? Are we trying to win souls, or points of debate?
Just a few thoughts I ask myself constantly on these types of threads, i.e., where is my time better spent, reading to my kids and spending time with my spouse, or trying to convert those late on a thread whose minds and hearts are hardened? Are there enough lurkers late in a thread to make it worth the amount of time and intense effort to defend the faith that these threads usually entail late in their usual progression?
Show me these things in the Bible, none of your little friends seem to be able to.
The Catholic Church put together the Bible, a few hundred years after Christ. How did the Church, and Chrisitanity, exist without Holy Scripture. Oh yeah, Sacred Tradition. Ever wonder why no where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority we are to abide by? Duh!!!
2488. "The right to the communication of the TRUTH is NOT unconditional. Everyone must conform his life to the Gospel precept of fraternal love. This requires us in concrete situations to judge whether or NOT it is appropriate to reveal the TRUTH to someone who asks for it. "
2489. "Charity and respect for the TRUTH should dictate the response to every request for information or communication. The good and safety of others, respect for privacy, and the common good are sufficient reasons for being silent about what ought NOT be known or for making use of a discreet language. The duty to avoid scandal often commands strict discretion. No one is bound to reveal the TRUTH to someone who does NOT have the right to know it.
2510. "The golden rule helps one discern, in concrete situations, whether or NOT it would be appropriate to reveal the TRUTH to someone who asks for it."
But Jesus said:
MATTHEW 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
How?
Did the Lord tell someone which books He wanted excluded and which He wanted included? If so, who, and when? And what guarantee do we have that the "messenger" who made His Will in this regard known, was accurately representing what God wanted?
I believe so yes. I think it will ever happen thus, proud2bRC. The nature of the thing we are defending demands it. I was very heartened by those "conversion" posts you put up, though.
Hmmm...makes me think, perhaps we need to put together a sort of Pax Christi
Pax Christi
First of all, I should point out that the Catholic position is now and always has been that the Bible is an infallible rule of faith, but not the *sole* infallible rule of faith. You are demanding to see it in the Bible as if that would settle the issue, when in fact, as many of people have pointed out here, then we have to deal with the question of interpretation.
As a case in point, I am going to provide you with some Scriptural evidence for the passing on of oral tradition among the apostles. And you will promptly disagree with "my" interpretation and we will seemingly reach an impasse--thereby proving why the Church cannot rely on personal interpretation.
2 Thess 15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Tim 13-14: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us."
2 Tim 2: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."
-a little friend
Yes, some the few Bible verses catholics throw (out of context). To buy the catholic misuse of these verses one would have to believe that the Apostles were inspired by God to write one thing and preached something entirely different.
It doesn't seem to matter that God condemned idolatry in both the Old and New Testaments rome has suckered you people into praying to idols. It doesn't matter that Jesus clearly stated:
JOHN 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
rome has you looking for Salvation in rituals.
It doesn't matter that God told us in the Holy Bible:
I TIMOTHY 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I TIMOTHY 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
rome has you praying to imperfect humans as mediator between God and you.
The more you post, the more you show your ignorance and stupidity.
Not at all. One would just have to believe that the writings and the oral traditions both draw from the same source--the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Truth can never contradict itself.
The apostles wrote and preached the same exact things--the difficulty you are having is that you are attempting to understand what they wrote outside of the context of what they taught. That's why it seems contradictory to you.
But I really wanted you to answer my other question, post 229--how do we get from God deciding the canon, to man knowing what that canon is and putting it together?
Well, then you need to explain why your cult teaches you to pray to idols, because there is NOTHING in the Bible about Jesus or any Apostle "venerating images" or teaching anyone lese to do so. There is NOTHING in the Bible about Mary being anything other than a normal sinful human being like all the rest of us, who needs a savior.
Writing the Books of the New Testament
Date and author. By about A.D. 100, all 27 books of the New Testament had been written, thus meeting the need for a permanent record of the gospel. Either Apostles or men who had an extremely close relationship to an Apostle wrote the books of the New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit fills all believers, but the Apostles received unique power to carry out their assignment from Jesus. The Holy Spirit taught them all things, and caused them to remember all that Jesus had taught them (John 16:12-15). Thus, books that measured up as works of the Apostles were regarded as the very Word of God, for they established a permanent connection between Christians of all ages and the Apostles, setting a standard for Christian belief and practice. Many writings of men who lived during the time of the Apostles contain references or quotations from books of the New Testament. The Bible: God's Inspired, Inerrant Word
By saying "measured up" and "were regarded", you are implying that *someone* was doing the measuring! My question was *who* did the measuring?
These excerpts are from the website you cited:
#1: (William Evans)
The first and most important work of the apostles was to deliver a personal testimony to the chief facts of the Gospel history (Mark 16:15; Acts 1:21,22). Their teaching was at first oral, and it was no part of their intention to create a permanent literature. A cycle of selected representative facts sufficed to form the groundwork of their oral Gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-10).
#2: (Leland Haines)
There are basically two different forms of communication, oral and written. The apostles used both in exercising their "power of attorney" to present Christ's Word. The oral form is by far the earliest form used and dates back to the their first commission to "preach" (Matt. 10, Mark 3:13-19, Luke 6:12-16). Apostolic preaching was for many years the only form used and held a place of high importance throughout the Apostolic era. Since this such an important form of communication, authorized by Christ for use by the apostles, we should understand it and be acquainted with the New Testament concept of it.
In the New Testament there are many references to this oral form. Luke wrote that his writings "were delivered . . . unto us (Luke and his contemporaries) which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:1-4). Jude also wrote that when he was eager 'to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Paul wrote, "stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15).
Even these authors you cite acknowledge that, for at least the first few decades in Church history, the Word was passed down orally. They go on to say that the oral tradition suddenly dropped out of existence after the New Testament was codified--but where they get their evidence for such a categorical statement, I have no idea. Rather, the oral teaching continued along *with* the written Scripture and continues to this day--never, of course, contradicting anything Scriptural because they both come from the same source.
Also, I point out that in every case, the authors of those articles note that it was the *Church* (i.e. apostles, their pupils, the whole community of believers) who *decided* ultimately which books went in the canon, which is what you said above. And that's totally logical. But what the authors have perhaps not considered is what implication that has for the power of the visible Church to *make* these kinds of categorical declarations.
What kind of person/persons in the early Church had the authority to make these declarations? Especially considering the Apostles were dead by then?
Well then, show me where Jesus or any of the Apostles ever "venerated images" ore taught anyone else to do so.
Also, I point out that in every case, the authors of those articles note that it was the *Church* (i.e. apostles, their pupils, the whole community of believers) who *decided* ultimately which books went in the canon, which is what you said above. And that's totally logical. But what the authors have perhaps not considered is what implication that has for the power of the visible Church to *make* these kinds of categorical declarations.
The Canon of the New Testament was established before cathlolicsim was created by emporer constantine melding roman pagans with "christians" who were willing to betray the Gosple in order to save their own lives in 352 A.D. You are trying the worn out and boring catholic habit of claiming all authority over the Bible and Christianity by ignoring the fact that many of your cults' major dogmas are anti-Christian.
How is it that romes' Mary goddess that you people pray to is only mentioned about 4 times and is never mentioned again after Acts 1:28 is so central to your cult instead of Jesus?
How is it that your cult makes "objects of worship" by gold plating and mounting jewels on the bones of dead people, yet there is no mention of the practice in the New Testament and in the Old Testament handling the dead makes on unclean?
Read the Bible you'll learn how far from God rome is.
Once again I ask... established by whom?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.