Posted on 09/06/2016 11:16:34 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan
What was the role of the Catholic Church in building Western Civilization? While the typical mainstream narrative depicts the church as hostile to science and philosophy, it appears that once again the truth about history has been stolen from us. Dr. Duke Pesta joins Stefan Molyneux to discuss the unspoken truth about the impact of the Catholic church on scientific inquiry, philosophy and Western Civilization overall.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtu.be ...
Because I want to see if you can articulate and refute Luther's scriptural basis for the Doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.
“Oh ok. Well then you’re back to not having answered the question” Kitchen Sink, and it still doesn’t matter since it proves nothing. “Which, in light of this Epiphany...” Still kitchen sink. “..I will rephrase as:” It doesn’t matter how your rephrase it – it’s still kitchen sink. “(And, just in case you were wondering, #FFFFF is still <> #000000).” And still it’s kitchen sink proving nothing that you originally claimed. “Because I want to see if you can articulate and refute Luther’s scriptural basis for the Doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.” Again, why not just teach the orthodox Christian doctrine instead?
"2) No one from “Rome” had any influence or control over 7th century Arabia."
---vladimir998
Evidently there was a Christian influence in Arabia prior to that time:
"1. Epihannius associated the Arabs with heresy"
and somebody (you either don't know or won't say who) had influence enough to persecute those heretics:
"However, a number of minority [Arab] Christian sects were persecuted as heretic under Roman and Byzantine rules."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Arab_Christians
If you mean the doctrine the bride of Christ had before its Babylonian Captivity - sure why not!
“If you mean the doctrine the bride of Christ had before its Babylonian Captivity - sure why not!” More like “Why?”. “Evidently there was a Christian influence in Arabia prior to that time.” Kitchen Sink, that doesn’t help any of your earlier claims. “and somebody (you either don’t know or won’t say who) had influence enough to persecute those heretics.” No one who helps your earlier claims, Kitchen Sink. Wrong time, wrong place.
"Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?"
Khadija who?
“Khadija who?”
Kitchen sink. Doesn’t help your original claims.
I’d have to say that, no, those who denigrate the concept of sola Scriptura either have no idea what it is or, if they do - since it has been explained repeatedly - they won’t admit it and prefer to continue to lie about it. All while calling everyone ELSE the liars!
Isn't that a Saul Alinsky technique?
Po-TATE-o, po-ta-to. You can’t see what you won’t see. Semantical games are hardly proof. Why refuse to post a link if you think something was omitted? Anyone - any OBJECTIVE person, that is - can see how pitiful your arguments are. Indulgences WERE sold, the Pope OKAYED and KNEW it and counted on it and nothing was done formally until Trent decades afterward to change it. Truth, if you will.
Amen. The whole idea of Purgatory and indulgences developed from their perverted and corrupted gospel. No Apostles ever declared such. In fact, as you have shown, they taught the OPPOSITE. Jesus is our place of cleansing.
Really? That is about the most flawed logic I've seen since I last watched CNN.
Jews worship Yaweh... yet not properly. Mohammedans do not worship Yaweh. At all. They worship a false god.
So your attempt was not such a nice try. Sorry.
Still no cigar.
Hoss
“Po-TATE-o, po-ta-to.”
Same word spelled differently. Now see this:
Contribution. Sale. - Two different words with two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. You’re the one who only sees what he wants to.
“Semantical games are hardly proof.”
On a Monday night you get struck by a lightning bug. On a Tuesday night you get struck by lightning. On which night were you hit by a massive bolt of electricity? It’s only a three letter difference but it makes all the difference in the world. That’s not a “semantical game”. That’s the difference between the TRUTH and your FALSEHOOD.
“Why refuse to post a link if you think something was omitted?”
Because it’s more entertaining to watch you do what you do. I already know that I have posted tens of thousands of links here at FR that the average anti-Catholic can’t possibly be actually checking out.
“Anyone - any OBJECTIVE person, that is - can see how pitiful your arguments are.”
No, any objective person will see the repeated word CONTRIBUTION and see that SALE never once appears about indulgences in the document I got you to post. NOT EVEN ONCE.
“Indulgences WERE sold,”
Sadly they were.
“the Pope OKAYED”
Nope. Never once. It’s simple. Show even one document where Pope Leo X okayed the sale of indulgences. He never did so. Not even once. And let’s face it: You’ve looked for such a document, right? I did for years because I just couldn’t believe that something that was so universally believed by every middle school and high school religion teacher I had ever met and every anti-Catholic, and many Catholics was, in fact, not true. But at the same time I discovered that essentially no one in the late Middle Ages believed the earth was flat even though so many old school books and teachers said so: http://tinyurl.com/jh6jbcn
Now even the controllers of information in our society are getting in on it: http://tinyurl.com/od5rcnt
“and KNEW it and counted on it and nothing was done formally until Trent decades afterward to change it. Truth, if you will.”
The truth is, no matter how bad Leo X was, he never sold indulgences nor okayed their sale anymore than people thought Columbus would sale off the edge of the (supposedly) flat earth. Those are just the facts.
“Really? That is about the most flawed logic I’ve seen since I last watched CNN.”
Okay, let’s see.
“Jews worship Yaweh...”
Well, actually Yahweh - and who is He? He is the God of Abraham. And who is it that Muslims profess to worship? The God of Abraham.
“So your attempt was not such a nice try. Sorry. Still no cigar.”
And here’s the issue. Muslims openly deny the Trinity in the Qur’an. Jews deny the Trinity but perhaps in a different way since the denial never explicitly shows up in the Hebrews scriptures, of course. But both deny that there are three Divine Persons in one God. Both are, on that score, wrong. Yet Jews, Christians and Muslims all profess to believe in the God of Abraham. Which one REALLY does?
If God is a Trinity of Divine Persons, then only Christians can both profess and truly believe in God properly. There’s no other possibility.
"Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?"
That's a quote from the Islamic Hadith.
Was cousin Waraqa the only Catholic in the family of Khadija -- Muhamad's first wife?
"Islam did not rise except through Ali's sword and Khadijah's wealth,"
Hmmm.
The real meaning of sola Scriptura, as we have always known, is that God's word is the authority and hierarchies, tribunals, magisteriums, clergy or any other human institution is to be in submission to it, not the other way around. Because Scripture is the sole Divinely-inspired resource we have - of which God ensured was protected and preserved - and the source of our rule of faith, no binding doctrines upon the conscience of believers can be defined unless they have Scripture as their basis. The early Christian leaders knew and believed this.
Kitchen sink. Doesn’t do anything to prove your original claims, Kitchen Sink.
It’s amazing how obstinate you can be. Pope Leo X APPROVED the sale of indulgences in order to finance bishoprics, churches, St. Peter’s Basilica and his own luxurious lifestyle - he was a Medici, after all. Just because he allowed the granting of them for other considerations besides money, hardly means he NEVER (as you keep insisting) okayed their sale. I already gave you documentation that proves it. You apparently have a mental block on this for some reason (I know what it is).
You are playing a semantics game and everyone else sees that. It’s actually comical to what lengths you are taking this.
Where are the Word’s instructions for indulgences and the persecution of heresy articulated in the New Testament?
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.