Free Republic

The Catholic Caucus would do well in disengaging from it.

I am mostly just a lowly lurker and post only on occasion. However, I have to agree that a lot of anti-Catholicism is allowed to stand in this forum, which is the perfect right of the forum's owner.

I avoid the Never Ending Story thread because of the anti-Catholics who frequent there and the rhetoric the moderators allow. However, after al_c posted about the moderator doing some clean-up work I did a check. Yes, a poster was reprimanded about a single tag line. But many of the posts there over the last week are just plain nasty. And that thread is just one example.

Yes, it is the privilege of the forum owner, and his right, to allow this type of thing to go on. But that does not mean we must participate. I have had enough and I am taking your advice, Polycarp. I won't be back.

Moderator and Jim Robinson - please delete my account.

Erasmus was well-acquainted with a far larger number of manuscripts of the ancient Greek church (received text, majority text, traditional text, whichever you prefer to call it).

I think this statement says it all. You still don't know what you are talking about. The KJV is derived from the Received Text, which is primarily the result of Erasmus' work. Again, it is not an ancient Byzantine manuscript used by Erasmus, the Received Text is the result of Erasmus' work dating to the 16th century.

The Majority Text is not the same as the Received Text, although it closely resembles it. It is also derived from manuscripts dating from medieval times, and it also relies heavily on Erasmus' work. Hodges & Farstad say that their work is representative of the Majority Text. As far as your term "traditional text" that is wide open as to meaning and has different definitions to different users so you need to be more specific.

Erasmus chose the very best of the manuscripts as his primary sources.

The very best he had available to him at the time. And as far as Erasmus, please don't lecture me on his scholarship. I didn't have to go look it up as you just did. I have never doubted his genius.

Usual modernist hit-and-run tactics. I rather expected you to retreat while declaring victory. It's typical with the biblemangling crowd.

You've been wrong on every point so far, but as you wish, I'll stay and play. Since you insist that more than the 7 (or 11) Greek manuscripts were used by Erasmus in his contribution to the Received Text, which ones were they? You infer you know the correct history so let's see you document some instead of just blowing smoke.

I think I'll avoid any attempt at correction.

A good idea coming from the guy who talks about the Textus Vaticanus and the Textus Sinaiticus, and who thinks the Received Text were some ancient Byzantine manuscripts used by Erasmus.

You don't know what you're talking about so yes, avoiding any attempt at correction seems wise on your part. I'll save you the embarrassement and let it drop, too.

By contrast, the Byzantine family of manuscripts preserved by the Eastern church (the Received Text, the basis of Erasmus's Textus Receptus), are over 95% of all the ancient manuscripts that we have.

LOL, the Received Text is not an ancient Byzantine family of manuscripts preserved by the Eastern church. And the Received Text was not the basis of Erasumus's Textus Receptus. Instead, his work contriubuted to the making of the Received Text, otherwise known as the Textus Receptus.

None of the manuscripts used by Erasmus dated earlier than the 11th century and some of the seven were from as late as the 15th.

As far as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, I don't think many serious Biblical scholars agree that these manuscripts are as useless as you assess them to be. I think I'll stick with the scholars and not the one who doesn't even know what these manuscripts are called.

I won't even bother to dissect the flaws of such shallow treatment of his work and its demonstrated historical veracity.

If you have some demonstrated historical veracity of the Textus Receptus, let's see it. Maybe you can include a list of the Greek texts he used and their dates of origin, and include other information to document your claims.

Far more serious, you fail to note the glaring and inesapable defects in the Textus Sinaiticus and Textus Vaticanus, manuscripts so corrupt that even Rome won't use them or permit a full scholarly inspection of them.

Do you mean the 4th century manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? Both of these earliest of Bible manuscripts have been studied extensively, and used, by Rome and others. Your conspiracy theory about Rome doesn't hold water because the Codex Sinaiticus (most of it anyway) was acquired by the British Museum. Nice try though. If you do a search on Google using the common names, you can find quite a bit of information about them and actually see copies.

It was those texts and their unified historical and geographically diverse testimony which Erasmus (a less than entirely loyal Roman priest/scholar) assembled and edited into the great Textus Receptus which became the basis for the creation of all the great Protestant bibles

The Textus Receptus was compiled from a total of 7 Greek manuscripts, none of which was dated earlier than the 11th century. The texts used are still available today and are generally judged to be of low quality. So incomplete were these texts that Erasmus had to translate part of the Vulgate from Latin to obtain the Greek, and he even acknowledges the poor quality work. Today there are over 5000 Greek manuscripts available to scholars, many of these older than those available to Erasmus.

I see you guys already set the record straight as far as the mischaracterizations of the Church Fathers. I just love how protestants will take a single quote and try to construe the early Fathers to be their own. The worst is how they try to paint Augustine as non-Catholic in his belief. They even fight amoungst themselves to claim the Waldenses as their heritage. Amusing to say the least.

And you ARE dishonest by implying that I in anyway support witchcraft

I'll take your word for it, but that is not the issue I keep asking you about, and which you persistently avoid addressing. Since you are obviously against witchcraft, why did you keep encouraging people to go and expose themselves to the occult? Can't you see the danger?

Another simple question you keep avoiding. Have you actually seen the Harry Potter movies?

This is my last post on the subject, even though I know you most likely won't answer, for whatever reason.

You contradict yourself. You are part of the problem. "No, Harry Potter isn't real."
Duh.

How old are you?

Could you be honest for one moment and admit that the whole point was that witchcraft is real???

I haven't yet been dishonest, and do not call me a liar again. Yes, the whole point is that witchcraft is real. I don't think anyone on this thread disputes that. You still have evaded the question I asked you. Why if you are so opposed to a movie with occult undertones, would you encourage, repeatedly, the folks on the other thread to actually make contact with the occult. Can't you see the contradiction here? That's my point. As a Chrisitan, if I believed people were real witches, I would not encourage anyone to talk to them, even for a moment.

And here you are calling it a fantasy? People like you are the reason Harry Potter exists and makes money.

Yes, I believe the Harry Potter movies are fantasy and not real witchcraft, which is not to say I don't believe there are those who practice it. Have you even seen the movies? And no, Harry Potter has not made money because of me.

Did you miss my question, how many converts gained, how many lost?

No, I didn't miss it. I don't know of anyone who keeps track of the numbers you want so I gave you the next best thing I could find. If they're meaningless to you, then ignore them.

No, I don't believe that I am damned to hell if I do not read the Bible. That is not what would damn me to hell. I do, however, believe in the overall point of his sermon: that the Bible is the inspired word of God and that it is true.

Thanks. We're in agreement.

Thanks for the great article. At one time my Catholic faith was badly shaken after I had a number of faith based discussions with a new Southern Baptist. I was a Catholic and knew Cathoic beliefs. The problem was I didn't know the "why" of those beliefs. The discussions made me do a lot of study to discover the "why", and now I am a much better/stronger Catholic for it.

Now, for you to lie and say that I somehow "frequent" a place with witches and "welcome' other Freepers there is to lie about the reality of that situation.

I'll let your own words from that thread respond:

Come on. They are waiting. One is a well known occult writer. Tarostar.
One of the Witches wants to know why you would think it isn't real.
You are welcome to come and ask a witch yourself.

You avoided the main point of my post. Why were you so wound up about a fantasy movie like Harry Potter but then you were encouraging people make direct contact with the occult? Can't you see the dichotomy?

Great Scripture. What's your point?

There is dust enough on some of your Bibles to write "damnation" with your fingers. There are some of you who have not turned over your Bibles for a long, long while, and what think you? I tell you blunt words, but true words. What will God say at last? When you shall come before him, he shall say, "Did you read my Bible?" "No." "I wrote you a letter of mercy; did you read it?" "No." "Rebel! I have sent thee a letter inviting thee to me; didst thou ever read it?" "Lord, I never broke the seal; I kept it shut up." "Wretch!" says God, "then, thou deservest hell

Do you also hold the belief that if you have not read the Bilbe, and do not continuously read the Bible, that you are damned to hell?

And dedicate their life solely to the service of God.

Yes, exactly. This teaching is based on 1 Cor 7:35.

Read your bible and pray every day. Attend a church where the bible is the only doctrine taught there, one where they teach out of no other books.

These words are truth.

The Bible is not a book of doctrine and wasn't written as such. Doctrine comes from the interpretation of Scripture. If the Bible is a book of doctrine, why are there so many Christian denominations? They all have the same book (or nearly so).

That is why Christ established a teaching Church - to help with the doctrine.

I think this verse address this question rather well.

The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. Chosing a life of celibacy is done voluntarily, and the Latin Rite Church selects for the priesthood those who have elected to be celibate.