If the Vatican is the antichrist, then why do you trust the Bible?

Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#3
Does bible promote Vatican ?
The New Testament, including Paul, promotes a Church (the early one that is, which schismed several times and unified eventually as the Catholic Church), yes, which is the salvation of humanity.

Or bible was writen by them ?
Who knows. Depends if you want to put your conspiracy hat on or not, although that's not the intention of this thread.

Catholicism predates Protestantism. Protestants view Catholicism as evil, satanic and every other unfavorable synonym. Considering that Protestantism inherited 90% of their religion from Catholicism but took out the cool parts, the question remains why Protestants decided to keep the Bible in their reformation - afterall the canonization of the Bible's selected books was not something bestowed upon humanity by God in any sense whatsoever. The nature of pre-Protestant Christianity in contrast to Protestant Christianity is a rather hilarious lot of cognitive dissonance.

Certainly the intense pessimism towards Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) that Protestantism has beg the question of why even keep (most of) the canon? why didn't Martin Luther, or his successors write their own gospel to display their new vision of Christianity? this rolls down to the Evangelicals, Baptists, Adventists, etc here that exist through the religion of Protestantism. You could've very well written your own book like the LDS did to help distinguish yourself from the catholic church who gave you books such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, Galatians, Apocalypse of St John etc.

It's just curious that by rejecting the Catholic Church you didn't also reject their books. But of course this is always met with
"Protestants were the first Christians ever, everyone else before were fallowing a satanic false cult who don't know Christ" etc. :rolleyes:
 





Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
1,914
Likes
3,366
#4
The New Testament, including Paul, promotes a Church (the early one that is, which schismed several times and unified eventually as the Catholic Church), yes, which is the salvation of humanity.



Who knows. Depends if you want to put your conspiracy hat on or not, although that's not the intention of this thread.

Catholicism predates Protestantism. Protestants view Catholicism as evil, satanic and every other unfavorable synonym. Considering that Protestantism inherited 90% of their religion from Catholicism but took out the cool parts, the question remains why Protestants decided to keep the Bible in their reformation - afterall the canonization of the Bible's selected books was not something bestowed upon humanity by God in any sense whatsoever. The nature of pre-Protestant Christianity in contrast to Protestant Christianity is a rather hilarious lot of cognitive dissonance.

Certainly the intense pessimism towards Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) that Protestantism has beg the question of why even keep (most of) the canon? why didn't Martin Luther, or his successors write their own gospel to display their new vision of Christianity? this rolls down to the Evangelicals, Baptists, Adventists, etc here that exist through the religion of Protestantism. You could've very well written your own book like the LDS did to help distinguish yourself from the catholic church who gave you books such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, Galatians, Apocalypse of St John etc.

It's just curious that by rejecting the Catholic Church you didn't also reject their books. But of course this is always met with
"Protestants were the first Christians ever, everyone else before were fallowing a satanic false cult who don't know Christ" etc. :rolleyes:
Church promoted in NT has nothing to do with RCC. And has only one requirement Ephesians 2:18-22. Which granted RCC interprets how they wants.
Actually most authors are known. Are you betting on my ignorance lol.
Who predates what has little to no importance, and only reason for that is that bible wasnt available for major population. I have no idea what do you mean by saying "cool parts" but i certainly disagree. Pretestantism is better version with less rubbish. (less doesnt mean without) Before protestantism RCC had monopoly and sole authority, their decisions werent questioned, they were making tons of money because of it ( and still do). And thats what it was about mostly, this and offcourse facepalm worthy RCC interpretations of bible.
Who claimed that protestants were first ? You are terrible at straw man, shouldnt do it ( friendly advice). After huricane first who visit city are looters, thats what RCC is, and thats how i view their superriority ( implied by you).
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#7
Church promoted in NT has nothing to do with RCC. And has only one requirement Ephesians 2:18-22. Which granted RCC interprets how they wants.
Sure, but if that's your refutation then the fact of Protestant interprets things "how they want" far more extremely is enough proof that the Catholic Church does have a point.

Pretestantism is better version with less rubbish. (less doesnt mean without)
Of course that's subjective but I take the opposite view, quite strongly (and I don't even like the Catholic Church to begin with).

Before protestantism RCC had monopoly and sole authority, their decisions werent questioned, they were making tons of money because of it ( and still do). And thats what it was about mostly, this and offcourse facepalm worthy RCC interpretations of bible.
I don't think so. Protestantism (and it's subsequent denominations) took literalism to the extreme.

Who claimed that protestants were first ? You are terrible at straw man, shouldnt do it ( friendly advice).
Depends if you'd be the type (like many here who've expressed the view) going to make that atrociously cringeworthy claim, purely Protestant too, that "Catholics aren't Christian". Certainly I'm waiting for the first historian or even theologian to state that Martin Luther founded Christianity and wrote the Bible (the stupidity that arises from such notions).

After huricane first who visit city are looters, thats what RCC is, and thats how i view their superriority ( implied by you).
Funny cause I see Protestants as the Chicken running around with it's head cut off.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#8
For discussion to proceed YOU need to first prove that "the Vatican" wrote every single book of the bible. (66 different books in total, written over thousands of years).
EVIDENCE please.
Nobody (not me at least) is claiming that.

EVIDENCE PLEASE.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#10
Via your question you are alleging the Vatican wrote the WHOLE bible.

Please clarify your position.
You have the Bible and most of your acquired canon through the Catholic Church which predated the Protestant reformation. The Catholic Church's official Bible canonization was the final re-evaluation from the prior Alexandrian and Apostolic Church attempts at canonization prior.

As for the "whole" Bible, it's quite arbitrary really. Your so-called "Old Testament" (which makes the majority textual space of your canon) is just the written portion of Jewish texts (namely the Tanakh - aka, leaving out Oral Torah etc).
The rest (New Testament) is the early Church's chosen bow-tie presentation of Jesus (and their new emerging religion) how they saw fit, customized to create the narrative they wanted to create.

Long story short, you take their choice of specific books as some kind of objective fact. You reject the Catholic Church but assume that because the Bible is the Bible (frankly, because it's more familiar to you than other religious texts/collections), that you somehow have all the correct texts and that the Catholic Church passed down the right texts to you. Not only that but you also assume the primacy of the texts (which are all man-written accounts of things, with some pieces of liturgy thrown in) as absolute over every other thing to do with religion (such as devotion, ritual, etc).
Alongside this, you adopt most of their doctrines without questioning the validity of such doctrines (Nicene Creed is always the perfect case-in-point).
The fact being that you operate from a position of built up assumptions (from doctrines to textual interpretation isolated from a tradition that dates back to Jesus) with no way of knowing the validity of anything.

Certainly if I was to entertain the Protestant position, I would not for a second accept the canon passed down by the Catholic Church - it would be the first thing I rejected or examined skeptically after rejecting the Catholic Church. If I believed the Catholic church to be the antichrist, then I would also reconsider all of the supposed 'heresies' in early Christianity that they brutally silenced in the early prior of establishing mainstream Christian doctrine.

As I've stated elsewhere here, I don't think Protestantism diagnosed the right things because it inherited all of the negative aspects (such as the antagonistic hysteria, prejudice, idolatry, mindlessness, anti-spirituality and the self-righteousness) of Catholicism while rejecting everything that ever was great (such as spirituality, reflection, accountability) about the Catholic church.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Apr 16, 2017
Messages
2,041
Likes
2,988
#17
The New Testament, including Paul, promotes a Church (the early one that is, which schismed several times and unified eventually as the Catholic Church), yes, which is the salvation of humanity.



Who knows. Depends if you want to put your conspiracy hat on or not, although that's not the intention of this thread.

Catholicism predates Protestantism. Protestants view Catholicism as evil, satanic and every other unfavorable synonym. Considering that Protestantism inherited 90% of their religion from Catholicism but took out the cool parts, the question remains why Protestants decided to keep the Bible in their reformation - afterall the canonization of the Bible's selected books was not something bestowed upon humanity by God in any sense whatsoever. The nature of pre-Protestant Christianity in contrast to Protestant Christianity is a rather hilarious lot of cognitive dissonance.

Certainly the intense pessimism towards Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) that Protestantism has beg the question of why even keep (most of) the canon? why didn't Martin Luther, or his successors write their own gospel to display their new vision of Christianity? this rolls down to the Evangelicals, Baptists, Adventists, etc here that exist through the religion of Protestantism. You could've very well written your own book like the LDS did to help distinguish yourself from the catholic church who gave you books such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrews, Galatians, Apocalypse of St John etc.

It's just curious that by rejecting the Catholic Church you didn't also reject their books. But of course this is always met with
"Protestants were the first Christians ever, everyone else before were fallowing a satanic false cult who don't know Christ" etc. :rolleyes:
I agree that many Christian's arguments are not always logical or consistent, but the Bible hardly provides evidence to justify or uphold the RCC doctrine and dogma, or their legitimacy. And vice versa, the RCC has no problem admitting that papal authority can trump what the Bible appears to say. So while I get where you are coming from refuting the arguments of many protestants, I believe there are much better and sound arguments for defending the authority or inspiration of the Bible.
 





Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
567
Likes
387
#18
I agree that many Christian's arguments are not always logical or consistent, but the Bible hardly provides evidence to justify or uphold the RCC doctrine and dogma, or their legitimacy. And vice versa, the RCC has no problem admitting that papal authority can trump what the Bible appears to say. So while I get where you are coming from refuting the arguments of many protestants, I believe there are much better and sound arguments for defending the authority or inspiration of the Bible.
Yes I do understand that position, it does very little to help such truth-claims that rely on such heritage from which a collection of texts are passed down with. The only logical conclusion to Protestantism is that Christianity has to be false (if Protestantism's truth-claims against Catholicism are proven to be correct), since it relies entirely upon circular logic.
The other answer (which you seemed to have hinted in your other reply to me) is that perhaps Christianity's proposed truth-claims aren't so concrete at all, which requires spiritual humbleness and more room for understanding towards mankind's relationship to God (aka, getting out of that sweaty, dusty, damn room and embracing the fields, the sea, the trees) and accounting for the (always threatening) potentiality of being completely wrong all-together.

It does come to the fundamental praxis of a said truth-claim and what it's supposed inherrency hinges onto.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
8,152
Likes
12,057
#20
But I believe it is the world view you are operating from?
Put another way @Infinityloop - Catholicism is a religion which teaches that certain works or religious practices are required to please God and increase the likelihood of entering heaven. In addition, neither Catholicism or Islam offer any assurance of salvation. Many Catholics die hoping for just a short spell in purgatory (and secretly hoping they are confessed up to date). The only assurance offered in Islam is to die a martyr, whilst chances of going to Hell seem to range from an accidental bacon sandwich, getting murdered, careless speech, incorrect ablution or even thinking for a moment that God could have a Son.