Infinityloop
Star
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,622
Discuss.
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.Does bible promote Vatican ?
Who knows. Depends if you want to put your conspiracy hat on or not, although that's not the intention of this thread.Or bible was writen by them ?
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.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.
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).Discuss.
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.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.
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).Pretestantism is better version with less rubbish. (less doesnt mean without)
I don't think so. Protestantism (and it's subsequent denominations) took literalism to the extreme.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.
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).Who claimed that protestants were first ? You are terrible at straw man, shouldnt do it ( friendly advice).
Funny cause I see Protestants as the Chicken running around with it's head cut off.After huricane first who visit city are looters, thats what RCC is, and thats how i view their superriority ( implied by you).
Nobody (not me at least) is claiming that.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.
Via your question you are alleging the Vatican wrote the WHOLE bible.Nobody is claiming that.
EVIDENCE PLEASE.
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.Via your question you are alleging the Vatican wrote the WHOLE bible.
Please clarify your position.
Would I be right in saying that Catholicism and Islam have more in common than Protestantism and Islam?
No not at all, Islam is far closer to Judaism than any form of Christianity.Would I be right in saying that Catholicism and Islam have more in common than Protestantism and Islam?
The bit I was interested in was your take on the “more in common” part.No not at all, Islam is far closer to Judaism than any form of Christianity.
How is your question relevant? this thread is not about Islam.The bit I was interested in was your take on the “more in common” part.
But I believe it is the world view you are operating from?How is your question relevant? this thread is not about Islam.
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.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.
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.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.
How’s that?No not at all, Islam is far closer to Judaism than any form of Christianity.
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.But I believe it is the world view you are operating from?