Two Questions To Protestants?

[Budge]

My faith unlike yours is not based on HISTORY but on God's eternal preserved Word.

History has many many biases. Even recent American history is being rewritten constantly.

I was a history minor in college, you think I dont know history but I do, but it is sinking sand when it comes to being a foundation of faith.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Budge' post='1240069' date='Apr 12 2007, 11:49 AM']I was a history minor in college, you think I dont know history but I do, but it is sinking sand when it comes to being a foundation of faith.[/quote]
Yes, clearly "minor" is the operative word.

[Mateo el Feo]

It's so cute when Budge supports her arguments by posting Chick Comics.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Budge' post='1240069' date='Apr 12 2007, 12:49 PM']My faith unlike yours is not based on HISTORY but on God's eternal preserved Word.

History has many many biases. Even recent American history is being rewritten constantly.

I was a history minor in college, you think I dont know history but I do, but it is sinking sand when it comes to being a foundation of faith.[/quote]

OK, I was a History [i]major[/i] in college, and you are correct when you say that history has many biases.

In that context, it's simply silly to say that you believe in "God's eternal preserved Word." Who was doing the preserving? Why are there different translations? Why did Martin Luther see fit to alter the canon of the Bible? Which was "God's eternal preserved Word," the before or after version?

So you see, the Bible [i]and[/i] a competent teaching / interpretive authority are necessary.

Otherwise you end up with Jehovah's Witnesses. Or David Koresh. Or Budgianity.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1240090' date='Apr 12 2007, 03:14 PM']OK, I was a History [i]major[/i] in college, and you are correct when you say that history has many biases.

In that context, it's simply silly to say that you believe in "God's eternal preserved Word." Who was doing the preserving? Why are there different translations? Why did Martin Luther see fit to alter the canon of the Bible? Which was "God's eternal preserved Word," the before or after version?

So you see, the Bible [i]and[/i] a competent teaching / interpretive authority are necessary.

Otherwise you end up with Jehovah's Witnesses. Or David Koresh. Or Budgianity.[/quote]
What if the teacher has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?

I don't go to any church for a reason. . .

[Starets]

Our faith is also based on God's preserved word. ALL of it. Both in written form in the form of Sacred Scripture and in unwritten form in the form onf Sacred Tradition.

I was a history major in college. And grad school. I know more about historiographic pitfalls than any reasonably sane person should.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240092' date='Apr 12 2007, 03:19 PM']What if the teacher has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?

I don't go to any church for a reason. . .[/quote]Hi FullTruth, let's place your hypothetical in the context of the thread topic. Are you suggesting that someone was able to manipulate/change certain passages of the Holy Bible? Or, are you suggesting that a one or more doctrines were "invented" at some point in support of some conspiracy?

On any given debatable subject, one could find a non-Catholic Christian holding either side of the argument; yet, they all claim to be "Bible-believing". In contrast, the Catholic Church has a pretty robust "paper trail" with regard to its teachings.

Wouldn't you agree that it's hard to advance a discussion when accusations remain vague? So, if you've got a particular Scripture passage or doctrine in mind, bring your argument out of the shadows by sharing your specifics.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240092' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:19 PM']What if the teacher has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?

I don't go to any church for a reason. . .[/quote]

So you're saying that the entire Catholic Church hierarchy "has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?"

My friend, that sounds like a very good reason [i]to[/i] go to church. You need a good dose of sound teaching from an authoritative source.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1240094' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:20 PM']Our faith is also based on God's preserved word. ALL of it. Both in written form in the form of Sacred Scripture and in unwritten form in the form onf Sacred Tradition.[/quote]

Rock on!

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1240107' date='Apr 12 2007, 03:48 PM']Hi FullTruth, let's place your hypothetical in the context of the thread topic. Are you suggesting that someone was able to manipulate/change certain passages of the Holy Bible? Or, are you suggesting that a one or more doctrines were "invented" at some point in support of some conspiracy?

On any given debatable subject, one could find a non-Catholic Christian holding either side of the argument; yet, they all claim to be "Bible-believing". In contrast, the Catholic Church has a pretty robust "paper trail" with regard to its teachings.

Wouldn't you agree that it's hard to advance a discussion when accusations remain vague? So, if you've got a particular Scripture passage or doctrine in mind, bring your argument out of the shadows by sharing your specifics.[/quote]
There are a lot of doctrines in the religions of man that don't make any biblical sense. Even the RC church.
Argue as you may, I will still hold this opinion of anybody praying to a saint.

Prayer is a spiritual action and an act of worship. So when you pray to somebody who could be in heaven, or not be in heaven, you are giving them worship, and as a result you have just given someone other than God something that only belongs to God, which is Blasphamy.

My arguement is this. Take out the word Saint, and put the word god in its place. So you have a saint/god for this type of situation, and a saint/god for another situation. All of this is being passed off with a couple of scriptures backing it (Any doctrine based on one or two scriptures is on shaky ground with me), so that good-hearted people like you pray to these saints and think your requests will go to God because of them.

Guess what, It's Paganism, and that's final! You will no dissuade me of that.

That is one of many examples of the blashphamy of the RC church.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 02:27 PM']There are a lot of doctrines in the religions of man that don't make any biblical sense. Even the RC church.
Argue as you may, I will still hold this opinion of anybody praying to a saint.

Prayer is a spiritual action and an act of worship. So when you pray to somebody who could be in heaven, or not be in heaven, you are giving them worship, and as a result you have just given someone other than God something that only belongs to God, which is Blasphamy.

My arguement is this. Take out the word Saint, and put the word god in its place. So you have a saint/god for this type of situation, and a saint/god for another situation. All of this is being passed off with a couple of scriptures backing it (Any doctrine based on one or two scriptures is on shaky ground with me), so that good-hearted people like you pray to these saints and think your requests will go to God because of them.

Guess what, It's Paganism, and that's final! You will no dissuade me of that.

That is one of many examples of the blashphamy of the RC church.[/quote]

So if I ask you to pray for me, am I praying to you? If I ask you to pray for me, is that blasphemy?

What if I take out the word "you" and put "god" in its place. What if I take out the word "the" and put "a" in its place? What if I take out the entire sentence and put another sentence in its place? Meaning doesn't mean anything if you change the meaning, do you see what I mean?

Edited April 12, 2007 by kenrockthefirst

[FullTruth]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1240148' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:36 PM']So if I ask you to pray for me, am I praying to you? If I ask you to pray for me, is that blasphemy?

What if I take out the word "you" and put "god" in its place. What if I take out the word "the" and put "a" in its place? What if I take out the entire sentence and put another sentence in its place? Meaning doesn't mean anything if you change the meaning, do you see what I mean?[/quote]
Are you going to use one scripture, confess your faults one to another, the fervertant prayer of a righteous man availeth much to justify praying to a dead 'saint'. Sorry, not buying that one!

I sling the arrows where they need to go.

[b]Asking[/b] someone on earth to pray for you - [b]asking[/b], not [b]praying to them to pray for you[/b], is okay.
The other is blasphamy! Pure and simple blasphamy!

It is a well thought out deception that has convinced many people it is true.

Edited April 12, 2007 by FullTruth

[BG45]

I realize there's a train of discussion going on already regarding sources like Jack Chick, and must apologize for not wanting to touch that. I don't tend to use Chick as a source myself, and rarely read his works; also don't want to butt in on people already in conversation.

[quote]1-Who copied the and preserved the Holy bible before the Reformation?..Baptist? Penticostals? Who?

2-If each person is supposed to understand the Bible without the Churches interpretation why are there over 10,000 protestant sects and numerous cults all claiming to be correct and bible believing?[/quote]

1) The Roman Catholic Church.

2) We like to split when we argue. A lot.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Budge' post='1240069' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:49 PM']My faith unlike yours is not based on HISTORY but on God's eternal preserved Word.

History has many many biases. Even recent American history is being rewritten constantly.

I was a history minor in college, you think I dont know history but I do, but it is sinking sand when it comes to being a foundation of faith.[/quote]

Which preserved word are you talking about? Your people have created countless versions of bibles with over 6000 errors in many of them! So tell me which one? It's insane, you guys talk about the bible this, the bible that! its not the bible your talking about! in PRIDE you are really refering to your personal interpretation. Sorry but Jesus never gave the command to "go therefore and make your own churches and bibles. He made one Church. It's blasphemy to go and build your own church.

Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting – that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called ‘the Song of the Three Children’, (Daniel iii., 24-90, Douai Version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament in required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture – ‘an Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with no character of the Gospel in it’. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonored the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel). The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writing which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1200 years would be scarcely credible were it not hat we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his Biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in The Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgment – of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste – as, for example, that ‘it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’, 2 Mach. xii., 46 – well, so much the worse for the book; ‘throw it overboard’, was his sentence, and overboard it went. And it was the same with passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain, and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith’, and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word ‘only’ after St. Paul’s words, making the sentence run: ‘We are justified by Faith only’, and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Bu this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may, indeed you are bound to cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself. No Pope, no Council, no Church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.

(4) Yet, in spite of all reviling of the Roman Church, the Reformers were forced to accept from her those Sacred Scriptures which they retained in their collection. Whatever Bible they have today, disfigured as it is, was taken from us. Blind indeed must be the evangelical Christian who cannot recognize in the old Catholic Bible the quarry form which he has hewn the Testament he loves and studies; but with what loss! At what a sacrifice! In what a mutilated and disfigured condition! That the Reformers should appropriate unabridged the Bible of the Catholic Church (which was the only volume of God’s Scripture ever known on earth), even for the purpose of elevating it into a false position – this we could have understood; what staggers us, is their deliberate excision from that Sacred Volume of some of the inspired Books which had God for their Author, and their no less deliberate alteration of some of the texts of those books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves the question – Which Christian body really loves and revers the Scriptures most? Which has proved, by its actions, its love and veneration? And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of Life? (Apoc. xxii., 19.)

[FullTruth]

Me thinks the Catholics are angry at the Protestants, damning them to hell again!

I love it how you say that the Protestant Bible is lacking, but RC church won't touch the book of Enoch, Enoch being one of the three people who has been taken up into glory. I would think that such a book would have been gratefully accepted by any believer.

But it talks about Watchers, (Fallen Angels, for those who do not understand), having children with human beings - which is a Catholic No-No! So let's throw out that inspired word of God too! Doesn't suit our doctrines! Get rid of it - it's demonic!

Love ya Akalyte, but my understanding would say the RC bibles are lacking 1 book, and Protestant 8 books!