Is The Bible Reliable?

[ardillacid]

[img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b155/ardillacid/roflbot-ts6h.jpg?t=1287843148[/img]

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287831579' post='2181753']
Because it is self-contradictory to call a body "Roman" (which is [i]particular) [/i]and at the same time, [i]"Catholic"[/i], (which means [i]universal). So the term "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction in terms, strictly speaking.[/i]
[/quote]

Which is precisely what Knight explained in Post #89. Please read the thread.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287819247' post='2181742']
If you consider this mocking, then I hope you never upset me... I am chiefly perceptive, not judgmental, honestly I am FAR more indifferent to you than you might imagine. Honestly I don't care what you think about me either... Though you like to pretend I do...

But I am seeing a definite pattern in your treatment of the authority and ministry of the Church... of people on Phatmass... and otherwise.

If you can't explain why the Church SPECIFICALLY defines herself as Roman, but not any of the other Rites that you have mentioned ([i]except Latin, don't like the Latin Rite?[/i])... then where is the argument?
[/quote]

It is a personal attack. By questioning his faith and loyalty to Holy Mother Church you are taking a "discredit the man, discredit the argument" approach. He has already explained why the Church is not first and foremost the "Roman Catholic Church". She DOES define herself as other Rites. I am a Roman Catholic but my friend is a Byzantine Catholic. She does not call herself a "Byzantine Roman Catholic".

[KnightofChrist]

To deny that Holy Mother Church, the Body of Christ is not only defined by the Church of Rome but all of her Sui Juris Churches, is to deny the Universality of the Church, and in effect spiritually decapitating the Body of Christ, Christ Himself.

The whole Church is not Roman just as a whole body is not just a head, arm or foot. If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? And if they all were one member, where would be the body? (1 Corinthians 12)

Mother Church is Universal, she is Roman as well as Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. There are many members indeed, yet one body.

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287832956' post='2181758']
While Peter may have been in Rome, it is completely gratuitous to say the Lord wanted to establish His church there because it was the center of the world. On the contrary, the Lord has repeatedly shown He does not use the wildly popular extravagant things of the world in numerous places, not the least of which is the incarnation and His ordaining that the hotels at the time would filled to capacity, unable to accommodate the birth, so the next best option had to be employed. Then, when we recall that Jesus told the disciples that the kings of the world excercise their authority over others, [i]"but it shall not be so with you", [/i] then the gargantuan "Vatican" spectacle in Rome, Italy, surely could not be what He had intended.
In addition, you are reading too much into 5:13. The word "Rome" is mentioned around 10 times, and no where is Peter's name mentioned in connection with establishing a "See". As usual, Catholics have to desperately scrounge around and find "code word" evidence to support her doctrines, and I am not impressed.
[/quote]

Peter was clearly in Rome aka Babylon, the Bible, the written word of God, says so, thus I believe it. I would encourge you to also fully submit to its Teachings.

Why would God not want to convert Rome to His Sacred Heart? Rome was the center of the known world, from there the early Christians could easily go forth into all nations baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Convert Rome and the entire empire would be converted, and that is just what happened. In a relativity short time after Peter, by the will of God, established the Primatial See in Rome, and was martyred in Rome like Paul, the whole of the empire was converted to Christianity. It was no less a miracle and the work of God Himself, that pagan Rome would be converted by a Jew.

I do not understand non-Catholic Christians need to attack and deny this miracle of God and historical fact. No I should say I do understand the reason. It is to discredit and attack the authority and primacy of Peter the first Pontiff. The danger in that is when you attack the authority of Peter, you attack the Church, and when you attack the Church you attack God. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

Also, God often used His people to convert souls in large capital cities. Daniel and the King of Babylon is one example.

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287845808' post='2181787']Which is precisely what Knight explained in Post #89. Please read the thread.[/quote]Which is precisely against binding definitions of the Church.[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287846155' post='2181789']It is a personal attack. By questioning his faith and loyalty to Holy Mother Church you are taking a "discredit the man, discredit the argument" approach. He has already explained why the Church is not first and foremost the "Roman Catholic Church". She DOES define herself as other Rites. I am a Roman Catholic but my friend is a Byzantine Catholic. She does not call herself a "Byzantine Roman Catholic".[/quote]Purely from a logical standpoint:

The fallacy of an [url="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html"]ad hominem[/url] argument follows like thus:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

[b]This isn't what I argued...[/b] Otherwise I wouldn't be making reference to the sources like I have been or explaining why the fact that other Rites exists ([i]which means Church in the legal sense of the code, I had to look it up in my references[/i]) doesn't make the Church less Roman or more Roman, its simply the definition of the Church that Catholics must accept least they take themselves out of good standing with the Church. Because there is NO other Council of the Church that when referring to the WHOLE Church call herself anything else other than Roman, [u]if you can find a single instance of the Church doing so in a definitive or binding manner I would concede my case[/u].

Notice my argument in this matter having [u]nothing[/u] to do with KnightofChrist's personal faith or standing with the Church. But based on the indirect denial of this creed is suspect, this isn't an accusation but an observation.

The fallacy of [url="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html"]ad hominem abusive[/url], which constitutes as a "personal attack", is the substitution abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. However, not all ad hominems abusive are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of ther claims.

[b]Again this isn't what I argued...[/b] By your own admission, I "[i]question[/i]" KnightofChrist's faith and standing with the Church based on purely observable characteristics that he is welcome to to disprove, in fact I even verbatim showed how he could do this before to end my suspicion. Notice again there is no definitive certainty in presenting this question, THUS it being a question, therefore I am not presenting it as factual or evidence. Even more so, I am not presenting it as against his argument.

SO unless your telling me that you think I'm not being "NICE" to KnightofChrist, your claim is in fact a personal attack. Because you are NOW arguing that my claim is false purely based on your false accusation. Purely from the standpoint of logic that is, I can appreciate that not everyone has taken any time in the study of logic. Though it is a haunting irony that you are now arguing for a position that puts itself directly against the definitions of the Church by Ecumenical Councils, because of... [i]I'm not sure...[/i]

Either one of you could simply say "[i]I don't disagree with this definition or creed[/i]" or even say "[i]I concede the definition or creed[/i]". But neither one of you have... This isn't an opinion, this is factually from the binding and authoritative creed itself, reaffirmed by at least two Ecumenical Councils.

I am not required to "like" or be "nice" to anyone by the Catholic faith or the guidelines of this Phourm, unless a mod wants to correct me. But if that was required, I fear that KnightofChrist would be as guilty as I am concerning the matter.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287850896' post='2181815']To deny that Holy Mother Church, the Body of Christ is not only defined by the Church of Rome but all of her Sui Juris Churches, is to deny the Universality of the Church, and in effect spiritually decapitating the Body of Christ, Christ Himself.

The whole Church is not Roman just as a whole body is not just a head, arm or foot. If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? And if they all were one member, where would be the body? (1 Corinthians 12)

Mother Church is Universal, she is Roman as well as Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. There are many members indeed, yet one body.[/quote]No, you are confusing "[i]Roman[/i]" and "[i]Latin[/i]". Unless you are arguing that the Ecumenical Councils of the Church are non-binding on any of the other Rites you have mentioned, which would also make you suspect of schism or heresy. You make pseudo-arguments that don't really negate the Councils or Creed's definitions. This is rather curious because in other topics for passing non-binding opinions of the Popes you have condemned me, but NOW we have an authoritative definition reaffirmed by multiple Ecumenical Councils and Popes, within the tradition of the Church herself, and you wine because I tell you that does make your standing with the Church in question...

You speak that the Church is one body, but yet you seem to ignore that the [b]visible[/b] head of the Church is in fact the Pope, who is the Bishop of [b]Rome[/b]. Are you denying the supremacy of the Pope? Because if you are, my suspicion would then become serious suspicion.[quote name='notardillacid' timestamp='1287843158' post='2181781'][img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b155/ardillacid/roflbot-ts6h.jpg?t=1287843148[/img][/quote]I am too... If this wasn't an authoritative definition I honestly wouldn't even mention it, but it is... Curious how some people would be blinded enough to be lead right out of the Church... Maybe more ironic. But maybe I shouldn't care.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat

[Maximilianus]

Yeah I'd say the Bible is reliable.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Maximilianus' timestamp='1287864519' post='2181874']
Yeah I'd say the Bible is reliable.
[/quote]
Try to stay on topic, bro.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287863406' post='2181869']
Which is precisely against binding definitions of the Church.Purely from a logical standpoint:[/quote]

There is nothing logical in it at all. I have stated clearly more than once that I do not deny that the Catholic Church is Roman. I accept and I believe that the Catholic Church consist of the Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian Sui Juris Churches are all the Catholic Church, officially, according to Church Law. Each member together forms the body, each member is the Church, with the Holy Pontiff as its head.

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287863406' post='2181869'][b]This isn't what I argued...[/b] Otherwise I wouldn't be making reference to the sources like I have been or explaining why the fact that other Rites exists ([i]which means Church in the legal sense of the code, I had to look it up in my references[/i]) doesn't make the Church less Roman or more Roman, its simply the definition of the Church that Catholics must accept least they take themselves out of good standing with the Church. Because there is NO other Council of the Church that when referring to the WHOLE Church call herself anything else other than Roman, [u]if you can find a single instance of the Church doing so in a definitive or binding manner I would concede my case[/u].[/quote]

If you wish to reject the Sui Juris Churches as being the Catholic Church, save for the Roman Church that is your doing. I cannot reject them, I shall not. The Church is all of the Sui Juris Churches together in one body.

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287863406' post='2181869']Notice my argument in this matter having [u]nothing[/u] to do with KnightofChrist's personal faith or standing with the Church. But based on the indirect denial of this creed is suspect, this isn't an accusation but an observation.[/quote]

False. You have made my faith in Mother Church the topic of this debate because you are obsessed with doing so, it has become a common occurrence. Again I have stated I accept that the Church is Roman I simply do not deny that she is also all the other Sui Juris Churches. Nor have I at any time denied that the Holy Pontiff is head of the Holy Catholic Church. There is no rational or logical reason for you to make such false claims.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287866059' post='2181878']There is nothing logical in it at all. I have stated clearly more than once that I do not deny that the Catholic Church is Roman. I accept and I believe that the Catholic Church consist of the Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian Sui Juris Churches are all the Catholic Church, officially, according to Church Law. Each member together forms the body, each member is the Church, with the Holy Pontiff as its head.[/quote]Cute how you compressed those two sentences together, even though they are to different people and issues. Though I noticed how you dropped the word Roman off of Pontiff... Curious indeed.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287866059' post='2181878']If you wish to reject the Sui Juris Churches as being the Catholic Church, save for the Roman Church that is your doing. I cannot reject them, I shall not. The Church is all of the Sui Juris Churches together in one body.[/quote]Roman Catholic does not equate "Latin Rite Catholic". Which isn't the issue I'm questioning you on, its on the indirect denial of an authoritative definition reaffirmed by Popes and Ecumenical Councils.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287866059' post='2181878']False. You have made my faith in Mother Church the topic of this debate because you are obsessed with doing so, it has become a common occurrence. Again I have stated I accept that the Church is Roman I simply do not deny that she is also all the other Sui Juris Churches. Nor have I at any time denied that the Holy Pontiff is head of the Holy Catholic Church. There is no rational or logical reason for you to make such false claims.
[/quote]Again, you tell me I am accusing ([i]I'm not[/i]), I am questioning. There is in fact a difference. It is not an obsession ([i]but your accusation is a personal attack[/i]), and you using this as evidence against my arguments IS a personal attack and in fact illegal.

I suspect that it is most likely that HisChildForever is discussing with you, faulty ideas based on information she was sworn to secrecy and apart of privacy laws... ideas of HisChildForever was repeatedly rejected by doctors, I believe one doctor said "[i]I remember when [b]I[/b] first entered into my studies and everything seemed so clear to [b]me[/b]. Then after learning a bit more I started to learn how foolish [b]I[/b] was. I suspect she will follow the same path.[/i]"

So on this little issue, you haven't heard the last of this serious breach of decorum.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1287865850' post='2181877']Try to stay on topic, bro.[/quote]Lolz

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287867633' post='2181883']
Though I noticed how you dropped the word Roman off of Pontiff... Curious indeed.[/quote]

Truly you are grasping at straws.


[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287867633' post='2181883']Which isn't the issue I'm questioning you on, its on the indirect denial of an authoritative definition reaffirmed by Popes and Ecumenical Councils.Again, you tell me I am accusing, I am questioning. There is in fact a difference. [/quote]

I've denied nothing. Yet you continue to judge me as I have.


[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287867633' post='2181883']It is not an obsession, but you using this as evidence against my arguments IS a personal attack and in fact illegal. I know for a fact that it is most likely that HisChildForever is discussing with you, most likely, faulty information that based on information she was sworn to secrecy as apart of privacy laws... To also continue, the ideas of HisChildForever was repeatedly rejected by doctors, I believe one doctor said "[i]I remember when I first entered into my studies and everything seemed so clear to me. Then after learning a bit more I started to learn how foolish I was. I suspect she will follow the same path.[/i]" So on this little issue, you haven't heard the last of this serious breach of decorum.
[/quote]

I was speaking of only what you have publicly stated towards me about my personal faith in the Church and Christ, that seems to be an inward hate of me. Thus your cowardly jab at HCF is unnecessary and again strange. She is not foolish. I don't know nor do I wish to know what you are talking about.

Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287868838' post='2181886']Truly you are grasping at straws.[/quote]Sure it is... show me a document of the Church that doesn't call the the Pope "Roman Pontiff", because technically the term "[i]Pontiff[/i]" is not exclusively the Pope's.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287868838' post='2181886']I've denied nothing. Yet you continue to judge me as I have.[/quote]Please quote for me when I explicitly and directly judged you. I have a public suspicion because you refuse the definition provided by an authoritative creed of the Church.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287868838' post='2181886']I was speaking of only what you have publicly stated towards me about my personal faith in the Church and Christ, that seems to be an inward hate of me. Thus your cowardly jab at HCF is unnecessary and again strange. She is not foolish. I don't know nor do I wish to know what you are talking about.[/quote]My personal feelings have no bearing in this discussion. No its not cowardly, its what the doctors said, they in fact advised me to go away from her, they had some rather strong feelings about her and her treatment of me. You don't want to know or discuss it, but you freely bring it up and as a personal attack against me and the creed... Something regarding my private health, you bring up publicly,that matter is rather cut and dry. Your post has already been reported.

Though I didn't call her foolish... I like how you just make things mean what you want. You might was well cut all my words up and arrange them the way you want.

Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat

[MIKolbe]

We've gone from this

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1285092406' post='2175108']
This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. Furthermore we know the texts of the Gospels were altered by scribes with a theological bent. Lastly, the earliest extant copy of the NT comes some 300 years after their traditional dating. All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words? It seems to me there is no reasonable certainty, and that is leading to some uncomfortable consequences.

What do you guys think about the reliability of the NT?
[/quote]


To this:

[quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287869291' post='2181890']
Sure it is... show me a document of the Church that doesn't call the the Pope "Roman Pontiff", because technically the term "[i]Pontiff[/i]" is not exclusively the Pope's.Please quote for me when I explicitly and directly judged you. I have a public suspicion because you refuse the definition provided by an authoritative creed of the Church.My personal feelings have no bearing in this discussion. No its not cowardly, its what the doctors said, they in fact advised me to go away from her, they had some rather strong feelings about her and her treatment of me. You don't want to know or discuss it, but you freely bring it up and as a personal attack against me and the creed... Something regarding my private health, you bring up publicly,that matter is rather cut and dry. Your post has already been reported.

Though I didn't call her foolish... I like how you just make things mean what you want. You might was well cut all my words up and arrange them the way you want.
[/quote]


Listen up, all 3 of you. I don't know what your issue is, and in many respects, I don't care. You three seem to have an issue with eachother. OK. We ALL get that.

Either cease your ascii diarrhea or find another outlet for your collective angst.

Thanks for ruining the thread.