QUOTE(sylar111 @ Apr 14 2016, 06:17 PM)
It seems that you are getting really heated up. As heated up as the Atheists that I debated with.
>> No. I have yet to call you names, have I?
As I have implied in my earlier reply. the doctrines are already understood by Christians during that period of time. There is probably a good idea of what books can be considered accepted and what books are not. So the council only gave the approval of what is already known that's all. If they did otherwise, there would probably be a rebel. I believe even then there is already a common consensus as to what books are allowed and what books are not allowed.
>> You made so many claims, but where is the source of your claims? "Probably" and "I believe" doesn't sound very convincing.
Have you wondered why is there a need to be a canon of trent. The cannon of trent was actually used to correct the "error" being made in the earlier cannons.
And no, Protestants do not really recognize all of the books in the canon of Trent. We certainly do not recognize the apocrypha.
>> Oh wow. Now you talk about Trent which is a reaction to the Protestant revolution of the 16th century. For certain, I know that Protestants don't accept what they call the Apocrypha or what Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books of the OT. But note well, that's for the OT. I've posted articles about these books earlier in this thread if you are interested to read but in summary it is because Protestants accept only the books in the Hebrew Bible, while (note this well), Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox accepts the books found in the Greek Septuagint. My earlier point is that Protestants of the 16th century accepts all the books of the NT, even though the Father of Protestantism Martin Luther wanted to throw out the epistle of James.
Like the Atheists I debated with, you are accusing me of things I did not do time and time again even though I have explained myself earlier.
>> I accuse nothing but have shown references, while you made many claims without references. Fine, let's move on.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
That verse never imply this. "because all the books in the world will not be able to write down what is the sensus fidelium of the universal faith"
Even a 10 year old kid who read this will not come to this conclusion. The catholic church just twisted this verse to suit their agenda.
So I guess by the same argument, if the whole world accepted homosexuality, then you have to as well.
>> Sigh, if you don't understand sensus fidelium, just say so. Using homosexuality as an example is ridiculous because it has been the constant teaching of the Church that it is sinful. False presumption on your part to accuse me of that. Not only is homosexual activity condemned explicitly in the Bible, it is only clearly taught to be sinful behaviour in official Catholic catechisms.
I already gave you an example. The baptist church. You obviously have purposely forgotten by convenience.
>> The link about the Baptist Church (from the Baptist Church) that you gave proved nothing, really.
I have no interest anymore to debate with someone who forgets very easily. This was meant to be a discussion with another catholic brother of yours who happen to represent himself well as compared to you.
>> More ad hominems.
Ok no more reply to you anymore. This is really, really the last one.
>>
>> No. I have yet to call you names, have I?
As I have implied in my earlier reply. the doctrines are already understood by Christians during that period of time. There is probably a good idea of what books can be considered accepted and what books are not. So the council only gave the approval of what is already known that's all. If they did otherwise, there would probably be a rebel. I believe even then there is already a common consensus as to what books are allowed and what books are not allowed.
>> You made so many claims, but where is the source of your claims? "Probably" and "I believe" doesn't sound very convincing.
Have you wondered why is there a need to be a canon of trent. The cannon of trent was actually used to correct the "error" being made in the earlier cannons.
And no, Protestants do not really recognize all of the books in the canon of Trent. We certainly do not recognize the apocrypha.
>> Oh wow. Now you talk about Trent which is a reaction to the Protestant revolution of the 16th century. For certain, I know that Protestants don't accept what they call the Apocrypha or what Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books of the OT. But note well, that's for the OT. I've posted articles about these books earlier in this thread if you are interested to read but in summary it is because Protestants accept only the books in the Hebrew Bible, while (note this well), Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox accepts the books found in the Greek Septuagint. My earlier point is that Protestants of the 16th century accepts all the books of the NT, even though the Father of Protestantism Martin Luther wanted to throw out the epistle of James.
Like the Atheists I debated with, you are accusing me of things I did not do time and time again even though I have explained myself earlier.
>> I accuse nothing but have shown references, while you made many claims without references. Fine, let's move on.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
That verse never imply this. "because all the books in the world will not be able to write down what is the sensus fidelium of the universal faith"
Even a 10 year old kid who read this will not come to this conclusion. The catholic church just twisted this verse to suit their agenda.
So I guess by the same argument, if the whole world accepted homosexuality, then you have to as well.
>> Sigh, if you don't understand sensus fidelium, just say so. Using homosexuality as an example is ridiculous because it has been the constant teaching of the Church that it is sinful. False presumption on your part to accuse me of that. Not only is homosexual activity condemned explicitly in the Bible, it is only clearly taught to be sinful behaviour in official Catholic catechisms.
I already gave you an example. The baptist church. You obviously have purposely forgotten by convenience.
>> The link about the Baptist Church (from the Baptist Church) that you gave proved nothing, really.
I have no interest anymore to debate with someone who forgets very easily. This was meant to be a discussion with another catholic brother of yours who happen to represent himself well as compared to you.
>> More ad hominems.
Ok no more reply to you anymore. This is really, really the last one.
>>
Apr 15 2016, 02:35 AM

Quote
0.0303sec
0.61
6 queries
GZIP Disabled