Lie
Lie
Intentional lie
Three trikes and you're out.
Good bye!
Catholicism vs. Biblical Christianity
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Three trikes and you're out.
Good bye!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Yeah, because, originally it was called "Codex Sinaiticus", and he thought that would be too hard for knotheads to be able to read, let alone type out on a keyboard. Hence, today we have the "codex sinacticus".
Try sharing bible truths instead of giving support to satans will and cutting your fellow family members down at every turn. TY.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
You’re not even a Christian, so you're not one of my fellow Christians, you illiterate hypocrite.
You just judged yourself with the same judgement you gave me. Shows you are the one who does not know the bible.
No, what it shows is that he's not a hypocrite, like you are.
Only hypocrites are scared of being judged by the same standard they hold others to.
Jesus is Gods appointed judge-not either of you.
Catholicism= tree trunk--- protestants = many branches of that tree.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
What do you even mean by that?
Here's what I had written:
Do you mean that what I meant is:
?
It's very clear that I did not judge myself to not be a Christian, inasmuch as my words "my fellow Christians" show me judging myself to be a Christian.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
LOL
You Catholics always say that sort of thing. Similarly, you were saying Catholicism gave us the Bible:
Did or did not Jesus say the words spoken in John 7:24?
Did or did not Paul write 1 Corinthians 6:1-11?
Last I checked, I've never been Catholic.
I would NEVER be a Catholic, nor one of her branches. Catholicism did not give us the bible, God did.
You are part of one of her branches--The bible is clear--A good tree produces good fruit-etc.
Derf
Well-known member
But a good vine sometimes produces branches that need to be pruned or cast off and tossed in the fire.
John 15:6 KJV — If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
There is a particular kind of ignorance that parades itself as insight, especially when it comes wrapped in conspiracy theories about Bible corruption. Our resident One Pentecostal asserts that “Catholicism altered the Bible in the 4th century to fit their false council teachings,” and that the only sources left for the Reformers were the Latin Vulgate and Codex Sinaiticus, allegedly both corrupted in the same century. The level of confusion in that claim is staggering. There's no way that it's accidental.
First, there is no evidence, none, of wholesale biblical alteration in the 4th century to fit Trinitarian doctrine. The Council of Nicaea dealt with theological debates based on Scripture, not by rewriting it. The idea that bishops at Nicaea took out pens and edited the New Testament is just pure historical fiction to the point of delusion.
Second, the notion that the Reformers were stuck with “Catholic translations” like the Latin Vulgate or Codex Sinaiticus is equally absurd. Codex Sinaiticus was not even discovered until the 19th century, over 300 years after the Reformation. As for the Vulgate, it was a Latin translation, not an original manuscript, and the Reformers deliberately bypassed it. Erasmus compiled the Greek New Testament from Byzantine manuscripts, not from the Vulgate. The Reformers knew full well what they were doing. They were not duped, ignorant or stupid. They were reclaiming the Scriptures from the distortions of Rome.
Ironically, those who peddle this sort of nonsense often cling to the King James Version of the bible, completely unaware that it was translated from the very manuscript line preserved through the same historical church they accuse of corruption. In other words, they reject the Catholic Church while trusting the product of its manuscript preservation.
The problem here is not a lack of information, it is a refusal to engage with facts. Mixing half-truths with wild speculation does not make one a defender of truth, it simply reveals a mind that has confused suspicion for scholarship.
The most profitable thing about Servant1's presence here is that before he showed up, I just thought that Oneness Pentecostals were more or less the same as regular Pentecostals except that they reject doctrines related to the Trinity. He's taught me that they aren't even Christians at all! They're far more irrational than the Mormon and at least as heretical as any "Christian" cult you care to name, which is information worth having. Servant1 is putting on a master class on how to try and sell rotten fruit!
First, there is no evidence, none, of wholesale biblical alteration in the 4th century to fit Trinitarian doctrine. The Council of Nicaea dealt with theological debates based on Scripture, not by rewriting it. The idea that bishops at Nicaea took out pens and edited the New Testament is just pure historical fiction to the point of delusion.
Second, the notion that the Reformers were stuck with “Catholic translations” like the Latin Vulgate or Codex Sinaiticus is equally absurd. Codex Sinaiticus was not even discovered until the 19th century, over 300 years after the Reformation. As for the Vulgate, it was a Latin translation, not an original manuscript, and the Reformers deliberately bypassed it. Erasmus compiled the Greek New Testament from Byzantine manuscripts, not from the Vulgate. The Reformers knew full well what they were doing. They were not duped, ignorant or stupid. They were reclaiming the Scriptures from the distortions of Rome.
Ironically, those who peddle this sort of nonsense often cling to the King James Version of the bible, completely unaware that it was translated from the very manuscript line preserved through the same historical church they accuse of corruption. In other words, they reject the Catholic Church while trusting the product of its manuscript preservation.
The problem here is not a lack of information, it is a refusal to engage with facts. Mixing half-truths with wild speculation does not make one a defender of truth, it simply reveals a mind that has confused suspicion for scholarship.
The most profitable thing about Servant1's presence here is that before he showed up, I just thought that Oneness Pentecostals were more or less the same as regular Pentecostals except that they reject doctrines related to the Trinity. He's taught me that they aren't even Christians at all! They're far more irrational than the Mormon and at least as heretical as any "Christian" cult you care to name, which is information worth having. Servant1 is putting on a master class on how to try and sell rotten fruit!
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
@Sepent1 seems to even include the Byzantine texts as "Greek translating" that "was translated out of Catholicism translating":
Which makes you wonder what @Serpent1 would even use for a New Testament.
He is literally a lunatic. He simply does not care if what he believes and says has any relationship with documented history, actual reality or anything related to rationality or even common sense.
Discussing religion with Serpent1 is the intellectual equivalent to discussing biology with Jack the Ripper.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The write ups?
That's not what the write ups say!