OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 04:04:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Poor RCC Defense  (Read 2649 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« on: May 19, 2004, 12:28:46 PM »

On a secular hobby related(DVD and film) forum I sometimes browse, someone started a topic asking Questions of Catholics.  Most of the small minority of Catholics there aren't doing a good job defending Catholicism, so I thought some of the more erudite RCC members here might like to go "back to basics" for a moment.  Here is the thread




Original question

Quote
Matthew 6
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Doesn't this conflict with the whole "Hail Mary" thing? Shouldn't you pray to God specifically for what you need instead of repeating a single phrase?

Also, I've heard this a few times...is it true that to Catholics, tradition and Catholic Dogma supercede the Bible?

And some of the comments by Evangelicals on the site:

Quote
The Bible says you can only be saved through Jesus, if you think you need the Church to get saved, you got a whole lot of things wrong

Quote
Quote
Originally posted by Static Cling
About your second question: Catholics view sacred scripture and sacred tradition as equal halves of the deposit of faith that was handed down from Jesus to the Apostles. One doesn't supersede the other; they're two parts of a whole.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


where do they get the idea that tradition is equal to scripture?

Aren't traditions things that were added over the last 2000 years?

Quote
Catholic timeline

1. Presbyters first called priests by Lucian 2nd c.
2. Sacerdotal mass instituted by Cyprian 3rd c.
3. Prayers for the dead A.D. 300
4. Making the sign of the cross A.D. 300
5. Wax candles A.D. 320
6. Veneration of angels, dead saints, and images A.D. 375
7. Mass became a daily ritual A.D. 394
8. Beginning of exaltation of Mary, term "Mother of God"
first applied to her by Council of Ephesus A.D. 431
9. Priests began to wear special clothing A.D. 500
10. Extreme Unction (Rite of Healing) A.D. 526
11. The doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory I A.D. 593
12. Latin used in worship A.D. 600
13. Prayers offered to Mary, dead saints and angels A.D. 600
14. First man to be proclaimed Pope (Boniface III) A.D. 610
15. Kissing the Pope's feet A.D. 709
16. Temporal power of Popes, conferred by Pepon,
King of the Franks A.D. 750
17. Veneration of cross, images, relics authorized A.D. 786
18. holy water, mixed with pinch of salt, chrism, and blessed
by a priest A.D. 850
19. Veneration of St. Joseph A.D. 890
20. College of Cardinals begun A.D. 927
21. Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII A.D. 965
22. Canonization of dead saints by Pope John XV A.D. 995
23. Fasting on Fridays and Lent A.D. 998
24. The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance
made obligatory 11th c.
25. Celibacy of priests declared A.D. 1079
26. Rosary adopted by Peter the Hermit A.D. 1090
27. The Inquisition instituted by Council of Verona A.D. 1184
28. Sale of indulgences A.D. 1190
29. Seven Sacraments, defined by Peter Lombard 12th c.
30. Transubstantiation, defined by Innocent III A.D. 1215
31. Auricular confession (Rite of reconciliation) of sins to a
priest instead of God, instituted by Innocent III A.D. 1215
32. Adoration of the wafer (called the Host), decreed by
Pope Honorius III A.D. 1220
33. Scapular invented by Simon Stock of England A.D. 1251
34. The cup forbidden to the laity at communion by Council of
Constance A.D. 1414
35. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of
Florence in A.D. 1439
36. Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the
Council of Trent A.D. 1545
37. Apocryphal books are added to the Bible by the Council
of Trent A.D. 1546
38. Creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed in place
of the original Apostolic Creed A.D. 1560
39. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not virgin birth) proclaimed
by Pope Pius IX A.D. 1854
40. Syllabus of Errors proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified
by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of religion,
conscience, speech, press and scientific discoveries which
are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the Pope's
temporal authority over all civil rulers A.D. 1864
41. Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals
proclaimed by the Vatican Council A.D. 1870
42. Assumption of Mary proclaimed by Pius XII A.D. 1950
43. Mary proclaimed the "Mother of the Church" by Pope
Paul VI A.D. 1965

Quote
the Immaculate Conception means that Mary's mother was a virgin, right? Any Biblical basis for this? why is this even something Catholics believe?

Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2004, 01:13:27 PM »

Quote
the Immaculate Conception means that Mary's mother was a virgin, right? Any Biblical basis for this? why is this even something Catholics believe?

Oy. Roll Eyes
Logged

hmmmm...
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2004, 01:27:59 PM »

In regards to the comment by the evangelical about "The Bible says people can only be saved through Jesus"...Just last week on a debate forumn I was able to convince a very learned sola-scripta...that Jesus died for everyone and make him understand the lack of biblical support to the common evangelical question.."are you saved?"...as it relates to the common Protestant definition of being "saved". He was willing to do some research on his own and was also willing to look into some scholarly works on the origins of the Bible and English translations -- these subjects interested him very much even before our discussion. ( He is Sola Scripta though and notyour typical Evangelical)

Unless someone is having a discussion with an Evangelical who is open to considering other interpreatations...and those "evangelicals" are rare...IMO...I think the best approach is to ask them to read in the Gospel (can't cite here, I'm at work and Bible is in the car) where Christ asnwers the question "What is the most important Law?".

As someone who just converted to Orthodoxy from the RCC....and who used to be an apologist for the RCC...all I can say is the RCC...IMO.... does a very poor job in general of teaching the Bible. It Only recently encouraged Parishioners to read it unsupervised, and in general does not prepare Parishioners well to answer these kinds of questions.

As far as chanting....I would today share the Jesus Prayer with such people and ask them if they think it is vain.

As for the RCC take on immaculate conception...from the RCC perspective one has to buy into the concept of the "stain of Original sin" as opposed the "consequences of Original Sin"...and that was something I never accepted even as a practicing RC ( The whole "Baby Limbo" thing required if one is to believe this). I have not been able to find convincing scriptural support for this idea. The same is true for the RC concept of Purgatory and Indulgences...as an RC apologist I was in fact using the Orthodox perspective for my apologetics when dealing with Evangelicals and other Protestants...with some success I might add....although at the time I did not realize my concept and beliefs on this issue were in fact "Orthodox" and not just my own perspective of the RC perspective.

Also if tradition and dogma are on a par with scripture...then any RC who truly believes this needs to look into Orthodox Christianity further. Even in my short life I have seen so many changes in the RCC. My RC ancestors would not recognize a modern Roman Mass in the US today.

As a former RC apologist who regualry particiapted in discussions and debates with Evangelicals and other Protestants...all I can say is Orthodoxy makes more sense if one wants to argue the importance of Apostolic tradition.

Oh and BTW...that timeline is 100% accurate and does an excellent job of destroying the RC "Tradition" argument.

Sorry I could not be more helpful. Perhaps I should not have responded as I just converted to the Orthodox Christian Church at Pascha (Easter). But since I used to be an RC apoligist who participated in such discussion and debates regularly with such people...I thought I mught throw in my 1/2 cents.

The RCC does publish a series of study booklets and pamphlets for RCs who want to be be prepared for apologetic discussions. I would suggest contacting your local Parish and studying them if you are truly interested in countering such arguments from the RCC point of view...or just acquiring a deeper undertsanding of what itis the RCC actually teaches and are nolonger satisfied with the "theology in the pews". Oh and I would also suggest some intensive unsupervised Bible Study. The St. Joseph's Edition of the New American Bible is an excellent Bible for such purposes. It was prepared by the RCC in North America for serious study and there are notations throughout the whole book. Study it...tab it for quick reference, study the apologetics literature form the Curch...and you'll be on your way.

I must warn you though such activities might lead to discovering and converting to Orthodoxy...do not be surprised if your Parish priest discourages you from Apologetics study and dsicussions. This is not uncommon. experi
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2004, 01:42:30 PM »

Wow! What a thread! Worthy of the another bookmark.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2004, 01:57:17 PM »

Oh and BTW...that timeline is 100% accurate and does an excellent job of destroying the RC "Tradition" argument.

Ummm...I dunno...the first 13 (at least) apply to us, too, to some degree...perhaps this is merely the first time anybody wrote it DOWN (though I dispute some of the dates for that, too).
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Brendan03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 544



« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2004, 02:35:18 PM »

"As someone who just converted to Orthodoxy from the RCC....and who used to be an apologist for the RCC...all I can say is the RCC...IMO.... does a very poor job in general of teaching the Bible."

I agree with this, having been through 12 years of Catholic education and not learning too much abouty the Bible to be honest.  We must take care, however, because many Orthodox are really no better off vis-a-vis the Bible (and I'm talking about cradle Os here, not converts from Protestantism).  We have a lot of work to do here in the Orthodox Church istm as well.

"The whole "Baby Limbo" thing required if one is to believe this."

It seems to be, but some RCs would say that unbaptized infants nevertheless do not go to limbo because of the mercy of God for such persons which overcomes their stain of original sin, sort of a baptism-by-mercy idea.  It's true that something like limbo seems necessary for the unbaptized, but I know that at least some RCs don't believe in limbo.

"Also if tradition and dogma are on a par with scripture...then any RC who truly believes this needs to look into Orthodox Christianity further."

And a good number have, but our own problems, which are many, help to defeat us.  The single biggest obstacle I have seen for RCs who are considering Orthodoxy is the lack of visible unity amongst us.  Coming from the organized world of the RCC, our admittedly chaotic condition is extremely off-putting to many Orthodox-minded RCs.  It bothers Protestants much less, coming as they do from an even *less* organized religious landscape than Orthodoxy.  I know more than one RC who has seriously considered Orthodoxy only to remain where they are due to our infighting and disorganization.

"Even in my short life I have seen so many changes in the RCC. My RC ancestors would not recognize a modern Roman Mass in the US today."

Maybe, but you have to keep in mind that there were many more changes in the last 40 years than in the previous 350!  We happened to live through a time of great change in Catholicism, other generations before ours did not.  But the point, I think, to take from this is that these kinds of sweeping changes are *possible* in Catholicism because of its system, while they are fairly impossible in Orthodoxy because of ours.  This is generally a good thing for us, but sometimes it can hinder us too.

"As a former RC apologist who regualry particiapted in discussions and debates with Evangelicals and other Protestants...all I can say is Orthodoxy makes more sense if one wants to argue the importance of Apostolic tradition."

I think it is in some ways easier to attract Protestants to Orthodoxy than to Catholicism because of the deep suspicion that many Protestants have of Catholicism in general and of the Papacy in particular.  That advantage has been deployed fairly well by our evangelists who focus on Protestants, I think.

B
Logged

B
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2004, 04:06:22 PM »

I see what you mean about the whole disunity...Like I said in another thread, I am glad I came to this site after I converted....

I am blessed to have the Parish I do where there is no real focus on disunifying matters -- just God and our Fellow man.
Logged
Rho
Running from dead works to Christ.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2004, 10:46:27 AM »

Quote
SPARTACUS:  He is Sola Scripta though and notyour typical Evangelical)

Simple question - could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Logged

"I have taken my good deeds and my bad deeds and thrown them together in a heap. Then I have fled from both of them to Christ, and in Him I have peace." --David Dickson

Matthew 9:13 - Who is the sinner if not I?
John
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


OC.net


« Reply #8 on: May 21, 2004, 09:22:33 AM »

Hello everyone.  I just stumbled on to your site today.  And I thought maybe I could offer some suggestions.

There are plenty of resources out there that do a good job of portraying the Roman Catholic position.  I'll list 2 that I find are good. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org-- fairly well detailed  on most issues.  As for apologists, there are plenty on the internet.  But one 'amateur' one, who I find to be very good is Dave Armstrong at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM

There's a lot posted above-- but I'll do my best to field one of them.  Smiley

Quote
Matthew 6
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Doesn't this conflict with the whole "Hail Mary" thing? Shouldn't you pray to God specifically for what you need instead of repeating a single phrase?

The Catholic position, I believe, is that the emphasis in Matthew 6:7 is not on 'repetition', but on 'vain.'  Otherwise, if there's a problem with mere repetition, then there's a problem with Jesus praying in Gethsemane: "He went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words"(Mat 26:44 & Mark 14:39)  Also, Revelation 4:8 has the Angels repeating the same words over and over again, "Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.'"


Thanks,  Smiley

John
Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2004, 09:29:16 AM »

John,

Thanks for the websites.  For the most part, I think Catholic (and former Catholic) posters here are very good at Catholic apologetics.  I posted this in case some of them wanted to help a Catholic over a secular fora who is way over his head.  It would also be a breath of fresh air to get one's head out of the Eastern Orthodoxy vs. Roman Catholicism and into the much simpler(but often more frustrating) Ignorant secular or uneducated evangelical vs. Roman Catholicism.  

I do appreciate the sites though.  Welcome to the forums here.  Feel free to start a new topic to introduce yourself in the Other forum if you like.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
John
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


OC.net


« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2004, 10:44:19 AM »

Thanks for the welcome, David.  Smiley

Yeah, I checked out that thread- and they do seem to be in over their head.  It looks like the understanding of tradition needs to be fleshed out first of all. (and 'Sola Scriptura' taken down.) 1 Tim. 3:15, for starters?  And the fact that the Bible was written, compiled and organized by the church?

Looking forward to fruitful conversations,

John

Logged
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 21, 2004, 10:51:31 AM »

Also, just to be clear, the "Uneducated Evangelical" I used above is made to the posters at that site, a number of which have no idea why they beileve what they believe, and not evangelicals in general.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
Robert
"Amazing"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,442



« Reply #12 on: May 21, 2004, 11:20:20 AM »

Welcome, John!

While I try to refrain from personal attacks, I do find Dave Armstrong to be a lacking apologist who is poor at getting his facts and history straight.

Case in point can be found in his plethora of articles on Eastern Christianity.  Without steeping into elaborate detail, I will quote one extreme, in which Dave accuses the east of Caesaropapism.

Enough said in regards to the above.

While Dave may be a very able apologist for the Roman Catholics with Protestants, he should get educated about the east before he boasts such errant claims.

Cap'n
Hello everyone.  I just stumbled on to your site today.  And I thought maybe I could offer some suggestions.

There are plenty of resources out there that do a good job of portraying the Roman Catholic position.  I'll list 2 that I find are good. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org-- fairly well detailed  on most issues.  As for apologists, there are plenty on the internet.  But one 'amateur' one, who I find to be very good is Dave Armstrong at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM

There's a lot posted above-- but I'll do my best to field one of them.  :)The Catholic position, I believe, is that the emphasis in Matthew 6:7 is not on 'repetition', but on 'vain.'  Otherwise, if there's a problem with mere repetition, then there's a problem with Jesus praying in Gethsemane: "He went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words"(Mat 26:44 & Mark 14:39)  Also, Revelation 4:8 has the Angels repeating the same words over and over again, "Day and night they do not stop exclaiming: 'Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.'"


Thanks,  Smiley

John
Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2004, 11:50:36 AM »


There are plenty of resources out there that do a good job of portraying the Roman Catholic position.  I'll list 2 that I find are good. First, the Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org-- fairly well detailed  on most issues.  As for apologists, there are plenty on the internet.  But one 'amateur' one, who I find to be very good is Dave Armstrong at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZHOME.HTM


Welcome...

Later today I will post the address of a group that publishes the official apologetics publications used by the RCC in the US.

Their materials are a good resource for Orthodox and RCs. I dare say though that my exposure and particpiation as an apologist for the RCC helped lead me to Orthodox Christianity and so I am grateful for these materials. In studying the materials one finds that differences between Orthodoxy and RC are rooted in Papal edicts more than scripture and tradition...In order to believe the RC teachings in these matters it is required to believe that St, Peter's heirs are whom Christ intended to lead His Church....

The scritural support for this though is weak and contradicted even within the same chapter of the Gospel that the RCC points to to find justification for this belief -- and the excommunication of the Orthodox Churches in eleventh century.

I know to RCs this sounds like "Protestantism" but actually this aspect of Protestanism is borrowed from Orthodoxy Grin. Martin Luther was in correspondence with at least one Orthodox Patriarch prior to posting his famous document.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,353



« Reply #14 on: May 21, 2004, 11:56:42 AM »

Wax Candles?!?? There's something inherently significant or wrong or odd about Wax Candles!?!??  Oh for Heaven's sake.  It's called "Lighting Before electricity"  and "they don't spill like oil lamps"  argle bargle snargle. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that one just doesn't make sense.

I'd bang my head on the desk, but the keyboard is in the way.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
John
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


OC.net


« Reply #15 on: May 21, 2004, 12:05:17 PM »

Thanks for your reply, Cap'n.

I can't say I've read that article-- and in fact you may be right in that respect.  He is an 'amateur'-- that is, driven by love-  apologist, and I do find his tone, from what I've read so far, refreshing in comparison to many of the polemic apologists.  He seems to be quite genuine- and willing to admit mistakes.

Here, for example, is a quote from one of his correspondences http://www.cin.org/archives/apolo/200001/0172.html:

Quote
>Do you see the parallel here? You might have intended to examine the
>*condition* of the Eastern Churches, but the average reader will think that
>you are comparing *doctrines* because of the ambiguous character of the
>first term is "clarified" by the second comparison, and the because the
>claim is situated in an essay which intends, as one of its central
>purposes, to show the deficient character of >Orthodox ecclesiology.


This is an excellent point, and one which I readily concede. I have learned
much about Orthodoxy since I wrote that essay, which was about three years
ago, I believe, and even more about this particular subject as we have
interacted. So that is another instance where I need to re-write the
section, as it does imply a certain double standard which (I fully agree) is
unfair: a type of "apples and oranges" reasoning which is fallacious.


I wouldn't go so far as to call his apologetics "lacking" in general.  We are all learning.  Wink

Thanks,

John

Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2004, 01:12:42 PM »

Simple question - could you elaborate on what you mean by that?

Sola Scriptura is the Protestant idea that scripture (the Bible) is all that is needed as the foundation for faith and Christ's church. It is interesting to note though that this idea is nowhere found in the Bible!

It is also interesting that the Protestant's Bible have deleted a number of books -- yet nowhere in the NT do we find a list of which books are actually supposed to make up the Bible!

No matter how Protestants defend these deletions -- and they typically point to works by their own biblical scholars -- most of the deleted books refer to the importance of tradition and warn against the downfalls of ideas like Sola Scriptura. This is unfortunate for the Protestants...one of the deleted books, Macabees, actually lists more prophecies of the coming of Christ than any other book found in the Bible.

Many Protestant Bibles today though include all the original books -- but make large notations on the ones that were originally deleted!

When Protestants use terms like Pseudipigrapha and Apocrapha -- they are referring often to the deleted books in the Bible and can also be referring to other sacred writings between 400BC and 200AD as well.

So I hope I have explained Sola Scriptura....and perhaps this explains why so many Evangelicals disregard the importance of Apostolic tradition.

It is also worth noting that many of these Charismatic Christian Churches popping up these days are not affiliated with any denomination and are in fact "Sola Scriptura" churches. There are also people who call themselves Christians, and are very knowledgable about the Bible, who do not attend any church meeting regualarly and believe they get all they need just from studying the Bible -- on a secular site I have actually received PMs from some of these people inquiring about how one should pray!

Later today or tomorrow I willpost some excerpts from the RCC apologetics literature that counters Sola Scriptura with Scripture and also gives Chapet verse counters to some of the things posted on the first post of this thread.

In my experience when it comes to Protestants whose church-- whatever it is --- is based on the Bible -- and they argue against the RCC and Orthodox Christianity...It is very much worth starting out the conversation by reminding them which churches were responsible for compiling and preserving the scripture they use to argue their mistaken position.

However when these "bible thumpers" adopt a hostile stance -- as they often do, it is perhaps better to let them ask the questions, demonstarte a knowledge of the Bible (many believe all Catholics and Orthodox are totally ignorant of the Bible. I have even heard some think we are forbidden to read the Bible as lay parishioners!), and answer their questions based on scripture.

IIn dealing with Protestants in situations like this, I have found that although some can quote chapter and verse -- they do not understand the real meaning behiond what they are reading...and instead have their own (sometimes very "unorthodox" interpretations they developed themselves or got from some preacher).
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,190


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Nazarenes


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2004, 08:18:29 PM »

This is unfortunate for the Protestants...one of the deleted books, Macabees, actually lists more prophecies of the coming of Christ than any other book found in the Bible.

This is interesting.  Is there a list available anywhere online where one can see all these references?  I must admit not having made it through the books of Maccabees yet, and this would be a good thing to look into.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


"Mor is a jerk." - kelly
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2004, 10:46:36 PM »

Contacts for RCC apologetics --- much of this material is also applicable to Orthodox Christians.

San Juan Catholic Semnars
PO Box 5253
Farmington, NM  87499-5253
Phone  505.327.5343
FAx       505.327.9554



The Faith of the Early Fathers
edited by Wm A. Jurgens (1970)
is a 3 colume set containing the writings of the early Christian fathers. Valume one is probably the best...

available from:
Family Life Center, International
PO Box 6060
Port Chalotte, FL  33949
800.705.6131

www.dads.org


Please forgive me but I am not 100% positive it is Macabees the protestants threw out....I read which book it was last night and now can not find my notes Roll Eyes....but one of the OT books the proetstants threw out ...does teach about the importance of traditon while at the same time having the most prophecies about the coming of Christ...Sorry...but after I get done here I need to write a long essay to convince as part of my effort to convince some Sola Scripturas about what "salvation" is and the imporatnce of traditon......
« Last Edit: May 21, 2004, 11:25:18 PM by spartacus » Logged
spartacus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286


OC.net


« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2004, 11:15:19 PM »


Original questionAnd some of the comments by Evangelicals on the site:where do they get the idea that tradition is equal to scripture?

Aren't traditions things that were added over the last 2000 years?

Here are some citations that come in handy answering protestant questions:

* -- denotes verse often sited by Protestants

TRADITION CONDEMNED?

*Mt 15:3 --break commandment of God for your tradition
*Mk 7:9 --set aside God's commandment to uphold tradition
1 Cor 11:2 -- commends them for following tradition
2 Thess 2:15 -- commands them  to keep tradition
2 Thess 3:6 -- shun those acting not according to tradition

Bible Alone or Bible + Tradition?

1 Cor 11:2 -- hold fast to traditions I handed you
2Thess 2:15 hold fast to traditions whether oral or by letter
2 Thess 3:6 -- shun those not acting according to traditon
Jn 21:25 -- not everything Jesus said recorded in scripture
Acts 20:35 --- Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in Gospels
2 Tim 1:13 -- follow my sound words; guard the truth
2 Tim 2:2 -- what you heard entrust to faithful men
2 Pet 3:15-16 -- Paul's Letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
Rom 10:17 -- faith comes from what is heard


Have you been saved?

Rom 8:24 -- for in hope we are saved
Eph 2:5,8 -- by grace you have been saved through faith
2 Tim 1:9  -- he saved us called us according to his grace
Tit 3:5  -- he saved us thru bath of rebirth, renewal by Holy Spirit
Phil 2:12 -- work out your salvation with fear and trembling
1 Pet 1:9 -- as you attain the goal of your faith, salvation
Mt 10:22  -- he who endures to the end will be saved
Mt 24:13 -- he who perseveres to the end will be saved

Repetitious prayer
*Mt 6:7 -- do not babble like pagans with their many words
1Kgs 18:25-29 -- example of vain repetition: call Baal for hours
Mt  26:44 -- Jesus prayed a thrid time, saying same thing again
Lk 18:13 -- collector kept beating breast & praying: be merciful
Rev 4:8 -- repeat day and night, Holy, holy, holy is the Lord
1 Thess 5:17 -- pray without ceasing


I hope this helps. These are all taken from a laminated "cheat sheet" I still have from my days as a RCC apologist...these are only about 10% of everything on the sheet...If anyone (Orthododx or RC) has any other issues encountered with Protestants let me know by PM and I will forward you specifics....Or if you happen to be a protestant looking for Biblical references regarding isses like Apostlic succession, the Virgin Mary, Veneration of Saints, Perpetual Virginity...and all the other things Protestant preachers cite as definciencies you can Pm me too.

Again the best question to ask people who claim the Bible is the 100% literal word of God...and only Scripture and faith are needed for a foundation of a Christian Church or Christian Belief system is:

Where do you find that in the Bible?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2004, 11:23:24 PM by spartacus » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.094 seconds with 47 queries.