- Reaction score
Head to your library and study William Tyndale. He was burned at the stake for translating the Bible to English and making it available for the public. He actually helped preserve the Bible. Many of today's translations are inspired by him. I would suggest reading:Can you provide a reference? I'm not doubting you, but would like to see the details of how widespread and where this was
Pope Gregory IX started the Inquisition. It wasn't just Spain. But yes, originally it was only Catholics. Originally. Eventually it poured into France, the Netherlands, Peru, Mexico, Germany, Italy, and Portugal. Then they came for Protestant, Jews, and Muslims.The secular courts tried heretics for their own reasons. It was a civil offence, at the time. The Catholic courts were there to try to provide proper representation about heresy. I've repeatedly said that I am not defending the church role in historical events, but I am asking for a fair study of the facts.
Only Christians (Catholics) were subject to the inquisition because only Catholics could be heretical. Jews and Muslims were outside the scope of Christian heresy
I feel like you're speaking a different language. So let me summarize for you.The way I see it, relying on 'unless the Bible says so' is is lazy.
I would argue the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25).
I corrected my error, but you haven't addressed the point. According to the Bible, executing offends, and be self-harming left, right and centre, because the Bible says so.
As I have said, and shown, Jews, Christians and Muslims adhere to Scripture and Tradition, the two proceed hand-in-hand. Scripture holds the prior place, but then the Scripture was produced by the Tradition, so it can become quite an involved discussion.
I mean, the Hebrew Scriptures are just that – Scripture, but they are the product of the Tradition. Likewise, there was Christian Tradition before Paul or the earliest scribe sat down to write.
One could argue that only Islam is a Tradition where the Scripture came first – but they too observe the role of Tradition in the development of doctrine.
I definitely think you got me all wrong. My point is very simple. Just because a group does some good things doesn't mean that they are 1. good and 2. no longer guilty of doing evil actions. This isn't even a religious theme. That's just my point. I really don't like digging out my old books and notes and having to bring up negative actions of the Catholic church or any church for that matter. You are obviously a pleasant person, from what I see on here, so I really hope you aren't thinking I'm on a witch hunt of your church. I made my original point and that is what I'm trying to stick to.It wasn't pretty, that's for sure. I'm not defending the inquisition. But numbers are inflated and there are many misconceptions, imo
You want a reference saying that only the Catholic church has preserved the New Testament during the first 1500 years of Christianity? Where would I find such a reference? It's obvious to me, unless there is a parallel group. So I'm not deflecting. You seem, to disagree with my statement, so I'm asking you for informationNice deflection there.
You made a statement. You offer no proof. You want me to help you prove your claim?You want a reference saying that only the Catholic church has preserved the New Testament during the first 1500 years of Christianity? Where would I find such a reference? It's obvious to me, unless there is a parallel group. So I'm not deflecting. You seem, to disagree with my statement, so I'm asking you for information
Nice deflection, lolYou made a statement. You offer no proof. You want me to help you prove your claim?
My head hurts.
The thing is I could probably write a book about how great the Catholic church is and write about all of the wonderful things it has done. I could also write another book about all of the atrocities caused by the Catholic church. Both would be true. I could probably give you all sorts of references about the work the Catholic church has done to preserve the Bible. But it's your point. You own it.
It's not a deflection. I'm invoking burden of proof. You make a claim, prove it. It's not my burden to bear. If I am going to prove YOUR claim and my claims, then I might as well argue with the wall.Nice deflection, lol
Do you know of any other group that has preserved the New Testament for the first 1500 years of Christianity? C'mon: I'm here to learn ...
All credit to you on that score.I don't think we are all that far apart...nice to see you coming around to the impact of politics...
The Christology?But I'm really not sure I agree with this above. Bear in mind, Paul was duly trained as a Pharisee, I personally think he was essentially a Rabbi without the title, though perhaps that could be challenged on a number of points, but in practice that is how it seems to me.
Well quite, on the moral teaching we have no disagreement.So while testimony (what may or may not at this point become oral tradition) would have comprised a portion of any teaching, demonstrating Jesus as Messiah and any moral teachings would have to be grounded in the Jewish Scriptures...
I think that went way beyond Jewish expectation, and indeed Paul's own understanding of messiah, until his conversion.and what testimony there was focused on Jesus fulfilling the role of Messiah.
Paul is a bit enigmatic in this regard, a bit of a wild card (unlike the other Apostles, who experienced Jesus directly). Anything he could have possibly known of Jesus the man was second hand, hearsay even. Of course, the natural response is to point to the vision on the road to Damascus...but anyone who has experienced any kind of supernatural epiphany understands that's not how it works. It isn't like Paul had instantaneous intimate knowledge of what took place during Jesus' ministry other than perhaps popular reports. Paul wasn't there to witness the Beatitudes, for example, like the other Apostles were.(Jesus fulfilling the role of Messiah)
I think that went way beyond Jewish expectation, and indeed Paul's own understanding of messiah, until his conversion.
And as said, the Christology in the verses cited would invite the accusation of blasphemy, as was the case in the Gospel accounts of His self-declarations.
I have explained the reasoning at length, with references, and you've taken none of it on board ...I feel like you're speaking a different language. So let me summarize for you.
No, that's not the Catechism of the Ctholic Church. That's from the Rev. S. Keenan's dubious document (a diatribe against Protestants). In fact it seems to me all your quoted materials come from dubious sources – the citations are all over the internet, of course, but I find no references on JSTOR or other scholarly resources."The Catholic Church sanctified Sunday by her own authority, not by scripture" -The Catechism of the Catholic Church-
To me you're just playing a game to avoid admitting the obvious, lol. Nothing to do with unicorns or burden of proof.It's not a deflection. I'm invoking burden of proof. You make a claim, prove it. It's not my burden to bear. If I am going to prove YOUR claim and my claims, then I might as well argue with the wall.
If you claimed that unicorns exist, it isn't my job to prove you wrong. If I refused to provide proof that they didn't exist, that wouldn't mean your empty claim was correct.