Originally posted by Singer:
"The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, so it goes back as far as he does."
(This would be an example of "out of context".)
i.e. the Bible came from the Catholic Church - that is, if you know your history)
(This would be too).
You're not listening, and you're again taking me out of context. The first time I was referring to Jesus after He came in the flesh, and simple logic should have let you know that I was referring to that, since it makes no sense to claim that a Church existed before the world existed. You were trying to make me look foolish for no good reason. You can disagree and not try to make a fool of me.
Originally posted by Singer:
[QB]No, Carson, the Bible came from God (the Inspired word of God).[/b]
So God actually, Himself, put the words down on paper? Last I checked, he employed faithful followers to write down His most precious Word. And if they were believers, they were in the Church, for the Church was started as soon as Jesus ascended into Heaven, and the NT Scriptures were not written until some years after that. Therefore, members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church produced the Scriptures, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What Carson said was not invalid.
Originally posted by Singer:
The RCC did not 'go back' as far as Christ and the RCC did not 'go back' as far as the founding of scripture.
According to your false interpretation of history, sure.
Originally posted by Singer:
This is getting ridiculous. That would be equal to a little boy saying that his teacher wrote all the text books.
Another bad analogy that doesn't hold up. That is not an equal scenario, because no one person in the Catholic Church claims he or she wrote Scriptures. The Church says that members of the Church wrote it. What would be an equal analogy would be a teacher stating that some of her fellow colleagues wrote the textbooks.
Originally posted by Singer:
There's no scandal except that offered by the RCC. No other denomination suggests to be exclusive in the appointment of administering the teachings of Jesus.
Perhaps not, but many don't have a problem condemning different teachings, and some go as far as to damn to hell members of other denominations, something the Catholic Church does not do.
Originally posted by Singer:
The faith of Protestants exceeds Peter and whatever role he played. Paul rebuked Peter. Maybe Paul should be the subject of your faith.
That first line makes no sense whatsoever. I didn't know you were capable of judging someone else's faith, especially a close disciple of Jesus Christ. Second, the Paul-rebuking-Peter story has been talked about many times before, and Catholics have a solid stance on that issue. If you want to know more about it, do a search; it's been discussed countless times.
Nor does it matter; we didn't pick Peter as the Pope; Christ chose him. Frankly, I trust Jesus' judgement better than yours.
Originally posted by Singer:
Yes and that's ALL they were. No one was referred to as a Catholic at that time.
They weren't referred to as Baptists or Methodists or Lutherans or Calvinits or anything else either, but you don't see a problem naming your church as such. This argument is a dead end.
Originally posted by Singer:
It's grossly preposterous to claim that all pre-Catholic believers were also Catholic. When
the term DID arrive, it only meant "universal" and was spelled with a small 'c'. (catholic)
It's not wrong at all; the Church hasn't changed. She is one in the same as she alwasy was. At some point in history, she inherited a name, meaning "universal," because she is the true Church of God everywhere in the world.
God bless,
Grant
