Charlie Kirk debates regarding the Pope & other

[37818]

2 hour debate(s)

 

[37818]

Charlie Kirk accused, not quoted. By Baptist Pastor, Sam Adams.
Video 36 minutes

 

[Cathode]

Protestantism is truthy, but Catholicism is Truth.

It’s the many subjective interpretations and doctrines from the Bible that make Bible alone traditions truthy.

Catholicism not only determined and Canonised the first Bible, declaring it to all the world to be the Word of God, it maintains the singular interpretation of it from the Apostles, which is the Truth.

 

[37818]

. . . but Catholicism is Truth.

Of course as you are persuaded it to be in your views.
But not where Truth is being denied.

Catholicism not only determined and Canonised the first Bible, . . .

The 66 books of the Holy Bible were Holy when they were written.

 

[Ben1445]

Protestantism is truthy, but Catholicism is Truth.

It’s the many subjective interpretations and doctrines from the Bible that make Bible alone traditions truthy.

Catholicism not only determined and Canonised the first Bible, declaring it to all the world to be the Word of God, it maintains the singular interpretation of it from the Apostles, which is the Truth.

God’s Word is Truth. Catholicism is another religion made up of people who study Truth and don’t always get everything right because just like Protestants, Catholics, and “I’ve never been either of those,” we are all people who don’t always think like God. We don’t always get everything right.
Catholicism is not Truth. Catholicism is a religion. It also has difficulty, as all people, claiming to adhere to Christ's definition of pure and undefiled religion.

 

[JonC]

Charlie Kirk accused, not quoted. By Baptist Pastor, Sam Adams.
Video 36 minutes

The pastor, unfortunately, has crossed a line and essentually condemned Christ.

Form all I have seen I do not doubt that Charlie Kirk was a Christian, but ultimately God only knows. From what I have heard of him he did share the gospel, although not on a level one might expect from a theologian.

That said, I have also noticed a problem with how many "Christians" are reacting to Kirk now that he has been murdered. The pastor is right on this point.

I have seen "Christians" saying "Charlie Kirk lives in all of us", and attributing people flocking to church because that is what Kirk would want of them.

 

[Walter]

Of course as you are persuaded it to be in your views.
But not where Truth is being denied.


The 66 books of the Holy Bible were Holy when they were written.

The 72 books of the Bible were inspired when they were written, but the Catholic Church determined the canonical 27 New Testament books. Historical fact.

 

[37818]

The 72 books of the Bible were inspired when they were written, but the Catholic Church determined the canonical 27 New Testament books. Historical fact.

The 27 New Testament books were being used in the genuine Christian churches before the 2nd Century. And are today our sole Apostolic authority in the faith and practice.

Our 66 book Holy Bible are what we believe in in common.

 

[John of Japan]

The 72 books of the Bible were inspired when they were written, but the Catholic Church determined the canonical 27 New Testament books. Historical fact.

Not really. The NT canon was already accepted by the churches long before the Catholic religion was started. Churches were all independent until AD 313--fact! It is impossible to prove a Catholic religion before then. Newsflash: there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter was any kind of "pope." Read Eusebius, for example, or any of the early church fathers.

 

[NSH]

Protestantism is truthy, but Catholicism is Truth.

It’s the many subjective interpretations and doctrines from the Bible that make Bible alone traditions truthy.

Catholicism not only determined and Canonised the first Bible, declaring it to all the world to be the Word of God, it maintains the singular interpretation of it from the Apostles, which is the Truth.

scripture itself says Jesus is Truth . . . so both cannot be true in a purely logical world construct. Unless we are talking in symbols. If we are talking about the symbol of truth (and it seems to be the way you are using it) it is just the 'idea' of what truth represents in a given context. Jesus saying "I am the Truth" breaks all symbolic contexts and presents something harder to grapple with: the very fabric of what is right is the Son of God himself.

This truth that Jesus is, is different than the truth of protestant vs catholic because there is no opposing position to Jesus being truth.

 

[Cathode]

Not really. The NT canon was already accepted by the churches long before the Catholic religion was started. Churches were all independent until AD 313--fact! It is impossible to prove a Catholic religion before then. Newsflash: there is no evidence whatsoever that Peter was any kind of "pope." Read Eusebius, for example, or any of the early church fathers.

Got to stop you there John. All the Church Fathers writings from the first century onwards only come down to us from the lineage in the Catholic Church, which means they were all Catholic. One, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

These same Catholic sources are the ones that preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and it was these Catholics that assembled the first Canon of Apostolic writings and called it the Bible.
There were 53 books claiming to be Gospels and countless others claimed to be from Apostolic sources, but Catholic Tradition preserved only the true writings handed down.

Professor Peter Flint RIP, very smart Baptist translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls, brilliant lecturer, you need watch his lectures, said. “ Without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible “.

The “ Bible “ is entirely Catholic.

If Protestants or Baptist’s existed in the Early Church and had Sproulinius disciple of John, Fullerinas of Antioch, Daggeaus of Jerusalem. All handing down and preserving the scriptures and assembling the first Bible, I would be Protestant or Baptist. But the Bible didn’t come to us from Protestantism or Baptist’s.

The thing that keeps me Catholic is the fact that the Bible itself is entirely Catholic in origin by the Grace of God. Instead Catholics like Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine are the Apostolic lineage.
The human founded traditions of Protestantism or Baptist’s didn’t exist and had nothing to do with the preservation of the scriptures or canonisation of the Bible. This was all done by Catholics.

The other thing that confirms it is the incredible corruption and stupidity of people in the Catholic Church over 2000 years, and it still stands when nothing else that age exists. Whole nations, governments and empires, every institution of men have risen and fallen many times over, yet the Catholic Church remains. This can only be explained by God’s Grace and the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

 

[John of Japan]

Got to stop you there John. All the Church Fathers writings from the first century onwards only come down to us from the lineage in the Catholic Church, which means they were all Catholic. One, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

These same Catholic sources are the ones that preserved the scriptures from the Apostles and it was these Catholics that assembled the first Canon of Apostolic writings and called it the Bible.
There were 53 books claiming to be Gospels and countless others claimed to be from Apostolic sources, but Catholic Tradition preserved only the true writings handed down.

Professor Peter Flint RIP, very smart Baptist translator of the Dead Sea Scrolls, brilliant lecturer, you need watch his lectures, said. “ Without the Catholic Church, we would have no Bible “.

The “ Bible “ is entirely Catholic.

If Protestants or Baptist’s existed in the Early Church and had Sproulinius disciple of John, Fullerinas of Antioch, Daggeaus of Jerusalem. All handing down and preserving the scriptures and assembling the first Bible, I would be Protestant or Baptist. But the Bible didn’t come to us from Protestantism or Baptist’s.

I don't maintain that there were Protestants or Baptists in the early church, only that there were independent churches. There were also no Catholics. This is easily verified by paying attention to the pastors who attended the council of 313. None were said to rule any other churches. All were independent. There was no hierarchy, something that is a sine qua non for giving an early date to the founding of Catholicism.

The thing that keeps me Catholic is the fact that the Bible itself is entirely Catholic in origin by the Grace of God. Instead Catholics like Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine are the Apostolic lineage.

The apostolic lineage, yes. A so-called Catholic lineage, no. I have two editions of the ECF, and have read them both: Early Christian Writings, translated by Maxwell Staniforth, and The Apostolic Fathers, translated by J. B. Lightfoot. You mention Ignatius and Clement. Please find somewhere in their writings where one church is over any other, as in the Catholic hierarchy. I challenge you to show me in the ECF where any church is listed as having dominion over any other. If you find no such dominion in the ECF, it did not exist for the first centuries; ergo, there was no Roman Catholic Church yet.

As for Augustine (354-430), he didn't even minister until the late 4th century. I respect Jerome (340-420) as a linguist and Bible translator, but he also is too late to use for any argument that the RCC existed in the first four centuries. Some put the origin of Catholicism in Augustine. True, the RCC followed his theology to a degree, but I find no proof that he influenced the choosing of the canon as you seem to say. He lived too late for that.

Frankly, I put the origin of the RCC with Gregory the Great (540-604). Just look at all the things he instituted, a veritable definition of Catholicism:
“penance,” almsgiving, ascetic practices, the veneration and intercession of the saints, Purgatory, transubstantiation. Also, “Gregory encouraged the collection and veneration of holy remains of the saints and martyrs: locks of hair, fingernails, toes, pieces of clothing.” (Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language, 5th ed., 180).

Again, Gregory was the first so-called "pope" to exercise authority over other churches. "
He sought to tighten control over the Eastern form of Christianity. “He claimed and exercised, as far as he had the opportunity and power, the oversight over the whole church of Christ”(Shelley, 4th ed., 177).

The human founded traditions of Protestantism or Baptist’s didn’t exist and had nothing to do with the preservation of the scriptures or canonisation of the Bible. This was all done by Catholics.

Prove that there was a Catholic hierarchy when the canon was completed.

The other thing that confirms it is the incredible corruption and stupidity of people in the Catholic Church over 2000 years, and it still stands when nothing else that age exists. Whole nations, governments and empires, every institution of men have risen and fallen many times over, yet the Catholic Church remains. This can only be explained by God’s Grace and the promise of Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.

Buddhism has been around much longer than Catholicism, since "the Buddha" lived hundreds of years BC. And it has also had "incredible corruption and stupidity." So length of time proves nothing.