- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:55 pm to gaetti15
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:55 pm to gaetti15
quote:The article is off to a bad start when it misapplies the first verse it cites (Luke 10:16). That verse was given to the 72, not to Peter alone or the 12 Apostles. This was Jesus giving them authority to proclaim the gospel and that if the truth is rejected, Jesus is being rejected. It isn't teaching the infallibility of the 72, nor the RCC going forward.quote:like this
How would you define "infallible"?
The rest of the case for papal infallibility is extremely flawed, from misuse of the Scriptures to an incorrect view of history (Augustine's quote about Rome was about a particular matter, not a nod to the infallibility of the Church).
It wasn't until the late 1800s that Papal infallibility was defined as dogma, and even at that time there was much debate and disagreement by faithful Catholics.
1
Posted on 10/9/25 at 4:58 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:It isn't fragile at all, and your opinion of what is sad is still just your opinion.
If your “Truth” is so fragile that it could be shattered by you exploring other works out of curiosity, it is indeed sad.
quote:That's not my concern.
And FYI, that’s not the first time that Prodigal Son was dismissive of someone pointing out another work (and not in an attempt to rebut the Bible, just to read the other work out if intellectual curiosity).
I'm concerned with truth, and God's word is truth.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:03 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The article is off to a bad start when it misapplies the first verse it cites (Luke 10:16). That verse was given to the 72, not to Peter alone or the 12 Apostles. This was Jesus giving them authority to proclaim the gospel and that if the truth is rejected, Jesus is being rejected. It isn't teaching the infallibility of the 72, nor the RCC going forward.
The rest of the case for papal infallibility is extremely flawed, from misuse of the Scriptures to an incorrect view of history (Augustine's quote about Rome was about a particular matter, not a nod to the infallibility of the Church).
It wasn't until the late 1800s that Papal infallibility was defined as dogma, and even at that time there was much debate and disagreement by faithful Catholics.
That's problem with Catholics and Protestants arguing.
Everything the Church does is interpretedly wrongly according to you folks.
Like it has already been mentioned, your objective is subjective.
Ill stick with the visible Church that was created by Jesus Christ and carried out by his apostles, the bishops, etc.
Im done with this thread. We aren't even on topic anymore. This thread should be anchored.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:07 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:
Ditto on enjoying your posts
quote:
Is the Vine/Branches example a metaphor as we commonly understand metaphors?
I think so.
quote:
Consider Isaiah 11, the entire chapter in its Messianic fullness and glory, and especially There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
How is this not metaphor? I have always taken it as that metaphor and allegory are the only way that God can communicate deeply rich and unfathomable truths to our feeble, sin-ridden minds. Only through these literary devices can we see the imagery that that gives us a sense of the broader meaning.
quote:
One man’s opinion, so take it for what that’s worth.
Ditto!
I’m glad we can have this conversation (ETA from here- fat fingers, small phone, wrong button ) quote:
As to blood and wine: Jesus refers to two discrete particular things, bread and wine, and says they are something else, his flesh and his blood,
Right, that’s how metaphors work. Is/are, whereas similes are how one thing is “like” another.
quote:
I find chapter 6 of St. John’s gospel compelling. Early on in the chapter John makes a point and lays the groundwork that it was the time of the Jewish Passover leading into Jesus’s discourse on I AM the bread of heaven. Eat my flesh. Drink my blood. And so forth.
Me too, but as metaphor/allegory. Like in
John 6:48 “I am the bread of life.” Bread of life is a metaphor. Jesus is not actually made of bread. But we understand how bread is necessary for physical life, and equate that to Christ being necessary for spiritual life.
But I’m belaboring my point. I’ll stop. I will add this anecdotal story:
A few years ago, I was having this very discussion with a very close RC friend of mine. He was quick to say that many of His disciples left because they couldn’t deal with the eating flesh and drinking blood stuff. To which I replied that the whole thing was a litmus test, as evidenced by the ensuing verses:
60Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, “This is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?” 61But Jesus, conscious that His disciples grumbled at this, said to them, “Does this cause you to stumble? 62“What then if you see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? 63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life. 64“But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him.
All of that said, if Jesus Christ appeared to me and told me to take a bite out of His forearm I’d freaking do it. I just don’t see that happening. Because I don’t think it was ever about anything other than separating the real from the fake. Of course I could be wrong. I’m not the arbiter of truth. And God help us all, if having perfect theology is a prerequisite for entry to heaven!
This post was edited on 10/9/25 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
quote:
Anything/everything that stands in opposition to the Manufacturer’s Instructions is inherently dangerous
quote:
What a sad way to go through life.
Pretty much the Serpent's whisper to Eve.
Being wise in the Lord instead of impetuous is saves us from ourselves.
It may feel good and right to "live for today" -- But is it worth our soul?
Part of "Manufacturer's warnings and wisdom":
The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure.
Jeremiah 17:9
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:18 pm to gaetti15
quote:Not everything, but the more I study church history, the more I see this tactic from Rome: because sacred tradition includes oral traditions supposedly passed down from the Apostles outside of written Scripture, when a doctrine needs to be justified, the Scriptures need to be stretched to support the doctrine rather than the doctrine flowing from the Scriptures. That's why interpretative differences can be so severely different between the RCC and Protestants.
That's problem with Catholics and Protestants arguing.
Everything the Church does is interpretedly wrongly according to you folks.
I look at a verse within its context and try to draw meaning from it, but the Catholic cannot always do that consistently, because there are times when the verse is shoehorned into a doctrine established outside of Scripture, and because the RCC cannot be questioned, it must be accepted, no matter how clumsy the interpretation seems on its face.
That's exactly why some Protestants refer to Catholics as subscribing to sola ecclesia (the Church alone) as the highest standard. No matter how a verse or passage reads on its face or within its plain context, it cannot mean anything other than what the infallible Church says it does.
quote:I at least support my interpretations to show why I believe it aligns with the objective truth. Typically the only rebuttal I get is "well the Church disagrees with you, so I'll stick with the Church", as you have done.
Like it has already been mentioned, your objective is subjective.
quote:And here is the rub: you assume infallibility of the Church, and so when the Church misuses the Scripture to support its own infallibility, you have to side with the Church, because it's infallible. That's an interesting place to be in: you can't ever judge the Church by the Scriptures because only the Church can interpret the Scriptures. You can't even question the Church on this or fact-check whether or not their infallibility is legit, because the Church will just come back and say you have no right to interpret the Scriptures yourself, and must trust the infallible Church that the Scriptures teach that the Church is infallible. It's quite the safeguard for the RCC, actually.
Ill stick with the visible Church that was created by Jesus Christ and carried out by his apostles, the bishops, etc.
quote:Until we meet again...
Im done with this thread. We aren't even on topic anymore. This thread should be anchored.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:33 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
What a sad way to go through life.
How so? Be specific.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:34 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It isn't fragile at all, and your opinion of what is sad is still just your opinion.
A person not only admitting their ignorance, but also relishing it, is objectively sad.
quote:
That's not my concern. I'm concerned with truth, and God's word is truth.
Then you just butted into the conversation without context, because that wasn’t what I was discussing.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:36 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
How so? Be specific.
Riffing off of your “bagdad vita” comment. Your general lack of intellectual curiosity combined with openly celebrating it.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:39 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Riffing off of your “bagdad vita” comment. Your general lack of intellectual curiosity combined with openly celebrating it.
Odd, because that’s not the quote you responded to. You were responding to my comment about following the Manufacturer’s Instructions. How is that sad?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:42 pm to McLemore
quote:
LDS and JW aren’t Christians at all
I grew up in an offshoot of LDS. The idea that LDS isn't Christian is comical, but typical. But by all means cling to your particular cult ideas. It's the new way.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:45 pm to FooManChoo
I believe the kids today would call that
“Standing on business.”
“Standing on business.”
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:50 pm to Mo Jeaux
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:53 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
FooManChoo
I'm shocked this thread is still going, but you made a great post.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 5:55 pm to gaetti15
quote:
Im done with this thread. We aren't even on topic anymore. This thread should be anchored.
Aka “Ima take my ball and go home.”
Posted on 10/9/25 at 6:44 pm to somethingdifferent
quote:
Jesus never said there was something authoritative outside of scripture and he quoted only scripture as authoritative.
He never said there was not. He actually did, however, state there was teaching from the Holy Spirit outside of Scripture. I provided the quote. It's in my Holy Bible, it's in your Holy Bible, it's in the Holy Bible of every member of whichever denomination of which you are a member. Again, you are asserting there is not, so provide proof. Refute the black and white text.
quote:
But that explains the nonsense of what is being asserted - that there is something outside of the authoritative word of God necessary for salvation. That God somehow neglected to have the most important spiritual information recorded in his word by his messengers. Absurd
The Holy Spirit is God, and by the Scriptural Text I quoted, it was his will to provide teaching through the Holy Spirit. Who are you to say that is nonsense and elevate your opinion above Scripture?
quote:quote:How is that a "misrepresentation"? I'm quoting Jesus through an Apostle, not omitting anything and not adding anything. You will never win this point. There has never been a command from Jesus or an Apostle to practice any of the Catholic distinctives. Appealing to the word "tradition" in the NT fails because no one can prove that reference is NOT merely to the gospel, which would make complete sense because Paul would be referring back to Jesus' ministry, not a whole gaggle of new practices that are not only novel but look more like Pharisaism than anything Jesus taught
So Jesus himself testifies that scripture is the only authority, which comes either directly from God or from him.
Again, provide the exact Scriptural text to support this. It shouldn't be this difficult for you to do if it's there.
I provided the words of Christ as reported in John's Gospel. Now, provide your proof.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:06 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Odd, because that’s not the quote you responded to. You were responding to my comment about following the Manufacturer’s Instructions. How is that sad?
That was kind of related though, no?
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:11 pm to LockDown
quote:Is it in the Book of Mormon?
t's in the Holy Bible of every member of whichever denomination of which you are a member. Again, you are asserting there is not, so provide proof. Refute the black and white text.
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:37 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I get that people with an agenda don't understand this but, those artifacts merely reinforce the biblical narrative that they originally came from one people. The Canaanites split and became polytheist. Ditto the DNA "evidence." Additionally, the presence of the figurines and the reference to Asherah merely corroborate the biblical testimony of idol worship but that is the exception that proves the rule. Moreover, I asked you why you/Smith start so late with the polytheism angle. The Jews were monotheistic for potentially thousands of years before that.
The Israelite culture was continuous with the earlier Iron Age Canaanite culture in terms of weaponry, textiles, pottery, agriculture, language, writing/alphabet, religious texts, and more
quote:YHWH was around for thousands of years before that.
introduced Yahweh sometime in the 9th century BC from Sinai or Arabia
quote:1. The historicity of the Torah/Bible has been vindicated many, many times over. 2. You assume polytheism when you admitted there's essentially no difference between that and idol worship. Can you not admit the "evidence" is circumstantial, must ignore the biblical witness and has no proof of editorializing to the point of changing theology.
You assume because it was written in an ancient book that it actually happened and was historical
quote:This is what's called getting out in front of your ski-tips
My point is that the vast majority of the Israelite and Judahite kings for the vast majority of the existence of the two kingdoms were pure polytheistic
quote:Even if that were the case, that doesn't make it false. But you knew that, didn't you?
All the writings about how bad the kings were because they were filthy polytheists were written after the Babylonian exile
quote:Have you ever read Genesis 1:1? Go read it and tell us what it's about without retroactively changing the meaning
they needed to write a tail of excuses as to why the Jews could not have a Jewish king anymore
I wish you could be on the sane side of your fiction and hear how it sounds. It's lunacy
quote:Prove it. Squirrel. You have nothing. You have no proof. You have circumstantial evidence AT MOST from 1 very limited time period that matches nothing before or after
They inserted verses
quote:They came from the same people, genius. PLOT TWIST
Jewish DNA is Canaanite DNA
quote:They had not been separated long enough to genetically diverge, which the biblical witness agrees with
they can’t even tell the difference between the genetics of Moabites and Israelites and Phoenicians and Ammonites
quote:
The Danuna assimilated into the Israelite coalition and they came up with a fictive history for insertion into what became the Bible
These priests were actually magicians. They were able to convince entire societies to simultaneously forget everything they knew. Maybe they were MIB with the flashy thingy quote:It depends on the timeline, which no one knows. But yes, there were periods when the Egyptians controlled certain parts of the Levant
the Egyptians actually owned and managed Canaan
quote:You can't be serious. There's no limit to the ink spilled describing how the Bible has been historically corroborated. What world do you live in?
You assume a mythical story, a fictional narrative, is historical without any evidence
quote:Says the person with NO evidence whatsoever.
Is it possible that the least likely thing could be true?
quote:No I don't believe that but that's not the point. The point is Islam has been strictly monotheistic from the beginning and their monotheism testified to the monotheism of the Bible
So if you believe that
Posted on 10/9/25 at 7:55 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
That was kind of related though, no?
You think I’m scared to read anything that challenges my views. I’m not. If you’d read and understood my last reply to Squirrelmeister, you’d know that.
Page 27 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News