Debate: Trent Horn vs Steve Christie (Marian dogmas)

dingoling. said:
So if you are not appealing to the actual words of scripture, but to exegeting of scripture, then why do you claim that scripture alone is your final/sole authority?
Click to expand...
All those years you claimed that you studied scripture and you do not understand how to exegete it. What I would say is you do not comprehend the words of Jesus, no need to exegete at all. It is simple to understand what He clearly says when read in context and you don't ignore Luke's writings on the same event.
 
balshan said:
Not when you ignore context and how they used. Like Jesus said I am a door, Jesus said Peter is Satan, Jesus said many things and He used figurative language.

If you take into account the setting it was said in that helps highlight the meaning of the words as well. All these things you ignore.
Click to expand...
It was not taken out context.
 
dingoling. said:
The typical response is- but you are not interpreting them correctly.
Click to expand...
because catholics don't

What confuses me is how they can constantly claim that scripture alone is their final/sole authority but then appeal to interpretations instead of the actual words of scripture
Click to expand...
you ignore alignment with other scripture. that's been brought up to you many times, but you continue to ignore it.
 
dingoling. said:
If scripture isn't your final authority then what is?
Click to expand...

If you ignore scripture you come up with false doctrines as your institution has done for centuries. Scripture is the word of God, it is the only word of God that we know. If something is not in it and does not agree with it then is it God's will. Sola scripture does not mean scripture alone as you say at all. Of course other books can be read and noted. I mean I have read the catechism but if it is against scripture then it is a false teaching. If it adds to scripture, goes beyond scripture or takes away/ignores scripture then it is against God.

God has clearly said do not add to scripture. Do not play your stupid word game the NT was added to scripture that shows you do not know what is in the OT or the NT at all.
God has clearly said do not go beyond scripture.
God has clearly said do not take away from scripture.

Those we know are His rules/commandments. Your institution breaks them and that means it has broken every commandment. Natural we can look at things in the present day and see if they agree with scripture, if they are breaking a commandment of God then they are not acceptable. But to change the word of God and add Marian doctrines to it is just an evil act. I mean God clearly says do not kill therefore anyone who has a new mind understands that refers to things like abortions. So that is not adding to scripture or going beyond scripture.

Your inability to read Jesus words in context with understanding of other scriptures like Luke and those that mention commandments means you have Jesus breaking the commandments. God is not a God of confusion.
 
Theo1689 said:
I see why you can't read Scripture for understanding, since you can't even read my posts for understanding.

All you're doing here is IMPLYING that there is Biblical evidence for those teachings (spoiler alert: there isn't), and then personally attacking me by falsely suggesting I reject the Bible.

That's pretty pathetic.



I have heard them all, and NONE of them teach Romanism.




You need to actually DEMONSTRATE that they allegedly teach "Peter's preeminence".
If you're simply going to make bald assertions without exegesis, then I've already read those passages hundreds of times, and they don't teach anything of the sort.

Btw is that what your priest does at mass? Simply yell out Bible citations, without any explanations? No wondere you never learn anything at mass.



Again, all you're doing is quoting random citations, without any exegesis.
Do you really expect me to do your work for you?

If you want to learn how to debate, watch some of James White's debates against Sungenis, Matatics, Michuta, Pacwa, Stravinskas. While they didn't make very good arguments (IMO), at least they were able to quote verses and try to explain how they though the text supports their position. I was especially entertained by the Boston College debate with White and Zins against Bob Sungenis and Scott Buttler.




So preaching to crowds makes you a pope?!
Whaddya know? I'm a pope!



Where does it say he ALONE will strengthen the brethren?!
You are REALLY reaching here.
You are the one who clearly doesn't have any critical thinking skills.



That's not what it says.
This doesn't raise Peter "above" the rest of the Apostles.
It merely RESTORES Peter to the level of the other Apostles after he FELL by thrice denying Christ.




Wrong.
It was clearly led by JAMES, not Peter.
So James was the first pope?!



You "logically made" NOTHING.
You didn't even PRESENT any argument.
All you've done is ASSUME the papacy.
Clearly you have zero critical thinking skills.



Of course not.
Because it doesn't support your false claim.



What a convenient excuse for refusing to present an argument.




And you have now proved I was right!
Thank you!




No, you have not.
You have simply cited random verses (some incorrectly, like "Matt. 6:18"), and ASSUMED a meaning without properly exegeting the text.

You made unsubstantiated ASSUMPTIONS.
That is NOT a "defense".
Click to expand...
The things of God are foolishness to those who are perishing. Thats why every Catholic needs to be Born Again or they will not understand the things of God. Also they will not see Heaven unless they become Born Again the biblical way.
 
balshan said:
No reason 1 - it is a totally symbolic meal.
2. It would mean Jesus sinned.
3. His words are symbolic.

We have listed so many and you have failed in other threads to rebut any of them.
Click to expand...
Scripture itself refutes you.

You don't have the authority to declare it to be symbolic, so there is no reason for me to accept you particular understanding of it.
 
dingoling. said:
Scripture itself refutes you.

You don't have the authority to declare it to be symbolic, so there is no reason for me to accept you particular understanding of it.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't and you have yet to prove it. I don't need authority to do so at all. I don't have to blindly accept the false claims of your evil tree. It has no authority to teach false doctrines.

We all noticed you provide no rebuttal to my points once again and show a very poor lack of understanding of scripture.
 
balshan said:
No it doesn't and you have yet to prove it. I don't need authority to do so at all. I don't have to blindly accept the false claims of your evil tree. It has no authority to teach false doctrines.

We all noticed you provide no rebuttal to my points once again and show a very poor lack of understanding of scripture.
Click to expand...
Like I said you don't have the authority to settle the issue.
 
balshan said:
No reason 1 - it is a totally symbolic meal.
2. It would mean Jesus sinned.
3. His words are symbolic.

We have listed so many and you have failed in other threads to rebut any of them.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to see how ding comes up with the claim of reading the bible so many times...and still doesn't understand what it says.
 
dingoling. said:
Like I said you don't have the authority to settle the issue.
Click to expand...
It is only RCs who want a false man made authority. I have never claimed an authority that belongs to God and God alone. So you post is just a false claim and a twisting of my posts. So typical of an RC to make out I posted something I didn't.
 
dingoling. said:
Sorry, but you don't have the authority to settle issues for the entire body of believers.
Click to expand...
plz post where I said I was. link to that post. post 100 - read what I replied to. learn to read every word.

believers will know. they read and study His word themselves and should have good bible teachers.

they will understand as they study and the HS guides them.

the 1 authority over all believers is - Christ.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Correct; if one is Protestant, the issue cannot be settled. This is becasue in Protestantism, there is no mechanism that speaks with the authority of God that may judge the Scriptural evidence for or against a position, and the arguments for or against the position and then issue a definitive and binding decision.

If you are Catholic, however, these issues have been definitively settled and thus no more reason to debate them. The Church has spoken, the case is closed. Mary is IC, PV and Assumed in to heaven. The Church says so, therefore Scripture says so and Scripture says so, therefore the Church says so. A circle has no beginning.
Click to expand...
AND just when you KNOW it can't get any more UTTERLY RIDICULOUS -

It does.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Correct; if one is Protestant, the issue cannot be settled. This is becasue in Protestantism, there is no mechanism that speaks with the authority of God that may judge the Scriptural evidence for or against a position, and the arguments for or against the position and then issue a definitive and binding decision.
Click to expand...
stop there. are you speaking of prots who are believers or prots who are unbelievers? you like to lump them together. in doing that you lose in whatever you post after it.

If you are Catholic, however, these issues have been definitively settled and thus no more reason to debate them. The Church has spoken, the case is closed. Mary is IC, PV and Assumed in to heaven.
Click to expand...
yes, your dictators in Rome tell you what to think and believe.

The Church says so, therefore Scripture says so and Scripture says so, therefore the Church says so. A circle has no beginning.
Click to expand...
wrong. what the rcc teaches / says is not the truth of scripture.

that must be why catholics make no biblical sense, their 'church' doesn't teach scripture.

it circles around what the rcc men want you to know, around and around in circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top