Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If the books of the canon are infallible, then which canon that has been approved by Roman Catholic Councils are you talking about? Because they approved different ones, even ones that excluded the apocryphal books.

---

The list of all 73 books was definitively settled by the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) and later reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

Remember it was the protestants that removed the books. Try reading the deuterocanonical books. They are awesome!

---

Are you just going to go in circles, and pretend nothing previously discussed ever happened?

I have told you three times that the Council of Trullo approved the canons of Athanasius, Amphilochius, and the Apostolical canons, the first two which rejected the major books of the apocrypha, and the third which included 3 Maccabees. You have never provided an answer for this.

This shows that you just don't care about what's true, you're only interesting in preserving your beliefs. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and yelling "la, la, la, I can't hear you!"

Quote:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The dogmas of Mary are NOWHERE to be found in the early church, let alone in the Bible. I refuse to accept them because I am a Christian and not a Marian cultist like yourself. You can't see how evil the Marian dogmas are, because you are not a true Christian. I hate to say it, but it's simple as that. Any true Christian who has the Holy Spirit can EASILY see the heresy and idolatry in those dogmas, as well as in the Mary worship you so obviously engage in.

---

Wow, the "True-Scotsman" fallacy! You went old school on that one. Good for you. It holds no weight and bears no truth.

The evilness of the Marian dogmas? That is silly. Prove that the dogmas are evil.

---

You don't know what a no true scotsman fallacy is, apparently.

The Marian dogmas are evil because they idolize Mary and the basis for them are completely absent in Scripture and the early church, AND to make it even worse, the Roman Catholic Church requires you to believe this, or you go to Hell.

That, sir, is plain evil. Only the spiritually blind and those of the Devil won't agree.

Realitybites said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

So, you are a literal 7-day creationist?

---

Yes.

---

Thank you for answering. The Catholic Church does not have an official position on this because it is a matter of science, not necessary faith. One is free to accept the 7-day creationist account.

Based on the evidence, I subscribe to the Big Bang theory, which was first introduced by a Belgium Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Lematre.

His theory was actually ridiculed by Einstein, but he later retracted and apologist when he did the math behind it. (IIRC) Einstein believed in an enteral universe.

The name "Big Bang" was actually a pejorative term given by a skeptic, but it stuck once that it was proven that the math was correct.

Jimmy Akin devotes three episodes of one of his podcasts, Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World to this topic. (This link is a list sorted by topics)

He researches a great deal of resources from a variety of areas and presents a VERY fair, honest, and balanced look at both sides. He always provides links to his data at the bottom of each page so that one can verify his claims and comments. His podcast investigates the paranormal, science & technology, the afterlife, cryptids and monsters, government activity, historical mysteries, true crime, religion and the bible, conspiracies, assassinations, UFO claims, and others.

Episode 119
Episode 120
Episode 121

I listen to this podcast regularly on my phone so that I can listen at 1.5 speed.

His po

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You and your Scientism

---

Did God create the universe in seven, 24 hour long days, not separated by extended gaps? This is the clear testimony of Genesis. Do you believe that this is the case?

---

It is not necessary to read Genesis literally in every sense. Neither is it a "clear testimony" that they were 24 hour long days - the Hebrew word for "day" there is "yom", which can mean a very long period of time.

Coke Bear: "These are MY rules. The teachings of the Church have been established and developed over 2000 years since Jesus created it."

Indeed you are applying rules you created. I note you have another post further down the page where you said these were not your rules, but I submit your first post here is more honest.

Now your second sentence reveals the problem. Christ established His Church in His life and through the Holy Spirit granted to believers. It is human interference with the Gospel which has created false teachers and heresies. The Roman church is in no way immune to this sin, and many people have protested evils done in the name of the Church.

That's not to say the Protestants are free from that evil. Satan has corrupted many religious leaders, as Jesus' harsh words to the Pharisees and Scribes documents.

But the problem starts when someone abandons Scripture and trusts his own opinion in its place.



Coke Bear: "He gave Peter (Matthew 16:19) the 'keys to the Kingdom' symbolizing this authority and the ability to bind and loose. He gave Peter the ability to make decisions in matters of Church discipline and doctrine.

He then extends this power to the apostles in Matt 18:18."

No, Christ spoke of the 'rock' of Faith, and commended Peter because he depended on faith rather than his own opinions. Keep in mind that shortly after praising Peter for this show of faith, Christ also rebuked Peter for losing hold of that faith, to the point that Jesus referred to him as 'Satan'.

Would you agree that Peter lost his place because his faith wavered? That would be the logical conclusion of your claim, but in fact Peter simply showed both faith and doubt at different times, and Christ loved him and brought Peter to the way which made him the servant God planned for him to be.

Pretending the Roman Catholic Church is superior to other Christian communities is sinful. Do you not recall how Paul warned about those who claimed to follow him or Apollo, instead of focusing on Christ? That is what you do, when you disparage Protestants as inferior to your Roman sect.


Coke Bear: "Please research what the power to 'bind and loose' in the Jewish tradition according to Jewish scholars. They will they you that it meant that they had the power to establish what is forbidden or allowed."

You do recall that the 'Jewish Tradition' you praise here REJECTED Christ as their Messiah, right?


Coke Bear: "Contrast this to your comment with modern-day protestants. What happens when in a Baptist (or protestant) church when a group of folks disagree with Baptist Bob's interpretation(s)? They leave and start a new church led by Baptist Bill. What happens when down the line, some people begin to disagree with Baptist Bill? They leave and start a new church led by Baptist Bryan.

This is exactly what has happened since Luther walked away from the Church. Protestants are playing by THEIR rules, not God's. Look at how many different of Protestantism and churches are in the world today. None of them have the same beliefs.

Jesus prayed for us to be one."

All your little story does there, Coke Bear, is display your arrogance and pride. The Roman Catholic Church has a long bloody history of violence against people who dared to point out their evils. In fact, take a good look sometime at the people now named as 'Saints'; a fairly large number of them were persecuted and unjustly attacked ... by the Roman Catholic Church which now claims them as a mascot.

Again, I am in no way pretending that Protestant churches are intrinsically superior to Roman Catholics. We have seen how money, power, sex, revenge and all manner of temptation has corrupted priests, pastors, preachers and ministers. Just a reminder on why we must trust Christ and no human for our soul's journey.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You and your Scientism

---

Did God create the universe in seven, 24 hour long days, not separated by extended gaps? This is the clear testimony of Genesis. Do you believe that this is the case?

---

It is not necessary to read Genesis literally in every sense. Neither is it a "clear testimony" that they were 24 hour long days - the Hebrew word for "day" there is "yom", which can mean a very long period of time.

---

In my previous post, I have made it quite clear that theologically, a seven day creation week *must* mean a seven day creation week and why evolutionary biology is incompatible with the Christian faith.

My question is do *you* believe the clear written testimony of Genesis?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you just going to go in circles, and pretend nothing previously discussed ever happened?

I have told you three times that the Council of Trullo approved the canons of Athanasius, Amphilochius, and the Apostolical canons, the first two which rejected the major books of the apocrypha, and the third which included 3 Maccabees. You have never provided an answer for this.

This shows that you just don't care about what's true, you're only interesting in preserving your beliefs. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and yelling "la, la, la, I can't hear you!"

---

In researching this Council, it appears that was never considered an ecumenical council as only bishops from the East were present.

The Council primarily focused on disciplinary canons rather than doctrinal issues like the biblical canon.

It issued 120 canons. In Canon 2, it recognizes Canon (i.e. the decretal letters) many of which are different.

As earlier stated, this Council didn't set out to define the canon.

How to you provide an answer that the Council of Rome (382) promulgated the 73-book canon, and it was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)?

How to do provide an answer for who established which books belong in the New Testament?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know what a no true scotsman fallacy is, apparently.

---

Really? You literally used the phrase, "no true Christian …" That's the literal definition of the True Scotsman fallacy. And you provided no proof.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Marian dogmas are evil because they idolize Mary and the basis for them are completely absent in Scripture and the early church, AND to make it even worse, the Roman Catholic Church requires you to believe this, or you go to Hell.

That, sir, is plain evil. Only the spiritually blind and those of the Devil won't agree.

---

Nope.

Idolizing means giving worship or adoration to something or someone other than God. Catholics do NOT worship Mary. We only adore and revere the Trinity as God. It's sad that you can't understand this. I've tried to help you, but your biases and possibly Satan, keep you from seeing this. I will continue to pray for you.

I have provided ample biblical, traditional, and historical evidence for each of the Marian dogmas in the past. If you want, we can hash thru them again, but ONLY one at a time. You pick the one in which we will first discuss.

PS. I spoke with my convert friend on Sunday. I know that he contacted you. He stated you never responded. Do you still wish to discuss his conversion? If not, no worries. I will let him know tomorrow evening, if I'm at the parish.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "These are MY rules. The teachings of the Church have been established and developed over 2000 years since Jesus created it."

Indeed you are applying rules you created. I note you have another post further down the page where you said these were not your rules, but I submit your first post here is more honest.

---

That was a typo that I since corrected. My apologies. I am NOT making the rules. Jesus and his Church make the rules.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Now your second sentence reveals the problem. Christ established His Church in His life and through the Holy Spirit granted to believers. It is human interference with the Gospel which has created false teachers and heresies. The Roman church is in no way immune to this sin, and many people have protested evils done in the name of the Church.

That's not to say the Protestants are free from that evil. Satan has corrupted many religious leaders, as Jesus' harsh words to the Pharisees and Scribes documents

---

The Church can't teach heresy. It is protected by Matthew 16:19.

I have never argued that the PEOPLE in the Church can't sin. They are sinners and do, indeed, sin.

Oldbear83 said:

---

But the problem starts when someone abandons Scripture and trusts his own opinion in its place.

---

Let's start here … who has the authority to determine when someone "abandons Scripture and trusts his own opinion in its place"?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "He gave Peter (Matthew 16:19) the 'keys to the Kingdom' symbolizing this authority and the ability to bind and loose. He gave Peter the ability to make decisions in matters of Church discipline and doctrine.

He then extends this power to the apostles in Matt 18:18."

No, Christ spoke of the 'rock' of Faith, and commended Peter because he depended on faith rather than his own opinions. Keep in mind that shortly after praising Peter for this show of faith, Christ also rebuked Peter for losing hold of that faith, to the point that Jesus referred to him as 'Satan'.

---

I'll address the "rebuke' below …
You are half correct that it is Peter's faith, but this is another BOTH/AND statement. It is about Peter's faith and Peter himself. To separate the two would do violence to the scripture itself.

Jesus literally renames Simon to Peter, meaning 'Rock". If it was about his faith alone (it sounds funny to type that), Jesus would have named him "Pistis" (faith) in Koine Greek.

Peter is clearly the Rock upon which he will build his Church.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Would you agree that Peter lost his place because his faith wavered? That would be the logical conclusion of your claim, but in fact Peter simply showed both faith and doubt at different times, and Christ loved him and brought Peter to the way which made him the servant God planned for him to be.

---

Peter didn't "lose his faith" in a matter of 5 verses. Jesus rebukes Peter because he tried to dissuade Him from His path of suffering and crucifixion. Peter had a misunderstand about the events that would happen.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Pretending the Roman Catholic Church is superior to other Christian communities is sinful. Do you not recall how Paul warned about those who claimed to follow him or Apollo, instead of focusing on Christ? That is what you do, when you disparage Protestants as inferior to your Roman sect.

---

I've never said that the Catholic Church is superior. I've have stated that it does possess the fullness of truth and the fullness of grace, because we have all 7 sacraments that Christ instituted.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "Please research what the power to 'bind and loose' in the Jewish tradition according to Jewish scholars. They will they you that it meant that they had the power to establish what is forbidden or allowed."

You do recall that the 'Jewish Tradition' you praise here REJECTED Christ as their Messiah, right?

---

You are reaching here. Maybe 'tradition" wasn't the best word here for basic understand. Let's substitute the work "teaching" or "understanding." The whole point of my argument is that "binding and loosen" refers to the ability to make the laws, rules, and decrees.

Besides, it wasn't a 'tradition' that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. His mother was Jesus. His apostles were Jewish. Most of his disciples were Jewish.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear: "Contrast this to your comment with modern-day protestants. What happens when in a Baptist (or protestant) church when a group of folks disagree with Baptist Bob's interpretation(s)? They leave and start a new church led by Baptist Bill. What happens when down the line, some people begin to disagree with Baptist Bill? They leave and start a new church led by Baptist Bryan.

This is exactly what has happened since Luther walked away from the Church. Protestants are playing by THEIR rules, not God's. Look at how many different of Protestantism and churches are in the world today. None of them have the same beliefs.

Jesus prayed for us to be one."

All your little story does there, Coke Bear, is display your arrogance and pride. The Roman Catholic Church has a long bloody history of violence against people who dared to point out their evils. In fact, take a good look sometime at the people now named as 'Saints'; a fairly large number of them were persecuted and unjustly attacked ... by the Roman Catholic Church which now claims them as a mascot.

---

I really don't know what this has to do with my anecdote. I wasn't referring to ANY sinful behavior of those preachers. I only was referring to differences of teachings within a specific church. Just in the last 40 years here in Waco, I've heard of splits with 7th and James, Columbus Ave., Antioch, First Baptist Woodway over "doctrine."

Please do not think that I was implying any split over sinful actions of their pastors/members.

Having said that, I don't believe that the Catholic Church has mascots. If you would like to discuss any specific "bloody history" or "saint", please pick one at a time so we can really investigate it together.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Are you just going to go in circles, and pretend nothing previously discussed ever happened?

I have told you three times that the Council of Trullo approved the canons of Athanasius, Amphilochius, and the Apostolical canons, the first two which rejected the major books of the apocrypha, and the third which included 3 Maccabees. You have never provided an answer for this.

This shows that you just don't care about what's true, you're only interesting in preserving your beliefs. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and yelling "la, la, la, I can't hear you!"

---

In researching this Council, it appears that was never considered an ecumenical council as only bishops from the East were present.

The Council primarily focused on disciplinary canons rather than doctrinal issues like the biblical canon.

It issued 120 canons. In Canon 2, it recognizes Canon (i.e. the decretal letters) many of which are different.

As earlier stated, this Council didn't set out to define the canon.

How to you provide an answer that the Council of Rome (382) promulgated the 73-book canon, and it was reaffirmed by the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397)?

How to do provide an answer for who established which books belong in the New Testament?

---

And 'round we go again in circles. You already tried this reasoning.

You were told that the Council of Trullo was ruled by the ecumenical Council of Nicea 2 to be an extension of the ecumenical Council of Constantinople 3.

And for like maybe the 100th time, the Roman Catholic Church did not decide which books were to be in the New Testament. Is this another circle you wish for us to travail?

Realitybites said:

---

My question is do *you* believe the clear written testimony of Genesis?

---

I'm not trying to step on the toes of BTD17. He's more than capable of responding to your post. I'll merely present what the Catholic Church states about the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

They not meant to be scientific accounts but convey fundamental religious truths. They use symbolic language to address profound questions about creation, human nature, and God's plan for salvation.

CCC 337 - God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine "work", concluded by the "rest" of the seventh day. [Gen 1:l - 2:4] On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, [Cf. DV 11] permitting us to "recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God." [LG 36 2]

Before I comment on "evolutionary biology", I'd like to know specifically by what you mean by it.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You and your Scientism

---

Did God create the universe in seven, 24 hour long days, not separated by extended gaps? This is the clear testimony of Genesis. Do you believe that this is the case?

---

It is not necessary to read Genesis literally in every sense. Neither is it a "clear testimony" that they were 24 hour long days - the Hebrew word for "day" there is "yom", which can mean a very long period of time.

---

In my previous post, I have made it quite clear that theologically, a seven day creation week *must* mean a seven day creation week and why evolutionary biology is incompatible with the Christian faith.

My question is do *you* believe the clear written testimony of Genesis?

---

No, theologically, a literal seven day creation week is not required. And evolutionary biology is not incompatible with Christianity. What IS incompatible with Christianity is evolutionary biology happening via chance occurence.

No, I don't believe it was literal 24 hour days. There is a lot of room in Genesis that allows for it to be long periods of time, the word "yom" being one of them. You are unnecessarily holding the literal reading as the only possible meaning. So your question is actually "do you believe in what I believe to be the clear testimony of Genesis?"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't know what a no true scotsman fallacy is, apparently.

---

Really? You literally used the phrase, "no true Christian …" That's the literal definition of the True Scotsman fallacy. And you provided no proof.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The Marian dogmas are evil because they idolize Mary and the basis for them are completely absent in Scripture and the early church, AND to make it even worse, the Roman Catholic Church requires you to believe this, or you go to Hell.

That, sir, is plain evil. Only the spiritually blind and those of the Devil won't agree.

---

Nope.

Idolizing means giving worship or adoration to something or someone other than God. Catholics do NOT worship Mary. We only adore and revere the Trinity as God. It's sad that you can't understand this. I've tried to help you, but your biases and possibly Satan, keep you from seeing this. I will continue to pray for you.

I have provided ample biblical, traditional, and historical evidence for each of the Marian dogmas in the past. If you want, we can hash thru them again, but ONLY one at a time. You pick the one in which we will first discuss.

PS. I spoke with my convert friend on Sunday. I know that he contacted you. He stated you never responded. Do you still wish to discuss his conversion? If not, no worries. I will let him know tomorrow evening, if I'm at the parish.

---

Using the phrase "no true...." does not make it the no true scotsman fallacy. Did you even bother to look it up and educate yourself?

Here's an example: "No true Christian would worship Satan".

Is that a no true scotsman fallacy, because the words "no true..." were used?

You are only lying to yourself. You worship Mary.

I responded to your friend. Is he lying? He said you got it wrong, that it wasn't him who had converted from protestantism to Catholicism it was HIS friend. If you can't even get the facts about your friend right, how are you gonna get Christianity right?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And 'round we go again in circles. You already tried this reasoning.

You were told that the Council of Trullo was ruled by the ecumenical Council of Nicea 2 to be an extension of the ecumenical Council of Constantinople 3.

---

Let's say that is an extension of the Council of Constantinople 3, Trullo was NOT establishing the canon of scripture. It was establishing canons related to church discipline and administration.

You still haven't answered the question concerning why the earlier councils establish the correct 73-book canon.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox canon contain the deuterocanonicals, but they split in 1054?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And for like maybe the 100th time, the Roman Catholic Church did not decide which books were to be in the New Testament. Is this another circle you wish for us to travail?

---

Let's travail again. Who specifically canonized the NT and when?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And 'round we go again in circles. You already tried this reasoning.

You were told that the Council of Trullo was ruled by the ecumenical Council of Nicea 2 to be an extension of the ecumenical Council of Constantinople 3.

---

Let's say that is an extension of the Council of Constantinople 3, Trullo was NOT establishing the canon of scripture. It was establishing canons related to church discipline and administration.

You still haven't answered the question concerning why the earlier councils establish the correct 73-book canon.

Why does the Eastern Orthodox canon contain the deuterocanonicals, but they split in 1054?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And for like maybe the 100th time, the Roman Catholic Church did not decide which books were to be in the New Testament. Is this another circle you wish for us to travail?

---

Let's travail again. Who specifically canonized the NT and when?

---

Sorry, no. Those canons were not only related to church discipline and administration. That is just a made up fact.

And no, I'm not wasting my time going on another circle. You'll just be back here, saying the same thing over and over. You're not interested in the truth, you're just here to defend your belief system at all costs, even at the expense of truth. If you've forgotten what was said you can go back and reread them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Using the phrase "no true...." does not make it the no true scotsman fallacy. Did you even bother to look it up and educate yourself?

Here's an example: "No true Christian would worship Satan".

Is that a no true scotsman fallacy, because the words "no true..." were used?

---

I used it correctly. You failed in "providing evidence to disprove the counterexample."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are only lying to yourself. You worship Mary.

---

I don't believe Mary is God. Seriously, I've stated that many times. Your repetitive assertations doesn't make it true and seem like the actions of a child that doesn't get his way.

You worship Satan because you continue to attack the Church that Jesus founded. See how easy that it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I responded to your friend. Is he lying? He said you got it wrong, that it wasn't him who had converted from protestantism to Catholicism it was HIS friend. If you can't even get the facts about your friend right, how are you gonna get Christianity right?

---

No, you responded to MY email. I copied you on a later email with an introduction. He responded to you and copied me. You haven't responded to his email. His name is Daniel. You can do a search on your inbox. If you're still interested, I'll have him reach out again.

Finally, another ad hominin attack about communication and getting Christianity "right".

Are your actions bringing people closer to the kingdom of God?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, no. Those canons were not only related to church discipline and administration. That is just a made up fact.

---

Here is a link to a Catholic encyclopedia that discusses the Councils of Constantinople. Here is a statement from that link:

II. The council, held in 692, under Justinian II is generally known as the Council in Trullo, because it was held in the same domed hall where the Sixth General Council had met (see above). Both the Fifth and the Sixth General Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it also took the name of Quinisext (Concilium Quinisextum, Divo-Sos 7rEPegKTn), i.e. Fifth-Sixth.

Here is a link to the Council of Trullo. It contains 102 canons that did with discipline and administration.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And no, I'm not wasting my time going on another circle. You can go back and reread them.

---

I wouldn't know where to search, nor will I take the time. I'll provide some context:

The Catholic Church promulgated by Council of Rome in 382 and affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

To establish which books belonged in the NT, the Church used certain criteria:
1) The writings needed to date back to the apostolic era, meaning they were either authored by the apostles themselves or by their close associates.
2) The usage of these texts in the Liturgy was crucial; they needed to be proclaimed during the Mass.
Several books were considered by the Church; however, they failed to make it the official canon for a variety of reasons.
The Didache even though it was written in the late 1st century too many in the early Church doubted its apostolic authorship.
1 Clement - it was read for a long time at Mass and had connections to the apostles, not enough churchmen came to regard it as Scripture.
The Letter of Barnabas "Barnabas was an apostle of a lesser rank. Also, the letter does not claim to be written by him (his name is found only in the title), which may have led to doubts about its authorship. Eusebius lists this letter among the books "rejected" by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture."
The Shepherd of Hermas written in the second century and held by some as scripture, later the majority didn't believe it was scripture, and Eusebius lists it among the books "rejected" by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture.

The canon of the NT wasn't just something that God dropped from the sky. It was discussed and debated for a great deal of time and ultimately the Holy Spirit guided those in the Church to determine what NT books should be canon.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Using the phrase "no true...." does not make it the no true scotsman fallacy. Did you even bother to look it up and educate yourself?

Here's an example: "No true Christian would worship Satan".

Is that a no true scotsman fallacy, because the words "no true..." were used?

---

I used it correctly. You failed in "providing evidence to disprove the counterexample."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You are only lying to yourself. You worship Mary.

---

I don't believe Mary is God. Seriously, I've stated that many times. Your repetitive assertations doesn't make it true and seem like the actions of a child that doesn't get his way.

You worship Satan because you continue to attack the Church that Jesus founded. See how easy that it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I responded to your friend. Is he lying? He said you got it wrong, that it wasn't him who had converted from protestantism to Catholicism it was HIS friend. If you can't even get the facts about your friend right, how are you gonna get Christianity right?

---

No, you responded to MY email. I copied you on a later email with an introduction. He responded to you and copied me. You haven't responded to his email. His name is Daniel. You can do a search on your inbox. If you're still interested, I'll have him reach out again.

Finally, another ad hominin attack about communication and getting Christianity "right".

Are your actions bringing people closer to the kingdom of God?

---

Answer the question. Is saying "No true Christian worships Satan"?

You show that you worship Mary by what you do, what you say, and your delight at egregiously idolatrous and heretical prayers in the Glories of Mary and the marian psalms.

Someone named Brad Carter emailed me.

Do you know that I'm NOT bringing people closer to God? Telling the truth is the first step. I'll tell you what WON'T bring you closer to God - the Roman Catholic Church. I think I've made that crystal clear. In that way, at least I hope I've steered people AWAY from that which won't bring them closer to God.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sorry, no. Those canons were not only related to church discipline and administration. That is just a made up fact.

---

Here is a link to a Catholic encyclopedia that discusses the Councils of Constantinople. Here is a statement from that link:

II. The council, held in 692, under Justinian II is generally known as the Council in Trullo, because it was held in the same domed hall where the Sixth General Council had met (see above). Both the Fifth and the Sixth General Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it also took the name of Quinisext (Concilium Quinisextum, Divo-Sos 7rEPegKTn), i.e. Fifth-Sixth.

Here is a link to the Council of Trullo. It contains 102 canons that did with discipline and administration.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And no, I'm not wasting my time going on another circle. You can go back and reread them.

---

I wouldn't know where to search, nor will I take the time. I'll provide some context:

The Catholic Church promulgated by Council of Rome in 382 and affirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397).

To establish which books belonged in the NT, the Church used certain criteria:
1) The writings needed to date back to the apostolic era, meaning they were either authored by the apostles themselves or by their close associates.
2) The usage of these texts in the Liturgy was crucial; they needed to be proclaimed during the Mass.
Several books were considered by the Church; however, they failed to make it the official canon for a variety of reasons.
The Didache even though it was written in the late 1st century too many in the early Church doubted its apostolic authorship.
1 Clement - it was read for a long time at Mass and had connections to the apostles, not enough churchmen came to regard it as Scripture.
The Letter of Barnabas "Barnabas was an apostle of a lesser rank. Also, the letter does not claim to be written by him (his name is found only in the title), which may have led to doubts about its authorship. Eusebius lists this letter among the books "rejected" by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture."
The Shepherd of Hermas written in the second century and held by some as scripture, later the majority didn't believe it was scripture, and Eusebius lists it among the books "rejected" by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture.

The canon of the NT wasn't just something that God dropped from the sky. It was discussed and debated for a great deal of time and ultimately the Holy Spirit guided those in the Church to determine what NT books should be canon.

---

The Council of Trullo endorsed all 85 of the Apostolical Canons; the Apostolical canon of books is listed in Canon 85, which included Maccabees 3, not included in Rome's list of canonical books.

The Council of Trullo also confirmed the authority of Athanasius' three canons, including his 39th Festal Letter. In it, he lists the canonical books, and omits the major books of the apocrypha. He even states directly - "Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these". You can read his letter here: https://claudemariottini.com/2007/06/05/athanasius-and-the-canon/.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Answer the question. Is saying "No true Christian worships Satan"?

---

Dude, are still hung up on the True-Scotsman fallacy? I showed you how you didn't provided evidence in your claim and used the "no true (fill in the blank)." It met the definition. Get over it. It's a dead horse.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You show that you worship Mary by what you do, what you say, and your delight at egregiously idolatrous and heretical prayers in the Glories of Mary and the marian psalms.

---

Where have I said that I delight at the Glories of Mary and/or the Marian psalms? The devil is really putting this hatred for Mary in your heart. God bless you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Someone named Brad Carter emailed me.

---

That was me. I stated that my friend would contact you. He emailed you and copied me. If you would like for him to reach out to you again, he will.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do you know that I'm NOT bringing people closer to God? Telling the truth is the first step. I'll tell you what WON'T bring you closer to God - the Roman Catholic Church. I think I've made that crystal clear. In that way, at least I hope I've steered people AWAY from that which won't bring them closer to God.

---

The Catholic Church has been leading billions people to Jesus for nearly 2000 years. She has brought so much good and beauty into the world. She has produced the most amazing minds and saints the world has ever seen. The Church we be around until Jesus returns triumphant continuing to produce beauty, brilliant minds, and saints!

Coke said:

---

To establish which books belonged in the NT, the Church used certain criteria:
1) The writings needed to date back to the apostolic era, meaning they were either authored by the apostles themselves or by their close associates.
2) The usage of these texts in the Liturgy was crucial; they needed to be proclaimed during the Mass.
Several books were considered by the Church; however, they failed to make it the official canon for a variety of reasons.
The Didache even though it was written in the late 1st century too many in the early Church doubted its apostolic authorship.
1 Clement - it was read for a long time at Mass and had connections to the apostles, not enough churchmen came to regard it as Scripture.
The Letter of Barnabas "Barnabas was an apostle of a lesser rank. Also, the letter does not claim to be written by him (his name is found only in the title), which may have led to doubts about its authorship. Eusebius lists this letter among the books "rejected" by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture."
The Shepherd of Hermas written in the second century and held by some as scripture, later the majority didn't believe it was scripture, and Eusebius lists it among the books "rejected" by most orthodox Christians in his day as Scripture.

The canon of the NT wasn't just something that God dropped from the sky. It was discussed and debated for a great deal of time and ultimately the Holy Spirit guided those in the Church to determine what NT books should be canon.

---

Question: for the first three hundred years of the church, how did Christians know what was Scripture without any Roman Catholic Council decree to tell them?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: for the first three hundred years of the church, how did Christians know what was Scripture without any Roman Catholic Council decree to tell them?

---

I listed it earlier. The writing had to be of an apostolic age and the had to be read at Mass. Many of the "rejected" letters that I presented were both of the apostolic age and read at Mass.

The Church finally decided to promulgate the canon in the 4th century.

What's your version of the story?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Answer the question. Is saying "No true Christian worships Satan"?

---

Dude, are still hung up on the True-Scotsman fallacy? I showed you how you didn't provided evidence in your claim and used the "no true (fill in the blank)." It met the definition. Get over it. It's a dead horse.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You show that you worship Mary by what you do, what you say, and your delight at egregiously idolatrous and heretical prayers in the Glories of Mary and the marian psalms.

---

Where have I said that I delight at the Glories of Mary and/or the Marian psalms? The devil is really putting this hatred for Mary in your heart. God bless you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Someone named Brad Carter emailed me.

---

That was me. I stated that my friend would contact you. He emailed you and copied me. If you would like for him to reach out to you again, he will.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do you know that I'm NOT bringing people closer to God? Telling the truth is the first step. I'll tell you what WON'T bring you closer to God - the Roman Catholic Church. I think I've made that crystal clear. In that way, at least I hope I've steered people AWAY from that which won't bring them closer to God.

---

The Catholic Church has been leading billions people to Jesus for nearly 2000 years. She has brought so much good and beauty into the world. She has produced the most amazing minds and saints the world has ever seen. The Church we be around until Jesus returns triumphant continuing to produce beauty, brilliant minds, and saints!

---

You're trying to get out of the "no true Scotsman" debate, because I'm proving you wrong, and you want out. It's not a "dead horse" if you're still believing something that is not correct. So answer the question - is saying "no true Christian worships Satan" a no true scotsman fallacy, or not?

There is no hatred for Mary. Only hatred of your idolatry of her. It's unbelievable that you think I'm the one affected by the Devil, when you're the one embracing what is egregiously and obviously heretical and idolatrous.

If the Roman Catholic Church has been leading people to Jesus, then it'd only be in spite of her teachings, rather than because of.

I just saw Daniel Self's email, and I would be more than happy to talk with him. I have a strong feeling, though, that he will be just as steeped in error and heretical/idolatrous thinking as you are.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: for the first three hundred years of the church, how did Christians know what was Scripture without any Roman Catholic Council decree to tell them?

---

I listed it earlier. The writing had to be of an apostolic age and the had to be read at Mass. Many of the "rejected" letters that I presented were both of the apostolic age and read at Mass.

The Church finally decided to promulgate the canon in the 4th century.

What's your version of the story?

---

Exactly, the books were authoritative in of themselves, by their own merit, NOT because they were deemed so by Roman Catholic authority.

God determined what was to be Scripture. His people, Christians, only recognized them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: for the first three hundred years of the church, how did Christians know what was Scripture without any Roman Catholic Council decree to tell them?

---

I listed it earlier. The writing had to be of an apostolic age and the had to be read at Mass. Many of the "rejected" letters that I presented were both of the apostolic age and read at Mass.

The Church finally decided to promulgate the canon in the 4th century.

What's your version of the story?

---

Exactly, the books were authoritative in of themselves, by their own merit, NOT because they were deemed so by Roman Catholic authority.

God determined what was to be Scripture. His people, Christians, only recognized them.

---

How do we know which books were authoritative?
Which Christians recognized that they were scripture and when?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: for the first three hundred years of the church, how did Christians know what was Scripture without any Roman Catholic Council decree to tell them?

---

I listed it earlier. The writing had to be of an apostolic age and the had to be read at Mass. Many of the "rejected" letters that I presented were both of the apostolic age and read at Mass.

The Church finally decided to promulgate the canon in the 4th century.

What's your version of the story?

---

Exactly, the books were authoritative in of themselves, by their own merit, NOT because they were deemed so by Roman Catholic authority.

God determined what was to be Scripture. His people, Christians, only recognized them.

---

How do we know which books were authoritative?
Which Christians recognized that they were scripture and when?

---

The OT Books were accepted by the Jews at the time of Christ. The NT books were recognized early on because they were written by the Apostles or an associate of an Apostle. The 2 exceptions were James and Jude whi were half Brothers of Jesus Christ Himself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And for like maybe the 100th time, the Roman Catholic Church did not decide which books were to be in the New Testament. Is this another circle you wish for us to travail?

---

The institution that we know as the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time the Christian canon was settled.

However, the canon was settled by Christians with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a council of the entire church of the first millenium. There were no stone tablets on Mount Sinai given to the church saying "this is in" and "this is out".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[And evolutionary biology is not incompatible with Christianity. What IS incompatible with Christianity is evolutionary biology happening via chance occurence.

---

The issue with evolutionary biology and Christianity is not the issue of chance occurrence.

It is this:

(1) Despite your desire to believe that the yom of Genesis refers to extended periods of time to try and reconcile the days of Genesis with evolution, Genesis is quite specific in describing those yom as having a morning and evening, tying them to the rising and setting of the sun, ergo 24 hour periods. There is simply no way around that for you unless you disregard the portions of scripture you don't like.

(2) The mechanism of evolution - chance evolution or not - is death. Christian theology says that at the time of creation death did not exist, and was brought into the world as a result of the fall of man. Therefore thousands of years of death degrade man and take him further from the image and likeness in which he was made, and all of creation with him. It is not a creative process that over millions of years builds life from bacteria to mammals.

(3) Christ himself states "At the beginning of creation, He made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), which places Adam and Eve at the start of it all, not downstream of a process taking millions of years. So now you've placed yourself where you're arguing with Christ himself.

I hope you now understand why your belief in evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity, but I doubt it. Since you already believe in textual criticism, you have a tendency to say you are Sola Scriptura, when in fact you have spread an inordinate amount of time spreading the gospel of Sola Opinonata on this thread.

Is the Roman Catholic Church the original Christian Church that dates back to 33 AD?

No. The Patriarchate of Rome was at best the third Christian Church that was formed, and probably not even that. The Church of Jerusalem was the first, the Church of Antioch was the second. This can be easily verified by tracing the missionary journeys of the Apostles in the Book of Acts as a matter of historical record.

How did the Roman Catholic Church come to be?

The Roman Catholic Church as we know it today was founded in 1054 A.D. Papal Legates sent by Pope Leo the IX to Constantinople demanded that the Churches in the East recognize Leo the IX to be the head of all Christian Churches. The other churches refused, and after mutual excommunications the Roman Patriarchate left the universal Christian communion of the first millenium and became the Roman Catholic Church.

Has the Roman Catholic Church maintained the faith once delivered to the saints?

No. After 1054 A.D., the newly formed Roman Catholic Church held a series of its own councils in which it formalized a variety of doctrines and added them to the Christian faith as it had been known for 1,000 years. This include, but are not limited to, the Lateran councils where priestly celibacy was mandated and the Councils of Toulouse and Trent which forbade Christians from buying, selling, or owning Bibles and banned their translation in to the Vernacular.

"Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them.' (Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564)."

Most recently, in the second Vatican council of the 1960s, the Roman Catholic Church remodeled its church service, having not only previously discarded the ancient Christian worship service of the first few hundred years of the church but also its own Tridentine and pre-Tridentine Latin masses (a source of significant grief for the Trad Catholics who dispute Vatican II).

These are only a few examples, but a Christian in Rome in 950 A.D. would find the modern Roman Catholic church entirely unrecognizable. On the other hand, he would recognize the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, celebrated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as authentically Christian.

What is the real history of the early Christian Church?

Most Christians know that the Christian Church came out of Judaism, but they aren't that familiar with the details. For those who are interested, this is an excellent book.

Orthodox Worship: A Living Continuity with the Synagogue, the Temple, and the Early Church

The earliest Christians continued to worship in Synagogues and Temples on the Jewish sabbath (again, a pattern easily seen when reading the book of Acts) and then gathered to celebrate the Eucharist following this. This pattern continued until followers of the Way as it was called at the time were cast out of the synagogues in fulfillment of John 16:2. The Jewish liturgy was then joined to the celebration of the Eucharist to form a complete Christian worship service on Sunday morning.

(More later)

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Question: for the first three hundred years of the church, how did Christians know what was Scripture without any Roman Catholic Council decree to tell them?

---

I listed it earlier. The writing had to be of an apostolic age and the had to be read at Mass. Many of the "rejected" letters that I presented were both of the apostolic age and read at Mass.

The Church finally decided to promulgate the canon in the 4th century.

What's your version of the story?

---

Exactly, the books were authoritative in of themselves, by their own merit, NOT because they were deemed so by Roman Catholic authority.

God determined what was to be Scripture. His people, Christians, only recognized them.

---

How do we know which books were authoritative?
Which Christians recognized that they were scripture and when?

---

Original apostolic authorship/origin, original first hand eyewitness testimony. If authorship was unknown/disputed in the early church, it was not considered. Whether they were read or not at "Mass" (there wasn't a Roman Catholic Mass in the first century church) would only be a distant secondary issue at most, maybe even tertiary, and not at all unless the criterion of original apostolic authorship was met.

The first Christians had already been circulating the four Gospels as Scripture, as well as Paul's letters. All based on their authority as orginal apostles. This authority exists on its own merit, completely independent from any proclamation by a church council.

The question for you I've asked before, but didn't get an answer to, is: when is a writing the word of God - right at the moment it's written, or only after it is recognized as such, whether formally or informally?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And for like maybe the 100th time, the Roman Catholic Church did not decide which books were to be in the New Testament. Is this another circle you wish for us to travail?

---

The institution that we know as the Roman Catholic Church did not exist at the time the Christian canon was settled.

However, the canon was settled by Christians with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in a council of the entire church of the first millenium. There were no stone tablets on Mount Sinai given to the church saying "this is in" and "this is out".

---

The Holy Spirit does not only act on councils. The Holy Spirit acts on every individual believer. It was the collective agreement of individual beievers, all the way from the early church, before any Roman Catholic council decree, which books were authoritative as the word of God.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[And evolutionary biology is not incompatible with Christianity. What IS incompatible with Christianity is evolutionary biology happening via chance occurence.

---

The issue with evolutionary biology and Christianity is not the issue of chance occurrence.

It is this:

(1) Despite your desire to believe that the yom of Genesis refers to extended periods of time to try and reconcile the days of Genesis with evolution, Genesis is quite specific in describing those yom as having a morning and evening, tying them to the rising and setting of the sun, ergo 24 hour periods. There is simply no way around that for you unless you disregard the portions of scripture you don't like.

---

It isn't my "desire" to believe that "yom" can refer to a long period of time, that's just a plain fact.

You're making the assumption that the "morning" and "evening" of each "yom" are referring to the 24-hour light/dark cycle of the sun. But how is that so, if the light of the sun that "separated the day from the night" wasn't created until the fourth day?

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[And evolutionary biology is not incompatible with Christianity. What IS incompatible with Christianity is evolutionary biology happening via chance occurence.

---

(2) The mechanism of evolution - chance evolution or not - is death. Christian theology says that at the time of creation death did not exist, and was brought into the world as a result of the fall of man. Therefore thousands of years of death degrade man and take him further from the image and likeness in which he was made, and all of creation with him. It is not a creative process that over millions of years builds life from bacteria to mammals.

(3) Christ himself states "At the beginning of creation, He made them male and female" (Mark 10:6), which places Adam and Eve at the start of it all, not downstream of a process taking millions of years. So now you've placed yourself where you're arguing with Christ himself.

I hope you now understand why your belief in evolution is entirely incompatible with Christianity, but I doubt it. Since you already believe in textual criticism, you have a tendency to say you are Sola Scriptura, when in fact you have spread an inordinate amount of time spreading the gospel of Sola Opinonata on this thread.

---

2) The mechanism of evolution is death only if it is due to chance mutations, which signal a degradation/disorder process. But in a directed mutations model, death does not necessary enter the equation. You are so adamant in your assumptions, that you refuse a timeless God the right to create over millions of years, when a million years is like a day to him, and a day is like a million years.

Also, death had to have been part of the Garden of Eden - how else would Adam and Eve have eaten the fruit from the Garden? Eating involves digesting and thus killing of the cells in the fruit.

3) Jesus' words in Mark 10:6 do not necessarily mean creation must have taken place over a short period of six, 24-hour days. The meaning of "the beginning" can simply refer to when God started his creation of mankind, or the whole period of time during the start of creation up until the point He rested. And if you want to get technical, "the beginning" could not have meant that Adam and Eve were there at the start of it all, because they weren't created until the 6th "yom".

And your understanding of what textual criticism and sola scriptura is and means still is very lacking. Attacking textual criticism is attacking the reliability of the New Testament. Attacking both textual criticism and sola scriptura is the means for those who want to degrade the authority of Scripture so they can interject tradition as an authoritative rule of faith.