Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics can't answer
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can't answer (from an intensely anti-Catholic nondenom site, bible.con
Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it?
"Rome" had to prove the inspiration of EVERY BOOK. Inspiration occurs at the time the books were written. Canonization occurs when the inspired books (to be read out loud in church) are made binding on all Christians as Scripture. "Rome" could not have rejected what has not yet proven to be inspired. The question is a non-sequitur fallacy.
Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.
An assertion without naming the books. The books that were later rejected were previously used in some churches, but they were never canonized and did not involve the whole church. They were rejected because they failed the strict criteria for proving inspiration. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabus etc. were debated to be included in the canon, but proven by the authority of the Church to be uninspired. This occured about 100 years before the closing of the canon in 397 A.D. The Church has never rejected a book after it has been canonized. The question is dishonest.
If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
If the author is quided by the Holy Spirit, why does he display so much ignorance and false history? The Catholic Church does not claim to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit, she claims certain teachings on faith and morals are infallible, because the Holy Spirit is infallible.
Popes, councils, and bishops are not infallible. Just as the Council of Jersalem in Acts 15 was infallible, so is the teachings of the Church are infallible. All councils thruought history are modeled after the structure of the Council of Jerusalem.There is nothing in Scripture that says the Church would never have another controvery, and there is nothing in Scripture that says no more future councils would be needed, or we would all be Arians.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any teaching to be infallible without the Holy Spirit. Heaven cannot bind an error.
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
The Orthodox agree with the first 5 councils of the Church. Some say seven. The church had a geographical division, east and west. At the time the Council of Carthage closed the canon, the Orthodox Church as we know it, did not exist. Eastern churches eventually became Orthodox, but they were excommunicated
5 X. Using the term "Orthodox" without any historical context or dates or time frame, and assuming both churches had parallel development, is an error found all over the site. There is no evidence the Book of Revelation was even quoted until the mid 3rd century. The author hasn't a clue what he is talking about.
more later
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics and Orthodox can't answer (from an intensely anti-Catholic nondenom site, bible.con
Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:
If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it?
"Rome" had to prove the inspiration of EVERY BOOK. Inspiration occurs at the time the books were written. Canonization occurs when the inspired books (to be read out loud in church) are made binding on all Christians as Scripture. "Rome" could not have rejected what has not yet proven to be inspired. The question is a non-sequitur fallacy.
Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected.
An assertion without naming the books. The books that were later rejected were previously used in some churches, but they were never canonized and did not involve the whole church. They were rejected because they failed the strict criteria for proving inspiration. The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabus etc. were debated to be included in the canon, but proven by the authority of the Church to be uninspired. This occured about 100 years before the closing of the canon in 397 A.D. The Church has never rejected a book after it has been canonized. The question is dishonest.
If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
If the author is quided by the Holy Spirit, why does he display so much ignorance and false history? The Catholic Church does not claim to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit, she claims certain teachings on faith and morals are infallible, because the Holy Spirit is infallible.
Popes, councils, and bishops are not infallible. Just as the Council of Jersalem in Acts 15 was infallible, so is the teachings of the Church are infallible. All councils thruought history are modeled after the structure of the Council of Jerusalem.There is nothing in Scripture that says the Church would never have another controvery, and there is nothing in Scripture that says no more future councils would be needed, or we would all be Arians.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any teaching to be infallible without the Holy Spirit. Heaven cannot bind an error.
If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
The Orthodox agree with the first 5 councils of the Church. Some say seven. The church had a geographical division, east and west. At the time the Council of Carthage closed the canon, the Orthodox Church as we know it, did not exist. Eastern churches eventually became Orthodox, but they were excommunicated
5 X. Using the term "Orthodox" without any historical context or dates or time frame, and assuming both churches had parallel development, is an error found all over the site. There is no evidence the Book of Revelation was even quoted until the mid 3rd century. The author hasn't a clue what he is talking about.
more later
Attachments
Last edited: