4 months ago
Which side makes a better case?
  • Filter by:
  • Pro
  • Draw
  • Con
  • 4 months ago

    Thanks @duncan_king for a cwu good discussion. I enjoyed it. Good discussion, no arguing h :)

  • 4 months ago

    Clarifying some facts (not necessary related to the argument, but just for educational purposes).

    The list of supposed "popes"


    Books mentioned in the bible that are not included in the bible


    • 4 months ago

      Finding of the council of Rome related to the canon:

      "Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon [i.e. Chronicles] two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.

      Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Amos one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

      Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

      The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

      Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."


      • 4 months ago

        An important point, I should have mentioned: Mat 16:19

        "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”

        Whether or not Yeshua meant "you are the rock" or "the fact that I am the son of god is the rock," nevertheless, he specifies that Peter has the "keys" to bind and loose; or to create doctrines that can be thus manifested through a church created by Peter. So the interpretation is not soley dependant upon "the Rock" but moreso on "the keys."

        • 4 months ago

          @duncan_king Jesus said that The fact that Jesus is "The Christ, the Son of the Living God" was the Rock He referred to, not a person and that the keys were not given to Peter but to those who believe the said statement revealed to Peter.

        • 4 months ago

          @nellyj_misesian he said to Peter, "I will give you the keys," no? I'll Grant you the rock could be interpreted the way you say, but to say "you" means any believer in this situation is a real stretch.

      • 4 months ago

        The Books of the Bible
        But where did we even get the books of the Bible in the first place? Jews and early Christians believed these books to be the result of God guiding the human authors and editors. A fundamental difference between the Bible and the sacred literature of most other major religions is the claim that the Bible was a cooperative creation between God and multiple human authors.

        However, it’s a fair question to ask how human councils in the early church could authoritatively decide which books belong in the Bible. The biblical canon is the recognized and official list of Scriptures believed to be the product of divine revelation. A scholarly consensus is that the current twenty-seven books of the New Testament were already in use by the Christian Church as early as 150 CE.

        While an official decision regarding the canon came later, the majority of churches operated with a relatively fixed canon from the second century CE onward

        • 4 months ago

          @nellyj_misesian The idea that 27 books are taught in churches is not in itself the idea of "the bible." The idea of the bible includes the notion that teachings of texts outside the canon should be dismissed. That idea, along with the canon itself, is not in the bible.

          Whatever you think the basis is that reveals said texts are inspired, those reasons are extrabiblical reasons and are thus a contradiction.

      • 4 months ago

        Con doesn't know anything about what Catholic's actually believe. He just states a bunch of half truths and straw men about Catholic beliefs. That being said, I don't think either side was in this for the win, and they each wind up basically agreeing, so I'm voting draw.

        • 4 months ago

          @phoenix that's fair, but realize, we weren't debating whether Catholicism is true.

        • 4 months ago

          @phoenix Meaning, the fact that we agreed on it being false was irrelevant to the topic. We remained in disagreement about the topic. The notion that catholicism is false was merely brought to the forefront of your attention because you disagree with the notion.

      • 4 months ago

        As a former Catholic, I was literally laughing out loud at Nelson's descriptions of what Catholics believe, since he's completely inaccurate basically the entire time. But that doesn't really have much to do with the topic. He pontificates for 2/3rds of the debate (seriously people need to stop giving Nelson/Michael/Bronson untimed debates, because they just hog the mic) but literally everything Nelson said for all that time was irrelevant to the actual point at hand. I'm somewhat annoyed I just sat through all of that. The only parts of the debate that were on topic were Benjamin's opening and then the last 7 minutes or so of the debate.

        I'm voting Pro, although I was close to voting draw. Catholicism does have a clear internal consistency since it was Roman Catholic councils that defined the books of the bible. There is an internal logic to that. Nelson says that the books they defined were already considered the right books, which is historically false, since the whole reason the councils were needed was to settle the controversy that was raging at the time over which books should be considered inspired, but Benjamin didn't bring this up. Still, even if those books were commonly considered the right books, that's still shakier ground than a council headed by the official supposed authority, and thus Pro is correct that Catholicism is "more" internally consistent.

        • 4 months ago

          @sharkb8 I didn't bring that up because I don't consider it entirely true. Obviously not every church in Christendom at the time was using the same exact canon (or even believed a canon was necessary), but the 27 books decided by the council of Rome were arguably the most popular of the time, save for two exclusions: The Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermes. Those books that were included were not included merely because they were theologically digestible, but because they believed, based on their somewhat limited, but decent level of evidence that they were first century works.

          I honestly didn't notice if Nelson talked more than I did. I felt I spoke as much as I needed to. Might have been less than Nelson, but I tend to keep my phraseology concise.

        • 4 months ago

          @sharkb8 Thanks for an honest analysis.