Wednesday, 9 July 2014

Addendum to comments on Anglicans and Catholics Ecumenism

Here are some comments I am going to respond to with respect to what I have stated about Anglicans and Catholics and why they shouldn't be teaming up with each other

"As usual you have yet to prove your accusations, one bombastic Anglo-Centric (Dare I say racist) statement after another, vague hints at an over-riding theology that Anglicans, Lutherans, & all Protestants hold in common against Catholicism. But what are these things you hold that make Catholics heretics? You're against idolatry, so are Catholics and Anglicans. If you wish to make the odd, historically bizarre argument that Iconography is the same thing as Idolatry, then you would have excommunicated the author of the Torah and the entire Jewish community at Europos. Iconography and even the veneration of pictures, is a solidly Jewish concept. Such is why Cherubim are depicted on the Ark of the Covenant. Showing that the Decalogue is not warning against iconography, but rather idolatry (The worship of statues). Perfectly coinciding with the Jewish synagogue at Europos, and reports of iconography in Jewish oral tradition."

My argument was not iconography is wrong. I have never said it was. See my article response to Walid Shoebat on this issue:

Where on earth is the racism in my article? Can you quote anywhere in my article where I had a racist slur.

"Further you assert that "God's Word warns us." Can you give me a biblical definition of God's Word? I find the usage of the phrase comical, as the vast majority of times that phrase is used in the Biblical texts it's referring to an oral transmission. Not something that is scripture. Once again, sola scriptura is a man-made heresy, found nowhere in scripture. Totally debunked by 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (Which says scripture is ophelimos, and "Every" scripture. Not all.) and the entire culture and theology of the Jews which heavily relied upon oral traditions, such as the Oral Torah which Christ himself frequently references and approves."

God's word in the context I spoke about was the Bible as a Whole, namely the Old Testament and the New Testament. I was not bringing whether Sola Scriptura was true or not into the actual article since that wasn't my point in the first place nor was it the topic I was addressing.

"You say transubstantiation is evil and leave it at that. Ok. No biblical argument. Perhaps you can start by presenting a single usage in the Koine Greek NT where "Trogo" is used in a metaphorical sense. So your argument isn't even worth dealing with. Then you state Catholics reject the dogma of "Justification by faith alone." Yeah, I think I'd rather stick with what James says, that man is not justified by faith alone. And I think I'll go with Martin Luther's interpretation of the verse, which is that it solidly confirms Catholic dogma and debunks Protestantism. Which is why Luther came to the conclusion that James was not apart of the canon. Oh, also I'll agree with the consensus of bible scholars that read Koine Greek and read the verse as it is."

I already posted a link to KeithTruth's Roman Catholic documentary on these issues. If you want to reject Keith's points, that's fine. Furthermore, Martin Luther is not infallible, plus even Lutherans don't hold him as such. The comment from Luther I would need to look into.

"What can one expect from your typical, Jew-worshiping, Ethnocentric Anglo-Saxon (With little understanding of a first century Levantine Honor-based Jewish society) that is in fundamental disagreement with the early reformers and vast majority of Evangelicals on key issues."

What has me being a British man got to do with my whole point in the article? My whole point was to tell Anglicans to get away from Rome, even if there was a noble cause in repudiating human trafficking. The subject of Judaism was IRRELEVANT to the point of my article, thus what you have said is a red herring.

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment