The Instigator
dis8996
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hillkill65
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The Catholic Church is fully Biblical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 52564
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

dis8996

Pro

The Catholic Church is fully biblical and teaches the fullness of the Truth. The Catholic Church is the compiler of Scripture and its guardian. All other churches are institutions of man and their teachings either contradict Scripture or are not found in Scripture. The authority of the Church however, is found explicitly in Scripture. My opponent would need to give evidence that his interpretation of Scripture is the correct one. A Protestant opponent is preferred.

"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect," - 1 Peter 3:15
hillkill65

Con

In my contenders opening argument he states "The Catholic Church is fully biblical and teaches the fullness of the Truth." I believe that the Catholic Church states that it teaches truth but yet is full of contradictions and I will also attempt to show you how the Catholic Church is not fully biblical. For my opening i will just dip into multiple examples how the Catholic Church is not what all that they claim to be.

Now my contender states the Catholic Church is fully biblical. Now you may be wondering what that means, I have looked multiple places and I can't seem to find that phrased used anywhere. Where else to go but the friendly dictionary, Now there are many definitions for those two words (ex. verb, adverb, noun, etc.). The most likely definition for Fully that would make sense is -adverb-Totally or completely, and the most likely definition for Biblical- of, relating to, or contained in the Bible. With that information you can make many assumptions of what that means. My assumption would be that the Catholic Church uses and bases everything off of the bible.

Now I will take my first hit at Fullness of Truth. Now stated by a Catholic source they said "It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4)" (http://www.bible.ca...). another says "I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the authority of the Church." "St. Augustine(Contra Epis. Manich., Fund., n. 6)" (http://www.tanbooks.com...). another "The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)." Now how does the Catholic Church have the right to claim the bible and claim they are the reason for which we have the bible today? Especially when the bible was created long before the church and there are jumps between different bible translations.

In the bible god tells us how he wants to be worshiped "Jesus says in John 4:23-24, "But the hour is coming, and now is, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." It doesn't say we can worship God anyway we want, but we "must worship Him in spirit and in truth". The word "must" makes it absolute"(http://www.bible.ca...)

another vital scripture passage "We read in Jeremiah 10:23, "O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps." We are not granted the option of directing our own ways in religion. God is the One who we look to for guidance and direction in our lives." but yet the Catholic Church recognizes Easter and Christmas which are from two pagan worship celebrations.

Now the exact date of Christ's birth is unknown to us, but even most bible scholars agree that it was not in december so why does the Catholic Church recognize this date to be Christ's birth? Well simply to make the convert to Catholic Church easier for the Heathen and Pagan worshippers during that time and with the pagan celebration of Saturnalia it eased the move over and could easily share celebration days.

Now "The early Catholic Church did not celebrate Christmas. Furthermore, Tertullian (one of its leading 2nd/3rd century writers, whom it sometimes refers to as "the father of Latin Christianity") warned that to participate in the winter celebrations made one beholding to pagan gods. There was one such celebration known as the Saturnalia that was celebrated by the heathen in late December.(http://www.cogwriter.com...)" Now God told us how to worship him, when to worship him, and told how bad it was to worship the wrong way. Now that goes against not only the bible but also it has no truth to it and almost is disrespectful towards god.

How does that support the Catholic Church Is fully biblical and teaches truth when it has many secrets, contradictions, and does not follow the bible? Thank you.

(http://www.yourdictionary.com...)
(http://www.google.com...)
(http://www.lasttrumpetministries.org...)
(http://www.bible.ca...)
(http://www.cogwriter.com...)
(http://www.bible.ca...)
(http://www.tanbooks.com...)
(http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com...)
Debate Round No. 1
dis8996

Pro

"My assumption would be that the Catholic Church uses and bases everything off of the bible."
This is not what I am saying per se. What I am saying by "fully biblical" is that the Catholic Church does not contradict the Bible and vice versa. By "fully biblical", I mean that the teachings of the Catholic Church are either explicitly or indirectly taught in Scripture.

"Now how does the Catholic Church have the right to claim the bible and claim they are the reason for which we have the bible today? Especially when the bible was created long before the church and there are jumps between different bible translations."
You can argue that the OT was made before the Church but the NT you cannot because historically the Church is before the writings of the NT.

"Now the exact date of Christ's birth is unknown to us, but even most bible scholars agree that it was not in december so why does the Catholic Church recognize this date to be Christ's birth? Well simply to make the convert to Catholic Church easier for the Heathen and Pagan worshippers during that time and with the pagan celebration of Saturnalia it eased the move over and could easily share celebration days."
Marian T. Horvat answers a similar claim stating:
"First, one must not simply assume that the early Christians only began to celebrate Christmas in the 4th century. Until the Edict of Milan was published in 313, Catholics were persecuted and met in catacombs. Hence, there was no public festivity. But they celebrated Christmas among themselves before that Edict, as hymns and prayers of the first Christians confirm.
Second, this claim is based on unsound assumptions. As scholar Thomas Talley points out in his book The Origins of the Liturgical Year, Emperor Aurelian inaugurated the festival of the Birth of the Unconquered Sun trying to give new life " a rebirth " to a dying Roman Empire. It is much more likely, he argues, that the Emperor"s action was a response to the growing popularity and strength of the Catholic religion, which was celebrating Christ"s birth on December 25, rather than the other way around.
There is no evidence that Aurelian"s celebration preceded the feast of Christmas, and more reason to believe that establishing this festival day " which never won popular support and soon died out " was an effort to give a pagan significance to a date already of importance to Roman Catholics.....
The Catholic Church determined March 25 as the date of Our Lord"s Conception long before Aurelian decided to make his solar feast. For example, around 221 AD, Sexto Julio Africano wrote the Chronographiai in which he affirmed that the Annunciation was March 25. (6) Once the date of the Incarnation was established, it was a simple matter of adding nine months to arrive at the date of Our Lord"s birth - December 25. This date would not be made official until the late fourth century, but it was established long before Aurelian and Constantine. It had nothing to do with pagan festivals. "

" Furthermore, Tertullian (one of its leading 2nd/3rd century writers, whom it sometimes refers to as "the father of Latin Christianity") warned that to participate in the winter celebrations made one beholding to pagan gods. There was one such celebration known as the Saturnalia that was celebrated by the heathen in late December.(http://www.cogwriter.com......)" Now God told us how to worship him, when to worship him, and told how bad it was to worship the wrong way. Now that goes against not only the bible but also it has no truth to it and almost is disrespectful towards god."
Now Tertullian said "By us who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar" (Tertullian, On Idolatry, chap. 14, quoted by Hislop, p. 93). Tertullian obviously was stating that the no Christian should participate in the pagan holidays because they are honoring the pagan gods. We do not participate in pagan holidays but Christian holidays. The Christians were not even attempting to Christianize the feast but were actually participants of the celebrations. Tertullian says, "For, even if they had known them, they would not have shared the Lord's Day or Pentecost with us. For they would fear lest they would appear to be Christians. Yet, we are not apprehensive that we might appear to be pagans!" (quoted by David Bercot, editor, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 1998, p. 342). Do Christians look like pagans when they celebrate Christmas? How could they since they commemorate Christ and not a false pagan god? Who, other than you, have the apprehension that we appear pagan? You could argue that our practices seem similar to what the pagans did but a statement from the 1976 "AWAKE" answers this claim:
"" What should be a Christian's attitude toward shapes and designs that have at some time or place been connected with false religion? " So the Christian needs to be primarily concerned about what? Not what a certain symbol or design possibly meant thousands of years ago or how it might be thought of on the other side of the world, but what it means now to most people where he lives. " With so many different designs having been used in false worship, if a person went to the trouble and took the time he might find an undesirable connection with almost every design he sees around him. But why do that? Would it not be needless upsetting? And is that the best use of one's time and attention?" Awake! 12/12/76, pages 12-15.
The JW's watchtower even admits:
"Whether an object is an idol or not depends on how it is viewed.....the fact that various creatures, plants and heavenly bodies - all parts of God's creative works - have been and still are being given veneration would not in itself unacceptable for decorative or ornamental purposes. Many things that were at one time worshipped by the ancients have lost their idolatrous significance and are generally regarded as being merely ornamental." WT 5-15-72 p.295

The pagan holidays like other things that at one time worshipped, have lost their idolatrous significance and are regarded as mere days. Sun-Sat come from the pagan calendar, should we disregard this as well?

Finally, we should worship God on any day and to fuss about a specific day we give God special honor is petty and unimportant.
hillkill65

Con

"Finally, we should worship God on any day and to fuss about a specific day we give God special honor is petty and unimportant." how is it petty and unimportant when God told us how and when to worship him? "The first time the day of worship was given to Israel (it became the Feast of Unleaven Bread). Exod..12:14 "So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. 15 'Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. 16 'On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat-- that only may be prepared by you.17 `So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance." Is this still carried out today? when people eat leavened bread during this time does the church cut off those from israel?

How about "Lev. 23:28-32: "And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. "For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. "And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. "You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. "It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath." Does the Church continue these as well? because God said these days shall last through the generations. I guess it would be a little contradicting for the church of god to not Enforce and continue days which God said in scripture shall last throughout the ages.(http://www.letusreason.org...)

now although these are only two examples they already show a contradiction between the church and its scripture. Want some more contradictions or False information

"The Apocrypha

Point #3 " The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther).

These 7 extra books Catholics call the "Deuterocanonical" books. Protestants usually refer to them as the "Apocrypha," and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly:

1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament.

2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the "inspiration" of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?

3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures.

4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical.

Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha: "Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." (Under "Canon of the Old Testament")(http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com...)."

More?

"Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek " written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome"s Latin translation " written 382-405 A.D.):

"But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added]

The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint"s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate"s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, "The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added]

So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was "removed" from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church"s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent"s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils" canon is wrong.

To confirm this with another Catholic source:

"Except for Jerome"s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek." (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100)

The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate"s.

So, what if the Catholic says, "Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?" But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic "Tradition" failed to protect the early canon from error in this case.

There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint"s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster: (http://www.christiantruth.com...) (http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com...)."

All of these examples show not only difference in truth, but greatly contradict the bible and/or how the church uses, shows, and enforces it.
Debate Round No. 2
dis8996

Pro

All the days which you mentioned from the Old Testament were not holidays but obligations, obligations which are not binding on Christians. The Scriptures tells us what I mean, Colossians 2:13-17 says:
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law but are now under the laws of Christ. The feast days and rituals of the Jews are not obligations of Christians. An example is Paul's debate about whether Christians need to be circumcised or not. Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it, and it has been fulfilled and those obligations are no longer mandatory.
Another proof of those days not being mandatory for Christians today is the fact that the laws of the Old Testament do not justify us.
Galatians 2:16 says:
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Romans 3:20 says:
"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
If you look at the old holy days of obligations, you can obviously see that they prefigure Christ who is the fulfiller of the Law. Fr. John Echert of EWTN gives a better explanation, he says,
"In many ways, even while our Lord celebrated Jewish feasts, He transcended them and gave them new significance. Examples include:
The Passover becomes our Holy Week, to include the Holy Thursday Last Supper, Good Friday Crucifixion of the Lamb of God, and Easter, Pentecost becomes the feast of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and birth of the Church, rather than an agricultural feast as it had been, Water baths and purifications for external purification and circumcision give way to Baptism, Sabbath on Saturday as the end of the week day of rest and worship gives way to Sunday as the day of Resurrection and new day of the week for rest and worship. These are just samples of how the New Covenant transcends and replaces the Old, which prepared the way for Christ and Christian practice."
THE DEUTEROCANONICALS
"1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament."
The books written in Hebrew were written by the Jewish Authority. When the "Dispersion" of the Jews occurred, which was when the Jews were scattered and settled in other lands outside of Palestine, the Jews began to lose their Hebrew tongue and they adopted Greek. Greek was the Universal Language so the Hebrew text had to be translated into Greek. This was known as the Septuagint (Latin for 70) and is named after the 70 translators who did the task in Alexandria where Greek speaking Jews lived. This was 280 years before Christ and finished around the next century. The Deuterocanonicals are considered the "books of the Dispersion" in Asia and Egypt and were indeed used by Our Lord, the Apostles and the Jews and Christians.
"2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the "inspiration" of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters?"
"3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures."

Could you site them please? I already have a feeling what you are mentioning but I want you to be specific so I can also be specific when discussing the "errors" and "contradictions". Need to show references for them please.

"4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical."

Matt1618, a Catholic Apologist, explains STS. Jerome, & Athanasius views on the Deutercanonicals. He says,
"In sum, Jerome calls the Deuterocanonicals Scripture. The proofs he gives for doctrine come from the Deuterocanonicals. He calls Baruch a prophet in the same sense as Ezekiel. He quotes from Wisdom & Sirach and gives it the same authority as other Scripture and he complains about his opponent denying the authority of the book, not him. His references to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, he uses in support of doctrine, clearly seeing them as Scriptures. Jerome mixes them right along with the rest of Scriptures and he treats them just as the rest of Scriptures. Scriptures are used to 'fulfill' Sirach on the same terms that it fulfilled a Psalm, which can thus only be speaking of Scripture. I have shown Jerome quoting and referring to each of the Deuterocanonical books. This includes Sirach, Wisdom, 2nd Maccabbees, Tobit, Esther, Baruch, and even the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Children, treating each of these books as the same authority as the other books. Thus, the greatest supposed 'detractor' of the Deuterocanonicals, treats the books as Scripture."
With the actual outlook of St. Athanasius on those books in practice, it is obviously a misreading of St. Athanasius in the 39th festal letter to say that his list of the canon is meant to be a list of all the Books that he considers Scripture. Included here we have seen citations from Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel. He calls the books Scriptures, calls the books as written by prophets, and uses it in proving doctrine. A side note is that as I said earlier he does not list Esther as part of the canon, and is "noncanonical" but he does refer to the book a couple of times in the Schaff edition. (NPNF2, Vol. 4, pp. 516, 531) He does not say "It is written" about Esther and makes no distinguishing from that book from other "canonical" books. That is the same way he mostly refers to the Deuterocanonical books. He doesn"t feel he has to "prove" they are Scripture, he assumes it. He quotes it in support of what he is saying, without the need in many cases to say "It is written" or "As scripture says". That is the same way he mostly refers to the non-Deuterocanonical books (without saying "As Scripture says" or "it is written", or "fearless words of Scripture.")...Many times St. Athanasius doesn"t say those distinguishing comments at all (i.e. "Scripture says", or "It is written") but takes for granted that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture (the same way he speaks of the Protocanonicals). He goes to these noncanoncal books but still considers them Scripture. All these books are Scripture, and treated as Scripture, so it is obvious that the term "canon" does not mean "the full extent of Scripture."

I would discuss ST. Gregory and your point about the Councils but my characters would go over. I could discuss that in my next argument.
hillkill65

Con

hillkill65 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
dis8996

Pro

dis8996 forfeited this round.
hillkill65

Con

hillkill65 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by jrrjacques 2 years ago
jrrjacques
I would debate but I am currently involved in to many others. Also this debate depends on whose Bible we are looking from the Catholic church or the unchanged one. Yea Catholicism is biblical to the Catholic Bible but it is not when looking at the original Hebrew, Greek, and Latin translations, or in other words the King James V Bible.
Posted by Geogeer 2 years ago
Geogeer
Well this should be a good one to follow. Good luck.
No votes have been placed for this debate.