Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

As far as I can find out, the Catholics outnumber all the disparate Protestant sects put together by at least 300,000,000 members. And that's including people like the Mormons. If we could put you all together and convince you to stop calling one another blasphemous heretics who will burn in Hell, you're still outnumbered.

Sure, you can ignore me. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The point of the list was to demonstrate that I'm not representing merely one isolated "sect," but the whole body of Protestant believers. I believe it succeeds at that.Otherwise numbers are irrelevant. Yes, apostasy is much more popular than the truth. It suits fallen human nature. That's why Islam is so huge too.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I would only be ignoring you because your inerrant Bible states that I should. Luckily, I do not believe the Bible is:
A. inerrant
B. factual
and
C. Anything more than a good storybook.So, I have no reason to ignore you because believing that women cannot teach men anything is stupid and chauvinistic.I am merely pointing out one section that you seem to gloss over in your inerrant Bible (one out of I am sure many more little phrases that you do not obey). How can you reconcile this idea of the fact that women should never attempt to teach men? Is this not to be read literally, while much of the rest of the Bible is?

Great! You are right! They are all Christians!However, you are still wrong on your classification of the RCC as anything other than Christian. Are they your brand of Christian? Definitely not! But, nothing you have stated changes anything about the fact that they are Christians. And again, for arguing the Trinity, some of the best sources you will find are Catholic sources for this. (And I know, shockingly, you can find Catholic sources with scriptural evidence!)

But naturally this is the case. Since the West started off Catholic, naturally the emergence of Protestantism "led to a massive revolution in thought and culture". Similarly, since biologists started off creationist, the emergence of Darwinism "led to a massive revolution in thought and culture". You can hardly think that conclusive in its favor. Yeah, well, I'm not going to have dinner with you either. It's hypothetical.

Seems to me that discussion on a public forum where you can take it or leave it is hardly me putting myself in a position of authority over anyone. I don't teach in church, I don't preach in church, I believe women are not to be pastors or elders. But we aren't required never to say anything. That's how I understand that scripture.

But what you actually wrote was, and I quote: If this is not true, and it isn't, then you shouldn't have said it. But when you thought it was true, you wanted to shout from the rooftops how Protestants outnumbered Catholics. But now you know it isn't true, you say:

The ex-Catholic Protestant Reformers came to realize from their study of the Bible, independently of each other, that the Roman Church, specifically the papacy, is well described as the Harlot Church of the Book of Revelation and the Papacy is the Antichrist system.

Which, to me shows that you are adding to your inerrant Bible. There is no specification in this verse about simply not teaching within the structure of the church. Even going through different translations of the verse, it never gets better for women.NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.KJV: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silenceNASB: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.CEV: They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to doRSV: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.Nowhere, in any of these messages is it specified that this is only in a church setting. What you are doing is adding the words "In church" to the end of the Bible verse....words that do not exist in the actual scriptures, so that your verse ends up reading (Using KJV):But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence in church.How can something that is inerrant miss those words? There is an enormous difference between never teaching men anything and it applying only to church.

quote:

---

I'm sure you can find something wrong with it of course instead of receiving it as information.

---

I can find plenty wrong with YOUR claim that it supports your ideas:First, it doesn't support your idea of inerrancy over the Catholic version.Second, it doesn't even specify what it means by "scripture". There's no way to tell if it includes any part of the NT. (If it was written by Paul - which I'm sure you'll insist on despite the evidence that suggests otherwise - then there is good reason to think that it did not !)And third. it doesn't specify that it's NECESSARY to believe it.Now, I have to say that a questionable interpretation of a vague verse in a letter of uncertain authorship is hardly a firm basis for an essential doctrine ! I think that a reasonable person could agree that there is room for Christians to take a different view.

So......who cares? And many Catholic scholars, independent of one another, throughout the years have come to a different conclusion about this...so the question is how are we to judge which one is correct?Well, we can start by looking at what they are saying about one another. This is what we have been doing and it seems to be a lot of mud slinging and very little effective information.So, in the end, it must come down to what the actual definition of being a Christian is. As you have been told multiple times, A Christian or Christians are described as an individual or group that believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Both Protestantism, the RCC, the Mormon church, etc... all agree on one thing and that is that Christ was divine (whether or not the are Trinitarian). Therefore, regardless of personal opinions (which is all that the founding protestant fathers count as, same as the early Vatican writers), both groups strongly believe in the dogma of Christs divinity. Therefore, both groups qualify under the definition of Christian.You may want to argue that the definition is too loose, and this is where you are falling under the No True Scotsman fallacy. If it were to continue deeper into scriptural evidence, I am sure you could find ways to remove almost every other sect of Christianity as being Christian. Luckily for the world, you are not in charge of definitions and Christian has been defined. Baptists are Christians, the RCC is Christian, Mormons are Christians, Non-denominationals are Christians....cause they all believe Christ is divine.

I NEVER said anything about how Protestants outnumber Catholics!I said my beliefs represent the majority of CHRISTIANchurches and that was true then and it's true now. CATHOLICISM IS NOT CHRISTIAN.

Matthew Henry Commentary: This is not church and I have no authority over anyone.

That is a wonderful opinion of one person on the meaning of the verse...and I agree with the sentiment that it is only intended to be applied to certain times. Although, I do not agree that in church or anywhere else women should not be permitted to teach or have authority because I am not living in the Bronze Age. However, this still shows one instance where the Bible is not inerrant because no specification is given in the Bible about when a woman must be quiet.You can read between the lines, add a couple of words, or whatever you like to make the verse read that way, but it is all mental gymnastics to keep your infallible Bible safe, rather than to realize that the Bible occasionally gets things incorrect (such as items that were written during a strong patriarchal society that can affect women negatively).Also, as per your comment in the previous message to PaulK: You have been shown where you incorrect on this. Christians has a specific definition, do you deny this?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.