Some aplogetics things I just don’t get:

Some time spent over at the Squirrel’s web site last week reminded me of when I was reverting back to the Catholic church. At that time, I was totally willing to start from square one, look at both sides, and make the move out of the church if the answers took me there. But the answers never took me there. The rebuttals to Catholic apologetic from the Protestant apologists were never satisfying or were so twisted and convoluted I couldn’t believe that’s REALLY what Jesus intended.

For example, I read an explanation from James White that the church referred to in 1 Timothy was merely the local church… so does that mean that anything in Colossians is only for the church there? or anything in Thessalonians was just for them? In fact couldn’t I construe then that most of the Epistles were simply just to the people at the time and place they were written too? It kind of blows the mind doesn’t it? Of course I don’t think THEY really think that, because I’ve been beaten over the head with the book of Romans more times than I care to count. So it must be that at least some non-Catholic Christians think the Epistles apply to us today as well.

Another blogger takes the Catholic interpretation of John 6 to task as being only a metaphor. The blogger goes to great lengths to point out that Jesus loved to speak metaphorically. In my mind then that begs the question, is the resurrection metaphorical too? I’m assuming this blogger doesn’t think so, but since they take the literal Greek words of eat (phago) and ‘to chew slowly’ (trogo) as metaphors why would they come to the conclusion that anything He said was literal?

Enjoying my life on this side of the Tiber.

Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!