In all seriousness, because I value my time I left Facebook. Also, there's a point where one must disengage with the dishonest. Simply point to their wrong use of a couple things and move on. I've noticed that RC apologetics is equivocating and long tangents…very similar to Protestants. Both have zero desire to present a holistic view of the Scriptures or fathers because it disproves their presuppositions.
The outnumbered point is even more important when you consider that the places with the most orthodox (and thus, the most sources for orthodox apologetics) are Eastern Europe in languages like Greek, Russian, Serbian, et alia. In the English language there are several hundred times the sources for a Catholic or Protestant than Orthodox. Connecting this to the prudent use of time, one might find the study of not only Koine and Byzantine Greek but modern Greek (as well as Russian), which will open the way to consult the Greek apologists and scholars, as well as primary sources.
One really shudders at the lack of veracity of many current papist apologists that are well aware of the mendacity of using some of these quotes and yet still continue to use them. Even the most well known of them will admit to something like Irenaeus’ often-used quote is out of zero with both his writing and his actions, and yet will then continue to cite it in order to trick those unfamiliar with the full text. I am still at a loss to understand why anyone would even WANT to win that way. If you are convinced of the truth of papism, why use falsehoods to prove it? If you know you have to use falsehoods, sophistry and Jesuitical casuistry to “win”, why devote yourself to such a low ideal?
Deacon Joseph, do you have a discord server up or something like that? I was wondering if I could have an exchange with you (just wanted to talk).
RC Apologetics: Step 1: Collect underpants Step 2. ? Step 3. Profit!
In all seriousness, because I value my time I left Facebook. Also, there's a point where one must disengage with the dishonest. Simply point to their wrong use of a couple things and move on. I've noticed that RC apologetics is equivocating and long tangents…very similar to Protestants. Both have zero desire to present a holistic view of the Scriptures or fathers because it disproves their presuppositions.
The outnumbered point is even more important when you consider that the places with the most orthodox (and thus, the most sources for orthodox apologetics) are Eastern Europe in languages like Greek, Russian, Serbian, et alia. In the English language there are several hundred times the sources for a Catholic or Protestant than Orthodox. Connecting this to the prudent use of time, one might find the study of not only Koine and Byzantine Greek but modern Greek (as well as Russian), which will open the way to consult the Greek apologists and scholars, as well as primary sources.
One really shudders at the lack of veracity of many current papist apologists that are well aware of the mendacity of using some of these quotes and yet still continue to use them. Even the most well known of them will admit to something like Irenaeus’ often-used quote is out of zero with both his writing and his actions, and yet will then continue to cite it in order to trick those unfamiliar with the full text. I am still at a loss to understand why anyone would even WANT to win that way. If you are convinced of the truth of papism, why use falsehoods to prove it? If you know you have to use falsehoods, sophistry and Jesuitical casuistry to “win”, why devote yourself to such a low ideal?
Deacon Joseph, do you have a discord server up or something like that? I was wondering if I could have an exchange with you (just wanted to talk).