CathInfo.com

:soapbox:
By all means, go into the tent meeting and challenge the Protestant "theologian," but before you do, make sure you can quote chapter and verse better than him (or her).  Protestants are indeed largely ignorant of history, believing whatever they've been told by the experts of their particular denomination.  Why?  Because of the same reason most Catholics give, "obedience."  It never occurs to Lutherans, for example, that Luther might have been a bad guy, or to Pres-buy-terians that  there was a reason John Knox was burned at the stake. Lay-Lutherans don't read Luther; lay-Presbies haven't read Knox.  You'll convince no one by refuting writings of which they've heard about small portions.  If you study the Bible only, and have been raised in a sect, you can interpret it in only one manner.  Don't get mad and resort to name-calling.  No Protestant was ever converted that way.  Pray to the Holy Ghost to take the spiritual blinders off their hearts and minds.  And again, make certain you can out-quote the "evangelist" or you'll only end up strengthening him/her in heresy.  Most Catholic lay-folk are not intimately familiar with the Bible as an entire Book, hence Protestants dismiss them and the Catholic Faith as superstition for the blind, ignorant populace.  (See now, what is so dangerous about "Pray, Pay, Obey"?)
 :reading:

I actually think that you shouldn't even give a Protestant the chance to start quoting Bible passages, i would tell them from the start: "Where did you get the Bible? Who wrote it? Why do you accept it as the Word of God?" and prove to them right from the start that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH gave the world the Bible, and that they wouldn't even have one were it not for Her.

I find Bible-passages battles offensive because it makes it seem as if we are two "Bible-believers" just arguing over the interpretation of It and it makes it seem as if they actually believe in the Bible when they don't. I believe it is giving them too much credence or putting them in a place where they most certainly don't even belong, because the fact is that CATHOLICS wrote It and the Catholic Church decided which Books were going to constitute the Bible.

I'm not saying i would never quote passages to refute them all the more of course, but im just saying that i believe it is best to tell them to their faces from the start that they wouldn't even have a Bible were it not for the Church.

If they start thumping passages i would just keep asking them "Where did you get it?" until they answer.

I know a Protestant who doesn't believe in the Deutero-canonical books because supposedly there were many years of "silence" in Israel when nothing was written; they say there were 7 or 700 years of silence to account for these 7 Books so that's one reason i have heard they reject them.

I just wondered if they actually had some arguments against those facts so they don't cath me unawares, because if all they can do is start passage-thumping, then it is all the more easy.

The New Testament is based on the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Luther preferred the Masoretic version because it doesn't include Maccabees with the reference to praying for the dead. The King James version is Masoretic. The same Authority that gave us the New Testament, endorsed the Septuagint.