Protestant are not christians. They modified the Bible and their churches started at least 1500 years AFTER Christ. The only churches allowed to be called Christian are the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic churches. Churches that came after them are heretical and must be brought back to the real churches.
>>76468605
Get out of our country Mohammed.
sage
>>76468605
pretty much
>>76468605
>le all protestants are the same meme
Guarantee that there is protestant churches out there that have people closer to God and do spiritual things, like healing, speaking in tongues, casting out demons, ect. In fact, I go to one
I don't know much about Orthodox but Roman Catholics are "just another religion." The only thing they do good is that they are the largest charity group in the world.
You listed three contradicting Christian traditions, and none of them follow the scripture with orthodoxy
I'm here to answer any accusations you want to make. Sola scriptura is the only way to follow God obediently, 2 Tim 3:16
>>76468605
t. Philip III of Spain
It's hilarious how much SHEER HATRED all Christians have for differing sects, you all really show your true colors when your fairy tales collide.
>>76468605
>Modified the bible
Catholics did plenty of that too. Ever read the gospel of Thomas?
>>76470454
grownups are talking
>>76470121
>Muh Bible!
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)
>>76469999
>have people closer to God
>speaking in tongues
> In fact, I go to one
You make funny sounds with your mouth and call it divine. You deserve to be burned at the stake for calling yourself Christian. Join a real fucking church, not a tax-dodging corporation that spouts hipster minimalism and revisionist doctrine.
tl;dr you have no traditions or authority
>>76471127
Where do you think I would take issue with this scripture? The Reformation was largely motivated by the belief that Romanists corrupted the tradition delivered, and orthodox Christian practice.
We also ought not take any human practice at face value, but act as the Berean jews in Acts 17
>Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
>>76468605
>Heretic jews criticize other heretic jews.
>>76470463
Never in the Bible K/K
>>76468605
>protestants
>modifying the bible
you're thinking of catholics, they added their own fanfiction. Protestants just restored it to its original true form by taking the fanfiction out
>>76473519
How many times has Jesus directly shown himself to you/your """"""""church""""""""?
>>76473735
How many times have you prayed to mary or a saint this week, going directly against the explicit teachings of the original bible?
>>76471170
All based italians are nocturnal, you have further proven me that.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus
>>76473519
>>76473519
>he doesn't know how full of errors the KJV is
Guess where you are in this picture
>>76474005
You didn't answer. I'd like to know.
As for your question, I'll answer with one for you. Are Mary or any other saints dead? Or are they alive with the Living God? Would you ask a neighbor to pray on your behalf? Not a dead one, but a living one?
>>76474490
Are you arguing for the inclusion of the apocrypha or objecting to middle English grammar?
>>76474789
>Literally praying to a statue
Golden calf.
>>76474881
>grammar
It's a little worse than typos K/K.
And under what authority or for what reasons do you reject books included?
>>76474246
I'm Irish lol
>>76475100
>implying I can't talk to saints outside the shrines
You still aren't answering questions. It's like you can't defend your heresy...
>>76468605
I'm sure the original Christian teachings, found with the Dead Sea scrolls, are very different than any modern Christian sect. I'm sure those writings are different from what Jesus actually taught. Don't get caught up in denominational squabbles.
>>76475203
Lack of reference in new testament scripture
Contradiction with other divine truths
Suspicious introduction by Catholics as a response to the Reformation, supporting Catholic stances
Poor historical support in early Christendom
>>76471693
The first clear attitude to emerge on the relation between Scripture, tradition and the church was the coincidence view: that the teaching of the church, Scripture and tradition coincide. Apostolic tradition is authoritative but does not differ in content from the Scriptures. The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition. The classical embodiment of the coincidence view is found in the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
These both reject the Gnostic claims to a secret tradition supplementing Scripture. Apostolic tradition does not add to Scripture but is evidence of how it is correctly to be interpreted. This tradition is found in those churches which were founded by the apostles, who taught men whose successors teach today. These apostolic churches agree as to the content of the Christian message, in marked contrast to the variations among the heretics. It is important to note that it is the church which is the custodian of Scripture and tradition and which has the authentic apostolic message. There was no question of appealing to Scripture or tradition against the church. This is partly because the apostolic tradition was found in the church but not just for this reason: the Holy Spirit preserves the church from error and leads her into the truth. The real concern of Irenaeus and Tertullian was not with the relation between Scripture and tradition but with the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching. Any exposition of their teaching on Scripture and tradition which fails to show this is to that extent defective. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 39, 40 –)
THIS DESTROYS ALL PROTURDS
>>76476065
But when the adversary of the race of the righteous, the envious, malicious, and wicked one, perceived the impressive nature of his martyrdom, and [considered] the blameless life he had led from the beginning, and how he was now crowned with the wreath of immortality, having beyond dispute received his reward, he did his utmost that not the least memorial of him should be taken away by us, although many desired to do this, and to become possessors of his holy flesh. For this end he suggested it to Nicetes, the father of Herod and brother of Alce, to go and entreat the governor not to give up his body to be buried, "lest," said he, "forsaking Him that was crucified, they begin to worship this one." This he said at the suggestion and urgent persuasion of the Jews, who also watched us, as we sought to take him out of the fire, being ignorant of this, that it is neither possible for us ever to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of such as shall be saved throughout the whole world (the blameless one for sinners ), nor to worship any other. For Him indeed, as being the Son of God, we adore; but the martyrs, as disciples and followers of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow disciples!
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm
Here, the enemies of Christians being like Proturds
PROTURDS EXPLAIN
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion [of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Protestants explain where is the Penal Substitutionary Atonement?
The precise way in which an expiatory sacrifice was thought to ―work‖ is never clarified. It has been maintained by some that an element of substitution was always understood and that the sacrificial victim was thought of as enduring the (divine) punishment for the sin committed, thus enabling the sinner to go free. Such a model has of course exerted considerable influence on popular Christian piety as an interpretation of Jesus‘ atoning death. This probably reads too much into the rationale of the sacrificial system. It is in fact very unlikely that the sacrificial victim was ever thought of as a substitute in this way. Such a rationale might lie behind the ceremony of the Day of Atonement, when the priest laid hands on one of the goats, thereby transferring the sins to the goat (Lev 16:21). However, this goat was not sacrificed: the goat on whom the sins were ―laid‖ was the scapegoat which was driven away into the desert, and it was the other goat which was offered in sacrifice. In fact it was considered vitally important that the sacrificial victim should be pure (see Young 1979: 52). Thus it is unlikely that the sacrificial system was ever conceived of in such a substitutionary sense.-Atonement in the NT, Anchor Bible Dictionary pg 815
Protestants explain
>It is obvious from the NT that Christians initially understood Scripture to mean what only later was called the OT. When Paul repeated the tradition about Christ‘s death and resurrection, the ―Scriptures‖ by which the Christian preaching was demonstrated were the sacred books of Israel (1 Corinthians 15). Scripture in this sense demonstrated the truth of the Christian claim in a number of different ways: by prophecy, by type and foreshadowing, by testimony lists, by allegory, and by simple proof-texting. No one method prevailed for employing the authority of the OT. Moreover, it began to be clear that final authority rested in the Christian preaching and not in the sacred writings thought to demonstrate it.-Anchor Bible Dictionary, pg 7883
>>76476085
Is it your stance that all traditions held by Roman Catholicism are perfectly supported by the scripture?
Paul. a. 1 Cor 11:17–34.
From a literary standpoint the oldest account of the institution of the Lord‘s
Supper is found in 1 Cor 11:23–26. Paul reports the account essentially in the form in which he had
learned to know it in Antioch in the 40‘s and as he had passed it on to the Corinthians when he established
the church there. The traditional words ―receive‖ and ―deliver‖ (paralambanein and paradidonai) in v 23a
are well known in the scholarly language of Rabbinism (cf. Midr. Qoh. 12:11) and of Hellenism (Diod.
5.2,3). They clearly indicate that the vv 23b–25 are a fragment of tradition (possibly with some Pauline
touches). ―From the kyrios‖ points to the earthly Jesus as the source of this catena of traditional elements.
At the same time he is seen as the present exalted Lord who gives the sacrament its permanent validity.
The rather scanty reference to the historic event of the passion in v 23b (―on the night when he was
betrayed‖) sets the words of Institution off from the timeless, cyclic myths and formulae of the Mysteries.
The traditional text lays out another aspect of the meal in which the breaking of the bread at the
beginning of the meal and the blessing of the cup at the end (cf. 11:25a ―in the same way also the cup,
after supper‖) surround the main meal. The words ―for you,‖ spoken at the breaking of the bread, are
addressed to the participants of the Lord‘s Supper; they draw them into participation of the salvatory self sacrifice
of Jesus. The contents of the cup in v 25b are not directly identified as the blood. Rather, in the
foreground stands the sealing of the eschatological new covenant in the death on the cross. Besides its
vertical dimension (the God of the covenant creating a new people), this covenant has a horizontal aspect:
the celebrants are brought together into covenant community.
Anchor Bible Dictionary-Lord's Supper, pg 5363
>>76476588
My stance is simple, the Early Church is in complete opposition to the Protestants.
The fact that they believe in the authority of Tradition shows this.
>>76468605
Well what would you do if you needed an heir to inherit your kingdom but the Church wouldn't allow you to divorce your barren wife? Episcopalfag here.
>>76476588
Jesus gave the power to bind and loose. We still have it, and use it to bind and loose our customs. Not to mention the theological reasons for customs
>Without yet entering into the question of literary genre, two reflections should be made about the Last Supper. It is questionable whether ―parabolic‖ adequately explains Jesus‘ words and actions. Rather, Jesus performs an efficacious sign, a prophetic symbolic act. As Ezekiel (5:1–5) had identified his hair with Jerusalem, so Jesus has identified himself with the bread and wine (Beck 1970: 192–97). However, ―symbolic‖ is not to be opposed to ―real‖; on the contrary, the symbolic is the depth dimension of the real (Léon-Dufour 1987: 10, 162–65).-pg 5183
>During the course of the meal, Jesus, in prophetic manner, identified himself with both the bread and the wine in the cup. At a meal people are fed, and Jesus did identify himself in some way with this nourishment.-pg 5189
Sauce: Anchor Bible Dictionary, Last Supper
>>76476757
Is that a yes? Are you interested in discussing the topic, or only to appeal to the authority of scholarly catholic sounding Google results?
By contrast, many recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship.[14][15][16][17] As such, the word could be almost synonymous with "obedience" when the people in the relationship held different status levels (e.g. a slave being faithful to his master). Far from being equivalent to "lack of human effort", the word seems to imply and require human effort. The interpretation of Paul's writings that we need to "faithfully" obey God's commands is quite different from one which sees him saying that we need to have "faith" that he will do everything for us. This is also argued to explain why James was adamant that "faith without works is dead" and that "a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone", while also saying that to merely believe places one on the same level as the demons (see James 2). The "new" perspective argues that James was concerned with those who were trying to reduce faith to an intellectual subscription without any intent to follow God or Jesus, and that Paul always intended "faith" to mean a full submission to God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul#Faith.2C_or_faithfulness
>>76476627
itt: autists sperging out over camel jockey bullshit
>>76476065
If we are wrong, why does Jesus like to show up so much and tell us the opposite?
>>76476999
Show me a scholarly source that is not apologetical in nature that proves otherwise.
OH WAIT THERE'S NONE
>>76474005
Nailed it.
Pretty sure you also aren't meant to worship graven images and stuff - most call it idolatry except the catholics and the eastern orthodox - because it suits them.
Took in an eastern orthodox flatmate (from slav central) for a while and his whole fucking wall was plastered with icons (of "saints") at the same time as he was telling me how he didn't even know what a protestant was...
>>76477073
What instances are you referring to?
>>76477074
Anything that proves it will be apologetic by its very nature. That's apologetics 101 K/K
>>76476085
>The teaching of the church is likewise authoritative but is only the proclamation of the apostolic message found in Scripture and tradition.
1 Timothy 3:2
Douay-Rheims Bible
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
>>76477268
Academical sources are not apologetical in nature. Lane himself is a Protestant.
Stay mad a Protestant just destroyed the entirety of Protestantism by being honest
>>76477247
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visions_of_Jesus_and_Mary
>>76477142
>whole fucking wall was plastered with icons (of "saints")
Funny thing is orthodox church had huge internal struggle to cut this saints shit but in the end iconfags won.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Iconoclasm
The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is the one true faith. All other "churches" are in error.
>>76477400
I thought you were the other dude sorry.
>>76477142
>The “nomina sacra“, a set of words given special treatment by copyists in ancient Christian manuscripts, continues to be a subject of debate about what the practice signifies and how it originated. The words in question are written in a unique abbreviated form with a curious horizontal stroke placed over the abbreviation. The earliest and most consistently treated words are the Greek words for “God,” “Lord,” “Jesus,” and “Christ. These words are written as nomina sacra in the earliest clear instances of them in Christian manuscripts, which take us as far back as the second century CE.
Most scholars (this one included) think that (1) they originated in early Christian circles, and (2) they originated as an expression of reverence for the words so treated.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/nomina-sacra-the-continuing-debate/
Too bad loser, the first Christians did the same to words
>>76477500
FUCKING IDIOT, the Iconoclasts don't even reject the veneration of Saints
And there's this>>76477667
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the Apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the Tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the Apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the Tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" - AH, 3, 4, 1
where is SOla Scriptura?
>>76477424
So you support the inclusion of the apocrypha because of unverifiable claims to visions? What scriptural instruction does this result from, putting aside the contradictions between the apocrypha and Bible.
My stance is that these visions are contrary to the will of God as made known in scripture, particularly the instruction to not add in the book of Revelation. Therefore, they were falsified or works of evil.
"Now, what that was which they [the Apostles] preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very Churches which the Apostles founded in person, by declaring the Gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the Apostolic Churches—those moulds and original sources of the Faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) Churches received from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the Truth of the Churches and Apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the Tradition of the Apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the Apostolic Churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 21
Where is Sola Scriptura?
>>76477900
FUcking moron, the whole issue of the canon was not even settled for centuries.
Most canons include to varying degrees, the so called apocrypha!
Stay mad historical revisionist loser
"They [the Apostles] then in like manner founded Churches in every city, from which all the other Churches, one after another, derived the Tradition of the Faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become Churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves Apostolic, as being the offspring of Apostolic Churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the Churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, (founded) by the Apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are Apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one Tradition of the selfsame mystery." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 20
Where is SOla Scriptura?
"But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the Apostolic Age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the Apostles, because they existed in the time of the Apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of their] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of Apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the Apostles. For this is the manner in which the Apostolic Churches transmit their registers." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 32
Where is the Protestant ability to do this?
>>76478125
Have you ever read Galatians?
>>76477900
If they were real, would it not verify our legitimacy? I contend they are real. If you contend otherwise, do you say that these cases are not, or that God would not appear again in visions after His Ascension? If that's the case, what do you think of St. Paul?
But even if a discussion [with the heretics] from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very Faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and Faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian Traditions." - Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 19
Where is Sola Scriptura?
>>76478451
Did it defined the boundaries of Scripture?
In fact to show how stupid Sola Scriptura is, all one needs to ask is,
Where in Scripture is the very definition of the boundaries of Scripture
>>76468605
>shia are not real muslims
Sectarians. Why can't you just unify like the atheists.
"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us [the Church], 'as many as walk according to the rule,' which the Church has handed down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, 'Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine?'"- Tertullian, The Prescription Against the Heretics, 37
Where is Sola Scriptura?
>>After all, in their exegesis the early Church theologians neither received the Bible as a 'Bible without notes' nor interpreted it in a vacuum. They received along with the Bible a tradition of interpreting it for a worshipping community and they proceeded to interpret it for a worshipping community. The study of the Bible as a scientific discipline to be carried on for its own sake was very far from their thought, and at all times has been, one suspects, a mere will-o'-the-wisp. This does not mean that the Fathers sacrificed everything for the sake of the edification of the faithful or for the consistent articulation of a doctrinal system. They sacrificed too much for these ends, but they were not unconscious of limits and controls on this process imposed by the Bible itself. Their purpose in exegesis was nevertheless purely practical, and we do not understand their exegesis until we understand this. They began the story of the Church's relations with the Bible, in which the Bible and the life of the Church were to interact for all the centuries to come, each correcting, deepening, fertilising the other. They inaugurated the Church's dance with the Bible, fancifully perhaps, but not irresponsibly, perhaps erratically, but at least gaily.-Cambridge History of the Bible, pg 453
Is this Sola Scriptura?
>>76477890
The Church is the ultimate holder of truth instead of Scripture?
Like when the church charged people money to let there dead relatives out of purgatory or in exchange for forgiveness of sins like murder and rape.
Sounds truthful.
Real Christians listen to Jesus and Jesus said you will know them by there fruits.
If the Catholic Church could follow scripture, like the necessity of a bishop or priest holding a family, perhaps the word "Christian" would not be held in derision on account of the fruit produced by this "church", you're so called Petra (pebble) of Christ.
I guess the bible is wrong where is says Paul had to rebuke Peter publicly for refusing to congregate with gentile Christians when fellow Jews were around? Papal infallibility anyone?
“Appropriately there may have been initially the dominant conviction that the exalted Lord was present as participant and host at the celebration of the meal in his church. This personal presence must be viewed as the sustaining basis for every form of the presence of the Lord in the sacrament. Besides that, the Lord‘s Supper was interpreted eschatologically above all in times of acute anticipation, as proleptic presence of the imminent end of the age which, in keeping with apocalyptic expectation, was to culminate in a festal meal. Through the deliberate step back to Jesus‘ Last Supper, and then, via the Easter event, an event that made the Supper possible, there is added another essential element: the commemoration of the death of Jesus on the cross in its saving power. This aspect of the presence of the death of Jesus was utilized above all by Paul within the framework of his theologia crucis.
All these forms of presence are naturally quite real. However, people have gotten into the habit of tying the real presence of the body and blood of Christ to the elements of the supper, i.e., the bread and wine. The words of interpretation in the account of the Institution are intended for this purpose. Within the NT such an understanding of the words of interpretation are to be found in John 6:52–58, possibly also in 1 Cor 10:16–22, certainly in Corinthians, and finally in the account of the Institution itself, if one reads it as cult-aetiology in the form in which Mark and Matthew give it. The significance of this model of interpretation for the ancient and medieval church‘s teaching on the eucharist is obvious. There is reason to suspect unmistakably the presence of a strong influence of Hellenistic thinking and Hellenistic cultpiety, both in the NT and in early Christian tradition.”-ibid, pg 5374
>>76477667
Don't get so upset m8.
'Most scholars' doesn't hold much weight especially when you're quoting a personal fucking blog.
>They modified the Bible and their churches started at least 1500 years AFTER Christ.
So they're pretty much like every religious group ever.
Here's a little secret for you: there's no such thing as 'pure' religious beliefs. Every single religious theme that is adressed in your Bible was developed out of earlier bits and pieces, recycled, then applied to a certain time and place, as it always has been
>>76478845
Like when none of Protesturdism's doctrines can be found anywhere in Early Christianity?
And Scripture?
Enough with this sectarian nonsense. You're a Christian if you accept the gift of Jesus.
>>76478903
Except that it is a blog of a scholar who had also written an article on the subject.
Stay mad
>Catholic accusing Christians of modifying the Bible
Fucking comedy gold m8. Now go back to praying to your idols and chanting with your voodoo beads.
>>76478484
It would not verify, because the correct interpretation of scripture in comparison to catholic practices deem Catholicism illegitimate regardless of outside claims to authority.
I do believe in supernatural occurrences in the Christian era. I also believe catholics can have such experiences much like Paul could when he wasn't walking correctly with God. I say all supposed visions of Mary are false and based on an idolatrous view of her, unfounded in scripture.
I appreciate your presentation, and want to be clear I'm not fully trained on the topic. I've long held to a view of dispensationalism but now find it to be incorrect and am investigating God's truth
“If one attempts to conceive the reference of explications of a text with regard to the intelligible more accurately, the shape of a manifold meaning of Scripture proves to be implicitly determined by philosophical categories, in part at least by Platonic philosophy. Th e (philosophical) allegory is primarily interested in how the problem is set, and this can be the philosophical and theological thought respectively, or the truth of reality in the poetry of Homer and the Platonic myths. One of the central aspects of (neo-) Platonic philosophy can be described as the presence of the prototype in the image.
Therefore, one can draw a conclusion from the image to the prototype or source because of an analogous structure: If the prototype causes something, the prototype must be present in the thing caused in some sense and, therefore, identical with it in some respect. However, the thing established by causation must also be different from the cause, so that analogy implies identity and difference at the same time. Th us, the sensual can be thought of as an effective sign of the intelligible, and the intelligible again as a sign of the transcending reality as such, because of the presence which had already been established within the intelligible: this is the structure in which the function of language and the theory of allegorical understanding can be seen in the context of a Platonizing thought”-(pg 217-218, Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity)
Oops, that isn't how Proturds read the Bible
>>76478573
No it includes the fruits of the spirit which you aren't displaying.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behoves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times.175 He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him.176 Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xl.html
Oops, a concept of priesthood in the late first century
>>76478970
Name one and I'll give you the scripture.
Can you please explain your reasoning on how the church is an authority on bible interpretation when it requires it's leaders to be celibate when scripture states the opposite is required?
Douay-Rheims Bible
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,..
Bible also says they should have kids... why does the church require the opposite?
>>76479229
So there's no Sola Scriptura?
Looks like I know for certain now that your elk is just a foreign shit introduced much later
>>76479355
Show me from scholarly sources and Scripture and Church Fathers, Sola Scriptura in the Early Church.
I AM WAITING
>>76479123
So St. Paul's vision of the Risen Christ that converted him to Christianity came about because of the work of the Evil One?
>>76468605
I'm Lutheran and Martin Luther was based as fuck. He hated the Jews, taught the scripture to the people in a language that they could understand rather than in Latin, didn't make people pay penance. The Catholic Church was fucked and still is today with its pedophelia and its liberal scripture desecrating pope.
The appeal of Irenaeus and Tertullian to apostolic succession and apostolic tradition is primarily (but not solely) historical. Agains t second-century Gnostics it was a powerful and perfectly reasonable argument to note that those churches wh ich were taught by the apostles and had openly passed on their doctrine from teach er to teacher agreed with one another in their interpretation of the Chri stian message. The argument does not rely for its force upon the (legendary) succession of monarchical bish ops. A succession of teachers suffices and a plurality at any one time in fact strengthens the argument. As a historical argument it does not prove the absolute infallibility of the teaching of the mid-second-century church, let alone that of the later church, but it does guarantee the substantial accuracy of its teaching against Gnosticism.
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf
>>76479355
Bishop is not priest. That passage says priest. It also restricts them to one wife, but does not require a wife.
I heard some men saying, ‘if I find it not in the charters, I do not believe in the
gospel.’ And when I said to them that it is in the scriptures, they answered me,
‘that is exactly the question.’ But to me the charters are Jesus Christ, the
inviolable charter is his cross, and death, and resurrection, and the faith which
is through him.(Ignatius, to the Philadelphians 8.2)
>It would seem that Ignatius’ opponents required a full proof from prophecy for every point in his gospel proclamation. When he says that to him the ‘archives’ are Jesus Christ, his cross and resurrection, this does probably not mean that for Ignatius the Christological creed replaces the scriptures, but rather that the Christological rule of faith contains the hermeneutical canon according to which the scriptures should be interpreted.
>This was no idiosyncrasy of Ignatius; it was to become the common conviction of ecclesiastical theologians. In her fine study of Christian biblical exegesis during the first five centuries, Frances M. Young (1997) has shown that interpreting the scriptures according to the ‘rule of faith’ was implicit in ecclesiastical exegesis before Irenaeus stated it explicitly, and that it remained operative in later exegetes, and can be shown to form the core of Athanasius’ biblical case against the Arians (in the 320s–350s period). The one who interprets scripture apart from the Christology of the creed, says Athanasius, is not in touch with the ‘mind’ (dianoia) of scripture (Young 1997: 17–45).
Sauce: The Early Christian World pg 666-667
>>76479613
Of course not
>being part of any denomination
Christianity at its purest is what the twelve disciples were, following Christ and having a relationship with him.
Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, these are all perversions.
>>76468605
>Protestant are not christians. They modified the Bible and their churches started at least 1500 years AFTER Christ. The only churches allowed to be called Christian are the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic churches.
>He doesn't know about the council of Nicea.
>Thinks there's a difference between one being formed 320 years after the death of his God and one formed 1500 years after.
>Also thinks the former DIDN'T modify the text
I'm not Christian yet I know more about the history of your religion. Also, Old Testament is only testament. If you are so inclined to govern your life according to beliefs held by middle easterners 6000-9,000 years ago.
Your living in the paaaast maaaan
>>76478573
2 Timothy 3:16
Darby Bible Translation
Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Jesus also used scripture to prove what is true and he says scripture cannot be broken.
There's no reason to believe the Vatican is incapable of making major mistakes, especially in theology.
John 10:35 Douay-Rheims Bible
If he called them gods, to whom to word of God was spoken, and the scripture cannot be broken
>>76479884
Did those two verses say Scripture IS the sole authority in matters of faith?
Oh wait of course NOT!
>Perhaps the most important aspect of the rule of faith is that it gives us what the Church conceived to be ‘the main body of truth’ (to use Irenaeus’ phrase). The Scriptures are, after all, a body of documents testifying to God’s activity towards men in Christ. They are not a rule of faith, nor a list of doctrines, nor a manual of the articles of a Christian man’s belief. In the rule of faith we have a key to what the Church thought the Scriptures came to, where it was, so to speak, that their weight fell, what was their drift. This interpretation of their drift was itself tradition, a way of handling the Scriptures, a way of living in them and being exposed to their effect, which, while not an original part of the Christian Gospel, not itself the paradosis par excellence, had been developed from the Gospel itself, from its heart, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as an essential part of the existence of the Christian faith in history…We cannot recognize the rule of faith as original tradition, going back by oral continuity independently of Scripture to Christ and his apostles. But we can recognize it as the tradition in which the Church was interpreting Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and as such claim it as an essential ingredient of historical Christianity. (R.P.C. Hanson, Tradition In The Early Church, pp. 128, 129)
>>76479822
Then why not His appearance to others? If God appears to a people believing in Mary's Assumption and continued life in Heaven, and supports them, then necessarily that belief is condoned by God. I look forward for more discussion later K/K. Find Christ around you and have a good night.
>>76479721
the passage is from a Catholic bible and it says bishop, in fact it says priest and bishop in different scriptures.
It also says they must be the husband of one wife, it doesn't give the option and it also requires that the wife and children are upstanding in there duties.
What are you even arguing lol your church still prevents priests from marrying so my question still stands.
He [Sproul] does introduce Augustine and Aquinas into the conversation to establish that they believed justification to be exclusively by grace, and he uses their theology to accuse the Council of Trent of semi-Pelagianism. Beyond this, Sproul does not substantially treat the views of Augustine or Aquinas on justification. If he had, his thesis would surely have led him, as it did the Reformers, to deal with the question of the Christian status of the pre-Reformation church, since Augustine and the rest of its theologians did not teach that we are justified sola fide in the Reformation sense. In fact, unless Sproul's thesis is qualified, it would lead to the unintended consequence of consigning to perdition the entire Church from the patristic period up to the down of the Reformation, something the Reformers did not do. This is because the Reformation understanding of justification sola fide was unheard of in the pre-Reformation church and thus not believed until Luther. Alister McGrath points out that “there are no ‘Forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification.
To put it another way, Luther’s doctrine of justification sola fide was not a recovery but an innovation within the Western theological tradition. What is provocative about Sproul’s thesis is that the equation of the construct of sola fide with the gospel itself would mean that the Roman Catholic Church not only rejected the gospel at Trent, but the Church never possessed it at all from the post-apostolic period up to the time of Luther. In this unqualified form, Sproul’s thesis would also mean that since no one knew the gospel in the pre-Reformation church, no one experienced justification, and thus there was no Church. ("Is R.C. Sproul Wrong About Martin Luther?", JETS 47.1, pp. 92-94.)
As a result of the renewed attention to Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox relations, there is increased interest among Evangelicals in the early sources of Christian doctrine and exegetical practices. This too is certainly to be welcomed, though with cautious enthusiasm, since the current reconsideration of the patristic era is not a “return the sources” (ad fontes), but governed by a very specific agenda: to read the ancient fathers through the lens of post-Reformation Protestantism in the search for criteria, such as sola scriptura, embedded within the religious consciousness of the early church. Ancient vindication of such religious ideas would presumably further the claim that Protestants, not Roman Catholics, are the upholders of true faith. Witness the recent attempts to find a “patristic principle of sola scriptura” in Irenaeus(11) or Athanasius, from which the conclusion is reached, “Sola scriptura has long been the rule of believing Christian people, even before it became necessary to use the specific terminology against later innovators who would usurp the Scriptures’ supremacy in the church.”(12) Is the principle sola scriptura historically tenable in the form which is usually defined so that the Bible is the only normative source for the Christian faith and practice? Do the writings of the early church affirm this principle? As will become apparent, the very search for such a principle in the writings of the fathers is misguided in the light of the early church’s understanding of apostolic authority. Even if one argues that a biblicism that approximates sola scriptura can be detected within the patristic age, it in no way guarantees a Christian doctrine of God or salvation. On the contrary, a scripture-only principle was found to create greater problems which have plagued Christianity ever since. (D. H. Williams, “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church”, Interpretation vol. 52.4 (October 1998) pp. 355, 356.)
>>76479976
It says every scripture is divinely inspired and can be used for correction and instruction, where does it say anything is special about the church when it comes to correction?
Haven't you read where Jesus warns that soon his church will be subverted by Satan?
>>76480529
Notes
11) T. Nettles, “One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church,” Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, ed. J. Armstrong (Chicago: Moody, 1995) 40. Nettles seems oblivious to the crucial distinction between written and oral authority in Irenaeus when he says, “The Scripture is that which is ‘handed down,’ that is, tradition.”
(12) J. White, “Sola scriptura and the Early Church,” in Kistler, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, 53. White's essay exhibits very limited familiarity with patristic doctrinal history such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius’, bishop of Rome (p. 42), whereas in fact, Athanasius sought the protection of Liberius’ successor, Julius, during his exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’ death in 352. There is hardly a case for a proto-opposition between “Protestants” and “Roman Catholics.” Moreover, it is striking White argues that Athanasius makes no appeal to unwritten tradition, and yet in the very citation offered as proof of this point (Oration Against the Arians 3:29) Athanasius refers to Mary as Theotokos, bearer of God; an Alexandrian tradition which few Protestants would espouse! [D. H. Williams, “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church”, Interpretation vol. 52.4 (October 1998) p. 365.]
>>76480629
The fact that a person is writing that and making such statement is already an example of that you stupid twat!
It doesn't even tell us what those Scriptures are and would in context refer only to the OT.
SO too bad, that doesn't say anything about Sola Scriptura
>>76479976
You asked for scripture showing it's bounds but it's obvious Jesus saw it as the ultimate source of truth since he says it cannot be broken and uses it to supercede the very laws given under Moses in the old testament.
Scripture clearly explains, along with Jesus that it cannot be broken but there are many warning to believers about false prophets in his name.
When he says his church will always prevail he is talking about the people of God, not the leadership of the people of God, who Jesus was always in direct opposition to for valuing tradition over scripture
>>76481110
Again where is the definition of the bounds of Scripture, in Scripture?
You are not answering the question.
…while sometimes Clement speaks in the very tones of Paul, as for instance on justification by faith (ch. 32:4), his leading convictions are somewhat different…Clement has moved away from the Pauline gospel into an atmosphere more concerned with moral life, and in particular with virtues of humility and order. Where ethical injunctions are secondary to Paul’s letters, they are primary in Clement. (Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, p, 38.)
>>76480887
So your new claim is the new testament is not the Word of God in the same way the old testament is?
Do you even know your own catechism or are you another Catholic that doesn't know his churches beliefs?!
II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69
"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."7
>>76479355
Let's face it, all sects of christianity (along with literally every religion ever) teach plenty of things that were never in the bible. Outlawing condoms, premarital sex (no, this isn't derived from sexual immorality, the greek word in Paul's letters refers to homosexual prostitution), etc.
>>76469999
Protestant spirituality is an untamed fire, it's very dangerous
>>76481646
I'm an Anti Protestant Agnostic moron!!
>>76468605
Catholics are not Christians and Paul wasn't an apostle. What cult are you worshiping?
Roman Catholic here
All protestant sects are bad and should feel bad.
Why?
Because they are heretics, that's why, and there will be no eternal salvation for them, unless they repent and return to Mother Church. This concerns me deeply, because after all, even those heretics are my brothers and sisters and I do not want them to waste their eternal lifes because many years ago some Anglo king was horny, and decided that he wants his own church, with blackjack and hookers, or that Kraut dude who decided to ruin faith and church doors with his stupid revisionism.
>>76481429
Considering that I've brought fourth knowledge that your church believes the new testament is scripture on the same level as the old testament,
Can you not concede that if scripture claims it is unbreakable and that any and all of it can be used for instruction and correction that it's bounds for authority in theology are limitless?
What logic do you use to conclude that if something is unbreakable and all of it can be used to teach and correct that it has bounds on its authority in truth?
>>76481961
>>76482161
> yfw there's probably no salvation for you either
> yfw you have no chance of accepting the correct religion out of the near infinite possibilities
>>76481961
So you're using Catholic resources, that you don't believe in, to bash protestant ism which you don't believe in.
Lol are you really oblivious to the fact being agnostic makes you anti catholic? Or did you enjoy the priest rape as a young boy
Lmao good job at trolling. If you're not then please know you are actually retarded and stop making these gay threads.
I should've known when you just copy pasted shit you never read and can't use logic to argue or conversate
>>76470121
That verse does NOT endorse "sola scriptura" which is an absurd and oxymoronic belief, seeing as nowhere in scripture is it dictated, and therefore following the concept of "sola scriptura" one would have to reject it. TOP KEK.
Protestants GTFO.
>>76482445
>correct religion out of the near infinite possibilities
>using logic when you just need faith
Git gud faget. Lord is my Shephard, I lack nothing. I have faith he will deliver me from evil.
>>76482928
Yet, despite all your faith, you have the same probability of salvation that I as an agnostic-atheist do, ~0. Unless, of course, you can prove it or something like that.
>>76482318
I'm an Anti Protesturd Agnostic. This means I don't care about Catholicism here. The issue is the fact that there's no Sola Scriptura at all in Christianity's infancy.
Any statements that upholds Scripture doesn't entail Sola Scriptura. And this is rightly so when the only Scripture that would be known at the time is the OT Scripture and the fact that everyone who accepts the authority of Tradition also accepts that same property of Scripture.
So no, you are only basing your point on a false dichotomy. Unless any NT, Early Christian or OT document and text mentions that ALL Traditions are bad or that Scripture Alone is to be consulted in matters of faith, you cannot even say that it condones Sola Scriptura, when the Apostles themselves and NT authors talk about Tradition.
Jesus' own teachings and parables would be by definition, Tradition.
So if any this entails Scripture as being something that is in some sense and extent, shaped by Tradition.
The fact that the first attitude to the relationship between Scripture and Tradition is one that makes the two essentially one, there is logically speaking, no Sola Scriptura in Christianity's infancy at all.
>>76482698
You can't even answer the basic question of where in Scripture is the definition of the boundaries of Scripture!
EVERY single source I had posted here are all secular academical sources idiot and a few Protestant ones.
THIS SHOWS THE DISHONESTY AND DECEIT OF PROTARDS
>>76474881
>southern baptists
Now include the rest prod
>>76483183
>Prove
>Religious beliefs
>Based on faith
This is not how it works. If I could prove it, faith would not be needed at all, and all you fedora masters would go "hey, that guy can prove existence of God, we should now make and extensive research because we cannot claim bullshit anymore"
Also, salvation is based on good deeds and faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Does agnostic-atheist claims there is no God at all? I was never interested in your weird stuff. I hope you will see that you are wrong, and come into the loving embrace of God and church. I will pray for you.
. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him?— even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones." Ephesians 5:30 He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; Luke 24:39 but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103502.htm
>>76468605
Letting plebs interpret the bible themselves is beyond retarded. Protestantism has no merit, it's nothing but vile enlightenment liberalism.
>>76483837
>and all you fedora masters would go "hey, that guy can prove existence of God
The best argument you have is to associate anyone who doesn't buy into religion with a handful of autists on the internet.
> Also, salvation is based on good deeds and faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
so you seem to believe. However, that belief is no more valid than a belief in unicorns or chemtrails.
> Does agnostic-atheist claims there is no God at all?
It's basically what most people think agnostic means, but there is no such thing as a pure agnostic. It means you can't prove it, but you lean in the atheist direction (basically you approach it using the scientific method).
> I hope you will see that you are wrong, and come into the loving embrace of God and church.
I hope you grow out of religion one day. You'll find it so liberating to not always be worried about a petty, vengeful, voyeuristic, dick watching you and judging you and threatening you with eternal suffering.
This is what Protestants believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWAUhadJzTk
>>76481679
Fuck off retard, stop rationlizing your sin.
>>76484491
>The best argument you have
No mate, the best argument I have is the fact that we live in the real world. How would you explain entire existence?
>there was nothing which exploded
No matter how much pseudoscience you try to use, that is still idiotic as fuck, nothings do not explode.
>belief in unicorns or chemtrails
Actually, many historians try to prove existence of Jesus Christ, and they are not wrong. Putting Christians in one basket with unicorn believers and chemtrail hoax believers is belittling my religion, and I won't stand to it.
>It means you can't prove it
You cannot prove so many things in life, why a little faith is so hard for you to have?
>I hope you grow out of religion one day
Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? Having religion is better than not having one.
>petty, vengeful, voyeuristic, dick watching you and judging you and threatening you with eternal suffering
He is also the guy who created entire world, or maybe even universe, jumpstarted evolution to make us what we are today. Even if we do not know his motives, I think he is a good guy, after all life on earth is far from literal hell.
>>76485474
>How would you explain entire existence?
The only one here trying to "explain entire existence" is you. But what we do try to explain, we do so with direct observational evidence. What you try to explain, you do so with an old book.
>I think he is a good guy, after all life on earth is far from literal hell.
Yes, an infinitely powerful all known being created a world where child rapists exist, which he may or may not send to an actual literal hell after they die if they did not repent, along with everyone else who did nothing more than choosing not to believe in something they have no certainty of.
Yea, what a great guy.
>>76486711
>The only one here trying to "explain entire existence" is you.
What? Where?
Just because I have my beliefs does not mean I want/need to explain everything. Of course science is invaluable tool used to deepen our knowledge and understanding of the world, and we should use it
BUT
Not everything can be explained by science. Either because of the fact we lack of perfect observational techniques, training and equipment, or because of the fact we are humans. While I believe we are made in similiar image to God, I also believe we cannot understand him fully, just like ants cannot understand penguins.
>an old book
Bible helps, that's for sure. But not being a dick in real life and experiencing the world helps even more.
>Yes, an infinitely powerful all known being created a world where child rapists exist
From my point of view child rapists exist due to existence of free will and very bad choices made by those rapists themselves. If you bang your toe on table of the leg, this is too because God created world in which this is allowed?
It's up to us, humans, to deal with problems such as child rapes and toebanging. We both know it is wrong, either from Bible, or from common knowledge.
>>76485474
> How would you explain entire existence?
I can't. However, god doesn't explain it either, you run into the exact same issues.
> nothings do not explode.
You want to know how I know you don't understand the big bang?
> many historians try to prove existence of Jesus Christ, and they are not wrong.
There isn't really any evidence Jesus ever existed. Regardless, even if he did exist, tha doesn't verify all the other horse shit christianity spouts. It may be belittling your religion, but let's face it: you're religion is just as dumb and unfounded as unicorns/chemtrails.
> why a little faith is so hard for you to have?
Because that is the exact same way people get to believing in unicorns/chemtrails. Why is it so hard for you to be able to accept that sometimes we don't know the answer at the moment.
> Ever heard of Pascal's Wager? Having religion is better than not having one.
Pascal's wager is only every put forth by idiots. It ignores every other religion that sends you to hell for not believing in it. It's not christianity vs. atheism, it's christianity vs. atheism vs. every other religion ever put forward vs. any possible outcome. Because there is a near infinite number of possibilities, the chance of getting it right is ~0.
> He is also the guy who created entire world, or maybe even universe, jumpstarted evolution to make us what we are today.
Proof? You make claims like this backed by nothing but faith. Your claims are absolutely meaningless because of this.
>I think he is a good guy
What about all the violence and genocide he insisted his followers commit in the old testament? He's basically Hitler.
>>76468605
Orthodox ftw
>>76484919
> retard
> sin
Lol, pick one. Care to actually show me where in the bible these things come from?
>>76486711
You realize God gave men free will and everything you mentioned is a choice right neckbeard
>>76486711
>>76488637
Okay atheists, I would love to keep debating you in hope that you will repent, and start to believe in God, but I got to go, I have my exam today.
While I believe you are wrong, my final words towards you will be: Do not be a faggots. Live your life in best way you can, and do no harm to other humans and nature.
Bye bye unbelievers
>>76489449
>I have my exam today
Kek it gets me every time
>>76468958
>Call him Mohamed, he believes in the religion that is famous for killing moors and Muslims
You burgers are getting stupider by the day
>>76489449
>I would love to keep debating you in hope that you will repent, and start to believe in God, but I got to go
You could just say we win, same effect. I hope that one day you are able to outgrow your religion. You've never experienced true freedom like not being a slave to a hypocritical, perpetually angry, genocidal maniac in the sky. You're entitled to your opinions, but unless you actually have proof, your opinions are only as good as anyone else's (ie. unicorns and chemtrails).
>>76468605
pretty sure the catholic church is heretical. i'm not very religious, but i know the pope shouldn't exist
>>76468605
Henry did no such thing. He declared he was the head of the church of england, in england, as he should be, as King of England. No where in the bible is Papal primacy. No where. He wasn't refuting the authority of rome ,but only of it over all Christendom. His wife could not, would not give him a male heir which he needed. So the marriage was nonviable. A decent pope would have granted him an anullment and be fucking done with it. But the asshole who refused him was simply holding a grudge, using the highest seat in the church for political vendetta is shameful and Henry was right to split from Rome.
papal system is of the devil
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF170B126002E7CB0
shit is so obvious
>>76490325
Anytime I read comments like that, I can't figure out if they hate God because they were punished at church, have 0 reading comprehension, or because never even bothered reading the Bible to begin with.
>>76492101
You don't need to hate god to see that the way he is depicted in the bible is not very flattering. In one instance, he orders Israel to wipe out all of the Canaanites when establishing Israel, however, they leave some Canaanites alive and god is upset, and therefore makes them into some of Israel's local enemies (if I recall correctly they became Edom, Moab, and Aram/Syria, all of whom Israel had repeated wars with). I used to be religious, but then I actually read the bible.
Protestantism is very much a meme "christianity"
It leads to such things as believing that the world was created in 6 days and justifying slavery, as was the case in the USA
Catholic Church is also probably the only church that has managed to have any autonomy, because Orthodoxy and Protestantism were often under the rule of a monarch, like the Moscow Patriarchate
Anyway in the end people will get to see which is the true faith
>>76471693
I really do want to know why Southern Baptist, Lutheran Missouri Synod, Presbyterian Church in America, Anglican, and Methodist are largely GOP, while Catholic and Orthodox lean liberal.
>>76470237
T. Queen witch of albion after suckling on satan's dick
