Explain to me how an intelligent person with no knowledge of Christianity can read the Bible and study, let's say, the first 500 years of church ...

Explain to me how an intelligent person with no knowledge of Christianity can read the Bible and study, let's say, the first 500 years of church history, and decide "ah yes, papacy, veneration of saints, theosis and perpetual virginity of Mary are all apostolic practices".

The only way RC and Orthodox practices make sense, and this is what happens every time when you talk to converts, is if you get taken in by their aesthetics and simply decide "I like this, this makes me FEEL spiritual" and then interpret everything backwards from there. Words like ancient and apostolic are reduced to buzzwords taken at face value.

Christianity being true gives these faiths enough credibility to stay afloat, but the truth is that if you strip away all unnecessary tacked on bits, you'll end up with a bunch of dorky Baptists reading the bible in a refurnished barber shop. But that just isn't mystical or interesting enough for npcs who only want their desire for ritual fulfilled and their desire to worship gods that look human.

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sola Scriptura is untenable in the long run due to the sheer number of internal contradictions present in both the Old and New Testament.
    http://media.isnet.org/kmi/off/XXtian/101ContradictionsInTheBible.pdf
    Even Protestant sects that claim to only rely upon the Bible still engage in their own forms of exegesis. Since that's true, the idea that adding ideas and traditions (usually derived from syncretism) somehow poisons the well of Christianity is a bit naive of a position to take.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You don't know what Sola Scriptura means
      It is not anti tradition
      Using tradition to interpret problem scripture is normal and fine for everyone

      That doesn't mean you get to tack on worshiping Mary you intellectually dishonest moron

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that means "by scripture alone" or "the Bible alone". It is a Christian theological doctrine that states that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
        It literally means "the Bible alone" and I'm saying you can't feasibly construct a religious movement based solely on the Bible because it's not internally consistent. That's WHY Catholics have invented so much other shit and it's not really an issue.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Scripture alone means it is the sole infallible authority where all other authorities are subject to. There are other authorities like tradition that can influence a church. It just isn’t infallible.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is that the traditions of the Reformed and the Lutherans are abject heresy, so this concept from the Reformation of Sola Scriptora comes from denominations that behold to a radical cessationist and determinist theology, and for the Reformed specifically misconstrue verses pertaining to Communion as "is means represents" and not "is means is". You need an authority outside of Scripture alone or else you come into conflict over how to apply Scripture. This is how you end up with flat-heads incapable of symbolic thought who interpret the Bible entirely literally and then get confused about basic fundamental doctrine.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The only inconsistency is trying to reconcile the new testament with the old. The only reason why Catholics have had to invent so much shit is because the new testament does not add up with the old. If you base your religion on the old testament then it would make perfect sense. There are very clear rules and guidance to follow. A clear law and way of life. It states perfectly clear what one should do to live a life that is pleasing to the Most High. And it is all inspired by God, spoken from his own mouth. Where he himself appeared o people and told them exactly what to say, what to do and what to write.

          The new testament on the other hand has no clear rules or guidance or message. It has 4 gospels that contradict each other and have no point. And then a bunch of random letters written by some guy trying to give instructions to the churches he was trying to build. Nothing inspired by God, no words of prophets speaking on behalf of God. God himself does not appear anywhere and gives any message or instruction.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The new testament on the other hand has no clear rules or guidance or message. It has 4 gospels that contradict each other and have no point.
            The message is pretty clear actually.

            The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
            If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. (James 2:8)
            Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. (1 John 2:7-8)
            He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:8)
            If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1 John 4:20)
            Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (John 14:21)
            Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:23-24)
            My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. (John 15:12)
            This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:17)
            And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one. (John 17:22)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The new testament on the other hand has no clear rules or guidance or message. It has 4 gospels that contradict each other and have no point.
            The message is pretty clear actually.

            The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9-10)
            If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well. (James 2:8)
            Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining. (1 John 2:7-8)
            He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. (1 John 4:8)
            If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? (1 John 4:20)
            Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.” (John 14:21)
            Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (John 14:23-24)
            My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. (John 15:12)
            This is my command: Love each other. (John 15:17)
            And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one. (John 17:22)

            The OT Law has been abolished by its consummation in God's love: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

            Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
            For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)

            For it was said:

            “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
            “when I will make a new covenant
            with the people of Israel
            and with the people of Judah.
            It will not be like the covenant
            I made with their ancestors
            when I took them by the hand
            to lead them out of Egypt,
            because they broke my covenant,
            though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
            declares the Lord.
            “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
            after that time,” declares the Lord.
            “I will put my law in their minds
            and write it on their hearts.
            I will be their God,
            and they will be my people.
            No longer will they teach their neighbor,
            or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
            because they will all know me,
            from the least of them to the greatest,”
            declares the Lord.
            “For I will forgive their wickedness
            and will remember their sins no more.” (Jeremiah 31:31-34)

            And it God never spoke to the prophets directly, but He spoke to them through Christ. It was Christ who Moses saw in the burning bush, Christ who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, who guided the israelites away from Egypt, who helped them defeat the Canaanites.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >“I will put my law in their minds
            >and write it on their hearts.

            He never said he would abolish the law, he said he would write the law in them so that they obey it naturally by instinct.

            You must love God above all things, you must worship him. You must fear God and respect him, show him absolute reverence. He is holy and almighty. Be afraid of doing evil. Be afraid of doing what is wrong in his face. You must obey him. Obey God in everything he commands. A master loves the obedience of his servants. A father loves the obedience of his children. If you read the law you would not think that God would ever want to abolish it, the laws are things that are only beneficial to you. The covenant and the law are not the same thing, when God said he will make a new covenant, it does not mean he will make a new law, it means he will set new terms for their obedience of the law because they are under a threat of a huge curse if they disobeyed it.

            He is saying that he will put the law in their hearts so they obey it naturally without any effort. That God will one day make Israel naturally righteous and they will do good without any effort and always obey the law.

            >In the future, when your son asks you, “What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the Lord our God has commanded you?” tell him: “We were slaves of Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. Before our eyes the Lord sent signs and wonders—great and terrible—on Egypt and Pharaoh and his whole household. But he brought us out from there to bring us in and give us the land he promised on oath to our ancestors. The Lord commanded us to obey all these decrees and to fear the Lord our God, so that we might always prosper and be kept alive, as is the case today. And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”
            Deuteronomy 6:20-25

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >And it God never spoke to the prophets directly, but He spoke to them through Christ. It was Christ who Moses saw in the burning bush, Christ who spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, who guided the israelites away from Egypt, who helped them defeat the Canaanites.

            Genesis 17:1
            When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almighty; walk before me faithfully and be blameless.

            Isaiah 6
            In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:

            “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty;
            the whole earth is full of his glory.”

            At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

            “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

            Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar. With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world,
            when he alone had been created;
            she delivered him from his transgression
            and gave him strength to rule all things.
            But when an unrighteous man departed from her in his anger,
            he perished because in rage he killed his brother.
            When the earth was flooded because of him, wisdom again saved it,
            steering the righteous man by a paltry piece of wood.
            Wisdom also, when the nations in wicked agreement had been put to confusion,
            recognized the righteous man and preserved him blameless before God
            and kept him strong in the face of his compassion for his child.
            Wisdom rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing;
            he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities.
            Evidence of their wickedness still remains:
            a continually smoking wasteland,
            plants bearing fruit that does not ripen,
            and a pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul.
            For because they passed wisdom by,
            they not only were hindered from recognizing the good
            but also left for humankind a reminder of their folly,
            so that their failures could never go unnoticed.
            Wisdom rescued from troubles those who served her.
            When a righteous man fled from his brother’s wrath,
            she guided him on straight paths;
            she showed him the kingdom of God
            and gave him knowledge of holy things;
            she prospered him in his labors
            and increased the fruit of his toil.
            When his oppressors were covetous,
            she stood by him and made him rich.
            She protected him from his enemies
            and kept him safe from those who lay in wait for him;
            in his arduous contest she declared him victorious,
            so that he might learn that godliness is more powerful than anything else.
            When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him
            but delivered him from sin.
            She descended with him into the dungeon,
            and when he was in prison she did not leave him,
            until she brought him the scepter of a kingdom
            and authority over his masters.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Those who accused him she showed to be false,
            and she gave him everlasting honor.
            Holy people and blameless offspring
            wisdom delivered from a nation of oppressors.
            She entered the soul of a servant of the Lord
            and withstood dread kings with wonders and signs.
            She gave to holy people the reward of their labors;
            she guided them along a marvelous way
            and became a shelter to them by day
            and a starry flame through the night.
            She brought them over the Red Sea
            and led them through deep waters,
            but she drowned their enemies
            and cast them up from the depth of the sea.
            Therefore the righteous plundered the ungodly;
            they sang hymns, O Lord, to your holy name
            and praised with one accord your defending hand,
            for wisdom opened the mouths of those who were mute
            and made the tongues of infants speak clearly. (Wisdom 10:1-21)

            “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
            Before His works of old.
            I have been established from everlasting,
            From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
            When there were no depths I was brought forth,
            When there were no fountains abounding with water.
            Before the mountains were settled,
            Before the hills, I was brought forth;
            While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
            Or the primal dust of the world.
            When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
            When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
            When He established the clouds above,
            When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
            When He assigned to the sea its limit,
            So that the waters would not transgress His command,
            When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
            Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
            And I was daily His delight,
            Rejoicing always before Him,
            Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
            And my delight was with the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

            You should not put too much trust int he words of Solomon, he worshipped Asherah in his old age and died a pagan.

            Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,
            who formed you from the womb:
            “I am the Lord, who made all things,
            who ALONE stretched out the heavens,
            who spread out the earth BY MYSELF,
            who frustrates the signs of liars
            and makes fools of diviners,
            who turns wise men back
            and makes their knowledge foolish,

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are you going to toss out the Psalms now as well because David was not perfect either?

            Yet you, Lord, are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
            The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. (Psalm 19 [LXX 18]:1)
            By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath [ie. Spirit] of his mouth. (Psalm 33 [LXX 32]:6)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wisdom protected the first-formed father of the world,
            when he alone had been created;
            she delivered him from his transgression
            and gave him strength to rule all things.
            But when an unrighteous man departed from her in his anger,
            he perished because in rage he killed his brother.
            When the earth was flooded because of him, wisdom again saved it,
            steering the righteous man by a paltry piece of wood.
            Wisdom also, when the nations in wicked agreement had been put to confusion,
            recognized the righteous man and preserved him blameless before God
            and kept him strong in the face of his compassion for his child.
            Wisdom rescued a righteous man when the ungodly were perishing;
            he escaped the fire that descended on the Five Cities.
            Evidence of their wickedness still remains:
            a continually smoking wasteland,
            plants bearing fruit that does not ripen,
            and a pillar of salt standing as a monument to an unbelieving soul.
            For because they passed wisdom by,
            they not only were hindered from recognizing the good
            but also left for humankind a reminder of their folly,
            so that their failures could never go unnoticed.
            Wisdom rescued from troubles those who served her.
            When a righteous man fled from his brother’s wrath,
            she guided him on straight paths;
            she showed him the kingdom of God
            and gave him knowledge of holy things;
            she prospered him in his labors
            and increased the fruit of his toil.
            When his oppressors were covetous,
            she stood by him and made him rich.
            She protected him from his enemies
            and kept him safe from those who lay in wait for him;
            in his arduous contest she declared him victorious,
            so that he might learn that godliness is more powerful than anything else.
            When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him
            but delivered him from sin.
            She descended with him into the dungeon,
            and when he was in prison she did not leave him,
            until she brought him the scepter of a kingdom
            and authority over his masters.

            Those who accused him she showed to be false,
            and she gave him everlasting honor.
            Holy people and blameless offspring
            wisdom delivered from a nation of oppressors.
            She entered the soul of a servant of the Lord
            and withstood dread kings with wonders and signs.
            She gave to holy people the reward of their labors;
            she guided them along a marvelous way
            and became a shelter to them by day
            and a starry flame through the night.
            She brought them over the Red Sea
            and led them through deep waters,
            but she drowned their enemies
            and cast them up from the depth of the sea.
            Therefore the righteous plundered the ungodly;
            they sang hymns, O Lord, to your holy name
            and praised with one accord your defending hand,
            for wisdom opened the mouths of those who were mute
            and made the tongues of infants speak clearly. (Wisdom 10:1-21)

            “The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
            Before His works of old.
            I have been established from everlasting,
            From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
            When there were no depths I was brought forth,
            When there were no fountains abounding with water.
            Before the mountains were settled,
            Before the hills, I was brought forth;
            While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
            Or the primal dust of the world.
            When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
            When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
            When He established the clouds above,
            When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
            When He assigned to the sea its limit,
            So that the waters would not transgress His command,
            When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
            Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
            And I was daily His delight,
            Rejoicing always before Him,
            Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
            And my delight was with the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Protestantism is false because the Bible is false
      The logical conclusion to all Roman apologetics

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics finally admitting they do not actually believe the Bible

      • 2 weeks ago
        Schizoidberg

        Christians never believed the Bible. That's why there was hundreds of years of debate as to what belongs in it, what it is, and how literal or metaphorical we should take it. That's why concepts like Apostolic tradition were invokes so people can have a final verdict on the matter. Sola Scriptural naturally lead to Universal Unitarianism, Mormonism, and ultimately atheism.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Christianity being true gives these faiths enough credibility to stay afloat
    Plenty of other faith stay afloat and they can't all be true. Though I agree with the rest of your post it's all a bunch of invented practices

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Plenty of other faith stay afloat and they can't all be true.
      They are entirely cultural phenomena
      If you truly tried to examine each faith individually as to which is the true one, the only 2 that you really are going to end up weighing up is protestantism and Islam. And I don't say this as a knock to RC or Ortho, they do not want their faiths to be "proven". They don't care about that, just like Buddhism and Hinduism don't care about that.

      >Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that means "by scripture alone" or "the Bible alone". It is a Christian theological doctrine that states that the Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.
      It literally means "the Bible alone" and I'm saying you can't feasibly construct a religious movement based solely on the Bible because it's not internally consistent. That's WHY Catholics have invented so much other shit and it's not really an issue.

      Sola scriptura is dependent upon tradition for the biblical canon
      >It's not really an issue
      For who? I understand they apply a whole mental gymnastics as to why the practices aren't bad on paper, but to not acknowledge that saint veneration can even possibly be practiced as idol worship by the laity is just naive. Or to not acknowledge that the idea of theosis making one into a "god" isn't dangerous and unnecessary terminology

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think you're still missing my point here. If the Bible is internally contradictory, that means you can pretty much make up whatever you want and there's no real consequences. The reason for things like "Mary worship" and the quasi-deification of Saints into minor deities was to appeal to the Pagan communities the early Church conquered/forcibly converted. Those ideas are the result of political calculations by early Church leaders more so than any legitimate religious conviction. It doesn't matter though in light of what the theology actually has/doesn't have to offer.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Oh ok
          Well I don't believe the bible is internally contradictory. We have a foundational difference so if you aren't Christian then this thread wasn't really meant for you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I just provided evidence here:

            https://i.imgur.com/EQ2oMNd.png

            Sola Scriptura is untenable in the long run due to the sheer number of internal contradictions present in both the Old and New Testament.
            http://media.isnet.org/kmi/off/XXtian/101ContradictionsInTheBible.pdf
            Even Protestant sects that claim to only rely upon the Bible still engage in their own forms of exegesis. Since that's true, the idea that adding ideas and traditions (usually derived from syncretism) somehow poisons the well of Christianity is a bit naive of a position to take.

            https://ia801303.us.archive.org/31/items/ContradicitonsInTheNewTestament/194ContradInNt.pdf
            Here's a list that's specific to the New Testament.

            The idea that the Bible contradicts itself isn't even "anti-Christian". I learned about in Seminary (which is ironically where I stopped being a Christian, especially after learning more about the polytheistic origins of Judaism itself). Christianity exists as a tool of social control. Criticizing the accoutrements of Catholicism that further serve that end is a self-defeating argument for any Christian to make.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea that the Bible contradicts itself isn't even "anti-Christian". I learned about in Seminary
            The absolute STATE of the Roman Catholic Church

          • 2 weeks ago
            Schizoidberg

            Btw, this started out in Protestant seminaries

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nope, started with Jesuits in the 16th century who used skeptical arguments to "prove" that Scripture wasn't perspicuous.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You know very well that I'm not going to reply to that entire list so what exactly do you expect me to do? Ok let me give evidence that the bible doesn't contradict itself
            https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-1.htm

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The only "evidence" that the Bible doesn't contradict itself is exegesis (headcanon) employed to retroactively dismiss contradictions by pretending some verses are meant to be taken literally and others aren't. It's the cheapest form of apologetics.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What is the single largest doctrinal contradiction in the bible
            This is your chance, don't blow it with dishonesty

            Catholics finally admitting they do not actually believe the Bible

            It isn't hard to make them admit that. Like I said, they get smitten by the aesthetics of their church, then will read every bit they can find about RC dogma and history to justify themselves but won't touch their Bible with a stick. Menno Simons said that when he was a priest, he was afraid to read his Bible. And that his colleagues laughed at him when he suggested it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What is the single largest doctrinal contradiction in the bible
            There's a lot to choose from, but the most serious all have to do with the contradictory descriptions of God itself. See pic related. If the Bible can't even paint an internally consistent portrait of the God who allegedly inspired it, what does that say?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll look at the first one
            Ok proverbs 6:34 doesn't say remotely that God is devoid of jealousy

            You blew it. Don't respond again.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            -Proverbs 6:34, very clearly not talking about God.
            -Genesis 22:1, a test is different from temptation. God was not actively trying to get Abraham to sin.
            -Numbers 23:19, “Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” In other words God isn’t a liar. As for 1 Samuel 15, Saul disobeyed God, and was then removed from his position. Where is the contradiction?
            - John 14:26, Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will, even going to the cross, they are still equal as the Father and Son are one. You say you went to the seminary, and yet you don’t comprehend the Trinity?
            -John 12:47, the reason Jesus came was to save, the judgement is reserved for a different time. Just read the next verse: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.”
            -Job 1:1, very clearly not literal. When Jesus says that He is the door, do you believe Him to be an actual door? We have good reason to believe that Jesus is not a door, and good reason to believe that Job was not without sin.
            -Without faith our works are like dirty rags to God, but faith without works is dead. It is just the relationship between the two.
            -Job 14:12, this is Job speaking, poetically mind you, he may or may not be speaking literally. Either way it doesn’t matter, his words aren’t infallible.
            -1 Samuel 28 11-20, a highly contested piece of scripture. Many people believe it to be just a vision, others a special case. If Samuel did rise, then it was very clearly a one off thing. Though, Luke 16 doesn’t exactly prohibit God from bringing someone back, I’m ambivalent about it myself.
            -Christians are capable of sinning, but if they really are a Christian then they won’t practice sin. That is, they won’t repeatedly do the same sins over and over without guilt or repentance, never changing; they don’t make a career out of sinning, though they are bound to still sin.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In other words God isn’t a liar. As for 1 Samuel 15, Saul disobeyed God, and was then removed from his position. Where is the contradiction?
            There really isn't one. God can set conditions on things. That isn't inconsistent at all.
            >John 14:26, Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will, even going to the cross, they are still equal as the Father and Son are one.
            Right, and Philippians doesn't literally say that Christ is "equal to the Father." The book of Philippians says, "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:" So Paul says "equal with God" there. The correct term here would be "co-equal with the Father", not "equal to", in English.

            It also says this in John 5:18. "Therefore the israelites sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."

            >John 12:47
            What Christ says lines up perfectly. People are already condemned for sins, and the true judgement will be given in the last day.

            "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
            He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
            (John 3:17-18)

            "And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
            But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
            For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."
            (Luke 9:54-56)

            "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
            (2 Peter 3:9)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Job 1:1
            "Perfect" in English means "complete".

            "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
            (2 Tim. 3:17)

            >Romans and James
            They don't contradict because they are about two different kinds of justification. One is before God by faith. Works are how the saved person justifies himself to other men, as in the example given in James 2:15-16, in order so that the other person may be saved. See Matthew 5:16 and Matthew 7:20 for example.

            A believing person does experience a change because God can start working through them. Philippians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 15:10. This isn't because of their own effort or works in the flesh, but from a divine cause.

            >Job 14:12 "So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep."
            It literally says he rises not "till the heavens be no more." This mirrors what Peter says in 2 Peter.

            "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
            (2 Peter 3:7)

            So once the heavens are destroyed in this way, that's when men will rise. Job is literally predicting all of this, because "when the heavens are no more" is something that will actually happen. Also read the next two verses of Job 14:

            "O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!
            If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come."
            (Job 14:13-14)

            Job 14:12 is clearly predicting that the dead will rise again, but only after the heavens are no more. Job in this passage is not presenting "till the heavens be no more" as something that will never happen. (2/3)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >1 Samuel 28 11-20
            Lazarus and some others, such as the person who touched Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21) are raised from the dead as well. But none of them rose in the active voice by their own power, but only in the passive voice "were raised" by someone else, namely God.

            >1 John 5:18 - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
            That's referring to the new creature. This is true because sin cannot be in the presence of God.

            "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
            (2 Cor. 5:17)

            That's why Paul says this in First Corinthians:

            "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
            Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
            In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
            For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
            So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
            (1 Cor. 15:50-54)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'll look at the first one
            Ok proverbs 6:34 doesn't say remotely that God is devoid of jealousy

            You blew it. Don't respond again.

            "For jealousy is the rage of a man: therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance."
            (Proverbs 6:34)

            This passage is talking about how a man behaves when someone commits adultery with his wife.

            What does this even have to do with God? I'm assuming this is a mistake and the person who made this list meant some other passage.

            >James 1:13
            >God does not tempt men
            Let's see what this one says:

            "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:"
            (James 1:13)

            This is saying God never tempts anyone with evil. Genesis 22:1 has nothing to do with tempting someone with evil.

            The person who made this list seems to be assuming things and adding details, or leaving out details from these passages. You can't just do that, anon.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Filtered by Paul, huh? You should read Paul more thoroughly because what he says contradicts James not in the slightest. Paul distinguishes between boasting in the flesh (Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 2 Corinthians 11:18) and boasting in God (But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 10:17); he himself partakes of the latter quite frequently:

            Therefore I have reason to glory [boast] in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:17-19)
            But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)

            Note that Paul says it was the grace of God that performed the deeds, for he is a partaker of grace (Philippians 1:7) just as he says that it is the sin that lives in us that performs the sinful acts (Romans 7:20), but now it is Christ who lives in us (Galatians 2:20) and the Spirit who lives in us (2 Timothy 1:14), for we are partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14) and partakers of the Spirit (Hebrews 6:4). It is not we who perform the work, but God, for we are both His collaborators (1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1). Paul's point is in God we live and work and have our being (Acts 17:28), and it is God Who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), and we do everything thanks to Christ who strengthens us (Philippians 4:13); (cont)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Filtered by Paul, huh? You should read Paul more thoroughly because what he says contradicts James not in the slightest. Paul distinguishes between boasting in the flesh (Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 2 Corinthians 11:18) and boasting in God (But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 10:17); he himself partakes of the latter quite frequently:

            Therefore I have reason to glory [boast] in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:17-19)
            But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)

            Note that Paul says it was the grace of God that performed the deeds, for he is a partaker of grace (Philippians 1:7) just as he says that it is the sin that lives in us that performs the sinful acts (Romans 7:20), but now it is Christ who lives in us (Galatians 2:20) and the Spirit who lives in us (2 Timothy 1:14), for we are partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14) and partakers of the Spirit (Hebrews 6:4). It is not we who perform the work, but God, for we are both His collaborators (1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1). Paul's point is in God we live and work and have our being (Acts 17:28), and it is God Who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), and we do everything thanks to Christ who strengthens us (Philippians 4:13); (cont)

            for there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them, and there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord, and there are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).

            Paul never says that we are not justified by works. As Romans 4:2 says, if Abraham was justified by works, then he had something to boast about *but not before God*. Why? Because it was God who performed that work *through* Abraham. God gave Abraham all his facilities and abilities, and energized him to perform to. All that a man can be is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:16-18), to choose to submit to the flesh or to God. And God accomplished many miracles by the hands of Paul (Acts 19:11). We may not boast about our works for we were created by Christ and foreordained by God to perform them (Ephesians 2:10).

            By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11:8-10)

            Note how Paul here speaks of the works that Abraham performed because he had faith! This is because it is faith that facilitates God's working through us; when Peter lost faith in God's miracles as he walked on water like Christ, he lost his balance and fell in the sea (Matthew 14:28-31), because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind (James 1:6). Paul instructed each person to lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him (1 Corinthians 7:17).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > Paul never says that we are not justified by works
            Ephesians 2:9

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The anon you're replying to literally discussed that in his post. Actually read it and present an argument rather than just flinging verses that were already used in what you're replying to. So lazy. So shameless. So intellectually bankrupt. It's like you don't even read this stuff. Like Luther, it just seems like you're trolling.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What anon said
            > Paul never says that we are not justified by work
            What Ephesians 2:9 says
            > [we are saved] Not of works, lest any man should boast
            Paul in fact does explicitly say we are not justified by works. At worst anon has stumbled here and there’s no need to be so cantankerous about pointing out this small error. Especially given he cites the immediately following verse not long afterwards.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Or maybe you're being overly literally and completely ignoring the point I made about Paul's theologicy on boasting:

            Filtered by Paul, huh? You should read Paul more thoroughly because what he says contradicts James not in the slightest. Paul distinguishes between boasting in the flesh (Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 2 Corinthians 11:18) and boasting in God (But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 10:17); he himself partakes of the latter quite frequently:

            Therefore I have reason to glory [boast] in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:17-19)
            But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)

            Note that Paul says it was the grace of God that performed the deeds, for he is a partaker of grace (Philippians 1:7) just as he says that it is the sin that lives in us that performs the sinful acts (Romans 7:20), but now it is Christ who lives in us (Galatians 2:20) and the Spirit who lives in us (2 Timothy 1:14), for we are partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14) and partakers of the Spirit (Hebrews 6:4). It is not we who perform the work, but God, for we are both His collaborators (1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1). Paul's point is in God we live and work and have our being (Acts 17:28), and it is God Who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), and we do everything thanks to Christ who strengthens us (Philippians 4:13); (cont)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Paul flat out says in Ephesians 2:9 that the only thing that saves you is faith and explicitly not works. If this is a problem for your argument then too bad and you should have known better given you cited Ephesians 2:10 and either forgot the immediately preceding sentence or the first time you ever even read Ephesians 2 was after you wrote that opening part of the post.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Paul's point in Ephesians 2:8-10 is that we cannot boast about works because it is God who foreordains and works in us to perform to, and we submit to Him and become His willing collaborators by faith. This was already explained in the rest of the essay. The problem here is that you obsess over the precise wording while ignoring the meaning that the concepts utilized are imbued with. When James says "We are justified by works", he says the same as "We are justified by faith alone." Your ignoring how Paul himself does in fact BOAST about his accomplishments in Romans 15:17-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:10 is embarrassing; all of 2 Corinthians 10 to 12 revolves precisely around the topic of whether or not Paul is fit to boast for his achievements, and he does while expressing discomfort that he had to do so because he acknowledges that it is Christ who works through him in the Spirit. Try doing some actual exegesis.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And therefore Paul said we are… not justified by works.
            I actually quite respected your argument and just wanted to correct that blunder but I see now you have a massive chip on your shoulder as if there is e-peen riding on this. Bye.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If by your statement you meant that Paul utilized the phrase "we are not justified by works", then you mistook the meaning of what I said, as my point was not about the literal phrasing of Paul's statement, but the meaning behind. People do in fact cite Romans 4 in favour of strict faith onlyism, even though the literal language of Rom. 4:2 contradicts that. Works do justify, because they communicate faith, and it is the faith that truly justifies. If you were just making a technical correction and not making a theological point, then you should have been more perspicuous in articulating yourself. I assumed you had not read my post or willfully ignored my argumention. But if you were solely nitpicking over my precise language, then truly perhaps the more accurate phrasing ought to have been "Paul does in fact at several points state we are justified by works." So, if that was the extent of your contention, I have no stake in arguing with you, unless you have some other theological disagreement to discuss. But in the mean time, I would like to end it amicably.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. That’s valid and I agree with you. I’m sorry if insulted you, brother.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you think the Catholic position that works alone save? No, it's the grace of God, like the apostles teach, but works do not damn us, nor are they undesired by God (which is what that anon meant, and what you're being pedantic about).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you think I am being pedantic what are you trying to solve by being pedantic back? Paul says we are not justified by works. We all agree, yes?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            OK, I'll copy you and take a passage void of any context to make the epistles apparently contradict themselves.
            >What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
            Should we throw out James like Luther? Or perhaps there is an understanding which puts the whole of the Scriptures in harmony, four times older than any of this "reform" nonsense.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You and I both know the difference between dead faith and living faith. But there is no context that can change the fact that Ephesians 2:9 is an explicit denial of salvation by works. We are saved by the grace of God alone, through faith, evidenced by works. And yes, I know that this is the official Catholic position which makes it all the more baffling why there are constantly Catholics on here endorsing quasi-Pelagianism as if it is official church doctrine. The role of works is purely a function of true faith and not something that justifies on its own merits.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not "evidenced" by works.
            >Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
            So, according to your tradition, this does not say that a man is justified by works and not by faith only, but rather:
            >Do you see than a man is justified by faith only, evidenced by works?
            Which explains why Luther wanted this epistle (among others) gone, and the tradition he spawned considers it uninspired.

            I doubt I'm getting a reply here, as you ragequit from the other anon when you were unable to overcome the Scriptures.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            James 2:18
            > 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
            Even James himself in this entire chapter focuses on the importance of works insofar as it is evidence of living faith. All the accusations of pedantry and quoting verses out of context are suddenly incredibly rich. But stay classy, papists. Keep arguing for pélagianism to own the prots.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If you can pull the stick out of your rectum for the other anon, you can easily do it here by understanding I don't mean works are not evidence, but rather not ONLY evidence. Thank you, and refrain from the slurs in the future, as they are on my filter list.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay. But what I am saying is that works are a function of living faith, which is a function of grace, by which we are saved. They are downstream from one and other in that order. I do not intend to be mean, but on this topic most mainstream Christian denominations are essentially in agreement on this threefold relationship. What people actually try to rebuke when they challenge the emphasis on faith is antinomianism and what people try to rebuke with the emphasis on works is pélagianism, both of these heresies are dangerous.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That sounds close enough to be acceptable Catholic teaching, but I suppose the problem actually comes from understanding what that grace is & does to us, for which you should just refer to the other anon who is providing extremely rich cited explanations on the matter:

            The issue is over whether or not works are "merely" evidence of faith, or if faith is necessarily consummated, fulfilled and made complete in works. There is no real distinction between justification and glorification, no temporal disjunction between the two, because God's grace is filled with glory (Ephesians 1:6), so to be a partaker of His grace (Philippians 1:7), is to be a partaker of His glory (1 Peter 5:1). Reformed theologians fail to give any meaningful account of the ontological transformation of man thanks to the inheritance of God's glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14), treating glorification as a solely eschatological event, even though the language in Romans 8:30 is in the past tense, Moses is described as having attained temporarily God's glory in Exodus 34 and 2 Corinthians 3, the works of the good men are described as shining in Matthew 5:16 and Christ's glory is associated with light (Luke 9:32), and we children of light (Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:5), etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The issue is over whether or not works are "merely" evidence of faith, or if faith is necessarily consummated, fulfilled and made complete in works. There is no real distinction between justification and glorification, no temporal disjunction between the two, because God's grace is filled with glory (Ephesians 1:6), so to be a partaker of His grace (Philippians 1:7), is to be a partaker of His glory (1 Peter 5:1). Reformed theologians fail to give any meaningful account of the ontological transformation of man thanks to the inheritance of God's glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14), treating glorification as a solely eschatological event, even though the language in Romans 8:30 is in the past tense, Moses is described as having attained temporarily God's glory in Exodus 34 and 2 Corinthians 3, the works of the good men are described as shining in Matthew 5:16 and Christ's glory is associated with light (Luke 9:32), and we children of light (Ephesians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 5:5), etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Filtered by Paul, huh? You should read Paul more thoroughly because what he says contradicts James not in the slightest. Paul distinguishes between boasting in the flesh (Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 2 Corinthians 11:18) and boasting in God (But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” 2 Corinthians 10:17); he himself partakes of the latter quite frequently:

            Therefore I have reason to glory [boast] in Christ Jesus in the things which pertain to God. For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient—in mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem and round about to Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (Romans 15:17-19)
            But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10)

            Note that Paul says it was the grace of God that performed the deeds, for he is a partaker of grace (Philippians 1:7) just as he says that it is the sin that lives in us that performs the sinful acts (Romans 7:20), but now it is Christ who lives in us (Galatians 2:20) and the Spirit who lives in us (2 Timothy 1:14), for we are partakers of Christ (Hebrews 3:14) and partakers of the Spirit (Hebrews 6:4). It is not we who perform the work, but God, for we are both His collaborators (1 Corinthians 3:9; 2 Corinthians 6:1). Paul's point is in God we live and work and have our being (Acts 17:28), and it is God Who works in us, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13), and we do everything thanks to Christ who strengthens us (Philippians 4:13); (cont)

            [...]
            for there are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them, and there are different kinds of service, but the same Lord, and there are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work (1 Corinthians 12:4-6).

            Paul never says that we are not justified by works. As Romans 4:2 says, if Abraham was justified by works, then he had something to boast about *but not before God*. Why? Because it was God who performed that work *through* Abraham. God gave Abraham all his facilities and abilities, and energized him to perform to. All that a man can be is either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness (Romans 6:16-18), to choose to submit to the flesh or to God. And God accomplished many miracles by the hands of Paul (Acts 19:11). We may not boast about our works for we were created by Christ and foreordained by God to perform them (Ephesians 2:10).

            By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. (Hebrews 11:8-10)

            Note how Paul here speaks of the works that Abraham performed because he had faith! This is because it is faith that facilitates God's working through us; when Peter lost faith in God's miracles as he walked on water like Christ, he lost his balance and fell in the sea (Matthew 14:28-31), because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind (James 1:6). Paul instructed each person to lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him (1 Corinthians 7:17).

            For just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12). In the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the man who received the last amount of money is judged not by the amount of money he earned, but by the fact he did not try to earn any at all. This is because in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love (Galatians 5:6), because it is not the works that justify, but the faith expressed through the works.

            One cannot have faith without works, because living faith engenders works, for it facilitates God's working within us. When we sin, we are damned not by the work itself, but our quenching the Holy Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19).

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          There's a thing called theosis. In theosis, people gain abilities from God but God is the one working through them and they are unable to do anything outside of God's will. They aren't independent actors that can act outside of God's will and their abilities don't come from themselves like classical pagan deities.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >They don't care about that, just like Buddhism and Hinduism don't care about that.
        This, what the frick is up with that. No wonder most larpers are drawn to them.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People care to appear spiritual. They don't want real spirituality

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And Islam and Christianity are entirely Political Phenomena

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wrong. If you study the history first, there is no ktger possible conclusion other than the Catholic Church being the original one found in the Bible.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ok
      What is the earliest documentation of Christians venerating saints? If it isn't apostolic then you are full of shit
      Use your own words, don't send me a long winded article that you didn't read.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    orthodoxy is the same thing as catholicism. So what ever church history they offer is probably fake. the reformation happened because they were nothing more than a pagan money racket. i garentee you if you walk in an orthodox church theyve got all kinds of shit for sale. like candles so you can go and worship their graven images, and incense so they can piss God off with something he said not to use. Im telling you man, one time i even saw an orthodox kiss a picture of a saint. Strait up weird pagan stuff. I would go to a baptist church or a church of christ maybe. Id watch out for all the fakes like orthodoxy, catholicism, jehovahs witness, and latter day saints. Those are all basically all culty businesses that are for money. A baptist church might just ask for a tithe, but thats it and all that is for is to keep the lights and water on in the chapple. They do a lot of fund raisers to help people less fortunate, and do food drives. Ya know, the actual will of God.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >one time i even saw an orthodox kiss a picture of a saint.
      That's normal and wouldn't be considered weird at all
      Dogmatically it might not be idolatry, but in practice it often is.

      -Proverbs 6:34, very clearly not talking about God.
      -Genesis 22:1, a test is different from temptation. God was not actively trying to get Abraham to sin.
      -Numbers 23:19, “Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” In other words God isn’t a liar. As for 1 Samuel 15, Saul disobeyed God, and was then removed from his position. Where is the contradiction?
      - John 14:26, Jesus was obedient to the Father’s will, even going to the cross, they are still equal as the Father and Son are one. You say you went to the seminary, and yet you don’t comprehend the Trinity?
      -John 12:47, the reason Jesus came was to save, the judgement is reserved for a different time. Just read the next verse: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day.”
      -Job 1:1, very clearly not literal. When Jesus says that He is the door, do you believe Him to be an actual door? We have good reason to believe that Jesus is not a door, and good reason to believe that Job was not without sin.
      -Without faith our works are like dirty rags to God, but faith without works is dead. It is just the relationship between the two.
      -Job 14:12, this is Job speaking, poetically mind you, he may or may not be speaking literally. Either way it doesn’t matter, his words aren’t infallible.
      -1 Samuel 28 11-20, a highly contested piece of scripture. Many people believe it to be just a vision, others a special case. If Samuel did rise, then it was very clearly a one off thing. Though, Luke 16 doesn’t exactly prohibit God from bringing someone back, I’m ambivalent about it myself.
      -Christians are capable of sinning, but if they really are a Christian then they won’t practice sin. That is, they won’t repeatedly do the same sins over and over without guilt or repentance, never changing; they don’t make a career out of sinning, though they are bound to still sin.

      Good shit bro, you have more patience than me

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ortholarpers don't know or want you to know about it, but they even sold indulgences around the same time Catholics were doing it.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    But papacy, veneration of saints/martyrs were the norm in the first 500 years of the church along with Eucharist, sacrifice of mass, priesthood structure, prayers for dead souls, use of sacred imagery…etc

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Simply saying so does not making it true
      Where are they in the early/apostolic documents

      It is amazing how early Christianity almost collectively seems to change quite much from the early 300s to the early 400s AD.

      This

      Nope, started with Jesuits in the 16th century who used skeptical arguments to "prove" that Scripture wasn't perspicuous.

      Don't reply to the obnoxious namegay

      Well with stuff like Mary and Catholics for example, they are too deep in its been literally mkre than a thousand years with the same idea. Do you really expect the Catholic church to just go "whoops, yeah actually Mary had other kids and never physically ascended, haha, our mistake, sorry, anyway moving on". I mean what do you expect them to do realistically?

      No I obviously don't expect IQfy posts to force the entire Catholic institution to change it's views, but I would hope at least 1 Catholic would read this, be honest with himself, and be edified

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The papacy schismed from the Orthodox Church.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is amazing how early Christianity almost collectively seems to change quite much from the early 300s to the early 400s AD.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Explain to me how an intelligent person with no knowledge of Christianity can read the Bible and study, let's say, the first 500 years of church history, and decide "ah yes, papacy, veneration of saints, theosis and perpetual virginity of Mary are all apostolic practices".
    Most Christians don't do that, if they did most wouldn't be Christian. One only has to read Saint Augustine to see how moronic Christianity is as a concept
    >You know all those ancient Roman heroes our ancestors praised for their strength and virtue? Well actually they were all immoral for what our ancestors praised them for and if anything we should look down on them.
    >You were tortured so you'd tell people where your riches are? Why do you care so much about riches that you need to be tortured to say where they are?
    >It's good that Roman women got raped since now they won't be sinfully proud of their chastity.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>It's good that Roman women got raped since now they won't be sinfully proud of their chastity.
      Yikes. When was this?

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well with stuff like Mary and Catholics for example, they are too deep in its been literally mkre than a thousand years with the same idea. Do you really expect the Catholic church to just go "whoops, yeah actually Mary had other kids and never physically ascended, haha, our mistake, sorry, anyway moving on". I mean what do you expect them to do realistically?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Also to be fair you find similar things in Protestant fundamentalism. Take evolution for example, yes there is no central place like the vatican but there are large denomination that dont agree with evolution, you aren't gonna suddenly John Mcarthur or JC Sproul ministry suddenly going "whoops actually evolution is real, haha, sorry about that, moving on"

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Evolution ideas at worst is simply stupid
        Meanwhile Catholics are at worst practicing idolatry

        Only a worldly minded person would think these are comparable

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Veneration =/= idolatry, though it is easy to fall into idolatry and most people don't know the difference so they end up doing it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not only is it easy, idolatry is the natural human instinct. Most people would rather worship gods who look like themselves rather than an unseeable God. But the RC and EO dont acknowledge this at all. At least not on a leadership level.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think most people don't know the difference but I've been told the difference by both RC and EO. I'm originally from a Protestant background and prior to exactly speaking to a RC or EO, I had no idea about the differences between veneration and worship. I would say most Protestants don't properly worship God and simply venerate him. Hence why they think RC and EO are worshipping idols.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I would say most Protestants don't properly worship God and simply venerate him.
            Please go into detail on this? Preferably with your own words and not a article

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not him but Calvinism believes God planned your every sin so in Calvinism God is actively planning the idolatry then sending people to hell for it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Calvinists also believe Jesus was damned by the Father and are next to near Nestorian. So according to Calvinism Jesus isn't God because His nature can be split to such an extent as to be cosmologically human.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Calvinist-Arianism is the most based possible combo.
            Yes I know IRL John Calvin personally condemned a Unitarian to be burned alive.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Calvinist-Arianism is the most based possible combo.
            Yes I know IRL John Calvin personally condemned a Unitarian to be burned alive.

            Calvin really was more on the Arian side. He did teach that only the Father was properly God in excellence.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Father and Son must have exactly the same will otherwise it's polytheism. They must be on the same page for everything or else they aren't the same God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They cannot possibly have one will because the Father, at least momentarily, had forsaken Jesus on the cross.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What church are you a member of?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Church.
            Does it matter? Exegete Matthew 27:46

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I was wondering, because if you were a member of that Church which is the "pillar and ground of truth", you wouldn't say such horrible things. Post hidden.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Uhm… what?
            All I said was the same thing Jesus did in Matthew 27:46. Do you read the Bible with filters on too?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the secondary problem. The first problem before we can even get to that is how exactly do we square them having one mind with Matthew 27:46?

            God did not literally forsake Christ lol, Christ is expressing sympathy with the human condition, because in bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered (Hebrews 2:10), for if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his (Romans 6:5), for if we died with him, we will also live with him (2 Timothy 2:11), indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:17); for we do not have a High Priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin (Hebrews 4:15), but offered Himself unblemished through the eternal Spirit to God (Hebrews 9:14).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But by taking on the sins of all mankind Christ would have been in a state of total separation from God. And this buttressed by the fact that Jesus had been to Sheol (Ephesians 4:9) where God is deaf to the pleas of those within (Isaiah 38:18). All of this is reinforced by the text of Psalm 22 itself, which prefigures the suffering atonement of the Messiah. And in which God is deaf to his cries. I don’t see why Jesus would quote this exact verse from this exact psalm if we are not meant to actually take it seriously.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christ broke the power of death by going to Sheol (2 Timothy 1:10): Christ destroyed death because He cannot be separate from God. By entering the underworld yet still being one with God (John 10:30; John 17:22) for Christ is in the Father and the Father is in Christ (John 14:11), He in His Father, and we in Him, and He in us (John 14:20), He has broken the rule of death; as Christ says in John 15:10, He has kept the Father's commands and thus remains in God's love. How then can the Word be separated from God by submitting to His own command? Christ undermined the workings of death. This is the foundation of the Christus Victor model. Your exclusive obsession with PSA (which you do not even connect to a real presence in the Eucharist lol) is un-Biblical.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Only Christ died for our sins and the Bible explicitly defines death as a consequence of sin and the resultant separation from God (Romans 5:12, Romans 6:23, Ezekiel 18:21, Isaiah 59:2) Denying this element of the atonement of Christ causes more problems than it solves, primarily, how did Christ die? In order to save us from death and damnation Christ had to die and enter the abode of the dead himself so that he could transcend it and we too through him (Hebrews 2:14, Hebrews 2:9, 1 Corinthians 15:54, Revelations 1:18). It was not the nails and the cross that killed the Son of Man but the sins of mankind.
            This is only a problem for the Trinity insofar as it is not understood that the Trinity is a divine mystery that defies mortal comprehension, any attempt to rationalise it only lessens the glory of both Father and Son, far from defending it. We cannot say that God cannot do something, that is impossible.
            > Your exclusive obsession with PSA (which you do not even connect to a real presence in the Eucharist lol) is un-Biblical.
            ?!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're not addressing or attacking anything I said. Christ broke the power of death because as a sin offering He ought to have been separated from God, but fundamentally could not be.

            The know why the Trinity is rational despite its fundamental mystery: God and Lord Christ are of one fundamental activity (Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. John 5:19-23), for Christ is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15) and therefore He who has seen the Son has the Father who sent Him (John 12:15; John 14:9), for the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28), of Whom He is the head (1 Corinthians 11:3), for He that is sent cannot be greater than He Who sent Him (John 13:16), as it is the will of the One who sent Him that Christ has come to fulfill (John 6:38), as He is the Word of God (John 1:1) that does not return to God empty, but accomplishes what He desires and achieve the purpose for which God sent Him (Isaiah 55:11). God and Christ are of one activity and one will, of one nature and one power, in one source, namely the Father. They perfectly interprenetrate one another. To deny this is to break apart the Trinity, which though cannot be exhaustively articulated, can very much so be successfully and meaningfully adumbrated without surrendering everything to mystery.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The verses posted quite succinctly explain the problem with this. Death IS separation from God, that is the biblical explanation of what death is and why we die. This is the problem with Trinitarian rationalism, if cannot be reconciled with scripture. God is omnipotent, He can do anything, simple as. We do not need to mentally summersault our way into heresy by trying to rationalise the divine mysteries of God. We just need to trust the Bible, that’s enough, and the Biblical account of the trinity is far more complex and multifaceted than any rationalist attempt at apologetics can do justice.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but are you the "I don't belong to a church" guy, declaring that believing in the holy trinity is heresy?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Death IS separation from God
            ...which is why Christ rose from the grave. What is the issue here, again? By partaking of His suffering and death, we are raised to life in glory, conformed to His image and thereby glorified, becoming like God in partaking of His glorious grace and divine nature.

            >This is the problem with Trinitarian rationalism, if cannot be reconciled with scripture.
            I provided you with a rational account of how God is one with His Word and Spirit in will, activity and love.

            >God is omnipotent, He can do anything, simple as.
            God can do anything, and that anything necessarily entails its being logical, since illogical propositions are not things. To say that God can make 2 and 2 equal 5 is sheer nonsense.

            >We do not need to mentally summersault our way into heresy by trying to rationalise the divine mysteries of God.
            There are few more heretical things than dividing the Trinity or dividing the flesh from the divine person of Christ in which it subsists.

            >We just need to trust the Bible
            Yet your claim precisely entails that Scripture is internally contradictory, since it is clearly said that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), and thus cannot have become not one with the Father, ceased to abide in God's love, or to be in Father as the Father is in Him.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, and to rise again he necessarily had to… die. Did Jesus not die for our sins? This is exactly why just this particular detail of the atonement (for a start) puts comprehension of the trinity beyond the reach of feeble mortal minds. You can cite Bible verses to justify the Trinity until the cows come home, I know the Trinity is true and I know Jesus is God, but that is just not relevant to the fact that in this life we will never, ever understand it. Any serious scholar from any apostolic church will tell you the same thing, it is beyond mortal comprehension.
            > God can do anything, and that anything necessarily entails its being logical, since illogical propositions are not things.
            Please, for the love of God, put Leibniz down and pick up Descartes instead. It’ll do you good. The God of Leibniz is a God that cannot do anything, and basically reduces the almighty to a passive agent subordinated to préexistent laws. It is God who made the Law, it is God who made the mathematics, it is God who gave us logic. The shape of a square is not uncreated, it is His handiwork. If God wants he can make a square circle, or make 3 obtuse angles somehow form a triangle, carry Elijah still living into heaven on a flaming chariot and raise the dead. He is the Almighty.
            > Yet your claim precisely entails that Scripture is internally contradictory
            How? The Scripture says what it says, if we’re supposed to disbelieve it then how are we supposed to biblically make sense of what death even is and why people die?
            The scripture is perfectly consistent, what is incongruent is a God that is subordinate to His own creations, which is the folly of Leibniz.
            >Hebrews 13:8
            Amen

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, and to rise again he necessarily had to… die.
            Yes, and yet He rose from the grave because even in death due to His divine origin *He could not be separate from God*. How many times will I have to explain it?

            >Any serious scholar from any apostolic church will tell you the same thing, it is beyond mortal comprehension.
            God alone is immortal and lives in unapproachable light, no-one has seen nor can see Him (1 Timothy 6:16), for no-one may see Him and live (Exodus 33:20), yet we shall stand before Him forever (Isaiah 66:22) as Moses and Samuel before Him stood (Jeremiah 15:1), face to face (Exodus 33:11), for God will not turn His face away from us (Psalm 13 [LXX 12]:1; Psalm 27 [LXX 26]:9; Psalm 69 [LXX 68]:17; Psalm 88 [LXX 87]:14; Psalm 102 [LXX 101]:2; Psalm 143 [LXX 142]:7), turning our darkness into light (Psalm 18 [LXX 17]:28) with the light shining from His face (Psalm 31 [LXX 30]:16; Psalm 67 [LXX 66]:1; Psalm 80 [LXX 79]:3; Psalm 89 [LXX 88]:15), in Whose light we shall see light (Psalm 36 [LXX 35]:9), the unapproachable light that God wraps Himself in (Psalm 104 [LXX 103]:2), for His face is to be sought forever (Psalm 105 [LXX 104]:4). God's essence is not known, but He is known and understood in His glory, of which we partake. In His glory, we comprehend the Trinity to the best of our ability, in His essence, His face obscured by the light of His glory, we know nothing.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, let me put it this way. In Biblical terms with reference to chapter and verse explain to me what death even is and why people die? This is the fundamental thing you are not reckoning with. The Bible flat out tells us death is a function of sin and the resultant separation from God. The Bible also tells us Jesus died and entered Sheol. At the same instance on the cross Jesus straight up quotes Psalm 22, which prefigures His suffering atonement, that His God has forsaken Him. All of this points in exactly one direction, between the crucifixion and the resurrection the Father was deafened and blinded to the Son by the sins of mankind that He took upon Him. If I am faced with a choice between believing the Scripture or rejecting the vain delusion that man can understand the Trinity this is an easy choice.
            >God alone is immortal and lives in unapproachable light, no-one has seen nor can see Him (1 Timothy 6:16), for no-one may see Him and live (Exodus 33:20), yet we shall stand before Him forever (Isaiah 66:22) as Moses and Samuel before Him stood (Jeremiah 15:1), face to face (Exodus 33:11), for God will not turn His face away from us (Psalm 13 [LXX 12]:1; Psalm 27 [LXX 26]:9; Psalm 69 [LXX 68]:17; Psalm 88 [LXX 87]:14; Psalm 102 [LXX 101]:2; Psalm 143 [LXX 142]:7), turning our darkness into light (Psalm 18 [LXX 17]:28) with the light shining from His face (Psalm 31 [LXX 30]:16; Psalm 67 [LXX 66]:1; Psalm 80 [LXX 79]:3; Psalm 89 [LXX 88]:15), in Whose light we shall see light (Psalm 36 [LXX 35]:9), the unapproachable light that God wraps Himself in (Psalm 104 [LXX 103]:2), for His face is to be sought forever (Psalm 105 [LXX 104]:4). God's essence is not known, but He is known and understood in His glory, of which we partake. In His glory, we comprehend the Trinity to the best of our ability, in His essence, His face obscured by the light of His glory, we know nothing.
            Amen

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the secondary problem. The first problem before we can even get to that is how exactly do we square them having one mind with Matthew 27:46?

            [...]
            God did not literally forsake Christ lol, Christ is expressing sympathy with the human condition, because in bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered (Hebrews 2:10), for if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his (Romans 6:5), for if we died with him, we will also live with him (2 Timothy 2:11), indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory (Romans 8:17); for we do not have a High Priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin (Hebrews 4:15), but offered Himself unblemished through the eternal Spirit to God (Hebrews 9:14).

            That is to say, ruminate on Psalm 22 a little bit.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How are they logically one God if their wills are separated? Either they have the same will and Jesus is judge on judgement day or Jesus is not God.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That’s the secondary problem. The first problem before we can even get to that is how exactly do we square them having one mind with Matthew 27:46?

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What is the conclusion you took from studying these 500 years of Church history? Do you have a summary or an argument to present?
    There is plenty of attestation by the fathers & writers before 600 AD to the antiquity of all those things, not to mention their presence in Scripture.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There is plenty of attestation by the fathers & writers before 600 AD to the antiquity of all those things, not to mention their presence in Scripture.
      Catholics and EO will say this up and down all day, but won't actually provide the documentation
      When they say "their presence in scripture" they mean obscure verses like Peter getting the keys to heaven, that took hundreds of years before anyone ever interpreted it as anything to do with a papacy

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I want to provide you the documentation, but pick one of those topics to focus on, since that's a diverse selection to try and work all at once.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Roman papacy, and the doctrine of papal infallibility

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To directly quote (though translated) St. Francis de Sales,
            >When Our Lord imposes a name upon men He always bestows some particular grace according to the name which He gives them.

            Abram - Abraham (He becomes father of many, the whole Covenant & Church)
            Jacob - Israel (That he would prevail against men by God)
            The angels also are named only according to their purpose.

            Simon, given the name of Cephas/Peter/"Rock" by Jesus Christ, is no exception, purposed to be as this naming suggests. God named Abraham for the reason described, and so Simon Peter was to be the rock on which was founded so many Christians.

            Mind that the use of "rock" for spiritual foundation & paternal authority is nothing new in the Scriptures. When Isaiah guided the israelites by Abraham's example, he expressly said, inspired by the Holy Ghost,
            >Look unto the rock whence you are hewn... Look unto Abraham your father
            (Ch. 51)

            And it is a name frequently applied to Our Lord most appropriately. Christ is called the rock because He is the foundation, cornerstone, support, and strength of the Church. Simon confessed his faith, and was responded to by Our Lord with a sharing of this excellence at no loss to Himself.

            As a head is to a body, or a root is to a tree, a foundation is to a building. Our Lord compares His Church to a building in that He says He will build it on Peter, showing that the apostle will be the Church's foundation, the root of this faith, and head of this body.

            The body can be dismembered and live, but not decapitated, a tree pruned but not uprooted, and a building damaged without falling for as long as the foundation remains. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Our Lord promises immediately after naming Simon the rock, it is because they cannot prevail against this foundation and head.

            So, we see that the Church itself, which St. Paul calls "pillar and ground of the truth", is founded on Peter, who is founded on Christ.

            Cont...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To directly quote (though translated) St. Francis de Sales,
            >When Our Lord imposes a name upon men He always bestows some particular grace according to the name which He gives them.

            Abram - Abraham (He becomes father of many, the whole Covenant & Church)
            Jacob - Israel (That he would prevail against men by God)
            The angels also are named only according to their purpose.

            Simon, given the name of Cephas/Peter/"Rock" by Jesus Christ, is no exception, purposed to be as this naming suggests. God named Abraham for the reason described, and so Simon Peter was to be the rock on which was founded so many Christians.

            Mind that the use of "rock" for spiritual foundation & paternal authority is nothing new in the Scriptures. When Isaiah guided the israelites by Abraham's example, he expressly said, inspired by the Holy Ghost,
            >Look unto the rock whence you are hewn... Look unto Abraham your father
            (Ch. 51)

            And it is a name frequently applied to Our Lord most appropriately. Christ is called the rock because He is the foundation, cornerstone, support, and strength of the Church. Simon confessed his faith, and was responded to by Our Lord with a sharing of this excellence at no loss to Himself.

            As a head is to a body, or a root is to a tree, a foundation is to a building. Our Lord compares His Church to a building in that He says He will build it on Peter, showing that the apostle will be the Church's foundation, the root of this faith, and head of this body.

            The body can be dismembered and live, but not decapitated, a tree pruned but not uprooted, and a building damaged without falling for as long as the foundation remains. If the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Our Lord promises immediately after naming Simon the rock, it is because they cannot prevail against this foundation and head.

            So, we see that the Church itself, which St. Paul calls "pillar and ground of the truth", is founded on Peter, who is founded on Christ.

            Cont...

            Our Lord Jesus Christ is the master, head, founder, and foundation of the Church. When any owner leaves his property for a time (one that will continue to function, not sit locked & dormant), he leaves the keys with someone, which is to leave the governance of his property to him.

            St. John wrote in his Apocalypse/Revelation how Our Lord made Himself known:
            >I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.
            (Ch. 1)
            Which is shown again in the same book:
            >These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth
            (Ch. 3)
            Isaiah prophesied similarly to Christ's grant to Peter:
            >I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
            (Ch. 22)
            These examples from Scripture show that keys, especially as held by God, are to mean a supreme authority, as Christ has over hell, death, and the Church.

            Going back to Isaiah's prophecy (same chapter as quoted), it's plain to see the parallels God makes between Eliakim, head of the Temple, and Peter, head of the Church. However, Eliakim is called a peg, as for a tent which would be eventually packed up to make way for the permanent, immovable Church of which Simon is named the rock. Eliakim was a figure of Christ, while Peter is His deputy.

            It is the highest governance & authority that Our Lord leaves with Peter, and only with Peter. All the apostles are granted the authority to "bind and loose", but Peter first & particularly, and only to Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Each was commissioned by Christ with the power of the Church so that it may spread around the world without limitation, but the ultimate rank and charge over it was given to Peter before all.

            Cont...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Our Lord Jesus Christ is the master, head, founder, and foundation of the Church. When any owner leaves his property for a time (one that will continue to function, not sit locked & dormant), he leaves the keys with someone, which is to leave the governance of his property to him.

            St. John wrote in his Apocalypse/Revelation how Our Lord made Himself known:
            >I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell.
            (Ch. 1)
            Which is shown again in the same book:
            >These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth
            (Ch. 3)
            Isaiah prophesied similarly to Christ's grant to Peter:
            >I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
            (Ch. 22)
            These examples from Scripture show that keys, especially as held by God, are to mean a supreme authority, as Christ has over hell, death, and the Church.

            Going back to Isaiah's prophecy (same chapter as quoted), it's plain to see the parallels God makes between Eliakim, head of the Temple, and Peter, head of the Church. However, Eliakim is called a peg, as for a tent which would be eventually packed up to make way for the permanent, immovable Church of which Simon is named the rock. Eliakim was a figure of Christ, while Peter is His deputy.

            It is the highest governance & authority that Our Lord leaves with Peter, and only with Peter. All the apostles are granted the authority to "bind and loose", but Peter first & particularly, and only to Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Each was commissioned by Christ with the power of the Church so that it may spread around the world without limitation, but the ultimate rank and charge over it was given to Peter before all.

            Cont...

            Only to one did Our Lord say,
            >Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.
            (Matthew Ch. 22)
            Surely Our Lord prayed for all the apostles, but it was Simon in particular that he desired to strengthen. And surely Satan sought all the apostles (as we see by Judas' example), but it was Simon that Christ revealed as the devil's particular target.

            As for why Simon was singled out, we can tell from what comes immediately before & after that passage:
            >He that is the greater among you...
            >Thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren...
            It is explicitly Simon who Christ will have to confirm the other apostles; to be their strength & support. What is Christ, as our strength & support, if not our foundation? What is Peter, as appointed by Christ, if not the same? Our Lord is the greatest, and it is direct & simple to understand Peter as the greatest among the apostles by his office as their foundation - and if he is the foundation of the Church's governors, he is the foundation of the whole Church.

            Again, to Simon Peter alone was it given the pastoral command to "feed my sheep". (John Ch. 21) with an explicit distinction from the others: "Lovest thou me more than these?".
            Just like the power of the Church, the other apostles are responsible for pastoring their own sheep, as Peter commanded, "feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it", but it is to him alone that an absolute, universal charge is given.

            When Our Lord said "I know my sheep", He meant the whole Church, and when He said "Feed my sheep", He meant the same. It was no specific, unnamed set of sheep Christ meant, but all.

            Among those sheep are even the other apostles and all ministers of the Church, which are Our Lord's sheep, whom He commanded Peter to take care of.

            Cont...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Only to one did Our Lord say,
            >Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.
            (Matthew Ch. 22)
            Surely Our Lord prayed for all the apostles, but it was Simon in particular that he desired to strengthen. And surely Satan sought all the apostles (as we see by Judas' example), but it was Simon that Christ revealed as the devil's particular target.

            As for why Simon was singled out, we can tell from what comes immediately before & after that passage:
            >He that is the greater among you...
            >Thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren...
            It is explicitly Simon who Christ will have to confirm the other apostles; to be their strength & support. What is Christ, as our strength & support, if not our foundation? What is Peter, as appointed by Christ, if not the same? Our Lord is the greatest, and it is direct & simple to understand Peter as the greatest among the apostles by his office as their foundation - and if he is the foundation of the Church's governors, he is the foundation of the whole Church.

            Again, to Simon Peter alone was it given the pastoral command to "feed my sheep". (John Ch. 21) with an explicit distinction from the others: "Lovest thou me more than these?".
            Just like the power of the Church, the other apostles are responsible for pastoring their own sheep, as Peter commanded, "feed the flock of God which is among you, taking care of it", but it is to him alone that an absolute, universal charge is given.

            When Our Lord said "I know my sheep", He meant the whole Church, and when He said "Feed my sheep", He meant the same. It was no specific, unnamed set of sheep Christ meant, but all.

            Among those sheep are even the other apostles and all ministers of the Church, which are Our Lord's sheep, whom He commanded Peter to take care of.

            Cont...

            Mind that to feed is not merely to preach or advise, but to rule, as we see in Ezekiel:
            >Woe to the shepherds of Israel, that fed themselves: should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds? You ate the milk, and you clothed yourselves with the wool, and you killed that which was fat: but my flock you did not feed.
            (Ch. 34)
            This was addressed to Israel's princes, priests, and judges, not any feeble offices.

            This is supported throughout the Old Testament, in which Israel's rulers are commanded to "feed" the people. Obviously, the leadership of the nation wasn't simply preaching & comfort.
            >Moreover yesterday also and the day before, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that did lead out and bring in Israel: and the Lord said to thee: Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel.
            (2 Kings Ch. 5)

            We even have direct connections drawn in the Scripture between ruling & feeding/pastoring:
            >The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing. He hath set me in a place of pasture. He hath brought me up, on the water of refreshment. He hath converted my soul. He hath led me on the paths of justice, for his own name's sake.
            (Psalm 22)

            Cont...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Mind that to feed is not merely to preach or advise, but to rule, as we see in Ezekiel:
            >Woe to the shepherds of Israel, that fed themselves: should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds? You ate the milk, and you clothed yourselves with the wool, and you killed that which was fat: but my flock you did not feed.
            (Ch. 34)
            This was addressed to Israel's princes, priests, and judges, not any feeble offices.

            This is supported throughout the Old Testament, in which Israel's rulers are commanded to "feed" the people. Obviously, the leadership of the nation wasn't simply preaching & comfort.
            >Moreover yesterday also and the day before, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that did lead out and bring in Israel: and the Lord said to thee: Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel.
            (2 Kings Ch. 5)

            We even have direct connections drawn in the Scripture between ruling & feeding/pastoring:
            >The Lord ruleth me: and I shall want nothing. He hath set me in a place of pasture. He hath brought me up, on the water of refreshment. He hath converted my soul. He hath led me on the paths of justice, for his own name's sake.
            (Psalm 22)

            Cont...

            As a recognition of Peter's unique excellence of rank, this apostle is always distinguished separate from the others when they are named in the Scriptures, and first when the apostles are ordered.

            >And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter...
            (Matthew Ch. 10)
            >And rising very early, going out, he went into a desert place: and there he prayed. And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him.
            (Mark 1)
            >But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep. And waking, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. And it came to pass, that as they were departing from him, Peter saith to Jesus...
            (Luke 9)
            >Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee...
            (Mark 16)
            >Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them
            >Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them...
            (Acts 2)

            Simon Peter was not the first chosen from among the apostles, nor was there any other reason written in Scripture for these preferential references aside from his selection by Christ as the foundation of the Church.

            There are no patterns of order or separation for the other apostles, letting us know that there were no rankings among them save for Peter's place as first - his primacy.

            Cont...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >always distinguished separate from the others when they are named
            Never heard this one. Checks out, crazy.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            As a recognition of Peter's unique excellence of rank, this apostle is always distinguished separate from the others when they are named in the Scriptures, and first when the apostles are ordered.

            >And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter...
            (Matthew Ch. 10)
            >And rising very early, going out, he went into a desert place: and there he prayed. And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him.
            (Mark 1)
            >But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep. And waking, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. And it came to pass, that as they were departing from him, Peter saith to Jesus...
            (Luke 9)
            >Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee...
            (Mark 16)
            >Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them
            >Now when they had heard these things, they had compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? But Peter said to them...
            (Acts 2)

            Simon Peter was not the first chosen from among the apostles, nor was there any other reason written in Scripture for these preferential references aside from his selection by Christ as the foundation of the Church.

            There are no patterns of order or separation for the other apostles, letting us know that there were no rankings among them save for Peter's place as first - his primacy.

            Cont...

            Here are a few examples from Scripture that provide supporting analogies:
            If we compare the Church to a building, Peter is its rock & foundation whom Christ has set. (Matthew Ch. 16)
            Compared to a ship, Peter is the captain, and Christ teaches in it. (Luke 5)
            To fishers, Peter is the first, and Christ's true disciples fish with him. (John 21)
            To a sheepfold, Peter is shepherd of the whole flock. (also John 21)
            To a kingdom, Peter holds its keys. (Matthew 21).

            To the same effect, we can read of Peter's governance over the Church after Our Lord's Ascension.
            The apostles & disciples all go to Peter. Among them he rises and speaks for all, interpreting prophesy of Scripture, and then ordering that a new apostle be appointed to replace Judas. Note that this is not an ordinary successor, but one of the Twelve who will judge the tribes of Israel. (Acts 1)
            Upon receiving the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, Peter is the first preacher, speaking for the whole Twelve. (Acts 2)
            Peter is the first miracle worker after Christ, performing this when asked with John, (Acts 3) and later even to raise the dead. (Acts 9)
            Peter is the first to exercise the Church's spiritual power to punish. (Acts 5)
            Peter is the first to recognize & refute heresy. (Acts 8)
            The revelation for the gentiles is given to Peter, and Cornelius is sent to him to commence the conversion of all. (Acts 10)
            Peter & James were imprisoned, yet the whole Church prayed for Peter as their leader. (Acts 12)
            Peter presides over the first Church council, and gives judgement which is held as law. (Acts 15)

            Cont...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]
            Here are a few examples from Scripture that provide supporting analogies:
            If we compare the Church to a building, Peter is its rock & foundation whom Christ has set. (Matthew Ch. 16)
            Compared to a ship, Peter is the captain, and Christ teaches in it. (Luke 5)
            To fishers, Peter is the first, and Christ's true disciples fish with him. (John 21)
            To a sheepfold, Peter is shepherd of the whole flock. (also John 21)
            To a kingdom, Peter holds its keys. (Matthew 21).

            To the same effect, we can read of Peter's governance over the Church after Our Lord's Ascension.
            The apostles & disciples all go to Peter. Among them he rises and speaks for all, interpreting prophesy of Scripture, and then ordering that a new apostle be appointed to replace Judas. Note that this is not an ordinary successor, but one of the Twelve who will judge the tribes of Israel. (Acts 1)
            Upon receiving the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, Peter is the first preacher, speaking for the whole Twelve. (Acts 2)
            Peter is the first miracle worker after Christ, performing this when asked with John, (Acts 3) and later even to raise the dead. (Acts 9)
            Peter is the first to exercise the Church's spiritual power to punish. (Acts 5)
            Peter is the first to recognize & refute heresy. (Acts 8)
            The revelation for the gentiles is given to Peter, and Cornelius is sent to him to commence the conversion of all. (Acts 10)
            Peter & James were imprisoned, yet the whole Church prayed for Peter as their leader. (Acts 12)
            Peter presides over the first Church council, and gives judgement which is held as law. (Acts 15)

            Cont...

            It is clear from Scripture alone that the Christian Church at its very institution by Christ was ruled by a single head, the rock & foundation, the chief among the apostles, St. Peter. This can be easily accepted, but the fiercer contention from heretics seems to be that Peter's office was not allowed to be succeeded even to today. Since Peter's death is not recorded by the Scriptures, it is impossible to provide a positive, direct proof of succession, but just the same for a negative. I can provide show you how Peter was succeeded, supported by the Scripture, if you can accept the primacy of Peter's office, but that should easily follow if you understand that the Church is universal, for all men and for all time, and must be the "pillar and ground of truth" without ever crumbling, meaning it must always stand on a visible head which Christ established as a singular, but mortal, man.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The institutions of Protestant denominations do not hold to the structures from the early church though. The early church had deacons, priests, and bishops and Paul's letters have advice about how to treat each of those offices. The early Church also had three different Popes, the Pope of Rome, the Pope of Antioch, and the Pope of Alexandria. The concept of having Pastors or Presbyters as a form of instruction within the Church is alien to the foundations of early Christianity. What Catholics are wrong about is the concept of Papal infallibility which was not present until the Great Schism. The Pope of Rome was never an ultimate authority in the Church until he made himself one which caused the Catholics to split off from the Orthodox.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Despite some earnest attempts to get back to the basics of the New Testament basis for church organisation through certain movements across the centuries, people really do love their developments in addition to what is found, biblically. It is worth noting that outside of the Church of England and various Lutheran church denominations, the title Bishop is unpopular, perhaps thought too evocative of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox paradigm, even if Bishop is synonymous with Elder and Presbyter during New Testament times. Pastor is meant to be seen as a role of a Presbyter/Elder/Bishop, not a separate class, yet, as we could see, so many church denominations call their officers Pastor, and in function, they turn Deacons into some sort of (Insert role here) Pastor, such as Worship Pastor or Music Pastor. Senior Pastor is basically the Bishop of many of those churches.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    What was the simple question?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why are you so desperate to lure me into rhetorical tricks? You know what it was.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The question would be, "is there support in the Scriptures for the pope?" - My answer was yes, but that support was asked for (by accusation, saying that Catholics won't provide the support), so I gave a brief summary backed up by Scripture.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Brief
          You typed so much that it couldnt be discussed just like

          https://i.imgur.com/EQ2oMNd.png

          Sola Scriptura is untenable in the long run due to the sheer number of internal contradictions present in both the Old and New Testament.
          http://media.isnet.org/kmi/off/XXtian/101ContradictionsInTheBible.pdf
          Even Protestant sects that claim to only rely upon the Bible still engage in their own forms of exegesis. Since that's true, the idea that adding ideas and traditions (usually derived from syncretism) somehow poisons the well of Christianity is a bit naive of a position to take.

          https://i.imgur.com/IvGoYKG.jpeg

          >What is the single largest doctrinal contradiction in the bible
          There's a lot to choose from, but the most serious all have to do with the contradictory descriptions of God itself. See pic related. If the Bible can't even paint an internally consistent portrait of the God who allegedly inspired it, what does that say?

          It's in poor taste. I appreciate the information the chance that you're sincere, but it seems more like you've posted so much that you can be right, but also so much that it can't be disputed

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't have images with this stuff compiled, though. I'm mainly summarizing from a book I have (The Catholic Controversy) and using an online Bible for ease of search & copying. Even then, it would hardly help, as I'd have to provide references in the text to refer to the image, and you'd end up reading just as much.

            Note that the posts you quoted as ideal examples barely provide an argument, but rather just expect the reader to do all the legwork in researching, connecting to the poster's point, etc., which should be considered "extremely low quality" on this board, if it had interested moderators.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Proof relics and saints work

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >veneration of saints
    Even low Church, hardline Protestants don't have an issue with this; they just have an issue with Catholic saints. They sing songs about Abraham & the prophets, some even of Mary (though being very careful not to be too Roman!), and the Reformers are of course celebrated. It takes a special kind of ignorant to see how the israelites honored Abraham and all the prophets & patriarchs, and then say it's totally forbidden. It's more natural and "understandable" to act contrarian to Catholic practice by ignoring Christian saints.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honouring Saints is good and even in the Bible we see Jesus and His disciples honour those who came before. John the Baptist was more or less recognised as a Saint in Jesus’ own lifetime by the Godman Himself.
      However “veneration” is a blatant weasel word for sneaking the idolatrous worship of Saints under the rug. When in the Bible do we ever see Jesus or the disciples pray to the Hebrew patriarchs? Never.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Veneration is a separate topic from supplication, though, even if both are types/elements of prayer.

        We honor God for His divinity, singular goodness, and everything we have, etc., and also to ask things of Him.
        The same is true of the saints - of their appropriate excellences, and always *because* of God.

        The distinction between the Catholic/Eastern/Anglican/Lutheran understanding here opposed to others (anyone who rejects the intercession of saints) is whether that they are currently alive in heaven with God or not, and if God permits His saints to know what is happening on earth.

        There is a distinct improvement in access the Church has to God through Our Redeemer. Aside from the select assumed up, there were no humans in heaven before Christ, and therefore no advantage to ask of them anything.

        We do see intercession of the still living patriarchs for the israelites, which is an obviously acceptable concept to anyone - who could deny a holier man to pray for them?

        The distinction comes back to whether or not the saints in heaven are alive & cognizant of their still-struggling brethren on earth. The traditional understanding is that they are.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I think where one of the big stumbling block people have with this can actually be blamed on the idea of patron saints. Having saints of specific things can easily lead to the assumption that they have some particular domain or influence over said thing inherent to them.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've never actually heard that brought up myself. It reasons that any Protestants who are aware enough of the matter (it's not a topic common to anti-Catholic polemics) already know that angels have particular domains of patronage, but not limit or jealous exclusivity, as is recorded many times in Scriptures.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Veneration is a separate topic from supplication, though, even if both are types/elements of prayer.

        We honor God for His divinity, singular goodness, and everything we have, etc., and also to ask things of Him.
        The same is true of the saints - of their appropriate excellences, and always *because* of God.

        The distinction between the Catholic/Eastern/Anglican/Lutheran understanding here opposed to others (anyone who rejects the intercession of saints) is whether that they are currently alive in heaven with God or not, and if God permits His saints to know what is happening on earth.

        There is a distinct improvement in access the Church has to God through Our Redeemer. Aside from the select assumed up, there were no humans in heaven before Christ, and therefore no advantage to ask of them anything.

        We do see intercession of the still living patriarchs for the israelites, which is an obviously acceptable concept to anyone - who could deny a holier man to pray for them?

        The distinction comes back to whether or not the saints in heaven are alive & cognizant of their still-struggling brethren on earth. The traditional understanding is that they are.

        I should add Scriptural evidence that the holy souls are alive in Heaven, before any kind of rapture or end, aware of what's occurring among their brethren on earth and praying to God about it:
        >And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theosis is controversial now? I didn't think anyone disagreed with that, unless you're not even Christian.
    >God is all good & perfect
    >Christ tells us to become good & perfect
    >We necessarily become like God by doing that

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Certainly there are examples of Veneration of saints, theosis, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome within the first 500 years of Church history.
    Nor do I imagine anyone reading the bible in a vacuum and arriving at anything like mainline Christianity of either reformed, Catholic, or Orthodox variations.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A theoretical person that learned how to read and could somehow comprehend the text based on solely non-human context would come to a basic, but sufficient understanding of God and what He wants, assuming that person remains in this vacuum and never starts sinning, not caring about God, etc., which is why a religious tradition is needed for the realities of life.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        What you say is an article of faith, but I think they would most likely come up with something that any breed of Nicene Christian would consider heretical.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/bGupNwn.jpeg

      Explain to me how an intelligent person with no knowledge of Christianity can read the Bible and study, let's say, the first 500 years of church history, and decide "ah yes, papacy, veneration of saints, theosis and perpetual virginity of Mary are all apostolic practices".

      The only way RC and Orthodox practices make sense, and this is what happens every time when you talk to converts, is if you get taken in by their aesthetics and simply decide "I like this, this makes me FEEL spiritual" and then interpret everything backwards from there. Words like ancient and apostolic are reduced to buzzwords taken at face value.

      Christianity being true gives these faiths enough credibility to stay afloat, but the truth is that if you strip away all unnecessary tacked on bits, you'll end up with a bunch of dorky Baptists reading the bible in a refurnished barber shop. But that just isn't mystical or interesting enough for npcs who only want their desire for ritual fulfilled and their desire to worship gods that look human.

      There's an element of this experiment going unconsidered: which version of the Bible are they being provided?
      The Calvinist/Anglican one with a chunk of the OT taken out?
      The Lutheran one with like a quarter of the NT deemed disputed/uninspired?
      Do they pick their own at random, or is it provided?

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like the anti-Christian side ditched this thread after all the solid posts.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Theosis is literally pervasive throughout Scripture, you illiterate moron.

    Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. (1 John 3:2)
    Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10)
    For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:29-30)
    who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself. (Philippians 3:21)
    The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed (1 Peter 5:1)
    having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved. (Ephesians 1:5-6)
    and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 8:17)
    by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1:4)
    So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. (1 Corinthians 15:42-43)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      then the LORD will create above every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For over all the glory there will be a covering. (Isaiah 4:5)
      Praise be to his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory. (Psalm 72 [LXX 71]:19)
      Be exalted, O God, above the heavens; let your glory be over all the earth. (Psalm 108 [LXX 107]:5)
      And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one (John 17:22)
      To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
      For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8:5)
      Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11)

      OH WAIT you probably don't even know what God's glory is LMAO

      12 Moses said to the Lord, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. You have said, ‘I know you by name and you have found favor with me.’ 13 If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favor with you. Remember that this nation is your people.”

      14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      then the LORD will create above every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For over all the glory there will be a covering. (Isaiah 4:5)
      Praise be to his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory. (Psalm 72 [LXX 71]:19)
      Be exalted, O God, above the heavens; let your glory be over all the earth. (Psalm 108 [LXX 107]:5)
      And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one (John 17:22)
      To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
      For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8:5)
      Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11)

      OH WAIT you probably don't even know what God's glory is LMAO

      12 Moses said to the Lord, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. You have said, ‘I know you by name and you have found favor with me.’ 13 If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favor with you. Remember that this nation is your people.”

      14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

      15 Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?”

      17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”

      18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

      19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

      21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      then the LORD will create above every dwelling place of Mount Zion, and above her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day and the shining of a flaming fire by night. For over all the glory there will be a covering. (Isaiah 4:5)
      Praise be to his glorious name forever; may the whole earth be filled with his glory. (Psalm 72 [LXX 71]:19)
      Be exalted, O God, above the heavens; let your glory be over all the earth. (Psalm 108 [LXX 107]:5)
      And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one (John 17:22)
      To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
      For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. (Psalm 8:5)
      Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! (2 Corinthians 3:7-11)

      OH WAIT you probably don't even know what God's glory is LMAO

      12 Moses said to the Lord, “You have been telling me, ‘Lead these people,’ but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. You have said, ‘I know you by name and you have found favor with me.’ 13 If you are pleased with me, teach me your ways so I may know you and continue to find favor with you. Remember that this nation is your people.”

      14 The Lord replied, “My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”

      [...]
      15 Then Moses said to him, “If your Presence does not go with us, do not send us up from here. 16 How will anyone know that you are pleased with me and with your people unless you go with us? What else will distinguish me and your people from all the other people on the face of the earth?”

      17 And the Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing you have asked, because I am pleased with you and I know you by name.”

      18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.”

      19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

      21 Then the Lord said, “There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

      Also you should RE-READ EXODUS and LEVITICUS because in the OT sacrificial system all of the live sacrifices were EATEN. And guess what homosexual?

      Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. (1 Corinthians 5:7)

      If we do not EAT the glorified flesh of Christ Jesus, we cannot be part of His body by partaking of His body:

      Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. (1 Corinthians 10:16-17)

      If you do not have the RITUAL of the EUCHARIST you cannot be Christian.

      Read the Bible properly, moron.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I just realized what a cuck the Catholic version of Joseph is. Not only did he have to raise his wife's son but he never even got to sleep with her. Did she at least give him handjobs? Stripteases? Anything at all?

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fricking facts. That shit could never fly in Asia. LMAO GET OUT! Jesus Christ could never with filthy casuals! #notmygod
    I know you frauds have never even one tapped diseases away. Oh, I know it. My gauge on you frauds is undefeated, Lord knows.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    To read the Bible without patristic understanding leads Prots to believe that Jesus didn't exist in the Old Testament, and essentially to discount the Old Testament entirely.

    "That's the israeli Bible, our Bible is the New Testament" they will say - well yes, and Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism as it is in the Bible. To read one without the other completely discounts any context whatsoever.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're describing what other roman catholics believe. You're attacking roman catholicism the most out of anything else.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I have never heard a Roman Catholic say to not read the Old Testament.

        I have heard numerous Prots say this.

        Orthodox (both pre Vatican II Catholics and Orthodox) Christians have tremendously rich theology that is glossed over by every Protestant sect.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I have heard multiple Roman Catholics say exactly that, and when I questioned them about it they said a local priest educated them on it because they went to catholic seminars. So I guess it's simply my experience versus yours.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not really sold on the Catholic teaching of the day, you have to actively seek out SSPX or TLM parishes to get a depth of theology that rivals Orthodoxy.

            Orthodox teachings are orthodox, but the difficulty I have is that they are heavily ethnic churches, in North America you pretty well have to attend an OCA church if you don't fall into the Greek/Romanian/Russian/Ukrainian/etc. background.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I've heard Protestants say the Old Testament God is evil and the New Testament God is good.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’ve heard Catholics say the communion is not literally the body and blood of Christ, that the Pope isn’t infallible and divorce is okay.
            Could it be that lay people usually have only a vague idea what their religion is actually about and often come out with completely ignorant opinions?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            For transubstantiation, even Catholics dont really understand it.

            https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/

            There was some articles by Catholic press trying to debunk it but its probably cope that their members don't understand a main concept of Catholicism.

            https://media.ascensionpress.com/2019/08/16/how-accurate-is-the-pew-survey-on-the-eucharist/

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Every day on this very board Catholics completely gloss over actual serious Protestant theologians and it’s probably the main reason they get regularly BTFO. Too many IQfyCatholics square up all smug like thinking they’re arguing with some mega church grape juice drinking antinomian and resultantly crumble when faced with the most minimally read classical Protestant apologetics.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are the actual serious Protestant theologians in the room with us right now? All I ever see is complete silence when a Catholic brings an argument backed up by Scripture, or if there's even a response, the Protestant starts attacking the Scripture itself - examples being James/Jude etc are unreliable, Paul was evil, your translation is corrupt (even if it agrees with the KJV, etc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If Catholic theology is so good how did they lose half of Western Europe to Martin Luther?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            I like this one: "you quoted too much Scripture"

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >when faced with the most minimally read classical Protestant apologetics
            Can you provide us with said apologetics that you have minimally read?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >actual serious Protestant theologians
            Who? Dirk? He just resorts to insults as soon as he can't ignore parts of the Bible he doesn't like.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This is like pretending Catholicism has no theologians besides Cum Genius.
            IQfy tripgays wish they were theologians. But if that’s the barometer then Dirk moggs Cum Genius anyway

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Catholics aren't the ones with a censored OT because "totally not the pope, totally not a spiritual father" Calvin decided a bunch of books should be thrown out

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The original King James had all the OT, including the Apocrypha in it's own section. So this is fake history. The Douay-Rheim's Bible, on the other hand, was a purposefully corrupted english translation, created by Jesuits, on the direct order of the Pope.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't include it anymore, and it was in its own section because it was considered uninspired (which is why it was eventually removed), like how the Lutherans reclassify or move parts of the NT to the end depending on the print. You're trolling, lol.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You claim it was censored. In reality, it wasn't, because it was translated into english, and even though it isn't included with the Bible itself, it's still there for anyone to find and read in english. Roman Catholicism historically killed people who attempted translations, and whoever even possessed copies of translations, which seems like actual censoring.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Feel free to read them, then! And then ask yourself why your congregation leaves them out of their canon, denies any inspiration of them, and carefully tailors theology around their absence. Hint: it's because a whole & harmonious understanding of Scripture is what the Catholic Church teaches.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So why does the Catholic Church not accept the entirety of apocrypha as canon as the Orthodox do?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Apocrypha fanfic is not canon and even official Catholic bibles advertise this.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Can you show us an example?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You’re Catholic, right?
            Reach over, grab your Catholic NRSV, and look at the table of contents. You do have one right?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have a Challoner Douay Rheims, which is why I'm asking lol

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Okay, that’s fair. Modern Catholic editions of the NRSV place Apocrypha in its own section separate from the rest of the OT and specify it as deuterocanonical. There are also 5 books from the Septuagint that are omitted completely because they are not even deuterocanonical in Catholicism.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I looked in to this because I pulled an online version and found it even contained the additional books in the Eastern canon(?), and I was very confused.

            It turns out the translation is from an ecumenical group, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA.
            >The group included scholars representing Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christian groups as well as israeli representation in the group responsible for the Hebrew Scriptures or Old Testament.

            And has different versions for use by the each particular faith.
            >The translation appears in three main formats: (1) an edition including the Protestant enumeration of the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament (as well an edition that only includes the Protestant enumeration of the Old Testament and New Testament); (2) a Roman Catholic Edition with all the books of that canon in their customary order, and (3) the Common Bible, which includes the books that appear in Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox canons (but not additional books from Oriental Orthodox traditions, including the Syriac and Ethiopian canons).

            It's the "Catholic edition" in particular that's approved for use by Roman Catholics.
            >In accordance with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 825.1, the NRSV with the deuterocanonical books received the Imprimatur of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, meaning that the NRSV (Catholic Edition) is officially approved by the Catholic Church and can be profitably used by Catholics in private study and devotional reading.
            This has everything in the traditional order, as far as I can find online. It seems the Protestant version that is as you say. I understand the mix-up though, I was perplexed before I read in to this thing.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But Prots love the Old Testament to the point that if anything they excessively focus on it. It’s Catholics that focus entirely on the NT.
      I went to Catholic school and our RE lessons started with Mark and slowly worked their way to Acts. From people I know who went to a Methodist school they started with Genesis and moved much more briskly up the Gospels at the end.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I was raised Southern Baptist, and sermons/Sunday school never touched on those topics. Rejecting them requires anti-Catholic education, but you're not going to come to salient theological conclusions without being taught.

    >papacy
    It's clear Peter is the leader, but I didn't know apostolic churches were a thing back then, so I assumed it was something that just died off from communism or whatever.

    >veneration of saints
    We sung songs about Abraham, David, all sorts of OT figures... even Mary, but not too much on the NT side for obvious reasons I suppose.

    >theosis
    The Bible is clear that we're supposed to follow Christ, suffer like Him, and can be perfect like God - the actual operations of grace of course aren't clear to uneducated reading.

    >perpetual virginity of Mary
    Jesus was obviously an only child, but I had no reason to look further in to it. We didn't have any anti-Catholic education, like I said.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *