/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>832058

>Not a celibate pederast, who sets themselves as holier than others.

You lost me here. Why did you start off with a good point and just immediately proceed to nonsense? Learn to "rightly divide" the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). Don't take things out of context and read like a simpleton, but interpret scripture by other scripture and build a whole picture. Jesus and Paul both recommended celibacy elsewhere. What this passage you're quoting a command against polygamy. Not a command to be married. There is no "command" to be married. That's just purposely garbled and you should know better.

Don't respond for 10 seconds and try to read this below. Celibacy is a GIFT from God. Are you going to act like an ass in front Christ and his apostles too? Well?

>“If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

>

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

>

-Matthew 19:10-11

>I wish all people were like me, but each has a particular gift from God: one has this gift, and another has that one. I’m telling those who are single and widows that it’s good for them to stay single like me. But if they can’t control themselves, they should get married, because it’s better to marry than to burn with passion.

>

- 1 Cor 7:7-9

>>832065

> What this passage you're quoting a command against polygamy.

> There is no "command" to be married.

There's no "command" against polygamy either. These are the desired qualities for a bishop, NOT a list of sins.

The Bible doesn't say celibacy is bad, but requiring it for a bishop is putting their own 'wisdom' higher than the Lord's.

>>832065

Hold on.

1 Timothy 3

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

>5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Also 1 Timothy 4:

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

So then we see that if someone desires to be a bishop he must first be able to rule over his own house with one wife. This simply means that celibate people are not yet qualified to be a bishop. It doesn't mean they somehow can't serve God. Also, commanding to abstain from meats and forbidding to marry are foretold as doctrines of devils which some (Catholics) will depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and speaking lies in hypocrisy as they do not even have qualified bishops according to the rule of the Apostles. They literally tell some people that if they marry they will lose their jobs and command people to fast (think– the absolute presumption and conceited pride of that presumptuous command) according to their arbitrary manmade calendars. Commanding others to fast at certain times and places is itself a sin according to what we see in Scripture. This too along with forbidding anyone to marry is a doctrine of devils.

>>832068

The part about commanding fasts reminds me of the guys in 1 Samuel who did everything wrong, out of their own selfishness stole from other peoples' meat offerings against the explicit rules laid out for them, despite supposedly being temple priests. The Bible says "the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD."

By arrogantly commanding others to fast, they have caused others to abhor fasts as properly should be practiced, in private and voluntarily, according to what Christ said:

Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

17 But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face;

18 That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.

But of course they would rather turn fasting into a big piety contest and brag to others about all the fasts they keep and even manage to make other people do.

Honestly, Catholicism is such a huge risk. Jesus plainly warns us not to call any man Father, as there is only one spiritual Teacher, and he warns us of how they dress fancy and take special seats, wanting to be honored. How can you not think that the pope and the bishops look absolutely embarrassing with their red robes and fish hats? It’s a smack in the face! It’s obvious! God is letting us know where to turn. Who can do wrong by simply following the Bible? Fear God, and keep the commandments. You don’t need to be Catholic to be saved. Rather, it seems that being Catholic puts you at risk of salvation. But I still think there are good Catholics out there, and there are probably very few denominations that don’t yield absolutely any good fruit.

These discussions of catholic and baptist are so low IQ they must be an elaborate bait.

I'd get if this were on facebook, but it isn't.

>>832077

Word.

>>832077

its someone larping as a fundie

>>832086

Swing and a miss. Not sure why you're so all so triggered by someone posting discrepancies between Catholicism and the actual Bible

>>832094

Good lord son. How pathetic are you?

>>832058

>I'm going to lie about what you believe, not let you explain it, and then slander you.

Okay.

>>832094

There aren't any discrepancies between God's One True Religion and the Bible.

You just don't understand it because (a) you have the blinders of sola scripta on and (b) the scripture says you wouldn't understand the Bible without the Church.

That you have to deny scripture to say "sola scripta" should have been your first clue of logical error.

>>832144

It's called sola scriptura

>>832157

If you are gonna s— talk something, know how to spell it.

>>832163

>red herring

>Kvetching to change the subject.

Such outrage. Too bad about your soul tho, believing you don't need the church like the Bible says you do.

>>832094

>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SAY IT'S WRONG TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS

>>832726

Not sure what you expect out of this. You post some irrelevant graphics and then make some unsupported claims.

Have a nice Sunday.

>>832058

From what I understand, the Catholic worship of Mary is a relatively new development of Catholicism. That is to say, it didn't quite exist in the same form it does now a few hundred years ago. Look at Anglicanism, it's basically a snapshot of Catholicism as it existed back 1500s. They only really split because of disagreements between the King of England and the Pope, namely over a denied divorce. But they acknowledge the Saints and Mary and see them as examples of how to live your life, but they don't go as far worship them and pray to them for intercession. Well at least, most don't. Not saying that Anglicanism hasn't changed over the centuries, it has, but their position on Saints and Mary was in lockstep with the Catholic Church when they first split ,and that specific doctrine hasn't changed. Catholics are the ones who've changed on this issue.

The Catholic Church has continued to deviate over the centuries, constantly changing their doctrine, taking the focus away from Jesus Christ and moving it to the Virgin Mary. I think most notable and recent was the introduction of Immaculate Conception along with Papal Infallibility when Pope Pius X threw a temper tantrum after losing the Papal States to Italian Nationalists in the early 1900s.

Honestly speaking, I'd probably be Catholic if they didn't place such heavy emphasis on Mary and the overall church structure and authority over its members.

>>833168

That is accurate. The marian emphases were a post-liberalism development.

>>833168

I'm mexican and I am cathloic and ya is similar we don't put to much emphasis on mary and saints are examples of how to live your life so for some reason from where my grandparents held from mexico that didn't change.

>>833186

>the Assyrian church is nearer to Roman Catholicism than Anglicanism

Dum dum

>>833198

Some people say I took a crap earlier. I reject that. I defecated. If I crapped, I'd say so.

The Lord says: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.” Isaiah 29:13

>>833193

Given assyrian is exclusively "high church", so to speak, and without the Via Media thing, on this subject, yes.

Unless you are implying the medieval catholics somehow RELAXED their veneration of saints since separating from the greeks, copts or assyrians.

>>833198

>If we were worshiping Mary we'd say so

lies. You would just deflect and say "it's muh veneration"

May I ask, if you were to worship Mary, how would you do it differently than you venerate her now?

And no, you do not need to believe that something is God in order to worship it. The roman worships Peter, and John worships the angel in Revelation twice, both of them got rebuked immediately for doing so, and they didn't believe that Peter or the angel was God

>>833395

Veneration is not worship. We give her the respect she deserves for being the Mother of Christ. I would not expect a spiritually dry Protestant to understand. I was skeptical of Catholicism, but I have found it to be FAR TRUER than the sad excuse that is Protestantism. It is the Church that was founded by Christ, not John Smyth. Oh, you poor little man, you really bought the memes, haven't you? The Catholic Church is the first Church that made me realize how…LOW I had fallen. It made me realize how much i had offended Him. I would not have gotten that out of Protestantism. No…No I would have simply had my ears tickled…hear what I wanted to hear. Why I would continue to sin boldly. I will pray for you, you poor little baptist. quoting passages out of context is not an excuse for not having an argument

>Evolution

>Catholic view.

Opinion discarded

>>833403

I’m non-Catholic and I haven’t watched porn in 6 months. It’s not really a denominational thing. It’s all in the Bible

>>833406

So have I. But can you do what Thomas aquinas did and chase a harlot out of your house. Ever since I took up the faith I have virtually NO INTEREST in women. Zilch. I prefer to devote my life to Christ. If I had to choose between marriage and being a medieval anchorite I would do the latter. I DO sometimes consider becoming a modern day anchorite, where I am just walled in. I simply find the modern joys of the world so boring. They are perishable

>>833407

It is based off the Latin vulgate. It is not based on Masoretic texts. It is not missing 7 books. like KJV. KJV is a rip off the Duoay Rheims. Period

>>833409

Yes and the vulgate is a translation

>>833410

But FAR superior to the KJV. It is one of, if not THE BEST english translations of the bible. It certainly puts the KJV onlyists, foot in their mouths

>>833411

It is by definition inferior because it is not a direct translation. Don't be an ideologue.

>>833401

>Catholic used deflect. It was not very effective!

Like I said

"May I ask, if you were to worship Mary, how would you do it differently than you venerate her now?"

Answer the question.

>Evolution

>Catholic view.

Well considering the pope says you can believe in evolution and the big bang(which was thought about by a catholic) and still be catholic, then yes, it is

>>833418

meant to quote >>833403

>>833404

Literally how?

>>833409

KJV translated the seven meme books

>>833415

If i were to worship her. i would equate her to God. But that would make me a

Collyridianism heretic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collyridianism

>>833421

you mean the books that the council of nicea got it all wrong and it took over a millenia for Protetants to get it righ? Get real? They were removed because they contradicted the Protestant view. Like the book of St James, which teaches that faith without works is DEAD.

Protestants love to take quotes out of context to prove their. "beliefs" But they only dig themselves a bigger hole

>>833423

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/collyridianism

>>833427

I agree. It sometimes nears the line of fevered hatred.

>>833423

>If i were to worship her. i would equate her to God

Like I said here >>833395 "And no, you do not need to believe that something is God in order to worship it. The roman worships Peter, and John worships the angel in Revelation twice, both of them got rebuked immediately for doing so, and they didn't believe that Peter or the angel was God"

Saying "If I were to worship her, I then would believe that she is God" is not valid because you do not need to believe something/someone is God in order to worship it.

>I said "equate" not that she actuallyis God

and again, did the Roman or John believe who they were worshipping was equal to God? No

>>833425

They weren't fully considered scripture until the council of Trent.

>it took over a millenia

Because it was illegal to translate the Bible into the common tounge so people could actually read it (see William Tyndale)

>contradicted the Protestant view

No, it's because they are garbage. Literally the first verse in Judith has Nebuchadnezzar being the king of the Assyrians from the capital of Nineveh. Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon from Babylon.

1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes from his capital city of Ecbatana.

https://invidio.us/mTAJwOk8XRU

>Like the book of St James

The VAST majority of protestants/Baptists believe it's scripture

>which teaches that faith without works is DEAD.

http://www.Jesusisprecious.org/fundamentals/faith_without_works_is_still_faith.htm

https://invidio.us/0JvV_ixnSqI

>Protestants love to take quotes out of context to prove their. "beliefs" But they only dig themselves a bigger hole

lmao, like catholics don't do that with Mat 16:16 and 18:18

>>833456

>1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh, King Arphaxad ruled over the Medes from his capital city of Ecbatana.

also, some people say that it's Nebuchadnezzar ruling over the Assyrians because they took them over in war so they subjagated them.

1. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen in history. might be wrong though

2. It still says "from his capital city of Nineveh". It would be like saying president Trump rules over the mexicans from HIS capital city of Mexico City. That would make no sense.

>>833456

>You don't need to believe something is god in order to worship it

Whatever you say.

They weren't fully considered scripture until Trent. And yet they are still divinely inspired. Like the book of James. Which refutes Sola Fide kek.

Baptists really cannot do theology

>>833474

So you do not believe in faith alone, yet you are baptist. What a strange creature. You have been false flagging as different denominations for the past few weeks. Everyone on this board knows it. And you only further prove how repulsive Protestantism is. It creates Hypocrites like you, who are in NO position to decide if one goes to Hell. Because only GOD can know what is in a man's heart. So your sad excuse of a faith does not stand up to the litmus test. See you in the funny papers XD

>>833457

We are not against translating into english no. But perverting the word of God. THAT is another issue

Jesus gave Peter keys to the Kingdom off Heaven when He said you are Peter and on this Rock.(The word for Peter being the same as Rock in aramaic) I will build my Church. Then after the Resurrection He asks Peter 3 times if he loves Him, saying feed my sheep AKA LEAD HIS CHURCH. Protestants really are spiritually dry. I will pray for you

>>833428

You know, looking at some of your posts in this thread, it really sounds like this "fevered hatred" you speak of is coming from within you. >>833404

>>833403

>>833474

>Whatever you say.

It's not "whatever you say" I literally refrenced Bible stories where a man worships something that isn't God

>Like the book of James.

Like I said "The VAST majority of protestants/Baptists believe it's scripture"

>Which refutes Sola Fide kek

Not even close. James 2 has to do with helping your brothers in Christ, zero to do with salvation

Like I posted from the links and what I typed up a while ago

The most commonly taken out of context scripture people use to try to prove you need to do works in order to be saved are “…though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” (Jam 2:14). The reason why this is not teaching that is one, don’t base doctrine off of questions, even Mormons have a verse on getting baptized for dead people “…baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Cor 15:29). Two, it’s not talking about salvation, it’s talking about saving someone from dying, the next few verses talk about not giving people food. Not every time the Bible uses the word “save” is about salvation, such as when Peter said “Lord, save me.” (Mat 14:30) when he was drowning, he was asking Jesus to save him from drowning, not save him from his sins.

Related to that is people also use “Was not Abraham our father justified by works… by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (Jam 2:21/24), and say that how it says that we are justified by works and not faith only. But, like before, just as “saved” isn’t always about salvation, neither is the word “justified”. It says Abraham was justified by works, but he was justified to man, not God. As Romans 4:2 says “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”, so he was justified in the eyes of men by his works, but not to God, because only God can see your faith, man can only hear your words and see your works, they can’t see your heart as God does. So, Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son proved to men that he truly believed in God.

>Baptists really cannot do theology

And you cannot have a brain

>>833477

And Tyndale did not do that. And the RCC still persecuted, and sometimes executed, people for teaching things ,like the Lord's Prayer, in English.

>>833479

Peter was a pator of Church, nowhere do you see Jesus lay out all the papacy garbage about him being pope, considering also he was married and popes can't be married.

>muh rock

Jesus is the rock, not Peter. Literally everytime "rock" is mentioned, aside from a literal rock, it's talking about God.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?

Psalms 18:31 For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

>who is a rock save our God?

Is Peter God then?

Psalms 94:22 But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge.

Psalms 95:1 O come, let us sing unto the LORD: let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation.

>sing unto the LORD… rock of our salvation

Not Peter

>b-but that's o-old testament

1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

>that Rock was Christ

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Even Peter is saying the rock is Jesus

Jesus is the rock of the church, Peter is a smaller stone same with the rest of all other pastors.

Also I would much rather have Jesus be the head of my church instead of fallible man, considering also Peter gets called Satan in Mat 16:23, just a bit after your out of context twisted scripture you adore so much.

Also if that part was so important you'd think it would be mentioned in the other gospels or the epistles. But you NEVER see in the epistles anything like that, even in Peter's own writings.

>>833510

The problem with a lot of papists, at least the "hard-core" ones is they don't really care about finding the correct context of the verse, as long as they think they can mislead enough people about it, they will cynically use it anyway almost as if it was placed there for them to misuse and in the end be judged by our Lord for it. But since they don't think that day is ever coming they just go with whatever seems like it might fool enough people to keep them going. So the explanations aren't really getting at the core of the issue with many of them because they couldn't care less about the real meaning of the passage. That's how they ended up arriving at the positions they do. The problem is they don't think any of it is true except in a sort of machiavellian or Constantinian sense. However, we should keep patiently explaining it anyway because the truth deserves that much.

I would say that there is additionally no authoritative basis whatsoever to think the apostles appointed successor-apostles. The only time this ever happened was with Judas Iscariot, the one who died and went to hell. Do they think the other apostles were forced to surrender their positions to some earthly successor upon going to be with the Lord? Do they think the word of God brought by the apostles was lost and had to be handed down through some weird gnostic line of succession where the common people couldn't find it, and still can't? It's just another false idea, a fable that lost people might be deceived to believe in. Again, no Scripture reference to support this. The apostles remain today exactly who they were in the 1st century in the book of Acts. They are very much well and alive, the word they brought to the world is still here and you most certainly haven't replaced them. Anyone who believes Scripture in any century knows this. I would also say that 2 Corinthians 11 prophesies the coming of false successionism when it says false prophets will transform themselves into the apostles of Christ and Paul was litereally calling them "false apostles." So the existence of these false priests/bishops claiming to be successors is a fulfillment of that prophecy of our Lord. God knows everything, and knows that this was coming. Also Paul predicted it in Acts 20:29-32 and 1 Timothy 4:1-3, in some very clear terms what these false teachers now calling themselves "Catholic" would look like. And now behold, here they are just as Scripture foretold. Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats; transforming themselves into the apostles and seeking to draw away disciples after themselves. Spoiling others "through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Colossians 2:9). Anyone who studies scripture will find this hard truth, which is one reason why I am encouraged every day.

>>833494

No hatred, just tired at the incessant trolling by certain denominations. What i don't like are people who are dishonest in debate. I admit I come off a bit rough. ( prudence is not my strongest virtue) But I am against DISHONEST debaters. I am against people like OP who make constant insults to the faith WITHOUT…trying to find out our side of the issue. I am against people who say they want to debate, but have already made their decision. I am ruined either way talking to people like OP because as link related shows…they rarely play fair. They often show dishonesty in their view of our faith. Make false claims, and are just tiring to deal with because THEY MOVE THE GOALPOSTS CONSTANTLY.

>>833198

I agree anon. We should set up a thread for people like OP to poop in

>>833554

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=551qvxxFInQ

>>833555

If Catholics don't worship statues, why was the transition for cartels to worshipping lady muerta so easy?

>>833561

I don't understand your question, which seems to be based on the premise that these Godless, satanic, sadistic drug cartels who worship the old Mexican pagan goddess of death somehow means that it is written in Catholic teaching that Catholics worship statues?

Are you serious or is this just a troll?

>>833570

It's very serious. The transition seems simple enough. Also, in Hispanic communities they sure seem apt to building statues to pray to because of their Catholic religion.

>>833581

If you're serious, then your question is based on a non-sequitur as Mexican Drug lords are hardly practicing Catholics.

Yes, I know. Mexican Catholics often do things against the teachings of the catholic church like sacrificing animals. Again, non-Catholic and anti-Catholic practices is not a basis to attack the teachings of the Catholic Church.

>>833415

Just because the pope is committing heresies doesn't mean other cathloics do as well.

>>833561

>>833581

>If Catholics don't worship statues, why was the transition for cartels to worshipping lady muerta so easy?

Does the same apply to the Europeans who initially converted to Christianity from paganism?

>>833593

>>833415

>Well considering the pope says you can believe in evolution and the big bang(which was thought about by a catholic) and still be catholic, then yes, it is

>Just because the pope is committing heresies doesn't mean other cathloics do as well.

From Father Cogan's "A Brief Catechism for Adults", (1958) page 5, Practical Point 2

"There can be no contradiction between the Bible and science since both are concerned with unchangeable truth. For example, the "six days" in the creation account may well have been intended symbolically rather than literally"

In other news, the world isn't flat with four corners either, that too was symbolic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Also remember that Catholics discovered the Big Bang

Most protestant denominations deny science.

>>833593

Well if the leader of your church is a heretic saying you can believe in evolution, then maybe you shouldn't be apart of that church.

>>833596

>pagans worship idols, then convert to catholicism (rebranded roman paganism with Jesus sprinkled in) and don't find it hard

I don't see the point

>>833598

>There can be no contradiction between the Bible and science since both are concerned with unchangeable truth.

I 100% agree because evolution, old earth, and the big bang are science falsely so called.

>he world isn't flat

Never does the Bible teach flat earth

>with four corners either

Let's look at the definition of 'corner'

cor·ner

/ˈkôrnər/

noun

1.

a place or angle where two or more sides or edges meet.

"Jan sat at one corner of the table"

2.

a part, region, or area, especially one regarded as secluded or remote.

"they descended on the college from all corners of the world"

Seems to be just fine with definition 2

>b-but you can't prove it's definition 2

Stop putting internet atheists over the Word of God you heretic.

And yes you can

Leviticus 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

I guess Moses thought people had square heads then?

>>833608

>>833598

also

>that too was symbolic.

If it did say the earth is flat (which it doesn't) what would it be symbolic of?

>>833608

>The surface of an oblate spheroid has corners.

Please. no.

>because of the corners of your beard

This is just too desperate. It's twisting the Bible into strange meanings like the devil would.

>>833632

>The surface of an oblate spheroid has corners.

>Please. no.

With the second definition it does. It has the same meaning as quadrant or quarter

And it actually uses the word quarter

8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

>like the devil would

You're the one trying to say that the Bible says the earth is flat