/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

nice. I forgot about the goofballs who do exactly what Jesus said not to do by putting that black stuff on their forehead and signaling their fast. And calling priests “Father,” another blatant denial of Jesus’ words. It’s a joke. Catholics do too much, too risky.

>>833408

Yeah, it says not to tell anyone when you're fasting, so making a holiday about it makes zero sense. And he says to wash your face, not put dirt on it.

Good work. Ill take note of these when I come to them in my own reading of the Scrpiture.

Which bible did you use?

>>833413

>>833408

Doesn't Paul call himself Father in 1 Corinthians 4:14-16?

>>833429

No evidence of his having the title “Father Paul,” or of anyone calling him Father. Even if Paul actually contradicted Jesus, you’d have to come up with a good explanation for what Jesus really meant before you side with Paul

>>833397

>For cathlodox keep it to saying why the verse doesn't disprove said doctrine.

Why? The catholic rebuttal is already out there.

The protestant argument always comes down to saying what you have hear, and ignoring any rebuttals, just as they ignore the parts of the Bible that show that Catholics are the one true church established by Christ our Lord and that you can't understand the Bible without the Church.

it's pointless, other than to create animosity.

>>833432

I'm not coming up with anything, I just want to understand how you understand the texts.

The evidence is in 1 Corinthians 4:14-16. Begetting is used in the genealogies of fathers to son in the genealogy of Matthew, read the original.

Matthew 23:8 has Christ calling people to not call themselves rabbi, while he takes the title a lot of times. Is he contradicting himself?

>>833437

you should read Matthew 23 again. Its main focus is on priests who try to distinguish themselves with special titles and outfits and seats in church, which is what Catholic priests and bishops do. What Paul is saying is an analogy, and it is kinda true, that he helped bring them up as a father would bring up a son. Still, he’s not claiming the title of father for his own recognition. Again I ask you to interpret Jesus’ words to defend the use of calling priests Father

>>833397

okay so for example if Mt 1:24 and so showed that Christ had brothers, why the church would (A) make a doctrine saying the opposite (B) keep those verses in the Bible, in early years, and during that «monopoly of the Scripture». Wouldn't it be stupid? What's the point of doing something so wrong? Obviously all those things are studied over hundreds of years and conclude that those verses didn't refer to this or that thing, also taking into account the whole scripture.

For example, in this specific case the reason why those verses don't disprove your claim is because the gospel uses the greek work adelphoi which, in this case, refers to cousins. There are long writing about that in early years of Christianity. Fortunately, you don't need to understand ancient greek to correctly interpret the Scripture because other people smarter than you and I have done it over thousands of years.

>>833439

I'm not catholic, I just want to know why does Jesus allow others to call him Rabbi against his teachings.

>>833441

Jesus is the true Teacher, Rabbi, and Father of his followers. He is Lord, so he can be called all these things. If men have these titles, then they are just competing for personal glory, trying to put themselves above others. Because Jesus is the true head of the Church, and not any man.

>>833441

>8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

It's fine to call Jesus 'rabbi' because he is. Like it's okay to call God the Father 'father' because he is

>>833440

Do you speak Greek? Why then not translate it as cousins?

And you didn't explain Matthew 1. Just saying "well they left it in there so it can't contradict" doesnt explain how it doesn't. And the fact that the RCC didn't allow laymen to read the Bible in their own language so they would have no idea what it even says.

>why the church would (A) make a doctrine saying the opposite

Because they want to worship Mary like a goddess because whoever came up with it is insane

>>833433

>Why? The catholic rebuttal is already out there.

If you want to copy paste why then do so. Just looking it up doesn't add any discussion.

>and ignoring any rebuttals

And I'm telling you to say why said verses don't debunk said doctrine. I don't want people bringing verses "proving" it because the thread will be a jumbled mess considering there's 29. If said doctrine is the truth then said verse should not debunk it.

Like if someone saves you're just saved by faith, then someone brings up James 2:24, you should be able to say why it is not teaching work salvation rather than just bringing up verses that support what you said

also since you will probably ask then what James 2:24 means

https://invidio.us/0JvV_ixnSqI

Any more to why it means something else deserves to be in another thread

If you wanna make a another thread on verses proving them right then go ahead. This one is why the doctrines are wrong.

>>833433

>that you can't understand the Bible without the Church.

Which was one of the points

1 John 2

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

>and ye need not that any man teach you

There's nothing the church or a man can teach you that you can't figure out on your own with the Holy Ghost.

>Why have pastors/teachers then?

Because it helps you learn faster.

Like you don't NEED a teacher to teach you how to play the piano, but it is very helpful and you will learn much faster

>>833447

Why does the Youtube link change to someother website?

>>833448

>There's nothing the church or a man can teach you that you can't figure out on your own with the Holy Ghost.

If you think the you have the Holy Ghost because you spent an afternoon typing up an anti-Catholic Screed rather than looking to enrich your own faith, you're mistaken.

>>833451

If you think you have the Holy Ghost because you're a good boi rather than just believing on Jesus, you're mistaken.

and you didn't explain it. You just deflected

>>833446

What do you think of John 8:56?

>>833455

>talking to the Jews

>says your father Abraham

I don't see the problem

>>833459

Why does Jesus call Abraham a father?

>>833460

Again like I said earlier "For cathlodox keep it to saying why the verse doesn't disprove said doctrine. For example, why Act 8:37 doesn't show infant baptism isn't valid, not bring up some other verse on why it is valid."

and again I really don't see the problem. Jews descend from Abraham.

and what did Jesus then mean by Matthew 23:9?

>>833460

he’s a forefather, an ancestor. Jesus grouped the terms “rabbi” “father” and “teacher” for a reason. He’s talking about it in a spiritual sense. You can still refer to your biological father as father or your academic teacher as teacher.

>>833462

Abraham means father of many nations, obviously in the spiritual sense. Who put that name on him was God too.

>>833461

I just told you of John 8:56 but you have your own twist that goes against God's promise that he would be the father of many nations and not just a little group

>>833464

You’re totally twisting words out of context. Read Matthew 23. It’s talking about Catholics. Abraham is a biological ancestor, a forefather. Jesus says “you are all brothers.” So we do not need to call any priest father, but brother. I don’t know how you can dance around this! The safe option is to simply not call priests father. You cannot sin by doing this. And by the way, since Jesus says we are all brothers, he is obviously not referring to earthly titles like biological brothers or fathers, so it is still ok to call our biological fathers father. Please tell me what Jesus was “really” saying. If Catholics aren’t breaking his commandment, then HOW can you break the commandment? What is Jesus talking about?

>>833465

yes, not a spiritual father, but a biological father of many descendants. How could Abraham be a spiritual father to those who are alive when he is dead? If you read Matthew 23, you know that Jesus is talking about using spiritual titles for glory over men, when there is only one spiritual Teacher, and that we are all brothers in Christ.

>>833469

You're the one twisting the words. Abraham does not mean father of his genetic children but father of many nations. You're the one inventing that what Jesus was really saying is that Abraham is a father only to the jews. Nowhere does it say that. Quite the contrary, Paul says there is neither jew nor greek in Christ.

>>833471

>How could Abraham be a spiritual father to those who are alive when he is dead?

He is not dead, what are you talking about?

>>833472

https://www.gotquestions.org/father-Matthew-23-9.html

>>833473

https://www.gotquestions.org/father-Matthew-23-9.html

You can’t get around the fact that Matthew 23 is calling out Catholics. Special seats, special clothing, special titles, all of this condemned by Jesus in clear language. Abraham’s fatherhood is not the same that is being addressed in Matthew 23.

>>833475

It is a spiritual fatherhood, clearly. So much the Pharisees are called children of the Devil and not of Abraham. Stop merely denying and show where does it say Abraham is only a father to the jews.

>>833478

why don’t you explain what Jesus actually meant? Does the pope not wear fancy clothes? Doesn’t he go by a special title? If Catholics are following the law, then WHO can break it?

>>833480

Stop moving the goalposts. You've clearly realized wrong about not calling men Fathers and started complaining about the Pope "wearing fancy clothes". I don't care about the Pope, his royal fanciness does not blind me to what is logical. No amount of dislike for catholics will change that you are going against Scripture by going against the words of Christ who called our Father Abraham, who is not called "the genetic father of a select genotype", our spiritual father.

I couldn't explain what Jesus "actually meant" because it is as clear as day to a peaceful mind, there is no need to explain anything.

Matthew 23 is a hyperbole about humility, just like "if your eye cause you to sin, pluck it out". How many one eyed and and amputees do you see in your christian community? No matter how helpful a human father is, like our Father Abraham, God is greater. Otherwise, the saying makes no sense and Jesus wasted his breath. In comparison, an earthly father cannot compete with God. Moreover, if it was a real prohibition, someone really should have chastised Paul for neglecting to take into account his references to himself as a father (in the spiritual sense), and remove his letters from the New Testament.

>>833481

If Matthew 23 is about being humble, then why the command to not call someone else father? Why isn’t it addressed to those who call themselves father? So even if this command is hyperbole, how am I to interpret its meaning? Catholics still call priests father, so they could be unwittingly feeding the ego of their priest every time they call him by his title. It’s just so strange to me. Jesus points out fancy clothing, special seats, and special titles, and Catholics just proceed to do all of this and somehow say that Jesus is using hyperbole. I at least know the meaning when Jesus says to cut off our hands—cut off the things from our life that lead us to sin. But when Jesus tells me to call no man father, I don’t know how else to interpret it but to not call a priest father. Please tell me exactly how it’s possible to disobey this commandment. Now I can take both this commandment and the right-hand commandment literally, and by obeying them, I would still sinless. But I could also take the hand commandment as hyperbole, yet still try to cut out sin from my life. But how am I supposed to metaphorically call no man father? And why all this talk about fancy clothes and special seats? How difficult is it to not do this? It’s certainly not as difficult as cutting off a hand! Many Protestant churches have followed this command literally, and they are in no wrong by doing it. I would argue that by dressing a certain way and wanting to be called father it would be more difficult to stay humble, so I don’t see why it’s allowed and encouraged.

>>833488

>Please tell me exactly how it’s possible to disobey this commandment.

When we are prideful in thinking we can meet the expectations of God and revel in having understanding like you do.

>It’s certainly not as difficult as cutting off a hand!

It's way easier to cut off our bodies than its temptations, you're delusional.

>>833490

>It's way easier to cut off our bodies than its temptations, you're delusional.

I was clearly comparing the literal interpretations. It’s easier to refrain from claiming special titles and wearing fancy clothes than it is to cut off your hand.

>>833429

Paul does not call himself "our Father" in 1 Corinthians 4:14-16.

Read Matthew 23:9 again.

8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

Jesus says to the crowd and to his disciples, call no man your father. This signifies that nobody should be given the title of the Father of all, as the word "your" is plural and referring to the whole crowd. It says nothing about one man saying another man has the relationship of father to him, either spiritual or biological. It is talking about giving a title of Father to one person, as though he were Father of all.

This is even more clear because look at how Jesus phrased verse 9 compared to vv. 8,10. In those two, he says do not be called those things, in verse 9 he specifically says call no man YOUR father upon earth. So the way to break this commandment is to give someone a title of Father, as if everyone in the world should call this man "Father". And so this does not contradict anything regarding 1 Corinthians 4:14-16 nor John 8:56/Romans 4:16. However, the priests with that title are violating it.

>>833440

>okay so for example if Mt 1:24 and so showed that Christ had brothers, why the church would (A) make a doctrine saying the opposite (B) keep those verses in the Bible

(A) Because they don't care what it says.

(B) Because they can't change it after it has already been copied so many times. The Catholic belief was invented much later. They can't destroy the real Scripture, even though they tried with the Vulgate, etc.

Point (B) is why we still have our KJV Bible from the original Christians, received from generation to generation and Catholics weren't able to corrupt the source. Thanks firstly to the providence of God.

>>833490

>When we are prideful in thinking we can meet the expectations of God and revel in having understanding like you do.

Jeremiah 9

But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the LORD.

2 Corinthians 4:6

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Philippians 3:8

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord:

>>833496

>>833497

>KJV Bible from the original Christians

How could this possibly be the case that the original Christians had a translation that had been authorized in the 17th century?

>The state church was simply never able to corrupt the Bible, despite their many attempts. It was too little, too late.

The King of England the literal head of the English Church was the one who called for the authorization of the KJV. Mind you the original version also contained the Apocrypha. As far as I can see from just a short search all but one of those who helped with the translation of the KJV were Priests of the Anglican Church as well.

>>833498

And the accusation I predicted came faster than I even thought.

I just said in my second post there, that it is based on the original words, so it is an accurate to the originals. Where did they get the original language Old and New Testament? From the uncorrupted copies that came before.

>>833498

>>833499

I also like how fast I got a response that was so ready to quickly accuse me of something I obviously did not mean but yet, likely nobody will have a cogent answer to the serious points I actually did bring up. That's okay though, I will simply let the point stand and immediately forgive all those who so quickly assume the worst simply to appear like they're carrying their side of the discussion.

>>833499

I mean it isn't an accusation (checked btw) It was more so a question on how the King James Version is more accurate. How did King James have access to these original uncorrupted copies, but the Catholics and the Orthodox did not?

Also what do you mean by the original language Old and New Testament? I assume you mean Greek, Hebraic, and Aramaic but I just want a clarification In regards to this >>833501 if anything its you who is assuming the worst. I'm just asking a question and asking for some clarifications. God bless.

>>833502

>It was more so a question on how the King James Version is more accurate.

The surface answer is that it is based on the most accurate T.R. as far as its source material; and the English language itself is based on it, as far as its translational accuracy. For instance, the 1755 British and 1828 American Dictionaries cited word definitions taken directly from the Authorized version. So they took the translation as an unchallenged authority from which word definitions were drawn, it was also the only Bible in use and believed upon in English. That speaks to its translational precedent. And as for it's textual source, it drew from the best resources, people who were far more accurate than modern scholars, who willfully use non-received sources. If you like, you can see the T.R. of Stephanus 3rd/4th edition, and the T.R. of Beza 5th major/9th overall edition for more on this. These were independently derived projects that arrived at virtually the same representation of the Greek New Testament as the KJV translators did (who also used the Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible as their sources for translational precedent as well).

>How did King James have access to these original uncorrupted copies,

The translators were far from the only people with access. High quality translations were available to people for quite some time then. However the translation commission in 1604 was given unlimited resources to procure any source, so in that sense they had unlimited access. We know, for instance, that they rejected the alexandrian Vaticanus text, as it has zero weight on the AV. I would say these facts are to our advantage with regards to having an accurate translation and certainly wouldn't complain about the situation, like Westcott and Hort did, who also didn't believe that God preserved his word to all generations but had it buried until 1859 and where modern versions come from.

>but the Catholics and the Orthodox did not?

They did have access to it, the problem is that their state church authorities usually burned it after gaining access. Sometimes they piled the bonfires high with Bibles. However they still failed to erase it, similar to how the King failed in Jeremiah chapter 36. Of course I don't believe in anything outlandish like 17th century translations pre-existing themselves, that's just a misconception born from a single sentence. Glad to answer this.

Imagine being so weak in faith, you have to recall all the bad arguments not to be Catholic like the Bible says.

>>833472

The pharisees aren't saved. If it means spiritual father then it would at least be of saved people, not people blaspheming Christ.

and like the other guy said, how then would you break the commandment in Mat 23?

>>833475

Thanks for posting that link, saw some link on their of them debunking catholicism and gave me two new ones

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the sacrifice of the Mass.

with

The sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

and

Each sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin.

with

The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin (Hebrews 10:12-18).

>>833481

>>I couldn't explain what Jesus "actually meant" because it is as clear as day to a peaceful mind, there is no need to explain anything.

in other words

>I have no idea what it then means but I'm just going to say you can't understand it

>Matthew 23 is a hyperbole about humility, just like "if your eye cause you to sin, pluck it out". How many one eyed and and amputees do you see in your christian community? No matter how helpful a human father is, like our Father Abraham, God is greater. Otherwise, the saying makes no sense and Jesus wasted his breath. In comparison, an earthly father cannot compete with God. Moreover, if it was a real prohibition, someone really should have chastised Paul for neglecting to take into account his references to himself as a father (in the spiritual sense), and remove his letters from the New Testament.

Again, like other anon said, you are commanded to not call anyone else on the earth 'father'. How then can someone break that commandment?

>>833490

>When we are prideful in thinking we can meet the expectations of God and revel in having understanding like you do.

And no. That would be more of not having someone call you father, not a command for you to call others father. And he also prohibits being called rabbi and you see people called that today, breaking the commandment

I'd say you can add John 11:25-26, Acts 2:47 and Acts 13:48 to #3.

You can probably also add 1 Cor 1:18 and also Philippians 1:6 to #4.

Galatians 3:22 goes with #8, as does Romans 4:13-14.

Acts 2:41-42 goes with #11.

Isaiah 42:8 and Matthew 4:10 goes along with #16 or #17. Matthew 6:9 goes with #19.

Confessionals is debunked by 1 John 1:9, 2:12 and Ephesians 4:32.

Let us know if you include any of these.

>>833507

This

>>833507

>be Catholic like the Bible says

Show us where it says to be Roman* Catholic

While you're at it show us where baptism is anything but immersion

>>833587

I mean, seriously, you knew what my reply was going to be Mathew 16:17-19, why did you even bait me about The founding of the catholic Church?

As for the red herring on baptism… Friday is fish day, not today.

>>833590

I know the argument. I'm pointing out that you're overstating the situation. The Bible does not say to be Roman Catholic, it's an argument predicated on an extrabiblical tradition of Peter receiving particular authority and the Roman church inheriting this.

I don't presume to say "the Bible says to be Baptist", I say the Baptist tradition is the purest most expositional practice of Christianity (comparing the broad categories).

>rebuttals the protestants offer, things like Jesus was talking to himself.

Nobody has ever said that. Did you mean "about" himself? The argument is that the subject (this rock) is the confession

>>833595

> The Bible does not say to be Roman Catholic,

That's because the Church built on Saint Peter became the Catholic church, based in Rome were Saint Peter was.

To expect the Bible to Call out the Holy Mother Church by a name used by protestants 1500 years later is not a logical argument, Anon.

So, was Christ wrong? Did he not establish a church or did the gates of hell prevail against his church?

Either option is to deny the Word of God.

>The argument is that the subject (this rock) is the confession

The subject was obviously Peter, not a confession. The Lord gave Saint Peter the keys of heaven. To argue that The Lord gave the keys of heaven to Saint Peter's confession is irrational.

>>833590

The real stretch is taking that verse and trying to say that contains all the hocus pocus nonsense your church teaches.

Okay so Jesus made Peter head of a church. So what? Where does that include all the other stuff you believe.

also the fact that popes can't be married and Peter was

30 But Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever, and anon they tell him of her.

>>833601

He did establish his church but it wasn't the RCC. Not hard to understand.

>Either option is to deny the Word of God.

And you competely deny literally hundreds of verses for some short story in the Gospel of Matthew. If it was so important it would have at least been mentioned someone else in scripture not even once. Not even in Peter's epistles does he mention it. He does mention the mount of Transfiguration, which is also in the other gospels, so that seems to be a lot more important.

>>833614

>ignores the bible, tradition, science and logic.

Okay. Got it. Only the parts of the Bible that fit your conclusion are allowed.

>>833613

Me: God established one Church

Baptist: But that church is not the RCC

Me: God Created his Church on Saint Peter, who became the Bishop of Rome and passed his priesthood on to other Bishops.

Baptist: He did establish his church but it wasn't the RCC.

I would like a better answer than flat denial. There's a direct line of Popes (sometimes more than one, I admit) from Pius XII back to Saint Peter. How did the Baptist become Gods one true church, given John Smith founding the Baptist religion in 1600?

>>833634

meant to also quote this one >>833628

how do I search images? I found an image in a document that I'm sure I saw on one of these threads!

>>833634

>He's says stand fast in what you have been taught, whether by word (from the things you heard from my & the apostles mouths) or read in our letters.

The strange thing about this clear command is that some people try to make it mean that Paul is referring to secret hidden doctrines that are not allowed to be written down, and this ONE TIME, he is mentioning them for you here.

No, what's going on here is that the word of God is the same whether you read it from text or whether you hear it spoken to you audibly. The point is that it is the same either way, not that this is an easter egg reference to the hidden gnostic oral traditions that aren't allowed to be written. That's just ridiculous to think Paul was saying that.

This is also exactly what the pharisees did to justify their false traditions, they argued there was XYZ hidden oral only traditions given to the seventy elders at Mt. Sinai. Jesus rebuked them in Mark 7:7-13. It's the same here with this. It's the same thing as the traditions of the pharisees. Just with the New Testament. They are making the word of God (The New Testament) of none effect through their traditions, which they have delivered, and doing many like things as the pharisees.

>>833638

I too would like to know if someone finds a way. You could do a Google reverse image search.

What's the pic?

Sorry for being uncharitable at times and writing stuff like 'autism'.

>>833687

No worries brother.

>>833686

>you call your father father

not a single Protestant believes that you can’t. That’s not what Jesus is talking about, and it’s clear if you read Matthew 23 as a whole. >>833439

>>833488

>>833685

>For starters - Scripture debunking - there is no verse for it.

2 Timothy 3:14-17

<But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

<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.

This is as true today as it was in Timothy's days. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for those things, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. And since the purpose of all scripture is told to us in verse 17, and God never fails in his purpose, we know that All scripture really does enable the man of God to be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works, and perfect meaning complete.

>Also the church concoted the bible that you abide by

No, I don't use the modified Catholic bible with apocryphae in it.

>If you dont accept it then you have to reject its product - the bible-

I don't accept the fake Catholic version of the Bible with corruptions and manmade alterations in it. I stay with the true version of God's word. They didn't make the true version but rather tried to destroy it, see for instance William Tyndale and his books being burned, the Albigensian Crusade burning translations, etc. I don't use the Vulgate or Hexaplar Septuagint, this argument is irrelevant.

>1-2,4-9,17,19,24-29

No scripture given.

>3 (1 Corinthians 9:27-29)

There is no reference to fear and he was avoiding being rejected of those he was preaching to, see 2 Cor. 13:6.

>3 (Philippians 2:12), (Matthew 10:22)

See Philippians 2:13. It is God which worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

>There is nothing to tremble or endure if the saved forever doctrine existed.

You're denying what Christ said. See John 5:24, 6:37-40, 10:27-29, Matthew 7:21-23. Calling the doctrine of Christ easymode is just being blasphemous and disrespectful as you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

>10

Doesn't prove anyone used that title.

>11 (Acts 16:33)

Acts 16:34 says he was "believing in God with all his house."

>12-14

They are relevant you just dont have an answer. You are caught speechless in the face of clear scripture, and it convicts

>15

It is about interpreting scripture. 1 John 2:27 clearly says "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you" which is referring to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. See 2 Cor. 1:21-22, John 14:16-17, John 14:26, John 16:13-14, Ephesians 4:30, 1 Cor. 2:13-14. Again, 1 John 2:27 says "as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." This is referring to the Holy Spirit teaching the saved believer, and not needing that any man teach them.

>15 (Acts 8:30-31)

The eunuch wasn't saved yet. After he became a believer and had the Holy Ghost indwelling in him he did not need that any man teach him. This is signified in the fact Philip was immediately caught away by the Spirit as soon as the eunuch was baptized and he saw him no more. Because now the eunuch was able to understand those things in scripture as now he was indwelt with the Holy Spirit and Philip was caught away immediately to signify this.

>16

You haven't justified worshipping saints though. In Revelation they are holding censers that contain prayers, they aren't verbally repeating prayers or making their own prayers, and its the angel that does this, not the elders (you made that up just now, it's not in the Bible). And it says "the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand." So we see these are the prayers of all the saints in general, that includes all believers not only specific ones. You have not shown that we should pray to sub-deities that represent various aspects of God, which you merely give the name of "saints," that's just paganism. At the same time you deny that saved believers are saints in order to create this pantheon of sub-deities whose statues they pray to.

>>833719

>I don't use the Vulgate or Hexaplar Septuagint, this argument is irrelevant.

What do you read, dear friend? I'm reading the LXX with apocypha. Do you recommend reading the apocrypha?

>>833685

>Sola scriptura isnt scriptural, there is no verse for it

Mark 7

1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

>5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

>7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

>9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

>13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

>The Catholic view of salvation is - " by grace through faith"

No it isn't. You believe that in order to be saved you also need good works, which the next verse (Eph 2:9) destroys.

>ou can lose it because we have free will

That's retarded. You of your own freewill decide to believe. No one would ever want to then go to hell.

> 'work out your salvation through fear and trembling'

it says “work out” not “work for”, he is telling people that are already saved to do works, to tell unsaved people to work out their salvation makes zero sense. An analogy would be if you tell someone to work out their legs with squats and calf raises, but they have no legs, that makes no sense.

>'those to endure to the end will be saved

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no FLESH be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

That's you not physically being killed

>Paul prayed for mercy for a christian dead ma

Where?

5

25 And KNEW HER NOT TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name Jesus.

6. It literally says there is one mediator, and you call Mary the mediatrix. That's retarded

7. If you were to worship Mary how then would you do it differently?

9. Stop calling her the name of a pagan goddess that God specifically says makes hiim mad

10. That would then make David the father of God, which Jesus says is wrong in Mat 22:42-46

11. And where does that include babies? The youngest person in my family is nine.

And also what completely proves you wrong is that it says they preached to all his house and they all believed in God. Babies don't believe in God.

Also you should with what the Bible does say, not with what it doesn't.

>12-13-14- irrelevant

No it isn't

>>833686

>>833752

15

>the same anointing teacheth you of all things

That would be doctrine. And your interpretation doesn't even make sense.

16. Same as the Mary one

17. The exception proves the rule. And later they do destroy the serpent because people were worshippping it.

https://invidio.us/SwRGDmlg_6c

18. You are again denying scripture. It is fine for a layman to be celibate, but those verses say that a bisop MUST be married and have children

19. It's talking about titles for spiritual leaders. Like no calling your pastor 'master' but if you're a slave you could call your actual master 'master'

And you are then making the word of God of non affect due to your traditions. How then would someone break that commandment? He meant something by it

20.

>2 Thessalonians 2:15

Paul is literally talking about things recorded in the Bible, some parts of the Bible are direct letters written to the respective regions, or they were recorded transcriptions of actual sermons/lecture.

Some of the persons were present during Paul's sermons, while others received them through recorded epistles (letters).

He's says stand fast in what you have been taught, whether by word (from the things you heard from my & the apostles mouths) or read in our letters.

You can't take this verse then expand it out centuries in the future when the Catholic/Orthodox church begins to introduce new traditions and fuse themselves with pseudo-Pagan rites/rituals.

>1 Timothy 3:15

Actual Bible believing churches are, so not the RCC

21. It says to be absent from the body (dead) is to be present with the Lord. Not to be put in some temporary hell and have the church squeeze your relatives arms to cough up indulgences for you.

22. Verse 63 says it's spiritual, and you're being like Nicodemus thinking you have to crawl back inside your mother's womb to be born again.

Also just the fact that when the priest prays over it it doesn't turn into human flesh and blood.

23. Follow what the Bible says

24. He literally says not to do it

25.

>Luther himself authorized the execution of four accused witche

So them following the bible is a bad thing?

Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

26. Or because people would see how contradictory the RCC and scripture are. And that the verse has people reading scripture to make sure what the preacher is saying is right, can't do that if they don't have a Bible.

27. And it still applies. Speaking in tounges is speaking in another language, not rolling on the floor saying gibber jabber crap like pentacostals believe. Paul literally says it would be better to give a 5 word sermon that people can actually understand than a thousand and people can't.

28. And the RCC says not to eat meat on Fridays. Also in that verse it says "Forbidding to marry" which is exactly what the RCC does with bishops as mentioned earlier

29. And the rule is to not appear unto men to fast. Not to make a whole holiday about it and put dirt on your head to show everyone you're participating.

>>833750

>What do you read, dear friend?

KJV

>LXX

There are differences between the septuagint and the masoretic texts about the age of Methuselah at the time of the flood. The LXX makes it appear as if Methuselah survived the Great Flood which is not possible:

LXX: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27)

MAS: Methuselah lived to be 969 years old (Genesis 5:27)

LXX: Meth. 167 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

MAS: Meth. 187 years old when Lamech born (Gen 5:25)

LXX: Lamech 188 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

MAS: Lamech 182 years old when Noah born (Gen 5:28)

LXX: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

MAS: Noah 600 years old when flood began (Gen 7:6)

LXX: 167+188+600=955 years old when flood began

MAS: 187+182+600=969 years old when flood began

http://ecmarsh.com/lxx-kjv/genesis/gen_005.htm

Thus, according to the LXX, Methuselah lived another 14 years after the flood began.

>apocypha

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

>>833524

I have some other stuff to do right now. But I'll also add that how catholics believe you need a special class of priests in order to get to God, rather the priesthood of the believer

>>834194

I think for 3 I would add 1 Peter 1:5 and for 4 I would add 2 Timothy 1:12.

>>834196

>1 Peter 1:5

Yes, but I want to add the best ones, and that one already has a lot

>2 Timothy 1:12

added. And I can't read that verse without singing it

https://invidio.us/_bRV3J4n8cc

>>833397

I have no patience to deal with all that age old copy-pasta that's been replied to since forever.

But i will give a simple, historical reason for 2 of them:

a)"works salvation" is called pelagianism. It's been condemned since the time of Augustine, for crying out loud;

b)the title Theotokos is intimately tied to christology, which is why denying it is what started the nestorian crisis;

Seriously, if you faggots had actually read up on history, so you could understand why things are the way they are, we wouldn't have to debate this.

>inb4 and if you had read the Bible, blabla

>>834201

>a)"works salvation" is called pelagianism

Pretty sure he believed thou that you don't even need faith in order to get saved, just works. Catholics believe you need both, which is still work salvation. If you believe that someone has to do works to be saved, then you believe work salvation.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

>b)the title Theotokos is intimately tied to christology

Just because you make up a title doesn't make it Christian

I must say the people in this forum that are against these Catholic traditions are doing a darn good job explaining themselves. Very good preaching.

I would only like to add, in my personal experience I’ve realized that it’s impossible to do works without faith. And have faith without works.

God has given Christians three laws to follow. Impossible to follow without faith. Also if one has faith it would be backed up by works (holding to those three laws), since faith without works is dead. One can’t exist without the other. It doesn’t surprise me that this balance exists in Christ teachings. Since balance is all around us in creation. I’m not the best when it comes to explaining scripture. I tend to focus on the personality of God. Which makes it very difficult to reach people. But many here seem to have that ability.

>>834229

>Just because you make up a title doesn't make it Christian

There is nothing wrong with the title. Jesus is God. Mary was his earthly mother. The only people who react badly to this title are actually showing themselves to have a problem with Christ. Not Mary. But Christ. They wince at the mere mention of him being called God. They only attack Mary because they're cowards and like attacking women and behaving like weasels. Their true purpose is to attack the nature of Christ and deny the incarnation. They can't stomach the bold claim that he was, in fact, God.

If you're not actually one of these weasels, then be careful of what you attack.

>>834246

Also, for the record, it does come from scripture, more or less: It was Elizabeth who first greeted Mary as "mother of my Lord". Just because someone later on shortened the title to theotokos doesn't change what the scripture basically said in the first place.

And another thing for the record: I'm a Protestant (of the holiness/methodist variety). I just find some behavior towards Catholics to be merely reactionary and with little thought put into it. You can criticize Catholics about departing from scripture for many things, but this isn't one of them.

>>834246

>>834249

>Jesus is God. Mary was his earthly mother.

Im guessing as in

Jesus = God

Mary = Mother of Jesus

so then Mary = Mother of God

But using that same logic of A=B, B=C, so then A=C, you could disprove the Trinity, which I have had many oneness heretics do before(I do 100% believe the Trinity, but just showing that you can't always use that logic in Biblical doctrine.)

Jesus = God

The Father = God

So then Jesus = The Father

Doesn't always work that way bucko.

Also in that Matthew 22:42-46 passage, Jesus rebukes people for then saying that David is the father of the Lord. Of course that physically speaking Jesus was born through the line of David, but you then don't say "David is the Father of God", even though Jesus is called "The son of David" many many times in the Bible.

>>834253

It's One God in Three Persons. That's why Jesus is not the Father, but both are God.

Just because some oneness heretic fails to grasp this doesn't mean you should adjust any points for their sake. This is the central point of faith of the Church since the beginning. It stands on nothing else (that is, that Jesus is God).

Oneness heretics are no better than Muslims. Muslims also acknowledge Jesus' earthly importance and believe he was a great prophet: But Muslims stop at calling him God. Their religions are complete trash and you shouldn't worry about what they think. Coincidentally, both make no room for calling Mary the Mother of God either. They all have these things in common, funnily.

Father is the Almighty God.

Jesus is our Lord.

Holy Spirit is our Mother.

The word God and Lord are the same.

Father is our Almighty Lord. (None above Him)

Jesus is our Lord and King. (Father is above him)

The Holy Spirit is Gods wife, Jesus’ mother. She has all the privileges a mother has.

Together they make up the Family that many of you call a trinity. They are not one in body but one in there goals.

Everything on earth (before Adam and Eve’s sins) was created to resemble the family in Heaven. No man can be a Father without a wife to conceive a child with. No son only has a father. Mother does as Father tells her to. The Son honors the Mother. It’s a family. God designed families on earth as they are in heaven. The confusion that your in you’ve been in for years. How long until you go to Christ for your education? How long till you realize the Bible has been manipulated? And only God can help you see the manipulations through Mother delivering you His messages, as a faithful wife she only does as she’s told. How long till you accept that even Jesus asks His Father about the future because he is not as powerful as his Father is? How long will you remain lost in translation?

>>834272

>It's One God in Three Persons. That's why Jesus is not the Father, but both are God.

Yeah I know, like I said "(I do 100% believe the Trinity"

But again, using your logic of

Jesus = God

Mary = Mother of Jesus

so then Mary = Mother of God

You could use to show Jesus is the Father (again I don't believe that, just saying you can't always apply man's logic to biblical doctrine)

And like I said at the bottom, you then would also be calling David the father of God which Jesus says no too, even though he physically descends from him

>>834278

"Father" is a bit too direct. You wouldn't call someone in your family line 1,000 years before you a "father" either. They're an ancestor, while you would be a descendent. Which the scripture says itself.

"Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3 KJV)

"who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh" (NASB)

>>834280

>You wouldn't call someone in your family line 1,000 years before you a "father" either.

Scripture is not dictated by your 21st century culture. It calls the prophets Fathers, you're going against it.

>>834280

The Bible has people that are grandpas called father. Also Jesus is called "the son of David" not "The great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandson of David" That would then make David his father physically speaking because he descends from him

>>834285

If you want to say I'm "going against scripture", then please quote scripture. In all kindness, I don't know what you're referring to. The only thing that comes to mind is Hebrews saying the prophets spoke to "our fathers".

>>834288

The Son of David is specifically a Messianic title. It is used for nothing else. Not a familial term, but a term eclipsing David himself and takes on cosmic significance. Much like "seed of Eve". They are both statements of promise and prophecy. Not an actual familial relationship between Jesus, David, and Eve. Another title in Judaism, although less common, was Messiah son of Joseph (as in Jacob's son Joseph). It doesn't mean that Jesus was directly a son of Joseph, but meant to convey that he would be rejected by his brothers and become a light to the Gentiles. The Suffering Servant.

In any case, David didn't know, support, raise, worry over, or feed Jesus in the way Mary did. Unless you were all raised by wolves, you should know the difference on what an actual parent is.

>>834288

Yeah I would be careful about going beyond what is written especially when it comes to these titles because the Lord Jesus is very particular about titles, and He told us on more than one unique occasion not to give particular titles to individuals which He hasn't given, including the statement that, "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

I take that more seriously than something a weird splinter sect came up with centuries later that is not actually supported in Scripture. If they are coming up with new titles and insisting on them that likely signifies there is some new heresy informing that doctrine. Certainly they mark themselves out as having some manmade authority telling them what to do other than the word of God, and thinking they won't be called to account for ignoring scripture to follow it.

>>834290

>The Son of David is specifically a Messianic title. It is used for nothing else. Not a familial term, but a term eclipsing David himself and takes on cosmic significance.

And it's still the SON of David, not the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandson of David.

>In any case, David didn't know, support, raise, worry over, or feed Jesus in the way Mary did. Unless you were all raised by wolves, you should know the difference on what an actual parent is.

Yes, and if you still want to give Mary the title "mother of God" David would be "the father/grandfather of God"

>>834291

It's not a weird splinter sect when it's the entire known church of the East and West at the time. The only people who had a problem with this are Arians and Nestorians - both of whom were the actual weird splinter sects, and contributed to later offshoots in Islam. And as I pointed out, it's not weird when Elizabeth herself greeted Mary as the "mother of my Lord".

I'd even say the Muslims are at least consistent. They reject Christ as God, and it's natural for them to reject Christological language. But there is no excuse for someone who claims to believe the Trinity, but then recoils at Christological language. You all reject Christological language simply out of spite - because of Catholics. If Catholics do something strange, then you throw out the baby with the bathwater and have to do something completely differently, merely out of spite and reactionary thinking. This is not what the original Reformers ever wanted. They called themselves Reformers for a reason. They wanted to reclaim certain truths of the church, and throw out the bad. They weren't outright rebels, but reformers.

>>834293

Son doesn't always mean something this direct. It's both a familial term and a term noting distant legacy. You have to deduce it from context. Hebrew isn't quite that precise.

Half of the time, "son" in Hebrew just means something symbolic. The Bible is full of this. Like Benjamin's name, for one example. "Ben-Yamin" - it means "son of my right side". Jesus used it himself when he called James and John the "sons of thunder" (B'nei-Regesh). And this is the ultimate meaning of Ben-David. It in fact means someone far greater than David. And Mother of God means something far greater than the Mother. Don't let Catholics spoil you of that.

>>834290

Christ says Christians are the children of Abraham, whose name means the father of many nations, in John 8:39 because we do as he did.

>>834295

And both were heretics

Yes, but David would also then be the father of the Lord

Because saying that isn't Biblical, and Jesus rebukes the pharisees for pretty much doing that in Mat 22.

Cactholics are at least right on somethings like the Trinity and freewill

>>834299

>Son doesn't always mean something this direct

Yeah , I know, that was my point.

minor gripe regarding #15 and 1 John 2:27:

The context of the preceding introductory and informatory verses makes it clear John is talking about believers knowing false prophets/antichrists when they appear within/outside the church. He's not stating that teachers of authority for unlearned disciples when reading scriptures and unearthing major doctrine is completely unnecessary. And if it were so, how then, is heterodox beliefs and heresies to be avoided before the point at which one has gone too far in their misinterpretation of scripture? We whom it is right to label Christian all rightly agree on our God being triune, likely not through our own interpretation of scripture but the acceptance of teaching authority that we hold to be divine revelation.

>>834370

see 15 on here >>833719

>>834395

Not substantial enough. One case does not fit all. My proof is that "Holy Spirit guided" tripfag polluting this respectable board's threads with his heresies.

>>834449

This made me laugh so much then I checked the urban dictionaries on the internets. It made my day.

>>834370

Out of the following verse,

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

John says out of this specifically: "the same anointing teacheth you of all things." This is not some things, but all things. How can this be? Because he is referring in this passage to none other than God in the Holy Spirit. It says he "abideth in you," which is a reference to where Jesus said in John 14, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." - Jn. 14:16-17

Therefore when John says that the anointing which they have received shall teach them all things this rightly meant literally all things. As Jesus also said in John 16: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:" - Jn. 16:13.

Also, receiving the Spirit of God is referred to as being anointed in 1 John 2:27 as well as in 2 Cor 1:21-22

"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts."

As also this is described as being sealed in Ephesians 1:14, "ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," and Ephesians 4:30, "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption."

So then the Holy Spirit teaches the believers that John was referring to in 1 John 2:27– He abides in them, and the same anointing teaches them all things, and is truth and no lie. And they have no need that any man teach them, because of that anointing that abides in them because they are sealed and saved and are in possession of the earnest of the Spirit. Earnest is something received right away in advance of something promised that is to come, which is resurrection unto eternal life. "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life."

>He's not stating that teachers of authority for unlearned disciples when reading scriptures and unearthing major doctrine is completely unnecessary.

He is stating that they have no need that any man teach them at this point because they are saved and the Holy Spirit is able to bring them to the full knowledge of the truth in God's word. Thus it may be said, "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

>And if it were so, how then, is heterodox beliefs and heresies to be avoided

By being saved and knowing what the truth is, then avoiding those that are preaching error. But for those who are not saved, they will remain lost, as Paul describes in this passage:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:12-14

People who are teaching heresies fall under the second category of the natural man who does not receive the things of the Spirit and cannot know them. The only way to discern this is, to be saved, and know what those things are, then, as Paul saith, "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."

>>834449

>My proof is that "Holy Spirit guided" tripfag polluting this respectable board's threads with his heresies.

Claiming to be something and actually being it are as different as night and day. In this case only by being like one of the ones John was writing to, shall it be possible to know God and from this can the spirit of error be discerned. It doesn't make sense unless you are no longer lost, when God has seen fit to teach you who has believed his word.

Ephesians 1

"That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory."

>>834366

No God outside the Father.

No God outside the Son.

No God outside the Holy Spirit.

Delete this.

>>834461

>if can be read literally, iz tru

Yeah, John's talking about the Holy Spirit. What it actually means, is that everything that IS TRUE that a believer acquires; that it is not through their own interpretation of scripture (since we're all fallible in our Earthly understanding), but through the Holy Spirit quickening the correct teaching to their hearts, gifting them the proper understanding -certainly because they were selflessly reaching out to God and not like these absolutely spiritually dead heathen vipers such as Pister Anderson, who delve into scripture for the sake of weaponising it for their own selfish motives. So are you suggesting otherwise? Is it insisted upon us that we must take literally this teaching of John? That a born-again believer never-before taught, upon route-memorising the entire KJV and a small bit of historic context, with a basis of literal interpretation, that he will unearth all the mysteries of Holy Scripture, all the eternal truths contained within the good book? Hear yourselves.

Eph 4:11-13.

>>834666

Samson is also still called a hero of faith in Hebrews (11:32). It's definitely tragic that it came to that for him and shouldn't be imitated, but it appears this issue isn't so black and white as some would like.

>>834253

Mary is not Gods wife.

Joseph represented Our Father in heaven (Almighty God). Mary represented Our Mother in heaven (the Holy Spirit). Joseph and Marry’s union was very favorable to God and their personalities were very close to that of Father and Mother in heaven. Jesus’ soul was placed into Marry’s womb by Mother, connecting Heaven and Earth in a way none of us fully grasp yet.

Worshipping Marry is idolatry.

calling Her blessed and praising Her are two different things. Sort of a slippery slope.

https://cooperscorner338720667.wordpress.com/2020/05/22/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence-the-new-testament-in-context-1/

I typed this up, what do you think?

>>834702

>Is it insisted upon us that we must take literally this teaching of John?

If you believe the Bible then yes you will take it seriously.

>>834745

>literally

>seriously

u blind?

baptists reject the authority of the church yet use the new testament, a collection of texts assembled by members of the church.. curious…

>>834779

>Argument is irrelevant

We're on a chan thread set up for discourse between sects in Christendom and you say this. Bravo.

>I accept an authority more ancient than them and part of a more ancient and pure church.

Care to elaborate? That statement is on par with the Mormons. Flat-out rejection of history is simply ludicrous and not even protestant. It's restorationist which is heresy beyond reconciliation. Protestantism is a supposed *reformation,* not restoration.

You're protestant, that means you accept the framework made by early church councils provided that; in your protestant view, they were biblically rooted i.e. Jesus = God, God is trinity (Council of Nicea-Constantinople), two natures of Christ (Council of Chalcedon), Arianism/Modalism is heresy etc.) -but you reject with the authority of the Papacy and reject all traditions that are not explicitly biblical.

If you're not that at least that, as in, actually protestant, then you're either very very ill-read -by protestant standards or you're about as Christian as a JW or a Mormon or a Muhammadan or a Freemason or a Scientologist.

>That's how we got the version of the Bible that's free of Cath corruptions.

U know, my favourite versions of the Bible are the KJV and the J.N. Darby translation. Yet I'm still a Catholic. Probably a shocker to you.

>I don't use the apocrypha or the corrupted versions of the text.

this statement considering what you were replying to, betrays the fact that you think we have a different version of the new testament -we don't.

It's the exact same and Catholics should know -the Catholic church is the one who compiled it.

Now that's in spite of Luther wanting to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.

If you were talking about the Old Testament, there's the Deuterocanonical books that were in the Septuagint, that Luther crudely removed from his Bible.

>>834779

Show me in the bible where it lays out what the canon is

>>833472

Genesis 22:17

That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

>>834788

>Care to elaborate? That statement is on par with the Mormons. Flat-out rejection of history is simply ludicrous and not even protestant. It's restorationist which is heresy beyond reconciliation. Protestantism is a supposed *reformation,* not restoration.

That's because these IFB types ARE as bad as restorationists. They've lost all love for the historical church even by Protestant standards and create pseudo histories of a "secret sect" of Baptists existing for 2 millennia (no joke).

>>834817

On what authority do you base your new testament canon?

>>834788

>Care to elaborate?

How do you think we got the received text of the Bible?

>That statement is on par with the Mormons.

Not really, in fact Mormons deny Matthew 16:18 in saying they had to have a latter day prophet restore the church. That's no different than the Marcionites who claimed Marcion had to receive later-day revelations 116 years after Christ and added more stuff to scripture.

>If you're not that at least that, as in, actually protestant, then you're either very very ill-read -by protestant standards or you're about as Christian as a JW or a Mormon or a Muhammadan or a Freemason or a Scientologist.

My church is founded by the Lord Jesus Christ in the first century, so no it's not the same really. There is no other founder or source of doctrine.

>U know, my favourite versions of the Bible are the KJV and the J.N. Darby translation. Yet I'm still a Catholic. Probably a shocker to you.

Not really, because basically once you introduce corruptions you become a multiple version only doctrine follower. Many MVOs these days use the KJV while mixing it up every now and then.

>betrays the fact that you think we have a different version of the new testament -we don't

Well, there's really two aspects to this. First, some people in former times tried to destroy the received text and replace it with this text we find in the Vulgate (changes John 3:5, Matthew 6:11, etc.) however they never managed to erase the pure received text, so the next best thing they could do was become MVO after failing to burn the unaltered form of the Bible, which is where we're now at. Also the vast majority of protestants are now MVO as well, due to the modern versions.

>It's the exact same and Catholics should know -the Catholic church is the one who compiled it.

You realize they compiled a version with apocrypha and alterations though. How could you say I'm relying on that if I accept a more ancient authority that materially differs with those conciliar decisions that mistakenly added things to scripture.