6a3763 No.851941[Last 50 Posts]
>I believe in Sola Scriptura
>John Macarthur interprets this verse…
Face it, Sola Scriptura is not even real. Clearly scripture is not so simple that it is sufficient on its own because many people, even very blessed and godly people, come to radically divergent interpretations of doctrines, even so fundamental as the atonement. Literally everyone leans on authorities to interpret scripture for them. It is inescapable. Not to mention the irony of a man who presumed to cut 7 books from the canon of scripture, came up with this doctrine,
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ccdfb8 No.851942
Sola scriptura doesn't mean we can't rely on teachers goober. This isn't even an argument.
What you're trying to say is that because people can and do arrive at different conclusions there ought to be a body with a final word on any issue. This would be an irrelevant point because God established no such supreme earthly authority.
Scripture is perspicuous. False teachers can lead the gullible astray on fundamental issues but only through their twisting of scripture. This is not a fault of sola scriptura.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7dae64 No.851943
>>851941
First off, Jesus rebuked the pharisees for not being sola scriptua, but instead following the traditions of the elders.
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.
Second, the Bible even says you don't need a man to teach you if you have the Holy Ghost
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.
Now people bring up the ethiopian eunich saying "How can I, except some man should guide me?", but the guy was not saved yet. I'll agree that unsaved people cannot understand/interpret scripture
1 Corinthians 2:14 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.
But the Holy Ghost "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…(John 16:13)" which "they that believe on him should receive… (John 17:39)"
Thirdly just because you may have someone teach the Bible, doesn't mean they have the authority to interpret scripture and you don't. It even says "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)" Not that they recieved the word and just didn't question or look into it at all. The way you know is a prohet is true or false is if what they say lines up with the Bible.
Having someone help teach you doesn't mean they have the authority. For example you can learn the piano all on your own, but having a teacher will help you learn much faster, and the piano teacher isn't going to whisper to you some seceret that's been passed down for 2000 years.
Fourth, people not believing in sola scriptua or just like the pharisees in point one, that they make the word of God of none effect through their traditions. Many things in the Bible may be hard to understand and may have different interpretations (such as parables), but many things are just clear cut and it's just a matter of if you believe what it says or out right reject it. Such as pic related, the scripture clear as day says that a bishop must be married and have children. That is not "just your interpretation", you either believe it because that's what the Bible clearly says, or you reject it becuase it contradicts your traditions that say bishops have to be celibate.
>Not to mention the irony of a man who presumed to cut 7 books from the canon of scripture, came up with this doctrine,
It is Sola Scriptua, Not Sola Scriptua Plus Fanfiction
Also Luther wasn't "Scripture Alone", he still kept many traditions of the RCC, such as infant baptism, that is found nowhere in scripture.
Many things in the Bible are clear cut, and just saying "that's just your interpretation" is just a cop out when you have no argument.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a3763 No.851950
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>851942
I think Calvinists are "false teachers" to the extent they teach error. Calvinists think this about Arminians? Who is right? Well, if we're prima-scriptura (We believe yes scripture is the inspired word of God, but its not the only words of Holy Spirit inspiration) instead of Sola Scriptura and we believe the apostles taught to their disciples, the same things they wrote in scripture, then we can see that these disciples like Clement of Rome and Iranaeus do not support the Calvinist position but rather something like -5 point Calvinism (so not even Arminianism). If these fathers are saying Paul or James or John did teach justification by works as well as faith, then we should naturally assume some guy born centuries later who could not speak to Paul (Like Augustine) must needs know less about what Paul meant. This is just common sense but the mystical doctrine of Sola Scriptura assumes a corrupted church came together in 325 AD and canonized a perfect scripture (though they throw out 7 books of it) and set forth many of the foundational doctrines of all forms of Christianity, and this had nothing to do with the fruits of the ancient church. Rather the sensible approach would be to say that prior to the creation of the Christian state by Constantine, the church was fairly undefiled by the world and a firm rock of doctrine based upon scriptural exposition and seemly traditions, they therefore had a unique authority to put together the canon of scripture and establish those doctrines contained in the council of Nicea. Now by contrast, let me show you the absurd insubordination of mainline protestantism, which is, if I can make a systematic argument that scripture says this, then it says this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ccdfb8 No.851951
>>851950
What else do you view as infallible alongside or above scripture?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dd024a No.851972
>>851942
> God established no such supreme earthly authority.
"you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Said authority and truth established then the canon. Where in scripture is it stated which books belong to scripture? Nowhere because God left an authority to do that.
Also if we reject the pillar and foundation of truth interpretations we get a thousand denoms.There is no other way around it becasuse each reader will interpret it differently thus denoms proliferate.
Jesus prayed for the unity of the church though.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ccdfb8 No.851973
>>851972
>you will know how each one must conduct himself in God’s household
Yes this book begins
>1 Timothy 1:1
>Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope,
Paul was an apostle, and the apostles have passed on. They inspired scripture.
Instead of a human man (or group of men) as supreme head, we have christ as head of each church
>Ephesians 1:22
>And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
>Said authority and truth established then the canon.
No, God established the canon when he inspired each book of it.
>if we reject the pillar and foundation of truth interpretations we get a thousand denoms.
Yes if we reject a false pretense it means rejecting a false unity.
There's literally nothing wrong with the fact that there's a Lutheran church in america and a Lutheran church in new Zealand. For that matter, missouri versus wisconsin. These institutions are actually just organizational bodies of local churches.
>Jesus prayed for the unity of the church though.
Not organizational unity
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f48243 No.851977
>>851973
>Instead of a human man (or group of men) as supreme head, we have christ as head of each church
yes, and he appointed men like Peter to govern in his name (John 21:16-17)
>No, God established the canon when he inspired each book of it.
how do you know which books are canon and which aren't?
>There's literally nothing wrong with the fact that there's a Lutheran church in america and a Lutheran church in new Zealand. For that matter, missouri versus wisconsin. These institutions are actually just organizational bodies of local churches.
It's more than just Lutheran churches. There are Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, so on and so forth. And yes, they disagree with each other.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ccdfb8 No.851978
>>851977
>and he appointed men like Peter to govern in his name (John 21:16-17)
Yes, men like Peter who were apostles
There are no more apostles today. The keys were held in common among them and a papacy was not established.
>how do you know which books are canon and which aren't?
By evaluating the data
>There are Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, so on and so forth. And yes, they disagree with each other.
And there's nothing wrong with that, especially since they disagree on the nonessentials
Functionally the same thing as a Latin parish and a NO parish, or a western rite and an eastern rite Catholic parish
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.851979
>>851972
>Also if we reject the pillar and foundation of truth interpretations we get a thousand denoms.
This is why only those who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit and are saved arrive at truth. No pope can replace that.
>>851977
>yes, and he appointed men like Peter to govern in his name (John 21:16-17)
And in like manner, individual churches have their own leaderships, consisting of the offices of Pastor and deacon. None of them is the head of the church, but Christ is.
>how do you know which books are canon and which aren't?
That question is equivalent to asking how do you know that the Bible is true and any false religion is false, The answer to both is the same.
>And yes, they disagree with each other.
Doesn't matter because the Bible only teaches one thing. One consistent truth taught by the Holy Spirit to those saved. The unsaved do not have access to this and come up with false interpretations, such as the pope and the papacy as a whole which is a false interpretation of Scripture. All such are lost men trying in vain to find an answer when they are still rejecting the word of Jesus Christ.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f48243 No.851980
>>851978
>There are no more apostles today. The keys were held in common among them and a papacy was not established.
is there any scriptural (or historical) basis for the idea that, when the Apostles die, the church is without human governance?
>By evaluating the data
What data? The Fathers? Secular scholarship?
>And there's nothing wrong with that, especially since they disagree on the nonessentials
>Functionally the same thing as a Latin parish and a NO parish, or a western rite and an eastern rite Catholic parish
Did you forget about the Calvinist-Arminian controversey? This isn't even mentioning Fundamentalism-Modernism. Don't even get me started on the churches founded in more modern times, that go so far as to deny basic doctrines of the faith.
>>851979
>And in like manner, individual churches have their own leaderships, consisting of the offices of Pastor and deacon. None of them is the head of the church, but Christ is.
So when Jesus said "feed my sheep", he meant "feed the sheep I have fenced up in Antioch and Rome, and not Jerusalem's sheep"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ccdfb8 No.851983
>>851980
>is there any scriptural (or historical) basis for the idea that, when the Apostles die, the church is without human governance?
There's not and that's not what I'm saying
I'm saying the Catholic argument about apostolic succession is unfounded
>Did you forget about the Calvinist-Arminian controversey? This isn't even mentioning Fundamentalism-Modernism. Don't even get me started on the churches founded in more modern times, that go so far as to deny basic doctrines of the faith.
I didn't but this isn't relevant
Churches apostatize. Orthodox Christians dont join them, so one or the other splits off.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.851984
>>851980
"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:" – Ephesians 4:11-13
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ccdfb8 No.851988
>>851980
>What data? The Fathers? Secular scholarship?
The texts themselves, history, manuscript sources
How do you know?
>inb4 a council
Councils didn't make the books inspired or not
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b841c3 No.852014
>the original Orthodox Catholic Church created the Bible by selecting which texts were accurate and divinely inspired through its descendence from the Apostles
>Protestants then use this creation of the Church and then argue that the Church isn't necessary
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
56ab7a No.852027
>>852014
>God waited for a couple of centuries to decide which books are inspired or not
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d99a7f No.852057
>>851978
>>By evaluating the data
WHAT…data? Fathers? Secular studies? Thomistic studies?
Let us say that I knew nothing about Christianity. NOT ONE THNG. The bible claims to be the inspired word of God…but other books do so as well. The Koran, the book of Mormon, the Hindu writings. So explain to me, why the bible IS the inspired word of God. REMEMBER, you can ONLY use the bible to prove it.
Protestants do the same thing with the bible what the Muslims do with the Koran. They straight up go on the basis of it being true and unable to be questioned. I myself am planning on replacing my old Protestant bibles with Douay- Rheims instead of KJV's and Lutheran bibles. You have only further proven our point that Sola Scriptura is a lie.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d99a7f No.852058
>>852027
>>God waited a couple centuries
The CHURCH waited a couple centuries, as it had not formalized a set canon. some Churches read the book of Enoch, and some rejected 2 Peter as scripture, The Church was in need to set up a set canon, and that was the bible. The books that went into the first bible was selected out of 3000 plus texts, such as the Gospel of Judas, Mary etc. The church needed time to sort through these books. St Irenaeus was put in charge of a fair part of it, than his successor
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f9d15a No.852062
>>851973
>we have christ as the head of each church
No, read that scripture again: THE church
>No, God established the canon when he inspired each book of it.
Some authority still had to decide which books were canon and which were not.
>Not organizational unity
Says who? You?
>>851978
>And there's nothing wrong with that, especially since they disagree on the nonessentials
Who decides what the "essentials" are?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2d8780 No.852072
>invent sola scriptura to get back on the papists
>keep the latin
Do germans really not realize they're just a branch of Roman Catholicism?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852073
>>852062
>No, read that scripture again: THE church
Same thing. When Paul says "Let THE husband render unto THE wife due benevolence," what do you think that means?
>Some authority still had to decide which books were canon and which were not.
The authority in all things is God. Hence, we find that Jesus Christ tells the questioning scribes, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." In John 8:47.
Hence, the reason why we know the Holy Bible is the word of God is the same reason why we know what is false and corrupted by man, including the apocrypha. It is the same reason we are Christian and not some false religion in the first place.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852087
>>852058
You aren't getting the point. The point is that they were inspired at the time of writing, not based on later church actions
>>852062
>THE church
Each church like each husband
>Some authority still had to decide which books were canon and which were not.
Their inspiration does not depend on an authority deciding it so
>Says who? You?
The text
>>852072
Bait
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
22bcd2 No.852090
>>851941
>why yes the four Gospels have objectively contradicting narratives about physical events
>why yes the four Gospels are to be interpreted as objectively infallible on all matters including physical events
This is why Church Doctors are more important than internet memes. Most human souls are glorified pseudo-demons and will destroy anything they touch, especially if it's perceived as holy and important.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8d6127 No.852097
>>852073
So Jesus Himself told you every Biblical book was divinely inspired by Him? When was this?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852118
>>852097
Christ Jesus said, "He that is of God heareth God's words". Which is true. He also said those that are not of God do not hear them. They cannot tell when they are hearing God's word. He that is of God knows when he is hearing God's word. That is why people believe on Jesus and in his word.
Put another way, people who were not of God did not realize who Jesus was because they did not recognize the authority of his words. People who did believe in God recognized his words. So it has always been.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a3763 No.852162
>>851951
>above scripture
Not good at Latin I see. You mean as bolstering and reinforcing scripture? Namely the writings of immediate disciples of apostles, like Clement and Iranaeus and other antnicene fathers.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852163
>>852162
Thanks for coming back
I mean what I said. Do you view anything as infallible with scripture, or more authoritative than scripture?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a3763 No.852165
>>852163
No, that would literally defeat the purpose of a doctrine where Scripture is the PRIME authority. This is against the totally unrealistic doctrine where scripture is the SOLE authority. Yes, I do believe these men are under inspiration. I believe I myself have written things under inspiration. The issue is how can I know which things and more importantly, how can you know to trust me at all? You cannot! But there are several things evincing this inspiration in the writings of these fathers.
1. Apostolic succession. Yes its real, but there's mystical about this. Simply put, you can trust a guy who Paul has trained for ministry to train another in the same way. But inspiration is naturally going to taper from one successor to the next. Not to mention that when the seat of Peter becomes one of great political authority, then wicked men will seek the title alone and we have to think this office will be subject to political or historical manipulation.
2. A concord on key doctrines that is all but absent from today's universal Church, or even the Catholic Church alone, despite being far removed both geographically and in time.
3. Their fruit! These men lived lives rigorously set apart from the world. These Christians would put even the most conservative of followers today to shame. And most of them died as martyrs.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a3763 No.852166
>>852165
nothing mystical*
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852167
>>852165
>where scripture is the SOLE authority.
You're leaving out the necessary qualifier sole infallible authority
Are you sure you don't believe in sola scriptura yourself? I think you're arguing against what's been called "nuda scriptura".
Do you think Protestants reject the authority of ancient voices or councils to offer insight in our reading of the bible? If you've picked up a piece of English literature on patristics I can almost guarantee a protestant prepared it for you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a3763 No.852168
>>852167
>Do you think Protestants reject the authority of ancient voices or councils to offer insight in our reading of the bible?
Well, many times when I bring up this stuff, I get accused of being like a Catholic or Orthodox for going outside the book. Yeah, I think protestants are pretty impudent towards the early church. I was talking about how the early church would need 10 years of repentance to restore someone to communion after apostasy and my friend from church literally went "early church blegh…"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852169
>>852168
People in any camp can be bad representatives of their view
Do you see now that you actually affirm sola scriptura as its correctly defined?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
07f744 No.852183
>>852118
That's a lot of words to say "No"
Protestants have no way of knowing what books are divinely inspired or not. Their entire religion revolves around believing in the Catholic Orthodox Church without realising it. If the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are wrong, then their creation - the Bible, must also be wrong.
Unless you will try to argue that they magically only got one thing right, which your entire religion is based on.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852190
>>852183
The canon was an ex post facto conclusion. The roman church and the eastern orthodox churches do not themselves believe the inspiration of scripture depends on them.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852218
>>852183
>Protestants have no way of knowing what books are divinely inspired or not. Their entire religion revolves around believing in the Catholic Orthodox Church without realising it.
My church is independent, baptist, follows the New Testament and precedes everything you just mentioned in terms of historicity.
>their creation - the Bible
It is God's word, not the word of man.
>If the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are wrong, then their creation - the Bible, must also be wrong.
This is built on the false predicate that men authored the sacred Scriptures. It says in 2 Peter 1:21, that: "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
So you see there that the prophecies of Scripture were inspired by God to his servants the apostles who then caused the New Testament to be written. A similar situation to the Old Testament beforehand. This is all in accordance with the will of God, who also caused it to be preserved until this day.
You sound like you do not believe in God according to your statements. Your statements give all the credit to men as if there was no God.
>Unless you will try to argue that they magically only got one thing right
They got it wrong, actually. They added Apocrypha, in the council of Trent. Thus, proving they do not know how to discern the Scriptures.
Wow, that was a lot of things wrong with your post. Fortunately, they have all been set on the right track now.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d0497b No.852239
>>852218
YOU LITERALLY BELIEVE BAPTISTS EXISTED BEFORE THE 17TH CENTURY
AND YOU BELIEVE GOD WROTE THE BIBLE LIKE ISLAM BELIEVE ALLAH WROTE THE QUR'AN
AND YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT PROTESTANTS REMOVED THE APOCRYPHA BECAUSE JEWS DIDN'T BELIEVE IN IT
LMAO
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852261
>>852239
>LET ME TELL YOU WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN ALL CAPS
>I'M LMAOING AT UR LIFE
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
22b79a No.852282
>>851943
Honestly I think saying sola is a bit incorrect in describing the doctrine, at least for Luther. It's more of scriptura prima where scripture is the measure of doctrine.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a4fe8d No.852287
>>852282
He chose the word sola for a reason
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
42f315 No.852373
>>852218
>My church is independent, baptist, follows the New Testament and precedes everything you just mentioned in terms of historicity.
The New Testament didn't exist until Saint Athanasius compiled it, therefore if your church is founded on The New Testament, you're church had to start with Saint Athanasius and not Jesus.
>It is God's word, not the word of man.
The Bible is God's word and it was written and compiled by men in His Church.
>This is built on the false predicate that men authored the sacred Scriptures. It says in 2 Peter 1:21, that: "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
>This is built on the false predicate that men authored the sacred Scriptures.
>"the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
>holy men of God
>holy men
It says right there in your own quotation that men had something to do with authoring The Scriptures.
Wow, that was a lot of things wrong with your post. Fortunately, they have all been set on the right track now.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852380
>>852373
>The New Testament didn't exist until Saint Athanasius compiled it
You think he wrote it?
>The Bible is God's word and it was written and compiled by men in His Church.
Agree.
>It says right there in your own quotation that men had something to do with authoring The Scriptures.
They did not author God's word, they were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit and spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Just as my quote which you just wrote says (before you cut out the part "as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"). The authorship of God's word belongs to our Lord.
>Wow, that was a lot of things wrong with your post.
Such as what? I agree that God inspired apostles and prophets to give us his Word. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" - Ephesians 2:20. That means God authored it. Then men recorded it. They did not author it though. You would say this only if you believe there is no God behind the inspiration of the word. This is a thing which many today openly do not believe, so they credit men with authoring the Scriptures.
Now what was wrong the the guy above me's post? First, he thinks my church has no way of knowing what books are divinely inspired or not. That question was addressed.
Second, he thinks men "created" the Bible - He calls it "their creation" while leaving God out.
Third, he thinks Catholicism which added apocrypha was correct and that we rely on that decision. But the simple fact of the matter is they included apocrypha, non-inspired material, wrongfully, and the church does not follow that mistake thus easily proving there is no reliance. Because they were wrong in the first place. It would be great if they were right instead of wrong, but that would still not prove anyone was relying on them, because the traditions of the apostles are older than Constantine.
Fourth, he thinks that I have to argue that Cathoolicism got one thing right magically. Actually, they got it wrong at the council of Trent by adding apocrypha and generally using inaccurate and corrupted versions. The uncorrupted source that the KJV, for example, uses comes from historical Christian sources (the received text), which are pre-catholic and vastly more accurate. So, that is a fourth thing wrong with his post because I do NOT have to argue they magically got one thing right, although if they did it would only prove they copied it from our church.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d99a7f No.852385
>>852380
>>You think he wrote it
No, he SORTED through about 3,000 different books claiming to be the word of God, like Enoch, gospel of Judas etc, and compiling it into 1 book.
As>>852183 said, you are a false church that will lead you to hell. AS Orthobro pointed out, the book was not in existence overnight, it took a couple centuries just to get the scripture settled. scripture which Protestants perverted with false lies and doctrine errors. Yeah Protestantism will lead you to hell, as you have proven.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8bb533 No.852746
>>852380
>You think he wrote it?
Compiled, not wrote.
>They did not author God's word, they were actually inspired by the Holy Spirit and spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
They did author God's word, and they were guided by The Holy Spirit when they did it.
> "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" - Ephesians 2:20
So according to this verse, The One True Church of God is founded on "The apostles and prophets" and "Jesus Christ". Funny, Saint Paul didn't feel the need to mention The Bible in that list. It's almost like all of Christianity can't be summed up in a single book or something.
>First, he thinks my church has no way of knowing what books are divinely inspired or not. That question was addressed.
No it wasn't. Unless you have sifted through the countless religious texts of antiquity and used some objective metric to discern whether or not, this or that book is canon, you rely almost entirely on The Apostolic Churches and partially on Martin Luther for what is and is not scripture.
>Second, he thinks men "created" the Bible - He calls it "their creation" while leaving God out.
Men did create The Bible. They did so under the inspiration of God, that does not mean God hacked their brains and took over their bodies so he could use their hands to write a book.
>Third, he thinks Catholicism which added apocrypha was correct and that we rely on that decision. But the simple fact of the matter is they included apocrypha, non-inspired material, wrongfully, and the church does not follow that mistake thus easily proving there is no reliance. Because they were wrong in the first place. It would be great if they were right instead of wrong, but that would still not prove anyone was relying on them, because the traditions of the apostles are older than Constantine.
I would like to know what metric you used to determine that The Apocrypha is not inspired. Assuming you have actually read it.
>Fourth, he thinks that I have to argue that Cathoolicism got one thing right magically. Actually, they got it wrong at the council of Trent by adding apocrypha
According to your version of history The Catholic Church still magically got something right because The Council of Trent took place between 1545 and 1563 A.D. Saint Constantine The Great, whom you suppose founded The Catholic Church, began his rule in 306 A.D. 1,545-306=1,239 therefore The Catholic Church had the correct canon for at least 1,239 years before The Council of Trent.
>The uncorrupted source that the KJV, for example, uses comes from historical Christian sources (the received text), which are pre-catholic and vastly more accurate.
Pastor Jim is not a historical Christian source. Unless you can provide me with one of these pre-Catholic Independent Fundamentalist Baptist manuscripts, I refuse to believe it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
6a3763 No.852748
>>852380
>Third, he thinks Catholicism which added apocrypha was correct and that we rely on that decision. But the simple fact of the matter is they included apocrypha, non-inspired material, wrongfully, and the church does not follow that mistake thus easily proving there is no reliance. Because they were wrong in the first place. It would be great if they were right instead of wrong, but that would still not prove anyone was relying on them, because the traditions of the apostles are older than Constantine.
This is literally the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true except inverted.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f48243 No.852749
>>852218
>My church is independent, baptist, follows the New Testament and precedes everything you just mentioned in terms of historicity.
Is there any evidence of independant baptists existing in the 1st century? Most early Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries stand in contrast to what many independent bapsists believe.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
72de48 No.852861
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
72de48 No.852862
>>851943
Fantastic post. Thank you my brother in Christ
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
72de48 No.852863
>>851950
The problem with your stance is, the church fathers contradict each other constantly. Same with church councils and popes and everything in between.
And Arminianism/Calvinism is not an issue of salvation.
So you're really talking about nothing relevant to the conversation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
72de48 No.852864
>>852057
The Koran claimed to be a continuation of the bible but got every detail wrong and cited debunked gnostic gospels as sources. Gospels that claimed to be written by people who had died hundreds of years prior to their appearance.
I could go through every religion but you get the point. You should do some reading instead of whining on 8chan like this
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c7682a No.852865
>>852373
>The New Testament didn't exist until Saint Athanasius compiled it
This is simply false as a matter of objective history. A mythology has developed in Christianity which attributes compilation sometimes only of the New Testament, sometimes even more laughably the entire bible to one particular source, such Athanasius, or the Council of Nicaea. The reason for this mythology is because many people assume such an "official" compilation *must* have happened some time, but to my recollection the first time someone actually compiled a list of canon dogmatically and called any man a heretic who believed otherwise was the Council of Trent in 1546. The reality is that the canon developed naturally in the Church, as God's people gradually received His word, recognizing the voice of their shepherd. Codex Sinaiticus was a bible with the books bound together not only before Athanasius did anything of note, but even before he was born. The earliest fathers all cite at least some books of the New Testament as holy scripture (the reason why they did not do so with all the books in that earliest age is nearly always if not actually always because even then not every book had spread to their corner of the empire yet, and so they could not possess it).
>>852746
>Saint Paul didn't feel the need to mention The Bible in that list
To what on earth do you think "the apostles and prophets" refers?
>Unless you have sifted through the countless religious texts of antiquity and used some objective metric to discern whether or not, this or that book is canon, you rely almost entirely on The Apostolic Churches
First we most note that the churches of Rome and Constantinople are not in any meaningful sense true Christian churches, let alone apostolic. It is only an apostolic church which maintains the apostolic religion, not merely one which can trace its history back ultimately to the apostles (which it must be noted our churches, the true churches, can do just as well, having sprung off from Rome. No succession of a special priesthood is necessary as the apostles possessed no such priesthood to begin with). There are two senses that we know the scriptures are the word of God, the subjective sense and the objective sense. The former sense is individual, as Christ's sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd like a man recognizes light merely by looking at it. The recognition is instinctive for the regenerate soul. The latter sense is corporate, and is the knowledge of the Church possessed as a group, influenced greatly by the traditions of our forbears. The early fathers heard His voice just as much as us, and this is the list of books they recognized. There is no inconsistency of this with our epistemology for two reasons, 1. We do not shun tradition as we are frequently accused of, we merely insist it be consistent with scripture, which alone is divine and 2. We are not resting scripture on the authority of tradition, it rests on the authority of the God who spoke it alone, we are merely using tradition as a tool to aid in discerning the list of canon, seeing what the perspective of God's people in the past was. There are some books of holy writ which are so sacrosanct and so clearly of divine origin that no orthodox theologian has ever, in the entire history of the church, questioned their canonicity. Nearly 2,000 years of history and God's people are completely unanimous. How could this be, if it was necessary for some particular man or some conclave of men to dare pretend to dictate what was and was not the word of God?
>partially on Martin Luther
The other reformers, and the churches that embraced the Reformation, have never tended to blindly follow whatever Martin Luther did. They agreed with his list because they agreed with it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852908
>>852746
AU`THOR, noun [Latin auctor. The Latin word is from the root of augeo, to increase, or cause to enlarge. The primary sense is one who brings or causes to come forth.]
1. One who produces, creates, or brings into being; as, God is the author of the Universe.
2. The beginner, former, or first mover of any thing; hence, the efficient cause of a thing. It is appropriately applied to one who composes or writes a book, or original work, and in a more general sense, to one whose occupation is to compose and write books; opposed to compiler or translator.
>They did author God's word, and they were guided by The Holy Spirit when they did it.
So you say they were the first mover and beginner of God's word. I am sorry but I have to disagree, because that credit belongs to the Lord.
>Funny, Saint Paul didn't feel the need to mention The Bible in that list. It's almost like all of Christianity can't be summed up in a single book or something.
According to 1 Timothy 3:15, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. If the truth is God's word (Jn. 17:17) then the church has always been the place where that truth is found. Thus, people using and producing false versions and corrupted versions that do not adhere to the original are disqualified; but if they see the truth and continue to reject it, then they are knowingly withstanding the truth as it says in Romans 1:18 (KJV).
>Unless you have sifted through the countless religious texts of antiquity and used some objective metric to discern whether or not, this or that book is canon, you rely almost entirely on [not God]
No. As Christ said in John 8:47, he that is of God hears God's words. It is as simple as that. You might ask, why would one person accept God's word and another upon hearing it reject it? The difference is whether or not they are of God.
>They did so under the inspiration of God, that does not mean God hacked their brains and took over their bodies so he could use their hands to write a book.
Of course, but the Lord God knows everything in advance and takes credit and responsibility for his word being his word.
>I would like to know what metric you used to determine that The Apocrypha is not inspired.
He that is not of God would think that non-scripture is inspired. All such people are not of God.
As it says in John 8:47. "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
>Unless you can provide me with one of these pre-Catholic Independent Fundamentalist Baptist manuscripts, I refuse to believe it.
See the sources used in making the Textus Receptus then.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852909
>>852749
>Most early Christian writings from the 1st and 2nd centuries stand in contrast to what many independent bapsists believe.
Do you have much besides the Bible?
Well, if you did, it is likely to be corrupted either malfeasantly or not, or misunderstood as it is not inspired and preserved as God's word is due to the intervention of God on that account. The existence of false cults even as early as the apostles is not disputed either. The DSS is a good example of early corruption of the text of the Old Testament as an example. The less-famous scrolls they found there, which you never hear about, had clear alterations to the text. This is because the people who lived there were Essenes, an extremist sect who would be likely to corrupt the scriptures. Similarly, there were gnostics writing false and corrupted versions of the gospels around the 1st and 2nd centuries.
The only way to know these things for sure is to believe God's word, which states that, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." - (Matt. 24:35). Hence we know that only the inspired word lasts uncorrupted, from then even until now.
The apostle Peter told us the same in 1 Peter 1:23-25.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8bb533 No.852915
>>852865
>Codex Sinaiticus was a bible with the books bound together not only before Athanasius did anything of note, but even before he was born.
Did you do any research before you posted this? Codex Sinaiticus dates between 330 and 360 A.D. Saint Athenasius was born in 293 A.D. so the codex was very likely made shortly after Saint Athenasius compiled his reading list that would later become the New Testament. Codex Sinaiticus also contains various books of The Apocrypha including, Tobit,
Judith, And other deuterocanonical books like Macabees 1 and 4. On top of that, Codex Sinaiticus's Old Testament is actually a copy of The Septuagint, NOT The Masoratic which the KJV is based on. Oops! Looks like the Orthodox Church was right again.
>>Saint Paul didn't feel the need to mention The Bible in that list
>To what on earth do you think "the apostles and prophets" refers?
Gee I dunno, Maybe it refers to The Apostles and Prophets. I know what it DOESN'T refer to, though; A book.
>First we most note that the churches of Rome and Constantinople are not in any meaningful sense true Christian churches, let alone apostolic. It is only an apostolic church which maintains the apostolic religion, not merely one which can trace its history back ultimately to the apostles (which it must be noted our churches, the true churches, can do just as well, having sprung off from Rome.
First of all, you've contradicted yourself here. If The Roman Catholic Church is not apostolic, and you admit that your church is just an offshoot of Catholicism, you can't claim apostolic succession either.
>No succession of a special priesthood is necessary as the apostles possessed no such priesthood to begin with).
Yes they did and yes it is.
>There are two senses that we know the scriptures are the word of God, the subjective sense and the objective sense. The former sense is individual, as Christ's sheep recognize the voice of their shepherd like a man recognizes light merely by looking at it.
So scripture is or is not inspired based on whether or not YOU want it to be. I can't say I expected a better method from you.
> The latter sense is corporate, and is the knowledge of the Church possessed as a group, influenced greatly by the traditions of our forbears.
This better describes The Catholic Church than your fake pseudoreligion.
>The early fathers heard His voice just as much as us, and this is the list of books they recognized.
I agree entirely! In fact, I think the early Church Fathers probably were more in touch with God than we are today. For instance, that mystery fellow who wrote The Codex Sinaiticus you were talking about earlier recognized multiple books of The Apocrypha as being divine Scripture. He must have been a very devout Orthodox Scribe and not a bepist at all. Truly he was guided by God.
>There is no inconsistency of this with our epistemology for two reasons, 1. We do not shun tradition as we are frequently accused of
You don't have any traditions. Your church isn't even old enough to develop any traditions yet.
>There are some books of holy writ which are so sacrosanct and so clearly of divine origin that no orthodox theologian has ever, in the entire history of the church, questioned their canonicity. Nearly 2,000 years of history and God's people are completely unanimous.
And do you know why? It's because of The Council of Laodicea and people like Saint Athanasius.
>The other reformers, and the churches that embraced the Reformation, have never tended to blindly follow whatever Martin Luther did. They agreed with his list because they agreed with it.
They agreed with Luther because they were faithless and didn't know any better.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8bb533 No.852922
>>852908
>>They did author God's word, and they were guided by The Holy Spirit when they did it.
>So you say they were the first mover and beginner of God's word. I am sorry but I have to disagree, because that credit belongs to the Lord.
I am not even going to dignify this with a response because of the incredible stupidity on display here so for the time being, I'll concede that God hacked numerous peoples' brains and forced each one of them to write pieces of a manuscript that would be brought together in its complete form until 1 or 2 centuries later.
>According to 1 Timothy 3:15, the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. If the truth is God's word (Jn. 17:17) then the church has always been the place where that truth is found.
I agree, The Church is where the truth is found. You do not find the truth or The Will of God by reading The Bible and interpreting it however you please to suit your own biases. Like how you've just tried to use this verse that clearly states The Church is the ground and pillar of truth, not any book or manuscript, to say the exact opposite.
>No. As Christ said in John 8:47, he that is of God hears God's words. It is as simple as that. You might ask, why would one person accept God's word and another upon hearing it reject it? The difference is whether or not they are of God.
How convenient that you don't require any research or work on your own part, God just speaks directly to you like He did for Moses. You're delusional. That verse is Jesus calling out the pharisees for being willfully corrupt and immoral. It doesn't have anything to do with you hearing disembodied voices telling you that you're always right.
>>Unless you can provide me with one of these pre-Catholic Independent Fundamentalist Baptist manuscripts, I refuse to believe it.
>See the sources used in making the Textus Receptus then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus
<In Christianity, the term Textus Receptus (Latin for "received text") designates all editions of the Greek texts of the New Testament from the Novum Instrumentum omne established by Erasmus in 1516 to the 1633
Erasmus was Catholic. You lose again.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852923
>>852922
>Erasmus was Catholic. You lose again.
Forget his TR, it was hastily rushed and inaccurate in several places. Use Stephanus' 1550 (he corrected Erasmus) and/or Beza's edition from 1598, which is a much more accurate edition of the original New Testament manuscripts. Those two agree in virtual synchronicity, the differences being mostly down to spelling and diacritics (i.e. nomina sacra) that never affect the translation of the word in question.
By the way, the codex sinaiticus is literally taken out of a trash heap and likely a forgery, commissioned to be written (whether wittingly or unwittingly) by Constantine Simonides. It is corrupt and inaccurate in thousands of places. It removes whole verses and huge sections of text, and changes many words inexplicably from the original Greek New Testament. Hence the modern versions (NIV, ESV, others) that are based on it are irredeemably corrupted as well.
>God just speaks directly to you like He did for Moses. You're delusional.
My friend, I forgive you for saying that. But I never said what you accused me here.
>>852922
<To what on earth do you think "the apostles and prophets" refers?
>Gee I dunno, Maybe it refers to The Apostles and Prophets. I know what it DOESN'T refer to, though; A book.
What do you think Abraham meant when he said this in Luke 16:31, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Or what about the Lord Jesus Christ, who said "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.852924
>>852923
Notice the underlined words in the above post.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c7682a No.852935
>>852915
>Codex Sinaiticus dates between 330 and 360 A.D.
I recall it being a hundred years older.
>Codex Sinaiticus also contains various books of The Apocrypha
Irrelevant.
>Codex Sinaiticus's Old Testament is actually a copy of The Septuagint, NOT The Masoratic which the KJV is based on. Oops! Looks like the Orthodox Church was right again.
Are you mental or something? Of course it uses the Septuagint, it's a Greek text. Of course it didn't use the Masoretic, that wouldn't exist for centuries. Who said anything about the KJV?
>Gee I dunno, Maybe it refers to The Apostles and Prophets
Indeed, perhaps you should have spent even a moment thinking about what that could even mean instead of regurgitating it like an idiot.
>First of all, you've contradicted yourself here. If The Roman Catholic Church is not apostolic, and you admit that your church is just an offshoot of Catholicism, you can't claim apostolic succession either.
Can you not read? To repeat myself, true apostolic succession is the succession of the apostolic religion. As a matter of history, our churches came out from Rome, so they also can trace their institutions back to the apostles, but an institution is not what Christ founded. Our churches are apostolic and Rome is not because our churches preach the same gospel as the apostles, and Rome does not. It was a true church once, but not for at least a thousand years.
>Yes they did and yes it is.
Not an argument
>So scripture is or is not inspired based on whether or not YOU want it to be. I can't say I expected a better method from you.
We are approaching pearls before swine
>And do you know why? It's because of The Council of Laodicea and people like Saint Athanasius.
The earliest fathers accepted these books because Athanasius, a man who wouldn't be born for centuries after their deaths, told them to?
You are a contemptible and antagonistic fool. You are more a jester than a theologian and I will not cast any more pearls before you
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8ea64d No.852939
>>851942
This is an excellent point, if such an earthly authority were ever established it would be very easily led astray by one or a series of false teachers. If you want an example of this simply look to the Roman Catholic church, for the past several hundred centuries they have been leading many into idolatry, pride, and hypocrisy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
2d1156 No.852940
>>851943
Catholics are the Pharisees confirmed.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8bb533 No.853058
>>852935
>You are more a jester than a theologian and I will not cast any more pearls before you
You can keep your cheap fake pearls. I do not want them. Our exchange stands testament to your ilks' historical illiteracy and willingness to impose your own meaning onto scripture; and that is enough.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c7682a No.853067
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
7437c3 No.853094
>>852939
First of all, even one hundred centuries ago would be the year 8000 BC. Not to mention multiple hundreds. Second of all, it is Satan which leads people into pride and heresy. As it says in 2 Timothy 2,
"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
855b96 No.853098
>>853094
My mistake, in my haste I tried to combine the phrases "few hundred years" and "several centuries". And yes, that is exactly my point, if there is a sole authority figure for a church and Satan leads them astray, it would thereby take the rest of the church with it, or simply divide it and scatter it to the wind.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.