Only Protestants actually follow the Bible. Worshipping icons or worshipping idols is forbidden. Invoking saints is forbidden. Neither of you are Christians.
>>18257889>muh Catholics are idolaters This objection by protestants is mainly due to the fact that they cannot distinguish between worship and lesser forms of veneration. David bowed in front of the ark in Psalm 99:5, Joshua did the same in Joshua 7:6. God commands the use of icons in 1 Kings 6:29, even statues in Exodus 25:18-19. The use of graven images is forbidden, there is a line between non-graven and graven images. So the veneration offered to those represented by images is not idolatrous. Asking for prayers from saints that can hear you is perfectly fine, and so is the use of images during worship.
>>18257944>that can hear youlollmao
>>18257889>Only Protestants actually follow the BibleNot really, no.>Worshipping icons or worshipping idols is forbiddenThat's why Orthos and Catholics venerate them instead.>Invoking saints is forbiddenWhere?>>18257960If your God is not God of the living, I am very sorry.
>>18257964Being alive in heaven doesn't mean they're taking calls like a call center, bozo
>>18258011What experience are you speaking from?
>>18257944He wasn't praying to the ark was he? Cathodox pray to Mary as a goddess. >>18257964Venerate and worship are the same>Not really, no.Sola scriptura is protestant. Cathodox listen to the pope or their big head bishop instead
>>18258020>Venerate and worship are the sameThis. It always seems to come down to this incredibly dangerous conflation. I genuinely urge you to inspect whether you worship God or merely venerate him. Your soul's health literally depends on you figuring out the difference.>Sola scriptura is unbiblical
>>18258016The fact that sole prayer to Jesus Christ hasn't failed me and that He's given zero indication or correction about the intercession of saints being a thing.
>>18258027So no experience. I'm not being dismissive, I'm just trying to be clear - you're basing your view on what you weren't told and weren't shown. Saints can't hear us because Jesus didn't talk to you about your opinion.
>>18257889Considering protestantism derives from the Poperous Church of Satan and Idolatry claiming they were never even Christian seems counter-productive to your own claims. All the the mainstream reformers were aware of this, of course, which is why they tended to argue the Catholic Church had gone astray in recent times.Unitarians, Arians, etc, aside. They were different.
>>18258034Did you want me to pull up an objective doctrine that fell out of the skies of heaven? You already knew your question was leading on the side of subjectivity. The thing is, even any subjective experience with saint intercession doesn't qualify its existence, because you can't know if through Christ's infinite mercy that He's still granting the boon through a perceived proxy that isn't real. It's like saying Christ would ignore a person if they're in a certain denomination, because they all differ in doctrine when it comes down to it.
>>18257889>Why are Catholics and Orthodox considered Christians?In modern times any group that claims to be something is given the benefit of the doubt and lumped in with the rest. There is no principle behind it. That's the actual answer.>Worshipping icons or worshipping idols is forbidden.According to the Bible yes.>Invoking saints is forbidden.If they are trying to pray to them, pretending as if they are God and omnipresent, then yes that is blasphemous.Also, in addition to this, many of the official "saints" of Catholicism are just modified versions of aspect deities from the Roman Imperial Cult. They were originally idols that were objects of worship and under Catholicism they simply started calling them "saints" and changed nothing else. People still built altars and burned incense to the same idols. This was how much of the ignorant populace suddenly came to be considered "converted".
>>18257944>graven imagesYou shall not make for YOURSELF an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. The idea is to not be selfish when you lock in a code (engrave an image).
>>18258045I'm fine with subjectivity, just not with arguments from silence. >even any subjective experience with saint intercession doesn't qualify its existenceBy that token your experiences with Christ don't mean much either... which I wouldn't consider a wise position.
>>18257889>Invoking saintsThis is how the saints raise from the dead. Its encouraged in the gospel to emulate what has worked in the past.You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, as I also remain in you.
>>18258027>intercessionIntercession is not necessary.
>>18258041Of course, positions toward catholicism became much more hardline and distorted as time went on for reasons that should be self-evident. These then where inherited by Protestants in the new world, which exacerbated them by reason of distance.
>>18258034>Saints can't hear usThis. They don't hear us, we hear them, and they are given life in us. Eternal life is a gift we recieve.
>>18258054>I'm fine with subjectivity, just not with arguments from silence. It's not that I've given zero thought to the matter, but one would expect that at the very least if this was a viable avenue for prayer and one chooses a position to call it false, that there would be a prodding to not discount it completely. If we all presume ourselves to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and that the Holy Spirit enables us with groanings in the direction of truth, then the burden of proof shouldn't lie squarely on my shoulders. Maybe you guys should go to Him yourself and ask for direction on whether saint intercession is true or not.
>>18258011Lmao cope.>god is the god of the living, those in comunion with god are alive regardless of the state of their mortal bodiesIf protestants bothered to read the bible there wouldn’t be any
>>18258024Unbiblical? It's unbiblical to contradict the Bible because you're either listening to the pope or some orthodox bishop making things up
>>18258076It means they are alive in heaven not that you should pray to them
>>18258041>All the the mainstream reformers were aware of this, of course, which is why they tended to argue the Catholic Church had gone astray in recent times.They had gone astray in falling away, the modern church of Rome is apostate and heretical, no church of Christ but a synagogue of Satan. There is a great distinction to be made between the modern and ancient churches of Rome, one was a faithful instance of the Church Catholic, the other is not only apostate but a usurper, pretending that the bounds of its own walls are the bounds of the Catholic Church and condemning to hell all who do not belong to their sect (which is Donatism, making the Church to be only where they are). The faith of the ancient Church was not Romanism, so it would be entirely inappropriate to equate Leo the Great and the current Leo. It is true that Romanism infected the institution and the tradition before the Reformation (precisely the thing which necessitated the Reformation), and in that sense we came out of Romanism, but Romanism was never Christian, and various corrupt practices like the worship of saints and images were never Christian, so in that sense it is false that we came out of Romanism because our religion has by far the greater antiquity and our Reformation was only a return to form.
>>18258073>the burden of proof shouldn't lie squarely on my shouldersA burden lies on whoever makes a claim. Ours is based on experience. Yours is based on its lack. If I were a completely unbiased observer, I would struggle a little bit with the theory behind praying to human beings, but in the end, theology is about experience, not theoretical models.>>18258077Holy men interpreting scripture in ways that seem counter-intuitive to laymen is biblical. Sola scriptura is unbiblical.
>>18258091>Ours is based on experience.Which I assume is "tradition". So, instead of seeking out a validating response for yourself from Christ, you want to say "good enough" because of what those claimed in the past. I'm actually not even arguing from a position of unknowability, I'm stating there is actually an avenue for testing these kinds of claims. No church is inerrant, and an appeal to popularity isn't going to trump Christ's own guidance for a believer.
>>18258091>in the end, theology is about experience, not theoretical models.Theology is about divine revelation, not experience. Christianity is not an eastern religion where a wise man climbs the highest mountain to seize enlightenment, the Christian religion is uniquely true because it alone is delivered by the hand of God Himself to guide His people directly. If your theology is based not on God's word but your own experience then you have been deceived as the serpent deceived Eve. >Sola scriptura is unbiblical.This claim is necessarily incoherent and circular, since your position and meaning is that we are not to receive the truth from the word of God but it is to be chained up, held captive and silenced by false authority figures to whom we are to arrogate God's rightful authority, the claim it is "unbiblical" can only mean that it is contrary to the decrees of the pope and his minions, which is neither news nor relevant.
>>18258101Popularity? The appeal is to experience. Our holy men have talked to Christ and talked to the Saints. The avenue was walked and the conclusions are in. >>18258102>revelation, not experience>not on God's word but your own experienceYou do understand that a revelation (and all reading of the Bible) are experiences, right?>seizedNo idea where you read this.> false authority figuresNo, just the true ones. Again, holy men interpreting the scripture is scriptural. You have no ground to stand on. You argue for sola scriptura without being able to establish it and you argue against experience without being able to avoid it. If you have managed to eat your cake and have it too, something went wrong.
>>182578892nd Temple had images, sacrifices, an ordained priesthood with a direct lineage to Aaron, incense, etc. The Ark itself had statues of angels on it. All of this was directly ordained and good in scripture given to Moses from God.The Church as established by Christ has images, a sacrifice, a clear priesthood with a lineage to an originator (Christ when he washed the feet of the Apostles) incense, etc.All of you Protestants with your “pastors” pretending to be priests and you Rabbinical Jews with your Rabbis but no priests, no lineage, no temple, no sacrifice jealously seethe online because you know the Bible as a complete integrated text shows a continuity between ancient Judaism and the Apostolic Churches, and that you can’t compare.Your churches and synagogues are built on a foundation of sand, ours is built on Rock.
>>18258110>Our holy men have talked to Christ and talked to the Saints. They have talked to devils and their own vain imaginations, see 1 John 4:1>You do understand that a revelation (and all reading of the Bible) are experiences, right?Yet somehow I do not think a secular empiricist would be satisfied with reading the bible as empirical evidence of the global flood. This is a category error, because it conflates experience of the bible with experience of the things testified to in the bible.>Again, holy men interpreting the scripture is scripturalHow do you know it is scriptural? Is it because that is how the holy men interpreted scripture? Again, this is a vicious circle.>You have no ground to stand onI stand on God's word, you stand on men's word. I much prefer my ground.>You argue for sola scriptura without being able to establish itIt is certainly not established by the authority of men, were it to be founded on such empty grounds we should conclude the critics were right and our faith is in vain. But the authority of the scriptures is grounded precisely in the fact they do not come from men, but from God, who is able to be heard by those to whom He speaks, and clearly understood. There can be no other foundation for true religion, to deny this is not to argue for men to hold that place, but to argue the religion is false.
>>18258110>Popularity? The appeal is to experience. Our holy men have talked to Christ and talked to the Saints. The avenue was walked and the conclusions are in. I suspect you, and many like you, are actually wary of engaging with Christ with matters like this, because there's an underlying dread that institutional error being proven to a believer would open up a can of worms that would lead to doubt and confusion that would bleed into everything else concerning the church you follow. "If Christ verifies a truth that goes against a "proven" claim, what else would they have gotten wrong?", then an even more uncomfortable thought of "Why would they have gotten it wrong?". In the end, if you can't trust in your personal relationship with Christ to clarify truth, then you're prioritizing men over Him, which at the end of the day is what saint intercession really comes down to.
>>18258136>I stand on God's word, you stand on men's word. I much prefer my ground.Lmao.
>>18258136>It is certainly not established by the authority of men, were it to be founded on such empty grounds we should conclude the critics were right and our faith is in vain. But the authority of the scriptures is grounded precisely in the fact they do not come from men, but from God,Show me someone saying “sola scriptura” before Martin Luther.No, scriptural primacy doesn’t count, since that’s the Catholic position. Also, you can believe what you want, but I doubt that tradition matters literally zilch and that Christ established his church intentionally in error so that Pastor Bob could figure it all out in the 70s.
>>18258112>2nd Temple had images, sacrifices, an ordained priesthood with a direct lineage to Aaron, incense, etcSo you're saying Romanism is judaizing>The Ark itself had statues of angels on it.Which is by the command of God, not present in the midst of the people, not a depiction of God, and not an object of worship, which is to say it had nothing at all in common with the images of the Roman church, nor any reason according to our principles we should reject it, so its mention is a red herring.>The Church as established by Christ has images, a sacrifice, a clear priesthood with a lineage to an originatorIt has none of these things, not only are none of them mentioned in God's word (which would be sufficient to reject them) all of them are directly contradicted by God's word, so it is self-evident this is a counterfeit introduced by the devil to snuff out the true faith, since it is not from God. John 10:1 "Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in some other way, is a thief and a robber."
>>18258154Yes Christianity has (old covenant temple) Jewish elements. The Church is Israel. Haven’t you ever read the Bible before?The rabbinical Jews are false heirs, the Old Testament is our heritage.
>>18257889You're splitting hairs, it doesn't matter how you play church because it is all meaningless ritual meant to please the ego of a mythical godAll gods are mythologiesAll holy books are fictionalPolitics is TreacheryReligion is Brainwashing
>>18258152>Show me someone saying “sola scriptura” before Martin Luther.I can show you a few hundred instead>No, scriptural primacy doesn’t count, since that’s the Catholic positionThe papist position is that scripture holds no authority and is not to be believed. They may say it holds a primary position, but because it is subjugated to the church, and denied to have any authenticity aside from the church's decree and denied to have any clear meaning aside from the church's decree, it is never the scripture they believe but the church. You are not free to believe the word of God, you believe that you believe God's word because this is what your slavemasters command you to believe, not because it is true. To add other authorities beside scripture's is to deny scripture's authority. >I doubt that tradition matters literally zilch and that Christ established his church intentionally in error I doubt those things too, you are arguing with a phantom of your own imagination.
>>18258136>They have talked to devils and their own vain imaginationsHow did you establish this?>This is a category error, because it conflates experience of the bible with experience of the things testified to in the bible.No such conflation was made. It was pointed out both are experiences.>>Again, holy men interpreting the scripture is scriptural>How do you know it is scriptural?From the scripture: Matthew 5:21-48; Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 7:14-23; Matthew 19:16-30;1 Samuel 15:22; Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 1:11-17... You're grasping at straws.>I stand on God's word, you stand on men's wordYou stand on conflating your word about God's word with God's word itself. This isn't strange by itself. What makes it strange is that you seem perfectly aware of other people's interpretation not being necessarily matching God's word. Yet for yourself you grant the biggest benefit one could imagine - complete correctness. And why do you do this? Because you convinced yourself that you take scripture more seriously when you stick to the unscriptural principle you invoked. >the authority of the scripturesNot the authority of sola scriptura.>>18258140I understand where you're coming from, and for a long time I've had a similar approach - essentially logical positivism, where I build my understanding personally, experience by experience, using induction, deduction, revelation etc. But it doesn't seem to work exactly. There have been cases where a demon appeared to a believer in the guise of Jesus and it was precisely the spiritual experience and maturity of the Church that helped uncover this. You can complain about men and their fallibility and you will be completely right, but you yourself are no less fallible than them. Anyway, if Jesus does grant me the privilege of seeing Him and does talk to me about saints, I will make sure to post it here too.
>>18258158>Yes Christianity has (old covenant temple) Jewish elements.No, Christianity does not have old covenant temple elements because they were types and shadows done away with in the coming of Christ. Haven't you ever read the bible before?
>>18257964The protestants think the KJV is special when it has William Shakespearean linguistic fingerprints all over it
>>18258154In my personal humble opinion it bothers me that Protestants seem so opposed to reading scripture as a coherent story, extensively, in context, and instead seem to prefer treating it as a very long spellbook and throw verses out (with modern man-made interpretations no less!) as if they’re magic incantations that will banish the “papists”(people who have read the gospels and what early Christians believed the gospels meant) from this material plane.Frankly sir, my beliefs are much closer to the apostles according to all available historical record, and especially to their immediate successors in the apostolic fathers. Men as early as St. Iraneus specifically argued for tradition-based church authority centered in Rome because the Gnostics were using denial of tradition to argue for an infernal heretical religion. Of course, he couldn’t argue for sola scriptura at the time because for the first 350-odd years of the churches history (a long time) the church had to solve many controversies largely through apostolic tradition in reference to scripture, which is also how the canon was decided on. I don’t feel a need to engage in your bizzare baptist verse-slinging wizard battle because I know your beliefs are so obviously at odds with all of Christianity before the polygamous early baptist cults of the 1600s that it’s really not worth getting into the nitty gritty.
>>18258169>The papist position is that scripture holds no authority and is not to be believed.Haha okay brother. For the benefit of anyone reading this thread that’s just not true at all. Lying and slander comes as easily to these people as breathing.
>>18258173The KJV is the most accurate version of the Bible. It's important the Bible be accurate and correctly translated. Many false translations are out there.
>>18257889There was a church and christians before the NT was even wrote.
>>18258173Lol this isn’t wrong.The vulgate, corrected for the like 1 real mistake by Jerome of translating “he” as “she” in Genesis, is substantially more trustworthy, being actually translated from the original Hebrew that has long since been lost.Anything claiming to be translated from “the hebrew” nowadays comes from a medieval jewish cult’s text that made intentional anti-christian edits.
>>18258171>How did you establish this?By comparison to the word of God.>No such conflation was made. It was pointed out both are experiences.If that is all you were saying then you said nothing at all, reading scripture may be an experience but is not an experience from which knowledge may be derived, unless its truth is established by something other than that experience i.e. from the infallible God who speaks it. We walk by faith, not by sight.>From the scripturesHow do you know these verses mean what you think they mean? Is it because the holy men said so? Again, this is a vicious circle. Jumping through hoops does not address the objection. You are not free to believe the truth, the question here is not one of interpretation but of your chains of slavery.>conflating your word about God's word with God's word itselfThis is in fact what you do, i.e. equating the opinions of your false teachers with the meaning of God's word. We do not do this, the charge is false. >Yet for yourself you grant the biggest benefit one could imagine - complete correctnessIt is incredible that you pretend to read my mind to impute to me belief in my infallibility. There is a great difference however between believing I am correct and believing I am necessarily correct. Of course I believe everything I believe is true, as all men do, this is in fact what it means to "believe". But I do not believe I could not be wrong, and have changed my interpretation of scripture over the years as it was pointed out to me I was mistaken. Again, the charge is false. We do not claim infallibility. Though it is very strange you should accuse us of this as though it were a very bad and damning thing, when it is precisely your position and actual claim. It is as though you said "you are wrong because you said I'm right". Incoherent and circular.
>>18258183The light burns you because you love darkness.
>>18258191The Nova Vulgata (official updated version from 1979) was made using the Masoretic text, are you to question the authority of the Catholic church?Enjoy Hell, we do in fact have the original Hebrew texts.
>>18258200>it’s another thread where a protestant claims his man-made interpretations that don’t predate 1650 are the word of God>>18258202You have no idea what you’re talking about.
>>18258209The Catholic Church themselves accept the Masoretic text as legit and in 1979, they made an updated version called the Nova Vulgata based on the Masoretic text, who are you to judge their decision?
>>18258171>You can complain about men and their fallibility and you will be completely right, but you yourself are no less fallible than them.This. They say a couple of true things, then assume their own judgment to be infallible anyways and then make a bunch of junk up. Repeat ad infinitum and that’s how you get every dude with an opinion starting his own “church” in the US.
>>18258197>By comparison to the word of God.Please cite where it says particular holy men saw demons instead of Christ.>>From the scriptures>How do you know these verses mean what you think they mean?I'm so glad you asked, Anon.I start out with my immediate understanding of the words in their context. I then refer to my priest and Church who often preach sermons concerning the New Testament in particular. I then might refer to the volumes of saints and Patristic commentators, who share their spiritual experience and divinely clarified understanding. Now let's comapre to you: you sart out with your own understanding and ......... oh.>We do not claim infallibilityNeither does the Orthodox Church. We just claim holy men understand more than 4chan Anons. if that is controversial to you, so be it.
>>18258212The problem is that you don’t know what “based on” means and are misusing it to say something untrue.
>>18258212Readings reflected in the Greek tradition are sometimes preferred where the MT is uncertain or late. The vulgate is not a fresh translation solely from the MT like you’re implying, it’s a revision/updating of the existing vulgate texts, which you would know if you could read Latin. They’re like 1:1 on most verses.
>>18258214The holy spirit beams the correct version of Chistianity into your head when you read the bible, chud. Except when it doesn't, for whatever reason.
>>18258177>In my personal humble opinionThis entire paragraph is overt projection.>my beliefs are much closer to the apostles according to all available historical recordThis claim is completely indefensible and false. Firstly, the historical record includes the words of the apostles themselves in the New Testament, with which the Roman religion is entirely incompatible. Secondly, the Romanists on this board have consistently shown themselves as destitute of the knowledge of history as flat earthers are the knowledge of physics, as I think we are about to see. Their opinion about the subject is not even relevant. However, in reality the much later, medieval doctrines of Romanism are as irreconcilable with the earliest centuries of the Church as they are with the New Testament, as their own historians frequently acknowledge. There are few facts of which we can be more certain than that the traditions of Rome are not apostolic.>St. Iraneus specifically argued for tradition-based church authority centered in Rome1. Centered literally in Rome, geographically the center, not in an abstract sense 2. The traditions of Irenaeus are not your traditions. The traditions he pressed against the Gnostics were merely the truths found in scripture passed down through the ages, it was intended to prove the authenticity of scripture, not to establish doctrine in itself. When Irenaeus did claim something as true by tradition alone it was that Jesus was more than 50 years old at His death, something which the modern church of Rome does not believe.>Of course, he couldn’t argue for sola scriptura at the timeHe did argue for sola scriptura: "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition."(cont.)
>>18258177>>18258235>for the first 350-odd years of the churches history (a long time) the church had to solve many controversies largely through apostolic tradition in reference to scripture, which is also how the canon was decided onThere are many errors in this sentence. Firstly, these were not the first 350 years of the Church. The Church was founded several thousands of years earlier when God called Abraham out of Ur. This is highly relevant because how you and your cohorts attempt to make erroneous arguments on the supposed infancy of the Church. Secondly, these controversies were not solved by appeals to tradition but to scripture. They certainly appealed to tradition, but tradition in the sense which I believe and not you, i.e. the passage of Christian truth derived from scripture through the ages. They were pointing out the novelty of their opponents, not supplanting scripture with another authority. Thirdly, the idea these men had "decided" the canon would have been a greater shock to none than themselves. They regarded themselves as subordinates passively receiving what God had revealed from the beginning in scripture, not as establishing the religion and inventing the scripture. They indeed derived the canon from tradition, but again this reflected their belief that the authentic scriptures had always been beheld in the Church, not that they did nor could "decide" them.>bizzare baptist verse-slinging wizard battleI'm not interested in your schizo obsession with Baptists
>>18258171>There have been cases where a demon appeared to a believer in the guise of Jesus and it was precisely the spiritual experience and maturity of the Church that helped uncover this.I was actually thinking on this recently when I was reading about Margaret Mary Alacoque and her claims of Jesus appearing to her. Her claims of "Jesus requesting love from believers out of sadness" seems out of character, because while He obviously does desire love, but the way she framed it was that Jesus was grieving they weren't "loving Him enough", when Jesus doesn't really strike a person as that type of God. He's infinitely charitable and merciful with his unending love, it's just his nature, but her account is like there should be an exchange for what he's giving and that necessitates Him appearing teary-eyed to some nun to tell people about it. Then there's a bunch of other crazy shit with her self-mutilating her chest with a knife, and being wracked with manic symptoms like weeping and fainting. This still led to her being canonized as a saint and she had endorsement by a Jesuit (which, even if you're Catholic, you shouldn't trust those guys), and then had the devotion of the Sacred Heart be practiced. There's some serious red flags there, and the moral of the story is that even the Catholic Church is dubious in true discernment with wholly spiritual matters. Hence, why a believer should seek Christ personally to come into all truth. Whether you disagree with me or not, that should be the gold standard for someone. 1 John 4:>Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God
>>18258191>being actually translated from the original Hebrew that has long since been lost.The original has NOT been lost, anon."As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."- Isaiah 59:21"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."- Psalm 119:160>Anything claiming to be translated from “the hebrew” nowadays comes from a medieval jewish cult’s text that made intentional anti-christian edits.Can you name any of these edits?I know of many edits in the Septuagint that remove messianic prophecies compared to the Hebrew source, but I have never once been shown a real example of the other way around.
>>18258214>Please cite where it says particular holy men saw demons instead of Christ.When it says those who claim revelation contrary to God's revelation are false prophets led by unclean spirits.>I then refer to my priest and Church So because the holy men said so? Seems we're still trapped in this circle >you sart out with your own understanding and ......... oh.There you go reading my mind again. It is plain you know nothing of Protestant hermeneutics (I mean classical Protestantism) and have haughtily decided you don't need to know. Would you like to learn about them?>We just claim holy men understand more than 4chan AnonsThe idea someone understands the bible better than me is uncontroversial, what is very different is the idea there are men who hold a special authority apart from the scriptures who are to be believed as though they were themselves writing scripture. The former still requires doctrines to be substantiated and justified from God's word, the latter enables it to be nullified by traditions of men.
>>18258241>Church is dubious in true discernment with wholly spiritual matters. Hence, why a believer should seek Christ personally...The solution to collective fallibility is not deciding to be fallible alone. From what I know about Catholics, their testing (especially for canonization) is fairly strict and I don't personally know you or your fruits, but it's very difficult for me to imagine an average 4chan poster being spiritually more discerning than a multitude of bishops adhering to strict spiritual rules.
>>18258253>but it's very difficult for me to imagine an average 4chan poster being spiritually more discerning than a multitude of bishops adhering to strict spiritual rules.I actually can believe that, and I'm not just making a case for myself. If we can't be called to vet and test everything, just like Paul says, then we're just automatons chained to tradition and at the whims of men. We can look at the Spanish Inquisition and see that even the whole ruling body of the church proves itself fallible in error. I'm not calling to "ignore tradition", I'm trying to argue that discernment is still required, not blind loyalty.
>>18258229This comment is mental masturbation.
>>18258250>contrary to God's revelationShow me where they contradicted it. >listening to insights of holy men is a vicious circle>listening to Protestants isn't because... it's classicalLike I said: ....... oh. You don't seem to be aware of what a circle is. Or of yourself.>the idea there are men who hold a special authority apart from the scriptures who are to be believed as though they were themselves writing scriptureLike Philip in Acts 8? Anon, holy men providing divine-mediated insights into the scripture is completely scriptural and if you think you can ditch that because you invented a hermeneutic inbetween your 3,000 churches then idk what to tell you. You're not only doing everything you're accusing me of, you're note even necessarily clear on what is scriptural (holy men interpreting the scripture) and what isn't (sola scriptura).
>>18258244Septuagint-onlyists are no less retarded than the KJV-only versions. We do in fact have the original Hebrew texts.
>>18258259>>average 4chan poster being spiritually more discerning than a multitude of bishops >I actually can believe that.... ruling body of the church proves itself fallible in errorOrgans of the Church don't have to be infallible to be more discerning than you.>I'm not calling to "ignore tradition"But you are ... I invoked many saints having experiences about intercession and it meant nothing to you until you or I individually acquire a reason to decide the matter for ourselves. That is not just adding personal discernment to the mix, that is ignoring the Tradition until it fits our personal ideas. I think you're going to learn way more the exact other way around. I definitely read the Bible in the scope which the Tradition preserved, not just the fragments whose authenticity I've vetted myself.
>>18258264>Show me where they contradicted it. You would have to give me something specific wouldn't you?>>listening to insights of holy men is a vicious circleListening to the insights of other believers is neither a circle nor inappropriate, we are to do this to ensure our understanding of scripture is not our own imagination, nor that we miss anything which our brethren have found. There is a wide difference between this and privileging certain men to interpret scripture dogmatically, who cannot be corrected nor questioned. The argument that there are to be such worldly lords in the church because the worldly lords in the church said so is definitely a vicious circle. >You don't seem to be aware of what a circle is. Or of yourself.I will take that to be a no, you are not interested in understanding. I suppose you probably find your ignorance to be a comfort, afraid that you will not be able to contest what we actually believe and will find your own opinions to be false.>Like Philip in Acts 8?No. Philip is not to be believed because he is Philip, he is to be believed because he is correct.>Anon, holy men providing divine-mediated insights into the scripture is completely scriptural and if you think you can ditch that because you invented a hermeneutic inbetween your 3,000 churches then idk what to tell you.You are repeating a circular argument while criticizing my hermeneutics despite being openly disinterested in knowing what they even are. I think you are speaking for your own benefit to assure yourself your beliefs are true because no reasonable person could expect to be taken seriously under these circumstances .
>>18258279Yes. And these originals – as represented by the Bomberg 2nd edition text of 1525 and other sources from that time – do differ from the Ben Asher Masoretic text – as represented by Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica 3rd edition text of 1937, as well as the Codex Leningradensis – in at least a few places I know of.For instance, the original Hebrew in Malachi 1:12 contains the Tetragrammaton, Jehovah or LORD (see pic).But the Biblia Hebraica Kittel and Masoretic text instead says "Adonai" in this place, a different Hebrew word which is usually translated "Lord" with no small capitals instead of LORD. So there are real concrete differences in the texts. It does no one any favors to confuse the two. The received Hebrew text, which is the original, is what the translators of 1611 used, as well as others before then.What's funny about this is that we have found intact manuscripts of the original Hebrew text that match ours almost exactly, for example the Isaiah Scroll among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Yet modern scholars want to call that the "proto-Masoretic text." Why do they even call it that? It predates the Masoretes entirely.
>>18258292>You would have to give me something specific wouldn't you?You whould have to have had that to accuse them like you did, wouldn't you?>privileging certain men to interpret scripture dogmatically, who cannot be corrected nor questionedAnon, you seem to be barking up the wrong tree.>Philip, he is to be believed because he is correct.That's how it goes, but how was one to be sure Philip was correct?>circular argumentAgain, you don't seem to know what a circle is. Repeat it 8 more times if it calms you down, but it's empty rhetoric at this point.
>>18258286>Organs of the Church don't have to be infallible to be more discerning than you.I didn't realize there was suddenly a hierarchy of who gets the stronger version of the Holy Spirit, and that bishops have a monopoly on its power. You could have some random 80 year old believer running a coffee shop in Guatemala who could prove themself more discerning in spiritual matters than anybody else on the planet from spiritual maturity. >But you are ... I invoked many saints having experiences about intercession and it meant nothing to you until you or I individually acquire a reason to decide the matter for ourselves. That is not just adding personal discernment to the mix, that is ignoring the Tradition until it fits our personal ideas. I think you're going to learn way more the exact other way around. I definitely read the Bible in the scope which the Tradition preserved, not just the fragments whose authenticity I've vetted myself.I invoked Christ's authority in regard to the relationship He has with a believer, not "winging it on your own". Once again, you're prioritizing what men have laid claim to rather than seeking Christ's guidance yourself. You vaguely side-stepped this with "Well, it could be demon induced", which isn't an invalid claim, but also ignores the role of spiritual discernment to see truth from any revelation and Christ's methods of infallibly proving His hand in it.
>>18258296>You whould have to have had that to accuse them like you did, wouldn't you?I am familiar in a general sense of your prophets supposed revelations, but we can also dismiss such claims to fresh revelation in general since the claim to possess additional revelations authoritative to any besides the recipient is squarely contrary to Hebrews 1:1-2>That's how it goes, but how was one to be sure Philip was correct?The same way you can be sure you were correct in interpreting me, the methods of interpreting scripture are not widely different from interpreting any other piece of verbal communication. I note that the eunuch could not have functioned on the standards you are implying, since he was ignorant of what the authorities of the Church even were, let alone that Philip was one. This passage merely speaks of a man ignorant of scripture seeking the assistance of one learned in it, any attempt to make it more than that is a gross misuse of the text.>Again, you don't seem to know what a circle is. Repeat it 8 more times if it calms you down, but it's empty rhetoric at this point.A pleasant consequence of the objectivity of truth is that your opinion is completely irrelevant to it. It does not matter that you are unwilling to accept "X is true because X is true" is a circular argument, it continues to be one and will continue to be invalid no matter what your feelings on the matter are.
>>18258302>I didn't realize there was suddenly a hierarchy of who gets the stronger version of the Holy SpiritNothing sudden about it. Even if you didn't understand theosis, various degrees of disclosure are a consistent pattern from Genesis to Revelation. >You could have some random 80 year old ... more discerning in spiritual matters than anybody else on the planet You could. Are you that 80 year old? At some point what-ifs have to give way to pragmatic action. And it is not pragmatic to rely on one fallible, inexperienced person as opposed to thousands of fallible people with a wealth of combined experience.>I invoked Christ's authority...So did the saints. It was not good enough for you. Once again, you're ignoring tradition until it fits your beliefs.
>>18258310Right, so you knew just enough to accuse them all, but not enough to show anything whatsoever. Shame.>>That's how it goes, but how was one to be sure Philip was correct?>The same way you can be sure you were correct in interpreting meEloquent dodge. How was one to be sure Philip was correct?>"X is true because X is true" is a circular argumentAnd this will be very relevant once it's made.
>>18258312>At some point what-ifs have to give way to pragmatic action. And it is not pragmatic to rely on one fallible, inexperienced person as opposed to thousands of fallible people with a wealth of combined experience.I'm not the anon you're responding to here, but relying on the "wisdom of the crowd" is a sure way to end up in hell."Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."- Matthew 7:13-14If I'm going to be staking my life on the outcome, I wouldn't trust anything less than God's word. Accept no substitutes for truth.
>>18258332And if I were promoting the most democratic understanding as opposed to the most saints-informed, you would be correct. >If I'm going to be staking my life on the outcome, I wouldn't trust anything less than God's word. Same. And if I'm going to try to understand it, I wouldn't settle for anything less than deified saint's insight into the text. If you don't need it, luck you.
>>18258312>Nothing sudden about it. Even if you didn't understand theosis, various degrees of disclosure are a consistent pattern from Genesis to Revelation."Disclosure" with key figures in sweeping biblical narratives, not a gaggle of men in hats studying a manic woman who carved herself up with a knife due to "Christ" appeared teary-eyed to her. >You could. Are you that 80 year old? At some point what-ifs have to give way to pragmatic action. And it is not pragmatic to rely on one fallible, inexperienced person as opposed to thousands of fallible people with a wealth of combined experience.By whose authority is the 80 year old the sole arbiter of spiritual discernment? Himself or Christ? There's a biblical pattern of God choosing the unassuming and delegating great authority to them. Much like the Pharisees being a vast ruling body with the "authority of law", so too were they confronted and rebuked. Again, an appeal to popularity. >So did the saints. It was not good enough for you. Once again, you're ignoring tradition until it fits your beliefs.No, it's not good enough for me, because I don't elevate the claims of men over Christ's true intent, hence discernment. You're arguing I'm ignoring tradition to fit my beliefs, but your conforming your beliefs to fit tradition.
>>18258259Every practice in the Roman Catholic Church, and all of the other Apostolic Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic, are all sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The Church isn't just the written scriptures, it's also the oral traditions passed down through the generations. Both have co-equal authority in dictating the conduction of sacraments and Paul makes this very clear 2 Thessalonians 2:15.>but much Spanish InquisitionThis is a meme amongst Anglo protestants. This was an Episcopal Inquisition, not a Papal Inquisition. This was done with little control and oversight from Rome, and the Holy See criticized many of its practices in its origination. And once control of it fell away from the Spanish Crown and was brought closer to control by Rome, it developed a reputation for judicial fairness and humane treatment of the accused, to the point that in Spain it was not unusual for prisoners accused of secular crimes to conduct religious crimes, so that their cases would fall under the purview of the Inquisition because they knew they would get a fair trial in an inquisitorial court than a secular court. >>18258250>what is very different is the idea there are men who hold a special authority apart from the scriptures who are to be believed as though they were themselves writing scripture. If God didn't intend for a priesthood to be the stewards of his covenant, why did he task the Levites to uphold the Mosaic Law? Where is it written in the scriptures that God intended for each person to be their own priest? All of the early Church fathers and doctors emphasized the importance of apostolic tradition. An apostolic priest is conferred spiritual authority by the Holy Spirit, going back to the Apostles. A rando who read a few passages in the Bible and one day decided to be a pastor, does not have Grace of the Holy Spirit.
>>18258337"Disclosure" in dozens of different ways. It was always a selct few who saw even a glimpse of the Truth, not to mention the full "version" of the Holy Spirit. If you are convinced your connection to the Spirit and the insights derived therefrom are the same as, say, Elisha's, I don't think there's much I can say to persuade you otherwise. Besides just reminding you that convenient and self-congratulatory beliefs tend to be wrong. >By whose authority is the 80 year old the sole arbiter of spiritual discernment? Himself or Christ? Sole? Wouldn't know. But his spiritual discernment would be a gift from God. A rare one. So rare that if people assumed they have it or something similar, most of them would be wrong. So I recommend not assuming anything remotely similar.>I don't elevate the claims of men over Christ's true intentNo, you just presume there is a difference until they agree with your own beliefs. >You're arguing I'm ignoring tradition to fit my beliefs, but your conforming your beliefs to fit tradition.Yes. That is exactly what I'm doing. That is how learning goes. Again, we don't read just the Biblical manuscripts that we vetted ourselves. We read the canon that the Church handed down, without imagining that these claims, all of which we heard from our fellow men, have to be at odd's with Christ's true intent.
>>18258345>Where is it written in the scriptures that God intended for each person to be their own priestFYI God revoked this decision after the golden calf incident and he punished the Israelites for the incident by making it so that only the Levites could be priests.
>>18258345>Paul makes this very clear 2 Thessalonians 2:15.Paul is not referring to a secret oral-only tradition that is never allowed to be written down or mentioned (except this one time).2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6 together both show us that Paul clearly tells us to only trust what we receive directly from the apostles. The reference "by word, or our epistle" clarifies that an illiterate person can still hear the word of God if someone says it to them, they don't specifically have to read it from the page.So again, it isn't a reference to a super secret tradition that can never be mentioned in writing except here a single time in 2 Thessalonians. That is very obviously just your twisted, out of context misinterpretation of what Paul is saying.
For who is God, but YAHU? And who is a rock, except our God?—the God who equipped me with strength and made my way blameless.He made my feet like the feet of a deer and set me secure on the heights.He trains my hands for war, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.You have given me the shield of your salvation, and your right hand supported me, and your gentleness made me great.You gave a wide place for my steps under me, and my feet did not slip.I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and did not turn back till they were consumed.I thrust them through, so that they were not able to rise; they fell under my feet.For you equipped me with strength for the battle; you made those who rise against me sink under me.You made my enemies turn their backs to me, and those who hated me I destroyed.They cried for help, but there was none to save; they cried to YAHU, but he did not answer them.I beat them fine as dust before the wind; I cast them out like the mire of the streets.You delivered me from strife with the people; you made me the head of the nations; people whom I had not known served me.As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me; foreigners came cringing to me.Foreigners lost heart and came trembling out of their fortresses.YAHU lives, and blessed be my rock, and exalted be the God of my salvation—the God who gave me vengeance and subdued peoples under me,who rescued me from my enemies; yes, you exalted me above those who rose against me; you delivered me from the man of violence.For this I will praise you, O Lord, among the nations, and sing to your name.Great salvation he brings to his king, and shows steadfast love to his anointed, to David and his offspring forever.
>>18258235>>18258238>>18258244>>18258250Whole lotta strawmans, adhoms, and outright false statements.
>>18258386>YAHUIt's YHVHThe V is rhw word and, so its like saying Y = H+HY being yud, which is a hand, or action of the H+HH is spirit, so what YHVH means is something like egregore, or culture, or symbiotic activity.Love your neighbor as yourself.
>>18258478>The V is rhw word andThe V (vav) is the word "and"
>>18258384I have no idea what Bible you're referencing, but that is not what the 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states in the Catholic, King James, and Orthodox Bibles. It clearly refers to the oral and written teachings passed down by the Apostles; so there's two possibilities: you're illiterate or you're reading a false translation. There is no secret oral tradition; this is a fiction of your mind and I don't think you know what an oral tradition actual means. All it is are instructions passed down through the generations.
>>18258345>So much of a meme, that the Catholic church itself had to come out and say what a colossal failure it was from how it went against the Gospels Inquisition apologists always make me laugh
>>18258496>I have no idea what Bible you're referencing, but that is not what the 2 Thessalonians 2:15 states in the Catholic, King James, and Orthodox Bibles. It clearly refers to the oral and written teachings passed down by the Apostles;The phrase, "by word, or our epistle" is taken straight out of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 in the KJV. I put quotes around it because that's exactly what it says.You seem to be illiterate and unable to even read my posts and/or the KJV itself.
>>18258514Again it’s great and all to relitigate every failure of a 2000 year old church and all, but at the end of the day it’s an actual church. I’m happy to go over these issues with people coming from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, because they’re a real church too. Since denominational debates are fundamentally a comparative exercise though, whether or not Catholics get XYZ issue right is totally irrelevant if those don’t go to the actual reasons a given church split from the Church. For example, Luther clearly had no issues with inquisitions against Jews, so a modern Lutheran or mainline Protestant really is making an irrelevant point in attacking that. Rather than actually being a productive conversation on our schisms it just becomes competitive slandering of our respective denominations, and devalues Christianity itself as a result.Apologetics and criticism of other denominations is an important part of the faith, but just seething about every little thing that’s different with a different denomination is just stupid.Also it’s silly to selectively claim pre-schism figures and movements, like arguing one pre-schism figure is ackshually proto-Protestant while another is just a devil worshipping papist, when those two figures would themselves have affirmed and supported each other as brothers.
>>18258517That's a clumsy attempt to side-step what the Catholic and Orthodox passage states. Epistle, has it's root word in Latin "Epistola" which means "letter". So the shitty KJV translation which states "whether by word, or our epistle." Translates to both spoken and written transmissions. Put the Bible down, the book is not for you. It's beyond your reading comprehension, and the fact that you don't know the meaning of the word "epistle" tells me that you don't take the study of the book seriously.
>>18258547>like arguing one pre-schism figure is ackshually proto-Protestant while another is just a devil worshipping papist, when those two figures would themselves have affirmed and supported each other as brothers.John Wycliffe was someone who affirmed the Gospel, regardless of whatever else you want to say about him. We know that now based on what he wrote in the late 14th century.Yet he was condemned in absentia by the council of Constance in 1415 and his bones were dug up and scattered into the river as a "heretic."Here are three excerpts that he wrote:Wycliffe, De veritate sacrae scripturae, p. 108."We have a perfect knowledge of all things necessary to salvation, from the faith of Scripture."Wycliffe, De veritate sacrae scripturae, pp. 552-553."The merit of Christ is of itself sufficient to redeem every man from hell: it is to be understood of a sufficiency of itself, without any other concurring cause."Wycliffe, De veritate sacrae scripturae, p. 550."All that follow Christ, being justified by his righteousness, shall be saved as his offspring.">Rather than actually being a productive conversation on our schisms it just becomes competitive slandering of our respective denominations, and devalues Christianity itself as a result.At the end of the day, the word of God is the definitive deposit of faith and truth. Christ said as part of a prayer, in John 17:17, "thy word is truth."And in Jude 1:3, it says, "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."It says we should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. That means standing for the truth, regardless of whose bad side you fall on as a result. It means standing for what God's word actually says.
>>18258562>Put the Bible down, the book is not for you.Way to out yourself as a non-believer, anon.In Revelation 1:3 it says, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."So who should we believe here? John in the book of Revelation or the anon on the internet who says the Bible is "not for us"?
>>18258547Except I'm not Protestant, I'm non-denominational. No, I don't think I'm special, my hand was forced, is all. Regardless, you tried to run defense with apologetics for the Inquisition (that was really reaching, by the way. The tortures didn't stop even with Papal oversight) in order to rebut church fallibility, but then when having to reconcile that the church itself acknowledged the failure that was owed to its same institution, suddenly you want to go "Fine, but so and so did it too". I don't care about denominational shit flinging, I'm calling for accountability on believers to discern the past and not just blindly think that everything their church has ever done has been "spirit led".
