I don't give a shit if something is or is not Biblical.Sola Scriptura is not biblical. The Bible doesn't say "trust only the text in this book". In fact when the texts the Bible were being composed there weren't any canons of the Bible obviously. Certainly not something close to the modern canons.Heck. The Bible is not Biblical. It was created according to the tradition and long debates. Why do Protestants trust the forces that created the Bible in the first place?The Holy Spirit can guide the creation of the Bible but it couldn't do anything about the Marian cult for 1500 years? I say the Holy Spirit told us to both make the Bible and to venerate Mary the Mother of the LORD.Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk.
>I don't give a shit if something is or is not Biblical.>Immediately: “Sola Scriptura is not biblical”This was written by an idiot
>>18291652I only wrote this because I know you Protestants think it's important if something is Biblical. I did this for you.
>>18291648>The Bible doesn't say "trust only the text in this book"Sola scriptura doesn’t say “trust only the text in this book”, it says religion is to be based on the word of God and not traditions of men. And it certainly does say that, since our Lord warned us not to nullify the word of God by traditions of men (Mark 7) and the scriptures tell us our Lord is not to be worshipped except according to how He has ordained (Leviticus 10:1-3). And even if the scriptures never taught sola scriptura it was not strictly necessary for them to, since it is a natural consequence and artifact of the existence of divine scripture.>In fact when the texts the Bible were being composed there weren't any canons of the Bible obviously.This is erroneous since the scriptures were not written and compiled at the same time, i.e. the Old Testament canon was certainly received and recognized before even the birth of the Lord. >The Bible is not Biblical. It was created according to the tradition and long debates.This is merely the expression of unbelief, since it is the denial of the divine inspiration of scripture. The scriptures are the product not of human traditions but of the God who spoke them, and were divine and absolutely authoritative as soon as they were written. And if we granted the papists’ assertion that the books are human and destitute of innate authority it would not follow that we must be bound to their traditions of men, but that the Christian religion is false. Hence why other unbelievers also attack the scriptures in the exact same ways e.g. atheists.
>>18291655If something doesn’t need to be biblical then sola scriptura doesn’t need to be biblical either, and therefore we could just arbitrarily decide it like you do for the unbiblical things you believe.
>>18291663Mate it's really simple. You are supposed to trust the doctrine of the Church founded on the rock of Simon Peter.
>>18291670Why? Says who?
>>18291675The Holy Spirit.
>>18291679When, where and how did He do that? Can I just claim the Holy Spirit said to believe whatever wild thing I want, or is that a violation of the 3rd commandment?
>>18291661How do the traditions of the Holy Church nullify the Word?Still the entirety of the canon was only created by the Universal Church centuries after the LORD.But the living body of the Chuch is what created the canon. Under the supervision of God.
>>18291685If you don't believe in the Creed as it was delievered by the Spirit then you are not a Christian. It's fine if you don't want to be. Enjoy you know what.
>>18291648based
>>18291686>How do the traditions of the Holy Church nullify the Word?The same way as the traditions of the Jews.>Still the entirety of the canon was only created by the Universal Church centuries after the LORD.>But the living body of the Chuch is what created the canon.Again, this is firstly, not true, secondly, would suggest not that Romanism is true but that Christianity is false. The Church did not create the word of God, (or else it is not the word of God) but the Church was created by the word of God. Holy scripture is nothing but a species of God’s word.>>18291692>If you don't believe in the Creed as it was delievered by the Spirit then you are not a ChristianFirstly, why should one care about that? This is your time to positively explain your epistemology, and “you’re not on my team if you don’t agree” is not much of an answer. Secondly, “the Creed” normally refers to the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, or Athanasian Creed, none of which were delivered by the Spirit, nor do any of them speak of a magisterium (which is an invention of the middle ages). Thirdly, I warn you that *you* are not a Christian, sir, because you do not believe the scriptures or the holy gospel revealed by them, but are deceived and enslaved by the beast. And I say this in love, because if you do not repent of the Roman heresy you will die in your sins.
>>18291704>The same way as the traditions of the Jews.Citation needed.>Again, this is firstly, not trueBut it is.>would suggest not that Romanism is true but that Christianity is falseYou are onto something. Except Roman Catholicism is a kind of Christianity>This is your time to positively explain your epistemologyMy epistemology is based on faith.>“the Creed” normally refers to the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, or Athanasian CreedYes. I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
>>18291648>I don't give a shit if something is or is not BiblicalSo you don't care about the word of God then? Why didn't you just say that.
>>18291800It's just that I trust the dotrine brought through the Spirit regardless of if it's stated by the Word of God.
>>18291803The Spirit does not work except by the word of God. Boasting of the Spirit without the word is like boasting of the word without the Spirit. See also 1 John 4:1
>>18291818The famous practice by Protestants of citing passages where they don't apply.
>>18291823It applies very well. There is no reason why I should believe your arbitrary claim to the Spirit over other arbitrary claims to the Spirit, e.g. the Mormons.
>>18291648wrong and in no way correct. Let the whole world realize it. Getting tired of decrepit filler religion. There are heathens, so-called "Protestants" and Protestants in denial.
>>18291922Big words and nothing to back that up.
>>18291827Then don't. Belief in religion is supposed to not be based on reason. Reasonable religion discriminates against non-clever people.
>>18291648>the Bible is not Biblicalstop reading here. no time for atheists
>>18291648>to venerate Mary the Mother of the LORD.Not biblicalHere is the biblical answer of God 31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
>>18291648All gods are mythologiesAll holy books are fictionalPolitics is TreacheryReligion is Brainwashinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iep4gnmJeRE
>>18291970I'm Catholic but I'm glad you have learnt that Scripture Alone is BS.
>>18291973The entire point of the thread is that the doctrine is more important than your misreading of Biblical passages.
>>18291992Venerating Mary, erecting statues of Mary, writing down that according to catholic doctrine Mary is equal and co-redemptrix with Christ is gross blasphemy and something that cannot be added to Christianity because it's absolutely contrary to it and in fact i think its clear that its purely satanic doctrine and a direct assault on the gospel of Jesus Christ and the testimony of God.I don't care about any points you're making im only here to let you know this.
>>18292003>that cannot be added to ChristianityIt existed for 1500 years in Christianity before Protestantism even became a thing.
>>18291954Christianity isn’t based on reason, reason is based on it.
>>18292028>source: I made it upMaybe you guys should try reading books instead of divining history from your dreams
>>18292003>according to catholic doctrine Mary is equal and co-redemptrix with ChristThe pope actually just published a document shutting that down that line of thinking some months ago. As much as I love our blessed mother she simply isnt co-redemptrix or even remotely close to being equal to Christ. It was never official teaching within the catholic church and that document clarifies that. The thing is that with catholicism being the biggest "denomination" out there, naturally by pure math you are sure to find a huge amount of ignorant catholics out there who arent even sure what their own religion is about, since most of them were born in it and never felt the calling to educate themselves further within it.
>>18292028Christianity is the truth which existed way before the world was even created i don't even care about that shit you're saying because i don't care, any time someone says im a protestant or orthodox or whatever i just say idc because i literally don't even know what it is that they're saying because it doesn't interest me at all.
>>18291954>Reasonable religionsuch as?
>>18292049>As much as I love our blessed mother she simply isnt co-redemptrix or even remotely close to being equal to ChristOf course if he ruled the other way you’d be telling us the opposite. And remember to ignore all the popes in the past who taught this, and when the next pope reverses this and teaches the opposite remember to forget this guy and tell us it’s sacred apostolic tradition we’ll go to hell for not believing.
>>18292060I assume you have a source for that catholic teaching where Mary was considered equal to Jesus? Because I cant find it, that document pope Leo published is a clarification document, not a revision of doctrine. The catholic church has NEVER proclaimed Mary is equal to Jesus. Quote me a source where you can prove otherwise.
>>18292068https://jesseromero.com/blog/five-popes-who-called-mary-co-redemptrix
>>18291980This guy is unironically basedfacing in multiple thumbnails, why would you trust him. I'd take a banana fister over this much of a onions. You probably jack off to Yudkowsky and his group of trannies though so it'll fall on deaf earshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Krp85Urk3ukhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0NSkPWXgYhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVc6stmrB0
>>18292070I knew that was coming, but consider this. Me and my manager are co-workers, yet he is clearly superior to me in term of power and responsability. The prefix "co-" doesnt imply equal status although it can confused that way, and that said, Mary was instrumental in God incarnating in this world. Could it had been any other random woman? Maybe, but Mary deserves honor for playing her role faithfully.
>>18291934In your head. How long has the Protestant leadership have dominated? Hello, rat with an ego. Watch me normalize you into that. 1 more spell needs to be broken on the people. Go on. Spew more broke back talk.
>>18291648Lord Jesus Christ, show me dead catholics.
>>18291679>I made it up
>>18292227least heretical protestant
>>18291648Cool screed. You should read it to the LORD before he casts you into the furnace. Tick tock.
>>18292297catholic fatigue is a very real thing. They should just fear God in silence and meditation instead of actual heretical back talk like this one but yeah, Lord Jesus Christ, the God Mary worships, Mary's heavenly father. How is this not spammed for a generation?
"Protestants" a.k.a. Atheists
>>18292039>Protestants are seriously willing to pretend that Mary veneration is a late invention and not ~2000 years old
>>18291652/thread, lol
>>18292995See:>>18291655for further explanation why you are the idiot.
>>18292632Don't insult me like that, I don't believe things just because some book said so like Protestants.
>>18292097Mary was a redeemed sinner who contributed nothing whatsoever to the merits of Christ by which alone we are saved. To call her a redeemer is a blasphemy and a heresy which derogates Christ. Whether you want to use the word “equal” or not is irrelevant both because calling her a subordinate co-redeemer is not any less objectionable, and because you originally said “she simply isn’t co-redemptrix” and then demanded me to show where popes had said she was. Now you’re backtracking and saying she is co-redemptrix.>>18292966Could you show me the cult of Mary in the first 3 centuries of Christianity?
