>>18441054
It contains eternal objective claims that might go against their leader's ever-changing subjective viewpoints.

>>18441054
It's true though. Jesus left behind a Church. He gave the Jews the Torah and look at what they did with it. The prophets came, gave more books, and it didn't help them at all. It took the Holy Spirit and the Apostles to begin fulfilling God's desires as expressed in the Bible. When Philip the Apostle evangelizes to the Ethiopian eunuch this is evident.
>So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

How could you possibly look at modern Protestantism and think you, out of all the others who have had sincere faith and love of God, would get it right and not them? Who do you think you are?

>>18441056
>How could you possibly look at modern Protestantism and think you, out of all the others who have had sincere faith and love of God
Sure but watching the pope contradict the bible in front of statues of angry demons in a building that looks like a serpent's mouth totally shows sincere faith and love for God.

>>18441059
What contradictions?

>>18441056
This is a word salad explaining that mortal men are corrupt so we need the head of the church to be a mortal men instead of God.
And nothing you say contradicts the bible as the Word of God having primacy over any church tradition, a notion which Catholicism rejects.

>>18441062
Jesus is the head of the Church. But even Christ says to Peter "feed my sheep." Sinful and deluded heretic.

Tbe church brought people closer to god than protestanism ever did.
>B-but look at this exeption
Lmao.

>>18441060
>Durr jebus would never take up da sword he only want da pees on urf
>Meanwhile Jesus: I come not to bring peace, but to be a sword.

>>18441066
Jesus does want peace on earth. He never told Christians to be violent. He said that by being peaceful, loving, and just people that the world would be violently overthrown. It's an inversion of the worldly logic, when not even the crucifix can make a man submit to its ungodly systems and values. It is not unsurprising that you are obsessed with having a justification to murder others, heretic.

>>18441064
>Jesus is the head of the Church. But even Christ says to Peter "feed my sheep."
How does "feed my sheep" justify undermining the Word of God by declaring church tradition - entirely controlled by mortal men - to be a spiritual equal to the bible?

>>18441067
>Jesus does want peace on earth.
Jesus is not Fallen, he is not cursed with sin and death. As such his example and ultimate morality was a universal one, and accordingly the New Heaven in Revelation is a universal one. But this New Heaven only emerges after the Second Coming. Men should not attempt to create Heaven on Earth before the Second Coming, they should acknowledge their differences by each tending to his own and cultivating righteous communities respectively. No world government is sustainable in temporal times, not even under a Christian banner. Only the Kingdom of God can.
>He never told Christians to be violent
>He said that by being peaceful, loving, and just people that the world would be violently overthrown
The Vatican has gates, it has armed guards. You are willing to use violence to protect what you love. That is in fact an expression of love and justice.

>>18441067
>He never told Christians to be violent.
He literally had his followers sell their clothes to go buy swords to stab the guard trying to arrest him and only got out of it because he could miraculously retcon stabbings.

>He said that by being peaceful, loving
No he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword to cut apart families and nations.

If Jesus didn't want to justify murder with swords, he probably shouldn't have come out as pro-sword and anti-peace and if the pope is actually trying to follow Jesus's words, he should not have said he was ant-sword and pro-peace.

>>18441054
They yearn for the transcendental mystery religion it was at it's outset and should have remained.

>>18441054
It condemns half of their practices. Anyone who reads it immediately realizes this religion cannot possibly come from God Almighty.

>>18441083
>>18441081
tl;dr you want to commit violence
This is why God rejects your prayers and has preserved the Catholic Church

>>18441144
No, if I wanted to commit violence I would be following Jesus and his fire demon father, but I don't because he preached anti-peace and pro-sword nonsense and was based on being the son of an angry fire demon.

>>18441144
What exactly happens to that preservation if you stop mutilating infant genitals and drinking demon blood en masse?

>>18441149
Catholics don't promote circumcision, that's Protestants, Muslims, and Jews. And drinking blood? We only drink the blood of Christ, the Living God.

>>18441150
Sure that must be why, catholics are the ones running all the american hospitals that circumcise by default, you totally aren't just a demon worshiping blood drinking liar or anything.

>>18441151
You sound mentally ill. I'll pray for you.

Oh eternal and almighty God, Heavenly Father.

Guide Anon away from the error of his ways.

Give him peace of mind and heart, and cleanse his spirit.

And open his eyes that he may see the truth of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Amen.

>>18441152
Okay have a conversation with the master of reality in your imagination because that is totally not the mental illness called psychosis or anything.

How much blood do you have to drink to make your little conversation with that invisible demon effective, like will it require an entire additional blood chugging session or just the usually weekly blood from the gold cup will be good enough?

>>18441154
Look how you talk, this is how madmen speak. You have been driven completely crazy by your sins, the darkness of your heart has shut your eyes up.

The Spirit is free, needing neither sacrifice nor prayer, but only honest repentance and humility of spirit. One day you will understand.

>>18441054
>Jesus didn't order anyone to write the gospela
>Jesus told Peter to creare the Church
>Tradition is less valid because muh human error
>But the gospels aren't even if they were also made by humans

Enjoy your female archbishop and Paula White Cain

>>18441166
The female archbishop your pope congratulated and met with?

>>18441144
>tl;dr you want to commit violence
I don't see where's the 'wanting' here. Violence and war are undesirable and won't be present in the Kingdom of God. In temporal times we need to defend what we love with violence.

>>18441155
No I have been driven crazy by people in the midst of psychosis constantly going on about their preferred demon and its nonsensical rules.

>>18441171
>In temporal times we need to defend what we love with violence.
>Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!” Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
>Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

>>18441181
What is not psychotic and demonic if not denying the truth of our Lord?

>>18441183
Actual reality that anyone can observe and measure rather than invisible fire monsters you can only learn about in books.

>>18441182
>then the vatican tore down their gates and dismissed their guards
>when the muslims came they gladly handed over the vatican to them

>>18441185
The resurrection of the Lord Jesus was observed and measured.

>>18441154
What are you even talking about?

>>18441414
sin makes you stupid

>>18441083
Is this really the hill you have chosen to prove that the Pope goes against the Bible? Or are you being facetious to prove a point

THE HOLY BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC WORK.

THE HOLY BIBLE IS ONE OF THE PILLARS OF CHURCH DOCTRINE.

THE REAL QUESTION IS: WHY DO PROTESTANT HERETICS WORSHIP THE HOLY BIBLE?

>>18441638
They don't worship it, they just pray for it as an intercessor to God.

File: 10290941392091.jpg (382 KB, 2544x4000)

382 KB JPG

Do catholics actually know about the insane degeneracy the church engaged in back in the day? It's crazy to think these mongs hang on every word of a corrupt office filled by a HUMAN.

The office of the papacy used to be a complete joke filled by the most degenerate faggots imaginable who would have gay orgies in the vatican, have antipopes who tried to kill each other, dig up corpses to screech at, etc. They only cleaned up their image when they got BTFO by Italian unification forces and tried to rework it into being le epic peaceful holy man instead of a corrupt office degenerate families bought their way into. And yet they still look the other way when a clergyman is a butt-raping pedo, so long as the cash keeps flowing to rome.

Totally pathetic.

>>18441648
>The office of the papacy used to be a complete joke
>used to

>>18441638
If you loved God you would want to consume every single one of his words and find out everything you can know about him. Yet there's an entire book full of God's words where he reveals his entire character to Israel and allows them to know what pleases and displeases him and pours his priceless wisdom on them and you completely ignore it and regard it as nothing.

>>18441654
>we were only degens for 1500 years, we're clean now, I swear!
LMAO.

It's still a complete joke, they just do a decent job of hiding it now behind the le epic holy man thing. Many low IQ brown inbreds believe the show they put on. Back in the day, no one believed it, but they didn't have to because they had actual political/military power. So their cope now is working fairly well.

>>18441659
Pre reformation Christianity doesn't regard the Bible as nothing. The idea is that Christianity is a divinely guided tradition which the Bible is a part of but the tradition existed before the Bible was completed. In the pre New Testament days the early Christians learned their religion through Christ's Apostles who in Catholic and Orthodox tradition became the bishops, priests etc and were the ones who wrote the Bible. Were these first and second century Christians not true believers because they didn't follow the Bible?

>>18441659

>If you loved God you would want to consume every single one of his words and find out everything you can know about him.

I DO.


>Yet there's an entire book full of God's words where he reveals his entire character to Israel and allows them to know what pleases and displeases him and pours his priceless wisdom on them and you completely ignore it and regard it as nothing.

?

>>18441669
>>18441678
I'm talking about the old testament.

>>18441682
I'm not Catholic but I am pretty sure the Old Testament is read at every Catholic mass, I don't see in what ways Catholics ignore it? I know a lot of modern restorationist Protestant denoms are very very literal with the Old Testament but this was never an essential part of the reformation, and on top of that the Old Testament of the Catholic church has more books

>>18441691
Protestantism is God punishing Rome for claiming supremacy.

>>18441682


THE OLD TESTAMENT IS ONE OF TWO PARTS OF THE HOLY BIBLE: HOW DO CATHOLICS DISREGARD THE OLD TESTAMENT, ACCORDING TO YOU?

>>18441694
I would've become Catholic years ago if the Pope would swallow his pride, admit the position isn't infallible and become "just" another archbishop but alas

>>18441697
Then there's no point in being Catholic. If the Church has good ethics then there's no problem with receiving guidance from it, but other than that, what's the point?

>>18441691
>>18441696
Do you obey what it says a servant of God should do? Do you behave the way it commands? Why did Catholics remove the commandment against making idols so they can condone idol making? Why did they changed the Holy Sabbath for the Lord's Day? Who is the Lord? He is never mentioned on the original texts of the old Testament. Why did you erase the NAME of the Almighty Sabbaoth from the texts?

>>18441703
They never removed any commandment, Biblical art is not idolatry. If you don't believe Christians then take it from ancient Jews
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue

>>18441703
They're not idols, they're images. Idols are of deities, but the images we have are of saints, and then of course, of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the image of the invisible God. Big difference. Honestly, you sound Jewish and likely under demonic influence.

>>18441701
I grew up Protestant and while I still love all my Protestant friends and family, every church we went to eventually splintered into different groups. I think the Church needs some sort of structure to it to keep everyone together, I'd looked for any Lutheran churches in the area I'm in but that was a dead end. Say what you will about the Catholic church, it has a huge diversity of political opinion yet it stays (fairly) intact all over the world.

>>18441713
Then why not swallow your own pride and go with it?

>>18441703


YOU ARE A MORON.

>>18441719
I just cannot reconcile the papacy unfortunately

File: idol-worship1.jpg (114 KB, 812x612)

114 KB JPG

>>18441705
>>18441707
In the old testament a simple golden vest made by Gideon became an idol and God accused Israel of prostituting themselves with it. All 70 of Gideon's sons were killed because of it. Even the bronze serpent made by Moses had to be destroyed because Israel was bowing down before it.

God said to not make images of anything in heaven or earth. So your excuse can't be that it's not an idol because they are images of beings in heaven. Even if you make an image of The Almighty himself it would still be an idol and you a prostitute for serving it.

This is what I mean about you disregarding the words of God and treating them as nothing.

You do not fear doing what God said not to do.

>>18441727
God did this and then immediately after ordered the Israelites to make two cherabims to sit on top of the ark of the covenant, and the Bible gives precise descriptions on the highly decorated First Temple and the Priestly garments. Idols in ancient times were figures that people believed 'Gods' literally inhabited which can be seen today in modern Hinduism. Christians don't believe that there is any sort of special power in art or icons and they are purely a way to contextualise whoever or whatever is depicted. Think back to the early church, most of the laypeople couldn't read in those days so the way to get the stories across was to depict them in art.

File: Screenshot_20260330-095502.png (828 KB, 720x1600)

828 KB PNG

>>18441736
Do you think God personally inhabits your ceramic figurine of Mary? Did God order you to build it? Christians literally bow down to these images and regard them as holy objects.

>>18441742
God I wish I could prostrate multiple times and kiss those images and do a sign of the cross right before saying the Jesus Prayer 100 times. I'll still be more blessed and holy by that single act of devotion than any Jew or Muslim who does a thousand good deeds.

>>18441742
Quite the opposite, those things are prayer aids made to glorify God, not for any other reason and slightly cringey redditors with convertitis don't change that

>>18441751
Case. In. Point.
>>18441754
When God says he is EL KANNA he really means it.

The commandment against making idols is the only commandment where God warns that he would curse you for 3 or 4 generations of your descendants for braking it right after warning that he is EL KANNA.

>>18441761
>Christian who kisses an image of Jesus
>"I think I'll go volunteer at a soup kitchen or defend the rights of an oppressed person!"
>Muslim who bows to a rock in the desert
>"After I rape my cousin wife I think I should go blow myself up in a marketplace for Allah!"
>Jew who prays to nothing but rocks his body back and forth in the direction of Jerusalem
>"Oy vey, is it already afternoon? Well, enough sucking on Jewish baby penis. Time to blow another Palestinian child's head off!"
Get your priorities straight, heathen.

>>18441764
He says this but he himself isn't actually going out to help people later, instead he'll just goon for 3 hours right after kissing an idol.

>>18441761
I have already explained how they aren't idols though. Is an ornate Church an idol? Is a priest's vestment an idol? If depicting a Bible story through art is an idol, then why is depicting it through writing acceptable? The only way the idolatry commandment makes sense is if he is talking about actual Pagan idols that most of the surrounding cultures at the time had made. Besides, like I pointed out earlier, Jews at the time of the second temple had no issues with Biblical art in their synagogues, this is a very modern idea.

>>18441765
Why would I masturbate for that long? Besides, I'm not a Christian. But if I had to choose between your kind and them, I would pick them 100 times. I would kiss an image of Jesus every day for the rest of my life if I knew that your people would disappear off the face of the earth.

>>18441769
If you bow down to it and if you burn candles and incense to it, its an idol.

Like a said, Gideon's Golden vest was considered an idol by God and it has nothing to do with pagan gods, it was actually used to serve God. But because they bowed down to it and burned incense to it God said Israel was being a prostitute with it.

>>18441773
A godless man preferring to live among christians is not the endorsement of christians you think it is.

>>18441777
People are bowing down and burning candles and incense to God, the icon is part of worship not the object of it. Gideon's vest was considered an idol because it was directly worshipped, which Christians don't do and have constantly explained why for over a thousand years now yet non Christians keep insisting they do. I repeat that early Judaism had no issue with religious art, even in their synagogues, just anything that was being worshipped other than God himself

>>18441784
I am not Godless, I just do not believe in the Bible as the truth. I'd rather change my ways to live among them because at least they are good people and not hypocrites. Their societies are a testament to this fact. I've been to your disgusting, evil shitholes. You worship no image, and yet you are sons of the devil. This is why God punishes you. Your laws will never save you because you are unrighteous.

>>18441789
You don't even know who I am, where I live or what do I believe.

>>18441792
If things went your way, the whole world would be worse off. So it does not matter. The fruits of your way of thinking have already blossomed, and they are rotten.

>>18441787
The commandment says, do not make images of anything on heaven or earth, do not bow down to it or serve them. You are bowing down to and serving an image and inciting the jealousy of God because you do not take the instructions God seriously.

Your loyalty is to a church and not to the Most High, that is why you rather obey it than him.

>>18441796
If things went my way the laws of Moses would be the laws of the government, people would be afraid of doing evil and would fear God and society would be safe from crime.

>>18441799
There's no point in this because rather than arguing any of my points you are just repeating the same thing again and again to me. Whatever your religion is, know that your fundamentalist view of idolatry doesn't exist in any historical tradition until Rabbinic Jews, Muslims and later certain Protestants picked it up purely as a reaction to Christianity (And by extension pre Christian Judaism)

File: Screenshot_20260421-161957~2.png (659 KB, 720x1263)

659 KB PNG

>>18441807
My loyalty is not to a religion but to the words of God.

You are making images of holy men and bowing to them. You bow down to the works of someone's hands. That is idolatry.

If it is sin to bow down to the sun, moon or stars, who are the literal work of God's own hands, how much worse it is to bow down to an object made by the hands of a man?

>>18441054
>OP is a retard
marcion, a literal heretic, compiled the first gospel years after the church existed. jesus indeed left the church and not the "bible"

>>18441822
>the first gospel
the first new testament to be more "precise"

>>18441816
If I kiss my mother I am not worshipping her. If I miss her, find a photo of her and kiss the photo, I am not worshipping her but using the photo as a way to better remember her and kissing her as if she were there. In the same way to better remember great holy men and women Christians depict them in art and use this as a way to better remember their life and works.
Is it idolatry that the Jews would make pilgrimages to the temple? Why couldn't they just pray anywhere? Why was the work of someone's hands necessary?

File: begome.png (144 KB, 581x565)

144 KB PNG

>>18441816
Why did Paul say to greet each other with a holy kiss? Was it he asking his followers to commit idolatry?
New World, modern, non-hierarchical thinking has led to the Neo-Puritan reflex at calling everything idolatry.

>>18441841
God commands you to honor your mother, God does not command you to honor a piece of wood with ink on it. These idols are not just decorations, they are religious objects that are being worshipped by you. You truly believe you gain some sort of divine favor or blessing by bowing down to them and burning candles to them.

>>18441847
You can kiss a holy man while they live. You cannot make an image of him and worship it.

>>18441850
Once again repeating the same already dismissed points from earlier. I fear you may be a lawyer

>>18441854
Holy men gain eternal life

File: Elderly_Karl_V.jpg (1.68 MB, 2835x3514)

1.68 MB JPG

Not caring about the pope's opinion is also part of the catholic tradition

>>18441857
Enoch was the first man to gain eternal life and not even his grandson Noah dared making an image of him to bow down to it and kiss it.

>>18441867
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
Bringing up the same points again. Jews had no problems with religious art until Christians started doing it

File: biblevscat (1).jpg (36 KB, 554x335)

36 KB JPG

>>18441856
If your images are not idols then why would the Catholic church need to remove the 2nd commandment from their bibles where God commands not to make images because he is a jealous God who does not share his glory with Anyone and threatens to curse your bloodline if you do?

Why did they bothered?

File: GJCP4h0W4AEJl6u.jpg (167 KB, 1024x680)

167 KB JPG

>>18441854
When Lazarus was resurrected, how does that fit into your view that people are just gone when they die? Or how about when the Prophet Samuel was summoned, was he stone dead until that point? Or were they alive in Abraham's bosom awaiting the Resurrection? What about now, if a Christian dies are they alive in Christ or not?

File: shrineofolofgoodhelpwisconsin.jpg (40 KB, 490x360)

40 KB JPG

>>18441871
It's not just religious art if you kneel down before it.

>>18441151
>The Catholics run the American medical system.
Huh?

>>18441878
The day of resurrection has not happened yet. But even of those men were alive you are not allowed to worship them.

>>18441879
I sent you a synagogue full of murals, it is a place of worship where people were happy to pray surrounded by religious art. You think that Christians think their art has mystical power and despite them telling you they don't think that you scold them for it anyway

>>18441873
Orthodox 10 Commandments:

1. I am the LORD your God, Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me (Ex. 20:2-3).

2. You shall not make for yourselves a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them (20:4-5).

3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain (20:7).

4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work (20:8-10).

5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the LORD your God gives you (20:12).

6. You shall not kill (20:13).

7. You shall not commit adultery (20:14).

8. You shall not steal (20:15).

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (20:16).

10. You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's (20:17).

>>18441054
Because what the book says gets in the way of 2k years of make'em'ups to cope with the religion being false.

>>18441884
That's great news, asking them to pray for us and honoring them is not worshiping them. Since Protestants don't actually do any worship, just sing pop songs and drink grape juice, they don't know what worship is anymore.

>>18441884
It is quite commendable that to avoid idolatry you have even turned yourself into a brick wall

>>18441887
10 "his manservant, or his maidservant"
That's slavery, with flowery language.

>>18441886
With their mouth they say it holds no power while bowing down to it, lighting a candle to it and praying directly to it.

>>18441887
>2. You shall not make for yourselves a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them (20:4-5).

Ok now explain to me how the guy in this pic >>18441742 is not breaking this commandment?

>>18441887
>2. You shall not make for yourselves a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them (20:4-5).
"You must not have any other god but me". Period.

>>18441890
So what is worship according to you?

File: 202306130806.jpg (37 KB, 760x507)

37 KB JPG

>>18441889
Hmm so I can choose between the 2,000 years of a religion that built our civilizatin or the Nihlistic materialism that is currently destroying it. Hmm, I think I'll go with option one.

>>18441900
This is referring directly to statues and the likes that you would see in pagan temples where they directly believed that the created object housed a deity. Christians don't believe their art is anything other than art and use it as an aid to pray to God and not an object of prayer in and of itself

>>18441864
>Not caring about the pope's opinion is also part of the catholic tradition
"Just as it is lawful to resist a pontiff who attacks the body, so too is it lawful to resist one who attacks souls or disturbs civil order, or, above all, one who tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him by not doing what he commands and by preventing his will from being carried out; but it is not lawful to judge him, punish him, or depose him, since these acts are proper to a superior" (Saint Robert Bellarmine, On the Roman Pontiff, Book 2, Chapter 29).

File: abe-geelsby-priest-inside(...).jpg (156 KB, 703x551)

156 KB JPG

>>18441900
Is Jesus God or not?
>>18441904
Ok, a saint isn't a god. Hope that helps.
>>18441907
Which one more closely resembles the picrel. Your local Megachurch or Local Orthodox Church? Come and see.

>>18441893
Yeah, slavery existed. Your worldview has no way to say it's wrong. The Christian world got rid of slavery before any other part did.

>>18441910
>You shall not make for yourselves a graven image or any likeness
He made an image in the likeness of a man.
>you shall not bow down to them
He is bowing down to it

So how is he not breaking the command? The command has no mention of pagan gods.

>other than art and use it as an aid to pray to God and not an object of prayer in and of itself

Well God said he doesn't like that.

>>18441913
Jesus is not The Most High.

>>18441913
I see no giant statue of a virgin in picrel.

>>18441918
The direct example we get of a violation of the commandment, the golden calf, is clearly one of these pagan statues which the people worship directly and early Jews had no problem with paintings of people being used in liturgical buildings

>>18441919
Congrats on your speedrun to Arianism. You are now outside the faith.
>>18441922
Not an Orthodox thing btw.

>>18441925
I worship the Most High alone as he commanded. He is a jealous God like a man is jealous for his wife, you wouldn't like it if your wife had pictures of your servants and kiss them and asked them for favors. You expect your wife to be devoted to you exclusively and come only to you for help.

>>18441927
So you're a Muslim or something? What is this "Most High" stuff. The God of Christianity is a Trinity and can't be set against Himself.

>>18441931
God is called Elyon (Most High) 34 times in the old testament.

>>18441054
Because they're the ones who composed the Bible in the first place, and they know for a fact that it was never intended to be a fully comprehensive, standalone embodiment of their religion. Aside from the portions of the gospels that purport to quote Jesus directly, none of the Bible is the actual word of God. It's just a tool the Church created to help homogenize the message being preached by widely distributed priests in a time when real-time communication with higher leadership wasn't possible.

Protestants and their sola scriptura nonsense are behaving more like Muslims than proper Christians.

>>18441934
And he's called Jesus in the New Testament, and "Yeshua" shows up in the Old Testament over 75 times.

>>18441934
And 11 times in the new testament he is called Most High.

>>18441937
I searched Yeshua in the bible and the results were: Sorry, we didn’t find any results for your search.

>>18441942
Yeah most Christians don't refer to him as "Most High" or Elyon for that matter. It's not that it's wrong to do so. It's just odd, and a little suspicious when you are an admitted Arian already.

>>18441944
Then you may need to log off and do some more research before posting about this again.

>>18441945
Because this title throws a wrench to their pagan belief in an Trinity so they avoid it. But those who know God by reading the old testament tend to call him the Most High. It's his main title and perfectly describes who he is. The one above all things.

>>18441935
Lol no they didn’t. 1. They Didn’t exist when the bible was written and received 2. The bible is a work of God and not men

“We do not think that it is right to make their prevailing custom the law and rule of sound doctrine. For if custom is to avail for proof of soundness, we too, surely, may advance our prevailing custom; and if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired Scripture, then, be our umpire, and the vote of truth will surely be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.” - Gregory of Nyssa

File: twnix1gmjqh91.jpg (151 KB, 1284x1322)

151 KB JPG

>>18441054
Why do protestants hate Christ's Institution so much?

File: 1670188659832436.jpg (205 KB, 1080x1166)

205 KB JPG

>>18441054
Why do Baptist and Non-Denominationals worship a book so hard?

>>18441054
Nobody hates the Bible, she was just ragebaiting protestards

>>18442051
>look at my pretty building. What’s a gospel?

>>18441054
Nigger the church(Orthodox) you deny gave you the Bible

>>18442096
>My church gave you the bible
>No! My church gave you the bible
>No! My church gave you the bible
>No! My church gave you the bible

File: 1775060461167.jpg (71 KB, 1080x994)

71 KB JPG

>>18442104
So true sister

>>18442094
> Look at my Gospel. Huh? Interpret it like the first christians such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, St. Clement of Rome and others?
> No way, obviously pastor Kevin knows better, even though he never studied church history to know for example why his belief in the trinity is formulated in the way that he believes. Tradition always le bad.

>>18442145
>the gospel according to Clement of Rome
“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
>studying church history = reading tradcath blogs

>>18441054
I mean, that's said in the Bible itself. Jesus founded a religious movement, he never wrote a book. And He also declared His succesors to the institution that would guide His followers: the Church. The Bible itself never claims its own authority over the Church of Jesus Christ.

By the way, the very Bible is an invention of the Church, a compilation of books that were handpicked by the church fathers and thus claiming the authority of the Bible while rejecting the authority of the Church is contradictory.

>>18441071
Why should the Bible be held as spiritually equal or higher than the Church, exactly?

Jesus never wrote it, and it's a canon of books that were chosen by the Church itself. The Church created and then declared the Bible to be holy, so if you take the Church away from the Bible its just a collection of books with no actual authority. You could easily change all of them by a bunch of gnostic gospels or cake recipes and there wouldn't be any authority to claim otherwise.

>>18441170
Popes also congratulate and regularly meet with muslim, jewish and buddhist leaders. The Pope is the Vatican chief-of-state and a diplomat, he can't act hostile against everyone, this is not the Middle Ages anymore.

>>18441691
Why you prots are so obsessed with the OT? The OT isn't the true revelation of Jesus message, the OT books are just there to provide theological and historical basis to Jesus role as the Messiah, it's not supposed to be held as equally sacred and important as what Jesus said in the NT.

>>18441919
>>18441927
Lmao prots are already rejecting Jesus' godhood. Can't you retards realize that you are victims of a jewish scam sect that is slowly turning you into noahide-abiding goys? Evangelical churches were literally sponsored by CIA and you are all becoming less christian-like and more jew-like each year.

>>18441999
>They Didn’t exist when the bible was written and received.
The Biblical canon is work of the early church councils, such as Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon.
There was no Bible without the Church, there were just hundreds of books written by many different early sects, and some of them were handpicked by the church to compose what we today call the Bible.
>The bible is a work of God and not men
Accordingly to...? Guess what: it start with C and rhymes with Lurch.

>>18442234
>Jesus founded a religious movement, he never wrote a book
John 10:35, Matthew 22:31
>He also declared His succesors to the institution that would guide His followers
How do you know who Jesus was and what He said?
>The Bible itself never claims its own authority over the Church of Jesus Christ.
Ephesians 2:19-20
>the very Bible is an invention of the Church, a compilation of books that were handpicked by the church fathers and thus claiming the authority of the Bible while rejecting the authority of the Church is contradictory.
>>18442239
>it's a canon of books that were chosen by the Church itself. The Church created and then declared the Bible to be holy, so if you take the Church away from the Bible its just a collection of books with no actual authority. You could easily change all of them by a bunch of gnostic gospels or cake recipes and there wouldn't be any authority to claim otherwise.
Now, this is gross blasphemy, which is useful to teach us how opposed to the Christian religion the counterfeit of Romanism is, and that Romanists are not Christians (for no man who had a dram of the Holy Spirit could speak such odious blasphemy reducing the word of God to the level of Gnostic trash without being brought to his knees). Now, the bible is not the creation of the Church, but the very word of God, as much as Moses heard the words of God when they crashed around him on the mountain. It may not be a writing of Jesus Christ, but it is the writing of His Holy Spirit, as scripture itself attests.
(cont.)

>>18442239
You contradict yourselves and your own church’s dogma when you mount this assault on holy scripture, since they themselves testify that it is the word of God, and you tacitly concede its authority by appealing to it to justify the claims of your church. If Matthew says Jesus made Peter an infallible pope (which it certainly does not), why should I care if scripture is so worthless and devoid of authority? Our religion would be very empty and worthless if it relied only on the authority of men, rather than the revelation of God. The entire argument is a non sequitur, since if it was true that the bible was only the words of men and not God nor of authority of itself then what would logically follow is not that Romanism is true but only that Christianity is false. We still seek any reason whatsoever to accept the claims of the pope and the dogmas of the Roman church, especially without scripture. The argument seeks to cautiously strike a sweet spot, destroying the Christian’s faith sufficiently that they no longer trust God’s word, but not so much that they no longer desire to believe; then, the pope is snuck in through the back door, and falsely presented as if he somehow solved the supposed problem while in reality being by far the more arbitrary authority. But in making these blasphemous claims over the very words of God to which the Church is to be subject, they show their “church” to be nothing more than that Babylon which was foretold of old and their head to be that beast who sitting in the temple of God declared himself to be God.
>Why should the Bible be held as spiritually equal or higher than the Church, exactly?
Because God is higher than your pope.

>>18442254
>The Biblical canon is work of the early church councils, such as Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon.
No sir it is not. This claim is false both historically and theologically 1. It is false that the canon of scripture developed through the councils, which instead appealed to pre-existing authentic scripture as the basis of their rulings and which had been cited as the word of God and basis for true religion since the earliest days of the Church, indeed before the birth of Jesus Christ 2. Even if councils had claimed to authenticate the scripture, mere men by definition do not have the authority to grant authority to God. So any council which claims to do so is to be regarded as the work of the devil rather than any authority.
>there were just hundreds of books written by many different early sects, and some of them were handpicked by the church to compose what we today call the Bible.
Again it is false, but I wonder why the late productions of heretical sects should be considered relevant in the first place to the scripture which is recognized by the Church? In bringing in this garbage you beg the question, since to do so presupposes the very question at issue, that there is no authentic scripture.
>Accordingly to...? Guess what: it start with C and rhymes with Lurch.
I again note the contradiction in this reasoning, since now you grant that the bible is the word of God because the Church says so, while denying the bible is the word of God. But it is correct that the Church does play a role here. It is entirely ministerial and secondary. The Church receives, the Church promulgates, and the Church submits, but it does not author and it does not authenticate.

File: circumcision-mortal-sin.png (96 KB, 663x430)

96 KB PNG

>>18441151
The Church has always taught that observing circumcision results in eternal damnation. This was reaffirmed and dogmatically defined at the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV (pic related).

It's also biblical:
>"Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. You are made void of Christ, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:2-4

>>18441882
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Catholic_hospitals_in_the_United_States

>>18441188
Not by you or anyone you know, it was measured and observed in the same sense Gandalf's white wizard resurrection was.

>>18441414
Anon is clearly making fun of magical thinking voodoo nonsense.

>>18441054
they seethe when they read passages that contradict their vatican iI inspired teachings from Sunday school

>>18441417
That is why you are the one that can't figure out talking to imaginary friends is psychotic?

>>18441648
ESL, only difference between you and the other Sanchez’s here is that you aren’t Catholic and they are

>>18441696
When was the last time you heard of catholic leadership challenging priests of rival gods to spontaneously combust anointed meat or be put to death as Elijah did to prove he was worshiping the one true god or doing any of the other stuff in the old testament that proved which god was the real one and which rules were legit?

>>18441697
>the position isn't infallible
Its not, the position is prone to errors, there are only certain times when influenced directly by god and speaking from the throne of peter that infallibility gets invoke, its not the default of the position.

>>18441707
Catholic saints are deities. A deity is just a supernatural being with divine powers and according to Catholicism, saints have been granted supernatural immortality and other special powers like answering prayers via divine blessings bestowed for living a virtuous life. The hall of saints is just the catholic pantheon by another name.

>>18441736
>Idols in ancient times were figures that people believed 'Gods' literally inhabited
So like the catholic eucharist and tabernacle and monstrance and pyx and the church building itself along with the other thing made to hold/transport what the catholics say is the literal body and blood of their god?

>Christians don't believe that there is any sort of special power in art or icons
So they don't do special blessing on their eucharists and tabernacles and monstrances and pyx and whatnot because of their special powers because of their special function of holding the "literal" body and blood of their god?

>>18441769
>Is an ornate Church an idol?
Yes, by your definition >>18441736 where an idol is something people believe their god literally inhabits, a church building is an idol.

>>18441773
Cool spite ministry you have there, sophist.

>>18441908
Nice historical revision. Your religion held humanity back. We advanced in spite of your religion. You guys just try to take credit for it.
The Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution did more for humanity, than your adult pretend time.
It's the prequel of your religion that's forcing the nihilistic materialism onto us, through globalism. So congrats, your team is fucking everyone over.

>>18441787
>the icon is part of worship not the object of it.
That isn't what yahweh said in the bible, though, it is just your cope to justify doing what you want instead of obeying what yahweh actually said in the bible.

>>18441841
That isn't what catholics do thought, they pray to saints for miracles and use fulfilled prayers as the basis of validating miracles and canonizing saints.

>>18441059
>Angry demons
It's Jesus. Did you expect Christ withstanding even the nuclear apocalypse to look like a picnic?
>building that looks like a serpents mouth
It doesn't. You have to distort the picture with a fisheye lens to do that. It's a rectangular room with round windows. You just bore false witness. You are so fucked :)

>>18441066
And you think that means a literal sword do you, rodent?

>>18441908
Nihilistic is better than death cult war mongering.
Christianity didn't build modern civilization, shit like in god we trust and one nation under god wasn't added until after the world wars, civilization was built by people trying to escape kings and their psychotic dogma about kings of the universe.

File: communion_of_saints.png (529 KB, 650x393)

529 KB PNG

>>18442341
>Catholic saints are deities
Whosoever has made it to Heaven is a saint. The saints are not deities. They are "deiformis" or God-formed, conformed to the divine likeness by grace. They participate in the divine nature, but they are not divine in nature. This is Biblical:
>"By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world."
2 Peter 1:4

Men, Angels, etc are creatures: beings that receive their existence from the Creator. God alone is Being itself subsisting. Creatures receive being. They do not possess it of themselves. God is divine by essence. Divinity is not something He has. It is what He is. The saint is God-formed by participation. The divine likeness is something received, infused by grace, and utterly dependent upon its Source. It is in no way constitutive of the creature's nature.

To conflate creature with Creator is a contradiction in terms, and one that the Church has repudiated since the earliest Councils. No degree of grace, glory, or participatory elevation alters what a creature is by nature. You are committing a grave ontological category error by confounding the order of creatures with the order of divinity itself.

>>18441910
Wrong you are blatantly lying, catholics dogma explicitly says that god literally inhabits their churches and their crackers and wine are literally made of god's flesh and blood which is why there is so much pomp and circumstance of golden containers for consecrated crackers and wine.

>>18441913
>a saint isn't a god.
Then why do catholics canonically pray to saints for miracles if they are not supernatural beings with divine powers of healing and magic who can make sure prayers are fulfilled?

>>18441946
So you can't post the passages and citation for the same reasons?

>>18441948
So how high is most high, how many miles from say the peak of Mount Everest are we talking?

>>18442051
Because they have long been deeply corrupted (if they were ever anything else) in numerous measurable ways, Martin Luther famously wrote a whole treatise about it and nailed it to the Castle Church doors.

>>18441054
He is right. Jesus didn't write anything down, but he did found the Catholic Church

>>18442504
>ackshually the bible is not divinely authored
Catholics in 2026

>>18442397
There are angels in heaven who are the height of a 1000 years journey. Those angels don't even reach the ankles on the Most High.

>>18442554
Years isn't a valid measurement of height, though, neither is ankles, so try again, this time with an actual height preferably in miles as was originally specified which you seem too high to have actually read and understood.

>>18441054
Muhammad was such genius for avoiding this from the beginning

>>18442284
What you are saying is not biblical, because the meaning of that scripture is that if you seek to be justified by works of the law you have fallen away, which does not apply to circumcision per se but only if it is observed as a religious rite for the purpose of being saved (which is not the case in modern hospitals). It does mean that following Rome’s gospel of works-righteousness cuts you off from Christ, though.
Your image, despite its hyperbolic language toward the end, in its first half makes it clear that it’s saying the same thing as me about circumcision so would not be applicable to modern medical circumcision either.

>>18442381
I would say with the exception of the first sentence that’s all true (though I wonder what any of it has to do with the historic Romanist definition of the word “saint”, which is not just anyone in heaven but only those whose merits are greater than their temporal punishments). However, the proper sense of the word “God” (which distinctly describes the true and living God) is derived from the Christian worldview and not shared in common with pagan worldviews like Hinduism. When it comes to a sense of the term which is worldview-independent, I see no other available meaning other than the object of one’s worship and devotion, and in this sense the “saints” of the Greeks and Romanists are gods since they together with their image are worshipped. Now, the practice of prayer to saints also tacitly affirms an ontological divinity to them, since it presupposes that these gods are able to hear and act on these prayers, which none but a god (indeed, the God) could do.

>>18441054
No Christian firmly embraces the entire bible as literal truth, though most Christians will say they do. There's always parts that each denomination will either disavow or say it's metaphorical rather than literal. They'll conveniently disavow a lot of things saying that it's a mistranslation.

I'd say the Catholics and old school orthodox denominations are probably following the bible with more consistency than any other denomination. Maybe the first wave of Protestants, still follow a lot of it "as written".

Non Denominational Churches and modern American Evangelicals have disavowed almost all Biblical teachings in principle. They have entirely revised Jesus to stand for things he would have abhorred.

But overall, ALL Christian faith is far more similar than it is different, and if you guys want to survive well into the 21st Century, you should probably learn to have solidarity with each other. If you keep bickering and feuding with any other Christian church who has a minor difference in theory or dogma, you all will be washed away by the tide of history. You guys no longer have the massive numbers to be splitting hairs on every issue.

>>18442657
>I'd say the Catholics and old school orthodox denominations are probably following the bible with more consistency than any other denomination. Maybe the first wave of Protestants, still follow a lot of it "as written".
>Non Denominational Churches and modern American Evangelicals have disavowed almost all Biblical teachings in principle. They have entirely revised Jesus to stand for things he would have abhorred.
Just to dig deeper, when you say Catholics are more consistent, do you mean the entire past 2,000 years of Catholic Christianity or just post-Vatican II?

>>18442657
We should have as much solidarity with the heretics of Rome as we would with the Gnostics. Their heresy destroys the foundation and would destroy Christianity much faster than atheism. We do not trust in men, but in God.

You are mistaken that not everyone follows the entire bible. Metaphors are not lies, you in this very post say “you all will be washed away by the tide”, are you talking about a literal physical wave of water or are you lying? Metaphorical speech is such a natural quality of man that he does it constantly without even thinking about it (as you have done) and it would be very unnatural for an entire book, let alone 66 of them to pass by without metaphor. But we are not to arbitrarily decide a text is metaphorical in order to nullify it, as the liberals do, but whether a text is metaphorical or literal is decided by the intention of the author and determined through ordinary methods of exegesis, and once the authentic meaning of the text is discovered we are to cling to it even unto death.

>>18442667
Should say, “that nobody”

>>18442667
I admire your fervent faith, I really do; and I'm as anti-Christian as they come. But zealotry towards your life commitments is always respectable (whatever the cause)..

However, your unwillingness to compromise and at least be tentatively allied with Christians of a *slightly different* sort, will be the downfall of all of you Christians. And that will be a good thing for society.

But once again, I respect your zealotry, believe it or not, I was once a lot like you. I'm always impressed by the old school zealous fire and brimstone types. Believe it or not, despite your polar opposite ideology, you're greatly respected enemies to me. The **only** respectable Christians.

>>18441935
>But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written

>>18442268
>why the late productions of heretical sects should be considered relevant in the first place to the scripture which is recognized by the Church?
Some of the books made by heretical sects are as old if not older than many of the canon books of the New Testament. The very first NT canon was composed by Marcion of all people. The books that made into canon aren't there because of their age, but because they were chosen to be canon by the church fathers.
Without the authority of the church deciding what is and what is not orthodoxy, what's stoping you from accepting those books as canon too?
By the way, why are you even calling them "heretical" in the first place, since you don't believe in the authority of apostolical succession? You are free to consider The Gospel of Judas or Pistis Sophia to be canon, buddy. No one is stopping you (and that's the problem).
>indeed before the birth of Jesus Christ
Once again, protestants focusing too much on the Old Testament. Yes, the Tanakh existed before Jesus, so what? The apostolical churches accept that.
It's the New Testament that contains the true revelation of Jesus Christ and it could have been very different if the councils didn't handpicked the books they thought to be canon. If someone like Valentinius, Marcion or Arius had to choose, Christianity as we know would be very different.

>>18442693
There is nothing “slight” concerning the difference between me and Rome. There are so many and so many fundamental differences between their religion and mine that if I should accept them I should also accept Islam. But I understand you likely do not understand either theology so as to appreciate the chasm.
>>18442801
>Some of the books made by heretical sects are as old if not older than many of the canon books of the New Testament.
This is false, there is not a single one of their books which is older than a single one of the authentic scriptures, and I think you only believe this because of the influence of secularists and liberals which are as opposed to the faith as you are.
>The very first NT canon was composed by Marcion of all people.
This is a half-truth, insofar as a canon is a list of the divine books Marcion is the first (if I am not mistaken, there are a few which may be earlier) but this does not imply the Church did not recognize authentic scripture, only that it was not formally listed out. The church fathers reacted to Marcion because he had interpolated and corrupted the canon of scripture which they had received.
>The books that made into canon aren't there because of their age, but because they were chosen to be canon by the church fathers.
They are there neither because of age nor because men decided it but because they and they alone are the words of God. This is a category error, in which you move the goalposts by conflating authenticity (which is what you challenged before) and canonicity (which is only the list of the divine books and meaningless in and of itself, for the question is not whether a book is canon or not, which means only that it is recorded in the list, but whether it is authentic or not, which means it ought to be recorded in the list). Either the books are the word of God, or they should not be regarded canonical.
(1/3)

>>18442801
>Without the authority of the church deciding what is and what is not orthodoxy, what's stoping you from accepting those books as canon too?
Because they are heretical garbage which is not inspired by God.
>By the way, why are you even calling them "heretical" in the first place, since you don't believe in the authority of apostolical succession?
I might ask why you consider them heretical, since you don’t believe in the authority of the word of God? They are heretical because they destroy the foundation of the faith once delivered to the saints, as does Romanism. This again and is still the fallacy of begging the question. They are heretical because they are contrary to the authentic scripture, so when you challenge that they are not heretical but should be regarded on equal footing with the scripture as if the identity of scripture was up for grabs between them this presupposes that there is no authentic scripture to judge between orthodoxy and heresy, which we deny.
(2/3)

>>18442801
>No one is stopping you (and that's the problem).
What do you mean no one is stopping me? If you mean it in practice then no one is stopping you either, being a slave of the pope does not magically compel you to remain such or to never affirm Gnosticism. If you mean it in principle then the accusation is false, God is stopping me through His word which binds me. As you are the pope’s slave, I am Christ’s slave.
>Yes, the Tanakh existed before Jesus, so what?
So your entire argument is defeated. The tanakh was not recognized because your magisterium (which did not exist) said so, but in the same manner in which the New Testament was recognized. It raises some fatal questions, 1. If the NT is not known or authoritative apart from your false church, how was the OT known and authoritative apart from it? 2. If scripture was then the rule of faith independent of your false church, how is it now not the rule of faith independent of your false church?
>it could have been very different
ONLY if there is no God. You are an atheist.
>If someone like Valentinius, Marcion or Arius had to choose
Why don’t they get to choose? What gives your slavemaster the power to give authority to God and decide what His revelation is, and nobody else? Maybe I’ll decide I’m the arbitrary authority and you have to believe everything I say. Still you assume rather than prove the authority claims of the pope.
(3/3)

>>18442382
The Eucharist is not manmade however, it was given to us by Christ (God). Christ is present IN the church building "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." but nobody claims that the Church building is God and leave sacrifices for the building as if it were

>>18442952
Then the substance of the Eucharist is not the substance of God?

>>18442954
How? The Eucharist has Christ's real presence, however that may be the case. It is not idolatry as this isn't the work of man's hands but God's

>>18442970
It is not idolatry to worship Christ, but it is idolatry to worship bread.

>>18442982
Believe what you will, this is a centuries old argument that smarter people than us on both sides haven't managed to agree on, God bless you anyhow

As soon as I hear the word "works" come out of some squeaky, shrimpy Braeden's mouth or spammed in all-caps in a yidtube comment section I completely tune out desu. It's like hearing someone use the phrase "means of conveyance" at a traffic stop

>>18441054
>>18441055
the average protestant loves the bible so much he ignores every passage about confession

>>18441648
>if humans are corrupt why do you have a church???
holy shit someone give this fucking retard the nobel prize in theology!!

>>18442890
>>18442892
>>18442893
All of that just to keep engaging in the same circular logic: the books that are in the Bible are the authentic ones -> but why? -> because they are in the Bible, otherwise they wouldn't be.
It's a very childish view on history and religion and doesn't stand on its own.
You have to dismiss entirely the argument that heretical texts are as old as canon texts just because your whole worldview crumbles if you admit that
>This is false, there is not a single one of their books which is older than a single one of the authentic scriptures, and I think you only believe this because of the influence of secularists and liberals which are as opposed to the faith as you are.
See? You didn't even engage with that.
It's pretty telling about your religion that modern discoveries about text dating and philology need to be dismissed a priori over the threat of ruining everything. The catholic view of critical history stands on its own and it's bulletproof against even atheistic claims.
That's how you know which denomination is closer to the truth: the one that is not bothered by secondary sources.

>If the NT is not known or authoritative apart from your false church, how was the OT known and authoritative apart from it?
Because the OT was canonized by jewish scholars way before Christianity. The Tanakh is a jewish canon who was borrowed by christians. We use it to base our theology and messianic prophecies, but it's not true revelation of Jesus, just a complementary compilation of scripture.
But the jewish canon is not entirely untouchable, we could use other texts for composing the OT canon too, and guess what? We did, but you protestants decided that the jewish canon alone was authentic, so the burden of proof is one you to explain why did the jewish alone have divine authority enough to declare the full canon of the christian Bible's OT. But I know you evangelicals are raging philosemites anyways, so I'm sure you will find a way around it.

>>18441054
Their church is their idol. Jesus left us His Spirit, actually, and many books. Catholics don't have the Spirit, so they emphasize their church organization. It's worldly and political, much like the Pharisees.

>>18443718
Who compiled the bible?

>>18441648
I don't think catholics truly appreciate that the humiliation rituals the papal state went through are the only reason the church managed to survive into the 20th century let alone the 21st

>>18443422
"Confess your sins to each other." - Catholicism takes this to mean to a priest.
Actually, all the believers are referred to as priests in the new testament. Not a clergy / laity system where some believers are more special than others.

>>18443719
I bet you have an answer, so what is it?

>>18443723
>protnigger pretending to not understand things again award

>>18443773
What's your point?

>>18443564
>All of that just to keep engaging in the same circular logic: the books that are in the Bible are the authentic ones -> but why? -> because they are in the Bible, otherwise they wouldn't
This is a strawman argument, you attack your own imagination and I will not defend it. The issue here is not so much whether this or that is an authentic book but whether any is at all, the tenor of your arguments is to deny the possibility of divine revelation, especially the inspiration of the holy scriptures.
>It's a very childish view
Appeal to ridicule fallacy
>You have to dismiss entirely the argument that heretical texts are as old as canon texts just because your whole worldview crumbles if you admit that
This is false. While it is true that heretical texts are not as old as the canonical ones, again, the authority of the canonical texts proceeds from their authenticity and not their age. That heretics existed at all before some of the scriptures were written is undoubtable since the scriptures make direct reference to these heretics, but 1. Any writings they produced have failed to endure to this time, since they were not preserved by the power of God 2. As the scriptures rebuke the heresies and reprove those who accepted them they make it plain that even then true religion was distinguished from false, and they could distinguish authentic scripture from heretical counterfeits.
(1/4)

>>18443564
>It's pretty telling about your religion that modern discoveries about text dating and philology need to be dismissed a priori
Another falsehood, they are not dismissed a priori, we are dismissed a priori. What is telling is your own unbelief and fellowship with your brethren the atheists, because their late dating of these scriptures is intended to deny the authorship those books self-attribute and is built on the presupposition of the non-existence of God and the non-inspiration of scripture which you apparently share in common with them. More likely though is that you are wholly ignorant of the entire debate and you are a simple mindless slave to authority, quick to follow the wisdom of the world. Indeed, it is telling.
>The catholic view of critical history stands on its own and it's bulletproof against even atheistic claims.
Now that simply is not true. You are deceived if you think that. It is entirely uncontroversial that your religion is an innovation of the middle ages, with abundant essential distinctives which did not exist in the patristic age (let alone the apostolic). This is recognized by every church historian irrespective of religious profession.
>Because the OT was canonized by jewish scholars way before Christianity.
Who were these mystical Jewish scholars, when and how did they canonize it, and how did they have the authority to do such a thing? It is of course immaterial for you to answer that, since we have already established your historical claims about the canonization of the New Testament were false anyway. But the Lord Jesus held men accountable to the scriptures, saying “Have you not read what God spoke to you?” It is unquestionable and indisputable that Jesus Christ and His apostles held a view that the scriptures are the very words of God as authoritative to the reader as if God Himself should come down from heaven to speak to them verbally in person, your view, as your religion, is very different from theirs.
(2/4)

>>18443564
>But the jewish canon is not entirely untouchable, we could use other texts for composing the OT canon too, and guess what? We did, but you protestants decided that the jewish canon alone was authentic, so the burden of proof is one you
Now that’s some mental gymnastics. It is impressive sophistry which speaks to the casuistic character of your entire argument; first, the OT canon is accepted because “Jewish scholars” (whoever they are) said so, but then the decision of the “Jewish scholars” is to be rejected because it contradicts the magisterium, and for the cherry on top the burden of proof is on me to prove that Jesus Christ and His apostles were correct because I have the burden of disproving that which you never even began to actually argue for. Is there anything so absurd it could not be defended in the very same way?
(3/4)

>>18443564
>why did the jewish alone have divine authority enough to declare the full canon
I have told you many times already, no man has the authority to authenticate God’s word. Either scripture is self-authenticating, or all religion is false. This was taken for granted by every Jew, and every apostle, and every church father, and every medieval scholastic, nobody before had dreamed of the denial of biblical authenticity and authority which the counter-reformers (more properly, anti-reformers) and their children the Endarkenment philosophers developed. Except this, I grant you to have a forefather in church history in the men Irenaeus described: “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.” You have been caught in the devil’s snare, all this sand was thrown in your eyes to keep you from believing the gracious gospel of the word of God which Rome has denied and brought the anathema upon itself. It is to keep you enslaved to the sacrament of penance and condemned under your own mortal sins. But the truth which God revealed in scripture is that all who trust in Jesus alone will be saved, their sins were already fully punished and satisfied by Him in their place and He is “able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through Him”, therefore those who believe in Him can never fall into condemnation, having made peace with God. “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1) We implore you, be reconciled to God.
(4/4)