>>18719745
Shut up idol worshiper

>>18719745
I take the question at face value and ask how we can accept the seventh ecumenical council as ecumenical when the historical record shows that the Church did not practice image veneration for first 400 years of its existence and every reference to it from this period was negative.

>>18719745
It's so cool how much stupider LLMs have made Christians

>>18719745
By reading the Bible. Enjoy burning.

>>18719795
Have you been to a JW Anon thread lately? She’s just copying and pasting into LLM’s now.

>>18719745
>Jesus' existence and crucifixion are multiply attested early
this just isn't true
stories of Jesus' existence and crucifixion are attested but there are no first hand accounts, and there are no second-hand accounts that can be dated to within his assumed lifetime
kind of a tangent but for whatever reason
>a guy told me a that another guy told him he heard this dude did some miracles and shit
is only accepted as factual evidence in bible studies, meanwhile second-hand and even first-hand accounts if there is possible bias are considered questionable at best without physical evidence backing it up in all other historical studies
it's just so strange, especially when it doesn't ever apply to other religions; most of the life of buddha as told by buddhists is questioned and muslims on their own have heavily argued about muhammad's life over the centuries

>>18719798
Are they still posting here? I saw them on /tv/ a little while ago strangely

>>18719787
>the historical record shows that the Church did not practice image veneration for first 400 years of its existence
If you simply redefine veneration to mean adoration and then redefine images to mean idols, then you are correct.

>>18719745
>He trusts the machine demon to lead him to the true faith

>>18719968
Please provide evidence for the practice of image veneration in the Church at this time.

>>18719966
Yeah they’re back

File: laugh.jpg (184 KB, 2000x2000)

184 KB JPG

>christcuck
>worships AI

>>18719745
Catholicism has a huge number of articles online promoting apologetics. AI picks that up and regurgitates that.

Catholics speak a good game online. But in reality the church as an institution is decadent and rotten. So many of the clergy are raging homosexuals. Many Catholics are very proud of their catholic identity but have no genuine faith or understanding of the doctrines. It's a cultural identity mostly Irish in my area, feels very ethnic. Catholics criticise Orthodox Christianity for being ethic but Catholics are just the same. Full of old woman pretentiously genuflecting and crossing themselves with their diamond rings on.

The church is full of idols. I once visited a catholic church to attend a mass. At the front of the church at the left hand side, was a magnificent white marble shrine to Mary. A young mother and her daughter were praying to it and then throwing coins into a metal pot at the foot of the shrine.

Felt very uncomfortable and walked out before it started. The reformers were right. Why would I want to confess my sins to a priest?. Anglo-Catholics are just the same....

>>18719962
>meanwhile second-hand and even first-hand accounts if there is possible bias are considered questionable at best without physical evidence backing it up in all other historical studies
I don't think this is true. Academics believe a ton of things that we have zero evidence for. Those things just aren't demanding moral reformation, so they have no problem believing those things. The basic tenet of empiricism itself is a belief. Academia is rigorous when it attempts to deconstruct something, but it is a horde of assumptions whenever it actually postulates its own hypotheses.

>>18719975
You made the initial claim. Provide evidence of official condemnation of image veneration that isn't either conflating images with idols or veneration with adoration. And please provide a way of understanding the history of the faith that would allow for early Christianity to be ripped to shreds by theological controversy for centuries on end, but we don't see any 1000 page "against images" treatises written by Churchmen in the historical record. Shockingly enough, prior to Islam, we've tended to see more pushback against the Trinity than we have against images. I wonder what that could mean. Perhaps the muslims being militant iconoclasts had something to do with it?

As an aside, this level of scrutiny ought to be applied to the Bible itself if you're going to be consistent. Provide evidence for the collection of texts we today understand to be New Testament canon of scriptures. Also please provide evidence for those text being inspired by God rather than just firmly rooted historical texts.

>>18720001
Veneration is an insincere pedantic distinction from worship.

The two are exactly the same. Kissing relics and praying and gazing up to statues is a major violation of the second commandment. No carved images of anything from the heavens, do not bow down or worship them. Can you imagine the Apostle Paul kissing a statue of Jesus or his mother ?? Beyond credulity.

The early church did not do this or engage in these practices. Icons came from pagan practices and is an accretion. Even Roman Catholic scholars concede this.

Oh wait you say...... What about the Golden cherubim on the ark of the covenant ? Yes God instructed this to be created but the Jews didn't pray to or through the statues. The instruction was an exception to the rule, God's instruction must always be followed. The commandment still stands. God also instructed Saul to wipe out the Amalekites, does that mean we can now do as we please?? Of course not, Human life is precious.

The bible is to be the authority not sinful men. All scripture is God breathed. The Reformed church is the correct and true Catholic church not in Rome.

God also instructed

>>18720047
>Veneration is an insincere pedantic distinction from worship.
>The two are exactly the same.
Prove this claim. The rest of your post is irrelevant preaching. I do not give a fuck about your preaching. Prove your claims from the historical record.

>>18720047
>The bible is to be the authority
the bible was selected and maybe written by catholic bishops. If you have a perfec book fetish u must become muslim, I will neve runderstand protestant mindset

File: image veneration quotes.jpg (1.2 MB, 1866x1780)

1.2 MB JPG

>>18720001
>Provide evidence of official condemnation of image veneration that isn't either conflating images with idols or veneration with adoration.
To clarify in greater detail, my claim is that there is no direct evidence for the widespread, continuous practice of image veneration for the first 400 years of the Church's existence, and that written references to veneration are negative from church leaders during this time.

>Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.25.6, on the Carpocratians: "they have images, claim one was made by Pilate, crown them, and set them beside images of Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, honoring them "after the same manner of the Gentiles."
>Council of Elvira, canon 36 (c. 300-306): Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur. Roughly: "Pictures ought not to be in a church, lest what is worshipped and adored be painted on the walls."
>Augustine, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae 1.34.75 (c. 388): Novi multos esse sepulcrorum et picturarum adoratores, "I know that many are worshippers of tombs and pictures." (He groups them with the superstitious).

Please also see the attached jpg.

As I have now provided evidence for my claim about negative references, would you please provide direct evidence for the practice of veneration dated to within the first four centuries?

You will no doubt say that some of the quotations provided are referring to pagans only, but, the fact that they refer to veneration in purely negative terms, without clarifying that Christian veneration is different, is obviously troubling. Arguments from silence are difficult, if not impossible, to accept given the extent of the opposing evidence.

>>18720072
No you don't care for the bible do you?
You would rather trust a man in Rome to tell you what is right and wrong.

How about some church fathers on icons??

Source - https://theopolisinstitute.com/dont-convert-icons-and-images-in-the-early-church/


Irenaeus (c. 130–202) condemned the honoring of images “after the same manner of the Gentiles.”
Tertullian (c. 155–c. 240) wrote “similitude [is] interdicted.”4

Origen wrote that Christians, “being taught in the school of Jesus Christ, [Christians] have rejected all images and statues;”5 they “cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images”; they “not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.”

6 The Synod of Elvira (c. 300–314), consisting of 19 bishops from the Iberian peninsula, resolved, “Pictures are not to be placed in churches, so that they do not become objects of worship and adoration.”

7 Methodius of Olympus (250-311) wrote, “artificers . . . make images in human form, not perceiving and knowing their own Maker, are blamed by the Word.”

Lactantius (250-325) wrote, “Wherefore it is undoubted that there is no religion wherever there is an image.

Arnobius of Sicca (255-330) wrote, “there is nothing divine in images

Finally, Epiphanius (c. 310–403), bishop of Salamis, Cyprus, on a tour through Palestine, found a church that had a curtain in it with an image of either Christ or a saint. It may have only been a decoration. Whether a decoration or something more, Epiphanius tore it down, ripped it into shreds, and wrote the local bishop, John, reminding him that such images are “contrary to our religion.”12

>>18720076
>Please also see the attached jpg.
People have posted that image here hundreds of times. Do you really think I haven't seen it? The quotemines only seem reasonable when you mistranslate the original works and deny distinction between images and idols as well as the distinction between veneration and adoration.

What you guys always have proof of
>worshiping pagan idols is bad
>venerating pagan idols is bad
>worshiping holy images is bad

what you never have proof of
>venerating holy images is bad

These sorts of iconoclastic arguments are founded upon the assertion that all four of those acts are identical to one another. They are not. If they are not, you people have no argument. Your tradition tells you that you have a sound and proper argument, so you refuse to admit the distinctions. This is strawmannirg 101.

>>18719745
Ive been worrying for a while now that evil people won history, that the rules we live with are fallout of their misdeeds. I think we need to throw it all away & start fresh.

>>18720102
Did Jesus or the apostles ever venerate an image?

Did anyone in the old testament kiss relics?

Just been on social media and saw Fulton Sheen's actual bone jaw in a glass cube. No doubt if you had the chance you would kiss it, hoping so your prayers could go through the jaw, to Fulton sheen in heaven and then he could pass them to God.

UTTER NONSENSE

>>18720102
>what you never have proof of
Did you not actually read the quotes I provided? Clement, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius. Epiphanius, Augustine, Pope Gregory, and the Council of Elvira are not *only* referring to worship or the practices of the pagans. Only Irenaeus' quote could be read that way, but, as I say, arguments from silence are not ideal in this case.

At any rate, I am not claiming that people who venerate icons are worshipping another god through an idol. That is not an argument I am capable of making.

Please now provide direct evidence for the claim that the practice of image veneration was both continuous and widespread during the first 400 years of the Church's existence.

>>18719745
Kek, it would obviously be Orthodoxy, probably Ethiopian or something if we're being objective. Christianity doesn't even come close to being the most viable candidate.

>20+ post long thread about a generated reply from a glorified chatbot

are you all really this fucking retarded

>>18720119
People aren't so much interested in the chatbot as they are in the subject matter.

>>18719745
You cast Relic at Charles Fox

Charles Fox denies the Pope!

>>18720114
>Did you not actually read the quotes I provided?
Did you? Half of them any theologically inclined Catholic would openly agree with. The pope Gregory quote explicitly. And the Augustine quote. Those depicted in holy images are alive in christ, not dead. This discussion is nonsensical to the protestant unless he has a knowledge of the communion of the saints. The other half are deliberate mistranslations and taken completely out of their original context. Iconoclasts are arguing around and past the Catholic position. They've been doing the same thing for centuries.

For what it's worth, I'm glad you normal protestants have come back to /his/. Every time the Catholic and Orthodox start beating you over the head with history the normal prots tend to leave and only the schizophrenic lunatics remain.

>Please now provide direct evidence for the claim that the practice of image veneration was both continuous and widespread during the first 400 years of the Church's existence.
Read St John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine and you'll understand why these sorts of arguments undercut the entirety of the faith. This logic, if held consistently, is dechristianizing rather than protestantizing. No thanks.

>>18720170
>Those depicted in holy images are alive in christ, not dead.
I don't think a Protestant would necessarily dispute this, though I cannot help but feel it's a non sequitur in this instance. Augustine specifically criticises the practice of praying to God through an image in the quote provided. Gregory commends the destruction of images, cautions they can be used for education, but makes no such claim for veneration/honouring. Obviously, if the practice were widespread and continuous, we would expect Gregory to refer to such a caveat here.
>The other half are deliberate mistranslations and taken completely out of their original context.
This is an assertion on your part. Where is your evidence?
>Read St John Henry Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Please don't tell people to "go and read this book." If something that book has stated resonates with you, then you ought to be able to reproduce it here. Regardless, the idea that certain teachings of the Church existed in seed form only to flower at a later date only works in terms of clarification. Given the absence of evidence - and the wealth of written evidence against the practice - the endorsement of veneration does not represent a clarification so much as it does a complete reversal.

>>18720189
>I don't think a Protestant would necessarily dispute this, though I cannot help but feel it's a non sequitur in this instance.
I think they would dispute it.
>Augustine specifically criticises the practice of praying to God through an image in the quote provided.
Based on his assertion that the images are dead, yes. Holy images are not representing the dead.
>Gregory commends the destruction of images, cautions they can be used for education, but makes no such claim for veneration/honouring.
Gregory lauds their destruction because they are being adored. Adoration is worship. Veneration is not. Again, the distinction matters. Denying the distinction is a rhetorical technique, not an argument.
>Obviously, if the practice were widespread and continuous, we would expect Gregory to refer to such a caveat here.
If the practice were widespread, he wouldn't need to redefine the distinction between veneration and adoration every time he told people not to be idolatrous.
>Please don't tell people to "go and read this book."
No? Go read the book.
>If something that book has stated resonates with you, then you ought to be able to reproduce it here.
I am reproducing it here. The rationale for eschewing all of the icky Catholic shit that protestants like can be equally applied to things like the trinity and the canon of scripture itself. Protestants pick and choose which developments they will accept and will not accept. This is an arbitrary foundation. Again, read the book. Protestant semi-skepticism lays the foundation for atheistic hyperskepticism.

>Regardless, the idea that certain teachings of the Church existed in seed form only to flower at a later date only works in terms of clarification.
Just read the damn book, man. This is irrelevant to the deeper point. It's a very shallow LLM tier understanding of the work. Stop trusting the bots to teach you shit. It turns you into a midwit redditor incapable of recognizing flaws in the basic axioms of your worldview.

>>18719745
He was too afraid to leave it open ended. He asked for the answer to be christianity lmao.
Prime example of how people use AI only to confrim their biases and ask leading questions.
Its always "why am I right ?" and never "why am I wrong"

>>18720105
Man is born free but is everywhere in chains
- Rousseau

>>18720199
>Based on his assertion that the images are dead, yes. Holy images are not representing the dead.
You've shifted the point there. Augustine is saying that we don't venerate or honour God through these materials because, even if they are made into a likeness, they are themselves lifeless. You have responded by saying that Christian images represent the living, but Augustine's point is not about representation so much as it is the inert nature of the materials and the object itself.
>Denying the distinction is a rhetorical technique, not an argument.
I'm not denying the distinction. I am highlighting the fact that Gregory makes no exception for veneration/honouring of images where we would obviously expect him to if he endorsed the practice. He only makes an exception for education.
>If the practice were widespread, he wouldn't need to redefine the distinction between veneration and adoration every time he told people not to be idolatrous.
Oh, come on, anon. If he's speaking to someone who is destroying images and is worried about them being overly zealous, clearly he's going to want to clarify that image veneration is licit if he believes it to be.
>Protestant semi-skepticism lays the foundation for atheistic hyperskepticism.
The slippery slope fallacy is considered a fallacy for a reason. Implying that we shouldn't utilise our God-given reason lest it upend other elements of the religion is remarkable.
>Just read the damn book, man.
Demanding that your opponent read a book doesn't inspire confidence and comes across more as a retreat from the issues than anything else. If you cannot concisely relay the points you found to be convincing in your own words that indicates they weren't actually all that convincing.

>>18719745
Imagine getting religious advice from a soulless machine

This isn’t the dub you think it is

>>18719745
I would ask Grok why Judaism isn’t a strong contender. If it starts going into historical issues, then that by extension presents a problem for Christianity and Islam.

>>18720432
>he fell for the rabbinical Judaism is 3000 years old meme
kek

>>18720224
>You've shifted the point there.
>honouring
>Oh, come on, anon.
>clearly he's going to want to clarify
>The slippery slope fallacy is considered a fallacy for a reason.
AI is turning protties into dumb bongolgoid redditors kek

>Demanding that your opponent read a book doesn't inspire confidence
Good? I don’t care. It’s not for you. It’s for the literate spergs digging in the catalog who care more about being consistent than regurgitating some inane bullshit from an LLM just to win an argument.

Christians treating grok as an authority on anything is an embarrassing stain on the human race. Abrahamic traditions desperately avoid a process of real critical thinking.

>>18720649
Its just a tool, anon. Or maybe you are just mad your bullshit can be easily fact checked on the spot? Atheists are notorious for being disingenuous liars. Why go find a book to prove you wrong when the AI can fetch it in seconds for me? Sounds like luddite copium to me or maybe I just value my free time more than you do?

>>18720646
Resorting to ad hominem proves you have no defence.

>>18720662
Resorting to ad mechanicum proves you have no understandinge.

>>18720664
I didn't use AI. I'm sorry your vocabulary is so lacking that you assume every explanatory clause is machine generated.

>>18720667
Your vocabulary isn’t even impressive, you have no grasp of the axiomatic issues present within what you’re ”arguing”, and you’re repeatedly posting redditisms. In the words of Wellesley, fucke offe.

>>18720673
>you have no grasp of the issues
>reddit! reddit!
This is ad hominem. Still waiting on that evidence.

>>18720682
I never said you have no grasp of the issues. You likely can grasp the issues. That’s why you ask clankers for backup, however ridiculous it seems. You just don’t know what’s easily clockable as ai sloppa, so you indulge in it too much. Delusional schizos don’t use AI, but naive retards do.

>>18719745
Tradcaths brigaded @grok?

Its wild how angloid rightcels have appropriated Catholicism. It's clearly driven by contrarianism: claiming to be religious (already contrarian in their secular societies) AND Catholic (which is doubly contrarian since majority of them are Prots).

>>18720708
A lot of those angloids have Irish ancestors and Irish are huge into larping. Thankfully they don't breed and are generally unlikeable to general public so it feels like it will end in one generation

>>18720708
They just like the BASED pageantry and symbolism which I guess compensates for their stunted manhood better than some lutheran church with a gay rights flag on their sign and stomp clap hey singing in their service or some southern yokel catching the Holy Ghost in his pulpit or whatever goes on in protestant churches these days

>>18719745
google gemini told me everyone is abandoning the one true independent fundamentalist Baptist church because we failed the trial of the tithe to the holy land

for we have all cursed Israel and the Lord our God is cursing us all in their stead

>>18720694
Your continued refusal to provide direct evidence for the practice of image veneration in the first four centuries ruins your argument. I did not use AI in any of my explanations to you, and your personal attacks on my character only reinforce the weakness of your position.

>>18720758
I would’ve preferred if you had just called me a racial slur.

>>18720734
It's literally just this which is why most of them become sedevacantists immediately

>>18720762
Basically this, but you and the other guy are out of touch and don’t realize they’re actually just orthobros.

Why would I need to cope with this?

>>18720094
>The bible is to be the authority not sinful men
>How about some church fathers on icons
kek

>>18719745
Jesus Christ taught the age of consent for girls was 16/18 years old.
But Catholic pedos like Thomas Aquinas argues in Summa Theolgica that you can doink girls younger than 12, if they happen to have periods earlier (you can even have it at 10). The Roman Catholic Canon law, until quite recently, said the age of consent for girls was 12, and Gratian the Jurist codified the "age of reason" to get into marriage contracts was 7.
These were not opposed by the Church.
Furthermore, Saint Augustine was bethrothed to a 10 year old, as a 34 year old.

Keeping this in mind, it must be concluded the Catholic Church is an inherently and independently pedophilic institution, acting outside of the moral law set by Jesus and cannot be the True Church.

File: 1791063852544.jpg (784 KB, 720x1065)

784 KB JPG

>>18719787
>>18719975
There are tons of shrines with visual artwork dedicated to Christ throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and even non-Christians had a good idea of what Christ looked like.
Icons of Christ were very common.
Most early Christians were Greek converts that never cared about Judaism or it's prohibitions.

>>18719745
The AI is just going to pick the most popular answer, which we already know from statistics. It's not actually analyzing the validity of all religions. The algorithm was probably only running for 5 seconds and it just did an internet search for popular answers to your prompt.

>>18719745
I don't

>>18720119
Yes, Christcucks are THAT retarded.

File: Accordionist.png (413 KB, 637x637)

413 KB PNG

>>18720208
>Rousseau

>>18720516
It’s not that I think it’s 3000 years old. It’s just that there are historical issues with the Old Testament that present a problem for the Abrahamic religions.

It doesn't matter which religion is most likely to be true because none of them are likely to be true. Also this >>18721773

What a retarded thread

>>18719745
>Catholicism
Lol, fuck off.

t.Eastern Orthodox.

>>18719745
0 evidence other than hearsay written long after
A brown Jewish midget will never be my lord, king or saviour

>>18719745
I see.
And who wrote the publicly available historical data this idiot machine was instructed to take at face value?

>>18719745
>catholic
>uses AI
have fun burning

>>18719745
>I asked the agree with me machine a question and you know what it did?

File: laughingpoliticians.jpg (133 KB, 630x350)

133 KB JPG

>the AI said it, that settles it