File: Chess.webm (5.8 MB, 720x306)

5.8 MB WEBM

How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly

File: Amazed.webm (2.93 MB, 800x335)

2.93 MB WEBM

The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me

File: Evolution.webm (3.07 MB, 360x360)

3.07 MB WEBM

I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes

File: ClubJames2.webm (5.86 MB, 640x360)

5.86 MB WEBM

Time to upset the Pharisees.

File: Norm Macdonald on Atheism(...).webm (920 KB, 640x360)

920 KB WEBM

Time to upset the atheists.

File: How Can You Say That Chri(...).webm (5.37 MB, 640x360)

5.37 MB WEBM

Time to upset the pagans and religious hypocrites.

File: School systems.webm (5.89 MB, 640x360)

5.89 MB WEBM

Time to upset the socialists.

>>5648089
Never knew that the Pharisees included ALL of the Bible and not just the parts they liked

File: Ronald Reagan on the King(...).webm (5.96 MB, 853x480)

5.96 MB WEBM

Time to upset the bible-of-the-month churches.

>>5648095
Pharisees thought they were righteous for their works. You're just as self-righteous as them, and it's why you think you're so much better than everyone else, and it's why you're so quick to slander and talk down to others.

File: The Bible Way to Heaven ((...).webm (5.37 MB, 480x270)

5.37 MB WEBM

>>5648098

File: The Bible Way to Heaven b(...).webm (5.46 MB, 480x270)

5.46 MB WEBM

>>5648099

File: The Bible Way to Heaven b(...).webm (5.15 MB, 480x270)

5.15 MB WEBM

>>5648104

>>5648097
>it's why you think you're so much better than everyone else
I don't. I just don't neglect the book of James
>it's why you're so quick to slander and talk down to others
I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you how dead faith compels the God of the living to save you

>>5648087
Protestants partake in the eucharist thoughbeit

>>5648089
Sloth is a sin.

>>5648089
We are only saved by God's grace, through faith. But I think Luther made a mistake in calling James' epistle "and epistle of straw." It's still God's word and shouldn't be overlooked.

>>5648092
Not a single black person in the world know's how to read and write ancient hebrew and they seriously think that they were ancient hebrews or something.

File: Was Jesus blonde.webm (5.27 MB, 480x480)

5.27 MB WEBM

>>5648092
Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.

>>5648092
I get that Blacks are mad at the portrayal but do they think jewfros aren't 'like wool'?

>>5648095
The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you.

waiting for it

>>5648125
>and mother
Marybros, our response?

File: DAS RITE.webm (2.59 MB, 540x360)

2.59 MB WEBM

>>5648092

>>5648397
By not thinking God will choose just some woman as His mother

>>5648476
And yet He did

>>5648491
You need better bait, fren

>>5648509
>I have no response, therefore you're baiting
Imagine trying to dispute something Jesus addressed not once but twice in the gospels.

As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Luke 11:27-28

>>5648554
>Imagine trying to dispute something Jesus addressed not once but twice in the gospels.
You mean just like how He said at His death that His mother is now the apostle's mother? Do you believe we should honor our parents but not the one of our Lord? Absurdity.

>>5648560
I'm not sure what your point is, anon. Are you saying we should honor her more than our parents, even though Jesus himself said she's as much his mother as anyone who does the will of God? If that's the case then maybe it'd be a good idea for you to compare that verse with Mark 10:30 and discern better what it's talking about.

Also the beloved disciple is Lazarus not John.

>>5648577
>Are you saying we should honor her more than our parents
No, I'm saying that He honors her too, since He is holy and gives this as the reason for us to be holy.
>Also the beloved disciple is Lazarus not John.
Now that's something I never heard. But even if this is true, the point of this being in the Bible and therefore not just Him telling who's supposed to take care of her still stands.

>>5648580
Of course he honors her, but in Christ we have many mothers, brothers, sisters, and children (notice how it doesn't say fathers, a tip for Catholics and Orthodox) and they're all blessed as long as they do God's will. Mary isn't particularly blessed because she gave birth to Jesus, she's just another human being like you and me.

>>5648604
>Of course he honors her, but in Christ we have many mothers, brothers, sisters, and children and they're all blessed as long as they do God's will
So why are instructed to honor our parents in the commandments while the other relatives don't get mentioned? Both the father and the mother play an important role for us. They have a special place. So either some people are just more important in Christ or the honoring of mother and father is not about the one's in Christ but our actual mothers and father. Therefore, if He honors His mother in a special way and He is all good and never does wrong aren't we supposed to honor her too?
>notice how it doesn't say fathers, a tip for Catholics and Orthodox
Notice how 1 John 2:12-14 does say 'fathers'?
>Mary isn't particularly blessed because she gave birth to Jesus, she's just another human being like you and me.
This is clearly undermining His human nature. Futhermore, if just small contact with Him sanctifies people (like the ones who were healed and especially Paul) then Him physically living in you and being part of your nutritional system clearly has to sanctify greatly. God is everywhere and yet He decided to be explicitly in her and if He didn't want us to care about her we would not see her mentioned at all in the Bible.

>>5648613
>if He honors His mother in a special way
But he doesn't? That's the whole point of Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28.
>1 John 2:12-14
Yes, fathers exist, Mark 10:29 also says fathers. But Mark is the only one who repeats and specifies what the disciples would receive along with persecutions, and what does he do? He omits "fathers." It's a really curious omission, don't you think?
>This is clearly undermining His human nature. Futhermore, if just small contact with Him sanctifies people (like the ones who were healed and especially Paul) then Him physically living in you and being part of your nutritional system clearly has to sanctify greatly. God is everywhere and yet He decided to be explicitly in her and if He didn't want us to care about her we would not see her mentioned at all in the Bible.
You're getting into headcanon territory there, anon. What we see in the bible is Jesus outright rejecting claims that Mary is special because she's his mother. That much is fact. The rest is rationalization from people who want to pray to Mary and bow down before her statues/icons.

>>5648626
>But he doesn't?
Then He doesn't adhere to His commandments?
>fathers exist
You think he meant biological fathers? Funny, since he also calls part of the people he addresses 'little children'. So is he suddenly the father of them? Doesn't it seems more plausible that being called 'father' has something to do with your spiritual standing since we see that he clearly gives the group called 'fathers' the attributes of already having had a closer connection to God?
>It's a really curious omission, don't you think?
There's an easy explanation, it's because the Jews of the times loved to obsess over their rabbis. That's easily shown the Talmud - a collection of sayings of the rabbis - starting to manifest at that time.
>You're getting into headcanon territory there, anon.
As do you by saying that we are getting the name of His mother, the person He has to honor by His own words, not being special.
>What we see in the bible is Jesus outright rejecting claims that Mary is special because she's his mother. That much is fact.
So how do rectify that with the special standing that a mother has? Both mothers and fathers are honorable for the children and the literal mother of God definitely deserves honor then since the one who has to honor her is God. However, what is also clear is that Jews repeatedly struggled to keep in communion with God (as do we all due to our repeated sinning) so Jesus, before this woman of Luk 11:27 got obsessed with her, pulled her away and said that she doesn't have a special standing through her motherhood but through hearing the word of God and obeying as she did through her motherhood.
>The rest is rationalization from people who want to pray to Mary and bow down before her statues/icons.
Then you got an argument for why said rationalization is wrong besides your personal interpretation of the Bible, right?

File: Isaiah 44.webm (2.39 MB, 320x240)

2.39 MB WEBM

>>5648109
>>it's why you're so quick to slander and talk down to others
>I don't
When you say other people reject and neglect books because they don't accept your false works-based salvation interpretation that contradicts the rest of the Bible: You do, as you did in your post.

>otherwise I wouldn't have asked you how dead faith compels the God of the living to save you
Where did you ask that? You mean in the last thread where the self-righteous Pharisees were bearing false witness and never discussing anything in good faith like this >>5648119?

>>5648113
That's because most Protestant religions are still 50-90% Roman Catholic. Many of them only give lip service to the five solas of the reformation which are all Biblical doctrine. Then you have the "Catholics" who appeal to the "authority" of their church, but reject it when it comes to Vatican II, who are bigger hypocrites than regular Catholics.

But in reality. the "regular Catholic" doesn't even take that religion seriously, they were just born into it and remain there from inertia. They've never heard the gospel of the Bible. Nobody reads the Bible, believes it, then becomes Roman Catholic or "Orthodox".

File: HUSH HOUR 4 dub.webm (5.95 MB, 640x360)

5.95 MB WEBM

>if you don't accept my false interpretation, you're rejecting, neglecting, and overlooking the bible
>rejects, neglects, and overlooks all the scripture which says it's not of works, and even "to him that worketh not"

>>5648635
>Then He doesn't adhere to His commandments?
Which commandment says his mother is due special honors?
>he also calls part of the people he addresses 'little children'. So is he suddenly the father of them?
He's not calling them his children though, he's addressing children, fathers, and young men.
>There's an easy explanation, it's because the Jews of the times loved to obsess over their rabbis.
Indeed, so do Catholics and Orthodox alike.
>As do you by saying that we are getting the name of His mother, the person He has to honor by His own words, not being special.
He does honor her, and all his other mothers. He even sacrificed himself to pay for their sins. Or so I heard.
>Then you got an argument for why said rationalization is wrong besides your personal interpretation of the Bible, right?
You just answered that question by yourself.
>she doesn't have a special standing through her motherhood but through hearing the word of God and obeying as she did through her motherhood
Anyone who obeys God acquires the same "special standing" Jesus made that very clear. How, then, is Mary more blessed than anyone else who does the will of God?

>>5648666
Nice trips, Satan.

>>5648669
Acts 17:22
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

Hocus pocus, eat this bread and wine, it's literally flesh and blood after the priest says "hocus pocus".

>>5648670
Gematria was big deal for the Jews.

>>5648672
Deuteronomy 18:10-12
>10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,
>11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
>12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

>>5648679
Matthew 16:3
>And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

Revelation 13:18
>Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

>>5648659
>When you say other people reject and neglect books because they don't accept your false works-based salvation interpretation that contradicts the rest of the Bible: You do, as you did in your post.
Slandering people is explaining to them what they do?
>Where did you ask that?
At post >>5646668
>You mean in the last thread
Yes
>where the self-righteous Pharisees were bearing false witness and never discussing anything in good faith like this >>5648119?
I didn't ask for your opinion

>>5648667
>Which commandment says his mother is due special honors?
Read >>5648613
>He's not calling them his children though, he's addressing children, fathers, and young men.
All of those fathers just happen to have had a closer connection to God? Also why doesn't he care about women after having completed puberty then?
>Indeed, so do Catholics and Orthodox alike.
That is incorrect.
>He does honor her
Again, special honor required.
>You just answered that question by yourself.
Anon, there's only one person who has your own special interpretation. Either it doesn't matter for salvation, thereby making the Bible and its teachings unimportant, or you will be the only who will get saved except for those who got mentioned by name that they are saved.
>How, then, is Mary more blessed than anyone else who does the will of God?
By being His mother, as she through her motherhood most clearly listened to His word and obeyed. However, how she, through being His flesh, got sanctified to a greater degree is explained in >>5648613.

>>5648682
>Read
That's not a commandment.
>All of those fathers just happen to have had a closer connection to God?
He's appealing to fathers as people who create another life and can relate to God as the creator of all. That's why he refers to him as the one who "is from the beginning."
>Also why doesn't he care about women after having completed puberty then?
Weird question, are you saying he's only addressing men because it's about the clergy?
>That is incorrect.
I wish, but unfortunately it's correct. A simply teaching such as "call no man father" has fallen on deaf ears these past few millennia.
>Anon, there's only one person who has your own special interpretation.
Anon, you literally just agreed with me. Then when I pointed it out you realized that brief moment of honesty undermined your argument and now you're back to your original rationalization.
>By being His mother, as she [did thing anyone can do and become equally blessed].
So not because she bore him for 9 months? Glad we agree.

File: 0_JqTNDbCyrD05lE.webm (5.82 MB, 540x540)

5.82 MB WEBM

This is a reminder that the Roman Catholic Church was established almost two thousand years ago and is the church most in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

If you have not already, convert to Catholicism.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/how-to-become-a-catholic

Matthew 16
>And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

File: Eucharistic Congress - EW(...).webm (5.82 MB, 576x1024)

5.82 MB WEBM

Before Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church, most followed their own delusions and worshipped created false "gods". These "gods" were, in essence, created and subject to change (both spiritually and physically). In a similar way, atheism and “secular humanism” are based off of subjective reasoning and have an unstable foundation which is subject to change (sensory data). With the one triune God, however, he is uncreated, not subject to change, and upholds all that exists within the universe.

Malachi 3
>For I am the Lord, and I change not: and you the sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13
>Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to day; and the same for ever.

James 1
>Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.

Polytheism and atheism cannot offer this, but Catholicism can. It is for this reason, along with others, that many nations converted and baptized themselves into the Catholic Church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvU8MGzmsLI

File: National Eucharistic Cong(...).webm (5.4 MB, 576x1024)

5.4 MB WEBM

Passages in support of Holy Communion.

Acts 2
>And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers

1 Corinthians 10
>The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread.

John 6
>Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.

Eucharistic Miracles That Prove Catholicism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soCkftBBsBo

>>5648703
>That's not a commandment.
'Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother' is. Again, other relatives aren't even mentioned. This means they deserve special honor or did God just forget something?
>He's appealing to fathers as people who create another life and can relate to God as the creator of all.
They don't create life. Humans (one male, one female, to equal parts) create bodies that the Lord can breathe life into. Also nowhere does it say so.
>That's why he refers to him as the one who "is from the beginning."
Or maybe to remind the old ones that they are just a speck of dust compared to God.
>are you saying he's only addressing men because it's about the clergy?
No, last time I checked 'little children' aren't part of the clergy. He is, by your standards only addressing, fathers, men without kids and kids. So post-puberty females are not mentioned. If you think that 'fathers' means the actual fathers (who somehow got significantly close to God despite atheists being able to have kids), then you must think women are excluded. So tell me why.
>A simply teaching such as "call no man father" has fallen on deaf ears these past few millennia.
Yeah, like in the letter of John.
>Anon, you literally just agreed with me.
I didn't, it was pretty obvious that I'm asking you if you got any arguments besides your personal interpretation saying so.
>[did thing anyone can do and become equally blessed].
>So not because she bore him for 9 months? Glad we agree.
Come talk to me once you are pregnant with Jesus too.

>>5648718
>Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother
But Jesus himself said he has many mothers, shouldn't they all get that special honor?
>They don't create life
They're life that produces life, like the living God produces the living.
>Also nowhere does it say so.
I thought things didn't have to be explicitly said in the bible? Guess bearing Jesus had no effect on Mary then since nowhere in the bible it says so.
>Or maybe to remind the old ones that they are just a speck of dust compared to God.
That hardly befits what the epistle is conveying.
>then you must think women are excluded. So tell me why.
Probably for the same reason God is called Father and not Mother, despite men and women being equal parts in the process of creating of another life.
>Yeah, like in the letter of John.
If that's the case then whoever wrote that epistle erred.
>it was pretty obvious that I'm asking you
But that wasn't a question, you just rephrased what Luke 11:27-28 said. The problem here is that you have to ignore it constantly and reach for some innocuous argument based on one of the ten commandments because you have nothing else to justify hyperdulia with.
>Come talk to me once you are pregnant with Jesus too.
Getting pregnant with Jesus wasn't something she "did," it was beyond her control. Obeying God's will and carrying on with the pregnancy was. You already proved you understand this, but your argument requires feigning ignorance because it isn't logically sound nor supported by scripture.

File: zqmKZY1U7UffYPIz.webm (4.6 MB, 636x360)

4.6 MB WEBM

>>5648671
1. Firstly, the verse says to call no man YOUR father, not just father. This is talking about how the Pharisees were using their titles and authority as a means to talk down, devalue, or selfishly act superior to other people. This is not talking about how titles should not be used at all when referring to people. This is further confirmed by the fact that several passages of the Holy Bible refer to people as fathers
1 John 2:13-14
>I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him, who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, babes, because you have known the Father. I write unto you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you have overcome the wicked one.

2. "Vain repetitions" is a KJV mistranslation. There is no evidence of early manuscripts of the New Testament that used the term "vain repetitions". The verse is talking about not speaking in incomprehensible gibberish as opposed to actual prayers. This is further confirmed by the fact that four creatures in heaven will be saying the same thing for eternity.

Revelation 4
>And the four living creatures had each of them six wings; and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come. Latin is not an "unknown language". There are plenty that speak the language every day.

3. Asking for the intercession of Mary is not sinful, but something which should be encouraged. Half of the "Hail Mary" prayer can be found in Luke 1 and also mentions "blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus". Jesus Christ is the mediator between God and humans. Mary is human, therefore, she does not replace the unique role of Jesus Christ as the ultimate mediator. This does not even mention the fact that Moses was referred to as the mediator in the New Testament (Galatians 3:19).

1/2

>>5648713
>Before Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church
He didn't do thus, the Catholic Church is an apostate non faith

>>5648716
You literally misunderstand just as much as that dumb multitude in John 6. I feel bad for how lost you are in the heresy of Catholicism.

File: VZhqfOIbgMxW440j.webm (2.85 MB, 720x1280)

2.85 MB WEBM

>>5648671
4. The Jeremiah passage is talking about the false "goddess" Ishtar. One of her titles was that of "queen of heaven". This is not a reference to Mary. Even if the verse applied to Mary (which it does not), you would be acknowledging that Mary is the queen of heaven. Liturgically, Catholics do not "bake cakes" for Mary. It is dogma that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit alone are the highest. We acknowledge that there is no one greater than or equal to the Holy Trinity.

Meanwhile, in Psalms 44/45, there is a mention of a queen that is described as being "in gilded clothing; surrounded with variety". The chapter goes on to mention how, in reference to the queen, people "shall remember thy name throughout all generations" and "shall people praise thee for ever; yea, for ever and ever".

The only other reference to this specific description is that of Luke 1 about Mary
>And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed
Given that there is no other figure of the Holy Bible that matches exactly this, Mary is queen.

5. The Immaculate Conception can be proven in Luke 1 in which an angel said
>Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women

This should be noted because this verse indicates that Mary was granted grace before Jesus Christ was even born. It was only after the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ that people were called to be "full of grace". It also should be noted that obedience to Old Testament law did not grant someone New Testament grace. The only possible explanation that can account for all of these details is to say that Mary was immaculately conceived.

The passage would not give the impression Mary had multiple children as there are multiple times in which "brethren" would mean "religious brothers" rather than "biological brothers".

File: 769876.webm (3.36 MB, 576x1024)

3.36 MB WEBM

>>5648815
The Catholic Church is the one true Church because it is the only church that upholds and follows the commandments of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles.
>>5648817
Where is the error in the response? There is no error because the verses clearly identify the bread and the "chalice of benediction" with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

>>5648089
Without that one chapter out of 1189 to twist, they'd probably be Muslims and Hindus since they want to be saved by works, and they're blinded to the plain truth that he's writing about being justified in the sight of men even giving an example of it.

>>5648757
>But Jesus himself said he has many mothers, shouldn't they all get that special honor?
The commandment clearly says 'thy mother', so is the commandment poorly worded now? Also again, there is a clear difference between a biological relative and a relative in Christ.
>They're life that produces life
No, and if it was about fatherhood there would be some indicator for this and mothers would be mentioned too. However, if you believe that 'father' here stands for someone who has 'created' (according to your logic) a child, then no one ever had any kids since we are supposed to call no man 'father'.
>I thought things didn't have to be explicitly said in the bible?
They don't, however they need to be in harmony with the rest of the Bible.
>That hardly befits what the epistle is conveying.
Again, this is your personal interpretation, the one that if followed through stands against other passages.
>Probably for the same reason God is called Father and not Mother, despite men and women being equal parts in the process of creating of another life.
Or maybe you could be wrong? I know this is a hard teaching but not everything you feel is correct is necessarily correct.
>If that's the case then whoever wrote that epistle erred.
Cool, you literally are more willing to say that a book of the Bible is in error without being represented as such instead of saying you are wrong.
>But that wasn't a question, you just rephrased what Luke 11:27-28 said.
Anon, asking 'Then you got an argument, right?' is a question. So not only did I ask you a question, I also clearly stated something you don't believe in.

>>5649012
>>5648757
>The problem here is that you have to ignore it constantly and reach for some innocuous argument based on one of the ten commandments because you have nothing else to justify hyperdulia with.
Or maybe because if I follow the interpretation I use I don't have to put every man who had a kid on the same pedestal as God in order to not be against the first letter of John. I explained to you how you can easily can come to the position the church held for thousands of years (meaning we don't need to believe that God simply gave us almost no chance to not sin) without having to defy what the Bible says. You struggle both with the position that is older than your interpretation and keeping the Bible in harmony. >>5648757
>Getting pregnant with Jesus wasn't something she "did," it was beyond her control.
You think she was informed *before* she was pregnant (1:31) just for the fun of it? If so, why did she need to reaffirm her devotion at 1:38? Did the woman, who is blessed among the women (1:28, remind yourself of you saying 'Guess bearing Jesus had no effect on Mary then since nowhere in the bible it says so'), just feel the need to reaffirm something that is going to happen anyway, thereby immediately becoming unholy again?
>Obeying God's will and carrying on with the pregnancy was.
There was no 'carrying on'. She was informed beforehand since He sought to give her glory by giving her the great burden of pregnancy despite not having been allowed the great pleasure that comes before.
>You already proved you understand this, but your argument requires feigning ignorance because it isn't logically sound nor supported by scripture.
I'm glad you put so much trust in intellectual capabilities, however I sadly can't put as much trust in yours, whenever you name a verse you oppose another.

>>5648092
is jesus white?

>>5649028
Jewish

>>5648711
>This is a reminder that the Roman Catholic Church was established almost two thousand years ago and is the church most in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.
James brother of Jesus founded the first church, which Paul disputed James for continuing the false Gospel of Lordship Salvation.

>Before Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church, most followed their own delusions and worshipped created false "gods". These "gods" were, in essence, created and subject to change (both spiritually and physically). In a similar way, atheism and “secular humanism” are based off of subjective reasoning and have an unstable foundation which is subject to change (sensory data). With the one triune God, however, he is uncreated, not subject to change, and upholds all that exists within the universe.
The Greeks gave us the Nicene Creed not the Pope, the RCC by extension is a splitting away from tradition and continuation of the Priesthood via the Prosperity Gospel spreading of God's Kingdom.

>>5649012
>The commandment clearly says 'thy mother', so is the commandment poorly worded now? Also again, there is a clear difference between a biological relative and a relative in Christ.
Anon, Jesus literally made his biological mother and brothers wait outside to show that such a difference was meaningless to him and anyone who does the will of God IS his brother and sister and mother. You have absolutely no argument against this, everything you're posting is meant to circumvent this one verse. I skimmed through your replies and you're even bringing up a known insertion of Luke 1:42 into Luke 1:28. That's scraping the bottom of the barrel. Should I even bother addressing the rest if you're not willing to accept what a single verse says? Probably not. Maybe another Marybro has a better response?

>>5649410
>hould I even bother addressing the rest if you're not willing to accept what a single verse says? Probably not.
One of us managed to not claim that every father 'creates life'. This should be proof enough that once again the commonly protestant idolization of one's own intellect is not on the narrow path

File: 7aaAhwNLGB4DcfTPt.webm (1.47 MB, 720x1280)

1.47 MB WEBM

>>5649246
This is simply incorrect because, unlike Peter, James was not told that he was the rock, that the church was built on him, and that he would have the keys to the Kingdom of God (Matthew 16).
>The Greeks gave us the Nicene Creed not the Pope
The formation of the Nicene Creed was not limited to one specific ethnicity. It was the Church that formulated it and the Pope that approved it. The Pope even bore the ability to alter the creed

St Jerome to Pope St. Damasus, Letter 15
>If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all.

>Prosperity Gospel
We do not hold to the doctrine known as the "prosperity gospel" as believed and formulated by some Evangelical Protestants.

File: Nicene_Creed.webm (5.92 MB, 480x853)

5.92 MB WEBM

>>5649489
>Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all.
And that never happened, instead something was chosen that was not the majority position in the post-chalcedonian church and split us up even more while not addressing what the arians believed and changing a core aspect of God.

>>5649429
>completely ignores the actual point of the discussion and goes back to his shameless tangent on semantics
Kek, I accept your concession.

>>5649554
>completely ignores the actual point of the discussion
Any exegetic statement can be tested by it being in harmony with the rest of the Bible. Feel free argue about this.

File: 76987876.webm (4.37 MB, 576x1020)

4.37 MB WEBM

>>5649505
Yet, no part of this refutes the clear fact that the Pope most clearly had the authority to add to the creed. There is no other conclusion to the Saint Jerome quote other than this. The rightful authority of the Pope to enact binding decrees upon the entire Church, not just the Latin Church, is something that has enough evidence for it to be a fact.

For example, the Gelasian Decree:
>likewise the decretal/official letters, which blessed popes gave for the consideration of various fathers at various times from the city of Rome, are to be upheld reverently

Even if there was theological development on the part of the West in regard to the changes of the Nicene Creed, despite such changes having evidence of being in the Early Church, this is justified by quotes from the time period. To quote two:

St. Augustine, Letter 137
>Heresies bud forth against the name of Christ, though veiling themselves under His name, as had been foretold, by which the doctrine of the holy religion is tested and developed

Origen
>Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points
While Origen would be condemned as a heretic, this still provides evidence for the argument. His condemnation did not come from saying this.

>>5649611
>Yet, no part of this refutes the clear fact that the Pope most clearly had the authority to add to the creed.
You mean besides the purpose given in letter clearly not being fulfilled? You can't even propose it was the attempt to unite the arians and the proper church as this was not part of their discussions. The pope just added something that before had little to no significance for church internal discussions.
>There is no other conclusion to the Saint Jerome quote other than this. The rightful authority of the Pope to enact binding decrees upon the entire Church, not just the Latin Church, is something that has enough evidence for it to be a fact.
And that's why this wasn't decided in a unanimously accepted council or at least stated in the one that has actually formed the creed, right? That's also why the pope himself wasn't present and only some of his delegates that had an equal voice in the formation of the Nicene Creed, correct? The behavior by the rest of the church clearly shows that the pope simply imagined he had the right to change the creed, thereby changing the nature of God as the origin of the Holy Spirit was changed.
>St. Augustine
You can't convince the one's outside of the RC by stating what they don't believe, like the sanctity of Augustine.
>>Heresies bud forth against the name of Christ, though veiling themselves under His name, as had been foretold, by which the doctrine of the holy religion is tested and developed
You mean like some vicar of God being able to change the origin of God? Sounds heretical to me. I'd assume you're the anon who claimed a few threads ago that the pope is to be equated with God. So this would be, according to papal apologetics, 'God changing the nature of God' with the justification of a single saint being allowed to overrule an ecumenical council.

>>5649630
>>5649611
>>Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on subjects of the highest importance, as, e.g., regarding God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also regarding others which are created existences, viz., the powers and the holy virtues; it seems on that account necessary first of all to fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakable rule regarding each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other points
So he calls for what we had in the Nicene Creed. Nothing in here says 'We need to change the need and thereby change how we talk about God since some people are confused'. Furthermore, should we change our view on Jesus since the Muslims are confused about Him? No, Truth does not change and similar to a teacher not needing to change the solution to a math problem since some part of the students can't figure it we need to explain it.
And even if this was really just to better explain where the Holy Spirit comes from (it makes things more ambiguous) the popes in the last millennium should have seen that this only erodes the already hurt unity of the church and rolled back their changes. Instead they let this become a great problem so we now have not been in communion for almost one thousand years.

The change of the Nicene Creed helped no one but the egos of the popes and hurt everyone else in the process. Instead of trying to talk to arians and finding out if they truly just misunderstood something because of a language barriers as they currently claim the papacy forced something else that had nothing to do with the problem we already had and made the whole situation worse. Good job.

File: z1WtcQUN1tOrN4V7.webm (1.82 MB, 480x852)

1.82 MB WEBM

>>5649630
>>5649634
There were no conditions to adding to the creed. According to St. Jerome, the Pope could add to the creed if he saw it necessary. St. Jerome did not mention any conditions for this alteration to be effective

There have been several times in Church history in which the vast majority of bishops did not approve of certain doctrines. For example, the pro-Arian Council of Seleucia had the attendance of around 1000 bishops while the First Council of Nicaea had the attendance of either 318 or lower than that. Unanimity is not a requirement for binding councils. This is why Papal approval of a council to be ecumenical is needed. Now that I have proven by St. Jerome that the Pope had the authority, where is the evidence that he did not have the authority?

?

The "vicar of Christ" title has been used throughout the Early Church. Never claimed that those of the Peterine office are God. Several saints affirm the development of doctrine (such as St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Isidore of Seville, and St. Gregory of Nyssa). We affirm that ecumenical councils are infallible and binding

The quote applies to matters beyond and to those of creeds. For example, the Eastern "Orthodox" Churches have not gone into thorough depth regarding that of the Eucharist and the process that occurs during transubstantiation. The attitude of the Eastern "Orthodox" churches has consistently been "We do not know". While there is some amount of truth to it, why not investigate the divine mysteries further?

We have never said truth is relative

Throughout the early Church, there has always been the need to define doctrine against that of heresy or misunderstanding. At the same time, the Catholic Church has been the most ecumenical with non-Latin churches so much so that we brought some in. This continues to this day. By contrast, the Eastern "Orthodox" churches are very dogmatic in minor cultural/theological details (such as it being dogma for Western rites to use Eastern icons)

>>5649574
Ya this guy is has no idea what his talking about.
Force him to defend sola scriptura.

>>5649700
>There were no conditions to adding to the creed.
>whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all.
>There have been several times in Church history in which the vast majority of bishops did not approve of certain doctrines.
I never said anything about a majority vote but you are basing yourself around one saint while misusing his statement and not being in harmony with the 8th ecumenical council
>This is why Papal approval of a council to be ecumenical is needed.
You like how the Nicene Creed got approved through the pope's representatives (meaning that apparently his actual presence was of no importance, lol)?
>Now that I have proven by St. Jerome that the Pope had the authority, where is the evidence that he did not have the authority?
Because St. Jerome clearly stated a goal that was not even close to being attempted. The goal he mentioned was unification with the arians, not more splitting up due to the introduction of a new heresy
>We affirm that ecumenical councils are infallible and binding
If the ecumenical councils are infallible then the Nicene Creed can not be changed, otherwise the fourth ecumenical council is not infallible
>While there is some amount of truth to it, why not investigate the divine mysteries further?
The roman-catholic church tried that and see where it got us. A change to an infallible and binding ecumenical council, two major schisms and the belief you can grasp the infinity of God in your finite mind
>We have never said truth is relative
Why did the Nicene Creed need to be changed then? The addition of the filioque changes the Truth. And as I said before: if it needed to be explained, you don't change the creed and it's meaning
>By contrast, the Eastern "Orthodox" churches are very dogmatic in minor cultural/theological details (such as it being dogma for Western rites to use Eastern icons)
Are you going to form an argument? These 'minor theological details' are about the very being of the trinity

>>5648810
I'm new so excuse my mistakes but I looked it up and it does not say 'Your father' it just says 'father' in general.

Mathew 23 9
>And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

>>5649574
And we just tested yours about Mary, which you couldn't justify with scripture so you came up with a whole headcanon about her being sanctified from having been in contact with Jesus, which Jesus himself denies in Matthew 12:46-50. Then you decided to take issue with the fact that fathers create life by definition as a copout. It's pretty obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you have nothing to support hyperdulia with and are just pulling things out of your ass. I'm wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know what I said about Luke 1:28 since you thought it was a good point to bring up.

>>5649708
Defending sola scriptura is simple. All of the traditions reiterated, expounded upon, and established by Paul and the other apostles, were entirely derivative of the Bible itself. We are told that all of the impressions, thoughts, opinions, and visions of men are to be tested against one standard: the Bible – “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20). We are told that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works,” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) – every point of doctrine and practice is to be held subject to the Bible alone, if not, then we would instead be placing our faith upon the empty musing and grandiose philosophical constructs of mere men. In addition to this, Paul himself actually goes on to esteem the sola scriptura convictions of the Bereans in that they believed no man regarding spiritual matters related to doctrine unless they first consulted the scriptures for themselves, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11) – rather than the presuppositions of the priestly class, the scriptures are affirmed as the foundation and basis of Christian theology that are sufficient for attaining knowledge of Christ.

>>5649770
>which you couldn't justify with scripture
Did I quote from outside of scripture? I didn't. What you mean is that I cross-examined it with other passages that are easier to understand.
>which Jesus himself denies in Matthew 12:46-50
Oh, she didn't do His will then? Can you show me where?
>Then you decided to take issue with the fact that fathers create life by definition as a copout.
Not part of the discussion about Mary but it's a separate issue that also can not be justified by the protestant position. That's why >>5648703 had to equate fathers with God, claiming they 'create another life'.
>It's pretty obvious to anyone who reads your posts that you have nothing to support hyperdulia with and are just pulling things out of your ass.
Please provide an argument then, since we have already established that she did God's will. The whole argument of Mat 12:46-50 shows how the protestants believe that doing God's will doesn't bring us into a more honorable position but instead pulled Mary down for some reason.
What is sad is how you try to avoid the clear commandment of honoring your parents (both in singular, meaning the biological father and the biological mother) as if He who is holy doesn't adhere to His own commandments. Why you avoid it is obvious too though, since then He would honor Mary and you are aware that all that God does is good, thereby making honoring Mary good.
>I'm wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know what I said about Luke 1:28 since you thought it was a good point to bring up.
I won't tolerate your shenanigans about translations as you will solely use it to push a translation that befits your interpretation instead of one that is truthful. Your faith in the Lord ends when you need to accept you are wrong. You believe He won't give us His word in an whole and holy state, thereby putting yourself willingly in the same category as Jehova's Witnesses and the muslims. Sit down, be humble and realize that you are below the Bible.

File: videohjxUjF.webm (5.7 MB, 320x568)

5.7 MB WEBM

>>5649713
>I never said anything about a majority vote
You said that one of the reasons you were against additions to the creed was that the bishops did not overwhelmingly approve of the decision. I am proving that not everything has to be approved by a majority vote of the bishops but by that of the Pope.
>his actual presence was of no importance
So your argument is that having papal representatives means the Pope is not needed for church structure? This is a non-sequitur.
>The goal he mentioned was unification with the arians
But nowhere did it say that the Pope was restricted to having the ability to change the creed only to combat the Arians.
>Nicene Creed can not be changed
This is incorrect because the Nicean Creed did undergo changes in ecumenical councils unrelated to the Filioque. Infallibility means that something does not have errors.
>two major schisms and the belief you can grasp the infinity of God in your finite mind
This is fallacious because, by this logic, nothing is preventing the Oriental "Orthodox" from saying that the splits that occurred after the Council of Chalcedon prove that non-Chalcedonianism is correct. Yet, non-Chalcedonianism is incorrect. Also, Eastern "Orthodoxy" is currently in schism.
>you can grasp the infinity of God in your finite mind
We acknowledge that the human mind has limitations, but this does not mean there are no further facts to be known related to theology.
>Why did the Nicene Creed need to be changed then?
Because it was a theological clarification that needed to be mentioned regarding relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A principle was mentioned regarding the unity of the Church and attempting to not bring unneeded divisions. If that is a standard that is being utilized for determining the fruits of a church, you should become a Catholic as we have been very ecumenical throughout our history. We encourage non-Latin church traditions to flourish.
>>5649715
Most Bible translations use "your father".

File: www.miracolieucaristici.org.webm (5.87 MB, 608x1080)

5.87 MB WEBM

Friends I have some tragic news. Both of one of my friend's parents got diagnosed with cancer. Her family is obviously going through a tough time so I would appreciate it if the Catholics that read this would pray for them and maybe even pray a rosary for them. When you pray you can refer to them as "my friend's friend's parents". Thank you.
>Blessed Carlo Acutis
He has been approved for canonization and will be the first millenial Saint. Among many reasons, he led a life of a great devotion to the Holy Eucharist, praying daily for the souls in purgatory, and he wanted to use the internet for evangelization. This is the website he made devoted to Eucharistic Miracles.
www.miracolieucaristici.org
It is a great gift he left us, please check his website out, he will appreciate it. At the end of the webm I made, you see his perfectly preserved body. God allows some of his Saint's bodies to remain incorrupt defying the natural process of decomposition as a testament of their piety and the veracity of the Catholic faith.
>to the protestants
I pray that will join us and become Catholic

>>5649949
Here is the cickable link
http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/

>>5649803
>Did I quote from outside of scripture?
You quoted your own headcanon.
>Oh, she didn't do His will then?
He denied that she's special because she's his biological mother, pay more attention to what you're replying to.
>equate fathers with God, claiming they 'create another life'
Why do you think God is called our heavenly Father?
>The whole argument of Mat 12:46-50 shows how the protestants believe that doing God's will doesn't bring us into a more honorable position but instead pulled Mary down for some reason.
That's not the argument at all. It's not even about "honorable positions" it's about Mary not being any more blessed than anyone else who does God's will. You've already realized that by now, you keep pretending you haven't because otherwise you can't defend your denomination's idolatrous practices.
>shenanigans about translations
You don't know the first thing about corruption of scripture by copyists, do you?
>Sit down, be humble and realize that you are below the Bible.
Kek, that lack of self-awareness.

>>5649803
>What is sad is how you try to avoid the clear commandment of honoring your parents
What is sad is that you appear outwardly righteous unto men, but filled with iniquity Mr Pharisee.

>>5649829
>You said that one of the reasons you were against additions to the creed was that the bishops did not overwhelmingly approve of the decision.
No, it wasn't even part of a council. I'm not saying 'there needs to be a majority vote' but at least any vote would help. It seems highly unreasonable to have a council to actually form the creed but then it's overruled by one guy who wasn't even present at said council.
>This is a non-sequitur.
Correct, since that's not my argument, however, if something important happens and the person of importance is not there by himself then his presence is not of importance.
>But nowhere did it say that the Pope was restricted to having the ability to change the creed only to combat the Arians.
A goal was clearly stated. It wasn't even attempted and the more broad goal of unification was clearly not achieved either.
>Infallibility means that something does not have errors.
The Nicene Creed is the result of said 'infallible' councils. If it needs to be changed, they have errors.
>This is fallacious because, by this logic, nothing is preventing the Oriental "Orthodox" from saying that the splits that occurred after the Council of Chalcedon prove that non-Chalcedonianism is correct.
Except for your justification by the letter of St. Jerome clearly stating a goal. This goal was not achieved and only lead to a greater schism while also introducing a new heresy. So any pope could have looked at the situation and said 'Hey maybe what we did wasn't right and we can just use the previous creed again as that worked out', but of course this only works if the filioque didn't change anything about the nature of God. Everyone understands though that it did and therefore no pope could go back.
>Also, Eastern "Orthodoxy" is currently in schism.
No, differing opinions is not 'schism'.

>>5648089
Why do so many protestants think watering down salvation to the bare minimum and selling it like an infomercial is helpful? A relationship with God takes more effort than a chia pet. Stop damning gullible idiots by purposely avoiding theological issues because you're worried about being attractive to the spiritually lazy.

>>5650159
can't be successful in this business without pandering to the lowest common denominator

>>5650042
>>5649829
>but this does not mean there are no further facts to be known related to theology.
Except that those 'further facts' change the being of God while also giving us no end. If there was some threshold mentioned we could easily see what the limitations of humanity are, however as RC can and did not provide said knowledge it leads people into a mindset of us being able to come ever closer to God through earthly knowledge.
>Because it was a theological clarification that needed to be mentioned regarding relations between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It is no clarification. Saying 'This comes from X' and 'This comes from X and Y' is not the same nor is one clearer from the other since the former knowingly excludes the other. And again, if a clarification is needed, we don't change the creed but how we explain it. If we had knowledge of the truth that is getting depicted being better shown by the second sentence then it wasn't needed. If we didn't, then we couldn't have known the second sentence to be closer to the truth. Meaning, the change was unneeded.
So the popes should humble themselves and realize that they are nothing compared to the fathers who came before them.
>you should become a Catholic as we have been very ecumenical throughout our history. We encourage non-Latin church traditions to flourish.
>'Sure we introduced a great schism but we still view you as acceptable and therefore see you as a lesser truth that will receive grace'
Then again, the filioque would not have been needed. You introduced a schism and now claim you accept us? You should ask if you can get accepted after your unneeded change. If you believe ecumenism is a selling point you should consider becoming Muslim since they believe we will get saved too.

>>5649977
>You quoted your own headcanon.
By saying a single word of God can't overrule the rest of God's words?
>He denied that she's special because she's his biological mother, pay more attention to what you're replying to.
So we can't become special by doing God's will? That's certainly a new teaching.
>Why do you think God is called our heavenly Father?
Because He is the only one who creates life. If you believe that you can equate any father with the Father then you can probably show me the Mother, can't you? If not, then you can't have any argument against gay men 'creating life' through gay sex, same goes for masturbation or any other unacceptable sexual act. If this wasn't bad enough already you should know that while a couple can create a body through sex, life is not a given. In turn however scripture told us that he can create life even out of stones (Mat 3:9)
>It's not even about "honorable positions" it's about Mary not being any more blessed than anyone else who does God's will.
This assumes already that Mary is not honorable, meaning your logic is circular. Either Mary is special and doing God's will can raise us up too or she isn't and doing God's will doesn't change anything about us. What seems closer to what Christianity conveys?
>You don't know the first thing about corruption of scripture by copyists, do you?
Anon, your minimal amount of faith is absurd. What is worse is that Luke 1:42 is still about her. So even if it were corrupted the point of her being blessed among all women still stands or are you going to pretend that nobody can ever be righteous and say 'You are blessed'?
>Kek, that lack of self-awareness.
All of my arguments stem from cross-checking the Bible and making sure the word of God is not against itself. However, I can not say the same for you as you just showed that you will abandon the word being handed down to us in order to support your argument that still is void.

File: XlEmn3iPoJzPJwD2.webm (1.91 MB, 480x654)

1.91 MB WEBM

>>5650042
>It seems highly unreasonable
The Early Church was not like a democracy but a divinely instituted monarchy
>his presence is not of importance
Why wouldn't the representative be a good enough replacement? Either way, a council was only officially called ecumenical with Papal approval. Any canons not approved of were omitted
>A goal was clearly stated
>>Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all
None of this speaks of any goal as the ordering of a new creed comes before talking about a confession
>If it needs to be changed, they have errors
If I were to say that God made the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1 but then I added that it was Genesis 1:1, did I make an error?
>a greater schism
Saying that something shouldn't be done because it creates controversy is fallacious. Decisions made by certain authorities that border on being divisive are throughout the early Church and there was no correction to them. This has been over the most minor issues at times
>differing opinions is not 'schism'
The Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople are not in communion with each other. This is schism
>>5650265
Catholicism defines what is considered acceptable dogma and heresy. There is no conceivable way to exactly determine what the exact human limits of understanding God are. Everything that Catholicism teaches as dogma can be proven to be true in some way, shape, or form
>excludes the other
This would only be exclusionary if the first said "come from X ONLY"

Except the creed was changed in later councils (such as in Constantinople and Chalcedon)

We can know clarifications & dogma by future revelations and theological understandings

Those Fathers submitted to the Pope

The E"O" churches have been anti-Western in liturgical customs, not us in reverse. We have Eastern churches. Recent E"O" writers say that accepting the Filoque is more opinion than heresy. We consider Muslims not to be saved

>>5650275
>By saying a single word of God can't overrule the rest of God's words? So we can't become special by doing God's will?That's certainly a new teaching.
Anon, you come up with a whole headcanon about Mary getting "sanctified" from being pregnant with Jesus, ignore Jesus himself denying that she's blessed because she's his biological mother, and then accuse me of proposing new teachings?
>Because He is the only one who creates life.
It's truly bewildering that someone who creates life is referred to as father, isn't it? I mean, I know you're ESL, but you're really grasping at straws here. The rest of your "argument" (if you can call it that) is also so underage it's embarrassing to read.
>Either Mary is special and doing God's will can raise us up too
But if she is "special" it's only because she does God's will, not because she was pregnant with Jesus. That's the entire point of Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28.
>Anon, your minimal amount of faith is absurd. What is worse is that Luke 1:42 is still about her.
Wow, you really don't have a clue. Luke 1:28 is Gabriel, an angel, greeting Mary. Luke 1:42 is Elizabeth, a woman, calling her blessed. The copyists who corrupted Luke 1:28 inserted the words of a human into the mouth of an angel, with an obvious agenda in mind. And they did this despite Jesus DIRECTLY negating the same claim by yet another woman that Mary was blessed because she gave him birth and nursed him. There's no way to make this any clearer to you, if you don't accept it you simply don't want to listen to Jesus and would rather put your faith in the words of mere humans.
>All of my arguments stem from cross-checking the Bible
That's a blatant lie, you haven't read the bible and it shows. It's not shocking at all that you didn't know the beloved disciple was Lazarus, you haven't even finished reading the gospels.

File: obligatory.webm (2.92 MB, 852x480)

2.92 MB WEBM

>>5648386

>>5648116
To be totally fair, BC and AD are fucking retarded.
If anything, it should be either BE/AE (After Exploration) or BC/AC (After Columbus) because transatlantic open water travel is the greatest era defining event in human history. Literally took tens of thousands of years of human separation and turned it into a goddamn footnote, and forced the VAST majority of the world's population to rethink their place in the universe in the span of just a couple centuries.

We should be living in 532 A.E. right now.
Sadly, I think we'll pass into the next era with A.I. before we even recognize it.

>>5650420
Makes sense. Could also work with BC/AD if it stands for Before Columbus/Age of Discovery.

>>5650420
>>5650541
In any and all conceivable ways, no one could ever rival the importance of Jesus Christ and the impact he would have on all of mankind. Jesus Christ is indeed the way, the truth, and the life.

>>5650562
Christians are less than a third of the world population though.

>>5650570
Around one-third of the population is Christian. At the same time, the false religion of Islam venerates Jesus Christ and considers him to be one of the greatest prophets in history. Combining this would result in it being more than half of the population of the world. This is not even to consider all of the other groups that also give respect to Jesus Christ in some way shape or form as well as how much impact Jesus Christ had on world history (especially through evangelization efforts).

Thus, Jesus Christ remains the most important figure in the entire history of the world. This is because he is the way, the truth, and the life.

>>5650578
You know you're desperate as a Christian when you have to group together with Muslims to convince yourself your religion still matters.

>>5650580
Do you deny that the false religion of Islam still venerates Jesus Christ and considers him to be one of the greatest prophets as well as the Messiah? Islam would not exist without Christianity (although it should be mentioned that Islamic "theology" would take some influence from heretical groups).

As it was in the past, is the present, and will remain in the future, there is still no greater than or equal to Jesus Christ.

>>5650598
They don't think he's God though. They might as well venerate the Buddha too while they're at it, since none of that will help curb the decline of Christianity.

>>5650616
Yet the false religion of Islam, in some way, shape, or form, has been greatly influenced by that of Christianity (even if some of Islamic theology derives from heretical groups), Islam considers Buddhism to be a false religion.

None of this is an argument against the truth of Christianity. This is because Christianity is the truth.

>>5650623
If Christianity was the truth you wouldn't need to try so hard to convert people, just saying.

>>5650628
This is a non-sequitur.

>>5650639
It's an inference.

>>5650652
The conclusion of the "argument" does not logically follow from the premises given.

>>5650661
>He said, after spending the last two hours trying to convince people of the truth of Christianity with an ad populum

File: jesusp1.webm (5.84 MB, 428x240)

5.84 MB WEBM

>>5647927
You're wrong.

File: jesusp2.webm (3.5 MB, 480x270)

3.5 MB WEBM

>>5647927

>>5650307
>The Early Church was not like a democracy but a divinely instituted monarchy
This is correct until His resurrection. Afterwards we see votes happen and even Peter not being the Head of assemblies.
>Why wouldn't the representative be a good enough replacement?
Have you tried sending your friend in place of you when your wife gives birth?
>None of this speaks of any goal as the ordering of a new creed comes before talking about a confession
What is the point you try to make? The goal here is clear: To have a creed for all Christians, not just the chalcedonians.
>If I were to say that God made the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1 but then I added that it was Genesis 1:1, did I make an error?
The problem is that the filioque isn't a clarification as before that the Son was not the source of the Holy Spirit.
>Saying that something shouldn't be done because it creates controversy is fallacious
Except that St. Jeromes letter clearly states the goal of unification. The opposite was achieved, so that any Pope since then should've looked at the situation and rolled it back so while still not unifying the post-chalcedonian church with the arian church at least not creating a greater schism.
>The Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople are not in communion with each other.
To say that their disagreements are not being in communion is overblown. There's high level politics going on that is not in the minds and hearts of the common priest, therefore to say there's a schism is absurd.
>This would only be exclusionary if the first said "come from X ONLY"
That is incorrect. Not every conceivable notion was thought about during the formation of the creed. Why? Because otherwise we would have some monster of a creed that would be impossible to understand if you didn't learn about it for days.
>Except the creed was changed in later councils (such as in Constantinople and Chalcedon)
And did those changes also change the being of God?

>>5650687
>>5650307
>We can know clarifications & dogma by future revelations and theological understandings
It's still not a clarification. The Father and the Son are two separate Hypostases. This is why your example of Gen 1 and Gen 1:1 is incorrect.
>Those Fathers submitted to the Pope
Maybe the pope of their times, although that is not given. However, the later popes should still have realized that they need to submit themselves to the saints and fathers. Generally, a priest stands above a layman, however there are laymen who became saints, so should any priest now consider himself above them? No. We will be given a position in the hierarchy in our times, but the holy ones before us still tower over us as we need to humble ourselves in hopes of getting just a twinkle of the grace they have been granted.
>The E"O" churches have been anti-Western in liturgical customs, not us in reverse.
You introduced a schism through changing of the Godhead in the creed. That we react to it is normal and good.
>We have Eastern churches.
Not an argument. The pope could be Russian, Arabic or Greek and we still would consider the changing of the Godhead to be heretical.
>Recent E"O" writers say that accepting the Filoque is more opinion than heresy.
Ok cool, and? Last I checked the saints were still very clear on the topic.
>We consider Muslims not to be saved
But they consider you saved and if you consider ecumenism an argument you better become muslim. Or better yet, just become some new age guy.

>>5650315
>Jesus himself denying that she's blessed because she's his biological mother
I said a few times by now that she's blessed not because of her motherhood but her doing God's will through her motherhood.
>It's truly bewildering that someone who creates life is referred to as father, isn't it?
I also already explained how it is not a father who creates life. I have given you examples that show the need for a woman and God willing it and thereby giving the cells that are created through sex life.
>The rest of your "argument" (if you can call it that) is also so underage it's embarrassing to read.
So will you come up with an argument then?
>But if she is "special" it's only because she does God's will, not because she was pregnant with Jesus.
As I already said. However if we believe that God just randomly chose some woman to make the mother of His son He is barely any better than some male teen trying to beget any girl he can. And even if you deny the validity of Luke 1:28 you should see that 1:30 still shows she found some appreciation in the Lord. Of course you could argue now that is also just an insertion, a mistake or whatever you wish to argue to ignore the Bible, however at that point you should probably just have this discussion with some imam since they also love to claim the Bible is corrupt whenever it doesn't fit their views.
>That's the entire point of Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28.
Mat 12:50 clearly states we can the same as her. Looks like she must be special or otherwise He tries to tell us we need to do God's will with no benefit? Does Jesus got really bad at convincing people.
Luke 11:27 shows a woman who's about to idolize Mary as the Jews loved to think they are lowly and can never come anywhere near who they considered saintly. Jesus immediately shows that we too can become holy as she is, however He also reminds the woman to care about the Word of God

>>5650315
>Wow, you really don't have a clue. Luke 1:28 is Gabriel, an angel, greeting Mary. Luke 1:42 is Elizabeth, a woman, calling her blessed. The copyists who corrupted Luke 1:28 inserted the words of a human into the mouth of an angel, with an obvious agenda in mind.
I know, however it is common in the OT for one person to say to another 'You are blessed because of ...', this shouldn't be news to you. This is why I said that people can do this. So even if we deny Luke 1:28 we can still see that she is blessed.
>And they did this despite Jesus DIRECTLY negating the same claim by yet another woman that Mary was blessed because she gave him birth and nursed him.
I have tackled this one a few times. However, you completely ignored that you either have to believe that doing the Lord's will does not advance us at all or that she is favorable in the eyes of the Lord.
>There's no way to make this any clearer to you, if you don't accept it you simply don't want to listen to Jesus and would rather put your faith in the words of mere humans.
I don't know anon, one of us doesn't claim the Bible is corrupted, doing God's will does nothing and that no person can see that another is blessed.
>That's a blatant lie, you haven't read the bible and it shows.
I would prefer someone who has not read the Bible in favor of someone who just claims it's corrupt.
>It's not shocking at all that you didn't know the beloved disciple was Lazarus
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I looked it up since you produced no arguments. The arguments for Lazarus are weak and the consensus seems to be for John the Apostle. What's funny is that this still doesn't matter. My argument is that it's not teaching us about who needs to care for her but that she became the mother of the entire church.
>you haven't even finished reading the gospels.
How did I manage to know about the beloved disciple then?

I hope you will finally move beyond insults and actually produce arguments this time or conceide

>>5650689
This type barely exists anymore. Very 2020-2021 of you

File: qW5b6OL3wRMr0LZM (1).webm (5.97 MB, 480x852)

5.97 MB WEBM

>>5650687
This is incorrect. Peter alone would begin the process of a new apostle (Acts 1), always be listed first in the list of apostles, be told to feed the sheep of Jesus Christ (John 21), be prayed for by Christ to have an unfailing faith (Luke 22), etc. This is clearly a divinely instituted monarchy for the Peterine line.
>To have a creed for all Christians
There already was one yet Jerome is saying to order a new one.

But you have not shown anywhere that adding to it would be a condemned proposition for the Pope to do. This is because the Pope could add or revoke certain actions of a council (such as that of canons).
>clearly states the goal of unification
And where did Jerome say that the ordering of a creed was only limited to one specific purpose?
>overblown
One side considers some bishops to be excommunicated while the other says that they are not excommunicated. Not to mention that one side does not recognize the binding nature of the 2016 Pan-"Orthodox" council and considers it heretical while the other even considers it as being ecumenical. This is a clear break of communion
>would be impossible
This is not impossible. If it was seen as leading to heresy (which it does not), all that would be required is to add "only"

The modifications added the concept of procession to the creed. This is a change more impactful than the Filioque
>>5650690
Misunderstanding of argument. Dogmas can be determined by future revelations and examinations of Scripture
>although that is not given
All Fathers who were saints submitted to the Pope (at least by the end of their lives). The opinions of laymen saints, while useful, are secondary to that of defined dogma

Saying the Pope separated from the Church is to deny that where Peter is, there is the church. It would be to say Luke 22:31-32 & Hebrews 13:17 do not mean anything
>Ok cool, and?
It is not just writers, but clergy

Muslims do not consider us saved. The rest is a misunderstanding of my argument on Christian unity

>>5651158
>This is clearly a divinely instituted monarchy for the Peterine line.
So why the voting for Matthias in Acts 1:15-26? A monarch should be able to decide this on his own. Why did the Deacons need to be voted for in Acts 6:1-7? Why did James need to end the speech of his monarch? The behavior shown here is not one of a monarch but a primus inter pares. RC gets the primus part, not the inter pares one.
>There already was one yet Jerome is saying to order a new one.
So we all have one. The opposite happened. It introduced a new heresy and a greater schism.
>And where did Jerome say that the ordering of a creed was only limited to one specific purpose?
If you are going to claim that the filioque can be added since it doesn't just say 'only the father' then you can't claim that the other options are included St. Jerome's letter. This should be obvious, but I will give you an example. Let's say your wife is entering labor right now, I give you the keys to my car and tell you 'Bring her to the hospital', this doesn't mean you're allowed to keep it for weekly joy rides afterwards. If a purpose is stated, we can only know that this purpose is allowed and not say 'Oh you should've said I'm not allowed to keep it for whatever purpose I want'.
Furthermore, you ignoring that the popes did not roll it back after realizing their 'clarifications' only made things unclearer and caused a schism shows that they either did not care for clarification or Truth or that they were too incompetent to say 'Hey, sorry we messed up' even though a clarification does already say that implicitly.
>This is not impossible. If it was seen as leading to heresy (which it does not), all that would be required is to add "only"
Strawman, I talked about forming the creed in a way in which it is both written against all possible heresies and understandable for anyone who hears it.

>>5651176
>>5651158
>Misunderstanding of argument. Dogmas can be determined by future revelations and examinations of Scripture
Anon, it's still not a clarification, it changes the being of the Holy Spirit.
>Saying the Pope separated from the Church is to deny that where Peter is, there is the church
Maybe because Christ said that He will be wherever two or three gather in His name?
>Luke 22:31-32
Still applicable to a primus inter pares
>Hebrews 13:17
About earthly rulers, masters etc
>It is not just writers, but clergy
You just had to read the second sentence.
>Muslims do not consider us saved.
Incorrect.
>The rest is a misunderstanding of my argument on Christian unity
You argued while using ecumenism. Bring your argument to its logical conclusion or accept that is it void of value

File: matthew 23 catholics jews(...).webm (5.06 MB, 256x144)

5.06 MB WEBM

Catholics obliterated for the 100th time by Jesus.

>>5650697
>I said a few times by now that she's blessed not because of her motherhood but her doing God's will
You say that and then claim she's special because she's his mother in the same breath. This is pure doublethink from being forced to acknowledge what the bible says and defend an unbiblical doctrine (hyperdulia) at the same time.
>I also already explained how it is not a father who creates life
Then shouldn't we call God the heavenly Father-and-Mother? Or maybe your asspulled argument is pointless and he's called Father because he actively gives life as man does being made in his image, instead of simply receiving it as the woman? Men and women are equally important to create new life and equally children of God, but the bible also tells us they weren't created equally in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10.
>However if we believe that God just randomly chose some woman to make the mother of His son He is barely any better than some male teen trying to beget any girl he can
Anon, who do you think you are to tell who God should and shouldn't chose? It takes an unbelievable degree of hubris for that thought to even cross your mind. What's worse, you're saying that just to exalt a woman. Calling this idolatry doesn't do it justice, it's outright blasphemous.
>that 1:30 still shows she found some appreciation in the Lord
Yes, and 1:28 explains why without having to shove 1:42 into it and corrupt scripture.
>Mat 12:50 clearly states we can the same as her. Looks like she must be special or otherwise He tries to tell us we need to do God's will with no benefit? Does Jesus got really bad at convincing people.
What's special there is the number of hoops you got to jump through to
to claim she's still special when doing the will of God makes anyone blessed.
>Jesus immediately shows that we too can become holy as she is, however
There's no "however," obeying his word is what makes anyone holy. That's all.

>>5650703
>I know
Now you do. But neither Elizabeth nor the woman in Luke 11:27-28 affirmed what, in fact, makes someone blessed, Jesus himself did it.
>believe that doing the Lord's will does not advance us at all or that she is favorable in the eyes of the Lord.
That's how you had to frame it to evade what Jesus says in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 11:27-28. If you stopped trying to reframe things to avoid losing an imaginary argument that only exists in your head this discussion would be over already.
>I don't know anon, one of us doesn't claim the Bible is corrupted
You literally just admitted that the verse was corrupted and now you're backpedaling? Holy shit, dude, at least try to seem like you have an actual rebuttal.
>doing God's will does nothing, and that no person can see that another is blessed
Obviously untrue, but keep strawmanning. It only shows you're unable to argue in good faith.
>who has not read the Bible in favor of someone who just claims it's corrupt
You're patting yourself on the back for not having read the bible and not knowing about the corruption either? lol
>Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I looked it up since you produced no arguments. The arguments for Lazarus are weak and the consensus seems to be for John the Apostle.
Please tell me you didn't just google it and only read some apologetics site or wiki page instead of reading the gospel. I mean, I know you did exactly that, because ANYONE who reads it without a doubt can tell it's Lazarus, but I don't want to think that you're a total larper. Really, just read it for yourself before you reply again. You haven't finished the gospels and shouldn't be discussing anything pertaining the bible in the first place, but go read it.

>>5650703
>>5651399
>My argument is that it's not teaching us about who needs to care for her but that she became the mother of the entire church.
And your argument is flat-out wrong, read Mark 10:29-30 again. That's what it's teaching us.
>How did I manage to know about the beloved disciple then?
That's quite an idiotic question, you know about Socrates without ever having read Plato. You didn't know who the beloved disciple was because your knowledge of the bible amounts to googling individual verses on the fly to post here.
>I hope you will finally move beyond insults and actually produce arguments this time or conceide
What did I say that made you feel insulted?

File: 1888731232121 - CatholicN(...).webm (3.62 MB, 360x640)

3.62 MB WEBM

>>5651176
Matthias was never voted in but they cast lots to determine who it would be. The other apostles choosing deacons does not mean that there was no monarchy. James did not end any speech but essentially rehashed and gave proof of what Peter argued. None of this suggests that the early Church did not function like a monarchy. My quotes have still not been answered

None of that matters because the ability is still there. Again, WHERE is the evidence that Jerome said that was ONLY limited to one specific use? It cannot be found because Jerome believed that the Popes had the highest ecclesiastical authority in the Church

Saint Jerome, Letter 15
>As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!

Likewise, in Matt. 16, Jesus Christ never mentioned any limits to what can be bound (so long as it does not have errors), just that WHATEVER is bound on Earth will be bound in heaven and so on

The Filoque is not heresy and nothing here demonstrates that the early Church perceived it to be such

>against all possible heresies
Yet within the context of this passage, there is only one word that needs to be added and no further discussion would have occurred. Nothing else in the creed can be manipulated to result in error. Since the Filoque was not an error, there is no manipulation
>>5651177
The argument still applies that future revelation should be considered

That is about Church disputes and not regarding the Church's existence. Without the Pope, the Church would not exist because the operations of the Holy Spirit regarding him are different

Luke 22:31-32 does not imply "first among equals" because Peter is given an exclusive ability that no other apostle has (infallibility)

Hebrews 13 says "prelates" which means authorities of the Church

So you are condemning your own clergy?

Where do Muslims say we are saved?

>>5651384
See >>5648810

>>5651416
NTA, just joined the thread
>Peter is given an exclusive ability that no other apostle has (infallibility)
That's not true, here's an example
Galatian 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."

>>5651446
The Galatians 2 verse does not contain Peter in the original translations. The Cephas here is a different Cephas than that of Peter. This is because the chapter said just before the verse how Peter said that physical circumcision was not needed for salvation. But even if it was the same Cephas, it was over disciplinary issues, not matters of faith and/or morals.

File: Peter Denies Jesus.webm (3.32 MB, 852x480)

3.32 MB WEBM

>>5651416
>(infallibility)
Lulz

>>5651476
The Church began at Pentecost. This would include the situations in which Peter is infallible and the promises of Jesus Christ to the Church.

>>5651480
why did he ask to be crucified upside down if he was infallible after pentecost?

The chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Bar-Pater and to have Jesus executed.

Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.

“Bar-Pater,” they answered.

“What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.

They all answered, “Crucify him!”

“Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”

Then he released Bar-Pater to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

>>5651396
>This is pure doublethink
No it's pretty easy. Blessed because of doing God's will. God doesn't just randomly choose a girl like a 14 year old boy on instagram, meaning she must have been special.
>Then shouldn't we call God the heavenly Father-and-Mother?
No, even a mother and a father together don't create life. It's actually pretty common for pregnancies to not end in a new alive human being born. Meaning the life is given by God.
>instead of simply receiving it as the woman?
Anon, women can be as active if not more during sex. After the point of conception the man doesn't even need to do anything more. To say he's the active part is entirely incorrect.
The important point about the creation stemming from God is that God created out of nothing and still has the ability to do so. Life giving is an ability only given to God and can be done without previously living matter.
>but the bible also tells us they weren't created equally in 1 Corinthians 11:7-10.
And that's why I consider the Father to be called as such. Not because a father can be half of the process of creating another life if we're being generous, but because man is inherently over woman. God is inherently over us. However, another important point as to why He is called the Father is to establish the relation to Christ. This had the direct benefit of Christ being both the Son of Man and the Son of God.
>Anon, who do you think you are to tell who God should and shouldn't chose?
Not for me to judge, but I think the one who is holy should do more than to beget some random woman. Sex is only appropriate for married couples, a one-to-one marriage, one man and one woman. This holy mystery of two turning into one flesh seems devalued if God can just choose any woman with no special attributes. Do you think Gabriel had tell more women that they will receive God in their womb only for them to tell God no? I guess God just got lucky then, right?

>>5651807
>>5651396
>Calling this idolatry doesn't do it justice, it's outright blasphemous
Anon, you might consider this blasphemous since you don't like the Bible we have or that God isn't just random impregnating women like He's Zeus or something but consider the other options. Did God get lucky? No, luck is not above Him. Did other women reject God since He just chooses randomly? Surely you would find this in the Bible if it were the case, right? Sometimes one option doesn't seem good but if all other options are satanic then maybe it was your emotions about the first option that are actually bad.
>Yes, and 1:28 explains why without having to shove 1:42 into it and corrupt scripture.
I'm glad you agree that Mary favoured among women.
>to claim she's still special when doing the will of God makes anyone blessed.
Is being blessed not special?
>There's no "however," obeying his word is what makes anyone holy. That's all.
You really stopped reading after the 'however', didn't you? Or do you have something against listening to the Word of God?
>>5651399
>Now you do.
I did before, your only argument is 'But elizabeth is a human' while then going on and repeating that it's an insertion. This does not matter. She is blessed. It doesn't matter if a human who is favored or an angel said so.
>If you stopped trying to reframe things to avoid losing an imaginary argument that only exists in your head this discussion would be over already.
I already explained both to you. The position you take either has to affirm that Mary is blessed or say that doing God's will does not get us any further in life.
>You literally just admitted that the verse was corrupted and now you're backpedaling?
I said I know that one is an Angel the other is a human. It doesn't even matter for my argument. However, I prefer people not basing their arguments on muslim rhetoric.

>>5651815
>>5651399
>Obviously untrue, but keep strawmanning. It only shows you're unable to argue in good faith.
Good, then you argue that Mary is blessed. Now you only need to release that doing more for God yields greater fruit.
>You're patting yourself on the back for not having read the bible and not knowing about the corruption either? lol
I have read it, I will fully admit I didn't grow up with it and therefore don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the verses but I still have read through the Bible multiple times and therefore can always show you how your opinions are not in line with what other verses say.
>Please tell me you didn't just google it and only read some apologetics site or wiki page instead of reading the gospel. I mean, I know you did exactly that, because ANYONE who reads it without a doubt can tell it's Lazarus, but I don't want to think that you're a total larper. Really, just read it for yourself before you reply again. You haven't finished the gospels and shouldn't be discussing anything pertaining the bible in the first place, but go read it.
Post an argument. Instead of trusting in myself I looked at the consensus of the scholars just to be sure that I'm not letting my bias win. The evidence for Lazarus is low. And even if it's Lazarus, even if it's someone we don't know anymore, it all doesn't matter as the important point is that she's the mother for the church. Why would the eternal word of God (you claim to be corrupted) without any good reason include that some guy (whoever it is doesn't matter much for this argument) now has to take care of her?
>And your argument is flat-out wrong, read Mark 10:29-30 again. That's what it's teaching us.
Please don't tell me you are going to base yourself on the word 'mothers'.
>You didn't know who the beloved disciple was because your knowledge of the bible amounts to googling individual verses on the fly to post here.
Ok, so when are you going to produce an argument?

>>5651416
>Matthias was never voted in but they cast lots to determine who it would be.
Not the behavior of a monarch. Peter held a speech but still it is 'they' who prayed, appointed the two etc.
>The other apostles choosing deacons does not mean that there was no monarchy.
Still not the behavior of a monarch, especially since Peter didn't call for the vote but 'the twelve' did. Unless you think Peter cloned himself multiple times it seems to me that he clearly here is just one of many.
>James did not end any speech but essentially rehashed and gave proof of what Peter argued.
If you rehash the last speech of some conversation you end the conversation. This is something that would be done by the head of said conversation, meaning if there was their monarch among them it was the monarchs role.
>None of this suggests that the early Church did not function like a monarchy.
Sure, if you consider a weak monarch that would be killed in a week in an earthly monarchy still a monarch. I might but definitely not for the first one.
>My quotes have still not been answered
I'm working with what I got here. We got character limits and whenever you say something I try to distill it so I don't have to make five post in answer to one.
>None of that matters because the ability is still there. Again, WHERE is the evidence that Jerome said that was ONLY limited to one specific use?
Not an argument and I have exemplified that.
>so long as it does not have errors
The filioque does as it changes God
>The Filoque is not heresy and nothing here demonstrates that the early Church perceived it to be such
Anon, I have already shown it. There is a difference between 'I'm American' and 'I'm half American, half Asian'. If this doesn't make it clear enough I don't know how to help you but at this point I feel like you ignore how language is used. I know, I also want everyone and everything being absolutely clear the first time around but I tried that and it doesn't work.

>>5651826
>>5651416
>Yet within the context of this passage, there is only one word that needs to be added and no further discussion would have occurred.
Clearly that word isn't 'filioque' since that just spurred discussions.
>Since the Filoque was not an error, there is no manipulation
So the creed without the filioque is in error then since it's a different meaning from the creed with the filioque.
>The argument still applies that future revelation should be considered
Is that really the argument you want to use? 'Future revelation can change God'? Anon, God is unchanging as change is the result of some process under the yoke of time. God is timeless. Therefore He is unchanging. If this wasn't clear enough it should be once you remember what He said about who He is.
>Without the Pope, the Church would not exist because the operations of the Holy Spirit regarding him are different
How are the Orthodox saved then? Do you also consider those who don't go to church for years and pray against you saved?
>Luke 22:31-32 does not imply "first among equals" because Peter is given an exclusive ability that no other apostle has (infallibility)
Either the first creed or the filioque creed must be right. They something else about the unchanging God. You need to tell me which one is right. However, you would put yourself over the pope as both were approved by the popes of their times.
>Hebrews 13 says "prelates" which means authorities of the Church
Not the KJV
>So you are condemning your own clergy?
Do you think no clergy ever made mistakes? I don't consider any Orthodox priest a saint or infallible and neither should you concerning catholic priests since otherwise you will have a hard time explaining how their opinions and actions can differ.
>Where do Muslims say we are saved?
I haven't read the quran but they definitely say so. I don't know if it's something they differ on but some muslims, and I'm not just referring to laymen, consider all abrahamic religions saved.

>>5652450
Bizarre

>>5651826
The decision of casting lots was made by divine providence. The result of it was not made by the apostles

It was the disciples that chose the deacons, not the apostles. The apostles just lauds their hands after the picking. Can a monarch not have something akin to a council of advisors (as indicated by Peter strengthens his brothers)?
>This is something that would be done by the head of said conversation
How? The chapter mentions that Peter essentially ended the debate when he stood up and ruled against the Judaizers. Monarchy!
>weak monarch that would be killed in a week in an earthly monarchy
?

The verses that were given truly show that Peter functioned as leading the entire Church with exclusive privileges
>have exemplified that
It has not been
>The filioque does as it changes God
Could you not argue that inserting the very concept of procession does more than this? Procession was not in the original creed

The analogy does not function because God is not divided; neither in his divinity or his operations. Adding that procession comes from the Son does not limit the Father
>>5651831
The creeds with and without the Filioque are correct at the same time

I agree that God is unchanging. But, that does not mean that future revelations cannot bring forth key aspects of God for humanity to know

Those that consciously reject Catholicism and make themselves yoked to the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are not saved. I was saying that the Holy Spirit works differently with the Pope because his chair is infallible

Both are correct just like how saying God created the heavens is just as correct as saying God created the heavens AND the earth

Even the NKJV is an unreliable Protestant translation. Use Douay-Rheims instead

Do you, in your opinion, think Timothy Ware is in heaven?

There is no “scripture” or respected imam today that considers Catholics to be saved. They would consider that imam to be a heretic as he would contradict Islamic “teachings”

>>5651807
>>5651815
>>5651820
Genuine question, ortholarper: Are you allergic to reading the bible? Or is there some orthodox dogma which says you're not allowed to read it without a priest by your side to interpret each verse for you? You had all this time to do it and yet, for some reason, you concluded it was better to stay here talking out of your ass instead. You didn't even bother reading "John's" gospel, or you'd know by now that not only the apostle is never referred to as Jesus's beloved anywhere but also that the subject isn't even brought up before the chapter where the beloved disciple is actually introduced halfway through the gospel. So what's the point of all these kneejerk replies that only get progressively more mindless as you post when it's obvious you've never read the book from cover to cover? Do you really think you're going to convert anyone? Hell, you can't even convince the Catholics you debate with, what makes you think you'll convince Protestants, people who in a single year read the bible more than you'll ever read in your life, that their exegeses are wrong and yours is right? My only guess is you realize you won't and simply want to larp in these threads. I understand that you're another impressionable teenager who "converted" watching Jay Dyer pilpul on youtube for money and thought that's what being Christian is about, but you could at least larp a little bit better.

>>5652647
>You didn't even bother reading "John's" gospel, or you'd know by now that not only the apostle is never referred to as Jesus's beloved anywhere but also that the subject isn't even brought up before the chapter where the beloved disciple is actually introduced halfway through the gospel.
Again, instead of just reading something I have read multiple times and looking to just confirm my beliefs I went out and looked up arguments for YOUR case (you still haven't provided any) and they are weak while the consensus is that the beloved disciple at the cross is John, not Lazaraus.
And to repeat myself once more: It could be John, it could be Lazarus, it doesn't matter for my argument.
>So what's the point of all these kneejerk replies that only get progressively more mindless as you post when it's obvious you've never read the book from cover to cover?
Do you think your false assumptions and mindless attacks will get you into heaven?
>Do you really think you're going to convert anyone?
It's not about converting anyone but simply not letting anyone fall into the trap you have fallen to.
>Hell, you can't even convince the Catholics you debate with
I don't really care if the guy gets convinced by me, it's fun to see him claim there's no goal stated when it's clear there's a goal given in St. Jerome's letter. This should be enough to show that the pope can't change the being of God.
>what makes you think you'll convince Protestants, people who in a single year read the bible more than you'll ever read in your life
Well first off I don't attack with false assumptions. My sources couldn't be any clearer. Also I don't need to claim the Bible is corrupt just to be disproven two verses later.

>>5652831
>>5652647
>that their exegeses are wrong and yours is right?
I'm not saying mine is correct, but I can clearly demonstrate that theirs is wrong. Then they ask for the correct interpretation instead of accepting that maybe they didn't figure God out by reading the Bible once (redacted protestant version) which is why I give an exegesis that doesn't break the harmony of the Bible.
>My only guess is you realize you won't and simply want to larp in these threads
Two exclusive assumptions, both are wrong. By this point I would expect you would've understood that I won't let the common protestant idiocy fly. I'd do the same for the catholic vtuber fan if he was still as active, but he couldn't produce much beyond 'modern world bad :(' which honestly isn't worth the bandwidth it took to post.
>I understand that you're another impressionable teenager who "converted" watching Jay Dyer pilpul on youtube for money and thought that's what being Christian is about, but you could at least larp a little bit better.
Can't wait to be called a russian spy again since protestants barely know that there's a russian church to begin with. You desperately need better insults than 'Jay Dyer is part of your church :((((' or 'Russia bad' since I'm not part of the ROCOR.

>>5652599
>The decision of casting lots was made by divine providence. The result of it was not made by the apostles
'Hey we got a monarch, so let's cast lots'. Didn't know that catholics believed God to be retarded.
>Can a monarch not have something akin to a council of advisors (as indicated by Peter strengthens his brothers)?
You know that the monarch then has to tell his council to do something, right? Again, weak monarch, would get murdered in a week.
>How?
By being the person that concludes the gathering. The teacher dismisses the class. It's embarrassing that I have to tell you this.
>Monarchy!
No, monarchy isn't having the best argument.
>?
I'm gonna make this easy for you: Just look at the Roman crisis of the third century.
>The verses that were given truly show that Peter functioned as leading the entire Church with exclusive privileges
Privileges like someone beneath him ending his speech, being allowed to cast lots and have a 'council of advisors' that works without him giving permission.
>It has not been
Read the third paragraph of >>5651176. I believe I won't be able to make this any clearer.
>Could you not argue that inserting the very concept of procession does more than this?
No. Nothing there changes the being of God. Let's say for a second that not only the holy mystery of baptism but also matrinomy is added. Then there's another creed, but the meaning did not change. The 'addition' of the filioque however changes the origin of the Holy Spirit as, as shown before, the omission of other possibilities infers that only the Father is the source of the Holy Spirit. Adding 'filioque' changes this, saying the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and comes from the Son. This is no clarification, this is nothing that doesn't change the original meaning, it takes a singular source and makes it only a part-source.

>>5652840
>>5652599
>The analogy does not function because God is not divided; neither in his divinity or his operations.
Correct but the three hypostases are different and distinct. We can't just lump them together, otherwise we could just say that the Holy Spirit also came from the Holy Spirit. The Father was never in a physical form on Earth, the Son was. There are clear distinctions between the three.
>The creeds with and without the Filioque are correct at the same time
Impossible, as this isn't 'through the Son' as some rc apologetics claim. Again, saying 'I'm American' and 'I'm American and African' are two different statements and the latter does not include the former.
>But, that does not mean that future revelations cannot bring forth key aspects of God for humanity to know
So you believe that the creed is just a human intervention? Or did the Holy Spirit just not think about the future? The creed is there to tell us about our belief and if we see heresies pop up, maybe about the unity of the church or where it comes from then we can say 'Hey we never knew we needed to tell this but...' however, this can not change the being of God.
>Those that consciously reject Catholicism and make themselves yoked to the Eastern “Orthodox” churches are not saved.
You said the opposite in >>5649829
>I was saying that the Holy Spirit works differently with the Pope because his chair is infallible
You didn't answer my question though.
>Even the NKJV is an unreliable Protestant translation. Use Douay-Rheims instead
No, sorry I won't argue translations for English. English is such a dogshit language that it already receives more attention than it ever deserved. I will continue to use the KJV for English as it is the standard you'd expect in any English speaking language. However, I also looked into the Bible of my native tongue and it also doesn't translate to prelates despite being philological.

>>5652848
>>5652599
>Do you, in your opinion, think Timothy Ware is in heaven?
I don't know who that is and it is not for me to judge.
>There is no “scripture” or respected imam today that considers Catholics to be saved.
That would be news to me, but honestly I don't really care much about it. My point is that ecumenistic behavior is no argument for joining some church. In fact the opposite makes more sense since if A thinks A and B will be saved and B thinks only B will survive I will have a better chance with B if at least A or B is correct.