Mt. 12. 46-50:
46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Also: Mr. 3. 31-35; Lc. 8.19-2
What in the royal fuck?!?!
>mfw Mormons already believe this
There is two explanations.
They are Joseph kids aka Mary is a cuck and these two married because only a cuck can love another cuck.
Or she did have kids with him, after Jesus, which only Catholics have issue with.
It always amuses me how christfags revel in a blatant cuck story cover-up such as the story of the virgin mary.
>wife sluts around
>husband is furious
>she tells him that she never fucked anyone and that the kid is actually christ
>2000 years later
>people are worshipping and glorifying a cuck and cuckette
shaking my head to be honest senpai
>deny the parts of the bible that don't fit their narrative who deny it.
Don't you mean every fucking Christian, including the crazy ones.
I don't see any of them stoning their children for swearing or killing fags.
These are the only two I can come up with.
That, or Joseph had children before, he became a widower, and then married Mary who then had Jesus imaculate.
That still doesn't compute the virgin in Virgin Mary...
Actually that's what I meant. The cuck shit was me being retarded. In Catholic lore, that's the explanation. It's believed that Joseph was WAY older than Mary and was a widower with kids.
Protestants and Orthodox Christians see nothing wrong with her having kids with him afterwards.
Nigger immaculate conception doesn't refer to Jesus being born requiring Mary to be a virgin, (although she was because you know what the story says) it refers to Mary being born without sin (immaculate), the same original sin that all humans are born with. Also what you noted as Jesus calling his brothers is like calling your friend bro.
Therefore christians not btfo.
Who the fuck even thinks that she is a virgin?
Only some retatded catholics, but they worship satan anyways.
They were cousins.
Jews used the same word for "Brother" as they did for "Cousin".
>Going to other books and early church fathers...
Athanasius of Alexandria
“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin [Four Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 (c. A.D. 360)].
“You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more that Joseph himself, on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born [Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 21 (A.D. 383)].
Pope St. Leo I
“The origin is different but the nature alike: not by intercourse with man but by the power of God was it brought about: for a Virgin conceived, a Virgin bore, and a Virgin she remained [Sermons 22:2 (A.D. 450)].
>there are other "Mary"s
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
OP is a euphoric idiot
Everyone here pretty much answered your topic.
But I suggest that you should read this.
Enjoy and take your time. :)
> Latter Day Saints affirm the virgin birth of Jesus
Would it trigger you if I was to move to the US this year or would you be like "Come all in brother" ?
Let me remind you that I went far lengths to get my hands on a copy of "Crippled America".
see pic related >>60019294
St. Papias, writing in the first and early second centuries and called by St. Irenaeus a "hearer of John," writes:
>Mary the mother of the Lord; Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord's. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
>implying you won't be the one burning in Hell
Last time I checked, none of our major leaders was a lesbian who wants to get rid of all Christian imagery because it offends degenerate shitskins.
Are chinese christians going to hell?
I thought that only G-d can choose who goes to hell and who doesnt.
We have muslims here because your goverment is spreading your american imperialism across the globe.
Europeans are now paying the price for your useless wars in the middle-east.
His brothers came AFTER Jesus was born. She wasn't a virgin forever.
>Europeans blaming us for why the Middle East is a shithole
That's fucking rich.
You dipshits have been ruining that area since the 19th century. Our damage is nowhere near as shitty as the ones you fucktards caused.
Christ and His disciples spoke Aramaic.
It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that of Jerusalem. The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.
As is stated in the picture I posted, the words "brothers" or "brethren" doesn't necessarily indicate "blood brothers" at all. This is true because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for "uncles," "nephew," "niece," "step-brother," "step-sister," etc. All were referred to as "brother" and "sister," which were translated into Greek as adelphos or adelphe.
>Not affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary
>Not affirming that Mary was herself sacred. But a woman who was given a sacred task.
>Affirming that Jesus had brothers
There's a reason the other Christian hate Mormons you know
I don't belong to a denomination.
Are you completely retarded?
You have been making middle-east unstable for a long time, thats why there are civil-wars and shit like that.
Please, read some news sometimes.
>Are there civil-wars because of europe?
>Are there civil-wars because of america?
Libya, Syria, Irak and then these terrorist groups who is made by jews according to you.
You are looking at the true nature of the catholic church. Christianity is the truth and satan, obviously had to infiltrate it.
>Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
How do you get salvation? Simple, pic related.
Great, so I take it your interpretation of the Bible is infallible? Because there are 9000 denominations who would beg to differ with you.
What are you trying to say? The Apostles heard Christ say 'brothers' in Aramaic, and translated it as brother into Greek, because that what it means. Aramaic did not say cousin, or step brother or whatever because the Aramaic has only one word for that - brother and Greek translated it as brother. They could not have translated it as cousin or an uncle because the Aramaic word for brother signifies a wide range of relatives.
I don't interpret the Bible. I read it, the way it has been written down. When Jesus says, salvation is by faith alone, I believe it. This makes me saved and I am filled with the holy spirit. Which makes me understand scripture from a spiritual sense, and not in the flesh.
>tl;dr most people are not saved and do not understand scripture.
Typical of the Prot SJW man child who can't give proper arguments when evidence is presented against his position
I just don't have the energy man, you must be willing to learn about this and be in a state of acceptance. Being in the state you're in, is useless.
Christ also says follow my commandments, St. Paul says faith that worketh by charity and St. James says faith without works is dead.
>This makes me saved and I am filled with the holy spirit. Which makes me understand scripture from a spiritual sense, and not in the flesh.
I take it that the Holy Ghost, then, inspires 9000 interpretations of the Bible? I also didn't know you were with the Apostles at Pentecost, since you claim to be full of the Holy Ghost.
a reminder to christians that debating christian dogma is a loss no matter what you say
and to those intent on dissention, that my faith is not born from the fact that that jesus was born of a virgin, or even that God created the universe. no, my faith comes when i follow the instructions of the bible and i see good things happen, miraculous things in fact, and that when i fail to do so i experience pain and lack.
and that is the main point of this teaching,
"whosoever does the will of my father"
the primary purpose of the bible has never been to mash ones brain with high theology but to provide instructions for doing the will of the father and reaping the immeasurable benefits that result from doing so
>I also didn't know you were with the Apostles at Pentecost, since you claim to be full of the Holy Ghost.
Lmao, this is the type of Bible illiterate people I have to speak to?
Guys no offense, but I already shared the gospel with you, believe it or don't. I'm not going to have a debate with someone that doesn't know anything about the Bible.
I mean realistically, Mary and Joseph had to have banged after Jesus was born right? I'm catholic but I've always assumed that
"We" find none of that in "early Christianity"
>Bible illiteracy, at it's finest.
Show me a Church Father who believe in sola Fide and sola scriptUra. I shown how they don't. You only whine like a spoiled Feminazi
>this is the type of Bible illiterate people I have to speak to?
2 John 1:12
>Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
3 John 1:13-14
>I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.
But muh sola scriptura
Dictionary definition of Brethren:
plural noun: brethren
1. fellow Christians or members of a male religious order.
He considered his disciples his brothers, much like those in the Army consider their peers their brothers. This is what I believe, anyways. The thing about the Bible is that much of it is left open to interpretation.
KJW never existed in the Ante Nicene period cuck
Translated bibles will ALWAYS be shit tier, there's a reason priests were thought Greek/Hebrew for the bibles as both languages are extremely difficult to properly translate into another language without losing a lot of the actual words being meant.
Faith without works is dead BEFORE MAN.
Not before God. Learn the Bible.
>For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
BUT NOT BEFORE GOD.
>And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. - Acts 16
The Bible is clear that salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ!
Genesis 15:6: “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
Habakkuk 2:4: “Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.”
Mark 1:15: “And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.”
Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Luke 8:12: “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
Luke 7:50: “And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”
Luke 8:12: “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”
I think I remember you from the /christian/ threads awhile ago.
I too am a Protestant. But KJV onlyism is ridiculous.
Please watch this debate between Dr. James White and Steven Anderson
And then after you watched all 3 parts check out this video and his playlist (DrOakley1689) on KJV-Onlyism
> Great, so I take it your interpretation of the Bible is infallible? Because there are 9000 denominations who would beg to differ with you.
9000, please not the 50 trillion denomination memes. Legitimately there are only 20 different denominations. And as a Baptist I am communion with all. That means I believe if they truly repent and believe but are say Lutheran, Pentecostal or Anglican they are saved.
St. James does not say that.
>But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.  He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.  Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  The young man saith to him: All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?  Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me.
Oh, it's that site again, citing protestant scholars who claim to interpret the Church Fathers better than the Church.
The fact remains - none of the solas arose as a problem in the Church. The first one to doubt the Real presence was some monk in the 11th century. No one objected to praying to saints, no one to Mary, no one objected to sacraments and the bishops and so on and so forth.
And protestants are hypocrites when citing Church Fathers. They will happily, for example, cite St. Justin here, where they THINK he might be saying something they like. But you won't here them citing this:
>"This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"First Apology", Ch. 66, inter A.D. 148-155.
"It does not say that."
Lol... read it in context kid. So tired of Bible illiterates. You know what, you go ahead and believe it's by faith and works. See how it feels burning in hell. You were warned, you had the entire Bible at your disposal and you will be one of many saying lord lord.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
>BUT HE THAT DOETH THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.
Okay let's see what the will of the Father is;
>And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Oh my god. Give me an actual scholar, not some apologetics bullshit. He practically misrepresented some of the scholars he cited such as RPC Hanson, Flesseman, Oberman and Chadwick by making them say that the Early Church are Sola Scripturists when they are not!
Atheism says: There is no evidence of god.
Beat that !
Hint: You cant.
2nd Hint: Bible is no evidence, because is men-made book of fantasy story, similiar to Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, the Ilias, written 800 years B.C. ^^
Oh shit, i thought that was William Webster's work. Even then this faggot's own sources disagrees with him! Kelly and Williams for example are both very clear that there's no Sola Scriptura in the Early Church!
Mate how do you interpret James 2:14
"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"
> Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement.
Sola Fide does not meant you are saved by faith in the sense you have understood it. It means you are justified by faith.
Isaiah 64:6 says
"We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away."
Or in the King James version
"But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away."
So we inherit and are guilty of the sin of Adam. St. Augustine made this clear as he revealed the biblical doctrine of total depravity. That man is dead in sin and can't seek after God unless God bestows grace upon him which allows man to seek God. Man is fallen and is guilty of sin. Man being sinful does not seek after God.
As Ephesians 2:1 reads
"And you were dead in the trespasses and sins"
So, given our sinful nature we are justified or made right with God by having faith. Faith in the perfect work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Then comes the process of sanctification. Which is a life-long process of abiding by God's word. This is where Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are not saved because they believe they are justified by their works.
> And protestants are hypocrites when citing Church Fathers. They will happily, for example, cite St. Justin here, where they THINK he might be saying something they like. But you won't here them citing this:
Your first problem is that you think the church fathers spoke infallibly.
Only scripture is infallible.
You can quote any church father to support any doctrine. Many had now heretical views.
That's why all you Papists have is church fathers, when it comes to debate within the Bible you fail.
Also you probably didn't even read it. Watch a debate between Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Dr. James White
> The fact remains - none of the solas arose as a problem in the Church.
Because they were presumed.
Augustine taught double predestination. It wasn't until the medieval corruption of the church of Rome that led God to start the Protestant Reformation.
> No one objected to praying to saints, no one to Mary, no one objected to sacraments and the bishops and so on and so forth.
>and you will be one of many saying lord lord.
How? I don't say Lord, Lord, I try to DO God's will. You know, as Christ instructed us.
>So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.  Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.  He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
>we are justified or made right with God by having faith
Faith that worketh by charity.
1 John 2:19
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. "
I don't agree with the Swede entirely. The matter is now with parable of good fruit in Matthew, that a person who is saved shows good fruits. A good tree bears good fruit, a bad tree bad fruit.
So good works are evidence of salvation. But you don't have to meet a certain number of good deeds.
Did you even read what God's will was..........?
A lot of people thought God's will was doing a bunch of good works. The truth is, God's will is that you believe on Jesus. If you say you believe on Jesus but at the same time say you think you must have good works to enter Heaven, you don't believe on Jesus. You're saying the sacrifice of Jesus could not pay for your sins and was not sufficient.
I already told you...
>JAMES 2 EXPLAINED
Too bad James statement about faith without works or Paul's mention of working ones salvation with fear and trembling presupposes effort and an autonomous person who can slip away thus the warning and edification. This is in contrast to the mind control view of the Reformers
Good works is evidence of salvation BEFORE MAN, not before God. God doesn't look at you and say HMMM yep look at that he's doing a bunch of good works, yeah he must be saved. Man does that.
God requires FAITH ALONE.
If you believe you must have good works to be saved, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL. Because you're saying that the payment Jesus made was NOT SUFFICIENT and that YOU have to add to HIS works.
Some nobody on the internet is discrediting a respectable scholar, theologian, writer and apologist who has had hundreds of debates with Roman Catholics, Mormons, Atheists, Jehovah Witnesses and recently Muslims.
Please you are literally embarrassing. But what can I expect from a Chinese cartoon forum.
> If you believe you must have good works to be saved, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL. Because you're saying that the payment Jesus made was NOT SUFFICIENT and that YOU have to add to HIS works.
Of course not. If someone converted right now and truly repented and believed. Then the next morning they die, they go to heaven.
What I don't understand? Also can I ask what your denomination is?
>Your first problem is that you think the church fathers spoke infallibly.
Of course not. However, I trust St. Justin when he says Real presence is real, because he was taught.
>You can quote any church father to support any doctrine.
Then why do you quote them?
>when it comes to debate within the Bible you fail.
>9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
The greatest philosopher of science thought that sola scriptura can't be logically defended. That's where sola scriptura fails - basic logic.
Great argument. To say that Church was in heresy since its very beginnings is laughable.
>Mary is equal worthy of praise for redeeming us from sin
Lies and slander, as the Apostles warned us.
>but at the same time say you think you must have good works to enter Heaven, you don't believe on Jesus
If you love me, keep my commandments.
This nobody also read the works of the scholars your disgusting Reformed apologist scum misrepresented and more recent works on the subject which shows zero citation or reference to Webster and white. Why? It's simple, scholars don't waste their time on hacks like them
Yeah and? If you love Him do keep his commandments. Does He say, you will lose your salvation?
If you believe Jesus paid for ALL your sins, how then can you commit a sin that He hasn't paid for???
Because he believes you must have some works to show you're saved.
These fucking whack jobs with all the literal bias on english interpretation of "born again, with crap handed down from radical reformation like "believer's baptism", and every fucking answer is "because bible!". They really, truly, don't understand how badly they've completely fucked up not only peoples' perspective of christians, but christianity itself. They're one degree of separation from the wingnuts who run around thinking they're "sinless", and two degrees from crazed no-life prophets playing in traffic, bothering people.
>Does He say, you will lose your salvation?
> For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Faith and works are inherently tied, but no one will deny that faith is the foundation and the first prerequisite.
>how then can you commit a sin that He hasn't paid for???
If you do not die in the state of grace, you can't be saved.
You're going to hell. 100%.
When you believe you can lose your salvation, like you do. You are saying the sacrifice of Jesus did not pay for ALL sins.
You're a heretic, and a loser.
> Real presence is real, because he was taught.
Can you document a successive belief of transubstantiation from Justin down to early church fathers, to the disciples of the apostles and finally to scripture.
> Then why do you quote them?
The same reason you do. But our intents differ. You quote church fathers as if you are sealing the discussion. I quote them to contest your idea that they all had unanimous agreement on doctrine. After all they did have councils.
> 9But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless
Foolish strife would be whether to use leavened or unleavened bread in the Lord's supper, or whether to wear vestments or not.
> Great argument. To say that Church was in heresy since its very beginnings is laughable.
Not THE church, just individuals yes.
> Lies and slander, as the Apostles warned us.
So are you saying that Catholics don't believe it?
To turn away from sin and the world, towards God.
You just need to realize there are different kinds of christians. There are the ones who belong to some orthodoxy, like catholics, eastern orthodox, oriental orthodox, then there are the protestants, then there are crazed "born agains", mormons and charismatics who all belong in the "others" box. God love them, they love Jesus, but the philosophies are so fucked off I cringe to even call them christians with a straight face.
Wrong. Repent means change your mind.
When Jesus says REPENT YE AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL
He was saying: Change your mind and believe I died on the cross for all your sins, was buried and rose again the 3rd day.
"26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." Romans 11:26-27
>All Israel shall be saved.
Jesus was the only perfect one.
Jesus died for our sins.
He said if we believe on Him, He impudes His righteousnss unto us.
If you think you will be righteous in the flesh, you're an idiot. God speaks of the spirit being born again, not your flesh.
The birth of the Lord Jesus Christ from a Virgin is testified to directly and deliberately by two Evangelists, Matthew and Luke. This dogma was entered into the Symbol of Faith of the First Ecumenical Council, where we read: Who for the sake of us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.
When the heretics and simple blasphemers refuse to acknowledge the Ever-virginity of the Mother of God on the grounds that the Evangelists mention the "brothers and sisters of Jesus," they are refuted by the following facts from the Gospel:
a) In the Gospels there are named four "brothers" (James, Joses, Simon and Jude), and there are also mentioned the "sisters" of Jesus—no fewer than three, as is evident in the words: and His sisters, are they not ALL with us? (Matt. 13:56).
On the other hand, b) in the account of the journey to Jerusalem of the twelve-year-old boy Jesus, where there is mention of the "kinsfolk and acquaintances" (Luke 2:44) in the midst of whom they were seeking Jesus, and where it is likewise mentioned that Mary and Joseph every year journeyed from faraway Galilee to Jerusalem, no reason is given to think that there were present other younger children with Mary: it was thus that the first twelve years of the Lord's earthly life proceeded.
c) When, about twenty years after the above-mentioned journey, Mary stood at the cross of the Lord, she was alone, and she was entrusted by her Divine Son to His disciple John; and from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home (John 19:27). Evidently, as the ancient Christians also understood it, the Evangelists speak either of "half' brothers and sisters or of cousins.
Romans 3:9-18New International Version (NIV)
No One Is Righteous
9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”
“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips."
“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.
We are worst than retarded Muslims dying for their semitic invisible man in the sky.
Religion must be treated like a philosophy of life, a cultural set of values rather than the ultimate truth about the universe.
>Can you document a successive belief of transubstantiation from Justin down to early church fathers, to the disciples of the apostles and finally to scripture.
Yeah, the Church, but Catholic and Orthodox and Armenian and Ethiopian have always believed it and I have absolutely no reason to doubt that they didn't - there's simply no positive proof. And you know what Bible verses I will cite so no point in that, because you'll stick to your interpretation of them anyway. The fact is, no one in the Early Church argued about any of the solas or anything protestants now object. You should watch what Peter Kreeft, a convert from Calvinism says about that.
>I quote them to contest your idea that they all had unanimous agreement on doctrine. After all they did have councils.
Oh I do not claim that. And those councils you reject, so again what's the point. I'm making a point of rather trusting St. Justin who was taught by the disciples of the Apostles, rather than some Calvinist apologist in 2016.
>Foolish strife would be whether to use leavened or unleavened bread in the Lord's supper
Yeah, because the Eucharist is taken seriously, we don't eat Oreos.
>So are you saying that Catholics don't believe it?
The only mediator of Redemption is Christ.
Yeah, if they follow commandments
> But if you will not hear me, nor do all my commandments,  If you despise my laws, and contemn my judgments so as not to do those things which are appointed by me, and to make void my covenant:  I also will do these things to you: I will quickly visit you with poverty, and burning heat, which shall waste your eyes, and consume your lives. You shall sow your seed in vain, which shall be devoured by your enemies.
> The greatest philosopher of science thought that sola scriptura can't be logically defended. That's where sola scriptura fails - basic logic.
Ok his objections are addressed in this documentary;
Go to 3:14:41
There is always the 1998 Sola Scriptura debate between Fr. Mitch Pacwa and Dr. James White who handles these objections.
Note only a handful of Bible verses are dogmatically defined by Rome. So the perspicuity of the Bible is actually pretty high.
But really I'd read this
> If you think you will be righteous in the flesh, you're an idiot. God speaks of the spirit being born again, not your flesh
Never have, never will. My faith makes me right with God. I know Jesus did all the work. Even when I down in the dumps I know his work is done and I have something to look forward to.
>Note only a handful of Bible verses are dogmatically defined by Rome.
So what? The Apostolic Church have always taught the same things.
Fulford is also a Calvinist, so I imagine White says nothing new.
You obviously missed these words
>and to make void my covenant
That means no more convenant.
Was to the wrong guy, I thought you were the serb. Good, you are saved if you believe in the death, burial and resurrection as your ticket to Heaven. Amen.
>implying Christians educated in their own religion didn't already know this.
>implying the virgin birth simply being 'Christ born without human conception' is a valid interpretation even for Catholics.
Which covenant? There are unconditional covenants, aren't there? And, that couldn't mean the salvation covenant if Romans 11:26 says that all Israel will be saved. It didn't say "All Israel shall be saved, except for.."
I have read it.
> The fact is, no one in the Early Church argued about any of the solas or anything protestants now object. You should watch what Peter Kreeft, a convert from Calvinism says about that.
See the articles I linked above
> The only mediator of Redemption is Christ.
It isn't dogma in the Catholic church but it's a doctrine believed by many.
You don't walk the Straight and Narrow Path.
Mary was virgin.
Was with Joseph.
Became pregnant with Jesus.
Gave birth to Jesus. (Still virgin)
After Jesus' birth, not virgin anymore.
My point is that the Early Church viewed the Eucharist as the actual Body and Blood of Christ. That does not equate to Transubstantiation especially when that requires an Aristotlean context
The only one that existed at the time. That line says that in order to be saved you need to believe and I'm not arguing against that. I'm merely saying that you need to follow the commandments as well
>See the articles I linked above
Why do you always focus on Rome? You always seem to forget that all other Apostolic thought the same. And Aristotelian metaphysics is the best we can do to explain it. The Orthodox, for example, say pfff we are not interested in how transubsantiation happens, we know it does and they don't even try to explain it. In fact, the Eucharist was codified by the Eastern Christians first.
And again, your article qoutes a protestant theologian from the 19th century speaking what Church Fathers actually meant 2000 years ago.
>It isn't dogma in the Catholic church but it's a doctrine believed by many.
Then they're in material heresy.
No you said he misrepresent people. Can you draw a parallel between his claims and the claims of the particular scholar you cited. Like post what he said, and then what your scholar said.
Basically this shows that to Irenaeus and Tertullian, wherever there's conflict in Biblical intepretation, the True answer is to be found in the Church. Following Irenaus as well, this church needs Apostolic Succession. This already opposes sola Scriptura that denies this. There is no Apostolic handing down of doctrine and lineage to the Apostles according to Protestantism. The idea is rejected. There's more to this. Kelly's view is basically what Lane called the Coincidence view of Scripture where Tradition is the mode to read Scripture. Both contents of Scripture and Tradition are coincident with each other and Lane himself differentiates this from Sola Scriptura
Will burn in hell 100%.
The Didache and propitiatory sacrifice. Now, Catholics will also claim the Didache establishes the Eucharist was seen to be a propitiatory sacrifice, a representation of the actual sacrifice of Christ, when it says, “every Lord's day gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice” (Didache, 14). Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis (Robert Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone, [Queenship Publishing, 2000], p. 264) asserts this position but does not argue for it convincingly. The best argument he can muster up is that the same word the Didache uses for “sacrifice” (Didache, 14) is used in Hebrews 5:1 etc., to refer to Jesus’ sacrifice. Thus he concludes the Didache proves the Roman Catholic Eucharistic propitiatory sacrifice. However, the same Greek word, thusia, is also used in the New Testament to refer to believers’ sacrifices such as doing good and praising (Hebrews 13:15-16) and giving to others (Philippians 4:18). There is simply no indication the Didache presents a re-doing of the same propitiatory sacrifice of Christ as opposed simply to a believers’ sacrifice similar to how prayers, gifts, and the lives of the worshipers were seen as believers’ sacrifices as the Bible speaks of (Psalms 51:17; 141:2; Isaiah 66:20; Hebrews 13:15-16; Philippians 4:18; 1 Peter 2:5). This is the eminent historian Jaroslav Pelikan’s view of what the Didache means here by “sacrifice” (Jaroslav Pelikan, Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 1, [University of Chicago, 1971], p. 146).
" It’s indicated since while the Didache identifies the Eucharist as a meal of Thanksgiving (Didache, 9) and a believers’ sacrifice (Didache, 14), it never says it is a literal representing of Jesus’ sacrifice which propitiates God’s anger, remits sin or is a repetition of the actual sacrifice of Christ. Such theology is simply not in the Didache.""
Where is the evidence he made an opposing claim to that of Kelly?
Protestants, if you believe that faith alone saves, then why are you always so mad at Catholics? They have faith, so they're saved too, right? Who cares if they do work on top of it? So why are you mad if they're following the golden rule?
Are you retarded?
Sisters were never named unfortunately.
Also it's believed by some the Vatican has kept the original gospels in the archive in Rome. Allegedly Jesus and Mary Magdalene(Which the Church calls a prostitute) had children whose bloodline is still alive and well today in Europe and being protected by a secret group without said descendants knowledge and that the Church is said to have suppressed the truth that Jesus wanted his faith to be led by a woman as they were naturally more caring and empathetic than men who are warlike and impulsive.
Dan Brown came along saw the conspiracy theory and made millions off it.
Funny thing is in the Jewish holy books there is an entire passage dedicated to a woman that lusted after the dark skinned men of upper egypt(the lower half in reality where the Ethiopians and Nubians come in) who smelled like shit but had penises the size of elephants.
Someone probably knows what I'm talking about and can name the woman and passage.
How is it, that "All Israel shall be saved" if, you need to, at least while you're alive, follow the commandments? It didn't say "All Israel shall be saved, except for..".
That was not the only covenant that existed at that time.
>For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts.
Are you calling God a liar?
>"Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: 'Do not give to dogs what is sacred'".
How is a piece of cookie sacred? Didache was also written about the time of St. Justin and I have demonstrated he believed in the true presence. So are you saying one part of Christians taught true presence while the other did not? Where's your proof for that?
>But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.
So Christ says if you call someone a fool, you may go to hell. How do you reconcile that with you only need believe? Again, faith is the basic prerequisite, and without faith Israel can't be saved. However, sinners who claim to believe can't enter Heaven.
That's why Christ says go away from me you WORKERS of iniquity.
Anon, the Apostles didn't mean for us to do this. They did not want endless debates. They warned against deceit through rhetoric several times. I will not judge your soul, only God knows if he will save you. I wish you all the best.
>Looking for literality in a two millennia old text
>Trying to use the fruits of your lack of a life to "BTFO" out of a group
>Being this autistic
OP, this board is 18 and up, I hope you are ware of that.
Well, that doesn't necessarily mean you are punished forever, does it?
>without faith Israel can't be saved.
I know that you don't need to have faith while you're alive, to ever eventually be saved because "All Israel shall be saved".
Jesus was not a jew.
Okay so this the Didache in Greek
Κατὰ kυριαkὴν δὲ kυρίου συναχθέντες kλάσατε ἄρτον kαὶ εὐχαριστήσατε, προεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως kαθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ᾐ
The word for sacrifice is "θυσία"
It is also used in Hebrews 13:16 (ESV)
15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
A sacrifice of praise. So it has other meanings. Reformed theology holds communion to be a commemoration of the Jesus's death on the cross.
Here is a Greek interlinear New Testament. It's chapter 13 of Hebrews. Go to Hebrews 13:15 and 13:16.
The Greek word for sacrifice, in the sentence "sacrifice of praise" is θυσίαν (Thusian)
But Crobro I am worried that as a Roman Catholic you aren't saved.
Also you must believe in all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic church de fide.
This is the gospel according to St. Paul
1Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. 3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 15:1-6).
"This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn"
You have added works to justification.
Read Galatians St. Paul anathematized (curse of God is on them) the Galatians for making circumcision part of the gospel.
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them’” (Galatians 3:10).
>invented your own
Jesus was White, not a jew. Israelites are White people.
Josephus' Antiquities 12.5.1 says the Israelites appeared no different from Greeks.
King David was ruddy, which means "to show blood in the face".
Esau, the grandson of Abraham and the brother of Jacob, the progenitor of the Israelites had red hair.
There are Egyptian depictions of Israelites with red and blonde hair, and blue eyes.
"Jew" in the bible should read Judean. Also, you can trace the source of the German tribes to the Israelites, and thus the Hebrews. Hebrew and English also contain many similar words.
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
being an israelite by blood doesn't count. if your heart is with jesus, you are a jew inwardly. if it's not, you're not one even if you are by blood.
>yfw all christians are jews.
To add Didache 9
"Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way"
"We thank thee"
It's all about thanksgiving. Read the aforementioned articles.
This is pointless since my contention is that the Eucharist is taken in a Realist sense NOT in the way the Reformed and Zwlinglians do.
In this sense we are talking about how the Eucharistic elements are perceived to be which as the Oxford History of Christian Worship notes, is Realist.
Even your crap apologist can't get wiggle room to fight for the Reformed view of the Eucharist and is forced to take on Schaff's approach of a myraid of views. But none to him comes close to the Reformed view at all.
Pelikan's view on this seems clear, you don't read later controversies into Early Christianity BUT his overall view obviously shows that they believed in a Real Presence of some sort or that the Eucharist has some sort of power.
Different from the Reformed view
The Eucharist or Roman Catholic mass is a reoffering of Jesus Christ that is propitiatory sacrifice.
A sacrifice is giving yourself up. But the same sacrifice used in Diadache is used in Hebrews 13:15-16.
See how I am going back to God breathed scripture (2 Timothy 3:16) and you aren't!
False. It's simply a sort of 'travel back in time' to that Sacrifice.
Again, my contention is about Eucharistic Presence not wheter or not the Sacrament is a Sacrifice or not which is a different subject all together.
There Kelly is simply telling us that arguing about whether Scripture or Tradition is greater or have more authority is a foolish thing to do given their coincident content. But this Coincidence view that Kelly suscribes to Tertullian and Irenaeus is NOT Sola Scriptura.
ANS Lane notes this,
The Reformers also rejected the Catholic interpretation of Scripture. The essence of the coincidence view is the assumption not just that Scripture and tradition have the same content but also that this content is found in the teaching of the church. The
error in attributing the coincidence view to the Reformers lies in the neglect of their ecclesiology.58 They did allow for an interpretative tradition not adding to Scripture but did not see either this tradition or ecclesiastical teaching as infallible. It was possible to appeal to Scripture alike from (interpretative) tradition and ecclesiastical teaching. There are two important differences between this view and the classical coincidence view of Irenaeus and Tertullian. These patristic writers were concerned to show the identity of ecclesiastical with apostolic teaching while the Reformers sought to do the opposite.
Irenaeus states in his book Against Heresies
For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity. 
So this church father believed in a more Lutheran perspective. That the bread is bread but has two realities. It isn't of a single nature, and in that nature Jesus Christ. A duality of natures. My point here is there is a mix of views and lack of consensus among the early church fathers.
> Again, my contention is about Eucharistic Presence not wheter or not the Sacrament is a Sacrifice or not which is a different subject all together
That's my point.
Kelly used Didache 14 as evidence of it being a sacrifice. A sacrifice or a reoffering of Jesus's flesh and blood.
However I argue using Didache 9 that it is a thanks-giving, which is in accordance to Protestant theology on the Lord's supper. I evidence this by showing to you the word sacrifice used in the original Greek of the Didache was also used in the Hebrews 13:15 where sacrifice of praise is used.
So I reject Kelly's claim on the basis that
1) The authors of the Didache held the Eucharist/Lord's supper to be a thanksgiving, in other words a commemoration.
2) The word sacrifice used in Didache 14:1 is the same as that used in the term "sacrifice of praise" in Hebrews 13:15-16. Which shows sacrifice had dual meanings but the meaning that it was a sacrifice of praise/commemoration was the one the authors of Didache intended to use because Didache 9 sets the context as such.
Sacrifice and Presence are two differing things. The Didache never specify whether there's any Presence or not. But other writings such as Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus and so on do and the Presence specified is Realist contradicting your view of it.
So you are simply bringing in red herrings here.
hey bonehead, you lost me at Protestant Reformation. Another /b/ro who hasn't read all of ML's thesis... no doubt I respect the guy... but.. 94? Seems like he was MAKING STUFF UP.
Not exactly. They don't share Rome's view of transubstantiation. The point was that the church father's didn't hold the same views on doctrine.
Martin Luther on impanation.
... we do not make Christ's body out of the bread ... Nor do we say that his body comes into existence out of the bread [i.e. impanation]. We say that his body, which long ago was made and came into existence, is present when we say, "This is my body." For Christ commands us to say not, "Let this become my body," or, "Make my body there," but, "This is my body."
considering the catholic church was no better than a whorehouse at the time protestants appeared, and has appropriated babylonian ishtar worship into itself, except renaming ishtar to virgin mary to avoid detection.
>9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
all this says is to abandon materialism and carnal way of living, the love of flesh.
foolish controversies that show your love for the material world and its customs, genealogies which shows your infatuation with the flesh of your ancestors, strife and disputes about the law is nothing else than duality based conflict which breaks the love thy neighbor.
all flesh is corrupt, sinful and degenerate. anyone who desires to save his flesh or cling to it will be damned.
flesh and its ways was meant to perish. it was always the cage of desires and sins, and abandonment of it and its ways was the way.
More Red Herrings.
Luther's view is that the Eucharistic elements do indeed become the actual body and blood of Christ like it or not. Any Lutheran will tell you this. Their perception of how this works simply differs from Transubstantiation which itself only ascribes the non physical aspect of bread and wine to become the body and blood of Christ or the Substance.
A lot of protestants believe the virgin Mary was only a virgin when she had Jesus, and lost her virginity afterwards and had children with Joseph.
Catholics are the ones obsessed with her never having sex. I think it is a proto-waifuism for them.
I have no idea about what the Orthodox believe.
Hold on mate if the Didache was written by the early church bishops as a manual and in that manual they held the Eucharist to be a thanksgiving this would mean no held to the notion that the Eucharist was a blood offering rendering your view was false.
He lived in Palestine, and He was an Israelite. Israelites are White. "Synagogue" just means congregation, they could have always just translated it "church" if they wanted to. Before what we now call Jews moved into Palestine, it was an Israelite kingdom.
Circumcision was an Old Testament practice, but that does not make it a Jewish practice. The people of the Old Testament were not jews as is commonly believed today, but White people.
The jews are Edomites who moved in later and adopted Hebrew traditions.
The Didache never said whether the elements consumed are the body and blood of Christ or not. But we do know they have significance given how they are referred to as "Spiritual food".
Your own fake scholar source also misrepresented Pelikan's view of what the Didache meant by Sacrifice as well. His actual view is closer to that of Kelly's. To him "Sacrifice" as the Didache used it is used under the context of Jewish Liturgical rites and also how it is the "pure offering" described in Malachi 1:11. And he also says on the same page that,
"the Christlan ltturgles were already usmg sImIlar language about the offenng of the prayers, the gIfts, and the ltves of the worshIpers, and probably also about the offermg of the sacrIfice of the Mass"
Can't be bothered to write out the argument put in the article mentioned above.
He makes another argument on biblical grounds.
Appealing to what the church fathers said doesn't settle the case. What the Bible says, even as a Catholic you believe in Prima Scriptura.
And his own argument is simply akin to making a cigar something else.
Now we see that when it can be shown that the Church Fathers aren't believing in a certain Reformed doctrine and said Reformed apologist had to misrepresent scholars, we get the Sola Scriptura card which of course was never even believed or used by the Church Fathers in the first place. It takes scholarly ignorance to misrepresent scholars when they use terms like "Coincident in content" and ignore the other bits that contradict it.
Prima Scriptura permits using Tradition to understand Scripture. I'm playing by this rule.
i think it has more to do with the fact that catholics pray to mary and saints, thinking they relay messages, while the bible says that only those who call upon god himself will be saved.
the part about jesus and mary magdalene sounds gnostic.
there is that deal about exoteric and esoteric levels of religions. outward one, truth mixed with lies for the goyim, secret truth for the elites.
judaism, judaistic christianity, catholicism, islam for the goyim, truth for the elites.
though it may just as well be that even the elites are deceived and bought into the archon lies of luciferianism, believing those are the truth and the deceptive archons are saviors of some kind.
history is written by the victors, and doesn't necessarily reflect the truth.
see holocaust and 6 gorillion gassed jews vs less than 1 million who died from typhus thanks to allies cutting off supply routes.
or closer to christianity, the lie propagated by catholics about the popes vs the reality of papacy not existing before the east/west split, with the pope being just a renegade patriarch.