>And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this

File: Basil_of_Caesarea.jpg (246KB, 350x478px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 350x478px

>>1639767
Not in this passage, no, not a chance.

ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

We have to look at the context to whom Jesus is speaking. Jesus gave Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16:

>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19

"Binding and loosing" is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.

This authority includes interpreting and applying the Word of God and admitting people to and excommunicating them from the community of faith. For the Jews this meant the community of Israel. For Christians this means the Church.

Saint Basil explains this very well:

>Though Peter be a rock, yet he is not a rock as Christ is. For Christ is the true unmoveable rock of himself, Peter is unmoveable by Christ the rock. For Jesus doth communicate and impart his dignities, not voiding himself of them, but holding them to himself, bestoweth them also upon others. He is the light, and yet 2. You are the light: he is the Priest, and yet he 3. maketh Priests: he is the rock, and he made a rock.
—Basil li. De poenit. cƒ. Matt. v. 14 ; Luke 22:19

File: 351027670_c152df94e2_b.jpg (292KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1024x683px

>>1639767
>Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30

>And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16:18-19

>The one who hears you (Peter) hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.
Luke 10:16

>I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
John 10:14-16

>When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
John 21:15-17

>>1639907
>>1639912
Ignore these papist heretics

File: Bishop-elect Robert Barron.jpg (63KB, 502x659px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 502x659px

>>1640298
>no arguments

File: peter's successor.jpg (106KB, 708x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 708x720px

>>1640315

>>1640319
>muh drawings

File: luther pepe.png (324KB, 560x366px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 560x366px

>>1640380
>no arguments

File: 95 Theses.jpg (134KB, 1072x736px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1072x736px

>>1640386
>>1610680

>>1639767
yes he was talking about himself when he said it was 'his church'

also he is the rock, the stumbling stone, and the stone against he will smash his enemies. the foundation stone of the church. the keystone

File: rekt.jpg (10KB, 320x225px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 320x225px

>>1640470
>look father, i posted it again!

File: srmaddoloratablogsidebar.jpg (25KB, 209x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 209x300px

>>1640481
>Christ was an adulterer, a fornicator, a sinner, a murderer and an evildoer
>I'm Christian btw xP
'no'

File: shitposting papist.png (51KB, 616x434px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 616x434px

>>1640532
You're right, you're not Christian

File: mmagdalenablogsidebar.jpg (24KB, 209x285px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 209x285px

>>1640534
>>1610680

No, the idea that he was talking about himself is purely modernist. Greek exegetes who grew up speaking Greek did not interpret it that way, and I'm pretty sure they knew the language better than we do; they also weren't Latins, so no pro-Rome bias.

File: peter_primacy.jpg (89KB, 529x640px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 529x640px

>>1640553
>look father i posted it again xdddd

>>1640319
Popes don't require you to kneel before them, and they certainly don't require you to hold your hands like that (that form of supplication actually evolved in the Middle Ages, as a vassal would hold his hands like that to express subservience; it later found its way into prayer).

Some people do kneel before the Pope, but that's their thing, it's nothing to do with Papal policy.

File: benedict27.jpg (75KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 594x395px

>>1640568
The pope doesn't even discourage them

>>1640578
Yes, well he absolutely should, you're not supposed to kneel to clergy. Even in Holy Confession we don't kneel toward clergy, we kneel toward an icon and the priest stands to the side.

Nonetheless, the most you can fault them for here is not up to Peter in standard (big surprise). They don't encourage or make it a standard. You also have to allow that in the West, unlike the East, the Pope became a political office, a ruler of a state: until modern times, kneeling to a ruler was pretty normal; even after it was in vogue for rulers to be gods, it was still rampant. So it became a policy with the Pope, because he was a ruler.

>>1640590
Most church fathers, including Augustine, interpreted the rock as reffering to Christ

>>1640596
even after it *stopped being vogue

Note that in the Old Testament, kneeling to the king is also a thing

>>1640596
>we kneel toward an icon
That's just as bad
>Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

>Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

>And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Exodus 20:4-6

>>1640597
He did, but not until much later in life. Originally he said it was Peter, but toward the end of his life, he said he was no longer sure, and it might refer to Christ or Peter, and so the reader should decide for himself.

File: jesus-returning-the-keys-to-st-peter-1820.jpg (622KB, 756x971px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 756x971px

>>1640597
>Most
[citation needed]

Read what Scripture says >>1639912 and stop the mental gymnastics.

File: Blessed Isidore De Loor.jpg (35KB, 400x590px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x590px

>>1640603
See >>1640535

>>1640603
Nothing wrong with venerating icons, see Joshua 7:6.

The ancient Hebrews did not have a problem with images in their temples. If you care to look up the ancient synagogue of Dura-Europos (since destroyed by Daesh), you will see that it was covered with images from the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible itself describes numerous images in places of worship (Exodus 25:19-20, Exodus 26:1, Exodus 26:31, 1 Kings 6:23-29, just like Orthodox temples today, the Hebrew Temple was supposed to be like being in heaven, hence all the angels). Now let's examine the word, used in Exodus 20:4, often translated as "likeness" or "form" is תְּמוּנָה (temunah); the Septuagint's equivalent to this is εἶδος (eidos), this is the term Plato is so fond of, and it is generally translated in his works as "form". This is *not* the same term used for likeness is many other parts of the Bible. For instance, the word translated as likeness in Genesis 1:26 is דְּמוּת (demuth), or דָּמָה (damah) in verb form--this term is also often translated as "similitude" in the King James Bible, such as in Hosea 12:10; the Greek equivalent to this is ὁμοίωμα (homoioma). If we look at how these words are used, the distinction is readily apparent: prophets often used the term "demuth" when describing what their visions looked like (Ezekiel 10:21, for instance), whereas temunah is used to mean a form (man is made in the likeness of God, not in the form of God) such as in Job 4:16, Psalms 17:15 and Deuteronomy 4:12, this term is often used as a stand-in for the face of God, which in Orthodox theology is God's uncreated grace, which is fully and truly God, and which we can behold (unlike God's essence, which is infinitely transcendent and beyond all creatures), it is *form* as opposed to the *simulacrum*.
cont

>>1640614
Now the term translated as "graven image" (or "idol" in other parts) is the word פֶּ֫סֶל (pesel), the Greek equivalent of this is the term εἴδωλον (eidolon), which is the source of the English word "idol"; it comes from the aforementioned "eidos". An eidolon is an avatar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_(apparition) Now this term is very distinct from צֶ֫לֶם (tselem), which is word translated as "image" in Genesis 1:26--the Greek equivalent here is εἰkών (eikón), source of the English word "icon"; you would used the term icon to describe someone's reflection, but you would never use it to describe someone's avatar (idol). While idolatry (idol + latria) is wrong, beholding icons is spiritually advisable, it's not just a matter of ornamentation, it's far more important. The more you behold something like pornography, the more harmful it is to you spiritually, but the more behold something like holy icons, the more beneficial it is to you spiritually. "The lamp of the body is the eye! If therefore your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" [Matthew 6:22-23, Orthodox translation]. Everything we see affects our spiritual health, either positively, or harmfully, and icons are crucial among the positive things. You are what you see, so to speak.

tl;dr an icon is a reflection of something, an idol is intended as consubstantial with what it depicts.

>>1640558
Nvm >>1640590 I read "the idea that he wasn't* talking about himself"

File: Not an argument .jpg (51KB, 225x253px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 225x253px

>>1640611

Wasn't Peter and rock the same word in Greek?

So in effect Jesus was saying, upon Peter I build this Church.

English translations are just bad.

>>1640614
>>1640617
You'd think if there were exceptions to the 2nd commandment God would mention it in the 2nd commandment.

>>1640634
No. Petros was the Greek word for rock

>>1640634
The Greek word translated to Peter, Petros, meant rock. But the 2nd use of rock is Petra in this verse.

>>1640634
The point is that an icon isn't a פֶּ֫סֶל, it's a צֶ֫לֶם, which is not even mentioned in the second commandment. I just related the major distinction between the terms.

>>1640648
meant for
>>1640642

>>1640646
That's because Peter is a man, so his appellation is going to be the masculine case.

>>1640642

>“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."

This commandment is clearly addressing the tendency for Hebrews to worship idols during the time of Moses. By not having these images around, there would not be any temptation to worship false gods.

>>1640648
Do you think you connect with the divine, angelic or saintly through the icon?

File: tabernacle-tent.png (230KB, 900x477px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 900x477px

>>1640625
What's not an argument? Haven't you read the rest of the Book of Exodus? Of course you haven't, you're an anti-Catholic atheist shitposter from /pol/ with no biblical knowledge whatsoever.

>>1640634
>>1640643
>>1640646
ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

>>1640661
>carved
Mistranslation. It should say graven.
>This commandment is clearly addressing the tendency for Hebrews to worship idols during the time of Moses.
The Ten Commandments are part of the Moral Law, they are eternal.

>>1640664
Only as much as I connect through my tongue when I sing hymns.

File: average pope.jpg (26KB, 474x538px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 474x538px

>>1640666
>666
False prophet exposed!

File: 93d91255d9b6b965ab73bb831885340c1f0d3c42a9d52ac2e833e2533ee411e2.jpg (84KB, 448x500px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 448x500px

>>1640673
You have to be 18+ to post here.

>>1639767
He was referring to the truth. The truth is solid like a rock, the church is built upon the truth, it is stable and will not fall away. See Truthcontest The present with religion, new revelations have been recently uncovered.

>>1640686
No.

>>1640670
So then you can't connect with God except with an idol?

>>1640694
I'm not going to keep up this discussion if you cannot distinguish between idol and icon and continue to use inflammatory terms. I will be happy to answer you if you will actually use the term that applies here in both Greek and Hebrew.

>>1640712
So that's a yes. God won't be to pleased with idolatry.

>>1639767
Jesus asked for a confession.

Peter gave it in these words- "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God."

And this confession was the rock on which he declared that he would build his church

>>1640617
>icon is a reflection of something, an idol is intended as consubstantial with what it depicts.
So i guess Hindus aren't idolaters. They view their idols as reflections of gods, not as gods themselves.

>>1640723
Read >>1639912

>>1639912
>literally adding the word Peter to Luke 10:16

>>1640668

If they are part of the moral law in the way you are describing, then why did the ark of the covenant have cherub on the exterior?

Why didn't God make an exception like you claim there should be in that commandment?

Isn't that contradictory for God to tell you not to make any graven images whatsoever then tell the Jews to make them on the ark?

>>1640742
Is there an issue?

>>1640717
You're begging the question and aren't actually engaging anything I'm saying. If you are going to insist iconography is idolatry, you must rebut this

>>1640614
>>1640617

If you cannot directly engage with this and rebut it, then you are conceding the point. If you cannot rebut but refuse to concede the point, then it is fruitless to engage with you, since you don't engage back.

>>1640725
No, if they have a firm theology which says the images aren't consubstantial, then they're icons, not idols. But heathen icons aren't okay either.

>>1640751
Rev 22:18
>>1640749
The cherubim are symbolic of God's presence with Israel. The cherubim are the guardians of Heaven, so they guard God's house. It's symbolism, not idolatry.

btw, in Orthodoxy, when you pray to God with your eyes shut, you are not supposed to picture anything. This is because it is easy to confuse the image of your minds eye with Christ, which is idolatry; you start to think you are actually seeing him. So picturing him inside your prayer while you pray is strictly prohibited. We take this very seriously.

>>1640758
So it's okay when you do it?
Do you listen to what you say? Who believes an image actually is the thing it depicts except the most primitive of savages?

>>1640763
All icons are symbolism, buddy.

>>1640769
>you start to think you are actually seeing him
Do you really think that is a natural develepment, or is it related to the concept of Prelest?

>>1640771
Then it doesn't reflect what it's depicting.

>>1640770
Yeah, just like it's okay to sing Christian hymns in worship, but wrong to sing heathen hymns in worship.

>Who believes an image actually is the thing it depicts except the most primitive of savages?
You might say the same about human sacrifice, but that happened a lot in the bronze age.

>>1640774
It can be prelest, but it also is just something that can naturally happen when you're really emotionally involved in your prayers. The image might just pop in there and you feel ecstatic at the time and think you are beholding the face of God. That is why spiritual elders are so critical, to talk about your prayer life with, especially if you start seeing things during prayer, they can keep you from getting carried away and thinking you're seeing visions like prophets do.

>>1640776
All symbols reflect what they are symbols of. That's the point of a symbol.

>>1640763

That is one of the points of religious art, the other is to depict a scene or tell a story.

I'm glad we can agree on something.

>>1640787
>and think you are beholding the face of God.
This is something we actively strive to do btw, but it's not like seeing a human face, it's experiencing God's energies directly But you need a spiritual elder to guide you in this experience

>>1640763
>Rev 22:18
Bait? Do you even know what parentheses are used for?

>>1640787
>All symbols reflect what they are symbols of. That's the point of a symbol.
Did you forget what i just said about the cherubim?
They didn't symbolize themselves. That would be idolatry.
>>1640788
They didn't depict a scene or tell a story. They symbolized God's presence.

File: Shiggy.png (320KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 500x375px

>>1640470

>>1640800
>They didn't symbolize themselves. That would be idolatry.
So the Ark didn't symbolize anything, but was bowed to for itself (Joshua 7:6)?

File: aef87777503542a5633dc4860eb6e3c5.jpg (150KB, 736x1144px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 736x1144px

>>1640804
>Christ was an adulterer, a fornicator, a sinner, a murderer and an evildoer
t. Martin Luther >>1610680

Yet you still love him. Wow. Proddies are truly lost.

>>1640811
The Ark symbolized Heaven.

>>1640800

They don't depict what you might see in Heaven?

Why would God want cherubim to symbolize him when that is "idolatry" in your view? God shouldn't want any artwork on the ark in your view since all religious art is graven and forbidden.

>>1640813
That's in reference to him becoming sin on the cross. He doesn't literally mean that you retard.

File: >Romans.jpg (530KB, 469x5000px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 469x5000px

>>1640813
The great thing about Christianity is that unlike Romanists, we understand that our church leaders are mere men and ultimately only the Word of God has any real authority.

>>1640821
Martin Luther said the Devil tries to torment us by telling us not to sin and to feel contrition for our sins, so we ought to sin to spite him.

>>1640816

Heaven is not God! Why are you worshiping Heaven?

/end sarcasm

>>1640817
>They don't depict what you might see in Heaven?
They depicted it, they were symbolic of something else however.

>Why would God want cherubim to symbolize him when that is "idolatry" in your view? God shouldn't want any artwork on the ark in your view since all religious art is graven and forbidden.
That's not what i said, but i guess in your view the 2nd commandment was just a prank bro!

>>1640821
>That's in reference to him becoming sin on the cross.
Seems like these are sins ascribed to Christ, not sins ascribed others Christ accepted unto himself.

File: Original.png (321KB, 500x414px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 500x414px

>>1640824
wew
ewe
wew

>>1640824
>Martin Luther said the Devil tries to torment us by telling us not to sin
[citation needed]
>to feel contrition for our sins
You shouldn't. Contrition implies penance.

Jewish Tetragrammaton is practically their equivalent of an icon

And it is merely a set of words which cannot be defiled and even a piece of paper with said word, cannot be simply disposed of

>>1640830

I already stated that that commandment was addressing the previous transgressions of the Jewish people where they worshiped false gods that they fashioned graven images of.

>>1640831
Literally right before saying it he said "Christ took upon himself all our sin"

>>1640842
Moral law = eternal

>>1640837
>[citation needed]
"Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you, “Do not drink,” answer him, “I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me. Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds."

>You shouldn't. Contrition implies penance.
Ah, right, we might end up being the Publican instead of the Pharisee if we were contrite.

File: I am that I am.jpg (87KB, 544x700px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 544x700px

>>1640838
The LORD is the LORD.

>>1640844
it wasn't in any context, it's from Table Talks

File: According to legend, the devil is said to have molested Martin Luther in the winter of 1521:1522 in his room on the Wartburg in Thuringia.jpg (239KB, 1150x862px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1150x862px

>>1640821
>That's in reference to him becoming sin on the cross
No, since as he clarified in the second quote: "For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandonned by God for a short time? Psalms 8:6"

As for the first quote...:
>“Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has he been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”
(Table Talk , Weimar edition, vol. 2., no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532; Wiener, p. 33).

...GOOD LUCK WITH THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS!

>>1640851
Why are a set of words that point to him is treated as holy?

That practically amounts to word worship by Protestant logic

File: Jesus_094.jpg (199KB, 459x595px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 459x595px

>>1640869
We love our Daddy's name.

>>1640859
Psalms 18:6*

>>1640847

You are missing the point of the commandment. Sometimes you need to use common sense in your reading comprehension.

Why does the commandment state that our god is a jealous god?
Because the worship of other gods is wrong. Because the worship of other gods is wrong, the creation of idols of these gods is prohibited.

Unless the image is being worshipped or viewed of as legitimate, there is no sin.

>>1640849
>"Sometimes we must drink more, sport, recreate ourselves, aye, and even sin a little to spite the devil, so that we leave him no place for troubling our consciences with trifles. We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all. So when the devil says to you, “Do not drink,” answer him, “I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to.” One must always do what Satan forbids. What other cause do you think that I have for drinking so much strong drink, talking so freely and making merry so often, except that I wish to mock and harass the devil who is wont to mock and harass me. Would that I could contrive some great sin to spite the devil, that he might understand that I would not even then acknowledge it and that I was conscious of no sin whatever. We, whom the devil thus seeks to annoy, should remove the whole Decalogue from our hearts and minds."
He makes a good point, if we delude ourselves into thinking we may not sin we will fall into what you call prelest.

>Ah, right, we might end up being the Publican instead of the Pharisee if we were contrite.
The publican is repentent, not penetent.

>>1640878
Because giving worship to anything other than God is sinful. Our God shares his glory with no one.

>>1640859
>"For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandonned by God for a short time? Psalms 8:6"
Literally proving my point.

>>1640885

Exactally! So creating an image of angels or saints and not worshipping them is not sinful!

Glad we can agree again!

>>1640871
Well then do Protestants treat the name of Yahweh as so holy you cannot say it in front of heathens or risk defiling it?

Or even risk saying the name itself?

>>1640898
>But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

>>1640879
>He makes a good point, if we delude ourselves into thinking we may not sin we will fall into what you call prelest.
I think you need to re-read him, because there was nothing there about presuming your are sinless. He said "We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all." and that he would like to sin and not even be conscious of it in order to spite the Devil. That has nothing to do with thinking yourself sinless.

>The publican is repentent, not penetent.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=penitence

The Publican is CONTRITE, which you just said isn't good.

>>1640911
>"We are conquered if we try too conscientiously not to sin at all."
That's true. Like i said, he makes a good point.

>http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=penitence

>The Publican is CONTRITE, which you just said isn't good.
Penetance involves doing works to make things right.

>>1640909

>natural man

What about spiritual men?

>spiritually discerned

Guess that answers my question right there.

Also, how did the Jews create cherubim for the ark?

File: Water to wine.gif (958KB, 476x281px) Image search: [Google]

958KB, 476x281px

>>1640908
We call on Him daily.

EL
GOD
YHWH
JESUS
ADONAI
JEHOVAH

>>1640894
Jesus, from birth till death and resurrection, never ceased to be Holy. Claiming otherwise is blasphemy.

Hey /his/, recently I was walking back from the tailor's with my Sunday Best when I thought of a theological problem.


Unfortunately, I am too wulgar to approach it myself.


Maybe you could clue me in:


How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

>>1640916
>That's true. Like i said, he makes a good point.
No, he doesn't. We should be conscientiously trying to not sin at all, and we should conscientiously dwell on every sin we commit and feel contrition for it.

>Penetance involves doing works to make things right.
It means a "change of mind" (in Greek; in English, a "change of heart" is the equivilant phrase). Pretty sure your actions are a part of that.

>>1640930
Angels are incorporeal, they have no size.

>>1640919
Therefore proving that the Jewish practice of not saying the Tetragrammatron as proof that they venerate this name and see it as holy.

But that is a mere word and only God is holy and any veneration be directed to him

>>1640942
You can have anal sex with them you filthy whore

File: rickgriffin.jpg (78KB, 525x398px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 525x398px

>>1640947
Jesus is the Word.

>>1640952
I'll wash your mouth out with soap young man if you don't stop talking all that secular lingo.

>>1640957
Word refers not to a mere set of "words"

File: 1449997924597.jpg (2MB, 1821x3111px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1821x3111px

>>1640957

>>1640961
I'll fill it with my cum

And then anally devastate you

>>1640961
What does the church teach about straight anal and oral sex?

marital of course

File: tftt5.jpg (71KB, 418x530px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 418x530px

>>1640972
Words are weird.

File: Hierarchy (Jesus Approved Edition).png (264KB, 747x1592px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 747x1592px

>>1640975

>>1640975
The Orthodox aren't Babylon, at least not in their current state. They have little power on the world stage and lack the ambition the RCC does. At worst, they're misguided borderline-pagans like the Gnostics. Sure, in the future it might change, but for now it doesn't seem likely.

>>1640986
Ergo, Protestants worship word rather than the actual Christ himself

ala, Jews venerating a mere set of words referring to Yahweh

>>1640993
What about the Church Fathers like Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus...etc?

I heard that their beliefs all contradict Protestantism

>>1641001
The early Church was deeply protestant.

File: crucifix.jpg (63KB, 500x530px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x530px

>>1640995
Christ is the Word.

>>1640975
SDAs aren't even christian

File: 9781565633711.jpg (44KB, 346x500px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 346x500px

>>1641010
No. Study Church history.

>>1641010
Can you explain this statement by Ignatius,

"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."

"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6

I did not know Protestants like you believe the Eucharist to be the flesh of Christ and the medicine of immortality

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."

-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20

>>1641011
A mere set of words

amazing

>>1641001
Peter denied Jesus 3 times, James originally wanted gentiles to follow OT laws, many of the Apostles lacked the faith to believe Jesus would protect them from the storm, we all know what happened to Judas and Paul was a serious asshole. Putting your faith into any one human leader is a recipe for disaster. The "church fathers" believing something is no grounds for such a thing being true.

>>1640961
I'm not that wulgar. It sounds like a real party on that pinhead, with no upper limit on the guest list.

The whole "multitude of the heavenly host" dancing... a mazurka! Maybe one day I'll get an invite too.

>>1641010
>Tradition
>Protestant

Please.

File: The Way.jpg (194KB, 585x913px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 585x913px

>>1641022
True Words.

>>1641024
So why would we want to even trust these men to write down books of the NT?

File: good proddy boy.png (609KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 540x720px

>>1641015
Of course not, but they're proddies like you, your mormon brethren too.

>>1641032
Either way, the way Jews treat the word Yahweh is idolatry by Protestant standards

Given that it is not Yahweh himself treated with respect but a mere set of words

>>1641034
We shouldn't necessarily "trust" them. The Bible is flawed and incomplete, and historically a collection of political desicions. It is a starting point to know Jesus, not the end-all-be-all.

>>1641019
It's a forgery, the Whore of Babylon modified many early Church statements since of course, it had them all in its possession and the originals are surely kept secret in the Vatican's archives.

File: Final form.jpg (148KB, 310x403px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 310x403px

>>1641038
The Synagogue of Satan is idolatrous yes.

File: 1442942729728.jpg (131KB, 624x766px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 624x766px

>>1641036
>non-trinitarians

File: book-of-mormon-b5-f284032c05.jpg (69KB, 680x370px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 680x370px

>>1641049
Still proddies.

>>1641044
Isn't it funny how that kinda undermines Sola Scriptura?

>>1641045
Show me the true writings of Ignatius

I am waiting.

And even if it is a forgery, where is the historical evidence for some Early Protestant sect?

No mention, no traces...nothing

>>1641046
Is Ignatius of Antioch an idolater?

>>1641058
>No mention, no traces...nothing
Thanks to the Whore of Babylon.

File: Hulkster.gif (940KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 500x283px

>>1641059
That's not my department.

Adios.

>>1641058
>Isn't it funny how that kinda undermines Sola Scriptura?
Sola Scriptura is a doctrine relevant only from the perspective of moving away from a tradition, not failing to acknowledge the tradition in the first place. And in any case, it would be wrong. Scripture is only words on a page, important words, but still ultimately just words. To put your faith in them rather than the one who inspired them would be a mistake.

>>1641060
>history doesn't go my way
>it m-must be the whore of babilon
>muh babilon

>>1641067
Sola Scriptura presupposes Scripture as perfect and easy to read for those enlightened with the Spirit. The latter is important so that one doesn't need Tradition to read Scripture.

Sola Scriptura acknowledges Tradition on one condition, it agrees with Scripture. So in the end, Tradition doesn't really have authority at all

>>1641075
Tradition has implicit authority from moment to moment, the "handing over" of what was authoritative before. Where must it originate? Scripture is one possibility, and unwritten practice from the earliest of times is another. Tradition in the absence of scripture could be disputed on the grounds of inaccurate "handing over," but this does not suggest to me that scripture is required for authority. Who knows what the ravages of time have done to christian practices across 2000 years?

I will concede that, as a historian, I tend to want scriptural antecedents because it's silly to argue without sources.

>>1641145
Scripture originated from the Oral Traditions and preaching of the Church, at least for the NT corpus.

The Scripture of the first Christians would be the Jewish OT(and it seems they prefer the Septuagint). But this doesn't come alone. It came with a set mechanism of interpretation and the preaching of Christ.

In other words, Scripture and Tradition are inseparable in their existence from the beginning of Christianity. Sometimes to the point where they aren't distinguished in content(see Irenaeus for example)

>>1641015
How so?

File: häh.png (136KB, 505x431px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 505x431px

> be leader of the church and hold keys to the heaven
> live like degenerate and decadent

"pious romans"

Cucktholic foot fetishists have a lot of nerve to show up and speak with their Zika and AIDS infected mouths any word whatsoever about them being the true church.