>catholics don't pray to ma-

File: 1488864879545.jpg (29KB, 250x426px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x426px

>>2507280
Is she touching her little fingers to her thumbs?

Who made this?

>>2507280
Thats it, Catholicism is finished

>>2507280
Erma gawd1! Kafalism btfo

File: YHWH.jpg (99KB, 908x728px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 908x728px

>Christians pray to Go-

>>2507315
Stop posting this pic, you lying sack of shit.

Just fuck off already.

File: 1487477823192.jpg (50KB, 429x414px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 429x414px

>>2507315
anthropomorphic YHWH best YHWH

>>2507333

>tfw u realise u been praying to an antropomorphic jewish bbc the whole time

>>2507297
>just now figuring out personal traditionalism is correct and all major religions lead to God when practiced correctly.

>>2507346

>buddhism leads to god

Hate to burst your bubble there...

>>2507333
It's real you nigger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuntillet_Ajrud

>>2507361
But what does it mean?

>>2507380

It means that god isn't real

>>2507380
It means that YHWH has a massive cock

No one is treating her as a god.

>>2507389

From an anthropological perspective they definitely are

>>2507389
yeah I mean she's just a divine figure in heaven free from sin who can answer prayers and use magic to grant wishes

Why do Christians get so hung up on not having minor gods? God himself, in his commandments, only demands that you worship him first and foremost. I think that leaves room to revere the Virgin Mary.

>>2507398
>anthropological
Kys

>>2507409
>God himself, in his commandments, only demands that you worship him first and foremost
It's not just the christians, the Jews have been hung up on this ever since King Josiah

>>2507389
If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and walks like a duck...

>>2507410

>can't use different critical frameworks

After you, my dude

File: 1482572022599.jpg (17KB, 550x550px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 550x550px

>>2507423
quack

>>2507409
>More pagan Catholics finally seeing their own sad sorry state.

>>2507432

>more protestants proud that they pray exclusively to the cowman bbc aka yhwh

>>2507380
It means that Arabs were pagans. Still are.

It's in Arabic.

>>2507389
Can she hear a billion prayers directed to her at once?

Then she has godlike powers.

>>2507443
Protestants died out 500 years ago. They were Catholics.

You posted the Arabic nonsense?

That has nothing to do with God.

>>2507450

>The inscriptions are mostly in early Hebrew with some in Phoenician script.

Try again sweety

>>2507443
The title "YHWH of Samaria" is used to describe the God of Samaria (in the northern Kingdom of Israel) and that Kingdom was known to openly accept idolatry.

>>2507462
>>2507468

Do you read what you cite to? No?

Do you know the Jews hated the Samaritans? No?

Sweetie?

>>2507458

what the actual fuck are you talking about you retarded cow worshipper?

>>2507468
>>2507474

>b-but thats the other yhwh not the real one in the sky right now!

>>2507476
Catholic church. Martin Luther. Protesting. 500 years ago.

They're all dead now.

Calling someone a "protestant" now is saying you believe men live over 500 years.

My God spoke cows into existence; I'm not a Hindu.

>>2507488
Correct. The Samaritans had no covenant with YHWH, and worshiped YHWH not in the temple in Jerusalem but on their own mountain, their own way.

There's a story of this with Jesus speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well.

Samaritans were half breed Jews and the Jews hated them.

>>2507489

>protestants don't exist
>god does exist

Wew @ this cognitive dissonance

>>2507489
have you never heard of the Lutheran church?

>>2507492

Cool mental gymnastics, my idolatrous dude

>>2507380
Judaism is false

>>2507496
Protestants existed 500 years ago.

God is eternal.

I have like zero cognitive dissonance.

>>2507498
The one where the members are called "Lutherans"?

Yes, I've heard of it.

Have you heard the sad attempt by popery to attempt to be the Christian hub for the world, and failing hard?

>>2507512

lol

>>2507506
If you don't want answers, don't ask questions.

>>2507492
>The Samaritans had no covenant with YHWH, and worshiped YHWH not in the temple in Jerusalem but on their own mountain, their own way
pretty sure Elijah didn't sacrifice in the temple either, but on Mount Carmel. nor did Solomon when he sacrificed on the high place right after he became king. this was before the temple was built, but the ark of the covenant was on the spot of the future temple and still should have served as the designated place for sacrifices.

>>2507525
So dumb. So arrogant. Dumb and arrogant.

2 Kings 17:29 However every nation continued to make gods of its own, and put them in the shrines on the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities where they dwelt.

John 4
The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”

>>2507536
Do you truly believe Judaism and Christanity didn't change over the course of 3000 years? The Bible has significant Phoenician, Egyptian, Babylonian, and Hellenic elements.

>>2507568

If it ain't g*d dang bible troof i dun wana hear a g*d dang thang bout it boi

>>2507536
yes yes, ignore the contradictions I've pointed out. Perhaps if you were actually somewhat well-read in the bible you would have been able to point to the poorly writte justification of Solomon's sacrifice on the high place which is in 1st Chronicles. how about one more contradiction for you: Samuel, the priest, in an Ephraimite, not a levite

>>2507613
And Jesus is the High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek, not the Levites.

Were not the Levites still in Abraham's nutsack when he tithed to Melchizedek?

No, you think your DNA will get you a place in heaven. You fool. If God wanted descendants of Abraham only, he would have made them out of rocks.

>>2507432
I'm just a sentimental atheist defending Catholics actually, desu

>>2507648
yet again you miss the entire point: only Levites were to serve as priests under the Law. Melchizedek wasn't under this covenant since he lived long before it. if you dispute this you should read Numbers.

File: b66ce90eeeca701fa17af2b69d066e07.jpg (196KB, 736x1080px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 736x1080px

Behead those who insult our Goddess, the Blessed Virgin, Holy Theotokos, Mother of God, and Queen of Heaven.

Whatever power Mary has, God has given to her. Mary isn't a goddess, she's a servant, like all the saints and the angels. The pagans believe each god has innate power, Catholics don't believe that for the servants of God. All power ultimately flows from the Lord.

File: wormwood god.jpg (91KB, 403x640px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 403x640px

>>2507361
But it's not an object of worship / religious icon, it's a fucking mockery. It's pretty much on par with pic related.

>>2507280
Nobody ever said Catholics don't pray to Mary. Mary being the sinless mother of God who holds a position of special advocacy with her divine son is biblical.

>>2507280
But anon, prayer is not the same as worship. Every Catholic with a basic grasp of the faith understands that God alone is to be worshipped.

>>2507315
>>2507335
>atheists invent pseudo-history in their mind in a desperate attempt to discredit the Bible

nice try, but nobody falls for your shitty bait

>>2508831
>sinless mother of God
>biblical

nice

>>2508831
>special advocacy
>biblical

lol

>>2508831

source

>>2507315
What is this image?

>>2509242
>archeology causes me cognitive dissonance

>>2509440
Pagan idols and edgy atheists pretending those idols are the God of the Bible.

>>2509445
Got some scholarly sources on that?

>>2509279
>>2509310
>>2509417
>"Hail, Mary, full of Grace." -Archangel Gabriel
"Full of Grace" implies a lack of sin.

>Christ = God, Mary = Christ's Mother

>Asking for, and being granted a miracle from Christ before the time at which He is to reveal himself
>Not preferential advocacy

>>2509575
>"Full of Grace" implies a lack of sin.
lol what? even Catholics state that the gift of Grace is UNMERITED

>>2509575
No man or woman was without sin. To say would imply they had no need for Jesus to bridge the gap between Man and God.

File: 1482566144540.jpg (789KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

789KB, 1600x1200px

>>2509591
That's not what I mean. The Greek term used here in the original text is basically synonymous with sinless. She was made that way with her immaculate conception (conceived without original sin) in order to be a suitable bearer of Christ. At least I think that's the reasoning, doctrinal sources would confirm.

>>2508831
>>2508872
Catholics often say they don't pray to Mary, they will say they pray with her or through her. The prayer OP posted looks to me like praying to her.

>>2507357
The Buddha is silent on God.

>>2509904
Those Catholics are misinformed, we do pay to saints. The distinction is that prayer itself is not a form of worship, it simply means to ask or petition.
I think the biggest thing that non Catholics have a problem with is the idea that God would grant saints the power to carry out His will though miracles, which, I should add, may not be how it is understood in the church. Don't take my word for this, you'd have to find the church's official doctrine on the matter.

>>2509896
Lmao how can God be a human? That's actually retarded. You can't reconcile the divine and the temporal.

>>2507346
>le perennialist meme

>>2509934

Because the question of god is irrelevant to a true understanding of reality

>>2507389
>has thousands statues and paintings venerating her
>catholics pray in front of these images
>catholics directly address Mary in their prayers
>catholics style Mary as "Mother of God"
>catholics believe Mary can cause divine intercession
>catholics carry talismans for the sole purpose of reciting special prayers asking Mary for divine intercession

Look, I know theologically you're only asking Mary to pray FOR you, but the practices themselves are almost indistinguishable from prayer and worship.

>>2507409
Mormons actually took that to its logical conclusion and are monolatrist (worshipping one God) rather than monotheist. They believe in Jesus as a separate divine being, that humans can become "like God", and that there's a Heavenly Mother as well as a Heavenly Father. Makes about as much sense as Catholicism, lol.

>>2507518
>popery

5/7 bait made me kek

>>2509963
Your level of thinking is that of ancient Irish peasants.

>>2509896
>it's biblical
>doctrine affirms that this one vague line confirms that Mary was a holy figure.

Acts 6:
"Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, performed great wonders and signs among the people."

I guess Stephen is divine too. Pack it up lads.

File: 1481730697873.png (72KB, 500x604px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x604px

>>2510057
Doesn't make it wrong. They hadn't been spooked yet.

>>2509445
But isn't that just fetishism?
Animism has existed for much longer than the concept of god.

>>2509896
Uhh, afraid that's a lie, m8
The fact that's bullshit probably has something to do with the fact no one believed this for centuries

>>2509959
Prayer is an act of worship

>>2507280
No one denies Catholics "pray" to Mary.
If you want to go full prod and say prayer = worship, go for it, but at least be able to understand that the distinction can be drawn between the two.

>>2510038
>almost indistinguishable
But since they ARE different, nothing is wrong except the inability of Protestants to understand.

>hurr let us write books in our language so we can understand the faith
>fails to understand theological terms in own language

>this book is infallible
>therefore our interpretations will be infallible, unlike yours, because reasons
Protestantism was a mistake.

>>2510322
It is not, look up the archaic meaning of the word "pray" It literally mean to ask earnestly

>>2510063
In the original Greek text Stephen is not described in the same manner as the Blessed Virgin.
πλήρης χάριτος is used to describe him.
kecharitōmenē is used to describe her.
Also, I never said that Mary is divine, only God is divine.

>>2507723
nobody thinks mary is a goddess except Muhammad you fucking retard.

>>2510422
>>therefore our interpretations will be infallible
The only ones who believe there is such a thing as an infallible interpretation are Roman Catholics
>>2510940
Prayer always refers to worship. Prayer and pray are different words. It's also telling that you absolutely have to use the archaic meaning to defend it, but in explaining it you must use the modern definition.

>>2511467
This. Only Stephen and Jesus in the bible are "full of grace".

Mary is "favored" and "blessed", never "full of grace".

>>2509896
That's just a papist lie. A lie generated in like 1854.

Stop believing lies.

Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, not all but Mary.

>>2511533
Saint Gabriel says Mary is full of grace in certain ancient manuscripts.

>>2509934
Not now he isn't. He's weeping, and wailing, and gnashing his teeth in torment.

>>2511543

First off, Gabriel is not a saint. He's an angel.

Secondly, no, no they do not.

Thirdly, Mary would be appalled at people trying to talk to her after she died. Just appalled.

>>2511551
Angels are Saints. Yes they do. And no she wouldn't.

>>2511551
>First off, Gabriel is not a saint. He's an angel.
You've never heard of "Saint Micheal the Archangel" before?

>>2511555
This just displays your utter ignorance at anything relating to Christianity.

Be content with Catholicism or Islam, can't really tell which you belong to, and take your consequences as a man.

>>2511558
I've heard all sorts of absolute rubbish emanating from the Vatican. Including that they get to vote on who is a saint and who is not.

Go ahead and show me in the bible where either Gabriel or Michael is referred to as a saint.

>>2511555
Mary has never heard from you.

Mary will never hear from you.

You will never meet Mary.

Unless you repent, and are saved.

>>2511567
Orthodox call the Angel Micheal a Saint as well. Only Protashits don't I guess.

File: Christians vs Protestants.jpg (2MB, 1845x2331px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1845x2331px

>>2511559
>implying Proteshits know about Christianity

>>2511567
>saint, also historically known as a hallow, is a term used for a person who is recognized as having an exceptional degree of holiness or likeness to God
Anon, please tell me, are you seriously saying that angels are either not holy or not like God?
Or hell, even using the original definition of "any believer who is "in Christ" and in whom Christ dwells, whether in Heaven or on Earth," are you seriously implying that saints either don't believe in God, don't have Christ in them or aren't in heaven or on earth?

I'd love to see what you define as a saint such that angels don't fit the bill.

>>2511510
The modern definition isn't worship either.

>>2511577
Every single human being alive can call Gabriel a saint; it will not change the fact that he is an angel.

And not a saint.

It's almost, and bear with me here, as though you haven't the foggiest idea what a saint is.

>>2511606
The divide is between Catholics/Orthodox and Christians, not Christians and "protestants", presumably like Martin Luther who were Catholics themselves and protested how evil the Vatican was.

>>2511624
Yes, I am saying exactly that.

satan is an angel. Is he holy, or like God?

>>2511648
>being this conceited

>>2511654
Satan is a fallen angel. Gabriel and Micheal aren't.

>>2511624
Simple.

Saints are all born again Christians who have been sanctified by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God.

We were made to house the Holy Spirit.

Angels were not.

Hence no plan of redemption for angels; the ones who fell (are they saints?) are going to hell 100% for sure.

>>2511655
kek

Speaking the truth is conceit?

What is it called when you lie, and call it the truth?

>>2511636
2590"Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God" (St. John Damascene,De fide orth. 3, 24:PG 94, 1089C).

>>2511658
Are you saying that satan changed from being an angel into something else?

Because that's not what the bible says.

Oh, but you don't care what the bible says, only what your priest says. Hopefully you're one of the lucky ones who didn't have to do the "special eucharist", if you know what I mean.

>>2511662
>Saints are all born again Christians
You're retarded.

>>2511667
Nah, it's just talking to God. It's not complicated.

>>2511670
By defining my terms? And by being correct?

I hardly think so.

>>2511668
I'm saying Gabriel and micheal retain closeness to God. This saintly status. Satan doesn't.

>>2511658
>Satan is a fallen angel.
Not in biblical lore I don't think.

>>2511676
Yes, I know how many ways you're wrong about this. You don't need to keep digging.

Still nothing from the bible about angels being saints.

I wonder why.

>>2511679
He is, actually. He just never was a saint.

These idiots are saying all angels are saints; then they backtracked to all angels who did not rebel against God are saints.

So in other words, they believe that a saint can become not a saint.

Idiots.

>>2511667
While obviously if you are praying to something you dont consider God, that definition would not apply.

Prayer comes from an Latin word that means to request or entreat. while the modern definition has divine connotations that is not how it is used when you are talking about prayer to saints

>>2511654
>satan is an angel. Is he holy, or like God?
Satan is a fallen angel. He was holy and like God before his fall.
>>2511662
>Saints are all born again Christians who have been sanctified by the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God.
What or who defines a Christian? You?
>We were made to house the Holy Spirit.
>Angels were not.
Please present the evidence. Where is it said that "angels don't house the Holy Spirit?" Can God and His Spirit, being all powerful, not dwell within angels?

>>2511688
This is from the Catholic catechism.

>>2511680
Maybe because actual Christian sects never subscribed to sola scriptora until some guy thought it up in the Renaissance?

>>2511700
And Catholics believe in the infallible interpretation? Because this sounds like fan fiction to me.

>>2507423
it can be a duck robot tho

>>2511709
>And Catholics believe in the infallible interpretation?
On rare occasions yes.
It's really simple. God is infallible. God has spoken and can speak through mortal men. Because God's word is infallible, those He speaks through speak infallibly.
Do you disagree that God is infallible? Or that He can't speak through mortal men?

One can debate if the Pope does indeed speak for God, but the burden of proof is on you as you're the one claiming he doesn't.

Nobody ever denied that Catholics prayed to Mary. You're conflating prayer with worship but pray literally means "to ask." You pray to your mother every time you ask her to microwave a hot pocket.

>>2507280
Damn ancient Israel faiths, go home, and get out of Europe.

>>2511690
Your theology is so absurd.

John 3
Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ...

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?

Titus 3
But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

>>2511700
Maybe no Christian prior to Catholicism believed that the bible was optional?

>>2511732

What if your mom were dead?

Would you continue asking her for hot pockets?

>>2511742

There's no reason that you can't keep asking for hot pockets.

File: BY7915-Mani-Founder-of-Manicheism[1].jpg (89KB, 490x439px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 490x439px

>>2511738
Plenty of early Christian sects wrote up their views before there even was a canon that we call today "bible". It's just that the Roman Trinitarians called it "heresy" and violently persecuted them. Even to this day you are poisoned by their example of blind intolerance and stubbornness.

>>2511734
You have not proven that Angels can not house the Holy Spirit.
I never once denied that men are made to house it, or that salvation is through Christ and rebirth in baptisim.

Your issue isn't your definitions of saint or Christian, it's the presumption that Angels can not fit those categories. You have no evidence of that, and are relying upon an argument from ignorance to """""prove""""" your claim.
You just assume angles don't fit those definitions, but you fail to prove that as fact

>>2511725
>My guy speaks for God
>Prove that he doesn't

>>2511757
If you were at a friend's house, and you knew his mother was dead, and he kept asking his mom to bring you two hot pockets, would you think he may be a little off?

>>2511766
Canon is merely a collection of books. The proper 66 books of the bible were finished by the end of the 1st century, and the history of the "early church" is written of in the New Testament.

>>2511738
Why do the Orthodox, church the of east and others have the same view? because with the exception of Gnostic and Messianic Jews all early Christians stemmed from the same basic structure which put the tradition on par with the bible.

this isn't theology or religious opinion, its widely agreed upon history

>>2511770
Again, you believe that all angels were saints, and then some angels became not saints.

And again, you have absolutely no bible verses to show anyone that angels are saints.

These are just the teachings of men who rule over you.

>>2511789
Why do people at funerals say their dead beloved child is an angel now?

Same error. Same foolishness. Same lack of critical thinking.

>>2511778

Yeas I would, because hot pockets are a stupid thing to request from dead people.

>>2511803
I just explained to you why. Are you disputing what I said?

>>2511775
I never claimed the pope speaks for God, or that he doesn't.
I simply showed that infallibility is indeed possible, and said "your implying the pope is not, so prove it"
So either prove it or shut the hell up, because you're the one making the claim.
>>2511796
>And again, you have absolutely no bible verses to show anyone that angels are saints.
Because I don't use the same definition as you, and thus don't need to go to bible verses.

You're the one relying on sola scriptura, not me, so prove that the bible says the angels don't fit your definition. I don't rely upon it, nor does my definition, so I don't need to use it, because I'm defining saint in such a way that angels, by their very nature, fall under the definition.

>>2511815
Among many other things, yes. Because as it turns out, dead people don't hear us and cannot deliver.

Kind of like OP.

>>2511817
Yes, I'm saying that no matter how many idiots think human beings and angels can both be saints, they're all wrong.

That's the rub with objective truth. No matter how many people believe a lie, it never becomes true.

I'll be shocked if I survey heaven and find more than 5% of either Catholics or Orthodox there.

You people simply do not know how to be saved.

File: 8.jpg (171KB, 548x618px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 548x618px

>>2511824

There it is.

>>2511823
Yes, your complete lack of biblical foundations for your beliefs about things in the bible should be a huge red flag for you.

Should be.

If you're rational.

File: mad.jpg (102KB, 500x346px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 500x346px

>>2511823
LOL u mad bro?

>>2511830
Are you new? I believe I was calling him a faggot, not a fedora.

Can't say he isn't both though.

>>2511826
I meant about Church history. If we cant agree on history there is little else to talk about

>>2511844
Church history is in the bible.

Your history is not the history of the church. They just lied and told you it was.

And you believed them. That's on you.

>>2511840

Did you reply to the wrong person? I have no idea what you're talking about.

>>2511833
>Yes, your complete lack of biblical foundations for your beliefs about things in the bible should be a huge red flag for you.
No, not really. Seeing as Protestants ignore James with the whole "sola fide" thing, it's quite clear both sides don't rely upon the bible and the bible alone, at least I admit that I'm relying upon tradition.

What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/3

>>2511857

Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

2/3

Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles,

3/3

>proddies will never answer this

>>2511850
That's being too high, son. Take it down a notch.

>>2511851
We don't ignore James at all. We see him for what he is.

Johnny come lately who never believed his own brother was the messiah until after the resurrection.

Who then set himself up as an expert with zero knowledge and judaized people from the Temple.

If you don't know James and Paul had conflicts, you ....wait, of course you haven't read the bible carefully. You're not a christian.

>>2511857
>Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment.

This is obviously a lie, as Jesus called Peter Cepheus before this. Which also means Rock.

John 1
One of the two who heard John speak, and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41 He first found his own brother Simon, and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, A Stone).

>>2511858
Yes, God is called the Rock 53 times in the bible. You'd think people like you would catch on.

Let's play a fun game. Let's pick the more obvious foundation for the church that will be the Bride in heaven.

Foundation 1: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God; or

Foundation 2: Peter, called satan that very day you speak of.

>>2511863
Peter? Infallible? Then why did Paul dress him down in front of everyone for pretending to be kosher when the Jerusalem Judaized Christians came into town?

Peter's teachings? When he said he could not even understand Paul's teachings, Peter is "infallible"?

Too much.

And Vicar of Christ and Antichrist are the same terms in latin and Greek, respectively.

>>2511882
>We don't ignore James at all. We see him for what he is.
Top kek.
"James 2:14-26: What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
>and not by faith only.
>not by faith only

>>no guys, Sole Fide, faith alone, only faith, that's all you need
>>we're 100% in line with the bible guys.
>>except when it disagrees with us. Then you're just interpreting it wrong, or the author is wrong.

Protestants, everyone

>>2511900
>Foundation 1: Jesus, the Christ, the Son of the Living God; or

>Foundation 2: Peter, called satan that very day you speak of.

Let's play an even more fun game. Guess which of the above is petra in the Greek, and which one is Petros?

>>2511906
>>2511900
>>2511894

Try reading the actual posts

>>2511910
Again, since you cannot read and understand the bible, you do not know that James is a Judaizer and is speaking to the saved about works of the Law.

Here's the clear text from the greatest apostle to ever live, Paul. Not James, the never apostle who was never ordained....

Romans 4
What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”

Hmnmnm, greatest apostle receiving revelations directly from Jesus, or Jesus' white trash half brother who never believed in him.....

Such a tough choice.

>>2507280
She was bad mother. Only two children. And she allowed to one of them be sectarian instead of be a normal jew.

>>2511918
I read them and responded to the errors in them. Which is evidence I read them.

Which is evidence you have zero truth in you.

>>2511928
She had 5 sons and at least 2 daughters.

>>2511688
>While obviously if you are praying to something you dont consider God, that definition would not apply.
Simply add the indefinite article and it is accurate

>>2511928
Mark 6:3 Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?” So they were offended at Him.

>>2511929

Every objection you had was answered in the post. You just read the first one, got triggered, and started running your mouth.

>>2511936
Note by this time Joseph is already dead.

Note that on the cross Jesus gave John the care of his mother, and none of these people.

>>2511926
>come into thread
>see that you're shitting up the discussion again

well I guess I'll just kill myself

>>2511940
They weren't. There were merely lies there. Written in Aramaic? That's a lie. The Greek is not inspired? It was not by inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Petros is not the petra?

Then why believe anything in the bible? Why not go full Bart Ehrman and deny its reliability completely?

Paul did not dress down Peter? Do you want the verses? Peter never held himself above any of the other apostles, and in fact was sent on errands by them. Nobody ever took Peter as the leader over them. Ever.

Until the Catholics needed a lie to claim ownership of the church.

>>2511857
>What is the biblical justification for the papacy?

Nothing but Catholic lies.

Nothing but man made traditions.

>>2511930
I did know that. Anyway his son was the sectarian, and his husband was cuckold. Why Jehovah don't used an unmarried virgin? Or she married later?

>>2511926
>Hmnmnm, greatest apostle receiving revelations directly from Jesus, or Jesus' white trash half brother who never believed in him.....
So then James is wrong?
Which means the bible is wrong?
In that case, sola scriptura is wrong, because the bible is faulty.

Moreover, you throw all these insults towards James, while conveniently ignore the fact that Paul killed Christians before his conversion.

>>2511858
>Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

This is insane on so many grounds that to believe its contorted logic is to succumb to madness.

>I shall name you Petros, and upon you, Petros, will I build my church.

--Things Jesus never said.

>>2511863
>Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will.

No, it was for his doctrine. Holy shit. Peter just said to Jesus that he shouldn't go get himself killed. And then Peter pretended that Christians had to be kosher.

Both are doctrine. Neither are will.

Wherever you copied this from, never return.

>>2511958
>>2511970
It should be pretty obvious that he was given a special position in relation to the other apostles.

>>2511985
>>2511976
>>2511970
>>2511958

You're such a spaz dude

>>2511930
Such a cool place was Hellenic Roman Empire and that time, I even can't afford myself two children.

>>2511971
There was no sexual immorality involved in the impregnation of Mary, so no, Joseph was not "cucked".

Here's why.

Mary was betrothed. One year, with no sexual congress with anyone including her betrothed. Sworn to and it was a blood oath.

So when she turns up pregnant, we know she is a virgin because Joseph is going to divorce her. Joseph knows he did not have sex with her, and as his betrothed, she would not have sex with anyone but Joseph.

Both were visited by the angel Gabriel, and both agreed to be the parents of the Messiah.

The sign to the world promised by Isaiah was that a boy would be born of a virgin. The betrothed Mary fulfilled that sign in a way a single Mary could not have.

>>2511991
He's not a spaz, he is extremely autistic. He shits up every single thread on Christianity with the same bullshit over and over again.

>>2511974
James is a Judaizer. If you want to be accursed, be a Jew.

James is not talking about salvation. At all. James is not talking about Jesus being God. At all.

James is saying it's better to give a cold homeless man a blanket than it is to walk by him and say "be warm".

It's only you papists and other ignorant people who think James is speaking of salvation. Because you think you can work your way into heaven.

You can put God in your debt.

>>2511987
They were all given the same powers as he, but for the keys. And Peter used the keys twice, once to open heaven for the Jews at Pentecost, and once to open heaven to the Gentiles after witnessing the salvation of Cornelius' house.

The keys were used; the gates of heaven are open to both Jew and Gentile, meaning everyone.

The keys have no more use to them. The satanic idea that a child molester on a throne in Rome can keep a person out of heaven or let them buy their way in is anathema.

>>2511991
Perhaps. Or perhaps the things being discussed in here have eternal ramifications you have not contemplated yet.

File: breh.jpg (52KB, 538x456px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 538x456px

>>2512006
You go, buddy! Show those stupid papists the 100% TRUE and absolutely CORRECT Biblical views

>>2511993
Poor people tend to have a ton of kids because not all of them make it, it makes the work easier on the family farm, and if one of them does strike it rich, they will take care of you in your old age.

Low birth rates is a sign of low infant mortality and widespread wealth.

>>2512002
The truth never changes, nor am I autistic.

Even on non-spiritual matters you cannot post the simple truth.

>>2512021
They're in the bible for all to read, and for any with the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit to understand.

>>2511999
>parents of the Messiah.
You are not Jew, why you care about Jewish prophecies and about Jewish Messiah?

>>2512026
No, you are extremely autistic. I am honestly surprised you haven't started tripfagging yet. You might as well, actually, because as soon as I start seeing retarded hyperproddy bullshit I know you've come to ruin another thread.

>>2512034
Because he's the only way to get to heaven. Because the Jews rejected him, heaven was opened to all who believe, whether they are Jew or not.

As Jesus said, thieves and prostitutes will enter into the Kingdom of God before you pharisees will.

>>2512006
No, he says "faith without works is dead"
That statement, despite all you may do to try and deny it, clealry says "faith" means nothing or "is dead" if you don't have works "without works".

Your denying the obvious in an attempt to justofy your ridiculous beliefs and as such you'll get no more (You)s after this one from me, instead of just saying "sole fide is wrong." Not like you proddies aren't given to changing, why not just admit that "faith alone" isn't biblical?

>>2511999
>There was no sexual immorality involved in the >impregnation of Mary
Joseph loved Mary. They wanted be together. Jehovah was third unnecessary.

>>2512037
You're allergic to the truth. There's only one known cure for it, and his name is Jesus.

Perhaps you'd like to advise the other posters on any matter upon which I have not posted the gospel truth.

>>2512048
Dead faith is still faith. It would be an absence of faith that would be troublesome.

If you want to be a Jew Christian, knock yourself out. Just be a Christian first, before you give up trying to be a Jew.

>>2512045
>Because he's the only way to get to heaven.
Every religion said so.

>>2512050
Jehovah was necessary if the Messiah was to be born. He asked permission of Mary, she said yes. They presented it to Joseph as a fait accomplit, and he consented to remain.

If you don't think Joseph and Mary have special places in heaven, you don't know Jesus very well at all.

>>2511847
Do academics lie too? Wait, that was a stupid question. Of someone disagrees with you they are ether a liar or stupid. sorry I asked

>>2512057
Most religions tell you that you have to perfect yourself in order to achieve some sort of positive outcome, whether finite or eternal.

Jesus sets people free from all that rubbish and takes us as we are. And then transforms us into something that can live with him forever.

Uniquely.

>>2512060
Academics in my mind are professional liars, yes.

Which is why I urge people to go to God personally and directly, and read the bible for themselves.

>>2512060
How about we modify this to "if anyone disagrees with God they are a fool".

>>2511510
>only Catholics use infallible interpretation
Oh yes that's why the reformation was all about going back to what the bible literally said, rather than what the Holy Spirit had told the pope

>>2512067
>and read the bible for themselves.

But of course if their interpretation if different from yours they are doing something wrong.

>Academics in my mind are professional liars, yes.

What attracted you to a board for academic discussion then?

>>2512067
>Academics in my mind are professional liars
Thanks &humanities.

>>2512073
If you believe you're God I guess that would make sense.

>>2512063
Paradise or hell all this linked with quality of people. If you bring crowd of random people on place named paradise that will be not paradise soon but the Earth.

>>2512052
>You're allergic to the truth. There's only one known cure for it, and his name is Protestant-approved Jesus

>>2512063
>as we are
>implying a despot can get into heaven quicker than a pauper can

>>2509447
>I don't have to prove it you have to prove it
Maybe you should prove the inverse?
>scholarly sources
You mean intellectual totalitarianism. As a scholar I can tell you, it is a gross misrepresentation of a break away cult which is being upheld as a universally held religion. It is an outright lie.

>>2512078
The bible speaks for itself, and the Holy Spirit will save and teach anyone who is willing.

>>2512083
You must not know any academicians.

>>2512084
Or if my belief system was "believe everything God says is true".

>>2512085
The quality of all people is endless wickedness.

So no, heaven is not going to be a collection of people.

It will be a collection of something new; people who were born spiritually dead human beings but who chose to become spiritually living new creations in Christ Jesus.

He's going to finish transforming us as surely as he made the earth.

>>2512089
More paupers would know that they need a savior, and be less likely to abuse authority stolen from God himself, so I would expect many former paupers in heaven, and few if any dictators.

>>2512108
You see that is the problem, you think you have a direct line to God which filters truth. The problem is there are a lot of people who think that who disagree with you.

Thats why in normal conventions, we restrict ourselves to material facts and arguments stemming from them, since we can never agree on who God is talking to

>>2512112
When I hear shit like this I can't help but think people who believe it are completely mentally deficient.

>>2512123
You're using normal natural every day things, because that's all you know.

I'm referring to supernatural things that you have no access to.

I don't have to tell a Christian about Jesus; they know him as I know him.

>>2512126
The last century is not evidence that mankind is endlessly depraved?

This website is not evidence that mankind is endlessly depraved?

>>2512128
Great, but if you haven't noticed this isn't a church so supernatural evidence does not count here.

>>2512135
Most churches have never experienced anything supernatural either.

I have. And I'm recommending it.

>>2512128
>they know him as I know him
>opens door
>mormons appear saying Jesus had 7 wives
>close door
>st davids churchmen appear saying we are all brothers and should work together as Jesus and the disciples did if you just accept davids authority
>close window and go to computer
>Afjekelels appear out the screen to tell me the only way I can enter heaven is to harmonionise with the comet overhead by hanging ourselves together
>Erebus appears saying if I hang myself on an 8 knotted noose then I shall become a god

>>2512144
Good for you.

>>2512128
This is just mysticism and superstition, in reality there is no spiritual category, it's emotions. You only presume that your emotions are a higher state because of your ego and self-absorbed nature. Gnostics are mentally stunted and incapable of wisdom.

>>2512132
yeah for sure, the century where people like to look at chinese cartoons is the depraved one, not the one where publicly watching someone wither away on a pole was an accepted passtime

>>2512149
Exactly.

Without the Holy Spirit as a guide, people will fall for anything.

>>2512153
I worship God, and they worship the devil. Couldn't be more farther apart.

And no, the spiritual is not the emotional, although there is obviously some overlap.

You just still think that human beings are the highest ordered beings in existence, and you're quite clearly in for a shocking and rude awakening.

>>2512157
There's nothing new under the sun. People have been raping children for thousands of years, and people have tortured other people to death for thousands of years.

>>2512176
>I worship God, and they worship the devil
You are just massively uninformed about actual facts, every day you post here you get corrected and corrected over and over but you are too old and stubborn to learn, at this point you are willfully lying to yourself to salvage your broken pride. You live in a fantasy world, you come across like a retard to everyone here, no wonder you retreat to your imagination of a reward in heaven for being blindly loyal and hell for the people who made fun of you.

>>2512215
Please point out just one of those corrections.

I'll wait.

>>2512099
>Asking someone to prove a negative
never change, /his/

>inb4 that's not proving a negative
You're asking him to prove that they AREN'T the God of the Old Testament.

>>2512226

There is no elephant in this box.

Prove it!

*opens box* See? No elephant.

Why do people think you cannot prove a negative again?

>>2512215
Any correction will do.

Any time you want to start backing up your claims, is fine.

>>2512099
>As a scholar

Yeah, that's probable. Where's your degree at? Got some proof?

>>2512226
The God of the OT had no consort and no dildo, so that can't be a difficult proof to make.

In fact, that sketch appears to come from Samaritans, who are known idol worshipers and who likely took the god of their enemy the Jews and bastardized it for their own amusement by mixing it with Ashteroth, one of the pagan gods of the Canaanites.

>>2512290
You are quite mental, you know that? You're demanding credentials on an anonymous Thai recipe swapping board.

>>2512307
You're the one who brought them up. I just wanted some scholarly sources to back up your assertion that this image is part of some atheist conspiracy to discredit the Bible.

>>2512320
No, that's the other guy. Who also likely thinks that you are mental.

>>2512320
>>2512302
There's my response.

>>2512215

So those corrections you spoke of, do any of them come to mind at all, or no? Or you're taking some time to peruse the archives?

Or you're an emo millennial with no integrity? Is that the case?

>>2512302
>The God of the OT had no consort and no dildo, so that can't be a difficult proof to make.

But the God of the OT is Yahweh, who absolute did have a consort originally.

>>2512244
what if it's a tiny invisible elephant?

>>2512340
So someone took YHWH, made an absurd cartoon of him, married him to his enemy's daughter, and attached dildos to both of them. (Ashteroth is both fertility goddess and a phallic fertility symbol.)

Yup, reeks of Samaritan idol worship.

YHWH is a spirit being who lives in unapproachable light and who scared the piss out of the Hebrews when he spoke directly to them in the desert. He is not some Aztec looking flunky.

>>2512344
Then I make two, mate them and sell them to suckers on the internet.

How many can I put you down for?

>>2512215

Still waiting.

I'm starting to think you're not interested in backing up your absurd accusations.

>>2512360
You realize when that drawing was made the Samaritans were not separate from the Jews?

>>2512419
If someone posts facts and corrections, will you dispute them if they are not biblical?

>>2512601
They obviously were.

>>2512604
I suspect the body of his "corrections" were merely buttressing my main point that Catholicism and Christianity are separate and distinct entities with very little overlap.

>>2512628
Why Catholicism? why not Orthodoxy, Coptic, Church of the east??

does it somehow hurt you're narrative that all these groups unconnected to Rome have the same basic structure you denounce as a Roman corruption? Can you point to any Early Christian groups (outside those you believe are referenced in the bible) that agree with your Christianity?

>>2512650

How different is the left leg of a statue from the right leg of the same statue?

I don't speak to Coptics, as they do not have the murderous history of Rome.

I have absolutely no idea why evidence of what Christians are like is more important outside of the bible than in the bible.

If you had read Jesus' letters to the 7 churches in Asia Minor, you would know all that is needed to know about the 7 types of churches, the 7 church ages, and the errors of most of them.

>>2512650
But that's my point. Being told "this early catholic history does not comport with your Christian beliefs" is not correcting me.

It's condemning Catholicism.

>>2512693
But its not early Catholic history. The catholic church, as y ou know it didnt exist. But there were all these groups with bishops who prayed to saints and followed tradtions. Some of these formed the Catholic Church, others disagreed with the Catholic positions and formed into different groups but they all had a similar route.

Groups representing what you advocate were no where to be seen. There are no references to them, no graves, its like they didn't exist.

That is because they did not exist. If the apostles believed what you believe then the people they taught did not, What you would call biblical Christianity is nowhere to be found for over a thousand years after the apostolic age.

>>2512764
You've fallen into the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" logical fallacy, and to an absurd extent.

You discount literally every single church the disciples started in other countries.

And you pay no mind to the fact that Jesus did not write any letter to any church in Rome, or to any church that Peter started.

So enough with the bullshit about the proto-catholics being just as evil as the catholics. That's my point.

Read about the 10 waves of persecution the early church suffered if you want to know how real christians lived.

ffs you're rooting for the people who threw Christians to the lions.

You can pollute your mind with rubbish written by godless men; I'll stick to the inspired truth of the Word of God. I'm happy to let those chips fall where they may.

>>2512764
The guy thinks there were no Christians, including the apostles and their immediate churches, until pastor Cletus started his church in bumblefuck Alabama.

>>2512810
Don't speak for me, ever.

There have been born again Christians continuously from Pentecost 32 AD to this day who never bent the knee to Rome and who managed to not be murdered by Rome.

>>2512791
While an absense of evidence may not prove something never existed or never happened, it does caste serious doubt under the historical method.

>ead about the 10 waves of persecution the early church suffered if you want to know how real christians lived.

I am afraid you are conflating the people you call proto-Catholics with what you believe were Christians. All Pauline Christians at the time were what you would call proto-catholic, including those outside the Roman empire. While those groups split with roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox millennia ago they still had bishops and prayed to saints, etc.

>>2512810
So dumb. Just so dumb. Literally the post above you mocks you.

>You discount literally every single church the disciples started in other countries.

>>2512840
No born again Christian became a Catholic.

Pagans became pagan Catholics.

The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.

And they're still pagans.

>I have zero evidence for my claims but they are true because I said so
>If it's not in my poorly translated version of the bible it's not real
>The apostles immediately lead Christians astray for 1500 years until Luther came along

Pure satanism.

>>2512851
If you know you're doing satan's work, just stop.

>>2512841
Churches that have nothing in common with Jimbo the fundie here.

>>2512855
I'm not the one trying to discredit Christianity by saying the apostles were wrong.

>>2512856
They're exactly the sorts of small neighborhood and home churches that I would have gone to.

Maybe stick to something you know.

>>2512860
Neither am I.

The pagan Catholics are wrong, not the disciples.

>>2512849
Whell that entry is very inaccurate. While its true elements were introduced into the church during that period, especially ceremonial things like facing east, most of what you would as a protestant find objectionable was there long before Constantine was ever born.

This certainly include both bishops, priests and saint or martyr veneration

>>2512860
Martin Luther was a foul catholic friar, thorough anti-semite, and is more likely than not awaiting his being cast into a lake of fire.

You catholics use him as the boogeyman on purpose; you like to think you're the eternal city, the everlasting church.

You're just Babylon, and your destruction will come in one hour.

>>2512861
>My youth pastor told me everyone is damned except our congregation so he must be right

>>2512864
The apostles disagree with you.

>>2512872
Pastor Cletus is the one actually lying to you. Try stepping out of your trailer park and get some perspective.

>>2512866
It's perfectly accurate, and none of it has been disputed by anyone in this thread.

>>2512893
>It's perfectly accurate

Only it isn't.

>>2512893
I just disputed it, and I am pretty sure everyone but the one other evangelical in this thread thinks its wrong

>>2512244
That isn't proving a negative. You're making a positive statement (There's no elephant in the box) and you're providing proof (an empty box).

>>2512901
>This certainly include both bishops, priests and saint or martyr veneration

No heirarchy; that's Nicolaitan, and Jesus hates the way of the Nicolaitans. So the bishops were not "over" any of the Christians as the catholic bishops are over the laity, the cardinals over the bishops, the pope over all, etc. That's pure Roman Empire and has nothing to do with being a servant in a Christian church, an elder, who serves the church as a bishop (to make sure people like you don't get your satanic doctrine in).

Priests? Every Christian is a priest in the Order of Melchizedek. Your Catholic order is satanic. So again, what priest means to the Christian and what priest means to the Catholic are two entirely different things.

Saint veneration? You must be mad. This is pure paganism.

Marian veneration? Again, you must be mad. This is pure Babylonian Mystery worshiping the "Queen of Heaven" and the "Mother of God".

So no, you disproved nothing in the quote whatsoever. You merely admitted the blatantly obvious.

The catholic church is a pagan church.

>>2512936
. Among professional
logicians, guess how many think that you can’t prove
a negative? That’s right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a
negative, and it’s easy, too. For one thing, a real, actual law
of logic is a negative, namely the law of non-contradiction.
This law states that that a proposition cannot be both true
and not true. Nothing is both true and false. Furthermore,
you can prove this law. It can be formally derived from the
empty set using provably valid rules of inference. (I’ll spare
you the boring details). One of the laws of logic is a provable
negative. Wait… this means we’ve just proven that it is not
the case that one of the laws of logic is that you can’t prove a
negative. So we’ve proven yet another negative! In fact, ‘you
can’t prove a negative’ is a negative  so if you could prove
it true, it wouldn’t be true! Uh-oh.

Every statement can be restated as a negative, and proven.

P = NNP

>>2512997
I dont know how many times i have to make clear I am not talking about the Catholic Church. and while you dismiss what I am saying all the evidence points to it being true, countless documents, graves, etc.

While these ideas might very well be paganism, then you have to admit that the early Christians were not Christians as you understand the term but were in fact pagans, and that your sect purified the doctrine thousands of years later. That is the only way you could reconcile the material facts with what you believe.

>>2513068
Simply false.

The history of the early church is in Acts, throughout the NT, and in the Revelation.

You refusing to accept that as the history of the early church is absurd.

Catholicism seems to be the religion /his/ stands up for the most

>>2513068
Aside from proto-catholics, you have provided zero evidence for any bible believing born again Christian groups prior to 325 having any of these pagan ideologies or practices.

In fact, for some reason the lack of idols that the early Christians worshiped is somehow evidence that the early Christians worshiped idols to you! Because they must have worshiped idols! Because the Catholics do!

>>2513126
They're certainly the most delusional and autistic bunch on the board.

I'd rather talk theology with the Ape of Thoth than with a papist. At least the Ape is speaking for himself, and not puking up what his "priest" told him.

>>2513141
I doubt they are even real catholics, just larping as them online because no one wants to admit they are an athiest

>>2513132
> for any bible believing born again Christian groups prior to 325 having any of these pagan ideologies or practices.

did not exist

>
In fact, for some reason the lack of idols that the early Christians worshiped is somehow evidence that the early Christians worshiped idols to you! Because they must have worshiped idols! Because the Catholics do!

I dont know how you came to such a twisted understanding of what I said, but graves and mentions in histories and letters are not idols.

>>2512885
You're just a bunch of filthy Hibernians and Sicilian trash who cut little boys' testicles off for music.
I wish Cromwell did a better job wiping out your kind out.

>>2513141
As opposed to puking up what pastor bubba told you

>>2513536
Evangelicals confirmed for bigots

You are truly devoid of the spirit

>>2513560
Fuck off, the Pontiff of Rome is a fucking cuck sucking on sweaty migrant cock cheese and you're all his fucking slaves

>>2513603
Is this what protestants call having a christlike nature?

>>2513615
>Christ-like nature
>Consorting with agents of the poisonous weed of Satan that is Islam

>>2513603
Now we see the true face of these supposed "real" Christians.

Truly far better representatives of Christ than those naughty Catholics what with their building hospitals, embracing people from all corners of the earth, and following the teachings of Christ and his apostles since the beginning.

No, surely the real Christians are those who pride themselves in their race and traditions and belittle others.

>>2513615
It's not that far off from destroying Rome with fire from heaven, no.

>>2513639
That's the problem.

You can't tell real christians from non-christians. You lack all spiritual discernment.

And let's look at these catholic "charities", shall we?

Hospitals - total control over healthcare
Schools - total control over education
Churches - total control over social interaction

Here's a verse from Jesus about your worldwide efforts; you'll just have to take my word for it that the pharisees and you have much in common (including trying to follow the Law that Jesus was teaching):

Matthew 23:15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

That's every new Catholic. Twice the son of hell as he was before.

>>2513554
As opposed to learning from the Holy Spirit of God.

You and your American bashing are going to send you to hell.

>>2513704
(Because it's racist pride to bash America every time you hear from a Christian.)

>>2513680
Typical protestant satanism.

>I believe so I can do whatever I want now since the spirit will let me do no wrong

Shame you never truly believed to begin with.

>>2513704
>Calling pastor jim-bob the Holy Spirit

Idolatry now too?

You just don't know when to stop.

>>2513366
I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

That there are graves and mentions in history that the early Christians were all proto-Catholics?

Would that by any chance be from a Jesuit textbook?

Are you at least semi-aware that the people throwing Christians to the lions were Romans?

Are you at least semi-aware that the Roman Catholic Church has murdered over 68,000,000 people in the last thousand years?

So which group is more like the Christians?

The lion throwing murderers, or the martyrs?

>>2513722
I know for certain that I'm saved. You don't, because you're not saved.

If you think following the Holy Spirit is a joke, or would lead you to do something wrong, it's merely confirmation of your lost and depraved nature, and your understanding as a brute beast.

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit much?

>>2513737
>I know for certain that I'm saved. Therefore I can be a colossal asshole but it's sanctioned by God

Nah. You don't know anything. That's your sinful pride.

>>2513730

>Compares the Catholic Church to the Roman Empire
>Cites the protestant propaganda "muh 68 million" number with no evidence

Joe Bob pls

>>2512360
>YHWH is a spirit being who lives in unapproachable light and who scared the piss out of the Hebrews when he spoke directly to them in the desert. He is not some Aztec looking flunky.

No, he's a mythological product of history. He used to have a consort and looked like a human, the same as most other gods, he changed into a formless and abstract force of the universe over time.

>>2513737
>He knows he's one of the elect
Masterful baiting

>>2507315
Would worship
So qt
10/10

>>2513730
>nd mentions in history that the early Christians were all proto-Catholics?

the popular term is proto-orthodox, but there were also Gnostics. Messanih Jews and several lessor sects you would consider heretical or non Christian.

But yes what you call a christian certainly did not exist in the period between 100-and 1000 AD.

>>2513799
Proof?

>>2515130
Sorry for the misspellings.I wrote in somewhat of a rush

>>2515147
>>2507315

>>2513822
I honestly question if there is any meret in debating the delusional. Its clear no matter what you present they will not change their minds, but if you dont engage them they think they're winning and your afraid to engage them.

Personally I think its worth engaging them so people on the fence can see how stupid they sound.

>>2513822
We do, it is promised to us, and He who gave us this assurance of our election is ever-faithful.

>>2515189
An ms paint drawing is proof for your hypothesis?

>>2511546

>hell is a real place
>buddha wouldn't be chill in hell anyway

>>2516189
There are no atheists in hell.

>>2511683
saint technically just means anyone with the beatific vision(heaven). it would be appropriate to call jesus, saint jesus, but no one does. so yes angels can be saints but this isnt how saints are normally understood.

>>2516212
>saint technically just means anyone with the beatific vision
Saint means anyone who has been saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, whether in this life or the next.

>>2509440
Probably an image of Yahweh with Asherah.

It's a remain of some syncretic religion mixing Israelite faith with pagan, Canaanite additions.

>>2516820
But Israelites are Canaanites. They made up the Exodus.

>>2507423
Are you just assuming its species?