[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / klpmm / mde / randamu / tingles / trueb / vril ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?

File: 89482846aedf171⋯.jpg (23.41 KB, 249x379, 249:379, immaculate_conception_dogm….jpg)

f03eeb  No.792698

Why does she so easily trigger prots?

2a7fe6  No.792701

File: c67617241d00a95⋯.jpeg (100.57 KB, 1200x627, 400:209, 1FFFFEFD-0BD9-4FAC-8530-C….jpeg)

Why does this so easily trigger Catholics?


3410ae  No.792706


ba9f2c  No.792707

File: d957152b8d591b2⋯.jpg (138.96 KB, 640x640, 1:1, IMG_7969.jpg)

>>792698

Because satan attacks Jesus through Mary, and anyone that disrespects Jesus' mother disrespects Jesus. Espically ones that call her a sinner.

Pray for the bible-idolaters, OP. Pray for them and hope they can learn to follow God's commandments.


3410ae  No.792720

>>792707

Having doubts about some of the church father's claims doesn't make it a satanic attack. I'm not "triggered" by Mary at all. I'm triggered by bothers who claim that I'm going to hell for not wearing a specific scapular, or praying a specific prayer a specific number of times, or any of these things that Christ and Paul never brought up in scripture.


417f8f  No.792725

File: 825b9b430005712⋯.jpg (102.35 KB, 492x600, 41:50, 24122_891334.jpg)

>>792720

>“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2)

>“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Us as in the apostolic tradition, not the traditions of a man named Luther. Sola Scriptura is an unbiblical heresy that has only shattered Christendom into thousands of denoms.

And just because you don't know you are doing the bidding of satan by disrespecting Mary, the Queen of Heaven, doesn't mean it isn't satanic in nature. For the devil is a trickster and a liar.

The fact of the matter is that God is our adopted Father and Mary is our adopted Mother. For we are all one in the body of Christ.


e2e866  No.792728

>>792701

>only 66 books

It would make any devout Christian upset to see the Word of God butchered by man to suit his own purposes. I read from an unmolested Bible instead.

>>792721

No Catholic believes the Bible is heresy. There's not one Protestant who follows everything the Word commands of us anyway, since Protestants follow whatever their favorite Protestant celebrities (e.g. Anderson) or Protestant church has to say about the Bible, and we all know those celebrities and churches cherrypick scripture they like while ignoring the rest... and if you decide "I'll simply not attend a church and read the Bible for myself", then you refuse to be part of the Christian community and are in disagreement with the Bible as well.


548d62  No.792738

>>792698

>>792707

>>792725

>>792728

We're triggered not by Mary herself, nor hate or dislike her, as the old thought terminating cliche' goes. We are triggered by the fact that such "traditions", that are supposedly on the same level as scripture, have over time, at best, turned her into a distraction from the direct relationship between man and God, that Jesus died on the cross for in the first place, because he is merciful and loving God who wanted this for us, in spite of us not even being worthy of it. At worst, she has been turned into a goddess that is worshiped on the same level as God, with mental gymnastics (i.e. "God-like aspects attributed to her in Marion prayers are just expressions of what we get through God when she prays for us.") and weasel words like "veneration" and "hyperdulia" to smooth over this inconvenient truth. It looks like a duck, and very much quacks like a duck:

https://carm.org/catholic/roman-catholicism-mary-compare-god

>"But the earliest prayer to her is from 250 AD."

And the closest thing to such veneration to her found in the 1st century AD is a painting on a wall of her between Peter and Paul (along with some verses from scripture stretched to their breaking point to support Catholic and Orthodox doctrine on Mary.) Ancestor/hero worship is common to paganism, and paganism the default state of human behavior. And considering how many heresies were already running amok in the 1st century, the questionable motivations of Constantine in the 3rd century, along with the behavior of regions supposedly converted to "Christianity" years later (i.e. Latin America), a resurfacing of goddess worship and paganism isn't that hard to deduce, especially considering its fruits.

And not just in Mary either. Just as pagans had a patron god of a profession, or of an aspect of human life, so you have the same with saints. Sometimes to the point of actual pagan gods being re-appropriated as saints

In light of this, the level of projection implied by this defensive counter meme:

>bible-idolaters

Is both darkly comical, and tragic at the same time. God help us all.


a39f29  No.792760

>>792698

Are you referring to the images you drew that you worship? It doesn't upset me any less than any of the other idolatry I see happening.

Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy truth's sake.

Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?

But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not:

They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not:

They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat.

They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them.

- Psalm 115:1-8


acc66c  No.792766

File: 236a4ff69198ee6⋯.jpg (23.35 KB, 480x360, 4:3, hqdefault (4).jpg)

>>792760

For the n-th time, no one worships the Blessed Virgin Mary!

Asking someone to pray for you is not worship. If you unironically believe asking someone to pray for you is worship, never ask any of us or anyone you know to pray for you ever again!


5f5753  No.792768

>>792765

Yes that's true. They worship their images that they drew.

And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

- Isaiah 21:9

Declare ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces.

- Jeremiah 50:2

The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not;

They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths.

They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them.

-Psalm 135:15-18

And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

- Revelation 18:21


b124cc  No.792772

>>792766

Oh sorry wrong post, you must have deleted it. I meant to reply to this one.

1 Kings 18:27-28

And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

Isaiah 65:2-3

I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;

A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick;


121960  No.792781

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

Scripture tells us to love mary as well, Wake up Prots.


4af35f  No.792782

>>792698

We like her because she is the mother of Christ. But Cathodox take it too far:

>27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and blessed are the breasts that nursed You.” 28But He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

Luke 11:27-28


c120d9  No.792783

>>792772

Isaiah is speaking of pagans, and generally speaking, it's nonsense to think this applies to the Apostolic Mass.


c120d9  No.792784

>>792782

There's no taking it too far, Mary is the Queen of Saints. Veneration of Mary is the explicit recognition that Jesus Christ is the Messiah; veneration of Mary is implicit in the worship of Jesus Christ.

This is why Protestants trip up over the hypostatic union and why people like Anderson keep churning out Arians.


93b9ff  No.792787

File: 10ac2dd76a5f967⋯.jpg (38.46 KB, 325x460, 65:92, ladybyluke.jpg)

>>792738

You do realize the apostle Luke painted a picture of Our Lady, proving that, going back to the time of the apostles, every Christian had a devotational view of her? Thomas carried this particular painting all the way to India.

>along with some verses from scripture stretched to their breaking point to support Catholic and Orthodox doctrine on Mary

How so? Think about the fact that Gabriel, an Archangel, who had spent thousands of years in Heaven, could not help but exclaim "Hail, full of grace" to a human. And that Elizabeth calls her the "mother of my Lord"–this is exactly we call her Mother of God. And I'll point out that the Hail Mary is structured exactly like the Our Father.


ffdcaa  No.792789

Protgressives despise beauty and all things good.


de34c6  No.792846

Because whenever I state that I only pray to God and not humans I get called a godless satanist by the board


a77b57  No.792849

File: bb2f8c6fe182cd6⋯.jpg (91.69 KB, 342x500, 171:250, saint-nicholas-orthodox-ic….jpg)

>>792846

Maybe you get called a Godless satanist because you are a protestant heretic that thinks we can't pray with our saintly family in heaven or ask them to pray for us.

Maybe you get called a satanist because you disrespect Jesus' mother and call her a sinner.

Maybe you get called a satanist because you lie and say apostolics worship The Blessed Virgin, when we don't.

Abandon your unbiblical heresies and maybe people won't call you a satanist.

Just a thought


de34c6  No.792851

>>792849

I'm sure she was a fine woman, but she was a sinner just like you and me. She was a human, stop acting like she's a goddess.


ef03f4  No.792855

>>792851

>God chose to become incarnate in the womb of a completely average sinful human being

She isn’t a goddess, but she is the Mother of God, and that’s a dignity far beyond anything we can claim. You Protestants believe in predestination, don’t you? Who could be more predestined than the Mother of God?


6f5d5e  No.792856

>>792851

>she was a sinner just like you and me

Got any Scriptural evidence to back that up?


de34c6  No.792857

>>792855

Matthew 12:46-50

>>792856

And do you have any evidence to claim she was sinless? If she was, she would have been sufficient as a sacrifice for humanity's sin and God wouldn't have needed to come down here and do it Himself.


6f5d5e  No.792858

>>792857

>If she was, she would have been sufficient as a sacrifice for humanity's sin and God wouldn't have needed to come down here and do it Himself.

This is heresy of the highest order and not even the most vehemently anti-Catholic Protestants believe it to be the case. The sufficient price to restore man's relationship with God was the willing sacrifice Of God the Son Himself on the cross. Mary, though sinless, would not have been a sufficient sacrifice.


de34c6  No.792859

>>792858

Rather, it required a sinless sacrifice, an unblemished lamb. Humanity is incapable of being sinless. Mary could not serve as a sacrifice because she was a human, one with sin.


ef03f4  No.792863

>>792857

>Matthew 12:46–50

What? What has that got to do with it? How do you twist Our Lord’s words in that scripture to mean that He said His mother sinned?


ef03f4  No.792865

>>792859

>Mary could not serve as a sacrifice because she was human

Are you implying that Jesus wasn’t human?


de34c6  No.792866

>>792863

It's plainly stating that her supposed divine status as the Holy Mother is fabricated by man.


33cd4f  No.792867

File: ce9656ce298e0a1⋯.jpg (19.81 KB, 306x306, 1:1, 1518850072618.jpg)

>>792858

>The sufficient price to restore man's relationship with God was the willing sacrifice Of God the Son Himself on the cross.

And what do you think is the reason why Jesus was the only one fit to die on the cross?


de34c6  No.792868

>>792865

Jesus was both human and God. Mary was only human.


73498b  No.792871

>>792725

>literally putting Mary on the same level as God

>>792766

>>792781

>>792789

>>792849

Speaking to spirits in heaven is literally divination.

>"but they're still alive in Christ"

Spiritually, yes, but you agree the resurrection has not occurred yet, correct? They're still spirits.

You're trying to get a spirit to do something for you.

You're a diviner. A sorcerer.


a77b57  No.792874

File: eea944690d2b135⋯.jpg (233.22 KB, 1205x1245, 241:249, Christ-detail-Christ-Clean….jpg)

>>792869

>calling Jesus' mother a whore

And you wonder why you prots get no respect around here.


95631d  No.792875

>>792871

People like you remind me why I hate Protties so much. I hope the mods ban you. Go back to >>>/christianity/ because no one wants your Satanic Protestant blasphemy on here. I don't even consider Protestants Christians tbqh because you follow Satan, not Christ.


73498b  No.792876

>>792875

I'm not even Protestant. Why do you insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you a Protestant?

Can you just address what I said?


de34c6  No.792877

>>792875

This is quite literally not an argument, you're just throwing a tantrum and hoping that someone else shuts down opposition.


a0923d  No.792878

>>792875

seething


a77b57  No.792879

File: f39edf68b97b668⋯.jpg (153.35 KB, 700x471, 700:471, greatcloud.jpg)

>>792871

No one is putting Mary on the same level of God, prot.

Try reading the Bible and learning greek for once in your life.

>Hebrews 12:1

Comes to mind

https://biblehub.com/library/bounds/prayer_and_praying_men/i_praying_saints_of_the.htm


73498b  No.792880

>>792879

Considering Paul writes to the saints of the churches, it seems like saint is anyone who is regenerate in Christ Jesus. Not a special person (who is a spirit) to be asked to pray for you.


95631d  No.792882

>>792877

You know what? I really do hope someone shuts Protties down. They are heretics who love Satan. Luckily the mods are on my side and I am hoping, praying, that they ban them all. We have Christ on our side because he founded our Church, not some loser monk 1500 years later.


73498b  No.792883

>>792882

Ah, I see what you are doing. Godspeed.


e1e84a  No.792884

>>792858

>This is heresy of the highest order and not even the most vehemently anti-Catholic Protestants believe it to be the case.

Galatians 3:22

But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Romans 4:13-14

For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

>>792869

That's what the idols really are. Not to be confused with anyone in scripture, of course.

Isaiah 2:18

And the idols he shall utterly abolish.


95631d  No.792885


305261  No.792891

>>792698

This is not a Mary thread, this is an idol thread, which is what the OP posted here.


13b133  No.792897

File: a856b5c8355850f⋯.jpg (232.27 KB, 968x1044, 242:261, a08af2adf4470ed80c4eb45301….jpg)

>epically ignores John 14:6, 1 Timothy 2:5, and the first and second commandment

>R u TriGgErEd PrOtS???


a77b57  No.792898

>>792880

Did you even read The verse I gave you?

>{12:1} And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head,

>over our head

>over our head

St. Paul is clearly talking about the saints in heaven.


73498b  No.792899

>>792898

Why does Paul write to the saints in the churches?


af185d  No.792900

File: c8615d6509ea1f1⋯.jpg (1.32 MB, 810x3637, 810:3637, Screenshot_20190405-203432….jpg)

>>792898

now THAT is a slanted translation.

That argument doesn't follow because the Greek doesn't give that image.

perikeimenon

Strong's 4029: perikeimai

Definition: to lie around

Usage: I lie about, surround; I am encompassed, surrounded, or clothed with, am in submission to.


ebbd15  No.792901

>>792897

>ignores early church history that uses exalted language about Mary

>We R dUh Tr00 ChUrCh, PaStuR JiMBobJoBOb SaiD sO


a0923d  No.792902

>>792901

>rejects the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture

>SoMeThIng SOMetHiNg ObnOxious CApItALizaTIon


a77b57  No.792903

>>792899

Because he's trying to teach us here on Earth what it means to be part of God's family up in heaven. For we are all one body in Jesus Christ. A body that transcends Earth and Heaven, connecting the two through Him.

That's why Jesus tells St Peter what you bind and loose down here on Earth will be bound and loose up in heaven.


de34c6  No.792905

>>792901

How about you just, for once in the history of this board, give some actual scriptural proof of Mary's divinity?


73498b  No.792907

>>792903

>It was all metaphor bro

Or.. or… if you have any reading comprehension at all, you would see that "saint"=someone righteous, and that faith makes someone righteous, so a saint is someone with faith.

That would take reading comprehension though.


546c3f  No.792909

>>792898

Hebrews 12 verse 1 is written right after he just got done listing a great number of witnesses of faith in chapter 11. In particular,

By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

- Hebrews 11:4

The cloud of witnesses is all the people in the word of God who witness to the things of faith, as denoted throughout Hebrews 11, as Hebrews 11 gets into. And he says in Hebrews 11:32 that time would fail him to mention them all. The word of God contains these witnesses. So you are clearly using this out of context, Hebrews 12:1 isn't about omnipresent spirit beings that we pray to. Psalm 65:2 calls God by name the One who hears prayer. Why are you taking that title away from Him?

Also why are we bringing this new topic up in an explicit idolatry thread?


af185d  No.792911

File: df38b27f20c6634⋯.jpg (209.51 KB, 1076x605, 1076:605, Screenshot_20190405-204726….jpg)

>>792898

>>792900

Imagine my shock. The only translation to put it this way is the ideologue Catholic one.

I wonder how many Catholics are in error for other deliberate mistranslations?


384e67  No.792915

>>792911

Protestants blatantly mistranslate Luke 1:28.


af185d  No.792916

>>792915

Prove it


50e5d2  No.792918

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

bccd67  No.792923

>>792698

Mary worship is a sin. She may have been a great lil gal, but she was just a woman. The "veneration" (idolatry) of saints or angels is a sin. God has clearly and repeatedly warned against worship of the host of heaven

Deuteronomy 17:2-3

" 2 "If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant,

3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded"

>>792725

>I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2)

>“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

Great examples of why the writing of Paul, and Paul himself are suspect. He was a pharisee teaching the traditions of men to Christians. The talmud and the satanic religion of the jews is allegedly oral traditions passed down by Moses. A pharisee continuing that practice isn't to be trusted

>Sola Scriptura is an unbiblical heresy that has only shattered Christendom into thousands of denoms.

True. Bible idolatry is still idolatry

>Mary is our adopted Mother

No she isn't. She's just a woman.

>>792728

>I read from an unmolested Bible instead.

How do you know?

>if you decide "I'll simply not attend a church and read the Bible for myself", then you refuse to be part of the Christian community and are in disagreement with the Bible as well.

Nonsense. It's a lie that the body of Christ and the churches are the same thing.

>Is both darkly comical, and tragic at the same time. God help us all.

No it isn't. The bible is neither the complete nor the infallible word of God. Alleging that it is is nothing but idolatry. The words of God are written in thye fabric of reality. It's arrogant beyond measure for men to believe that a book they wrote is capable of the purity, infallibility, and completeness of God. The idea is beyond stupid and the only reason people don't laugh at the suggestion is that that lie has been told so many times in our history

>>792766

>For the n-th time, no one worships the Blessed Virgin Mary!

Venerate- worship, potAYto-potAHto. Quit hiding behind semantics and just admit you're a polytheist>>792784

>>792784

>There's no taking it too far, Mary is the Queen of Saints.

This papist is so delusional that he take it too far in the sentence that he protests that he doesn't take it too far. The Catholics have turned Mary into Lillith, Ishtar, or Ashtoreth. Not surprising since those pagan Gods are who their cardinals and pope secretly worship in their private rooms beneath St. Peters Basilica. Just like the Jews before them the Catholics have one religion they proclaim above ground in the day and another they practice under the temple in the night.

>>792787

>You do realize the apostle Luke painted a picture of Our Lady, proving that, going back to the time of the apostles, every Christian had a devotational view of her?

No, I realize that a church that practices child rape on an industrial scale makes that claim. But why should I grant any validity to luciferian child rapists?

>And I'll point out that the Hail Mary is structured exactly like the Our Father.

Your pope has tricked you into worshiping all the host of heaven, as God specifically forbid all throughout the bible. This is what you get when you follow people you know to be child rapists and homosexuals

>>792849

>Maybe you get called a satanist because you lie and say apostolics worship The Blessed Virgin, when we don't.

Yes you do. Don't expect the non-brainwashed to pretend there's a difference between "veneration" and worship. You worship demons and you give them titles gleaned from the bible.

>>792858

>This is heresy of the highest order and not even the most vehemently anti-Catholic Protestants believe it to be the case

Typical. Catholics are so warped by their satanic clergy that they don't even understand the most basic principles of Christianity. If Mary was sinless then Mary would have proven that it is possible for men to be sinless. If men can be sinless before God then there was no point in Jesus dying on the cross. Jesus was crucified because it is an impossibility for man to be sinless before God by his own power. In claiming Mary to be sinless, you are claiming Mary was more than a human, that she was a God. With all the homosexuals and pedophiles leading your church you should have all the warning you need that you're being trained to adopt Babylonian mysticism in place of Christianity and yet you don't. You've chosen to worship the host of heaven and worship men as Gods. Repent..


05721e  No.792927

>>792923

>Great examples of why the writing of Paul, and Paul himself are suspect.

So you're a cultist lel.


2cdbb8  No.793193

File: 7d35db261232a53⋯.jpg (27.2 KB, 320x240, 4:3, BibleKJV.jpg)

>>792917

Taking another honor away from our Lord. Horrifying. How demented would they have to be to think God would overlook this change to his word. What was going through their mind when they changed this. What were they thinking when they changed this prophecy of Christ?


73498b  No.793194

>>793193

Careful there, buddy, if you believe God's word just like Abraham did, apparently you're worshiping the Bible.


9c1628  No.793220

>>792725

>Mary, the Queen of Heaven

As a yet to be Christian, deciding between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, this is exactly one of the things that bothers me about the Catholic faith. How is Mary Queen of anything, yet Heaven? This doesn't make sense to me, why does it seem like you Catholics value Mary above everything else in your faith? Why do you carry 3D statues of her around in public? What's up with this obsession of Mary?

It just seems so Pagany to me. Just imagine an outside person looking at your faith, could you blame that person for believing something like that?


7beada  No.793222

>>793220

PROTIP: The Church doesn't cater to your fee-fees. Sorry.


9c1628  No.793225

>>793222

Not an argument


e084bc  No.793244

>>793225

>responding to a concern troll requires an argument

Back to Reddit with you!


9c1628  No.793248

>>793244

>I'm a troll for simply asking why Catholics run around with 3D statues of Mary and call her Queen of Heaven like she's the wife of God or something


9a822f  No.793254

File: 466e178a25e3138⋯.jpg (279.68 KB, 1576x2478, 788:1239, Peter_Paul_Rubens_079.jpg)

>>793248

Mary is literally crowned as the Queen of Heaven in the bible. You would know that if you actually read the bible.

And she isn't the wife of God, she is the mother of God. Big difference.


305261  No.793257

>>793254

Please stop proselytizing idolatry and idol worship in this thread. There is nothing admirable or noble in worshipping an idol, even misinterpreting Scripture to do so. These idols do not represent actual people. They are the unrighteous works of pagan hands. They neither see, nor do they hear, nor do they walk.

Isaiah 14:4

That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

Revelation 9:20

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:

Revelation 18:21

And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.


828dca  No.793260

>>793248

Mother of the King was called Queen by Hebrews back then.


478c5a  No.793261

>>793248

No, you're a troll for the following things:

1] "I want to be Catholic, but that whole Mary thing. If they'd just stop the Mary thing, I'd totally be Catholic!"

2] Bringing up an argument that is in every thread on this board and, instead of doing even the most rudimentary of research, bringing it up again under the guise of "Is this really important to Catholics?"

3] Trying to compare Orthodox to Catholicism using Mary, even though BOTH believe Mary is the Mother of God, have prayers to her for intercession, and have virtually zero difference in belief concerning her.

If you're not a concern troll, you're a false flagger. Either way, you should be banned.


8d2ef5  No.793273

>>793254

>Mary is literally crowned as the Queen of Heaven in the bible.

That isn't true. You've confused Mary with Ishtar.


8cd303  No.793295

>>793272

>woman with child = paganism

Zeitgeist-tier image.


8cd303  No.793299

>>793248

>using meme lingo to refer to sacred art

>strawmanning

>completely ignoring that the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God

Yeah, sounds like concern trolling to me.


a77b57  No.793308

File: 30b76d2ada12243⋯.jpg (6.65 KB, 228x221, 228:221, 1501813731168s.jpg)

>>793273

Actually, I haven't. Re-read Revalation heretic!


b28540  No.793320

>>793316

>insinuations must be accompanied by explanation and/or primary resources.


a77b57  No.793333

>>793316

>if I keep posting the same lie over and over again maybe someone will believe me

>REEEE darn you mods for always banning me and my lies!

Go back to your heretic board, turboprot. No one will take you seriously here.


a77b57  No.793337

>>793336

No one will argue with a liar and ban evader like (you). There is no point arguing with swine that will only trample the pearls of wisedom we give you and have given you in the past.

So, again, kindly go back to you heretic's board where you are free to make up lies all you want.


5bc662  No.793338

>>792720

Strawman.


05721e  No.793339

People claiming that the Book of Revelations teaches that Mary is the Queen of Heaven are seriously reaching. Don't you think that if that were true God would have explicitly told us that the woman is Mary? Wouldn't that be kind of an important fact?


6da3a1  No.793340

>>793337

The problem is this happens every time Mary is brought up. I don't have a horse in this race, I'm don't consider myself Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. I'm only interested in truth, but every time I ask about Mary, folks like you assume it's disingenuous trolling. Your assertions about her don't hold any water. If they did, you would welcome debate about this instead of banning anyone that disagrees.


573400  No.793344

>>793339

People claiming that the Book of Revelations teaches that Mary is not the Queen of Heaven are seriously reaching. Don't you think that if that were true God would have explicitly told us that the woman is not Mary? Wouldn't that be kind of an important fact?


05721e  No.793346

>>793344

That's not an argument and you know it.


05721e  No.793350

But yeah, the whole "Mary is the Queen of Heaven based on Revelations 12" thing just screams of someone desperate trying to find any flimsy textual support they can to justify their Bible fanfiction.


73498b  No.793351

>>793299

Jesus existed before Mary


625f76  No.793352

>>793346

It's as good an argument as you presented. We have 2000 years of Church tradition, theology, writings, essays, sermons, liturgy, and texts that show - without a doubt - that Mary is the Queen of Heaven.

Why did some fat butthurt German in the 1500s somehow magically make all that false?


05721e  No.793354

>>793352

>It's as good an argument as you presented

No it's not. God obviously isn't going to fill the Bible with lists of everything every character isn't.

>We have 2000 years of Church tradition, theology, writings, essays, sermons, liturgy, and texts

So if your source is tradition, why don't you say so instead of trying to argue from the Bible?


73498b  No.793355

>>793352

You certainly don’t have 2000 years of Mary being “queen of heaven”. It’s more like 1000.

Also,

Jesus existed before Mary.


478c5a  No.793358

>>793355

>Jesus existed before Mary

So, you deny that Mary is the mother of Jesus? Good to know I'm speaking to non-Christians. It changes the narrative.


fec86e  No.793360

>>793350

Why do people even think this is a good thing? Queen of heaven is a title used by the pagans for one of their false gods mentioned in Jeremiah.

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

- Jeremiah 7:18

But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil.

Jeremiah 44:17


93b9ff  No.793363

>>793351

>>793355

Hi Nestorians!


478c5a  No.793364

>>793362

Ah, so you deny that Jesus is God, which is why you deny that Mary is the mother of God. Are you Muslim?


93b9ff  No.793365

>>793362

Revelation 2:8


6a68ed  No.793366

>>793363

What's that?


05721e  No.793367

>>793364

>so you deny that Jesus is God

No.

>you deny that Mary is the mother of God.

Mary is the "mother of God" in a certain sense, but you seem to be arguing that Mary created Jesus, which is blatant heresy.


73498b  No.793371

>>793358

>In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was God.

Come on, you can't tell me you don't have John 1:1 memorized?


61a1ac  No.793375

>>792789

Pagan idols are a problem.


93b9ff  No.793379

File: 672d776dcf0b039⋯.png (4.97 MB, 2560x1440, 16:9, 1.png)

File: cea76f8ad2dd894⋯.png (4.38 MB, 2560x1440, 16:9, 2.png)

File: 41e20d20f8be227⋯.png (3.07 MB, 2560x1440, 16:9, 3.png)

>>793367

Revelation 2:8 shows that the First and the Last was dead and came back to life, refuting your Nestorian heresy. If you deny that Mary is the Mother of God, you deny that the Second Person of the Trinity is the Christ. Mathew 1:1 shows the geneology of the Christ (Jesus), and and Matthew 1:18 says that Mary is His mother. The eternal Word became flesh eternally. Luke 1:43 also -outright- says mother of my Lord. All the references to Lord in Luke are to God.


625f76  No.793381

>>793367

>Mary is the "mother of God" in a certain sense

So, you're Muslim. Fine then.


320bfc  No.793383

>>793360

>Queen of heaven is a title used by the pagans

Pagans also brush their teeth! Better let them pearlies rot, brother.


ff2e16  No.793384

>>793383

That's the only mention of it in scripture though. Why are you giving the name of a pagan god to Mary?


05721e  No.793394

>>793379

>Revelation 2:8 shows that the First and the Last was dead and came back to life

Yes, Jesus died and the rose from the dead. What are you even trying to say? None of what you are bringing up seems relevant to anything. You surely can't be disagreeing with the statement that Jesus was not created, can you? That would be a literal denial of the divinity of Christ.

>>793381

You literally have no argument.


93b9ff  No.793398

>>793394

The Eternal Word was uncreated, but became flesh (John 1:14). You are arguing that His divine nature is seperate from His human nature, which means he CANNOT be the Christ, because He would not be truly man and truly God. Not hard to understand, but with most prots (each of whom is a soi disant Bible "scholar") things are never easy.


b738c5  No.793400

>>793384

Do pagans believe in a virgin giving birth though?


349ad5  No.793402

File: 8253e7945e1ab40⋯.jpg (9.29 KB, 480x360, 4:3, kjv_1.jpg)

>>793394

Yeah I've dealt with people like the board owner a while ago who declined to agree in the meta thread that Colossians 1:15-17 is true. Here's the quote for reference:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:15-17

It's ridiculous some people can't even agree with this, I know. Even when presented with it.


05721e  No.793403

>>793398

>The Eternal Word was uncreated

OK, so you agree that Mary did not create Jesus then?

>You are arguing that His divine nature is seperate from His human nature

Quote me saying this.

>Not hard to understand, but with most prots (each of whom is a soi disant Bible "scholar") things are never easy.

lmao

You just keep calling people dumb Muslim Protestants instead of saying anything coherent.


93b9ff  No.793409

>>793403

You are denying that the person Christ Jesus was true man and true God by saying one of His natures was still seperate (and thus, alien) to him when He was born in time. Because His humanity is not seperate from His nature as true God, to deny that Jesus had a lineage (Matthew 1:1) is to deny that He is the Christ, because it would deny His Davidic lineage. Jesus Christ is not part God and part man, nor is he a confused mixture of the divine and the human. The early Church dealt with all kinds of heresies pertaining to this subject.

https://www.catholicity.com/catechism/true_god_and_true_man.html


93b9ff  No.793414

>>793413

I'm not a Mod. But you are an incredibly persistent heretic–it's not difficult to understand that by denying that Mary is the mother of God, you are denying that the person Christ Jesus is true God and true man.


ffdcaa  No.793415

>>792871

>You're trying to get a spirit to do something for you.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Praying to God is divination and therefore blasphemy


b738c5  No.793417

>>793413

I disagree with your position but mods shouldn't have banned you. Treating people unfairly doesn't bring them back to the correct position.


c05c60  No.793419

>>793415

Making strawmen doesn't make you any more correct or make you look intelligent.


ffdcaa  No.793423

>>793419

You said it, not me.


93b9ff  No.793431

>>793422

Another soi distant scholar. You think that Christ, who is Lord, cannot be David's Son because then David could not call Him Lord. Jesus is confounding the pharisees by revealing the mystery of the incarnate Word (which only He knew at the time), He, Christ, the Messiah, (true God and true man) existed before David, and created Him, and yet descended from him as man, that's how he's both David's Lord and his descendant. He perplexes the pharisees by revealing (and asking them about something they could not have known) a truth about God, a mystery that the pharisees did not know. He did not deny that Christ, the Lord, is a son of David. The other guy got banned again but I'd like to let him know that he's bearing false witness, I am not a Mod…


c120d9  No.793452

>>793443

IP-hoppers railing against mods again, what a scoop


f7fcbc  No.793470

>>792701

gg no re


389da1  No.793477


d5be15  No.793530

>>793431

>You think that Christ, who is Lord, cannot be David's Son because then David could not call Him Lord.

Absolutely not. Where did you get this?

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

— Revelation 22:16

The real problem here is that some people think that our Lord Jesus Christ is somehow not eternally pre-existent. They consciously fail to affirm the eternal pre-existence of the person of the Son. And if I call attention to this conscious failure, suddenly comes some obscure accusations that have nothing to do with anything I just said here. See you basically just accused me of something I outright detest. Acts 2:30 and Revelation 22:16 should be enough to prove his lineage, the times Jesus is called by name the Son of David in Scripture, or the geneaologies in Matthew and Luke. Do you sincerely think I just said, by quoting Luke 20:41-44 verbatim, that all those are false? or are you simply forming an accusation to quickly turn attention away from the actual christological heresy I just pointed out, where people deny the pre-existence of the Son?

You can't hide that false doctrine behind untrue accusations; you won't be allowed to change the subject by accusing me of unrelated heresy that I deny.

See the following.

>John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

John 1:15

>And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Ephesians 3:9

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

Hebrews 13:8


73498b  No.793535

>>793415

So, let me get this straight,

you're saying speaking to God is the same as speaking to a saint?

I think God is a little bit more worthy for me to pray to. Speaking to God is not divination, because God is God.


4a0614  No.793543

Isn't that when you pray you practice relationship with God/Jesus.

There will be people to who Jesus shall say Depart form me for I have never knew you.


e084bc  No.793550

>>793543

>Jesus shall say Depart form me for I have never knew you

Yeah, and it will probably be to people who insult, denigrate, deny, and ignore his mother.


4a0614  No.793556

>>793550

Since when did I became equal to she

in what i just wrote?


73498b  No.793568

>>793550

Jesus created Mary


60d5d7  No.793576

>>793530

Thanks for leaving this up, mods. Here I am getting banned four times for defending the Eternity of Christ my King!


478c5a  No.793584

>>793568

Answer these two questions. Say nothing else but "Yes" or "No":

1) Did Mary give birth to Jesus?

2) Is Jesus God?


07e5fe  No.793591

>>793584

>Unironically stating that Mary created God

What is wrong with you?


73498b  No.793613

>>793584

Jesus existed before Mary gave birth to him.


625f76  No.793615

>>793591

>>793613

>literally cannot answer 2 simple questions

Oh well. Time to shake the dust off.


73498b  No.793616

>>793615

The answer is yes to both.

Jesus existed before Mary and created her.


14e300  No.793618

File: 1092b477c70a66d⋯.jpg (67.8 KB, 736x1020, 184:255, 5878b03c9c280a5e0f596ddebc….jpg)

>>793615

You'd think these bible-idolaters would be able to answer a simple question like "Did Mary Give birth to Jesus?" if they read the bible they worship so much.

Of course if they answered it honestly they would realize what terrible heretics they are.


07e5fe  No.793621


73498b  No.793623

>>793618

Mary gave birth to Jesus.

Jesus created Mary and existed before her.


ee78ad  No.793640

File: 7a5a2cc1944f54a⋯.jpg (19.58 KB, 470x362, 235:181, 1521225044551.jpg)

>>792923

>the writing of Paul, and Paul himself are suspect.


f01782  No.793650

>>793618

>>793615

Is God, as God, birthable? If Mary is the "Mother of God", did she gave birth to the Father and the Spirit as well? Is God only one person now? But enough of that.

>literally cannot answer 2 simple questions

Loaded questions and poisonings of the wells are neither "simple" nor honest. The cliche you'll just make is the obnoxious part-to-whole fallacy saying that Christ's identity as God the Son transfers and overrules His identity as a man when it comes to Mary birthing Him. Not distinguishing the two natures (Christ the man and God the Son) when forcing a conclusion from our answers is bad logic and worse theology. I thought we were not to be monophysitists.


10ca3e  No.793681

>>792923

Absolutely cringe


014247  No.801930

This whole thread is a shit show.

Jesus created Mary. That is fact.

Jesus existed before Mary, that is fact.

Mary gave birth to Jesus, that is fact.

Therefore, Mary is the mother of Jesus. Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the mother of God. She did NOT create God, but she is the mother of God. My mother did not create me, God did, but my mother gave birth to me. She's still my mother.

And, protestants, you seem to clearly understand that Jesus created Mary of course, so why do you have a hard time believing that He would create her sinless? God had a special plan for Mary from the beginning. Since God was to be carried in a womb for 9 months, and delivered into the world, He would not want it to be through an impure woman. Just as nothing impure can enter Heaven (Revelation 21:27), nothing from Heaven can enter the world through something impure.


e74951  No.801941

>>793535

By your own defintion

>>792871

>Speaking to spirits in heaven is literally divination.

God is a spirit (The Holy Spirit) and God is in Heaven, so praying to God is divination by your definition of the word.

>I think God is a little bit more worthy for me to pray to.

Well, I'm sorry that the rest of us and all the saints just aren't good enough for you to ask us to pray for you. Because that's literally all you're doing when you pray to a saint, asking them to pray for you.


d8287f  No.801947

>>801930

Based and breadpilled


17f547  No.801955

Luke 1.46-47

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Now why would a supposedly sinless woman like Mary refer to God as her 'saviour'? If you are without sin, then you have no need of a saviour, just as a healthy man has no need for a physician. Mary was a human being, and as such, Adam was her federal head, meaning that when Adam sinned, ALL off humanity went with him including Mary. Most Protestants do respect Mary, she was blessed to give birth to the incarnate God, she must have been a very strong and faithful woman to watch her son be brutally tortured and executed. However, when your veneration borders on idolatry, of course anything less will be seen as hatred. I imagine that God in His kindness prevents Mary from seeing what happens here below; such blasphemy and idolatry would deeply grieve her soul to be sure.


b37737  No.801962

>>792923

Veneration is not worship silly prot. It means to honor. We don’t worship the saints we just ask them to pray for us, give us strength, discernment. Just like how we believe the angels are watching over us.

Prots love their semi-Islamic ideas don’t they.

Anyway God bless you friend, Christ is risen today.


384e67  No.801963

File: c97d187c4462f99⋯.png (3.07 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, David.png)

File: a4bf9bdd67176b7⋯.png (1.29 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Luke.png)

>>801955

Why does Jesus pray to the Father? If someone was sinless, would they be an atheist?

>>800731

>>800759


17f547  No.801966

>>801963

>If someone was sinless, would they be an atheist?

Not sure what this has to do with the original topic, but no absolutely not. God, through creation, is preaching to every single person, declaring that He exists. An atheist does not worship God, he does not love then Lord, ergo he is sinning and is not sinless.


4ecee1  No.801971

>>801955

>Now why would a supposedly sinless woman like Mary refer to God as her 'saviour'? If you are without sin, then you have no need of a saviour, just as a healthy man has no need for a physician.

And why was she sinless in the first place? Because of God's unique and extraordinary grace that God used to save her from inheriting Adam's sin.


02cf8d  No.801973

>>792707

Can we find some middle ground between calling her co-redemptrix and recognizing that she's a saint? This is all embarrassing to her. The immaculate conception was regarded as silly in a more civilized age, but was defined as a dogma by the clergy of this progressive age in which the deposit of faith isn't enough for the Dignity of Man.

This is silly and embarrassing to Our Mother. How would you feel if people babbled endlessly about your mother?


dc0c4c  No.801977

>>801973

It isn't embarrassing for her at all. Only in your deranged fantasy is it embarrassing.


17f547  No.801979

>>801971

>Because of God's unique and extraordinary grace that God used to save her from inheriting Adam's sin.

A nice thought to be sure, but there is A) no reason why He would do this, and B) no Biblical evidence for this happening.

I know people say something like 'well it is disrespectful and undignified for Jesus to have been born by a sinful mother'. I partially agree, and that is the whole point. It is undignified for the Son of God to be incarnated, live as a human (including the sinless things we have to put up with such as hunger, sleep, ablutions, etc), be born in the place where the animals were kept, be tortured and beaten within an inch of death, be wickedly blasphemed an mocked, and become (in the eyes of the people at the time) the absolute scum of the Earth by being executed via crucifixion. Yet your God humbled Himself and did all of that for you. It does not subtract from Christ's glory to suggest that Mary was a sinner and yet God chose her to birth the Christ, it in fact adds to His glory.


384e67  No.801984

>>801979

>no Biblical evidence for this happening.

Kecharitomene? Or, in Genesis, the enmity between the woman (the blessed virgin) and the serpent (Satan)–she was always his enemy, never his slave. Do read the following as well:

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm


2dcbd4  No.802032

I'm not even sure that modern Protestants should be called that anymore. They're something else. Not sure what. They don't even resemble the original Protestants, especially in terms of their views on the Virgin Mary.

I think it's right to depend on scripture, but modern people don't use it as much as they claim to. For example, scripture itself says that "All generations shall call me blessed." But they would ignore that and consider themselves unique snowflakes who don't belong to "all generations". They're exempt and go out of their way in being dismissive to Christ's mother. The Prot doctrine of the "priesthoood of all believers" laid the foundation for this pride, but I don't even think the Puritans embraced such rampant individualism as modern people do (although to be fair, Puritans were disliked even in their own day. The KJV translators made a point of slamming them in their preface and called them "self-conceited brethren").

Many early Prots even believed in her perpetual virginity - and could back it up with scripture. Why would Jesus leave his mother directly in the care of St. John, if she had many sons/guardians already? Thus the early Prots wondered, along with Catholics and Orthodox once. They were all of one mind on this, at least early on. Now modern people just assume "brothers" means direct lineage. It's simple minded and not as "Sola Scriptura" as they claim. They pick only what they like to hear.


d8287f  No.802067

>>801979

Except it does subtract from Christ's glory to say that God wouldn't make His own mother perfect in everyway. For Jesus is the same flesh as Mary. He couldn't be sinless unless she was sinless.


8a0ed7  No.802149

>>802067

Why not her grandmother? Why wouldn't God have made all of us sinless if it's so easy to make a sinless mortal?

You're tripping over your crypto-naturalist magic view of sin.

The Immaculate Conception isn't part of the Deposit of Faith. It was tacked on in an abuse of the infallibility claim by 20th century progressives who wanted to make other forms of progress in doctrine as well. It has little more canonical status than the idea that God wills multiple religions or God makes people to be sodomites, as taught by Pope Francis.


7ff726  No.802180

>>792725

there is simply no precedence for this in scripture.


7ff726  No.802181

In her magnificent psalm uttered while carrying the Christ child, she exclaimed, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47). Observe that she referred to the Lord as “my Savior”—not merely “a Savior,” or “the Savior.” No sinless person needs a Savior. Clearly this statement implies that Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us (Romans 3:23).


7ff726  No.802182

>>802067

by that view, mary couldn't be sinless unless her parents were sinless and so on. this is such a broken theology.


4ecae8  No.802190

>>792725

Our Mother is a fine title for her, so are Queen of Heaven and Theotokos. We're arguing about

* the moral theology behind the Immaculate Conception

* the progressivism of adding the Immaculate Conception to the Deposit of Faith despite it being considered ridiculous in a more civilized age

* the moral theology of the title co-redemptrix

* the feminism of calling Mary co-redemptrix and naming some woman a Doctor of the Church

* to what extent this progress in Catholic theology was and is connected to the ongoing Masonic and democratic and socialist revolootions

* whether clerical celibacy had anything to do with this feminization of Catholic theology


4ecae8  No.802191

The Immaculate Conception is an explicit example of irresistible grace from Calvinism. Total depravity and irresistible grace are a gay excuse not to develop virtue. Calvinism is such magical thinking whaargarbl that people find themselves better off denying that anything supernatural exists.


36d082  No.802222

>>792698

Lutherans still like her. It's just like calvanists and baptists who dont. Bible clearly says that she is the first among women and was probably the closest to being sinless of any woman


758ef0  No.802395

>>792701

Apocalypse 12


7f9ad0  No.802399

>>802222

I think even Calvin had many great things to say. It's more apt to say that it was Puritans who went crazy. The name sort of it gives them away, I guess. "Pure". I'd rather call it "Simple" though. Simpletons. They stripped everything.. even their churches were bland. They even dislike prayer books.

I'd blame Calvin for laying the foundation for their autism, but maybe if he actually saw it in practice, he'd have second thoughts.


ac5bf9  No.802492

>>802399

Total depravity and irresisitible grace is not Christianity. It is naturalistic consequentialistic anti-faith that engenders pride and sloth instead of humility and diligence. Cooperation with grace not faith alone. Council of Trent not Westminster Confession. Ok. Praise Jesus.


313994  No.802500

Threads like this, man. go on /pol/, see Pagan vs Christian wars, on Christianity, Catholic vs Protestant vs Orthodox. I’m sick of all this bickering. As for the topic of this thread, Jesus is God, Mary is his Mother, thus she is the Mother of God. Not hard to understand for anyone. As for lavishing praise upon praise upon praise on her, well that’s a little more iffy.

>>792787

Sure that’s church tradition, but North Koreans saying Kim Jong Il invented the hamburger is North Korean tradition. Doesn’t mean it actually happened. Show us from the Bible that Luke painted a theotokos icon, and then maybe we will believe you.

>>792784

Collyrindianism proves you can take it too far. Mary is worthy of admiration and respect, sure, but to say there’s never a stoping point to her veneration implies we could put her above God himself. Obviously that wasn’t what you meant, but if you want to persuade someone, use more careful language.


1358f3  No.802571

>>792698

Because of all your false doctrines around her

>>792701

this


1358f3  No.802572

>>792725

Mkst if the time tradition is mentioned it's negative. And Jesus rebukes the jews in Mark 7 for putting the traditions of men over what God said, which is exactly what you do.

Mark 7

1 Then came together unto him the Catholics, and certain of the Orthodox, which came from Jerusalem.

2 And when they saw some of his disciples baptize, that is to say, with immersion, they found fault.

3 For the Catholics, and all the Orthodox, baptize by sprinkling and of babies, holding the tradition of the elders.

4 And when they come from the market, except they sprinkle they baptize not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

5 Then the Catholics and Orthodox asked Pastor Jim, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but only baptize with full imersion?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the baptizing of babies: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

10 For Paul said, A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, Not given to wine, One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

11 But ye say, If a man marries they cannot be a bishop, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12 And ye suffer him no more to marry;

13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.


824138  No.802590

File: 6a0835425fb0dfa⋯.jpg (46.28 KB, 1024x595, 1024:595, AJXSPZIIYOWRCHV.2013010117….jpg)

I beseech thee, O Blessed Virgin, that thou should prayest for the souls of the heretics, namely, the Protestants who have no salvation outside of holy mother Church. Thy prayers art powerful, O Blessed Virgin, and we trust in them. Amen.

I shall now say a Hail Mary on behalf of all Protestants, that they might come to the salvation of Christ in his Holy Catholic Church.

==Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.

Blessed art thou amongst women,

and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

Holy Mary, Mother of God,

pray for us sinners,

now and at the hour of our death. Amen.==


c52c40  No.802592


384e67  No.802594

File: 81a8e93e4fbccbd⋯.jpg (5.57 MB, 2952x1650, 492:275, Rizi-inmaculada.jpg)

File: f351a0549d39d38⋯.jpg (917.95 KB, 1600x1080, 40:27, immaculatequeen.jpg)

File: a0d9dafda94a41c⋯.jpg (517.65 KB, 754x848, 377:424, angmary.jpg)

>>802590

Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.

The Son whom you merited to bear, alleluia.

Has risen, as He said, alleluia.

Pray for us to God, alleluia.

Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.

For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.

Let us pray.

O God, who through the resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ

gave rejoicing to the world,

grant, we pray, that through his Mother, the Virgin Mary,

we may obtain the joy of everlasting life.

Through Christ our Lord. Amen.


14e300  No.802596

File: 39e7f557a7289b6⋯.jpg (62.01 KB, 357x450, 119:150, queen-of-heaven-icon-918.jpg)

>>802594

Hail Holy Queen, Mother of Mercy, our Life, our Sweetness, and our hope. To thee we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then most gracious advocate, Thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this, our exile, show unto us, the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us O Holy Mother of God, That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen.


b95959  No.802600

>>802572

Excellent gloss, but baptism is supposed to wash away the sins of the individual's life before joining the Church, so the Council of Nicaea said people baptized by certain heretics need to be baptized properly. Children raised in the Church have their baptismal vows taken by their godfather, and have no life before the Church to recieve an indulgence for.

Sin and baptism are naturally measurable. If original sin causes sin and is cleansed by baptism, baptism is magic.


4e4775  No.802606

File: 6002f7020d6d534⋯.png (132.7 KB, 320x240, 4:3, BibleKJV.PNG)

>>802032

>They're exempt and go out of their way in being dismissive to Christ's mother.

The key fact here is that your idol is not equal to Mary though. Until you admit this, nothing will even seem to make sense to you. Because that's just how cultic you are that you think a drawing or a statue is a person and you actually get confused about this thinking a statue is some kind of magical person in stone form that has their soul teleported into it. It's really like animism or paganism in that key respect. It's like this board is full of a pagan group who are unironically mad their idols aren't being treated properly.

>"priesthoood of all believers"

1 Peter 2:9-10

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

>I don't even think the Puritans embraced such rampant individualism as modern people do

Modern people. You mean like the typical catholic now? Or one of their offshoots?

>Thus the early Prots wondered,

Why is this relevant though? They were also pedobaptistic state churches.

Of course some manmade philosophical inventions would trickle from one state church to its offshoot state churches. That has no bearing on God's church which pre-exists all of them. That's why you keep shying away from scripture and the word of God since deep down you know that's our domain. All you dare do is refer to manmade doctrines and traditions and try to make a weak case for your own school of thought, which changes from day to day.


4e4775  No.802608

>>802222

>Lutherans still like her. It's just like calvanists and baptists who dont.

That's a sad lie. I'll pray that you, anon, may find forgiveness for slandering others. Read Luke sometime.


507bb9  No.802610

>>802596

>>802594

>>802590

You're not actually being loving and charitable. You just want to make Protestants salty, and you dare to blaspheme by invoking a saint's name in the process. Please do not do that.


384e67  No.802611

>>802606

Can you show me anyone in the early Church that believed as you did? All early Church Fathers taught baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation. Early Church Fathers identify Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 and her as the "woman" in the Proto-evangelium. Unless you want to be exactly like Muslims and Mormons, and claim that the true Church and Gospel was lost for 1600+ years, you have to appeal to history… and history does not support your view. The response you'll hear Protestants give is that the Early Church was persecuted, so they must have thought Jesus was present in the Eucharist, but that's simply not the case - what they explicitly describe is transubstantiation, not some vague "Jesus is there". You simply can't claim that everything they talk about is figurative - it's not. And let's not forget that, according to you, heretics compiled not just the original Greek Bible, but the Latin Vulgate and the KJV.


4e4775  No.802614

>>802611

>Can you show me anyone in the early Church that believed as you did?

Acts.

>All early Church Fathers taught baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation. Early Church Fathers identify Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 and her as the "woman" in the Proto-evangelium.

Sorry man, doctrine relating to Scripture has to be appealed to Scripture, not to fallible manmade opinions. That's not how anyone operates outside a cult. And I'm pretty sure you aren't guaranteed to know what people really said and meant that long ago since it wasn't part of God's preserved word. So you are basically appealing to writings that could very well be corrupted. Also, and beyond this, according to 2 Peter 1:20 it is only scripture which is not given to private interpretation. So in other words, your interpretation of fallible writings is not to be trusted. I'll take my trusted source of God's eternal word over that every second of each day.

Also, Genesis 3:15, as you've mentioned, is about the seed which mentions a prophecy about "his heel." That is a "his" in that prophecy, referring to the savior who would come to reconcile mankind, the Christ. The people who purposely mistranslated that to "she" have done a great disservice. Just putting that fact out there.

>The response you'll hear Protestants give is that the Early Church was persecuted, so they must have thought Jesus was present in the Eucharist,

I have no idea what you're talking about? And again who is "they" you keep referring to? Paul? John? Scripture? Is it in Luke's, James, or Peter's inspired God-authored prophesies that has been preserved? If not, what are we talking about here. Matthew perhaps?

>according to you, heretics compiled not just the original Greek Bible, but the Latin Vulgate and the KJV.

God already foreknew everything that the Bible would contain.


b883d9  No.802615

>>793220

As far as I understand the Orthodox also consider Mary the Queen of Heaven


4e4775  No.802616

Also here's some quotes for you-

Mark 7:7-13

>Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

>For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

>And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

>And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jude v. 3

>Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Proverbs 30:5-6

>Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

>Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.


fa6a15  No.802621

>>802600

Actually, there's a really really good argument to be made that baptism does not wash a person of their sins, and is merely an outward sign to other believers (and heathens alike) that one has accepted Christ as their savior and put their trust in Him.

>2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

This passage shows how even in the old covenant, the Jews were saved by their faith in the Lord, not in any works that they did as a result of that faith. The same is said for the new covenant, that our faith in the Lord is what saves us and not any works that may be done because of that faith.

Scripture continues with this:

>9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Note the wording of verse 11. Circumcision in the old covenant was the outward sign that one had faith in the Lord, as baptism is for the new covenant. To say that baptism saves us would say that we are saved by our own works.

<But what about John 3:5?

>5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

It does not say that baptism is being born of water. In fact, it's very reasonable to say that being born of water is a person's birth from their mother since the womb is filled with water. Being born of the spirit is being born again, accepting Jesus as your savior. As it says in 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new". Now let's look back at John 3, at the very next verses following the one above:

>6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Now this is a juicy section, let's unpack it a bit. First, look at verse 6. If something is born of the flesh it is physical, if something is born of the spirit it is not physical. Baptism is physical, it is immersion of the physical body into physical water, and is a physical sign that others can see. But being born of the spirit is not something physical, placing one's trust in Jesus is not a physical thing but is spiritual in nature. Just as the physical birth (being born of water) brings a new creature into the world, so being born again (being born of the spirit) brings a new creature (in Christ, see 2 Cor 5:17 above) into the world. One is of the flesh, another is of the spirit.

But that's not all, look closely at verse 8. Read it through a couple times, it's not very straightforward at first glance. Jesus is saying that the wind can be heard, but it cannot be seen, then he says that everyone who is born of the spirit is as such. Baptism is something that can be heard and seen, but faith in Jesus is not something seen, only heard, just like the wind. Therefore, being born of the spirit happens when one accepts Christ, not when one is baptized.


b883d9  No.802623

>>802614

>I'm not even sure that modern Protestants should be called that anymore.

I would actually agree with this. They've continued in their perpetual revolution and I think it will be interesting to see where they go in the next century. At this point most Protestants have thrown aside the Saints, Mary, and the sacrements (including baptism). Many of them have even thrown aside the Church choosing to be wholly individual in their worship. I really think in the next century or so that protestantism will either cease to exist and be swallowed up by Catholicism/Orthodoxy or be turned into some vague deistic/"spiritual" feel good philosophy surrounding the teachings of Jesus that are considered appropriate for our current decadent culture.


6ac14f  No.802624

The assertion about Mary's supposed divinity were added by Catholics in order to have a goddess figure like pagan religions.


507bb9  No.802629

File: 6f7e673c305fc84⋯.jpg (154.22 KB, 519x600, 173:200, ladyofkazan.jpg)

>>802615

Correct. Although Mary ruling with Christ is not exclusive to her. We will all rule with Christ when we are resurrected with a spiritual body and given our place in the Kingdom of God. Mary, however, was resurrected with a spiritual body before us, soon after her death, so she got there earlier than us, so to speak.

Everything that is said about Mary isn't said simply to admire her and to glorify her Son - it is also because she is the saint by excellence, and we must replicate what she did. Her "fiat" at the annunciation must be our "fiat" at baptism. Our lives must be as holy as her life was. And we will be crowned the same way she was crowned.

Remember also that martyrs are considered to be crowned as well.


4e4775  No.802631

>>802621

>Therefore, being born of the spirit happens when one accepts Christ, not when one is baptized.

Yeah, true explanation of John 3:5 friend. And what's also interesting is how, just like circumcision followed physical birth under the old covenant, baptism has to follow being born again (see Acts 8:37, Acts 2:41) and that's why the two are paird together in Colossians 2:11. Where baptism is called the "circumcision made without hands."

That's why you can't become baptized until after becoming saved. John 3:6.

—Also to add on to that, someone once corrupted John 3:5 to say "born again" to confuse people, instead of correctly saying "born" as the original Greek does. Which becomes clear on reading the correct verse. Similar to how someone changed Matthew 6:11 to say "supersubstantial" bread when it is supposed to say "daily" bread according to the Greek.


384e67  No.802638

>>802614

>Acts

In Acts Peter is clearly the leader of the Church - and in Acts 15:1-2 Paul clearly looks to the authority of the Church to resolve the issue.

>I'll take my trusted source of God's eternal word over that every second of each day.

How do you know who wrote each Gospel without appealing to history? pseudo-Mohammedan ideas about Scripture here.

>not to fallible manmade opinions

The Didache is dated extremely early - and clearly resembles Apostolic worship. Are you saying that God let 1st/early 2nd century Christians disseminate false teaching? The people closest to the apostles?

>God already foreknew everything that the Bible would contain.

This is basically the (false) idea that writers of the Bible went into a "trance" when they were writing. Why did God allow the gospel to be lost for thousands of years? The KJV is His perfect Word, okay, but what of everyone before the KJV? Do you believe the false history of the TR?

>I have no idea what you're talking about?

Matthew 26:26

John 6

1 Corinthians 10:15-18

1 Corinthians 11:27-29

Luke 22:19-20

>God already foreknew everything that the Bible would contain.

Dodges the issue. Show me an early document God preserved, proving justification by faith alone and perseverance of the saints, and that baptismal regeneration is a false teaching.

More on Mary:

>>800731

>>800759

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm


4e4775  No.802655

>>802638

>How do you know who wrote each Gospel without appealing to history?

John 8:47

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

>Are you saying that God let 1st/early 2nd century Christians disseminate false teaching?

I don't understand what the point of this question is. Is this basically the problem of evil restated? Because we are clearly warned by Paul in Acts 20:28-32 that many will come after him claiming to be his continuation but only to draw disciples after themselves. We are clearly warned in 1 John 4:4 that the spirit of antichrist is already in the world. We are warned about the judaizers, gnostics, nicolaitans, false prophets. We are told some of the lies that even existed then, such as Acts 21:38, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, Matthew 28:13. This is part of why in 2 Timothy 3 the hearer is exhorted to know of whom you have learned and been assured of these things. I'm glad we've got that settled then. I'm not blaming God for those things. I'm believing in the eternally secure state of the word of God as spelt out within itself.

Hope that gets close to the question.

>This is basically the (false) idea that writers of the Bible went into a "trance" when they were writing.

I don't get this. I said God has foreknowledge of what He is going to author, God decides what it is. You disagree?

>Why did God allow the gospel to be lost for thousands of years?

How was it lost?

>okay, but what of everyone before the KJV?

They spoke different, earlier languages. Again, I'm not seeing how it was lost anon.

>Luke 22:19-20

>And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.

>Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Yes this is one of the ordinances as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:2.

>Show me an early document God preserved

There is only one word God preserved, and that is God's word. QED

Proof:

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

1 John 5:9-10

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.


b883d9  No.802663

>>802655

Not the person you've been responding to but

> Is this basically the problem of evil restated?

The problem he is getting at is that you're saying the immediate successors to the apostles were corrupted with false teachings which means that either Christ was not protecting his Church throughout history or protected a small insignificant portion of it that magically hid throughout history until the 17th century. These successors to the apostles were the one's who converted the known world, who built up the Church, who faced various different persecutions under the Romans. These are also the people who parsed out what were the correct books of the bible and what were incorrect under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. You're saying that these men, once again the successors of the apostles, were gnostics, judaizers, etc despite fighting against said heresies and proclaiming the truth of the Gospel.


384e67  No.802669

>>802655

>He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

I guess this insinuates that I'm a heretic without eyes that see? You are not addressing the question. If you say you believe it prima facie, fine, but you'll have to concede the point, because your reasoning is circular.

>Because we are clearly warned by Paul in Acts 20:28-32 that many will come after him claiming to be his continuation but only to draw disciples after themselves.

So God allowed early documents that support the "Romanist cult" to be preserved, but not a single document by a writer (the true Church obviously would have people writing about their faith) that takes your position. Simon Magus/Marcion and others even have their doctrines/history preserved (extra-Biblically)… but none of yours are.

>I'm believing in the eternally secure state of the word of God as spelt out within itself.

Again which word of God? Do you believe the false history KJV-onlyists believe about the TR? And the Bible hardly spells itself, considering how many Protestant denominations believe that the Bible is their sole authority.

>I don't get this. I said God has foreknowledge of what He is going to author, God decides what it is. You disagree?

Scriptures are fully human and fully inspired/inerrant. We don't have a Quran. Only the Greek texts are inspired, the rest was translated with great care… but you're a KJV-onlyist so I doubt you'll concede that point.

>How was it lost?

Because we have zero (I'll say "Extra-Biblical" here) proof that the early church believed in justification by faith alone, preservation of the saints, baptism at a certain age (this also leads to the question of children even being able to believe the Gospel), glory to God alone, etc. This doctrine was later "rediscovered" during the Reformation. Meaning it was lost for thousands of years.

>They spoke different, earlier languages. Again, I'm not seeing how it was lost anon.

They didn't have God's perfect word, did they? If God preserved His word in English, He would also preserve it in other languages, but I doubt you believe things like the Peshitta and Vulgate are authoritative. Why don't you tell me your position on the TR?

>Luke 22:19-20 […]

Good, you answered Luke. Now refute the clear teaching of John 6, 1 Cor 10:15-18 + 11:27-29, and Matthew 26:26.

>There is only one word God preserved, and that is God's word.

In the KJV, but where is the preserved Greek text? or Latin for that matter? Just tell me if you believe the false history of the TR already.


4e4775  No.802674

>>802669

>Only the Greek texts are inspired, the rest was translated with great care…

Isaiah 59:21

As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

>Because we have zero (I'll say "Extra-Biblical" here) proof

So you're basically conceding that you are laying aside the commandment of God, like it says in Mark 7:8. In addition to claiming that the Old Testament is not inspired, and according to 2 Peter 1:21 therefore, not spoken of old by holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And accordingly then, you say that it is not inspired, not spoken by holy men of God, and also that it is not eternally preserved as 1 Peter 1:23-25 states about the word of God. Since you say it's not preserved in its unchanged state and also that it's not inspired, but that only Greek texts are. I'm really sorry to hear you say that. Because it means you don't believe the prophecies in the Bible that He would secure his very word to every generation. That's a terrible state to be in. I've tried to show you scriptural reasons why man needs to believe God's report first and foremost.


4e4775  No.802677

>>802663

>you're saying the immediate successors to the apostles were corrupted with false teachings

Do you mean successors in the biblical sense? Ok, biblical sense it is. So, when you say "the immediate successors" you mean all of them? No, because that would contradict Matthew 16:18. But regardless of the above, this revisits several points I've already stated: we've shown that, doctrine relating to Scripture has to be appealed to Scripture, not appealed to fallible manmade opinions, yours or anyone else's. And with that in mind, I already in this thread cast sincere doubt on the corruptible writings that are claimed to have been written by early Christians, which are unreliable and likely to have been altered and changed long afterward. I have already in this thread mentioned, that 2 Peter 1:20 shows that only the prophecy of Scripture is of no private interpretation, being guided by the Holy Spirit into the correct understanding. This singular objectivity of interpretation is not true of corruptible seed (manmade traditions and ideas), it is only true of the incorruptible word of God. So like I said I don't accept some random person on the internet's interpretation of what he thinks someone said that he can't even guarantee the accuracy of. When one should know that even one word changed or misinterpreted can overturn everything. God only preserved his word. Heaven and earth shall pass away but Jesus' words shall not pass away.

And there is a profound reason for that. It's not just a coincidence, not just an accident. God is not the author of confusion, and absolutely doesn't make mistakes.


384e67  No.802678

>>802674

Look, you can twist my words all day - most of your polemic is based on a strawman, that somehow a Christian would not believe in the Old Testament, based on the same post in which I show Marcion to be a false teacher. The Hebrew texts of the Old Testament are inspired. the Greek texts of the New Testament are inspired. You're simply not going to admit that you have zero historical backbone (or even a historical Bible, because KJV idolators can only appeal to the TR…) to support your view.

>Because it means you don't believe the prophecies in the Bible that He would secure his very word to every generation.

It's you who don't believe that, because you don't have a historical Bible or Church to appeal to. The TR is middle ages.

>>802677

You have no way of defending yourself against characters like Bart Ehrman that claim that the Gospels are not authentic.

>which are unreliable and likely to have been altered and changed long afterward

Bart Ehrman says the same thing about the Gospels.

>being guided by the Holy Spirit into the correct understanding

The Holy Spirit has guided me to the truth that you are wrong, and I have the correct understanding. Good job bringing relativism to Christianity.

>When one should know that even one word changed or misinterpreted can overturn everything

Prot Bibles do this…

>God only preserved his word.

TR is middle ages. KJV is middle ages. You have nothing else.


ad8cc8  No.802680

>>802678

>The Holy Spirit has guided me to the truth that you are wrong, and I have the correct understanding. Good job bringing relativism to Christianity.

That point is only true if you think God the Holy Spirit isn't real… just read John 16:13-14 or 1 Corinthians 2:13, 2 Corinthians 1:22, Romans 8:11, John 14:16-17, John 14:26, etc.


e228c4  No.802755

File: 37fefdf7e61f5cc⋯.jpg (8.27 KB, 238x212, 119:106, 1554206269650_0.jpg)

>>792725

>The fact of the matter is that God is our adopted Father


b883d9  No.802783

>>802680

Its true because every Protestant of every church believes that the Holy Spirit has guided them to their theological position despite many of those positions clashing.


ceeb08  No.802808

>>802783

The error of the prots is not in their belief that the Holy Spirit leads us to truth. The Holy Spirit indeed does, but it is difficult to tell if it is really the Holy Spirit or our own errors leading us. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith. We simply have to pray for discernment.

Truth doesn't come from an institution, that has never been the Latin position either. There have been heretical popes, antipopes, which the Latins acknowledge as being in error.

-t. Orthodox


2538bd  No.802884

>>802808

Unfortunately, the Catholic mainstream is full of ultramontanism, and sedevacantists are even more ultramontanist.

There is a place for a Roman church that doesn't claim magic infallibility for itself but merely the monarchial status of St. Peter. I suppose that makes me a non-ultramontanist sedevacantist.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / choroy / dempart / klpmm / mde / randamu / tingles / trueb / vril ]