/lit/ - Literature

>Bible in a Year podcast
>2 Study Bibles
>4 translations
>IVP Background Commentary
>3 additional multi-volume commentaries
>the Church Fathers
>half a dozen notebooks
Wish me luck. Going to make the most comprehensive notes I can manage for myself, and then in a year (or less, if I can manage multiple episodes a day), I'll edit the notes and transfer them neatly into a journaling Bible.

>>19723775
just watch cape fear

>>19723714
Slav morality. Read The Will to Power, this version:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52914/52914-h/52914-h.htm
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52915/52915-h/52915-h.htm

If not this, then Kaufman's.

>>19723775
>I'll edit the notes and transfer them neatly into a journaling Bible.
Ah, so you're a woman Bible study YouTuber wannabe then. Just use one leather KJB and write the notes into the margins as they come to you, lrn2 cram them in using small text and dividing lines, write only concisely and crucially. There's only one Church Father, God.

>>19723821
>KJB
Sorry, I'm using the Bible, not King Jimmy's personal Douay.

Go back to >>>/his/

>>19723775
not enough. you need about 10 more commentaries, unironically

What do you guys eat and drink when reading the Bible?

>>19723775
Tangentially related, but it's literally impossible for me to listen to podcasts attentively. Is this some kind of skill that you must train yourself for? Do you just sit on the easy chair and listen to the podcast without doing anything else, for hours? I do not have attention span problems, my issue is that listening to a thing instead of reading about it ten times faster really wears me out. But I cannot multitask to save my life, so I've given up on audio entirely. Also I don't like having my ears isolated from the environment I'm in.
Do I have brain problems?

>>19723756
Fence-sitting anon here. You have no idea.
Here's some highlights:
>there is a star called Kolob which is physically closest to God
>the Holy Spirit is physical and made of "finer particles" than can be discerned using the senses
>the only uncreated things are matter and formless intelligence; the universe was organized (not created) from the former and the souls of all mankind were fashioned from the latter
>before the creation of the world, God asked for a volunteer to redeem mankind, who already existed in spirit form at that point
>both Jesus and Satan volunteered; Jesus' plan allowed man to have free will while Satan would ensure all mankind would be saved by removing their ability to make mistakes
>the biblical angels are the exalted forms of figures from earlier books; iirc the angel that supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith was actually Noah
>even the worst sinners will receive an existence better than this one after the judgement; the only ones to enter "Outer Darkness" will be Satan and his angels, as well as those who deny the Holy Spirit
>the Priesthood is the power by which the world was made; man can only receive two degrees of it in this life - the Aaronic and Melchezidek - while higher degrees allow one to perform miracles or divine acts
>God was once a man exactly like us in another universe with its own God who lived a righteous life and became exalted, receiving divine power

>>19723937
>>19723942
>>19723807
>>19723775
What is the best Bible to buy in King James Version? Also is the Cambridge Book of Common Prayer (1662 Revised) a good one to study also?

>>19723978
I don't know what the best would be but if you want to get a fancy leather KJV you want to look at either Schuyler (pronounced Skyler), Cambridge or Allen. Those are the three big ones. AFAIK Schuyler is USA only.
The BOCP is good if you're low church Anglican I guess. It's at the very least squarely Protestant as it rejects Saints, Mary, etc.

>>19723960
Physically painful to read.

>>19723960
Oh and I left out the weirdest one, imo: marriage is a mandatory requirement in order to receive the highest degree of glory in the afterlife, but the church authorities have implied that there will be some kind of dating equivalent after the last judgement for all the poor incels who die unmarried.

>>19723714
Reccomend me a good Bible study plan for this year. My main interest is wisdom > theological knowledge (after years in a very strange evangelical church I want some pragmatism for a change)

>>19724057
I would be OK with this bizarre religion if it didn't claim somehow to be scriptural.

>>19724095
In its defense, the average Mormon would read criticisms of his faith, respond with "lol okay," and then go play a game of Scrabble with his beautiful wife and five children instead of wasting time arguing with autists on 4chan. Theology aside, they do manage to create a culture that genuinely values family and community.

>>19724091
(Hint, it wasn't theological knowledgr if it was wrong)
Those are intertwined. Get with people who understand it instead of whatever you had

>>19724120
>not playing bridge
No, it's bad.
>Values family and community
in exchange for your cognitive dissonance. I bet they had a chicken game of how crazy they would go and someone lost really far in

>>19724120
i got into this weird rabbit hole of Mormon podcasting about leaving the faith and the whole family dynamic is there literally just to enmesh people in their system. It values family up to the point that it supports the church and its continuation. Once you start questioning at all, that whole structure falls apart and you're in a uniquely alienated place.

Dated an exmo briefly too this year. She was very loosey-goosey about calling it a cult. I wouldn't go that far, but her description of trying to leave the Church in her teen years did seem pretty awful.

>>19724057
Huh. In the New Testament it says that not all men will get married. And none of the apostles were married were they?

>>19723839
Extremely based post.

For Orthodoxy is the best bet to get the LES and the EOB?

>>19724235
I personally go with a KJV (with Apocrypha) but I'm not KJVo, I read other translations too.
I have a Synodal Bible as well that I am somewhat starting to understand.

>>19724235
I'm a big fan of the EOB
I can't speak on the LES though for OT readings I mostly just use a Psalter (and a Douay for non-Psalms stuff)

>>19723978
Without Apocrypha,
>Church Bible Publishers AKJ or Cambridge KJV Cameo Reference Bible
With Apocrypha,
>Cambridge KJV Cameo Reference Bible with Apocrypha
Funny enough, the Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha is cheaper than the Cambridge Cameo without, so I'd say CBP AKJ or Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha depending on whether you want those books.

>>19724121
What I am trying to say is I would like a plan that does not focus on theological interpretation (catholic vs orthodox vs protestant and all the different denominations) but on wisdom.

>>19723978
Church Bible Publishers, they are printed and bound in the USA at bargain prices. Schuyler are partly done in some gay northern EU place and partly done in China but cost big $.

>>19724235
At this point in time (until Newrome Press finishes their Illuminated LXX), yes. The EOB split in sewn liturgical book form is an option for study hardbacks if you don't want either the glued paperback or the Newrome EOB NT with the zipper.

>>19724307
>partly done in China
Sad that they moved part of the process there. As for the gay NEU place, it's if I remember correctly Royal Jongbloed who are the longest running Bible binders, and the same people who bind the high end Cambridge Bibles.

>>19724832
I basically avoid all Thomas Nelson stuff because of this. I'm fine with Europe, America, and even places like the Philippines. But if I find out a Bible or commentary or any sort of supplement is printed in China, my desire to buy it is greatly diminished.

>>19724985
Yeah it's bizarre how most Bibles are printed in a country that persecutes Christians. That said this has become pretty much a necessity since competition is very high. I've read an article that explained how it's becoming less and less viable to print Bibles elsewhere. Of course for high end stuff it's unacceptable.

Maybe someone here can answer; I was raised Protestantism (read: having absolutely no traceable lineage or reasoning behind the biblical dogmas I learned growing up) and I've recently gotten much more into biblical scholarship. I'm wondering what the exact justifications for the canonization of the Pauline books of the New Testament. Given that Paul was not a direct Apostle of Jesus himself but was rather what we might call the first secular Church Father, I can only interpret a utilitarian basis for the adoption of his works into the Canonical, "word of God" Bible. That the Pauline texts regularly extoll specific early Church dogmas that are then circularly canonized by Paul being declared canon is also highly suspect.
I am loosely aware of the arguments of Apostolic primacy that support the interpretation of the Books directly authored, co-authored or derived from Christ's Apostles as being divinely inspired, so is there some prior scriptural basis for this treatment of Paul as being divinely inspired or otherwise somehow above the doubtless hundreds - if not thousands - of other early Church commentators and scriptural scholars? Or do we just have to take it on faith and tradition that this isn't blatant cynicism by the early Church?
I especially wonder what kind of dogmatic conclusions would be drawn from a reading of the OT that entirely excludes the Pauline books.

>>19725012
>Market forces are requiring the largest organized charity groups on the planet to print their books in a country that would persecute them
Fucking hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>19725017
Consider that the vast majority of non-Bible books at this point are made in China, and there's probably a massive infrastructure that allows to print for cheap. It sucks but that's globalization for you.
Ironically my fancy Bible printed in Holland has typography errors while my Chinese-printed one has none.

funny, I wasn't sure if I should use my limited resources to buy a bible, but now im anxious as fuck for it to get here, and its still going to be another week

>>19725033
>Consider that the vast majority of non-Bible books at this point are made in China
Really? I still buy mainstream books and I can't recall ever running into a Big Five published book not printed in the USA. And believe me, I always check.

>>19725041
You the one that bought the Cameo with Apocrypha in the other thread?

>>19725065
Maybe US books?

>>19725075
no I got this one
https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0785215425/ref=emc_b_5_t
hopefully its ok. I only payed $25 and didn't realized it was used but hopefully its in good condition, it says good with a few marks inside or something like that. im pretty new to ordering from amazon lol

>>19725033
My Bible and all commentaries (6) are printed in the USA. I have an early edition of the ESV Study Bible printed in the USA too but it wasn't long after that Crossway switched to China. Anyway, there's no necessity, it's just a choice.

>>19725098
>leathersoft

>>19725100
That's good. Yeah, my two big boxes to tick are "sewn binding" and "printed in [not China]". But even then, I'll take a glued binding of a non-Bible book printed in the US before a sewn binding printed in China if the text is that good (usually commentaries).

>>19725104
I was looking for something cheap for now. I can always get a nicer one later

>>19725098
>it says good with a few marks inside
I always got "like new" stuff, AFAIK "good" is already within the realm of heavily used. But it's just luck.

>>19725119
Also faux leather used in Bibles is great. It's definitely much better than cheap stiff bonded leather.

>>19725116
I reckon my main box (in terms of production) is not owned by NewsCorp. I have made the sole exception of the Nelson Strong's after research determined it to be the functional better of all available. It stung but a good Strong's is crucial.

>>19725124
well heres hoping im lucky

>>19725033
>>19725065
Yep, I autistically check the books I read and nearly all of them in the last five years (including fucking manga of all things) are printed in the US.

Only big book-printing market China seems to have in my experience are large, colorful coffee-table books that require photorealistic illustrations on ever page.

>>19725165
This is a review of what you're getting. He complains that the paper isn't opaque enough but I don't see it, looks fine to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va5mX2Wrmkw

>>19725013
Paul is complex and the Pauline canon can't really be explained in 1 post.
Basically the pauline letters are the oldest scriptures assembled, even polycarp and ignatius were quoting them by the 70s.
read NT Wright's "Paul". you may want to read some oxford commentaries on how the NT canon was assembled.

The thing protestants get tripped up on is that there's no justification in the canon itself for what should and shouldn't be in the canon. this is where Sacred Tradition comes in. your searching for justification for dogma only is scripture is a nonbiblical trait, just so you know

>>19725197
>there's no justification in the canon itself for what should and shouldn't be in the canon
Lrn2 Isaiah connect. God told us through His word what goes in it.

>>19725215
which part of the bible states which books are and aren't canonical?

>>19725215
Yes, that's why there's a gorillion churches with different bibles

>>19725243
Read it enough and see for yourself.

>>19725276
So you can't answer? Got it

>>19723714
Matthew 26-26-28 are the instructions for the mass. You have to recieve the eucharist to follow Christ's instructions. You need to be Catholic

https://youtu.be/ZKiDqoUjiCI

>>19725289
I'm a recently baptized Catholic, I'm still exploring my faith journey. To you all I have a question: who is God?

>>19725299
From the Baltimore Catechism

>2. Q. Who is God?
A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.

>3. Q. What is man?
A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

>6. Q. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

>9. Q. What must we do to save our souls?
A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.

>>19725186
looks great to me. I am just terrified of what "good condition" will look like according to amazon. im not too picky and much of my books are used, but if its filled with highlighter and pen writing on every page i might have to return it

>>19725299
The Creator of all existence who instructed us to only pray to Him.

>>19725367
>A. To save our souls, we must worship God by faith, hope, and charity; that is, we must believe in Him, hope in Him, and love Him with all our heart.
What about confession? Contrition? Repentance? Penance? All the extra Catholic stuff that goes into the forgiveness of sins?

>>19725197
>this is where Sacred Tradition comes in. your searching for justification for dogma only is scripture is a nonbiblical trait, just so you know
But the Sacred Tradition is only the Sacred Tradition because the early Church declared it so. Its completely circular logic, and some of Paul's contributions just sound so on the nose that I can't see how it could not be just as cynical as apocryphal works from around the same time such as the Gospel of Judas, basically apologia for an institution that constructed some of its dogma from nothing.
I'll definitely stay open to reading scholastic commentary on Paul and the assembly of the Church canon, because the Bible itself seems to only offer frustration under scrutiny on this.

>>19725525
youre misunderstanding sacred tradition. sacred tradition literally means the tradition by which the church came to hold what it holds now.

it's not "this is tradition because we say it is" - it's the organic consensus of the pope, the bishops, and the "sense of faith" of the people. sacred tradition includes disagreements about certain points.

so in this case. sacred tradition is the process by which the canon is assembled. how do we know it's valid? because it is the consensus of the majority of holy people in communion with the faith. it's quite literally that simple.

Sacred scripture literally wouldnt exist without the sacred tradition that complied it.

>>19725479
that's the ordinary means but God is free to act in any way he wants. his grace is not constrained by the sacraments. "dare we hope all men be saved" etc.

>>19723714
>tfw studying Bible for my college education and every textbook is 800 pages of archaeology, theology, literary analysis, textual criticism, original language, and linguistics because theologians can't be concise
>these tomes are usually for a single book AT MOST

>>19725850
Imagine doing that instead of just listening to expository sermons from anointed preachers.

Catholicbros...

>>19726030
This stuff makes my skin crawl.

>>19726030
what is this, it seems very Christ like Christian

>>19726030
It's from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I just saw it on twitter.

https://twitter.com/USCCB/status/1480570606160695297

>>19726069
Can't wait to see what kind of nuttiness comes from this.

>>19726076
I can't wait to see what of God's will comes out of it.

>>19726030
It's only a matter of when.

>>19726142
I like the optimism.

remember that time europeans became christian and entered a dark age for hundreds of years

good times

>>19725243

Is this not double-dipping? If you truly think that Tradition determines Canon, then why even have a Canon? Why not explicitly abolish the latter and simply refer to the former alone, in real time, as its authority is said to operate? This is the relevant Canon-Tradition question as it pertains to Protestantism-Catholicism, not whether or not there is a Scriptural basis for subordinating Tradition to Canon, or for abolishing the former; which, as everyone knows, would be totally irrelevant to the Catholic since he already ignores all Scriptural bases for all matters and, if anything, would rebuke Sola Scriptura all the more had it been Scripturally sanctioned. So, what are the Traditional arguments for having a Canon at all? As far as I can tell, there are none.

>>19726291
No, because the "dark ages" didn't exist and no historian will back you up on claims that they did.

>>19726291
>be Roman Empire
>convert to Christianity
>become even wealthier and more centralized

>>19723775
Best of luck, since nobody else bothered to say it.

Anything relevant by the Church Fathers or otherwise authoritative people that touches art and "entertainment"? Is it possible to be an artist while also being a Christian?
Isn't all art in this century nothing but a glorification of idleness and vice?

>>19725075
I am. It's arriving between 18 Feb/ 3 March since I live in Australia. Gives me time to finish my stack at least.

>>19726426
Now I'm imagining a delivery kangaroo rummaging in her pouch for your order and then hopping away. This is how it works, right?

>>19726440
Yes, so long as it's not a custom Bible bound in kangaroo leather. Then they'll kick you to death.

>>19726453
I woukdn't buy a kangaroo bound Bible, they always skip a lot of verses.

>>19726467
Carlos.

>>19726030
This is what you get for turning this institution into an idol.

Redpill me on Nephilims.

OP, what book or article is that quote from?

... I mean the quote in the greentext.

Keep putting off starting my yearlong Bible read, but that changes today. Going to be reading my Knox version and following the Bible in a Year plan that was made for the Great Adventure Bible so I'm getting the deuterocanon in too.
>>19727039
read 1 Enoch

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

John Calvin: "Wonderful, indeed, is the folly or the insincerity of the Papists, who strive to build their whispering confession on this passage. For it would be easy to infer from the words of James, that the priests alone ought to confess. For since a mutual, or to speak more plainly, a reciprocal confession is demanded here, no others are bidden to confess their own sins, but those who in their turn are fit to hear the confession of others; but this the priests claim for themselves alone. Then confession is required of them alone."

How was he so based?

>>19724235
OSB is good too if you want one book

>>19727763
>OSB is good
not really

>>19727763
It was Thomas Nelson doing the bare minimum, as per usual.

>>19727763
If you want one book on Satanic Babylonian pagan "Mary" worship. Picrel is from the OSB.

>>19728745
Martin Luther and John Calvin would agree with that quote.

>>19728767
And I should care about that why?

>>19728772
Because you should take your meds and become saved.

>>19728784
I'm not the one concerned with which humans to worship. God did things through many humans despite themselves, I don't collect their "baseball cards" and admire them. I am grateful for the fruits of the vine that were able to be passed through them into the present, that's it. Otherwise, may God have mercy on them and us all.

>>19728745
They would not, because they would tell you that the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews is Christ.

>>19728873
Meant for >>19728767

>>19728873
inb4
>Well you can't get Christ without Mary
You can't get Mary without Mary's grandparents, ergo Mary's grandparents are the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Israelites.

>>19728873
This is what I assumed as well. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of their beliefs to have known with certainty. At any rate, what they thought or didn't matters little to none. What matters is our own understandings, and those of our direct teachers when we are first being introduced into the faith. Anyone who doesn't go straight to Scripture from that point is making arrays of critical mistakes.

>>19728899
Not to mention that God could raise sons of Abraham from stones.

>>19728908
What he's likely referring to is that the issue of Mary was not terribly important to the first generation of Reformers, given everything that they had to deal with at the time. Also things like the immaculate conception (that Mary was born without original sin) were not yet dogma and were still controversial issues within Rome. The second generation cleared these matters up.

>>19728920
To clarify the first generation, e.g. Calvin, were against veneration of saints, use of statues, etc. I'm talking about other "pious beliefs" about Mary that existed at the time.

>>19728920
That makes sense, there are still things being cleared up to this day.

>>19725951
How do you think those dudes learned?

There's more, and almost worse in there...Mary is the burning bush. I'll just post the whole thing so you can read it all for yourselves. It's mind boggling how they can still to this day call themselves "Orthodox™" with a straight face, but the fall truly warps the world in all manner of ways.
1/3

2/3

3/3

>>19729087
cry about it jew

>>19729087
>>19729090
>>19729101
what is this from?

>>19729126
Orthodox Study Bible

>>19729138
Theology is so tiring. Is Jewish theology also this convoluted?

>>19729151
Legitimate theology is incredibly exciting. You get it organically from reading/contemplating Scripture more.

>>19729161
bait

>>19729191
Clearly Luther wasn't Protestant enough to realize the truth. Thankfully another couple hundred years of innovation was able to find it.

>>19729161
I agree that Scripture reading is edifying, but unless you are a Protestant you still have to ground yourself on established teachings. I don't have the arrogance of thinking that I'm more versed in the Scriptures than the Church Fathers, and especially not that my conclusions would be sensible without a foundation. But theology sometimes strikes me either as masturbatory exercise, much like modern philosophy, or so precariously leaning on a shade of meaning of a single word I find it difficult to trust.

>>19729191
Honor, sure. Worship, no.

Top 10 Questions About Orthodox Christianity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9CkNHd-U9g

>>19729416
Correct. Don't know who you're referring to, though, other than your strawmen.

>>19729416
And I wouldn't go so far as "can't honor enough" either. All of that is for God.

Typing this feels somewhat bizarre but where do you start? I'm trying to get more in touch with my faith but I feel somewhat overwhelmed by the vast amount of literature around Christianity. Even picking a study bible is confounding me. Any recs?

>>19723937
boswelia supplements
>>19724303
maybe just do a readthrough of sirah and proverbs. two books which don't get the attention they deserve
>>19724186
multiple apostles were married, including peter. mandatory celibacy for the priesthood was a development in the west after AD 1000 and is not dogma
>>19726030
I have no problem with the Synod. the USCCB sometimes adopts very "corporate speak" media materials though, but overall the US conference of bishops is extremely conservative in comparison with European conferences
>>19726404
Read Merton's essays on art and the role of the artist in "Raids on the Unspeakable".
>>19727039
mistranslation, could refer to elohim or rivals gods. pre-israelite archetypical myth. the ethopians read *waaaay* too deep into it
>>19727540
Great Adventure bible plan is solid, good luck
>>19727763
it's not worth the price

>>19727756
where does calvin get that "priests only" confess. he's consistently an idiot. btw, priests do reciprocally confess, to other priests. priesthood of all believers =/= apostolic lineage

>>19729933
Go to church

>>19729954
I already do. I just want to do more.

>>19729952
>t. didn't understand the argument

>>19728899
>>19728920
Mary is only a model, like John the Baptists, albeit a perfect one. she models perfect submission - fiat etc.
>>19729151
>>19729228
>theology is tiring
reductionist fundamentalism seems more up your alley
>>19729933
what exactly are you looking to start with? prayer? bible reading? church attendance? be specific

>>19729964
go ahead, explain to me, I'm very simple brained you see

>>19729972
Because priests hold the office of receiving confession exclusively, they should be the only ones to confess too. Basically saying said exclusivity is wrong, and we should do so with one another.

>>19726293
you're creating a contradiction where there is none.
abolish the canon altogether? you really don't understand the meaning of canon. Sacred Tradition is not the books of the bible. Sacred tradition is (among other things) the process by which the bible was assembled

>youre misunderstanding sacred tradition. sacred tradition literally means the tradition by which the church came to hold what it holds now.

>it's not "this is tradition because we say it is" - it's the organic consensus of the pope, the bishops, and the "sense of faith" of the people. sacred tradition includes disagreements about certain points.

>so in this case. sacred tradition is the process by which the canon is assembled. how do we know it's valid? because it is the consensus of the majority of holy people in communion with the faith. it's quite literally that simple.

>Sacred scripture literally wouldnt exist without the sacred tradition that complied it.

it seems you somehow think canon = tradition. they're not even the same, definitionally. im not exactly sure what your "gotcha" is here.

>>19729981
there's a lot of simple brained conflation in calvin's reasoning, which is typical of his reductionist mindset.

>Because priests hold the office of receiving confession exclusively
not true. they hold the office of *sacramental* confession exclusively. sacramental confession does not exclude confession of believers to each other, duh

> they should be the only ones to confess too
where does this follow logically from the text of James 5:16? that's the more important part. that implication is quite literally not even in the text or the greek

>Basically saying said exclusivity is wrong
again, conflation of sacramental v. believers confession. another classic prot fault is after the sacramental priesthood is abolished, there is a conflation the priesthood associated with christ via priesthood of all believers, and priesthood associated with christ regarding acting in persona christi, aka the Melchizedekean priesthood

>>19729958

>>19729933
I recommend against study Bibles, instead using just one Bible, and then commentaries which you can expand on (or not) over time. The Moody is a good single volume, Bible Knowledge Commentary is a good 2 volume (OT and NT). For the most part all that is "necessary" is bits of historical/cultural background insight and having some of the symbolism explained. Otherwise the original use was mostly ordinary people hearing Scripture read aloud and then contemplating it all in their daily lives. It was meant to be understandable without too much external complication.

>>19730007
What Calvin is demonstrating is simply that the verse cannot be a prooftext of "sacramental confession." Which it can't. It states to confess "to one another" which entails reciprocity, which in the case of "sacramental confession" can only then refer only to priests themselves confessing to each other. Is too complex of an argument for you? Even if you comprehend it I doubt that will stop you using the text in this manner, however, as the mutilation of scripture is the primary province of Rome.

>>19730007
What Calvin is demonstrating is simply that the verse cannot be a prooftext of "sacramental confession." Which it can't. It states to confess "to one another" which entails reciprocity. It means that the people who are confessing are also hearing confessions from others. In the case of "sacramental confession" this can refer only to priests themselves confessing to each other because, as you stated, hearing a "sacramental" confession is exclusive to the priest. Is this too complex of an argument for you? Even if you comprehend it I doubt that will stop you using the text in this manner, as the mutilation of scripture is the primary province of Rome.

>>19730007
Damn right

What's your favorite Psalter anons?

>>19730746
Psalms in the Bible.

Wondering if anyone has any experience with the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, the recension by David Norton. How is it?

Reminder that the Bible is a work of the Demiurge/Yaldabaoth.

>>19730779
Anything other than verse by verse is homosexual and an abomination.

What's your favourite metaphysic for reading the Bible with? Plato? Aristotle? Heraclitus? Buddhist?

>>19730482
catholic theology of confession isnt even based on that first, its based on "what sins you forgive are forgiven", apostolic authority and succession, the nature of the priesthood, and the nature of the priest acting in persona chrisi (so i show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk).

you really understand nothing of catholic theology, or what a sacrament is, or the nature of the priesthood. the funny part is that you quite literally have probably never thought at the level of systemic sacramental theology so you are completely unable to even grasp the premises the Church is starting from.

the irony is the protestants really are small brained. "look i will quote this one line of text, without context, and without using any of the senses of scripture!". it literally supports nothing except that fact that protestant "theology" is building your house on sand

>>19730746
the Grail psalter is great. the USCCB just released a revision of it, the Abbey Psalms and Canticles, it's great to pray with

eventually it'll be in the revised Liturgy of the Hours (eventually)

>>19730779
its fine but why the obsession with the KJV?

>>19731294
>why don't you want to read a "bible" that isn't the Bible?

>>19723714
>29:14 No.19724120
>>>19724095 #
>In its defense, the average Mormon would read criticisms of his faith, respond with "lol okay," and then go play a game of Scrabble with his beautiful wife and five children instead of wasting time arguing with autists on 4chan. Theology aside, they do manage to create a culture that genuinely values family and community.
>>>19724135 # >>19724177 #
>...Anonymous
>01/10/22(Mon)15:29:20 No.19724121
>>>19724091 #
He is not wrong but many anon are getting the wrong idea. A working knowledge of the Bible, and vast contemplating of its teachings does not in fact make one meek or gentle. The Bible, it's study and practice application make one like an indomitable lion that stands out among lesser men who do not know the will of God.

>>19730746
>>19730753
Wait what... Psalters aren't just the book of Psalms?

>>19729933
Go to church, and get a KJV for reading that isn't too large and unwieldy, but also an ESV study Bible. If you get a regular hardback it shouldn't be too expensive. ESV clears up all the background/unclear things that >>19730097 mentions. KJV is beautiful and memorable.

>>19731474
They are but they're often arranged in a specific way for liturgical use and it can be awkward/inconvenient to use an entire Bible because you'll have to flip around to different pages
A Psalter is also generally much more portable than an entire Bible and they also will almost always have a lot of extra liturgical material in them

>>19731495
That's how I thought then, but I didn't know about liturgical use. I thought a dedicated service book was used.

>>19729985

As you said, Tradition appears to be self-sufficient. If this is true then why even have a Canon?

>>19731285
>apostolic authority and succession, the nature of the priesthood, and the nature of the priest acting in persona chrisi

All Catholic fabrication, neither Scriptural nor Rational. Many such cases.

>>19723807
Based

>>19730007
>sacramental confession
>sacramental priesthood

Not even the idea of "sacrament" in general, let alone these particular ones, is mentioned or even implied anywhere in anything that is, has been, or could be considered Scripture. Utterly pagan nonsense.

started reading the niv bible in audiobook format. just realized only the chapters are labeled and the individual scripture numbers are left out. did i goof?

>>19731285
>catholic theology of confession isnt even based on that
It is good that you acknowledge that. I hope that in the interest of truth you will also inform your fellow Catholics of this when they use this verse as a prooftext, which is a common occurrence in debates such as these.
>you are dumb
Get a new routine please.

>>19732162
Do you mean that the reader of the audiobook is not narrating the verse numbers? I imagine that would be normal, as the text would sound terribly unnatural if they were read aloud. The chapter/verse divisions are a later thing added to help people locate/reference things and are not actually part of the text anyway.

>>19723714
I agree with what teddy said. What's the best reading plan? There's so many that I don't know what to choose

>>19732282
m'cheyne

>>19732293
>m'cheyne
thanks fren, what makes this more special than others?

>>19732300
In a year it takes you through the OT once and the NT and Psalms twice.

>>19732314
nice, ill give get to work then.
god bless anon

Hurry up and get your vaccine Papistbros

>>19723978
Thompson chain reference Bible.
Mine I've had for over a decade. Read it pretty much daily (prior to getting a study Bible to mark in)
It's held up well. Leather with it was higher quality but I also bought it before zondervan bought the rights to the Bible so don't know what they're like now

>>19732661
>moral obligation
short of shooting you in the head they can't make it any more of a literal obligation.

Been studying judges. Thought it was kinda cool, Judges 3:31, Shamgar son of anath is listed as a deliverer of Israel. Evidently the name is not Hebrew in origin and anath is a cannanite goddess
So God purposefully used a non Israelite as a device to help Israel (and I would assume forgave this person of their idolatry and thus gave them redemption). He does something similar next chapter with Jael it seems as she's a descendent of Jethro not Israel
Any way just find it interesting.

>>19732753
The OT is full of tons of these evidences of monolatry (acknowledgment of other gods without worship). I mean, there's a reason God tells the Israelites to stop placing other Gods before Him and to cast down false idols.
The rain dance match between... Elijah? and the prophet of Baal is another example.

>>19732879
I wouldn't call it monolatry
It's clearly stated God is the only God (Isaiah 45:5)
I view it as God was trying to send a message to the israelites. A non believer and a non Israeli turned from his ways, repeated, and has delivered you from harm, why can't you?
At least that's what I glean from it

>>19731285
Absolutely based

>>19731319
>the KJB is "The Bible"
middle school class using remote learning today?

>>19731845
read the post before you respond next time

>>19731848
>>19731858
>I don't understand it, therefore it is wrong and I won't engage with your points!
You got BTFO, again. shouldn't you be listening to Christian Rock right now?

>>19723960
Are these all Mormon points?

>>19732259
address the rest of the points. go on, I'm sure you have a rebuttal to sacramental theology, right? please explain in detail how incarnational sacramentology is false
>>19732293
>>19732300
>>19732327
doesn't contain the full bible, go with Great Adventure instead
>>19732661
if it's not pronounced ex cathedra or through the Magisterium, don't care
>>19732753
God works through history. Jews considered Alexander a savior of sorts

>>19733523
Yes. They are all points of doctrine for the mainline LDS church.

>>19733523
LDS points.

>>19733548
>>19733552
Was Joseph Smith influenced by Gnosticism at all?

>>19733567
Short answer: extremely so.

>>19733567
Nah, but he was rejected from joining the freemason.

>>19733567
Mormonism is an interesting case because it's sort of an anti-Gnosticism, in that it claims divine beings to have a physical body, that the physical elements of the world have always existed and were organized (not made) into the world, that marriage and reproduction is a holy act carried out by divine beings as well as humanity, that the Spirit is composed of material particles too fine to be observed by conventional means, etc. Supposedly, in the temple rite of endowment, members see a creation story depicting the serpent in the garden of Eden as Christ in disguise, though I can't confirm this as I stopped regularly attending services before I reached that point.
Brigham Young also was said to have believed that Adam was actually God.

>>19733519

I understand it perfectly, it is pure Catholic fabrication.

>>19733511

?

>>19733508
>KJB isn't *the* Bible
Church of Satan out astroturfing today?

>>19733746
We are not posting from a synagogue

>>19733746
>I worship a 1600s translation
idolatry is a sin, pastor bob

>>19733664
go on, explain why. I'm waiting, surely you have a good rebuttal right?

>>19733797

As I said, those things are neither sanctioned by Scripture nor tenable by Reason, and are totally fabricated by the Catholic.

>>19733832
>Is there any biblical evidence that suggests Jesus established a ministerial or hierarchical priesthood distinct from the common priesthood of the baptized?

>The first way in which we can demonstrate that Jesus established a ministerial priesthood is by showing how Christ gives the apostles priestly duties. In the biblical tradition there are certain actions that are constituted specifically as priestly actions. We know a priest by what a priest does. We find Jesus conferring priestly duties on the apostles, and we conclude that he is constituting them as priests. I will limit the present article to two duties: the forgiveness of sins and the offering of sacrifice.

>In John 20:20-23, Jesus transfers to the apostles his power to forgive sins: Notice that Jesus sets it up so that the forgiveness of sins is received through the ministry of the apostles. From the words of Christ it is clear that the apostle has the authority to make a judgment whether to forgive or not to forgive.This paradigm is not foreign to the Jewish people. In the Old Testament the forgiveness of sins was associated with the intercession of the priest: “A man . . . shall confess the sin he has committed, and he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord for the sin which he has committed . . . and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin” (Lev. 5:5-6). Numbers 15:27-28 serves as another example: “If one person sins unwittingly, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who commits an error, when he sins unwittingly, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven.”

>These passages show that God’s ordinary way of dealing with man’s sin is through God’s priests. Notice that it was not a part of God’s will for his people simply to confess their sins privately to him; their confession of sin involved the ministry of the priests. It is in light of this Old Testament context that Jesus tells his apostles to forgive sins. Jesus, as God does in the Old Testament, associates his new ordained ministers with the ministry of the forgiveness of sins. In doing so, Jesus is revealing his apostles to be priests. The priests in the New Covenant, according to Jesus (cf. John 20:23), have the actual power to forgive sins as they so judge.

>Here Protestants usually respond, “Only God can forgive sins, not man.” No argument here. As Catholics, we are not saying that the apostles (and their successors) forgive sins by their own power. The power by which they absolve sins is the very power of Jesus Christ. The priests are simply the agents in persona Christi who exercise that power to which they have access because it resides in their soul by virtue of their ordination.

>>19733832
>A second priestly duty that Jesus gives the apostles is to offer sacrifice, particularly the sacrifice that Jesus offered at the Last Supper. After Jesus pronounces the words of consecration over the bread, St. Luke records Jesus saying, “Do this in remembrance of me” (22:19). Knowing that sacrifice within the Old Testament is always associated with priests, if we can demonstrate that Jesus is commanding the apostles to offer sacrifice, we will be able to conclude that Jesus is establishing them as priests. There are several clues within this Last Supper narrative that reveal such an event to be a sacrifice, thus revealing the apostles to be priests. This article will highlight only one.

>The sacrificial characteristic of the Last Supper is supported by the Greek word used for the command “do.” According to the Greek text, it can be rendered literally as “offer this” in the sense of a sacrifice. The Greek word for “do” is poiein, conjugated in the text as poiete, which in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, is used in a sacrificial sense.

>For example, Exodus 29:38 reads: “Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two lambs a year old day by day continually.” The Greek word for “offer” is also poiein, conjugated poieseis. Leviticus 9:7 and Psalm 66:15 serve as other examples where poiein is used in reference to sacrifice. Moses says to Aaron in Leviticus 9:7, “Draw near to the altar and offer [Greek, poiein] your sin offering and your burnt offering, and make atonement for yourself and for the people.” Psalm 66:15 reads, “I will offer [Greek, poiein] to thee burnt offerings of fatlings.” Because poiein is used in the Last Supper narrative in reference to the duties of the apostles, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is commanding them to offer a sacrifice, thus making them priests.

>>19733832
>But the question now is, “Does this biblical blueprint reveal the apostles recognizing their priestly character and exercising a hierarchical priestly ministry in the early Church?” As we’re going to see, the answer is yes.

>For example, in Acts 1 the apostles cast lots to determine who would replace Judas—that is, who would take on his apostolic duties. This practice of casting lots calls to mind the method that David used to decide who and at what time each of the descendants of Aaron would minister in the Temple of Jerusalem. In 1 Chronicles 24:5 we read, “David organized them according to the appointed duties in their service.” Then, in verse 8, we discover that he organized them by the casting of lots: “They organized them by lot, all alike, for there were officers of the sanctuary and officers of God among both the sons of Elea’zar and the sons of Ith’amar.”

>Another scriptural passage that witnesses to this priestly act is Luke 1:8-9, which records of Zechariah: “Now while he was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, according to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.” Notice the connection between the casting of lots and Zechariah’s priestly duties. It is in light of this Old Testament tradition that the apostles cast lots to determine who would succeed Judas, indicating that the apostles saw their apostolic office as the new priesthood of the New Israel of God.

>>19733832
>The second clue to draw out of this passage is the Greek word that Paul uses when he describes himself as “a minister of Christ”: leitourgos, which means “public servant” and is used in the Jewish tradition to describe the work of the priesthood.

>For example, the word is used in Exodus 28:35 to speak of the ministry that Aaron performs within the sanctuary. The letter to the Hebrews uses this very Greek word to describe how Jesus “ministers” in the heavenly sanctuary: “We have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven . . . a minister [Greek, leitourgos] in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord” (Heb. 8:1-2).

>Paul sees Jesus as the true high priest fulfilling the priestly ministry of old. By referring to himself as leitourgos, Paul sees himself as participating in the one high priesthood of Jesus, which is the fulfillment of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. Therefore, Paul recognizes himself as a New Testament priest.

>According to the biblical blueprint, we have seen a plan set down by the Divine Architect for the building of a new covenant ministerial priesthood. He establishes the Church as the New Israel paralleling the priestly ranks of old. He invests his apostles with certain duties that, when compared with the Old Testament, prove to be priestly. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he leads them to recognize and exercise their priestly prerogatives. Such prerogatives are even transferred to other men outside the college of the twelve apostles, but the evidence for such an affirmation must wait for another article.

>In light of this divine plan, we can conclude that Christ willed for his Church to have a ministerial-hierarchical priesthood that is distinct from the common-universal priesthood. Therefore, when one compares Christ’s blueprint for his Church with the priestly ranks in the Catholic Church, one finds a perfect match.

>>19733832
>The Greek word mysterion (something "secret" or "hidden"; used 28 times in the NT) was translated into Latin by several different words, mostly mysterium (19 times in the Vulgate NT: Matt 13:11; Mark 4:11; Luke 8:10; Rom 11:25; 16:25; 1 Cor 2:7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Eph 3:4; 6:19; Col 1:26; 2:2; 4:3; 2 Thess 2:7; 1 Tim 3:9; Rev 10:7; 17:5) and sacramentum (8 times: Eph 1:9; 3:3, 9; 5:32; Col 1:27; 1 Tim 3:16; Rev 1:20; 17:7; once also testimonium: 1 Cor 2:1). While all of these words can be translated "mystery," the Latin mysterium often refers more to the invisible or hidden dimensions, while sacramentum seems to refer more to the visible or symbolic aspects of a spiritual or divine mystery.

>In a sense, Jesus Christ can be called the "mystery of salvation" or the "sacrament of God," since he, through his incarnation, made visible to us the mystery of the invisible God. Similarly, the Church as a whole is sometimes called the "sacrament of salvation," since it is "the sign and the instrument of the communion of God and men" (CCC, §780; cf. §§774-776).

>>19733537
>God works through history. Jews considered Alexander a savior of sorts
I've read he thought it was awesome they had a prophesy about him.
Sometimes it's tough to view the Bible as oart if the same world as historical documents. Stuff like that helps

>>19733865
>>19733870
>>19733877
>>19733881
>>19733893

First, the argument is totally irrelevant since the current Catholic Church is the successor of a branch of the Roman Government, explicitly founded by Theodosius. Second, the argument of further succession, that of other people succeeding the Apostles just as the Apostles supposedly succeed Jesus, is Morally tenuous since it would entail any of the perpetrators of any of the abominations committed by the Catholic Church to be sanctioned by Jesus. Third, none of this addresses the absurd idea "sacrament" and its total absence from any and all Scriptural sources.

>>19733537
>address the rest of the points. go on, I'm sure you have a rebuttal to sacramental theology, right? please explain in detail how incarnational sacramentology is false
No. To be frank I do not enjoy talking with you. If you actually want to know the Protestant position I suggest the relevant sections of Calvin's Institutes.

>>19733981
hahahahahahaha

>>19733986
This is a good example. Your posts primarily consist of saying "prots are stupid" many times. You not a worthy dialogue partner.

>>19733991
im not even that guy but your posts are just laughable

>>19733993
I'm glad to have provided this service to you

>>19733993
I am just seeing this exchange from the front page and don't give a shit about your debate but you seem like a real faggot.

>>19733967
>>19733981
you're an extreme calvinist evangelical baptist it seems. you realize Calvin himself believed in sacramental theology right? I'll quote the Westminster Confession for you:

>Sacramental relation, or a sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other

That's what a sacrament is: it manifests that which is signified. even Calvin believed that baptism remitted sins. That means he believes in Catholic sacramental theology: the act itself has the power to bring about that which is signified. you have a problem, take it up with Calvin your prophet.

you not only refuse to address any of the scripture citations I quoted in detail, you completely plug your fingers in your ears and say "im not listening, you're wrong and I won't explain why even though you justified your beliefs scripturally!". this is typical of the modern evangelical ethos: if it feels right, I believe it, and I don't have to explain why.

>>19733967
Before you go and cry in your KJV btw, let's address the second point.
There is a direct lineage between Peter and the current Pope. I've already address apostolic succession and the nature of the priesthood in my previous posts, but to say the current Catholic church is not traceable to the apostles is historically illiterate and argued in ill faith probably.

Second: "the church has done bad things in its past, therefore it isnt the Church!". This is typical of distorted Calvinist "theology": it reeks of the heresy of total depravity. an institution, and a person, can be a sinner and still be part of the body of Christ. "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" - the Church is made up of SINNERS - of course it has a history of errors! but the Church is not the sum of its people - the Church is the divinely ordained bride of Christ, unum, sanctum, catholicum, apistolicum.

>>19734020
I am Presbyterian who holds to the Westminster Confession so you typed that for nothing. Anyway you prove my point. I simply do not want to talk to you. If you actually wanted to converse with people on these subjects you would not behave this way.

>>19733967
>>19733981
>>19733991
In conclusion, in short, evangelical Reformed and Baptist belief is historically illiterate, internally inconsistent, self-contradicting, and theologically unsupported. No wonder it's the dominant strain of Christianity in America, and thus is directly responsible for the sorry state of American Christianity we see today.

>>19734045
you have been incessantly snarky, rude, dismissive, and argued in complete bad faith for the past 3 or so threads now and you're crying about others behavior?
get a fucking grip

>>19734041
That is not demonstrable from the historical evidence and no modern historian believes this

Eamon Duffy, member of the Pontifical Historical Commission:
"These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or of the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve."

>>19734045
Please explain how you disagree with the sacramental theology expressed in your own denomination's confession, and why it is wrong.

>>19734055
>>19734057
lol

>>19734061
I don't. You keep reading things into everything I say. I'm not going to respond to you again.

>>19734058
>Like Christian martyrdom, Apostolic Succession is “a historical phenomenon and stands as an important piece of evidence in its own right.” Furthermore the principle of Succession “is bound to its religious meaning.” Like martyrdom, Apostolic Succession sheds “light on the early Church’s witness.” And as with martyrdom, “[m]inimalist readings of that early record are certainly possible.” It is this last point that serves as an excuse for the skeptic: “It is all a sham.”

>The gist of Apostolic Succession is that there is an ordained Christian ministry, distinct from (though not unrelated to) the priesthood of all believers, which ministry is sacramental in character, being conferred through the imposition of hands by at least one already ordained minister, some but not all ordained ministers receiving this gift in its fullness (inclusive of the authority to ordain), and only those who have been ordained to ordain can validly ordain others. [2] In that this ministry was given by Christ to the Apostles, it is Apostolic. In that it has been entrusted by the Apostles to other men, there is a Succession to the ordained Christian ministry. In that this succession essentially involves a visible rite by which the ordained ministry is sacramentally bestowed by one who has already received this gift in its fullness, it is objective and historical. In that this objective and historical dimension of the succession has been observed ubique, semper, ab omnibus, it is unbroken. [3]

>Apostolic Succession, so understood, is a solid and impressive feature of Church history. It is like a mountain range: full of unexplored details, but abundantly evident in the main. Ordination by the laying on of hands is clearly Apostolic; ordination by those who have been ordained to ordain is the prevailing practice in the Church throughout history; the college of bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome (as a point of emphasis) is a materially evident and historically continuous thing (which Catholics call “the Magisterium”), being a touchstone of orthodoxy as witnessed by the history of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Church Fathers. [4] The objections to Apostolic Succession, by contrast, are built upon conjecture about periods or areas for which we do not have much evidence, some possible exceptions to the rule of mediate ordination (e.g., the early Christian prophets), and (less theoretically) the experience of many Christians in ecclesial communities that lack sacramental Apostolic Succession but nonetheless enjoy an authentic life of faith and good works in some sort of communion with other like-minded communities.

>>19734103
>It's true there isn't much evidence but the doctrine is definitely true so trust us
No thanks

>>19734076
No no, I'm curious - you believe sacraments are not Biblical, but your own denomination's statement of belief expresses support for sacramental theology. Is your own denomination unbiblical? or is there in fact biblical support for sacramental theology? which one is it? this is very important because it's the crux of everything you've argued, I'd like to hear how you justify this.

>>19734117
>The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants. Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops). The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

>The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases. Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

>For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

>>19734117
Pope Clement I
>“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus
>“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus
>“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

>“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

>“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).

>>19734156
You win, I'll convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.

>>19734117
Irenaeus
>“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).

Tertullian
>“[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

>“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).

>“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).

>>19734117
Tertullian
>“Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith” (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage
>“[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Augustine
>"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

>>19734168
Good, now grab your copy of the EOB and become saved.

>>19734156
>>19734173
>>19734181
To be frank with you, it does not matter what they say if it is contrary to scripture. False teachings already existed at the time of the Apostles and closeness to that does not confer authority. What this doctrine allows is the importation of any accretion no matter how contrary it is to scripture, which is the only place that contains any trustworthy apostolic teachings.

>>19734183
>become saved
nice reformation heresy bro

>>19734194
>"I am closer to the truth of apostolic succession than the Church Fathers who lived in AD 70 because ... well, I just am ok! You're telling me they understood the Apostles and teachings of Jesus better because they lived less than 50 years after his death and were in direct contact with the Apostles? nononono this can't be true, it just can't!"
>"I'll just quote the bible to refute the early Church Fathers ... w-what do you mean the Bible wasn't assembled yet? what do you mean the Church Fathers established the biblical canon? nononono the KJV was handed down directly from God, nononono!"

"restoration" "theology" is a complete joke, it's mormon-tier. did you find some new revelation tablets too bro that only you know about?

>>19734221
Anon there are literally direct disciples of the apostles in scripture who fall into false teachings while the apostles are still alive. Earliness means jack shit.

>>19734194
This is the heart of Protestantism - it doesn't matter what the Tradition is, I'll believe what I want to believe.

>>19734258
We follow the only words of the Apostles that anyone actually possesses. You have not a single world of the Apostles outside of Scripture, nor a single word of Christ outside of Scripture.

>>19734247
I explained the biblical basis for apostolic succession. I explained the biblical basis for apostolic priesthood. I cited the Church Fathers to show they believed in Petrine success and apostolic authority. You have yet to address any of the points regarding your disagreement with your own denomination's view of Sacramental Theology, or address the biblical citations I've shown to justify the connection between the Apostolic Priesthood and the role of sacraments.

what exactly is your point here? you're getting BTFO left and right? is your point that someone only *you* know the true doctrine, but you can't explain what it is or defend it, and you won't try? by what authority do you jettison 2000 years of tradition, the same tradition that assembled the bible itself, when I have showed how that tradition is not only logical but also justified biblically? is your arguement just, I don't like it, it feels wrong, therefore it is wrong?

because sure seems like it

>>19734275
who assembled the scriptures if not the Apostles? do you see the basic contradiction behind sola scriptura? not to mention the Catholic beliefs you cried about are justified scripturally anyway and I've shown so in this thread

>>19734020
>>19734041
>>19734055

I am, in fact, a Black Gnostic. What did I refuse to address? What is not subsumed by the previous reply? It is a Historical fact that the current Catholic Church was founded as a branch of the Roman Government, by claiming that it nevertheless succeeds Peter, you are claiming that it was succeeded precisely as such, as a branch of the Roman Government. Certainly not the argument I would want to make if I were Catholic. It is a Moral fact that the Catholic Church has committed countless abominations, I did not say that it was therefore impossible for it to be sanctioned by God, only, and especially, that that would make both the Church and God very suspicious. You are free to deem both the Church and God as Evil. Your own quip betrays that you yourself are well aware of this, you are making a paradoxically "Gnostic" argument in that the Catholic Church will be, and can only be, transcendentally justified, that it can commit any and all abominations provided that the formality of "the games of Hell", a prominently transcendental idea, do not triumph against it; totally antithetic to the otherwise morbid obsession with Material life and "works" that the Church affirms, and, indeed, totally necessary given its total depravity.

>>19734020
>>19734041
>>19734055

I am, in fact, a Black Gnostic. What did I refuse to address? What is not subsumed by the previous reply? It is a Historical fact that the current Catholic Church was founded as a branch of the Roman Government, by claiming that it nevertheless succeeds Peter, you are claiming that it was succeeded precisely as such, as a branch of the Roman Government. Certainly not the argument I would want to make if I were Catholic. It is a Moral fact that the Catholic Church has committed countless abominations, I did not say that it was therefore impossible for it to be sanctioned by God, only, and especially, that that would make both the Church and God very suspicious. You are free to deem both the Church and God as Evil. Your own quip betrays that you yourself are well aware of this, you are making a paradoxically "Gnostic" argument in that the Catholic Church will be, and can only be, transcendentally justified, that it can commit any and all abominations provided that the formality of "the gates of Hell", a prominently transcendental idea, do not triumph against it; totally antithetic to the otherwise morbid obsession with Material life and "works" that the Church affirms, and, indeed, totally necessary given its total depravity.

>>19734307
>I am, in fact, a Black Gnostic.
lol. go to bed, louis farrakhan

>>19734324

Black as in pessimistic, not racial, clowns.

>>19734307
>It is a Historical fact that the current Catholic Church was founded as a branch of the Roman Government, by claiming that it nevertheless succeeds Peter, you are claiming that it was succeeded precisely as such, as a branch of the Roman Government.
not founded. the Roman government became Christianized because of the Church. The Roman government fucking crucified Peter and executed Paul, lol. It wasn't "founded" by Rome. It was only after the Christianizing of Rome that the Church became the New Rome.
>It is a Moral fact that the Catholic Church has committed countless abominations, I did not say that it was therefore impossible for it to be sanctioned by God, only, and especially, that that would make both the Church and God very suspicious.
seems your problem is with the nature of sin and humanity, not the Church then. then again, you're a gnostic, which is not even Christian. im not familiar with pagan "theology" so I can't even engage it.
>you are making a paradoxically "Gnostic" argument in that the Catholic Church will be, and can only be, transcendentally justified, that it can commit any and all abominations provided that the formality of "the gates of Hell", a prominently transcendental idea, do not triumph against it; totally antithetic to the otherwise morbid obsession with Material life and "works" that the Church affirms, and, indeed, totally necessary given its total depravity.
>the "Church" doesn't get judged because the Church is only made of the people who are in the body of Christ. the people get judged for their acts. communal judgement? you sound like a marxist. communal judgement is an idea antithetical to Christianity. sounds like the problem is with your own personal post marx interpretation of Christianity

>>19734354
*the "Church" doesn't get judged because the Church is only made of the people who are in the body of Christ. the people get judged for their acts. communal judgement? you sound like a marxist. communal judgement is an idea antithetical to Christianity. sounds like the problem is with your own personal post marx interpretation of Christianity

>>19734307
Gnosticism was retroactively refuted by Origen.

>>19734055
Damn right.

>>19734354
>>19734357
>The Roman government fucking crucified Peter and executed Paul, lol.

Does it not follow that the original Church, founded by Peter, thus ended and that what then "succeeded" it is a branch of the Roman Government? The rest of your contentions are trite. Is it not the Catholic who claims that "works" are measure of men and such? Does it not follow that the Catholic Church is therefore Evil? "My problem"...pathetic stuff.

Now that was a brutal one sided beatdown. The protestant did not knew how to refute any argument.

>>19734396
you understand nothing of Catholic theology, apostolic succession (which has been address numerous times in this thread), you have little to no understanding of early Christian history, and your "arguments" are historically illiterate and theologically dull "gotchas" which could be remedied by opening up a Catechism. You conflate institutions and individuals, you don't understand the nature of sin or works or faith, you have little conception of theories of salvation, and you are reductionist, simplistic, and you argue in bad faith.

before being a "trendy" gnostic, try understanding what you are "rebelling" against first.

>>19734454

Anything in particular you would like to further address?

>>19734454
>>19734463

Or, on that note, explain how the Catechism, if nothing else, justifies the absurdity of "sacrament", a point you immediately dropped after I called it out as such?

>>19734258
Some time ago I saw a very nice Episcopalian church and out of curiosity I checked what they were about and literally the first thing I'm presented with is that "we accept all genders and sexual orientations!!!" not somewhere else in their statement, right the fuck away. We ordains transwomen priests, isn't that amazing? I wonder why these denominations even exist if literally the first thing they hand you is something you can find on atheist Twitter.

>>19734463
read the thread, buy a bible commentary and catechism, read the new testament, and come back when you can ask coherent questions. I'll be happy to address them then

>>19734489

You have conceded every argument I've made. At least copy-paste whatever you think can refute me.

>>19734482
read
>>19733865
>>19733870
>>19733877
>>19733881
the priest, by virtue of the priesthood in persona christi, makes manifest that which is symbolized by certain rituals. we call these rituals sacraments because, if you read the explanation, you would see how, by nature of the priesthood, the priest makes manifest that which Christ *actually does*. CCC:
>The sacraments, by virtue of the priesthood, are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

>>19734520
>cites Church Fathers, the Bible, and the Cathechism
>t-that's copy pasting!
are you sure you're not a crypto protestant? you sure sound like a evangelical.

>>19734482
Augustine
>The visible sacrifice is the sacrament. This is the sacred sign of the invisible sacrifice. A thing is called a sacrament, either by having a certain hidden sanctity, and in this sense a sacrament is a sacred secret; or from having some relationship to this sanctity. A sacrament is a sign. Moreover, it is a sacred sign. Divine Wisdom provides for each thing according to its mode. Wisdom 7,1 : "she... ordered all things sweetly"; and from Matthew 25,15: "[she] gave to everyone according to his proper ability." It is a part of human nature to acquire knowledge of the intelligible from the sensible. A sign is the way one obtains knowledge of something else. The sacraments are the signs by which humans gain knowledge of spiritual and intelligible goods. Ephesians 5, 25-26: "Christ loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it; that He might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life."

>There are three reasons sacraments are necessary to the salvation of humans: First, it is in the nature of humans to be led by things corporal and sensible to things that are spiritual and intelligible. Second, by sinning, humans have subjected themselves to corporeal things. Therefore, it is proper that the remedy have a corporeal side, leading to the spiritual. Third, humans are prone to direct their activity towards material things (things that can be seen and felt). Sacraments are made necessary because humans have sinned. The main effect of the sacraments is grace, in particular those involving Virtues and Gifts. Grace perfects the soul and allow participation in the Divine Nature. Furthermore, the effects of the sacraments is justification. This is an interior effect. Romans 8,33: "God justifies." Therefore, the effects of the sacraments is justification. This is an interior effect. The power of the sacraments is from God, alone. It does not matter that the minister of the sacraments may be a sinner, or evil. Augustine (commenting on John 1,33): "He upon Whom you shall see the Spirit, ...that John did not know that our Lord, having the authority of baptizing, would keep it to Himself, but that the ministry would certainly pass to both good and evil men...What is a bad minister to you, wherever the Lord is good?"

>>19734482
Thomas Aquinas
>Life needs material nourishment to increase in quantity and to maintain the body. Spiritual effects are given under the likeness of things that are visible, hence are given the appearance of things men commonly use for bodily nourishment. These are bread and wine. He who begets is joined to the begotten in a way. The nourished and the nourishment are joined. It is the spiritual mystery that unites the Eucharist to us. John 6, 56: "My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." John 6, 61: "This saying is hard, and who can bear it?" So it is with the heretics who put themselves at odds with the teaching of the Church. Matthew 26, 26 "This is my body." He did not say, "This is a sign or representation of my body." Yet some heretics disclaim the truth of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. To some, it appears scandalous to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ. John 6, 64: "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life."
>A thing begins to be where it was not before in two ways: 1.) by local motion; 2.) Conversion of something into itself. Manifestly, the body of Christ ascended into heaven, hence cannot be always on the altar. It does not seem possible to some there is a new conversion of another into itself on the altar. In a similar manner, a thing cannot be moved from one place to another without ceasing to be in the original place. Therefore, it seems to some that Christ must cease to be in heaven when He is on the altar. It seems impossible to some that the large body of a man could be contained in the host used in the Eucharist. It is also hard to understand how the body of Christ can be present simultaneously, on many altars at once. Another stumbling block is the appearance of the bread and wine. The accidents of color, taste, figure, etc. remain. Aristotle "The being of an accident is by inheritance." Another problem occurs from the fact that the action and passion of the bread and wine are unchanged after the consecration. Another problem occurs in the breaking of the bread, for it seems to some that the fragment of the bread cannot contain the whole body. This would be as if a man lost an arm or leg, his whole being would be contained in the portion.

>>19734482
Thomas Aquinas
>It is true that the teachings of the Church about the Eucharist are difficult. Divine power operates in this sacrament with great secrecy and sublimity. It is beyond the ability of man to search it out. The conversion occurs by a divine mode, and is not natural (in the way we understand it) in any way. Air can be converted to fire. This is called a formal conversion. But in the conversion of the Eucharist, a subject passes over into a subject without a change in the accidents. This is called "substantial". It was wise of Christ to assume the form of bread and wine, since it would be horrible for the believers to consume a real human body and blood. Furthermore, it would be an abomination for those watching to observe such a thing. There is a real conversion which takes place: "This is My Body...This is My Blood." His body is contained in the bread by the force of conversion, while the blood is a natural accompaniment. Under the appearance of wine, the converse is true. The body of Christ is not related to place, with its own dimensions as a medium. In the body of Christ, His own dimensions exist in one place only, but through the mediation of the dimensions of the bread passing into its places are as many as there are places in which this sort of conversion is celebrated. It is not divided into parts, but is entire in every single one. Every consecrated bread is converted into the entire Body of Christ. The Body and Blood of Christ is not affected by the accidents of the bread and wine. It is not impossible that divine power can affect the subject without changing the nature of the accidents. In this sacrament He conserves the accident while changing the substance.

>>19734526

What distinguishes this from what other rituals of other creeds are purported to be by their clergy?

>>19734541
>A sacrament is a sign
>>19734557
>He did not say, "This is a sign or representation of my body."

Intriguing...

>>19734586
so you core question is, what makes the gospel and Christianity true then? because the validity of the priesthood and sacramental theology is dependent on the validity of Christianity as a whole, you are right.

I recommend these books:
- The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the grave : a commentary on the Passion narratives in the four Gospels - Raymond Brown
-Resurrection of the Son of God - NT Wright
-Mere Christianity - CS Lewis

>>19734608
Let's read the rest of the quote shall we?

>[T]he effects of the sacraments is justification. This is an interior effect.
>The main effect of the sacraments is grace, in particular those involving Virtues and Gifts

so, yes, a sacrament is a efficacious sign. are you able to read past the first sentence? if not, you really shouldn't be on /lit/. it seems /pol/ is more your style, you enjoy constructing strawmen.

>>19734617

This is almost non sequitur but, on that note, you should know that your definition of "sacrament" is the very essence of paganism: the priests purport themselves as actual conduits for gods, spirits, animals, ancestors, etc. IF you wanted to distinguish Christianity therefrom you should explicitly affirm a desecration of your Church.

>>19734632

How does it having an effect contradict it being a sign?

>>19734663
yes, catholic priests are actual conduits for God, and the the validity of that is dependent on whether Christianity is true. why is that hard for you to understand?
ultimately I can't convince you Christianity is true, but those books might answer some of your questions. Christianity is reasonable but it is not able to be proven by reason alone, that has never been debated.

>>19734670
it doesn't, that's the point. please read posts fully before you respond.

Imagine being a Catholic in 2022 when they have had no prophets ever and cannot rock for the Rock of Ages.

>>19734687
>>19734696

You have no idea what you are even saying anymore.

>>19734713
you are a sad strange little man.

>>19734713
I know it's difficult for you to concede arguments but you got your pants pulled down. We're all laughing at you.

>>19734913
>even the final zinger is not original never mind clever and refers to my previous matter of factly reply

Can't make this up.

>>19734713
This is just sad, man

>>19734962
youre crying and screaming because you literally don't understand the things I explained to you. is it the big words or is it the cognitive dissonance? show me where the logic hurt you

>>19734906
>>19734913
>>19734968
>>19734985

I suppose the quips and zingers are less nonsensical than your claims...

>>19735022
>...
Come on now, son.

>>19735022
you are honestly pathetic. you engage none of my arguments, respond to none of my points, and are obviously illiterate in the basics of the faith. "im le gnostic!" are you 14? "durr ok well you think priests act in the person of God". yes, that's exactly what I argued. just because it is difficult for you to grasp, or you don't understand it, doesn't mean that counts as a refutation. you can't even read the full citations from the catechism abs church fathers I posted. why am I supposed to take you seriously? you are disgusting in your shallowness, embarrassing in your slow-wittedness, and that's before i even mention your malicious, malign, and kindergarten level intent.

sick, sad, and disturbing.

>>19735109

You have already accused me of not addressing your points (>>19734020). Will you fail to specify which ones again?

> Reading through the text in one long go, 1st Book of Kings
> And then the Jews did this and then the Jews did that and then the Jews killed their neighbours and then their neighbours did that and then the the Jews fucked up their neighbours and then the Jews jewed their way through Super-Jewry and then the Jews killed this-is-this ridiculous gajillion of their enemies (100000) for classical battles rivalling Gaugamela, Alesia, Cannae and Red Cliffs.

Sola scriptura truly was the quickest way to disbelief. 39 books, as "muh dik" as the Epic of Gilgamesh, with as much brutality as the Iliad, without the Greek appreciation for tragedy, but rather, only the Jew ad hoc rationalization of sin.

>>19735324
Why has every LARPagan I've seen on this can only communicate via Wojaks and obsesses over the Jews. Some of them have even posted cuck porn in their attempts to "own" Christians.
https://desuarchive.org/his/search/image/AF0IuQgwrrytF5CXcJaG1Q/

>>19735160
affirm the Nicene Creed first so I know youre a Christian who is arguing in good faith and with the same shared foundation.

>>19735431

So yes.

>>19735324
You are a sad little man

>>19735464
>can't are even with the basic tenets of christianity
why are you even here? there's no way for me to even argue with you if you don't believe in God, the authority of the bible, or that Jesus existed. these aren't exactly difficult. do you affirm those as the foundation for argument or not? it's pretty simple, chaim

>>19735484

This is the sorriest excuse for "works" I've seen in a while.

>>19735503
what are the fuck are you even talking about? now I actually think youre a jew. are you Christian or not? do you share the basic tenets of Christianity or not? this isn't a hard question.

>>19735503
You are obtuse anon. No different than a pharisee.

>>19735519
Watch the Jew fall silent when you name what he is.

>>19735519
>>19735528
>>19735552

I've already mentioned my position at the start of this exchange.

>>19735559
are you a Christian or not? do you believe in the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed? do you believe in the authority of the bible, and in Jesus? it's funny to watch you squirm to avoid answering the question. yes or no?

>>19735568

Why does any of this matter? Is it not true that the man you claim as the successor of Peter said that there is Jew inside of every Christian?

>>19735594
are you a Christian or not? do you believe in the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed? do you believe in the authority of the bible, and in Jesus? yes or no? are you jewish, yes or no?

if there are no common presuppositions to start from, you'll never assent to any of the points I've been making.

are you a Christian or not? do you believe in the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed? do you believe in the authority of the bible, and in Jesus? are you jewish, yes or no?

>>19735630

I'll have you know that one of the tenets of the Catholic Church is universal Reason.

>>19735663
why can't you answer the question? it's not hard, are you a Christian or not? do you believe in the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed? do you believe in the authority of the bible, and in Jesus?

>>19735703

Would it not follow that I would therefore NOT be a Christian if I acquiesced to your request?

>>19735736
1. are you a Christian or not? do you believe in the basic tenets of the Nicene Creed? do you believe in the authority of the bible, and in Jesus? yes or no

2. are you jewish? yes or no?

are you able to read? why is this so hard for you to answer?

ffs just start your own thread for this already

>>19735764

You've demonstrated total ignorance of Catholic Tradition. Who would I be answering to and why?

>>19735773

I would've let it go here (>>19734713) but he keeps copy-pasting nonsense. We can only speculate about his faith given the abysmal state of his works.

>>19735798

And, in fact, I AM going to bed. Stop copy-pasting this crap and at least read the Catholicism wikipedia page. Speaking of "being remedied by opening up a Catechism"...Sad.

>>19735783
>>19735798
>>19735847
>isn't even Christian
>has zero understanding of doctrine, the foundations of Christianity, dogma, or the Bible
>refuses to say if he's a jew (big warning signal)
>says "my tradition" is "dependent on works" - won't explain what that means, won't address my points on sacramental theology, and won't agree with basic points like if there is a God or if the Bible is authoritative
>continually evades questions, misdirects, and lies
>plays the victim when he is unable to even explain what he is flailing against
>ignores and doesn't read when I quote the Catechism and Church Fathers to answer his "questions"

you are, unironically, one of the most malicious posters I have ever spoken with on this site, and that's saying something.

why do bible threads attract the most aggressive, angry, malicious posting anywhere on the site? why are non Christians so triggered? it is literally inexplicable.

>>19736070
>bible threads attract the most aggressive, angry, malicious posting anywhere on the site

>>19736070
>why do bible threads attract the most aggressive, angry, malicious posting anywhere on the site? why are non Christians so triggered? it is literally inexplicable.
Got you brother

>>19736070
>why do bible threads attract the most aggressive, angry, malicious posting anywhere on the site?
Because of all the non King James readers getting possessed by demons.

>>19736070
I blame protestants and the KJB-only guys

can I just skip Leviticus?

rules are great and all but I doubt I'm going to be stoning my neighbor next week.

Imagine being a Sola Scriptura person in this day and age.

Ha!

>>19736908
No, it's all crucial for setting up the proper meditation rhythms.

>>19736070

Again, I have already fully addressed, and fully refuted, all of your points. Will you refuse to specify which ones you think I did not a third time? This is pathetic, just look at this shit:

>won't explain what that means

I said that your faith, not your tradition (I now suspect that you're actually illiterate), is dependent on your works, which is BASIC Catholic Tradition. Read the wikipedia. You CANNOT possibly pretend to be Catholic without ever having heard of this, unless you are extremely narcissistic and vacuous OR you are actually, medically, a mongoloid.

>>19726467
lol

>>19736070
>>19737442

Also, since you seem obsessed with my alleged Jewish identity, God only knows why, and totally ignorant of all Catholic matters, I'll have you know that it is YOU who are the Jew, according to your Pope: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-inside-every-christian-jew

I'm really starting to like this guy's channel. Some real hip shit he's discussing. Wonder what'll be next...
https://youtu.be/Tr65MU4ae2c

you know you can get free bibles

Hi

>>19738507
hello

The nasty Catholic anon killed the thread

>>19738692
Sad

>>19738692
Catholics are controlled by devil worshiping pagans and follow the words of a mere mortal instead of those the lord speaks

>>19738738
Begone prot

>>19738743
CCC 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Well my church search continues. Went to one the wife's friend and her family went to.

Something seemed off. Look at their web page to ascertain beliefs of the place and they quote from some book that basically bashes other churches for being mostly homogeneous ethnically/culturally/wealth wise. I find it ironic since next door there is an Ethiopian church that they talked positively about
Am I wrong to be irritated by this?

>>19738826
Sounds pretty pozzed, what's their denomination?

>>19738839
Non denominational protestant

>>19738849
Find a Reformed church
https://www.naparc.org/directories-2/

Hey anons, what fiction do you read?
I'm thinking of getting Joyce's so-called masterpieces.

>>19738888
Check'd. Joyce's actual best works were Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (both of which you should read before Ulysses or the Wake anyways). Joyce was not a very Christian man at heart, and in Portrait you see a lot of his grappling with the faith reflected in the text.
For me, I'm reading Dostoevsky's Demons and after that am planning on Paradise Lost.

>>19738939
I'm especially eyeing Finnegans Wake. What do you think of it?

Nice. Gone through the rest of Dostoevsky yet? C&P was a fun one. Really liked the pace of The Idiot after it too.(excluding his "paid-by-the-page" style of making it longer)

>>19738692
cry more

>>19738826
don't church hop. find one that matches the truth. i recommend the local catholic parish or OCA church

>>19737617
>>19737442
please take your medicine. you're rambling again

new thread >>19739151

>>19725013
Peter says in his second epistle that St. Paul's letters are scripture. "Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him. He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. " (2 Peter 3:15-16)
Besides this, he was historically an incredibly important figure in the actual formation and organization of early Christian communities, to the point where saints with extreme closeness to the apostolic fathers (like St. Irenaeus) say that the church in Rome (which is the Church with which all other churches must agree to maintain orthodoxy) was founded by Peter and Paul. See Against Heresies 3.