Bible Thread, One in Christ Edition

[Anonymous No.19946821]

Last time on Bible thread: >>19926140
No more arguments, I want literature we can agree on that’s great.

[Anonymous No.19946822]

>>19946821
*expresses controversial opinion*

[Anonymous No.19946825]

>>19946821
What do niggas actually learn in Seminaries? how old is the average seminarian?

[Anonymous No.19946839]

What is the denominations of people that post in this thread? I know OP is catholic
Interested to see if it's mainly cath an orthodox or if there's a significant number of others

[Anonymous No.19946877]

>>19946839
OP is Orthodox, however, Catholicism is also very close to my heart. I used to do a lot of arguing in these kinds of threads a while back which I’m infinitely embarrassed about. Ultimately, with the world as it is, we are better diverting our attentions to criticising evil; the anti-christs in our world that hold our Lord in contempt as they live a life of pure sin, rather than our brothers.

[Anonymous No.19946909]

>>19946877
Ah ok. Last op I talked to was catholic. Assumed it was the same one.
I'm a Baptist (old school one, which surprisingly still exists in the US) but I don't hate other denominations
Typically local churches do good stuff for the community and are made up of decent people

[Anonymous No.19946919]

>>19946821
Not exactly directly related to bibles but I figure I'll get a better response than on /his/, is there any subsect of Christianity that believes mankind was chosen as a result of God choosing us after creation, as opposed to God choosing us prior to creation?

[Anonymous No.19946933]

Cope and seethe

[Anonymous No.19946951]

>>19946839
Catholic here, though I hold much respect for our Orthodox brothers and any Protestant who holds to their love of Christ firmly and rejects globohomo.

[Anonymous No.19946972]

>>19946821
>At first view it might seem as if Protestantism were entirely destructive to this that we call Hero-worship, and represent as the basis of all possible good, religious or social, for mankind. One often hears it said that Protestantism introduced a new era, radically different from any the world had ever seen before: the era of "private judgment," as they call it. By this revolt against the Pope, every man became his own Pope; and learnt, among other things, that he must never trust any Pope, or spiritual Hero-captain, any more! Whereby, is not spiritual union, all hierarchy and subordination among men, henceforth an impossibility? So we hear it said.—Now I need not deny that Protestantism was a revolt against spiritual sovereignties, Popes and much else. Nay I will grant that English Puritanism, revolt against earthly sovereignties, was the second act of it; that the enormous French Revolution itself was the third act, whereby all sovereignties earthly and spiritual were, as might seem, abolished or made sure of abolition. Protestantism is the grand root from which our whole subsequent European History branches out. For the spiritual will always body itself forth in the temporal history of men; the spiritual is the beginning of the temporal. And now, sure enough, the cry is everywhere for Liberty and Equality, Independence and so forth; instead of Kings, Ballot-boxes and Electoral suffrages: it seems made out that any Hero-sovereign, or loyal obedience of men to a man, in things temporal or things spiritual, has passed away forever from the world. I should despair of the world altogether, if so. One of my deepest convictions is, that it is not so. Without sovereigns, true sovereigns, temporal and spiritual, I see nothing possible but an anarchy; the hatefulest of things. But I find Protestantism, whatever anarchic democracy it have produced, to be the beginning of new genuine sovereignty and order. I find it to be a revolt against false sovereigns; the painful but indispensable first preparative for true sovereigns getting place among us! This is worth explaining a little.

[Anonymous No.19947032]

I posted this in the previous thread but got not reply.

I am a prospective convert to Catholicism and have run into a problem. Read this article:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/24/detroit-priest-invalid-baptism-canonical-consequences

It concerns a priest, who found out after 30 years that his baptism was not valid. The baptism was done with the formula "We baptize..." rather than "I baptize..." which the Catholic Church has ruled as invalid, so that anyone baptized this way is not baptized. So, only baptized men may be ordained to the priesthood, so since he was not baptized, he was never a priest. So any sacraments he performed as a priest (Eucharist, confession, etc.) were not valid. So the church is trying to reach anyone who partook of the sacraments from him in order to redo them such that they will be valid.

Now the question I have should be obvious: if everything hinges on the use of correct grammar like this, how can you actually know you are receiving the sacraments? What if your priest was baptized as an infant with the wrong formula and no one knows? He was never a priest. When he absolved you of your sins they were not absolved. There is apparently no kind of economical allowance for these matters as it is all having to be handled as if none of it ever occurred. How can you actually have any certainty?

Also this is not the only occurrence of this. A priest resigned in Arizona recently because he has been using the formula "We baptize..." for over a decade, meaning that thousands of people he baptized are not baptized and must be sought out and rebaptized:

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-priest-baptism-catholic-church-208c6795fbf2dea911cf4488e8a5925e

And for myself, as a convert, I was baptized in a Baptist church some years ago. I don't remember the specific wording that was used. It was in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but as for the pronoun, I have no idea.

Here's an answer given by a different article from the same source:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/08/26/explainer-what-is-an-invalid-baptism

What I take from this is, "The church can only guarantee the sacraments are valid when they are performed correctly, so if they are performed incorrectly just have faith God did his end anyway." So why do they need to reperform them? To be sure and guarantee they're valid, correct? So basically you can't actually be sure that they're valid.

[Anonymous No.19947101]

>>19947032
>And for myself, as a convert, I was baptized in a Baptist church some years ago.
Out of curiosity, what made you want to convert?
I can't speak to the catholic baptism stuff, I'm not catholic

[Anonymous No.19947121]

>>19946821
Ecumenism is fake and gay!

[Anonymous No.19947125]

>>19947101
The problem of authority, having to decide all theological matters for myself. Some Protestants think they resolve this by the use of confessional standards, but subscription to one of these is based on its agreement with your personal interpretation. Like what actual authority does the Westminster Assembly have? None. You just agree with it or you don't.

[Anonymous No.19947176]

>>19947125
I've always viewed authority on theological matters as residing with the Holy Spirit since it is he who teaches us (John 14:26). Makes it extremely hard to find a church since I don't view a church that has Baptist on it as necessarily having the Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19947196]

>>19947176
Ah, baptism is a good one, and it's a problem I've studied. You can make a very convincing argument for infant baptism from Scripture. And also a very convincing argument for baptism of only those who profess faith. The issue get extremely complex and is not at all obvious. The idea that I'm supposed to study this and come to my own conclusion (over which far more educated people than me disagree convincingly) is a load of shit.

[Anonymous No.19947263]

>>19947196
>The idea that I'm supposed to study this and come to my own conclusion (over which far more educated people than me disagree convincingly) is a load of shit.
Can't remember the exact verse but pretty sure there's one where being wise they made themselves fools. Anyway pretty sure the Bible also says to study it (2nd Timothy 2:15) so I've kinda viewed it as my responsibility to take the time to study and ask the Holy Spirit for guidance so that I'll know what to believe because men are liars and false teachers are mentioned in the Bible so don't know what else to go off of

[Anonymous No.19947477]

>>19946839
Unaffiliated.

[Anonymous No.19947494]

>>19947263
Everyone's wrong but you, right?

[Anonymous No.19947506]

>>19947494
Nope. Some churches can and do hold my beliefs. I've gone to church in the past and do try to attend currently. Sometimes non denom sometimes Baptist. As I said it is not a denomination name that justifies a church
I also don't pretend that I have every answer and regularly ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and am willing to consider various view points on some things including church governance, how often communion should be taken, etc.

[Anonymous No.19947537]

>>19947506
Why are there Christians who disagree with you?

[Anonymous No.19947563]

[Anonymous No.19947570]

>>19946821
Is there any churches who actually believe in Semipelaganist doctrine?

[Anonymous No.19947575]

>>19947537
I view it as a result of one or more of the following
>they have not read the Bible
>they have not sought the Holy Spirit when studying
>they have reached out to clergy for their opinion instead of taking time to study themselves
>they have read and interpreted it differently
As I said I don't think that I know it all nor do I pretend I have all the answers. It's why I try to study and understand what I'm reading and why im willing to hear other view points. I find it good to try to be active in my faith rather than just going by what another person says is correct
Anyway naturally there will be disagreements because man by nature is flawed, including myself (hence asking the Holy Spirit for guidance). I just really don't see any better method of determining what's right and what I should believe than what I'm doing.

[Anonymous No.19947586]

>>19947575
How is an illiterate person supposed to understand what to believe?

[Anonymous No.19947606]

>>19947121
Scheming hands typed this

[Anonymous No.19947607]

This is as good a place to ask as any: I'm being baptized and confirmed soon. Washington DC general area. Is anybody here willing to sponsor me? Discussions with /lit/ anons set me on the path more than a year ago, and I think it would be most fitting if a /lit/ anon saw my confirmation through as well.

(crosspost from the Aquinas thread)

[Anonymous No.19947611]

>>19946825
>What do niggas actually learn in Seminaries?
How to suck cock

>“Essentially the church has always preferred gay priests to heterosexual priests. With its anti-gay circulars, it claims to be changing things a little, but you can’t change a reality with a circular!

>“While the celibacy of priests remains in place, a gay priest will always receive a better welcome in the church than a straight priest. That’s a reality, and there’s nothing the church can do about it.”

>The seminarians I have interviewed agree on another point: a heterosexual cannot feel completely at ease in a Catholic seminary, because – and I’m quoting the expressions they used – of “the looks”, the “special friendships”, the “bromances” the “boy-chasing”, and the “sensitivity”, “fluidity”, “tenderness” and “generalised homoerotic atmosphere” that emanates from it. Anyone who wasn’t a confirmed bachelor would be flummoxed.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/grindr-blackmail-and-confession-the-life-of-a-gay-seminarian-1.3808475

[Anonymous No.19947637]

>>19947586
By teaching them to read. Honestly if you're going to go to the trouble of teaching someone about Christianity you should teach them how to read so that they can read the book it's based on

[Anonymous No.19947646]

People ITT: what pushed you to believe in Christianity?

[Anonymous No.19947648]

>>19947637
I'm not getting at what you can do today. I'm talking about the majority of history, in which the majority of the laity were illiterate peasants and manuscripts (printed books did not exist yet) were not easily or inexpensively acquired.

[Anonymous No.19947657]

>>19947648
obviously you teach them as best you can and ask God for help in teaching. but clearly this leads to serious issues as can be seen by the reformation and catholicism having to hold meetings about the issues raised due to textual matters.
Man lies. its a fact and unfortunatley corruption always leaks into churches no matter the size

[Anonymous No.19947668]

>>19946839
I am Christian which means not Catholic, Orthodox, JW, LDS, or any other Satanic cult.

[Anonymous No.19947671]

>>19946839
Catholic
>>19947646
Dostoevsky and the communion of saints.

[Anonymous No.19947689]

>>19947657
I think the beliefs that you hold only make sense in the modern world, after the invention of the printing press and the rise of literacy, which is coincidentally the only time in history that anyone has believed such things.

[Anonymous No.19947728]

Jordan Peterson commented that the part where Abraham attempts to sacrifices his son Isaac to God shows how a good father lets his son go out into the dangerous world (i.e. handing his fate over to God) as opposed to sheltering him forever. This is a necessary but difficult sacrifice.

Do you agree with this interpretation?

[Anonymous No.19947730]

>>19947689
Coincidentally or not it is a method available and the one I use and some of the beliefs which i hold were around prior to the counsel of nicea (as were other differing viewpoints)
As such I cannot hold any specific group as the sole keepers of knowledge. God's word is the truth (John 17:17) as such I choose to look at what it says. As I said I know no better system and with the way things are, it would be foolish not to

[Anonymous No.19947754]

>>19947728
There are a lot of things you could read into it, but it's a prefiguration of the sacrifice of Christ.

[Anonymous No.19947768]

>>19947646
I was raised Catholic and hated it, was a typical atheist teen. Took a long time as an adult to realize that I do actually believe, because my skepticism and proclivity to believe conspiracy theories has me convinced that the Bible has been manipulated by someone, somewhere to control me, but in all ways except historical I believe the Bible to be completely true. Jordan Peterson's comments on this also helped me work through it. I no longer believe that everyone in church was mindlessly claiming that the laws of time and space were actually broken, but that they were celebrating the truthfulness of the Bible in every way. The interpretation that God is not a physical man floating in the sky but rather that He is all that is good has helped me better understand.

[Anonymous No.19947772]

>>19947768
As much as /lit/ hates Jordan Peterson, I like some of his Bible talk. Pls no bully

[Anonymous No.19947793]

>>19947754
Should a father imitate God's fatherhood to Jesus?

[Anonymous No.19947818]

>>19947793
Not directly, no. It's like Song of Songs, if you read it literally as about a man and woman (and not as an allegory about the church), then it presents behavior that would be abusive on purely human terms.

[Anonymous No.19947819]

>>19947768
Almost everyone went through that phase. Glad we've made it through.

As for a little surprise, i just found out Marcus Aurelius' criticism of Christianity (arguing about the soul) in his Meditations is the exact same thing the romans were struggling with when Paul taught them.

[Anonymous No.19947829]

>>19947819
I think I'm ready to read Aurelius next, starting with Meditations.

[Anonymous No.19947834]

>>19947829
>next
as a continuation of what?

[Anonymous No.19947839]

>>19947668
lol

[Anonymous No.19947844]

>>19947834
You'll cringe. Let's just say "next in my literary and spiritual journey" and I'll shut up.

[Anonymous No.19947846]

>thought the Bible was complicated
>it's even more complicated
Every time i learn something new i am assured the people who criticize it haven't even touched one.

[Anonymous No.19947861]

>>19947844
>spiritual journey
Read this carefully.
It starts and ends with the Bible.
Anything else is futile and vain.
Don't handwave it with pride, saying you're on "your own journey". That is the path to ruin.

[Anonymous No.19948012]

>>19947861
kek

[Anonymous No.19948030]

>>19948012
>empty disapproval that intends to make him disregard it by imitating what someone else is doing
kek.

[Anonymous No.19948038]

>>19948030
?
take your meds

[Anonymous No.19948043]

>>19947846
Is there a source for this? It's an interesting find.

[Anonymous No.19948073]

>>19947032
if you go to a Latin speaking church there’s a way lower chance of stuff like that happening, even in Novus Ordo it’s very rare

[Anonymous No.19948081]

>>19948043
no, just saw it on another post and resent it here.
If you do find any, please share.
It's in Genesis 5, that might help narrow a search.

[Anonymous No.19948090]

>>19946839
Protestant here. The practices of catholicism and orthodoxy give me a sick feeling in my stomach. I almost think that being an atheist would be less insulting to God.

[Anonymous No.19948121]

>>19946839
Orthodox

[Anonymous No.19948123]

>>19948043
>>19948081
If you mean of the translation of the names, a quick search has given me more convoluted wording, but it's still the same message. As an added fact, Methuselah's name also refers to the Flood.
>>19948090
Watch your mouth. We are all brothers in Christ. You're here to help your fellow reach truth, not to judge. Have you no love?

[Anonymous No.19948126]

>>19948123
Kenan seems to mean possession, not sorrow, where did you look up the meaning of the names?

[Anonymous No.19948131]

>>19947611
Man that is a lot of gay. I was especially struck by the solicitations resulting from confessions. But that seminaries are mostly gay fests is a proof of Babylonian foundations and not Christ's. ALL CATHOLIC SACRAMENTS SHOULD BE DECLARED INVALID.

That article should be studied carefully by all.

[Anonymous No.19948170]

>>19948126
I saw some spots saying it means nest or dwelling as well. It still spells out the same message, although more convoluted. You could fit that meaning into the post's phrase, and although harder to parse, says the same.

[Anonymous No.19948173]

>>19948170
>It still spells out the same messag
Mortal dwelling?

[Anonymous No.19948175]

>>19948126
>>19948170
That said, i'm just skimming after i found this in another post. A nicer source would be welcome.

[Anonymous No.19948181]

>>19948173
>mortal dwelling
a grave, perhaps.

[Anonymous No.19948188]

>>19946839
I wouldn't call myself Orthodox cuz I've been too much of a wimp to go to church, but I'm working towards it.

[Anonymous No.19948189]

Anyone knows what the La Salle brothers learn? Theology, pedagogy, Latin, that sort of stuff?

[Anonymous No.19948248]

>>19948090
I used to feel the same way but it eventually clicked and I understood. Also some of these things only seem strange because you were born in the modern period. Prayer to Mary and the Saints for example, prior to the Reformation was the universal practice of all Christians in the entire world, east and west. Unless the Holy Spirit was not guiding the church, it can't be incorrect.

[Anonymous No.19948283]

>>19948188
checked and cringe, just go anon

[Anonymous No.19948363]

>>19948248
>Prayer to Mary and the Saints for example, prior to the Reformation was the universal practice of all Christians in the entire world, east and west.
Maybe true for the Roman church but I wouldn't necessarily say that's true for all Christians as there were non catholic/orthodox Christians around before the reformation

[Anonymous No.19948407]

>>19946839
I recently left the Local Churches (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_churches_(affiliation)) over some major doctrinal disagreements and now I'm unaffiliated.

[Anonymous No.19948418]

>>19948407
>Local Churches
What exactly do they believe? Ice never heard of them but I also live in middle of nowhere

[Anonymous No.19948460]

>>19948248
It was not part of the NT church, it was a later development. Just because something was old does not mean it was original.

[Anonymous No.19948479]

>>19947646
I was raised in it. My dad is/was zealously religious, but aberrant. We went to Seventh Day Adventist and Church of God (7th Day) churches when I was a kid. As an adult I became interested in apologetics and have explored a number of denominations, the major ones being Catholicism, Church of Christ, and Local Church/Lord's Recovery.

[Anonymous No.19948505]

>>19947611
“While the celibacy of priests remains in place, a gay priest will always receive a better welcome in the church than a straight priest. That’s a reality, and there’s nothing the church can do about it.”

The seminarians I have interviewed agree on another point: a heterosexual cannot feel completely at ease in a Catholic seminary, because – and I’m quoting the expressions they used – of “the looks”, the “special friendships”, the “bromances” the “boy-chasing”, and the “sensitivity”, “fluidity”, “tenderness” and “generalised homoerotic atmosphere” that emanates from it."

[Anonymous No.19948515]

>>19946821
>I want literature we can agree on that’s great.
Oh gee, I dunno, how about THE BIBLE

[Anonymous No.19948521]

>>19947646
Dad was a Baptist preacher and took us to Church. I remember screaming at him as a kid that when I was older I wouldn't take my family to church out of spite because I hated having to go on Sundays. I regret that because since then I learned to believe.
Ffw and my wife and I go to church. We have tried various non denominational, Baptist and even assembly of God.

[Anonymous No.19948530]

>>19946839
I'm non-denominational even though I go to Baptist and Methodist churches.

[Anonymous No.19948567]

>>19948090
Matthew 15:9
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

Christ rebuked the Pharisees more harshly than regular sinners.

[Anonymous No.19948580]

>>19946861
Talk about straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel...

[Anonymous No.19948643]

>>19946919
Early Judaism.

[Anonymous No.19948652]

>>19948418
They have a complex and, in my experience, at times inconsistent theology. This comes from the fact that they base the majority of their beliefs and practices on the teachings of Witness Lee. Lee's sermons (they call messages) have been meticulously transcribed and are published by Living Stream Ministry. It's a massive body of work. I know people who have entire bookshelves with nothing but LSM books. Witness Lee also had a habit of using absolute language inappropriately. For example, he would say something like EVERY time someone blesses someone else in the Bible, the person doing the blessing is spiritually superior to the person being blessed.
Witness Lee was obsessed with the idea of type/antitype, the idea that images in the OT are prefigures or pictures of things later on. Most Christians are comfortable with that idea, looking at the parting of the Red Sea as a picture of baptism, or the bronze serpent being a picture of the crucifixion. Lee took it to an extreme, though.
Some of the major ideas are that there is only one church in each city (the local church). They understand the church as having two parts. First, the universal, which they call the organic body of Christ, composed of every true Christian regardless of affiliation or denomination. Second, there are the local churches, each one to a city. The belief in the organic union of all Christians in the universal church might lead you to believe that they feel the same way about the local church; that the church in Boston, for example, is simply every Christian in Boston. In practice, though, that is not the case. There's a smaller city near the one I live in that doesn't have a Recovery Movement/Local Church established. They refer to the establishment of a LC as breaking the ground in a city. So until a LC has been established in a city, even though there are Christians there, they do not consider that city to have a proper expression of the church, which they call a lampstand (reference to the lampstands in Revelation). The LC practice the Lord's Supper every Sunday, but I ran into a situation where they were not going to have it at a particular meeting because the ground hadn't been broken in the city in which we were meeting.

cont...

[Anonymous No.19948657]

>>19948652
Aside from that, the major doctrines that separate them from other denominations are called the Vision of the Age and Ministry/Minister of the Age, and the Lord' Recovery.
Witness Lee taught that in every age in history, God appoints a unique minister to carry out "God's move" in that age, usually leading to the "recovery" of some major theological idea. For example, Luther gave us justification by faith. Lee was every bit the cult leader, but he was very good at restraining himself from making too many bold claims about himself, preferring to allow others to come to the conclusions. Naturally, Lee is considered to be not only the minister of the age, but the last minister of the age since he's now dead. So the pattern of Minister of the Age, which according to Witness Lee had been God's way throughout human history, ended with Witness Lee himself. Since his passing, a group of Lee's prominent students have taken over leadership of the denomination, which basically just involves perpetuating Witness Lee's teachings. They hold a number of large annual and semi-annual conferences around the country, and even have a small university in Anaheim, CA where they hold a kind of seminary for young men and women to be indoctrinated with the teachings of Witness Lee. Training can last several years, during which time they wear uniforms and are strictly regulated in almost every way. It's pure cultism.
Witness Lee also taught that there should be only one publication (LSM) for the Ministry of the Age, ostensibly to "avoid confusion" but really to get rid of competition for the huge amount of money made with these publications.

This turned into an absolute wall of text, and I'm sorry about that. If you have more specific questions, I can try to go into it. The LC is a weirdly obscure group for being so large and widespread. They even have their own translation of the Bible, called the Recovery version, replete with commentary by Witness Lee.

[Anonymous No.19948680]

>>19948657
It's weird how sound so many of his essential notions are but it quickly crossed into being a cult of one man.

[Anonymous No.19948683]

>>19948657
Glad you got out of there. Where did you start going afterwards?

[Anonymous No.19948689]

>>19946821
>christcuck cringe thread

[Anonymous No.19948722]

Any advice for someone who would be a newcomer? Technically I was raised Christian, and baptised, but familial church-going was cut down to Easter and Christmas by the non-Christian parent. What should I expect? What will I be expected to do?

[Anonymous No.19948723]

>>19948652
>>19948657
Thanks for the run down. I noticed this is not mentioned under their beliefs on Wikipedia. As with many cults it's hidden and a front of sorts put up.

Denominational translation of bible and books sounds like Jehovahs Witnesses.

[Anonymous No.19948737]

>>19948680
It really is strange, and for me it was really frustrating. On their own, a lot of the doctrines and practices seem good. They have the Lord's Supper every week, which is nice. Meetings are energetic and informal, allowing members to call for a song or pray spontaneously. It gets weird, though, when you start to realize that almost everything, from the arrangement of the chairs in the meetings (four sections of chairs facing in to a table in the middle of the room) to the way they pray (members calling out short phrases, after each of which an amen is said, "Lord we love you," "Amen!", "Lord bless this meeting!" "Amen!" etc) was designed by just one person, Witness Lee.
The other major doctrine is that of prophecy. In every meeting of the church, after the Lord's Supper, there is a prophesying meeting. In theory, a person is led by God to speak out something that God wants to be communicated. In practice, it's non-stop regurgitation of Witness Lee. They take Witness Lee's teachings so seriously, that even when they aren't quoting him, they're using terms and phrases that he favored and repeated. In effect, the LC are charismatic just like the Assemblies of God. Just replace speaking in tongues with prophesying.
It gets even stranger when you go to the big training conferences. I've been to two, each having well over 4,000 people in attendance. These conferences are very strict. You pay for a seat, and they keep track of whether you're showing up or not. It's basically a week of non-stop Bible study. There are several messages delivered every day, and after each one there is a time for prophesying. Instead of going up willingly to speak into the mic, though, people are called involuntarily by group. If your prophesy doesn't live up to their arbitrary expectations of what prophesy should look like, they will call you out on it.

[Anonymous No.19948739]

>>19948722
Regardless of what denomination you wind up going with some basic things you should do are pray, read the Bible, and begin attending church. This will allow you to connect with God, see where religious practices/theology come from, and be exposed to what various denominations teach and believe
Big first step of course is acknowledging Christ as Lord and savior, but not just with your mind but your soul as well. Hard to explain but you'll know when you have genuinely found faith

[Anonymous No.19948745]

>>19948683
Thanks, man. I'm not attending a church right now. I'm going to school full time and working on the weekends, but I listen to a Baptist radio station while I'm working. It definitely isn't ideal.

[Anonymous No.19948797]

>>19948745
Not them but I listen to a Baptist radio station all the time and am just grateful that the gospel and preaching and praises are always right there. Nothing in this world is ever "ideal". At least you won't hear Mary worship on there. I was listening to a Orthodox broadcast from the Internet and they started praying to Mary to save them. You never know what all they are saying when it's not in English too.

[Anonymous No.19948822]

>>19948745
>I'm not attending a church right now. I'm going to school full time and working on the weekends, but I listen to a Baptist radio station while I'm working. It definitely isn't ideal.
Whatever works. When I was in school I'd try to listen to a sermon recording on Sunday when I had a chance. Stuff like that is nice
Just take your time and listen to what you can
My wife used to be a JW and it has been a struggle for her to move away from their teachings. Listening to videos from former members helped her

[Anonymous No.19948863]

>>19948797
Good point about nothing in this world being ideal. I need to be reminded of that sometimes.

>>19948822
My wife is still in LC. She was raised in it and it's really all she knows, and that's where her family is, too. It's probably hard for people like that, getting over that emotional connection. I've always been more detached that way.

[Anonymous No.19948907]

Since this is a Bible thread, here's a photo of the Local Church's Recovery Version of the Bible. Witness Lee's footnotes are a major part of this thing, though you can get a version without footnotes. As you can see, the footnotes can be extensive, sometimes taking up entire pages. This is a random page I turned to, but is fairly typical. The footnotes on the right side regarding the virgins contain examples of Witness Lee's use of Biblical numerology, part of his larger focus on typology in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.19948914]

>>19948737
Man, in all my years of seeing random mentions of "Watchman Nee" without any context I never imagined anything to these levels of cultness underlying it. I just always assumed he was some sort of gifted Asian preacher like any other of many well known evangelists.

[Anonymous No.19948926]

>>19948722
>Any advice for someone who would be a newcomer?
Fear God, read the Bible daily, pray without ceasing.
- The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. (Proverbs 9:10)
- Pray without ceasing. (1 Thessalonians 5:17)
- All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)
- Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)

Easter and Christmas aren't in the Bible either, they're pagan adoptions with Christian names. Easter is a pagan fertility ritual (hence eggs and rabbits) for Ishtar. Christmas is sun worship and a day where people obsess over material possessions with the mockery of God that is Santa. I've given you enough to research this on your own, any more would be a waste of time since people cling to tradition instead of the word of God. Bottom line, these festivals, feast days, are not found in the Bible. Either you stand by the word of God, or you stand by the word of men and their traditions -- it's your choice.

>>19948739
Going to a building doesn't connect you to God.
God doesn't dwell in temples built by men's hands (Acts 17:24, Acts 7:48).

And it can very easily drive you away from God with how many apostate churches and pharisees and wolves in sheep's clothing and false preachers teaching smooth things that itching ears want to hear. The average church today won't name sin and won't preach repentance because it stops donations coming in, most of them are also 501(c)3 for their love of money and that has strings attached that allow the government to control the church's speech.

If you happen to find a good church, I'd say that's very rare in these last days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYR5QYOqfXo

[Anonymous No.19948927]

>>19946839
Evangelical Quaker, born and raised. Also have Roman Catholics on both sides of my family, so I attend mass with them on holidays.
Christ is my Lord and theirs. Any differences, though not trivial, pale in importance to the former.

[Anonymous No.19948934]

Santa
>A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump

[Anonymous No.19948933]

>>19948863
Well, it's a fallen world, so everything is broken in some way or another, and to varying degrees. At the end of the day I just hold to God as best I can in faith/trust and read the Holy Bible directly daily.

[Anonymous No.19948955]

>>19948863
Yeah she was heavily involved at one point but drifted away. Her family is still very much in it. She was done with it before we started dating but I think me not being one has helped her quite a bit as she has someone that's not that in her life

[Anonymous No.19948961]

>>19948407
I first heard about them in college when I came across a copy of the Recovery Version New Testament. Ordered other free books by Watchman Nee and Witness Lee from their online distributor afterwards and read them. Spent a lot of time trying to figure out whether they were heretical or just idiosyncratic (which I guess puts me in good company with Norman Geisler and Hank Hanegraaff).
At the very least, I concluded that they were pretty pretentious ecclesiologically.

[Anonymous No.19949047]

>>19948955
I'm glad she got out. I've had run-ins with members or former members of other cults like Christian Science and the World Mission Society Church of God, and it's really incredible what they do to people. LC is tame by comparison, largely because they're a lot more subtle and friendly about it, at least at first.

>>19948961
They recruit at colleges a lot, usually under a really innocuous name like Christians on Campus, or passing out NT under the banner Bibles for America. At the surface level the LC are pretty harmless. It's when you get into it and start looking hard at what they actually believe, what Witness Lee taught, and how those beliefs translate into practice, that things get cultish.

[Anonymous No.19949050]

>>19948926
>the first word he uses in his paragraph of "advice" is "Fear"
How pathetic

[Anonymous No.19949079]

>>19949050
>hasn't even begun with wisdom
Enjoy being retarded.

[Anonymous No.19949084]

>>19949079
Prideful, insincere and conceited child

[Anonymous No.19949105]

>>19948926
>these last days
pure delusion, no man knows the hour anon

[Anonymous No.19949121]

>>19947607
Good luck on your journey, anon. I hope you find someone. I personally am being baptized and confirmed soon as well and thankfully I'm in a small neocatechumenal way community so I found a sponsor with relative ease.

[Anonymous No.19949133]

>>19949121
Speaking of which, how does /lit/ feel about the neocatechumenal way? I'd love to hear opinions about it (good or bad) and I almost never see it mentioned here.

[Anonymous No.19949145]

>>19949047
I'm glad she got out too. I know you posted a pic of your LC Bible. Pic related is JW "New World Translation"
Literally removes God saying I am I assume so that this doesn't coincide with Jesus saying I am and thus support the existence of the trinity
John 1:1 is same deal instead of the word was God, the Word was just a god

[Anonymous No.19949158]

>>19949047
>>19949145
Also happy for you anon. Groups like that screw with people's heads and the trauma coming from it can be bad especially when policies like shunning are enforced

[Anonymous No.19949179]

>>19948090
Tradition goes in hand with love, anon.
>I almost think that being an atheist would be less insulting to God.
This is a dangerous though

[Anonymous No.19949189]

>>19949179
*thought

[Anonymous No.19949260]

>>19949145
The Recovery Version isn't as bad as the NWT. I have one of those too. Off the top of my head, there are two things I would note in the RV translation. First, Witness Lee was committed to the idea of the gap theory (a la Earth's Earliest Ages by George H Pember) so Genesis 1:2 says, "But the earth became waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was brooding upon the surface of the waters." They use the word 'became' there because they believe that there was a pre-Adamite world that came under judgment and destruction due to Lucifer's rebellion.
The second odd translation choice is seen in verses like Matthew 10:39, which in the RV says, "He who finds his soul-life shall lose it, and he who loses his soul-life for My sake shall find it." Witness Lee taught strongly that humans are composed of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. The soul, according to Lee, is the mind, emotion, and will, and is corrupt along with the body due to sin. When a person is regenerated upon being saved, their formerly dead spirit comes to life. This translation choice is based on the Greek, where you have these different words that all fall under the same word in English. You see that with the different words for love, and the different words translated as Hell.

On a side note, probably the weirdest Bible I have is the Book of Yahweh which, among other things, presents Satan as female.

[Anonymous No.19949355]

>>19949260
>Witness Lee taught strongly that humans are composed of three parts, body, soul, and spirit. The soul, according to Lee, is the mind, emotion, and will, and is corrupt along with the body due to sin.
I remember reading that from the books I got from LSM. It struck me as odd how uniquely committed he was to an Aristotelian anthropology.

[Anonymous No.19949365]

>>19949260
Also, what the hell is the "Book of Yahweh"?

[Anonymous No.19949423]

>>19949365
The Book of Yahweh is produced by a cult in Texas called the House of Yahweh. My dad was attracted to them for their strict use of the names Yahweh and Yahjhyshua, rather than God or Jehovah and Jesus. Here's a photo of the beginning of John, so you can see John 1:1. This group is bizarre in a lot of ways, and I've heard they're even into polygamy.

[Anonymous No.19949437]

>>19949423
Whoops, that should say Yahshua. Anyway, the House of Yahweh is also known for numerous failed end-time prophecies. Their leader, Yisrayl Hawkins, was quite a character and very much the stereotypical cult leader.

[Anonymous No.19949537]

>>19949133
>neo
No

[Anonymous No.19949806]

>>19949423
>>19949437
That's fascinating.
I know that there are a number of (mostly benign) Christian groups that prefer to use Yahweh and Yeshua to emphasize Christianity's Jewish roots. This really takes the cake, though.
And from the section titles in your pic, it looks like their Christology is Arian to boot.

[Anonymous No.19949961]

>>19946839
non radtrad catholic

[Anonymous No.19949997]

>>19949806
Yep, if you look at that first footnote, they explicitly refer to the trinity as pagan. Their translation of John 8:58 reads, "Yahshua said to them; Truly, truly, I say to you; Before Abraham has risen, I will be." So it's pretty obvious from this, and especially verses that refer to Satan as female, that they're completely disregarding the original language in favor of their own doctrines. This group is like someone took a whole bunch of heresies and tossed them in a hat, drew a bunch at random, and called it a church. It's just bonkers.

[Anonymous No.19950012]

Riddle me this
Would the book of Job differ greatly had another man been in his place? Liek pic related for example? Probably start snoozing as he got stabbed

[Anonymous No.19950068]

>>19946825
essentially it's both academic and spiritual formation. it's usually over the course of 6-8 years. typically seminarians have to get both a bachelor's and master's degree in some religious topic or philosophy. they live together, learn about the sacraments, pastoral ministry, etc. often they have "assignments" where they'll intern a year at a parish or school or university, or do 6 months on a mission trip, etc. seminaries for religious orders and monastic orders are much more complex and lengthy, for example it's normal for jesuits to be in "formation" for 12-16 years. seminaries for dioceses are much shorter.
>>19946909
what are non "southern baptists" baptist churchs like? id imagine like "primitive" Presbyterian churches.
>>19946919
that's a gnostic idea, so no.
>>19946933
now do it for practicing catholics.
>>19947032
the "validity part" is a bit of a pedantic point, and im catholic. are we really supposed to believe god denied his grace to those children because of one wrong word? no. it's more important to keep the sacramental formulas intact because the priest acts in persona christi (hence why "we" is inaccurate). remember, it's not the priest doing the sacraments. it's jesus. the priest is just the vessel.
>>19947570
not an orthodox christian churches. the "total depravity" concept is not really useful to begin with. it's best to avoid the idea of depravity and stick to concupiscence.
>>19947607
is there a local newman center or oratory in your area? speak to an oratorian, they're very involved with the young catholic community usually.
>>19947637
>By teaching them to read
lol.
>>19947646
the idea of original sin is too convincing. anyone who looks at the world and thinks, yep, this is how it's supposed to be! is deluding themselves.
>>19947730
where in scripture does it say sola scriptura is the only source of truth?
>>19947793
no because we are not the father. we are the sons. read paul on this topic.
>>19948073
tridentine mass is being suppressed.
>>19948131
the seminaries in the 1940s-60s especially were very lenient. catholicism was at an all time peak in the USA. priests were badly needed. it was like the us military during the surge. they'd take anyone who wanted to get in. today screenings are VERY strict and it's highly likely that anyone with any questionable desires or backgrounds will get filtered out.
>>19948189
speak to a vocations direction. why are you attracted to that order specifically?
>>19948248
catholics do not "pray" to mary and the saints, they ask them to intercede for them before god.
>>19948460
incorrect. mariology was already present by ~AD100
>>19948505
nice LARP.
>>19948722
ascension presents youtube channel.
>>19948797
>mary worship
please stop posting.
>>19948907
buy an oxford NRSV study version to get a beginner unbiased translation.
>>19948926
going to church as a Christian is not optional. "where two or three are gathered" etc.

[Anonymous No.19950082]

>>19946839
Confessional Reformed, specifically Presbyterian

[Anonymous No.19950087]

>>19948927
do you do silent worship? what do you think about the emphasis in modern quakerism on transgenders, black lives matter, etc?
>>19949121
>>19949133
>neocatechumenal way
surprised you found them in the USA. they're not really present outside europe, from what I've heard.
they're essentially a pre-V2 laity focused movement like opus dei. they're not "bad" but they tend to focus around charismatic founders (l'arche, opus dei, taize, etc.). movements like that have had a lot of sex abuse scandals in recent years and there's been a crackdown from the CDF.
>>19950012
read "christ the eternal tao".

[Anonymous No.19950099]

>>19950087
>read "christ the eternal tao".
ya I was basicly thinking how much "easier" the trials would be if you had relinquished the possessions and accomplishments to become "invisible" but I don't knw oif that's the right way to think about it

[Anonymous No.19950109]

>>19950099
job is a parable about suffering, it's not about "purification" or becoming a confucian like figure. it's a parable about the inexplicability of suffering by human understanding. the point of job is not to "tolerate" the suffering but to cry to god for help. job is about recognizing our total dependence on god. it's the opposite of eastern philosophy. if you're interested in why eastern philosophy is inadequate id look into some orthodox books on buddhism especially.

[Anonymous No.19950173]

>>19950068
I'm not the person you're responding to, but Catholics absolutely do pray to Mary. I have a book on my shelf right now entitled Favorite Prayers to Our Lady, certified Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The vast majority of these prayers are nothing like requests for intercession. They are explicit appeals to Mary's supposed power and authority.

[Anonymous No.19950192]

>>19950068
>what are non "southern baptists" baptist churchs like?
It varies. Ones I went to when I was younger were "missionary" Baptists and I'd describe them as more traditional and hard core than even southern Baptists. Heavy, heavy emphasis on being lost and seeking God prior to salvation. Praying on your knees while not explicitly a practice was defintly done by most. More emotion too. There is weeping, shouting, from the preacher and from members of the church. This is even stronger when a church is in revival (basically services during the week that focus on calling the lost to repentance). And of course dressing up and old hymns, amazing grace, little talk with Jesus, power in the blood, over in the glory land, etc.
Set a standard when it comes to warship that makes it harder to become comfortable with other churches I've gone to recently.
Non southern Baptist ones I've been to recently are more relaxed. Newer songs, more modern styling, nicest dressed are just a button up shirt with no tie, etc. Surprisingly they are still fairly traditional when it comes to beliefs versus other denominations (no women pastors, gay is sin, etc) though there was one I went to where this stuff wasn't true. It's weird going to churches that lack the emotion, praying on knees etc and has made it very very hard to stick to 1 church consistently

[Anonymous No.19950227]

What is the difference between the self and the soul in Christianity? What is their relation to God?

What should one say to someone who believes in pic related?

[Anonymous No.19950249]

>>19950068
>where in scripture does it say sola scriptura is the only source of truth?
It doesn't. But it does say God's word is the truth and also speaks of deceivers and false teachers
So I go off what I read as I trust scripture more than someone who may very well be a liar

[Anonymous No.19950260]

>>19950068
You don't get to blame an article covering and interviewing present day seminaries being overwhelmingly gay on the 1960s. Like all Catholic apologetics the attempt is to brush it away with a disingenuous subterfuge cover answer and hope it is accepted with an easy "oh, ok" just because you have an answer, any answer for it, even though it is false. Grindr did not even exist back in the 1960s but here they are saying there are tons of Grindr pings inside the Vatican. Also you just claimed that the "Church™" took a purely worldly approach to solving their lack of priest issues. If the "Church™" was truly Christ's then the Father would have sent them what was needed, and if He didn't then they weren't needed and the "Church™" needed to submit to His will and not go into worldly mode to keep the donations flowing. Hundreds of thousands of children were abused as a result.

[Anonymous No.19950311]

>>19950173
mary derives her "power" from being the theotokos. look at the wedding at cana. the Son listens to the Mother. however, that being said, praying "to" mary to ask for intercession is different than praying to mary to "save" us.

there's a certain strain of radical traditionalism which believes in the "co redemptorix" theory which basically says that mary saved the world with jesus. just so you know, it's pretty popular with catholics and id say ~50% of the laity subscribe to the theory. it's been condemned by the Church numerous times but there are quite a few "folk" prayers praying *to* mary to save us, i'll admit that. it's heretical but unfortunately so are a lot of folk catholic practices (santa muerte, voodoo, the power of weeping statues, etc).

however, the most traditional catholic prayers are asking for intercession. example
o queen of heaven rejoice/
for he whom you did merit to bear/
has risen as he said./
pray for us to god./
this is the oldest catholic marian prayer and it's obviously not asking mary to "save us".
>>19950192
interesting. sometimes i've thought about attending an evangelical baptist bible study as a catholic just to see what it's like. very different im sure.
>>19950227
the "self" is a modern freudian concept. the "soul" is the animating principle of the body, created by god, which is not subject to death. but the soul is not separable from the body in a dualistic way. christian anthropology is based on the idea of the incarnation. the "self" is a broad term which only came into use recently and can mean anything from the mind to the soul to self-perception to ego, etc.
>>19950249
how was scripture assembled? did human beings assemble the canon? if so, what did they rely upon? could we call what they relied upon as "tradition"? how is this act valid if only what is in scripture is valid, but scripture itself doesn't say what is or isn't scripture? can you see the self-contradictions here?

[Anonymous No.19950316]

>>19950068
Also
>>19948505
is a direct quote from the article, not a "LARP". As I said, just another attempt at dismissing truth with a hand wave. It's Jimmy Akin's favorite technique.

[Anonymous No.19950317]

>>19950087
Yeah, I haven't been a part of it for too long but from what my girlfriend (a longtime member) tells me, they have a policy now to rotate priests around different parishes to avoid sexual misconduct which I thought was kind of funny.

[Anonymous No.19950324]

>>19950311
>can you see the self-contradictions here?
I'm waiting for you to explain why it's a bad idea to go based off of scripture. If your traditions are correct and your beliefs. They should be in the Bible

[Anonymous No.19950334]

>>19950311
>interesting. sometimes i've thought about attending an evangelical baptist bible study as a catholic just to see what it's like. very different im sure.
Highly recommend you find an old school one. Otherwise you may not find much difference from a non denom church because sadly money is king for some and they compromise things to get more people in for more donations

[Anonymous No.19950352]

>>19950260
Frédéric Martel is a complete joke. he states that 95% of all vatican officials are homosexual, with nothing but nytimes style "anonymous sources" to back up his "claims". it's a daily mail tabloid hit piece. the book contains numerous factual errors, the main source was an angry polish homosexual priest who was fired for being a open homosexual and then wanted to "get back" at the church. do you know most of the sexual abuse in the 1960s was actually against *females*? did you know teachers in america have a higher rate of sexual abuse than priests (source: harvard study), and in fact a higher rate of homosexual abuse as well? not that the conduct of priests in the church matters anyway. the church is for sinners, not saints. doesn't chance the validity of the petrine ministry.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2019/02/20/new-book-closet-vatican-produces-toxic-cloud-suspicion
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/40620/review-not-much-substance-in-the-closet-of-the-vatican
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/martels-vatican-closet-book-exposes-his-motives-and-mistakes-not

[Anonymous No.19950357]

>>19950324
where in the bible does it state what books should and shouldn't be in the bible? by what authority was the bible assembled then?

[Anonymous No.19950378]

>>19950334
evangelical church culture is actually fascinating to me. I love watching services of mega churches. I feel like the southern and midwest USA is ripe for a religious conversion to catholicism or orthodoxy, there's a lot of deep faith in evangelical circles but it's expressed in shallow theology and worship.

[Anonymous No.19950379]

>>19950357
Still waiting and I think I'll be waiting till the end of time for an answer

[Anonymous No.19950384]

>>19948363
>there were non catholic/orthodox Christians around before the reformation
Can you name any?

[Anonymous No.19950388]

>>19950311
That's a reasonable response on the Mary question, so please don't think I'm just trying to pick a fight or beat you up. It still just doesn't jive. I often compare Catholicism to Talmudic Judaism. You've taken the scriptures, fully sufficient on their own, and built up this whole system on top of it, so complex that you need canon lawyers to sort it out because even a lot of priests don't know what's going on. I understand and appreciate what you have to say about prayers to Mary and the saints, but frankly that's just you. Catholicism itself is a system that very much allows for this kind of idolatry which, based on the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, is in fact authorized. This isn't fringe stuff.
Even aside from the inappropriate prayer to Mary and other saints, you have things like the brown scapular. What right Mary has to promise salvation by any other means than that we see in the Bible is beyond me, but we know what the apostles had to say about those who spread false gospels.

[Anonymous No.19950395]

>>19950379
the bible is the source of beliefs. however. the bible was not codified until the 400s. how could the early christians be christians if
1. the bible wasn't codified
2. they often couldn't read

if one needs to rely on the bible ONLY for belief, there would be no christianity in the first place! the gospels weren't even assembled when paul was preaching! how did paul know what to believe then? protestants can't answer this question because theyd have to acknowledge apostolic tradition as a valid source of belief, and in fact a necessary source for the formation of scripture, and it would undercut their entire false belief system.

/thread.

[Anonymous No.19950420]

>>19950384
I can name dozens but they all got the genocide.

[Anonymous No.19950423]

>>19950420
>I can name dozens
Cool. Name one then.

[Anonymous No.19950426]

>>19950395
>>19950379
>the only options are sola scriptura or Roman Catholicism

[Anonymous No.19950433]

>>19950423
Hussites, Waldensians, and Lollards.

[Anonymous No.19950443]

>>19950395
All we non-Catholics need to answer that question is the Holy Spirit. The apostles were equipped to establish the early church and spread the gospel. There's a world of difference between the ability to teach the gospel without a codified Bible, and the extremely complex doctrine of apostolic tradition. As usual, Catholics have taken a simple situation and blown it up. Like all aberrant groups, you need false doctrines to justify your other false doctrines.

[Anonymous No.19950444]

>>19950426
the foundation of the reformation was sola scriptura. once that is exposed as both illogical and unbiblical, all of protestantism comes tumbling down.

[Anonymous No.19950451]

God will never be real
Cope

[Anonymous No.19950461]

>>19950444
See
>>19950426

[Anonymous No.19950463]

>>19950444
I'll take an awkwardly stated call to the purity of the Scriptures over your unauthorized human authority structure any day.

[Anonymous No.19950466]

>>19950451
I’ll pray for you

[Anonymous No.19950471]

>>19950378
>I feel like the southern and midwest USA is ripe for a religious conversion to catholicism or orthodoxy, there's a lot of deep faith in evangelical circles but it's expressed in shallow theology and worship.
It's shallow when it comes to the newer age and mega churches yeah. However churches like those I went to when I was younger are not by any means shallow when it comes to warship. I truly believe a big reason many convert to catholicism or orthodoxy are due to the secularization of churches to make them more welcoming to those off the street. They feel their church lacking and seek out one that is known to hold to its traditions more
All that said, there are still many who are not fans of catholics and view them as either pedos or lazy Christians. And that is not a slam against every single catholic but a stereotype created thanks to Christmas/Easter Catholics and those who bless burgers an call them fish

[Anonymous No.19950479]

>>19950388
>fully sufficient on their own
see
>>19950395
also canon law is nothing like talmudic commentary. canon law is simply the internal law governing the church structure, it has very little to do with talmudic "loopholes" like shabbos goyim, etc.

you have to understand - catholicism is a broad tent. the Church has *always* tolerated folk inculturation (but it does not endorse it). for example, things like local saints, scapulars, statues, rituals, etc. are neither condemned nor condoned. the Church judges that anything which makes the faith closer to the people, while preserving the essence of belief, is tolerable.

also a nihil obstat etc. is not an "endorsement". it literally just means "there is nothing here HARMFUL to salvation". that's it. it doesn't mean the Church agrees or disagrees with what is said.

by the way, catholics are not obligated to believe private relevation like the "promises of mary", "promises of the scapulars", etc. again, folk beliefs which are not contrary to the core teachings of the faith are tolerated.

[Anonymous No.19950483]

>>19950463
How do you cope with the fact that Jesus established his disciples as authorities, and that from the get-go the church had councils of elders and apostles to decide doctrines and that Paul went around putting authority structures and institutions in place? Protestantism is literally nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19950484]

>>19950466
In case fiction ever does become reality I hope you pray I get sent to hell since Satan actually sounds like a decent guy who doesn’t lie about being omnipotent, omniscient, omni-loving, etc

[Anonymous No.19950488]

>>19950484
Jesus loves you.

[Anonymous No.19950490]

>>19950443
what you're describing is called apostolic tradition and it continues today through the office of the bishops, who are the apostolic successors. it forms the foundation of Sacred Tradition in the Church. im glad we both agree on catholic belief.

[Anonymous No.19950494]

>>19950488
I wonder at what point do Christians lose their self-awareness to reply with creepy shit like this.
Muslims at least have the balls to throw some threats at their critics, you on the other hand are just sad to look at.

[Anonymous No.19950507]

>>19950479
I'm enjoying this conversation but I need to eat dinner so please don't think I've ragequit or something.

[Anonymous No.19950516]

>>19950463
That "unauthorized human authority structure" is universally recognized among all churches that have their roots in the first millennium. It's affirmed by early Christians even Protestants use as authorities like St Augustine and John Chrysostom. I never understood how Protestants can just handwave away the fact there are zero churches we know of in the first 1000 years of Christianity who viewed the faith the way Protestants do, and most of the things that Protestants disagree with Catholics over are also taught by the Orthodox and Syriac churches

At what point do you say that far from being a return to the purity of the early church that Protestantism is actually a corruption of it based on the fact you have no evidence whatsoever such a church ever existed in the first place?

The only way I've seen Protestants get around this is by trying to claim that the church depicted in the New Testament is Protestant which of course is begging the question since the assertion is that the early Christians read scripture in the same sense of a modern Protestant therefore they would've practiced the faith in the same way as a modern Protestant despite the fact there is no extrabiblical evidence of anyone in the first centuries understanding Christianity in that way.

[Anonymous No.19950526]

>>19950488
Clear cut troll you're talking to. I know you're turning the other cheek, but i reckon he won't stop trying to anger you. It's harder to have them realize what they're doing when you're not a face, just an anon.
On a nicer note, any interesting things to talk about?
>>19947846 makes you really appreciate the Bible, for one. Gotta study it.

[Anonymous No.19950547]

>>19947646
I was baptised as a child, but otherwise I started getting more serious after reading books of saints. There wasn't any particular external circumstance.

>>19950463
Those writings were made by inspired men that were regarded as human authorities for their proximity with Jesus, and the canon decided by other inspired men centuries later. The earliest churches didn't even have them available. Believing in the purity of scriptures is believing in human authority structure. Unless you go full retard like muslims and think the scriptures were textual dictations by God copying a book already written in Heaven with no human input. Which at this point I'm convinced half of protestants do believe.

[Anonymous No.19950549]

>>19948363
No, not just for the Roman Church. All the Christians in the East as well: Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, etc. It was truly a universal practice and nothing about it was specific to Rome.
>>19950433
Proto-Protestant movements, geographically isolated, specific to the West, all arising after the first millennium. In other words, sects.

[Anonymous No.19950558]

>>19950068
>catholics do not "pray" to mary and the saints, they ask them to intercede for them before god.
I feel like this is a pedantic point, as we are communicating with them via prayer. It doesn't mean we're worshiping them like Protestants think.

[Anonymous No.19950573]

at what age did you realise christians worship the idea of jesus and not jesus himself?

[Anonymous No.19950594]

>>19950547
Believing in the purity of the scriptures is simply belief in the providence of God. I recognize that the apostles existed and held some authority, but that does not qualify anyone to build an entire system of ecclesiastical government. If Catholicism has one fatal flaw it's this; they take simple, uncomplicated ideas and build them up into these systems of doctrine that have nothing to do with Christianity. I'm not trying to sound mean but Catholicism is like a brain tumor that got so big it started thinking it was not only part of the brain, but the brain itself.

[Anonymous No.19950598]

>>19950352
>Frédéric Martel is a complete joke.
Hand waving.
>he states that 95% of all vatican officials are homosexual
What I read was a priest estimating homosexuality among priests to be as high as 75% but at least around 40%.
>the main source was an angry polish homosexual priest who was fired for being a open homosexual and then wanted to "get back" at the church
There were many sources and most by far were active seminarians and priests. And incidentally, every one of the Catholic priests here in my small rural area spanning 5 decades have had the effeminate mannerisms to varying degrees, and one had to leave town immediately after being caught with another prominent local male figure. He got shuffled to a big city and just retired last year. It is obviously a widespread issue of significant depth.

[Anonymous No.19950610]

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_14_ecclesiastical_hierarchy.htm

Head of this Hierarchy is the Fountain of Life, the Essence of Goodness, the one Triad, Cause of things that be, from Which both being and well-being come to things that be, by reason of goodness. Of this most supremely Divine blessedness ----exalted beyond all, the threefold Monad, the really Being,----the Will, inscrutable to us, but known to Itself, is the rational preservation of beings amongst us and above us; but that (preservation) cannot otherwise take place, except those who are, being saved are being deified. Now the assimilation to, and union with, God, as far as attainable, is deification. And this is the common goal of every Hierarchy,----the clinging love towards God and Divine things divinely and uniformly ministered; and previous to this, the complete and unswerving removal of things contrary, the knowledge of things as they are in themselves; the vision and science of sacred truth; the inspired communication of the uniform perfection of the One Itself, as far as attainable; the banquet of contemplation, nourishing intelligibly, and deifying every man elevated towards it.

The Hierarch, then, wishing that all men whatsoever should be saved by their assimilation towards God, and come to recognition of truth, proclaims to all the veritable Good News, that God being compassionate towards those upon earth, out of His own proper and innate goodness, deigned Himself to come to us with outstretched arms, by reason of loving-kindness towards men; and, by the union with Him, to assimilate, like as by fire, things that have been made one, in proportion to their aptitude for deification. "For as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become children of God----to those who believe on His Name, who were begotten, not of bloods, nor of will of flesh, but of God

[Anonymous No.19950620]

>>19950479
Once again I appreciate your response and position, but it all rings hollow. I went through RCIA in a respectable, conservative diocese. We were given brown scapulars along with our rosaries and Bibles and sacred chalk. This is not fringe folk stuff that's only tolerated. It is promoted by the church. I also fail to see how a false gospel could not be harmful to salvation, or how a book of non-intercessory prayers to Mary could not be seen as harmful. To simply wave it away as not being obligatory is not good enough. It also makes it sound like the Magisterium don't actually care what people believe or practice as long as they submit to Papal and Magisterial authority.

[Anonymous No.19950637]

>>19950594
did the apostles appoint successors or not? was judas replaced or not? at what point did apostolic succession cease? and why? where in the bible do you support this claim?

you believe in the providence of god guiding human beings to assembled scripture. why would the providence of god not extend to other traditions those same men taught? where in the bible do you support this claim?

did the church have an ecclesial structure or not? what does paul mean when he talks about sees, deacons, presbyters, etc? at what point was an ecclesial structure abolished by god? where in the bible can you support this claim?

[Anonymous No.19950647]

>>19950598
>what I read
>an [unnamed] priest
>estimating
>many [unnamed] sources
>one had to leave town [just trust me, bro!]
>another prominent local male figure [unnamed]

some very reputable, non hearsay sources you got! not at all unbiased!

[Anonymous No.19950661]

>>19950647
Yeah, I'm not naming people from my tiny rural area. Obviously whether or not you believe me is among the least of your issues, what with the praying to demons disguised as Mary and saints, and having a post Christ sacrificial priesthood regardless of them being mostly gay. Revelation 18:4.

[Anonymous No.19950665]

>>19946839
Catholic, Im struggling to love my protestant brothers and sisters, they insult Christ with their heresies, but yeah.

[Anonymous No.19950666]

>>19950620
There's nothing wrong with the scapular, etc. The point is that you cannot be obligated to do something that is not part of public revelation. Your diocese may very well promote it but you don't have to do wear a scapular if you don't want to. It's not sinful.

[Anonymous No.19950686]

>>19950637
The apostles appointed elders but I haven't seen anywhere in the NT where it says they appointed new apostles in the same sense as the originals who were appointed by Jesus. As far as I know, there was no ritual involved, no transfer of power. It was a simple, practical appointment. Once again, though, Catholics have blown it up into a system of doctrine and authority not found in scripture.
To ask when apostolic succession ceased is to ask when you stopped beating your wife. Apostolic succession was never a thing. The church we see in the NT had elders and deacons, as we see in Timothy, but there does not appear to be anything mystical or divine about this structure. It's purely practical. At the very least, it doesn't justify Catholics claiming that their priests act in persona Christi, are capable of transubstantiation (another mutation of plain scripture) and so on. You can enjoy your traditions all you want, but don't come to me claiming that they're somehow authorized by God. I know the Bible is the inspired revelation of God, but when it comes to your centuries upon centuries of human tradition, scapulars, idolatry, and outright heresy, color me unimpressed.
It's like Witness Lee, who I was talking about earlier, claiming to be the Minister of the Age. He looked at the Bible and saw men like Paul and extrapolated a whole system out of it, all to justify his own authority. How does your sacred or apostolic tradition differ? It does not.

[Anonymous No.19950695]

>>19950666
>no need to listen to God's word
>digits of the serpent

[Anonymous No.19950698]

>>19950549
That's literally why I picked them. If you want more exotic movements, there are literally thousands from Roman times.

[Anonymous No.19950705]

>>19950666
Claiming that there is any path to salvation apart from that achieved by Jesus on the cross is blasphemy, heresy, and if Paul is to be believed, carries the curse of God. Not sinful? Bruh.

[Anonymous No.19950706]

>>19950620
they're called sacramentals and devotionals. what exactly is wrong with rosaries, etc. as aides to prayer? are you against statues too? im not exactly sure what the issue is. you seem to think that scapulars or prayer beads or medals of saints means that catholics worship those images. wasn't this covered in RCIA?

>it also makes it sound like the Magisterium don't actually care what people believe or practice as long as they submit to Papal and Magisterial authority

you can't "force" people into orthodoxy or orthopraxy. does god strike you down if you blaspheme? why should the Church then? the church corrects, but every man is ultimately responsible to God himself.

[Anonymous No.19950711]

>>19950661
>he calls the mother of god a demon
>he thinks jesus didn't institute a new priesthood

why does anyone take evangelical american protestantism seriously again?

[Anonymous No.19950717]

>>19950705
A person isn't saved because they wore a scapular.

[Anonymous No.19950719]

>>19950706
The rosary itself as an aid to prayer isn't actually problematic, as far as I can tell. Praying to Mary is, since it implies a whole host of doctrines not supported in scripture. I brought up those other things as a way of making the point that the brown scapular in particular isn't some obscure thing. It is common and openly promoted. They did cover this stuff in RCIA and it was as disingenuous then as it is coming from you now.

[Anonymous No.19950724]

>>19950717
The brown scapular, which is supposedly quoting Mary, disagrees. "Shall not suffer eternal fire" is pretty unambiguous.

[Anonymous No.19950739]

>>19950686
>Apostolic succession was never a thing
did the apostles replace judas or did they not? please answer this question.
>they didn't appoint successors they appointed uh...people who followed them! and had their authority! but that's not successors!

Jesus instituted a priesthood.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-there-a-new-covenant-ministerial-priesthood
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-biblical-blueprint-for-the-priesthood
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-we-have-a-ministerial-priesthood
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-jesus-make-the-apostles-priests-at-the-last-supper
https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-the-priest-another-christ-when-he-says-holy-mass-hears-confessions-etc

re transubstanition
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/transubstantiation-for-beginners
https://www.catholic.com/video/explaining-transubstantiation
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-transubstantiation-unbelievable
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-miracle-of-is
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-catholics-cannibals
https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-transubstantiation-be-reasonably-taken-literally
https://www.catholic.com/qa/isnt-consubstantiation-more-incarnational-than-transubstantiation
https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-you-help-me-explain-transubstantiation-supererogation-and-the-temporal-power-of-the-pope

>How does your sacred or apostolic tradition differ?
because catholic bishops are actually, ministerial successors of the apostles.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-succession
https://www.catholic.com/tract/apostolic-tradition
https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-biblical-support-for-apostolic-succession
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/apostolic-succession
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/does-christs-church-have-apostolic-succession
https://www.catholic.com/video/apostolic-succession-in-the-bible

[Anonymous No.19950755]

>>19950087
>do you do silent worship? what do you think about the emphasis in modern quakerism on transgenders, black lives matter, etc?
Quakeranon here.
There are three main bodies/denominations of Quakers: Friends United Meeting, Evangelical Friends Church, and Friends General Conference.

You may read on Wikipedia that Quakerism is a "historically Christian" tradition. This overstates the amount of Quaker/Friends groups that have diverged from Christian orthodoxy, but there is some truth to it. Part of the issue is that The Religious Society of Friends has always been extremely decentralized by design, since they considered Christ alone to be their leader (though we have always had elders). On the one hand, there aren't as many top-down abuses of power. On the other hand, any schmuck who claims to have a spiritual revelation can potentially gain a following. In the 19th century, there was a split between Orthodox Quakers (who held to the authority of Scripture) and Hicksite Quakers (who believed personal revelation by "the Inner Light" could supersede Scripture). Predictably, groups descending from the latter diverged from Christian orthodoxy altogether. Many of them constitute FGC, which is the smallest of these three organizations.

FUM is the largest of the three and was historically evangelical. Primarily programmed worship, but this varies among churches. Over time, however, some churches (or "monthly meetings," if you prefer) began to drift theologically like other mainline denominations.

Beginning in the 1940s, evangelical churches in FUM that increasingly found sharing a roof with the more liberal churches an untenable position separated to form the Evangelical Friends Church. My region left FUM for EFC in 1992. There are still evangelical regions (or "yearly meetings") within FUM who collaborate with EFC on various projects and ministries.

>silent worship
I attend a programmed church, and to my knowledge we have never done open worship/silent worship. I went to a Friends-affiliated college, though, and the local Friends church would have about 15 minutes of open worship between the singing and the sermon.

>transgenders, BLM
Those would definitely be more represented in the liberal wings of the movement, but EFC doesn't bend the knee to those things. We would certainly affirm that Christ meets people wherever they are in life, and therefore so should we as the church, but we cannot condone either those lifestyles or those politics.

I hope that answers your question.

[Anonymous No.19950764]

>>19950724
again, Catholics are not bound to believe in personal private relevation.

do you think God is limited in how he saves? what if God saves by Jesus through mary? in the same way that Jesus was born, god and man, through mary. an anti type of eve ...

not saying I agree or disagree with this idea, but the protestant conception of God is simply too small.

>>19950719
again, asking to mary to intercede for us before god is not "asking mary to save us". you're coming from a protestant mindset that sola scriptura is the only source of belief. sola scriptura is false. that's been shown in this thread over and over again. sola scriptura is unbiblical and antiapostolic, not to mention ahistorical. just because something is not in the bible, does not mean it cannot be done.

if you start from the false premise that sola scriptura is correct, you will *never* be able to correctly understand anything about the faith.

[Anonymous No.19950768]

>>19950719
Nothing wrong with the brown scapular.

>it implies a whole host of doctrines not supported in scripture
Like Sola Scriptura? Sola Fide? If being unbiblical is an issue for you then Protestantism isn't the answer

[Anonymous No.19950769]

>>19950739
I'm well aware that Judas was replaced by Matthias. Once again though, that appointment is a far cry from apostolic succession. The apostles appointed elders, which we understand to be basically qualified, educated leaders in the early church. There is no evidence I'm aware of in scripture that they appointed apostles in the same sense that Jesus appointed them.
I appreciate you taking the time to gather those links, but I'm well aware of those doctrines and the Catholic justifications for them. I especially like your response that Catholic bishops are actually ministerial successors. Lee and his followers made a similar claim about his own status as Minister of the Age. In fact, Lee is known to have acted as an apostle himself, even going so far as to appoint elders in various churches. Neither his claim nor yours carries any real weight aside from reading into history a pattern that doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.19950772]

>>19949105
Where did that post claim to know when the second coming was? We're living in the last days, open your eyes and look around you.
>>19950068
>now do it for practicing catholics.
How about the "infallible pope" (according to the catholic church) himself? Who says pray to "our mother in heaven" instead of our Father as Christ said?
>where in scripture does it say sola scriptura is the only source of truth?
Revelation 22:19, you've added to the scriptures with your Roman Talmud Catechism, and you've taken away with your catholic "bibles"
>>By teaching them to read
>lol.
Literally wants the illiterate to remain illiterate, better than them learning to read and possibly reading the Bible.
>>mary worship
>please stop posting.
You make idols and bow to them. God literally commanded people not to do that.
>going to church as a Christian is not optional. "where two or three are gathered" etc.
That promotes gathering, it doesn't state attending catholic cult churches is mandatory. Nowhere did Peter ever call himself pope or demand people call him father. Matthew 23:9
>>19950739
>catholic.com
Good source, cultist

[Anonymous No.19950778]

>>19950772
Oh yeah, that infallible pope
Don't forget to pay your indulgences, goyim :^)
You wouldn't want to be in purgatory for too long, so pay up :^)

[Anonymous No.19950782]

>>19950764
It's one thing to ask if God is limited in how he saves. Clearly He is not. It is entirely another to then jump to the idea that somehow it's okay to pass out brown scapulars with a false, or at the VERY best unproven, gospel. See, this is another error Catholics fall into so often. You ask these questions like "wouldn't Jesus save his mother from sin if He could?" and then act like you've justified the doctrine of immaculate conception. Miss me with that nonsense, bro.

[Anonymous No.19950785]

>>19950778
Uhm, sweaty, that's a #NoTruePope fallacy, but the gates of hell still haven't prevailed against the catholic church which didn't even exist until centuries after Christ resurrected

[Anonymous No.19950787]

Sola scriptura's falsity in depth.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/not-by-scripture-alone
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-the-foundational-error-of-sola-scriptura
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-early-christians-subscribe-to-sola-scriptura
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/according-to-scripture
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/a-quick-ten-step-refutation-of-sola-scriptura
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/ten-deficiencies-of-sola-scriptura-as-a-rule-of-faith
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-the-bereans-rejected-sola-scriptura
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-logical-part-i
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-logical-part-ii
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/my-doubts-about-sola-scriptura
https://www.catholic.com/qa/sola-scripturas-logical-inconsistency
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-workable-part-i
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-workable-part-ii
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/when-faith-alone-meets-scripture-alone
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/sola-scriptura-is-unscriptural
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/answering-protestant-questions-on-sola-scriptura
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-i
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/why-im-catholic-sola-scriptura-isnt-scriptural-part-ii
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-protestant-achilles-heel
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/what-sola-scriptura-gets-wrong-about-revelation

[Anonymous No.19950793]

>>19950769
Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to be comparing the Church Fathers like Augustine and Chrysostom to some random conman? Apostolic succession is attested to in the Epistles of Ignatius dated 104AD. Either the "church" was corrupted within the first 70 years of its existence or you're wrong and it's a direct teaching from the Apostles themselves.

Keep in mind Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John himself so if Ignatius was wrong then you're basically saying John wasn't even able to teach the doctrines of the faith correctly.

[Anonymous No.19950795]

>>19950594
>I recognize that the apostles existed and held some authority, but that does not qualify anyone to build an entire system of ecclesiastical government.
So it was fine for the apostles, but not for anyone after? How does that even work?
There was an ecclesiastical government as soon as the apostolic age. Apostles nominated successors, ordained people for the government of affairs and the propagation of the Church. Those people were saints, makers of miracles, writers, who had much more contact with the apostles than anyone endlessly reading the bible ever could. When did providence stop to act? Give me the date. Is the usual date of around 100AD for the death of St John enough, if only to get all the apostles? Ecclesiastical government was certainly in place then. In fact it didn't make much innovation there since it maintained the ecclesiastical government of diaspora Hebrews (even in Palestine the Essenes had a system of ecclesiastical government not entirely dissimilar, parallel to the main Temple). How did it find its way into Greece? The idea that (anti-Semitic) goyim copied that Hebraic system against the authority of the apostles is really goofy.
>is simply belief in the providence of God
So Providence managed to secure a few things, but only specifically those texts (there is no indication of that even in those texts). Then when those got declared canonical centuries after, perhaps God extended his providence for a split second on the big bad tumor of the council? When the bishops sat in the hall, they were the awful papists, then at some point scripture was declared, with an instantaneous moment of providence. But grace had left the bishops before they had the time to sit down.
Except even that wasn't good enough providence since protestants have the audacity to remove from it in order to align with a post-temple rabbinical canon.
Truly those are mysterious ways.

[Anonymous No.19950796]

>>19950787
>>19950739
Dumping a billion links indicates you're trying to throw shit at a wall to see what sticks. Why don't you try posting a single good article instead?

[Anonymous No.19950801]

>>19950769
please read the links I posted. the apostles were not "elders", they were priests. your claim is ahistorical and abiblical and is addressed extensively in the links I posted. whether or not you choose to engage with those facts is up to you.

the difference between catholic bishops and "prophet lee" or whoever you're talking about is that the bishop of rome, today, can directly trace back to the first bishop of rome, peter. this is not conjecture. this is an actual historical fact. there is a direct lineage between the first bishop of rome and the current bishop of rome. we don't have jesus anointing "prophet lee" or pastor billy bob as cephas, as the rock. as the bishop of rome. you're making a false equivalency and I recommend you read the links I posted in depth. catholics don't need to doctor history like modern protestants to claim apostolic legitimacy - it's literally in scripture.

[Anonymous No.19950802]

>>19950796
>you can't provide explanations and in-depth refutations of what you believe and the falsity of protestant beliefs with citations from the church fathers and scripture!
>you have to make unsourced claims like me!

[Anonymous No.19950808]

>>19950769
>It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men
Ireneaus, Against Heresies 180

>At that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apolinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and finally, Irenæus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from apostolic tradition.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History

Your case becomes more and more dire. Where is the true uncorrupted church if from the second century the universal position of Christian writers is that apostolic succession is necessary for the church?

[Anonymous No.19950811]

>>19950772
see >>19950395
the bible itself refutes protestantism and your savior luther.

[Anonymous No.19950814]

>>19950769
Paul makes Titus the Bishop of Crete and tells him to appoint Priests.

[Anonymous No.19950818]

>>19950772
>>19950778
>>19950785
Go back to worshipping the King Jimbo version.

[Anonymous No.19950826]

>>19950793
We know there was corruption almost immediately. Read Acts.

[Anonymous No.19950832]

>>19950793
>Ignatius
Fake and gay letters.

[Anonymous No.19950835]

>>19950802
I read the articles on Jesus instituting a priesthood and found nothing in there even interesting let alone convincing. Almost all denominations have priests, the question is about apostolic succession and the primacy of the Pope.

[Anonymous No.19950842]

>>19950782
>using an aide to prayer and devotion is a false gospel
Honestly, I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make. Private revelation is just that - private. You don't have to belief it. If it's not contradictory to the faith (and it has been shown in this thread that it is not), it's permitted in order to foster greater devotion. Are you also against statues and crucifixes? You didn't answer this last time so I'm inclined to believe you actually are, as I know there's quite a few strains of American Evangelicals (especially radical Baptists and Presbyterians) who are essentially iconoclasts.

[Anonymous No.19950844]

>>19950814
If you're referring to Titus 1:5, Paul told Titus to appoint elders, not priests. Regardless of the title used, you still can't use that to justify the bloated doctrinal system of the Catholic church. It's that same pattern over and over and it smells strongly of eisegesis.

[Anonymous No.19950845]

>>19950835
>priests
Pastors, not priests. Priests are mediators between man and God.

[Anonymous No.19950846]

>>19950826
How was it dealt with? Paul using apostolic authority to correct the Galatians.

[Anonymous No.19950849]

>>19950796
Catholics are in a cult.

[Anonymous No.19950853]

>>19950826
You realize the scriptures weren't fully assembled until the 5th century right? If there was corruption immediately (i.e. within 5 year after Jesus died, according to most Protestants), wouldn't that mean those who assembled the Bible were corrupted too?

What knowledge do modern Protestants have access to that the Apostles 10 years or so after Jesus' death didn't have access to?

[Anonymous No.19950854]

>>19950845
>Priests are mediators between man and God.
wew lad

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;”
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

[Anonymous No.19950859]

>>19950835
you read 25+ articles in 5 minutes?
>almost all denominations have priests
you really understand very little about catholicism and orthodoxy, and probably christianity as a whole.
>uh actually the problem is the primacy of the pope!
nice goalpost shifting.

[Anonymous No.19950860]

>>19950849
Matthew 23:1-3
1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

[Anonymous No.19950864]

>>19950842
I said quite clearly that I brought up those other things (rosaries and sacred chalk) as a way of pointing out that the brown scapular isn't obscure or just some minor folk tradition. The point I'm making is that for Mary to supposedly promise a path to salvation apart from Christ is the most obvious heresy. The best you've been able to offer as justification is that God *could* save people in other ways if He wanted to. That doesn't gel, dude. I'm not against statues or crucifixes, but I'm against them if they become stumbling blocks or objects of worship as they have in Catholicism.
Believe me, I'll be the first to point out faults in any denomination, Protestant or not. I don't claim to know it all, but the nice thing about false doctrine is that it's almost always really easy to spot.

[Anonymous No.19950865]

>>19950854
what do you think in persona christi means? again, jesus established an apostolic priesthood.

read the links posted in this thread. "i dont like the idea" isn't a valid refutation, btw.

[Anonymous No.19950867]

>>19950859
No, the 5 I mentioned.

[Anonymous No.19950871]

>>19950849
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/06/the-vatican-and-arms-dealers
cope.

[Anonymous No.19950872]

>>19947611
sheeeeeeeeit

>>19950068
Good post.

[Anonymous No.19950873]

>>19950846
Paul using the truth to correct the Galatians.

>>19950853
We don't need an assembled Bible to know about early corruption. A single preserved manuscript will do.

[Anonymous No.19950874]

>>19950844
see >>19950739

[Anonymous No.19950876]

>>19950844
The issue is that every church that has roots in the first millennium has that structure. I know you'd like to frame it as "Catholic vs Protestant" and ignore the Orthodox and Coptic churches but they pose a huge obstacle to your argument. Is there any church that existed in the first 1000 years of Christianity that denied the Deacon - Priest - Bishop structure of the Church hierarchy?

I'm not convinced at all that an offshoot of the western branch of the original Church managed to discover the pure unfiltered faith of the first century.

[Anonymous No.19950885]

>>19950864
Again, I'm not sure what you learned in RCIA but using a scapular as an aide to devotion does not mean that you *have to* think Mary saves apart from Christ. At all. That is not Church teaching, and it never has been. I'm sorry if you had a bad RCIA instructor but such beliefs are purely folk conjecture. That's it.

I highly recommend you read the Catechism on soteriology to see what the Church actually believes.

[Anonymous No.19950889]

>>19950849
You fell for a lie anon. The Vatican doesn't invest in arms manufacturers. What other lies have you uncritically accepted because they paint a church you dislike in a bad light?

[Anonymous No.19950893]

>>19946839
Orthodox

[Anonymous No.19950897]

>>19950876
Na bro, all of it was corrupt in the first ten years of Christianity and has been going on ever since. Fortunately we have evangelical megachurches today, that are able to see the real message behind the lies of the Church fathers.

[Anonymous No.19950903]

>>19950876
I don't identify as Protestant and I'm not affiliated with any denomination. I'm the guy who left the Local Church (scroll up in the thread). Again, I've seen the arguments from Catholics on this issue and I remain unimpressed. You all have been around a long time, no doubt, but so has Hinduism. When I read the Bible and I see the structure of the early church and how it doesn't resemble anything like the Roman Catholic church, I don't need to review your Catholic articles again to figure out where I went wrong. In any disagreement between ANY denomination and the clear word of Scripture, I choose Scripture 100% of the time. I've left three major denominations out of my intolerance for false doctrine, and in none of those instances did I take the matter lightly. The last time I shed tears in grief was when I left Catholicism, but I love God more than I love my own preferences.

[Anonymous No.19950912]

>>19950885
You think it's enough to say that the Catholic church doesn't teach that you have to believe in the brown scapular. Paul said anyone teaching another gospel is cursed by God. Guess who I'm going to believe.

[Anonymous No.19950928]

>>19950873
>this manuscript isn't corrupted bro, only this one!
>and the catholics and orthodox who assembled the bible and used this manuscript, which is the only authentic one btw, weren't able to understand it, but us evangelicals are!
>w-what do you mean textual traditions? alexandrian? western? inadequacy of the masoretic text? nonono!

[Anonymous No.19950954]

>>19950903
>When I read the Bible and I see the structure of the early church and how it doesn't resemble anything like the Roman Catholic church
Why did none of the holiest, most devoted Christians in the first 1000 years see what you see? Do you believe that you have additional insight that allows you to interpret the text in a way that Augustine didn't? Do you believe the Holy Spirit guides your reading but didn't guide John Chrysostom? Have you studied the texts of scripture more intently than Hilary of Poitiers?

For my part I would never presume that my insight of scripture exceeds that of such men. It strikes me as prideful that one could read scripture, come to a conclusion that contradicts every educated Christian in the first 500 years of the faith and decide that it was them who were in error and not I.

It is the attitude of someone who when Christ said someone would betray him would reply "Is it him?" rather than "Is it I, Lord?"

[Anonymous No.19950969]

Catholics, which is the best Douay-Rheims-Challoner to buy? Baronius Press, Saint Benedict Press, Loreto Publications, an old 1914 John Murphy or P.J. Kennedy & Sons? I hear people usually recommend the Baronius, but I've heard it's got typos that may or may not have been corrected by now.

[Anonymous No.19950983]

>>19950969
Mine is from Saint Benedict Press and it's good.

[Anonymous No.19950987]

>>19950865
>what do you think in persona christi means?
Some nonsense your Roman Talmud that you think is from the Bible or of God because it's in latin.

>>19950865
>read the links posted in this thread
>read the 100 spammed links to catholic.com
You cultists never read any link anyone else posts, why should anyone read your propaganda and roman-washed history?

[Anonymous No.19950992]

>>19950903
You may not identify as Protestant but like it or not you're espousing Protestant beliefs, which is understandable as those are the foundation of most American strains of Christianity today (everything from LDS to JW to Baptists to Jim Jones cults).

Again, sola scriptura is not biblical. At all. It's not what the apostles believed, it's not what the early Church or Church Fathers believed, and it's not what Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy (the only branches of the Church for 1550 years) believed, at all. Your problem is that you believe you can interpret the Bible by your own metrics. You cannot. You also fail to acknowledge this point >>19950395 repeatedly. The NT (and OT even) were codified by the early Church. The Apostles and the Church structure which continues today, as stated here >>19950876, established the very same Bible you're claiming you can use to discard those authorities. Your position is not tenable. What you call "false doctrine" is simply things you don't *feel* are right. What you feel or don't feel has no bearing on history or validity of Scriptural tradition.

You're a modern Protestant, and you fall into the same errors of modern Protestantism that brought about the corrupt West today (affectional emotionism). Read the Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self by Carl Trueman.

[Anonymous No.19950995]

>>19950893
Catholicism with different branding. You even post an idol/image.

[Anonymous No.19950996]

>>19950889
Absolute fact: the "Church™" invested in the Elton John movie with graphic depictions of gay sex.

[Anonymous No.19950999]

>>19950912
>an aide to prayer is another gospel
you're being willfully obstinate.

[Anonymous No.19951005]

>>19946821
Catholics are confirmed cringe

[Anonymous No.19951007]

>>19950969
I don't recommend the Douay-Rheims-Challoner as it was revised to be in line with the KJV and is a weird combination of modern language and really old-fashioned words. If you're going to invest in a Vulgate translation, get the Baronius Knox version. There's some typos in there too but it's your best bet.

[Anonymous No.19951015]

>>19950987
>>19950995
>>19950996
>>19951005
Don't forget to donate to Pastor Billy! God wants you to be rich! If you donate to Pastor Billy and put your hands in the air, you'll be saved! You don't have to change anything! Just keep on donating!

[Anonymous No.19951025]

I have too many bibles, so many that it's weird
Should I sell them exchange them, or do I abandon them in some church bench for people to grab?
I plan on keeping only like 4 + 3 that I inherited as memories from dead relatives

[Anonymous No.19951026]

>>19950995
Read St. John of Damascus. He debunked you fools centuries ago

[Anonymous No.19951031]

>The Eastern Church has fallen away from the the Faith and is now assailed on every side by infidels. Wherever I turn my eyes I find bishops who have obtained office irregularly, whose lives and conversation are strangely at variance with their sacred calling. There are no longer princes who set God's honour before their own selfish ends, and those among whom I live - Romans, Lombards, Normans - are, as I have often told them, worse than Jews or pagans
-Pope Gregory VII to Hugh of Cluny, 1075

[Anonymous No.19951040]

>>19951025
If they aren't King James then you should burn them to prevent Satan from using them to pollute people with their lies.

[Anonymous No.19951049]

>>19946972
based Carlyle poster

[Anonymous No.19951069]

>>19947032
>"The church can only guarantee the sacraments are valid when they are performed correctly, so if they are performed incorrectly just have faith God did his end anyway." So why do they need to reperform them? To be sure and guarantee they're valid, correct?
Yes, that is why. We can only ensure they are valid, not that they're actually effective. God effects them. For all we know, God effected the baptism using the mistaken formula as well. But we can't be *certain* unless the correct formula is used. Then we know the apostolic succession is intact. Despite these legal wranglings, and the many sins of some of the men who wear the cloth, Catholicism is still your best choice. The rest are false religions, or heretics who've cut themselves off from Catholic tradition.

[Anonymous No.19951085]

>>19951007
I've read the original Douay-Rheims and it's obvious why Challoner had to revise it: because it was so literal to the Latin that it followed Latin grammar instead of English, and thus was a chore to read. Anything copied from the KJV matched the Latin anyway, and arguably was just returning the favor for the KJV pulling from the original Rheims for its NT.
>If you're going to invest in a Vulgate translation, get the Baronius Knox version. There's some typos in there too but it's your best bet.
Have it already. The only typos I've noticed in the Knox thus far are Gen 32:22, where it says "Jacob" where it should say "Jaboc", and on page 121 of the New Testament, note 2 states that "Many of the beast Greek manuscripts omit this passage ..." Do you know any others?

[Anonymous No.19951090]

>>19951069
>cut themselves off from Catholic tradition
Thank God, no longer part of the state, no longer murdering Christians who try to make the Bible available to the people, no longer running pay to burn less schemes, no longer covering up child rape.

[Anonymous No.19951101]

>>19947032
>So basically you can't actually be sure that they're valid.
You can, however. Read Matthew 16:19.

>"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[Anonymous No.19951102]

>>19951040
tired larper

[Anonymous No.19951110]

You will never be a real Christian. You have no sacrament, you have no tradition, you have no succession. You are a deist man twisted by schism and heterodoxy into a crude mockery of grace’s perfection.

All the “validation” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back guardian angels that you deny mock you. Your doctors of the Church are disgusted and ashamed of you, your “coreligionaries” laugh at your mutilated old testament behind closed doors.

Saints are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of years of intercession have allowed saints to sniff out heretics with incredible efficiency. Even protestants who “pass” look uncanny and reprobate to a saint. Your iconoclasm is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a exalted saint to pray with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second he gets a whiff of your diseased, infected liturgy.

You will never be saved. You wrench out a fake smile every single morning and tell yourself that God made evil, but deep inside you feel the damnation creeping up like a weed, ready to crush you under the unbearable weight.

Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll buy an evangelical annotated bible, sin to taunt the devil, say that it doesn't matter, and plunge into the lake of fire. Your pastors will find you, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to deny the Eucharist. They’ll bury you with a headstone marked with your "baptism" name, and every passerby for the rest of eternity will know an anathema is buried there. Your body will decay and go back to the dust, and all that will remain of your legacy is a soul that is unmistakably lost.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

[Anonymous No.19951119]

>>19951110
One of the most based pieces of art I’ve seen in a while

[Anonymous No.19951121]

I left to do some homework and now I have returned.

>>19950928
Not worth responding to.

>>19950954
Regardless of time period, men are fully capable of misunderstanding things. Even the apostles fell into error. Your bandying about with famous scholars of antiquity does not impress me. I don't claim to be any better or smarter than anyone, but I trust my own conclusions until I'm proven wrong, which I openly admit has happened plenty of times. You live in a system defined by human authority, so the fact that you would so consistently and readily appeal to it is not surprising.

>>19950992
Actually I can believe what I interpret in the Bible, and trusting my own conclusions is at least as good as trusting someone else's. The difference is that I know what I'm perceiving but I don't know what anyone else is perceiving. Your dismissal of personal agency in favor of groupthink and authority is classic cultism, something I ran into in the LC a lot.
I actually did respond to >>19950395 at least once. I know these threads get chaotic, but do try to keep up. I'm not disregarding the opinions of the so-called church fathers or early scholars. Their insights are a valuable part of Christian history. I don't believe everything they say, though, and as we've established, men have been wrong throughout history. I guess you trust other people more than I do. Sorry, I guess.
Feelings are one thing. Earnest study is another. Learn the difference before you spit accusations.

>>19950999
"Shall not suffer eternal fire." I'm being willfully obstinate? No, dude. You're failing to engage with the reality in front of you.

[Anonymous No.19951125]

>>19951110
Get a load of this Jew pride.

[Anonymous No.19951133]

>>19946825
Usually you have to have a BA or BS to enter the seminary today. The minimum age is usually 22 or 23. The maximum is usually mid 30s but there're exceptions. The average seminarian is late 20s, but in certain orders it's common for seminarians to be in their 30s and 40s (Dominicans, Jesuits). Typically you have to be single, with no debt, and with at least 2 years of work history and have to be currently employed. They also do credit checks, criminal record checks, references, and usually require some minimum level of academic achievement (in the form of GPA or test scores).
>>19951085
I don't know of others off the top of my head but in the Pauline letters there were some misnumbered notes. I think there're also misnumbered notes in Proverbs. We talked in a previous thread I think, I don't currently own my Knox copy anymore. I might buy this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0872432297?psc=1
because I like referencing the Vulgate NT in comparing translations.
>>19951110
Is this OC? Lol.

[Anonymous No.19951137]

>>19951121
>but I trust my own conclusions until I'm proven wrong
Every heretic in history did that. Arius was a devout man, but he trusted his own wisdom over that of the Church and fell into error because of it. It's the same story every time.

[Anonymous No.19951154]

>>19951137
Yeah, man. Just have to keep the faith, stay in the word, stay in prayer. God promised to never give us up, so as long as I'm seeking Him, my wisdom isn't alone in the dark. He's guiding my path, and He's big enough and strong enough that I don't need to put myself under the authority of a bunch of idol-worshipping sodomites to get to the truth.

[Anonymous No.19951163]

>>19951154
>God promised to never give us up, so as long as I'm seeking Him, my wisdom isn't alone in the dark
Then you run into another Protestant who has completely different beliefs who claims the exact same thing and your entire position collapses. Who is God guiding, you or him?

[Anonymous No.19951165]

>>19951121
>Your bandying about with famous scholars of antiquity does not impress me
>trusting my own conclusions is at least as good as trusting someone else's
>groupthink
>classic cultism
you mean the apostles? the people who actually spoke with jesus? lmao. you're actually, legitimately holding that you somehow are able to come to the correct interpretation of scripture that the literal apostles and church fathers couldn't? this is the hill you want to die on? your "earnest study" someone reveals things in the gospels that 1000s of saints, church fathers, and scholars missed for 1550 years everywhere from africa to england to india? are you actually seriously holding to his position?
>You live in a system defined by human authority
because your own personal, infallible interpretation is somehow ... not from human authority? bro...

[Anonymous No.19951169]

>>19951154
>a bunch of idol-worshipping sodomites
ah, the true calvinist evangelical american baptist protestant literalist comes out. took a while, lmao.

[Anonymous No.19951179]

>>19951163
I run into someone with another view (happens all the time) and I compare it to what I think I know and what the Bible says. Then, in prayer and humility, I either change my position or invite my brother to change his. In the meantime, I'll refrain from starting a denomination of my own ;)

>>19951165
I wasn't aware that Jesus ever met or spoke to Augustine, John Chrysostom, or Hilary of Poitiers. Weird.
No, dude, like I said, I'm perfectly capable of making mistakes. I've made plenty. I was involved with Catholicism for a good long while. It's just that I don't assume someone is better at something than I am just because they lived a thousand years ago.

[Anonymous No.19951185]

>>19951015
>dude televangelist are totally who all protestants follow
Cute

[Anonymous No.19951188]

>>19951179
the apostles founded the same church that Augustine, John Chrysostom, and Hilary of Poitiers belonged to. Like it or not, the Apostles believed in the beliefs of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. There have been numerous articles and Biblical citations posted in this thread to back this up. your protestant headcanon of "pick and choose" what to believe has no basis in history, even in the Apostolic age. it's you against 2000 years of tradition. what makes you think you can trust your own judgement?

[Anonymous No.19951196]

>>19951185
You will never have a real church.

[Anonymous No.19951197]

>>19951179
>Then, in prayer and humility, I either change my position or invite my brother to change his
This can't be right. You're claiming the faith depends on how strong your personal convictions are that your position is right. So if you meet another Christian who has opposite views at least ONE of you has to not have the true saving faith but if both of you are totally convinced that you're interpreting scripture in the correct way what then? Someone has to be wrong but you're both totally convinced you're reading scripture correctly.

Now you have two outs here. One the faith is trivial to the point where people with understandings of scripture completely different to your own can still be saved, i.e people who deny the Trinity, that Christ is the pre-existent Logos or even that Christs sacrifice was actually an atonement at all and merely instructive or a representation of Gods love. Or two one of you is going to hell and you have absolutely no idea which one of you until you die and find out because you're both totally convinced you're correct.

Sorry but that is just dumb. There is a very clear, very obvious way to know if you hold the true faith and that is if you're in communion with the Church that has a succession of apostolic bishops stretching back to Pentecost. Christ gave his blessing to the CHURCH. Not any individual. The only way to know you have the true faith is to be part of the true Church and interpretation of scripture is given to no single individual in it's entirety.

[Anonymous No.19951205]

>>19951188
The apostles founded churches and taught the truth. What they didn't do was establish a papacy, pray to other people, worship statues, pass out scapulars, or pretend they could transform bread into flesh. I mean, you could probably make some kind of argument for continuation in some abstract sense, that the church is an ongoing divine institution. You lose me when you insist that it's *your* institution and that I have to submit to *your* self-appointed authority figures. You can appeal to long periods of time and tradition all you want, but Judaism has been around a lot longer than Catholicism, and you don't see me wearing a yarmulke, do you? Save it. You call it picking and choosing. I call it making every effort to live up to the invitation in 2 Timothy 2:15.

[Anonymous No.19951209]

>>19951133
I really wish I could just get a 1914 Douay and a 50s/60s Knox. Probably better quality.

[Anonymous No.19951237]

>>19951197
Here's how it works. There are certain things I KNOW are true. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for my sins. My trusting in the promise of that sacrifice, I am saved. Now, if a Church of Christ person comes along and says "hey man, you can't have a piano in worship service" I might take a few minutes and ask him why he thinks that. Maybe I'll consider his views, study the matter myself, consider other positions, and arrive at a conclusion. If someone from the World Mission Society Church of God comes along and says "hey man, you have to pray to this Korean lady, she's God the Mother," I might try to show him from the scriptures why he's wrong and help him leave that cult.
Now, if a Catholic comes along and says "hey man, Mary was conceived without sin because Jesus loves his mother so much," I might take a moment to talk to him about logic, critical thinking, and good hermeneutics, because obviously he's been sold a bill of goods.

[Anonymous No.19951256]

>>19950068
>>19949121
Oh, I could find a normie sponsor if I wanted to. But, I think it's more symbolically significant if an anon sponsors my baptism, because it was the anons who compelled me and woke me up. I have a stronger relationship with you all than I could with any goofball at my church.

[Anonymous No.19951279]

>>19951205
>2 Timothy 2:15
Blessed
All of your input and story has been interesting and worthwhile. BTW, I mentioned Nee earlier and didn't realize you'd been mentioning another person, Witness Lee, whom I wound up reading a bit about. What an odd phenomenon altogether, those two, but still fascinating. I figure there to be some legitimate members of the Body of Christ within that movement regardless and despite its severe issues. I am sure there are Catholics who are members as well. God has His people in an incredible variety of situations. The heretical Good Samaritan was one.

[Anonymous No.19951281]

>>19951110
Great piece, Luther was a shit eating heretic.

[Anonymous No.19951284]

>>19951237
Right
on

[Anonymous No.19951291]

>>19951237
The way you filth slander Mary is disgusting, vile heretics.

[Anonymous No.19951308]

>>19951205
>>19951237
you're being willfully ignorant and im way past responding to you. numerous anons have taken the time to provide sourced, detailed responses and your argument essentially boils down to muh fee fees and "well this is what I feel is true!". you're expressing so many ahistorical and unbiblical beliefs i wouldn't even know where to begin to respond (sola fide, sola scriptura, "mary worship", misunderstanding of the priesthood, and apostolic authority, and the papacy, thinking catholics "worship statues" and thinking the "bread literally becomes flesh" (lol), misunderstanding of the old vs. new covenants), that it's not worth addressing your bad faith, midwit argumentation. its pretty obvious you were the kind of shallow catholic "convert" who posted "le trad memes!" in these kind of threads 6 months ago. go back to doing your high school homework.

[Anonymous No.19951315]

>>19951256
your sponsor is supposed to be someone who guides you in the faith, personally. it's not about symbolism. do you have a confessor? do you have a spiritual director? if not, why not? that's usually the person you ask to be your sponsor as an adult.

[Anonymous No.19951319]

>>19951308
hes a troll or hes arguing in bad faith, we need to pray for him.

[Anonymous No.19951328]

>>19951279
I've always wondered where the names/titles Watchman and Witness came from but I've never found an answer to that one. It's definitely odd. Anyway, yeah, Watchman Nee came first and certainly had his problems theologically, but was, I think, fairly harmless. Lee, on the other hand, was charismatic and produced an absolutely mind-boggling amount of material. As disgusted as I am by the cult of personality the LC has become, I do think there are a lot of genuine Christians there. Their soteriology is sound. Most of their problems come from cultish tendencies in and around Lee. They're a denomination in every way but refuse to admit it. They're divisive, even internally, thanks to the doctrine of overcomers. They view Christians as falling into two categories. The overcomers are exceptional Christians, and they're the ones who join Jesus during the millennial reign. Other Christians, the non-overcomers, are left in outer darkness for that thousand years, wandering the earth, wailing and gnashing their teeth.
I also think and hope that many Catholics are genuine members of the Body of Christ, but in desperate need of correction.

[Anonymous No.19951348]

>>19951319
I'm tired, I have a headache, and frankly I've had this same argument so many times that I find it difficult to take seriously. I spent several posts trying to be reasonable and respectful but it didn't get me anywhere.

>>19951308
Listen man, I call 'em how I see 'em. If I see you kneeling down in front of a painting of Mary and hear you praying to her, or go into a chapel and see you venerating the eucharist, I'm not going to bother reading centuries of Catholic eisegesis and justification. I'm going to call it idolatry. Because it is. I know that because I have a functioning brain that I use to observe and evaluate things. I screw up sometimes, but not usually when something is that obvious.
Like dude, if I post a photo of a brown scapular that you can look at and see that I'm telling the truth about when I say that it offers a path to salvation other than Christ, and you come back and say "yeah man, but God *could* save people other ways, right?" and then you get all offended when I don't accept that logic, I'm going to stop taking you seriously. Like what if I claimed to be telepathic and you asked me to prove it and my response was "well, I *could* be telepathic" you'd rightly laugh in my face. So when you guys come up with this nonsense about immaculate conception and transubstantiation and scapulars, and then give us these half-assed eisegetical justifications, don't be surprised when I laugh in your face.

[Anonymous No.19951356]

>>19951328
I figure that we are all in desperate need of correction, to varying degrees. That's partly why salvation is to be worked out in fear and trembling. As I think you mentioned earlier, even the direct Apostles got things wrong. Christ was constantly having to rebuke them and there's no reason to assume that they were ever suddenly holders of perfect knowledge in every detail.

[Anonymous No.19951369]

>>19951356
Amen to that.

[Anonymous No.19951374]

>>19951356
>even the direct Apostles got things wrong. Christ was constantly having to rebuke them and there's no reason to assume that they were ever suddenly holders of perfect knowledge in every detail
But I thought the Pope was infallible???

[Anonymous No.19951383]

>>19951374
I don't consider the "Pope" (Papa) to be a legitimate thing at all, much less infallible.

[Anonymous No.19951388]

>>19951383
Jesus: don't call anyone father, you have one Father and He is in heaven

Catholics: actually scratch that, this guy is the holy father

[Anonymous No.19951459]

>>19951388
Catholics:
>"priests" = Father
>Pope = Father
>early church writers = Fathers

[Anonymous No.19951494]

>>19951348
bla bla bla, you arent saved, you will not attain salvation, you hate Jesus Christ, I will pray for you.

[Anonymous No.19951532]

>>19951169
vile to witness, isnt it?

[Anonymous No.19951650]

>>19950665
You're making excuses for your intolerance. What you've just said isn't sincere. If you were truly struggling, you wouldn't have made the statement in the first place. We are all Christians irregardless of minor differences.

[Anonymous No.19951710]

>>19946821
Preferred translation/version? About to pull the trigger on The Message which i know will severely trigger a lot of people, so sell me on something better

[Anonymous No.19951718]

>>19946839
Chruch of Christ. Any of you who worship using instrumental music are going to hell by the way. Not passing judgement on you, simply stating a fact

[Anonymous No.19951810]

>>19951710
Strictly speaking, The Message is a paraphrase, not a translation. Fine for personal devotionals, but not for serious Bible study.
I've always liked the 1985 edition of the NIV, since it balances the translation philosophies of formalism and dynamic equivalence well. NRSV is okay; it's the preferred translation in academia, but it can be a little too ecumenical (electing to make the translation vaguer in some places than the original texts warrant for the sake of appealing to a broader audience).

The ESV, NIV, and NLT are some of the most common modern Bible translations, and together they cover a broad range of translation philosophies and textual interpretations. If you read from each of those and compare them to each other, you're in good hands. I'd warn against putting all your stock in a single obscure translation just because it's uncommon.

[Anonymous No.19951818]

>>19951205
>I mean, you could probably make some kind of argument for continuation in some abstract sense, that the church is an ongoing divine institution. You lose me when you insist that it's *your* institution and that I have to submit to *your* self-appointed authority figures.
That's basically why Quakers tried to remove all formality from their ecclesiology. Of course, one could easily make the argument that they swung the pendulum too far in the other direction.

[Anonymous No.19951826]

I'm dragging myself slowly and reluctantly through Leviticus. I feel real bad for all the animals being burnt to death for God's amusement and pleasure. And the poor birds getting their necks snapped.

[Anonymous No.19951841]

>>19951826
Those are natural emotions to have reading it. Atoning for sin is a bloody business.

[Anonymous No.19951846]

>>19951085
I looked up my Knox, the typo is fixed in Gen 32:22, but the pg 121 of NT one is still there.

[Anonymous No.19951856]

>>19946839
I'm a reprobate.

[Anonymous No.19951864]

Hey former LCanon,
In case I don't visit this thread again before it dies, I want to tell you that I enjoyed and profited from reading your posts. Not just in that they were well-written and well-argued, but that you exercised patience when dealing with counterarguments while still expressing your honest grievances with the other position. That's exceptionally rare on 4chan. I truly think you are closer to the heart of Christ than many ITT. Sincerely, thanks for posting here.
Christ go with thee.

[Anonymous No.19951888]

>>19951015
Cathodox have no logical arguments to defend their cults.

[Anonymous No.19951927]

>>19951846
>I looked up my Knox, the typo is fixed in Gen 32:22
Really? I got my Knox last month and my Gen 32:22 still says "ford of Jacob" and as the pg. 121 issue. According to the copyright page, mine is from the 2nd printing, as the right-most number is a 2. What's yours?

[Anonymous No.19951944]

>>19951927
lol sorry I'm completely wrong, i didn't even looked at the context there, i glanced at your post and assumed you were saying there was a misprinting of Jacob as Jaboc, . We have the same edition. I hadn't noticed that when I read Genesis. I haven't noticed any other typos either, but I guess that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.19951952]

what are some books i can read that deal mostly with stuff like the nephilim and magic used by egyptian kings?

[Anonymous No.19951961]

>>19950969
Preserving Christian Publications has their own reprint of the 1914 John Murphy Co./P. J. Kenedy & Sons Douay-Rheims, so you don't have to hunt eBay for the real thing. It's also $20 cheaper than Baronius. While you're at it, get it rebound and it'll be the best Bible you have.

[Anonymous No.19951973]

>>19951952
>nephilim
Book of Enoch and related.
>magic used by egyptian kings
Hermes Trismegist (from a millenium later and strongly Hellenised, but there is very little before that).

[Anonymous No.19951994]

>>19951388
>>19951459
No, see, you don't get it, the word of God is invalid and their """Church Fathers""" are all infallible and above Christ because their """Church Fathers""" told them so.
...
How do these Pharisees have the gall to call themselves Christian when they disobey nearly everything Christ taught?

[Anonymous No.19952082]

>>19951952
https://youtu.be/inRjZ6ldUS4

[Anonymous No.19952458]

>>19951388
>>19951459
>>19951994
Your interpretation is wrong. Jesus also says this:

Matt. 5:33-37
"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil."

Do you think that we cannot swear oaths? His words seem rather absolute on the matter.

[Anonymous No.19952836]

>>19946909
When are you going to become Catholic?
(I’m a former baptist)

[Anonymous No.19952839]

>>19951196
Funny hats don't make a church

[Anonymous No.19952964]

>>19952836
Don't plan on it. Too many fundamental differences in beliefs. I've been invited to go to catholic service but declined as I feel there is not much point when I am not considering conversion
I've been Baptist my whole life and do believe what they teach. I actually quit going to church for over 10 years due to a variety of reasons (among them issues with hippocritial pastors and members) but kept reading the Bible. Found I agreed with most of their beliefs when it comes to interpretation of the Bible

The hard part has been finding a church because so many Baptist churches have become secularized and toned down that its difficult to find genuine ones. When I can go to ones where women pastors are permitted something is wrong, but it doesn't change my beliefs. Merely informs me I need to keep looking

[Anonymous No.19952977]

>>19951826
It's a reminder of the blessing of Christ's sacrifice
Remember, the first sacrifice was in Eden when God made covering for Adam and eve from animal skins

[Anonymous No.19953005]

>>19951718
Praise the Lord! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness! Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp! Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe! Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!

[Anonymous No.19953104]

>>19951718
>Any of you who worship using instrumental music are going to hell by the way.
Is this a genuine belief? Also by instrumental do you mean instruments playing while you sing or exclusively instrumental with no lyrics

[Anonymous No.19953268]

>>19951826
God might have been trying to show us that others must suffer for our sins. The correct response is to feel bad and repent, sin as less as possible.

[Anonymous No.19953271]

>>19951718
>he doesn't know psalms and psalter get their name from the instrument used while singing them

[Anonymous No.19953287]

>>19951710
If you insist on a "modern readable" translation go with NASB which is the most literal.

[Anonymous No.19953402]

>>19946839
Lutheran

[Anonymous No.19953586]

>>19947607
Good luck brother. If you have no sponsor I would just walk to and talk to you elderly couple that shows up to every Church event, I'm sure they'll be up to it.

[Anonymous No.19953603]

>>19949133
I've been present in a community for the past 5 years, still unsure on what I think of them. However I do know for a fact if it weren't for it I would not be in the Church today.

[Anonymous No.19953920]

>>19952458
>Do you think that we cannot swear oaths?
A lot of Christian groups actually do take that commandment at face value. In a court of law, they might elect to make a "statement of affirmation" instead, to let their "yes" be simply "yes."

[Anonymous No.19954013]

>>19953920
And they're wrong. The literal reading of "swear not at all" does not forbid you from swearing oaths, as you can read Paul swear over and over in the New Testament. Similarly the literal understanding that you can't call a person Father is wrong.

[Anonymous No.19954050]

>>19954013
>pilpul
What's the "right" reading then?

[Anonymous No.19954059]

>>19954050
How is this pilpul? "Swear not at all" =

Rom. 1:9
For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers
Rom. 9:1
I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit
2 Cor. 1:23
But I call God to witness against me—it was to spare you that I refrained from coming to Corinth.
2 Cor. 11:31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.
Gal. 1:20
(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)
Phil. 1:8
For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.

??

[Anonymous No.19954095]

>>19954050
As for the correct reading, it means several things. For one it is a condemnation of the practice at the time in which people would make oaths on "lesser" things, with the understanding that they could break these oaths. It is directly condamned in Matt. 23:16-22. Beyond that, it is ordering us to behave in a way that an oath is not necessary. That is to say, we should be known to be trustworthy without having to make an oath to vouch for ourselves. And similarly we should not make oaths casually but only in serious affairs.

[Anonymous No.19954127]

>>19954095
and what about calling no man father?

[Anonymous No.19954192]

>>19954127
The literal interpretation is again disproved by the epistles:

1 Cor. 4:15
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Philemon 1:10
I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
1 Pet. 5:13
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.
1 Tim. 1:2
To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

The teaching is that we should not attribute fatherhood (also being a teacher or master, which is in the same condemnation) to those who do not have it and are arrogating it to themselves out of pride (Matt. 23:6-7). We are to understand that all fatherhood is in reference to God. God is the true father, from which all fatherhood derives; so too is he our true teacher, by whom our teachers on earth have authority (Matt. 28:19-20). He's giving us the correct understanding of fatherhood, teaching, etc.

[Anonymous No.19954209]

>>19954192
Or putting it into a clearer Christian context, a priest is only our father in reference to God. He does not have some type of power which derives from his own being, but his office comes from God, our true father. We aren't to fall prey to "gurus" and such spiritual manipulators who take teaching authority or fatherhood to themselves.

[Anonymous No.19954220]

>>19951888
Three Treatises on the Divine Images by John of Damascus

[Anonymous No.19954258]

Orthodox bro here. If you really want to be saved you should join us and you will be saved. We accept everyone. These threads are pure heresy. In orthodoxy we have no communication with heretics.

[Anonymous No.19954267]

>>19954258
The great lent starts soon bros! Repent

[Anonymous No.19954269]

>>19954258
>doesn't quote the scriptures
>everyone but our cult is right

[Anonymous No.19954270]

Stop wasting time

[Anonymous No.19954278]

>>19954267
Oh boy, now we get to listen to catholics make a big song and dance about fasting again...

I'd tell you to read Matthew 6, but you lot never read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.19954285]

>>19954278
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%206&version=KJV

[Anonymous No.19954307]

>>19954278
Jesus fasted. By orthodoxy you live ‘heaven’ in this life. You are deluded and you will NOT be saved if you do not practice the real Christianity. I hope you get saved and join the truth

>>19954269
You are trying to use logic. Study the orthodox fathers and get to work. Is easy. Just fast, find a father to repent and stay consistent. I’m judging you from the right view! I’m not a hypocrite mate

[Anonymous No.19954488]

>>19954307
Here you Catholics go again, blowing things out of proportion. Yes, Jesus fasted. That's one thing. It is an entirely separate thing to tell people that they won't be saved unless they follow the made up rules of your made up liturgical calendar.

"AND IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN."
Matthew 15:9 (NASB)

[Anonymous No.19954539]

>>19950992
>The NT (and OT even) were codified by the early Church.
The current one sure, but what books were considered definitive as Scripture were already there prior to official canonization.
The Septuagint was already present in the time of Christ, and by the time all the relevant gospels and letters of the NT were completed, it was spread and copied lots of times before any church authorities were able to codify it into one cohesive canon.
I'm not saying you're wrong. The Church did determine what books were canon or not. But If you're implying that the authorities of the Church were the reason why we have those books now, then that would mean the transmission of the Bible became inorganic, as in each gospel and epistle we have now was arbitrarily chosen, contrary to a natural, organic transmission, which what is really what happened. The heretical and unpopular epistles were not copied as much and stayed in their respective cults, while what we have now we're widely recognized by the Church as authentic, without the supression or dissemination by the Christian leaders.