Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.

After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.

Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.

EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.

---

Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.

Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.

First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.

You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.

Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

---

Well said.

And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.

Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.

I cringe every time they say "just read the text".

They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.

---

It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.

There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.

---

You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.

The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH.
"If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.

If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.

Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.

The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.

Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw:
A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne.
Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints.
Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"
Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.

You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.


Watch this:

---

When Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of the truth," he's saying the Church upholds and proclaims the truth, not that it creates the truth or becomes the ultimate source of it. A pillar supports something; it isn't the thing being supported. The Church is God's appointed witness to the truth, but the truth itself comes from God.

The question isn't whether tradition exists. We agree it does. The question is how we know which traditions are truly apostolic and which developed later. Jesus Himself warned that religious traditions can drift away from God's Word. That's why every tradition must ultimately be tested against Scripture rather than placed on the same level as Scripture.

With respect to typology, I don't think Protestants reject it at all. The New Testament is full of typology. Adam points to Christ, the Passover points to Christ, Jonah points to Christ, and so on. The disagreement is whether typological connections can be used to establish doctrines that aren't clearly taught elsewhere. Seeing Mary as a new Ark may be a meaningful parallel, but a parallel by itself doesn't prove every doctrine associated with Mary.

This idea that Protestantism is Gnosticism is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Disagreeing about icons, relics, or sacramental theology doesn't make someone a Gnostic. Don't be ridiculous.

As for Revelation, I agree that heaven is portrayed as majestic, liturgical worship filled with praise, reverence, incense, and the throne of God. But Revelation doesn't prove that any one modern church tradition perfectly mirrors heaven. The book is full of symbolic imagery.

The biggest problem with your argument is that appealing to "the Church" doesn't actually resolve the question of authority, because Catholics and Orthodox both claim to preserve Holy Tradition, yet they disagree on significant issues. They disagree about the authority of the Pope, certain Marian doctrines, purgatory, and other important matters. If apostolic tradition is supposed to function as a clear and infallible rule of faith, then simply saying "follow the Church" isn't enough. Which Church? Rome or Constantinople? And if two communions that both claim apostolic succession and sacred tradition reach different conclusions, then tradition by itself doesn't solve the problem.

That is just further proof of why one must appeal to Scripture as the final authority. Whenever churches, traditions, and interpretations conflict, there must be a higher standard by which they are judged. Protestants rightly believe that standard is the inspired Word of God.

---

Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth. He says the Church is. If your whole system runs on "there has to be one final, identifiable authority," why does Paul hand that title to a living body and not a book? You can't just define the word "pillar" down to nothing so it doesn't threaten sola scriptura.

On testing tradition against Scripture…who's doing the testing? You are. Your interpretation. So "test everything against Scripture" quietly becomes "test everything against my read of Scripture," and now the infallible authority didn't disappear, it just moved into your own head. That's the whole problem with the model. Jesus condemning traditions of men in Mark 7 isn't Him condemning Sacred Tradition as a category… you have to assume that first to use the verse, which is begging the question.

On typology, glad we agree it's real, but then you smuggle in "unless it establishes something not clearly taught elsewhere," and who decides what's clearly taught? Same move as above. Also plenty of stuff you already believe, the canon itself, the precise wording of the Trinity, sola scriptura as a rule…isn't a single prooftext either. It's development.

On Revelation, nobody's claiming perfect 1:1 replication, the point is the pattern. Incense, throne, elders, liturgical praise… that's a lot closer to a liturgy than to a stripped down service with a podium and a projector.

A split within the authority model doesn't disprove the model any more than 40,000 Protestant denominations disprove sola scriptura. And it's not even symmetrical. you can actually go look at what the united Church held before 1054 and see who kept it and who added to it later.

"Appeal to Scripture as final authority" isn't actually an escape from needing an interpreter, it just makes the interpreter invisible and personal instead of visible and historical. You didn't get rid of the authority question, you just hid it.

Your claim that it 'clearly states that Jesus had brothers & sisters" is not entirely correct. The Konie Greek uses adelphoi which has been biblically demonstrated can mean cousin or kinsmen.

Incorrect.
The word "adelphoi" can mean many things, which is why it must be interpreted by the context of it's use. For example, it is often used by Jesus and the Apostles to mean "brothers" in the spiritual sense.
Examples: Matthew 23:8, Matthew 25:40, John 20:17 etc
However, when it is used in context, it can clearly mean siblings.
Examples: Matthew 22: 25-28 - it was a common practice for a man to marry the widow of his brother (sibling).
Matthew 13:55-56 - it is clearly listing out his family... his father, mother, and siblings. If these were not his siblings then there would be some kind of context to describe their relationship. For example, the word used for the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist, is "syngenes" which can mean "kinsman" or "relative". This would be far more commonly used to describe a half-sibling or cousin, instead of "adelphoi" which is almost always a sibling or brother. So looking at the context of the use of "adelphoi" whenever the siblings are Jesus are talked about throughout all of the gospels and epistles... it is an extreme interpretation to try and claim that Jesus did not have siblings.
It is also important to remember that the Greek word "adelphoi" literally translates "from the same womb", so without context to explain otherwise, it literally translates to "brother" or "sister" or "sibling". It can mean something else, but only if there is context to provide that other meaning.

As I stated earlier, Jerome wrote a paper, Against Helvidius, that defended her perpetual virginity and mocked Helvidius for believing that the "siblings" were born from Mary.

Jerome was a good man, but he was not infallible. He also lived hundreds of years after all of the apostles had died. He is NOT an infallible source of information, and none of his writings are considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit or Holy Scriptures. When you consider the warnings of Paul in Acts, it becomes evident why we should not trust anything outside of the Holy Scriptures.

29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. - Acts 20:29-30

Here Paul is speaking to the Elders of the Church of Ephesus. He says that even from among the elders, false teachers will arise. So why would you think that false teachings would not occur hundreds of years later, from within the church leadership? This is why we are supposed to find our doctrines from the Scriptures alone, and not from the teachings of men. This is also why we are commanded to test every teaching by studying the scriptures and comparing the teachings of men to the Word of God.

How do you explain that the belief in the biological siblings of Jesus didn't arise until 16th century?

You are incorrect in stating that the belief in the biological siblings arose in the 16th century. You actually gave an example of this, when you talked about Jerome vs Helvidius, which occured in the 4th Century.

We can clearly see that Paul himself talks about the siblings of Jesus in the very first century of the church. Example: Gal 1:19

You can also see the writings of Tertullian in the 2nd century which stated that the siblings of Jesus were born of Joseph and Mary. This is the same guy who originated the term "Trinity". He was not infallible, but I'm only using him to show that some of the very earliest Christians like Paul and Tertullian believed in the biological siblings of Jesus... so your 16th century claim is false.

How do you explain that "reformers" like Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli ALL believed in her perpetual virginity?

Did Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL read and misinterpret the bible differently?

I'm sure that Luther, Calvin and Swingli were very influenced by their decades of Catholicism. In fact, Luther and Swingli were Catholic priests for years. So I'm not at all surprised that they would struggle with many different RCC teachings long after they rejected the corruption within the RCC. By the way, Calvin specifically stated that he did not believe the perpetual virginity of Mary was absolutely true. He found it to be a curiosity but unproven and unimportant for salvation.

As a Christian, I do not base any of my doctrines upon the teachings of men, but only on the Word of God. So you can find all kinds of examples of protestants, but it will have just as much meaning to me as if you mention the writings of Mohammad or Buda or some Aztec witch doctor. All that matters to the Man of God is the Word of God, not the word of Jerome, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear, appreciate your well thought out responses. I have a question.

Why does it matter if she is a virgin with only one child or a typical mother of the era with many children?

Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today.

I think we have gotten into the minute of religion and away from the basis of Christianity.

I appreciate the Catholic for the somber devotion that isnt seen much in modern protestant churches. I do become concerned over the continual repetition of prayer that can become a canned response instead of free form prayer as seen in protestant churches.

My son and I went to mass last sunday, it was amazing as the homily was about some things my son and I had been talking about earlier in the morning. Down to the verse.

---

It is not a critically important issue, unless you are desiring to be in communion with the RCC.

RCC catechism 2089 states " Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same"

Since the perpetual virginity is a RCC dogma, anyone who rejects that teaching within the RCC is considered a heretic who has committed a mortal sin.

FYI, heretics go to hell, not heaven... so if you are a Roman Catholic, it is a major issue!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do you not believe those concepts are completely derivable out of Scripture?

---

Why did it take several centuries and a couple of ecumenical councils to determine those?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And your comment still isn't invalidating what he said - the RC and Orthododox churches have many made up, non-apostolic teachings.

---

On the contrary, the Church can use scripture as a foundation for all its teachings.

You just don't accept the explanations.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.

After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.

Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.

EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.

---

Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.

Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.

First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.

You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.

Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

---

Well said.

And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.

Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.

I cringe every time they say "just read the text".

They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.

---

It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.

There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.

---

You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.

The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH.
"If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.

If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.

Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.

The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.

Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw:
A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne.
Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints.
Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"
Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.

You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.


Watch this:

---

When Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of the truth," he's saying the Church upholds and proclaims the truth, not that it creates the truth or becomes the ultimate source of it. A pillar supports something; it isn't the thing being supported. The Church is God's appointed witness to the truth, but the truth itself comes from God.

The question isn't whether tradition exists. We agree it does. The question is how we know which traditions are truly apostolic and which developed later. Jesus Himself warned that religious traditions can drift away from God's Word. That's why every tradition must ultimately be tested against Scripture rather than placed on the same level as Scripture.

With respect to typology, I don't think Protestants reject it at all. The New Testament is full of typology. Adam points to Christ, the Passover points to Christ, Jonah points to Christ, and so on. The disagreement is whether typological connections can be used to establish doctrines that aren't clearly taught elsewhere. Seeing Mary as a new Ark may be a meaningful parallel, but a parallel by itself doesn't prove every doctrine associated with Mary.

This idea that Protestantism is Gnosticism is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Disagreeing about icons, relics, or sacramental theology doesn't make someone a Gnostic. Don't be ridiculous.

As for Revelation, I agree that heaven is portrayed as majestic, liturgical worship filled with praise, reverence, incense, and the throne of God. But Revelation doesn't prove that any one modern church tradition perfectly mirrors heaven. The book is full of symbolic imagery.

The biggest problem with your argument is that appealing to "the Church" doesn't actually resolve the question of authority, because Catholics and Orthodox both claim to preserve Holy Tradition, yet they disagree on significant issues. They disagree about the authority of the Pope, certain Marian doctrines, purgatory, and other important matters. If apostolic tradition is supposed to function as a clear and infallible rule of faith, then simply saying "follow the Church" isn't enough. Which Church? Rome or Constantinople? And if two communions that both claim apostolic succession and sacred tradition reach different conclusions, then tradition by itself doesn't solve the problem.

That is just further proof of why one must appeal to Scripture as the final authority. Whenever churches, traditions, and interpretations conflict, there must be a higher standard by which they are judged. Protestants rightly believe that standard is the inspired Word of God.

---

Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth. He says the Church is. If your whole system runs on "there has to be one final, identifiable authority," why does Paul hand that title to a living body and not a book? You can't just define the word "pillar" down to nothing so it doesn't threaten sola scriptura.

On testing tradition against Scripture…who's doing the testing? You are. Your interpretation. So "test everything against Scripture" quietly becomes "test everything against my read of Scripture," and now the infallible authority didn't disappear, it just moved into your own head. That's the whole problem with the model. Jesus condemning traditions of men in Mark 7 isn't Him condemning Sacred Tradition as a category… you have to assume that first to use the verse, which is begging the question.

On typology, glad we agree it's real, but then you smuggle in "unless it establishes something not clearly taught elsewhere," and who decides what's clearly taught? Same move as above. Also plenty of stuff you already believe, the canon itself, the precise wording of the Trinity, sola scriptura as a rule…isn't a single prooftext either. It's development.

On Revelation, nobody's claiming perfect 1:1 replication, the point is the pattern. Incense, throne, elders, liturgical praise… that's a lot closer to a liturgy than to a stripped down service with a podium and a projector.

A split within the authority model doesn't disprove the model any more than 40,000 Protestant denominations disprove sola scriptura. And it's not even symmetrical. you can actually go look at what the united Church held before 1054 and see who kept it and who added to it later.

"Appeal to Scripture as final authority" isn't actually an escape from needing an interpreter, it just makes the interpreter invisible and personal instead of visible and historical. You didn't get rid of the authority question, you just hid it.

---

The problem is that you keep saying "the Church" as if that solves the authority question, but which Church? Rome? Constantinople? The Oriental Orthodox? They all claim continuity with the historic Church and all appeal to 1 Timothy 3:15. The verse itself doesn't tell you which institution is the infallible one. So before you can use "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth" against sola scriptura, you first have to identify which church Paul is talking about and prove that your communion uniquely is it. You've failed in that regard.

As I suggested above, a pillar doesn't create or determine truth; it upholds and bears witness to it. Paul doesn't say the Church is the source of revelation or the final norm by which revelation is judged. In the same pastoral letters he repeatedly appeals to the apostolic message itself as the standard.

As for "who's doing the testing?" Everyone. The Bereans were commended for testing even Paul's teaching against Scripture. The fact that individuals must evaluate claims doesn't mean individuals become infallible. That's a non sequitur. Fallible people can recognize authority without becoming the authority.

The same objection cuts against your position anyway. When you decide that your version of Orthodoxy is right rather than Catholicism - or vice versa - who is making that judgment? You are. Your personal evaluation doesn't disappear just because you ultimately submit to a church full of hairy fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Eminence."

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.

After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.

Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.

EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.

---

Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.

Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.

First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.

You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.

Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

---

Well said.

And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.

Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.

I cringe every time they say "just read the text".

They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.

---

It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.

There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.

---

You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.

The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH.
"If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.

If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.

Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.

The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.

Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw:
A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne.
Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints.
Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"
Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.

You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.


Watch this:

---

When Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of the truth," he's saying the Church upholds and proclaims the truth, not that it creates the truth or becomes the ultimate source of it. A pillar supports something; it isn't the thing being supported. The Church is God's appointed witness to the truth, but the truth itself comes from God.

The question isn't whether tradition exists. We agree it does. The question is how we know which traditions are truly apostolic and which developed later. Jesus Himself warned that religious traditions can drift away from God's Word. That's why every tradition must ultimately be tested against Scripture rather than placed on the same level as Scripture.

With respect to typology, I don't think Protestants reject it at all. The New Testament is full of typology. Adam points to Christ, the Passover points to Christ, Jonah points to Christ, and so on. The disagreement is whether typological connections can be used to establish doctrines that aren't clearly taught elsewhere. Seeing Mary as a new Ark may be a meaningful parallel, but a parallel by itself doesn't prove every doctrine associated with Mary.

This idea that Protestantism is Gnosticism is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Disagreeing about icons, relics, or sacramental theology doesn't make someone a Gnostic. Don't be ridiculous.

As for Revelation, I agree that heaven is portrayed as majestic, liturgical worship filled with praise, reverence, incense, and the throne of God. But Revelation doesn't prove that any one modern church tradition perfectly mirrors heaven. The book is full of symbolic imagery.

The biggest problem with your argument is that appealing to "the Church" doesn't actually resolve the question of authority, because Catholics and Orthodox both claim to preserve Holy Tradition, yet they disagree on significant issues. They disagree about the authority of the Pope, certain Marian doctrines, purgatory, and other important matters. If apostolic tradition is supposed to function as a clear and infallible rule of faith, then simply saying "follow the Church" isn't enough. Which Church? Rome or Constantinople? And if two communions that both claim apostolic succession and sacred tradition reach different conclusions, then tradition by itself doesn't solve the problem.

That is just further proof of why one must appeal to Scripture as the final authority. Whenever churches, traditions, and interpretations conflict, there must be a higher standard by which they are judged. Protestants rightly believe that standard is the inspired Word of God.

---

Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth. He says the Church is. If your whole system runs on "there has to be one final, identifiable authority," why does Paul hand that title to a living body and not a book? You can't just define the word "pillar" down to nothing so it doesn't threaten sola scriptura.

On testing tradition against Scripture…who's doing the testing? You are. Your interpretation. So "test everything against Scripture" quietly becomes "test everything against my read of Scripture," and now the infallible authority didn't disappear, it just moved into your own head. That's the whole problem with the model. Jesus condemning traditions of men in Mark 7 isn't Him condemning Sacred Tradition as a category… you have to assume that first to use the verse, which is begging the question.

On typology, glad we agree it's real, but then you smuggle in "unless it establishes something not clearly taught elsewhere," and who decides what's clearly taught? Same move as above. Also plenty of stuff you already believe, the canon itself, the precise wording of the Trinity, sola scriptura as a rule…isn't a single prooftext either. It's development.

On Revelation, nobody's claiming perfect 1:1 replication, the point is the pattern. Incense, throne, elders, liturgical praise… that's a lot closer to a liturgy than to a stripped down service with a podium and a projector.

A split within the authority model doesn't disprove the model any more than 40,000 Protestant denominations disprove sola scriptura. And it's not even symmetrical. you can actually go look at what the united Church held before 1054 and see who kept it and who added to it later.

"Appeal to Scripture as final authority" isn't actually an escape from needing an interpreter, it just makes the interpreter invisible and personal instead of visible and historical. You didn't get rid of the authority question, you just hid it.

---

The problem is that you keep saying "the Church" as if that solves the authority question, but which Church? Rome? Constantinople? The Oriental Orthodox? They all claim continuity with the historic Church and all appeal to 1 Timothy 3:15. The verse itself doesn't tell you which institution is the infallible one. So before you can use "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth" against sola scriptura, you first have to identify which church Paul is talking about and prove that your communion uniquely is it. You've failed in that regard.

As I suggested above, a pillar doesn't create or determine truth; it upholds and bears witness to it. Paul doesn't say the Church is the source of revelation or the final norm by which revelation is judged. In the same pastoral letters he repeatedly appeals to the apostolic message itself as the standard.

As for "who's doing the testing?" Everyone. The Bereans were commended for testing even Paul's teaching against Scripture. The fact that individuals must evaluate claims doesn't mean individuals become infallible. That's a non sequitur. Fallible people can recognize authority without becoming the authority.

The same objection cuts against your position anyway. When you decide that your version of Orthodoxy is right rather than Catholicism - or vice versa - who is making that judgment? You are. Your personal evaluation doesn't disappear just because you ultimately submit to a church full of hairy fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Eminence."

---

The Oriental Orthodox split off in the 400s over Chalcedon, Rome split off in 1054, in both cases from the same continuous body that everyone agrees existed before that. They split off due to their own further development. So the question isn't "pick one of five branches at random," it's "who left the trunk." You can actually go look at what the pre schism Church believed and practiced and ask which side kept that and which side innovated. Orthodoxy kept it…it's literally why it's THE ONLY institution in the world that hasn't changed fundamentally for the longest period of time.

The claim is the Church is the custodian and authoritative interpreter of what God revealed, which is exactly why Paul can call it the pillar and ground of truth instead of calling the text itself that.

Bereans testing Paul against Scripture doesn't help you the way you think. What Scripture did they have? The Old Testament. They tested a new apostolic claim against previous revelation to see if it was coherent, that's not "individual verifies doctrine solo with a Bible and a coffee," that's "does this match what God has already established through His appointed messengers." That's the Orthodox model, not yours.

And the "your judgment too" line… sure, I use judgment to recognize an authority. That's completely different from using judgment to become the authority. I submit to a Church with councils, continuity, and a visible historical decision making process for exactly the reason that I don't trust my own reading to be the final court.

Good afternoon, Coke Bear. I am replying to your post of July 1 here. Thank you for your thoughts, and I hope we can use this discussion to move the topic forward at least to the point of each understanding the other position.

In my first point, I noted that there are some people in every group who become bitter and attack other Christians. My focus was that we should be careful to not only control our tongues when speaking to other Christians, even and perhaps especially when we disagree, and we ought to address those on our own side who make attacks instead of discussing the topic. Your response was only to deny you make such attacks, and you said nothing about others in your group who make such attacks. I understand the desire to not get into such bickering, but it does not address the problem, nor improve the spirit of the discussion.

In my second point, I explained that my faith is in Christ and the Gospel, which requires me to consider Scripture the written instruction all believers may and should depend upon for clarity and to resolve disputes when believers hold different positions. Your response was to assert the primacy of the Catholic Church. You spoke as a lawyer frankly, not a brother, and I must also say that you seemed to imply that the Roman Catholic Church represents the Catholic Church, which is false as presented. The Catholic Church in whole is all Christians, not just those who do as you find pleasing.

Also, I find it ironic that you demanded documentation, when all along I have been plain about the importance of Scripture. It's as if you emotionally need to feel that your opinion is part of God's word, which is only true when your opinion is aligned with Scripture.

Thank you for your response to my question about what claim of Christ I seem to be rejecting. I do not, however, see Christ making claims about Mary, only you trying to sell what seem to me to be evasion. I asked specifically where Jesus denied having siblings, or where He said Mary was a 'perpetual virgin'. Again, it is no sin to note that these look to be inventions by people offended by the truth.

You wrote "Only Jesus is called "the son of Mary" in Mark 6:3"

In Mark Chapter 6, here is what is written in the first section: "Jesus left there and went to his hometown, accompanied by his disciples. When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
" Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home." He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith."

In this passage, Jesus is teaching in the Synagogue, and the topic was certainly not His family tree. So in the context presented, the comments make perfect sense.

You seized on verse three, claiming that "I have previously demonstrated that James and Joses are sons from a different Mary that was also at the crucifixion."

With respect sir, that is a false statement. You have only made an unsupported claim, and become angry when support is demanded.

Your basis was to claim "Jesus used the Aramaic words, adelphoi and adelphai, which ALSO mean cousin or kinsmen. You are completely rejecting that and saying that they ONLY mean brothers and sisters."

First, please note that the Aramaic words 'adelphoi' and 'adelphai' do not exclude the meaning of brother. So just on that point, your claim does not mean the brothers were necessarily cousins or other distant kinsmen. It also means your argument cannot be used as support for the claim that Mary had no other children but Jesus. That is, the verse can be used at least as limited support FOR Mary having other children besides Jesus, but NOT for claiming she clearly did not.

It's also important to look at how Matthew used the word. In Matthew 4:18, Jesus called James and John to be His disciples, and they were clearly brothers. The word 'adelphous' is used;

In Matthew 10:2, Jesus' disciples are named, and this includes Simon and Andrew, using the word 'adelphos';

In Matthew 12:46-47, Jesus "mother and brothers" come to ask Him to come outside to speak with them. The same word 'adelphoi' is used as before;

In Matthew 12:48-50, Jesus makes clear that those who do the will of Jesus' Father in Heaven are His brothers and sisters. The words 'adelphoi' and 'adelphe' are used, exactly as in the verses before it. Jesus very clearly means to speak about close and immediate relatives, siblings, not cousins or distant relatives.

I looked through Matthew, and cannot find a place where he uses adelphoi to mean only a distant relative. Matthew consistently uses the word to mean a close sibling, a brother.

To the next point, you argued "Don't humans interpret the bible? We look to the early Church fathers to help us better determine what the sacred writers meant."

Therein you illustrate part of the reason for the Reformation. You demote Scripture to the meaning given it by men, which is very much a mistake. There are dozens of books in Scripture for good reason, not least of which is that Scripture is a trustworthy tool to determine what Scripture means. Most of Scripture is plain, and the only reason people dispute it is because they are trying to escape what it plainly says. Other times when there is some confusion, context and other Scripture on the same question are useful for clarifying the meaning, as Scripture does not contradict itself.

There are many verses in Scripture confirming this, as noted before. Jesus made a point of regularly quoting Scripture to confirm His authority and the truth of His teaching. You may note that no one in the Bible merely cites a human for such authority.

Sadly, there are many today who do choose to trust humans above Scripture.

To the next point, I noted that "God often prefers men willing to stand alone, and the Bible is plain on that truth" , to which you challenged "where in scripture does it even suggest that "God often prefers men willing to stand alone?"

It appears you ignored my citations, so here are some of them again:

Deuteronomy 7:7 "The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than the other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples"

In Judges Chapter 6, the Lord chooses Gideon to save Israel, even though he says "My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family." (Judges 6:15). To prove the Lord's power, in Chapter 7 the Lord three times reduces the size of Gideon's army, from 22 thousand down to just 300 men (Judges 7:1-8), and yet God gave Gideon a great victory and freed Israel from the Midianites.

In 1 Kings 22, Jehoshaphat and Ahab hear promise of victory from four hundred prophets, but only Miciah son of Imlah speaks the truth of Ahab's coming defeat and death.

In 2 Kings 1, when Ahaziah sent many men to arrest Elijah, twice the Lord sent fire from Heaven to destroy those men.

Micah 5:2 promised the little town of Bethlehem, "though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Matthew 22:14 "Many are called, but few are chosen"

And as you well know, many who initially followed Christ fell away.

God often chooses the few, even just the one, over the many. Popularity is therefore not the true test of whether an opinion the right.

You quoted Pilate. I am content with Scripture.

To the last point, you said "I'll modify the questions for you … Why do you think that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (all anti-Catholic, who ready the bible and believed in sola scriptura) ALL believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do you think that the man who translated the Bible into Latin, St Jerome, believed in perpetual virginity? What do you think was deficient in their thought process?"

You are once again calling on human popularity as a defense. I can only repeat that such a defense will surely fail at some point.

I do not consider human opinion a bad thing, of course. But someone's opinion must be tested against Scripture in these matters, especially when someone wants to submit a claim that is nowhere stated in Scripture.

With regard to Mary, we are all agreed that she was a uniquely important person to human history, worthy of respect and honor. However, with regard to women in the Bible, we must also remember Sarah the wife of Abraham, Miriam who raised Moses as a baby, Rahab who protected the Hebrew scouts in Jericho, Deborah the Judge of Israel, Ruth who won the heart of Boaz and continued the bloodline of David, Esther who protected the Jews from a great slaughter in Persia, Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist, Mary Magdelene of course, Priscilla who risked her life to protect apostles and helped establish a church, and Lydia who supported Paul's missions with her own resources. These were not all the same in scope or duty, but each served the Lord as He chose them to do, and like the men who served God each has their place as a true servant of God.

We do well to remember the faith and service of those women, but it is not for us to put any of them above human position. That is the danger many see in Marianism, treating Mary not as a worthy servant of the Lord, but as something of merit in and of herself. Such would insult Mary, frankly, and sadly has led some to false beliefs and dangerous attitudes.

In conclusion, I worry that many are arguing over non-essential differences. Our Salvation depends on Christ and our decision to accept Him, not arguments on whether a statue of Mary in a church is necessary or appropriate. But I do think there is a spirit revealed in how we address differences of opinion, and whether we respect the person even when we disagree on some detail.

There is also the problem of the differences between the denominations. Some are rigid in their belief that only their group is right, and completely right, and everyone else must turn from their heresy or go to hell. I think this is where your point about human opinion is pertinent.

I believe every denomination is wrong to some degree. Obviously that does not mean every denomination is equally off the mark. I believe there are some sects which are so far from the truth that we can say they are not Christian, such as the Mormons. The Book of Mormon is about as false as the Quran. But when two different groups depend on the same foundation and differ only on non-essentials, it would be wrong for believers to forget that we are brothers and sisters in the eyes of the Lord, and if Jacob/Israel and Esau could reconcile in peace, we should not do less.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.

After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.

Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.

EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.

---

Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.

Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.

First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.

You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.

Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

---

Well said.

And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.

Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.

I cringe every time they say "just read the text".

They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.

---

It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.

There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.

---

You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.

The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH.
"If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.

If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.

Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.

The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.

Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw:
A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne.
Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints.
Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"
Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.

You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.


Watch this:

---

When Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of the truth," he's saying the Church upholds and proclaims the truth, not that it creates the truth or becomes the ultimate source of it. A pillar supports something; it isn't the thing being supported. The Church is God's appointed witness to the truth, but the truth itself comes from God.

The question isn't whether tradition exists. We agree it does. The question is how we know which traditions are truly apostolic and which developed later. Jesus Himself warned that religious traditions can drift away from God's Word. That's why every tradition must ultimately be tested against Scripture rather than placed on the same level as Scripture.

With respect to typology, I don't think Protestants reject it at all. The New Testament is full of typology. Adam points to Christ, the Passover points to Christ, Jonah points to Christ, and so on. The disagreement is whether typological connections can be used to establish doctrines that aren't clearly taught elsewhere. Seeing Mary as a new Ark may be a meaningful parallel, but a parallel by itself doesn't prove every doctrine associated with Mary.

This idea that Protestantism is Gnosticism is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Disagreeing about icons, relics, or sacramental theology doesn't make someone a Gnostic. Don't be ridiculous.

As for Revelation, I agree that heaven is portrayed as majestic, liturgical worship filled with praise, reverence, incense, and the throne of God. But Revelation doesn't prove that any one modern church tradition perfectly mirrors heaven. The book is full of symbolic imagery.

The biggest problem with your argument is that appealing to "the Church" doesn't actually resolve the question of authority, because Catholics and Orthodox both claim to preserve Holy Tradition, yet they disagree on significant issues. They disagree about the authority of the Pope, certain Marian doctrines, purgatory, and other important matters. If apostolic tradition is supposed to function as a clear and infallible rule of faith, then simply saying "follow the Church" isn't enough. Which Church? Rome or Constantinople? And if two communions that both claim apostolic succession and sacred tradition reach different conclusions, then tradition by itself doesn't solve the problem.

That is just further proof of why one must appeal to Scripture as the final authority. Whenever churches, traditions, and interpretations conflict, there must be a higher standard by which they are judged. Protestants rightly believe that standard is the inspired Word of God.

---

Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth. He says the Church is. If your whole system runs on "there has to be one final, identifiable authority," why does Paul hand that title to a living body and not a book? You can't just define the word "pillar" down to nothing so it doesn't threaten sola scriptura.

On testing tradition against Scripture…who's doing the testing? You are. Your interpretation. So "test everything against Scripture" quietly becomes "test everything against my read of Scripture," and now the infallible authority didn't disappear, it just moved into your own head. That's the whole problem with the model. Jesus condemning traditions of men in Mark 7 isn't Him condemning Sacred Tradition as a category… you have to assume that first to use the verse, which is begging the question.

On typology, glad we agree it's real, but then you smuggle in "unless it establishes something not clearly taught elsewhere," and who decides what's clearly taught? Same move as above. Also plenty of stuff you already believe, the canon itself, the precise wording of the Trinity, sola scriptura as a rule…isn't a single prooftext either. It's development.

On Revelation, nobody's claiming perfect 1:1 replication, the point is the pattern. Incense, throne, elders, liturgical praise… that's a lot closer to a liturgy than to a stripped down service with a podium and a projector.

A split within the authority model doesn't disprove the model any more than 40,000 Protestant denominations disprove sola scriptura. And it's not even symmetrical. you can actually go look at what the united Church held before 1054 and see who kept it and who added to it later.

"Appeal to Scripture as final authority" isn't actually an escape from needing an interpreter, it just makes the interpreter invisible and personal instead of visible and historical. You didn't get rid of the authority question, you just hid it.

---

The problem is that you keep saying "the Church" as if that solves the authority question, but which Church? Rome? Constantinople? The Oriental Orthodox? They all claim continuity with the historic Church and all appeal to 1 Timothy 3:15. The verse itself doesn't tell you which institution is the infallible one. So before you can use "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth" against sola scriptura, you first have to identify which church Paul is talking about and prove that your communion uniquely is it. You've failed in that regard.

As I suggested above, a pillar doesn't create or determine truth; it upholds and bears witness to it. Paul doesn't say the Church is the source of revelation or the final norm by which revelation is judged. In the same pastoral letters he repeatedly appeals to the apostolic message itself as the standard.

As for "who's doing the testing?" Everyone. The Bereans were commended for testing even Paul's teaching against Scripture. The fact that individuals must evaluate claims doesn't mean individuals become infallible. That's a non sequitur. Fallible people can recognize authority without becoming the authority.

The same objection cuts against your position anyway. When you decide that your version of Orthodoxy is right rather than Catholicism - or vice versa - who is making that judgment? You are. Your personal evaluation doesn't disappear just because you ultimately submit to a church full of hairy fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Eminence."

---

The Oriental Orthodox split off in the 400s over Chalcedon, Rome split off in 1054, in both cases from the same continuous body that everyone agrees existed before that. They split off due to their own further development. So the question isn't "pick one of five branches at random," it's "who left the trunk." You can actually go look at what the pre schism Church believed and practiced and ask which side kept that and which side innovated. Orthodoxy kept it…it's literally why it's THE ONLY institution in the world that hasn't changed fundamentally for the longest period of time.

The claim is the Church is the custodian and authoritative interpreter of what God revealed, which is exactly why Paul can call it the pillar and ground of truth instead of calling the text itself that.

Bereans testing Paul against Scripture doesn't help you the way you think. What Scripture did they have? The Old Testament. They tested a new apostolic claim against previous revelation to see if it was coherent, that's not "individual verifies doctrine solo with a Bible and a coffee," that's "does this match what God has already established through His appointed messengers." That's the Orthodox model, not yours.

And the "your judgment too" line… sure, I use judgment to recognize an authority. That's completely different from using judgment to become the authority. I submit to a Church with councils, continuity, and a visible historical decision making process for exactly the reason that I don't trust my own reading to be the final court.

---

I agree there was a historic church before the schisms, that shared many of the same beliefs. What I don't agree with is the claim that history clearly shows modern Orthodoxy is identical to that church.

The early centuries contained substantial diversity and major theological disputes. If the evidence were as clear as you suggest, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox wouldn't all be able to appeal to the same fathers, councils, and historical sources while reaching different conclusion. You guys think you were the trunk. Catholics say Rome is the trunk and the East separated from it. And of course, Oriental Orthodox say they are the trunk, and Chalcedon was the departure.

In other words, your conclusion that Orthodoxy is the true continuation of the early Church is ultimately the product of the same thing you criticize in Protestants: a personal judgment about which authority is worthy of submission.

ShooterTX said:

---

Your claim that it 'clearly states that Jesus had brothers & sisters" is not entirely correct. The Konie Greek uses adelphoi which has been biblically demonstrated can mean cousin or kinsmen.

Incorrect.
The word "adelphoi" can mean many things, which is why it must be interpreted by the context of it's use. For example, it is often used by Jesus and the Apostles to mean "brothers" in the spiritual sense.
Examples: Matthew 23:8, Matthew 25:40, John 20:17 etc
However, when it is used in context, it can clearly mean siblings.
Examples: Matthew 22: 25-28 - it was a common practice for a man to marry the widow of his brother (sibling).
Matthew 13:55-56 - it is clearly listing out his family... his father, mother, and siblings. If these were not his siblings then there would be some kind of context to describe their relationship. For example, the word used for the cousin of Jesus, John the Baptist, is "syngenes" which can mean "kinsman" or "relative". This would be far more commonly used to describe a half-sibling or cousin, instead of "adelphoi" which is almost always a sibling or brother. So looking at the context of the use of "adelphoi" whenever the siblings are Jesus are talked about throughout all of the gospels and epistles... it is an extreme interpretation to try and claim that Jesus did not have siblings.
It is also important to remember that the Greek word "adelphoi" literally translates "from the same womb", so without context to explain otherwise, it literally translates to "brother" or "sister" or "sibling". It can mean something else, but only if there is context to provide that other meaning.

---

There's no rule of interpretation that words take their etymological meaning unless otherwise indicated. Much of our language would be unintelligible if that were the case.

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear is certainly a believer, even if I disagree with some of his claims.

---

A believer, sure, but it's not in Christianity.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Do you not believe those concepts are completely derivable out of Scripture?

---

Why did it take several centuries and a couple of ecumenical councils to determine those?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And your comment still isn't invalidating what he said - the RC and Orthododox churches have many made up, non-apostolic teachings.

---

On the contrary, the Church can use scripture as a foundation for all its teachings.

You just don't accept the explanations.

---

Of course I don't accept the explanations. No one in the rational world should. They are completely illogical, irrational, and exegetically false. You and your Catholic brethren (and Orthodox supporters, which is ironic) have demonstrated this repeatedly.

You: "Why did it take several centuries and a couple of ecumenical councils to determine those?"
The RCC usually formally responds only when there comes a threat to a certain accepted, but not formalized doctrine. That's why it took over a millenium for the RCC to declare the canon. So your argument fails. Plus, it still does not show that those concepts are not completely derivable from Scripture alone.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are describing the basic difference, Protestants believe everything is in scripture, Catholics believe there are other sources of information from that time.

This is a perfect example of something that scripture would not care about so not explain and outside info gives the answer. It does not matter to being a Christian or Christ's message whether he had brothers or cousins

---

I understand your overall point here. As a protestant, I can agree that if Jesus had siblings or not, it doesn't matter to the Gospel message and salvation.

However this is an important topic when it comes to RCC Marian dogmas. The RCC teaches that Mary was a "forever virgin" even though that is in direct contrast to the Scriptures themselves. These dogmas are also the basis for the worship or veneration of Mary, which also leads to her being label as a co-redeemer and co-mediatrix and having a "saving office" in all eternity.

So if you look at it from that perspective and you include Galatians 1:8, you can see why this can be such an important topic to so many.

Also, the RCC teaches that anyone who rejects any of the dogmas defined by the RCC, cannot be in communion with the church.

---

Funny, it really doesn't come up... Never really gave it much thought. Usually focus on the Mass.

The only place I have ever discussed it is with Protestants. You guys seem to really get into Mary's and the family picture. Do most of your services focus on this? Must make for interesting homilies.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear is certainly a believer, even if I disagree with some of his claims.

---

A believer, sure, but it's not in Christianity.

---

FLBear is a Christian, by Scriptural standards.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Is there a heirarchy of beings and saints in heaven? Or is it like communism where everyone's a comrade?

---

It's a bit ironic that you're appealing to the papacy to defend earthly hierarchy when, as an Orthodox Christian, you don't accept the pope's authority yourself.

---

Not sure where you're getting the idea that I'm appealing to the papacy.

It was just a simple question. If as He asserts every disciple who falls asleep in the Lord is a saint (which I don't dispute), are all the saints in heaven of equal status, responsibility and authority in God's eyes or not? Yes or no? And if no, then based on what does God differentiate between them?

It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism or the Pope.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.

After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.

Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.

EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.

---

Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.

Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.

First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.

You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.

Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

---

Well said.

And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.

Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.

I cringe every time they say "just read the text".

They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.

---

It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.

There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.

---

You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.

The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH.
"If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15
Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.

If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.

Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.

Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.

The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.

Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw:
A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne.
Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints.
Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!"
Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.

You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.


Watch this:

---

When Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of the truth," he's saying the Church upholds and proclaims the truth, not that it creates the truth or becomes the ultimate source of it. A pillar supports something; it isn't the thing being supported. The Church is God's appointed witness to the truth, but the truth itself comes from God.

The question isn't whether tradition exists. We agree it does. The question is how we know which traditions are truly apostolic and which developed later. Jesus Himself warned that religious traditions can drift away from God's Word. That's why every tradition must ultimately be tested against Scripture rather than placed on the same level as Scripture.

With respect to typology, I don't think Protestants reject it at all. The New Testament is full of typology. Adam points to Christ, the Passover points to Christ, Jonah points to Christ, and so on. The disagreement is whether typological connections can be used to establish doctrines that aren't clearly taught elsewhere. Seeing Mary as a new Ark may be a meaningful parallel, but a parallel by itself doesn't prove every doctrine associated with Mary.

This idea that Protestantism is Gnosticism is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Disagreeing about icons, relics, or sacramental theology doesn't make someone a Gnostic. Don't be ridiculous.

As for Revelation, I agree that heaven is portrayed as majestic, liturgical worship filled with praise, reverence, incense, and the throne of God. But Revelation doesn't prove that any one modern church tradition perfectly mirrors heaven. The book is full of symbolic imagery.

The biggest problem with your argument is that appealing to "the Church" doesn't actually resolve the question of authority, because Catholics and Orthodox both claim to preserve Holy Tradition, yet they disagree on significant issues. They disagree about the authority of the Pope, certain Marian doctrines, purgatory, and other important matters. If apostolic tradition is supposed to function as a clear and infallible rule of faith, then simply saying "follow the Church" isn't enough. Which Church? Rome or Constantinople? And if two communions that both claim apostolic succession and sacred tradition reach different conclusions, then tradition by itself doesn't solve the problem.

That is just further proof of why one must appeal to Scripture as the final authority. Whenever churches, traditions, and interpretations conflict, there must be a higher standard by which they are judged. Protestants rightly believe that standard is the inspired Word of God.

---

Notice what Paul doesn't say. He doesn't say Scripture is the pillar and ground of the truth. He says the Church is. If your whole system runs on "there has to be one final, identifiable authority," why does Paul hand that title to a living body and not a book? You can't just define the word "pillar" down to nothing so it doesn't threaten sola scriptura.

On testing tradition against Scripture…who's doing the testing? You are. Your interpretation. So "test everything against Scripture" quietly becomes "test everything against my read of Scripture," and now the infallible authority didn't disappear, it just moved into your own head. That's the whole problem with the model. Jesus condemning traditions of men in Mark 7 isn't Him condemning Sacred Tradition as a category… you have to assume that first to use the verse, which is begging the question.

On typology, glad we agree it's real, but then you smuggle in "unless it establishes something not clearly taught elsewhere," and who decides what's clearly taught? Same move as above. Also plenty of stuff you already believe, the canon itself, the precise wording of the Trinity, sola scriptura as a rule…isn't a single prooftext either. It's development.

On Revelation, nobody's claiming perfect 1:1 replication, the point is the pattern. Incense, throne, elders, liturgical praise… that's a lot closer to a liturgy than to a stripped down service with a podium and a projector.

A split within the authority model doesn't disprove the model any more than 40,000 Protestant denominations disprove sola scriptura. And it's not even symmetrical. you can actually go look at what the united Church held before 1054 and see who kept it and who added to it later.

"Appeal to Scripture as final authority" isn't actually an escape from needing an interpreter, it just makes the interpreter invisible and personal instead of visible and historical. You didn't get rid of the authority question, you just hid it.

---

The problem is that you keep saying "the Church" as if that solves the authority question, but which Church? Rome? Constantinople? The Oriental Orthodox? They all claim continuity with the historic Church and all appeal to 1 Timothy 3:15. The verse itself doesn't tell you which institution is the infallible one. So before you can use "the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth" against sola scriptura, you first have to identify which church Paul is talking about and prove that your communion uniquely is it. You've failed in that regard.

As I suggested above, a pillar doesn't create or determine truth; it upholds and bears witness to it. Paul doesn't say the Church is the source of revelation or the final norm by which revelation is judged. In the same pastoral letters he repeatedly appeals to the apostolic message itself as the standard.

As for "who's doing the testing?" Everyone. The Bereans were commended for testing even Paul's teaching against Scripture. The fact that individuals must evaluate claims doesn't mean individuals become infallible. That's a non sequitur. Fallible people can recognize authority without becoming the authority.

The same objection cuts against your position anyway. When you decide that your version of Orthodoxy is right rather than Catholicism - or vice versa - who is making that judgment? You are. Your personal evaluation doesn't disappear just because you ultimately submit to a church full of hairy fat men in costumes who like to be called "His Eminence."

---

The Oriental Orthodox split off in the 400s over Chalcedon, Rome split off in 1054, in both cases from the same continuous body that everyone agrees existed before that. They split off due to their own further development. So the question isn't "pick one of five branches at random," it's "who left the trunk." You can actually go look at what the pre schism Church believed and practiced and ask which side kept that and which side innovated. Orthodoxy kept it…it's literally why it's THE ONLY institution in the world that hasn't changed fundamentally for the longest period of time.

The claim is the Church is the custodian and authoritative interpreter of what God revealed, which is exactly why Paul can call it the pillar and ground of truth instead of calling the text itself that.

Bereans testing Paul against Scripture doesn't help you the way you think. What Scripture did they have? The Old Testament. They tested a new apostolic claim against previous revelation to see if it was coherent, that's not "individual verifies doctrine solo with a Bible and a coffee," that's "does this match what God has already established through His appointed messengers." That's the Orthodox model, not yours.

And the "your judgment too" line… sure, I use judgment to recognize an authority. That's completely different from using judgment to become the authority. I submit to a Church with councils, continuity, and a visible historical decision making process for exactly the reason that I don't trust my own reading to be the final court.

---

I agree there was a historic church before the schisms, that shared many of the same beliefs. What I don't agree with is the claim that history clearly shows modern Orthodoxy is identical to that church.

The early centuries contained substantial diversity and major theological disputes. If the evidence were as clear as you suggest, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox wouldn't all be able to appeal to the same fathers, councils, and historical sources while reaching different conclusion. You guys think you were the trunk. Catholics say Rome is the trunk and the East separated from it. And of course, Oriental Orthodox say they are the trunk, and Chalcedon was the departure.

In other words, your conclusion that Orthodoxy is the true continuation of the early Church is ultimately the product of the same thing you criticize in Protestants: a personal judgment about which authority is worthy of submission.

---

It is an intereeting topic for discussion. What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree.

And early centuries?? How about early months and days after Jesus' resurrection.

" What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree."

Your sect is not the foundation.

Not sure how you keep missing that fact.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree."

Your sect is not the foundation.

Not sure how you keep missing that fact.

---

Youre definitely not qualified to speak to that

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree."

Your sect is not the foundation.

Not sure how you keep missing that fact.

---

Youre definitely not qualified to speak to that

---

As much as you, sir. Every bit as much.

And perhaps more, if logic and evidence count more than your spleen.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree."

Your sect is not the foundation.

Not sure how you keep missing that fact.

---

Youre definitely not qualified to speak to that

---

As much as you, sir. Every bit as much.

And perhaps more, if logic and evidence count more than your spleen.

---

You seem rather remedial on church history to be quite honest. No offense.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear is certainly a believer, even if I disagree with some of his claims.

---

A believer, sure, but it's not in Christianity.

---

You don't know that. We are not qualified to judge that. Only God can. And these kinds of boards are not the place to judge such a thing, even if we were capable.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree."

Your sect is not the foundation.

Not sure how you keep missing that fact.

---

Youre definitely not qualified to speak to that

---

As much as you, sir. Every bit as much.

And perhaps more, if logic and evidence count more than your spleen.

---

You seem rather remedial on church history to be quite honest. No offense.

---

I stick to Scripture in these discussions. From what I see here, what you call "church history" is mostly unsupported claims mixed in with arrogance and personal insults.

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are describing the basic difference, Protestants believe everything is in scripture, Catholics believe there are other sources of information from that time.

This is a perfect example of something that scripture would not care about so not explain and outside info gives the answer. It does not matter to being a Christian or Christ's message whether he had brothers or cousins

---

I understand your overall point here. As a protestant, I can agree that if Jesus had siblings or not, it doesn't matter to the Gospel message and salvation.

However this is an important topic when it comes to RCC Marian dogmas. The RCC teaches that Mary was a "forever virgin" even though that is in direct contrast to the Scriptures themselves. These dogmas are also the basis for the worship or veneration of Mary, which also leads to her being label as a co-redeemer and co-mediatrix and having a "saving office" in all eternity.

So if you look at it from that perspective and you include Galatians 1:8, you can see why this can be such an important topic to so many.

Also, the RCC teaches that anyone who rejects any of the dogmas defined by the RCC, cannot be in communion with the church.

---

Funny, it really doesn't come up... Never really gave it much thought. Usually focus on the Mass.

The only place I have ever discussed it is with Protestants. You guys seem to really get into Mary's and the family picture. Do most of your services focus on this? Must make for interesting homilies.

---

Protestants never talk about Catholics or Marian dogmas on Sundays. I've never heard any of it mentioned during a sermon. The only time this topic comes up is during a conference or some other teaching about how to evangelize catholics. It's important to understand the teachings & beliefs of a group, if you are planning to engage with them and discuss the gospel with them.

As I've stated many times in this thread, none of this is important to Christianity or salvation... but it is extremely important to the RCC leadership. They have made all of this into dogma, which means if you are a catholic who doesn't believe in these teachings, then you are considered a heretic and condemned to hell.

I know you personally don't care about these RCC teachings, but just FYI... the Vatican appears to be starting up an internal cleansing. The Vatican just excommunicated almost 1 million catholics who belong to the SSPX because they rejected some of the doctrines & dogmas of the Vatican II council. The Vatican interprets this as a rejection of the magesterium, and they ordered the SSPX to stop consecrating bishops... but the SSPX did it anyway, and now they are no longer part of the "one true church".

If you think you can choose to not believe in the Marian dogmas, then you should ask a priest on Sunday about it and see what he says.

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

You are describing the basic difference, Protestants believe everything is in scripture, Catholics believe there are other sources of information from that time.

This is a perfect example of something that scripture would not care about so not explain and outside info gives the answer. It does not matter to being a Christian or Christ's message whether he had brothers or cousins

---

I understand your overall point here. As a protestant, I can agree that if Jesus had siblings or not, it doesn't matter to the Gospel message and salvation.

However this is an important topic when it comes to RCC Marian dogmas. The RCC teaches that Mary was a "forever virgin" even though that is in direct contrast to the Scriptures themselves. These dogmas are also the basis for the worship or veneration of Mary, which also leads to her being label as a co-redeemer and co-mediatrix and having a "saving office" in all eternity.

So if you look at it from that perspective and you include Galatians 1:8, you can see why this can be such an important topic to so many.

Also, the RCC teaches that anyone who rejects any of the dogmas defined by the RCC, cannot be in communion with the church.

---

Funny, it really doesn't come up... Never really gave it much thought. Usually focus on the Mass.

The only place I have ever discussed it is with Protestants. You guys seem to really get into Mary's and the family picture. Do most of your services focus on this? Must make for interesting homilies.

---

Protestants never talk about Catholics or Marian dogmas on Sundays. I've never heard any of it mentioned during a sermon. The only time this topic comes up is during a conference or some other teaching about how to evangelize catholics. It's important to understand the teachings & beliefs of a group, if you are planning to engage with them and discuss the gospel with them.

As I've stated many times in this thread, none of this is important to Christianity or salvation... but it is extremely important to the RCC leadership. They have made all of this into dogma, which means if you are a catholic who doesn't believe in these teachings, then you are considered a heretic and condemned to hell.

I know you personally don't care about these RCC teachings, but just FYI... the Vatican appears to be starting up an internal cleansing. The Vatican just excommunicated almost 1 million catholics who belong to the SSPX because they rejected some of the doctrines & dogmas of the Vatican II council. The Vatican interprets this as a rejection of the magesterium, and they ordered the SSPX to stop consecrating bishops... but the SSPX did it anyway, and now they are no longer part of the "one true church".

If you think you can choose to not believe in the Marian dogmas, then you should ask a priest on Sunday about it and see what he says.

---

LOL.

Stay in your lane. You have no idea what you are talking about. SSPX is extremely complex. I'm very sympathetic to them but rejection of Vatican II is not what got them into schism. It was about their consecration of new Bishops on July 1, 2026. The Church has been in dialogue with SSPX for decades and bent over backwards to keep them in the fold. Again, I am extremely sympathetic to them. But they crossed the red line they were repeatedly warned not to cross when they consecrated 4 new bishops earlier this week. Why don't you go to your local church and declare your wife to be the senior pastor this weekend and report to us all how that works out for you and your family.

Additionally, it wasn't a 1 million Catholics who were declared in schism. Rome has been exceedingly clear that for lay faithful in SSPX, even those deeply involved, the path back is pretty easy and straightforward. The ordained SSPX, on other other hand, face a really tough road back to communion.

Finally, schism is not a declartion of condemantion to hell. It means you are not in communion with the Church and cannot access the sacraments via the Church. As has been explaind to you countless times, judgment of the eternal soul and God's mercy belongs to the Lord, and the Lord alone. The idea that any human can condemn someone to hell is a very, very Protestant idea. You guys seem to relish doing that. The Church recognizes God's mercy and judgment are reserved to God alone.

FYI, your efforts at evangelization fall completely flat when you have no idea what you are discussing.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Stay in your lane. You have no idea what you are talking about. SSPX is extremely complex. I'm very sympathetic to them but rejection of Vatican II is not what got them into schism. It was about their consecration of new Bishops on July 1, 2026. The Church has been in dialogue with SSPX for decades and bent over backwards to keep them in the fold. Again, I am extremely sympathetic to them. But they crossed the red line they were repeatedly warned not to cross when they consecrated 4 new bishops earlier this week.

---

The part that is left unsaid here is that in 1988, the SSPX repeatedly petitioned the Vatican to permit the ordination of new bishops as Marcel Lefebvre was aging. The Vatican refused. Again the SSPX requested ordination because they only had two bishops left. Again they were rebuffed.

It is pretty obvious that the Vatican policy towards the Tridentine mass in general and the SSPX specifically, is one of administrative supression with the hope of extinction.

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear, appreciate your well thought out responses. I have a question.

Why does it matter if she is a virgin with only one child or a typical mother of the era with many children?

Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today.

---

Great question and great point!

Death and Resurrection of Christ is the central mystery of salvation. But doctrine does not work in isolation. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church.

One of the reasons that Mary's perpetual virginity matters is that it points us toward the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven where there will be no marriage and we'll be as Mary as it says in Matt 22:30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven." Mary's virginity is a prefigurement of heaven.

Her perpetual virginity shows a total gift of self to God. It is a sign of total consecration to God, single-minded service to Him, and utter abandonment to His will.

Another reason is that God's grace is pure initiative in other words He reaches out to us first. His grace is a completely free gift.

Her perpetual virginity tells us much about Christ. Mary wasn't just a vessel that God used and discarded. He is SO special that her womb would only be used for Him.

Ezekiel 44:2 "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut."

The typology of Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant has roots as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries thanks to Luke using the same OT language when discussing the Ark.

If the "new type" is always better than the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:6 …
"But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises"

… then Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant, would be superior to original Ark, which held the Tablets (Word of God), the Staff of the High Priest, and the manna bread from heaven.

What does Mary, the New Ark, hold in her womb? The Word of God, The High Priest, and the Bread from Heaven.

No one dared to touch the Ark, Uzzah found out the hard way. Joseph wouldn't dream of having relations with Mary.

4th and Inches said:

---

I think we have gotten into the minute of religion and away from the basis of Christianity.

---

Fair point, but truth matters, as Jesus says in John 8:32, veritas vos liberabit, "the truth will set you free."

4th and Inches said:

---

I appreciate the Catholic for the somber devotion that isnt seen much in modern protestant churches. I do become concerned over the continual repetition of prayer that can become a canned response instead of free form prayer as seen in protestant churches.

---

You have a point here. I do a daily rosary and I have to guard myself against this, but remember, Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer. It wasn't meant to be said only once in one's life. He taught us to pray.

With respect to repetitious prayer, again, I understand. As you may know, when reciting those prayers 10 times, we should be meditating on specific aspects of Jesus' life.

Finally, I've heard protestant pastors joke about their "free form" of prayer saying that it is somewhat formulaic

"Dear Heavenly Father, we praise you, we bless you, and we thank you for this day and our gathering. We know that you are a gracious and most generous Father, and on this day we ask for you to (insert request) but let thy will be done. In Jesus name we pray. Amen"

There's NOTHING wrong with this. It's what people are comfortable with.

There's no doubt that more eloquent pastors can give rousing prayers that stir up emotion and are truly heartfelt. But the simple prayer offered by the tax collector in Luke 18:13, ""God, be merciful to me, a sinner", is equally powerful.

4th and Inches said:

---

My son and I went to mass last sunday, it was amazing as the homily was about some things my son and I had been talking about earlier in the morning. Down to the verse.

---

I'm glad that you enjoyed mass. I don't really know your background, but if you ever have questions about the mass, please PM me. If you're ever in Waco and would like to attend a mass (we celebrate mass 7 days a week), please let me know and I can help better explain what's happening and why. Pro-tip: Daily mass is about 30 minutes, unless it's a major feast day. I like to go most Friday's.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I don't accept the explanations. No one in the rational world should. They are completely illogical, irrational, and exegetically false. You and your Catholic brethren (and Orthodox supporters, which is ironic) have demonstrated this repeatedly.

---

They are illogical to you, because they fly in the face of your self made theology. These truths were proclaimed long before protestantism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "Why did it take several centuries and a couple of ecumenical councils to determine those?"
The RCC usually formally responds only when there comes a threat to a certain accepted, but not formalized doctrine. That's why it took over a millenium for the RCC to declare the canon. So your argument fails. Plus, it still does not show that those concepts are not completely derivable from Scripture alone.

---

Your comment is a half-truth (again). The Church only formally defined canon when protestants decided to remove 7 books that were always considered canon.

Coke Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Coke Bear, appreciate your well thought out responses. I have a question.

Why does it matter if she is a virgin with only one child or a typical mother of the era with many children?

Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today.

---

Great question and great point!

Death and Resurrection of Christ is the central mystery of salvation. But doctrine does not work in isolation. Every doctrine about Mary tells us something about Christ or something about ourselves or the Church.

One of the reasons that Mary's perpetual virginity matters is that it points us toward the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven where there will be no marriage and we'll be as Mary as it says in Matt 22:30
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven." Mary's virginity is a prefigurement of heaven.

Her perpetual virginity shows a total gift of self to God. It is a sign of total consecration to God, single-minded service to Him, and utter abandonment to His will.

Another reason is that God's grace is pure initiative in other words He reaches out to us first. His grace is a completely free gift.

Her perpetual virginity tells us much about Christ. Mary wasn't just a vessel that God used and discarded. He is SO special that her womb would only be used for Him.

Ezekiel 44:2 "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it, because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it; therefore it shall be shut."

The typology of Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant has roots as early as the 3rd and 4th centuries thanks to Luke using the same OT language when discussing the Ark.

If the "new type" is always better than the old, as stated in Hebrews 8:6 …
"But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises"

… then Mary, as the Ark of the New Covenant, would be superior to original Ark, which held the Tablets (Word of God), the Staff of the High Priest, and the manna bread from heaven.

What does Mary, the New Ark, hold in her womb? The Word of God, The High Priest, and the Bread from Heaven.

No one dared to touch the Ark, Uzzah found out the hard way. Joseph wouldn't dream of having relations with Mary.

4th and Inches said:

---

I think we have gotten into the minute of religion and away from the basis of Christianity.

---

Fair point, but truth matters, as Jesus says in John 8:32, veritas vos liberabit, "the truth will set you free."

4th and Inches said:

---

I appreciate the Catholic for the somber devotion that isnt seen much in modern protestant churches. I do become concerned over the continual repetition of prayer that can become a canned response instead of free form prayer as seen in protestant churches.

---

You have a point here. I do a daily rosary and I have to guard myself against this, but remember, Jesus gave us the Lord's Prayer. It wasn't meant to be said only once in one's life. He taught us to pray.

With respect to repetitious prayer, again, I understand. As you may know, when reciting those prayers 10 times, we should be meditating on specific aspects of Jesus' life.

Finally, I've heard protestant pastors joke about their "free form" of prayer saying that it is somewhat formulaic

"Dear Heavenly Father, we praise you, we bless you, and we thank you for this day and our gathering. We know that you are a gracious and most generous Father, and on this day we ask for you to (insert request) but let thy will be done. In Jesus name we pray. Amen"

There's NOTHING wrong with this. It's what people are comfortable with.

There's no doubt that more eloquent pastors can give rousing prayers that stir up emotion and are truly heartfelt. But the simple prayer offered by the tax collector in Luke 18:13, ""God, be merciful to me, a sinner", is equally powerful.

4th and Inches said:

---

My son and I went to mass last sunday, it was amazing as the homily was about some things my son and I had been talking about earlier in the morning. Down to the verse.

---

I'm glad that you enjoyed mass. I don't really know your background, but if you ever have questions about the mass, please PM me. If you're ever in Waco and would like to attend a mass (we celebrate mass 7 days a week), please let me know and I can help better explain what's happening and why. Pro-tip: Daily mass is about 30 minutes, unless it's a major feast day. I like to go most Friday's.

---

Excellent. Have posted many of these here several times

It would take the pride of a protestant Christian to know thqt the Holy Spirit impregnated your betrothed, an Angel told you to marry her, and then willingly squirt your seed into the womb of the New Ark from which God incarnate came from? Eyeroll

But if one is a John 6:66er I could see them willingly doing it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear is certainly a believer, even if I disagree with some of his claims.

---

A believer, sure, but it's not in Christianity.

---

FLBear is a Christian, by Scriptural standards.

---

This is proof positive that you have very poor discernment and have understood NOTHING about what has been repeatedly said and shown. The only thing he has professed is that he is a Roman Catholic, and he isn't even reallly that. He does not believe their dogmas are important nor does he really believe that Paul's epistles are the word of God. He agrees with Pope Francis' agenda to validate homosexual couples in the Church. He even said that while the "gate is narrow, there are many paths to it" and he considers Islam and Judaism as the same "path" as Christianity.

Roman Catholics who adhere to what their Church teaches them are not Christians - by Scriptural standards. So even if were truly a Roman Catholic, it still would not make him a Christian. You can not be a Christian if you don't have the true gospel, which RC does not. If you have not understood this, even after it's been repeatedly and thoroughly shown, then you understand nothing. And if you have not discerned the egregious evil in RC's idolatrous beliefs and practices regarding Mary, which has been repeatedly and thoroughly shown, then I really, really doubt you're indwelled with the Holy Spirit, which would mean you aren't a Christian either. You can't recognize the fruits, as Jesus warns us. Did you see where I posted a Roman Catholic writing which said that during the mass, the priest exerts power OVER Jesus and makes him submit to him? And did you see how vritually every Roman Catholic here AGREED with that?? Between the obvious idolatry of Mary and this, simply stated, if you can't recognize these as fruits of the Devil, then you clearly aren't a true Christian.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" What we do know for certain is protestantism is not the trunk. On that we can all agree."

Your sect is not the foundation.

Not sure how you keep missing that fact.

---

Olfbear83 has spoken and offered up an opinion based on his English reading of the NT

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear is certainly a believer, even if I disagree with some of his claims.

---

A believer, sure, but it's not in Christianity.

---

You don't know that. We are not qualified to judge that. Only God can. And these kinds of boards are not the place to judge such a thing, even if we were capable.

---

You know them by their fruits. We are most certainly qualified as Christians indwelled with the Holy Spirit to discern this based on what a person reveals about himself. It's what Christians are supposed to do. It's how you know to steer away from a person's teachings or to not allow them in your church. It's how you know who to evangelize.

This isn't about "knowing" with absolute certainty, like God. This is about judgement, i.e.discernment of a Christian. For example, I'm pretty sure you've discerned that Waco1947 and TexasScientist are NOT Christians, correct?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I don't accept the explanations. No one in the rational world should. They are completely illogical, irrational, and exegetically false. You and your Catholic brethren (and Orthodox supporters, which is ironic) have demonstrated this repeatedly.

---

They are illogical to you, because they fly in the face of your self made theology. These truths were proclaimed long before protestantism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "Why did it take several centuries and a couple of ecumenical councils to determine those?"
The RCC usually formally responds only when there comes a threat to a certain accepted, but not formalized doctrine. That's why it took over a millenium for the RCC to declare the canon. So your argument fails. Plus, it still does not show that those concepts are not completely derivable from Scripture alone.

---

Your comment is a half-truth (again). The Church only formally defined canon when protestants decided to remove 7 books that were always considered canon.

---

Yep. As has been stated, no reason to formally declare what EVERYONE believed. Theyve been hoodwinked by a marketing campaign sadly

Anyone declare THEBSUN RISES IN THE EAST?

Same thing. No need when we all already know it.

Take him up on it. Daily mass is much better than the pomp of Sundays in my opinion, especially if held in a side chapel. The smaller more intimate setting makes it come more alive, at least in my opinion.

The best is if you can ever go out with a military unit and have mass on the hood of a HMV. One of the few things I miss about the military was Mass in the field. The Chaplin's were great, in the 82nd they jump with the Division. Gives them a level of credibility or at least comradery.

Coke Bear can do a much better job of explaining RCC than I can. Never felt it was something that needed explaining, the Holy Spirit moves you to worship where it resonates with you, there are all types of people and they respond to all types of messages. The basic message is all the same in my opinion for the Christians, Christ came, died for our sins and live our lives trying to make the world better for others. Pretty simple...

ShooterTX said:

---

Protestants never talk about Catholics or Marian dogmas on Sundays. I've never heard any of it mentioned during a sermon. The only time this topic comes up is during a conference or some other teaching about how to evangelize catholics. It's important to understand the teachings & beliefs of a group, if you are planning to engage with them and discuss the gospel with them.

---

I'm glad that you don't attend an anti-Catholic church. Sadly, many of them exist. I know many converts to Catholicism that were not so lucky. They have expressed to me many times anti-Catholic sermons and preaching.

BTW, Catholic have the Gospel. It is proclaimed 365 days a year in every Catholic church. I'd suggest that your conference focus on the NONE's or the atheists.

ShooterTX said:

---

As I've stated many times in this thread, none of this is important to Christianity or salvation... but it is extremely important to the RCC leadership. They have made all of this into dogma, which means if you are a catholic who doesn't believe in these teachings, then you are considered a heretic and condemned to hell.

---

First, the Church can't condemn anyone to hell. We send our selves to hell with our actions or non-belief in God, but that's beside the point.

A heretic is a person who possesses a post-baptismal, obstinate denial of a truth which is believed by divine and Catholic faith. A Catholic (say a poorly catechized one) did not understand a true teaching of faith through no fault of their own, they would not be considered a heretic.

ShooterTX said:

---

I know you personally don't care about these RCC teachings, but just FYI... the Vatican appears to be starting up an internal cleansing. The Vatican just excommunicated almost 1 million catholics who belong to the SSPX because they rejected some of the doctrines & dogmas of the Vatican II council. The Vatican interprets this as a rejection of the magesterium, and they ordered the SSPX to stop consecrating bishops... but the SSPX did it anyway, and now they are no longer part of the "one true church".

---

This is false.

I respectfully ask you to please try to get your information from credible CATHOLIC sources to be sure not to speak incorrectly or create a strawman argument.

ONLY 6 people were excommunicated. The two consecrating bishops and the four newly consecrated bishops. Not "1 million Catholics."

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Of course I don't accept the explanations. No one in the rational world should. They are completely illogical, irrational, and exegetically false. You and your Catholic brethren (and Orthodox supporters, which is ironic) have demonstrated this repeatedly.

---

They are illogical to you, because they fly in the face of your self made theology. These truths were proclaimed long before protestantism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You: "Why did it take several centuries and a couple of ecumenical councils to determine those?"
The RCC usually formally responds only when there comes a threat to a certain accepted, but not formalized doctrine. That's why it took over a millenium for the RCC to declare the canon. So your argument fails. Plus, it still does not show that those concepts are not completely derivable from Scripture alone.

---

Your comment is a half-truth (again). The Church only formally defined canon when protestants decided to remove 7 books that were always considered canon.

---

They're illogical to me, because they are illogical. I have shown this, and people who are rational and intelligent can understand. People like yourself who are totally brainwashed will believe the sky isn't blue if that's what your church tells you.

Your second paragraph is yet another demonstration of your very poor comprehension, which frankly, has been the MAJOR impediment in having constructive dialogue. When protestants "removed seven books" in your opinion, that's the kind of "threat" to accepted RCC doctrine I was talking about which prompts a formal response. You're basically agreeing with what I said exactly, so it isn't a "half truth". Good grief.

And as it still stands, you have not made a single argument against the fact that those concepts you mentioned, which you believed came from councils, are completely derivable from Scripture alone.