HE2000

@realjohnleev @kb_french @moore_brandon23 @Firekkian @ComeHometoRome That definition assumes all groups are parallel branches. The disagreement is whether Catholicism is one branch or the Church those later branches split from.

@HE20006 @kb_french @moore_brandon23 @Firekkian @ComeHometoRome A denomination is an autonomous branch of a religion. Religious denomination brings together local congregations under one administrative and doctrinal umbrella, such as Roman Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or Pentecostal. (Google Search)

I was lied to my whole life about what the Catholic Church taught and believed. I never got a truthful answer from any Protestant pastor. Once I finally researched it, I was brought to tears at the deepness of beauty, goodness, thoughtfulness, and above all, the eternal pillar of Truth that Scripture tells us the Catholic Church is. Thank you Jesus Christ.

@realjohnleev @kb_french @moore_brandon23 @Firekkian @ComeHometoRome A denomination is, by definition, a division from something prior. Catholicism isn’t historically a division, but the Church from which later denominations emerged.

@kb_french @moore_brandon23 @Firekkian @ComeHometoRome The Catholics are, by definition, a denomination.

@Watch_Tower_Dow @speedysteve07 @BishopJaxi How did they figure out which books belonged in the Bible? Because more writings claiming to be Scripture existed than what actually ended up in the Bible you use today.

@speedysteve07 @BishopJaxi Probably the same thing that happened between 70 AD and 387 ad people read the Bible and didn't need the Roman Catholic Church to tell them what the Bible was.... Seriously dude Rome's argument is martarded.

Protestants will do anything to cope with the fact that they did not receive the canon from themselves. They inherit the canon through the Church, reject the Church’s authority, remove books that do not fit their theology, and then invent elaborate theories to justify sitting in judgment over Scripture, faith, and doctrine for themselves. That is the Protestant problem. They call it "submission to Scripture," but in practice it is the individual acting as judge over what Scripture is and what it means.

@SendixBunny @Watch_Tower_Dow @BishopJaxi As late as 330 A.D., Eusebius noted that the New Testament included only one epistle of John and one of Peter. He classified James, 2 Peter, and Jude as “disputed writings,” and described Revelation as accepted by some but rejected by others.

@SendixBunny @Watch_Tower_Dow @BishopJaxi Well, I would actually quibble and note that the reason for the ecumenical councils that determined the canon was because people couldn't agree on it.

@_TeachingBridge @BishopJaxi You’re right that the early Church used symbolic language, but in the ancient world, a symbol wasn’t merely representative, it participated in the reality. So why assume that excludes the Real Presence rather than supports it?

For your readers: The early church taught that the Eucharist was a sign. In the first three centuries they used symbolic language like: • σύμβολον (symbol) • τύπος (type/figure) • ἀντίτυπον (antitype) • μυστήριον (mystery) • sacramentum (sacrament/oath-sign) All of which meant a sign that participates in the reality it signifies. This is the same symbolic logic used in: • Passover • Circumcision • Baptism • Covenant meals • Oaths and treaties So when the early church calls the Eucharist a “symbol,” they mean: A covenantal sign that communicates and participates in Christ’s saving work. That is not Zwingli. It is not Rome. It is the ancient world.

Not exactly a Mic drop for ya bud…. Luke, Matthew, John, Paul, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria? Go ahead and show us where any of them say the Eucharist is “just a symbol.” We are still waiting. Or would you like to be honest and admit none of them teach this.

@IndianaBrunner @BillArnoldTeach Do you believe the Holy Spirit led those Church councils to an infallibly correct “recognition” of the canon? Yes or no?

@IndianaBrunner @BillArnoldTeach No one is saying — and the Catholic Church has never said — that the Church somehow created the canon by its authoritative decree. What the Church councils did was recognize the canon and make formal declaration of which books should be received as belonging to it.

The claim often made by Catholics and Orthodox that “the canon is oral tradition” completely collapses under scrutiny. The Scriptures were not preserved as whispers passed down in the dark through a line of succession. They were written documents. Real, physical texts authored by the apostles and prophets, copied, WIDELY circulated, and examined across the early church. They are historical artifacts. That is not the same category as “oral tradition.” We do not accept the canon because of an infallible chain of storytelling. We recognize it because these writings bear the marks of authenticity: • Apostolic origin • Consistency across manuscripts • Widespread and early usage in the churches, allowing discrepancies to be identified and examined through historical analysis and textual criticism • Doctrinal coherence • Verifiable historical authenticity These are historic realities, not blind appeals to oral tradition. You can hold the manuscripts in your hand. You can compare them. You can test them, just as the Bereans tested the testimony of the apostles in Acts 17:11. That’s the point. Recognition is not the same as creation. The church did not make Scripture authoritative, but recognized what already was. So no, appealing to the canon is not secretly appealing to “oral tradition” as the ultimate authority. It is acknowledging that God preserved His word through written revelation, not an evolving stream of unverifiable claims. And that is why the believer can rest in Scripture alone as the God breathed, infallible standard.

@IndianaBrunner @BillArnoldTeach Where in Scripture is the list of which books belong in Scripture? If that list isn’t in Scripture itself, how do you know what counts as Scripture?

The old and New Testament writings are not oral tradition. The physical manuscripts were physically passed down. That’s what we would call written tradition. They are historical artifacts. Things like the papacy, Marian dogmas, 7 sacraments, etc are all “oral traditions” that came centuries after the apostles and there is no evidence they came from the apostles themselves. Icon veneration has been proven to have not come from the apostles as well…

I’ve still never heard a good explanation for this verse from those who reject Sola Scriptura. “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” (1 Corinthians 4:6)

@IndianaBrunner @BillArnoldTeach If the Old Testament alone were sufficient, why did Christ establish apostles to teach with authority, and why did they preach doctrines not explicitly found in the Old Testament (like the Trinity)?

The principals of sola Scriptura remained even before the writing of the New Testament. The Old Testament was sufficient to believe in Jesus. He said so himself. The Old Testament testified to Jesus and the gospel. Paul himself says he doesn’t go beyond what is written. Even in his New Testament writings he never goes beyond what is written.

@IndianaBrunner @BillArnoldTeach You’re asking for proof of oral apostolic teaching using Scripture alone, but Scripture itself tells us to hold to teaching passed on by word as well as letter (2 Thess 2:15). Where does Scripture say that oral teaching expires after the apostles died?

@BillArnoldTeach Where are the oral traditions of the apostles??? Please prove to me what came from their own lips! You can’t. Nowhere am I told to submit to any line of succession. Don’t be foolish.

@martyrian_slave @Noah_Collins02 @wil_da_beast630 And since Scripture never explicitly says Mary had other children, you’re building a doctrine on an implication the text itself doesn’t require.

@martyrian_slave @Noah_Collins02 @wil_da_beast630 So now it’s not that “until” always implies a change, but only in certain cases? That’s the point. Once you admit it’s not universal, Matt 1:25 can’t prove what you’re claiming. It can only suggest it.

The idea that a non-monastic Roman citizen just opted to never have sex with his pretty wife for 40 years, and all the people who are explicitly called Jesus' brothers were his distant cousins, is a fascinating example of dogma - a thing believed because one is supposed to believe it.

@martyrian_slave @Noah_Collins02 @wil_da_beast630 Does Christ stop reigning after He has put all His enemies under His feet? (1 Cor 15:25) If not, why assume “until” must imply a change afterward in Matt 1:25?

@martyrian_slave @Noah_Collins02 @wil_da_beast630 If ‘until’ always implies a change afterward, do you believe Jesus stops being with us after the end of the age? (Matthew 28:20) Do you think Michal had children after her death? (2 Samuel 6:23)

@auntiesam_2 @TheCatholicEngr It’s true the NT books were written earlier, but for centuries Christians didn’t agree on all of them. At one point, ~1/4 of the NT was disputed, while other writings were accepted by some as Scripture. So how do you know the 27 books you have today actually belong in the Bible?

@TheCatholicEngr The New Testament was already written a couple of centuries before it was canonized.

Easy (1) Old Testament (2) Catholic Church (3) New Testament

@martyrian_slave @Noah_Collins02 @wil_da_beast630 You’re arguing from an assumption that no one talks like that in real life. But the Bible is not casual modern speech. It uses Hebaric/Greek idioms and literary phrasing that doesn’t always neatly apply to modern English. And can’t build a doctrine on an implication.

@martyrian_slave @Noah_Collins02 @wil_da_beast630 You’re right that ‘until’ often implies something changed afterward, but it doesn’t logically require it. And since Scripture uses ‘until’ in cases where nothing changes afterward, you can’t use that word alone to prove Mary and Joseph had relations later.

@debbaxara @jontheharris @josephnollasj @VanillaDeedle Agreed. Jesus condemns traditions that contradict God’s word. But that implies not all tradition is bad. So when Paul commands Christians to “hold fast to traditions passed on “by word of mouth or by letter”, how do you determine which traditions are apostolic and binding?

@HE20006 @jontheharris @josephnollasj @VanillaDeedle Except when tradition makes void the word or God: Matthew 15:3–6 Mark 7:8–9, 13

Mary was born without the stain of Original Sin. But let’s not forget that all the angels (even the rebel angels) were created without sin. And let’s not forget that Adam and Eve were created without sin. All this to say, sin is unnatural. It’s an infection, the most dangerous of infections - but sin has never been what it means to be human. When Christ’s victory is brought to completion in us, and our wills are purified and transformed to the point where sin becomes inconceivable for us, then we will be perfectly human and perfectly natural - we will be precisely as God intended us to be.

@jontheharris @josephnollasj This list confuses when doctrines were defined with when they were believed. By this logic, the Trinity was “invented” in 325 AD when the Church formally defined the doctrine we both believe. In reality, the Church defines things when they’re challenged—not when they begin.

@josephnollasj You’re welcome to try, papist.