A paltry bit

Crusader's Oath: I, [Name], do solemnly swear before God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: 1. To uphold the faith of the Holy Catholic Church, to defend her doctrines, to protect her sanctuaries, and to honor her sacraments. 1/9

@Arma__Christi If a Catholic defends themselves, demons do see it as aggression. Nothing wrong with storming the Gates of Hell.

“Catholics are so aggressive online I wonder why? Anyway here’s why Catholics will burn in Hell cause their a cult”

@Brosephos That was an African version of Creole, stating, "Of course, I hate the Queen Mother."

Do you think she practices in the mirror?

@jakedell73 Are you taking Catholic receipts again? Stealing is a sin.

Scripture is the only deposit of faith the apostles made Protestants “have the receipts” Romans don’t

@poperespecter1 Catholics are winning. Non-Catholics are whining.

They lie about the Pope because we are winning. They lie about Catholics because we are winning. They are scared.

@mark_petereit @iamrjknight No. You contradict yourself in your own post. The sad thing is your blind hatred has made you stupid and blind.

@iamrjknight “The rock” that Jesus said he’d build his church on was NOT Peter. The rock was what Peter had just SAID, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It was Peter’s REVELATION—not Peter himself.

I see many Roman Catholics commenting about Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church on my post, "Understanding Church and Its Purpose" and they say it in a mocking way as though they alone have the true church. Let us answer that with the Word of God itself. If Jesus built His church solely on Peter, then why do we see the apostles themselves speaking of the church as a gathered body of believers in homes? Paul says in Romans 16:5, “Greet also the church in their house.” That is not Peter’s chair in Rome, it is ordinary Christians gathered together under the headship of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 16:19 we read, “Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings.” Again, this is not the Roman institution but the true church wherever believers gather around Christ. If Peter was the exclusive foundation, then why do the apostles repeatedly declare that the foundation is Christ Himself? Paul wrote clearly in 1 Corinthians 3:11, “For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” In Ephesians 2:20, he says that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.” The Word does not say Peter alone, nor Rome, but Christ as the cornerstone with the witness of all the apostles and prophets. Even Peter himself does not claim to be the rock of the church. He writes in 1 Peter 2:4-6 that Christ is the living stone rejected by men but chosen by God, and that all believers are living stones being built up as a spiritual house. Peter points us to Christ as the rock, not to himself as a pope. How many times is Christ Himself called the Rock in Scripture? Over and over we see it - Deuteronomy 32:4 says “The Rock, His work is perfect.” Psalm 18:2 says “The Lord is my rock and my fortress.” 1 Corinthians 10:4 makes it plain, “That Rock was Christ.” Scripture leaves no doubt who the Rock truly is. So I ask the Roman Catholic... if Jesus meant Peter as the singular rock, why do we not see Peter himself teaching that? Why do we see instead local gatherings called “the church” in many places, all built on Christ? Why is Scripture silent about papal authority but loud about the sufficiency of Christ and His Word? Even history bears witness. The earliest church fathers never spoke of papal supremacy. Cyprian of Carthage, who died in AD 258, said all bishops were equal and rejected the idea of one universal head. The papal system came much later, built on human tradition rather than apostolic truth. Rome has built a fortress of tradition around a single verse while ignoring the weight of the entire New Testament. But Christ declared that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church, and that church is every assembly of true believers resting on Him as the cornerstone. To say otherwise is to exalt man above Christ, and that is a foundation God never laid.

@MattSmethurst Your atonement theory is flawed.

The Lord didn’t check who inside the house was worthy. He checked for blood on the doorposts. None of us is worthy. Only the blood of Jesus can cover us.

@RealTraderJill @CforCatholics That sounds divisive and hateful on your part @RealTraderJill

A lot of Catholic podcasters need to pay attention. Especially you @CforCatholics scum trying to divide the world and spread your hate.

@Joseph_Spurgeon Except... scripture rejects your premise. Scripture is not the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Roman Catholics never seem to understand the doctrine of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is not the belief that Holy Scripture is the only authority, nor that an individual can infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Rather, it is the doctrine that Holy Scripture is the only infallible authority and therefore has supreme authority over the church. It is not the only authority. The church has real authority, along with other forms of authority in the Christian life. Those who hold to sola scriptura also maintain that Scripture is to be understood within the life of the church. It was given to the church. It guards and defines the boundaries of the church. It shapes the life of the church. The church receives it, interprets it, and works through it, not as a single infallible institution, but as a body that is accountable to the Word. A central problem in Roman Catholic argumentation is their equivocation on the word infallible. They blur the distinction between infallible and inerrant, and then build an entire doctrine on that confusion. Infallible means unable to err by nature. It is not merely that something happens to be correct in a given instance. It means it cannot be wrong. Holy Scripture is infallible because it is the very Word of God. God cannot err, and therefore His Word cannot err. Everything Scripture says carries full authority because it is true without any possibility of error. Human beings, however, can make inerrant statements without being infallible. “Jesus Christ is the Messiah” is an inerrant statement. “My name is Joseph Spurgeon” is an inerrant statement. Even something like the table of contents of Scripture can be correct. The church can recognize the canon without error. But none of that makes the church infallible. It simply means that, at times, it has spoken truly. Infallibility is not something that comes and goes. It is not something that appears in rare moments and then disappears. If a person or institution is infallible, that is a property of what they are, not a temporary condition they enter into under certain circumstances. That is exactly where the Roman doctrine of papal infallibility breaks down. It claims the Pope is infallible only in specific moments, under carefully defined conditions. That is not infallibility. That is a redefinition of the term to protect a doctrine that cannot stand on its own. And historically, this was not some universally held belief quietly passed down from the apostles. In the Middle Ages, the Franciscans, particularly in their disputes over poverty, began pressing arguments that would effectively bind the Pope to prior authoritative statements. They were attempting to lock in earlier papal rulings so that a later pope could not overturn them. In response, Pope John XXII rejected those claims outright. He saw exactly what was happening. To grant that kind of infallibility would place the pope in submission to prior declarations in a way that undermined his own authority. He resisted it, and the idea was not accepted as settled doctrine at the time. Only much later, under very different pressures, was papal infallibility formally defined at the First Vatican Council in 1870. It was not the clear, consistent teaching of the church through the ages. It was a deformation, argued for, resisted, and finally imposed. Sola scriptura cuts through all of this confusion. It locates infallibility where it actually belongs, in the Word of God. Scripture alone cannot err. Scripture alone carries absolute authority. The church has real authority, but it is always a derived and accountable authority. It can speak truly, but it is never incapable of error. Everything must be judged by the Word of God, because only the Word of God is infallible.

This just in, my Brosephos. I am now a grifter. Toss a coin to your grifter, oh valley of plenty!

@atplack What?

Crusader's Oath: I, [Name], do solemnly swear before God Almighty, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: 1. To uphold the faith of the Holy Catholic Church, to defend her doctrines, to protect her sanctuaries, and to honor her sacraments. 1/9

@account_blown What, what, numb-nutz?

@account_blown x.com/atplack/status…

@account_blown Oh, stop. Really? Who knew? NO. NO. NO. NO. Maybe Apion knew, but FOR SURE Arion didn't. And to you numb-nutz, he is MR. Pleistoneices

@atplack It’s in his Against Arion

@account_blown x.com/atplack/status…

@atplack Name one lie lol

@account_blown Liar. x.com/atplack/status…

@atplack I didn’t receive a single source that refuted anything I said I only got “not true” “you’re a liar” some offhand unbacked statements then even got compared to the devil himself and then finally blocked.

@the_primuspilus @JustinTime82313 @account_blown @Brosephos Irrelevant. What languages were on the Cross? Why does John record a classic Latin phrase?

@atplack @JustinTime82313 @account_blown @Brosephos Almost certianly Pilate knew Greek. Even in the 1st Century, Greek was the language of the learned man. If Pilate got sent east by Tiberius, he knew Greek.

You have yet to touch on any of my objections. I'm sure you saw me ratio you earlier. Your attempt at this will fail. -- My previous objection: This is such a terrible historical argument because he's a "philosopher," yet he has never done proper historical-critical exegesis—or historical analysis, apparently. The first problem arises from a lack of understanding what Jews of the 1c. considered to be Scripture. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes (Qumran, for simplicity) show there was not canonical unity. The next issue, do you take the MT or LXX. Most Protestants want to appeal to a late Medieval record for their OT Scripture because it affirms the list they want. Yet, the NT authors used a witness closer to the Septuagint in almost all instances. So, this then leads to problems for this OT canon they want so bad. Follow the Jews and the MT? Or, follow the NT authors and the LXX? Many prophetic fulfillments and allusions in the NT are dependent on the Greek, not the Hebrew. How do you map your system onto this problem? (See T. Law's book "When God Spoke Greek" for why the Greek is more important for Christians than Hebrew. Also check out J. Dine's intro to the LXX) Our earliest and best codices (e.g., Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus) do not resemble the Protestant canon. They include the DC (for simplicity). Earliest Christians were reading these documents as Scripture. The Epistle of Jude will be crazy for you to deal with since the text has an appeal to the Assumption of Moses, which you will reject, as well as 1 Enoch (with numerous references to Enoch throughout). You then also have to deal with all the developed Jewish thought and traditions he appeals to throughout the letter. The canon debates in Eusebius are going to be a nightmare for you; works like Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, and the Didache were considered Scripture to many. Let's not forget the known authorship issues even in the 4c., which you will have to deal with. Lastly, how will you deal with the Ethiopians who have an extended canon, which includes 1 Enoch and Jubilees, for example? Or, will we for convenience leave them out? This nebulous concept you have will be impossible to map onto actual history. And, the logic you use to discredit the DC, I guarantee, I will be able to use to strike books from the OT and NT. And, these are just a few issues I thought of off the top of my head. The canon conundrum is a problem I know you can't solve.

@Brosephos @account_blown I believe that reading the classics helped me understand my failures. This is the reason I joined the Church 11 years ago.

@atplack @account_blown Really, Homeric isn't that bad once you get used to the spelling variations and the meter. I haven't translated it in years, but I do remember it got significantly easier over time.

@JustinTime82313 @account_blown @Brosephos @the_primuspilus The Roman custom was that the placard be posted in the languages known by the convict. "Quid est veritas?" "In vino veritas" was supposed to be the answer, but Pilot didn't wait.

@atplack @account_blown @Brosephos @the_primuspilus Do we have evidence they knew Latin?

@account_blown There is a good reason. You don't have a good reason or common sense for when to quit.

@atplack I can’t respond anymore because I got blocked but all the best to you