John Becknell

He's being so obtuse I had to bow out. It's not only the lack of reasonable consideration of what you're saying, it's actively avoiding the reasonable answer I find astonishing. It doesn't seem truth is the goal, just endless tributaries of nonsense so long as they don't have to admit you might have a point.

@brokenbose I really don't but I'll take the blessing lol. God bless you as well!

Evangelicals, if you try desperately to use Jeremiah’s “Queen of Heaven” against Mary, then YOU must explain why Catholics DON’T: • gather wood • kindle fire • knead dough • make cakes • pour out drink offerings for her Otherwise people are just gonna think you’re low-IQ.

@matthewpao1 You have the patience of Job, Matthew. God bless you.

@TestAllThings_ @sincead33 @brokenbose @MrCasey62 @emuse1955 Not really. The only difference is public vs private. But then you just need to explore the actual evidence for the many miracles of Fatima. Again, @emuse1955 is the best guy for that job.

I forgot that Mary specifically mentions the Popes, their reigns, and the Pope under which the second world war would begin if people did not repent of their sins amend their ways. This of course, asserts the Papacy. All the predictions were correct, and it was during a time prior to Russia's rise to world power that she said that "Russia would spread its lies throughout the world" as a warning of the scourge of communism. 2/

Mary mentions purgatory to the three shepherd children in 1917 when they asked about a young person who died. She gives us the example of the Rosary prayer as efficacious once again, the necessity of prayer and penance for sins, which demonstrates the necessity of our cooperation with God's grace, rather than the Reform position of irresistible grace and double predestination, where penance and cooperation are denied. She shows the children a vision of hell where unrepentant sinners go, and their terrible end. Miracles of healing occurred at Fatima in great numbers but are often overlooked by the great miracle of the sun, predicted by the children months before it occurred. After the miracle of the sun, where forensic experts, seeing the photos said nearly one hundred thousand witnessed the sun change colors, spin, and detach itself from the sky hurdling to the ground right before resuming its natural position in the sky, the muddied ground from days of rain, which soaked all the people to the bone, were made entirely dry instantly. It's one of the most investigated Marian apparitions in history, and is accepted by the Catholic Church as worthy of belief, though no Catholic is required to accept it as necessary to the faith. It does however, show that the Catholic Church and its beliefs regarding Mary as mother of God, which is a dogma of faith, is affirmed and asserted by God. The apparition at Lourdes of Mary appearing before Saint Bernadette Subirous in 1858 confirmed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception declared by the Church just a few years earlier. More miracles have occurred there than at any other place or time in history, including Biblical times. It's also an approved apparition by the Church.

My goodness. This is missing the point. Jesus did several miracles from the Bible that demonstrated His divinity, but supposing one was enough is making the same obtuse point. Fatima demonstrated the validity of the Church and its dogmas, that a hundred thousand people were witness to. Not just to Catholics, but to Protestants, atheists, communists, etc., who were all in attendance. If heaven gave the message then arguing it wasn't necessary is frankly asinine. Even its apparent redundancy isn't enough for you.

@matthewpao1 @brokenbose @MrCasey62 @sincead33 @emuse1955 What doctrine did Fatima introduce that Catholics couldn’t and didn’t already argue from prior revelation?

How would you subject the tradition of the content of Scripture to the Bible if the Bible doesn't contain it? If the content of the Bible isn't infallible, then what makes the content of the Bible--infallible? Protestants are the ones playing word games to make a distinction between the books and the content of Scripture. They're the same thing. The Canon are the books. The books are the content. If the content isn't infallible, then saying the content "is" infallible anyway, is nonsensical. This is why RC Sproul's saying that the Bible is "a fallible collection of infallible books" is absurd. The collection is the books. If the collection is faulty then the content is faulty by definition. Asserting precisely the opposite anyway is not just unreasonable, it's misleading. The tradition of the Canon must be infallible then, from a source that can render it. Or you don't have the Bible. That's the only reasonable argument left.

@brokenbose @Parrothead1986 @BillArnoldTeach @sola_chad The point is that tradition is useful, but it is not to be observed if contradictory to Scripture. For tradition pointing to the canon, it does, w/ a few hiccups, but I wouldn’t call it (as a whole) infallible. I don’t think Catholics believe that w/out adjusting the definition.

@JamesEwen0407 @CarolynCalfo @MrCasey62 If you're never going to engage with reasonable arguments then we'll have to leave it there. Thanks for your time.

@CarolynCalfo @brokenbose @MrCasey62 Well again Catholicism is not the church, it was never the church. You worship and pray to idols into a false god that you call Mary, which violates the first and second commandments, and Deuteronomy 18:10-12, Catholicism is a pagan religion not a Christian one.

Accusations like this only come from those who have lost every debate on the Bible.

But this is a circular argument, because you're referring to what you're still trying to prove. If the tradition isn't also infallible then what it defines isn't infallible either. Either you have both, or you have none. A fallible tradition describing an infallible Canon is a non-sequitur. Is this tradition also necessary?

@brokenbose @Parrothead1986 @BillArnoldTeach @sola_chad Sola Scriptura means Scripture is the only infallible authority for guidance in Christian’s lives. There can be other authorities (tradition, commentary, church leadership), but they must conform to Scripture, never supersede it. Sola is best summed up the following Psalm…

@JamesEwen0407 @CarolynCalfo @MrCasey62 I don't believe I'm asking an unreasonable question. I'm not sure why you can't seem to provide a reasonable answer. The question again is: if the Bible doesn't include the canon of Scripture, then you're also relying on an unwritten tradition, correct?

@brokenbose @CarolynCalfo @MrCasey62 And you have no idea what you're talking about because you are not even a Christian, so technically you don't even have a say. You worship idols and a false god you call Mary, that's pagan, not Christian.

Is the content of Scripture a binding Christian doctrine? If it isn't, then the whole content of Scripture is optional, which is absurd. But if it is, then you are asserting an unwritten tradition is also necessary for all Christians to accept and believe in. That's not Sola Scriptura. That's Scripture AND tradition. Welcome to the Church. Which is it?

@brokenbose @Parrothead1986 @BillArnoldTeach @sola_chad Who then discerned which books..? FAITHFUL CHRISTIANS Does the Bible define the Canon of Scripture anywhere? THE BIBLE SELF-REFERENCES MANY TIMES Then you're presuming a tradition is also necessary, correct? YES. I’M NOT AGAINST TRADITION, SO LONG AS IT DOESNT NULLIFY GOD’S WORD.

@floridajim611 @danlomos @SecretFire79 I have no idea what this means.

@brokenbose @danlomos @SecretFire79 No where in scripture is state that if you build idols to men they will appear.

Just like the apostles …

Then God is judging their intentions, not their actions in Joshua 7:6. However, you posted a picture showing a statue of Mary held in procession (demonstrated many times in the Old Testament also with regard to the Ark), and called it idolatry. Now you're judging their actions, not their intentions since no Catholic intends to worship Mary. Mary held the true God in her womb, where the Ark only contained the symbols of God's presence. Isn't that a double standard?

@brokenbose @danlomos @SecretFire79 They were not praying to the ark they were praying where God said he would make his presence known from. In context it wouldn't appear they were praying to statues as anyone there would be aware. God is omniscient and Mary or the saints are not described so in scripture.

@JamesEwen0407 @CarolynCalfo @MrCasey62 I'm arguing that you don't have the criteria of knowing what the Word of God is, because you can't show me where the Canon is located in the Bible. I've asked many times already. That must mean you're embracing an extra-Biblical tradition too, correct?

@brokenbose @CarolynCalfo @MrCasey62 Only have the writings from the prophets, we know, again the Holy Spirit put everything together for us. But you're under the same issue, you worship idols in a false god that you call Mary, I don't think you have the criteria to actually know what the Word of God is.

On the Ark were the statues of two angels surrounding the mercy seat. They prostrated before the Ark with two angels on top. That means they put their heads to the ground until sunset before the statues of two creatures. If you walked by this, what would you think? How did God know they weren't committing idolatry?

@brokenbose @danlomos @SecretFire79 Joshua 7:10 So the lord said to Joshua: "Get up! Why do you lie thus on your face? The mercy seat is where God said he would appear they didnt pray to the ark they prayed where God had said he would appear.

Joshua 7:6 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the Lord until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. (Joshua 7:6, RSV) God wasn't present, or the verse wouldn't have failed to mention that first. It would have said that Joshua and the elders fell before the Lord, not the Ark of the Lord. Did Joshua and the elders of Israel commit idolatry?

@danlomos @SecretFire79 Noticing the lack of scriptural support offered. Waiting for an appeal to tradition.

@Brycethevet @SecretFire79 @GoodHavea Side step. What's an essential belief that every believer in Sola Scriptura accepts across every denomination? None even agree on justification, correct?

@SecretFire79 @GoodHavea You strawman everything you faceless anon. If you don’t believe in sola Scriptura, does that mean overall leadership in your church will hide pedos and move them around to new parishes?

@emmaus_e @Parrothead1986 @BillArnoldTeach @sola_chad Of course, and that wasn't my argument. Who then discerned which books were canonical? Does the Bible define the Canon of Scripture anywhere? Then you're presuming a tradition is also necessary, correct?

@brokenbose @Parrothead1986 @BillArnoldTeach @sola_chad The books of the Bible were true when they were penned by the apostles in the first century. The Bible didn’t need the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to declare it Canon in the fourth. God set the Canon, man can only recognize it.

@TestAllThings_ @matthewpao1 @MrCasey62 You're just making an assertion at this point. OK, thanks for the extended conversation. It's been a pleasure speaking with you.. And thank you for your gracious cordiality as well. It's much appreciated. God bless you.

@brokenbose @matthewpao1 @MrCasey62 Not blind faith x.com/testallthings_…

@TestAllThings_ @matthewpao1 @MrCasey62 Then how would you know they were infallible with this doctrinal claim outside of mere blind faith?

@brokenbose @matthewpao1 @MrCasey62 The Church recognized and preserved the canon. Protestants do not deny that. What we deny is that being used by God to accomplish that task therefore grants perpetual infallibility to every later doctrinal claim.

Who did any of this if there were no Protestants for fifteen centuries? If that authority which received it and used it liturgically is false, or even capable of error with regard to its dogmas, then how does that ensure the Bible isn't faulty, or even true? It doesn't, does it?

@brokenbose @matthewpao1 @MrCasey62 I’ve already given the process repeatedly: apostolic origin, reception, consistency, liturgical use, and preservation over time.