Michael MacDougall

@farmingandJesus @sola_chad Do you not believe in the Incarnation then?

@sola_chad Now big dog Casey is gonna say that includes Christ even though Christ is the God we sin and fall short of. 🤣

“ALL have sinned …”

@JamesDitto12 @PabloLim7 Cool so Jesus dishonored His mother and broke the ten commandments. Pretty sure that interpretation is wrong.

@PabloLim7 Yes he does. The temple incident is very much a rebuke. His "who is my mother" is very much a rebuke.

Jesus never rebukes Mary. He simply clarifies WHY she is blessed. Not because of her body parts being in contact with Jesus, but because she PERFECTLY OBEYED.

@PiotrRetardo @Garnet_2203 I am not arguing. You apparently think you may never die, pretty sure you are wrong.

@ergadia @Garnet_2203 Lying within a range which forecasts are possible lmao. What do you think a forecast is? Idk why you're trying to argue this lmao

According to Health Canada:    •   Over 96% of MAID recipients had a reasonably foreseeable natural death    •   Most had cancer, advanced organ failure, or severe degenerative diseases    •   The average age is over 75 This is not a system targeting the vulnerable it’s one used primarily by elderly Canadians facing unbearable suffering. As for safeguards:    •   MAID requires independent assessments by two clinicians    •   Patients must give informed consent    •   There are mandatory waiting periods (unless death is imminent)    •   Cases are federally tracked Anecdotal cases don’t override data. Framing MAID as reckless or out of control ignores why it exists: ➡️ To give people dignity and autonomy at the end of life ➡️ To relieve suffering when medicine can no longer help An “honest conversation” means including the full facts not just fear-based narratives.

@Joseph_Spurgeon Scripture would be unknowable and you would have no Bible but yeah the books would still exist. Doesn't help much though.

One common objection to sola scriptura is this: if Scripture does not contain a table of contents, then it cannot be the highest authority, because you would need some other infallible authority to tell you what Scripture is. That sounds persuasive at first, but it rests on a false assumption. It assumes that in order for something to be infallible, there must also be an infallible authority outside of it to identify it. That is simply not true. A thing does not become what it is by being recognized. Scripture is the Word of God because God breathed it out, not because the church later certified it. The church does not stand over Scripture giving it authority. The church stands under Scripture, receiving what God has given. This confusion also collapses the difference between being infallible and making a true judgment. A fallible person can make an inerrant statement. I can say, “Jesus Christ is the Messiah,” and that statement is true, even though I am not incapable of error. In the same way, the church can recognize the canon truly without being an infallible institution. The claim that you need an infallible list from an infallible authority confuses categories. Infallibility is a property of nature, not a temporary condition that appears when needed. Scripture is infallible because it is God’s Word. The church is not. The “table of contents” argument is especially weak. A table of contents does not make a book what it is. It is a later organizational tool. If every table of contents disappeared tomorrow, Genesis would still be Scripture, the Gospels would still be Scripture, and Paul’s letters would still be Scripture. Their authority does not come from an index page. It comes from God. The canon is not created by a list. The list reflects what God has already given. So the objection fails. It mistakes recognition for authorization and assumes that without an infallible institution, there can be no certainty. But Scripture does not derive its authority from the church. The church derives its authority from Scripture. God gave His Word, and His people receive it as such. That is sola scriptura.

@PiotrRetardo @Garnet_2203 merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for… Here is the definition of foreseeable for you.

@ergadia @Garnet_2203 If you can't give a time period it's not foreseeable. If it's something like "1-10 years" or whatever, it's not reasonable. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. Use your own brain next time.

@PiotrRetardo @Garnet_2203 It does not say in the quote anything about a time period.

@ergadia @Garnet_2203 Really you can foresee within a month or two, or even a year, of when you’re going to die? Please teach me this power.

The Old Testament was primarily the Septuagint a translation by Jewish Rabbis in Alexandria. The New Testament was more ad-hoc until it was finalized in the fourth century. There was many books everyone thought that was Scripture like the four gospels. Some books like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were thought be Scripture by some. Some books like Revelation was thought to be non Scripture by some.

@LooneyCountry @farmingandJesus @ParapetSee Exactly, the scriptures the apostles had were not like the Bible we have today. So, where did the Bible come from? What and who compiled the Bible we have today? And the first English translation of the Bible was actually done bh the Catholic Church, before any Protestant.

This brother has the most humble and biblical response. I know it’s hard out there when you try to help religious but spiritually lacking people understand biblical truth but this is how it’s done. 💜

@Joseph_Spurgeon Ephesus is not in Rome.

Protestant Christians do not hate Mary. We honor Mary, along with all the saints, by giving all glory and praise to God above, by reflecting on the virtues in their lives and seeking to follow their example, and by giving thanks to God for them. What we do not do is dishonor them by elevating them beyond what they themselves would have wanted. It is Roman Catholics who dishonor Mary. They do this by elevating her to a station she never claimed and never would have accepted. They give her not just honor, but what amounts to worship. They try to soften this with distinctions and technical language about veneration, but their practice exposes the truth. They make statues, bow before them, kiss them, and direct prayers to her. They give her titles like mediatrix. They ascribe to her a role that belongs to Christ alone. They ask her to dispense grace, as if grace comes from anyone other than God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. In doing this, they go against Mary’s own words, when she told others to do whatever her Son says. Mary’s role in Scripture is clear. Like John the Baptist, her life points away from herself and toward Christ. He must increase. She would never seek to be the center of attention, never present herself as a protector who hears prayers, never accept the devotion that is now directed toward her. This does not honor her. It distorts her and robs God of the glory that belongs to Him alone. No one who loves Christ and desires that God receive all praise would want to be treated this way after death. This is not honor. How shameful.

Not really the most a Pope can do even today if a bishop does thing he does not like is remove and replace him. In that time period it probably took a the better part of a year to even know of it. If the Pope was so dead set against vernacular translations why didn't he get any other synods to ban them throughout Europe. Did he just hate English?

@ergadia @JennMGreenberg By all appearances Rome did not want an English translation in the hands of the people and that was very wrong. 2/fin

Catholics actually benefited a great deal from the Reformation. For example, you can now read the Bible in English. I think we can all agree, that’s an incredible blessing.

That is not true the bishops were ordained by local bishops, with the permission of Rome but honestly that only matters to Protestants. Getting permission to ordain a bishop is also done in the Orthodox Churches. English translations before the printing press were impossible with the technology available and not worth expense. The few that could read could read Latin and there were so many English dialects that there were very few readers of any dialect. It was not until Caxton cemented the spellings and language via the Printing Press that vernacular Bibles translations became possible. Tyndale was the first and he was also at a time where it could be successful. For example the Bibles before him like Wycliffes it mentions eyren a southern English word for eggs that was no longer in use by Tyndales time thanks in part to the printing press.

@ergadia @JennMGreenberg The local bishops were ordained by Rome. And there were no readily available English translations. In fact, Tyndale was the first to attempt a complete English translation.

The ban in England was not complete, approved translations were allowed. However the ban was widespread and had a long duration. I think they did it to prevent error but there I think they miscalculated as I think the ban compounded errors rather than resolved them. They should have learned from the synod of Toulouse and kept it local and shorter. It was also not the Roman authorities but the local bishops at the third synod of Oxford.

@ergadia @JennMGreenberg Sure. We all are. But the Roman authorities opposed English translations at that time, and had for over 100 years. The Roman Catholic suppression of English Bible translations was real and problematic.

@eclafitz @Luthertarian Well I'm convinced 🤣

@ergadia @Luthertarian Amen. He’s got nothing…

Roman Catholics should stick to Roman Catholic history... they'll have a better chance of getting their facts right that way... this is worse than the biography of Luther by Eric Metaxis...

@josiah_royer @JennMGreenberg I was referring to the King James. Sure the Matthews Bible is earlier, the printing press was a great tool. The translations in the Middle Ages were necessarily limited to region and time before that. Honestly though I am glad better translations came along.

@ergadia @JennMGreenberg The complete Tyndale Bible (called the Matthew Bible), was published in 1537. The Douay-Rheims Bible wasn't complete until 1609! I don't think 72 years later is "right about the same time"...

@BibleInContext1 I think you mean Protestants. Catholic and Orthodox see Jesus as does the majority of Christians before Zwingli. You can count on one hand the number of Christians that doubted and disagreed.

Actually, Christian’s see idolatry and blasphemy towards a holy God! Jesus is not on your pagan altar. Jesus after he made purification for sins is now seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high!

@TryinDaily @MattTestifies I do, but that is not relevant to the life and actions of Joseph Smiht.

@ergadia @MattTestifies You must not study the Bible much.

Every religion outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was built by men trying to reach God. This Church was restored by God reaching back. That is not a small difference. That is everything.

@Luthertarian To be clear I have seen ten other posts like yours. I would appreciate it if you refuted rather than just saying it is lies or wrong. If you can say it is wrong without evidence I can dismiss your comment with the same effort.

@ergadia Yeah, from my understanding, youre saying I cant refute Father here. I can. His entire video is contaminated with old myths and bad history.

@Luthertarian I don't know that is precisely true. Florence affirmed the canon as well before Luther. Though I am not sure how widely that was disseminated. The printing press had just got going after all.

Part of it had to do with the cost of paper, and a need to publish more Bibles while keeping it affordable. This absolute distain for deuterocanon is a post WWII era thing started by low church protestants. Similar to KJV only vibes. Luther had nothing to do with that. Questioning canon and authenticity was normal for augustinians. It was never controversial until the OTHER "Reformers". To which Rome deemed it necessary to solidify canon at Trent as a response.

@Luthertarian Fair enough hard to figure out who replies are for.

@ergadia I know you didn't. Father here did.