Matteo

@NintendoSteve @mattjhedges11 The prots essentially believe that God side-chucked the Bible through a crowd of evil priests trying to intercept it. As for me and my house, I'm going with historical causality and the principle of sufficient reason. Here I stand and I can do no other.

@mattjhedges11 I'm the originator of that flow-chart, and its argument is completely sound. All versions of Sola Scriptura lack a mechanism for authoritatively identifying and promulgating a tradition. So if you identify a ex-biblical tradition which is also a doctrine, there's a problem.

It really doesn’t matter to these types of people if we answer it a thousand times. They’re going to continue to spread it around, hoping that it will convince the ignorant and deceive the simple.

@mattjhedges11 I've never seen a single satisfactory answer as to why I should hold to Bibke Alone.

@MrCasey62 They quite honestly don't know the difference between "word games" and "implications of concepts".

Evangelicals, incapable of understanding big words, invariably default to the anti-Catholic accusation “it’s WORD GAMES!” It’s both an admission that they’re uneducated and a pathetically lazy cop-out.

@realmikolson It absolutely is trying to teach you something. That you won't hear it is not on him.

Low-information, rage-baiting posts like the one below are precisely why it feels impossible to have productive dialogue online. The post below—and just about every other post from this Roman Catholic account (and countless others like it)—is not trying to teach you anything. It’s not trying to inform you with factual information. It’s not trying to sharpen your intellect by providing arguments that make you think. It’s not trying to strengthen your faith in Jesus. It’s simply trying to agitate a neurotic response through purposeful elusiveness, with more holes in the argument than SpongeBob. Profiles like this, often anonymous, are the perfect storm: intellectually vacant while passionately sure of themselves. If you try to engage in dialogue, they’ll run you in circles, repeat themselves, refuse to acknowledge legitimate information if it contradicts their narrative, etc., etc., etc. Many will then turn to profanity and even violent threats if that doesn’t work. My solution at this point? Mass-block every single one of these accounts. Not because you aren’t interested in dialogue with people who disagree with you, but precisely because you are. Ironically, that’s exactly what accounts like this don’t want.

@AL_J82 This is cope.

Online Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is just a fad nowadays. It's a bunch of people looking to be a part of a community. Most before converting didn't study or take the faith seriously and they're not doing it now. That's why majority of the ones I encounter still don't go to church, haven't been confirmed and haven't been to Mass or Liturgy in a long time, but yet want to argue doctrine on social media. I'm just concerned of what's going to happen once they realize this isn't working for them like the past ideologies they embraced.

I like this appeal and I thank you for it. Yes, I have read all 73 books of the Bible, if not cover to cover, then to a substantial degree. It's a big part of why I am Catholic. My counter appeal is this: As an exercise, put all of the Sola Fide, OSAS, and Bible Alone doctrine aside. Start with the Gospels and only the Gospels. Take notes. Take every word of Jesus at face value to the maximum extent possible. O not look for loopholes for "is" at the Last Supper. Build a picture of precisely what He is describing. Read Romans and Galatians only after having done this. Jesus is primary, Paul is secondary. Doing this yields a radically different picture than going Romans and Galatians as the keys. Radically. I am Jesus first. Always. Only a "tradition of men" would put Paul first, in my view.

Longevity of something or a system is not the test of truth. The lies of Satan have existed since the garden of Eden. He has been twisting God’s Word for millennia. God said His “Word is truth.”David wrote His Word will never pass away. Have you ever just sat down and read the Bible , cover to cover, devotionally, asking God’s Holy Spirit to help you understand it? I can’t dispute your sincerity and zeal for your religion, but again those are not the test for truth. God’s Word is the plumb line that all truth, spiritually speaking is measured by. It is Supernatural and not carnal, not human wisdom or discerned by the carnal mind but by God’s Spirit in those who belong to Him. The things of the spirit are discerned by the Spirit and the things of the flesh by the flesh. I urge you to seek God in His Word, not in an earthly system set up by carnal men. Jesus is no longer standing after making propitiation for sin. He is no longer standing at the altar. He is seated at the right hand of God. Yet the RC priests STAND at an altar daily “representing” Jesus to God? That is ridiculous! Jesus presented Himself as the sacrifice and the said “it is finished” and sat down having made propitiation for sin. Once and for all. Now we who accept that truth by faith have received that pardon and come to the TABLE not the altar and partake in fellowship with Christ when we eat the bread and drink the cup. 1 Cor. 10-11

🚨‼️Let me make something clear before the Catholic debates start rolling in. I am not coming at Roman Catholicism as someone who watched three YouTube clips and grabbed a handful of anti-Catholic talking points. I grew up around Catholicism. My family is Catholic. I have been around priests. I studied church history in seminary. I studied it through years of personal reading. I have taught my own course on church history, which is available on VerseQuest. And then I went a step further and took Yale University’s course, A Journey through Western Christianity: from Persecuted Faith to Global Religion, which walks through early Christianity, medieval Catholicism, the rise of the papacy, monasticism, crusades, councils, the Reformation, Trent, Catholic Reform, and the Jesuits. So no, I am not afraid of Catholic history. I have studied it from Protestant sources, Catholic sources, academic sources, and even from inside the kind of academic institutions Catholics love to appeal to when they think Bible believers are just ignorant fundamentalists. I went the extra mile because I wanted to understand the system, not misrepresent it. But here is where the debate must stay honest: history can explain how Rome developed, but history cannot make Rome biblical. A council can define a doctrine, but a council cannot turn an unscriptural doctrine into apostolic truth. A tradition can become old, beautiful, emotional, and deeply embedded in religious culture, but age does not equal authority. The question is still, “What saith the scripture?” So I have no problem debating a Catholic who wants to deal honestly with the issue. But I am not debating stained glass, cathedrals, incense, emotional pageantry, or the claim that “we are old, therefore we are right.” Show me Rome in the Bible. Show me purgatory. Show me Mary as mediatrix. Show me prayers to saints. Show me papal supremacy. Show me transubstantiation. Show me the Mass as a repeated sacrifice. Show me where Peter acts like a pope. Show me where the apostles taught the Roman system. I know the history. I have studied the development. I understand the arguments. And after all of that, I am still a King James Bible-believing Christian because the issue is not whether Rome has history. The issue is whether Rome has Scripture.

@JMDeVito2 @tobeawitness @josephnollasj As for me and my house, we don’t hunt for loopholes in His words. I hear Him clearly saying ‘This is My Body.’ I live it, and the joy is real. This is my testimony. Go in peace.

@beetle67a @tobeawitness @josephnollasj So thanks for demonstrating that you have no clue about grammar. Third person would be "this is", where as first person would be "I am". Same verb, same meaning, same structure. That doesn't make a "strong catholic". That is an unthinking person, and you bought that. Sad.

You mean this Athanasius who said the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?

@philobrossuckdi @KR3Wmatic Nope. You made the blanket indictment. You're the prosecutor, you bring something to the table. Defendents do not have to come in and explain thing one to a prosecutor who doesn't bring a specific case.

@beetle67a @KR3Wmatic Present your best argument then and let’s examine it together

Dear athiest, is there anything I can say to convince you that God is real?

@philobrossuckdi @KR3Wmatic The prosecution walks out of the courtroom and the philosophical arguments stand unrefuted?

@beetle67a @KR3Wmatic Matteo, the reason we don’t have these philosophical arguments for elephants is because we have evidence elephants exist The reason people construct contrived arguments for a god is that we don’t have evidence for a god

Jody, I am honored that you are telling me how you see things. I blame no one for running away from Protestant fundamentalism. Every sane person should. It is a total abomination. So in all of this, how do you see the power of God? Do you think the "official" NT Scriptures speak truthfully of it, or is that all out the window?

@JimLittle1 @beetle67a @Truth_matters20 Marcion definitely saw Yahweh as evil as the demiurge is not just flawed but evil as well, anyway that's my take, too bad the "official" church burned all his writings so we can only go by what the " official" church has to say about him

If you possess the gospel, you possess the keys to the Kingdom of God. Don't listen to Catholics who say that only the Pope and the RCC have the keys!

There is a difference. It's not applied to an "I am" statement, it's applied to a "This is" statement. This is my testimony: You are in for joy and exaltation beyond your wildest imaginings if you cease looking for loopholes here. Talk to strong Catholics. Listen to what they will tell you about this. Talk to those who have recently converted. Hear their testimony.

@beetle67a @tobeawitness @josephnollasj Same Greek grammatical syntax and structure as I am the door, I am the vine, and other places you don't accept as literal. Do you think God can't choose the right word?

I don't think so. I'm not saying you're wrong. But I do testify that I am making a simple act of faith as our father Abraham did. Mt 16:17-19 is clear as a bell to me. I believe Jesus Christ can and did pull off the stupendous miracle of guiding a visible Church through twenty centuries of history. That's how deep my faith goes. I also believe Him when He uses the word "is" at the Last Supper. I do not search for loopholes. This is my perspective and I have stated it truthfully. I also testify, along with countless other converts, that once one is *in* the Catholic Church, Protestant objections and accusations disappear like the morning dew. All I can do is testify to this and I have spoken truly about how I see it. My love for Jesus and my relationship with Him is immense. Do not protsplain to me that it isn't. I have given my testimony, and I am not going to go into the weeds with you about doctrine.

Talk about a strong delusion. I feel like I’m speaking to the father of lies when I speak to Catholics. Not that they are the devil but that they are caught in the web of deceit, captured by lies and shiny things. Like brainwashed sheep to the slaughter. I pray The Lord will break the chains of religion and replace them with His truth and salvation. Membership in the RCC is not your ticket to heaven. Belief in the One who God sent is your only way to eternal life with God. You deny that that He is the Truth, the Way and the Life, when you put your trust in the RCC and it’s system of sacraments and false Eucharist for your salvation. Those are things. Belief and trust in Jesus is the ONLY way. God, please grant their eyes be opened.

I don't hold to ontological arguments. Name the strongest argument as you see it, lay it out fairly, and state why it fails. You are the prosecution. You must name the defendant and give the case against it. Innocent until proven guilty. It's not on me to state those arguments. You gave the sweeping dismissal, you do the work.

@beetle67a @KR3Wmatic Yeah I am. And your arguments are all nonsense. Have you heard the ontological argument for the existence for elephants?

My claim is trusting what seems obvious there in Mt 16:17-19. Gates of Hell never prevailing, so a perpetual power to bind and loose. Ratification of Heaven so nothing doctrinally incorrect is bound. A visible, identifiable Church so it is possible for anyone to know what is bound. In my view it's not complicated, and I have faith that God can, and has, made it work. The Catholic Church claims this authority. Based on everything you've said, I assume your Church does not. I know who I go with, then. But enough about me. Please give me your view of the true meaning of Mt 16:17-19.

@beetle67a @Memewhile321 Here is what I see: a claim. Not an argument. Not a justification. Just a claim.

Who's had this conversation this last week?

Implicit blanket indictment of all philosophical proofs of God ever offered, but without a single defendant brought to the stand and specific charges leveled. Assuming you're too obtuse to understand the analogy: *You* present the strongest argument for God, and *you* say specifically what is wrong with it. Otherwise all defendents walk, and philosophical arguments for God remain undefeated.

@KR3Wmatic No That’s the whole difference between atheists and religious people Religious people believe because someone or some text says so Atheists require more than saying stuff

@TRHLofficial Calling the Mystical Body of Christ the Whore of Babylon most certainly applies.

I feel compelled to talk about Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (the unpardonable sin). In context, it involves a deliberate, hardened attribution of the Holy Spirit’s clear work to evil forces (like Satan), or a persistent, final rejection of the Spirit’s conviction and God’s mercy, to the point of no repentance. Here are three examples based on Matthew 12:31, Mark 3:28, and Luke 12:10. 1. Attributing the Holy Spirit’s miraculous work to Satan
 •The Pharisees witnessed Jesus heal a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, clearly by the power of the Holy Spirit, and called His spirit unclean and his work of demons. 2. Persistently crediting genuine spiritual works or gifts (like healings, deliverances, or conviction leading to repentance) to demonic deception or evil.
 •Seeing evident fruit of the Holy Spirit in someone’s life (a radical transformation, a miracle, or a deep conviction) and insisting it’s fake, satanic, or manipulative and hardening against the evidence. 3. A final, hardened impenitence—completely and permanently rejecting the Holy Spirit’s call to repentance and salvation until death.
 •The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin and draws them to Christ. Blasphemy here is a lifelong, unyielding refusal to accept God’s forgiveness, effectively saying “no” to the Spirit’s work in a way that removes any desire for reconciliation. Many theologians describe this as the only sin God won’t forgive because the person never seeks forgiveness. It is important to note that most Christian teachers emphasize that if you’re worried about having committed this sin, you almost certainly haven’t. True blasphemy involves a settled, irreversible hardness where repentance is no longer desired. Genuine concern or a desire to turn to God shows the Spirit is still at work. Forgiveness is available through Christ for all other sins upon repentance. If you find yourself dismissing a pornstar who says she found Jesus, rejecting that outright endangers your own soul. Use grace.

@Allesontiire Right...Christ by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, but the Holy Spirit cares not a whit about the Virgin He overshadowed and would never lead us to the slightest honoring of her. Right. If she rates nothing, what do you imagine you rate?

The Holy spirit points to Christ, not a dead woman you turned into a goddess

@Defensofidei @Sholzzola @_Sironyeka Especially the "is"! Probably the most important single word in there and the one the Prots feel driven to explain away.

Is the Holy Bible 100% true?

Every convert to the Catholic faith that I know who came over from Bible Alone has testified to the immense felt power of Confession. They felt like for the *first time* their sins are *actually* off of them. I testify to the same after coming in from New Age. This is a testimonial data point. Blow it off if you must, but there it is.

It does not bother anyone that you go to confession. Feelings are emotions. No bearing on the truth. I would imagine a Satanist feels wonderful after sacrificing a child. Confessing your sins to a trusted Christian is not a bad thing. When you act like something it is not, you are adding to the scriptures, and this is warned against. Catholics just cant leave a simple thing simple.

Regarding the Sacrament of Confession: Yes Jesus did. How quickly you forget that Jesus left His Church with EVERYTHING. And denied us nothing we would need. Just as he gave the apostles authority over demons by the power of the Holy Spirit so in the Apostolic tradition, does he give priests the ability to forgive sin. And I really don’t understand why it bothers you people that we go to confession. If you think it’s ridiculous go ahead think that I love confession. The feeling after going to confession is indescribable. When Jesus instituted the sacrament of confession he wasn’t giving us one more thing to do— He was acting as the Divine Psychiatrist: A psychiatrist can listen to your problems and give you a diagnosis and medication, but they cannot relieve guilt. I actually feel very sorry for you that you don’t have this beautiful sacrament.

How does the "also bound in Heaven" make it a blank check? I don't have any trouble trusting the Holy Spirit to make this work. Why wouldn't Rome's later system legitimately grow out of this? You already accept the binding done at the Council of Nicea, well after the apostolic era. I simply can't see all the problems you do from my vantage point on the "inside". I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm just not seeing it. I am driven to have the deep faith of Abraham. Guiding a visible. institutional Church made of sinful men for 2,000 years is a stupendous miracle, and that is what is promised in Mt 16:17-19. I think God could, and did, pull it off. My faith is that strong.

Matthew 16 does not say what you are making it say. Even if we grant Peter a special apostolic role in the early chapters of Acts, that still does not prove Rome’s later system. It does not prove papal supremacy. It does not prove apostolic succession through Roman bishops. It does not prove purgatory, Marian mediation, prayers to saints, indulgences, transubstantiation, or the Mass as a sacrifice. You are taking “keys” and “binding and loosing” and turning them into a blank check for centuries of extra-biblical Roman development. That is the leap I am challenging. The apostles had authority because they were chosen witnesses of Christ and were guided by the Holy Ghost. But their doctrine was preserved in Scripture. If a later tradition is truly apostolic, it should agree with the apostolic record. If it cannot be established from Scripture, then calling it “Heaven-approved” does not make it so. Matthew 16 does not give Rome permission to create doctrines and then demand the church receive them as equal to the word of God. The question remains: where did the apostles plainly teach the Roman system? Not where can Rome infer it. Not where can Rome develop it. Not where can Rome claim authority over it. Where did the apostles teach it?