Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here. You frequently do not make any sense. The claim is that Orthodox theology is not wholesale "off limits", but rather only that Orthodox theology which contradicts Scripture. So where's the "solO" scriptura here? No one is saying that NO other authority for a church is allowed. Sola scriptura means that all other authorities, i.e. "man-made tradition" that is outside of Scripture is always to be considered fallible, and therefore always correctable by Scripture, Scripture being the highest standard of authority, being the infallible word of God. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency here. Rather, your understanding is what's at fault.

The church councils of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been shown to be in contradition and thus in error, so there is no infallible authority of the "Church". This is a false belief that is NOWHERE in Scripture, and is rather a claim made by MAN, not by GOD.

Your are letting the fallibility of man bamboozle you into false beliefs, when you should be adhering only to the infallibe word of God which is Scripture.

---

Where does the Old Testament define the seat of Moses? It doesn't. Nowhere. Not in the Torah, not in the Prophets, not in ANY writings. The phrase doesn't exist in the Hebrew Bible. It's an extrascriptural institution of oral, traditioned authority. Jesus validated it without citing a single verse to justify it. If you applied sola scriptura prior to the time of Jesus to establish the seat of Moses...you couldn't establish it as an authority because the Seat of Moses is not written down or defined whatsoever.

---

You DO know that Jesus lambasted them for adhering to their traditions as if they had equal authority with written Scripture, even adhering to them at the expense of Scripture - don't you?

---

If Mark 7 condemns all tradition, it condemns the seat of Moses too and then Jesus contradicts Himself in Matthew 23.
He left standing in Matthew 23 a tradition that has no scriptural basis at all and commanded obedience to it.

You don't want that conclusion. The only coherent reading is that Jesus condemns tradition that nullifies Scripture, not tradition that carries and transmits authority alongside it.

You cannot flatten those two passages into one anti-tradition principle without ignoring that Jesus gave the command to obey the seat of Moses in the same breath He criticized the men sitting in it. He drew a precise distinction: obey the office, don't imitate the hypocrisy. That is not the logic of sola scriptura.

---

No one is saying "all tradition is condemned". You are reallly bad at misrepresenting the argument. What's condemned is holding man-made tradition on par with the written word of God. Jesus called them out on it.

Do you really think if the ones in Moses' seat told people to bow down and worship idols, that Jesus would tell them to obey them?

---

You just conceded that not all tradition is condemned, only tradition placed on par with or above Scripture. That's actually the Orthodox position. That's what we've been saying the entire time. Holy Tradition doesn't compete with Scripture. It's the living context within which Scripture was written, canonized, and has always been correctly interpreted. So thank you for abandoning the original objection.

---

So... you're saying that Scripture is the highest authority then, right? Over church authority, right?

The orginal objection was not that all tradition was condemned. You just aren't good at keeping track of the argument, or actually understanding the argument, and you have a strong propensity to mischaracterize what was argued.

---

Your exact words were: "You DO know that Jesus lambasted them for adhering to their traditions as if they had equal authority with written Scripture." That is a claim about tradition as a category being subordinate to Scripture. If that wasn't your argument, clarify what your argument actually was…because that's what the words said. I engaged what you wrote.

Scripture did not fall from heaven in a leather binding. The Church wrote it, recognized it, canonized it, and has always been its custodian. You cannot place Scripture over the Church as an independent authority because without the Church you don't have a Scripture. The canon itself is a product of church authority. Which books are in your Bible? Who decided? A council. By what authority? Not Scripture…Scripture doesn't contain a table of its own contents.

So when you ask "is Scripture the highest authority over church authority" you are smuggling in a Protestant assumption about the relationship between the two that has to be established before the question even makes sense. You haven't established it. Matthew 23 argues directly against it. And your own canon depends on the very church authority you're asking me to subordinate.

The question isn't Scripture vs. Church. The question is: what is the Church, and how does it read its own book?

---

No, the "Church" did not write Scripture, GOD did. GOD wrote Scripture FOR THE CHURCH.

This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Scripture, which leads you into all sorts or errant thinking.

Question: when did a writing become the word of God, i.e. Scripture - as soon as the pen hit the paper, or only after it was recognized by the church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here. You frequently do not make any sense. The claim is that Orthodox theology is not wholesale "off limits", but rather only that Orthodox theology which contradicts Scripture. So where's the "solO" scriptura here? No one is saying that NO other authority for a church is allowed. Sola scriptura means that all other authorities, i.e. "man-made tradition" that is outside of Scripture is always to be considered fallible, and therefore always correctable by Scripture, Scripture being the highest standard of authority, being the infallible word of God. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency here. Rather, your understanding is what's at fault.

The church councils of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been shown to be in contradition and thus in error, so there is no infallible authority of the "Church". This is a false belief that is NOWHERE in Scripture, and is rather a claim made by MAN, not by GOD.

Your are letting the fallibility of man bamboozle you into false beliefs, when you should be adhering only to the infallibe word of God which is Scripture.

---

Well first off, you've refuted absolutely nothing in Orthodox theology using scripture. Your understanding and interpretation of the text is WRONG.

---

If Orthodox theology says that Scripture says their councils are inerrant (it doesn't), then how did the councils err?

Also, I'm pretty sure that saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul" is quite unscriptural.

---

Orthodox theology does not claim ecumenical councils are inerrant in the way Scripture is. We claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and that the received ecumenical councils: received and ratified by the whole Church over time, represent that guidance. The test is reception. A council that is rejected by the body of the Church doesn't carry that authority. This is a coherent ecclesiology.

Yours isn't because on sola scriptura, you have no mechanism to tell me which council, synod, or individual interpreter is reading Scripture correctly. You just pick the ones you agree with and call the rest errant. That's your judgment functioning as the final authority, not Scripture.

On "Mary is the salvation of my soul:" First, cite where any Orthodox Christian is required to say that as a doctrinal formula. You're likely pulling a line from a private hymn or prayer, not a conciliar dogma. Orthodox liturgical poetry uses elevated, typological language…and guess what, SO DOES SCRIPTURE! Scripture calls the Ark "the Lord's salvation" without meaning the wood saved anyone. I would stop if I were you…because now you're getting close to criticizing scripture as inerrant.

---

Even the "accepted" councils by the Orthodox church have been errant. You haven't escaped your problem.

Your Akathist hymn is part of your liturgy, which your church considers to be infallible, no? That's where that marian idolatry comes from.

Scripture does NOT engage in typological language that elevates a human being to that of Jesus. Your "Ark" argument doesn't work, because the "Ark" - Noah's ark, the ark of the covenant, and Jesus - were all indeed the Lord's salvation of his people. Noah's ark saved humanity, the ark of the covenant saved Israel from her enemies, and Jesus was the final salvation for man for all of eternity.

---

You just argued that Noah's ark saved humanity, the Ark of the Covenant saved Israel, and Jesus is the final salvation, and all three legitimately carry the title of salvation in their respective contexts. You proved typological escalation is biblical. Each type points forward to and participates in the salvific reality it prefigures.

Now apply that same logic to Mary. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, the vessel that carried the incarnate God in her body, the one of whom Gabriel says "the power of the Most High will overshadow you," using the same Greek word used for the cloud overshadowing the Tabernacle. If the physical Ark that carried the presence of God could be called Israel's salvation, then the living Ark who carried God incarnate occupies an even higher typological position. You built the argument for us. We're just following it to its conclusion.

The Orthodox Church does not claim liturgical texts are infallible in the same sense Scripture is. Liturgical texts are authoritative expressions of the Church's theological mind, but they operate within a dogmatic framework defined by the ecumenical councils.

---

No, Mary being the "Ark of the New Covenenant" is NOWHERE in Scripture, never taught by Jesus or the his apostles, never taught by the early church. It is a late development that arose after Christianity compromised with pagan Rome, and incorporated all of Rome's pagan gods by recasting them as Christian figures. The Mary you "venerate" is nothing more than the same pagan mother goddess of ancient times, re-awakened.

Jesus even downplayed her role when people tried to uplift it. It's right there in Scripture. He never even called her his "mother" in Scripture.

Typology can be used to argue almost anything, if one is creative enough to twist Scripture to support it, like your church does for its marian idolatry. Same with Roman Catholicism.

By the way, JESUS is the Ark of the New Covenant. Do you remember Scripture, where it had two angels, one where the head of Jesus lay in the tomb, and the one at the feet, just like the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Jesus is the new Noah's ark - all who enter him are saved. The "Ark" typology was FOR JESUS, not Mary. This is just yet another example of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy trying to give Mary the role and characteristics that belong to Jesus and him alone.

---

When the Ark came to the hill country of Judah, David said "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" 2 Samuel 6:9.
When Mary came to the hill country of Judah, Elizabeth said "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43. Identical structure. Identical geography. Identical language of unworthiness before the presence of God.

David leaped and danced before the Ark: 2 Samuel 6:14. John the Baptist leaped in the womb before Mary: Luke 1:44. Same Greek verb. Luke is doing this deliberately. This is not a late pagan invention.

John 19:26. From the cross: "Woman, behold your son." This is not a downgrading of her role. In Jewish honorific address, "woman" (gynai) is a title of dignity. Jesus uses the same address at Cana and to Mary Magdalene at the resurrection. At the cross He is establishing a new relationship between Mary and the Beloved Disciple, who the Fathers universally read as representing the Church.

And at Cana, John 2, when He says "what is this to me and to you, woman," He then does exactly what she asks. His apparent deflection is immediately followed by obedience to her intercession.

Jesus is the Ark of the New Covenant. And Mary is the vessel that carried Him which is precisely what made the original Ark holy. The Ark was holy because of what it contained. The Theotokos is the living Ark because she contained God incarnate in her body. These are not competing typologies.

You cannot say the wooden box that carried the stone tablets was so holy that Uzzah dropped dead for touching it and then say the living woman who carried God incarnate in her womb for nine months deserves no special veneration whatsoever.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

---

So, to be clear: you believe that a person who hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation, believing Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God - but does not believe the Holy Spirit to be God as well due to an incomplete understanding of the Trinity..... that this person is NOT saved, and goes to Hell?

And to be clear, you believe that the belief in the Trinity is required for salvation, a concept that was not derived until THREE CENTURIES after Jesus in a church council?

---

Doc? Answer?

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

No, I'm focusing on the word "ascend" which points to the ascension which was 40 days in the future. Also, I believe Christ when He told the thief on the cross they would both be in heaven that day. He was not lying.

God does not need Star Trek technology or anything else to do what He wants. He is perfect snd omnipotent. I do know that Acts 1 describes Christ literally riding into the skies in a flash of light. I take the scripture literally except when it's obviously not. For example, when we take communion (the Lord's Supper) we do not become cannibals. That is absurd and grotesque.

I'm willing to accept that our understanding of these scriptures could be faulty because of translation issues. It's possible that one of both of us is wrong about this detail. But my biggest point is that quibbling about these details are unimportant and don't accomplish much.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here. You frequently do not make any sense. The claim is that Orthodox theology is not wholesale "off limits", but rather only that Orthodox theology which contradicts Scripture. So where's the "solO" scriptura here? No one is saying that NO other authority for a church is allowed. Sola scriptura means that all other authorities, i.e. "man-made tradition" that is outside of Scripture is always to be considered fallible, and therefore always correctable by Scripture, Scripture being the highest standard of authority, being the infallible word of God. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency here. Rather, your understanding is what's at fault.

The church councils of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been shown to be in contradition and thus in error, so there is no infallible authority of the "Church". This is a false belief that is NOWHERE in Scripture, and is rather a claim made by MAN, not by GOD.

Your are letting the fallibility of man bamboozle you into false beliefs, when you should be adhering only to the infallibe word of God which is Scripture.

---

Well first off, you've refuted absolutely nothing in Orthodox theology using scripture. Your understanding and interpretation of the text is WRONG.

---

If Orthodox theology says that Scripture says their councils are inerrant (it doesn't), then how did the councils err?

Also, I'm pretty sure that saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul" is quite unscriptural.

---

Orthodox theology does not claim ecumenical councils are inerrant in the way Scripture is. We claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and that the received ecumenical councils: received and ratified by the whole Church over time, represent that guidance. The test is reception. A council that is rejected by the body of the Church doesn't carry that authority. This is a coherent ecclesiology.

Yours isn't because on sola scriptura, you have no mechanism to tell me which council, synod, or individual interpreter is reading Scripture correctly. You just pick the ones you agree with and call the rest errant. That's your judgment functioning as the final authority, not Scripture.

On "Mary is the salvation of my soul:" First, cite where any Orthodox Christian is required to say that as a doctrinal formula. You're likely pulling a line from a private hymn or prayer, not a conciliar dogma. Orthodox liturgical poetry uses elevated, typological language…and guess what, SO DOES SCRIPTURE! Scripture calls the Ark "the Lord's salvation" without meaning the wood saved anyone. I would stop if I were you…because now you're getting close to criticizing scripture as inerrant.

---

Even the "accepted" councils by the Orthodox church have been errant. You haven't escaped your problem.

Your Akathist hymn is part of your liturgy, which your church considers to be infallible, no? That's where that marian idolatry comes from.

Scripture does NOT engage in typological language that elevates a human being to that of Jesus. Your "Ark" argument doesn't work, because the "Ark" - Noah's ark, the ark of the covenant, and Jesus - were all indeed the Lord's salvation of his people. Noah's ark saved humanity, the ark of the covenant saved Israel from her enemies, and Jesus was the final salvation for man for all of eternity.

---

You just argued that Noah's ark saved humanity, the Ark of the Covenant saved Israel, and Jesus is the final salvation, and all three legitimately carry the title of salvation in their respective contexts. You proved typological escalation is biblical. Each type points forward to and participates in the salvific reality it prefigures.

Now apply that same logic to Mary. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, the vessel that carried the incarnate God in her body, the one of whom Gabriel says "the power of the Most High will overshadow you," using the same Greek word used for the cloud overshadowing the Tabernacle. If the physical Ark that carried the presence of God could be called Israel's salvation, then the living Ark who carried God incarnate occupies an even higher typological position. You built the argument for us. We're just following it to its conclusion.

The Orthodox Church does not claim liturgical texts are infallible in the same sense Scripture is. Liturgical texts are authoritative expressions of the Church's theological mind, but they operate within a dogmatic framework defined by the ecumenical councils.

---

No, Mary being the "Ark of the New Covenenant" is NOWHERE in Scripture, never taught by Jesus or the his apostles, never taught by the early church. It is a late development that arose after Christianity compromised with pagan Rome, and incorporated all of Rome's pagan gods by recasting them as Christian figures. The Mary you "venerate" is nothing more than the same pagan mother goddess of ancient times, re-awakened.

Jesus even downplayed her role when people tried to uplift it. It's right there in Scripture. He never even called her his "mother" in Scripture.

Typology can be used to argue almost anything, if one is creative enough to twist Scripture to support it, like your church does for its marian idolatry. Same with Roman Catholicism.

By the way, JESUS is the Ark of the New Covenant. Do you remember Scripture, where it had two angels, one where the head of Jesus lay in the tomb, and the one at the feet, just like the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Jesus is the new Noah's ark - all who enter him are saved. The "Ark" typology was FOR JESUS, not Mary. This is just yet another example of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy trying to give Mary the role and characteristics that belong to Jesus and him alone.

---

When the Ark came to the hill country of Judah, David said "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" 2 Samuel 6:9.
When Mary came to the hill country of Judah, Elizabeth said "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43. Identical structure. Identical geography. Identical language of unworthiness before the presence of God.

David leaped and danced before the Ark: 2 Samuel 6:14. John the Baptist leaped in the womb before Mary: Luke 1:44. Same Greek verb. Luke is doing this deliberately. This is not a late pagan invention.

John 19:26. From the cross: "Woman, behold your son." This is not a downgrading of her role. In Jewish honorific address, "woman" (gynai) is a title of dignity. Jesus uses the same address at Cana and to Mary Magdalene at the resurrection. At the cross He is establishing a new relationship between Mary and the Beloved Disciple, who the Fathers universally read as representing the Church.

And at Cana, John 2, when He says "what is this to me and to you, woman," He then does exactly what she asks. His apparent deflection is immediately followed by obedience to her intercession.

Jesus is the Ark of the New Covenant. And Mary is the vessel that carried Him which is precisely what made the original Ark holy. The Ark was holy because of what it contained. The Theotokos is the living Ark because she contained God incarnate in her body. These are not competing typologies.

You cannot say the wooden box that carried the stone tablets was so holy that Uzzah dropped dead for touching it and then say the living woman who carried God incarnate in her womb for nine months deserves no special veneration whatsoever.

---

You do know that when David said "How can the ark of the Lord come to me" he was saying he DIDN'T WANT IT to come to him, because he was AFRAID of it?

And you do know that 2 Samuel 6:14 does NOT say that David "leaped"?

Identical? This is a pure example of reading into something what you really want to be there.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

---

So, to be clear: you believe that a person who hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation, believing Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God - but does not believe the Holy Spirit to be God as well due to an incomplete understanding of the Trinity..... that this person is NOT saved, and goes to Hell?

And to be clear, you believe that the belief in the Trinity is required for salvation, a concept that was not derived until THREE CENTURIES after Jesus in a church council?

---

Doc? Answer?

---

I've already given you an answer buddy. Go back and read it.

Mothra said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

No one is saying that NO other authority for a church is allowed. Sola scriptura means that all other authorities, i.e. "man-made tradition" that is outside of Scripture is always to be considered fallible, and therefore always correctable by Scripture, Scripture being the highest standard of authority, being the infallible word of God. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency here. Rather, your understanding is what's at fault.

---

Well said. This is an issue that Doc and the other Orthodox on this board consistently misunderstand about Protestant theology.

---

I have found that sola scriptura is the single most difficult concept for the Roman Catholics and Orthodox here to get right. Some Protestants, too.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

---

So, to be clear: you believe that a person who hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus for their salvation, believing Jesus to be the Messiah and the Son of God - but does not believe the Holy Spirit to be God as well due to an incomplete understanding of the Trinity..... that this person is NOT saved, and goes to Hell?

And to be clear, you believe that the belief in the Trinity is required for salvation, a concept that was not derived until THREE CENTURIES after Jesus in a church council?

---

Doc? Answer?

---

I've already given you an answer buddy. Go back and read it.

---

It was roundabout. Your answer is "yes" to both, correct?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here. You frequently do not make any sense. The claim is that Orthodox theology is not wholesale "off limits", but rather only that Orthodox theology which contradicts Scripture. So where's the "solO" scriptura here? No one is saying that NO other authority for a church is allowed. Sola scriptura means that all other authorities, i.e. "man-made tradition" that is outside of Scripture is always to be considered fallible, and therefore always correctable by Scripture, Scripture being the highest standard of authority, being the infallible word of God. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency here. Rather, your understanding is what's at fault.

The church councils of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been shown to be in contradition and thus in error, so there is no infallible authority of the "Church". This is a false belief that is NOWHERE in Scripture, and is rather a claim made by MAN, not by GOD.

Your are letting the fallibility of man bamboozle you into false beliefs, when you should be adhering only to the infallibe word of God which is Scripture.

---

Well first off, you've refuted absolutely nothing in Orthodox theology using scripture. Your understanding and interpretation of the text is WRONG.

---

If Orthodox theology says that Scripture says their councils are inerrant (it doesn't), then how did the councils err?

Also, I'm pretty sure that saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul" is quite unscriptural.

---

Orthodox theology does not claim ecumenical councils are inerrant in the way Scripture is. We claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and that the received ecumenical councils: received and ratified by the whole Church over time, represent that guidance. The test is reception. A council that is rejected by the body of the Church doesn't carry that authority. This is a coherent ecclesiology.

Yours isn't because on sola scriptura, you have no mechanism to tell me which council, synod, or individual interpreter is reading Scripture correctly. You just pick the ones you agree with and call the rest errant. That's your judgment functioning as the final authority, not Scripture.

On "Mary is the salvation of my soul:" First, cite where any Orthodox Christian is required to say that as a doctrinal formula. You're likely pulling a line from a private hymn or prayer, not a conciliar dogma. Orthodox liturgical poetry uses elevated, typological language…and guess what, SO DOES SCRIPTURE! Scripture calls the Ark "the Lord's salvation" without meaning the wood saved anyone. I would stop if I were you…because now you're getting close to criticizing scripture as inerrant.

---

Even the "accepted" councils by the Orthodox church have been errant. You haven't escaped your problem.

Your Akathist hymn is part of your liturgy, which your church considers to be infallible, no? That's where that marian idolatry comes from.

Scripture does NOT engage in typological language that elevates a human being to that of Jesus. Your "Ark" argument doesn't work, because the "Ark" - Noah's ark, the ark of the covenant, and Jesus - were all indeed the Lord's salvation of his people. Noah's ark saved humanity, the ark of the covenant saved Israel from her enemies, and Jesus was the final salvation for man for all of eternity.

---

You just argued that Noah's ark saved humanity, the Ark of the Covenant saved Israel, and Jesus is the final salvation, and all three legitimately carry the title of salvation in their respective contexts. You proved typological escalation is biblical. Each type points forward to and participates in the salvific reality it prefigures.

Now apply that same logic to Mary. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, the vessel that carried the incarnate God in her body, the one of whom Gabriel says "the power of the Most High will overshadow you," using the same Greek word used for the cloud overshadowing the Tabernacle. If the physical Ark that carried the presence of God could be called Israel's salvation, then the living Ark who carried God incarnate occupies an even higher typological position. You built the argument for us. We're just following it to its conclusion.

The Orthodox Church does not claim liturgical texts are infallible in the same sense Scripture is. Liturgical texts are authoritative expressions of the Church's theological mind, but they operate within a dogmatic framework defined by the ecumenical councils.

---

No, Mary being the "Ark of the New Covenenant" is NOWHERE in Scripture, never taught by Jesus or the his apostles, never taught by the early church. It is a late development that arose after Christianity compromised with pagan Rome, and incorporated all of Rome's pagan gods by recasting them as Christian figures. The Mary you "venerate" is nothing more than the same pagan mother goddess of ancient times, re-awakened.

Jesus even downplayed her role when people tried to uplift it. It's right there in Scripture. He never even called her his "mother" in Scripture.

Typology can be used to argue almost anything, if one is creative enough to twist Scripture to support it, like your church does for its marian idolatry. Same with Roman Catholicism.

By the way, JESUS is the Ark of the New Covenant. Do you remember Scripture, where it had two angels, one where the head of Jesus lay in the tomb, and the one at the feet, just like the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Jesus is the new Noah's ark - all who enter him are saved. The "Ark" typology was FOR JESUS, not Mary. This is just yet another example of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy trying to give Mary the role and characteristics that belong to Jesus and him alone.

---

When the Ark came to the hill country of Judah, David said "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" 2 Samuel 6:9.
When Mary came to the hill country of Judah, Elizabeth said "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43. Identical structure. Identical geography. Identical language of unworthiness before the presence of God.

David leaped and danced before the Ark: 2 Samuel 6:14. John the Baptist leaped in the womb before Mary: Luke 1:44. Same Greek verb. Luke is doing this deliberately. This is not a late pagan invention.

John 19:26. From the cross: "Woman, behold your son." This is not a downgrading of her role. In Jewish honorific address, "woman" (gynai) is a title of dignity. Jesus uses the same address at Cana and to Mary Magdalene at the resurrection. At the cross He is establishing a new relationship between Mary and the Beloved Disciple, who the Fathers universally read as representing the Church.

And at Cana, John 2, when He says "what is this to me and to you, woman," He then does exactly what she asks. His apparent deflection is immediately followed by obedience to her intercession.

Jesus is the Ark of the New Covenant. And Mary is the vessel that carried Him which is precisely what made the original Ark holy. The Ark was holy because of what it contained. The Theotokos is the living Ark because she contained God incarnate in her body. These are not competing typologies.

You cannot say the wooden box that carried the stone tablets was so holy that Uzzah dropped dead for touching it and then say the living woman who carried God incarnate in her womb for nine months deserves no special veneration whatsoever.

---

You do know that when David said "How can the ark of the Lord come to me" he was saying he DIDN'T WANT IT to come to him, because he was AFRAID of it?

And you do know that 2 Samule 6:14 does NOT say that David "leaped"?

Identical? This is a pure example of reading into something what you really want to be there.

---

Umm yeah that's the point. David was filled with awe and fear before the presence of God dwelling in the Ark. Elizabeth was filled with awe before the presence of God dwelling in Mary.

The question wasn't whether David wanted it nearby. The question is why he used the exact same language. He used it because the Ark carried the presence of God and he felt unworthy.

There's three different versions of the OT:
The original Hebrew, the Septuagint and your modern english bible translated from Hebrew in the 1500s onward. Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek. When he referenced the OT, he used the Septuagint...the Greek version. Not the Hebrew or a modern English version. Do you see the problem?
Luke 1:41 uses 'skirtao' which is the same Greed word family for leaping.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

What is supremely clear from all these posts is that none of us is qualified to judge another person's salvation. Only God can do that. The essential beliefs that define a Christian are belief that He is the Son of God, died for our sins, and rose from the dead.

---

I believe that it is valid to judge whether one's beliefs will lead to salvation or not, if we go by what Scripture says. If someone says they don't believe in Jesus, don't you think someone who knows the gospel is qualified to judge that they are not saved?

---

OK, we can make clear judgments regarding the basics of the faith. Someone who denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead are clearly NOT Christians. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other faiths clearly are unsaved if they deny the most fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ and His mission. This is also true of the cults that claim to be Christian but clearly are not as seen through their denials of scripture and lies.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying here. You frequently do not make any sense. The claim is that Orthodox theology is not wholesale "off limits", but rather only that Orthodox theology which contradicts Scripture. So where's the "solO" scriptura here? No one is saying that NO other authority for a church is allowed. Sola scriptura means that all other authorities, i.e. "man-made tradition" that is outside of Scripture is always to be considered fallible, and therefore always correctable by Scripture, Scripture being the highest standard of authority, being the infallible word of God. There is absolutely no logical inconsistency here. Rather, your understanding is what's at fault.

The church councils of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been shown to be in contradition and thus in error, so there is no infallible authority of the "Church". This is a false belief that is NOWHERE in Scripture, and is rather a claim made by MAN, not by GOD.

Your are letting the fallibility of man bamboozle you into false beliefs, when you should be adhering only to the infallibe word of God which is Scripture.

---

Well first off, you've refuted absolutely nothing in Orthodox theology using scripture. Your understanding and interpretation of the text is WRONG.

---

If Orthodox theology says that Scripture says their councils are inerrant (it doesn't), then how did the councils err?

Also, I'm pretty sure that saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul" is quite unscriptural.

---

Orthodox theology does not claim ecumenical councils are inerrant in the way Scripture is. We claim that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and that the received ecumenical councils: received and ratified by the whole Church over time, represent that guidance. The test is reception. A council that is rejected by the body of the Church doesn't carry that authority. This is a coherent ecclesiology.

Yours isn't because on sola scriptura, you have no mechanism to tell me which council, synod, or individual interpreter is reading Scripture correctly. You just pick the ones you agree with and call the rest errant. That's your judgment functioning as the final authority, not Scripture.

On "Mary is the salvation of my soul:" First, cite where any Orthodox Christian is required to say that as a doctrinal formula. You're likely pulling a line from a private hymn or prayer, not a conciliar dogma. Orthodox liturgical poetry uses elevated, typological language…and guess what, SO DOES SCRIPTURE! Scripture calls the Ark "the Lord's salvation" without meaning the wood saved anyone. I would stop if I were you…because now you're getting close to criticizing scripture as inerrant.

---

Even the "accepted" councils by the Orthodox church have been errant. You haven't escaped your problem.

Your Akathist hymn is part of your liturgy, which your church considers to be infallible, no? That's where that marian idolatry comes from.

Scripture does NOT engage in typological language that elevates a human being to that of Jesus. Your "Ark" argument doesn't work, because the "Ark" - Noah's ark, the ark of the covenant, and Jesus - were all indeed the Lord's salvation of his people. Noah's ark saved humanity, the ark of the covenant saved Israel from her enemies, and Jesus was the final salvation for man for all of eternity.

---

You just argued that Noah's ark saved humanity, the Ark of the Covenant saved Israel, and Jesus is the final salvation, and all three legitimately carry the title of salvation in their respective contexts. You proved typological escalation is biblical. Each type points forward to and participates in the salvific reality it prefigures.

Now apply that same logic to Mary. She is the new Ark of the Covenant, the vessel that carried the incarnate God in her body, the one of whom Gabriel says "the power of the Most High will overshadow you," using the same Greek word used for the cloud overshadowing the Tabernacle. If the physical Ark that carried the presence of God could be called Israel's salvation, then the living Ark who carried God incarnate occupies an even higher typological position. You built the argument for us. We're just following it to its conclusion.

The Orthodox Church does not claim liturgical texts are infallible in the same sense Scripture is. Liturgical texts are authoritative expressions of the Church's theological mind, but they operate within a dogmatic framework defined by the ecumenical councils.

---

No, Mary being the "Ark of the New Covenenant" is NOWHERE in Scripture, never taught by Jesus or the his apostles, never taught by the early church. It is a late development that arose after Christianity compromised with pagan Rome, and incorporated all of Rome's pagan gods by recasting them as Christian figures. The Mary you "venerate" is nothing more than the same pagan mother goddess of ancient times, re-awakened.

Jesus even downplayed her role when people tried to uplift it. It's right there in Scripture. He never even called her his "mother" in Scripture.

Typology can be used to argue almost anything, if one is creative enough to twist Scripture to support it, like your church does for its marian idolatry. Same with Roman Catholicism.

By the way, JESUS is the Ark of the New Covenant. Do you remember Scripture, where it had two angels, one where the head of Jesus lay in the tomb, and the one at the feet, just like the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant? Jesus is the new Noah's ark - all who enter him are saved. The "Ark" typology was FOR JESUS, not Mary. This is just yet another example of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy trying to give Mary the role and characteristics that belong to Jesus and him alone.

---

When the Ark came to the hill country of Judah, David said "How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?" 2 Samuel 6:9.
When Mary came to the hill country of Judah, Elizabeth said "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Luke 1:43. Identical structure. Identical geography. Identical language of unworthiness before the presence of God.

David leaped and danced before the Ark: 2 Samuel 6:14. John the Baptist leaped in the womb before Mary: Luke 1:44. Same Greek verb. Luke is doing this deliberately. This is not a late pagan invention.

John 19:26. From the cross: "Woman, behold your son." This is not a downgrading of her role. In Jewish honorific address, "woman" (gynai) is a title of dignity. Jesus uses the same address at Cana and to Mary Magdalene at the resurrection. At the cross He is establishing a new relationship between Mary and the Beloved Disciple, who the Fathers universally read as representing the Church.

And at Cana, John 2, when He says "what is this to me and to you, woman," He then does exactly what she asks. His apparent deflection is immediately followed by obedience to her intercession.

Jesus is the Ark of the New Covenant. And Mary is the vessel that carried Him which is precisely what made the original Ark holy. The Ark was holy because of what it contained. The Theotokos is the living Ark because she contained God incarnate in her body. These are not competing typologies.

You cannot say the wooden box that carried the stone tablets was so holy that Uzzah dropped dead for touching it and then say the living woman who carried God incarnate in her womb for nine months deserves no special veneration whatsoever.

---

You do know that when David said "How can the ark of the Lord come to me" he was saying he DIDN'T WANT IT to come to him, because he was AFRAID of it?

And you do know that 2 Samule 6:14 does NOT say that David "leaped"?

Identical? This is a pure example of reading into something what you really want to be there.

---

Umm yeah that's the point. David was filled with awe and fear before the presence of God dwelling in the Ark. Elizabeth was filled with awe before the presence of God dwelling in Mary.

The question wasn't whether David wanted it nearby. The question is why he used the exact same language. He used it because the Ark carried the presence of God and he felt unworthy.

There's three different versions of the OT:
The original Hebrew, the Septuagint and your modern english bible translated from Hebrew in the 1500s onward. Luke wrote his Gospel in Greek. When he referenced the OT, he used the Septuagint...the Greek version. Not the Hebrew or a modern English version. Do you see the problem?
Luke 1:41 uses 'skirtao' which is the same Greed word family for leaping.

---

No, David was not "filled with awe and fear" in the reverent sense, he was deathly afraid that it might kill him like it did Uzzah. David was not happy with God that he did that. You need to read the Scripture.

And Luke didn't "use the exact same language" as the OT. Maybe he wrote it that way, because.... that's what Elizabeth actually said? Was Elizabeth trying to reference the Ark of the Covenant, or is that just a common Hebrew expression? You're really trying to read into Luke's account something that simply isn't warranted. It's a conclusion in search of the evidence to support it.

Give the version of the OT that says David "leaped" in front of the Ark of the Covenant.

And you're forgetting - who was with Mary all this time? Jesus. In her womb. So even if you want to say that it's a reference to David "leaping" like John the Baptist, it still Jesus they were "leaping" for, not Mary.

historian said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

historian said:

---

What is supremely clear from all these posts is that none of us is qualified to judge another person's salvation. Only God can do that. The essential beliefs that define a Christian are belief that He is the Son of God, died for our sins, and rose from the dead.

---

I believe that it is valid to judge whether one's beliefs will lead to salvation or not, if we go by what Scripture says. If someone says they don't believe in Jesus, don't you think someone who knows the gospel is qualified to judge that they are not saved?

---

OK, we can make clear judgments regarding the basics of the faith. Someone who denies that Jesus is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead are clearly NOT Christians. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and people of other faiths clearly are unsaved if they deny the most fundamental tenets of Jesus Christ and His mission. This is also true of the cults that claim to be Christian but clearly are not as seen through their denials of scripture and lies.

---

Wouldn't you say that beliefs such as Mary being an intercessor who is necessary for salvation, and purgatory which says that Jesus' payment for sin on the cross was not complete, but that sinners must still pay for their own sin, that these beliefs also threaten one's salvation? And wouldn't you say that is someone who truly believes or has no problem at all with saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul" or "In Mary's hands I place my salvation", etc is also in danger of not being saved?

Christ is the intercessor, not Mary. See Romans 8:34.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

Oh thanks for clarifying...

Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.

Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.

The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

Oh thanks for clarifying...

Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.

Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.

The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.

---

By what principled criterion do you distinguish a council that "recognized truth" from one that "invented nonsense"?

You can't claim scripture because it's only possible to claim your interpretation of scripture. You're using your interpretation of scripture to validate the councils you like and invalidate the ones you don't, which means scripture isn't actually your authority, YOUR INTERPRETATION is.

1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, and Acts 14:23 all show the laying on of hands as the mechanism of authoritative transmission. Titus 1:5 shows Titus appointing elders by Paul's authority. This is a chain of transmitted authority, not an invisible spiritual succession. Jesus established a visible Church.

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yup, you could be his twin brother, ironically from the opposing side on this issue.

For the record, I am very much flawed and have said so in the past. The people who mock me for such admission are, I submit, equally flawed but completely unwilling to admit so, as their pride will not allow it.

I have also quoted Scripture and tried to gently remind certain malcontents of better options, but again their pride demands they punish anyone who presents an unpleasant truth in their presence.

---

You appear to be one of the more humble Protestant Christians on this board. Takes courage around here to admit that and for that I commend you.

There are several here that know the ways of the judgement of God and have pronounced said judgement many times. Mothra sent me to hell yet again today.

---

So, this is what you said to me right before I "pronounced judgment" on you.

"Your post above will likely play before your eyes as you hopefully head to Purgatory and the Catholics will pray for your soul."

I say this with all due respect - you are a really stupid person. I mean, really stupid. Anyone with such an incredible blind spot for their own behavior, while accusing others of doing exactly what they did the post prior, is just a moron.

---

Take a breath big guy. You prove yet again this is quite literally the most uneducated Protestant Christian board I post on.

Youre spiking a football by quoting me saying youre going to Heaven while also YET AGAIN resorting to junior high name calling

Thank you kind sir for YET AGAIN proving my point. Lmao

My sincere apologies for suggesting youre going to Heaven and that Catholics will pray for you (again, if you didnt know, which we shoukd all assume you dont, means you are NOT in hell). So yeah, the exact opposite of what you did and without calling you a single name too. Raise it up a little or just step aside.

Lmao. Thanks for the full throated chuckle reading this as I head off to pray to God and say a few Hail Marys.

Enjoy Divine Mercy Sunday. Prayers sir. Take a breath or something might pop if you keep getting too emotional

That was quite entertaining . Lmao

---

You've told me repeatedly for years that I am unsaved, and my only hope is purgatory, and you now allege this is a post in which you said I am going to Heaven?

LOL. As I said, you're an absolute lying moron and full of crap.

---

Lmao. Going full trump. Woke up just like you retired. This called S Y A with the name calling and emotional meltdown.

Simma down Buttercup. It's going to be ok. You're clearly misinformed but thats been noted for some time in these threads.

Happy Divine Mercy Sunday. Jesus I trust in you!

Time to disengage. You seem Unstable.

All the best and prayers always. Purgatory is your only path to Heaven. And you will be prayed for by Catholics even when in purgatory until purified.

---

LOL. More projection.

I am curious, why do you believe I am now saved? What makes you think I am going to Heaven, after years of pronouncing otherwise?

Let's see if you can express yourself cogently and unemotionally.

Good luck!

---

Ive disengaged from the emotional instability. Moving on. Prayers for your journey as always. Too risky engaging with people screaming and name calling at people versus calmly discussing their opinion of their interpretation versus 2,000 years of history.

---

Translation: I know what I just said is utterly false bull **** so instead of trying to defend my lie, I'll tuck tail and run.

I get it. If I lied with the impunity that you do, I'd probably tuck tail and run as well.

---

Trying to paper over your epic childish name calling no defense meltdown still i see. Will not engage with loose cannons capable of such.

Just own it big guy. The more wrong you are the more you emote. Same as always.

---

More obfuscation to distract from the fact what you said was utter bull ****, and you are unable to defend it.

If you get brave enough to explain why you now, suddenly believe I am destined for Heaven instead of Hades, let me know.

---

Yoooooooo internet keyboard warrior dude. Now that I've permitted a cooling off period I guess Ive mustered up some bravery lol. Why yall always do that silliness and abandon defense of your faith and ideals is eternally entertaining.

1) never suddenly changed anything

2) why are you seeking my opinion or approval of your eternal fate?

3) i would never judge anyone's eternal residence. No clue where you are heading. I hope to see everyone in Heaven some day. It's why I do what I do and pop into this confused den from time to time. That is up to God where you will head based on what you in your soul force Him to do.

You either go to hell, straight to Heaven if sinless or if God has deemed your temporal punishment as penance for your sins, or to Purgatory

4) in fact Ive argued here even someone who commits suicide or Hitler etc could be in Heaven. Fortunately for them as for you, my opinion on that matters not, but even one drop of Christ's blood is enough to save eternally every soul that has lived

Jesus' mercy is infinite as is his justice. We prefer his mercy over his justice

Go with God. Be well. Keep the faith

Shared With extreme bravery…

Btw do you know the differences of Hades, hell, limbo etc? The words in the creed of near 2,000 years and what words chosen and why that we say repeatedly?

---

Glad to hear I am not condemned to eternal damnation, as you suggested before.

So only people who are "sinless" go to Heaven? That's interesting. What sinless people do you know?

---

"Straight to Heaven" if sinless. Otherwise Purgatory and then to Heaven

Mary Mother of God

---

So there is such a thing as a sinless human? Paul and even Christ himself would be very surprised by that. And for those who aren't sinless, they'll go to this made up place called purgatory? A place never mentioned in scripture?

Can you tell me of an example of a sinless human in the Bible, other than Christ that is.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
" I guess that was a lie.

---

Mary Mother of God

To square your belief in this new religion you speak of you'd have to believe things for example like Jesus went to Heaven on Good Friday. Support that claim (without irrational childish name calling and hate
- just defense of your position)

---

So the way the verse was meant to read was, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God except Mary"? Interesting. Can you point to the verses in scripture that support that position? Or is this your classic circular reasoning - well that's wha the Catholic Church has always taught so it's of course right? Lol.

As for where Christ went immediately after death, scripture is silent on this point, as I've repeatedly explained. Not sure if it's a reading compression problem or you being purposely obtuse. You just don't like the possibility he ended up in heaven because the thief on the cross destroys your little narrative:

As for name calling, the only poster doing that right now is yourself. So let's stop projecting and have a discussion if you can.

---

I am name calling? Where? Let's link in your maniacal rant from 2 weeks ago. Thats name calling rude and sinful. Be proud enough of the thkughts you produced to own it.

---

So, this is what you would call projection, and you do it a lot - accuse others of that which you regularly engage in. You've called me numerous names and gone on numerous rants over the years, and now you act all sensitive when someone does the same thing to you. It also allows you to avoid answering questions.

If you want a dialogue, then stop getting so butthurt at getting a taste of your own medicine, and let's try to have a discussion.

Do you have an answer for any of the above? Any retort? I get it if you are unable to provide a substantive response. Just say so.

---

Nobody here butt hurt in my posts. Ever. Not saying Im perfect. Ive never completely lost my **** at anyone in this board as it drives zero emotion feom me in that way. Feel free to post me calling you names and losing my ***** Happy to acknowledge them with context etc.

You on the other hand habe done that often. Ive long moved on from your melt down 2 weeks ago and suggest you do the same.

Go in peace and keep the faith! Learn and grown

The journey is long and hard and we all slip
Up on occasion.

Ive got thousands of posts of dialogue on this tiny board so no issues there.

---

Sensitive Sue, time to drop it. We get it. You are really upset at my "meltdown" despite the fact that you meltdown on a regular basis. You're like freaking Chernobyl.

If you can't answer the question or or just too afraid to do so just let me know. I know how difficult it is for you to answer hard questions.

---

Never melted down on this board ever or on any board. Chasing me around threads living rent free in your head is comical. Get back in topic or just move on.

Seems you should just own your behavior and childish name calling and move on. Can you do it? Doubt it. Also very telling. It's unhealthy emotionally and spiritually. Take the L.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As for where Christ went immediately after death, scripture is silent on this point, as I've repeatedly explained. Not sure if it's a reading compression problem or you being purposely obtuse. You just don't like the possibility he ended up in heaven because the thief on the cross destroys your little narrative:

---

"Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

Well, considering Jesus plainly said he had not yet gone to heaven after the resurrection, that's a bad take. So he was somewhere else not named heaven. So the traditional church teaching on the harrowing of hades still stands. I suppose if you reject that, you could interject some other modernist interpretation like he was hanging out in an Irish Pub in Jerusalem or on a tour of the solar system on the Enterprise.

But heaven? No. Wherever he was between the crucifixion and the resurrection, it wasn't heaven.

---

#Facts

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You just don't like the possibility he ended up in heaven because the thief on the cross destroys your little narrative:

---

What part of there is zero possibility he ended up in heaven don't you understand?

You raised that possibility despite Jesus directly shutting that down with his own words in scripture.

The process of elimination leaves us with Hades, the aforementioned Solar System Tour on the USS Enterprise and McCaiaphas' Irish Pub. I'm going with Hades, along with 2000 years of Christians before me. Unless you want to make an argument for the nonexistent place known as Purgatory?

---

Spit Out. Drink. That one got me. Thanks!

historian said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

As for where Christ went immediately after death, scripture is silent on this point, as I've repeatedly explained. Not sure if it's a reading compression problem or you being purposely obtuse. You just don't like the possibility he ended up in heaven because the thief on the cross destroys your little narrative:

---

"Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.'" (John 20:17)

Well, considering Jesus plainly said he had not yet gone to heaven after the resurrection, that's a bad take. So he was somewhere else not named heaven. So the traditional church teaching on the harrowing of hades still stands. I suppose if you reject that, you could interject some other modernist interpretation like he was hanging out in an Irish Pub in Jerusalem or on a tour of the solar system on the Enterprise.

But heaven? No. Wherever he was between the crucifixion and the resurrection, it wasn't heaven.

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended. The Ascension was His last event on earth after the Resurrection. I'm no expert on this but I am aware of what scripture says: He told the thief on the cross they would both be in paradise that day. I take Jesus at His word. I see no reason He could not spent those 3 days in heaven with God the Father then returned to earth Sunday morning to meet Mary and the disciples. He spent 40 days visiting them repeatedly and others, the reality of His resurrection being witnessed by many people on multiple occasions. The fact of His resurrection is beyond any reasonable dispute. Then He ascended as He foretold Mary He would.

I'm also aware that we are reading translations of these scriptures and there could be some confusion or misunderstanding of these issues as a result. It doesn't matter. What matters is who Jesus is, His life, ministry, death, and resurrection (the most important event in all history). As Christians, Jesus commissioned us to spread the gospel and make disciples.

Eventually these debates become a waste of time since they do nothing to advance God's kingdom.

---

What did Jesus not say? Heres the verse John 20:17

"Jesus saith to her: Do not touch me, for I am not yet ascended to my Father. But go to my brethren, and say to them: I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God."

What day did he say this again? And to whom?
And where? This way we're all on the same page with thjngs we can agree on

Does the word "ascend" refer to the ascension?

historian said:

---

Does the word "ascend" refer to the ascension?

---

I think it does. Christ is telling them not to cling to his bodily presence because he's going to leave soon. Our Catholic and Orthodox posters are falling into the fundamentalist trap of narrowly literal interpretation (perhaps in order to make a point).

However, Scripture is not completely silent on this question. See 1 Peter 3:18-19 and Ephesians 4:8-10. Christ went into the realm of the dead to deliver those who were awaiting salvation.

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Does the word "ascend" refer to the ascension?

---

I think it does. Christ is telling them not to cling to his bodily presence because he's going to leave soon. Our Catholic and Orthodox posters are falling into the fundamentalist trap of narrowly literal interpretation (perhaps in order to make a point).

However, Scripture is not completely silent on this question. See 1 Peter 3:18-19 and Ephesians 4:8-10. Christ went into the realm of the dead to deliver those who were awaiting salvation.

---

So now we have three Bible verses from three different books that confirm the chronology in the Apostles creed:

"was crucified, died and was buried;
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,"

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

You're focusing on the "today", when you should be focusing on the "me". Obviously a clear statement by Jesus about where he had not been prior to the resurrection trumps your interpretation of the promise he made to St. Dismas. Add to that the two scriptures that Sam cited, and now you have three bible verses standing in direct opposition to your misinterpretation.

Doc Holliday said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

Oh thanks for clarifying...

Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.

Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.

The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.

---

By what principled criterion do you distinguish a council that "recognized truth" from one that "invented nonsense"?

You can't claim scripture because it's only possible to claim your interpretation of scripture. You're using your interpretation of scripture to validate the councils you like and invalidate the ones you don't, which means scripture isn't actually your authority, YOUR INTERPRETATION is.

1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, and Acts 14:23 all show the laying on of hands as the mechanism of authoritative transmission. Titus 1:5 shows Titus appointing elders by Paul's authority. This is a chain of transmitted authority, not an invisible spiritual succession. Jesus established a visible Church.

---

It's not that hard to understand if you actually read the Bible.

The councils that recognized the truth are the ones who took truth directly from the scriptures. The nonsense is the stuff that had no scriptural basis. Example: the Marian dogma.

The Bible never says that Mary was without sin. In fact it says the opposite. Romans 3:23 NIV
[23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

The Bible never says that Mary was a forever virgin, in fact it says the opposite. Matthew 12:46 NIV
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Matthew 13:55-56 NIV
[55] "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [56] Aren't all his sisters with us?"

The Bible never says that Mary is co-Redemer or co-Mediator or in any way involved in our salvation, in fact it says the opposite. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, John 14:6-7 NIV
[6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [7] If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Acts 4:11-12 NIV
[11] Jesus is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.' [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." 1 John 2:1-2 NIV
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Most of the scriptures are very clear. They don't require a magisterium to be understood.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

You're focusing on the "today", when you should be focusing on the "me".

---

Right, he really meant you will be in a relationship with me which will be paradise. Of course. Clear as day, unequivocal. Convenient for your argument, as well.

Let me ask this: Do we have a start and end date on your verse? Instead of the way you interpreted it - I have not gone back to the Father at all the last 33 years, could it be possible that he really meant, "I still have time on this earth before I go back to the Father"? Is it possible that he meant "I still have some time left with you"?

The answer is, of course, to any intellectually honest person. This is again why it's absurd to try and express any certainty on where Jesus did, and didn't go.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

Add to that the two scriptures that Sam cited, and now you have three bible verses standing in direct opposition to your misinterpretation.

---

Oh, I actually agree he was very likely in Sheol some of the time. But the whole time? It certainly doesn't say that at all. That is merely your assumption.

I would submit your certainty on the subject, when there really isn't any certainty on where he was the full 3 days, is the height of arrogance. You cannot say with any semblance of certainty where he was those 3 days.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

Add to that the two scriptures that Sam cited, and now you have three bible verses standing in direct opposition to your misinterpretation.

---

Oh, I actually agree he was very likely in Sheol some of the time. But the whole time? It certainly doesn't say that at all. That is merely your assumption.

I would submit your certainty on the subject, when there really isn't any certainty on where he was the full 3 days, is the height of arrogance. You cannot say with any semblance of certainty where he was those 3 days.

---

The Bible and apostolic teaching agree: Jesus was in the tomb, went to hades, and returned to the tomb for resurrection. We don't have a specific hourly breakdown for his ETA and ETD from those places. He was not in heaven, because he clearly said he was not. Beyond that, anything else is speculation outside of both scripture and historic apostolic teaching. You are the one who insists on trying to open the door to other destinations including, in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words, heaven in your original post. That would be the definition of arrogance. The sort of arrogance you see in Isaiah 14.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

Add to that the two scriptures that Sam cited, and now you have three bible verses standing in direct opposition to your misinterpretation.

---

Oh, I actually agree he was very likely in Sheol some of the time. But the whole time? It certainly doesn't say that at all. That is merely your assumption.

I would submit your certainty on the subject, when there really isn't any certainty on where he was the full 3 days, is the height of arrogance. You cannot say with any semblance of certainty where he was those 3 days.

---

The Bible and apostolic teaching agree: Jesus was in the tomb, went to hades, and returned to the tomb for resurrection. We don't have a specific hourly breakdown for his ETA and ETD from those places. He was not in heaven, because he clearly said he was not. Beyond that, anything else is speculation outside of both scripture and historic apostolic teaching. You are the one who insists on trying to open the door to other destinations including, in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words, heaven in your original post. That would be the definition of arrogance. The sort of arrogance you see in Isaiah 14.

---

It's an interesting discussion, but it isn't a determining factor for salvation or Christianity. If Christ spent 3 days heaven, hades, or Cancun.... it doesn't affect the gospel message or adoption into the family of God.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

Add to that the two scriptures that Sam cited, and now you have three bible verses standing in direct opposition to your misinterpretation.

---

Oh, I actually agree he was very likely in Sheol some of the time. But the whole time? It certainly doesn't say that at all. That is merely your assumption.

I would submit your certainty on the subject, when there really isn't any certainty on where he was the full 3 days, is the height of arrogance. You cannot say with any semblance of certainty where he was those 3 days.

---

The Bible and apostolic teaching agree: Jesus was in the tomb, went to hades, and returned to the tomb for resurrection. We don't have a specific hourly breakdown for his ETA and ETD from those places. He was not in heaven, because he clearly said he was not. Beyond that, anything else is speculation outside of both scripture and historic apostolic teaching. You are the one who insists on trying to open the door to other destinations including, in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words, heaven in your original post. That would be the definition of arrogance. The sort of arrogance you see in Isaiah 14.

---

Please cite the specific verses where it says Christ did not at any point go to Heaven with the 3 day period. Also please cite to the verses where it said he went to Hades. And just so we can put some parameters on what has been asked of you - please point me to the verses that use the words "Heaven" and "Hades." In other words, I'm not looking for more of your assumptions, nor what you allege is church tradition.

And for extra credit - please cite the verses that suggest Christ wasn't referring to Heaven when he said "paradise."

I'll hang up and listen. Good luck!

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

Oh thanks for clarifying...

Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.

Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.

The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.

---

By what principled criterion do you distinguish a council that "recognized truth" from one that "invented nonsense"?

You can't claim scripture because it's only possible to claim your interpretation of scripture. You're using your interpretation of scripture to validate the councils you like and invalidate the ones you don't, which means scripture isn't actually your authority, YOUR INTERPRETATION is.

1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, and Acts 14:23 all show the laying on of hands as the mechanism of authoritative transmission. Titus 1:5 shows Titus appointing elders by Paul's authority. This is a chain of transmitted authority, not an invisible spiritual succession. Jesus established a visible Church.

---

It's not that hard to understand if you actually read the Bible.

The councils that recognized the truth are the ones who took truth directly from the scriptures. The nonsense is the stuff that had no scriptural basis. Example: the Marian dogma.

The Bible never says that Mary was without sin. In fact it says the opposite. Romans 3:23 NIV
[23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

The Bible never says that Mary was a forever virgin, in fact it says the opposite. Matthew 12:46 NIV
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Matthew 13:55-56 NIV
[55] "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [56] Aren't all his sisters with us?"

The Bible never says that Mary is co-Redemer or co-Mediator or in any way involved in our salvation, in fact it says the opposite. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, John 14:6-7 NIV
[6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [7] If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Acts 4:11-12 NIV
[11] Jesus is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.' [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." 1 John 2:1-2 NIV
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Most of the scriptures are very clear. They don't require a magisterium to be understood.

---

On Romans 3:23, does "all have sinned" include Christ? By your own reading it must, since the text says "all" without exception. You obviously don't believe that, which means you are already doing interpretive work to exclude someone from the universal. The question is not whether exceptions exist, you already grant one. The question is who has the authority to identify them?

On the brothers of Jesus, "adelphos" in the Septuagint describes Lot's relationship to Abraham in Genesis 13:8. Lot was his nephew. The word does not require biological siblings. Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Cyril all held perpetual virginity. The position you are calling obviously biblical was considered the novel one in the patristic period.

If no human being can in any sense participate in bringing others before God, then asking your fellow Christian to pray for you is also forbidden. You don't actually believe that. What the verse excludes is a rival savior, not the prayers of those alive in Christ.

You have 45,000 Protestant denominations with the same Bible who cannot agree on baptism, the Lord's Supper, or predestination. The Arian crisis was resolved not by a better proof text but by a council speaking with binding authority.

ShooterTX said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

historian said:

---

Jesus did not say that. He said He had not yet ascended

---

He said "He had not yet ascended to his Father in heaven."

That's pretty plain.

Your misinterpretation is trying to shoehorn 3 days in heaven with the Father courtesy of a Star Trek Transporter like mechanism and reduce the verse to meaning he didn't fly up through the air simply because you refuse to accept the historic teaching of the harrowing of hades.

---

"Today you will be with me in paradise."

Was that Hell, in your book?

---

No, but scripture interprets scripture, doesn't it. On the one hand, we have a clear, unequivocal statement by Jesus that immediately after the resurrection he had not yet returned to the father. Absolutely no equivocation there. Absolutely no wiggle room.

The "Today you will be with me in paradise" statement has to be interpreted through that lens, which is the lens of the Trinity, "The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the Trinity one in essence and undivided." Jesus, even during his earthly ministry was fully God and fully man. That is to say that even though he was on earth, he did not disconnect from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is in that sense that St. Dismas would be with him in heaven that day despite Jesus not returning bodily until the ascension.

---

So, today you will be with me in paradise has wiggle room? It has nuance, and must be interpreted through other scripture? Perhaps he really meant, "in a few days"? Or no, he was really talking about being in a relationship, and didn't really mean Heaven, right?

It's interesting the contortions we go through to try and fit a narrative. "I have not yet returned to the Father" is unequivocal, in your book, but "today you will be with me in paradise", somehow isn't.

I'd submit as I did earlier, we don't know where Jesus went after his earthly death, and anyone trying to express certainty on the subject is a charlatan, who ISN'T interpreting Christ's statements through the lens of scripture.

---

Add to that the two scriptures that Sam cited, and now you have three bible verses standing in direct opposition to your misinterpretation.

---

Oh, I actually agree he was very likely in Sheol some of the time. But the whole time? It certainly doesn't say that at all. That is merely your assumption.

I would submit your certainty on the subject, when there really isn't any certainty on where he was the full 3 days, is the height of arrogance. You cannot say with any semblance of certainty where he was those 3 days.

---

The Bible and apostolic teaching agree: Jesus was in the tomb, went to hades, and returned to the tomb for resurrection. We don't have a specific hourly breakdown for his ETA and ETD from those places. He was not in heaven, because he clearly said he was not. Beyond that, anything else is speculation outside of both scripture and historic apostolic teaching. You are the one who insists on trying to open the door to other destinations including, in direct contradiction to Jesus' own words, heaven in your original post. That would be the definition of arrogance. The sort of arrogance you see in Isaiah 14.

---

It's an interesting discussion, but it isn't a determining factor for salvation or Christianity. If Christ spent 3 days heaven, hades, or Cancun.... it doesn't affect the gospel message or adoption into the family of God.

---

Agreed. But it is interesting to see the arrogance of those who adhere to Orthodoxy and the certainty with which their assunptions are professed. The mental contortions to support their beliefs is interesting.

Doc Holliday said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I keep hearing this claim that Scripture alone can give you a perfect definition of the Holy Trinity as defined by Nicea and Chalcedon which most Protestants affirm.

Thats absolute nonsense.

Aries made his case to deny the Trinity with texts like Proverbs 8:22 ("the Lord created me at the beginning of his work"), John 14:28 ("the Father is greater than I"), Colossians 1:15 ("firstborn of all creation"), and Mark 13:32 (the Son not knowing the day or hour).

The Trinity was not settled by a better proof text. It was settled by a council with binding authority. Which is the problem. You can't affirm Nicaea and Chalcedon as settled Christianity, but then reject other conclusions from that same tradition and that same authority. You cannot selectively invoke conciliar authority when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't or you have no way to bind everyone.

Nobody actually relies on scripture alone either. Yall need to cut out that nonsense. Total bs. When a Reformed Protestant settles a disputed question by appealing to Calvin, or a Lutheran defers to Luther's exegesis, or a Baptist cites the Second London Confession, they are functionally doing exactly what they accuse Catholics and Orthodox of doing: grounding theological conclusions in the authority of post biblical teachers and confessional documents rather than scripture alone.

---

You realize that you're arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

And the concept of the Trinity is fully derivable from Scripture, as I had already demonstrated to you. Besides, if it wasn't, how could have the councils come to that conclusion? Did they create a concept out of whole cloth?

Here's a question for you, as well as for everyone else: is the belief in the Trinity necessary for one's salvation?

---

If the Trinity were simply derivable from Scripture by careful reading, Arius would not have been a serious theological threat requiring an ecumenical council to resolve.

Councils have the authority of the sacrament of apostolic succession. That gives them guidance by the Holy Spirit.

Mainline prots wouldn't be gay and secular. People interpret text multiple ways. You interpret debt and slavery language in a 21st century lens vs me who took time to understand how Jews viewed what those concepts meant in their time.

Yes, Trinitarian faith is necessary.

Have you ever questioned your denomination? Is there anything you think your church is doing wrong?
Do you know that there are numerous Protestant pastors that have become Orthodox?

---

- so, you agree that you were arguing against solO scriptura, and not solA scriptura?

- I never said the Trinity was "simply" derivable. That's you adding words so you can validate your argument. It takes very careful reading and long, diligent study to derive the Trinity from Scripture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Christians, even true, saved Christians, would not be able to draw it from a simple reading. Arianism, on the other hand, is completely different. It says that Jesus is a created being, and therefore not God. However, Scripture CLEARLY indicates that Jesus is God. And therefore, no church council is needed to know that Arianism is false.

- So, you believe that a belief in the Trinity is necessary for salvation? You believe that if someone hears the gospel and believes and trusts in Jesus for their salvation, and they believe Jesus is God.... but they don't believe the Holy Spirit is God, but rather a kind of subordinate entity "sent" by God - then that means they are not saved? Does salvation depend on having a correct theology, especially one that is not explicitly taught in Scripture? And when did Jesus or his apostles every teach that?

- Look at what you're saying here: you're saying that the Trinity, which is 1) NOT derivable from Scripture but can only be known by the utterances of a council of men, and 2) is necessary for salvation - which is ultimately saying that the word of God is insufficient for our salvation!! Is this truly what you believe?

- I belong to no denomination. I'm simply a bible-believing Christian. Yes, there are things I question about certain teachings coming from various Protestant churches, and it's based on what Scripture says (the word of God), not based on what a council of men declared (the Tradition of men). I don't know how many Protestant pastors became Orthodox, but I'm sure it happens the other way around too. I will say that if a Protestant pastor becomes Roman Catholic or Orthodox, then something is really, really wrong with their faith if they are turning to a church that teaches a different gospel than the Bible and actively promotes and even requires the practice and belief in rank heresy and idolatry. Again, if they are okay with bowing and praying to images and saying "Mary is the salvation of my soul", then it's quite possible that they never really were a true Christian.

---

If you die and learn that Orthodoxy was the true visible church...are you going to be mad at God?

No you cannot derive the Nicean/Chalcedon understanding of the Holy Trinity from scripture alone. Impossible. The word homoousias (of the same substance), is the entire linchpin of Nicene Trinitarianism and appears nowhere in scripture. The Council of Nicaea took a non-biblical Greek philosophical term and made it the binding theological test of Orthodoxy. That non scriptural vocabulary binds all Christians sotereologically: who authorized it to do so? A COUNCIL.

Every major Christian confession in history, including your own, explicitly requires Trinitarian faith: the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, Belic Confession and every reformed document every written. Do you understand that the ' Jesus Only' position, held by Oneness Pentecostals is classified by every single reformed confession as heresy?.

Jehova's witnesses believe Jesus is a god, but not THE GOD. Are they saved?

Christology is important. Stop making the case that it isn't. You have no faith that Christ was capable of setting up a VISIBLE church. Your theology forces you to believe that the true church is invisible, that most of history people are left in the dark and only a few elect individuals can be saved. You also have no idea how CLOSE your theology is to medieval roman Catholicism. Your faith is derived from Latin assumptions. You wouldn't have PSA without nominalist medieval roman catholics already creating a PSA foundation that only ever appeared in history after the 1000s.

You claim you're trying to argue for sola scriptura, but not solo, while simultaneously claiming man made tradition is a secondary interpretative authority...then you claim Orthodox theology is off limits because its "Man made tradition". Your logic isn't consistent.

---

Oh thanks for clarifying...

Truth is only true if a council declares it to be true? NO
The truth is true regardless of what any human had to say or think about it. The truth exists on its own.
Jesus declared himself to be "the truth". He doesn't need a council to approve of that statement.
Likewise the Trinity is very clearly described in scriptures. The word "trinity" doesn't need to be used in scripture for the basic concept of the Trinity to be understood.

Some of the early councils recognized and affirmed the truth, they did NOT create it. Later councils created nonsense like the ever sinless ever virgin and the infallible pope.

The Nicea council leaned heavily on the scriptures from the apostolic era... they did not create doctrine, they clarified and confirmed it.

---

By what principled criterion do you distinguish a council that "recognized truth" from one that "invented nonsense"?

You can't claim scripture because it's only possible to claim your interpretation of scripture. You're using your interpretation of scripture to validate the councils you like and invalidate the ones you don't, which means scripture isn't actually your authority, YOUR INTERPRETATION is.

1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, and Acts 14:23 all show the laying on of hands as the mechanism of authoritative transmission. Titus 1:5 shows Titus appointing elders by Paul's authority. This is a chain of transmitted authority, not an invisible spiritual succession. Jesus established a visible Church.

---

It's not that hard to understand if you actually read the Bible.

The councils that recognized the truth are the ones who took truth directly from the scriptures. The nonsense is the stuff that had no scriptural basis. Example: the Marian dogma.

The Bible never says that Mary was without sin. In fact it says the opposite. Romans 3:23 NIV
[23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, Romans 3:10 NIV
[10] As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;

The Bible never says that Mary was a forever virgin, in fact it says the opposite. Matthew 12:46 NIV
[46] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Matthew 13:55-56 NIV
[55] "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? [56] Aren't all his sisters with us?"

The Bible never says that Mary is co-Redemer or co-Mediator or in any way involved in our salvation, in fact it says the opposite. 1 Timothy 2:5 NIV
[5] For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, John 14:6-7 NIV
[6] Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [7] If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Acts 4:11-12 NIV
[11] Jesus is " 'the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.' [12] Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved." 1 John 2:1-2 NIV
[1] My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the FatherJesus Christ, the Righteous One. [2] He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Most of the scriptures are very clear. They don't require a magisterium to be understood.

---

On Romans 3:23, does "all have sinned" include Christ? By your own reading it must, since the text says "all" without exception. You obviously don't believe that, which means you are already doing interpretive work to exclude someone from the universal. The question is not whether exceptions exist, you already grant one. The question is who has the authority to identify them?

On the brothers of Jesus, "adelphos" in the Septuagint describes Lot's relationship to Abraham in Genesis 13:8. Lot was his nephew. The word does not require biological siblings. Jerome, Athanasius, Augustine, and Cyril all held perpetual virginity. The position you are calling obviously biblical was considered the novel one in the patristic period.

If no human being can in any sense participate in bringing others before God, then asking your fellow Christian to pray for you is also forbidden. You don't actually believe that. What the verse excludes is a rival savior, not the prayers of those alive in Christ.

You have 45,000 Protestant denominations with the same Bible who cannot agree on baptism, the Lord's Supper, or predestination. The Arian crisis was resolved not by a better proof text but by a council speaking with binding authority.

---

We know that Paul wasn't referring to Christ in Romans 3:23 because he has already told us Christ was without sin in 2 Corinthians 5. So it's clear he wasn't referring to Christ in those verses - nor would it make sense for him to do so since he acknowledged Christ was a deity and not a mere mortal man.

Did Paul or anyone else make similar proclamations about Mary? Did Paul say Mary was without sin? No. You and I both know he did not.

As for Christ's siblings, the Greek word adelphoi (brothers) in these contexts most naturally refers to children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus. There really is no disputing this.

Can I ask you a question? Why is it important for you to try and maintain the narrative that Mary was a sinless virgin?