Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryIf you're saying Zechariah would not agree that his "You will" is the same as Mary's "You will", then what on earth do you base that on? Regardless, it wouldn't even be relevant, as what Zechariah believes (as if we're even in position to know this) doesn't even change the argument at all. The "you will" is the same kind of declaration. To suggest one implies consent while the other doesn't is a completely baseless form of reasoning. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The angel didn't wait for Zechariah to say anything. He was struck dumb for his unbelief.

---

Which has what to do with the fact that the angel's "you will" did not involve his consent, in the same way that it didn't for Mary?

Nothing. Any attempt to turn either "you will" into a declaration that is contingent upon the person's consent or obedience is sheer dishonesty or ignorance.

---

Biblical language (and language in general) is more nuanced than that. The future tense isn't always just a flat declaration. It can also serve as a promise, prediction, or command. The Ten Commandments are a good example.

You also ignore the form of Mary's response. "Fiat" is a jussive subjunctive (from the Latin "iussus," meaning ordered or commanded). She's expressly giving the word for it to be done as the angel has said.

---

Mary did not speak in Latin. Neither did Luke write his gospel in Latin.

The Greek form of "Let it be done to me" is in the aorist optative, which means Mary is speaking as if she is wishing for all what was said by the angel to happen. This is not her giving permission or promising obedience, this is her looking forward to the fulfillment of the declaration given to her.

---

I know the Greek. It's effectively the same thing.

---

You can tell yourself what you want. But thinking you're correct, and actually being correct are different things.

---

How well do you know the languages? I've read every genre of Roman literature and most genres of Greek, including of course the NT. I lean more on Latin because it's a bit easier and I'm used to hearing it in church, but I know what I'm talking about. You look at the text, take it at face value, and the simple, straightforward meaning is that Mary consents to God's plan.

---

The explanation you gave regarding the Latin translation of that phrase in no way matches the Greek aorist optative.

---

But it does. The choice of mood only shows the reverence of her interior assent.

We've had no conversations about Mary and the serpent.

---

"Reverence to her Interior assent" is just your pure assumption. The Greek indicates nothing of the sort.

There simply isn't anything in that passage, verb tense and mood included, that indicates a choice was given to Mary. This is just another instance of Roman Catholicism having to derive from a verb's tense to "prove" something about Mary, such as their absolutely silly argument that "to be graced" means that Mary was sinless. It's all just ad hoc, made up nonsense, just like your "interior assent" argument.

And are you denying that you ever quoted that verse to say "SHE" crushes the head of the serpent?

---

Whether in Latin, Greek, or English, Mary said "let it be done."

I think you are confusing me with someone else as far as the serpent discussion goes.

---

And whether in Latin, Greek, or English, "let it be done" as a respose to God's declaration "you WILL" is not permission or obedience, it is submission to what's already been decided on God's part. Otherwise, you're saying that Mary could have falsified God simply by her choosing to. Your church's elevation of Mary is wicked and sickening to any true Christian.

And does this mean that you do deny that you ever quoted that verse in that way in this forum?

---

I don't think I've ever talked about that verse with you, although I don't disagree with what others have said about it.

By your reasoning, we all "falsify" God every time we break his commandments (he says "thou shalt not," yet we do). No doubt it would have been sinful for Mary to refuse. Are you saying she was incapable of sin?

---

"Thou shalt not" is nothing like "you will bear a son". One is a command to be obeyed, the other is a foretelling of what God has preordained. The whole of the angel's message was a foretelling, an anouncement of what WILL BE - "you will bear a son, he will be great, he will be called Son of the Most Hight, God will give him the throne of David, he will rule forever...."

You Catholics just can't be honest.

And here's your quote from page 21 of the "How to Get to Heaven" thread:

"Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet."

LOL. Of course you Roman Catholics agree with this mistranslation. Who'd have doubted it?

---

Ah, of course...page 21.

I was still wrangling toddlers in those years, so forgive me for being distracted. I'll just repeat what I said then. We honor Mary's role in the Incarnation, but that doesn't take anything away from Christ.

---

Umm, yeah, what you said is the very definition of taking away from Christ.

Good lord, you guys are just SO dishonest. It's to the point where it's wickedness.

---

Not sure what's so offensive about the fact that Mary gave birth to our Savior, but okay.

---

Serious question - you KNOW you have to sustain your arguments with BS, so knowing that, HOW and WHY do you continue to believe them? I mean, how could anyone rest their eternal fate on what they know to be pure BS? Really, really strange. It obviously means that you are either so far gone that you can't even recognize BS, or that you're not really a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it?

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

There are two things wrong with this statement:

1) Christians haven't always believed what you are professing; and
2) Christians should trust scripture above tradition.

---

You mean Christians didn't always believe a Catholic bible mistranslation that MARY crushes the head of the serpent rather than Jesus?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryIf you're saying Zechariah would not agree that his "You will" is the same as Mary's "You will", then what on earth do you base that on? Regardless, it wouldn't even be relevant, as what Zechariah believes (as if we're even in position to know this) doesn't even change the argument at all. The "you will" is the same kind of declaration. To suggest one implies consent while the other doesn't is a completely baseless form of reasoning. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The angel didn't wait for Zechariah to say anything. He was struck dumb for his unbelief.

---

Which has what to do with the fact that the angel's "you will" did not involve his consent, in the same way that it didn't for Mary?

Nothing. Any attempt to turn either "you will" into a declaration that is contingent upon the person's consent or obedience is sheer dishonesty or ignorance.

---

Biblical language (and language in general) is more nuanced than that. The future tense isn't always just a flat declaration. It can also serve as a promise, prediction, or command. The Ten Commandments are a good example.

You also ignore the form of Mary's response. "Fiat" is a jussive subjunctive (from the Latin "iussus," meaning ordered or commanded). She's expressly giving the word for it to be done as the angel has said.

---

Mary did not speak in Latin. Neither did Luke write his gospel in Latin.

The Greek form of "Let it be done to me" is in the aorist optative, which means Mary is speaking as if she is wishing for all what was said by the angel to happen. This is not her giving permission or promising obedience, this is her looking forward to the fulfillment of the declaration given to her.

---

I know the Greek. It's effectively the same thing.

---

You can tell yourself what you want. But thinking you're correct, and actually being correct are different things.

---

How well do you know the languages? I've read every genre of Roman literature and most genres of Greek, including of course the NT. I lean more on Latin because it's a bit easier and I'm used to hearing it in church, but I know what I'm talking about. You look at the text, take it at face value, and the simple, straightforward meaning is that Mary consents to God's plan.

---

The explanation you gave regarding the Latin translation of that phrase in no way matches the Greek aorist optative.

---

But it does. The choice of mood only shows the reverence of her interior assent.

We've had no conversations about Mary and the serpent.

---

"Reverence to her Interior assent" is just your pure assumption. The Greek indicates nothing of the sort.

There simply isn't anything in that passage, verb tense and mood included, that indicates a choice was given to Mary. This is just another instance of Roman Catholicism having to derive from a verb's tense to "prove" something about Mary, such as their absolutely silly argument that "to be graced" means that Mary was sinless. It's all just ad hoc, made up nonsense, just like your "interior assent" argument.

And are you denying that you ever quoted that verse to say "SHE" crushes the head of the serpent?

---

Whether in Latin, Greek, or English, Mary said "let it be done."

I think you are confusing me with someone else as far as the serpent discussion goes.

---

And whether in Latin, Greek, or English, "let it be done" as a respose to God's declaration "you WILL" is not permission or obedience, it is submission to what's already been decided on God's part. Otherwise, you're saying that Mary could have falsified God simply by her choosing to. Your church's elevation of Mary is wicked and sickening to any true Christian.

And does this mean that you do deny that you ever quoted that verse in that way in this forum?

---

I don't think I've ever talked about that verse with you, although I don't disagree with what others have said about it.

By your reasoning, we all "falsify" God every time we break his commandments (he says "thou shalt not," yet we do). No doubt it would have been sinful for Mary to refuse. Are you saying she was incapable of sin?

---

"Thou shalt not" is nothing like "you will bear a son". One is a command to be obeyed, the other is a foretelling of what God has preordained. The whole of the angel's message was a foretelling, an anouncement of what WILL BE - "you will bear a son, he will be great, he will be called Son of the Most Hight, God will give him the throne of David, he will rule forever...."

You Catholics just can't be honest.

And here's your quote from page 21 of the "How to Get to Heaven" thread:

"Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet."

LOL. Of course you Roman Catholics agree with this mistranslation. Who'd have doubted it?

---

Ah, of course...page 21.

I was still wrangling toddlers in those years, so forgive me for being distracted. I'll just repeat what I said then. We honor Mary's role in the Incarnation, but that doesn't take anything away from Christ.

---

Umm, yeah, what you said is the very definition of taking away from Christ.

Good lord, you guys are just SO dishonest. It's to the point where it's wickedness.

---

Not sure what's so offensive about the fact that Mary gave birth to our Savior, but okay.

---

Serious question - you KNOW you have to sustain your arguments with BS, so knowing that, HOW and WHY do you continue to believe them? I mean, how could anyone rest their eternal fate on what they know to be pure BS? Really, really strange. It obviously means that you are either so far gone that you can't even recognize BS, or that you're not really a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it?

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

You mean, like sola scriptura, which your own Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman conceded?

---

Newman certainly did not believe in sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryIf you're saying Zechariah would not agree that his "You will" is the same as Mary's "You will", then what on earth do you base that on? Regardless, it wouldn't even be relevant, as what Zechariah believes (as if we're even in position to know this) doesn't even change the argument at all. The "you will" is the same kind of declaration. To suggest one implies consent while the other doesn't is a completely baseless form of reasoning. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The angel didn't wait for Zechariah to say anything. He was struck dumb for his unbelief.

---

Which has what to do with the fact that the angel's "you will" did not involve his consent, in the same way that it didn't for Mary?

Nothing. Any attempt to turn either "you will" into a declaration that is contingent upon the person's consent or obedience is sheer dishonesty or ignorance.

---

Biblical language (and language in general) is more nuanced than that. The future tense isn't always just a flat declaration. It can also serve as a promise, prediction, or command. The Ten Commandments are a good example.

You also ignore the form of Mary's response. "Fiat" is a jussive subjunctive (from the Latin "iussus," meaning ordered or commanded). She's expressly giving the word for it to be done as the angel has said.

---

Mary did not speak in Latin. Neither did Luke write his gospel in Latin.

The Greek form of "Let it be done to me" is in the aorist optative, which means Mary is speaking as if she is wishing for all what was said by the angel to happen. This is not her giving permission or promising obedience, this is her looking forward to the fulfillment of the declaration given to her.

---

I know the Greek. It's effectively the same thing.

---

You can tell yourself what you want. But thinking you're correct, and actually being correct are different things.

---

How well do you know the languages? I've read every genre of Roman literature and most genres of Greek, including of course the NT. I lean more on Latin because it's a bit easier and I'm used to hearing it in church, but I know what I'm talking about. You look at the text, take it at face value, and the simple, straightforward meaning is that Mary consents to God's plan.

---

The explanation you gave regarding the Latin translation of that phrase in no way matches the Greek aorist optative.

---

But it does. The choice of mood only shows the reverence of her interior assent.

We've had no conversations about Mary and the serpent.

---

"Reverence to her Interior assent" is just your pure assumption. The Greek indicates nothing of the sort.

There simply isn't anything in that passage, verb tense and mood included, that indicates a choice was given to Mary. This is just another instance of Roman Catholicism having to derive from a verb's tense to "prove" something about Mary, such as their absolutely silly argument that "to be graced" means that Mary was sinless. It's all just ad hoc, made up nonsense, just like your "interior assent" argument.

And are you denying that you ever quoted that verse to say "SHE" crushes the head of the serpent?

---

Whether in Latin, Greek, or English, Mary said "let it be done."

I think you are confusing me with someone else as far as the serpent discussion goes.

---

And whether in Latin, Greek, or English, "let it be done" as a respose to God's declaration "you WILL" is not permission or obedience, it is submission to what's already been decided on God's part. Otherwise, you're saying that Mary could have falsified God simply by her choosing to. Your church's elevation of Mary is wicked and sickening to any true Christian.

And does this mean that you do deny that you ever quoted that verse in that way in this forum?

---

I don't think I've ever talked about that verse with you, although I don't disagree with what others have said about it.

By your reasoning, we all "falsify" God every time we break his commandments (he says "thou shalt not," yet we do). No doubt it would have been sinful for Mary to refuse. Are you saying she was incapable of sin?

---

"Thou shalt not" is nothing like "you will bear a son". One is a command to be obeyed, the other is a foretelling of what God has preordained. The whole of the angel's message was a foretelling, an anouncement of what WILL BE - "you will bear a son, he will be great, he will be called Son of the Most Hight, God will give him the throne of David, he will rule forever...."

You Catholics just can't be honest.

And here's your quote from page 21 of the "How to Get to Heaven" thread:

"Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet."

LOL. Of course you Roman Catholics agree with this mistranslation. Who'd have doubted it?

---

Ah, of course...page 21.

I was still wrangling toddlers in those years, so forgive me for being distracted. I'll just repeat what I said then. We honor Mary's role in the Incarnation, but that doesn't take anything away from Christ.

---

Umm, yeah, what you said is the very definition of taking away from Christ.

Good lord, you guys are just SO dishonest. It's to the point where it's wickedness.

---

Not sure what's so offensive about the fact that Mary gave birth to our Savior, but okay.

---

Serious question - you KNOW you have to sustain your arguments with BS, so knowing that, HOW and WHY do you continue to believe them? I mean, how could anyone rest their eternal fate on what they know to be pure BS? Really, really strange. It obviously means that you are either so far gone that you can't even recognize BS, or that you're not really a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it?

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

There are two things wrong with this statement:

1) Christians haven't always believed what you are professing; and
2) Christians should trust scripture above tradition.

---

You mean Christians didn't always believe a Catholic bible mistranslation that MARY crushes the head of the serpent rather than Jesus?

---

Which translation is that?

Mothra said:

---

I agree that communion is meant to be communal and not merely an individual ritual. I don't believe I communicated otherwise. However, I think you're assuming a definition of "church" that the Bible doesn't use.

In the New Testament, the church isn't a building or an institution run by clergy - it's the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27). Wherever believers gather in His name, the church is present. The early Christians regularly met in homes and broke bread together there (Acts 2:46). So the issue isn't whether it happens in a formal setting, but whether it reflects the unity and reverence Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 11. That means a group of believers sharing communion in a home could very much be participating in the Lord's Supper, biblically.

With respect to fasting, while I agree that disobedience is tied to a specific command, I think you're side-stepping my point. In the garden, Eve's sin wasn't just that she saw the fruit and wanted it; it was that God had clearly told her not to eat from that tree. The disobedience only makes sense because there was a direct, specific command from God that she violated.

That's exactly what I'm asking about fasting. What is the clear command from God that's being broken? If we can't point to something as explicit as "do not eat from this tree," then it's hard to call a difference in fasting practice "disobedience." Just saying that disobedience requires a command doesn't answer whether that kind of command exists here.

As for "ancestral memory," you've said yourself it's just speculation and not biblical. That is my concern - if it is not grounded in Scripture, it shouldn't be used to support an argument about obedience. If we're going to say someone is disobeying God, it needs to come from what God has clearly said, not from ideas we think might explain religious patterns. So the question still stands: where does Scripture clearly command fasting in the way you're describing?

I don't disagree that fasting has been part of Christianity from the beginning. The issue isn't whether Christians should fast, it's whether specific patterns define what counts as "true" or "proper" fasting. The New Testament is actually pretty sparse on instructions here, which suggests some level of freedom rather than a tightly regulated system.

As for the "personal relationship" with Christ language, I do understand your concern, and I actually agree with part of it. Christianity has always been lived out in a body, not in isolation. That said, I don't think calling faith a "personal relationship with Christ" is the problem. The idea itself is deeply biblical. Where I think you're right is that people can misuse that idea to justify individualism. But that's not a problem with the concept, it's a problem with how it's applied and interpreted. So for me, the issue isn't "personal relationship vs. church," but treating them as opposites. A truly biblical view would say: you cannot have a healthy personal relationship with Christ while rejecting His body, the church, but at the same time, being part of the church doesn't replace personally knowing Him.

---

Christ gave specific authority to the Apostles, who ordained bishops (episkopoi) and presbyters to maintain order and guard the truth (Titus 1:5)

By the dawn of the 2nd century, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the Apostle John, explicitly wrote:

Quote:

---

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father... Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it." (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8)

---

The Eucharist requires communion with the local bishop, who connects that specific gathering to the entire global and historical Church, preserving the unity Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 11.

Christ didn't leave behind a comprehensive legal codebook, He left an authoritative Church. He gave the Apostles the power to "bind and loose" (Matthew 18:18) and stated, "If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax collector" (Matthew 18:17).

You aren't arguing like Martin Luther, you're arguing like the Radical Reformers whom Luther himself condemned. By reducing the Church to an abstract concept and the Sacraments to individual preference, you have abandoned the historic Christian faith entirely. Christ did not leave behind a text for individuals to dissect in isolation, He left a concrete, historical Kingdom with an inheritance, a discipline, and an authority structure that we are called to submit to, not reinvent. That's why all the original reformation churches are gay and woke...because they were founded on a rejection of this authority.

Without a continuous, unchanging liturgical and dogmatic anchor (like Orthodoxy has maintained), the Church becomes a mirror of whatever culture it finds itself in. When the culture was Victorian and strict, the mainline churches were Victorian and strict. Now that the culture is secular and progressive, those same institutional hulls have filled up with secular progressivism. Same thing at non denoms and evangelical churches which are a reflection of business franchises: You have pastors who are CEOs and their worship bands who act like rockstars. Their sermons are like Ted talks or business meetings with projector screens. They have entertainment with indoor playgrounds and theatrical events. It's worldly.

Sam Lowryeally a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

You mean, like sola scriptura, which your own Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman conceded?

---

Newman certainly did not believe in sola scriptura.

---

But as any honest, rational person can easily see for themselves, he certainly did concede that it was what the early church believed.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryIf you're saying Zechariah would not agree that his "You will" is the same as Mary's "You will", then what on earth do you base that on? Regardless, it wouldn't even be relevant, as what Zechariah believes (as if we're even in position to know this) doesn't even change the argument at all. The "you will" is the same kind of declaration. To suggest one implies consent while the other doesn't is a completely baseless form of reasoning. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The angel didn't wait for Zechariah to say anything. He was struck dumb for his unbelief.

---

Which has what to do with the fact that the angel's "you will" did not involve his consent, in the same way that it didn't for Mary?

Nothing. Any attempt to turn either "you will" into a declaration that is contingent upon the person's consent or obedience is sheer dishonesty or ignorance.

---

Biblical language (and language in general) is more nuanced than that. The future tense isn't always just a flat declaration. It can also serve as a promise, prediction, or command. The Ten Commandments are a good example.

You also ignore the form of Mary's response. "Fiat" is a jussive subjunctive (from the Latin "iussus," meaning ordered or commanded). She's expressly giving the word for it to be done as the angel has said.

---

Mary did not speak in Latin. Neither did Luke write his gospel in Latin.

The Greek form of "Let it be done to me" is in the aorist optative, which means Mary is speaking as if she is wishing for all what was said by the angel to happen. This is not her giving permission or promising obedience, this is her looking forward to the fulfillment of the declaration given to her.

---

I know the Greek. It's effectively the same thing.

---

You can tell yourself what you want. But thinking you're correct, and actually being correct are different things.

---

How well do you know the languages? I've read every genre of Roman literature and most genres of Greek, including of course the NT. I lean more on Latin because it's a bit easier and I'm used to hearing it in church, but I know what I'm talking about. You look at the text, take it at face value, and the simple, straightforward meaning is that Mary consents to God's plan.

---

The explanation you gave regarding the Latin translation of that phrase in no way matches the Greek aorist optative.

---

But it does. The choice of mood only shows the reverence of her interior assent.

We've had no conversations about Mary and the serpent.

---

"Reverence to her Interior assent" is just your pure assumption. The Greek indicates nothing of the sort.

There simply isn't anything in that passage, verb tense and mood included, that indicates a choice was given to Mary. This is just another instance of Roman Catholicism having to derive from a verb's tense to "prove" something about Mary, such as their absolutely silly argument that "to be graced" means that Mary was sinless. It's all just ad hoc, made up nonsense, just like your "interior assent" argument.

And are you denying that you ever quoted that verse to say "SHE" crushes the head of the serpent?

---

Whether in Latin, Greek, or English, Mary said "let it be done."

I think you are confusing me with someone else as far as the serpent discussion goes.

---

And whether in Latin, Greek, or English, "let it be done" as a respose to God's declaration "you WILL" is not permission or obedience, it is submission to what's already been decided on God's part. Otherwise, you're saying that Mary could have falsified God simply by her choosing to. Your church's elevation of Mary is wicked and sickening to any true Christian.

And does this mean that you do deny that you ever quoted that verse in that way in this forum?

---

I don't think I've ever talked about that verse with you, although I don't disagree with what others have said about it.

By your reasoning, we all "falsify" God every time we break his commandments (he says "thou shalt not," yet we do). No doubt it would have been sinful for Mary to refuse. Are you saying she was incapable of sin?

---

"Thou shalt not" is nothing like "you will bear a son". One is a command to be obeyed, the other is a foretelling of what God has preordained. The whole of the angel's message was a foretelling, an anouncement of what WILL BE - "you will bear a son, he will be great, he will be called Son of the Most Hight, God will give him the throne of David, he will rule forever...."

You Catholics just can't be honest.

And here's your quote from page 21 of the "How to Get to Heaven" thread:

"Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet."

LOL. Of course you Roman Catholics agree with this mistranslation. Who'd have doubted it?

---

Ah, of course...page 21.

I was still wrangling toddlers in those years, so forgive me for being distracted. I'll just repeat what I said then. We honor Mary's role in the Incarnation, but that doesn't take anything away from Christ.

---

Umm, yeah, what you said is the very definition of taking away from Christ.

Good lord, you guys are just SO dishonest. It's to the point where it's wickedness.

---

Not sure what's so offensive about the fact that Mary gave birth to our Savior, but okay.

---

Serious question - you KNOW you have to sustain your arguments with BS, so knowing that, HOW and WHY do you continue to believe them? I mean, how could anyone rest their eternal fate on what they know to be pure BS? Really, really strange. It obviously means that you are either so far gone that you can't even recognize BS, or that you're not really a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it?

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

There are two things wrong with this statement:

1) Christians haven't always believed what you are professing; and
2) Christians should trust scripture above tradition.

---

You mean Christians didn't always believe a Catholic bible mistranslation that MARY crushes the head of the serpent rather than Jesus?

---

Which translation is that?

---

Already got lost? The very Latin bible you used to promote your false "fiat" view.

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

The question isn't whether the NT presents a finished institutional photograph, but whether the trajectory of apostolic authority points somewhere recognizable. And it does. In Acts 15, authority over doctrinal disputes is exercised conciliarly, not by local consensus but by apostolic figures rendering binding judgment. James presides. The decree has binding force: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us".

By what authority do you determine which early church developments are binding and which are merely cultural? And where does Scripture give you that interpretive authority rather than the Church that wrote and recognized Scripture?

You're making a mistake if you think the word of God is only written down. It's not. 2 Tim. 2:2 "What you have HEARD from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." This is a chain of oral transmission being commanded…not "write it all down and let everyone interpret it".

1 Cor. 11:2 "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you." Oral traditions, praised as binding.

The Reformed position holds simultaneously that:
1. Christ promised His Church would prevail against the gates of hell (Matt. 16:18)
2. Men are so totally depraved that no visible institution can be trusted to preserve doctrine faithfully

You believe Christ built His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. But your total depravity doctrine means you trust no council, no bishop, no institutional continuity. So where is that Church? Name it. Point to it. If you can't, you've made Christ's promise meaningless.

If total depravity means the noetic effects of sin extend to the intellect, which Reformed theology consistently affirms…then the unregenerate mind is incapable of rightly understanding spiritual truth.

If their exegete is regenerate, the their conclusions are being shaped by the Spirit's illumination, not by the bare text alone. Which means sola scriptura is actually Sola Spiritura: salvation by vibes alone.

Or if their definition of depravity doesn't fully corrupt the intellect…then it can't be total and the entire structure total depravity is built on collapses.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

Unlike you, I'm not claiming my church structure is the only valid, divinely mandated model. You are. You're the poster claiming Scripture establishes a specific, binding structure (a monarchical bishop who determines sacramental validity). And of course, your argument only works if you can show that your specific structure is clearly required by Scripture itself, not just that structure in general exists. And you've failed to make that showing.

Will respond to the rest later.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

Unlike you, I'm not claiming my church structure is the only valid, divinely mandated model. You are. You're the poster claiming Scripture establishes a specific, binding structure (a monarchical bishop who determines sacramental validity). And of course, your argument only works if you can show that your specific structure is clearly required by Scripture itself, not just that structure in general exists. And you've failed to make that showing.

Will respond to the rest later.

---

On whose authority are we required to ONLY rely on scripture? That's not written down in scripture. The seat of Moses was treated as a real legitimate authority recognized by Christ...and its not found or mentioned anywhere in the OT. By Jesus' own standard, God establishes binding, authoritative, oral and institutional structures to govern His people that bypass your modern requirement of text only proof.

The Gospels and Epistles were never intended to be an exhaustive, standalone manual for church administration. They were written to existing communities that already had established leadership, oral traditions, and liturgical practices.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can't protects the repository of faith in spite of the men? You seem to think that a visible Church isn't possible because of fallible men.If a visible, divinely mandated structure is invalid the moment the men inside it act sinfully, foolishly, or fallibly, then Christ's own earthly ministry was a failure. Did Judas's betrayal mean the group of the Twelve lost its divine mandate? Absolutely not.

If human fallibility entirely invalidates an institutional process, then the Protestant has no basis upon which to trust the Bible. To believe that the Holy Spirit could miraculously guide fallible men to write and canonize an infallible book, but is somehow utterly incapable of guiding fallible men to maintain a continuous, visible Church, is a massive logical contradiction.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowryeally a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

You mean, like sola scriptura, which your own Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman conceded?

---

Newman certainly did not believe in sola scriptura.

---

But as any honest, rational person can easily see for themselves, he certainly did concede that it was what the early church believed.

---

No, he didn't. His pre-conversion writings may appear that way, but Development of Christian Doctrine and other later works take a much different view.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam LowryIf you're saying Zechariah would not agree that his "You will" is the same as Mary's "You will", then what on earth do you base that on? Regardless, it wouldn't even be relevant, as what Zechariah believes (as if we're even in position to know this) doesn't even change the argument at all. The "you will" is the same kind of declaration. To suggest one implies consent while the other doesn't is a completely baseless form of reasoning. said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The angel didn't wait for Zechariah to say anything. He was struck dumb for his unbelief.

---

Which has what to do with the fact that the angel's "you will" did not involve his consent, in the same way that it didn't for Mary?

Nothing. Any attempt to turn either "you will" into a declaration that is contingent upon the person's consent or obedience is sheer dishonesty or ignorance.

---

Biblical language (and language in general) is more nuanced than that. The future tense isn't always just a flat declaration. It can also serve as a promise, prediction, or command. The Ten Commandments are a good example.

You also ignore the form of Mary's response. "Fiat" is a jussive subjunctive (from the Latin "iussus," meaning ordered or commanded). She's expressly giving the word for it to be done as the angel has said.

---

Mary did not speak in Latin. Neither did Luke write his gospel in Latin.

The Greek form of "Let it be done to me" is in the aorist optative, which means Mary is speaking as if she is wishing for all what was said by the angel to happen. This is not her giving permission or promising obedience, this is her looking forward to the fulfillment of the declaration given to her.

---

I know the Greek. It's effectively the same thing.

---

You can tell yourself what you want. But thinking you're correct, and actually being correct are different things.

---

How well do you know the languages? I've read every genre of Roman literature and most genres of Greek, including of course the NT. I lean more on Latin because it's a bit easier and I'm used to hearing it in church, but I know what I'm talking about. You look at the text, take it at face value, and the simple, straightforward meaning is that Mary consents to God's plan.

---

The explanation you gave regarding the Latin translation of that phrase in no way matches the Greek aorist optative.

---

But it does. The choice of mood only shows the reverence of her interior assent.

We've had no conversations about Mary and the serpent.

---

"Reverence to her Interior assent" is just your pure assumption. The Greek indicates nothing of the sort.

There simply isn't anything in that passage, verb tense and mood included, that indicates a choice was given to Mary. This is just another instance of Roman Catholicism having to derive from a verb's tense to "prove" something about Mary, such as their absolutely silly argument that "to be graced" means that Mary was sinless. It's all just ad hoc, made up nonsense, just like your "interior assent" argument.

And are you denying that you ever quoted that verse to say "SHE" crushes the head of the serpent?

---

Whether in Latin, Greek, or English, Mary said "let it be done."

I think you are confusing me with someone else as far as the serpent discussion goes.

---

And whether in Latin, Greek, or English, "let it be done" as a respose to God's declaration "you WILL" is not permission or obedience, it is submission to what's already been decided on God's part. Otherwise, you're saying that Mary could have falsified God simply by her choosing to. Your church's elevation of Mary is wicked and sickening to any true Christian.

And does this mean that you do deny that you ever quoted that verse in that way in this forum?

---

I don't think I've ever talked about that verse with you, although I don't disagree with what others have said about it.

By your reasoning, we all "falsify" God every time we break his commandments (he says "thou shalt not," yet we do). No doubt it would have been sinful for Mary to refuse. Are you saying she was incapable of sin?

---

"Thou shalt not" is nothing like "you will bear a son". One is a command to be obeyed, the other is a foretelling of what God has preordained. The whole of the angel's message was a foretelling, an anouncement of what WILL BE - "you will bear a son, he will be great, he will be called Son of the Most Hight, God will give him the throne of David, he will rule forever...."

You Catholics just can't be honest.

And here's your quote from page 21 of the "How to Get to Heaven" thread:

"Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to think. I suspect St. Alphonsus Liguori was alluding to this verse and to Mary's role in reclaiming the world for Christ and crushing the serpent under her feet."

LOL. Of course you Roman Catholics agree with this mistranslation. Who'd have doubted it?

---

Ah, of course...page 21.

I was still wrangling toddlers in those years, so forgive me for being distracted. I'll just repeat what I said then. We honor Mary's role in the Incarnation, but that doesn't take anything away from Christ.

---

Umm, yeah, what you said is the very definition of taking away from Christ.

Good lord, you guys are just SO dishonest. It's to the point where it's wickedness.

---

Not sure what's so offensive about the fact that Mary gave birth to our Savior, but okay.

---

Serious question - you KNOW you have to sustain your arguments with BS, so knowing that, HOW and WHY do you continue to believe them? I mean, how could anyone rest their eternal fate on what they know to be pure BS? Really, really strange. It obviously means that you are either so far gone that you can't even recognize BS, or that you're not really a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it?

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

There are two things wrong with this statement:

1) Christians haven't always believed what you are professing; and
2) Christians should trust scripture above tradition.

---

You mean Christians didn't always believe a Catholic bible mistranslation that MARY crushes the head of the serpent rather than Jesus?

---

Which translation is that?

---

Already got lost? The very Latin bible you used to promote your false "fiat" view.

---

I wasn't aware that the Vulgate mistranslated it. That's not the case with modern translations that I'm familiar with.

As for "fiat," it's the only good translation of the Greek that comes to mind.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

Unlike you, I'm not claiming my church structure is the only valid, divinely mandated model. You are. You're the poster claiming Scripture establishes a specific, binding structure (a monarchical bishop who determines sacramental validity). And of course, your argument only works if you can show that your specific structure is clearly required by Scripture itself, not just that structure in general exists. And you've failed to make that showing.

Will respond to the rest later.

---

On whose authority are we required to ONLY rely on scripture? That's not written down in scripture. The seat of Moses was treated as a real legitimate authority recognized by Christ...and its not found or mentioned anywhere in the OT. By Jesus' own standard, God establishes binding, authoritative, oral and institutional structures to govern His people that bypass your modern requirement of text only proof.

The Gospels and Epistles were never intended to be an exhaustive, standalone manual for church administration. They were written to existing communities that already had established leadership, oral traditions, and liturgical practices.

Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can't protects the repository of faith in spite of the men? You seem to think that a visible Church isn't possible because of fallible men.If a visible, divinely mandated structure is invalid the moment the men inside it act sinfully, foolishly, or fallibly, then Christ's own earthly ministry was a failure. Did Judas's betrayal mean the group of the Twelve lost its divine mandate? Absolutely not.

If human fallibility entirely invalidates an institutional process, then the Protestant has no basis upon which to trust the Bible. To believe that the Holy Spirit could miraculously guide fallible men to write and canonize an infallible book, but is somehow utterly incapable of guiding fallible men to maintain a continuous, visible Church, is a massive logical contradiction.

---

You:"The seat of Moses was treated as a real legitimate authority recognized by Christ...and its not found or mentioned anywhere in the OT."

Was this authority infallible in their interpretation of Scripture and in their teaching?

You: "The Gospels and Epistles were never intended to be an exhaustive, standalone manual for church administration."

No, they weren't. No one has asserted that. But Scripture functions as the infallible standard against which such administrations should be measured.

You: "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit can't protect the repository of faith in spite of the men?

Of course he can. The real question is, are you one of those who are in that protected repository of faith, or are you in one of the corrupt ones? Remember, God saved only ONE family (Noah's) to protect the line of men and his promises and his will for mankind.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

Unlike you, I'm not claiming my church structure is the only valid, divinely mandated model. You are. You're the poster claiming Scripture establishes a specific, binding structure (a monarchical bishop who determines sacramental validity). And of course, your argument only works if you can show that your specific structure is clearly required by Scripture itself, not just that structure in general exists. And you've failed to make that showing.

Will respond to the rest later.

---

If human fallibility entirely invalidates an institutional process, then the Protestant has no basis upon which to trust the Bible. To believe that the Holy Spirit could miraculously guide fallible men to write and canonize an infallible book, but is somehow utterly incapable of guiding fallible men to maintain a continuous, visible Church, is a massive logical contradiction.

---

The Hebrew canon, which Jesus himself validated to a tee, completely obliterates this view. God certainly was able to use fallible men to achieve his infallible will through the Israelites. That's what makes him the all-sovereign God.

And God DID guide his church (doesn't have to necesssarily be "visible" in the form of an institution") continuously throughout time, and will continue to do so until the end of the church age. But God did ALSO promise that there would be false teaching and false prophets entering his church. So again, as I asked before - are you sure you're part of the true, corrected, and protected church, rather than part of the false church?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowryeally a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

You mean, like sola scriptura, which your own Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman conceded?

---

Newman certainly did not believe in sola scriptura.

---

But as any honest, rational person can easily see for themselves, he certainly did concede that it was what the early church believed.

---

No, he didn't. His pre-conversion writings may appear that way, but Development of Christian Doctrine and other later works take a much different view.

---

His writings don't "appear" that way, they ARE that way to any rational, honest person.

And again - stop with the empty assertions, and show me where he changed his mind.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowryeally a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

You mean, like sola scriptura, which your own Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman conceded?

---

Newman certainly did not believe in sola scriptura.

---

But as any honest, rational person can easily see for themselves, he certainly did concede that it was what the early church believed.

---

No, he didn't. His pre-conversion writings may appear that way, but Development of Christian Doctrine and other later works take a much different view.

---

His writings don't "appear" that way, they ARE that way to any rational, honest person.

And again - stop with the empty assertions, and show me where he changed his mind.

---

To what end?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

Unlike you, I'm not claiming my church structure is the only valid, divinely mandated model. You are. You're the poster claiming Scripture establishes a specific, binding structure (a monarchical bishop who determines sacramental validity). And of course, your argument only works if you can show that your specific structure is clearly required by Scripture itself, not just that structure in general exists. And you've failed to make that showing.

Will respond to the rest later.

---

On whose authority are we required to ONLY rely on scripture? That's not written down in scripture. The seat of Moses was treated as a real legitimate authority recognized by Christ...and its not found or mentioned anywhere in the OT. By Jesus' own standard, God establishes binding, authoritative, oral and institutional structures to govern His people that bypass your modern requirement of text only proof.

---

Umm... Jesus' view was that the authority of the seat of Moses was binding for the Jews?

So.... Jesus was telling the Jews to listen to this authority and reject him as the Messiah?

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

No Protestant "holds to that model" in the way that the Catholics do. We do not believe that the Church structure is a critical part of our salvation or our daily relationship with God. It is the catholic church that requires a Christian to be dependent upon a priest for their relationship with God... not any Protestant church.
The titles and structure do not matter. Living in communion with other Christians is what matters. Requiring that a priest be involved in confession or the eucharist... this is solely Catholic and not biblical. Well, I guess it is biblical if you look at the OT Jewish temple. It is very similar to the structure that was renounced after the cross, and specifically condemned by the apostles in the scriptures. Our faith in God does not require a priest other than Christ Himself.

ShooterTX said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

No Protestant "holds to that model" in the way that the Catholics do. We do not believe that the Church structure is a critical part of our salvation or our daily relationship with God. It is the catholic church that requires a Christian to be dependent upon a priest for their relationship with God... not any Protestant church.
The titles and structure do not matter. Living in communion with other Christians is what matters. Requiring that a priest be involved in confession or the eucharist... this is solely Catholic and not biblical. Well, I guess it is biblical if you look at the OT Jewish temple. It is very similar to the structure that was renounced after the cross, and specifically condemned by the apostles in the scriptures. Our faith in God does not require a priest other than Christ Himself.

---

The NT church wasn't a loose fellowship of individuals communing with God privately. Acts 15, the Jerusalem Council, presupposes authoritative ecclesial decision making. The apostles did bind and loose (Matt 18:18).

John 20:23 gives the apostles explicit authority to forgive or retain sins.

The Orthodox don't claim Christ's priesthood is replaced, we claim it is participated in by the Church, which is His Body. Hebrews doesn't abolish priesthood, it abolishes the Levitical priesthood as a type that pointed to Christ. The Church's priesthood is derivative of and inseparable from His. 1 Peter 2:9 calls the whole Church "a royal priesthood".

You guys gotta understand that the word 'fulfill' doesn't mean coming to an end. It means to make full or bring to the highest. It doesn't mean to cancel/replace. Christ doesn't discard the Law, He lives it perfectly and draws humanity into that same perfection. The Law was always pointing toward theosis, toward the full conformity of the human person to God. Christ fulfills it by becoming what it always demanded.
The Law is fulfilled in the sense that its telos, its goal and inner logic, is now fully revealed and made available in Christ and His Body the Church. The sacraments , the liturgy, the fasting disciplines, the confession aren't relics of Judaism. It's the Law brought to its intended fullness. The Temple pointed to the Eucharist. The Levitical priesthood pointed to the Church's priesthood in Christ. Nothing was abolished…everything was filled.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowryeally a believer at all so it doesn't even really matter. Which is it? said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'll trust in what Christians have always believed, not what Pastor Jayden thought up last week.

---

You mean, like sola scriptura, which your own Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman conceded?

---

Newman certainly did not believe in sola scriptura.

---

But as any honest, rational person can easily see for themselves, he certainly did concede that it was what the early church believed.

---

No, he didn't. His pre-conversion writings may appear that way, but Development of Christian Doctrine and other later works take a much different view.

---

His writings don't "appear" that way, they ARE that way to any rational, honest person.

And again - stop with the empty assertions, and show me where he changed his mind.

---

To what end?

---

Still waiting.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Yes, the apostles appointed elders and overseers. Nobody disputes that. But that is not the same thing as proving an unbroken chain of bishops with absolute doctrinal authority over the entire Church. There's no clear New Testament model of a single ruling bishop over each city in the way later Orthodoxy and Catholicism claim.

As for Ignatius, first, his writings are not the infallible word of God. Second, all that his writings show are that by the early 2nd century, a structure was developing, not that Christ commanded that exact structure or made it infallible. Early church practice is not divine mandate. The Church grew and organized itself over time; that doesn't make every later development binding on all Christians forever.

As for the Eucharist: saying it "requires" a bishop isn't taught anywhere in Scripture. Paul corrects the Corinthians on the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and never once says, "You lack a valid bishop, therefore your Eucharist is invalid." Instead, he focuses on right belief and right conduct.

---

There's no clear NT model of a congregational vote, a senior pastor with a board of deacons, or a General Assembly of presbyteries either…but you hold to that model.

---

Unlike you, I'm not claiming my church structure is the only valid, divinely mandated model. You are. You're the poster claiming Scripture establishes a specific, binding structure (a monarchical bishop who determines sacramental validity). And of course, your argument only works if you can show that your specific structure is clearly required by Scripture itself, not just that structure in general exists. And you've failed to make that showing.

Will respond to the rest later.

---

On whose authority are we required to ONLY rely on scripture? That's not written down in scripture. The seat of Moses was treated as a real legitimate authority recognized by Christ...and its not found or mentioned anywhere in the OT. By Jesus' own standard, God establishes binding, authoritative, oral and institutional structures to govern His people that bypass your modern requirement of text only proof.

---

Umm... Jesus' view was that the authority of the seat of Moses was binding for the Jews?

So.... Jesus was telling the Jews to listen to this authority and reject him as the Messiah?

---

Doc?

Avoiding me, huh? Is it because you can't/won't answer me because you know I'm right?

So then the question becomes - why do you continue to believe what you do? Doesn't this mean you need to change or at least adjust your beliefs? Doesn't the truth matter to you?

RC's and Orthodox - if you're stumped by my questions and challenges, doesn't that mean your views are untenable, and therefore you have something to think about?

After all this time, the thread title is still amusing. But OK, while we're imagining things....

Jesus, the Son of God, speaks of the church (always lower case "c") 3 times in the gospels as the Holy Spirit inspired a single writer, Matthew.

Jesus, the Son of God, speaks either of the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven 85 times in the gospels (yes, some are repetitions of a same occasion) as the Holy Spirit inspired all 4 gospel writers.

Where is the kingdom of God, or of heaven, headquartered? When did it begin? Who started it? Who's in charge of it?