ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one ever said Mary was 'just a woman', for the record.


Still no purgatory, still no Queen Mary except for England.

---

No one? Mmmmmk

Of course you can choose not to Believe. Youll either be proven right or wrong on purgatory. The biblical Evidence and support is there if you aren't stubborn. Did 2 millenia of people misinterpret the scriptures on it? Possibly.

Whats the risk in living ones life based on the 2000 year old beliefs on purgatory? MUCHHHHHHH higher risk going off deep end believing in OSAS or not believing in the body of Christ.

Id probably focus more there as a protestant than prayers to Mary as intercessor or purgatory in your concern for the billions of Catholics

---

The risk is that a belief in purgatory makes it impossible to have true faith in Christ.
The scriptures make it very clear that Jesus paid the full price for our sins with his blood sacrifice. If you believe that you must pay for some of your sins in purgatory, then you are denying that the sacrifice on the cross was a complete & perfect sacrifice.

Here's the risk: a belief in purgatory in a denial that Jesus did a complete work... it is calling Jesus a liar when he said "it is done"
A belief in purgatory is the opposite of...
Hebrews 7:25, 27 NIV
[25] Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
[27] Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

A belief in purgatory is a belief that Jesus didn't do a complete work on the cross.... it's a belief in a false Messiah.

---

Being forgiven a sin by the blood of Christ does not complete the cleansing process. That is made clear. Hence Purgatory (root - purge).

It is not anything that you stated as you misunderstood or have been incorrectly catechized

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

Now quoting someone is "attacking a flawed human"? It's like talking to snowflakes. Toughen up buttercup and debate

No Catholic worships the pope or mary. Yall have to let that go as a defense for your positions. If thats all you have you've already lost.

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one ever said Mary was 'just a woman', for the record.


Still no purgatory, still no Queen Mary except for England.

---

No one? Mmmmmk

Of course you can choose not to Believe. Youll either be proven right or wrong on purgatory. The biblical Evidence and support is there if you aren't stubborn. Did 2 millenia of people misinterpret the scriptures on it? Possibly.

Whats the risk in living ones life based on the 2000 year old beliefs on purgatory? MUCHHHHHHH higher risk going off deep end believing in OSAS or not believing in the body of Christ.

Id probably focus more there as a protestant than prayers to Mary as intercessor or purgatory in your concern for the billions of Catholics

---

The risk is that a belief in purgatory makes it impossible to have true faith in Christ.
The scriptures make it very clear that Jesus paid the full price for our sins with his blood sacrifice. If you believe that you must pay for some of your sins in purgatory, then you are denying that the sacrifice on the cross was a complete & perfect sacrifice.

Here's the risk: a belief in purgatory in a denial that Jesus did a complete work... it is calling Jesus a liar when he said "it is done"
A belief in purgatory is the opposite of...
Hebrews 7:25, 27 NIV
[25] Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
[27] Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

A belief in purgatory is a belief that Jesus didn't do a complete work on the cross.... it's a belief in a false Messiah.

---

Being forgiven a sin by the blood of Christ does not complete the cleansing process. That is made clear. Hence Purgatory (root - purge).

It is not anything that you stated as you misunderstood or have been incorrectly catechized

---

And there is the heresy of the Roman Catholics.
Jesus has made us Holy and yet you say we still need to be cleansed outside of His sacrifice.

Again every comment i make has been backed by scripture over and over

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

Exactly. That is the flaw. You have no magisterium. You are your own pope. If you dont like your preacher you just go find one you like that says what you believe

Ajd as such, 40,000+ religions formed from the Catholic faith triggered by Luther

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No one ever said Mary was 'just a woman', for the record.


Still no purgatory, still no Queen Mary except for England.

---

No one? Mmmmmk

Of course you can choose not to Believe. Youll either be proven right or wrong on purgatory. The biblical Evidence and support is there if you aren't stubborn. Did 2 millenia of people misinterpret the scriptures on it? Possibly.

Whats the risk in living ones life based on the 2000 year old beliefs on purgatory? MUCHHHHHHH higher risk going off deep end believing in OSAS or not believing in the body of Christ.

Id probably focus more there as a protestant than prayers to Mary as intercessor or purgatory in your concern for the billions of Catholics

---

The risk is that a belief in purgatory makes it impossible to have true faith in Christ.
The scriptures make it very clear that Jesus paid the full price for our sins with his blood sacrifice. If you believe that you must pay for some of your sins in purgatory, then you are denying that the sacrifice on the cross was a complete & perfect sacrifice.

Here's the risk: a belief in purgatory in a denial that Jesus did a complete work... it is calling Jesus a liar when he said "it is done"
A belief in purgatory is the opposite of...
Hebrews 7:25, 27 NIV
[25] Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
[27] Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

A belief in purgatory is a belief that Jesus didn't do a complete work on the cross.... it's a belief in a false Messiah.

---

Being forgiven a sin by the blood of Christ does not complete the cleansing process. That is made clear. Hence Purgatory (root - purge).

It is not anything that you stated as you misunderstood or have been incorrectly catechized

---

And there is the heresy of the Roman Catholics.
Jesus has made us Holy and yet you say we still need to be cleansed outside of His sacrifice.

---

Biblical defense posted

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

---

Maccabees of course was in your Bible until luther removed it. You worship frok an abridged version.

You apparently are ine that if a word is not in the bible you think that means something yet you claim to follow "Jesus". Yet another example of selective logic by a Protestant

Such weak arguments. If you want to discuss concepts we can do that but the tired boring "i dont see that word in my Version of the Bible" is rather sophomoric

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

---

Maccabees of course was in your Bible until luther removed it. You worship frok an abridged version.

You apparently are ine that if a word is not in the bible you think that means something yet you claim to follow "Jesus". Yet another example of selective logic by a Protestant

Such weak arguments. If you want to discuss concepts we can do that but the tired boring "i dont see that word in my Version of the Bible" is rather sophomoric

---

The name of Jesus is in the Bible. Why are you claiming that it isn't?

By the time Jesus was born, the consensus amount the Jewish leaders was that Macabees had historic value but was not inspired scripture. Just because it had been translated into the Greek version of the OT, doesn't make it scripture. Lots of non-canonical books were translated & passed around, but many of them were recognized to be non- scriptural writings, before and after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

Pretty weak to base your beliefs on a universally rejected book.

And by the way, I'm not rejecting Purgatory simply because the word is not in the Bible. I'm rejecting it because the concept of such a place is not found in the scriptures, and the concept is in direct contrast to the Gospel itself. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see any such message that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, but his sacrifice wasn't enough and we still need to pay a price to earn our place in heaven. Such a concept is a heresy that is rejected in multiple writings in the NT. One of the major themes of the Apostles letters is that we are saved by faith and not by works. Works don't make us righteous, blameless or Holy... only the blood of Jesus can accomplish that.
Purgatory by any other name is a concept that is rejected by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I never said "because I don't see the word in my Bible". That was your claim, not mine.
I gave very clear reasons why it is heretical and anti-Christ to believe in Purgatory, and you claimed my rejection of Purgatory was based upon it not being a word in my Bible. That's really sad & weak on your part.

Debate the topic, not some silly argument that you just made up.

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

ShooterTX said:

---

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

---

I could care less what Jews consider to be canon considering they reject the entire New Testament.

The majority of Christians today and throughout history have accepted Maccabees as a canonical book. Its removal from English language Bibles is only about 150 years old.

Mothra said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

---

Incorrect. Have noted your choice of one of 40,000+ options repeatedly. Again with the name calling and perjoratives like clockwork but no defense or debate.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

---

I could care less what Jews consider to be canon considering they reject the entire New Testament.

The majority of Christians today and throughout history have accepted Maccabees as a canonical book. Its removal from English language Bibles is only about 150 years old.

---

Ding ding ding.

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

---

Maccabees of course was in your Bible until luther removed it. You worship frok an abridged version.

You apparently are ine that if a word is not in the bible you think that means something yet you claim to follow "Jesus". Yet another example of selective logic by a Protestant

Such weak arguments. If you want to discuss concepts we can do that but the tired boring "i dont see that word in my Version of the Bible" is rather sophomoric

---

The name of Jesus is in the Bible. Why are you claiming that it isn't?

By the time Jesus was born, the consensus amount the Jewish leaders was that Macabees had historic value but was not inspired scripture. Just because it had been translated into the Greek version of the OT, doesn't make it scripture. Lots of non-canonical books were translated & passed around, but many of them were recognized to be non- scriptural writings, before and after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

Pretty weak to base your beliefs on a universally rejected book.

And by the way, I'm not rejecting Purgatory simply because the word is not in the Bible. I'm rejecting it because the concept of such a place is not found in the scriptures, and the concept is in direct contrast to the Gospel itself. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see any such message that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, but his sacrifice wasn't enough and we still need to pay a price to earn our place in heaven. Such a concept is a heresy that is rejected in multiple writings in the NT. One of the major themes of the Apostles letters is that we are saved by faith and not by works. Works don't make us righteous, blameless or Holy... only the blood of Jesus can accomplish that.
Purgatory by any other name is a concept that is rejected by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I never said "because I don't see the word in my Bible". That was your claim, not mine.
I gave very clear reasons why it is heretical and anti-Christ to believe in Purgatory, and you claimed my rejection of Purgatory was based upon it not being a word in my Bible. That's really sad & weak on your part.

Debate the topic, not some silly argument that you just made up.

---

Youre the sola scriptura "we dont interpret anything" (except what we interpret) crowd which maies it very confusing for you if youre honest with yourself. I just point out fun examples like "Jesus" appearing nowhere in your sola scriptura and how if Mary is just a run of the mill woman as yall have said repeatedly youd jave to admit she is a sinner and possibly not even in Heaven as even your beloved Paul didnt know the ways of the judgment of God by his own words. Even then you go around removing entire books from the canon of the Bible that existed for 1000-1500+ years to fit your alterations to the magisterium and tradition of the church.

But yall could only do that if you were honest

I prefer to venerate her as the sinless immaculate ever virgin Mary who is queen of Heaven as stated in Revelations and anyone with a logical mind could easily conclude that

Canon is not about popularity with humans.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Canon is not about popularity with humans.

---

and yet, the adjustments of church stance on many issues is in fact due to popularity with humans

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

---

Maccabees of course was in your Bible until luther removed it. You worship frok an abridged version.

You apparently are ine that if a word is not in the bible you think that means something yet you claim to follow "Jesus". Yet another example of selective logic by a Protestant

Such weak arguments. If you want to discuss concepts we can do that but the tired boring "i dont see that word in my Version of the Bible" is rather sophomoric

---

The name of Jesus is in the Bible. Why are you claiming that it isn't?

By the time Jesus was born, the consensus amount the Jewish leaders was that Macabees had historic value but was not inspired scripture. Just because it had been translated into the Greek version of the OT, doesn't make it scripture. Lots of non-canonical books were translated & passed around, but many of them were recognized to be non- scriptural writings, before and after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

Pretty weak to base your beliefs on a universally rejected book.

And by the way, I'm not rejecting Purgatory simply because the word is not in the Bible. I'm rejecting it because the concept of such a place is not found in the scriptures, and the concept is in direct contrast to the Gospel itself. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see any such message that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, but his sacrifice wasn't enough and we still need to pay a price to earn our place in heaven. Such a concept is a heresy that is rejected in multiple writings in the NT. One of the major themes of the Apostles letters is that we are saved by faith and not by works. Works don't make us righteous, blameless or Holy... only the blood of Jesus can accomplish that.
Purgatory by any other name is a concept that is rejected by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I never said "because I don't see the word in my Bible". That was your claim, not mine.
I gave very clear reasons why it is heretical and anti-Christ to believe in Purgatory, and you claimed my rejection of Purgatory was based upon it not being a word in my Bible. That's really sad & weak on your part.

Debate the topic, not some silly argument that you just made up.

---

Youre the sola scriptura "we dont interpret anything" (except what we interpret) crowd which maies it very confusing for you if youre honest with yourself. I just point out fun examples like "Jesus" appearing nowhere in your sola scriptura and how if Mary is just a run of the mill woman as yall have said repeatedly youd jave to admit she is a sinner and possibly not even in Heaven as even your beloved Paul didnt know the ways of the judgment of God by his own words. Even then you go around removing entire books from the canon of the Bible that existed for 1000-1500+ years to fit your alterations to the magisterium and tradition of the church.

But yall could only do that if you were honest

I prefer to venerate her as the sinless immaculate ever virgin Mary who is queen of Heaven as stated in Revelations and anyone with a logical mind could easily conclude that

---

Again, you claim that "Jesus" doesn't appear in scripture.... further evidence that you've never read the Bible.
His name is in the Bible between 900 and 1200 times depending upon the version.

The Bible never says that Mary was sinless or an ever virgin or the Queen of Heaven. Anyone with a brain can read the scriptures and see that she was a honorable woman that was blessed by God.... but nothing more.

Quote:

---

Anyone with a brain can read the scriptures and see that she was a honorable woman that was blessed by God.... but nothing more.

---

There have been a lot of honorable women blessed by God before and after Mary.

He chose a specific person, at a specific point in history to bear *and raise* his Son on earth. How many women go to your church? Heck, how many women are in the SBC? How many of them were deemed worthy of this honor?

Your casual dismissing of the titans of the faith is going to put you in the same hole as BTD.

Ah, so you believe that Mary was chosen by merit.

Was Noah, Abraham, Samuel, David, or any of the Patriarchs selected by God because they were worthy to be so honored? Or, as in the case of Jacob, Moses, or David, were these men unworthy but made acceptable to God by His work through them?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, so you believe that Mary was chosen by merit.

Was Noah, Abraham, Samuel, David, or any of the Patriarchs selected by God because they were worthy to be so honored? Or, as in the case of Jacob, Moses, or David, were these men unworthy but made acceptable to God by His work through them?

---

I believe that Mary was chosen by God based on his sovereign will.

I also believe that His choice wasn't the result of angels throwing darts at a heavenly dart board, and that God's evaluation not of our merit but rather of our willingness to cooperate with his will does play a role.

So why do you think that God chose Mary?

Realitybites said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Ah, so you believe that Mary was chosen by merit.

Was Noah, Abraham, Samuel, David, or any of the Patriarchs selected by God because they were worthy to be so honored? Or, as in the case of Jacob, Moses, or David, were these men unworthy but made acceptable to God by His work through them?

---

I believe that Mary was chosen by God based on his sovereign will.

I also believe that His choice wasn't the result of angels throwing darts at a heavenly dart board, and that God's evaluation not of our merit but rather of our willingness to cooperate with his will does play a role.

So why do you think that God chose Mary?

---

Well, you can sort of see a trend, if you pay attention to some of the people He chooses.

I mentioned Jacob and Moses, for example. Both were notably not seen a worthy, at least by human standards. God of course knows better than we do what is in someone.

The thing about Mary is that I believe God wanted His Son to be confident and capable, but not arrogant or full of himself. So God gave Jesus human parents who would show those traits.

I believe God put those traits in Mary and Joseph that He wanted Jesus to learn. On the one hand, that's God at work. On the other, as you said the two were both faithful to God's will (and few people pay attention to Joseph's obedience, by the way).

Mary was faithful and obedient to God, in much the same way that Esther was faithful, that Deborah was faithful, that Rebekah was faithful. It is not for us to rank one higher than others, when each served in their time and place according to God's will.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

---

I could care less what Jews consider to be canon considering they reject the entire New Testament.

The majority of Christians today and throughout history have accepted Maccabees as a canonical book. Its removal from English language Bibles is only about 150 years old.

---

So you reject the Jewish Tanakh, which is the Old Testament?

The earliest known Christian canon lists (Melito's canon 170 AD, Bryennios' list) did NOT include any of the deuterocanonical books. Even throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church from the time of Jerome up until the 15th century, the majority of church fathers, theologians, scholars, and major reference texts in the West did not consider the deuterocanonical books to be canon scripture.

Accurate church history is more in line with the view that Maccabees was added, not removed from the canon. But we know it doesn't matter to you. I'm sure you'll just ignore the facts and recycle your same argument again later.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

Anyone with a brain can read the scriptures and see that she was a honorable woman that was blessed by God.... but nothing more.

---

There have been a lot of honorable women blessed by God before and after Mary.

He chose a specific person, at a specific point in history to bear *and raise* his Son on earth. How many women go to your church? Heck, how many women are in the SBC? How many of them were deemed worthy of this honor?

Your casual dismissing of the titans of the faith is going to put you in the same hole as BTD.

---

Right, so Mary should be honored for being chosen to bear Jesus..... therefore let's bow and pray to images of her, sing hymns to her in church, name churches after her, give her titles that only God has, and credit her for our salvation.

Sir, if I'm in a "hole", then you are in the Mariana Trench.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

---

Incorrect. Have noted your choice of one of 40,000+ options repeatedly. Again with the name calling and perjoratives like clockwork but no defense or debate.

---

Feel free to explain why you continue to bring up Luther, then.

Good luck!

Purgatory was first formally defined as a dogma by the Second Council of Lyon in 1274.

It does not exist.

The prayers for the departed of the church of the first millennium,

"O God of spirits and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death and overthrown the Devil, and given life to Thy world, do Thou, the same Lord, give rest to the souls of Thy departed servants in a place of brightness, a place of refreshment, a place of repose, where all sickness, sighing, and sorrow have fled away. Pardon every transgression which they have committed, whether by word or deed or thought. For Thou art a good God and lovest mankind; because there is no man who lives yet does not sin, for Thou only art without sin, Thy righteousness is to all eternity, and Thy word is truth."

have nothing to do with "purgatory".

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

---

Incorrect. Have noted your choice of one of 40,000+ options repeatedly. Again with the name calling and perjoratives like clockwork but no defense or debate.

---

Feel free to explain why you continue to bring up Luther, then.

Good luck!

---

Ummmm Luther was the catalyst for the 40,000+ new religions all believing they have it right.

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

---

Maccabees of course was in your Bible until luther removed it. You worship frok an abridged version.

You apparently are ine that if a word is not in the bible you think that means something yet you claim to follow "Jesus". Yet another example of selective logic by a Protestant

Such weak arguments. If you want to discuss concepts we can do that but the tired boring "i dont see that word in my Version of the Bible" is rather sophomoric

---

The name of Jesus is in the Bible. Why are you claiming that it isn't?

By the time Jesus was born, the consensus amount the Jewish leaders was that Macabees had historic value but was not inspired scripture. Just because it had been translated into the Greek version of the OT, doesn't make it scripture. Lots of non-canonical books were translated & passed around, but many of them were recognized to be non- scriptural writings, before and after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

Pretty weak to base your beliefs on a universally rejected book.

And by the way, I'm not rejecting Purgatory simply because the word is not in the Bible. I'm rejecting it because the concept of such a place is not found in the scriptures, and the concept is in direct contrast to the Gospel itself. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see any such message that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, but his sacrifice wasn't enough and we still need to pay a price to earn our place in heaven. Such a concept is a heresy that is rejected in multiple writings in the NT. One of the major themes of the Apostles letters is that we are saved by faith and not by works. Works don't make us righteous, blameless or Holy... only the blood of Jesus can accomplish that.
Purgatory by any other name is a concept that is rejected by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I never said "because I don't see the word in my Bible". That was your claim, not mine.
I gave very clear reasons why it is heretical and anti-Christ to believe in Purgatory, and you claimed my rejection of Purgatory was based upon it not being a word in my Bible. That's really sad & weak on your part.

Debate the topic, not some silly argument that you just made up.

---

Youre the sola scriptura "we dont interpret anything" (except what we interpret) crowd which maies it very confusing for you if youre honest with yourself. I just point out fun examples like "Jesus" appearing nowhere in your sola scriptura and how if Mary is just a run of the mill woman as yall have said repeatedly youd jave to admit she is a sinner and possibly not even in Heaven as even your beloved Paul didnt know the ways of the judgment of God by his own words. Even then you go around removing entire books from the canon of the Bible that existed for 1000-1500+ years to fit your alterations to the magisterium and tradition of the church.

But yall could only do that if you were honest

I prefer to venerate her as the sinless immaculate ever virgin Mary who is queen of Heaven as stated in Revelations and anyone with a logical mind could easily conclude that

---

Again, you claim that "Jesus" doesn't appear in scripture.... further evidence that you've never read the Bible.
His name is in the Bible between 900 and 1200 times depending upon the version.

The Bible never says that Mary was sinless or an ever virgin or the Queen of Heaven. Anyone with a brain can read the scriptures and see that she was a honorable woman that was blessed by God.... but nothing more.

---

You are missing the point as is so often the case. The word Jesus originated likely around the 1600s or so

Just an example of someone who bought into sola scriptura (which didnt even exist for half a millenia as we know) and then removing many books that are inconvenient and stating a name that originated 400 years ago is all….ironic

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Revelations 21:27

1 cor 3: 13-15

2 macc 12:39-46

---

Hebrews 9:24-27 NIV
[24] For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. [25] Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. [26] Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,

Strange.... no mention of dying and then going to purgatory to be purified...

Hebrews 10:10 NIV
[10] And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Again, never any mention of needing purification after death.

Hebrews 10:17-18 NIV
[17] Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." [18] And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.

I guess this verse is wrong according to you?

How is it possible that no one in the Bible ever instructed anyone about paying for those in Purgatory?
How do you explain this universal omission by all the apostles?

Macabees is not scripture.

Rev 21:27 says nothing about spending time in purgatory to be made pure.

1 Cor 3 also says nothing about purification in purgatory

Hebrews 1:3 NIV
[3] The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

So you deny that Jesus provided purification for sins?

---

Maccabees of course was in your Bible until luther removed it. You worship frok an abridged version.

You apparently are ine that if a word is not in the bible you think that means something yet you claim to follow "Jesus". Yet another example of selective logic by a Protestant

Such weak arguments. If you want to discuss concepts we can do that but the tired boring "i dont see that word in my Version of the Bible" is rather sophomoric

---

The name of Jesus is in the Bible. Why are you claiming that it isn't?

By the time Jesus was born, the consensus amount the Jewish leaders was that Macabees had historic value but was not inspired scripture. Just because it had been translated into the Greek version of the OT, doesn't make it scripture. Lots of non-canonical books were translated & passed around, but many of them were recognized to be non- scriptural writings, before and after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

Pretty weak to base your beliefs on a universally rejected book.

And by the way, I'm not rejecting Purgatory simply because the word is not in the Bible. I'm rejecting it because the concept of such a place is not found in the scriptures, and the concept is in direct contrast to the Gospel itself. Nowhere in the Gospels do we see any such message that Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins, but his sacrifice wasn't enough and we still need to pay a price to earn our place in heaven. Such a concept is a heresy that is rejected in multiple writings in the NT. One of the major themes of the Apostles letters is that we are saved by faith and not by works. Works don't make us righteous, blameless or Holy... only the blood of Jesus can accomplish that.
Purgatory by any other name is a concept that is rejected by the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
I never said "because I don't see the word in my Bible". That was your claim, not mine.
I gave very clear reasons why it is heretical and anti-Christ to believe in Purgatory, and you claimed my rejection of Purgatory was based upon it not being a word in my Bible. That's really sad & weak on your part.

Debate the topic, not some silly argument that you just made up.

---

Youre the sola scriptura "we dont interpret anything" (except what we interpret) crowd which maies it very confusing for you if youre honest with yourself. I just point out fun examples like "Jesus" appearing nowhere in your sola scriptura and how if Mary is just a run of the mill woman as yall have said repeatedly youd jave to admit she is a sinner and possibly not even in Heaven as even your beloved Paul didnt know the ways of the judgment of God by his own words. Even then you go around removing entire books from the canon of the Bible that existed for 1000-1500+ years to fit your alterations to the magisterium and tradition of the church.

But yall could only do that if you were honest

I prefer to venerate her as the sinless immaculate ever virgin Mary who is queen of Heaven as stated in Revelations and anyone with a logical mind could easily conclude that

---

Again, you claim that "Jesus" doesn't appear in scripture.... further evidence that you've never read the Bible.
His name is in the Bible between 900 and 1200 times depending upon the version.

The Bible never says that Mary was sinless or an ever virgin or the Queen of Heaven. Anyone with a brain can read the scriptures and see that she was a honorable woman that was blessed by God.... but nothing more.

---

You are missing the point as is so often the case. The word Jesus originated likely around the 1600s or so

Just an example of someone who bought into sola scriptura (which didnt even exist for half a millenia as we know) and then removing many books that are inconvenient and stating a name that originated 400 years ago is all….ironic

---

Good grief. You actually think that an English translation is the same as heresy?

Fine.... from now on I will only use the original Hebrew name of Yeshua... is that better for you?

Meanwhile there are still zero scriptures (in any language) that support your heretical beliefs about Mary being sinless or ever virhin or Queen of Heaven. I can give you the English, Latin, Greek or Hebrew name of Jesus in the Bible.... but you have nothing, no matter the translation.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

---

Incorrect. Have noted your choice of one of 40,000+ options repeatedly. Again with the name calling and perjoratives like clockwork but no defense or debate.

---

Feel free to explain why you continue to bring up Luther, then.

Good luck!

---

Ummmm Luther was the catalyst for the 40,000+ new religions all believing they have it right.

---

Ummm, yeah so what's your point? Nobody here is venerating Martin Luther or even agreeing with him. So why do you keep bringing up irrelevant points?

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

---

Incorrect. Have noted your choice of one of 40,000+ options repeatedly. Again with the name calling and perjoratives like clockwork but no defense or debate.

---

Feel free to explain why you continue to bring up Luther, then.

Good luck!

---

Ummmm Luther was the catalyst for the 40,000+ new religions all believing they have it right.

---

Ummm, yeah so what's your point? Nobody here is venerating Martin Luther or even agreeing with him. So why do you keep bringing up irrelevant points?

---

Whats relevant is you have 40,000+ religions to choose from. Yall argue amongst yourselves here and passionately say "protestant isnt one thing" which of course proves my point for me. Thats the point. Congrats on each being your own pope-to each one here that is. That wasnt what Jesus wanted us to do. He said beware wolves in sheep's clothing which is of course folks like luther calvin pope francis etc.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

This is what has led you astray and created confusion

Luther stated it in “The Estate of Marriage” (1522). He also allowed polygamy.

He was wicked.

— Dr Taylor Marshall™️ (@TaylorRMarshall) January 18, 2026

---

Why do you continue to bring up Martin Luther?
We all know that he was an imperfect man. We don't worship Luther the way you worship the pope or Mary.
There was only 1 perfect human in all of history, the man Jesus Christ. ALL others were/are sinners (including Mary).

We are Christian (followers of Christ), not followers of Luther. The scriptures are the Word of God, not Martin Luther. I base none of my beliefs in God upon the man Martin Luther.

Try using scripture to defend your beliefs, rather than attacking a flawed human to defend them.

---

He's a simple dude. Thinks all Protestant denoms worship Luther and are one big monolithic group.

---

Incorrect. Have noted your choice of one of 40,000+ options repeatedly. Again with the name calling and perjoratives like clockwork but no defense or debate.

---

Feel free to explain why you continue to bring up Luther, then.

Good luck!

---

Ummmm Luther was the catalyst for the 40,000+ new religions all believing they have it right.

---

Ummm, yeah so what's your point? Nobody here is venerating Martin Luther or even agreeing with him. So why do you keep bringing up irrelevant points?

---

Whats relevant is you have 40,000+ religions to choose from. Yall argue amongst yourselves here and passionately say "protestant isnt one thing" which of course proves my point for me. Thats the point. Congrats on each being your own pope-to each one here that is. That wasnt what Jesus wanted us to do. He said beware wolves in sheep's clothing which is of course folks like luther calvin pope francis etc.

---

Once again, you've gone off on some tangent that has nothing whatsoever to do with the question posed.

You're nuts.

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

---

I could care less what Jews consider to be canon considering they reject the entire New Testament.

The majority of Christians today and throughout history have accepted Maccabees as a canonical book. Its removal from English language Bibles is only about 150 years old.

---

It's been eye opening to learn that the Bible is a liturgical book. To take it out of the context of liturgy and apply it to a private, individual and subjective understanding alone is setting it up to be splintered. Its fine to read on our own, but we must understand that its derived from a structure.

The canon itself developed to define what was read in liturgy. The NT we all share came from early church liturgy. Justin Martyr's writings, especially his detailed descriptions of early Christian liturgy back in the 150s was THE foundational concept of the Holy Trinity. Our church fathers used emphasis on apostolic succession, liturgy and the Eucharist to defend against Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism.

The majority of the faithful in history were unable to read, so their only encounter with the scriptures was hearing them read in church. Its so obvious that our Lord setup the Church with apostolic continuity.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Macabees is not canon according to both jews and Christians. It is only considered scripture by Catholics. Yet even some Catholics admit that Macabees isn't inspired scripture.

---

I could care less what Jews consider to be canon considering they reject the entire New Testament.

The majority of Christians today and throughout history have accepted Maccabees as a canonical book. Its removal from English language Bibles is only about 150 years old.

---

It's been eye opening to learn that the Bible is a liturgical book. To take it out of the context of liturgy and apply it to a private, individual and subjective understanding alone is setting it up to be splintered. Its fine to read on our own, but we must understand that its derived from a structure.

The canon itself developed to define what was read in liturgy. The NT we all share came from early church liturgy. Justin Martyr's writings, especially his detailed descriptions of early Christian liturgy back in the 150s was THE foundational concept of the Holy Trinity. Our church fathers used emphasis on apostolic succession, liturgy and the Eucharist to defend against Arianism, Nestorianism, and Gnosticism.

The majority of the faithful in history were unable to read, so their only encounter with the scriptures was hearing them read in church. Its so obvious that our Lord setup the Church with apostolic continuity.

---

Apostolic continuity is only through adherence to Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing we have that came from the apostles. Therefore, apostolic continuity is only through sola scriptura.