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.

---

The "40,000 religions" claim by Roman Catholics is just ignorant, parroted talking points. Like much of what they believe, it is just taken as the truth without involving any independent criticial thinking. The core, central tenets of virtually all Protestant denominations are the same, and virtually all Protestants regardless of the denomination consider each other fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. The actual number of denominations is more likely in the hundreds, not tens of thousands.

The real question Roman Catholics should be asking themselves is if it's better to be hundreds separated by minor doctrinal issues.... or billions united in damnable error.

" Its so obvious that our Lord setup the Church with apostolic continuity"

When you start with that assumption, hardly a surprise you see it in the light you like.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You're claiming that apostolic continuity is preserved only by adherence to Scripture. That claim itself is not Scripture. So by what authority is it binding?

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

---

Plus apostolic succession is clearly outlined in scripture.

Bishops/overseers appointed by apostles (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5)
Laying on of hands to transmit ministry (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6)
Obedience to leaders in the Church (Heb 13:17)
A visible, Eucharistic community (1 Cor 1011)

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a direct disciple of John the Apostle.
He literally is one who they laid hands on. He said the following around 107 AD:

"In like manner, let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church." - Letter to the Trallians 3:12

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no one do anything pertaining to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he appoints.

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

There's no way Christ setup the church then everyone went apostate 100 years later and until the 1500s when the reformers killed one another to establish the real church that's simultaneously disconnected and preaching contradictory beliefs.

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Such an odd dude. Keep Yelling at clouds and adding nothing to The very comments you make that are responded to. Just weird man.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

---

Plus apostolic succession is clearly outlined in scripture.

Bishops/overseers appointed by apostles (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5)
Laying on of hands to transmit ministry (1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6)
Obedience to leaders in the Church (Heb 13:17)
A visible, Eucharistic community (1 Cor 1011)

St. Ignatius of Antioch was a direct disciple of John the Apostle.
He literally is one who they laid hands on. He said the following around 107 AD:

"In like manner, let everyone respect the deacons as they would respect Jesus Christ, and just as they respect the bishop as a type of the Father, and the presbyters as the council of God and the college of the apostles. Without these, it cannot be called a Church." - Letter to the Trallians 3:12

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no one do anything pertaining to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he appoints.

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

There's no way Christ setup the church then everyone went apostate 100 years later and until the 1500s when the reformers killed one another to establish the real church that's simultaneously disconnected and preaching contradictory beliefs.

---

Ding ding ding

Im Sure mothra, who otherwise generally seems a good dude but gets emotional and illigical on these topics, bouta tell ya youre crazy because your post has nothing to do with the thread title
Prepare yourself.

I say repeatedly you cant do this right if youre your own pope as they are and dont study and learn what the church fathers said and why and the tradition they passed down which gives context to words written in another age in another language but such is life. They dont want to hear that. And so they lash out.

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.

---

If you havent read City of God, highly recommend Augustines likely greatest work in his defense of Catholicism against the pagan beliefs of his day

Fre3dombear said:

---

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.

---

If you havent read City of God, highly recommend Augustines likely greatest work in his defense of Catholicism against the pagan beliefs of his day

---

I'll check it out!

You should read Rock & Sand by Fr. Josiah Trenham

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You're claiming that apostolic continuity is preserved only by adherence to Scripture. That claim itself is not Scripture. So by what authority is it binding?

---

It's preserved only by adherence to Scripture.... because all that we have from the apostles is in Scripture. This is not an "authority" claim, this is just a priori logic and truth. For example: if everything you have that is an apple, you put in a basket - then to make sure you only eat apples, you only eat from that basket. It's completely nonsensical to say that the apples themselves must somehow contain the rule that you must eat only from the basket if you want to eat an apple, for that rule to be true.

Likewise, if everything you have that is from the apostles is placed in Scripture.... then it follows by a priori logic that if you want to make sure you are following the apostles' witness, you only follow what's in Scripture. I honestly don't know how such a simple, basic concept is eluding you and the Roman Catholics here. I think it's because you guys are set on a certain conclusion, and are trying to force the facts to support it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

---

Too bad they violated the Lord's setup when they started adding their non-apostolic traditions, to which they bound those illiterate believers upon pain of anathema (damning them to Hell).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

---

Too bad they violated the Lord's setup when they started adding their non-apostolic traditions, to which they bound those illiterate believers upon pain of anathema (damning them to Hell).

---

Yikes. That sure doesn't give you much confidence in his promise about the testimony of the Apostles.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You're claiming that apostolic continuity is preserved only by adherence to Scripture. That claim itself is not Scripture. So by what authority is it binding?

---

It's preserved only by adherence to Scripture.... because all that we have from the apostles is in Scripture. This is not an "authority" claim, this is just a priori logic and truth. For example: if everything you have that is an apple, you put in a basket - then to make sure you only eat apples, you only eat from that basket. It's completely nonsensical to say that the apples themselves must somehow contain the rule that you must eat only from the basket if you want to eat an apple, for that rule to be true.

Likewise, if everything you have that is from the apostles is placed in Scripture.... then it follows by a priori logic that if you want to make sure you are following the apostles' witness, you only follow what's in Scripture. I honestly don't know how such a simple, basic concept is eluding you and the Roman Catholics here. I think it's because you guys are set on a certain conclusion, and are trying to force the facts to support it.

---

Nah you don't get to make assumptions and call it a fact without backing it up. You assume as a premise that everything from the apostles was placed into Scripture. That claim is never demonstrated, it's simply asserted. Back up that claim first.

The apostles command adherence to traditions by word of mouth and by letter (2 Thess 2:15). Paul instructs Timothy to transmit what he heard, not just what was written (2 Tim 2:2).
The Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), not Scripture isolated from it.

So the issue isn't that "the apples don't contain the rule."
The issue is that you're asserting, without evidence, that all the apples were ever put in the basket in the first place, even though Scripture itself says otherwise.

You trust Scripture alone because you assume all apostolic authority is in Scripture, and you assume all apostolic authority is in Scripture because you trust Scripture alone.
So no…you haven't delivered priori logic. You've gone circular.

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

---

Too bad they violated the Lord's setup when they started adding their non-apostolic traditions, to which they bound those illiterate believers upon pain of anathema (damning them to Hell).

---

Yikes. That sure doesn't give you much confidence in his promise about the testimony of the Apostles.

---

Jesus promised the apostles that non-apostles would stray from their testimony, thus violating his setup for apostolic continuity and cause many to be misled?

I agree, he did. He warned believers that the Devil is a liar and would try to twist the gospel. He promised that the Devil would sow tares among his wheat. I sure don't see how you can say I don't have much confidence in that. I've been witnessing it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

You're claiming that apostolic continuity is preserved only by adherence to Scripture. That claim itself is not Scripture. So by what authority is it binding?

---

It's preserved only by adherence to Scripture.... because all that we have from the apostles is in Scripture. This is not an "authority" claim, this is just a priori logic and truth. For example: if everything you have that is an apple, you put in a basket - then to make sure you only eat apples, you only eat from that basket. It's completely nonsensical to say that the apples themselves must somehow contain the rule that you must eat only from the basket if you want to eat an apple, for that rule to be true.

Likewise, if everything you have that is from the apostles is placed in Scripture.... then it follows by a priori logic that if you want to make sure you are following the apostles' witness, you only follow what's in Scripture. I honestly don't know how such a simple, basic concept is eluding you and the Roman Catholics here. I think it's because you guys are set on a certain conclusion, and are trying to force the facts to support it.

---

Nah you don't get to make assumptions and call it a fact without backing it up. You assume as a premise that everything from the apostles was placed into Scripture. That claim is never demonstrated, it's simply asserted. Back up that claim first.

The apostles command adherence to traditions by word of mouth and by letter (2 Thess 2:15). Paul instructs Timothy to transmit what he heard, not just what was written (2 Tim 2:2).
The Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), not Scripture isolated from it.

So the issue isn't that "the apples don't contain the rule."
The issue is that you're asserting, without evidence, that all the apples were ever put in the basket in the first place, even though Scripture itself says otherwise.

You trust Scripture alone because you assume all apostolic authority is in Scripture, and you assume all apostolic authority is in Scripture because you trust Scripture alone.
So no…you haven't delivered priori logic. You've gone circular.

---

How is it not an established fact? I've given you guys multiple opportunities to debunk it by providing ANY teaching, oral or written, that we know came from the apostles that is NOT in Scripture. Over, and over, and over again.

And you guys came up empty. Every. Single. Time.

So it appears that if there is any assumption of fact, it's entirely on YOUR part.

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

"Apostolic continuity is preserved only by adherence to Scripture."

Concepts like that are what you get when you apply assumptions from a world where you can order a dozen different bible translations from christianbook.com and have them Fedexed to your door to 1500 years of history in which scrolls, scribes, and literacy were rare.

What scripture looked like for the first 1455 years of the church.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

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.

---

Such an odd dude. Keep Yelling at clouds and adding nothing to The very comments you make that are responded to. Just weird man.

---

And yet you can't even provide a straight answer to a very simple question. You can't tell us why you keep brining up Luther as if Protestants somehow venerate the man.

You erect more strawmen than any poster on this board.

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I'm curious which of the Catholic sacraments you believe and whether you think any of them may be a problem or even heretical. Believe baptism is necessary for salvation? How about communion? Believe prayer to Mary is a necessary practice? Believe works can get you into heaven?! If an individual doesn't have change to confess before dying then he's destined for hell? How about purgatory, believe that? Believe water can be "holy" and necessary for spiritual cleansing?

As far as I know, these practices and beliefs are not accepted by orthodoxy. But correct me if I'm wrong. When we add to the gospel a number of works that are extra scriptural, or in some cases anti- scriptural, I would submit we are walking on very dangerous grounds. Does any one belief condemn a man to hell? No but these are the types of things that can certainly confuse man and lead him astray.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Saying "your beliefs damn you" is a damnation claim, but it's not me doing the damning, it's you damning yourself with false beliefs, especially beliefs concerning salvation.

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea. If your church denies this, then you are only demonstrating that your church changed from what it was before, thus you've invalidated your claim of being the same church "from the beginning" and also invalidated your church's claim that your councils are infallible.

Your liturgy literally promotes idolatry of Mary and even credits her for salvation. I've quoted your own Akathist Hymn that does this, which your church declared is infallible. Shall we go into what your Gregory of Palamus taught about Mary?

So how is any of this a "caricature"? The Roman Catholics have also tried using this tactic where they accuse me of caricaturing their religion, when all I did was quote to them their own cathechisms, ecumenical councils, popes, bishops, and Doctors of their Church. It's a cop out argument. There is nothing I'm saying about Orthodoxy that isn't demonstrably true.

Realitybites said:

---

"Apostolic continuity is preserved only by adherence to Scripture."

Concepts like that are what you get when you apply assumptions from a world where you can order a dozen different bible translations from christianbook.com and have them Fedexed to your door to 1500 years of history in which scrolls, scribes, and literacy were rare.

---

Maybe it's just too difficult a concept for you to grasp, but..... today we live in a time period where the apostles are all long dead, and when books and literacy are not rare. Apostolic continuity can only happen by adherence to Scripture, which is incontrovertibly the only thing we have today that contains everything we know that came from the apostles. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to answer my challenge and provide the evidence. So far, still NADA from all of you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Amen.

---

Too bad they violated the Lord's setup when they started adding their non-apostolic traditions, to which they bound those illiterate believers upon pain of anathema (damning them to Hell).

---

Yikes. That sure doesn't give you much confidence in his promise about the testimony of the Apostles.

---

Jesus promised the apostles that non-apostles would stray from their testimony, thus violating his setup for apostolic continuity and cause many to be misled?

I agree, he did. He warned believers that the Devil is a liar and would try to twist the gospel. He promised that the Devil would sow tares among his wheat. I sure don't see how you can say I don't have much confidence in that. I've been witnessing it.

---

If the good news was that everyone would go to hell until the Reformers came to set things right, it hardly qualifies as good news.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I DON'T damn all Roman Catholics. I don't damn anyone. You damn yourself by believing in a false gospel. You damn yourself by requiring the practice of blatant and egregious idolatry and heresy for salvation, as you do in your liturgy, thus twisting Jesus' true gospel; which according to Paul's clear and direct teaching, makes that church and those who promote it ANATHEMA.

Within Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, I'm sure there are true Christians who are saved, but who simply are in error, even really bad error. Fortunately for them, they are not saved by their works, but by their faith in Jesus. Sola fide to the rescue! They are saved, however, not because of the guidance of their respective churches, but rather in spite of them.

Your belief that the Orthodox Church doesn't damn everyone outside their church does NOT line up with Orthodox Church history. And HOW is it, that after everything I've discussed, can you possibly believe that their claim to be the true church is correct, given that their church REQUIRES ICON VENERATION for salvation, a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture, and completely shunned by the early church - a fact that is clear and demonstrable from early church history? How is this not registering?

---

Saying "I don't damn you, your beliefs damn you" is still a damnation claim. And saying "Anyone who holds X belief is under God's anathema" is also functionally pronouncing damnation.

So why are you damning Christians to hell?

Icon veneration is not required for salvation. Who told you that? That's completely false. The Orthodox Church does not teach that icon veneration saves anyone. It teaches that salvation is union with Christ, and icons are a natural expression of an incarnational faith…not a condition of justification. There are blind people, that doesn't even make sense.

Scripture isn't just referenced in Orthdoox, it's proclaimed, sung, and prayed throughout the entire service. In a single Divine Liturgy, the Church reads the Psalms woven through the prayers, the Beatitudes from Matthew 5, a full Epistle reading, a full Gospel reading, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed, which is itself a condensed summary of Scripture. That's in addition to constant biblical language embedded in the hymns, litanies, and Eucharistic prayers. Orthodoxy doesn't minimize Scripture whatsoever. It reads more scripture than any Protestant church.

What you're presenting isn't a critique of Orthodoxy, it's a caricature. It's superficial, historically inaccurate, and dismissive, and it assumes your own theology is so perfect that the Church must be wrong by definition.

---

Icon veneration was made a requirement upon the pain of anathema (being damned to Hell) in the Second Council of Nicaea.

---

No, it was not. The active rejection of icons was anathematized, but there is no positive requirement to venerate icons.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

If God judges us by the same standard we use on others (Matthew 7),and you just casually damn all Catholics as idolaters and pagans, then you've just condemned almost everyone, including yourself.

Because let's be honest man, Idolatry isn't limited to icons, statues or incense. It's what owns your heart.

How many people walk out of church and spend the entire week obsessing over football? Structure their weekends, emotions, and identity around a team or player? Idolize actors, celebrities, influencers, or CEOs? Measure their worth by money, status, or image? Would be more devastated by losing their sports team than losing prayer?

If we apply your standards, then modern America is one giant pagan temple and the vast majority of Christian's worship at it.

You shouldn't be damning anyone man. The official orthodox position is that they're the true Church, those outside don't have the fullness of the faith…but they don't assume anyone outside of it is damned or can't be saved.

---

I'm curious which of the Catholic sacraments you believe and whether you think any of them may be a problem or even heretical. Believe baptism is necessary for salvation? How about communion? Believe prayer to Mary is a necessary practice? Believe works can get you into heaven?! If an individual doesn't have change to confess before dying then he's destined for hell? How about purgatory, believe that? Believe water can be "holy" and necessary for spiritual cleansing?

As far as I know, these practices and beliefs are not accepted by orthodoxy. But correct me if I'm wrong. When we add to the gospel a number of works that are extra scriptural, or in some cases anti- scriptural, I would submit we are walking on very dangerous grounds. Does any one belief condemn a man to hell? No but these are the types of things that can certainly confuse man and lead him astray.

---

So Orthodoxy is all about the heart. Its where your heart is genuinely pointed. Its not juridical or legalist. We don't read through scripture to determine what the bare minimums are or how to separate and define concepts like salvation, justification, sanctification etc. There's ontologies instead. Its impossible to look at works and or as something as simple as making a declaration of faith (repent and believe) for salvation because we're not asking the same questions.

The juridical/legalist (protestant) question would be: "How can a guilty person be declared righteous before a judge?

An ontological (orthodox) question would be: "How does a corrupted human become healed, united to God, and made alive?

Its asking what is something, not merely how its regarded. Salvation isn't God changing his verdict about you. Salvation is God changing you.

That's why there's a huge breakdown of communication between modern higher criticism of scripure vs the early church and the apostles. Juridical and nominal concepts didn't exist back then. They didn't have lawyers combing through the fine print to create a dictionary for concepts like salvation (sola fide). 1500 years later...we had Calvin who was a trained lawyer and his paradigm is deployed unto everything.

These are the sacraments:
Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), Eucharist (Communion), Confession (Repentance), Anointing of the Sick (Holy Unction), Marriage, and Ordination (Holy Orders).

On confession: Salvation isn't tied to one single act but to a relationship with Christ, yet unrepented grave sins are a serious concern, and the unforgivable sin is the refusal to repent, not a specific act itself. Again back to ontology, not a legal question.

A couple of differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholics:

Obviously the papacy.

Purgatory is considered a heresy and strictly Roman Catholic addition later in 1274. It lacks historical precedent and undermines Christ's complete atonement. Some Orthodox adhere to Toll Houses which is often compared to purgatory, but is wildly different: its also not official doctrine/dogma.

Immaculate conception is a heresy according to Orthodox. Its a heresy built upon another heresy which is the idea that human beings are born guilty of sin, we're not born guilty. The Roman Catholics didn't like the idea of Mary who was Holy to be guilty of sin when she was born, so they came up with immaculate conception, a rather recent doctrine. Its terrible because if Mary wasn't a human being like you and I, then Jesus Christ became human from a person that isn't fully human...whose different than we are. So he did not assume all of our humanity as Hebrews makes clear, therefore he didn't save all of us.

Example for why sacraments are real/physical instead of just symbolic:
God became flesh, validating the material world as His work, not something evil. When you asked about Holy Water, this belief stems from Christ's own baptism in the Jordan River, which sanctified all waters, making them a source of divine life.

Regarding Baptismal regeneration:
In Titus 3:5-6 " he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, "whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior". This parallels with Acts 2:38 "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is clearly both symbolic and physical because both of these have to be harmonized.

On the Eucharist, it even differs from some Roman Catholic views in that uncreated glory is transmitted to the human nature, that same transmission takes place in the Eucharist. Its not the essence of God. This might not make sense to you, its pretty complex theology about Essenceenergies distinction.