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?