Henosis > Theosis

John 8:12-14

Once again, Jesus spoke to the people and said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.”

the Pharisees said to Him, “You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not valid.

Jesus replied, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is valid, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know where I came from or where I am going."

reminder the name of God is I AM, you are God, it's obvious once you have the experience

And? I don't see him saying only things written in the Bible are valid.

what's the scriptural basis for just ripping books you don't like out of the Bible?

>lol just meditate on love

End yourself
>2 Thessalonians 2:15

>what's the scriptural basis for just ripping books you don't like out of the Bible?
Precedent set at Nicea.

>what's the scriptural basis for just ripping books you don't like out of the Bible?
There's no need since they weren't canonical to begin with.

>Can't even cite a verse in defense
Proddies are pathetic

Why bother? You believe the Bible is a subordinate authority so you'll reject whatever is presented.

>Paul > Jesus

Catholics in a nutshell

>Hesiod

>tries citing the magisterium of a council
>still thinks he's following sola scriptura

OR

>claims without any shred of evidence that something isn't part of the bible
>as though the bible was written with a table of contents first

It's SolA scriptura, not SolO scriptura.

Scripture is infallible and the basis for everything. Tradition and polity still has a place in the protestant faith. However, if it directly contradicts scripture, it gets tossed out. We don't work around scripture like the papists. Hence why Lutherans still accept all the early ecumenical councils and have things like the Nicean creed.

As for the apocrypha, it can be read for wisdom but it was never fully agreed upon as canon in the early Church.

Nice bait post, I'm replying. My comment "precedent set at Nicea" is a tautology. The authority you are investing in Scripture depends entirely on the human failures who curated the Bible as we know it. There is no verse to cite, dummy, because "ripping books you don't like out of the Bible" is exactly what the Catholics did. Learn some history fatface.

I think it was more so an attempt at an intentionally corny joke rather than edginess, bro. Of course you probably didn't realize that because you lack the internal honesty, reflective ability, and self-awareness to realize that not every criticism of religion, or sarcastic remark upon, or otherwise parody of, religious belief is an attempt at being edgy.

Catholics using the canon as an argument against Protestants is silly, as the same argument can be leveled against Catholics by Orthodox. Besides, the Catholic Church only dogmatically defined its canon at Trent, in the 1500s, as a response to Protestantism.

How do YOU know? How did Luther know? Neither you nor he was there. The entire Protestant project of "recovering original Christianity" is fallacious because it ignores that early Christianity became Catholicism. There's direct continuity between the early Church and the Catholic Church, and what changes have taken place are a reflection of a growth of understanding and wisdom, not a straying. The notion of "going back to the beginning" is stupid.

>sola scriptura
>literally by Scripture alone in latin
>b-b-but it's not solo scriptura :(
Shut up you goal post moving chump. Proddies fucked over Europe and the continue to fuck over the west.

Orthocucks confirmed one true Christian faith

>early Christianity became catholicism
Yet it stayed Eastern Orthodox.
Roman papism was a mistake and the protestant deformation only made things worse for western christians

This thread feels like reading the magic thread.

You're all retards.

Reminder that RIGHT NOW some people claim christians are Buddhists, or that buddhists are Christians.

Reminder that RIGHT NOW some people claim that ''Paths within Buddhadharma leading ultimately to the same place ''.

Getting BACK ON TOPIC

OP, there appears to be nothing heretical about the Cloud of Unknowing. It hasn't been condemned and seems to be rightly recognized as part of the Catholic mystical tradition. So I'd say give it a shot, see what happens. Generally speaking, if you speak to God genuinely, and do it long enough, sooner or later he'll speak back to you, one way or another. So read it and follow it, and see what happens.

>is fallacious because it ignores that early Christianity became Catholicism
It's laughable how you people say these things as if Eastern Orthodoxy et al doesn't exist.

CHAIR OF PETER

He's correct. "Scripture alone" means that scripture is the alone infallible rule of faith. It doesn't mean there can be no lesser sources of authority.

Too bad Peter went into schism, eh?

Oh so y'all are fine with Catholic Magisterium then? Might as well chuck that Sola Scriptura line then if you're gonna loophole it so bad you obliterate it.

Peter and Paul were ultimately in complete agreement, that's why they have the same feast day. The first pope and the first missionary, representing the two core roles of the Church.

You can make whatever comparisons you want, it doesn't change the fact that the Latin Church created dogmatic innovations and fell into schism and later heresy because of them.

There's no loophole. There is the distinction between "norming norm" and "normed norm", you know? Well, you probably don't. You should be more concerned with what Protestants actually mean by the term than what you'd like to think it means.

I'm not surprised. Protestantism is entirely about man defining the will of God via his whim over actually letting God's wisdom be revealed. Makes sense you'd use flimsy ass logic to redefine a pretty cut and dry rule to follow soon as it becomes a lil bit dicey. Don't you have more heresy to go commit prod? Maybe wanna allow gay marriage? Female ministers?

>Makes sense you'd use flimsy ass logic to redefine a pretty cut and dry rule to follow soon as it becomes a lil bit dicey.
That's what it meant from the beginning. If you have no interest in simply learning what the term means there's no point conversing. Oh well.

I read the cloud of unknowing but it leads to nowhere without proper conditions.
One must be pure in heart to see God. That means being entirely moral, which means giving away all your wealth to the poor and living a life of servitude like a monk or a nun.

I'm not quite there yet.

>That's what it meant from the beginning
Just like Protestantism is exactly how Christianity was from the beginning eh friend? :^)

What do you all mean by "talking/communing" with God?

I thought the point of the Cloud was to think/say/ask nothing. It isn't like magic where you bring your trivial desires to be fulfilled; that would be using God as a means to an end, which couldn't happen--you would be fooling yourself.

If you were to actually come into God's presence you would say nothing--silence would be the only appropriate form of reverence.

Yes. Read pic related properly. Also read D. Carabine's Unknown God.

>Hesiod 14:12
You know very well that's from the Aeneids by Platonius Arbiter.

>What do you all mean by "fucking/cumming" with God?

>Christfags STILL think this is about Satan
That oracle literally starts with "you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon".

>sola scriptura
Only applies to the writings of Jesus then?

Yes, it's orthodox. The Church fathers made the distinction of the stages of the spiritual life: purgative, illuminative, unitive. The passive form of prayer described in that book (infused contemplation) begins at the end of the purgative / start of the illuminative way, but doesn't reach its summit until the unitive.

See: christianperfection.info/tta26.php

I) The purgative way or stage, proper to beginners, in which it is a question of the active purification of the external and internal senses, of the passions, of the intellect, and of the will, by mortification, meditation, prayer; and finally, it is a question of the passive purification of the senses, in which infused contemplation begins and by means of which the soul is raised to the illuminative way, as St. John of the Cross says.(4)

2) The illuminative way or state, proper to proficients, in which, after a preliminary chapter on the divisions of contemplation, are discussed the gifts of the Holy Ghost and infused contemplation, which proceeds principally from the gifts of understanding and wisdom, and which is declared desirable for all interior souls, as being morally necessary for the full perfection of Christian life. This second part of the work, after several articles relating to extraordinary graces (visions, revelations, interior words), ends with a chapter of nine articles relative to the passive purification of the spirit, which marks the passage to the unitive way. This again is what St. John of the Cross taught.(5)

3) The unitive life or stage, proper to the perfect, in which it is a question of the intimate union of the contemplative soul with God and of its degrees up to the transforming union.

Like Philip of the Blessed Trinity and many others,(6) Vallgornera considers this division traditional, truly conformable to the doctrine of the fathers, to the principles of St. Thomas, and to the teaching of St. John of the Cross and the greatest mystics who have written on the three ages of the spiritual life. It harmonizes fully with these two capital texts from the writings of the Carmelite doctor: "The passive purification of the senses is common. It takes place in the greater number of beginners." (7) "The soul began to set out on the way of the spirit, the way of proficients, which is also called the illuminative way or the way of infused contemplation, wherein God Himself teaches and refreshes the soul without meditation or any active efforts." (8) From this point of view, the infused contemplation of the mysteries of faith is manifestly in the normal way of sanctity. This is not at all surprising, since it proceeds from faith enlightened by the gifts of understanding and of wisdom, which are found in all the just.

Also, it should be noted that this form of infused contemplation referred to in the Cloud of Unknowing, and in other spiritual and mystical texts of the Church, is impossible to achieve without supernatural faith and the grace of the sacraments, and after a period of purification. It's not a matter of sitting down and thinking about nothing. The soul already has to have a built up habit of faith and love of God, so that one is habitually aware of the presence of God in oneself.

Also, it's infused, i.e. there is nothing you can do it to produce it in your soul, it is produced by God whenever it pleases Him; all that you can do is remove the obstacles. This is the teaching of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. If you try to enter this form of prayer prematurely and by your own efforts, you will fail to do anything, and likely will fall back further than you were before. There was a heresy called Quietism which said that one could enter the unitive way of the perfect immediately as soon as one wished, and that one should always remain completely passive to the point of not even bothering to resist temptation. This is a serious mistake; the beginning of the spiritual life is mostly active because it consists in purification of one's sins through confession, penance, mortification, prayer, and the practice of virtues; and even in the highest stages, the active life does not altogether cease.

...

Oh also solo derives from the latin solus (aka Sola) you fucking shyster. Fuck outta my face you illiterate pleb.

So you don't eat shellfish, pig and all that stuff?

You see with Protestants there is no final authority on anything (only further schism) so everything in the scripture is ultimately interpreted on the each man for himself basis. It is impossible to reach a conclusion without appealing to their own Tradition, which is in the way it functions almost the same as the Catholic one, it's the prism otherwise meaningless text (as far as getting anyone to agree on anything across a longer period of time, unless we strip half of it) gets pull through to create meaning. So he could claim that eating shellfish is "obviously contrary" (as if there's such a thing for this topic) to the Bible, but he doesn't have to as it's all rather arbitrary.

Does this not prove the point that good deeds are the means? Where is your argument

Bless me Gods

Sola Scriptura makes you realize the Bible is a Phenomenon like all others, redundant and false. Scrutinizing all of it will make you realize it contains no more or no less information pertaining to your nature in relation to your origin and final destination than any other book, or any other Phenomenon like a song, a painting, or the clouds; and that these things are immutably known.

> Protestantism is entirely about man defining the will of God via his whim over actually letting God's wisdom be revealed
That's literally Catholics though. Protestants go purely by the words of God, Catholics by the words of man

>doesn't understand what solar scriptura means
Hint: it doesn't intrinsically mean infallible

If any type of god exists we were a pet project long abandoned.

>this is what proddies actually believe