Be Catholic

Hmmmmm why so salty proddie?

Were you cucked by a catholic?

>has no idea what "forbidden unless permitted means"

Satan confirmed for trying to deceive people into following heretical ways.

There needs to be containment board for you christcucks so you stop shitting up Veeky Forums and /pol/

Explain this

Guess Protestantism ain't Christian as HISTORY shows

>this is what Catholikeks actually believe

Isn't it funny how the Early Christians from the first century used Nomina Sacra in the same way CATHOLICS USE STATUES?

Yep, I don't understand why orthodox or protestant have such a problem with it. I get the historical reasons i.e. theology, corruption or the betrayal of byzantines but beyond that it doesn't make sense. This was pretty much a side effect of christianity having been popularized back in the day. Rome, the strongest empire who worshiped idols would of course have problems with doing away with that tradition. That's why early christian made concessions to still convince them to convert. Early orthodox christians literally created catholicism and were okay with it until rome fell.

>hurr durr i belive that i dont have to be a good person to go to heaven

go suck luthers cock stupid proddy

Isn't it funny the Early Christians do the same shit?

>I pretend to be a Christian but call Jesus a "Jewish hobo"

You're literally closeted pagans, just embrace it.

Im not a catholic tho imma fedora

Looks like blasphemy runs pretty deep. It's still no excuse.

Just like poor Polycarp the pagan killed by pagans

>practically existent in ALL early Christian copies of the Bible
>most likely even dating to the 1st century

Protlogic: it's all heresy

The fucking author, Larry Hurtardo is a PROTESTANT HIMSELF

The irony

If by "being a good person" you mean "paying my annual membership fee to the Holy Mother Church™" then no, I don't.

>you don't either
>stay cucked

Nice appeal to tradition. The early Christians were wrong. Things started going to shit the moment Jesus died.

By being a good person i mean good works such as helping the poor etc where as proddie theology days you simply have to belive in jesus to go to heaven.

Isn't it funny....that's what the NT authors did

>But it stared going right when a mentally ill german monk who literally ate his own feces nailed paper to a door

Stay mad proddie

>Larry Hurtardo is a PROTESTANT HIMSELF
So? Unlike Catholishits we don't have to agree with some retard just because he's more like us than other retards.

What's your point?

The NT authors literally appealed to tradition as textual criticism shows a common deposit of tradition these authors drew from

So Protestants disagree with scholarship and history

They appealed to a specific tradition that existed in their time, which does not mean that every single tradition that claims to be Christian is valid.

>Literally everyone was void of the Holy Spirit for 1500 years until some German nailed his 95 shitposts on a door

We know that the Jews of their time and of Jesus also venerate saints of sorts

Nothing of these are ever critiqued or denounced at all

Funny isn't it

Also, the fact that the NT authors does this refutes sola scriptura

>be Catholic
>confess my sins, receive absolution, the incarnate body and blood of Christ in the true presence of the Eucharist, and enter into the new and everlasting covenant with God.

feels good man

>be protestant
>pray in public so people can see me being virtuous and drink grape juice
>it's just a symbol bro!! Fuck statues though, they symbolize things, but it's cool when I claim to do the same thing with juicyjuice boxes and saltines!

lame desu.

Btw the bible doesn't factor into salvation. It is the Living Word you need, not the printed one.

EVEN IF we accepted appeals to tradition, scripture still supersedes.

There's no getting around the second commandment and you know it, blasphemer.

There is no doctrine called "Sola Scriptura" that all protestants adhere to. That is a term born out of breakage from Catholicism. Protestants do not necessarily believe in something called "Sola Scriptura" but instead simply fail to believe in what was considered standard in the days when Catholicism was a totalizing force.

The NT authors engaging in the pagan practices of the Greeks and Romans, as is indicated in your screencap, is also not an issue. Unike the Catholic concept of the Church Father, the NT authors do not necessarily need to be infallible models in every single context. Only their words expressed with the aid of the Holy Spirit are. For all we know in their private lives they probably struggled with serious sins and engaged in sinful practices.

Actually the fact that God ordered statues to be made on the ark or all that pictures of Angels in the temple does make religious Art justified.

If not...God would be ironically Contradicting himself by forbidding images and then sanctioning them...in places of worship dedicated to him

Either way, the Bible and testimony of ALL Church Fathers destroy sola Scriptura

The fact that every fragment of Scripture found contains the Nomina Sacra which is...the Early Christian equivalent of imagery!

It is even more funny when this would even seep back to the 1st century itself

You keep doing this thread even if you have been proven wrong dozen of times.

>I don't understand what sola fide means at all

Now that's interesting. Do we have any signs for an equivalent of an intercession of saints, or maybe something like the cult of bodhisattvas or Muslim Shi'a imams where they sort of help you from the afterlife?

Veneration of graves doesn't really have the same weight as actually praying for their help, and "hero cult" is a bit vague. And I'm somewhat puzzled as to the actual theological implications of such a cult, since from what I recollect, the Jews of that era ranged from believing in souls being in a stupor in Sheol to even doubting the afterlife alltogether.

Some buddiest pray to bodivesettas

O and i forgot to add

T. Tibetan buddiest

b8

Yeah, that's what I meant. Do we have any signs of the Jews praying for the intercession of those venerated people like you'd pray today as a Catholic, or a Mahayana Buddhist?

I'm glad you're kind go to Hell

Oh right...because the Methodists got this whole Prima thing going on. So now we got a huge chaotic issue over whether Scripture Alone is the authority for matters of faith, or we can also use the authority of reason and tradition?

NT authors who wrote the NT apparently drew from Tradition

So by your own silly logic, Tradition is the Divinely Inspired authority.

So...no more sola scripture or written word as the authority for all matters of faith, you basically showed us through your logic that the Holy Spirit aided the apostles through getting them to write down tradition.

And you know what? That same tradition didn't become merely confined to scripture but became the context to read it

>Cult of imam
Is there really such a thing?

Ahahahaha

Again with the ark. This argument has been slapped down so many times it's not even amusing anymore. Just because God ordered a a specific exception does not mean he was giving license for his followers to do whatever they wanted from then on.

Catholics have been conclusively BTFO in every thread about them.

Jesus wouldn't want that.

I'll be praying for his salvation.

>i don't care what God says i know better

That is the closest to it

Something similar is attested in one of the Deuterocanons if I recall.

We have to go to the 2nd century for clearer signs in the Christian context.

But you are right, the Jews originally never had the concept of an afterlife at first and during that time, they were divided on the issue.

In the NT, Revelations come to mind regarding intercession of saints

>is the authority for matters of faith, or we can also use the authority of reason and tradition?
Scripture is scripture. How you choose to interpret it is between you and the Holy Spirit. Tradition can help you understand something but it is by no means any more authoritative than asking anyone what they personally think.

>So by your own silly logic, Tradition is the Divinely Inspired authority.
Nope. Paul's letters are divinely inspired, but that doesn't mean the conventions of letter writing he drew upon are divine. Likewise, tradition itself wasn't divinely inspired, only what was actually transmitted.

So you just want to show, once more, why your sect is inferior.

Yes because truth is inferior. You papists...

Hence, God contradicted himself

For at first he denies human beings to make graven images then proceeds to pretty much instruct the creation of said images.

So by your logic, God contradicted himself

In fact if we are to follow your logic, architecture and art are idolatry

Even the very existence of photography

Hey....isn't this an imageboard

>all these mental gymnastics when you have to take scripture as a premise

See? I just beat you.

>papist "logic"
Here's your (You)

God contradicted himself
He says you're saved by baptism, and then saves the good thief.

>Still mad about inferiority complex

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigit_of_Kildare

There is some debate over whether St Brigid was a real person. She has the same name, associations and feast day as the Celtic goddess Brigid, and there are many supernatural events, legends and folk customs associated with her.

Some scholars suggest that the saint is merely a Christianization of the goddess. Others suggest that she was a real person who took on the goddess's attributes. Medieval Art Historian Pamela Berger argues that Christian "monks took the ancient figure of the mother goddess and grafted her name and functions onto her Christian counterpart."[4] Professor Dáithí Ó hÓgáin and others suggest that the saint had been chief druidess at the temple of the goddess Brigid.

According to tradition, around 480, Brigid founded a monastery at Kildare (Cill Dara, "church of the oak"), on the site of an older pagan shrine to the Celtic goddess Brigid, served by a group of young women who tended an eternal flame. According to P.W. Joyce, tradition holds that nuns at her monastery kept a sacred eternal flame burning there.

St Brigid is said to have had a female companion named Dar Lugdach, a younger nun whom she shared her bed with. According to tradition, Dar Lugdach succeeded Brigid as abbess of Kildare and, as foretold by Brigit, she died exactly one year after her. The two thus share the same feast day. The name Dar Lugdach means "daughter of the god Lugh"

From the start, it was clear that Brigid is holy. When the druid tried to feed her, she vomited because he is impure. A white cow with red ears appeared to sustain her instead.[11] According to one tale, as a child, she once gave away her mother's entire store of butter. The butter was then replenished in answer to Brigid's prayers
In her Lives, Saint Brigid is portrayed as having the power to multiply such things as butter, bacon and milk, to bestow sheep and cattle and to control the weather.

>w-we're not idolaters, I swear!

Tradition is there to give nodes to understanding Scripture or an angle to approach it. It gives clarity and a guide to discern false and true intepretations. It's why Irenaeus' illiterate Babarians avoided the heresy and can know of it without scripture.

Scripture is so closely connected with Tradition and even arise from it that a statement like "scripture is scripture" is in fact ridiculous and assumes somehow that something different from tradition dropped down from the sky and all that tradition became invalid.

The fact that Paul's and all the other authors of the NT are in fact drawing from oral traditions entail those traditions as Divinely Inspired from God himself with them putting them in the form of writing.

If we follow your dumb logic, the entire Jesus thing is never divinely inspired

Why? Because those were simply traditions that the authors of the NT drew from and wrote down

Then we have the problem of the canon

NOWHERE in Scripture is Scripture ever defined in composition. How does one know?

Oh right...the church basically had to use set criterions to determine them over the false documents popping up

This effectively means the church using tradition to the end of giving us the definition of the books of scripture

>God contradicted himself
Yeah, that's what an exception is.

>By that logic any images are banned, whatever the purpose
Don't be obtuse. Given the context, it's pretty obvious the commandment refers to religious idols.

Except when the thief basically got a baptism of desire at that cross

You basically hence shown the Catholic use of statues and icons to be compatible with the commandment dumbass

The whole commandment against images is made because of the ancient context that the gods somehow dwell in them

But Catholics don't even believe this

Thus if we follow your logic then, ALL images of any kind are wrong

Explain this

"If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hated. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church that is accused of being behind the times, as our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned."

"Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusions of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly it is other worldly. since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine."

And this

So if you don't believe Zeus dwells in the statue of Zeus you can pray to it?

"Tradition" only muddys the gospel, it inflates what there is to interpret
>The fact that Paul's and all the other authors of the NT are in fact drawing from oral traditions entail those traditions as Divinely Inspired from God himself with them putting them in the form of writing.
>If we follow your dumb logic, the entire Jesus thing is never divinely inspired
>Why? Because those were simply traditions that the authors of the NT drew from and wrote down
The authors lived through it, retard.
>Then we have the problem of the canon
>NOWHERE in Scripture is Scripture ever defined in composition. How does one know?
>Oh right...the church basically had to use set criterions to determine them over the false documents popping up
>This effectively means the church using tradition to the end of giving us the definition of the books of scripture
This """argument""" is based on an oft repeated strawman of Sola Scriptura. It is scripture as supreme authority not only authority. This is not a problem unless it's a problem for a country to subordinate it's law to it's constitution.

No one prays to the statue you dumb
Imbecile

It's like saying Israelites pray to the ark following your logic

"baptism of desire" is indirectly condemned by Catholic tradition.

.No (You) for you, find them elsewhere.

>kneel before Mary statue
>stare at statue
>pray to Mary
>"I wasn't praying to the statue bro!"

You don't pray to the statue, that's the point.

And yeah, the pre-Christian pagans of Europe did believe that deities literally inhabited a given hill, mountain, spring or a tree, yet Christians came and built churches on those spots, using them for Christian worship. Or the fact that Christianity doesn't have a ban on, for instance, making crosses out of oak wood, which was held sacred by Germanic and Slavic pagans.

Well done, you basically showed us that the thing the apostles drew from muddifies the gospel which is the thing they drew from

How retarded the PROTSHIT must be to defend his own doctrine

The Authors PASSED it down to their successors RETARD

NOWHERE did I even define Sola Scriptura as Scripture being the ONLY authority. It is the highest

So by that logic, any matter of faith must draw its authority from Scripture

So where in Scripture is the definition and composition of the canon? Because I don't see that anywhere in the canon

And even worse, because of context...we know that the Bible doesn't say sola Scriptura

Oh the irony

Only if you pray to them.

Wow...really moron?

>Scripture is so closely connected with Tradition and even arise from it that a statement like "scripture is scripture" is in fact ridiculous and assumes somehow that something different from tradition dropped down from the sky and all that tradition became invalid.
It is not that the tradition became invalid, it is that from the beginning it only had traces of the truth mixed in with superstition, and only that which was actually written into scripture was valid all along.

>The fact that Paul's and all the other authors of the NT are in fact drawing from oral traditions entail those traditions as Divinely Inspired
Again, Paul used the convention of letter writing in his writings, does that mean those traditions of letter writing were divinely inspired, or that Paul was a human living within a certain time frame and his work carries those echoes?

>If we follow your dumb logic, the entire Jesus thing is never divinely inspired
It's in scripture, therefore it is scripture.

>NOWHERE in Scripture is Scripture ever defined in composition. How does one know?
All scripture is useful for instruction. Therefore, if it is not useful for instruction, it is not scripture. Besides, again, tradition is not a priori invalid, but may or may not contain traces of truth as guided by the Holy Spirit. Tradition that contradicts the commandments of God is pretty clearly invalid though

No one prays to statues dipshit

It's there as an aid

>Well done, you basically showed us that the thing the apostles drew from muddifies the gospel
Explain why Marian doctrines don't appear until the 4th century, if that's apostolic tradition
>NOWHERE did I even define Sola Scriptura as Scripture being the ONLY authority. It is the highest
>So by that logic, any matter of faith must draw its authority from Scripture
>So where in Scripture is the definition and composition of the canon? Because I don't see that anywhere in the canon
>And even worse, because of context...we know that the Bible doesn't say sola Scriptura
No constitutions i guess, they must be subordinate to a government.

Really grasping at straws there, lad.

youtube.com/watch?v=nH5hL0ZshMQ
youtube.com/watch?v=oPw8aNNX0ds
youtube.com/watch?v=Fey41Swoc54
Enjoy.

That's a retarded excuse, and the OP pretty effectively summarizes why

>statues aid prayer
>not praying to statue
Pick one

The statue is there as a visual representation, to focus our minds.

I actually think it's a pretty great and logical idea. Humans derive knowledge from their senses. Why shouldn't we have visual images to focus our prayer and concentrate our thoughts? It's better than the Protestants who have to imagine everything. Maybe that's why they get so many strange ideas about Christ.

>literally ate his own feces
Did tradition tell you that too?

The amount of retcon here is amazing

How ironic the Protshit have to misrepresent my point and make it look like I am saying the tradition of letter writing is Divinely Inspired.

ITS NOT MORON

The point is what the Apostles drew from was Tradition which determines the context for the written form to be read and interpreted. Oops...this was totally missing from your shitty argument

The odd thing is....by sola Scriptura..no one can even know as shown by Irenaeus telling us about how the heretics can also twist Scripture and make it seem like they are saying something else through the analogy of the Mosiac.

Oops, this escaped your brain apparently.

Also....the very authors of Scripture basically contradict the commandments by use of Nomina Sacra which dates to the 1st century.

Ouch....who knew that Scripture had ironically broken that rule itself!

Also look at how dumb you are. ALL scripture is useful for instruction does not equate to sola Scriptura moron.

It only tells us of what we can use Scripture for. The worse thing is that part of that statement in Timothy does tells us of Tradition through what the Apostles taught

Literally the 2nd commandment

Stop responding to him, all he wants is (You)s

Constitutions have a CONTEXT that surrounds them and the terminology used

They are intepreted by bodies called courts

And in law, CASES are also used as authority

How dumb are you

This is law 101

>draft constitution
>ignore it in favor of contrary cases

It doesn't

Anyone who understands the context of the commandment against images knows that it targets those who think the images are somehow gods or the gods are in them

ITS FUCKING IN THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICKTIONry

No

You deny the use of statues by CATHOLICS who use it to show reverence

Nomina Sacra functions the same way

Dumbo

If you can't into law

Then don't talk about it