I think Luther's critique of the Catholic Church was correct: that it mixed Aristotelian philosophy into it...

It was a Catholic civil war. It's over now.

Do none of you papists read your own pope's press releases?

If not, Google pope declares reformation over October 31, 2017.

>implying protestants follow Old Testament

>and why should the Bible be the highest authority anyway?

You misunderstand sola scriptura. When seeking the truth of God's word, you do not look outside of the scriptures to find out what God meant.

That does not mean you cannot pray to God and receive wisdom, or answers you were looking for, but in a general case, when seeking the will of God, the scriptures suffice.

When the holy inspired scriptures do not suffice, you go down the broad road that leads to destruction, as warned about in the scriptures that one would be ignoring:

Mark 7
He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men —the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

This was to Pharisees, but it equally applies to papists.

And here's a condemnation of mankind's traditions and philosophies:

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

Again, a godless person cannot admit, even anonymously, that they were dead wrong.

Jesus taught the scriptures.

As did Paul.

The Church does not predate the "Book" as you call it.

Why not just practice your faith your own way to develop a personal relationship with God? Almost as soon as a new religion is founded all the followers have to place such an emphasis on ingroups and outgroups and hierarchies, when it should just be about the connection between man and God? Tradition, heritage, society, and public perception should play no role in your religious decisions. If you want a religion that combines all of these benefits, practice it that way yourself, throw the corrupt organizations to the wind. At most, join a non-denominational bible study group/church.

>Jesus taught the scriptures.
>As did Paul.
But protestants don't.
Scriptures say that you have to keep sabat and eat kosher. Jesus also kept sabat and ate kosher.
Protestants don't give a shit about that.

>The Church does not predate the "Book" as you call it.
It does. It doesn't predate Old Testament, but it predate the New. More than that: Church made New Testament = men of the Church decided which books are canon and which are not. Early Christians didn't know that. Just read "Church History" of Eusebius - even in IVth century there were disputes which writtings are authentic and which aren't.

Protestants are Catholics, and they're all dead.

Martin Luther was a Catholic.

Everyone that went with him was a Catholic, until they were all excommunicated.

None of them have anything to do with Christianity.

Jesus created the universe, as detailed in Genesis.

Does the "Book" predate the church now?

>Scriptures say that you have to keep sabat and eat kosher.

For Jews, yes.

For Christians, no. Read about Peter's vision. Read anything by Paul.

Read anything in the bible.

>Does the "Book" predate the church now?
No.
You haven't said anything that would change that.

>Read about Peter's vision.
Peter's vision was about teaching gentiles, not about kosher food.

>Read anything by Paul.
So? Scriptures teach about keeping sabat and eating kosher. If Paul didn't teach about that, why should I consider his teachings at all?

Also, who decided that Paul should be listened and read at all?
Was it a... dum dum dum... Church?

Who is the head of the Church, again?

It was literally about eating non-kosher food.

It was symbolically about Gentiles now being candidates for salvation, which had been Jew only until they murdered their messiah and rejected his kingdom.

It was the Holy Spirit of God, who miraculously showed Paul everything he would endure, everything he would do, and raised him from the dead at least twice.

Any wise man reading Paul knows Paul is worth reading; he doesn't have to be told to do so by a "church".

That wordplay doesn't change anything.
Jesus didn't leave a list of books you're supposed to read in perspective of sola scriptura. Church decided which books are canon and which aren't.

How do you distinguish God the Son from God the Spirit, Who inspired all 66 books of the bible?

With what sword do you cleave the Son from His Spirit?

>Church decided which books are canon

Bible: 66 inspired books.

Canon: Any book you want to include in your canon.

See the difference yet?

>It was literally about eating non-kosher food.
So? John's visions involve a woman clothed in the sun. Do you believie that there was, is or will be a literal woman dressed in a flaming ball of gas? Do you believe that in heaven Jesus takes the form of literal lamb?
No?
So why do you take that specific vision literally if you don't do that with others?

>a Church established, entrusted, and empowered by Almighty God is so weak that mortal bipedal sinful monkeys have defiled it
Literally not possible.

>Any wise man reading Paul knows Paul is worth reading; he doesn't have to be told to do so by a "church".
Well, there are plenty of people who would say the same thing about Plato. Or Dante. Or a fuckin' Nietsche. This argument doesn't hold.

Yes, that was a sign in the sky. The woman represented Israel; in the sky, she was represented by Virgo.

The signs, the locations of the sun, moon, virgo, draco, and the child's star, were visible in the sky the day Jesus was born.

After all, the heavenly objects were made for signs, and for wonders.

They would be right, unless of course the goal was to know about God, and how to live eternally.

>Bible: 66 inspired books.
who decided which of them are inspired and which aren't?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 above.

All books inspired by the Holy Spirit of God = scripture.

No book not inspired by the Holy Spirit of God = not scripture.

Pretty simple, really.

so it wasn't a woman - it was a constellation, you say

the same way non-kosher food in Peter's vision isn't literal non-kosher food but gentiles which are ready to hear the Gospel

>All books inspired by the Holy Spirit of God = scripture.
how do you know which books are inspired and which aren't?

Mundanely, the OT was in, albeit in a slightly different order than the Jews had it.

As to the 27 books of the NT, anything written by an eyewitness to the life, death, resurrection and afterlife of Jesus Christ, that did not contradict anything in scripture, and that was inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, was in.

The bible was concluded by the Revelation, written @ 95 AD, which contained an admonition for anyone who took away or added anything to the last book of the bible.

Yup. Any time the bible speaks symbolically, it tells you what the symbols are. The dragon is the devil, the child the messiah, and the woman Israel, with the 12 stars as 12 tribes on her head. The moon and sun are merely there for positioning purposes.

When the bible speaks metaphorically, it's also true.

When the bible speaks parabolically, it's also true. Just unknowable to the children of satan.

By having the Holy Spirit live in you, and tell you.

inb4 some papist says it's Mary. It's not.

>Mundanely, the OT was in, albeit in a slightly different order than the Jews had it.
so Jews decided?

>As to the 27 books of the NT, anything written by an eyewitness to the life, death, resurrection and afterlife of Jesus Christ
So no Paul?
Why no Apocalypse of Peter? Why no Gospel of the Hebrews?
How do you know Gospel of John is authentic and Gospel of Philip is not?

>The bible was concluded by the Revelation, written @ 95 AD, which contained an admonition for anyone who took away or added anything to the last book of the bible.
It was a admonition common at those times.
Also plenty of Christians even in IVth century didn't take Revelation as inspired work, because it was writter by another John, not Evangelist.

>By having the Holy Spirit live in you, and tell you.
And how do you know that it is Holy Spirit and not some other spirit?
By the Biblie? It's circular then. Platonist Spirit would tell you writtings of Plato are true and inspired.

You believe in this Bible because Church told so many, many years ago.

The Holy Spirit decided.

It's like I keep saying that George Washington was the first president of the USA, and you keep saying "who?"

Paul was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ Jesus, and spent years with Jesus learning the New Covenant.

>It was a admonition common at those times.

So what?

You ask any spirit whether Jesus came down from heaven in the flesh. No spirit of God can say no, no evil spirit can say yes.

>Should I embrace the Orthodox russkies and their strange beards and hats
Lutherans wanted to.
No, really, Melachton sent emissaries to the Greek Patriarch asking for unification and communion with the Ecumenical See, different rites and all.

But they had already become too protestant, so it fell through.

It's pretty bittersweet to read about, though.
The lutherans were like "but we love byzantine-senpai. We removed all that medieval stuff the latins pilled on top of the early church, that you hate so much", and the patriarch was like "please stop insisting. We are friends and touched by all this, but there's no way this can work out. Pen pals, though?"

>The Holy Spirit decided.
How? Did He leave a list of books that He inspired? Where and when, before involvement of the Church?

>Paul was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ Jesus, and spent years with Jesus learning the New Covenant.
Many people today also say that.
For example catholic saints meet Jesus sometimes and learn from Him. Paul met Jesus once, then He stopped him from killing people. That was it.

> You ask any spirit whether Jesus came down from heaven in the flesh. No spirit of God can say no, no evil spirit can say yes.
Does it anything to do with this discussion at all?

The Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote the books.

Since you don't know or understand the Holy Spirit, why do you think you can understand the things of God?

>Since you don't know or understand the Holy Spirit, why do you think you can understand the things of God?
Why do you say that? Maybe I do.

>That was it.

Your trips betray you. As I have shown you on too many occasions already, Paul spent years in Arabia, most likely on Mt. Sinai, where the Law was handed down, seeking God's wisdom and guidance.

Paul came back knowing more about Jesus and the New Testament than all the other apostles combined.

One day, you will experience this, lying Jew:

Revelation 3:9
Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie—indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

And I will be looking at you, and laughing.

Nothing in any of your posts has anything of God in it. Nothing.

>Your trips betray you. As I have shown you on too many occasions already, Paul spent years in Arabia, most likely on Mt. Sinai, where the Law was handed down, seeking God's wisdom and guidance.
>Paul came back knowing more about Jesus and the New Testament than all the other apostles combined.
Yeah... how this totally authentic story wasn't told anywhere in the entire Christian history?
Maybe because it's totally false and made up?

>lying Jew
Where there are no arguments, there is only ad hominem, right?

>And I will be looking at you, and laughing.
It says about your morality, friend.

>Nothing in any of your posts has anything of God in it. Nothing.
My posts contain truth so they have many in common with God.

It's in the bible.

Which blind men cannot read.

The gospels didn't even exist yet when Paul wrote that; they were written decades later.

Zero truth, zero godliness, zero understanding.

You're just a ragingly lost Jew who knows he isn't even a Jew, but a liar.

Can you prove that? No? Then stop asserting it. There's no evidence the gospels were not written in the 30's, and there's plenty of evidence they were written in the 40's. Matthew first, then Mark, then Luke, then John much, much later.

>if you read the Bible carefully, I doesn't teach sola fide or sola scriptura
wrong

wild protestant detected

For the longest time I thought the Protestants were right because of:

Ephesians 2:9:
>Not of works, lest any man should boast.

But studying it more and more, I come to the conclusion that it's all wrong...

Paul is clearly talking about the WORKS OF THE LAW... basically doing things according to Mosaic law

Now that Christ has come, though, he gives "a new commandment", namely, to love one another as he loved us... love is the new law

So we are saved by works indeed, but NOT works of the law, but WORKS OF LOVE.

>So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

More proof:

> "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
Matthew 5:48

How does this square with "simul iustus et peccator"?

Again, faith alone without work of love (doing the will of God) is worthless:

>: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

>Paul is clearly talking about the WORKS OF THE LAW... basically doing things according to Mosaic law
Works of the law are any obedience to God. If you do not follow other gods, that is a work of the law
>How does this square with "simul iustus et peccator"?
Are you perfect Mr. Pelagius? Have you never sinned? I sure hope so, because that's the standard of the law, and if you seek to be justified through the law that is what it will take.
>Again, faith alone without work of love (doing the will of God) is worthless:
Do you perfectly keep the will of His Father? Again, that is the standard. Read Galatians, it is written to you

Your argument is worthless. Whether I sin or not is irrelevant.
He commands you to be perfect.
So you'd rather ignore that command because you cannot be perfect?

>Whether I sin or not is irrelevant
No that's completely relevant because if you sin 'thou shalt surely die'.
>So you'd rather ignore that command because you cannot be perfect?
That commandment brings me the knowledge of sin, that I may see my need for Him, who alone is perfect.

>> "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
>Matthew 5:48

How are you doing on that? Good? No? Not perfect, as the Father is perfect?

Guess you're hosed then, huh.

So, God commands people to be perfect.

On their own.

Without providing a means for achieving such perfection.

Is that your opinion?

>n 'thou shalt surely die'.
yes, I do think I'm condemned to hell, unless God decides to make me perfect

>Guess you're hosed then, huh.
Yep, I am.

> "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

How dare you ignore the passage?

It's a shame God did not provide a means for mankind's salvation, just demanding that we do something we cannot do, be something we cannot be, and suffer an eternal hellfire because of it.

Shame.

But all God needs to perform that miracle is your consent.

So if you're waiting on God to make you perfect, God's waiting on you to give him your consent; to bend the knee, confess Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised him from the dead.

Sitting around waiting for stuff is a bad plan.

I don't.

I live it. I received it. It describes me.

(Just not to you. To the One Who matters.)

The means for salvation is grace.
Proof of grace is that you become perfect

That's ok, because this is where Jesus comes in. Jesus was perfect. By faith in Him, His righteousness will be yours, and you will be perfect in the eyes of the Father. You must emulate the example of this publican
>And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

It was out of God's grace and mercy that he offered mankind the free gift of salvation.

If you do not take the gift, God's grace remains, and you die in your sins to eternal punishment.

God being gracious and merciful does not mean that humanity is saved en toto.

Only the ones who choose him.

Proddies BTFO in one passage:
> What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Luther wanted to remove this book from the Bible...

Clearly they must "know in themselves" that this book wasn't "inspired""...

No, it means that if God was not Grace, He would not have any plan of salvation. We would all get what we deserve.

That's not how people are saved, and I'll tell you why.

If you commit murder, go before the Judge, and plead guilty to murder, you are justified before the Law.

You will still die as a penalty for your admitted crime, as you are a confessed murderer.

Salvation is not admitting you're a murderer. Salvation is a permanent transformation from a spiritually dead human being into a new creation in Christ Jesus, someone who can live with God and stand in His presence.

Faith in Buddha gives rise to no works of God.

That faith is dead.

That is what James is saying.

And you were blown out by your own pope on October 31, 2017, when he said that the Catholic church BELIEVES THAT SALVATION IS BY FAITH ALONE.

Martin Luther was a viscous anti-semetic Catholic.

That's about as far from a Christian as is possible to get.

>You will still die as a penalty for your admitted crime
Christ Jesus is the one who died

Dispensationalism is not biblical and Jews are not God's people

>Is there a church that avoids both of these extremes? Should I embrace the Orthodox russkies and their strange beards and hats

You should give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Monotheism is poison - you'll forfeit your soul. That which is God doesn't consider the universe to revolve around this galaxy, much less this planet, much less humans, much less Jews. Anyone can say anything is the "word of God."

youtube.com/watch?v=-11fCgBp9QA

>Moreover, the Bible says LOVE is higher than faith... but the Protestants stress faith too much, it seems...

You have no idea user....

>anything post Vatican II
>relevant

There are more orthodox types than just russkiy, there's probably none near your place though.