Why do Catholics believe any of the uniquely Catholic doctrines?
Like do they really grow up going to Catholic church, the priest tells them that they believe the Bible, but then hands them a book of Catholic doctrine that isn't in the Bible, written by someone that isn't mentioned in or an author of the Bible, and be like "God wants you to believe this too, just trust me bro"
Just...why? What am I missing Catholic bros?

>>17747493 (OP)
pope said so, old testament, new testament, bible? filler.

mary statues, saints, whatever priest says the pope said? fact.

>>17747493 (OP)
why do Christians epistemologically believe anything in a book handed down to them. because they eihter defer to an authority telling them its true or use thier own judgement to do some utilitarian judgement call that the texts are more true or better living principles. really all of that is ultimately a utilitarian judgement call even differing to an older authority merely the judgement that listening to a defined tradition is more advantageous or efficacious then going off on thier own. that's why prophets where madmen they where not making utilitarian judgements on epistimological positions, they were insane and spouted whatever came into their head weather it would advantage them or not which is why ancient societies put some trust them since they where not manipulated by whatever human qualms they had. so why a christian or a Islamist or anyone else chooses to follow one preacher or one book is the same mechanical pursuit of some end. why do you follow the bible and not the Iliad? Utility. when you are killed it is for what you believe. when Zechariah or Amphiaraus is killed is for what they KNOW. you are not the same.

>>17747493 (OP)
Folkloric stuff like relics, ossuaries and incorruptible saint corpses are the coolest thing about catholicism to me

>>17747515
Because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

>>17747517
you ask an epistemological question but claim to be post-rational. to invoke the post-rational while still asking “why” is to want the flame without the fire. even a pagan claims to have ἐνθουσιασμός. When two hold such a view then utility wins the argument you refuse to have. The same force that pushes a corpse down a hill and blood into the earth wil leventually wipe one field clean and grow in another but anyone who thinks they found truth in the grave vs the garden is only misdirected by a devil worse then any death.

>>17747493 (OP)
A lot of that isn't for the sake of the Bible directly but for communal/organizational purposes.
So it's a tradeoff. Evangelicals will go crazy for scripture but can't bring themselves under unified messaging or institutional structure.

>>17747539
I didn't ask any question

>>17747658
exactly

>>17747655
Evangelicals are far more unified than papists

>no answer
So no one knows why Catholics believe in Catholicism?

>>17747769
>>no answer
pope said so, simple as

>>17747785
Not an answer. We already know they believe what the pope says. Why do they believe what the pope says?

>>17747493 (OP)
This question kind of starts with the premise that the core of all christian doctrine is the bible, which Catholics don't accept.
That said, many protestants here might be surprised to know the average person raised Catholic probably knows the Bible better than they know Catholic Canon law. Bible stories are taught very early on. They are taught through a Catholic lens, but the higher level Catholic theology and rules are usually only covered as you get older, and most young people don't care that much.

>>17747887
The Bible contains, if you believe in it as all Christians including Catholics do, the direct, quoted statements of God and Jesus Christ, such as the Ten Commandments and the Gospels. Of course it's the core of all Christian doctrine, including to Catholicism.

>>17747905
I am oversimplifying a bit for the sake of brevity and clarity, but,the Bible including which books belong there, is to the doctrinal Catholic, a function of Church tradition and the power Jesus gave it. Yes the books contain the quoted statements of God and Jesus but you only know that, and know what they meant because the authority of the Church told you so. Its the bishops that can exercise such discernment, not lay people.

>>17747977
>you only know that, and know what they meant because the authority of the Church told you so
And how do we know the church has that authority?
>inb4 the church has that authority because the church says it does

>>17748015
>And how do we know the church has that authority?
Pretty much the same way protestants "know" the bible is true and their interpretation are correct.

>>17748072
Does that mean the Protestants know that without the magisterium or that you're wrong about the magisterium?

>>17748072
So it's all just deciding what you want to believe in the end. The cafeteria of religion, just walk through with your tray and take what you want, check out at the faith counter and pay with your dignity.

>>17747493 (OP)
>Why do Catholics believe any of the uniquely Catholic doctrines?
You do realize the same thing could be asked of Protestantism, right? It's not default Christianity. Maybe to Americans it is. But to Italians Catholicism is default Christianity. The two central doctrines of Protestantism, Sola fide and Sola scriptura, are not self evident from mere Christianity alone and historically the vast majority of Christians have practiced Christianity without having ever even known about these doctrines.

>>17748081
>>17748089
It means its a matter of faith. I will leave it to you to decide if that is silly or not.

>>17747493 (OP)
On the scriptural basis for the Papacy:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PWkmMNvr_to

On the meaning of the 70 disciples in Luke and its implications:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aP1oxGv8nps

>>17747493 (OP)
"The magisterium of the Catholic Church is the church's authority or office to give authentic interpretation of the word of God, "whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition". According to the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the task of interpretation is vested uniquely in the Pope and the bishops, though the concept has a complex history of development. Scripture and Tradition "make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church",[5] and the magisterium is not independent of this, since "all that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is derived from this single deposit of faith."

If you are wondering what Tradition is: it is believed to be the faithful and constant transmission of the teachings of the Apostles from one generation to the next. That "includes everything which contributes towards the sanctity of life and increase in faith of the People of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship [the Creeds, the Sacraments, the Magisterium, and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes."

>>17748133
>TL;DR the church has authority to tell you what to believe because the church says it does
Surely no one takes this seriously.

>>17748141
Pope. Says. So.

>>17748099
Blind faith is silly, placing blind faith in men instead of the word of God much more so. My faith in scripture is well founded.

>>17748176
OK, I take back what I said. yes it is silly, theirs no more so than yours. history as demolished the Catholic narrative of Church history just as it has demolished the reliability of the scriptures. And dismissing archeology and critical studies of scripture in the name of faith is the equivalent of closing your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears.

>>17748199
euphoric

>>17747493 (OP)
>then hands them a book of Catholic doctrine
No, we are never handed a book of doctrine. The knowledge of the Catholic Church awaits those willing to seek it out.

Many Catholic practices begin with Jesus in the gospel and are revealed to saints. Those saints by their saintly lives become known within the Catholic Church. After they die those saints are then recognized by a pope and the practice spreads across the whole church.

One example is the Most Holy Rosary. It is first described symbolically at the end of the Gospel of John. Then it is revealed by God to St. Dominic around the year 1214 AD. The practice was later written about by Pope Pius V in 1569 AD. This played a key role in the Catholic League victory at the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571 which is commemorated as the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, Our Lady of Victory. The rosary subsequently played a role in the Marian apparitions. One example is Our Lady of Lourdes in 1858 AD when Mary appeared to St. Bernadette Soubirous. Another was Our Lady of Fátima in 1917 AD when Mary appeared to Ven. Lúcia dos Santos, St. Francisco Marto, and St. Jacinta Marto. This ended on October 13, 1917 with the Miracle of the Sun which was witnessed by a crowd several thousand people. Even hardened Freemasons swore that they did witness a miracle that day. A similar miracle occurred in Donglü, China on May 23, 1995 on the eve of the Feast of Mary Help of Christians.

You don't need to know all that to pray the rosary. Kids in Catholic school are just asked to pray, and sometimes to make our own rosary out of beads. I went to Catholic school for 12 years and I don't think I ever heard more than a few words about any of that. I had to seek out the above information on my own. But in school I always heard the priests and teachers explain how wonderful it was to pray the rosary. The nice thing about Catholic devotions is that they work whether you have the level of knowledge of a child or of an adult.

>>17748141
Reread the first line; The Church has authority both because sacred Scripture proves it in written form (Matthew 16:19, among other verses) and sacred Tradition proves it through the actions and teachings of Church leaders stemming back to the apostles.

If this is too difficult to understand, I encourage you to stick to whichever one of your million sects that surely knows the true Word of God. Just know that the New Testament you read was written and compiled by men who practiced what you mock.

>>17747493 (OP)
>Why do Catholics believe any of the uniquely Catholic doctrines?
Because you've never actually met a Catholic, for one.
90% of religious people just follow the religion because that's what they were raised into. They might consciously agree with the general gist of it like 'Jesus/Muhammad was sent by God' or something like that, but they almost never think about it on a level any deeper than that.

>>17747493 (OP)
What are "uniquely Catholic doctrines"? Real presence in the Eucharist? Found in Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Nestorianism Church of the East theology. If anything, *it* has been the default position historically. Taught in 1 Corinthians 5:7, 1 Corinthians 10:16, 1 Corinthians 11:23-27, Proverbs 9:2, John 6, Matthew 26:26-28. Apostolic succession? EO, CO, CofE, even Lutheranism and Anglicanism. Taught in Matthew 23:2, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, Acts 6:6, Acts 13:2. Veneration of saints? Revelation 7:15 and Revelation 6:11. Logical conclusion of Romans 6:11, Romans 6:23, Romans 8:2, Romans 8:10 (1 Peter 3:18), Romans 8:29-30, Galatians 3:27, Philippians 3:21, Romans 15:17-19 (cf. John 14:9-10, John 5:19-20, John 10:38, John 1:18) etc. Confessed in EO, CO, CofE, Anglicanism, Lutheranism. Justification through imputation of righteousness? False Satanic doctrine taught by no-one before Luther (check Alister McGrath). Contradicted by Galatians 3:27 (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:1-2, 1 Corinthians 15:53), Ephesians 4:24, Colossians 3:9-10, Ephesians 1:19-20 (cf. Romans 6:4), Romans 8:3-4 (cf. Romans 6:5-6), Romans 8:10 (cf. 1 Peter 3:18), Romans 8:11 and Galatians 5:24 (cf. Romans 6:6), 2 Timothy 2:13 (cf. Romans 3:3), Romans 4:25 and Romans 5:10 (cf. Romans 6:13), 1 Corinthians 15:10, Romans 15:17-19. Sola Scriptura is taught nowhere in the Bible. The saints and authorities of the Church (which I believe to be the EO Church FYI) were guided by the same Holy Spirit as the authors of the Bible and are thus fully in line with them.

>>17748292
>The Church has authority both because sacred Scripture proves it in written form (Matthew 16:19, among other verses)
Baby's first time talking to someone that isn't Catholic? No one buys the dubious claim that the authority Jesus gave to St. Peter, a man who died in 68 AD, extends to anyone past him who claims to be his "successor" or any organization that claims to be the successor of the church at the time. Not even Catholics buy this, except autistic ones on the Internet.
The implications of the Italian gay men - commonly pedophiles as well- running the Catholic Church for thousands of years were intended by God to be successors of one his apostles - literal APOSTLES, men directly in the inner circle of Jesus and quoted directly in the Bible - is flat out revolting and un-Christian.
Yuck.

>>17748353
Please tell me where the Bible talks about these things:
The Vatican and Papacy
Perpetual virginity of Mary
Assumption of Mary
Confession
Priests as mediators
Purgatory
Indulgences
Praying to saints
Veneration of images

>>17748357
So you deny Acts 6:6, Acts 13:2-3, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6? And you mock the celibacy that is hailed in Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:1-2? Typical Satanic heretic.

So we have to obey this guy because he's the successor of Peter and is speaking the word of God?

>>17748364
I literally said I'm EO you fucking retard.

>Perpetual virginity of Mary
John 19:26-27. Also as I literally explained the Bible isn't the sole authority. Holy tradition is guided and inspired by the Spirit. St Paul was not a direct disciple of Jesus either and he himself had to receive ordination from men who were not even Jesus' 12 disciples (Acts 13:2-3). Though they may have been from among the 72 disciples of Luke 10:1-2.

>Confession
Matthew 16:18. John 20:23.

>Priests as mediators
Acts 8:31. See also above.

>Praying to saints
>Veneration of images
Re-read the original post.

>>17748397
You sound mad.

>>17748397
This thread is about the Roman Catholic Church obviously. No one actually cares or thinks about the orthodox church.

>>17748396
The pope says so religion demands you do as the pope says, SEETHEvacantist/trad larper.

Try Protestantism if you want the bible

>>17748396
Paul tells us to be obedient to secular governments in Romans 13. Do you believe that makes them infallible? Or do you think it merely entails that disobedience is solely permissable in extreme irregular circumstances?

>>17748404
It seems you are a braindead illiterate because I explained in my initial post that virtually all of the teachings you are complaining about were universal in Christianity prior to the outbreak of Satanism in Western Europe in the 16th century. Also seething about the fact you were refuted. Whether you "care" about the EO Church is irrelevant — it is the true Church nevertheless.

>>17748403
Mark 3:5.

>>17748412
You're a zoomer tradcath who switched to LARPodoxy as his latest flavor of the month religion

>>17748417
I'm cradle Orthodox and I know the NT far better than you. Not an argument btw, just seethe that you got irreparably owned and incontrovertibly confuted.

>>17748412
>you were refuted
Bruh you addressed less than half of what I listed and now are you still desperately trying to get attention for your Orthodox stuff that no one cares about and never thinks about. Just make your own thread if you want attention lmao. this is pathetic

>>17748422
Is lying a sin in your cult, dyerbro?

>>17748406
>be obedient to secular governments
So that's what being the successor to St. Peter and his church means? Being a secular government?

>>17748423
How does the Papacy being false refute the real presence in the Eucharist, apostolic succession, veneration of saints, etc.? Those aren't Catholic distinctives.

>>17748426
Mate, you are Satanic perversion of Christianity that engages in idolatry (absolute divine simplicity). You can't call others cultists. Your entire belief system is the product of Pastor Jimbob's Satanic delusions. Also you can't call others terminally online while reducing EO to Dyer. I can tell he BTFOd you in one of his spaces though.

>>17748439
Does a father abusing his wife and children invalidate patriarchal prerogatives? It's an analogy, moron. And that is why you have symphonia — The Church exercises authority over holy matters, the government has sovereignty over secular ones, each sphere distinct but complementary, working towards the same end.

>>17748442
>Satanic perversion of Christianity that engages in idolatry (absolute divine simplicity)

>>17748447
It's an analogy that didn't work. The entire leadership of your "Holy" church are homosexuals, often child molestors, and left-wing communists. There is nothing "Holy" about them, and applying that label is blasphemous. Repent for insulting God by associating him with such sickening people.

>>17748449
Where is the argument? Personal incredulity is not a refutation. The essence-energies distinction is taught in the Bible. Rejecting means embracing idolatry.

>>17748458
So you're saying the Roman imperial authorities that St Paul taught subjection to were perfectly moral and infallible?

>>17748461
The overwhelmingly majority of young priests are conservatives and traditional Catholic bishops forced Leo XIV on the progressive faction.
https://catholicproject.catholic.edu/national-study-of-catholic-priests/polarization-generational-dynamics-the-ongoing-impact-of-the-abuse-crisis/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3951931

>>17748466
Meant for >>17748458

>>17748461
>and that's why I obey the gay child molestors in Italy that I support financially
Listen to yourself man. Your argument is false anyway because there is no reason to believe that the Catholic Church is any more valid as a successor of St. Peter's church than a random Baptist church in Oklahama. You are trying to argue with that being the assumption; I am not trying to argue with you over whether the Catholic Church is a valid successor of St. Peter (it obviously isn't) but rather to show you how ridiculous your allegiance to the completely cucked organization of Roman Catholicism is.

>>17748459
I am noticing though that someone saying the words "personal incredulity" is a sign they're retarded, though.

>>17748474
You truly are a perfect example of Acts 8:31.

>>17748479
OK

>>17748473
>because there is no reason to believe that the Catholic Church is any more valid as a successor of St. Peter's church than a random Baptist church in Oklahama.
There is actually.
>>17748353
>Apostolic succession? EO, CO, CofE, even Lutheranism and Anglicanism. Taught in Matthew 23:2, 1 Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, Acts 6:6, Acts 13:2.

Baptist churches are just organizations run by swindlers to steal money from the gullible and stupid goyslaves that make up Protestantism.

>>17748482
Can you prove absolute divine simplicity, monergism, and imputation of righteousness from the Bible?

>>17748485
Yes.

>>17748483
>Catholics derive legitimacy from masses being in muh latin we wuz da real christians jews and protestants are le bad
>Vatican 2: LOL remember those thousands of years and millions of people we sent to their deaths and killed over mass being in muh latin jews and protestants being le bad, nah that was all in vain masses are in local languages just like protestants and we recognise jews are gods chosen people and we never were and were lying when we oppressed them claiming to have usurped their birthright
honestly the fact every catholic hasn't left for real christianity or atheism or whatever is baffling catholicism can only be explained by illiterate peasants enamored by decorations and not understanding a word chanted in latin.

them speaking your language and outright admiting theyve always been lying for milennia leaves no excuse for being catholic lmfao

>>17748489
No you can't because it is a Satanic eisegesis. You would've actually done instead of clutching for effeminate homosexual clapbacks. It's not shocking that a Protsissy is gay though.

Do not quench the Holy Spirit. (1 Thessalonians 5:19)
Do not aggrieve the Holy Spirit through Whom you are sealed unto salvation. (Ephesians 4:30)
As co-workers of God, we beseech you not to receive the glory of God in vain (2 Corinthians 6:1)
You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! (Acts 7:51)
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left. (Hebrews 10:26)
He that perseveres to the end shall be saved. (Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:13)
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling. (Philippians 2:12)
I fought the good fight, I ran the race, I kept the faith. (2 Timothy 4:7)
I run towards the goal — the prize that is God's heavenly calling. (Philippians 3:14)
Run in such a way so as to get the prize. (1 Corinthians 9:24)
Fight the good fight and seize the good prize for which you were called. (1 Timothy 6:12)
Do not surrender yourselves to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but surrender yourselves to God as those who have risen from the dead and your bodyparts as instruments of righteousness. (Romans 6:13)

>>17748499
Real Christianity is Eastern Orthodoxy, mate. Your criticisms of Catholicism just fucking suck and apply to Jewtenstantism 500 times more.

>>17748512
Sir, so you realize you will be judged by a holy God one day?

>>17748524
God bound everyone to disobedience so that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32)

>>17748524
>ignores verses disproving monergism, irresistable grace, unconditional election and perseverence of the saints to instead concern troll
lolmao

Protkiddies when the Apostolic Christian (ie. True Christian) starts exegeting the Bible.

>>17747493 (OP)
>trust me bro
>you answered your own question
build trust from one generation to the next, learn/teach others how to use a tool (Bible), learn what it means to be holy and saintly (tradition)

>>17747977
>>17748015
>power of Jesus
>church authority
Church assumes no authority except be witness and clerical, leaders are to organize the people and teach/learn as a college

Jesus is the Holy Spirit incarnate made into flesh, even every breath and word is the Spirit (thus the Father speaking thru Him while on Earth)

>>17748176
>>17748199
>>17748209
>see St Paul

>>17748357
>thousands of years
sure it wasn't a bazillion years desu?
Read about Roman Emperor Constantine the Great

>>17748199
>history as demolished the Catholic narrative of Church history just as it has demolished the reliability of the scriptures.
This hasn't happened at all. If you unironically buy into anything Ehrman says, you deserve to be shot.

>>17748740
If you unironically buy into anything Ehrman says it's because you're an ignorant fool who is looking for an excuse to sin.

>>17748737
>pretending you know anything about Constantine

>>17748722
But it shall not be you who speak, but the Holy Spirit through you. (Matthew 10:20)
And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:22-23)

>>17748485
>divine simplicity
>monergism
John 21
>imputation of righteousness
>promised to Peter from His sacrifice
John 21:19

>>17748529
>bound
>false
>man becomes bound to the world - through his own choice - when he forgets his leaders/father's precepts

>>17748747
>see anon's post
>projections
>assumptions
>aggrandizement
this is a bot

>>17748529
KJV translation Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

>>17748758
poetry

>>17748512
>Satanic eisegesis
discussed openly in epistles of Paul and Peter. Pushed aside by Peter stating that the lay people wouldn't really understand it until it was demonstrated/revealed to them.

>>17748512
Paul's (Hellenistic Jew converted to Christ's saint) mission from God to deliver the church a message : eschatology, soteriology, syncretology

>>17748822
The church, universal or not, has a beginning, middle, and end. It is NOT itself imbued of the Holy Spirit. See ye to it.

>>17748774
How exactly does John 21 prove divine simplicity or monergism? And no; to be crucified with Christ means to have our old selves crucified with Him so that the body of sin may be destroyed (Romans 6:6), so that by suffering with Him we may also be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17), for that which was sown must first die before it can be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:36), sown in dishonour but raised in glory (1 Corinthians 15:43), because Christ died in the flesh but arose in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), so that if Christ is in us the flesh is dead to sin but the spirit lives through righteousness (Romans 8:10); and as Christ suffered in the flesh, so too whoever suffers has ceased from sin and shall live out the rest of his earthly life not with the desires and temptations of the flesh but according to the will of God (1 Peter 4:1-2), for they were crucified with Christ on the cross (Galatians 5:24). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), and in taking our punishment upon Himself, Christ condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3) so that original sin may be destroyed, and the righteousness of the Law fulfilled in us (Romans 8:4), because the fulfillment of the Law is love (Romans 13:10), and the love of God is made perfect in us (1 John 4:12). That is to say Christ's death is not a vicarious punishment we escape from, but one in which we participate, because the whole world was crucified for us on the cross, and we for the world (Galatians 6:14); we all participate in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, for we were called not only to believe in Jesus, but also suffer for Him (Philippians 1:29). We believe by the working of the mighty power that God revealed in Jesus Christ, raising Him from the dead (Ephesians 1:19-20), and Jesus was raised by the glory of God (Romans 6:4); that is to say, sanctification and glorification PRECEDE justification, because faith is a product of being conformed to the image of the Son (Romans 8:29)...

>>17748774
>>17748851
...our being conformed to the image of the Lord from glory to the glory so that with an unveiled face we may contemplate the glory of God as if in a mirror (2 Corinthians 3:18). It is by PARTICIPATING IN THE DIVINE ENERGIES through THEOSIS/DEIFICATION that we come to participate in the faith that Jesus Christ had in the Father, for we if become faithless, the Son remains faithful, for we cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), for whoever denies the Son had denied the Father (1 John 2:23). The Father loves the Son (John 5:20), and He has shown us the same love allowing us to be called children of God (1 John 3:1); and the Father shows the Son all that He does (John 5:20), so that the works the Son performs He does not do so at His own authority, but the Father that is in Him, He does the works (John 14:10). And if we do the commandments of the Son, we shall abide in His love, as the Son does all of the commandments of the Father and abides in His love (John 15:10). Faith in Christ is nothing other than love for and trust in Christ, for our unfaithfulness does not destroy God's faithfulness (Romans 3:3), for in His forebearance He looked over our sins (Romans 3:24-25), so that we might exercise the same patience in doing good works (Romans 2:7). We participate in Christ's faith in having our bodies transformed to be like His glorious body (Philippians 3:21), for we are dead to sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:11), the gift of God being eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23), an heir of God through Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:7); salvation is being united to Jesus in His death and resurrection, because He was given over for our sins but resurrected for our justification (Romans 4:25), showing that justification is a result of participating in death of Christ so that we might also be resurrected with Him (Romans 6:8), reconciled to God through His death so that all the more we might be saved by His life (Romans 5:10).

>>17748774
>>17748851
>>17748853
To lack faith is to lack the most fundamental thing that unites the Son to the Father, Who are one (John 10:30) — the eternal submission of the Son to the Father in the latter's accomplishing all His works through His image (Colossians 1:15), who as His image shares in the Father's glory, the glory of Christ being the glory of God as revealed in His image (2 Corinthians 4:4 and 4:6), His glory as the only-begotten of God (John 1:14). It is the first step of the gradual glorification of man to be clothed in Christ (Galatians 3:27), the new man created according to God in true righteousness and sanctity (Ephesians 4:24). It is an internal transformation, not a legal imputation.

>>17748851
Cramming so many bible citations into your post as to make it unreadable doesn't make it impressive or compelling

>>17748816
>discussed openly in epistles of Paul and Peter
That's your own Satanic delusions.

>>17748857
Well someone's insecure about their unfamiliarity with the New Testament. Can you tell me what the glory of God is?

>>17748801
https://biblehub.com/text/romans/11-32.htm

Man, I love me a good Christian fight.

>>17748826
The gates of Hades shall not prevail against the Church. (Matthew 16:19)
You have been baptized by one Spirit into one Body. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
Christ is the head of His body, the Church, of which He is the Saviour. (Ephesians 5:23)

And no, St Paul told Timothy to exercise the gift of the Holy Spirit he received by the laying on of hands (1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6), and both Sts Paul and Stephen has to receive sacerdotal ordination before embarking to preach (Acts 6:6, 13:2-3).

>>17748864
I am unfamiliar with the New Testament, that's why I overload my posts with 1 million citations to conceal that fact.

>>17748955
Can you demonstrate how those posts exhibit unfamiliarity with the NF?

>>17748740
That you think Ehrman is the only voice out there spreading these ideas your seriously disconnected. With only a few exceptions what he says is basically the mainstream view you will hear in history class at any nonreligious college. You will be told Exodus did not happen, the conquest of Canaan did not happen, that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and that the early Church was highly fragmented. You will be told these things because they are mostly just proven facts, or at least as close as we get to that in history. The idea that Peter took on the role of universal pontiff is so ridiculous as to be laugh worthy, and the origin of the new testament is a mess of forgeries and invented authors. Without the traditional narrative of who wrote what it ceases to have any value as a proof text for the resurrection.
> you deserve to be shot.
What a strange thing for a Christian to say. None of the ones I knew wished death on those who disagreed with them.

>>17749046
>You will be told Exodus did not happen, the conquest of Canaan did not happen, that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, and that the early Church was highly fragmented.
...all of which is wrong, and the arguments for are retarded. You won't even hear the final point too, everyone admits that the proto-orthodox Church was by far the most popular movement and the one with the strongest ties to Jesus.

>You will be told these things because they are mostly just proven facts
Lol no they aren't.

>The idea that Peter took on the role of universal pontiff is so ridiculous as to be laugh worthy
He didn't, but that was never a claim of the early Church.

>and the origin of the new testament is a mess of forgeries and invented authors.
Reminder that all of the arguments for the pseudepigraphy of NT writings are moronic and the product of mental illness.

>>17749036
By spamming citations which isn't something people who actually know the bible do

>>17749080
You're really desperate to avoid engaging with the substance of the essay. Typical Jewish and homosexual tactics (so regular Protestant hours).

>>17749082
All the citations make it unreadable, also lol calling a 4chan post an essay

>>17749084
Seems like you're too retarded to get it. But illiteracy of the NT is a requisite for being Protestant anyway.

>>17749087
I did not read it, Anon. That citation vomit is very common among Andersonites, so I'm guessing that was one of your previous flavor-of-the-month religions.

>>17749089
Ad hominem attacks to obviate addressing anything are quite pathetic and pitiful. Especially since I already stated I'm cradle Orthodox. But whatever makes you sleep at night. You clearly are dumb enough to believe that a single verse or book chapter can prove a theological position, and not that it requires a holistic exegesis of the whole breadth of Scripture and how it mutually interlinka and clarifies itself.

>>17747493 (OP)

How much of the Catechism, or whatever, is actually required to be believed by a regular Catholic layman, who has no aspirations to become a deacon or priest, but just wants to be a decent Catholic? Are we allowed to disagree with any of that, especially some of the newer, and possibly more spurious traditions which gained popularity? Some of the stuff originating in Latin America is disturbing.

>>17749097
>Ad hominem attacks to obviate addressing anything are quite pathetic and pitiful
I don't know what part of this you're having such a hard time with. I. Did. Not. Read. Your. Drivel.
>You clearly are dumb enough to believe that a single verse or book chapter can prove a theological position, and not that it requires a holistic exegesis of the whole breadth of Scripture and how it mutually interlinka and clarifies itself.
You're describing a Protestant principle you fool.

>>17749137
You didn't read it because you're retarded and can't cope with it. Let me dumb it down for you with a few verses (but I don't think I'll be engaging with you much further):
1. We believe through the working of the mighty power that God revealed in Jesus Christ, raising Him from the dead (Ephesians 1:19-20). Faith is a result of the sanctification and glorification and deification of the mind and spirit of man in His being conformed to the image of the Son (Romans 8:29) and coming to participate in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Sanctification and glorification precede and are the grounds for justifucation, because St Paul says, in Jesus Christ neither circumcision has any force, nor uncircumcision, but only the new creation (Galatians 6:15), and whoever is in Christ is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We are justified because we are resurrected and glorified in Jesus Christ according to His pattern. That is why it is said that Jesus was raised for our justification (Romans 4:25).
2. Those of you who have been baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Him (Galatians 3:27). Clothing language is used by Paul to describe ontological transformation and assumption of real attributes. Hence our clothing ourselves with the eternal heavenly abode made with no hands we shall receive from God when our current body alike a tent is blown away (2 Corinthians 5:1-2), or the mortal being clothed with the immortal and the corruptible with the incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:53). St Paul is expressing a belief in continuous glorification, of a gradual perfection of human nature through participation in the divine energies: hence our being conformed in the image of the Lord from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18).

>>17749137
>>17749155
To be clothed with Christ is to put on the new man created according to God in true righteousness and sanctity (Ephesians 4:24), bearing the likeness of the Heavenly man as we have borne the image of the earthly man (1 Corinthians 15:49). Baptism effects into reality our glorification in the image of Jesus' resurrected glorified flesh, our bodies transformed to be like His glorious body (Philippians 3:21).
3. Our old selves have been crucified with Christ, so that the body of sin may be destroyed and we no longer slaves to sin (Romans 6:6). Jesus' crucifixion is not a legal punishment underwent in a vicarious sense, but His destroying our present corrupted human nature so as to facilitate its glorification in His resurrection. After all, that which is sown must first die before it is resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:36). Ergo, all of your exegeses of verses like Romans 8:3-4 are false since they refer to Jesus' facilitating the glorification of the flesh in Himself by being glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) by first destroying our present corrupted nature.

Still no answer on the glory of God.

>You're describing a Protestant principle you fool.
No it isn't lol. It's a generic exegetical principle not unique to any one singular position. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

>>17749155
>>17749158
Further clarification on point 3: Hence why Romans 8:13 says "If you live according to the flesh, you shall die, but if you put to death the workings of the flesh, you shall live" and Romans 8:17 says "If we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him". Ascetical practice and co-working the grace of God allows us to participate in Christ's death on the cross, and in us crucify and mortify within ourselves our own corrupt nature, in so deifying and glorifying that which was put to death. In having our flesh mortified with Christ's own, we are deified and glorified in the pattern of Christ.

>>17749155
Nah.

>>17749175
I accept your concession. Thank you for proving only subhuman retards believe in Protestantism. Maybe you'll read the Bible one day and become Christian.

>>17749185
You sound really, really mad.

>>17749191
Whatever helps you cope.

>>17747769
Unironically most just do it for the free childcare and healthcare that comes from paying your catholic subscription and usually only because its what their parents did.

>>17749075
>Reminder that all of the arguments for the pseudepigraphy of NT writings are moronic and the product of mental illness.
>...all of which is wrong, and the arguments for are retarded.
Great rebuttals. Sorry, this isn't the 19th century anymore. We've translated the historical records of the Egyptians, Hittites and other near eastern peoples. WE have documents written in the actual period of the old testament, and we know alot of these events just did not happen. No period written accounts and no good archeological evidence. As for the NT, sorry, we use comparative writing to tell if the same person wrote something today. Its not a technique unique to biblical studies. Also there is a reason we call them "proto-orthodox rather than Orthodox. Many of the doctrines of Orthodoxy were still undercooked or not even developed yet. They were not the same.
At this point conservative apologetics is just trying to convince people that almost every academic discipline from biology to comparative literature is wrong, so wrong as to be broken in many cases.

>>17747493 (OP)
Because the Catholic Church made the Bible, not the opposite. The real question here is why are protestants picking one of our books and worshipping it regardless of context or logic but ignoring the rest?

>>17749788

>>17749735
>Great rebuttals.
Your entire post was just vacuous assertions and no arguments whatsoever; how is one supposed to rebut something that is reducible to unwarranted liberal triumphalism?

>We've translated the historical records of the Egyptians, Hittites and other near eastern peoples.
Check Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier.

>No period written accounts and no good archeological evidence.
...which applies to most things from that period.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2672&context=auss
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2693&context=auss

>As for the NT, sorry, we use comparative writing to tell if the same person wrote something today.
Correct, and the evidence comes in favour of Pauline authorship.
https://www.tyndalebulletin.org/article/29259-semantic-variation-within-the-corpus-paulinum-linguistic-considerations-concerning-the-richer-vocabulary-of-the-pastoral-epistles
https://theoluniv.ub.rug.nl/92/

Also Ehrman's arguments against Ephesians and Colossians are disastrously awful and reveal his own lack of understanding of Pauline theology. Not that most scholars today don't accept Colossians and 2 Thessalonians as Pauline anyway, and a strong plurality favours Ephesians anyway.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142064X12462654

We all know why Ehrman rejects 2 Thessalonians anyway; it undermines his paradigm where Christians in the first few decades of the faith prior to the Neronian persecutions already exhibited a tendency to expect a long wait for Christ's second coming.

>Its not a technique unique to biblical studies.
Indeed, only in Biblical studies is it applied with such sloppiness and incompetence.

>At this point conservative apologetics is just trying to convince people that almost every academic discipline from biology to comparative literature is wrong
Once again, not an argument. Read some Thomas Kuhn.

>>17750012
All of the authors of the NT identify themselves as part of an institution, though.

>>17750166
Apologies for the haphazard response, but I am multitasking and a full response would take days of reading, but I did read some of your links and looked up some of the names.
Biblical studies are full of Christians so yes you can find legitimate scholars who disagree. You can even find atheist scholars who disagree with Ehrman on things. Biblical maximalists are not the majority of critical scholars in the field,I doubt they are even among Christian critical scholars. Ehrman is outspoken but he is not the pope of critical scholarship, and frankly he is nicer to Christians than some of the ones I follow, though I have also listened to some Christian ones who broadly agree.
I noticed almost all the scholars you cite here are Christians. Where are the agnostics or atheists who agree with your positions? Why does it seem already being Christian is a prerequisite to agreeing with some of your assertions here? If I were trying to convince you of a non-mainstream opinion like say the mythists position and all I could cite were atheists scholars, I think that would raise an eyebrow.
You bring up the letters that scholars are divided upon. What of Timothy were there is broad agreement Paul didn't write them?
>https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2672&context=auss
Sorry, I don't find this all that convincing. Of course absence of evidence is not absolute proof. Absolute proof is not something we get much of in bronze age and early iron age history, but when we find nothing that matches an account, it does tend to raise questions as to how accurate that account might be.
Failing to find a wall mentioned in a single battle is a bit different than not finding any evidence of an alleged nation wide conquest campaign and a massive displacement of people groups. While better written it reminds me of a lot of apologetics: pointing out something is not impossible while ignoring that it is improbable.

>>17747493 (OP)
Basically those doctrines are in the Bible but they can be a little hard to spot , kinda like the trinity ; you can find it with efforts and time , but you and i both me know it's going to be hard.
Same here , so we give you the more formal version. But we still hold to the infaillibility and sufficiency of scripture, for the wise and the sinless that is ( sin darkens the intellect )

>>17750624
The Trinity is not "hard to spot", Lord have mercy. This is what happens when you don't believe in sola scriptura.

>>17750626
It's not particularly hard to see that Jesus is divine, but divine in which sense and how does He relate to the Father? That is much harder to exegete. Your average evangelical only believes in it because Pastor Jimbob said so and it is the historic position of Christianity. Unfortunately for you, no-one exegetes the Bible on their own outside of a broader cultural context devoid of intellectual influence.

>>17750626
Its not only hard to spot, its not there. The ideas that allowed for a monotheistic trinity would not be invented until a hundred years after the NT was written.
The ideas of a kind of transferable divinity and humans being transfigured by God were already present within Judaism at the time of Paul's writings.

>>17747493 (OP)
What extra doctrine are you talking about? I'm catholic and the only holy book is the bible

>>17750656
>It's not particularly hard to see that Jesus is divine, but divine in which sense and how does He relate to the Father?
What do you mean divine "in which sense"? Have you ever read the bible? How does He relate to the Father? Did you try reading the New Testament?
>average evangelical only believes in it because Pastor Jimbob said so
Let's say that's true. If it's true, it's completely irrelevant.
>Unfortunately for you, no-one exegetes the Bible on their own outside of a broader cultural context devoid of intellectual influence
Nobody ever said they needed to.

>>17750918
The vast majority of things Christians practice is not in the Bible (just think about all the details) so it comes down to the ways people would gather and develop the religion.
That should be fine, but the stakes people put on certain ideas means they have to hallucinate Biblical injunctions onto them

>>17750918
Lol no. St Paul says that the glory of God on the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6) is Christ's very own as the image of God (2 Corinthians 4:4), he says that He preexisted and was equal to God (Philippians 2:6), and that bowing to the name of Jesus Christ and confessing that He is Lord is the only way to honour God the Father (Philippians 2:10-11), that through Him everything was made (1 Corinthians 8:6, Colossians 1:16), that He took the form of a servant (Philippians 2:7) and came in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), that He has the very fullness of God (Colossians 1:19). To Christ are also ascribed the activities of God, as in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, and He is called the Lord of glory (1 Corinthians 2:8) to denote His sharing in the eternal glory of God the Father, who is called the King of glory in Psalm 24 and God of glory in Psalm 29, and worship is provided to Christ because through Him in one Spirit we have access to God the Father (Ephesians 2:18). All of these are ideas also found in the works of St John: the Son possesses all that the Father has (John 16:15), yet the Father is nonetheless greater than Him (John 14:28) because the Son can do nothing of Himself but only what He sees the Father doing, and the Father loves the son and shows Him all that He does (John 5:19-20), so that whoever has seen the Son has the Father, for the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, so that the works of the Son are done by the Father that is in Him (John 14:9-10). The Son revealed His glory as the only-begotten of God (John 1:14) so that the glory of God may be seen (John 11:40); as the only-begotten Son, in the bossom of the Father, the Son has thus revealed God, Whom no-one has seen nor can see (John 1:18); thus to deny the Son is to deny the Father (1 John 2:23). The Son is worshipped with the Father because the Father is worshipped *through* the Son.

>>17750918
>>17751001
Both the Pauline and Johannine literature are fundamentally premissed on the OT idea of Exodus 33 that God's face cannot be seen but God is to be seen in His glory. Both safeguard both the subordination of the Son to the Father and His ontological equality thereto through the unity of activity between the Father and the Son, the Father accomplishing all His works and revealing His glory through the Son. Both also focus on the way in which the Son is glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) in His resurrection, raised through the glory of God (Romans 6:4), so that in turn our own bodies may be transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21), sown in dishonour but raised in glory (1 Corinthians 15:53), conformed to the image of the Son in being glorified (Romans 8:29-30), bearing the likeness of the Heavenly man as we did the earthly man (1 Corinthians 15:49), suffering with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17); or as St Paul puts it, gaining eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23), dead to sin but alive to God through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:11), heirs of God through Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:7). Or as John puts it, Christ giving us the glory that God gave to Him (John 17:22) so that the Father may be glorified in the Son and the Father glorifying the Son (John 13:32). For both thus the arc of salvation entails the preexistent divine Word becoming flesh (John 1:14) and subsequently glorifying said flesh by condemning sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3), destroying our old selves and the body of sin (Romans 6:6) because that which is sown must first perish before it is raised (1 Corinthians 15:36), so that we might clothe ourselves in Christ (Galatians 3:27), clothed with our eternal Heavenly abode crafted with no hands (2 Corinthians 5:1-2).

>>17750918
>>17751001
>>17751004
Indeed, this is a theme you see in Mark as well; in Mark 14:58, Jesus is accused of having said that in three days He shall rebuild a new temple crafted with no human hands. This is similar language that is used to describe eternal uncreated immaterial realities in Hebrews 9:24, referring to the true heavenly sanctuary Christ enters. Denoting that Christ's flesh and our own came to participate in uncreated realities, to participate in the simplicity and incorruptibility of God, the mortal clothed with the immortal and the corruptible with the incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:53), for our current insignificant suffering achieves for us an evermore greater eternal weight of glory, for we desire not that which is visible, but that which is invisible, for the visible is fleeting, but the invisible eternal (2 Corinthians 4:17-18). Thus already in the Mark, the Gospel with the supposedly lowest Christology, Jesus claims for Himself the right to imbue created realities with uncreated attributes, referring to the Pauline and Johannine notion of the Son of God eternally sharing in the fullness eternal glory of God He makes manifest to creation.

And of course, much of the same marks of divinity are applied to the Spirit as well.

PS: Read up more on Two Powers in Heaven theology in Second Temple Judaism, you fucking retard.

>>17751001
>>17751010
>>17751004
Your blocks of texts aside, Yes Christians clearly referenced scripture when they created the Trinity doctrine. None of these quotes on their own supports it, and you cant assume the universality of scripture or the theology of the writers.

>>17751047
Univocality* that is the idea that scripture speaks with one voice.

>>17751047
>None of these quotes on their own supports it
Yes, they do. Hence why you are engaging in vague general judgements instead of a proper assiduous analysis of what the verses. There is not much leeway with "everything was made through Christ" (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:3) and "Jesus shared in the glory of God before the world began" (John 17:5) and "Jesus was equal to God but became man" (Philippians 2:6-7) and "Jesus does everything that God does" (John 5:19-20).

>you cant assume the universality of scripture or the theology of the writers.
I analyze Pauline and Johannine theology separately from each other and how they perfectly parallel, retard. And no, the texts all emerged from the same communities and utilize the same conceptual framework.

Also evading the point on how the belief in a second divine person through whom God acts in the world was pervasive in 2TJ lmao

>>17751047
>Christians clearly referenced scripture when they created the Trinity
Christians didn't create it, God revealed Himself.
>on their own
Cope
>you cant assume the universality of scripture
Not only can you, you must. You will necessarily err (often quite grotesquely) if you do not because all scripture is God-breathed.

>>17751060
>>17751068
>Yes, they do. Hence why you are engaging in vague general judgements instead of a proper assiduous analysis of what the verses.
Because I don't want to be writing all night.
I honestly think, like for example in Philippians example, that is perfectly compatible with the type of theology I was talking about.
>Also evading the point on how the belief in a second divine person through whom God acts in the world was pervasive in 2TJ lmao
I didn't evade it, I just was not sure why you were bringing it up. Now that I understand, I see you actually know something of the theology I am talking about, you have just grossly misinterpreted it . One idea is that early Christians took the theology previously attached to figures like Metatron, and reworked them to fit Jesus.
>>17751068
Not only can you, you must.
You cannot do critical scholarship, or any kind of legitimate historical research with this attitude. It is antithetical to the disciplines. That is a hard line in the sand. Cross it and we might as well stop talking, cause we won't find any common ground.

>>17751083
>I honestly think, like for example in Philippians example, that is perfectly compatible with the type of theology I was talking about.
It isn't, and it most certainly isn't when taken within the context of St Paul's other statements framing Jesus as an eternal co-possessor of the glory of God and His as the immediate fashioner of creation.

>One idea is that early Christians took the theology previously attached to figures like Metatron, and reworked them to fit Jesus.
That's good mental gymnastic, except that already exists in the Pauline epistles themselves.

>>17751095
>It isn't
Well I guess we disagree.
> except that already exists in the Pauline epistles themselves.
Yeah, Paul was an early Christian.One with a strong Jewish background too, so in the position to know that kind of theology. He even talks about visions of heaven . . . just like in the Metatron stuff, except he sees Jesus instead.

>>17751083
>>17751095
And to preemptively address this: no, the mentions of God's exalting Jesus are clearly in reference to His humanity, that is to say His humanity being perfectly united to the divinity in coming to participate in it and receiving its perfections. The entire point of the poem of Philippians, which not only indicates that belief in the divinity of Jesus preexisted Paul's joining the Christian community, is that worship of the Son only becomes mandatory upon His resurrection because the fullness of God dwelt in Him bodily (Colossians 2:9) such that it is in the reconciliation and salvation of creation with and in God through Jesus' union of divinity and humanity in Himself that God most perfectly revealed His glory and nature. Hence why it congeals so well with the Johannine notion of Jesus as the image of God Who reveals God in the works He performs (John 14:9-10), because the humanity and divinity were so perfectly interpenetrated in the person of Jesus that the divine love of God for the world was revealed in His sending His only-begotten Son into the world (1 John 4:9) so that He might die a human death for His friends, the greatest love of all (John 15:13), the divine act manifest through and in and made complete by the human act. Worshipping God the Word specifically as Jesus is mandatory because Jesus accomplished the works of the Father in the flesh.

>>17751083
>that is perfectly compatible with the type of theology I was talking about.
There is not a single word of scripture which is compatible with any god besides the Triune Lord.
>You cannot do critical scholarship, or any kind of legitimate historical research
You are woefully confused, we do not share the same faith. Just as you are dismissive of God's revelation, I have no respect for the proclamations and precepts of your priesthood. It is not my concern what appears wise to unbelievers nor shall I compromise the truth for it, for God was not pleased to make Himself known by the wisdom of the world but through the foolishness of the cross that the wise may be made ashamed.
>It is antithetical to the disciplines
The disciplines are contingent upon it. The only context in which we can understand anything is the Lord Jesus Christ because in Him is the whole treasury of wisdom and knowledge and in Him all things hold together. Your worldview is bankrupt. It is because of your broken secular worldview every "scholar" invents his own new and unheard of series of contradictory fictions.
>That is a hard line in the sand
It absolutely is, you have just grasped the fundamental truth that one's presuppositions will influence every single thing about their behavior and thinking, and that they can't be set aside or avoided.
>we won't find any common ground
Yes we will, we have common ground because we're both made in the image of God.

>>17750438
>Ehrman is outspoken but he is not the pope of critical scholarship
I never said he was. He is however a popularizer of much argumentation from "critical" scholarship who in his process of doing so disingenuously selects all of the most left wing scholarship and anti-Christian conclusions in the literature while presenting himself as an even handed judicious fair assesser of the evidence, yet continuously proves himself an anti-Christian ideologue who merely possesses the most basic prudence to in the process not embarrass himself with utterly indefensible claims. He continues to insist that everything sans Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, and 1 Thessalonians is disputed, despite a strong consensus in favour of Colossians and 2 Thessalonians and a weak consensus against Ephesians. Yet people who read him get a skewed perspective of the scholarship anyway. Reminder, this is a man who it took a decade before he couldn't pretend anymore that in fact St Paul clearly believed in a preexistent Jesus contrary to his own narrative of an increasing Christology throughout the Gospels. It's all about staking the position most embarrassing for Christians for him without in the process making himself look *too* dishonest and retarded.

Yet even then his argumentation against Ephesians and Colossians is flimsy. His position is basically that Ephesians and Colossians as presenting the resurrection as something that has already occurred, believers having risen with Jesus, whereas the undisputed epistles do not. But this simply is a result of a misapprehending the basic conceptual framework of Paul's epistles, where whoever is in Christ is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and in Christ neither circumcision has any force, nor uncircumcision, but the new creation (Galatians 6:15), such that believers are glorified in the image of the Lord from glory to glory according to the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:18) the glorification in this life...

>>17750438
>>17751463
...being but an image and adumbration of the more perfect glorification of the next life. Paul says that believers are to be clothed with the heavenly abode crafted with no human hands (2 Corinthians 5:1-2) and that the mortal is to be clothed with the immortal and the corruptible with the incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:53), but also that those who have been baptized into Christ have already clothed themselves with Him (Galatians 3:27), having been crucified with Christ so that it is no longer they who live but Christ Who lives in them (Galatians 2:19-20); believers are to bear the likeness of the Heavenly man as they have borne the likeness of the earthly man (1 Corinthians 15:49), but they have also already been conformed to the image of the Son in being glorified (Romans 8:29-30). The believer is dead to sin but alive to God in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:11) and they are to surrender themselves to God as those who have risen from the grave (Romans 6:13), even though they have died with Christ believing they shall be resurrected with Him (Romans 6:8). And if Christ is in them, the flesh is dead to sin, but the spirit lives through righteousness (Romans 8:10). After all, Jesus was given over for our sins and resurrected for our justification (Romans 4:25), reconciled to God through Christ'a death so that all the more we can be saved through His life (Romans 5:10). If anything, 1 Corinthians is unique among then undisputed epistles for casting glorification as a purely future phenomenon.

You can use Ehrman's own methodology to pit the undisputed epistles against each other too. Galatians 4:7 claims we are no longer slaves, but children, and if children heirs of God through Jesus Christ, but Romans 6:18 says that having freed ourselves from sin we have become slaves of righteousness;

>>17750438
>>17751463
>>17751465
...Romans 8:15 that we have not received a spirit of slavery, but the Spirit of adoption, but 1 Corinthians 7:22-23 says that He who comes to Christ as a slave becomes a freeman, and he who comes as a freeman becomes a slave of Christ. Clearly St Paul is equivocating here, because he says that we were all free from righteousness while were slaves to sin (Romans 6:20); for Paul, absolute freedom is impossible, and true liberty is actualized in servitude to God. So it is no wonder he uses the terms in different senses at different times. There is also the fact that Galatians 3:14, which claims that we have received the Spirit promised to Abraham on account of faith, and 1 Corinthians 12:3, which says that no-one who has the Holy Spirit can say "Cursed is Jesus Christ!", nor can anyone confess "Jesus Christ is Lord!" without the Spirit of God. So which is it? Does the Spirit engender faith in us, or do we receive the Spirit on account of faith? There isn't much of a contradiction herein if we recognize anew Paul's notion of a progressive deepening bond with God, of continuous glorification: in accepting the gift od faith, our bond with the Spirit deepens and we progress further in Him.

The fact that Ehrman has been studying the NT for so long but still doesn't grasp its theology at all yet has any kind of clout destroys any credibility he personally has and his field has as well. And don't get me started on his argument that 2 Thessalonians 3:17 proves the letter is fake, despite Galatians 6:11, 1 Corinthians 16:21, and Colossians 4:18 having the exact same handwriting claim.

>Where are the agnostics or atheists who agree with your positions?
That would depend on the position. But you yourself assume those people are above bias (they aren't).

>>17750438
>>17751463
>>17751465
>>17751469
>What of Timothy were there is broad agreement Paul didn't write them?
The claim is still wrong, but it *is* more defensible and reasonable than claiming Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians are not authentic.

>>17750438
>Failing to find a wall mentioned in a single battle is a bit different than not finding any evidence of an alleged nation wide conquest campaign and a massive displacement of people groups.
Is it when we don't have *archeological* but "merely" written evidence and cultural evidence of other massive invasions as well? And the account of Joshua and Judges assert that most Canaanites were permitted to live in the new Jewish state in contravention of God's commandment to slay or disperse them; the entire narrative of the state of Israel is that their living alongside the Canaanites lead to their gods and practices.

>>17748870
This.

>>17751494
We do not have cultural evidence, there is no archeological or written evidence of a major shift in culture at that time and the only written evidence we have is scripture. That as the only evidence of a major migration and war against multiple cities with massacres and the establishment of a new civilization. Your case rests merely on a document written hundreds of years later without a shred of collaborating evidence.

>>17751469
>The fact that Ehrman has been studying the NT for so long but still doesn't grasp its theology
Ehrman literally went to an evangelical theological college. He didn't fail to grasp it, he rejected it.

>>17751884
Evangelicals don't understand the Bible, you moron. Engage with the analysis provided before dropping on your knees to suck off a mongoloid midwit who embarrasses himself constantly.

>>17751884
I've heard Ehrman's theology professor said he never payed attention in his class, regardless it is a fact Ehrman is totally clueless about theology in general let alone New Testament theology. He is remarkably unqualified to comment on what Christians believed or honestly Christian history in general outside of textual criticism, I saw a clip from a debate where the Christian made a comment about Jesus being Yahweh, and Ehrman was shocked and said this was the historical heresy of Sabellianism. The sheer ignorance this comment represents is sufficient to disqualify him as an expert in my opinion.

>>17751884
If you are too retarded to grasp the differences between Calvinist and EO paradigmatic understandings of Paul, you shouldn't comment in these threads at all.

>>17751910

>Evangelicals don't understand the Bible,
I agree. Also I wasn't even the one to bring up Erhman, I only offered a mild defense of him in saying I think he understands Evangelical theology and is not really outside the mainstream. Personally I don't think he is very good at explaining his arguments to general audiences, at least when he talks off the cuff.
>If you are too retarded to grasp the differences between Calvinist and EO paradigmatic understandings of Paul,
And how am I supposed to know which of those you support? I don't recall you saying you were a Calvinist, though I am pretty sure I am arguing with multiple people and its hard to keep track of who is who. Suffice to say I don't think either of them are an accurate understanding of Paul.

Orthodox bros, do you believe in Once Saved Always Saved™?

>>17753787

>I am stepping into a major war zone of theology. I am going to be called a retard.

The issue of justification is a big one for me in this argument. The Once Saved Always Saved™ argument feels safe, and the idea that I could fall and lose my salvation feels really scary, or even the fact that I need to MAINTAIN my salvation, feels terrifying and full of slavish fear.

But I can understand the proof texts behind the Catholic and Orthodox ideas of justification, as I imperfectly understand them. Infused Righteousness™ theory sounds so beautiful, and honestly, I could use interior justification.

I don't know, I would like to understand what is actually true. Could Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants recommend resources to help me understand where they get their ideas of justification?

>>17753813
In terms of the Bible or in terms of patristic commentary? Good secondary (academic) sources on the matter are Origen and the History of Justification: The Legacy of Origen's Commentary on Romans by Thomas Scheck, and Grace and Christology in the Early Church by Douglas Fairbairn. Origen and St John Chrysostom's commentaries on Romans are a must, as are St John Cassian's refutations of Pelagianism. The following are a good set of verses that disprove some Protestant claims: >>17748512

>>17753813
>>17754202
Also ascetical writings like those in the Philokalia also deal with justification and virtue very thoroughly

>>17753813
>Could Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants recommend resources to help me understand where they get their ideas of justification?
Right here. Protestants get their ideas of justification from this resource.

>>17754546
This is just rhetoric, not an argument. You have yet to prove imputation of righteousness is anywhere in the NT. But it has been disproven by people who actually did read it:
>>17748851
>>17748853
>>17748856
>>17749155

Religion of the Raped.

>>17754588
You need to take your meds neurotic dyerbro.

>>17753813
You must remain rigtheous until your death. Salvation is for the righteous. Repentance is rigtheousness.

>>17754546
>>17754588
And also:
>>17749158
>>17749161
>>17748512
Btw Sola Scriptura is a purely circular doctrine. To believe in Sola Scriptura, you already need to presuppose monergism and limited atonement. Monergism because the NT is an abstruse and dense text which requires patience and wisdom to properly exegete and apprehend, and thus can only be understood by an intellectual class; that is unless you suppose that divine inspiration produces the abolition of the secondary nature through which it works, as opposed to perfecting and elevating it without in doing so changing its essence. Limited atonement because Protestantism was taught by no man until Luther, which requires one to suppose that God did not wish for the salvation of Christians in the first 1500 years of the Church. But the Bible rejects both teachings, so there is no reason to suppose SS is true.

>>17754598
It's common for demoniacs to recoil like this at the sight of the faith of Jesus Christ.

>>17754618
>To believe in Sola Scriptura, you already need to presuppose monergism and limited atonement.
Lol
>Monergism because the NT is an abstruse and dense text
No it is not. There are portions of the scriptures which are more difficult and obscure than others, but especially as pertains to the essential doctrines of the gospel it is so wonderfully clear that even the unlearned may know the truth of God that the elect may be brought close to Him. The scriptures were not given to bring confusion, as the heretical carcasses of Rome and Constantinople believe, but to bring light and guidance to the Church.
>requires patience and wisdom to properly exegete and apprehend, and thus can only be understood by an intellectual class
This does not follow, but this was written by someone whose idea of exegesis is laying assorted prooftexts next to each other to make scripture say what you want. Nor does your priesthood qualify as "an intellectual class".
>Limited atonement because Protestantism was taught by no man until Luther, which requires one to suppose that God did not wish for the salvation of Christians in the first 1500 years of the Church
This claim is completely irrelevant to both limited atonement and sola scriptura, but we see where you run away to when you are uncomfortable, to the security of your mythology.

>>17747797
>Why do they believe what the pope says?

Doctrine of Papal infallibility. Pope is always right period don't argue faggots

>>17754656
>but especially as pertains to the essential doctrines of the gospel it is so wonderfully clear that even the unlearned may know the truth of God that the elect may be brought close to Him.
And yet they never seem to actually do so and are reliant on their leadership to exegete (incorrectly) the NT for them so they may regurgitate. If these Scriptures are so immediately obvious, why is there less consensus about them amongst the various offshoots of Luther's Satanism? These assertions of the perspicuity of Scripture fail when you yourself are so terrified of engaging with any actual exegesis yourself.

>this was written by someone whose idea of exegesis is laying assorted prooftexts next to each other to make scripture say what you want.
Yawn. Bullheaded posturing isn't really impressive.

>Nor does your priesthood qualify as "an intellectual class".
More mere assertions with no argumentation. Man, you can't even PRETEND you aren't a demoniac!

>This claim is completely irrelevant to both limited atonement and sola scriptura
It absolutely is. If Scripture was so perspicuous and God loved and wished to save all men (1 Timothy 2:4) because He is the Saviour of all, especially the elect (1 Timothy 4:10) as He is love (1 John 4:8) and His love has been made perfect in us (1 John 4:12) such that no man can love God Whom he has not seen without loving his brother whom he has seen (1 John 4:20), loving his neighbour as himself (Matthew 22:39), for the commandment of God is to believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love each other, as He commanded us (1 John 3:23), then God would work through His Spirit to assure all Christians had the right doctrine in the first 1500 years of the Church. But He (supposedly) didn't. That can only work supposing double predestination and God not loving all men. Which, if we are to be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29) Who is Himself the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15)...

>>17754656
>>17754687
...how can one even justify universal love for all men? One must resort to crude arbitrary voluntarism, which necessarily leads to panentheism, as a denial of universals as a product of the human mind as nominalism requires also the denial of boundaries between particulars as also a product of the human mind, leading to continuity between creation and God's nature and being, as creation has its being through participation in God (Acts 17:28). So I do have to commend you Satanists-Calvinists — you do have an aptitude for maximizing heresies and degeneracy. Given how vile and immoral your Satanic perversion of God, it is not shocking you demoniacs are invariably and consistent immoral, rude and uncharitable.

>>17754687
>And yet they never seem to actually do so and are reliant on their leadership to exegete (incorrectly) the NT for them so they may regurgitate
Your fantasies are meaningless. You aren't talking to anybody but yourself.
>If these Scriptures are so immediately obvious, why is there less consensus about them amongst the various offshoots of Luther's Satanism?
There is considerably more consensus among those who affirm sola scriptura than those who deny it, let alone on fundamental doctrine. Where is the unity of your church, dyerbro? Must you pass through tollhouses on the way to heaven? Do you use the Gregorian or Julian calendar? With how many fingers do you make the sign of the cross? Does the patriarch of Moscow or Constantinople have primacy?
>These assertions of the perspicuity of Scripture fail when you yourself are so terrified of engaging with any actual exegesis yourself.
Again, spamming prooftexts is not exegesis. The correct emotion is embarrassment, not terror.
>Yawn. Bullheaded posturing isn't really impressive
Wow you could cut the irony with a machete.
>More mere assertions with no argumentation
Bro, I realize you probably replaced going to church with watching Jay Dyer streams, but membership in your priesthood means they were ordained to perform rites and liturgies. Intellect isn't part of it.
>more prooftext spam
Not reading that.
>>17754696
Meds

>>17754711
>Your fantasies are meaningless.
I guess when you become a Satanist you just become incapable of argumentation.

>There is considerably more consensus among those who affirm sola scriptura than those who deny it
Really? Because Seventh Day Adventists believe the Mosaic Law is still binding and avow a synergistic soteriology, Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity and embrace open sensualist demoniac services, Lutherans embrace a real presence in the Eucharist, Baptist churches cannot agree on paedobaptism and argue over the Creed of Nicaea because of it, Mormons are barely Christian, etc. This is just pure delusion, but par the course for Satanists.

>let alone on fundamental doctrine.
How do you determine what "fundamental doctrine" is?

>Must you pass through tollhouses on the way to heaven? Do you use the Gregorian or Julian calendar? With how many fingers do you make the sign of the cross? Does the patriarch of Moscow or Constantinople have primacy?
None of these are points of fundamental doctrine. Nor are half even serious points of contention. You are just exposing your lack of understanding of these issues. Nor are they furthermore a standard you want applied to yourself lmao.

>Again, spamming prooftexts is not exegesis.
The god of this world has blinded their hearts so that they may not be illumined with the light of the glory of Jesus Christ, Who is the image of God. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

>Bro, I realize you probably replaced going to church with watching Jay Dyer streams
Man, Dyer's dick and balls must be on your mind daily.

>but membership in your priesthood means they were ordained to perform rites and liturgies.
...because they exhibited the intellect and pastoral care necessary to exercise those duties. Lmao. Satanism truly is a drug for the mind.

>>17754711
>>17754750
>Meds
He that lives according to the flesh, desires the things of the flesh; he that lives according to the Spirit, desires the things of the spirit. (Romans 8:5)
Truly I say to you, if you live according to the Spirit, you shall not appease the cravings of the flesh. For the flesh desires opposite things to the Spirit, and the Spirit — opposite to the flesh; they are opposite to each other, so that you may not do what you wish to do. (Galatians 5:16-17)

>>17754711
Why would you even go to church if you are a Protestant though? Faith alone broski. No sacraments you need to partake of.

>>17754750
>Really?
Yes.
>Because Seventh Day Adventists believe the Mosaic Law is still binding and avow a synergistic soteriology, Oneness Pentecostals deny the Trinity and embrace open sensualist demoniac services, Lutherans embrace a real presence in the Eucharist, Baptist churches cannot agree on paedobaptism and argue over the Creed of Nicaea because of it, Mormons are barely Christian, etc
Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons do not affirm sola scriptura, you are demonstrating your ignorance.
>How do you determine what "fundamental doctrine" is?
With the revelation of God in the Old and New Testaments.
>None of these are points of fundamental doctrine
The massive schism in your church seems important to me, but Eastern Orthodoxy has little in the way of "fundamental doctrine" in the first place as it consists in monasticism and mysticism. If you want we could talk about the more repugnant practices in your church which have drawn controversy like priests sacrificing animals to idols or joining men in crypto-sodomite unions.
>Nor are they furthermore a standard you want applied to yourself lmao
Our churches have actual unity. Disagreement over minor doctrines does not destroy the fellowship of the Lord's table unlike Rome and Constantinople which have historically issued wanton anathemas for the slightest defiance to their tyranny.
>Dyer's dick and balls must be on your mind daily
You are a depraved and ungodly creature.
>because they exhibited the intellect and pastoral care necessary to exercise those duties
Because they signed up and paid the fee.
>>17754763
Not because participating in a rite will infuse us with magical power that somehow makes us right with God.

>>17754774
>Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons do not affirm sola scriptura
Yikes.
https://www.columbiaunion.org/content/sola-scriptura
https://www.adventist.org/beliefs/

>With the revelation of God in the Old and New Testaments.
Which was already proven contradicts your ideas. Really not disproving the argument that Protestatism is just the Satanic sin of pride and vanity there, bud.

>The massive schism in your church seems important to me
Not really all that different from prior schisms in Church History. And it's not massive — most sees are in communion with both Moscow and Constantinople. Unity of doctrine still stands.

>but Eastern Orthodoxy has little in the way of "fundamental doctrine" in the first place as it consists in monasticism and mysticism.
It does actually, but again, your demoniac diseased mind can't grasp it. If you have an issue with mysticism, take it up with 2 Corinthians 3:18, 2 Corinthians 4:6, 1 John 3:2, Psalm 105:4, Exodus 33, 1 Timothy 6:16, etc. The essence-energies distinction, divine monarchy of the Father and theosis are the doctrines upon which Christianity is made or broken. But you follow the moronic speculations of Aquinas over the Bible, reason, and saints like Sts Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc., so you naturally choose paganism and idolatry over Christianity. (Another point you'll dodge out of fear of course, but I can graciously lecture you on the subject.)

>Disagreement over minor doctrines
Charismaticism and the Trinity and baptism and soteriology are minor issues? Baptist churches can't even agree if they accept Reformed theology. Kek Satanists like you really are quite subhuman.

>You are a depraved and ungodly creature.
I'm not the one engaging in false witness and thinking about about Dyer's dick and balls daily.

>>17754774
>>17754818
>Because they signed up and paid the fee.
People fail their apprenticeship constantly. This is pure delusion and mental illness.

>Not because participating in a rite will infuse us with magical power that somehow makes us right with God.
As John 6:57 says, as Jesus was sent by the living Father and lives through the Father, so too whoever eats of His flesh and drinks His blood shall live through Him; this mirrors the language about our being made alive in unity with Christ, dead to sin but alive to God through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:11), heirs of God through Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:7), for the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23), in our bodies being transformed to be like Christ's glorious body (Philippians 3:21), for He suffered and entered into His glory (Luke 24:26), glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5), so that we too may attain His glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14), suffering with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17), conformed to the image of the Son in being glorified (Romans 8:29-30), clothing ourselves with Christ (Galatians 3:27). That is to say, eating the glorified flesh of Jesus glorifies our own flesh, the bread we break participation in Christ's flesh and the wine we drink participation in His blood (1 Corinthians 10:16); the Eucharist brings about our deification and sanctification by allowing us participation in the resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, Christ is our Paschal lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7), whose sacrifice cleanses our conscience so that we may serve the living God (Hebrews 9:14), forever making perfect those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). In the OT, all of the sacrifices made at the sanctuary were eaten — and since Christ is the ultimate sacrifice (Ephesians 5:2), to eat Him is to be made to live the new live, just as Christ was raised by the glory of God (Romans 6:4).

>>17754774
>>17754818
>>17754853
As I said, you can't grasp Christianity without the essence-energies distinction and theosis. Don't even get me started on baptism.

>>17754202
>>17754227
>>17754616
Sir or sirs, thank you for your responses. I realize it's hard to interpret sarcasm on this website but I genuinely do appreciate it.

May I ask you some questions regarding Orthodox justification?

>>17755488
I have zero interest in starting an argument, I just want to ask you questions. There's a lot of people here but I'm this guy: >>17753813.

There's no bait here.

Bump.

>>17755488
You are free to inquire, but always take into account I'm but an educated layman and not someone in position to authoritatively teach.

>>17755823
Thanks for telling me. I wouldn't want to learn anything from someone like a fisherman or carpenter.

>>17754681
only when speaking ex cathedra on a dogma we must all believe.

Transubstantiation is weird and creepy. It was simply a metaphor.

>>17755857
You mean a carpenter that was the eternal Son, Word, Wisdom and Image of God, and the fishermen He appointed to teach on earth?

>>17755875
You would've among the disciples who left Jesus in John 6:66 because they couldn't accept His words.

>>17755823
Okay, thank you so much. Forgive me for my plebian questions.

So the Orthodox believe that glorification and sanctification precede justification, right? I've never heard it put like that before. How exactly then are we to be justified?

And how do you make sense of Bible verses where justification seems to be done already?

Romans 8:30 seems to imply that justification is past, hence the past tense in "justification." "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

Also, how did you come to such a dearth of knowledge about the Orthodox faith? How did you come to understand all of this?

>>17755823
>>17756343
Is justification something you maintain in the Orthodox tradition, through sacraments and good works and within the life of the Church; the idea being that divine energies are conferred on you through these means of grace that justify you?

I know that's a really simplistic statement, with probably a lot more nuance. But if the answer is yes, where do you find this idea of justification in Scripture? I know you somewhat answer this earlier in the thread, but I am a retard.

Also, how is this different from the Catholic idea of justification? I mean that as a genuine question.

>>17756343
>>17756359
Can you lose your justification in the Orthodox tradition, and if so, how do you gain it back? Is it similar to how Catholics do works of penance, or no? What is the theology behind it?

>>17755875
While not subscribing to the specifics of transubstantiation, most Christian denominations hold to real presence, including actual flesh and blood in many denominations such as Orthodox.

>>17755488
I would like to ask Catholics in this thread the same question.

>>17755900
You meant to say the disciples who left because they weren't promised food security. If the disciples understood it to participate in cannibalism, why wouldn't they all take a bite out of Jesus right then and there?

>>17754618
>thus can only be understood by an intellectual class
My favorite Bible verse is when Paul said that the message isn't for uneducated people like slaves. Only white collar celibates like Pope Peter can properly comprehend it.

>>17756469
That's just your personal interpretation

>>17756473
Is God good and wise?

Bump.

>>17756460
>You meant to say the disciples who left because they weren't promised food security.
This is literally just your inventing shit that isn't there. His disciples are filled with doubt and trepidation and proclaim Jesus' teaching is a hard one (John 6:60), Jesus doubles down, and they leave.

>If the disciples understood it to participate in cannibalism
It is only because of your unfaithfulness that you take it to be "cannibalism".

>why wouldn't they all take a bite out of Jesus right then and there?
You are seriously mentally ill. But as explained in >>17754853, the entire point of the Eucharist is eating the glorified flesh of the resurrected Jesus so that we might be transfigured in its image. Hence why Jesus says His body is the one sacrificed for the world (John 6:51), His blood shed for the salvation of many (Matthew 26:28), and the body given for us (Luke 22:19); the feast of the Eucharist is the consummation of Christ's sacrifice as the Paschal lamb that has been slain for us (1 Corinthians 5:7), taking away the sin of the world (John 1:29), which had not occurred yet. Nor had he been glorified with the glory He had with the Father before the world began (John 17:5) to be able to transform our bodies to be like His glorious body (Philippians 3:21).

>>17756343
>How exactly then are we to be justified?
We are justified by our mystical union with Jesus Christ in being united to His death and resurrection, participating in His glorification and becoming a part of His body and being filled with His fullness, alike ingrafted branches on a vine (Romans 11:17), Christ in us and we in Christ as the branches of a vine (John 15:5), hence why St Paul speaks of the nourishing sap of the olive root (Romans 11:17). The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), so that through one transgression condemnation came unto all men (Romans 5:18), but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23), through His good deed all receiving the justification that brings life (Romans 5:18). Justification then is nothing but the state of being mystically united with Jesus and being alive to God through Him (Romans 6:11), because only God is immortal (1 Timothy 6:16) but Christ clothed the mortal with the immortal and the corruptible with the incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:53). As Hebrews 10:26 says, if we seen even if after we have discovered the truth, there is no more sacrifice for sins; this is because our old selves were crucified with Jesus so that the body of sin may be destroyed (Romans 6:6), that which is sown first dying so that it may be resurrected (1 Corinthians 15:36). The entire point of Jesus' taking upon Himself the punishment of death is His annuling our slavery to the Law by dying to that which it kept us bound for (Romans 7:6), for we were sold as slaves to sin (Romans 7:14), for He that comes to the Lord as a slave becomes a free man, and the free man becomes a slave to Christ, paid for with Jesus' death (1 Corinthians 7:22-23). We were paid for greatly (1 Corinthians 6:20) because in destroying our sinful nature, Jesus has allowed us to be clothed with Himself (Galatians 3:27). But to do so we must put to death the works of the flesh through the Spirit (Romans 8:13)...

>>17756343
>>17756995
...crucifying the temptations and desires of the flesh on the cross (Galatians 5:24), suffering with Jesus so that we may be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17), because He died in the flesh but resurrected in the spirit (1 Peter 3:18), and if Christ is in us, the flesh is dead to sin, but the spirit lives through righteousness (Romans 8:10), so that as Christ suffered in the flesh, whoever has suffered has ceased from sin so that he may live out the rest of his earthly life not with the temptations of the flesh, but according to the will of God (1 Peter 4:1-2). That is to say, union with Christ brings about our being conformed to His image (Romans 8:30), His death facilitating the deification of our flesh, or His condemning sin in the flesh so that the righteousness of the Law may be achieved in us (Romans 8:3-4), the love of God made perfect in us (1 John 4:12). The one who does not reject sin and does not mortify the flesh in Himself, rejects Christ's sacrifice, rejecting His death and in turn His life, severing Himself from the vine and its life giving essence.

>And how do you make sense of Bible verses where justification seems to be done already?
Justification is a continuous process; we have been justified, are being justified and will be justified. Justification is simply the declaration of our right standing with God, one that we may lose. Hence why 1 Corinthians 1:18 says "To us who are being saved" and Romans 5:10 that we *will* be saved by Jesus' life, because He was given over for our sins and raised for our justification (Romans 4:25).

>how did you come to such a dearth of knowledge about the Orthodox faith?
Obsessively reading the NT and the works of various saints across the centuries. It's a lot of effort. But it is not necessary for salvation.

>>17756359
>Is justification something you maintain in the Orthodox tradition, through sacraments and good works and within the life of the Church
As Luke 12:48, to him that much has been given much is expected, and to him that more has been given more is expected. Each is judged by the standard God predetermined for him, living according to the path in life God accorded them (1 Corinthians 7:17).

>But if the answer is yes, where do you find this idea of justification in Scripture?
It's across the Pauline epistles; they all describe salvation as a product of an internal transformation brought about by deification according to Christ's pattern of the glorification of His flesh by mystical union with Him in His death and resurrection. You can re-read my posts like >>17748851 et al.

>Also, how is this different from the Catholic idea of justification?
Catholics generally don't adopt the Eastern essence-energies distinction and the notion of theosis as the bedrock of all subsequent doctrine, such that they imitate many of the points of Eastern theology, but *without* the underlying explanatory mechanism, leading to confusion and ambiguity.

>>17756365
>Can you lose your justification in the Orthodox tradition, and if so, how do you gain it back?
As Jesus says, if we keep His commandments, we shall abide in His love, as He kept His Father's commandments and abides in His love (John 15:10), reciprocating the love that the Father showed Him in showing Him all His works (John 5:20), imaged in the love that God showed us that we may be called children of God (1 John 3:1). Repentance and submission to God are requisite for being reunited with Jesus, since our unity with Christ is but an image of the unity of the Father and the Son eternally.

>>17747493 (OP)
All Christians do stuff that isnt in the bible, literally the entire religion of christianity isnt in the bible. Priests, Pastors, Prayer, Sin, Worship, Heaven and Hell, none of that is in there.

>>17757018
Literally all of those things are there. Awful bait.

>>17757027
Yeah like some of the words are, but the way Christians relate to this stuff is not in the bible.

>>17757036
You just can't read.

>>17757037
ah yeah were gonna turn to the verse where it says press your hands together and close your eyes.

>>17747687
Southern Oregons Evangelical Church of Pastor Bob that split off from a bigger evangelical church a year ago after the local pastor repeated what he was taught in seminary - that they should open their hearts to migrants and gay people - disagrees.

>>17752041
I thought it was quite obvious that essay is from an EO perspective. You have consistently failed to disclose or elaborate what your perspective on Paul is. You're free to do so however.

Final bump.

>>17756995
>>17756997
>>17757001
Wow, I really and truly appreciate the time you took in writing this out. That's not sarcasm. You've given me a lot to think about. Thank you.

>>17759389
Glad I could be of help! May God guide you on your journey.