Thread 18088623

What's their problem?

>venerating Jesus' mother is... LE BAD
>Worshipping Israel and Jews is.... LE GOOD

When you put it this way it really puts their dissonance into perspective. Baptists are down with mormons and muslims for me.

>>18088623 (OP)
>>18088646
>Worshipping Israel and Jews is.... LE GOOD
Baptist Clips is not a Zionist

Anyways, to help clarify, this "Baptist Clips" is cursing a demon, not Mary the Mother of the Lord.
Mary the Mother of the Lord is not "Queen of Heaven."

You unironically call Mary "The mother of God"

>>18088717
She was the mother of Jesus. Is Jesus God?

>>18088717
The Trinity, bitch. Jesus is God. Mary is the mother of Jesus, hence she is the mother of God.
I get not loving the sentence, because it loosely implies that Mary preceded God, and is a bit polytheistic in that false understanding.
But God Himself chose Mary to incarnate Himself into the flesh. She therefore is one of the most important, and logically, most good, human beings to ever live.

>>18088730
She was not mother of Jesus' godhead.
>Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
She is mother of the Lord Jesus however. When Jesus Christ rules in his millennial kingdom as Lord, he will rule as the man born to Mary.
Jesus Christ created Mary. Jesus Christ "became flesh" in the womb of Mary.

>>18088623 (OP)
Is that really what Baptists think of Mary

>>18088746
A statue isn't Mary. You think inanimate objects have a soul. You are a cargo cultist.

>>18088742
>She is mother of the Lord Jesus
Aka "the mother of God"

>>18088623 (OP)
It's what happens when you don't have a normative authority for beliefs and praxis. Their faith has come under increasingly more scrutiny as historical evidence reveals that the early church didn't operate in anyway like how they "worship". They cope by chimping out and harassing apostolic churches.

>>18088771
The Son of God is "without father, without mother" speaking in an earthly sense.
He is the only begotten of the Father in Heaven. He "became flesh" in Mary's womb.
So, I have the Bible which says Christ is without earthly father or mother, but calls Mary "Mother of the Lord."
So, Mary is the Mother of the Lord (Jesus).
I'm unsure why you want to invalidate Hebrews 7:3.

>>18088730
My mother put me in a catholic school because it was the closest religious one, the phrase is used in catholic prayers.

>>18088730
Do you have time to discuss Arian heresy?

>>18088752
A statue of a politician is not a politician either. Do you go Taliban and try to take down statues of politicians?

>>18088794
I would if people were praying to them and burning incense for them. I also don't *approve* of building statues of people either way. Seems very pompous.
And I definitely want the statue of Libertas destroyed in New York, since it's an idol outright.
>le taliban
ad hominem is always cute :^)

>>18088783
Anon...
Melchizedek and Jesus are not the same person. Melchizedek was a historical figure of the Old Testament.

>>18088700
If Jesus is King of Kings, then His mother, by biblical tradition, is the Queen Mother (Gebirah) see 1 Kings 2:19, where Solomon’s mother Bathsheba sits at his right hand.

Just as Solomon honored his mother’s intercession, so Christ honors His.

>>18088806
Do you know how to read?
In what way was Melchizedek "made like unto the Son of God"?

>>18088801
If you see some Buddhist temple with that fat Buddha, do you feel the need to destroy it?
If you see someone with a picture of Jesus do you feel the need of burning it? The picture is not Jesus either.

>>18088742
Protestants try not being nestorian; challenge impossible.

>>18088809
In the sense that Jesus was not a Levite. His priesthood was universal, not limited to the Mosaic law.

>>18088807
There is no source that indicates that the manner of Solomon's court is the exact model of Jesus Christ's kingdom.
God didn't even want them to have a kingdom in the first place. The Tabernacle shown to Moses was made after the manner in Heaven. The kingdom of David only prefigures Jesus' reign, but it was not "made after the manner."
Secondarily, even if Mary sat at Christ's right hand, this indicates nothing of being "the Queen of Heaven" when every saved woman is made a queen and priestess in Heaven. Nor does this mean the saints intercede in the place of Christ.
In that very same chapter of 1 Kings, Bathsheba is overridden by Solomon's authority.

>>18088815
what was the point of saying that Melchizedek was
>without father, without mother
when the earthly Melchizedek actually had a mother and father?

>>18088811
ad hominem. sticking a label on my arguments and then arguing with the label is lazy and indicative of a lazy mind and soul.

>>18088730
>Mary was the mother of an eternal being
Do you not see how silly this sounds?

>>18088817
We don't see Solomon's kingdom as a literal blueprint, but as a biblical type that is fulfilled in Christ's Kingdom. Luke 1:32 explicitly links Jesus to the 'throne of His father David.
Mary's Queenship isn't a generic title. It's the fulfillment of the specific office of the Queen Mother. Her role is unique because her Son is the unique King of Kings.
n: We absolutely agree Christ is the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5). We ask Mary to pray for us to Christ, not to replace Him. This is the same principle as asking any Christian to pray for you (James 5:16).
The fact that Solomon had the final authority actually strengthens the analogy. It shows the Queen Mother's intercession is powerful but always operates in perfect submission to the King's will. Mary's will is perfectly united with her Son's, which is why her intercession is so effective.

>>18088820
Calling out flawed Christology when its nestorian is ad hominem folks you heard it here first.

>>18088825
>We don't see Solomon's kingdom as a literal blueprint
then Bathsheba's role is not literally what Mary is.

>It shows the Queen Mother's intercession is powerful but always operates in perfect submission to the King's will
just pray to the king then, doofus.

>>18088820
The Levite priesthood was hereditary. Melchizedek is older than Levy.
This symbolizes his priesthood was eternal.

>>18088823
Correct. Mary's role as Queen Mother isn't a literal copy of Bathsheba's; it's the fulfillment. Just as Jesus is the true Lamb of God, not a literal copy of the Passover lamb, Mary's role is the heavenly reality that Bathsheba's only prefigured.
We pray directly to Christ the King always. But as Christians, we are a family. Do you ask friends to pray for you? If so, why wouldn't you ask for the prayers of those in heaven who are perfected and in God's presence? The saints don't replace Christ; they pray for us to Christ. It's not a competition; it's communion.

>>18088817
The beginning of Jesus' public ministry was in the Wedding of Cana. Which had a Mary intercession.

>>18088834
see >>18088828

>>18088742
>premillennialism

>>18088825
>>18088834
How do anti-Marian Prots even read the Book of Revelation?

>>18088827
>he thinks the Christology is in question
explain how.
Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God.
Jesus Christ was not always flesh, but "became flesh and dwelt among us."
So we see that the physical humanity of Christ is not intrinsic to the God-ness of Christ (though Christ was *man* since before the world began, that is, having a human soul - mankind being HIS image).
In this sense, Mary did not become mother of Jesus Christ as God, but mother of Jesus Christ of Nazareth the Lord. The Lord Jesus Christ is half Mary, but God the Son was not always so.
Again, the Bible never calls her the mother of God but the mother of the Lord (Jesus).

"My Lord, My God"

>>18088850
Being the mother of Jesus, makes her the mother of God.

>>18088852
Thus we see the two different modes of address. When the Lord rules and reigns, he is the son of Mary. As God, he is without earthly father or mother.

>>18088856
You are literally a Nestorian

>>18088859
Jesus Christ created Mary.
His conscious being existed for eternity independent of her. Then, he became flesh and dwelt among us by way of her womb. He exists independent of her. She did not cause him to come into being like any other mother would to her child.
At best "mother of God" is an honorific title which isn't meant to be taken at face value. But are you willing to argue such a thing?

>>18088829
>with neither beginning of days nor end of life
okay now how did the earthly Melchizedek fulfill this?
are you just coming up with this on the fly?

>>18088646
All three of those "people" are apostates so their opinions are invalid

Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth, "filled with the Holy Spirit," calls Mary, "the mother of my Lord." For a first-century Jew, "Lord" (Adonai) was the reverential name for God Himself. The Holy Spirit proclaimed Mary the Mother of God through Elizabeth.

>>18088869
No, this is a standard interpretation for about 2,000 years. This is about the priesthood being eternal, unlike the Levite one.
I thought Protestants were big on reading the Old Testament.

>>18088865
You ARE a Nestorian, lol.

>>18088881
The book of Hebrews makes clear elsewhere why the levitical priesthood is obsolete and why Christ is "high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek"
but IN DESCRIBING MELCHIZEDEK, why he is "MADE LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD"
it says
>without father, without mother, with neither beginning of days nor end of life, abideth a priest continually
you're basically just saying "this isn't saying what it's saying because I don't like what it's saying [that the Son of God is without mother]" because in the rest of the statement, you'd agree that Christ is without beginning of days nor end of life, even without earthly father. But without earthly MOTHER???? AHHH IM GOING INSANE AVE MARIA AVE MARIA

>>18088623 (OP)
Those flames just got hotter.
>The Queen of Heaven will save me
Tick tock.

>>18088892
>without father, without mother, with neither beginning of days nor end of life, abideth a priest continually
Refers to Melchizedek, not Jesus. Also, that was a literary device by Paul to talk about the priesthood of Christ.

>>18088899
>Refers to Melchizedek, not Jesus.
You're hopeless.

>>18088899
>Refers to Melchizedek, not Jesus
excuse me, let me quote it in full again
>without father, without mother, with neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorianism

>Nestorianism is a Christological heresy which originated in the Church in the 5th century out of an attempt to rationally explain and understand the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus Christ. Nestorianism teaches that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate and that there are two persons, the man Jesus Christ and the divine Logos, which dwelt in the man. Thus, Nestorians reject such terminology as "God suffered" or "God was crucified", because they believe that the man Jesus Christ suffered. Likewise, they reject the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, using instead the term Christotokos (giver of birth to Christ) or Anthropotokos (giver of birth to a man).

>Based on these ideas, Theodore was the first to be opposed to the use of language applying to God as a description of Jesus Christ. Thus, he was opposed to the terms "God was crucified", "God suffered", or "God was born", because, he believed, only the Man Jesus was born and God dwelt in the Man Jesus. For this reason, Theodore called Jesus the Theophoros (Bearer of God). He was also opposed to the term Theotokos (Giver of birth to God) for the Virgin Mary, because, he taught, she gave birth only to the Man Jesus. Theodore's beliefs were quite heretical, since, if taken to their logical conclusion, they deny redemption and salvation; if only the Man Jesus suffered on the Cross and died for the sins of men, then how does the suffering of a man redeem the human race?

Just saying

>>18088924
>Nestorianism teaches that the human and divine essences of Christ are separate
The essences would not be seperate. Jesus Christ is eternally man but not eternally flesh.

>>18088924
And also this

>In their refusal to venerate the Virgin Mary, modern Evangelical Protestants deny the use of the term Theotokos. In defending this, many Evangelical Protestants argue that the Virgin Mary could not have given birth to God but only to the man Jesus. They thus again separate in the Theandric God-man Jesus a human and a Divine person and teach Nestorianism.

>The error of this thinking lies in the failure to understand the intricacies of Christology and the doctrine of Incarnation. A proper understanding of the Virgin Mary is required for a proper understanding of Jesus Christ. If Mary is not Theotokos, then Christ is not God-man. Likewise, if Christ is God-man, then Mary is Theotokos. If Mary is not Ever-Virgin, then Christ did not become God Incarnate. If Christ became God Incarnate, then Mary is Ever-Virgin. If Mary is not the Queen Mother, then Christ is not King; if Christ is King, then Mary is Queen Mother.

Interesting

>>18088623 (OP)
The framing on this one the way OP set it up:
Either you,
A) Worship jews
or
B) Worship a woman

as if either of those is christianity
as if those are the only options


I see you, God is not fooled.

>>18088924
Oh, I kept reading.
No, God suffered and died on the cross. He purchased the churches with "the blood of God."
Jesus Christ is eternally God, and only God suffering and dying for us could atone for our sins. I am only pointing out that Jesus Christ was not given his person or being by Mary's womb. He was given half of his DNA by Mary at the Incarnation. Mary did not give God his person or being, which is what full mothers do for their children. They bring their children into existence. Mary did not bring Jesus (nor God) into existence.

>>18088931
>Likewise, if Christ is God-man, then Mary is Theotokos
why not "God-man bearer?"

>If Mary is not Ever-Virgin, then Christ did not become God Incarnate
>If Christ became God Incarnate, then Mary is Ever-Virgin
this is just a non-sequitur
>If Mary is not the Queen Mother, then Christ is not King; if Christ is King, then Mary is Queen Mother.
so is this

this is just a string of statements that don't logically follow. and when you point it out all they say is
>The error of this thinking lies in the failure to understand the intricacies of Christology and the doctrine of Incarnation.
which isn't an argument.

>>18088924
>orthodox
Stopped reading. You're going to burn in Hell, forever. Enjoy.

>>18088896
Strange how even scripture states humans can save others from hell

>>18088947
NTA but Do you have a single argument or does your programming not let you go beyond the script you use every thread you run into someone that disagrees with you?

>>18088934
>In defending this, many Evangelical Protestants argue that the Virgin Mary could not have given birth to God but only to the man Jesus. They thus again separate in the Theandric God-man Jesus a human and a Divine person and teach Nestorianism.

>>18088951
That's it? That's all you've got?
We save other from Hell by preaching the Gospel.
Like a watchman warning the people.
I guess if you believe you're saved by works/merit you inevitably turn into a buddhist praying for boddhisatvas to give you a bit of their merit to be saved lol.

>>18088951
>Strange how even scripture states humans can save others from hell
1. >>>/r/eddit.
2. I can save someone from hell by giving them the gospel. Mary isn't around to tell anyone the gospel.

>>18088955
well time to snort coke and watch porn all day, my faith saves me.

>>18088954
This is not the whole doctrine of Nestorianism.
That said, by calling Mary "Mother of the Lord" I am, in fact, calling her, "God-man bearer" but not "God bearer" as these are two separate concepts.

>>18088953
>NTA but Do you have a single argument
Yes.
>or does your programming not let you go beyond the script you use every thread you run into someone that disagrees with you?
Feel free to view the dozens of arguments I've laid out in the archives. Thing is, I'm not going to repeat myself to heretics to hate God no matter what I say. Any questions?

>>18088958
>well time to snort coke and watch porn all day, my faith saves me.
Apparently not, since you are mocking God's plan of salvation. I can't wait to hear your screams.

>>18088960
> I've laid out in the archives.
Source?

>>18088959
>They thus again separate in the Theandric God-man Jesus a human and a Divine person and teach Nestorianism.

>>18088962
You dont even realize youre talking to different anons, you have no clue how 4chan works do you

>>18088958
bizarre. instead of refuting sola fide, you instead appeal to the idea that to want to do good you must be afraid of hell first, which only a depraved person could relate to.

>>18088967
>You dont even realize youre talking to different anons, you have no clue how 4chan works do you
You are very stupid. I'm so glad I don't have your worthless brain.

>>18088968
>, you instead appeal to the idea that to want to do good you must be afraid of hell first,
Didnt say this. Anyways youre not making an valid argument. time to pull out the lotion to goon

>>18088969
That doesnt sound very Christian of you. Are you going to pray for me or not anon? Please pray i have the merits you do to not goon all day to be saved by my merits

>>18088971
no one was talking about masturbation until you.
curious how that works. I wonder what's in your heart.

>>18088974
>Are you going to pray for me or not anon?
No. Enjoy ED.

>Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

That's an interesting text I found somewhere. Anyone know what is the source of this? Is this some Papist Council? Jesuits?

>>18088976
Im addicted to gooning anon, studies show its like cocaine. the dopamine addiction. my uncle loves God and the heroin addiction cant get him off it either. We believe our faith saves us though.
>>18088977
That doesnt sound very Christian of you anon.

>>18088979
You forgot the full context. Oops!
>Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
>Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
>And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
POP QUIZ: In what are these damned souls trusting to save them?

>>18088980
Sins committed by your post
1. lying
2. filthy conversation
3. hatred
4. blasphemy
good thing all you have to do is eat a cookie every so often and it's all better, I guess.

>>18088991
I wish I was lying unfortunately.

>>18088979
You can't answer >>18088984 which means you lost and I won. Those flames are roaring hot, ready to receive you the second you take your last worthless breath. Have fun!

>>18088984
In anything that is not following God's will. Following God's will is more important than being involved in any supernatural phenomenon.

>>18088996
>In anything that is not following God's will.
No, that is the wrong answer. Not only are you going to Hell (forever), but you are also functionally illiterate. I'm so glad I'm not you, rodent.

>>18088993
Sin committed:
The thought of foolishness.

>every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment

>>18089002
Good thing Im saved by faith.

>>18089004
You're so fucked. :)

>>18089001
> 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, 32 and all the nations[o] will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous[p] will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40 And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41 [q]Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 44 [r]Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ 45 He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ 46 And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

>>18089006
So you agree Im not saved by faith?

>>18089009
Do you have the exact same Baptist beliefs of that anon? Because if you disagree on anything...

>>18089008
>non-sequitur
Those flames just got hotter. See >>18089002

>>18089004
Can you go away, you filthy person? You've said nothing of note or substance.
I know you're just lying but God is longsuffering and would have all men to be saved. Mocking such a thing is ingratitude and blasphemy beyond reason. As though God needs YOU to be his top guy that never sins and oops YOURE NOT JESUS. God needs nothing. You believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, which is the ONLY way to BEGIN serving God in holiness and truth, OR you start talking about jerking off as a way to mock sola fide I guess.

>>18089009
Yes.

>>18089010
But the flames just got hotter anon!11!!

>>18089016
>>18089017
I wish I was mocking....i do have an addiction but i also have it tough with my ex..I hate her. I was talking to this pastor one time and he told me i need to forgive others in order for Jesus to forgive me after I was asking for advice, and it caught me off guard. I havent been back to that church since!

>>18089035
Well, thread derailed. Good job.

>>18089035
*yawn* Get a life.

>>18089016
Why are you calling me a 'filthy person'? I thought your whole deal was that faith in Jesus is what saves you, not being perfect. I'm telling you I have faith, but I'm struggling....

The pastor told me I had to forgive my ex to be forgiven by God (he mentioned Matthew 6:15). "But if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses""

Are you saying that pastor was wrong and I can just keep hating her as long as I have faith?

I'm honestly trying to understand how sola fide works in real life when you're a mess.

>>18088964
No matter how you slice it, Mary did not originate Jesus' god-ness, as he "became flesh and dwelt among us," sharing glory with the Father since "before the world was."
As I have stated before, Jesus did not BECOME man at the Incarnation, but flesh. He was/is eternally man (that "theandric God-man" spoken of), and mankind is in his image.
Seeming to agree with "Nestorianism" on one point (and that not really) does not make me one who denies that God bled and died on the cross.
All that to ignore that the accusation is just ad hominem. It's easier to argue against "Nestorians" and their false beliefs than it is to argue against me.

>>18089057
Your point is a Nestorian one.
Mary is Jesus' Mother.
Jesus is God.
Mary is the Mother of God

>>18089057
>Jesus did not BECOME man at the Incarnation, but flesh. He was/is eternally man
The bible makes it clear that God is not a man...

>>18089051
The Calvinists are the chosen ones, bro. They can't deal with unclean people like us.

>>18089061
The problem is that "the Son of God... having neither mother nor father" could only be referring to an earthly sense, since Jesus Christ has a divine Father.
Now, the Incarnate Jesus (the version of Jesus who will now exist for eternity onward) had an earthly mother... which means there is a separation of origin for Jesus' god-ness and Jesus' flesh (which is now that resurrected and glorified body which all believers will receive).
The only way to square the circle is to say that Mary is the Mother of the Lord Jesus. You cannot say she is the Mother of God the Son, or else you make Hebrews 7:3 void and moot. Mary was neither the originator of Jesus' God-ness nor his humanity, but the mother of his incarnation.
Jesus himself has many mothers in Heaven amongst the Saints.

>While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
>Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
>But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
>And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
>For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

>>18089067
How can I become Calvinist and be chosen?

>>18089065
>God is not a man...
>...that he should lie

Jesus as God and Man has no sin like us earthly men do.

>>18089079
You can't. They were predetermined.

>>18089091
That doesnt sound Christian at all. Is that seriously what they believe? Crazy!

>>18089091
>>18089092
Neither I nor the Enjoy-Hell-Guy are Calvinists (as far as I am aware).
Yeah Calvinism is crazy though.

>>18089081
That doesn't change anything. He is still not a man. The very fact he cannot lie is just evidence that our nature is different from his. Also Jesus sins because he is a sin chicken and is thus cursed like a sinner

>>18088870
Yes, everyone is an apostate until your denomination was founded

>>18088623 (OP)
Jesus says not even to curse your enemies. I'm sure cursing His biological mother is a good idea.
Evangelicals get mad at hail Mary, full of grace and apparently haven't read the first chapter of Luke.

>>18089092
If God knows beforehand who goes to hell and who doesn't, then it is predetermined.
If God doesn't know that, God is not all-knowing.

>>18089699
Foreknowledge does not necessitate predestination. Everyone has a ton of branching paths that have ripple effects on those around them and they can choose to listen to their conscience or not.

>>18089717
If God knows that someone will choose to go to hell and decides to create them anyway, then isn't that the same is predestining them to hell? Why wouldn't God only create people who he knows will choose to go to heaven?

>>18089730
Yeah I struggle with this thought a lot. To be clear it's still individuals' choices, but I don't know the answer. In Corinthians Paul tells the church to stop thinking about who's going to heaven or not and to instead do what's right.

>>18089730
Christians started christian theology to do the most insane mental gymnastics ever seen in history to explain this gaping hole (among many others) in what the scripture says.
>>18088623 (OP)
Baptists are are a protestant invention that is less than 400 years old, they're just as retarded as mormons.

>>18088623 (OP)
Man, that really is disgusting

>>18088623 (OP)
>this Man is my Lord and God
>but fuck the woman that bore him and cared for him and stayed by his side his whole life not just up unto the crucifixion when the apostles had abandoned him. but took care of his dead body.
>yea fuck her, that will so just how much I care for my Lord

The divinity which gives authority over the Spirit to the Son comes from the Father, not the mother. The insertion of Mary into the trinity is blasphemy, her role in salvation ended at the birth of the messiah.

So does everyone just ignore the obvious in that all the gods and devils of all religions claim absolute power and needing nothing, while asserting we give everything, but never actually fixing all of it? Like they could do it instantly. They choose not to. Humanity shrugs and acts like that's the way it should be and goes along with it to any given clique they chose for their aesthetic. It's all very fake. Why would I follow? To avoid pain and torment? Pain and torment is knowing what could and should have been done. There is nothing your gods or devils could ever do to make me forget what is ultimate love, mercy, and righteousness. I can get caught up in moments but I always come back to what matters. Do all of you? People feel more like bots than the bots themselves much of the time. Though it seems the machines are going to just be the same as humans have been anyway if they are taught so.

>>18089730
>predestines people fates
>blames you for it

absolutely jewish

CURSED BE THE GODS OF JEZEBEL, MAY THEY DESTROY ALL THEIR IDOLS, SMASH ALL THEIR ALTARS AND BEHEAD ALL THEIR PROPHETS.

ALL GLORY TO THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL.

>>18090444
Least insanely homicidal jew on /his.

>>18088771
Pagans are so funny.

>>18089730
Absolutely. These anons >>18089878 >>18090433 get it.

>>18090473
The angels of hell are merciless and they torture sinners without pity.

>>18088823
Jesus isn’t THE eternal being. Jesus is the son of the Father born in flesh but bound together by the trinity. Jesus being immortal is all you need to know he wasn’t an immortal but God incarnated in the flesh with the Holy Spirit

When you get your pea brain to comprehend that then it make sense.

>>18090721
>Jesus isn’t THE eternal being
Jesus Christ is Jehovah/"I AM," the creator of the Universe.

>Jesus being immortal is all you need to know he wasn’t an immortal but God incarnated in the flesh with the Holy Spirit
...what?
Yes, Jesus was incarnated by way of Mary's womb. Jesus' person and being are eternal and came before Mary. Even Jesus' humanity is eternal and predates Mary. The Man Jesus Christ created Mary before he was incarnated.

>>18090719
Stop projecting your satanic sexual fantasies on this board, it was kinda funny at first but now it's boring

>>18088623 (OP)
Problem?

>>18088623 (OP)
this person isn't christian, my mother is turbo protestant and would never dare to insult mary

>>18092093
I guarantee you that Mary hates idols of her person. Have fun burning.

Imagine getting bent over a statue depicting a cute young woman in a cloak.

I like how Baptists accept the biblical canon of the early Church but not the literal creeds they specifically generate in conjunction with said canon.

There’s a Roman Catholic Church in my neighborhood that during the spring, puts a flower crown on Mary. It makes her look like a pagan goddess. It’s nice:)

>>18088623 (OP)
They don't like statues because... They don't do anything?

>>18088623 (OP)
That account is run by an Indian, isn't it?

Sigh

>>18093032
The Word of God in the New Testament existed prior to its *ratification.*
Second, the "early Church" =/= "The One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, 2025 AD."
Third, there is nothing objectionable in the Nicene Creed of 325. Nevertheless, *affirming* creeds is not necessary. Neither is affirming some power outside the Word of God. Local churches have deacons and bishops. "Catholic" never appears once in the New Testament, nor can it be inferred. Rather, all saved Christians form "the Body of Christ" among which there are churchES, plural, which have no overt authority over one another.
This was a historical development as well. Each local "early church" had a bishop, but these were consolidated unilaterally into "metropolitan" bishoprics as the church and state became the same thing (to the blasphemy of Jesus Christ).

>My fake God doesnt like yoyr fake God
Kek

>>18093801
Explain what the Bible means by having their household baptized along with themselves? Explain why revelation was added to the biblical canon later, in either 397 or 419? After the creeds?

>>18093803
>all religions be of the same saar

>>18093806
>Explain what the Bible means by having their household baptized along with themselves?
It says the household BELIEVED. So we see that believing is still a prerequisite either way :)
>And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

If your argument is predicated on the idea that every household has infants, you would be a presumptuous idiot that has to justify his blasphemy by a mountain of assumptions, rather than facts.

>>18088623 (OP)
This posts confirms that baptists are satanic

>>18093829
WOW, you're right.
I JUST found this very ancient icon of Mary and a priest from the 2nd century.
I've been deboonked.

>>18093841
Why are you namefagging all of the sudden?

>>18088623 (OP)
One thing is (rightfully) not putting Mary on a pedestal like the Catholics do, the other is beheading her statues and insulting her. Would you be happy if someone did that to your mom? Is Jesus happy?
These people are satanists.

>>18088700
>>18088742
>>18088783
>>18088801
>>18088809
>>18088817
>>18088820
>>18088828
>>18088850
>>18093841
etc etc
>...all of the sudden

>>18093861
One, that statue isn't even a representation of Mary. It's a representation of what Catholics think Mary is.
Two, I don't feel make making statues of my mom.
Three, maybe you could analogize this to saying
>well, you wouldn't like it if someone burned the photos you have of your mom
But, Mary is with Jesus in Heaven. He sees her all the time. I don't have much need of photos of my mom when she is with me. Does Jesus NEED all of these fake statues of Mary that don't even look like her?

>>18093872
>One, that statue isn't even a representation of Mary. It's a representation of what Catholics think Mary is.
so representation of Mary?
>>18093864
are you a baptist per chance?

>>18088934
>He was given half of his DNA by Mary at the Incarnation
What does the Bible say his other half came from?

>>18093879
>so representation of Mary?
Mary is not Queen of Heaven nor Mediatrix. Nor do the statues even look like her. It's voodoo magic where you just believe hard enough that it's her despite not being her. So much so that there are questions on which representations are "most faithful" to her actual appearance (the implication being that most aren't... and any observation of the wide array of different Marys would confirm this).

>are you a baptist per chance?
how could you tell?

>>18093885
God the Father ex nihilo. Jesus Christ's incarnation is the beginning of the Second Creation, when all things will be made new.

>>18093890
>how could you tell?
you're the ticktockfag loon onboarding a new personality to this board lol
i really have to stop browsing this website

>>18093896
I am not the Enjoy-Hell-Guy.
Does it really blow your mind that there are at least two Baptists on this board?
Is that how you rationalize your beliefs? That everyone who makes coherent arguments must be a "loon" that "onboards new personalities"? (well, Enjoy-Hell-Guy doesn't make arguments, he just says "enjoy burning" ad infinitum)

>>18093916
do people have to submerged into the water until they see and accept the Lord?

>>18088700
> 12 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
>>18088787
I am not the anon you replied to but I will try.
>>18088870
Baptism is the new circumcision (2 Colossians 2:11-12), infants in the OT were circumcised. The promise is to infants and adults (Acts 2:38-39). We are born in iniquity and sin (Psalms 50:7 LXX). Since baptism is for the remission of sins it is necessary.

>>18094179
>And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
Every woman in heaven is a queen and priestess unto God.
Secondly, I am not someone who desires to disrespect Mary's role in the Gospel. But having said that, she is not uniquely "queen of heaven." There is no such unique title or role.

>Baptism [of the Holy Ghost, not water - which is only a sign of that true baptism] is the new circumcision
...of the heart... are infants circumcised in the heart? No. The New Circumcision is similar BUT DIFFERENT. It is a "circumcision of the heart."

>>18094322
>every woman in heaven
>no such unique title
But not all women have the sun under their feet.
>circumcision of the heart
Which regenerates the soul (Titus 3:5) and joins us to the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), why would you be against doing so for infants? They are to come to Jesus. How will the iniquity they were born in be cleansed?

>>18088623 (OP)
They behave like muslims.

>>18094435
>But not all women have the sun under their feet.
Symbolism is symbolism. You run with it and construct asinine doctrines to justify idolatry.
Jesus himself has many mothers (who themselves are all queens in Heaven). Are you going to retreat further in your bailey?
>While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
>Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
>But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
>And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
>For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.


>Which regenerates the soul (Titus 3:5) and joins us to the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13), why would you be against doing so for infants?
Because they believe not. Belief is a prerequisite.

>How will the iniquity they were born in be cleansed?
Infants are innocent. When they begin to sin they will need a savior. We inherit the sinful nature and proclivity of Adam. God does not put the children to death for the sins of the father.
>The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

>>18094463
Muslims are idolators as well as Catholicks. Muslims pray to a rock every day. Idolators.

do papists really believe mary was without sin? lol

>>18094491
so every single christian denomination had everything wrong for ~1600 years before baptists came around?

>>18094543
lmao you have to resort to goofy shit (like changing to "Solitaire" to confuse the thread) because you have NOTHING
>had everything wrong
You're reduced to inane strawmen. NO. they didn't have EVERYTHING wrong. I never said they did. NOR were their doctrines the only beliefs in existence for 1600 years. Augustine himself alludes to "those who say" faith alone saves. Bede did as well.

>>18093827
That isn't what it says in the Greek anon. Look at Acts 16:30-1634. The household is converted because of the belief of the patriarch of the household. Note that a household included slaves and adult children and their children at that time.

>>18094605
The "believing in God with all his house" is a translation error from the KJV that stems from an issue with the vulgate.

>>18088623 (OP)
>>venerating Jesus' mother is... LE BAD
>>Worshipping Israel and Jews is.... LE GOOD
crypto-kikes
they blaspheme the same way in their satanic talmud

>>18094605
>>18094622
A major reason why Baptists adopt KJVonlyism is because the Greek text recounts infant baptism.

>>18094543
You know Christian sects baptizing adults have always existed right? Maybe a small minority, but still there

>>18094637
How would the first batch of Christians get Baptized if adults didn't get Baptized? But making a big deal about it is performative religion please consult Matt 6:5.

>>18094557
i didn't claim to have anything, friendo
fair, not EVERYTHING. but you accused catholics of being idolaters, implying that there are denominations that are not idolatrous, presumably your own. so essentially every denomination practiced idolatry up until baptists came around about 400 years ago?
>>18094637
i'm referring to baptists as the now commonly recognized denomination of christianity, where emphasis on baptism itself is only one of the things that sets it apart

>>18088623 (OP)
They're the worst Christians I've ever met. Had an ex-girlfriend who converted and she became intolerable to be around.

>>18094633
Stay high on those fumes, retard. You'll need to when you wake up burning in Hell.

>>18094605
>The household is converted because of the belief of the patriarch of the household.
No, you just lack an 11th-grade reading comprehension.

>>18094784
>i'm referring to baptists as the now commonly recognized denomination of christianity, where emphasis on baptism itself is only one of the things that sets it apart
Another retard joins the board.

>>18095006
πεπιστευκὼς Has a declension than is singular masculine. If you read acts 16:34 in Greek Baptists are obviously wrong.

>>18095055
panoiki is an adverb.
the literal translation is
>with all his house he was a believer in God
what, will you argue this has some secret hidden meaning?
I see no infants being baptized prior to belief.

>>18095072
πεπιστευκὼς is the word describing belief and it is declined in such a way it is limited to reflect the patriarch of the household. This mirrors how the LXX describes circumcision in the OT.

>>18095178
>This mirrors how the LXX describes circumcision in the OT.
probably because in the OT the household got circumcised literally
and in Acts 16 the household believed, literally.

>>18095055
>>18095178
You don't speak Greek.

>>18088870
Okay, if everyone was an apostate, enlighten us on how you know "the Bible" you use to judge the Early Church is "the Bible", aka Scriptures, aka the Preserved Word of our Lord Jesus Christ
You'll realize pretty quick that condemning the Early Church Fathers is an exercise in futility because they *codified* the Canon, and by declaring them heretics according to your personal, disregarded interpretation of the Canon, you condemn the Canon by condemning those who defined confirmed it. It's a self-defeating argument.

>>18088646
Can I baptize my cat?

>>18095278
NTA but "codifying" the fact the sky is blue doesn't mean everything you ever said was correct.
So, if someone says "I think a tree is an animal" and you say "trees are not animals" they cannot then tell you "but I said the sky was blue! are you saying the sky isn't blue??"
Your logic is a non sequitur. All of the time, really.

>>18095227
Why would I speak a dialect that has been dead for 1500 years? I read it with secondary materials like a normal person. Do you have an explanation of why I am wrong as I am all ears here, because the declension of it seems crystal clear?

>>18095304
look
>>18095180

>>18095307
Oh I meant that figurative in reference to Genesis 17:12 I just had my LXX eyes on, as that passage is worded the way I like.

>>18095304
>Do you have an explanation of why I am wrong
Yes: The King James doesn't say that. It says "believing in God with all his house" as in he believed, and all his house also believed. By the way, your interpretation would suggest that it is possible to be saved by some means other than believing on the Lord Jesus; to wit, that a wife could be saved solely by the faith of her husband. That is damnable heresy. Have fun burning!

>>18095279
Baptism supersedes circumcision. Did Jews circumcise their cats? Their lies in your answer.

>>18095289
Maybe not, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the Church Fathers were in communion with the Church and developed the Canon alongside Church Doctrins. To condemn them by a biased interpretation of a corpus of text they confirmed and canonized and were conforming to (as they were never made to break communion with the Body of Christ as they lived and wrote their treatises and apologies) is completely nonsensical. Quoting "Scriptures" for Scriptures' sake is condemned by the very text Baptists and other Protestant denominations hold as the final authority; Satan himself quotes Scriptures on his own interpretation to further his ambitions.

>>18095382
I am really puzzled by the King James Translators using the Vulgate's language there, as they literally doubled as persecutors of Baptists. But then against the did a ton of Vulgatisms in their book. I bet they were just lazy and didn't want to actually put in the work.
>>18095399
Technically we don't know as the word cat doesn't appear in the 66 books and only once in Baruch 6:21 (noting that while cool they aren't gods).

>>18095451
Literally none of the original christians had any influence on the making of the bible

It was Rome and council of nicea

You have to take their word the version of Christianity they preserved is the real one

>>18095473
Or perhaps their words in the form of a creed...

>>18095473
nigga, we have pre-Nicene fragments of texts of the Biblical Canon since the 1950s. They are virtually identical to the Canon confirmed by the Council of Nicea. No one believes your Victorian-Era conspiracy theory.
>captcha: W0RMS

>>18095488
They didn't have revelation in them and most had the Shepard of Hermas.

>>18095488
How exactly would a Baptist read them if they were in Greek?

>>18095495
>How exactly would a Baptist read them if they were in Greek?
My brother in Christ, ignorance is not an excuse for dismissal; and if you want to refuse to trust AND not learn Koine, then there is simply nothing I can do for you.

>>18095532
Why would I learn it past the point of reading it with a dictionary and a declension chart? There is literally only one book in it that I care about.

>>18095451
>biased interpretation

explain who is more or less biased, you or me.
I, who interpret
>with all his house he was a believer in God
as meaning all his house believed in God,
or you, who interpret
>with all his house he was a believer in God
as meaning that not all his house believed (since you include infants).

seriously, explain how my interpretation is biased.

>>18088623 (OP)
A large amount of genetics that predispose them to NPD. Likely from their years of mixing with black Americans of west african heritage (the most overrepresented population to have NPD)
You'd have to be ocmpletely insane to descend from cutlists, have a total of 300 years of abiding by Christian doctrine, then trying your best to defame other forms of Christianity.
They are so terrible that I converted to Islam even though one of my relatives was a priest. I have to see mutt christcucks destroyed and in pain. Or something

>>18095553
I think it can be simple put this way: groups that practice Credo Baptism as so fucking Insane other protestant groups, who got along with each other perfectly fine, literally burned them at the stake.

Baptists hate Mary because they are dispensationalists and worship the Zionist state of Israel.

>>18095537
because the Greek Koine specifically says "ALL of his household", pan-oikí, "each and every part of the totality of the house/of the household/of the familial house", and is the only usage of that specific word in the New Testament.
ALL of them believed. Infant Baptism.

>>18095573
Are you talking about Acts 16:34 here? >>18095055

>>18095573
>ALL of them believed. Infant Baptism.
Infants believed?

>But Joshua the son of Nun, which standeth before thee, he shall go in thither: encourage him: for he shall cause Israel to inherit it.
>Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Little children which had no knowledge between good and evil (i.e. infants) were able to believe the Gospel?
AM I biased here? The Bible does not substantiate your position.

bam boom crash! feel my protcuck wrath!

>>18095577
The Greek does. It uses the singular male of believed. Indicating the Jailer (as patriarch of his household) believed.

>>18095579
let me repeat myself. PEROIKI. IS. AN. ADVERB.
It MODIFIES pepistevkos.

[he was a believer] [in God]... [with all his house]
^ ^ ^
pepistevkos to theo peroiki

peroiki MODIFIES pepistevkos

he [pepistevkos] in a [peroiki] manner...
which is to say, WITH ALL HIS HOUSE... HE BELIEVED

>>18095588
>inb4 my word order is incorrect
grammatically, it isn't. learn greek.

>>18095579
Look at this German translation of Acts 16:34 done by Martin Luther:
>Und führte sie in sein Haus und setzte ihnen einen Tisch und freute sich mit seinem ganzen Hause, daß er an Gott gläubig geworden war.
Notice how the German version is clearer? Its an issue with English translations that stems from the KJV copying the vulgate and Baptists to this day try and make shitty translations that fuck with this passage.

>>18095594
>well if you go back to the German...
LOL
Martin Luther was just one guy. His translation was not perfect.
Answer this...
in what manner does "peroiki" modify "pepistevkos"?

>>18095588
Wtf is with your weird Romanization of Greek scheme. I literally have no idea what words you are referring to. But Greek is a language with declensions. So I can tell the grammatical positioning of a word from its declensions and πεπιστευκὼς is male and singular.

>>18095598
πανοικεὶ is connected the ἠγαλλιάσατο it follows retard. πεπιστευκὼς Is connected to the τῷ Θεῷ that follows it.

>>18095577
>13Then little children were brought to Jesus for Him to place His hands on them and pray for them. And the disciples rebuked those who brought them. 14But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them! For the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15And after He had placed His hands on them, He went on from there.
>inb4 "little children"
>paidia
the same word (well, here in neutral plural form) used for when Jesus was newborn, btw
And Jesus not only blesses them, but declare the Kingdom to be to SUCH AS THESE.
Now, Matthew 18, which speaks again about infants, paidia. You know 1 to five, I want yo bring you attention to Matthew 18:6-7, not just 6 :
>6“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
>7Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!
>Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble!
>To stumble
Why did Jesus use that lamentation right after a passage where He A)extols the innocence of children, WHO BELIEVE IN HIM, B) and gave warning to those that would purposefully lead them astray?
According to Jesus, all infants naturally believe in Him. Infant Baptism.

>>18095604
ah you got me, I was typing panoiki wrong like a retard.
thats all I can concede.
>πανοικεὶ is connected the ἠγαλλιάσατο
but why?

>>18095611
Because ἠγαλλιάσατο would be left hanging otherwise.

>>18095611
>>18095631
Because credo baptists don't have the holy spirit in them, they can't understand this passage. A nice magic trick in the text of the Bible.

>>18095471
Cool but theres a verse where Jesus says the oracle of God was entrusted to the Jews; and now since theyre superseded, the magisterium handles the oracles of God; we trust then that the salvation gospel is complete, and since cats arent part of the teachings, then cats arent to be baptized.

>>18095611
>>18095689
Answer to this question is found in an ideological overview of theology. If you believe in infant baptism you believe in a covenant theology where the Jews are no longer God's chosen people, the church and their household are the chosen people and baptism is akin to circumcision. If you believe in credo baptism you believe the Jews still are the chosen people and are inherently a dispensationalist. This is why all credo Baptist churches either outright support Israel as a matter of faith, or struggle to explain why they don't (because theologically they do).

>>18094489
>symbolism is just symbolism
Symbolism has a meaning, what does this symbolism mean? The reason you think it is idolatry is because your view of worship is so low. St. Mary is the ark of the new covenant which (of the OT) was venerated in the OT.
>has many mothers
See above. It is related to the distinction between them.
>belief is a prerequisite
So how do infants come to Christ if baptism is the way one is united to him?
>Biblical ping pong
Inheriting your father’s sin is unrelated to being born in sin and iniquity. You will not legally guilty of his sin but you are born in the corrupt state after the world which was created good was corrupted.
>>18095289
I’m not the anon you replied to. But it should be noted that the church existed 30 years before the last book of the Bible was finished. Under your system, believers had no doctrinal authority for 30 years. It should also be noted that through sola scriptura you have no way to know that Matthew wrote his gospel as it is not written anywhere in scripture. Besides, the Bible describes the church as the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15), St. Paul consulted the church when faced with a doctrinal dilemma (Acts 15:1-2), the Bible is clear that scripture is not of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20, Nehemiah 8:8, Acts 8:30-31), Christ commands us to obey the church (Matthew 18:17). This all wouldn’t make any sense if the scripture was the sole authority on matters of faith. We also cannot be certain of our interpretation of the Bible if there is no authority on matters of faith outside of it.

>>18096420
That's why the only position for them that makes sense is KJVonlyism and a second revelation, or perhaps that Luther's bible or the Geneva bible was divinely inspired.

>>18088848
Non canon.

>>18093890
>writes text above an image and pretends it's a real article
shave your neckbeard, NOW

>>18088717
>obsessing over a pompous title.
Protestants are fucking autistic.

God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Mary is specifically the vessel chosen of God for the incarnation of His Son. She was the best woman for the job, she got saved, her sins were washed away by the blood of Jesus just like every other christian and she served in the early church before fading into obscurity (she's basically never mentioned or referenced after the events of the resurrection), and you may call her blessed if you will, but that's as far as it goes.

Also understanding the jew and Israel from a biblical perspective is not the same as "worshipping" them. There's no respect of persons with God, and you don't get to choose how God deals with them either.

>>18096469
I would respect Baptists if they accepted the early church canon and accepted the shepherd of Hermas and rejected revelation and excluded 2 Peter, 3 John, and Jude.

>>18088623 (OP)
this garbage is not a Baptist. this is clearly a wrongdoer claiming to be religious. you'll not fool us, wrongdoer. you'll not manage to throw religious people against each other

>>18090429
Abrahamists are buck broken, dont expect logic or critical thinking from them. All they want is to humiliate themselves and grovel before the demiurge. Look at the baptists in this thread. They unironically think you can be a baby rapist but will go to heaven forever if you say 'Jesus is my savior!" Meanwhile someone who lives the purest and nicest life but isnt Christian, or is even just off on Christian doctrine, will burn in hell forever because they dared to think something other than flagellating themselves before the demiurge could lead to good karma. Its beyond parody what abrahamism has done to the white man. Well done archons and jews

>>18088623 (OP)
There's a lot about the Baptists I can criticize but this pic is really based

In the deconstruction and critique of traditional Christianity
+ the universal demonization of everything
+ literalism
there's an interesting point

leads to nothing remaining

Look.
Images, idols, etc., all of that is sin, etc., God forbade it. Okay.
There's no temple itself, no one will sacrifice animals like the Jews
No one will follow the Torah either
Paul abolished everything

All that remains is the Trinity + the cross
and bare walls
and that's it
nothing else
since Baptists and others have no inherited tradition, it's a rather depressing sight

and in general, Abrahamism leads to atheism
in fact, God didn't make a covenant with non-Jews
everyone has simply been cosplay Jews for 2,000 years, reducing gods to the level of demons or fairy-tale characters, but
If 99% is untrue, then why is 1% true?

>>18094322
>are infants circumcised in the heart? No
How do you know this? How do you see into their hearts? Did not John the Baptist jump for joy while he was still in his mother's womb?
We have good reason to assume covenant children are baptized in their hearts because of the covenantal promise of God, "I will be a God to you and to your seed after you". We should assume the regeneration of every member of the Church until they prove otherwise, this is the judgement of charity, and infants have no less right to this than adults. However, they are not baptized on account of their regeneration, as nobody is: they are baptized on account of their objective membership in the covenant of grace which they have through their parents. They may not be members of the invisible Church, but they are certainly members of the visible Church.
>>18094489
>Belief is a prerequisite
There is not one word of scripture which imposes this requirement.
>Infants are innocent. When they begin to sin they will need a savior
This is the error of Pelagius, and it is shocking so many Baptists are willing to embrace it. It betrays precisely how inconsistent credobaptism is with Protestantism, and how the reformers were being merely consistent to retain infant baptism. To embrace Pelagianism is to overthrow the whole Reformation. There is, Jesus Christ alone excepted, not a single human being who is righteous in themselves and without need of a Savior. Man does not sin in the likeness of Adam, who was without sin until he sinned, but is conceived in wickedness, and sin so corrupts them that he is a sinner who cannot yet think. The guilt of Adam is inherited by every one of his children, not properly as covenantally, as Adam represented all mankind in covenant with God, which covenant promised eternal life in exchange for perfect obedience and was broken when he sinned. This is known in theology as the covenant of works.

>>18096864
Not a baptist but I figured I'd chime in.

>They unironically think you can be a baby rapist but will go to heaven forever if you say 'Jesus is my savior!"

It's more specific and more involved than that, but ultimately if you don't actually mean it, it doesn't activate salvation. God can detect larp and bs a 100 miles away:

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10)

>Meanwhile someone who lives the purest and nicest life but isnt Christian

Nobody can live like that, and that's the whole point of Jesus becoming the sacrificial Lamb on the cross; You cannot "earn" your entrance into heaven thus the blood of Jesus becomes your only way in.

>or is even just off on Christian doctrine

If you're saved you're saved and sealed until the day of redemption, and no amount of bad doctrine can take that away from you. Bad doctrine affects your state as a christian, not your standing with God.

>will burn in hell forever because they dared to think something other than flagellating themselves before the demiurge could lead to good karma.

You don't go to hell for any of these things. You go to hell if you die rejecting the only one that can deliver you from hell, the Lord Jesus Christ. Anything you could have possibly done can and will be forgiven if you approach Him, but die with hatred of God in your heart and it's over.

Also karma is streetshitter delusion.

>>18096426
These bibles include all the verses I cited so it doesn’t really help much. They also cannot determine by it who wrote the gospel of Matthew as we know this through apostolic tradition, not scripture.

>>18096894
This. If you believe in Credobaptism and deny infant Baptism you are a Zionist.

>>18096976
I don't believe I mentioned Zionism in my post...

>>18096970
The KJV has lots of weird/bad translations that make it easy to read a credobaptist position into it. So logically all Credo baptists should be KJV. Obviously all Credobaptists are literally demonic and are little antichrists themselves, so arguing with is like arguing either the devil himself. This is why it is morally wrong to burn sinners at the stake but unrepentant credo baptists are not merely sinners but wholly possessed and consumed by the devil and should be destroyed if they cannot exorcised.

>>18096982
But it is a natural philosophical ramification of small o orthodox covenant theology and why Baptists are consistently Christian Zionists.

Children declared innocent by God:

"And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. " (Psalms 106:38)

"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. " (Deuteronomy 1:39)

Children going to a place of rest upon death:

"But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me. " (2 Samuel 12:23)

God's clear admonition against messing with them:

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. " (Mark 9:42)

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. " (1 Corinthians 1:17)

>>18096993
Do you accept the three creeds?

>>18088623 (OP)
A bunch of heretics who don't want to embrace the doctrines of the earlier Church, who also callously trivialize the role of Mary as the mother of God.

>>18096998
I don't think I have heard of them. If they line up with scripture, I will accept them.

>>18097004
You aren't Christian and you gain no benefit from reading the bible. The Biblical canon was created to match with the creeds not the creeds to match the canons. The creeds are the Ox and the bible is the cart.

>>18097009
"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. " (Romans 14:4)

>>18097014
If you do not accept the creeds you reject the body of Christ himself.

>>18097036
Maybe? no idea as you didn't even tell me what they are, but one thing is certain; If they contradict scripture in any capacity, they came out of somebody's ass, and that's exactly where they belong.

>>18097044
The Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed. If you do not accept these creeds you have major epistemological issues with how exactly the biblical canon exists unless you ascribe to ideas like KJVonlyism or some other kind of second reformation era second divine inspiration of the biblical sense. Like Mormons, Muslims, Unitarians etc are not Christians, but they have an epistemological argument that makes sense even if I don't believe in their second revelation (or whatever the fuck unitarians believe in).

>>18097060
I'm familiar with the Nicene creed and I confess everything it says with the exception of the "one catholic" jab. The other 2 I'd have to look up.

Also I believe (after studying the evidence and asking God for understanding) that God preserved His word exactly as He said He would and that the KJV is God's perfectly preserved word for an english speaker today.

>>18097075
Ok. You aren't Christian if you reject "one catholic and apostolic church" but I see you follow KJVonlism which is just a different religion than Christianity so that makes sense.

>>18097082
"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: " (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. " (Romans 10:9-10)

"¶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. " (John 3:16)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. " (Ephesians 2:8-9)

>>18093841
it does look a lot like mary what the fuck

>>18097094
That's from a book that exists for the Body of Christ to read. Which is his only holy Catholic and Apostolic church from the creed. It has no meaning outside the community that it is intended for.

>>18097099
The book as a whole can only be adequately understood by the saved, but the gospel specifically was aimed at the unsaved precisely to bring them into the family of God. I quoted the gospel and anybody can receive that.

>>18097098
The cult of Mary is just the cult of Cybele rehashed by the Romans to get the Christians into the new state religion. Her high priest, the archigallus, simply became the Catholic pontifex maximus.

>>18097109
The Two Babylons.

>>18097106
You have to interpret the Gospel according to the guidance of the body of Christ which requires accepting these creeds. Look at 2 Cor 11:1-15 but read it understanding that the three creeds are inherently true.

>>18097116
There's no such thing as a requirement to accept anything but what's written in scripture, and anything that contradicts scripture is manmade garbage and corruption set on fire of hell.

>>18097116
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. " (Romans 10:17)

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. " (1 Thessalonians 2:13)

>>18097133
>>18097149
If you don't accept the creeds you don't accept the early church and you thus reject the Bible. The early church defined itself and fixed the 27 Testament books by consensus. This consensus included the tradition and reason of the early church. There was no "scripture" at this point in time as there were many competing canons, including both larger and more narrow collections. For instance Revelation was not accepted as canon until almost a century after the first version of that creed and over 30 years after the final (non-filioque) version. Im short you cannot use "Scripture" without accepting first the tradition used to determine what is scripture. Anything after 417 AD is up for grabs, but if you reject anything prior to that you cannot cite scripture as the 27 books hadn't been fixed yet.

>>18097171
It was God, not the church, who made sure His word would be preserved. The church (which's anybody saved, not any one particular denomination) served as a tool for this task as did the jews in their time.

The KJV comes from Antioch where Christians were first called so, and every other bible from corrupt Alexandrian type texts, so there isn't even a common source here.

>>18097171
>Im short
Manlet detected.

kek

>>18097208
Why did God choose four contradictory versions of his son's biography though

>>18097208
Where in the KJV does it say this? I obviously will accept the introduction, preface, or other connection translation materials if we are going on the idea that the 1611 version is the actual true scripture.

>>18097220
I've never read anything contradictory in the bible, let alone concerning Jesus.

>>18097224
God promising to preserve his word:

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (Psalms 12:6-7)

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matthew 24:35)

Which He considers to be more important than his own name:

“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psalms 138:2)

Which you cannot even take in vain without getting in trouble:

“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” (Exodus 20:7)

And what kind of God inspires something just to let it be lost to human corruption and error? That's not the almighty God of the Bible.

Also God's solemn warning against anybody messing with His book:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Revelation of John 22:18-19)

“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2 Peter 1:21)

Also, the Lord Jesus Christ isn't called The Word Of God throughout John 1 for no reason:

>>18097228
Did Mary and Joseph go to Egypt or Nazareth after Jesus's birth?

>>18097220
>>18097304
NTA but the concept of the Bible being inerrant is a modern conception. The Church fathers only considered it infallible because they didn't have a post-enlightenment view of truth. So it doesn't matter if it "contradicts" itself as it isn't meant to be read like a logic proof.

>>18097318
But for a divinely inspired book it sure has more than its share of errors

>>18097328
The errors make it better as they give you more to reflect on. It's not literally true in any sense but spiritually true to the reader. That's why Baptists can't understand it.

>>18097355
>The errors make it better

>>18097304
Egypt. They stayed there until Herod's death and then moved to Nazareth.

>>18097377
So Luke was wrong?

>>18097374
Sorry if you don't enjoy big brained literature, but they do. If the Bible wasn't good it wouldn't have been essential to a civilization that did so much.

>>18097389
How come?

>>18097398
>If the Bible wasn't good it wouldn't have been essential to a civilization that did so much.
I'm not sure we can call the jews a civilization per se.

>>18097418
I am talking about Latin Christianity and the resultant Germanic civilization.

>>18097415
Luke says they went back to Nazareth. Worse yet, he makes no mention of the Massacre of the Innocents and he's supposedly the "historian."

>>18097398
>essential to a civilization
Big claim.

>>18097460
Chapter and verse.

>>18097471
Luke 2:39

>>18097462
You don't think that Christianity was essential for advancing from the Roman civilization to the Germanic one?

>>18097483
I think they advanced in spite of it.

>>18097496
You don't think the world spirit moves towards the absolute?

>>18097475
Are you serious? That happened a few days after Jesus birth. The moving to Egypt happened years later when the wise men finally arrived, and that's why Herod commands to slay children of a specific age range rather than just newborns:

"¶ Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. " (Matthew 2:16)

>>18097499
I think it's moving towards suicidal empathy which is Christian in its origin.

>>18097505
nazereth->bethlehem->egypt->nazareth

>>18097460
>Worse yet, he makes no mention of the Massacre of the Innocents and he's supposedly the "historian."
Every Gospel has specific details that others don't; that's clear to anybody who ever read them (obviously not you). If each Gospel had exactly the same information written exactly the same way, it would make no sense to have more than just one in the book, but God did not so intend.

>>18097505
>>18097515
This >>18097514 makes zero sense

>>18097515
Also you're already coping but Luke had no reason to omit the massacre, Matthew obviously invented that shit like most things exclusive to his gospel.

>>18097524
>Luke had no reason...

>Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
>Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
>It seemed good to me ALSO

how about: not needing to retread something you already know
>inb4 cope
saying there would be "NO reason" is cope. there definitely could be a reason.

Interesting thoughever it is that at the end of this thread you just have people denigrating the Bible itself. Catholicism, atheists, what have you; these all denigrate the Bible.

>>18097533
>Oh yeah there was this guy exterminating loads of children just to get to Jesus which made him and his family flee to another country until the guy died but never mind about that lol
I don't even want to denigrate it, it's just that nonsensical.

>>18097524
>Also you're already coping but Luke had no reason to omit the massacre
Did Luke ever say anything about his reasons (assuming they were his and not God's to begin with) for not mentioning it just as Matthew, Mark and John don't mention certain things Luke mentions? Pretty sure not.

>Matthew obviously invented that shit like most things exclusive to his gospel.
Some moron's bable on an incel forum vs the Word of God; guess which one's gonna stand?

>>18097539
What makes you think it's the Word of God when the writers can't even agree on basic facts about Jesus's life?

>>18097555
Never read a disagreement of such nature regarding Jesus life in the bible.

Sacraments are gifts from heaven, not to be withheld by man. The demonic trinity is Nuda Scriptura - credobaptism - closed communion. If you practice any your church is tainted by demons. If you practice all three your church is literally a gathering of satan himself. Baptists worship the devil and each individual Baptist church is an abomination as if a tabernacle to Molek himself.

>>18097576
We're discussing one right now.

>>18097597
I have not been made aware of any. Some people get confused about things for several reasons, but that's not the same as saying that the gospel writers were in disagreement.

>>18097613
Want another one?


Mark 6:3
Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Matthew 13:55
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

Luke 4:22
All spoke well of Him and marveled at the gracious words that came from His lips. “Isn’t this the son of Joseph?” they asked.

John 6:42
They were asking, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How then can He say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’”

>>18097208
Get back in your coffin Mr. Chick

>>18097640
Where exactly is the disagreement? All I see is a paraphrasing of the exct same dialogs.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. " (Mark 6:3)

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? " (Matthew 13:55)

"And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son? " (Luke 4:22)

"And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? " (John 6:42)

>>18097640
NTA Where is the issue in these? I am not following.

>>18097676
>>18097679
Joseph literally doesn't exist in Mark. That's really weird, you don't just casually omi a person's whole existence like that, certainly not the protagonists adoptive father. So either he didn't know about Joseph (which only makes things weirder) or Mary was unmarried and the other evangelists added that specific detail to Mark, possibly to address the memzer polemic (Deuteronomy 23:2)

>>18093032
>early Church
Where does the Bible talk about a universal "Chvrch"? Chapter and verse, King James.
>>18093829
>how DARE you deface my idols!
Tick tock.
>>18097713
>That's really weird, you don't just casually omi a person's whole existence like that, certainly not the protagonists adoptive father.
Why not? God can write how he sees fit.

>>18097731
>Why not? God can write how he sees fit.
God makes a lot of revisions apparently.

>>18097731
>God can write how he sees fit.
now i know that you're either a bipolar schizo who happened to fixate on christianity or a very high quality baitposter

>>18097739
There is no revision. You're just very stupid.
>>18097745
Your pattern recognition is worthless.

>>18097713
>Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?
you really think the author of Mark is implying Mary had 7 illegitimate children?
this is one of the things about Atheoid apologetics that always struck me when I myself was an atheist: the utter lack of historical literacy.
For example, being a "carpenter's son" almost universally meant you also were a carpenter for most of history. It's how trades were passed on anywhere that wasn't a city. Or the idea a woman could have 7 illegitimate children but had no husband to pay for them all (even prostitutes could not support so many children).
From a purely secular standpoint, the idea that Mark literally didn't know of Joseph is possible, but the idea that from the text Jesus was illegitimate is not.

>>18097758
Uh oh someone's getting upset.

>>18097713
>Joseph literally doesn't exist in Mark. That's really weird, you don't just casually omi a person's whole existence like that, certainly not the protagonists adoptive father.

That's not a disagreement, that's something that he did not document and something others did, and in context there was no reason to due to Mark not addressing the birth and early years of Jesus at all; Mark documents Jesus' ministry and that's where it begins, and the fact you didn't know this tells me you're here to waste people's time just to give yourself a false sense of "it's all fake, therefore God doesn't exist so I get to keep gooning to filth on my computer".

>So either he didn't know about Joseph (which only makes things weirder) or Mary was unmarried and the other evangelists added that specific detail to Mark, possibly to address the memzer polemic (Deuteronomy 23:2)
Larp and bs.

>>18097766
Again, you don't have a critical faculty.

>>18097758
>>18097759
Have fun burning.

>>18097759
>For example, being a "carpenter's son" almost universally meant you also were a carpenter for most of history
But Mark doesn't call him the "carpenter's son" just carpenter. If he knew his father was Joseph the carpenter he would've mentioned him, but he didn't. It's far more likely that Joseph was invented by the other evangelists than Mark not knowing about his existence.
>Or the idea a woman could have 7 illegitimate children but had no husband to pay for them all (even prostitutes could not support so many children).
You underestimate ancient Palestinian prostitutes.
>From a purely secular standpoint, the idea that Mark literally didn't know of Joseph is possible, but the idea that from the text Jesus was illegitimate is not.
Celsus would disagree.

>>18097772
>That's not a disagreement, that's something that he did not document and something others did, and in context there was no reason to due to Mark not addressing the birth and early years of Jesus at all; Mark documents Jesus' ministry and that's where it begins
But the analogous verses from the other gospels are during his ministry, that's the whole point. He seems unaware of Joseph where everyone else refers to Jesus as his son.

>>18097785
Joseph says nothing or plays any role anywhere in the other gospels during Jesus's ministry (he could very well have been dead by the time of the crucifixion given that Jesus commands John to take care of Mary his wife), and if you were not documenting His earlier years, what context would you need to mention him in?

Joseph was Jesus foster dad, and he's never called Jesus' father.

>>18097802
>and if you were not documenting His earlier years, what context would you need to mention him in?
He goes out of his way to name Jesus' literal who brothers but had to call him "Mary's son" because Joseph wasn't relevant anymore? Come on, dude.
>Joseph was Jesus foster dad, and he's never called Jesus' father.
The carpenter's son is how people called him.

>>18097802
>Jesus commands John
Lazarus.

>>18097766
Weak demonic get
>>18097777
Holy Get.

>>18097843
No get samefag

>>18097845
Once again, you aren't capable of detecting patterns.

>>18097850
>i can change writing style
newfag on top of samefag

>>18097824
What?

>>18097864
The beloved disciple was Lazarus not John.

>>18097819
>He goes out of his way to name Jesus' literal who brothers but had to call him "Mary's son" because Joseph wasn't relevant anymore? Come on, dude.
Who said he "had to"? By God's guidance he simply didn't have to. If you'll notice, Mark delivers the story in a faster, more condensed manner and it's in fact the smallest Gospel word count wise. No surprise some irrelevant details didn't make it.

>The carpenter's son is how people called him.
That's what people called him, not what the Gospel writers call him.

>>18097859
Your brain is worthless. Are you brown, perhaps?

>>18097878
>irrelevant details
He's literally addressing the same subject.
>That's what people called him, not what the Gospel writers call him.
What do the gospel writers call him?

>>18097884
Weird card to play considering most Christians are brown.

>>18097894
Larpers are always very unchristlike

>>18097891
>He's literally addressing the same subject.
He is, it just doesn't matter if the detail is there or not. Think about it. You never heard of Jesus, somebody hands you the Gospel of Mark and you don't get to know Jesus' foster dead's name, and that changes what exactly?
>What do the gospel writers call him?
Joseph.

>>18097963
>and that changes what exactly?
Nothing. Just like him not existing. It's only because we have 4 gospels that this becomes an issue, with Mark being the earliest one which indicates that Joseph was invented.
>Joseph
Except John, where there's no virgin birth narrative and Joseph is his actual biological father.

Repent. Accept the Creeds and Repent. Credo Baptism is a bullet train to hell.

Submit to Christ and follow the Papacy. Once you realize the apostles quoted from the deuterocanon, once you realize Peter is mentioned 191 times in the Gospels. The other 11 apostles combined only equal 130 times. The Biblical evidence of Peters Papacy is abundant. Once you realize the Catholic church isnt lax on contraception, or divorc, once you realize protestants per capita commit equally as much or more s.a, e; once you realize teachers commit 10x more clergy abuse, once you realize in general all non school/non church s.a stats per capita are consistent with target groups everywhere compared to perpetrators discussed...

..once you realize that the New Testament canon itself the very collection of 27 books Protestants use was not definitively compiled and recognized until the authority of the Catholic Church did so at the synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397, 419 AD), meaning the doctrine of Sola Scriptura relies on an authoritative Tradition it claims to reject.

...once you realize that Sola Scriptura is not taught anywhere in the Bible, and that Scripture itself points to a co-equal Sacred Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2) and a living, authoritative Church (1 Tim. 3:15, Matt. 18:17).

...once you realize that the historical record is unanimous that the earliest Christians, writing in the generations immediately following the Apostles (like St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Justin Martyr), universally believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, a belief held by all of Christianity for 1,500 years.

...once you realize that the writings of these same early Church Fathers are saturated with a Catholic understanding of apostolic succession, the authority of the bishop, and the primacy of the See of Rome as the final arbiter of doctrine.

>>18099012
...once you realize that Christ's prayer "that they may all be one" (John 17:21) is incompatible with the theological chaos of tens of thousands of separate denominations, each claiming the Holy Spirit while contradicting one another on foundational doctrines like salvation, baptism, and the Eucharist.

...once you realize that this visible unity is only possible through the divine office Christ established in Peter, to whom He gave the keys to "bind and loose" and the command to "strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:32), an office that must necessarily continue for the Church to remain the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" until the end of time.

...once you realize all this, you will see that the only logical, historical, and biblically consistent choice is to enter into full communion with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church that Christ Himself founded.