Why should I be Catholic?

[Tomboy Respecter]

Nah, what you read was a bunch of Catholic apologia and then took it verbatim. No independent Biblical scholar who is not a Catholic apologist believes that the references to Jesus's brothers in the Bible referred to cousins. It's pure garbage that came later far after the brothers were martyred or dead. There are examples in the Bible that contradict your premise in regards to how the word was used. Example:

Matthew 4:18

As he was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers (adelphous | ἀδελφούς | acc pl masc), Simon who was called Peter and Andrew his brother (adelphon | ἀδελφόν | acc sg masc), casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen.

Are you going to suggest Peter and Andrew were not siblings now?

https://www.agapebiblestudy.com/documents/Did%20Jesus%20have%20Brothers%20and%20Sisters.htm

Specifically,

There is no separate word for cousin, half-brothers/sisters, or step-brothers/sisters in Hebrew or Aramaic.

So the same word that describes cousins, step-brothers and half-brothers describes siblings. And the Bible was originally written in Aramaic so that sense was immediately lost in a language like Greek which had those distinctions, which the Sepatuigaint is a direct calque of the Aramaic.

You're screeching about me being uniformed but you don't even know what James we are talking about apparently. LOL. Seriously, how did you make this mistake?

Are you unironically questioning how Aramiac works? YOu call me an uninformed Catholic but you are unironically too dumb to know how translations don't preserve senses and to get the best translation, you have to go back to the original language. Even fucking Muslims know that. That's why they are so anal retentive about translating the Quran into any other language (although they take that to a new level of autism).

The only way to designate a "cousin" was to indicate that a certain person was the son of your mother's brother, etc. In Hebrew and Aramaic any kinsman or a countryman was a "brother." This peculiarity of the Hebrew language is evident in other passages in the New Testament that are clearly not speaking of blood relationships. In Acts 1:14 and 16 Peter addresses the 120 disciples [men and women] praying and waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room of Jerusalem and calls them adelphoi. In Peter's great homily at the Feast of Pentecost he preaches the risen Christ to the Jewish crowds and calls them adelphoi (Acts 2:29, 37). Later when Peter preaches to the Jew at the Temple, he also calls them adelphoi. Adelphoi (meaning, "from the womb") is the only word used for "brothers" in the entire Greek New Testament. Jesus did not have brothers and sisters, but He did have step-brothers, sisters, and cousins. There is no separate word for cousin, half-brothers/sisters, or step-brothers/sisters in Hebrew or Aramaic. The only way to designate a "cousin" was to indicate that a certain person was the son of your mother's brother, etc. In Hebrew and Aramaic any kinsman or a countryman was a "brother." This peculiarity of the Hebrew language is evident in other passages in the New Testament that are clearly not speaking of blood relationships. In Acts 1:14 and 16 Peter addresses the 120 disciples [men and women] praying and waiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit in the Upper Room of Jerusalem and calls them adelphoi. In Peter's great homily at the Feast of Pentecost he preaches the risen Christ to the Jewish crowds and calls them adelphoi (Acts 2:29, 37). Later when Peter preaches to the Jew at the Temple, he also calls them adelphoi. Adelphoi (meaning, "from the womb") is the only word used for "brothers" in the entire Greek New Testament.

And there's the basic fact that if Mary had other son's why did Jesus put her in the care of John his disciple when he was crucified? It makes zero sense to assume that John would take care of a woman who had other sons to take care of her in Ancient Israelite culture. So even the Bible implicitly is saying that Jesus has no siblings (if he had sisters, then Mary would just got to their husband's house when he was crucified). Your lack of knowledge of how the actual culture that shaped how the Bible is written is so obvious by your lack of basic deduction skills regarding the cultural customs and norms of that society and the language they use. You unironically think Jesus and the Jews of his time were individuals who acted, spoke and ate like the average person nowadays. This is why I consider Protestantism a meme for the most part: it's ahistorical bullshit that tries to call other more historied traditions "ahistorical". It's a fucking farce.

That's some great Sonichu level fanfiction you got there. lol

Nice logical response retard. Surely, your vapid response is more reasonable than centuries of tradition and basic fucking inferences from the Bible.

Well, it is alluded to in additions to John that may not be in the original text. I will not argue that things that are not in the Bible are neccesarily canonical, but there are examples where Catholic tradition is farcical. Do you think Veronica was a real person? Was Mary Magdelene a whore? You just skipped over those I notice. lol

Mary Magdalene was never said to be a whore. She was said to be a woman in a state of sin, which means she could be anything from an ardent gambler to a drunkard to a prostitute to a demon possessed lady. It's basically common folklore that she was a prostitute and you can just not believe that if you wish. and St. Veronica is another part of tradition from the Early Church. Cope and sneed. You still haven't shown me where the Trinity is explicitly expressed in the Bible.

Catholics produce politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Evangelicals produce politicians that are right wing and are against the things you suggest protestants are for. No way around this really other than through your reality bending LARPing as a tradcath.

Ah yes. Because freaks like Jerry Swallwell Jr. and Josh Duggar and Jim Bob are so much better than than Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, especially when they all have a penchant for being sexual deviants and freaks. Retards like you fall for anything and anyone that appeals to their sensibilities yet don't realize they are swindling you for money. These people use religion as a means to get money. They are mostly godless and only invoke Him for a grift and to use the people that actually somewhat believe in God to do their dirty work. Look at the how the Religious Right worships Israel, is fine with faggots like the Log Cabin Republicans in their party so long as they win, doesn't care about the poor and actively swindle them and generally act in an un-Christian manner and tell me they are really better than the Democrats. Sure, they aren't spearheaded by crazy transgenders and women who want to kill their babies, but frankly no major party in the US is centered around Christianity. It's kayfabe to get queers like you to vote for them so they can spend it on hookers and blow.

Yeah, one of the largest religions in the world is a meme. Some strong cope there. The church in Rome, freaking Rome, was never supposed to have supremacy over all other churches. You had to LARP another non-Biblical history that did not occur to justify that, but it still doesn't make it true.

1) Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity today
2) Islam has more followers than pretty much all branches of Protestantism so I don't think you want to appeal to the argument by population
3) Catholicism has 2 milenia of history. Protestantism has 500 years of history and pretends it has more despite archeological, linguistic, cultural and even genetic history denying that. Yes it's a meme, even moreso than a religion like Buddhism or Islam. At least they flat out don't accept the tenets of Christianity instead of pretending they do and denying the most important parts of it with each iteration of it.

 

[Mothra1988]

@Tomboy Respecter

So the same word that describes cousins, step-brothers and half-brothers describes siblings. And the Bible was originally written in Aramaic so that sense was immediately lost in a language like Greek which had those distinctions, which the Sepatuigaint is a direct calque of the Aramaic.

WTF are you even talking about now? lol The New Testament was written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but unless you are just talking about an original source for his sayings (logia), the language is Greek for the New Testament. The Septuagint only covers the Old Testament, which we are not talking about at all.

Notice how you didn't address my point about a version of the same Greek word being used to refer to Andrew and Peter, who are brothers. It only became an issue when Catholics decided to do a retcon to back up Mariaology, but too bad James the Brother of the Lord has too much of a historical footprint to cover up the fact Mary had children with Joseph after Christ.

Are you unironically questioning how Aramiac works? YOu call me an uninformed Catholic but you are unironically too dumb to know how translations don't preserve senses and to get the best translation, you have to go back to the original language. Even fucking Muslims know that. That's why they are so anal retentive about translating the Quran into any other language (although they take that to a new level of autism).

Well, so far you didn't know James the Younger and James the Just were separate people or that the New Testament was originally in Greek. So I think I'm winning her as far as knowledge goes. Like I said before, Catholics don't focus enough on the Bible.

Mary Magdalene was never said to be a whore. She was said to be a woman in a state of sin, which means she could be anything from an ardent gambler to a drunkard to a prostitute to a demon possessed lady. It's basically common folklore that she was a prostitute and you can just not believe that if you wish. and St. Veronica is another part of tradition from the Early Church. Cope and sneed. You still haven't shown me where the Trinity is explicitly expressed in the Bible.

I'm referring to the mistake Catholics made for over a thousand years conflating Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and yet another woman. You're apparently so knowledgeable I guess that you don't even know that the Pope admitted that was a mistake 1,400 years later, yet you are still repeating the error here. LOL! Here, read up, you shmuck lol:

The portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute began in 591, when Pope Gregory I conflated Mary Magdalene, who was introduced in Luke 8:2,[6] with Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:39)[7] and the unnamed "sinful woman" who anointed Jesus's feet in Luke 7:36–50.[8] Pope Gregory's Easter sermon resulted in a widespread belief that Mary Magdalene was a repentant prostitute or promiscuous woman.[9][1] Elaborate medieval legends from Western Europe then emerged, which told exaggerated tales of Mary Magdalene's wealth and beauty, as well as of her alleged journey to southern Gaul (modern-day France). The identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the unnamed "sinful woman" was still a major controversy in the years leading up to the Reformation, and some Protestant leaders rejected it. During the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church emphasized Mary Magdalene as a symbol of penance. In 1969, Pope Paul VI removed the identification of Mary Magdalene with Mary of Bethany and the "sinful woman" from the General Roman Calendar, but the view of her as a former prostitute has persisted in popular culture.

Wow a Pope admitting that "Catholic tradition" is full of shit. Didn't see that coming, did you? It's almost like un-Biblical "traditions" can be based on fallacies or something.

and St. Veronica is another part of tradition from the Early Church. Cope and sneed.

Saint Veronica never existed and was literally created due to a misunderstanding of the term Vera Icon referring to the name of a relic. My point is Catholic tradition can definitely be dead wrong. She isn't the only mythical, never existing saint either.

You still haven't shown me where the Trinity is explicitly expressed in the Bible.

Yes, I did. I referenced the famous and controversial verse in John that's not present in all manuscripts. I assumed you would know what I was talking about, but apparently not:

(16) 1 John 5:7–8​

KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, ..

Ah yes. Because freaks like Jerry Swallwell Jr. and Josh Duggar and Jim Bob are so much better than than Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, especially when they all have a penchant for being sexual deviants and freaks. Retards like you fall for anything and anyone that appeals to their sensibilities yet don't realize they are swindling you for money. These people use religion as a means to get money. They are mostly godless and only invoke Him for a grift and to use the people that actually somewhat believe in God to do their dirty work. Look at the how the Religious Right worships Israel, is fine with faggots like the Log Cabin Republicans in their party so long as they win, doesn't care about the poor and actively swindle them and generally act in an un-Christian manner and tell me they are really better than the Democrats. Sure, they aren't spearheaded by crazy transgenders and women who want to kill their babies, but frankly no major party in the US is centered around Christianity. It's kayfabe to get queers like you to vote for them so they can spend it on hookers and blow.

A Catholic trying to accuse protestants of sexual deviation? Are you serious? LOL. Call me back when your corrupt church hierarchy stops protecting literal child molesters of the worst possible kind. You'll never live that shit down.

It's obvious you have never been inside a Baptist church in your entire life and are just going off of eastcoast liberal stereotypes. You have literally no idea what you're talking about. At least my criticisms are actually substantive points about theology instead of some bullshit you gleaned form the Daily Show or whatever nonsense that fills your head.

1) Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity today
2) Islam has more followers than pretty much all branches of Protestantism so I don't think you want to appeal to the argument by population
3) Catholicism has 2 milenia of history. Protestantism has 500 years of history and pretends it has more despite archeological, linguistic, cultural and even genetic history denying that. Yes it's a meme, even moreso than a religion like Buddhism or Islam. At least they flat out don't accept the tenets of Christianity instead of pretending they do and denying the most important parts of it with each iteration of it.

Jesus never said that the Church in Rome, again freaking Rome, was to be the only church. That's not how apostles operated originally. There's been non-Catholic churches forever as far as freaking India the pope has had nothing to do with. I will agree that the church in Rome, home of the pagans that took part in killing Christ, is a church, but the Pope is fraudulent and has no authority, neither does non-Biblical tradition that can easily be fraudulent. You can be wrong for a thousand years. Good grief, I already gave you one example above. LOL.

Also learn what the word meme means, you goof, and stop misusing it. 1 billion protestants is not a "meme."

 

[Johnny Eastwood cash]

Because it's the hip new thing on /pol/ and friends.

If someone wants to become Catholic or orthodox they need to do some research on the beliefs of the two religions before they join their churches so they can understand there religion otherwise you will look foolish if your going with your only knowledge of Catholicism or orthodoxy comes from memes on the internet because it will come cross as if you think there religion is only a trend to you

 

[Mothra1988]

If someone wants to become Catholic or orthodox they need to do some research on the beliefs of the two religions before they join their churches so they can understand there religion otherwise you will look foolish if your going with your only knowledge of Catholicism or orthodoxy comes from memes on the internet because it will come cross as if you think there religion is only a trend to you

Alternatively, you could go to a protestant church where the biggest requirement is walking through a door and sitting in a pew.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

@Mothra1988

WTF are you even talking about now? lol The New Testament was written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, but unless you are just talking about an original source for his sayings (logia), the language is Greek for the New Testament. The Septuagint only covers the Old Testament, which we are not talking about at all.

It was written by Ancient Jews like St. Paul, so no doubt there are going to be some translations that don't carry over from their native Aramaic to the Greek of the audiences they are converting.

Notice how you didn't address my point about a version of the same Greek word being used to refer to Andrew and Peter, who are brothers.

I fucking did and I posted a source. Just because you didn't read how the Aramaic uses the same word for all familial relations and has a linguistic construct that signifies cousinhoodd doesn't I didn't answer it.

It only became an issue when Catholics decided to do a retcon to back up Mariaology, but too bad James the Brother of the Lord has too much of a historical footprint to cover up the fact Mary had children with Joseph after Christ.

That only problem with that theory (again) is that Catholics, the Orthodox and even Muslims all agree on their Mariology, which points to a more archaic and frankly historied dogma of Mary being a virgin for her entire life and this has been believed since the 2nd century AD at least (so like the 2 or 3rd generation of Christians who may have had near direct access to the Apostles or their disciples). It's especially strange when most of the Protestant Reformers and even major protestant figures like John Wesely of the Methodist Church all agree with this archaic dogma, but somehow Catholics retconned all of it despite it being believed for the entirity of the history of Christianity until the 1800s due to the teachings of one man who isn't even of the same culture let alone linguistic milieu of the original Christians. Ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't make them untrue. You can chant this mantra all you want, it doesn't make it true. In fact, to spite your ignorance, I will cite this book where it talks about Justin Martyr and Iraneus, 2nd century bishops, who talk about the perpetual virginity of Mary. But of course, it was retconned by Catholics. That's why all the evidence disagrees with what I'm saying.

Well, so far you didn't know James the Younger and James the Just were separate people or that the New Testament was originally in Greek. So I think I'm winning her as far as knowledge goes. Like I said before, Catholics don't focus enough on the Bible.

Nigger, Catholics originally compiled the Bible. it was basically the work of people like St Augustine, St Jerome and Origen who formally made the Biblical canon we have today (which Martin Luther later cut 7 books out arbitrarily). If anything, Protestants are ignorant and traditionless, with some exceptions of the high church variety. They don't understand how people from Biblical times thought and acted and fill in the gaps with people that thought and acted like themselves. It's why you heard 5 or 6 years ago shit like "Jesus was a refugee" or the entire existence of the Prosperity Gospel. It's rootless and it's unashamedly so, since the same people that don't understand that every book has a context think that the group of people that compiled the Bible are wrong for reasons that rely ultimately on THEIR OWN cultural viewpoints rather than the ones of the people of biblical times. Muslims can get away with this because they have their retarded fanfiction book and even established their own traditions from it. You can't really do the same thing when you rely on the translations and the work of Catholic/Orthodox bishops from the 4th century AD.

Wow a Pope admitting that "Catholic tradition" is full of shit. Didn't see that coming, did you? It's almost like un-Biblical "traditions" can be based on fallacies or something.

Wow, So Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute and that was a case of obfuscation? That doesn't matter at the end of the day. She was a sinful woman and the whole point of her discipleship was to show Christ's mercy, no to scrutinize her for what she did in her life. Like I said before, it never mattered what she was or did before she was forgiven. Also, you know there are also multiple Marys in the Bible (just due to it being a popular name at the time). This probably the biggest reason why people believe Jesus had siblings and you just brought up how easy it is to mix up characters within the Bible without any sort of tradition to guide you to see which is which.

(16) 1 John 5:7–8​

KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, ..

A Nontrinitarian could easily just say they aren't one in substance, but one in purpose. Like the Arians did in the 3rd century AD. And they even use Mark 13:32 to justify this as well:

Mark 13:32​

32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but only the Father.

So is Jesus saying that he doesn't know as much as God the Father and thus strictly subservient to Him? These are the type of passages Nontrinitarians used to build up the argument that Jesus Christ is either the adopted Son of God or some sort of avatar for the Son of God. It was Nicea that set the record straight and made it clear that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God in both flesh and spirit. This is why quoting individual passages of the Bible is the mark of a retard: you can justify just about anything by doing that. Fedora tippers make the Bible seem extra brutal that way, shitlibs make it seem super progressive that way, cucksevatives justify their equally dumb beliefs that way. It's a sacred book in addition to a cultural record. The human writers wrote it for human of their times and in that is embedded the eternal word of God. Without some fucking context however, you have free room to justify any thing.

A Catholic trying to accuse protestants of sexual deviation? Are you serious?

Yes. Yes I am.
It's like there's no magic bullet for protecting your religion against pedos and sexual abuse, considering the massive shitshow that the SBC sexual molestation allegations have shown. I'm not even holding this against Protestantism in particular, since I have seen this shit in Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu clergy. It just seems funny you think being Protestant makes you somehow immune to what you think are Catholic only problems.

Jesus never said that the Church in Rome, again freaking Rome, was to be the only church.

Of course. St Thomas went to India like you said and there are other main churches in the Levant. However, Peter was specifically told by Christ that he was the rock that was the foundation of His Church and Peter went to Rome and started the Church there. so unless you think Christ is a liar, then the main Church is in Rome, even if there are other churches.

I will agree that the church in Rome, home of the pagans that took part in killing Christ

>pagans
>killed Christ
Tell me how I know you are a Jew simp that doesn't know shit about how Jews have been trying to undermine Christianity for fucking 2 milenia. As if there was any more of a reason to ignore your opinions. Get fucked and read a history book about the early Church or two or three before you sperg like a mindless cuckservative about how you love Israel and circumcisions (even thought that is blatantly unbiblical according to Acts).

Alternatively, you could go to a protestant church where the biggest requirement is walking through a door and sitting in a pew.

Protestant churches are literally just country clubs and social halls. I'm not even saying most Catholic churches aren't but Protestant churches especially, since if the religion basically puts zero effort into actually inducting you into it, there's no real reason to go to a church compared to say a bar or to any other social outing. That's why all religions worth their weight have some sort of process of ritual and initiation: because it's more than just a social outing. It's fucking communicating with God.

 

[WingsOfTarkov]

You shouldn’t submit to any religion, if you do you’re a fucking retard.

 

[Simony]

@Mothra1988

It's our duty to pray for everyone, including Catholics. They need our prayers especially.

Despite heresies, some of them are still our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I'm very glad that you've accepted Christ, and chosen to preach his Gospel. We need pious men, especially now. Just try to be understanding, haven't we all shameful things which we formerly accounted to righteousness?

 

[Simony]

@Tomboy Respecter

Protestant churches are literally just country clubs and social halls. I'm not even saying most Catholic churches aren't but Protestant churches especially, since if the religion basically puts zero effort into actually inducting you into it, there's no real reason to go to a church compared to say a bar or to any other social outing. That's why all religions worth their weight have some sort of process of ritual and initiation: because it's more than just a social outing. It's fucking communicating with God.

Many Protestants still practice Communion, Confession and Absolution, Baptism, Confirmation, Liturgical worship.

And no, not as ordinances either. It's the literal body and blood of Christ. Sins are forgiven during Confession, by God and through the pastor. Baptism works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the word's and promises of God declare. Confirmation is definitely an ordinance, though.

You'd be surprised if you entered an observant Anglican or Lutheran Church at how identifiably Catholic much of it is. Because we didn't destroy the church, we just purified it.

 

[Jace E. Denton]

You shouldn’t submit to any religion, if you do you’re a fucking retard.

True.

Lol at tomboy writing multiple fucking libraries worth of his tardsperging about skydaddy lore.

Look at all the dumb shit he spammed in the thread and tell me that isn't exactly like how Harry Potter and Star Wars faggots act on reddit.

Good grief religionfags are hilarious and thin skinned monkeys. Just like troons. Any attempt to break their childish delusions is met with autistic cult-like rage.

In b4 "hurr but this one scientist believed in god"

All religion is false and "believers" ALL know this in the deepest part of their mind. But having been literally groomed and brainwashed into it since childhood, they can't break away. It is honestly very sad from a psychological standpoint. Brainwashing and grooming children is super effective, apparently.

Christfags are 24/7 mati. You guys definitely own chainmail tunics and buy swords online.

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

@Tomboy Respecter

Many Protestants still practice Communion, Confession and Absolution, Baptism, Confirmation, Liturgical worship.

And no, not as ordinances either. It's the literal body and blood of Christ. Sins are forgiven during Confession, by God and through the pastor. Baptism works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the word's and promises of God declare. Confirmation is definitely an ordinance, though.

You'd be surprised if you entered an observant Anglican or Lutheran Church at how identifiably Catholic much of it is. Because we didn't destroy the church, we just purified it.

You mean how Anglicans and Lutherans are the source of most of the degeneracy (like gay marriage, abortion, transexuality,etc) and the countries where they are the main state churches, they are mostly irreligious doe to the overbearing and under-delivering tone of a church that's literally state-sponsored? Or how Low Church Protestants like the Baptists, Presbyterians or Anabaptists are so fundamentally religiously illiterate they don't even understand the traditions of the any church past the Reformation to the point that they have watered down their churches into essentially country clubs with very few actual rituals and a minimal set of beliefs that eventually lead to 15,000+ different churches that split from one another over trivial shit? Nice "purification". It's so pure, it's barely even a religion any more. No wonder globohomo takes a lot of their play book from the Protestant mindset.

 

[Jace E. Denton]

I would say your gods are dead, but they never existed in the first place.

You folks got childgroomed into brain rot. Tomboy Respecter was definitely fiddled and diddled by a priest.

 

[Mothra1988]

@Tomboy Respecter

It was written by Ancient Jews like St. Paul, so no doubt there are going to be some translations that don't carry over from their native Aramaic to the Greek of the audiences they are converting.

This is just wrong. Paul wrote in Greek. Every learned Jew during that period wrote in Greek. It's like what English is now in regards to communication. You conflated the translation of the Old Testament into Greek during Jesus's time with the New Testament which was always in Greek. There was no translation to conflate. It's originally in Greek.

I fucking did and I posted a source. Just because you didn't read how the Aramaic uses the same word for all familial relations and has a linguistic construct that signifies cousinhoodd doesn't I didn't answer it.

I thought we just went over this. lol The New Testament was never in Aramaic. The Greek word in this case refers to literal brothers like it does for Peter and Andrew.

That only problem with that theory (again) is that Catholics, the Orthodox and even Muslims all agree on their Mariology, which points to a more archaic and frankly historied dogma of Mary being a virgin for her entire life and this has been believed since the 2nd century AD at least (so like the 2 or 3rd generation of Christians who may have had near direct access to the Apostles or their disciples). It's especially strange when most of the Protestant Reformers and even major protestant figures like John Wesely of the Methodist Church all agree with this archaic dogma, but somehow Catholics retconned all of it despite it being believed for the entirity of the history of Christianity until the 1800s due to the teachings of one man who isn't even of the same culture let alone linguistic milieu of the original Christians. Ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't make them untrue. You can chant this mantra all you want, it doesn't make it true. In fact, to spite your ignorance, I will cite this book where it talks about Justin Martyr and Iraneus, 2nd century bishops, who talk about the perpetual virginity of Mary. But of course, it was retconned by Catholics. That's why all the evidence disagrees with what I'm saying.

Mary being a virgin her entire life is wrong and contradicted by the fact Jesus had brothers and sisters as explained by the gospels, Paul and Josehpus (and others). And honestly, I don't care who was wrong first about it. It's still wrong. The canon of Marialogy is a long list of fanficiton, including some made up by crazy nuns who never set foot in Judea. Also LOL at invoking Muslims. They also deny the crucifixion and think Jesus made clay birds come to life due to gnostic influence. Overall, Mary worship is un-biblical. Show me where Jesus says his mother is an important as he is.

Wow, So Mary Magdalene wasn't a prostitute and that was a case of obfuscation? That doesn't matter at the end of the day. She was a sinful woman and the whole point of her discipleship was to show Christ's mercy, no to scrutinize her for what she did in her life. Like I said before, it never mattered what she was or did before she was forgiven. Also, you know there are also multiple Marys in the Bible (just due to it being a popular name at the time). This probably the biggest reason why people believe Jesus had siblings and you just brought up how easy it is to mix up characters within the Bible without any sort of tradition to guide you to see which is which.

"It doesn't matter that Catholic tradition was wrong for 1,500 years." Wow, okay. Also stop slandering Mary Magdalene. Do you not retain things you read? I just proved she wasn't the sinful woman you were referring to. They were completely separate people, and you were repeating a debunked error made by a pope in the fifth century. The only thing true about her was she was possessed by demons and Jesus cast them out.

It's like there's no magic bullet for protecting your religion against pedos and sexual abuse, considering the massive shitshow that the SBC sexual molestation allegations have shown. I'm not even holding this against Protestantism in particular, since I have seen this shit in Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu clergy. It just seems funny you think being Protestant makes you somehow immune to what you think are Catholic only problems.

The Catholic priesthood is a male child molester factory. I don't know if this is by design. It's one of the things Martin Luther was completely correct about Catholics. Regardless, throwing stones when your church is infamous for what you accuse others of is hilarious. You may as well be a Nazi accusing other people of antisemitism.

Of course. St Thomas went to India like you said and there are other main churches in the Levant. However, Peter was specifically told by Christ that he was the rock that was the foundation of His Church and Peter went to Rome and started the Church there. so unless you think Christ is a liar, then the main Church is in Rome, even if there are other churches.

There is no evidence that Peter started the church in Rome, like zero other than Catholic "tradition" of course, which we both know can be very wrong. Second, Peter shared authority with John and James the Just. James the Just made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem, not Peter.

>pagans
>killed Christ
Tell me how I know you are a Jew simp that doesn't know shit about how Jews have been trying to undermine Christianity for fucking 2 milenia. As if there was any more of a reason to ignore your opinions. Get fucked and read a history book about the early Church or two or three before you sperg like a mindless cuckservative about how you love Israel and circumcisions (even thought that is blatantly unbiblical according to Acts).

And here comes the 4chan /pol/ faggotry. Yeah, antisemtism is not compatible with Christianity, Christ is a jew, you dope. Second point, I never said pagans were the only ones responsible, but you'd have to be an idiot to not think they share blame with the Sanhedrin considering they literally nailed him to the cross.

Protestant churches are literally just country clubs and social halls. I'm not even saying most Catholic churches aren't but Protestant churches especially, since if the religion basically puts zero effort into actually inducting you into it, there's no real reason to go to a church compared to say a bar or to any other social outing. That's why all religions worth their weight have some sort of process of ritual and initiation: because it's more than just a social outing. It's fucking communicating with God.

And where exactly in Jesus's teachings does he say becoming a believer should have a high barrier for entry you can use to lord over others? LOL. The points Jesus was trying to make literally fly right over your head because you're mystified by 4chan memes about aesthetic and tradition. The guy preached to randos outdoors, from boats, on the street and in their homes. He even convernted a criminal on a cross next to him. What about this is hard for you to understand? This meme from a tract does a pretty good job of explaining your confusion:

 

[Jace E. Denton]

lmao me and Tomboy teaming up to double Dumb on people for different reasons is fucking hilarious

enemy of my enemy and shit

yall religifags still brainrot af tho

 

[Mothra1988]

lmao me and Tomboy teaming up to double Dumb on people for different reasons is fucking hilarious

enemy of my enemy and shit

yall religifags still brainrot af tho

You've literally made zero points on anything other than angry sperging, and you type like you are functionally retarded. What religion are your parents btw? Gee, I wonder.

 

[Cringe newfag]

All religion is false

Explain how you know that. How do you have confidence in an unprovable negative.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Martin Luther also thought that Revelation should be in the apocrypha. Martin Luther can be right on some things and wrong in others.

He was right. Letting the plebs read Revelation was a mistake.

 

[Freshly Baked Socks]

Explain how you know that. How do you have confidence in an unprovable negative.

Watch monkeys fly out of my butt.

 

[Mothra1988]

He was right. Letting the plebs read Revelation was a mistake.

It was still in his Bible, but moved to apocrypha.

 

[Sparkling Yuzu]

You shouldn't, you should adopt the particular religion of your ancestors (animism and polytheism).

 

[Tomboy Respecter]

I would say your gods are dead, but they never existed in the first place.

You folks got childgroomed into brain rot. Tomboy Respecter was definitely fiddled and diddled by a priest.

It's like 2010 never ended and the fedora tipping was en vougue

@Mothra1988

Mary being a virgin her entire life is wrong and contradicted by the fact Jesus had brothers and sisters as explained by the gospels, Paul and Josehpus (and others).

>It's fanfiction despite it literally being tradition for 2,000 years and more credible people than people on Kiwifarms pointing out how the intricacies of the Aramaic language and basic theology disagree with you
Okay sperg. keep on coping. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make not true.

And honestly, I don't care who was wrong first about it. It's still wrong. The canon of Marialogy is a long list of fanficiton, including some made up by crazy nuns who never set foot in Judea.

Citation needed. Everything from your mouth is pretty worthless considering you are one of those super anti-Catholic Protestants. Even most Protestants I encounter on a day to day basis do not care about the Catholic Church that much. I literally think you just say half of this shit because you are zealous idiot and I don't trust true believer types that spout shit out of their ass with no sort of recourse to reason.

Also LOL at invoking Muslims. They also deny the crucifixion and think Jesus made clay birds come to life due to gnostic influence.

Are you so retarded that you can't tell the difference between justifying Islam and saying that a belief is so ancient that even a group of heretics picked up beliefs about it? Legit, because this is pathetic argumentation on your part.

Overall, Mary worship is un-biblical.

No shit. No one worships Mary you fucking faggot. She literally gave birth to God. She's pretty special among woman in that way and even in the Nativity narrative of Luke she's called "blessed among woman".

Show me where Jesus says his mother is an important as he is.

I never said that faggot. Please don't put words in my mouth.

"It doesn't matter that Catholic tradition was wrong for 1,500 years."

Folklore isn't tradition. There's also a folk saint that's a fucking dog and a female pope. You can ignore both of those if you want.

Wow, okay. Also stop slandering Mary Magdalene. Do you not retain things you read? I just proved she wasn't the sinful woman you were referring to. They were completely separate people, and you were repeating a debunked error made by a pope in the fifth century. The only thing true about her was she was possessed by demons and Jesus cast them out.

What fucking difference doe it make if she is or isn't? This is such a retarded minuscule tangent to care about it makes you out to be faggot (which you are but even more than is typical for the likes of this site). That's not point. The point is that she was saved and became a disciple of Jesus Christ. It really doesn't matter what you identify Mary Magdalene as, so long as you see her for the saint that she became.

here is no evidence that Peter started the church in Rome, like zero other than Catholic "tradition" of course, which we both know can be very wrong. Second, Peter shared authority with John and James the Just. James the Just made the decision at the Council of Jerusalem, not Peter.

Ignatius of Antioch, a man that lived between ~35 - 107 AD, said Peter and Paul gave admonisitons to the Romans. I trust a contemporary more than I trust some random faggot on the Internet 2000 years later who hasn't read any Christian writing of the Early Church outside the Bible.

The Catholic priesthood is a male child molester factory. I don't know if this is by design. It's one of the things Martin Luther was completely correct about Catholics. Regardless, throwing stones when your church is infamous for what you accuse others of is hilarious. You may as well be a Nazi accusing other people of antisemitism.

Meanwhile, a bunch are still getting molested in the Southern Baptist Convention. You can talk a big game all you want, but make sure your house is clean before you talk shit. Again, I didn't even insult the SBC in that regard because I'm under no illusion that being part of a particular church makes you a better person nor does being a clergy in a particular church. It's fucking idiotic to assume there aren't going to be people that won't abuse their title and use it to their advantage. And Martin Luther was a man with a voracious sexual appetite. Of course he would project his degeneracy onto others.

Yeah, antisemtism is not compatible with Christianity,

To a degree, it kind of is. I agree e shouldn't go on fucking pogroms killing Jews and the like. But, to be ignorant of the fact that Jews actively demanded Christ be crucified is very ignorant and almost comes off as historical revisionism.

Christ is a jew, you dope.

No shit. I thought he was an Ayran Ubermesnch.

Second point, I never said pagans were the only ones responsible, but you'd have to be an idiot to not think they share blame with the Sanhedrin considering they literally nailed him to the cross.

Pontius Pilate actually initially wanted to let Jesus go because he didn't do anything wrong. It was literally the Jews at the Temple that day that said they would rather have a literal murderer set free rather than Christ that makes it retarded to say its the Roman pagans fault for this. Sure, they did nail him to the cross and mock him. But, it was one of the cases where it was literally the Jews that did this and you can't deny that fact for better or for worse. Yeah, that was part of God's plan for salvation but at the same time those Jews could have easily not called for Christ to be crucified. Plus, the Jews probably would have nailed Christ to the Cross themselves if the pagans refused or probably done much worse seeing they were basically forming the Roman Palestinian equivalent of a "summer of love".

I don't really see any meaningful friendship with the Jews because their religion is solely based on the rejection of Christ. Like why bother playing to their sensibilities? I'm not even really playing into "antisemitism" (which is a bullshit phrase since Semites encompass all the related ethnic groups of the Levant, some of which I don't mind like the Levant Arabs, Maltese people and Egyptians) so much as this is factually what happened. I guess that's the difference between my approach to religion and yours: you are super emotional and justify things after the fact meanwhile I am pretty rational and analyze every aspect of it before I really make a decision.

The points Jesus was trying to make literally fly right over your head because you're mystified by 4chan memes about aesthetic and tradition.

Bruv, I'm not the one posting fucking anti-Catholic tracts from the 1800s that were literally made due to White Anglo Saxon Protestants being excessively racist to anyone that wasn't white, For fuck's sake there's tracts like these that propose Irish people are more closely related to chimpanzees than the phenotypically perfect Anglo-Saxon. Those are the type of low info pieces of propaganda that constitute literal memes. If anyone is doing that gay "RETVRN TO TRADITION" meme shit, it's you.

I think there's a bit of projection coming from you in that regard, and otherwise you just make a bunch of incoherent arguments based on your preference about about why you believe these seemingly objective facts about your faith is true. This is why I don't bother with idiotic types like you: you aren't curious, you aren't smart and you have no grasp of the sheer depth any topic past the basic level. You base your flawed opinion of "Mary not being a virgin" on what flawed translation. I pointed out why you are full of shit from not only textual evidence, but fucking linguistic evidence and the traditions of various groups that had contact with the ancient Church in one way or another. I admit I was being a bit harsh to all protestants when really I should be shitting on idiots like you, who have the gall to be argumentative but have zero knowledge past what you were told and aren't intelligent or wise enough to check your sources on top of being an over the top relic of 1800s anti-Catholicism. Your rants are hardly convincing to anyone with two braincells and they come across as a zealot trying to shill their retarded beliefs to others. Maybe you see me that way. That's fine, I don''t really care. Just have enough sense to shut up when you best arguments are "I don't believe it even though there's a modicum of evidence because it's from a group I don't like" or just flat out name-calling. You look more like a pitiful fool than you probably already are.

I don't really care if you believe in something or not. But I do care if you are the type of person that is fundamentally irrational and incapable of debate yet think you have something meaningful to say. You really don't. You're fucking dumb. Just keep your idiocy to yourself so no one else has to be subject to it. if you want to bother me some more, I have a personal account you can DM so we can spare the rest of this fucking thread more autism.