Average Presbyterian vibe.

Roman Catholicism is much like modern Western governments. Everyone forgets about everything screwed up that happens after just a few weeks.

Why do you have to cite articles that are definitely wrong? Why can't you speak for yourself?

I sincerely don't understand why you people do this.

Roman Catholicism has a decent reputation in the current year among normies. But people like you, who have never put any effort into examining a primary source, come out as say the most retarded things imaginable.

You make all Roman Catholics look bad. Lurk more. Read a book. Or just don't talk about it and save yourself the embarrassment.

Cool, so you don't know what sola scriptura (which I explicitly didn't defend) actually means, you don't know what the KJV Only position (which I clarified I don't hold to) is either.

You may as well just be punching yourself in the face.

Why do all Roman Catholics lie about the Bible?

Yes, the Trinity is explicitly in Scripture. To attempt to deny this is so ridiculous that you should have your Internet privileges revoked. The state should literally, physically rip the cables out of the ground that connect to your house.

All you're doing is revealing that you've never actually read or comprehended the Bible, which you also pretend to believe is from God.

Moreover, as I mentioned before, it's just patently false. The Fathers who formulated the doctrine explicitly did so on the basis of Scripture. Your take is historically illiterate, in addition to being Biblically illiterate.

No one cares what Oneness Pentecostals believe. You may as well be appealing to Muslims or Buddhists. Personal opinions have no relevance to what's actually there.

To be deep in history is to cease to be a Papist.

Apparently you haven't read the Fathers either.

When they're arguing these issues, around both Nicaea and Constantinople I, their citations are almost entirely from Scripture.

At least read a single book before defending a position that relies so heavily on historical literacy.

If you think the Trinity isn't in the Bible, you haven't read the Bible.

It's a bad look when you can't actually address anything I'm saying, btw. You'd do better to say nothing at all. You've run into someone who actually knows what he's talking about, no Jesuit tricks will work on me.

Name a single provable teaching of Jesus that isn't from the Bible.

>Christianity predates the Bible

In the sense that Adam and Eve were Christians, sure. But if you're suggesting the Bible was created by the Church, your own councils disagree with you. Vatican I explicitly condemns what you're trying to say. The Church is a witness to something that already existed, nothing more.

>Additionally, the original KJV includes the deuterocanon

I know, mine does too. It has books that the Council of Trent removed, like 3 Esdras. Why would the Pope remove books from the Bible?

>My point stands that KJVOnlyism is a subset of Sola Scriptura

They literally aren't the same thing. They're two completely unrelated claims. I'm also not a strict KJVO in the way someone like Steven Anderson, but it's undoubtedly the most important English version, for more reasons than you can count on one hand.

I make it a point not to argue sola scriptura. Not because it's wrong, understood properly, but because people on both sides refuse to understand it properly, so it's a useless hill to die on.

>The Latin never changes

Buy a critical edition. It does. You have old Latin, and tons of variation within the Latin tradition, often referred to as the Western text type. It's actually famous for being the most inaccurate text family that gets any serious consideration.

In current day, Latin editions have the exact same problems as modern Greek critical texts. Though an Old Vulgate only position will get you better results than following modern text critics, due to the nature of what a translation is, it's inherently inferior to my position. Eastern Orthodox have it better, they have their own version of a Greek Received Text that's different from ours, although on internal analysis, it doesn't hold up as well. Romans has a false ending after chapter 14, for example. It's also missing the Comma.

>that full translation predates the Canon

Roman Catholics really need to read the studies of Roger Beckwith. This idea is disproven. The Old Testament canon was decided 200 years before Christ was born. The fact that later Christians (and some jews) were misinformed and got it wrong does nothing to disprove this. Although most of the early Fathers actually do agree that the canon is only 22 books (by the Hebrew numbering) so no matter how you look at it, the Roman Catholic theory of canon doesn't hold up. Nevermind the blatant historical errors in the books.

>Original manuscripts of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew are not always available, so when they aren't we always have the Latin.

The Latin is better than nothing, but once printed editions become a relatively affordable thing, there's no reason to use it as a primary source anymore. It has a lot of problems.

>"biblical study" is not Christianity

It's literally the word of God. It doesn't encompass the entirety of the Christian life, but you can't have orthodoxy without it.

Almost like mixing the economy with a social network is literally one of the most retarded ideas anyone has ever had.

Epistemic arguments are a cheap way to avoid having actual knowledge.

I'm not reading your article. I'm very familiar with the history.

nostr:note17qpk87pnzsuhvh4mvtshyl9fg4nvfnxgt5pzm76ejn2d0prx3apqx05nwh MY BACKUP FAILED

Should have tested it.

Glad you showed me cause it just happened again ☠️

Followers erased again. I made a backup this time.

It’s not a Protestant issue. Roman Catholic Bibles are even more reliant on modern psudeo-scholarship than Protestant ones.

The Jerome Bible commentary, which is magisterially approved under Pope Francis, is in the news right now for advocating homosexual relationships and denying the authentic authorship of many books of Scripture.

The vast majority of work on legitimate printed editions of the Greek New Testament happened in Geneva. Theodore Beza was the successor of John Calvin. Robert Stephanus was driven out of Paris by Roman Catholics who hated the original version of the Bible.

Rome has basically zero pedigree in Biblical preservation, the only notable exception being the preservation of the Comma Johanneum in the Latin manuscripts, whereas it was lost very early in the Greek transmission.

PleromaFE has multiple thread views and Alex Gleason said he’s going to make Ditto work with it eventually.