Subnostr

Sweet

83b395b09c1888b2300bbaed5a1a97b56cc675675f871a0f98d2d182f6c7eb0a

Sometimes it's not obvious why you bother with some of these people. They argue in bad-faith and seem to only be interested in capturing your time. They're either jews trying to lead others astray, get paid to cause confusion, or they're engaging in 'sports-team' Catholicism.

You’re right, it is 100% a psudeo-intellectual version of sports for them.

It’s not about what’s true, it’s about how they can plausibly slander everyone else in a way that stupid people won’t notice.

Then I, someone who went beyond the entry level polemic, come along and burst their bubble, hence the fun.

Sometimes it's not obvious why you bother with some of these people. They argue in bad-faith and seem to only be interested in capturing your time. They're either jews trying to lead others astray, get paid to cause confusion, or they're engaging in 'sports-team' Catholicism.

It’s fun.

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redirector/ocgpenflpmgnfapjedencafcfakcekcd

And the Invidious instance I use is https://vid.puffyan.us

Oh, yeah. I didn’t even think about just using a generic one lol

Link it.

Interesting I didn’t know the Jewish part.

This all, for me, destroyed solo scriptura.

If the Church birthed the scriptures, then it can’t be solo scriptura. In fact the word is in some ways secondary. The Word became flesh. The very presence of God, now sacramental, is the fount of the Church. The Eucharist is the “source and summit” as JP the Great stated.

So knowing the writers of the New Testament were either priests consecrating at mass or at least attending mass, it makes you look

at John 6, and all the other Eucharistic passages, in a much clearer light.

The Church is Christs continued presence on earth, the Incarnation continued in a way.

The Church didn’t birth the Scriptures.

Vatican I, one of your own ecumenical councils, explicitly rejects this idea.

Roman Catholics are so desperate that they slander their own religion just to lead more people to Satan ☠️

Arguing with Roman Catholics is like beating children.

Most Roman Catholics agreed with Luther at the time.

But the Roman Catholic has no choice. He has to lie, because his position is utterly indefensible on historical grounds, and the most basic levels of analysis expose this to the light of day. nostr:note1hdxjz7g5wzsuunggur32ht5fu8q9m944dut7tjhpwrkkjnuqfa0sacfwhg

You people actually mention it at pretty much every opportunity, which is hilarious, because tons of Roman Catholics in Luther’s day agreed with everything he said on the canon issue, INCLUDING CARDINAL CAJETAN 🤣

How do Roman Catholics always fail at history this hard?

You embarrass yourselves EVERY TIME.

Replying to nobody

It is interesting that bringing our cannon in line with the Jews much later canon was Luther’s excuse for dropping 7 books from the Old Testament which were problematic for him.

Of course he also wanted to heavily redact the New Testament too, which is rarely mentioned.

You people actually mention it at pretty much every opportunity, which is hilarious, because tons of Roman Catholics in Luther’s day agreed with everything he said on the canon issue, INCLUDING CARDINAL CAJETAN 🤣

Replying to nobody

I hope you have a wonderful day sir.

Ok demon.

Replying to nobody

Well, that’s an opinion, not a fact supported by evidence.

If you don't believe God preserved the Bible, you are not a Christian.

It is a *fact* that the attribution of the gospels are in every single complete manuscript. It is a *fact* that you lied about it. It is a *fact* that we have the actual word of God. It is a *fact* that the only reason you would attack any of these things is to serve your father, the Devil

Replying to nobody

You realize the titles of the books, chapter numbers, verse numbers… none of that is original. Right? None of that is inspired by God, and there is no reason to believe it existed in the original autograph.

What does Stephanus’ numbering system have to do with the authorship, which is in every single manuscript?

You’re just making things up. The names are original. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t be there. God preserves his word as-is.

Replying to nobody

Further, neither Matthew or Mark directly name their author. John only does so indirectly as “the disciple Jesus loved.”

What are you on about?

Name a complete manuscript of those gospels that doesn’t have attribution or you’re a liar.

You won’t he able to, because it doesn’t exist. You’re literally lying.

Replying to nobody

You didn’t say Gospels.

I didn’t lie.

This is such a cope. Your criticism doesn’t even make sense if it’s not about them because the other books tell you who wrote them in the body.

You obviously just tried to get away with saying something untrue, expecting I wouldn’t know any better.

Replying to nobody

Besides that, the Codex Vaticanus has a longer provable provenance than any other manuscript of the Scriptures.

The authorship of books of the Bible is rarely part of the book of the Bible either. Usually those are the “traditional authors” but not mentioned in the actual text.

Several of the criticisms leveled here don’t make sense to me.

There is not a single complete manuscript of the gospels in existence that doesn’t have the name of the author at the beginning or the end, except ones that are missing one or the other

Why would you lie about this?

Load More