/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6740743]

Why does Christianity need a Pope?

[Anonymous No.6740757]

Tradition
Bodies politickall need all their members if they're to function.

[Anonymous No.6740764]

>>6740743
boipussy for the boipussy god

[Anonymous No.6740770]

The unwashed masses need a hierarchy to rule them.

[Anonymous No.6740775]

christianity doesn't but satan does

[Anonymous No.6740777]

>>6740743
Catholicism*

[Anonymous No.6740802]

>>6740777
think its because they interpreted the bible that way. Peter being the first. I forget what Jesus said to him but it implied that there should be popes or somethin

[Anonymous No.6740819]

God isn't real, so they need a human figurehead to reinforce and embody their ideology. Call me a fedora or whatever, but it's a truth. If god had any sort of design in mind for human society he could come down and file a complaint with the material world. He supposedly did it much more often before literacy was common and recording devices were invented.

[Anonymous No.6740826]

centralisation is important so it doesn't become a chaotic desert cult like islam

[Anonymous No.6740834]

Because its a hierarchy

[the good tripfag !!TXcNl1PuD5F No.6740879]

>>6740743
Because without the main one that lays the eggs there could be no new vampire dinosaur hatchlings.

[Anonymous No.6740882]

>>6740743
It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.6740904]

>>6740826
That's why there's shis and sunni.
They can't agree on who should be muslim pepe.

[Anonymous No.6740914]

Unity

[Anonymous No.6740924]

>>6740882
>being a filthy Lutheran
>4030/2

[Anonymous No.6740928]

>>6740743
Because the events and people described in the Gospels are almost two thousand years old, and thus the Bible contains very few lessons that are directly applicable to our lives today.

You need clergy to interpret the words of Jesus in the context of the modern world and tell believers what values they should live by. And of course, once you have clergy, you need a Pope to make sure they're all on the same message. If each preacher got to spread his own varying interpretation of scripture, the concept of a unified Christian faith no longer exists, and people may start to doubt that the religion has any validity at all. Why listen to your preacher if the guy down the street professing to preach the same religion has a totally different message?

[Anonymous No.6740946]

>>6740743
Why does the president need a vice president?

The pope handles God's foreign affairs on earth- all the things He can't be fucked to bend over and squint at

[Anonymous No.6740954]

>>6740924
>2015
>not being in the Protestant masterrace

[Anonymous No.6740956]

>>6740924

[Anonymous No.6740994]

>>6740743
Razinger was possessed as fuck tbh

[Anonymous No.6740996]

>>6740743
Because the Pope says so.

[Anonymous No.6741027]

Because someone has to organise it.

Keep in mind, the Pope originally was just one of a council of patriarchs.

[Anonymous No.6741153]

Because we humans have to have somebody at the top, so that we can listen to them.

We have heads of states, heads departments, you name it.

If you don't have that it gets messy. Look at protestantism.

[Anonymous No.6741166]

>>6740743
It doesn't, it's a perverse tradition with secular origins.

[Anonymous No.6741171]

>>6741166
fuck off protestanshit

[Anonymous No.6741183]

>>6741171
Spoken like a true Roman.

[Anonymous No.6741184]

>>6741171
Well argued, my Catholic brother in Christ

[Anonymous No.6741187]

>>6741171
I'm orthodox, friend.

[Anonymous No.6741195]

>There will never be a black, gay, transgender, or female pope
:^)

[Anonymous No.6741201]

>>6741195
Don't they babble about a brazilian one every election these days?

[Anonymous No.6741202]

>>6741195
At this rate, there may well be one in or lifetime.

Anglicans now allow women to become bishops. I imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury will soon be a woman. Only a matter of time before this nonsense infiltrates the Vatican.

[Anonymous No.6741203]

>>6741195
>There will never be a black, gay, transgender, or female pope

I'm a Discordian. As well as being the pope myself, we have a black transgender pope too.

[Anonymous No.6741208]

>>6741203
>I'm a Discordian.

[Anonymous No.6741218]

>>6741195
>black
No reason that couldn't happen.
>female
Supposedly there was one.
>gay
See image

[Anonymous No.6741229]

>>6741218
Pope Joan was a anti-catholic myth. One of the most recent papal candidates was black and there were several popes from north Africa round the 5th century.

[Anonymous No.6741243]

>>6741229
North africans aren't negroes, and if they ever were they haven't been since well before the birth of Christ.

Though there are several sub-saharan african cardinals today, so that's a definite possibility.

[Anonymous No.6741246]

>>6740743
He is the successor of the apostle Peter and his authority stems directly from God because Peter's (Peter is the first Pope) faith was instilled directly by God.

Just like Peter was the prime apostle, the Pope is the prime priest for all Catholics and that's why he's infaillible. As such he has the authority on all matters of doctrine and is responsible for the preservation of the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.6741247]

>>6741208
What's wrong with Discordianism? It makes the most sense of any 'religion'. Here's some Discordian scripture:

"It is only the ideas-about-reality which differ. Real (capital-T) True reality is a level deeper than is the level of concept. We look at the world through windows on which have been drawn grids (concepts). Different philosophies use different grids. A culture is a group of people with rather similar grids. Through a window we view chaos, and relate it to the points on our grid, and thereby understand it. The order is in the grid."

"The belief that "order is true" and disorder is false or somehow wrong, is the Aneristic Illusion. To say the same of disorder, is the Eristic Illusion. The point is that (little-t) truth is a matter of definition relative to the grid one is using at the moment, and that (capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids entirely. Pick a grid, and through it some chaos appears ordered and some appears disordered. Pick another grid, and the same chaos will appear differently ordered and disordered. Reality is the original Rorschach. Verily! So much for all that."

The statements above are consistent with anthropological relativism, a strategy for furthering objectivity by setting aside cultural preconceptions. This is to be distinguished from philosophical relativism, a viewpoint which denies the existence of any objective truth outside of a particular frame of reference. Here the "Principia" defines noumenal reality as not humanly knowable. This is an assertion about the epistemology of truth: human knowledge is based upon "grids" and absolute "(capital-T) Truth" is not accessible through such human inventions as "concept" or "belief". The statement "(capital-T) Truth, metaphysical reality, is irrelevant to grids" also contains an assertion about the ontology of truth. Although absolute truth is not epistemologically accessible, it does exist, independent of our ability (or, in this case, inability) to perceive it or to describe it.

[Anonymous No.6741274]

>>6741247
Good goy.

[Anonymous No.6741280]

>>6741246
>Peter is the first Pope

[citation needed]

And before you bring up 'on this rock I will build my church' I would like to know how that verse refers to a "pope" in any way.

[Anonymous No.6741298]

>>6740743
>Why does Christianity need a Pope?

It doesn't, and doesn't have one.

Catholics have a pope, not christians.

>>6741246
He is not, and Peter was not the "first pope".

Aren't you tired of papist lies yet?

[Anonymous No.6741303]

>>6741274
Excellent meme, /pol/. Top notch. Thick. Solid. Tight.

[Anonymous No.6741306]

>>6741280
It's worse than that. The author clearly meant for nobody to mistake Peter for the rock Jesus was talking about.

Jesus named Simon "Peter", Petros in the Greek, a masculine name for a man.

The foundation in the Greek is petra, a feminine word, that literally means a rock.

Petros is not petra.

petra is "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.", which is what Petros uttered two seconds earlier.

And two hours later, Jesus called Peter "Satan".

Papist lies. That's all they are. Papist lies.

[Anonymous No.6741319]

>>6741195
What kind of Christian hates black people? Modern racism is totally unbiblical.

[Anonymous No.6741347]

>>6741319
Christian Identity, aka (unsaved) Nazis.

[Anonymous No.6741359]

>>6741280
>>6741298
>>6741306

My Roman Catholic take on this :

- The only times in the Bible when someone changes name is because God calls them to a position of authority (see Abraham, Israel, Paul, and, well, Peter)

- Linguistic arguments by anti-papists about "petros" and "petra" are irrelevant because Jesus spoke in Arameic where the world "kepha" would have been used regardless of gender. This issue is only an issue when translated from Arameic to Greek.

- On the other hand, you can't ignore the sentence "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In Hebraic tradition, the person that "holds the key" is second in authority and Acts as a vicar to the king, with the king's authority and in accord with the king's mind. This is referenced earlier in the scripture : Eliakim "held the key" to the palace of King Hezekiah (it's in Isaiah). Jesus hasn't said these words aimlessly : he deliberately designated Peter as the "second in command".

- Some evidence later in the New Testament : Peter is always listed first among the apostles (Acts 1:13 and some others in Luke and Matthew that I can't be arsed to look for right now) and often speaks for all of the apostles. When Jesus has to select three apostles, he's always the one to be chosen first (see Transfiguration). Jesus preached from Peter's boat and was the one preaching at Pentecost.

In fact, the Catholic undesrtanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestants needed some fucking pretext to break away from the church. Even the Orthodox do recognize Peter as the first Pope, what they don't recognize is his binding authority over the whole church.

tldr : you're fuckwits

[Anonymous No.6741387]

>>6741359
>tl;dr there is no mention of the Popes in scripture but here's a bunch of auxiliary information about how Peter was a super cool guy

[Anonymous No.6741395]

>>6741387
>taking shit from a bunch of heretics who believe in Sola Scriptura

Nope

[Anonymous No.6741398]

>>6741247
If you're taking it this seriously I suspect you're doing it wrong.

[Anonymous No.6741399]

>>6741395
You sound upset.

[Anonymous No.6741403]

>>6740954
RARE

[Anonymous No.6741404]

>>6740743
>/lit/ - repent and be saved

[Anonymous No.6741406]

>>6741387
tldr there's some key evidence as to how Jesus deliberately placed Peter in a position of authority that were to evolve later to papacy.

But yea you're fucking right, go back to read the book of mormon before i go full St. Bartolomew's day on your pale Lutheran ass.

[Anonymous No.6741413]

>>6741406
>evolve

There's that word again.

[Anonymous No.6741421]

>>6741406
Jesus made a pun, Peter took it seriously, catholicism is based on a joke.

[Anonymous No.6741422]

>>6741406
>>6741413
But seriously, how do you "evolve" from a position of authority among a loosely organized group of social outcasts to sitting on a golden throne and essentially being a Roman emperor?

[Anonymous No.6741426]

Was Jesus ever real?

[Anonymous No.6741430]

>>6741426
Yes. It's all real, Anon. The Incarnation, the miracles, the signs, the Passion, the Resurrection, Pentecost- it's all real.

[Anonymous No.6741432]

>>6741426
>Was Socrates ever real?

[Anonymous No.6741438]

>>6741359
Jesus is going to give everyone in heaven a new name.

And yes, names used to be crucially important. Maybe even supernaturally so.

Jesus was not speaking in Aramaic when He renamed Simon Peter "Petros", but Cepheus, many years earlier. This appeal to a linguistic challenge, that the Aramaic could not be translated into Greek, is a refutation of the authoritative nature of the Word of God.

The Greek inspired author could have said "I will call you Petros, and upon you, Petros, will I build my church."

He did not.

Because the church is not built on Peter, but on the belief that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

As to the keys, Peter used them to open heaven to both Jews on Pentecost, and to Gentiles at Cornelius' house. Heaven being opened to both Jew and Gentile, the keys are used. Fully and completely.

Jesus chooses Peter, James and John as the inner circle not because Peter was the greatest, as he was the second worst, next to Judas, but because Jesus is showing us Mercy, Grace and Love.

Christians never needed a reason to break off of the catholic church, as christians were never in the catholic church. Not in numbers, for sure.

And not transferable.

[Anonymous No.6741444]

>>6741406
So when Paul rebuked Peter, in front of everyone, how do you account for that?

When Paul is the greatest apostle identified in the bible, how do you account for that?

No, this human claim that a human line of humans is keeping the one and only true church alive is clearly done for human purposes, and not God's.

[Anonymous No.6741452]

>>6741422
Let's not forget that both Emperor and Pope are called "Pontifex Maximus".

There is no pope, no "vicar of Christ", only a "religious" emperor who lives as emperors have always lived. Opulantly.

[Anonymous No.6741460]

>>6741438
>Jesus is going to give everyone in heaven a new name.

>Get to heaven and Jesus names you 'Supreme Faggot', and you're stuck with it for eternity.

[Anonymous No.6741475]

>>6741444
"of which I was made a minister, according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power. To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ"

[Anonymous No.6741484]

>>6741452
>There is no pope, no "vicar of Christ", only a "religious" emperor who lives as emperors have always lived. Opulantly.

[Anonymous No.6741491]

>>6741460
That would suck

so

bad

[Anonymous No.6741493]

to rule them all.

[Anonymous No.6741498]

>>6740924
>>6740954
>being religious

[Anonymous No.6741505]

>>6741498

[Anonymous No.6741511]

>>6741475
1 Corinthians 1:1
Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God...

Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

i.e., Peter, James, and John, in Jerusalem, added nothing to Paul.

Paul's writings and self-references are astonishing.

You point out the one where Paul is old, and more humble than in his youth.

That does not detract from his earlier pronunciations of his apostleship.

[Anonymous No.6741520]

>>6741511
2 Corinthians 11
For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.

[Anonymous No.6741525]

The Church has been a hierarchical institution since Biblical times; this was the organization the Apostles set up. From it flowed the basic priest-bishop hierarchy that was in place even in the time of Paul. This grew, and grew, until by the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD you had the Pentarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentarchy

As time went on, however, Rome's authority grew, in large part because- regardless of what the Protestants in this thread say- it did derive its power from Peter, who DID have special preeminence among the Apostles. Rome's main rival was Constantinople, who came to dominate the other three Sees (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem).

The Pentarchy, and eventually the Papacy, exist because an empire-spanning, eventually-world-spanning religion needs some degree of centralized authority. The Papacy isn't just the Pope, it's also everyone in his departments that organizes, regulates, and maintains the Catholic Church.

The necessity of such an office is made plainly evident simply by examining the history of Protestantism, and its many spectacular (and often hilarious) strayings from Christian teaching.

[Anonymous No.6741533]

He looks fucking ridiculous. If Jesus was physically there to see that costume, all that silk and gold, he would slap him round the face with the back of the hand.

[Anonymous No.6741549]

>>6741525
Nope. They just got some dudes to serve soup to Hellenistic widows, because the widows were getting gypped on the soup line.

[Anonymous No.6741552]

>>6741533
Probably why the dude gets cast alive into a Lake of Fire. Er, one of the many reasons.

[Anonymous No.6741563]

>>6741549
Yes, I'm sure that's the reason that the position of presbyter/bishop is mentioned way back in the letters of Paul.

[Anonymous No.6741567]

>>6741347
I'm aware they exist, but the Bible makes it pretty clear that all the people of earth of one blood.

[Anonymous No.6741571]

>>6740743
>Why does Christianity need a Pope

Have you seen American Protestantism?

[Anonymous No.6741581]

>>6741571
>he's never been overcome by the Holy Spirit

[Anonymous No.6741592]

>>6741444
I've always liked the St. Jerome interpretation, which was that both Paul and Peter were aware of the importance that the Gentile mission had in strengthening the early church. Peter had to reach to the Gentiles and Paul provided Peter with an opportunity to clarify his position to the Gentiles by rebuking him.

Sorry if that isn't clear, English isn't my first language.

[Anonymous No.6741601]

>>6741581
>>he's never been overcome by the Holy Spirit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmhZVjaqQo

[Anonymous No.6741609]

>>6741601
Are you attempting to mock these people?

[Anonymous No.6741618]

Christianity would have fractured long ago into thousands of minor sects if it wasn't for the political hegemony of the papacy. I've sympathy for the Orthodox, since they are inheritors of the best and earliest Christian traditions, but they tended to devolve religious authority to the emperors, be they Greek, Russian, Isaurian, or other. That the Church is indeed separate from the empire in the west is the accident that gave rise to the separation of Church and state.

[Anonymous No.6741619]

>>6741444
>When Paul is the greatest apostle identified in the bible, how do you account for that?

There's no such thing as "the greatest apostle identified in the Bible". There's Peter's primacy and that's about it.

Genuine question : if you dispute Peter's primacy, I'd be interested to know what your denomination is, because most Protestants that I know accept it (what they don't accept is that his primacy lingered on to the next Popes, they think his primacy ended with his life).

Paul's deeds are great but he also did some mistakes and inexplainable things through the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.6741621]

Why does Christianity need bishops?
Why does Christianity need priests?
Why does Christianity even need pastors?
Just go full Quaker, m8

[Anonymous No.6741628]

>>6741609
Not at all, sir, being overcome by the Holy Spirit looks like tremendous fun. Junglist massive, innit.

[Anonymous No.6741631]

>>6740743
>Why does Christianity need a Pope
For the same reason they need a God.

[Thomas No.6741632]

>>6741619
Anglo-Catholic here, and Papal supremacy is actually one of the major reasons I'm not Roman Catholic.

Paul actually corrects Peter, if you'll recall the Incident at Antioch.

[Anonymous No.6741637]

>>6741628
>Junglist massive, innit.
Amen to that.

[Thomas No.6741641]

>>6740928
It should be pointed out the Eastern Orthodox Church has managed pretty well in all of this without a Pope

[Anonymous No.6741642]

>>6741563
Those words didn't mean the same thing they do today and other texts indicate that those roles were very fluid back then

>>6741618
Christianity started very fractured. The Cathlodox happened to be the winning faction. Hell, the Arians looked like they were going to win for a while

>>6741619
What denominations are your friends? I'm Presbyterian, and I think thatPeter's primacy is a load of bead rattling nonsense.

[Anonymous No.6741644]

>>6741637
preach the word

[Anonymous No.6741649]

>>6741628
>being overcome by the Holy Spirit looks like tremendous fun

It is.

[Anonymous No.6741650]

>>6741637

[Anonymous No.6741657]

>>6741649
>It is.
I know, brother

[Thomas No.6741662]

>>6741642
>Those words didn't mean the same thing they do today and other texts indicate that those roles were very fluid back then
Ordination mattered back then, and I'm sure the authority for that came from being ordained in a line from Christ. Ordination is what stopped people from just declaring themselves Christian leaders and leading people astray; Simon Magus was upset he couldn't get ordination, so he just declared himself a priest anyway and that's where Gnosticism comes from. Apostolic succession is important.

[Anonymous No.6741665]

>Junglists on /lit/

[Anonymous No.6741680]

>>6741662
>Simon Magus was upset he couldn't get ordination, so he just declared, "Junglist massive."

[Anonymous No.6741685]

>>6741632
>Paul actually corrects Peter, if you'll recall the Incident at Antioch.

He does. Catholics don't see this as refuting Paul's primacy. I stand by Saint Jerome interpretation of the incident, which is explained here : http://www.defendingthebride.com/ch/pa/gatatians.html

>What denominations are your friends? I'm Presbyterian, and I think thatPeter's primacy is a load of bead rattling nonsense.

That's interesting. They're Lutheran and Calvinists, united in a local church of Augsburg confession. Catholics and Protestants have been mixed for centuries where I live and many churches practice a shared cult (meaning that both Protestant and Catholic cults are celebrated within the same church) so there may be some syncretism going on - I don't really know actually.

[Anonymous No.6741707]

>>6741662
Nobody talked about Apostolic succession in regards to the clergy until AD 180, 150 years after Christ died.
>but what about Clement of Rome?
He used the words episcopos (bishop) and presbyter (priest, or elder) interchangeably.

And with Simon Magus, he was pissed that the other Christians told him to stfu and not to commit what we call Simony.

Also, Simon didn't "invent" Gnosticism. That grew organically from multiple communities in the Mediterranean that took Platonism and smashed it into Christianity. And, these communities were so different in practice and belief that there are quite a few modern historians who don't think that the term Gnostic is a useful label to describe such a wide array of folks

>>6741685
Huh. I guess they just do things differently in Europe. Also, it might have to do with the fact that in England and Scotland, the secular and religious authorities had a huge interest in undermining Papal authority, so maybe it's a Continental vs. Anglo thing?

[Thomas No.6741736]

>>6741707
>Nobody talked about Apostolic succession in regards to the clergy until AD 180, 150 years after Christ died.
Are you seriously suggesting that if you set yourself up as the head of a Christian congregation, without consulting with Christ's Apostles or the people they explicitly ordained for that purpose, they wouldn't have anything to say about it?

>He used the words episcopos (bishop) and presbyter (priest, or elder) interchangeably.
Right, bishops are just high priests. They only had to be distinguished from parish priests when the Church became so big that they needed people who weren't ordained bishops to be in charge of parishes.

>Also, Simon didn't "invent" Gnosticism. That grew organically from multiple communities in the Mediterranean that took Platonism and smashed it into Christianity. And, these communities were so different in practice and belief that there are quite a few modern historians who don't think that the term Gnostic is a useful label to describe such a wide array of folks
That's the sort of thing that happens when you don't have Apostolic succession.

[Anonymous No.6741806]

>>6741736
>Are you seriously suggesting that if you set yourself up as the head of a Christian congregation, without consulting with Christ's Apostles or the people they explicitly ordained for that purpose, they wouldn't have anything to say about it?

They might've, yes. But for all the writings uncovered from the early church, there is nothing about apostolic succession. And there have been a lot of those writings uncovered. Granted, if a new one is discovered and sourced properly, I will change my mind on the matter.

Also, keep in mind that a few of the early church fathers did exactly this sort of thing. For example, Justin Martyr. He encountered Christianity, converted, and started his own Christian school of philosophy. And yet, while his existence as a Christian leader goes against Apostolic succession, we hold him up as a great early Christian thinker. And, he was widely accepted as a Christian leader. Don't you think that if Apostolic succession were a big deal back then, he'd have been a persona non grata?

Your second point is valid, if a bit misguided. As time went on, the Church did gain a hierarchy and became a lot more centralized. However, this was very gradual and wasn't totally finalized until the Council of Trent (at least for the Roman Catholic Church), when it took its modern day form (for the most part)

>That's the sort of thing that happens when you don't have Apostolic succession.

There was no Apostolic succession in the beginning. That's why it happened. All of early Christian history is marked with lots and lots of different communities, all agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and a lot of them we wouldn't recognize as proper Christians today. It just so happens that to more organized ones were the ones we'd understand as orthodox and went on to dominate later Christian thinking

Perhaps you shouldn't get all of your history of the church from your priest.

[Thomas No.6741851]

>>6741806
>They might've, yes. But for all the writings uncovered from the early church, there is nothing about apostolic succession. And there have been a lot of those writings uncovered. Granted, if a new one is discovered and sourced properly, I will change my mind on the matter.
The term didn't exist yet because the Apostles weren't really dead long enough for the idea of "succession" to be an issue, no one had "succeeded" the Apostles.

>Also, keep in mind that a few of the early church fathers did exactly this sort of thing. For example, Justin Martyr. He encountered Christianity, converted, and started his own Christian school of philosophy. And yet, while his existence as a Christian leader goes against Apostolic succession, we hold him up as a great early Christian thinker. And, he was widely accepted as a Christian leader. Don't you think that if Apostolic succession were a big deal back then, he'd have been a persona non grata?
No. To this day it's not required that you be ordained to be an evangelist or a theologian.

>Your second point is valid, if a bit misguided. As time went on, the Church did gain a hierarchy and became a lot more centralized. However, this was very gradual and wasn't totally finalized until the Council of Trent (at least for the Roman Catholic Church), when it took its modern day form (for the most part)
It was assumed before then, they just didn't spell it out as much. Really the Church wouldn't have had to be so centralized if it weren't for constant towing the line during the Reformation---even that might not have been as big of a deal if reformers weren't insistent upon calling the Pope the anti-Christ. I agree that centralization is excessive, of course, but I blame Protestants as much as Papists.

>There was no Apostolic succession in the beginning. That's why it happened. All of early Christian history is marked with lots and lots of different communities, all agreeing and disagreeing with each other, and a lot of them we wouldn't recognize as proper Christians today.
Nor should we, unless you;'re suggesting Arians and Gnostics are proper Christians.

[Thomas No.6741857]

>>6741851
*toeing

[Anonymous No.6741877]

>>6740743
Do the woods need fertilizer?

[Anonymous No.6742140]

>>6741592
Jerome is responsible for "Lucifer" and for Moses having horns.

Pass.

[Anonymous No.6742146]

>>6741563
Acts 6

6 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.

aka the soup line.

[Anonymous No.6742148]

>>6741567
Um, yes?

Here's the proof text: If a man says that he loves God, but hates his neighbor, he lies, and the truth is not in him.

[Anonymous No.6742150]

>>6741571
You have obviously never been full of the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.6742151]

>>6741618
>Implying the pope is a Christian.

The church is united by the Holy Spirit, not by some Argentinian dude whose family fled the Axis powers after the war.

[Anonymous No.6742156]

>>6741619
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me.

i.e., Peter, James, and John, in Jerusalem, added nothing to Paul.

Paul's writings and self-references are astonishing.

You point out the one where Paul is old, and more humble than in his youth.

That does not detract from his earlier pronunciations of his apostleship.

Peter is prime, but Paul openly rebukes and scolds him?

Peter is prime, but denied Christ three times?

Peter is prime, but wanted to build tabernacles to Moses and Elijah, and Jesus?

Peter is prime, but he pretends to be kosher then the Jerusalem Jews come into town?

lolno

[Anonymous No.6742160]

>>6741631
And this is why there will be so many confused catholics in hell.

They literally cannot tell the difference between having faith in Jesus Christ, and having faith in their absurd and corrupt church.

[Anonymous No.6742164]

>>6741641
By putting more than one person between the parishioner and God?

How is that better?

No, the doctrine that baptism washes away sin, and "holy chrism" allows the Holy Spirit access to your body, are anathema.

You're not a Christian at that point, you're a tossed salad!

[Anonymous No.6742168]

>>6741662
Gnosticism predates Simon Magus, who tried to buy the power of laying on hands from the apostles and was cursed.

[Anonymous No.6742179]

>>6742164
You realize that by saying this, you have to reckon with all the 'Christians' who read the Bible and then shoot up abortion clinics, right?

After all, there was nothing between them and God!

[Anonymous No.6742184]

>>6742179
Both of them? I have to deal with both of those guys?

Yeah, that seems to be the problem with the world today. Real born again christians shooting abortionists.

[Anonymous No.6742186]

>>6742179
Do yourself a favor and google "Kermit Gosnell".

[Anonymous No.6742225]

>>6742160
You're both going to hell. Catholics will be the pitchers and Protestants will be the catchers.