@Valunlbefr@MikeKashz@mrjskint@validclipx You’re confusing translation with rewriting. The New Testament is actually the best attested document from antiquity by a massive margin, with thousands of surviving manuscripts allowing historians to compare texts very accurately.
This is laughably historically incorrect. Do some research on the textual accuracy of the Bible and specifically the New Testament, easily the best attested piece of writing in antiquity.
Also that whole, “be a good person without religion!” I’m sure you are ignorant to the fact that the society you live and grew up in and the morals you claim to profess as good, were fundamentally shaped by Christ and his Church. You owe all your moral beliefs to that but you aren’t even aware of it. Totally and completely ignorant.
Then please explain
Matthew 24:13 “He who endures to the end will be saved.”
John 15:5–6 Branches “in Me” that do not remain are cut off and thrown into the fire.
Romans 11:20–22 Believers can be “cut off” if they do not continue in God’s kindness.
1 Corinthians 9:27 —Paul disciplines himself lest he become “disqualified.”
Galatians 5:4 “You have fallen away from grace.”
Hebrews 10:26–29 Warning against deliberate grave sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth.
2 Peter 2:20–21 Those who escaped sin through Christ but became entangled again are worse off than before.
Not gonna lie it’s a bit difficult to interpret this incoherent mess you typed out. Anyways it sort of seems like you’ve given up and conceded in a way that is designed to not bruise your own ego. I hope you can self reflect in any meaningful manner and realize this entire interaction you’ve failed to get across anything of substance, and only showed yourself to be of the highest echelon of defensive emotional “thinking”.
This argument sounds confident, but it collapses pretty quickly once you actually think through what it’s claiming. First, it assumes what it needs to prove by defining “real Christians” as those who argue the way the you prefer. Catholics use Scripture constantly, and the Mass itself is saturated with it, so pretending otherwise is just redefining the playing field. More importantly, the whole “Scripture alone” idea runs straight into the canon problem, where does Scripture tell you what counts as Scripture? It doesn’t. The Bible contains no inspired table of contents, so in order to even know what “Scripture” is, you already have to rely on the authority of the early Church, which is precisely the kind of “tradition and history” this argument dismisses. On top of that, calling tradition “man-made” ignores that Scripture itself explicitly commands Christians to hold fast to apostolic traditions passed on both in writing and by word of mouth, as seen in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, meaning the apostles did not operate on a Scripture only model. In practice, everyone, including Protestants, relies on tradition and history anyway. Belief in the Trinity, the recognition of the canon, and basic interpretive frameworks all come from the early Church, not from a single explicit verse. The claim that “Scripture always wins” also sidesteps the real issue, which is interpretation, because if Scripture interpreted itself clearly and universally, you would not have thousands of denominations arriving at contradictory conclusions from the same text. At some point authority is needed, and the Catholic position is that Christ established a Church with that authority, whereas the alternative effectively reduces to individuals deciding they have the correct reading. Finally, it does not match how Christianity actually began. For decades there was no New Testament, and the faith spread through apostolic preaching and teaching before anything was written down, which means the original Christian model necessarily included Sacred Tradition. So the argument ends up undermining itself. It depends on the very tradition it rejects, ignores what Scripture says about tradition, cannot account for the canon, and has no coherent way to resolve interpretive disagreement.
Wow, a lot going on here.
Firstly, I assure you, I am neither a liberal nor a clout chaser.
Secondly, why do you act as if disagreeing with someone is an act of hate? You are of course ironically doing what you’re accusing me of doing. This is actually what liberals do. Can I not protest to the actions and words of someone I disagree with?
Thirdly, quoting a movie scene that took liberties to edit scripture to its own likening is an odd Christian thing to do no?
Fourthly, “chill. Work on crime, taxes, fraud” idk what the point of this is or where it came from, kinda seems bot-ish (which would be tragic for me, wasting time writing to robot)
And fifthly, no where did I ever insinuate that speech should be silenced. Again, I point to how defensive you are on my disagreement of someone’s word and actions, likening yourself to those on the political left. Although i suppose in reality, this is clearly a trait of both right and left wingers. Which is why i will leave you with the advice to form your political opinions around Christs teachings, rather than forming Christs teachings around your political opinions.
May almighty God have mercy on us all.
Take it easy champ.
Of course American evangelicals will accuse Catholics/Orthodox Christians of idolatry by venerating the Blessed Virgin Mary but don’t blink twice at Trump elevating himself as Jesus.