The speaker in this video is ignorant and arrogant. Does he read the Word of God? The Word of God is just as vital to Christianity as the Church; in fact Jesus talks about The Church twice in all of Scripture, whereas He talks about His Word dozens of times. Jesus never addressed infant baptism. In fact, no one did. Faith in Christ is the quantitative establishment of salvation, and how can a child have faith, and yet Catholicism teaches infant baptism without faith? Just on example of the Church overstepping its initial mandate.

The Church silenced its enemies for hundreds of years through violence and coercion. That is certainly not a Christ-mandate either. There are literally hundreds of examples where The Church has made its own laws and regulations outside of Scripture. Michael Voris is clinging to aspects of faith that do not exist within actual Scripture. No wonder he's so arrogant. Making up doctrine and suppressing Christ's real mandate is the stuff of arrogance and ignorance.

Jay, have you read -- really read -- our Bible closely? And, yes, I said OUR Bible; shall I explain? And, honestly, now, have you interpreted it to your own destruction? (That's a paraphrase from St. Peter, the first Pope and head of the Catholic Church; appointed by Christ Himself.)

I think the first question I would ask you is, what is the basis for your assurance of truth?

For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??

The Bible itself is part of the Magisterium. There's also all the other Church writings and traditions past on in the last 2000 years. It's not the Bible alone, it was never meant to be.

Ultimately you want me to reject Church teaching and accept your own opinion. That I can't do.

Actually, i want to you to be like and do what the Bereans did, in order to ascertain the veracity of RC (or any) teaching, but which you are not supposed to do.

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur)

"All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else." - "Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]

..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/ca...

That the Bereans used the Catholic model is absurd. Rather than accepting what was orally preached ("Sacred Traditions") by the apostles as RCs are to do with church teaching, they subjected it to Scripture in order to ascertain the veracity of it, which is not what a faithful RC is to do, but is what evangelicals do, accepting what is preached by their leadership if it is Scriptural.

Thus the Bereans were evangelical, as they did NOT accept oral preaching unless they were found to be Scriptural, and thus they did NOT accept an RC Magisterium, for that means they would accept what was taught without having to first ascertain the veracity of it by subjecting it to examination by Scripture.

In contrast, assurance for the RC of oral tradition is based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). Thus as Keating says, "...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," (Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers;
Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p.
275)

Moreover, Catholics are even taught that one cannot even believe in the Bible without faith in the church of Rome.

Thus in contrast to your sophistry, believing oral preaching when and if it first passes the test of Scriptural testing is not the same thing as accepting RC oral Tradition and her Magisterium, unless you want to make us into RCs since we are to believ what leadership preaches if it passes the test of Scripture.

You thus need to return your polemic back to Catholic Answers were you can (and do) post such propaganda to the lost deceived souls who love to hear such.

Did the Thessalonicans have the Scriptures? yes or no?
The answer, yes.
2. Did the Thessalonicans reject the Apostles because of Scripture or because they were preaching Jesus?
Answer, because they were preaching Jesus.
3. Therefore, the Thessalonicans were denying the Teaching of the Church.

Which rejection was not said to be because they were as the Bereans, as instead, while some believed, "the Jews which believed not, moved with envy" (Acts 17:5) rejected what the apostles preached because of their hardness of heart.

Moreover, even the fact that one can wrongly invoke Scripture as a basis for rejection simply does not impugn its authority and primacy.

2. Did the Bereans accept the Teaching of the Apostles?
The answer, yes.

They accepted what the apostles preached (which was not distinctive RC teaching) but only after they had ascertained the veracity of it by examination of Scripture, which is the point you KEEP MISSING!

So what is the difference between the Thessalonicans and the Bereans? The difference is that they accepted the authority of the Church, in the person of St. Paul and they also accepted the Teaching of the Church, which St. Paul provided

You continue to compel Scripture to conform to what you can only wish it stated, but in contrast, as said, the Bereans did NOT accepted the authority of the Roman Church and Teaching since instead of assenting to them as a RC is to do whether they examine the warrant for it, the noble Bereans did not accept the authority of the apostles and their teaching until they subjected it to testing by Scripture.

Thus they showed that Scripture was supreme, and that the veracity of oral preaching was subject to testing by Scripture in order for assent, which is plainly contrary to Rome, but which is what an evangelical is to do.

However a great multitude of posts refuting you going back years, it has become is obvious that no matter how many times your proffered polemics are clearly refuted then you are compelled to reiterate them again and again, and thus relegate yourself to being like a cultist who is hardly worthy of more extended engagements, except perhaps to illustrate the negative effects devotion to Rome can compel. Perhaps you can find a reason-able RC to take up your tired vain arguments who perhaps will be fit for meaningful debate.

"Actually, i want to you to be like and do what the Bereans did, in order to ascertain the veracity of RC (or any) teaching, but which you are not supposed to do."
You mean "search the scriptures"? Since when does the Catholic Church forbid that? The Church wrote the scriptures and the priests read them at every mass. The Church even grants an indulgence for Bible reading. The point is that it doesn't stop there. It's not the Bible alone. We have the patristic writings and the rest of tradition too. Ultimately we have to "hear the Church," like it says right in the Bible.

Mmm, a 2 year old reply I missed. Anyway, willfully or not, you are plainly misconstruing the obvious argument, which is not that searching the scriptures if forbidden to Catholics, though in times past that was discouraged overall, but that it is searching the scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, rather than giving the required assent to church teaching without first examining if it is taught in Scripture, which not all RC teaching is anyway.

As for "hear the Church," like it says right in the Bible, that is not new, but flows from the OT, and the Westminster Confession affirms, it belongs to "synods and councils ministerially to determine controversies of faith," but as seen in Scripture, they are subject to Scripture, and do possess the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in certain cults).

If however you believe that being the instruments, discerners and stewards of Scripture means that that the magisterium of such is infallible, then you have no valid church.

Christ told the Jews to accept the OT authority and prophetic word of those who sat in the Chair of Moses. It follows that we in the NT must accept the NT authority and infallible word of those who sit in the Chair of Peter, because Christ didn't come to abolish but to fulfill.

Which means that you have no valid church, for if the 1st century souls who were told to accept the authority of those who sat in the Seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) and what they taught, then they would have had to reject the itinerant Preacher of Galilee and His band since those who sat in the Seat of Moses rejected Him and them.

Instead, all such commands of obedience to the authority of men are conditional upon not being in conflict with the word if God.

And thus the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Which is simply more pasted propaganda, while RC distinctives are simply not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive record of the NT church , and contrary to it.

The Scriptures should lead you to accept the Catholic Church. If not, then you're reading them wrong.

PbJ: "in order to ascertain the veracity of RC (or any) teaching, but which you are not supposed to do."

You utterly misunderstand the purpose of the magisterium. Maybe I wrote something originally and you misunderstood that, or I miswrote, or whatever... Anyway, I explained in my comment below...

In the NT, the magisterium is infallible so it can define dogmas. We have to accept those dogmatic definitions. If not, you dissent from the authority and infallible word of the magisterium, which is going against what Christ said in Matthew 23: 1-3...

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."

The Scriptures should lead you to accept the Catholic Church. If not, then you're reading them wrong.

Which is what every cult says, and here it presumes that only what Rome says can be correct in any conflict, and which is not restricted to infallible teaching.

Assent is required for at least 3 levels of magisterial teaching, and is not predicated upon whether you find the teaching valid or not, but broadly speaking, assent is required for all official church teaching, which extends to Encyclical Letters and even to socials teaching,

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." -VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/conte...

Concerning those who hold that "assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See...so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals," Quanta Cura responds:

"But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church." (Quanta Cura. Encyclical of Pope Pius IX promulgated on December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals... .

In the Church's social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. ... Insofar as it is part of the Church's moral teaching, the Church's social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it . - http://www.vatican.va/roman...

Yet as said, if such strict obedience was required of those who sat in the seat of Moses in the 1st century, then RC are to their magisterium, then souls would have to reject preachers and their message that was rejected by the OT magisterium, which included John the Baptist and Christ. Thus you have no church.

Must you example your flawed reasoning once again for all to see?

Does Scripture say that each individual has a right to decide for himself, what to believe? No.
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Which manifest your fundamental error which is throughout your polemic, presuming that trusting/obeying God means one must trust/obey Rome, that your church is as God who cannot error, and thus Rome can require implicit assent. But which presumption is a logical fallacy, begging the question, assuming the very thing that needs to be proved, but which is not.

Does Scripture say you should listen to anyone outside the Church? Again, no.
2 Thess 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

Which again wrongly presumes that what Paul preached are all the same things Rome teaches, but which is mere presumption, and instead looking at the same wholly inspired source this quote comes from, we see that the RC distinctives are simply not manifest in the inspired record of the NT church. You can only imagine that Paul taught believers such things as they were to pray to created in Heaven (utterly missing despite approx. 200 prayers in Scripture), and to look to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes in Rome (but whom Paul rarely mentions, even in Romans despite naming over 30 people), and a normatively celibate priesthood (which is just the opposite he taught). etc.

Does Scripture say that you should read the Bible and do whatever you privately interpret? No.
2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Which unlearned abuse of Scripture is what Peter warns of in 2 Pt. 3:16, for this text (which is not "infallibly" interpreted by Rome) is speaking about how prophecy of Scripture was penned, which was not due to the prophets using their minds to come up with it, and is not condemning using your mind to understand it, even subjecting the apostles preaching to their judgment of Scripture as lovers of Truth, as the noble Bereans were commended for being and doing. . .

For the prophets did not even understand what they wrote, as Peter before stated of prophets,

Of which salvation
the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of
the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when
it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that
should follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

In contrast, the Lord appeals to human understanding (Luke 11:5; 14:5; 17:7 etc,)

Moreover, as said, the church began with common souls having rightly judged what was of God, even in dissent from the historical magisterium. Thus if 1st century souls were to never conclude anything from Scripture contrary to the the historical magisterium (who even said no prophet arose from Galilee), which you require of us, then the NT church would be founded by heretics.

Instead, the leaders did not call for implicit faith based upon a claim they possesses ensured magisterial infallibility of office, as Rome does, but instead they established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

But have renounced
the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling
the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2
Corinthians 4:2)

Does Scripture give you the authority to disobey the Church? No.
Matthew 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Which again examples your fundamental fallacy, the the Church uniquely refers to Rome, and which cannot be wrong and thus dissent can never be valid.

Yet what we see in Matthew 18:17 actually flows from the OT, in which unresolved matters were taking to a type of supreme court, dissent from which was a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13)

And conditional submission is also required to civil courts, as ordained of God. (Rm. 13:1-7) But in neither case does having authority mean that they cannot be wrong. And thus it was those who sat in the seat of Moses who rejected the authority of John the Baptist (whom the people held to be "a prophet indeed") and the Lord Jesus (who the common people heard gladly). (Mk. 11:28-33; 12:37)

And just as Christians are to conditionally submit to the civil leaders in the countries that they are found, so also they are to be submit to their ecclesiastical leadership. "For there is no power but of God: the
powers that be are ordained of God." (Romans 13:1)

However, as the NT church showed, Scripture is the supreme authority over all, and thus the oral preaching of the church was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and was subject to testing by it.

And in the light of which Rome is basically shown to be an invisible church as regards her distinctives, and cannot claim jurisdiction over all any more than a foreign country can of us.

The only reason you object to what the Catholic Church says, is because you refuse to submit to anyone. You have too much pride to allow any man to teach you about Christ:

Which is a fallacious and desperate charge, and instead obedience to God requires dissent from Rome, but not everyone else. Unlike you, who is joined to all Rome counts as members in life and in death, including pro-abortion, pro-sodomite public figures, I can leave such to worship, learn and fellowship with faithful humble believers, thanks be to God.

Be ye not unequally
yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness
with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And
what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God
with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I
will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be
ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my
sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

PbJ...

"Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)....But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)"

You also said in other comments the the NT Church "began in dissent..."

I already explained in another comment way below:

"Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not."
Christ told them to accept the authority and infallible word of the OT magisterium (those on the seat of Moses...those with the charism of prophecy), but not to follow their hypocritical actions. The only dissent was from bad example, not authority or infallible word (the same with Paul rebuking Peter, and St. Catherine of Siena correcting her Pope). They did NOT dissent from the authority or infallible word of the Pope, like you do.
And you seem to be misunderstanding us and the Church. You don't need an infallible magisterium to use your ability to reason and common sense and arrive at the truth, but you do need an infallible magisterium to DEFINE revealed truth. That's plain even from Acts 15.
Btw, I don't know if I missed any of your replies down below, but I can't answer them down there anymore anyway because I can't load them. I don't have a Disqus account so I have to scroll down there and it takes too long to load now because of all the comments.

Refuted above by the grace of God.

The Word of God passed down by Jesus Christ in the deposit of faith which He entrusted to the Church.

Which is also a superficial non-answer to the basis for assurance of Truth, as it ignores the problem of how you know that what Rome calls the word of God is just that.

To be consistent you must mean your basis for Truth is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, as an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to know what the word of God is

an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth

That is correct. Scripture explicitly states that the Church is the instrument by which God conveys His word and wisdom to the world:

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

True, but what the apostles preached was not established as being of God on the Roman basis of assured veracity, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth
commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,..By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4,7)

Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

Again, very true and in conformity with the Word of God in Scripture which says that the Church represents God:

Likewise those who sat in the seat of Moses, thus to be consistent, 1st. c. souls should have submitted to themas to Rome under your model. But while we both affirm the magisterial office, never did that mean perpetual magisterial infallibility.

And under which presumption her claim not to contradict Scripture is spurious, as that is according to her autocratic judgment.

Therefore, anyone who rebels against the Church, rebels against the Church which He sent:

But this presumes the magisterium is infallible, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture. Instead, while rebellion against magisterial authority could even mean death, (Dt. 17:8-13) God often provided and preserved Truth by raising up men from without the magisterium. And thus the church also began and has been preserved.

T hat fairly presents the Catholic and Scriptural Teaching. Thank you.

Rather, what you do represent is not Scriptural Teaching. Until you can admit that wha you affirms is wrong, that an infallible magisterium is NOT essential for valid assurance of Truth and to
fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and
preservation of faith;

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine
revelation (oral and written) does NOT means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, and instead concur that the church began by establishing its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, under OT Scripture being supreme, then do not bother taking up more time with more propaganda as you do elsewhere.

PbJ: "Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal. (Romans 11:3-4)

If God simply forbade the making of graven images, then there are problems elsewhere in the Bible. First, in Exodus 25:18-21, God commands Moses to make two statues of angels (cherubim) for the top of the Ark of the Covenant. (We pray to angels, btw.) Later in Numbers 21:8-9, God commands Moses to make a bronze serpent, so that the people who were bitten by snakes could look upon it and be healed (We don't pray to serpents, but you see how graven images can be used in a good way.)

PbJ: "Likewise there are also those who do not kneel before a statue praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, and as having Divine powers and glory, and making offerings and beseeching such for Heavenly help, directly accessed bymental prayer."

Please. You really think we pray to the statue? You're a sad case. The statue is there to remind us of the actual person we're addressing our petitions to, so it's not as easy to get distracted while praying.

"Moses, put down those rocks! I was only engaging in hyper dulia, not adoring her. Can't you tell the difference?"
I don't know why Moses would even think of that. Mary didn't even exist yet. Plus, they didn't pray TO the dead in the old covenant. Those who died justified went to Abraham's Bosom (Limbo of the Just) where they had to wait for Christ to come. We only pray to people in heaven, and nobody went to heaven in the OT. They went to heaven in the NT with Christ.

According to you.

No, saying it is the word of God does not answer how you ascertain that it is the word of God.

But I can ask you the same question. What is the basis for your assurance of Truth?

That was already stated, which is the means by which souls ascertained that writings and men were of God before there was a church of Rome which presumed an infallible magisterium was essential for this.

as it ignores the problem of how you know that what Rome calls the word of God is just that.

No it doesn't. You didn't ask that question, therefore I answered what was asked.

Of course it ignores that problem, and the question. A Mormon could say the same thing. How can you fail to see that?

The reason I know that what the Catholic Church calls the Word of God is the Word of God is manifold.

The witness of the Church Fathers,..The witness of the Liturgies of the Church,.. The witness of documents of the Church...The witness of secular history

Basically historical evidence, but which actually provides a RC with warrant to submit to Rome as the basis for assurance of what is of God. The RC position is that people have to be told what the contents of revelation is by the infallible magisterium.

"..the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of
his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the
intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading."
Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium;

And see further below.

Notice that I am not even including the witness of Scripture and Sacred Tradition because they are both the Word of God.

As a RC you only have assurance that these are the word of God based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome, which presumes the very thing you need to prove. Note also that the teaching of Sacred Tradition as set forth by Rome is not wholly inspired of God as Scripture is, nor are infallible decrees.

I never denied that I believe the Catholic Church is infallible. But that is not my only reason that I believe that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up the Word of God..And you didn't ask that question either.

De, either your examination of evidences provides assurance of what is of God, which means you do not need an infallible magisterium for that, or the former means only provides some warrant for a step of faith in the assured veracity of the latter, which is your real basis for assurance of Truth.

To be consistent with RC censure of evangelicals who find warrant for trusting Scripture as the word of God, and obtain assurance of Truth in the light of Scriptural substantiation, and thus deny Rome as possessing assured veracity, then you can only affirm that historical evidences provides you with warrant for submitting to Rome, whose assured veracity is your basis for assurance of Truth.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Thus the recourse of no less a ultramontanist papist as Manning when faced with contrary historical evidences to RC propaganda (which even Catholic scholarship provides )

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic
doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to
antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a
heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the
Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be
Divine....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity.
It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its
past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is
immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of
ourselves....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is
the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. <font size="1"> — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of
Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason
and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally
written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228) </font>

And thus a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth

...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical
of Pope Pius X. As RC writers have exhorted,

...having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. <font size="1"> - HenryG. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C.SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914); </font>

Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation,

That was the Old Testament. But Jesus came along, established the Catholic Church, commanded the Catholic Church to Teach His commands through all generations and fulfilled the Old Testament.

That is absurd, as it ignores the basis upon which the church began. What you have done is appealed to historical testimony as substantiating the authority of the magisterium, which authority Scripture itself testifies that the Jewish magisterium had, being the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and then you dismiss it in preference to one which began with One who was (in the eyes of those who sat in the seat of Moses) an itinerant preacher whom the historically valid magisterium rejected.

Again, under the Roman model, upon what basis should 1st century souls have followed itinerant preachers and a new sect they began, if not by the evangelical basis of Scriptural substantiation?

Jesus Christ did not place the Scriptures above His Word:

In His case they were always the same, but while men and writings of God are what they are regardless of what men think, it is abundantly manifest hat the Lord appealed to the written word in establishing His Truth claims to men.

Jesus Christ established His Traditions and commanded the Church to Teach (Matt 28:19-20). He never mentioned putting anything in writing nor handing out Bibles.

Which also is an absurd argument against Scripture being supreme, as the Lord and the very church He began established its Truth claims upon what was written, and was a fulfillment of it, and the Gentile church was grafted into its vine.

And unless you deny that promise of Christ that He would send His Spirit to provide His word, then it is abundantly clear that the Lord spoke of writing His word so that souls could be saved and grow in grace.

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:31)

Thus under your basis for assurance of Truth, and its presuppositions, De Maria has nuked the NT church and replaced it with a false one.

On the contrary, the Catholic Church is the one which Jesus Christ established and this is proven by Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium, secular history, the writings of the Fathers and more.

More absurd argumentation, as it assumes the very thing that must be proved. You have already affirmed that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, and recipient of Divine promises of God's guidance, etc. means such is that infallible magisterium.

But you reject the one that had this in preference to one which they rejected, which under the Roman model the people should have!

what the apostles preached was not established as being of God on the Roman basis of assured veracity, but upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power,

That is a false dichotomy since the Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. That verse which you are quoting was written by a Catholic.

That circularity presumes the very thing that needs to be proved, that they were Catholic and thus that Romish assured veracity and scriptural substantiation is one and the same, which it is not, nor is the latter the basis for RC assurance, lest they be as evangelicals.

"...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by
History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of
that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate
exponent.” - John Henry Newman, “A Letter
Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's
Recent Expostulation.”

Likewise those who sat in the seat of Moses, thus to be consistent, 1st. c. souls should have submitted to themas to Rome under your model.

So you say, but I follow the Scripture: Ephesians 3:10..If the Church is teaching the wisdom of God in eternity, then that speaks of perpetual magisterial infallibility.

No you do not follow the Scripture, but as abundantly exposed on debates with you on another forum, you continually abuse Scripture as a servant which is compelled to support Rome!

And in which you tried this text as well, but as said, contextually this is not even speaking of the magisterium teaching doctrine, but of God revealing the manifold wisdom of God by making the Gentiles
fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his
promise in Christ by the gospel. (Ephesians 3:6)

Moreover, Israel was also an instrument and steward of doctrinal revelation, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," and had the seat of Moses, but nowhere did conveying, teaching and preserving God's Truth require an infallible magisterium. And in fact, as said, God often raised up men from without the magisterium do so.Thus the church began upon prophets and apostles, both of which acted in dissent from those who actually sat in the seat of Moses.

But Rome as like them, arrogantly assuming historical descent as the instruments of God excludes any dissent from validity, and demanding of such that did in the light of Scripture, , And say unto him, By
what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority
to do these things? (Mark 11:28) Have any of the
rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth
not the law are cursed. (John 7:48-49)

And under which presumption her claim not to contradict Scripture is spurious, as that is according to her autocratic judgment.

Again, that is your biased judgement. But the Scripture tells us plainly that the Church upholds the Truth (1 Tim 3:15) and that we learn the Word of God from our rulers in the Church (Heb 13:7).

But which is Rome's biased judgement, which presumes Rome uniquely is that church, while in reality it refers to the body of Christ. And as with even laying claim to "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises," and being the corporate instrument of providing the Messiah, (Rm. 9:4,5) being the entity that upholds and teaches the Truth does not translate into nor require perpetual magisterial infallibility, under which Rome declares she is the one true infallible church!

But this presumes the magisterium is infallible, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture....

Jesus Christ introduced many New things in the New Testament. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit leads Christ's Church into all truth: John 16:13...Therefore, the Catholic Church is infallible.

Which process is not new nor does it require or promise perpetual magisterial infallibility. God has been progressively revealing Truth for eons, and which will not cease until His return, with the perfect revelation of Christ comes.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:2)

The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

It is you who are wrong. Scripture is clear that Jesus Christ established an infallible Church.

A mere argument by assertion. Absolutely none of your attempts and assertions support perpetual magisterial infallibility, while the premise that this is necessary for believer to believe in the Bible and find in it the object of his faith is false, as is that being the historical instruments, teachers and stewards of Divine revelation means such is infallible, and which effectively nukes the NT church, which you foolishly indeed did. To your own damnation.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) does NOT means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium,

Yes, it does.

Then the 1st. c. souls should have submitted to those that were, and thus you again have affirmed NT church as being invalid. Pure and simple.

and instead concur that the church began by establishing its Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power,

Scripture itself records that this is not true. The New Testament shows Jesus establishing a Church and commanding that Church to pass on His Teaching. He didn't write a word of Scripture.

What? How is it that you cannot see the NT church did not begin like some eastern cult, but began with a foundation, with its officially rejected leader and disciples establishing its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation? But as with those who rejected this evidence, RCs as yourself who reject this basis, are as the blind leading the blind.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. (Luke 24:44)

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)

By the word of truth,
by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand
and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:7)

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)

Jesus Christ did not place the OT above His Word which He passed on in Sacred Tradition.

He did indeed reprove tradition under the premise of Scripture being supreme, while as said, although the Lord's words oral alone were always the word of God, yet He clearly established them as being so, and His own claims to authority upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Lol! You have been raised up for one purpose, that Catholics may

see the fallacious nature of RC claims, and especially your poor and spurious attempts to defend them.

Until you can admit that your reasoning has effectively invalidated the NT church then you must remain among RCs who are not fit for dialogue.

Bye.

No, saying it is the word of God does not answer how you ascertain that it is the word of God.

Hm? You fail to recognize one thing. It is Jesus Christ who established the Tradition of Magisterium when He sent the Church out to TEACH. That is what Magisterium. TEACHER.

Why do you continue in your superficiality, ignoring that problem of how 1st c. souls knew Jesus Christ was even the Messiah, and thus the validity of the Magisterium.

And which "Tradition" was based upon the OT and established under Scripture being supreme. The issue is not that Christ preached the oral wholly inspired word of God, but that of this claim to be the word of God was based upon the premise of perpetual assured magisterial infallibility (hencefoth PAMI). And yet once in is written form, it is no longer considered to be wholly inspired of God, having God as its author the same saw Scripture does.

The whole church went forth preaching the word, as we seek to do. (Acts 8:4)

“How do you know it isn’t the Scripture?” The answer:
Because they searched in the Scripture to find the Apostles word therein.

Here is what goes right past Protestants. They don’t even see it because of their presuppositions against the Traditions of Christ.

1st. The Apostles were Teaching. That is the Tradition we call “Magisterium”...That means they were passing down the Traditions of Christ by Word. 3rd. The Bereans looked up the Sacred Tradition in Scripture.

Here is what goes right past Catholics They don’t even see it because
of their presuppositions against the supremacy of Scripture: It was under the premise of Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims that the apostle's claim to veracity was established. Scriptural supernatural attestation also often being part of its substantiation, (Rm. 15:16) subject to examination in the light of the assured word of God.

This is set in contrast to the premise of assured magisterial veracity, so that “the mere fact that the Church teaches the
doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it
is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism

Scripture even provides for oral preaching of the word of God, which form much of Scripture first existed in, and thus for the additional conflative complimentary writings which were be added to it. And which, as with men of God, were recognized and established as being so essentially due to their heavenly qualities and attestation.

A SS type preacher can even preach without a Bible, to people without a Bible, and hope that God "speaks" to the people (incldg. during the offering:), but all is subject to examination by Scripture.

And even pagans can speak spiritual Truth. But which is not the same as even something 1800 years after the event is alledged to have occurred, and which lacks even early evidence of "Tradition," is made binding Truth based upon the PAMI, which "tradition" is not of Scripture.

That is precisely what St. Paul was talking about when he said:
1 Thessalonians 2:13

But which we know is true because it is in Scripture, and as we have seen therein, the veracity of such preaching was subject to examination by Scripture, and as can be seen elsewhere, such was established upon Scriptural substantiation, and not basis of PAMI.

Your problem is that of taking such preaching and equating it to Catholic tradition (which also sees some conflict btwn Rome and the EOs) under the premise of Cath. PAMI.

You also cannot prove that the oral "word of God/the Lord" was not subsequently written, which was it manifestly almost always was.

And that, the Three legged stool of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, is what is depicted in the Berean episode. Not Scripture alone.

Wrong, for what Acts 17:11 shows, the written word (Scripture) alone is the supreme standard, and sufficient in its formal and material (which also provides for the church) aspects.

Why do you continue in your superficiality, ignoring that problem of how 1st c. souls knew Jesus Christ was even the Messiah, and thus the validity of the Magisterium.

Even if your claim were true, which it isn't.

If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

You can make any claims you want about how some pre-existing souls learned about Chri st,

Pre-existing souls?

You can deny and reject these all you want, but they are plainly spoken in Scripture. The Church is the ambassador for Christ upon this earth. God beseeches us through Her.

You can continue to deny and reject these all you want, but the fact is that the church began because souls did what under the RC model they are not to do, that of recognize what was of God without an infallible magisterium, and in dissent from the historical magisterium in the seat of Moses.

Therefore the church which you invoke as being the ambassador for Christ cannot be the one true church. Repeating her claims will not make them true.

Israel was also the instrument to show the known world who the true God was.

Ephesians 3:10 T

You tried that twice already and it was exposed as a fallacious argument.

If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

Oh no. He doesn't want to speak to me. Boo hoo.

Since you will not own up to what you have affirmed more than once, then no one should consider you fit for exchange, except to expose your insolence.

If you cannot/will not admit that souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God without an infallible magisterium then this exchange will end.

It is besides the point! Those same souls couldn't recognize Jesus Christ!

Wrong: they did and it actually is the point. OT saints and those who believed the His apostles did so because souls correctly recognized both men, words and writings of God (which the NT church est. its claims by) without an infallible magisterium.

The rest of your post ignores your above insurmountable problem.

"an assuredly (if conditionall y) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth."

De Maria
That is correct.

Peace By JESUS
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

De Maria
As confirmed in Scripture. Since the Catholic Church continues to hold to Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as admonished by the Apostle, so to do:

Peace By JESUS
Thus to be consistent 1st. c. souls could not have know what men and writings were of God except by looking to the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, which Scripture tells us were those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

But instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

More attempts to deal with you must come to an END.

You nailed it.

So the 2000 year old Church is wrong about the Bible, but you're right?

One some things, that should be manifestly evident.

Why is that possibility excluded when in Scripture God often raised up men to correct leadership and help provide and preserve faith, and perpetual magisterial infallibility was never promised or essential?

Or do you also hold that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

Jesus Christ did not write even one word of the New Testament.

DM, you just keep going on with the same warmed over refuted assertions and propaganda.

Again, until you face the fact that your affirmation that an infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth..., and being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, then you have effectively invalidated the NT church which began in dissent from that, then your responses should be ignored.

Well said.

You really think you know better than 2000 years of Church fathers? You're crazy...like Luther was. You're following a man-made religion. Your bible-only beliefs were made up by men over a thousand years after Christ. Nobody in history believed what you believed for over a thousand years.
"God often raised up men to correct leadership and help provide and preserve faith"
Sounds like Catholic saints to me.

And yes to your second question.

You really think you know better than 2000 years of Church fathers? You're crazy.

This is a fallacious argument as,

1. Mere antiquity does not equate to veracity. The Jews have their tradition also. Read the Babylonian Talmud and see what nonsense that contains.

2. RC doctrine itself is not determined by what CFs (so-called "church fathers"), but by what Rome autocratically judges is really from antiquity and its meaning, regardless of what the evidence shows:

"It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion,...Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings-she judges them more than she is judged by them." - Catholic Encyclopedia: "Tradition and Living Magisterium"

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness.. The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. - Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, "The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost:

3. Under her autocratic judgment, The term "unanimous consent " of the Fathers" does not does not mean actual unanimous consent, which often does not exist.

4. It is estimated that what is available to us is only a small portion of the what the early CFs wrote, nor is there even an infallible list of who all the church fathers consist of.

5. It is possible to be in error on many things, yet still have a poor and contrite heart that God saves (Ps. 34:18) by faith in the sinless shed blood of the Divine Son of God.

6. The fundamental basis for the veracity of RC teaching is not the weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which the church began, but the premise of perpetual assured magisterial infallibility and veracity, which is a novelty unknown and unnecessary in Scripture,

7. We see in Scripture that it was what is Scripture that judges the "tradition of the elders." (Mk. 7:2-16)

Nobody in history believed what you believed for over a thousand years.

Wrong, as instead it is easily seen that,

A. No church in Scripture manifestly held to many things the church of Rome came to hold.

B. Many ECFs are seen providing support for distinctive Reformation teachings.

C. Even the tradition-based EOs substantially disagree on what the ECFS taught, "The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - ." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135;

D. What one really believes is not that which is merely on paper, which is what the faith of Rome mostly belongs to, but in what one does and in effects. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18: "I will shew thee my faith by my works.") Which with Rome includes treating even public pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, pro-Muslim figures as members in life and in death, and fostering liberals as her majority (at least in the West).

E. Evangelicals have been ardent defenders of Scriptural Truths we both agree on, and are much more unified in care Biblical values and beliefs than those whom Rome treats as member in life and in death.

"God often raised up men to correct leadership and help provide and preserve faith" Sounds like Catholic saints to me.

What something sounds or looks like to a defender of Rome is abundantly shown to be what they desire, not what the evidence reveals.

And the reality is that under the Roman model first century souls should have submitted to the historical magisterium rather than the dissenters whom God raised up to correct them and provide Truth and preserve faith.

Or do you also hold that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, and that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God?

And yes to your second question.

Then you join DM and others who have effectively invalidated the NT church, as the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 3:2) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

But like those who sat in the seat of Moses, Rome has presumed of herself above that which s written, and rejected those whom God raised up to preserved faith, and thus division became necessary, and by which the kingdom of God has been greatly increased. Thanks be to God.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had authority to say what Scripture means, and Rome doesn't.
So you know better than St. Ignatius of Antioch, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who wrote about the Eucharist? You know better than the other Church fathers (like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, Cyril etc.), long before Constantine came around, who wrote about apostolic succession and tradition, and the authority of Rome?
You writing is very sophisticated, but you're not fooling anybody here.
If I was a non-Catholic, and I taught my own opinion of what the Bible means, I don't think you'd care. But if the 2000 year old Catholic Church says something, watch out!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had authority to say what Scripture means, and Rome doesn't.

You are confusing authority with assured veracity. The Biblical OT magisterium had power to even require the death penalty in certain cases of dissent, (Dt. 17:8-13) as do civil authorities, (Rm. 13:1-7) but which does not equate to assuredly correct judgment. (Mk. 11:27-33)

In contrast to popes of Rome, the NT did not employ the sword of men in order to deal with theological dissent, and church discipline was executed by the passive means of disfellowship, (Matthew 18:17; Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Titus 3:10) And supernatural means (Acts 5:5-10;1 Corinthians 4:20,21; 5:5; 2Co 10:3-5,8; 1 Timothy 1:20)

Having lost her yet claimed power of coercive jurisdiction and heart to effectively exercise discipline, Rome now abounds with liberals she calls members, and a pope who seems more concerned about things like global warming than sodomy.

So you know better than St. Ignatius of Antioch, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who wrote about the Eucharist?

Rome herself thinks to know better than ECFs on issues, and that is indeed possible, as is my knowing better than Jerome and Augustine about virginity vs. marriage. I certainly do not think the even days of creation signify the uncleanness of marriage, or that to pray without ceasing means one cannot be a married pastor, or that by necessity martial relations must include sinful lust, even if not imputed to the elect.

The John certainly was not writing about the semi-literal Cath. Eucharist in Jn. 6, as nowhere is eating the Lord's supper, or literally anything physical the means to obtain life, nor is that how the Lord lived, as believers are to do. (Jn. 6:57)

But as the Lord would depart, yet His words which are spirit and life, so souls in Scripture obtain life by believing the gospel of grace, and "live by" Christ by living by His word, (Mt. 4:4), as Christ lived by the Father, thus doing His will by His "meat."

And it is this figurative explanation that is the only one which is consistent with John and the rest of Scripture with its metaphors, interpretive of the last supper. In which men are save to be "bread" for Israel, and literal water is said to be the blood of men, and poured out as an offering unto the Lord. And the word of God is eaten. Etc. (2 Samuel 23:15-17; Num. 13:32; 14:9;Jer. 15:16 ; Ps. 27:2; Ezek. 3:1; Rev. 10:8-9)

But one possibly can be an error on the Lord's supper and still be a child of God, unless for instance one believes that consuming it is actually what gives one eternal life.

And what is your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle, when most of what was written in his name is understood as not being authored by him (but were later compositions), and or suffering many interpolations? Even Eusubious can be dubious.

Is the evidence for such on the level we have for the NT? Rome is known to have made use of forgeries in her history, but unlike many other writings, Biblical mss were far to numerous for her to accomplish that.

You know better than the other Church fathers (like Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin, Cyril etc.), long before Constantine came around, who wrote about apostolic succession and tradition, and the authority of Rome?

It seems know better than RCs who swallow the propaganda that what such ECFs wrote about was that of a church looking to exalted popes in Rome as their supreme heads as occupying a perpetually infallible autocratic office. Which even by the 4th century had its successor employing a murderous gang of thugs in working to secure his office from his rival. See what some of your own scholars find.

You writing is very sophisticated, but you're not fooling anybody here.

That actually applies to Rome, except too many are all to willing to believe propaganda, while i seek to weigh what i say according to the evidential warrant.

But if the 2000 year old Catholic Church says something, watch out!

Indeed, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:48)

The church of Rome is not 2000 years old, and in fact it it basically invisible in the NT, but having taught damnable heresies in her progressive deformatio n, she has become as the gates of Hell to multitudes, and to her belongs the "greater damnation."

"And what is your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle, when most of what was written in his name is understood as not being authored by him (but were later compositions), and or suffering many interpolations? Even Eusubious can be dubious."

http://www.newadvent.org/ca...

"While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Church History III.36), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following words: "Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom for his faith", the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of Lucian of Samosata, "De morte peregrini", written in 167, bears incontestable evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these proofs as "testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that can be conceived of" (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11)."

"Is the evidence for such on the level we have for the NT?"
Evidence for Ignatius' writings is solid. There's a lot more mss of the bible, but quantity doesn't equal assured veracity. You could print trillions of chick tracts but that doesn't give them assured veracity. Historical criticism is great but it doesn't offer assured veracity. Either I accept your opinion, or I accept the Church that's been around for 2000 years. You can guess which one I choose.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...

My comment that even Eusebius can be dubious is not refuted by your reference, nor does that establish the veracity of your original source by which you can prove Ignatius of Antioch was a personal disciple of the apostle John.

For the question is not simply whether Eusebius - the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Roman Empire - actually is the author of some (7 out of 15) of the works attributed to him, which Prots as Lightfoot contend that he is (opposed then by such as Killen ) , but the total veracity of them, What even the apologetical CE which you invoke says,

"The majority of those who acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally, rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters."

Eusebius, while invaluable, also sincerely believed and recorded as fact (Church History I.13) the "Legend of Abgar," a story of a correspondence between the Lord and the local potentate at Edessa. Relative to this, even his defender Lightfoot writes of him, http://www.tertullian.org/r...

"A far more serious drawback to his value as a historian is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shows itself in diverse ways. He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents." - http://www.tertullian.org/r...

Nor does the 100 year old CE's unsurprisingly judgment that "the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius) tell the reasons why the total veracity or even authorship of all is yet doubted.

The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work "History of Christianity:"

Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...

Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius's chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.

And thee is this summation (from the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge), which upholds the authenticity of the 7:

"In all there are fifteen letters bearing the name of Ignatius, evidently of varying age and value. Seven of these..are found in a shorter and a longer Greek recension. The latter adds five more... and finally there are three found only in a Latin text, two to St. John and one to the Virgin Mary, with her reply to it. These last are wholly worthless, and were probably composed originally in Latin. Of the shorter Greek recension (known as G1) there is only a single manuscript, the Codex Mediceo-Laurentinus, and two copies made from it; but there is also a Latin version (first published by Ussher, 1644, from two manuscripts, of which one has since been lost),...The longer or interpolated Greek recension (G2) exists in several manuscripts,.."

"There are abundant traces of a recent and as yet incomplete elevation of the episcopate over the presbyterate; it is a local, not a universal, office, and does not carry with it the guardianship of the teaching tradition; it is valued largely as a center of unity for the local church, a safeguard against centrifugal tendencies, and a guaranty for the future permanence and purity of Christianity...."

"It seems highly probable that even the shorter Greek form has suffered extensive modification, bow extensive no one is in a position to determine. The cautious student of the history of polity and doctrine will decline to base important conclusions on the unsupported testimony of these writings. Even if the reference to Ignatian epistles in the epistle of Polycarp is genuine, this would not prove the authenticity of the epistles in their present form."

However, even allowing Eusebius as totally accurate, and much of the 7 can be, does not equate to this being what is Scriptural, as instead to testifies to the progressive deformation of the NT church

All that tells me is that historians disagree on things. Even the Church fathers disagreed on things. They weren't infallible unless they met the criteria. Most of the time they didn't. But they were still the successors of the apostles and had more right to talk about the scriptures and tradition than anybody else.

"However, even allowing Eusebius as totally accurate, and much of the 7 can be, does not equate to this being what is Scriptural, as instead to testifies to the progressive deformation of the NT church"
Thank you for allowing Eusebius to be accurate. Most scholars do. I never said the extra-biblical patristic writings were INSPIRED, nor does the Church claim that. But they do tell us what the early Christians did and believed back then. They celebrated the Eucharist at Mass, to name one. They also believed in apostolic succession and tradition, and the primacy of Rome.

But they were still the successors of the apostles and had more right to talk about the scriptures and tradition than anybody else.

So she autocratically says.

Thank you for allowing Eusebius to be accurate.

What part of "can be dubious" warrants that he cannot be accurate?

But they do tell us what the early Christians did and believed back then.

As expressed, such testifies to the progressive deformation of the church (though enough faith was preserved that the body of Christ continued), which is set in contrast to the NT church.

"As expressed, such testifies to the progressive deformation of the church"
So the early Church was deformed!!?? ...and the Protestants (1500 years later!) were NOT!!!??? Which universe are YOU in? Maybe you're in an alternate dimension, I don't know.

"What part of "can be dubious" warrants that he cannot be accurate?"
Sounds like you don't know for sure. I'm not surprised.
"(though enough faith was preserved that the body of Christ continued)"
How convenient for you! "Just enough faith was preserved" - for 1500 YEARS! - until Luther came along and set thing straight. Right. How convenient. Nevermind all the Catholic saints who were responsible for said preservation of the faith, before during and after the protestant rebellion! (including 81 sainted popes!)