Oddbean

Reiterating my singular point so it's not lost in the deletes: Jesus's didn't write the Bible, His followers did, and all of Jesus's teachings were believed and passed down orally long before they were written. Holy Tradition therefore predates and contains Holy Scripture. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is false, and so is KJV Onlyism as because it is downstream of Sola Scriptura.

Cool, so you don't know what sola scriptura (which I explicitly didn't defend) actually means, you don't know what the KJV Only position (which I clarified I don't hold to) is either. You may as well just be punching yourself in the face.

THEN YOU PUDDAT SHEEIT IN DUH MUTHAFUCKIH HOT PLATE NIGGA YOU FRY AWW DAT SHEEIT UP MMMMHMMMM DEN WHILE DAT BE COOKIN YOU THROW ON DAT TABASCO SAUCE N FRANKS RED HOT CUH YOU NEED TO USE AWW FIVE BOTTLES YOU GOT ON YOU NIGGA N IF YOU AIN'T GOT DAT SHEEIT DEN YOU A DUMBASS CRACKA LMAO AIN'TCHOO NEVER COOK BEFO NIGGA SHEEIT WE BE TEACHIN YAW ERRUTHANG :fwmclove:

I sincerely don't understand why you people do this. Roman Catholicism has a decent reputation in the current year among normies. But people like you, who have never put any effort into examining a primary source, come out as say the most retarded things imaginable. You make all Roman Catholics look bad. Lurk more. Read a book. Or just don't talk about it and save yourself the embarrassment.

> Roman Catholicism has a decent reputation in the current year among normies. It's deteriorating very quickly and will not survive much longer in it's current form. The schisms have already occurred, so the option to survive by means of pruning no longer exists. Roman Catholicism is a structure-based order; it's been shown that upper members of the order either do not believe the texts, or they have been irreversibly corrupted. This observation is independent of the translation used to measure against.

> You people ... You make all Roman Catholics look bad Your attacks on character fail. I left Protestantism because of the lack of historical basis, the rejection of Christ's clear teaching on the Real Presence (John 6 and the Last Supper narratives are very clear), and the complete lack of authority. You claim to not defend Sola Scriptura, but you have given no other basis upon which KJV Onlyism can be founded. How is it not downstream of Sola Scriptura? Where else might the ultimate authority in the Faith lay which would allow a KJV Onlyism? Jesus gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom, and the rest of His Twelve the authority to forgive sins. It is upon them and their successors that the Church has authority, and that competes against KJV Onlyism. It does not stand against it in any way. The only way KJV Onlyism may have a chance is to reject the authority of the Magisterium of Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Show how anything else may support it.

How many times do I have to say "I AM NOT KJVO IN THE COLLOQUIAL SENSE" before you get it through your head? Are you even reading these responses? I bet you aren't. You're a waste of time. >How is it not downstream of Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a claim about the normative authority of the Church. It's a claim about the metaphysical status of Scripture. My position on the science of Biblical text criticism is based on an internal examination of the 3 printed editions of the Greek New Testament, as well as research into development of the theories that currently dominate the field. It's material and scientific. You could be a Roman Catholic and still basically hold to my position. You'd have to say there is no sufficient translation into English, but that's actually not all that crazy, since historically, Rome has assassinated anyone who tried to translate Scripture into English. The original 5 editions of the Textus Receptus were printed by a Roman Catholic.