Then your words didn't make much sense and were very misleading. I think it speaks to the logic of your argument breaking down.

Sure it does. Whatever makes you feel like you got me.

Regarding heresy, who is the authority, man or God?

It's Christ and His Church, who He is a head of. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus was very skeptical of religious traditions chastising the beared "papas" of his day. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" [Mark 7:8].

Come on dude. Jesus worshipped according to the hebrew tradition (went to the Temple and synagoges). He constantly made references to the OT. He's literally the anointed one, which is a hebrew tradition instituted by God in the book of Kings with Saul. He fulfilled all the prophecies which were part of that tradition. He was fully within the tradition of Abraham, Moses and David (lineage included) because He was the one who spoke to the prophets and gave them the commandments.

The quote is about Jesus chastising the pharisees (future rabbis in judaism) for making up their own traditions and not following the true God-revealed tradition of Abraham and the prophets. It's not a condemnation of tradition itself, that would be contradictory and retarded because the whole Biblical narrative is describing a millenia year old tradition that was passed down for thousands of years before it was written down. Same thing happened with the NT - again, the Bible you appeal to was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and yet the tradition and the Church functioned without the Bible in that period. This is such a low tier argument. Why do prots think that quote mining can prove anything? You disregard the whole context of the Bible to produce your heretical interpretation.

Btw isn't your interpretation of Scripture man-made tradition itself (even if it's only you within that tradition)? Aren't you your own "pope" when you go along your interpretation as dogmatically correct? No one escapes the problem of interpretation. The only difference between you and the Pope of Rome is that he has a few billions followers and you're on your own, reading your Bible in your closet. This was the whole point of the revolutionary Reformation - to topple Church authority and to make everyone the equal authority of interpretation (granted that Roman Catholicism was already corrupted and outside the Body of Christ - it was the first protestant sect and the pope was the first protestant).

The argument was about what's heresy. You don't even have a Church that can condemn something as heresy. Do you have anathemas? No. So once more, you just go by your interpretation and authority and declare heresy everything you deem not to be the true word of God.

You don't have to reply me. Just think about those arguments with an open heart and a critical mind. I truly want to help you see the problems of your position and it's not about owning you. The only thing I care about is the true faith which is salvific.

Then your words didn't make much sense and were very misleading. I think it speaks to the logic of your argument breaking down.

Sure it does. Whatever makes you feel like you got me.

Regarding heresy, who is the authority, man or God?

It's Christ and His Church, who He is a head of. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus was very skeptical of religious traditions chastising the beared "papas" of his day. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" [Mark 7:8].

Come on dude. Jesus worshipped according to the hebrew tradition (went to the Temple and synagoges). He constantly made references to the OT. He's literally the anointed one, which is a hebrew tradition instituted by God in the book of Kings with Saul. He fulfilled all the prophecies which were part of that tradition. He was fully within the tradition of Abraham, Moses and David (lineage included) because He was the one who spoke to the prophets and gave them the commandments.

The quote is about Jesus chastising the pharisees (future rabbis in judaism) for making up their own traditions and not following the true God-revealed tradition of Abraham and the prophets. It's not a condemnation of tradition itself, that would be contradictory and retarded because the whole Biblical narrative is describing a millenia year old tradition that was passed down for thousands of years before it was written down. Same thing happened with the NT - again, the Bible you appeal to was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and yet the tradition and the Church functioned without the Bible in that period. This is such a low tier argument. Why do prots think that quote mining can prove anything? You disregard the whole context of the Bible to produce your heretical interpretation.

Btw isn't your interpretation of Scripture man-made tradition itself (even if it's only you within that tradition)? Aren't you your own "pope" when you go along your interpretation as dogmatically correct? No one escapes the problem of interpretation. The only difference between you and the Pope of Rome is that he has a few billions followers and you're on your own, reading your Bible in your closet. This was the whole point of the revolutionary Reformation - to topple Church authority and to make everyone the equal authority of interpretation.

The argument was about what's heresy. You don't even have a Church that can condemn something as heresy. Do you have anathemas? No. So once more, you just go by your interpretation and authority and declare heresy everything you deem not to be the true word of God.

You don't have to reply me. Just think about those arguments with an open heart and a critical mind. I truly want to help you see the problems of your position and it's not about owning you. The only thing I care about is the true faith which is salvific.

Then your words didn't make much sense and were very misleading. I think it speaks to the logic of your argument breaking down.

Sure it does. Whatever makes you feel like you got me.

Regarding heresy, who is the authority, man or God?

It's Christ and His Church, who He is a head of. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus was very skeptical of religious traditions chastising the beared "papas" of his day. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" [Mark 7:8].

Come on dude. Jesus worshipped according to the hebrew tradition (went to the Temple and synagoges). He constantly made references to the OT. He's literally the anointed one, which is a hebrew tradition instituted by God in the book of Kings with Saul. He fulfilled all the prophecies which were part of that tradition. He was fully within the tradition of Abraham, Moses and David (lineage included) because He was the one who spoke to the prophets and gave them the commandments.

The quote is about Jesus chastising the pharisees (future rabbis in judaism) for making up their own traditions and not following the true God-revealed tradition of Abraham and the prophets. It's not a condemnation of tradition itself, that would be contradictory and retarded because the whole Biblical narrative is describing a millenia year old tradition that was passed down for thousands of years before it was written down. Same thing happened with the NT - again, the Bible you appeal to was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and yet the tradition and the Church functioned without the Bible in that period. This is such a low tier argument. Why do prots think that quote mining can prove anything? You disregard the whole context of the Bible to produce your heretical interpretation.

Btw isn't your interpretation of Scripture man-made tradition itself (even if it's only you within that tradition)? Aren't you your own "pope" when you go along your interpretation as dogmatically correct? The only difference between you and the Pope of Rome is that he has a few billions followers and you're on your own, reading your Bible in your closet. This was the whole point of the revolutionary Reformation - to topple Church authority and to make everyone the equal authority of interpretation.

The argument was about what's heresy. You don't even have a Church that can condemn something as heresy. Do you have anathemas? No. So once more, you just go by your interpretation and authority and declare heresy everything you deem not to be the true word of God.

You don't have to reply me. Just think about those arguments with an open heart and a critical mind. I truly want to help you see the problems of your position and it's not about owning you. The only thing I care about is the true faith which is salvific.

Then your words didn't make much sense and were very misleading. I think it speaks to the logic of your argument breaking down.

Sure it does. Whatever makes you feel like you got me.

Regarding heresy, who is the authority, man or God?

It's Christ and His Church, who He is a head of. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus was very skeptical of religious traditions chastising the beared "papas" of his day. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" [Mark 7:8].

Come on dude. Jesus worshipped according to the hebrew tradition (went to the Temple and synagoges). He constantly made references to the OT. He's literally the anointed one, which is a hebrew tradition instituted by God in the book of Kings with Saul. He fulfilled all the prophecies which were part of that tradition. He was fully within the tradition of Abraham, Moses and David because He was the one who spoke to the prophets and gave them the commandments.

The quote is about Jesus chastising the pharisees (future rabbis in judaism) for making up their own traditions and not following the true God-revealed tradition of Abraham and the prophets. It's not a condemnation of tradition itself, that would be contradictory and retarded because the whole Biblical narrative is describing a millenia year old tradition that was passed down for thousands of years before it was written down. Same thing happened with the NT - again, the Bible you appeal to was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and yet the tradition and the Church functioned without the Bible in that period. This is such a low tier argument. Why do prots think that quote mining can prove anything? You disregard the whole context of the Bible to produce your heretical interpretation.

Btw isn't your interpretation of Scripture man-made tradition itself (even if it's only you within that tradition)? Aren't you your own "pope" when you go along your interpretation as dogmatically correct? The only difference between you and the Pope of Rome is that he has a few billions followers and you're on your own, reading your Bible in your closet. This was the whole point of the revolutionary Reformation - to topple Church authority and to make everyone the equal authority of interpretation.

The argument was about what's heresy. You don't even have a Church that can condemn something as heresy. Do you have anathemas? No. So once more, you just go by your interpretation and authority and declare heresy everything you deem not to be the true word of God.

You don't have to reply me. Just think about those arguments with an open heart and a critical mind. I truly want to help you see the problems of your position and it's not about owning you. The only thing I care about is the true faith which is salvific.

Then your words didn't make much sense and were very misleading. I think it speaks to the logic of your argument breaking down.

Sure it does. Whatever makes you feel like you got me.

Regarding heresy, who is the authority, man or God?

It's Christ and His Church, who He is a head of. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus was very skeptical of religious traditions chastising the beared "papas" of his day. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" [Mark 7:8].

Come on dude. Jesus worshipped according to the hebrew tradition (went to the Temple and synagoges). He constantly made references to the OT. He's literally the anointed one, which is a hebrew tradition instituted by God in the book of Kings with Saul. He fulfilled all the prophecies which were part of that tradition. He was fully within the tradition of Abraham, Moses and David because He was the one who spoke to the prophets and gave them the commandments.

The quote is about Jesus chastising the pharisees (future rabbis in judaism) for making up their own traditions and not following the true God-revealed tradition of Abraham and the prophets. It's not a condemnation of tradition itself, that would be contradictory and retarded because the whole Biblical narrative is describing a millenia year old tradition that was passed down for thousands of years before it was written down. Same thing happened with the NT - again, the Bible you appeal to was compiled hundreds of years after Christ and yet the tradition and the Church functioned without the Bible in that period. This is such a low tier argument. Why do prots think that quote mining can prove anything? You disregard the whole context of the Bible to produce your heretical interpretation.

Btw isn't your interpretation of Scripture man-made tradition itself (even if it's only you within that tradition)? Aren't you your own "pope" when you go along your interpretation as dogmatically correct? The only difference between you and the Pope of Rome is that he has a few billions followers and you're on your own, reading your Bible in your closet. This was the whole point of the revolutionary Reformation - to topple Church authority and to make everyone the equal authority of interpretation.

The argument was about what's heresy. You don't even have a Church that can condemn something as heresy. Do you have anathemas? No. So once more, you just go by your interpretation and authority and declare heresy everything you deem not to be the true word of God. Good job, little pope.