So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do. Again, no one did that back in the day. The presuppositions you hold are 400 year old at most.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do. Again, no one did that back in the day. The presuppositions you hold are 500 year old at most.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught? You think you get around the problem of reliable authority and "man made traditions" but you miss the part that you are a man making your own tradition 2000 years after the events and that you are fallible. You don't trust the Pope or the Church holds the correct interpretation. You trust that you do.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
So yes that brings up the glaring issue that you put a layer between yourself and God's word. You claim there is a need for an interpreter beyond the Holy Spirit. You claim that your church fathers (Popes) are able to communicate with you in a way that you can understand but God's word cannot.
For the fifth time - Scripture doesn't interpret itself. No text does. In the protestant case, you are the interpreter. This is why I called you your own pope - because you believe you have divine authority (given by the Spirit) to interpret Scripture correctly. How do you know you have the correct interpretation? What makes your interpretation 2000+ years after the events more correct than what the early Church fathers taught?
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place and that tradition was a continuation of the hebrew OT tradition of the prophets, priests and Temple worship.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils. All of this was part of a tradition and not written neatly in one place.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and governed locally and synodally through councils.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops. The Church was decentralized and synodal.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.
So you did imply that we need a Pope to reinterpret scripture for us. You just call your Pope "the Church" when really it's your church father or fathers reinterpreting for you (btw 'Pope" means Papa so same issue).
Have you red Acts and the epistles? Paul addressed the churches in different cities. Do you realize the Church was established by Christ Himself and apostolic succession and ecclesiology is described in Scripture? The Church is Christ's body and He is the head. It is guided by the Spirit - it's not a man-made institution. It's useless to argue. If you're interested you can always look up what the Church was like in the first centuries after Christ. No one believed the things you do back then - your whole sola-based system came 15c. later. People didn't read the Bible back then because the Bible was a liturgical text to begin with and was compiled much later. They used lexicons and the worship was liturgical. They had sacraments. They had deacons, presbyters and bishops.
Anyway, the information is out there, all you need to do is be good faith about it and look for the truth. I can't help you if you're not willing.