✈️🩸

Context proves 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is an instruction to REJECT unverified claims of apostolic teaching.

I think the old Princess Bride quote is appropriate "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Athanasius called Wisdom "Holy Scripture" and then said it wasn't in the Canon. Origen described the Shepherd of Hermas as "divinely inspired", and said it wasn't in the Canon. Cyril quotes Wisdom (7:22) to explain the nature of the Holy Spirit, and in Lecture 6.4, he quotes Sirach 3:21-22; and says it's not in the Canon. Epiphanius quoting Wisdom says "For Scripture says..." and then said it wasn't in the Canon. Jerome introduces Sirach "As the Scripture says..." and then says it's not in the Canon. When Church Fathers who made canonical lists cite the deuterocanonicals authoritatively and with lofty appellations, and then say they're not in the canon, you can't take the lofty appellation as evidence they believed it was canonical. The same goes for church fathers who did not write canonical lists. Clement of Alexandria quoted the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas as "scripture", and elevated the pagan Sibylline Oracles to the status of a "prophetess" who sang by "divine inspiration" alongside Isaiah. Are we to believe that he thought pagan writings were canonical? Augustine writes similarly about the Sibyl, and yet Augustine excluded the Sibylline Oracles from his canonical lists.

Historical revisionism at its finest. 1⃣ Why would Hippo (393) and Carthage 1 & 2 (397 & 419) submit multiple requests to Rome if Rome in 382 had already approved 73 books? And why didn't Rome ever respond? 2⃣ And how did Canon 47 of the 1st Council of Carthage (397) appeal to Boniface to approve the submitted canon list? Boniface didn't become Pope until 418. Rome's been engaging in historical and document revisionism for centuries. 3⃣ The 1 Esdras of Carthage and Hippo, that the OP proudly claims makes up the 73 books, is NOT the same 1 Esdras approved at Trent. Those councils' lists included the 'Five Books of Solomon' (but Solomon never wrote 5 books), so Trent abandoned that classification. 4⃣ Why didn't the Council of Trent reference the 382 Council of Rome? Probably because the "Council of Rome" didn't exist in records until the Revised Corpus Iuris Canonici in 1582, and wasn't even given a 382 date until 1588 in the Annales Ecclesiastici. And the Damasine list wasn't separated from the "chaff" of the Gelasian Decree until 1646 thanks to Lucas Holstenius. The 73-book-list in the AD.405 personal letter from Innocent I doesn't override the Prologus Galeatus that directed the non-canonical status of the Apocryphal books in every Vulgate, Glossa Ordinaria, Complutensian, Gutenberg, Paris, Malermi Bibles for the next 1200 years. 5⃣ No one considered the Council of Florence binding, which is why Ximenes, the Complutensian, and Pope Leo X (on March 22, 1520 who approved the Prologus in the Complutensian directing a distinction between the canonical and deuterocanonical books), Cajetan, Seripando, Madruzzo, and others, never considered Florence binding. Let me say that again: Pope Leo X approved the Complutensian direction that the deuterocanonicals are not in the canon in 1520 - 3 years AFTER Luther's 95 Theses.

I'm told by Roman Catholics over and over that there are no dead because "God of the living". Which is it?

That's functionally the same as saying "Don't talk to Jesus, talk to your graven image of an artist's imagination of what Mary looked like instead".

Fascinating insight and admission by a Roman Catholic about Roman Catholicism. Unfortunately, it’s an unforced, awful self-own to admit your religion is syncretic to a pagan philosophy whose concept of God is completely foreign to the Scriptures. Those who know, know.

That doesn't settle it at all. The idea that Jesus would have corrected the misunderstanding of a metaphor is completely contradicted by Scripture. Jesus allowed a misunderstanding of a metaphor (destroy this temple...Matthew 26:61) to be used as evidence against him at his trial. He didn't correct their misunderstanding of the metaphore when he said it, nor did he correct their misunderstanding at his trial. He allowed their misunderstanding to stand, and ultimately be used to put him to death. But your case is made worse for you. You agree that those who walked away correctly understood Jesus was being literal. Yet Jesus said just a few verses earlier that "all that have learned from the Father come to me" (v.45). In other words, those you agree with, Jesus says have not learned from the Father.

This is simple. The ONLY way the Word of God can nourish a soul is to believe the teaching. How else can the Word enter the soul? This is why Jesus explains elsewhere (Matt 16) that bread represents teaching, and it was already a known metaphor from the Old Testament (Ezekiel 3:1).

Things no apostle taught.

If you can, why haven't you loosed them from Purgatory?

Free a soul from purgatory: for the low, low price of going to a cemetery, praying, having communion, and not sinning. Or the high price of God's one and only son dying on the cross, you (He) can actually get infinite people out of darkness and into the kingdom of light.

Crazy is reliance on AI-slop. Allow me to explain. Lofty citations prove nothing. If they did, Jude's citation of the prophecy in Enoch would be inspired canon. If a literal New Testament author quoting a text doesn't magically teleport that text into the Old Testament canon, then a 3rd-century bishop loftily quoting Wisdom or other text definitely doesn't. Case in point: you cite Origen. But he explicitly excluded the Book of Wisdom when he laid out his formal Old Testament canon. You're just being selective trying to use citations to override the explicit rejection from canonical lists of the ECF and eastern councils (such as Laodecia) before AD.382. I note your list is absent of Eastern Fathers; I guess you're admitting the Eastern Fathers were wrong, and the Western Fathers were correct. Your AI-SLOP list has some GLARING ISSUES, that prove that lofty citation doesn't equate to belief the text is inspired canon. Cyprian called Tertullian "The Master" and read him daily. But, Tertullian explicitly defended the Book of 1 Enoch as "divinely inspired", authentic scripture (in On the Apparel of Women). The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects 1 Enoch. Clement of Alexandria quoted the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Epistle of Barnabas as "scripture", and elevated the pagan Sibylline Oracles to the status of a "prophetess" who sang by "divine inspiration" alongside Isaiah. In 'Exhortation to the Heathen' (Protrepticus) (Chapter 8), Clement lists Sibyl alongside Jeremiah and says: "Let the Sibyl prophetess, then, be the first to sing to us the song of salvation." He explicitly states she spoke by "inspiration." In 'Stromata' (Book 6, Chapter 5), Clement also cites an "oral tradition" of the Apostle Paul commanding early Christians to "read the Sibyl" to understand divine prophecy. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects every single one of those from the canon. Origen openly cited the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache as "divinely inspired" texts. Neither are in the Eastern Orthodox Bible. Augustine explicitly cited the pagan Sibylline Oracles as containing genuine, "divine prophecy" about Jesus Christ (in City of God). He says of her, she "must be accounted among those who belong to the city of God." Finding a "prophecy of Christ" in a text did not mean Augustine thought the text belonged in the Old Testament, because he included it in no lists of his own, nor did his orchestrated Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

It's all theater. They don't actually oppose the bill.