Sign into an existing account

iSnark, is that your channel or were you just pasting a description of that creator's video beneath the video here?

So, I think he (you?) makes a great point initially, which has to do with what Scripture can justify. In my exchange with you yesterday, I claimed (and still believe) that Scripture cannot justify Catholicism on its own. But I could have expanded this claim in a way that would align more closely with the argument being made here: I don't think Scripture alone can justify any specific institution -- on the contrary, Scripture could feasibly exclude some faith systems whose doctrines are obviously in contradiction with it, e.g., a doctrine that Jesus is evil, or that sin is not real, or that we are individually self-sufficient as regards our salvation. Barring things like that, I don't think Scripture alone can justify any specific institution.

The historical argument is much stronger. Although, this gets us into the weeds of historiography and historicity.

For example, Keith makes a claim that is (very) probably wrong about the Gospels shortly before the 5-min mark. He says that there was a tradition of early Christian writings that came to constitute the Gospels. This is (very) probably untrue. There may have been some sayings collections and short lyrical verses in circulation. The concept of proto-gospels, ala the documentary hypothesis (Q-source, M-source, L-source, yada yada), is fraught with controversy and very little evidence. The strongest evidence supports the case that the synoptic Gospel tradition begins with Mark, that these emerged after the destruction of the Temple, were written for a largely Greek-speaking audience, and had unknown authors who were highly educated for the time (almost certainly in Roman schools). The idea that there was an early apostolic written corpus that informed the later Gospels is probably a fiction.

At the end of the day, what can't be argued with is this: a Catholic Tradition exists. That Tradition bears the internal claim that it is original, and it roots itself in the writings of the earliest Church fathers and in the authority of the author of Luke-Acts. They claim this. This claim has been maintained longer (by a large margin) by Catholicism qua institution than it has by any other Christian group (adherents of EO are going to disagree, but this is internal, not a dispute about Catholicism per se).

Faith in Catholicism is faith in that Tradition. Per arguments I've had with devoted Catholics over the last several years, this is even more fundamentally faith in people, in one's fellow man. One must trust in the authenticity of a group of people who lived long ago, who they will never meet in this lifetime.

You might think this is most fundamentally faith in God to have 'supernaturally managed' this Tradition through history, but you actually can't start there unless you reject certain aspects of the Catholic faith. If God can directly certify Catholicism to you personally, then God could just as easily directly certify the correct interpretation of Scripture to you personally (which sounds an awful lot like Protestant beliefs). So, the faith is rooted fundamentally in a Tradition that makes historical claims about their own origination, and these are what the Catholic must believe.

Imagine being so cucked, you make excuses to enslave yourself to a Jew.

2,000 more years of goyslop?