>>16545703
And then Christians will reenact the French Wars of Religion...

>>16545683
Are the wojaks supposed to be asian christians?

>>16545683
Christians didn't do anything wrong
And if they did, they weren't my denomination
And if they were, they weren't TRULY of my church
And if they were, they weren't acting because of their faith
And if they were, it wasn't really that bad
And if it was, we'll it's only to be expected that we all fall short of righteousness.

>>16545710
rofllmaooo it'll be like The Troubles on crack.
if i live to see the shitshow i'll laugh myself to death. christards cannot coexist

File: 1708858587392.png (20 KB, 611x274)

20 KB PNG

Reminder

>>16545683
Because Christians are stooopid and you touch yourself at night.

>>16545683
>"oh those fucking...Orthodox."

Never happened.

Name an Orthodox atrocity on the level of the Protestant 30 years war or the crusade.

>>16546733
The Iconoclasm crisis, the Old Believer crisis, Russian forced conversion of Catholics, Jews, and pagans, etc.

>>16546769
Don't forget the Orthodox complicity in Stalin's various mass murders and the Church's helping the Commies in the Holodomor.

>>16546803
>Don't forget the Orthodox complicity in Stalin's various mass murders

Read the first response, was going to reply. But now I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

Under Stalin and Lenin, nearly 100,000 clergymen were executed (not deported, moved, or imprisoned, executed). Militant atheism burned churches, made religion harder to practice, and essentially outlawed the practice.

If anyone did anything of that source, it was because they were tortured to do so and/or the few men of the church that survived by being workers of Satan.

"In 1922, the Solovki Camp of Special Purpose, the first Russian concentration camp and a former Orthodox monastery, was established in the Solovki Islands in the White Sea. In the years 1917–1935, 130,000 Russian Orthodox priests were arrested; 95,000 were put to death, executed by firing squad."

"Official Soviet figures reported that up to one third of urban and two thirds of rural population still held religious beliefs by 1937. However, the anti-religious campaign of the past decade and the terror tactics of the militantly atheist regime, had effectively eliminated all public expressions of religion and communal gatherings of believers outside of the walls of the few churches that still held services."

If you ever stepped in an Orthodox church for once you would realize how stupid of a statement you made, because you would know how all Orthodox viewed the USSR and you would know of what the religion faced by the stories they told.

>>16546826
>Under Stalin and Lenin, nearly 100,000 clergymen were executed
>Militant atheism burned churches, made religion harder to practice, and essentially outlawed the practice.
And then these bearded eunuchs turned around and sucked Commie dick, helped in Communist genocides, and talk about how Stalin was a Saint? Talk about christKEKS, holy shit.

>>16546769
>Old Believer crisis

Send a source of the nature of the persecutions and who led them

>The Iconoclasm crisis

Iconoclasts were the ones burning icons and persecuting iconodules prior to the 7th council. What was the nature of iconodules, and what did they do?

>>16546828
>And then these bearded eunuchs turned around and sucked Commie dick

That is crazy, what type of statement you're making. Blaming a whole for the few. The church, the patriarch, did not approve of Stalin in anyway and not one of them now would have ever approved.

>sucked Commie dick, helped in Communist genocides, and talk about how Stalin was a Saint?

Stalin was never venerated at any point in the church NOR was he canonized. You're either blaming people who have stockholm syndrome or a few bad apples which exist in every institutions. This is like using the arians and how they persecuted christians as an example for why christianity is evil.

Nobody in the church says that men are infalliable by nature. All men are falliable.

THE church never endorsed this, unlike the pope endorsing the crusades, and unlike the reformers and heads of protestant churches endorsing war and violence.

>>16546854
>>16546840
But I thought that you guys found all this stuff to be HECKIN BASED and GIGATRAD? What about CONSTANTINOPLE and RETVRN?

>>16546866
Anyone who thinks the crusades were entirely based doesn't know their history and are shooting themselves in the foot

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/12kzjdw3UBA

Also, you don't know orthodoxy and this is a strawman. There are orthobros online, but apparently some dont go to church. The closest to an orthobro I've seen in an orthodox church- he was underaged (maybe 15-16 at the oldest). You've been arguing with teenagers online. Touch grass. Nobody believes in this, if you go to a church.

Burning books and destroying idols is a good thing, however. But taking life is not.

>>16545683
Protestants only did horrible shit because the Papists did even more horrible shit, and it was the Papists who started it.

>>16546854
>THE church
Are you trying to imply there is only one real church and all the others don't count, or are you too retarded to use the shift key? Wait, no, now that I think about it - you're on a phone, aren't you? As if being a reddit nigger wasn't bad enough.

>>16546925
>Burning books and destroying idols is a good thing, however.
You should be shot in the head repeatedly, subhuman. Make do with never fucking posting on 4chan again with your inane faggotry and insipid "worldview" that is at complete odds with the entire point of the website.

>>16547004
>Are you trying to imply there is only one real church and all the others don't count,

Yes, there is one church- as the church is the body of Christ. It is only the Eastern Orthodox church that can say each parish is part of the body of Christ.

>that is at complete odds with the entire point of the website.

You think we should allow for occultist books that purport to summon demons? You think freemason, Bohemian grove, and Ordo Templi Orientis is a good thing to keep around?

>>16547077
Ah, I see, so you're not actually talking about the subject of the thread and instead say that these people are heretics (but god isn't smiting them like he said he would because uhm)
I think, you fucking teenaged retard, that there is no /bb/ - Book Burning board on 4chan. If you do not like the free transmission of ideas, words, and books, then fuck off somewhere else and stop being such a whinging little cunt where you're evidently not meant to be.

>>16545683
If someone is doing horrible shit, they are by definition not a Christian. Even if they say they are.

>>16545683
Why do you think it should be so easy to spot followers of Christ in the first place? Is it all supposed to be handed down to you on a platter? Maybe wrapped like a candy bar? Labeled and ready to go.
Everyone is trying to pull a fast one on you on every aspect of society, but you think this should be easy? It isn't, sadly.
> The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.-John 3:8
Don't even trust me outright, for that matter.
>Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. -1 John 4:1
>Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.-Matthew 10:16

>>16547091
How exactly are people following the word of God as writ in the Bible not Christians, but people who act contrary to it are?

>>16547103
>How exactly are people following the word of God as writ in the Bible not Christians, but people who act contrary to it are?
I have no idea, also no idea why you would ask me that

>>16547100
>Why do you think it should be so easy to spot followers of Christ in the first place? Is it all supposed to be handed down to you on a platter? Maybe wrapped like a candy bar? Labeled and ready to go.
jesus was fairly adamant about praising god publicly unto even death, yes

>>16547120
Okay, let me try and make myself clear; I shouldn't have assumed a baseline. I - and most people, I hope - view parts of Christianity as cruel, horrible, bad, and all that. The most obvious examples are slavery, sexism, creation and glorification of suffering in the guise of holy martyrdom, crusading, mutilation, child murder, and all that stuff. These things, being bad by any humanist view or even by the basic "eye for an eye" measure.
I should ask directly, I suppose, whether you think any of the actions sanctioned or committed by God in the Bible are "horrible": if you do, then I'm afraid I have to tell you you're not Christian, and if you don't then I have to name you as a psychopathic maniac and hope you're stopped before you do as your book tells you.

>>16547086
>but god isn't smiting them like he said he would
If God smote them, you would say God is evil because he caused suffering. If he didn't, you say this is a contradiction. No matter what God does, your heart will always defy him: you actually don't care what God does.


>If you do not like the free transmission of ideas, words, and books

If the idea actually leads to evil, then by definition it is evil and evil must be purged. This actually has no relevance to you if the supernatural does not exist, because otherwise the church would admit they wrongly burned books. Books are only burned if they actually have evidence of demonic activity.

Just like a person accepts all speech apart from saying "fire!" or "bomb!" in a crowded building, this is where the limit lies.

>>16547086
I might now ask, do you think it would be good if 1 million people were reading Mein Kampf? What would you do if 1 million people in your country were doing that? What would you do if half the people in your country were doing that?

>>16547131
Well yes, I would say God is evil for doing the things He's said to do in the Bible. I'm not trying to hide that, and if it came off as such I apologise. I'm trying to convey that by the rules of your faith, these people cannot be wrong because they aren't being killed by God like He said He would, so clearly they're true Christians no matter how much your mortal mind tries to second guess the works of God.
First off, your view of "evil" is wholly removed from anyone sane, and includes such chestnuts as "demons". Secondly, to police words and thoughts is pointless - as your very own faith proves - and antithetical to any hope of progressing ideas through basic conversation between them. I deny any limit to words and books, and I'll point out that by your indescribably retarded criteria the Holy Bible should be burned and struck from each and every record for the number of people killed in its name.
>>16547136
Yes, I do think it would be good if a million people read Mein Kampf. A book cannot do anything but impart ideas, and the substance of those ideas is irrelevant until they become something physical. If you think you can quantify memes and police them then you have such a grossly inflated sense of pride that I'm fairly certain God will burn you forever.
As for what I'd do - nothing, because reading something means nothing. If people agreed with it, used it as their basis for their views, I would seek to challenge it with words. You are not going to be an online missionary cunt and then say you can kill ideas with bullets, so don't even start with this shit.

>>16547152
>You are not going to be an online missionary cunt and then say you can kill ideas with bullets

Books burned are not ideas killed with bullets, they are burning sources of magic and demonic activity. The early christians both smashed idols, burned books, and used nonviolent means of convincing others. The way you speak makes it seem as though christians are OK with forced conversions. That is false, and if it was done, that was wrong and the church forbid that. Central to orthodoxy is free will. You cannot coerce a person to have faith.

Occultist books are nuclear bombs.

> they aren't being killed by God like He said He would

When did he say that, he never said it in the context youre using it.

>and every record for the number of people killed in its name.

The church shouldn't forbid people from reading Mein Kampf, the communist manifesto or any of those books. Any pagan literature is fine, and I do not think the church endorses burning non christian books. The issue is the incantations and magic in some occultist books, which are gateways to demonic magic and spells.

>to police words and thoughts is pointless

That is not what I was indicating. You are unfair and bitter in your words. You do not care about truth.

>your view of "evil"

What is my exact view of evil?

>>16547179
I have no fucking clue what you're talking about with demons and magic. Feel free to elucidate instead of... whatever the fuck you're trying to say.
Burning books and smashing idols are violent acts, and if you don't think so let me know where you keep your bible so I can shred it and then burn your house for its words and your beliefs.
Trying to talk about free will while also shouting that you should destroy books is so blatantly hypocritical that I would laugh if I didn't think you can't see it.
As for when God said he'd kill people for disobeying, the easiest is Leviticus 26. That you need to get me to look it up for you instead of knowing what your fucking God said and did is really quite pathetic.
Your view of "evil" - which I have to infer, because you're being an evasive little fag and trying to avoid saying you actually think slavery and child murder and so on is good - is what the Bible says. If it's not, then I misjudged you, and you should stop saying you're a Christian. If it is, then you're scum that should be hated, and mercifully are hated by anyone who actually knows what cruelties you believe are just.
Stop posting like you're on reddit, retard.

>>16547130
>slavery
Christianity was the first Bill of Rights for slaves.
>sexism
Men and women are different and should be respected as such.
>creation and glorification of suffering in the guise of holy martyrdom
Being killed for what you believe in and not budging is admirable. Why would you think this is evil?
>Crusading
Christians don't go to war. It's pretty straightforward in the Bible. It doesn't matter if some people have claimed to be Christian and killed in wars. It's not Christian.
>mutilation
I agree tattoos and tranny surgeries are evil
>child murder
God can't murder anybody.
>And all that stuff
So...nothing?

>>16547210
Christians should never fight against anyone, instead they need to turn the other cheek to Muhammad!

>>16547210
>Christianity was the first Bill of Rights for slaves.
No, it really wasn't. The NT is the first book that I know of to imply that slaves and slavemasters were both possessed of the same worth in their soul, but it certainly doesn't suggest the end of slavery.
>Men and women are different and should be respected as such.
That's not what the Bible says, though, it says women should be subservient and lesser to men. Have you actually read any of the Bible?
>Being killed for what you believe in and not budging is admirable. Why would you think this is evil?
I view influencing people to go to places where they will die purely because death is seen as a positive is not good, generally. To die for God is glorious, and to die for God in a war against the satanic (whoever you're fighting at the time) is even better.
>Christians don't go to war. It's pretty straightforward in the Bible. It doesn't matter if some people have claimed to be Christian and killed in wars. It's not Christian.
Ah, well, that settles it. I suppose we can just tell all those people that the not-Christians killed to pop back up now that the joke's up and God can do what he said he would and save the holy dead.
>I agree tattoos and tranny surgeries are evil
Hey, you forgot the bit where you take a knife to newborns!
>God can't murder anybody.
Aha, there we go. Anything is good because God allowed it, therefore everyone who suffers deserves it. I hope you suffer too, frankly, and I hope your faith doesn't convey you through it.

>>16547228
>That's not what the Bible says, though, it says women should be subservient and lesser to men. Have you actually read any of the Bible?
Women are much easier to manipulate than men. That's just how it is. You not liking that doesn't change the fact. So they need to listen to the men in their lives.

>>16547208
>Burning books and smashing idols are violent acts,

Breaking a peanut to make peanut butter is a violent act! Oh no! Let us all stop making Peanut butter sandwiches!

For incantations see the one hour mark of this video, only 10 minutes or so are needed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKdSvwYsrE

In particular: magic to incur demon possession, magic to summon demons, spells to inflict pain on others, spells to bring forth demonic energy.

>Trying to talk about free will while also shouting that you should destroy books is so blatantly hypocritical that I would laugh if I didn't think you can't see it.

You've failed to show otherwise. Does dissassembling a bomb (an object whose only main use is to blow stuff up) violating free will?

>As for when God said he'd kill people for disobeying, the easiest is Leviticus 26.

God gave life, he can freely take it away. God is the essence of good. It would only be wrong if he destroyed something entirely good. Otherwise he is purging sin. Good destroying evil isn't a contradiction.

> you actually think slavery and child murder and so on is good - is what the Bible says.

The bible never says 'slavery is good'. It only gives regulations, like how God regulated marriage with divorce contracts,

" 'Why then,' they asked, 'did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?' Jesus replied, 'Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.' " (Matt. 19:7-9)

Give me your definition of good and logically show why it is justified- because you seem so confident I am sure it must be outstanding.

>>16547228
>Hey, you forgot the bit where you take a knife to newborns!
Christianity did away with a circumcision of the foreskin. It is now circumcision of the heart, a metaphorical term. I can't help that a lot of people are zogbots.

>>16547234
>Breaking a peanut to make peanut butter is a violent act! Oh no! Let us all stop making Peanut butter sandwiches!
What the actual fuck are you trying to say? Breaking idols and burning books rather implies they're not your idols and books to do with as you please. I suppose that in the interest of personal freedoms you must be allowed to purchase and break what you like, but that's not what you're talking about, is it, retard?
You are not citing Alex Jones as your proof of demons and magic being real. I refuse to believe it. Good luck with whatever tumour is making you act like this, you'll need it - I'm not going to reply to you anymore. If you want to believe you've banished a demon then feel free, I can't stop you, but I promise you that if I could really effect magic through some jewish bullshit I would do so and make you stop fucking posting.

>>16547235
Maybe in whatever discord Gay Cryer groomed you in, but in real life the supermajority of Christians believe that genital mutilation is a necessary condition for salvation.

>>16547234
Fuck, I lied, I'm mad enough to finish responding to this one. I hope I don't get mad enough again to be so weak of will.

>God gave life, he can freely take it away. God is the essence of good. It would only be wrong if he destroyed something entirely good. Otherwise he is purging sin. Good destroying evil isn't a contradiction.
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and is such a pathetic excuse that even if it did you'd be insane for trying to use it. You asked when God said he'd kill people doing bad things, I told you, and then instead of saying "oh yeah, he did say that, I wonder why these definitely-not-christians doing evil things aren't dead when God said he would kill people like that" you immediately wheel around and say anyone who dies deserves it. Please, fucking help me see the connections here.
>The bible never says 'slavery is good'.
If it is not good, why does the Bible allow it?
>Give me your definition of good and logically show why it is justified- because you seem so confident I am sure it must be outstanding.
No? I have no reason to give you my reasons when you keep desperately evading answering what you think, because you're afraid - or you know - that it contradicts the book you're bending over thrice to defend. My views of good and evil are irrelevant, and I care not a jot what you think of them except so far as your barbarism seeks to destroy me for it, but to be brief so you don't have to guess like I do for your evasive, weaselly, and yes, I'll say it, satanic posts: I do not think doing unto others as you wouldn't unto yourself is good. Controlling, or seeking to control the contents of another's mind through any means but conversation is foul beyond words, and to try and influence people by removing sources of information is the mark of a subhuman.

File: 6999296-2426429025.jpg (113 KB, 1080x1246)

113 KB JPG

>>16547242
>What the actual fuck are you trying to say? Breaking idols and burning books rather implies they're not your idols and books to do with as you please.

I'm saying your sly use of the word 'violence' is a misnomer and abuse of terms. Now you've been confronted you properly adjusted to show why burning books are wrong and you've now redefined violence.

You mean to say coercive, if you want a loaded term. I will say now, it is coercive to imprison murderers and pedophiles. Unless you're some ancap libertarian, then you're always going to admit to coercion being fine in some circumstances. If you are AnCap, nobody is going to listen to you. It is a silly ideology.

>I suppose that in the interest of personal freedoms you must be allowed to purchase and break what you like, but that's not what you're talking about, is it, retard?

Correct. I am agnostic to whether or not it is OK for police to burn books and idols. But I will say that if it is OK for a policeman to confiscate a bomb you made, or some device of arson known to be used only on other people and for murderous or devilish purposes, then you have no ground to speak on.

>You are not citing Alex Jones as your proof of demons and magic being real.

I am (picrel).

The history channel admitted this was real footage. This is the only footage of Bohemian grove available. He was the only one that got in.

I am not going to send a video of an exorcism or visceral footage of demons because they attract demonic energies and may latch onto the person watching. They exist and you can find them.

>>16547263
>You asked when God said he'd kill people doing bad things,
>Please, fucking help me see the connections here.

Thank you for asking, I will help you now,

That isn't what happened. You said "they aren't being killed by God like He said He would" >>16547152

The examples you used showed where God killed canaanites like he said he would. You never showed where God said God will continuously kill people and heretics until the end of time. I assumed your citation for Leviticus was, rather, your attempt at showing how God was bad.

>If it is not good, why does the Bible allow it?

I just gave you an explanation, and your brain erased that information as to protect your ego and perpetuate your biases.
>>16547234
" It only gives regulations, like how God regulated marriage with divorce contracts... (Matt. 19:7-9)"

> My views of good and evil are irrelevant

They are if you reject my definition of good and refuse to believe God is the only source of good. If you do not accept God is the essence of good you are now presupposing a definition of good that is besides God, and I can not argue unless you tell me what you're thinking. There are dozens of ethical theories in philsoohpy, I cannot guess which one you latch onto.

>>16547243
>Maybe in whatever discord Gay Cryer groomed you in, but in real life the supermajority of Christians believe that genital mutilation is a necessary condition for salvation.
It doesn't matter what people believe. It's right there in the Bible.

>4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.

Your problem is with hypocrites and idiots. Not Christianity.

>>16545683
Bad example. Everyone knows the Sunnis are the more evil of them and Shiites. If I met a Shiite woman I'd consider pursuing her granted she liked me, but Sunni women are insane cultists I'd want no part of.

>>16547263
>you immediately wheel around and say anyone who dies deserves it. Please, fucking help me see the connections here.
This is because God kills and makes alive, he wounds and heals. It doesn't make sense to criticise God like this.

According to the Biblical account, everything God created belongs to Him, and He gives life to all living things every second of every minute for as long as the Lord chooses to continue doing so. Some people are way out of line to criticize God, and I sincerely believe it won't end well for them. Would they deserve whatever they get? If it's coming from God - if it's actually coming from our Creator - then yes.

File: Wojak Christian Timeline.png (225 KB, 832x961)

225 KB PNG

>>16546733
>Never happened.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAH
>Name an Orthodox atrocity
Genocide of the Old Belivers

>>16546840
>Send a source of the nature of the persecutions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_of_the_Russian_Church
>and who led them
The Russia "Orthodox" Church and the Tsarist State.

>>16546925
>but le 4th crusade. Muh poor Constantiople
Absolutely deserved for the genocide of the Latins.
Fuck around find out.
>But taking life is not.
Well then your "churches" have a lot to answer for..

File: The ''One'' True Church.jpg (1.65 MB, 4096x3128)

1.65 MB JPG

>>16547077
>Yes, there is one church- as the church is the body of Christ. It is only the Eastern Orthodox church that can say each parish is part of the body of Christ
Which Eastern Orthodox Church?
The Ones of the Side of Russia during the Current Shcism
Or the Ones of the side of Constantinople during the current Schism?
Or is it the fence sitters?
Or is it the Old Believers that never joined the Post-Nikhon Reform Communion
Or is it the True Orthodox?
Or is it the Old Calendarists?

There is a lot of options and as you say there can only be 1 true church

File: 1641351078709.png (125 KB, 228x219)

125 KB PNG

>>16547131
>Books are only burned if they actually have evidence of demonic activity.
Now people on the other hand, you can burn them for using 2 fingers instead of 3 in the sign of the cross

>>16547760
>The Russia "Orthodox" Church and the Tsarist State.
>Genocide of the Old Belivers

Source and quotation from the source? I dont see anything about a genocide in the wiki page, nor killing by the church and Tsar.

>Well then your "churches" have a lot to answer for..

They have

>Picrel

There is one Eastern Orthodox church. And autocephalies which are simply for administrative reasons. The current issue with the Russian and Constantinople church is not affecting laity, but priests. Priests cannot commune with one another- at worst. I can go to RoCore as a greek orthodox and receive communion. This is also only recent, and is said that it will die when one of the patriarchs die.

>Which Eastern Orthodox Church?

There is only one.

>The Ones of the Side of Russia during the Current Shcism
>Or the Ones of the side of Constantinople during the current Schism?

Laity are still in communion with one another.

>Or is it the Old Calendarists?
>True Orthodox

True Orthodox and Old calenderists are the same. They are only accessible in Greece and Romania.

>Old believers

All in Russia.

File: OrthoLARPers are just ''T(...).jpg (140 KB, 1000x641)

140 KB JPG

>>16547804
Are you seriously doing the 2+2=4 "Uhhhh SAUCE? IM GONNA NEED A CITATION!" shit that reddit atheoids do?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_of_the_Russian_Church#Uprisings_and_persecution
>In 1681, the government noted an increase among the "enemies of the church", especially in Siberia. With active support from the Russian Orthodox Church, it began to persecute the so-called raskolniki (pacкoльники), i.e., "schism-makers".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avvakum
>but due to continued opposition to the reforms, he was exiled to Pustozyorsk, above the Arctic Circle, in 1667.[1] For the last fourteen years of his life, he was imprisoned there in a pit or dugout (a sunken, log-framed hut). He and his accomplices were finally executed by being burned in a log house.

Their killings by the State and Church isn't something in dispute the Mainline Russian "Orthodox" church even admits they did it.

>There is one Eastern Orthodox church.
*spongebob voice* a few moments earlier
>>16547077
>Yes, there is one church- as the church is the body of Christ.
So were you lying then?
>And autocephalies which are simply for administrative reasons.
They are currenty mid schism as the chart shows. If there is only ONE Church then one side needs to be outside the Church.
So which is it?
>The current issue with the Russian and Constantinople church is not affecting laity, but priests.
This is a lie, for your own well being I suggest you stop bearing false witness.
>Priests cannot commune with one another- at worst.
https://mospat.ru/en/news/47059/
>From now on until the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s rejection of its anti-canonical decisions, it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople and for the LAITY to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.
Stop lying to me, yourself and others.

>>16547804
>>16547844
Cont.
>and is said that it will die when one of the patriarchs die.
I'm sure people said the same thing in 1056.
>There is only one.
I proved there isn't so again, WHICH ONE?
>Laity are still in communion with one another.
Again with the lies.
>True Orthodox and Old calenderists are the same.
Kinda and kinda not. I put the TOs more in the anti-ecumanist camp, and the Old Calenderists the ones obsessed over calendar autidsm.
>They are only accessible in Greece and Romania.
And Australia
And Russia
And New Zealand
Probably more but those are the ones I directly know.

>All in Russia
Incorrect
I know of some in the US and Australia, Romania and Latvia.
Again you keep making noise but know so little.
Also even if they were all in Russia is that an argument against them being Le One True Church?

>>16547844
>"Uhhhh SAUCE? IM GONNA NEED A CITATION!" shit that reddit atheoids do?

No, I am just retarded and blind. I need an exact account to what the nature of the persecutions work. Just as when one should ask a Jew what they mean by antisemitism.

>They are currenty mid schism as the chart shows.

Just showed you making schizo lines without clarifying what they implied for laity.

>If there is only ONE Church then one side needs to be outside the Church. So which is it?

Just as when James and the apostles were divided, yet one, for a moment as to whether or not Gentiles should be circumcised, the church is one.

>This is a lie, for your own well being I suggest you stop bearing false witness.

We have someone from the greek church who communes with our local church headed by an OCA priest. And we have someone from ROCOR who frequently communes with the OCA priest. The OCA priest went to Holy Virgin cathedral, a ROCOR parish for vigil and people under the Antiochian and Greek church have had planned to go to Holy Virgin Cathedral in SF California and can take communion there.

At the the holy monastery in Fresno California, we had people from the Serbian church, Greek, and OCA divisions all take communion.


>And Australia
>And Russia
>And New Zealand

If any, there are few. This was a hyperbole. 2,000 in the USA, and 1 million in Romania and Greece

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Calendarists

>I know of some in the US and Australia, Romania and Latvia.

So few, that it is like finding a needle in a haystack. Which was my point. It is like going to Africa to be an Igbo voodoo true believer.

File: Russian Orthobros Online.png (179 KB, 889x1175)

179 KB PNG

>>16547864
>I need an exact account to what the nature of the persecutions work.
That sentence doesn't make any sense.
>Just as when one should ask a Jew what they mean by antisemitism.
You mean you want a definition of persecution?
Don't you have google?
Don't you think setting priests on fire is persecution?
Do you think being locked up in prison is persecution?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feodosia_Morozova
How about beheading?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Pustosvyat

>Just showed you making schizo lines without clarifying what they implied for laity.
The implication for the laity is in the DOCUMENT I PROVIDED
https://mospat.ru/en/news/47059/
From now on until the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s rejection of its anti-canonical decisions, it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople and for the LAITY to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.
>it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople and for the LAITY to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.
and for the LAITY to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.
>and for the LAITY
THINK ANON THINK.jpeg
I am trying to be patient here.

>Just as when James and the apostles were divided
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA
Yes thank you for proving me point. The Church is not bound to a single instituion, The True Church is the whole body of believers and can extend outside any institution. In short the Eastern "Orthodox" claim to be the one true church is wrong.
Additionally, If you want to use the Bible I will play that game happily :))
Mark 9:38-41

File: but... I called you anathema.png (1.14 MB, 1034x851)

1.14 MB PNG

>>16547864
>>16547881
Cont.
>We have someone from the greek church who communes.......
WOW yeah thats great I'm sure its a lovley story anon. I'm sure you have many instances of people bending the rules of the Church just as Catholics and Eastern "Orthodox" often shared communion during the Middle Ages.
But we arent talking about personal feelings or anecdotes. Ive heard anecdotes of Oriental Orthodox being given communion at Greek Churches. Are the Orientals and Easterners now in communion?
Now back to the facts of the matter.
WHICH CHURCH ANON?
There can only be 1 or you have to admit that the One True Church isn't limited to an institution.
By your next post I expect you to come to an answer or I will conclude you are coping and wont bother.
>So few, that it is like finding a needle in a haystack. Which was my point.
What happened to the "Orthodox" belief that size didn't matter and that even if the faithful were reduced to but a handful blah blah we all know the quote.

>>16546560
>it was based

>>16547881
>That sentence doesn't make any sense.
I need to know what persecutions mean in the context. Does it mean outlawing the religion? Does it mean removing old believers as priests?

Does it mean burning books? The only useful sense of the word is when laity are forced to convert and laity are killed for their beliefs.

>The implication for the laity is in the DOCUMENT I PROVIDED

I was referring to PRIOR to the point you gave the document. I am skeptical of the document because the experience here is that this hasn't been enforced, and all the priests say "it doesn't affect the laity". I would say that is good evidence though, and I can't really object to it until I find something to the contrary. But, this hasn't been the experience personally.

>>Just as when James and the apostles were divided

I used the term loosely just as people use the word "persecution loosely". I should have put quotations on it.

>The Church is not bound to a single instituion

It is.

>Additionally, If you want to use the Bible I will play that game happily :))

We can play that Game, and we can include church fathers as well

James 2:24

St. Ignatious of Antioch Letter to the Smyrneans Chapter 8

St. Ignatious of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians Chapter 4

https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

File: 66414B07-81F9-4584-A7BA-9(...).jpg (119 KB, 1024x510)

119 KB JPG

>>16546733
>sack of Constantinople killed ~2,000 civilians despite being a multi day affair after decades of worsening relationships and a complete collapse in political relations due to constant Byzantine backstabbing
>The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople only 22 years before indiscriminately slaughtered the bulk of 60,000 men women and children, including killing hospital patients in their beds and publicly torturing and executing Catholic priests (and dragging their dismembered corpses through the streets) entirely because they were Catholic. All done at the behest and with the approval of the Emperor.

The sack itself is such a meme. It’s the lowest civilian casualties I have personally seen for such a large city over 3 days.

>>16547886
>What happened to the "Orthodox" belief that size didn't matter and that even if the faithful were reduced to but a handful blah blah we all know the quote.
>WHICH CHURCH ANON?

If you want a criteria I will give an explicit criterion:

The churches with bishops, priests, deacons, and patriarchs.

They have to have apostolic succession. Their hierarchs and patriarchs have to have apostolic succession. They cannot claim to have split off, nor would they have to have made their own institutions when they broke off.

They cannot revise, nor change their mind on ecumenical councils they accepted as infalliable, once they split off. There must be continuity and a clear consistency in their faith.

They also cannot split off just because they lost at an ecumenical council.

Only Rome and the Eastern Orthodox church fufills these attributes. Why Rome is not to be preffered is another issue.

>>16547077
Even in Eastern Orthodoxy, individual parishes disagree over so many basic issues that it’s sad. Whether or not Catholics need to be baptized for example varies church to church.

>>16547909
Council of Florence

>>16547919
Fourth Council of Constantinople(879-880)

>>16547910
>individual parishes disagree over so many basic issues that it’s sad.

Because these issues have said to be trivial or not as big of an issue yet. If something was non trivial, then there would be a council (Like the council of Jerusalem or the 9th council).

Eastern Orthodox aren't purely schismatic, hence why the Patriarch has met with Pope Francis, and they want unity with Rome and all the churches. The Eastern Orthodox church in the 90s I believe had a dialogue with the Orientals. However, Just as Christ had one body, there is one Eucharist. One cannot claim to be christian and be in intelligence with the gnostics or donatists or judaizers.

File: I HATE THE ANTI-CHRIST.png (764 KB, 1202x848)

764 KB PNG

>>16547891
>I need to know what persecutions mean in the context.
In the context of what?
Why do you write like a reddit atheist. Something is either persecution or its not, as Christians we don't believe truth is subjective. If the Russian Church was murdering Old Believers that is persecution.
>The only useful sense of the word is when laity are forced to convert and laity are killed for their beliefs.
1) citation fucking needed.
2) If I invade Serbia and throw ever Serb in prison because they are Palamites but ACKTCHUALLY I'm not *adjusts reddit glasses* technically killing them or forcing them to convert they can just stay in prison if they want, I'm still persecuting them.
>I am skeptical of the document because the experience here is that this hasn't been enforced
Irrelevant. The Hierarchy of the Eastern "Orthodox" Churches are objective. The Patriarch has formally schismed. Enforcement is irrelevant.
>and all the priests say "it doesn't affect the laity".
Yes they are lying.
>I used the term loosely
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH
Thats such cope. You accidentally nuke yourself with a Bible quote and now your quibbling over words. Just admit the One True Church isnt an institution and you will save us both so much time.
>It is.
Citation needed.
I've got both the Bible and Current events proving me right. You have........ nothing.

>James 2:24
Anon, I....... are you retarded or just desperate that has nothing to do with the Church being bond to a single institution.
Is THIS the best Eastern "Orthodox" have to offer? Or is this just the fire of a recent convert?>St. Ignatious of Antioch Letter to the Smyrneans Chapter 8
That has to do with the Bishops. Again you MUST be desperate at this point
>St. Ignatious of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians Chapter 4
Thats to do with the Eucharist.
Anon, give up, its Joever.

>

File: 9c9.png (183 KB, 1205x700)

183 KB PNG

>>16547909
>The churches with bishops, priests, deacons, and patriarchs.
Not biblical at all and Patriarchs didn't exist for the first 300yrs of the Church.
Congratz anon, you have not only said that Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East are all Le One True Church and the Early Church wasn't.
Good Job.
>They have to have apostolic succession.
What you mean by that and what the early church meant by that is different.
The Early church was succession in having the same beliefs at the apostles and preserving the deposit of faith. Its not a magical power transfer from 1 generation to the next. Thats proven in Mark 9:38-41.
The man is not an Apostle and is not ordained by the Apostles but is still doing work activley in Jesus' name.
>Their hierarchs and patriarchs have to have apostolic succession.
Biblical citation needed.
>They cannot claim to have split off, nor would they have to have made their own institutions when they broke off.
Thats a self referential standard. Everyone claims they were the OG and everyone else split from them.
>They cannot revise, nor change their mind on ecumenical councils they accepted as infalliable
Well the Eastern "Orthodox" Church has done that.
>There must be continuity and a clear consistency in their faith.
Welp the EO are out then. They have no clear consistency in their soterology.
Good job anon.
>They also cannot split off just because they lost at an ecumenical council.
What if its not an ecumenical council to them?
What about Flourence. Everyone but 1 dude agree to that, then the EO threw a tantrum that they lost.

>>16547928
>Thats to do with the Eucharist.
>Anon, give up, its Joever.
>Citation needed.

"Wherefore I write boldy to your love... and exhort you to have but ONE faith, and ONE preaching, and ONE Eucharist. For there is ONE flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ....Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being... and also one preaching... and ONE Church which the holy apostles established..." (pg. 80, The Ante-Nicene Father Vol 1. Edited by Roberts and Donadlson)

>Thats such cope. You accidentally nuke yourself with a Bible quote

I didn't use a Bible quote, unless I did on accident. I was, indeed, using the term loosely. I meant to say: Just as they were "divided". Which means they weren't divided in the same way you think the current church is divided.

>Yes they are lying.

And none of them have been defrocked by their bishop who lives an hour away. Not any 4 of them!

>I'm still persecuting them

I do not care if someone is imprisoned, as the early christians did this all the time. I care if they are killed by the church on mass, and the church starts a war.

>If the Russian Church was murdering Old Believers that is persecution.

That is true.

>>16547927
>Whether or not Catholic converts should be baptized is trivial

I guess we’ll never know since the council of Crete collapsed.

>>16547924
>complex medieval politicking leading to doubt as to the validity of two conflicting and poorly attended councils is the same as a well attended council where all but one Eastern bishop (including the emperor) admitted they were wrong about basically everything.

It’s telling that the go to cope with Florence is usually to say that the Byzantines didn’t mean it and were only agreeing for political gain (which makes them all liars).

>>16547940
>Not biblical at all
Neither is predestination, sola scripture, sola fide, nor the papacy, nor is the Bible canon.

>The Early church was succession in having the same beliefs at the apostles and preserving the deposit of faith.

"It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church... to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles... to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own times..." (Ireneaus, Chapter II. Book III "Against Heresies").

None of this is found in the church fathers, and all of this is Protestant cope. Luther was a seething predecessor to Hitler who lusted over a nun.

>Biblical citation needed.

Biblical citation needed for sola scriptura.

>They have no clear consistency in their soterology.

They do. Salvation is by Theosis, where we are in full unity with the divine energies of God. This is by faith and works.

>Everyone but 1 dude agree to that,

The greeks agreed, not all Orthodox patriarchs were present. This was post schism. An Ecumenical council has to have all patriarchs present.

>>16547942
>I guess we’ll never know since the council of Crete collapsed.

"or not as big of an issue yet", key word.

>It’s telling that the go to cope with Florence is usually to say that the Byzantines didn’t mean it and were only agreeing for political gain (which makes them all liars).

If they were "wrong about everything", then they are in error. Because the 8th council said you shouldn't add to the creed. Which had all patriarchs. And now you can add to the creed? The Horos of the 8th council was entirely on adding to the creed. And then centuries later the Pope had a tantrum and wanted more power and reversed the decision which all patriarchs agreed on.

>>16547956
>not all Orthodox patriarchs were present.

I was confused, I was thinking of the Council of Lyons. This statement may be in err.

File: ''City of God'' mosaic in(...).jpg (210 KB, 500x603)

210 KB JPG

>>16547941
>"Wherefore I write boldy to your love... and exhort you to have but ONE faith
Yep I agree.
Shame EOs cant even agree on soterology or baptism
>and ONE preaching
yep still good
>and ONE Eucharist.
Yep still going well
>For there is ONE flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ....Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being... and also one preaching... and ONE Church which the holy apostles established..."
(pg. 80, The Ante-Nicene Father Vol 1. Edited by Roberts and Donadlson)

Yep I agree with that all 100% there is ONE FAITH, ONE PREACHING ONE EUCHARIST AND ONE CHURCH.
There is not ONE INSTITUTION, there are many and in them are the faithful that comprise the ONE CHURCH that the Apostles established and the deposit of faith they left.
Anon you haven't brought an SINGLE piece of evidence I haven't used to prove myself right
You havent brought a single arugment I havent refuted.
You stand on the sand of men.
>You accidentally nuke yourself with a Bible quote
Yeah you did here (>>16547864)
>Just as when James and the apostles were divided
Which I showed here (>>16547881) how it proved my position on the Church.
Stop backpeddling like a coward.
>nd none of them have been defrocked by their bishop who lives an hour away. Not any 4 of them!
Yes that tends to be the case. I’ve learned over time that priests (EO, OO or Catholic) say a lot of stuff and hierarchy is not swift to boot them out when they give a different of opinion.
You have a false perception of the hierarchy of the Church actually works and how much the Priests actually know. They are just men in the end.
>I do not care if someone is wrongly imprisoned
Ha! you are delusional.
>I care if they are killed by the church on mass, and the church starts a war.
I've given you sauces on how they hung, burned and beheaded Christians. You won't see it because you choose to live by lies.

>>16547965
>There is not ONE INSTITUTION, there are many and in them are the faithful that comprise the ONE CHURCH that the Apostles established and the deposit of faith they left.

The whole of Ignatious indicates this. I want to do homework. I will reply to the inevitable brigade of responses later, but Ignatious also says "do not do anything outside the bishop".

His whole works indicates a need for church unity and institutional unity. To be excommunicated means to no longer have a eucharist.

Deposit of faith is a Protestant myth.

>>I do not care if someone is wrongly imprisoned
>Ha! you are delusional.

I never said that. And it wasn't wrong.

>I've given you sauces on how they hung, burned and beheaded Christians. You won't see it because you choose to live by lies.

I never said anything about the validity of these ideas, I just kept asking questions, and then responded to your question on what persecution means. I respond line by line, and I do not tend to edit my responses.

File: 1714020802142545.png (1.24 MB, 1334x750)

1.24 MB PNG

>>16547941
>>16547965
Cont.
The "orthodox" churches MURDERED the Old believers, simple as. By the rules of their own councils THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE CHURCH.
If the Russian "Orthodox" Church was persecuting the Old Believer until the 1910s then they cant be Christian. The One True Church CANNOT Persecute itself and it can in no way error. These are your canons I am holding you to account by.
You can't prove the One True Church by the Bible as I proved with Mark 9:38-41
You can't prove it by the Fathers as I proved here (>>16547965)
AND you can't uphold it by your own canons because your churches murdered their own people for using 2 fingers in the sign of the Cross.
You lose Biblically, Patristicaly and Historically

>>16547969
>The whole of Ignatious indicates this. I want to do homework.
>>16547965

I will leave this video with all the quotes done. I do not want to search for the quotes myself and compile them, for the time being. This video is good and did the work for me

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1i2Aji49ig

I watched Trent prior to Orthodoxy when I was an inquirer.

>>16547962
>Whether or not an issue is “big enough” is defined by whether the EO can successfully form a council. Therefore, if a council fails it’s because the issues to be determined didn’t matter.

This reasoning is silly. Crete was an embarrassment.

Also characterizing the Filioque controversy as “adding to the creed” shows that you either don’t know much about it or that you’re arguing in bad faith. Read Maximus the Confessor’s take on the issue, which was similar to what was adopted at Florence, and is frankly the only reasonable conclusion if you aren’t operating from the perspective of Greek autism. Even if your little conundrum made sense, Papal Supremacy was affirmed at Florence, so the Pope’s actions resolve the contradictions.

File: 0g5ksb3xsx331.png (242 KB, 1428x1198)

242 KB PNG

>>16547969
>The whole of Ignatious indicates this.
No it doesn't, you failed to provide proof their is is and can only be a single INSTITUTIONAL CHURCH.
I pointed our you "one church" is divided and asked you to pick (>>16547849 & >>16547886).
You said no and said division is irrelevant like the apostles (>>16547864).
I pointed out that that is proof that the Church transcendes institutions (>>16547881)
and all you could say was "no" and give unrelated quotes from Church Fathers on topics like works and the Eucharist (>>16547940).
That was the moment you lost and everything else has been cope.
>Ignatious also says "do not do anything outside the bishop".
Thats about Church Leadership even the Amish have bishops. In the Early Church Bishop and Elder were the same.
Jerome (347-420): A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop, and before dissensions were introduced into religion by the instigation of the devil, and it was said among the peoples, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas,’ Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters; afterwards, when everyone thought that those whom he had baptised were his own, and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed over the rest, and to whom all care of the Church should belong, that the seeds of schisms might be plucked up. Whosoever thinks that there is no proof from Scripture, but that this is my opinion, that a presbyter and bishop are the same, and that one is a title of age, the other of office, let him read the words of the apostle to the Philippians, saying, ‘Paul and Timotheus, servants of Christ to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi with the bishops and deacons.’ John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, A. W. Streane, Vol 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164

File: 1630948875847.gif (1.84 MB, 202x360)

1.84 MB GIF

>>16547972
>I watched Trent prior to Orthodoxy when I was an inquirer.
You should have stuck with Catholicism, its infinitly superior to LARPodoxy.

>>16547962
>Because the 8th council said
Half of your church can't even agree on what part of the council are binding, let alone considering there were 2 8th councils. You can't decide if all the canons are binding or just select ones.
If the Filioque was a addition, why did they agree to it at a council which fit every defintion of being ecumenical
Called by Pope and Emperor
East Patriarchs and representative present.
Everyone but one guy signs.
Boom ecumenical but no you shit the bed and buck broke by the Turks as punishment from God.
Palamites CANNOT maintain concliar infallibility. Not on a Church history level and not even within their own current churches.
And these redditor come here and claim they are the One True Institutional Church, fucking pathetic.

File: 1645867264413.gif (2.04 MB, 480x318)

2.04 MB GIF

>>16547956
>Neither is predestination
Yes it is
Ephesians 1:4-5
>According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
>Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will
Black ink, white paper.
>sola scripture
That one is too and affirmed by the Fathers.
>>All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
>But you, taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the Scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said. For they were spoken and written by God, through men who spoke of God.
(Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 56)
>But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things.
(Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt, Ch 1, 4)

>sola fide
That one is throughout the Bible, your false usage of James 2:24 here (>>16547891) doesn't disprove that.
Romans 4:4-5
>nor the papacy,
Peter is head of the Apostles, Matthew 16:18

File: 1636169875210.jpg (89 KB, 900x900)

89 KB JPG

>>16547956
>>16548011
Cont.
>>nor is the Bible canon.
You fundementally don't understand how the Bible works do you.
The Bible doesn't need to prove the Bible canon within itself. The Canon list is just the Church acknowledging it as received. The moment God chose to inspire scripture it was infallble and theopneustos (god-breathed).
>All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
The scriptures didn't need acknowledgement by humans to be scripture. The Old Testament was scripture without the Jews ever forming a Council. We receive scripture and acknowledge it as received through out canons, but men like Athanasius, Origen, Tertullion all had canon lists, which shows they understood the the scriptures were god-breathed ALL PRIOR TO THE COUNCILS.
Irenaeus declares that “the Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God and His Spirit” (AH 2.28.2). They are also said to be “divine” (from God), and God cannot err (Rom. 3:4; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).
Irenaeus also writes “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

>>16548007
Not orthodox or the person you’re replying to but was the reformation not God’s punishment? Who the fuck is he with then?

File: Screenshot from 2024-04-2(...).png (46 KB, 1203x261)

46 KB PNG

>>16548011
>>sola scripture
>That one is too and affirmed by the Fathers.

"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

None of your quotes indicate that scripture is the only infalliable authority, only that scripture is infalliable.

>Romans 4:4-5
Picrel is the mathematical formalization of that verse. It means we are accounted for righteousness supposing a person doesnt work and beliefs on Jesus.

Notice how it doesnt say the one who works not is justified. Nor that we are saved if we do not work. It says it is ACCOUNTED, not actual. Nor does righteousness syntactically lead to "we are justified by faith alone" "we are not justified by works"

James 2:24 says

"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Justified ergon kai pisteos monon.

"monon", which means alone, paired with "pistei", is found no where else in the epistles apart from here. The words "faith alone" are only in James, and it is in the negative. A man is NOT Justified by Faith alone. This is why Luther called James "an epistle of straw" and why this was the only epistle Calvin never commented on.

>Peter is head of the Apostles

Head, primate, but not supreme authority.

>>16548022
>The Canon list is just the Church acknowledging it as received.

Yeah, so it is an... infalliable tradition? Right? Not by letter, but by word?

>Irenaeus also writes “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

He also admonishes the gnostics for not following scripture NOR apostolic tradition.

>>16548007
>You can't decide if all the canons are binding or just select ones.

'Horos' means rule of faith, it is a rule of faith that the Nicene-Constantinople creed cannot have addition, subtraction, nor changes in any word or in anyway. The POPE changed his mind.

Also, apparently in Florence, the patriarch was killed days before the signing. If there is a differing opinion, either the later council was in error, or the whole church was in error.

>You said no and said division is irrelevant like the apostles

For a moment in time, when partially divided. This is what I meant by quotes.

>and all you could say was "no" and give unrelated quotes from Church Fathers on topics like works and the Eucharist

THERE IS ONE BODY OF CHRIST AND ONE EUCHARIST UNDER A BISHOP. YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE BISHOPRY HE SAYS CLEAR AS DAY.

>Jerome (347-420):

Pure cope. Ignatious makes a distinction in 80-140 AD, and you cite a church father 300 years after. Church fathers are not infalliable, and Jerome was incorrect. The quote I sent by the Smyreans says "let the deacons be subject to the presbytery and the presbetry to the bishop".

Already in the late 1st century and 2nd century the second succssor of St. Peter the apostle talked about a division between bishops and presbytery.

>Also characterizing the Filioque controversy as “adding to the creed” shows that you either don’t know much about it or that you’re arguing in bad faith.

It absolutely WAS. The 8th council, EO Photian, only talked about the creed. Said nothing about temporal or eternal procession.

>>16547971

": for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward."

Are Muslims going to heaven? What about Mormons? It was in Jesus' name?

>>16548007
>>16548038
>>16547999

From Ignatius, further:

"Correspondingly, everyone must show the deacons respect. They represent Jesus Christ, just as the bishop has the role of the Father, and the presbyters are like God’s council and an apostolic band. YOU CANNOT HAVE A CHURCH WITHOUT THESE."(letter to Trallians, 3)

>Even Amish have bishops

Most Protestants do not. The Amish are another issue. The issue was ONE church and a bishopry

On salvation outside the church:

"This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails" (Jerome, Letter 15)

"Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as mother will not have God as father" (Augustine, On the Creed: A sermon to catechumens)

"You have written to me, dearest brother, wishing that the impression of my mind should be signified to you, as to what I think concerning the BAPTISM OF HERETICS; who, placed without, and established OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, arrogate to themselves a matter NEITHER WITHIN their RIGHT nor their power....But if not even the baptism of a public confession and blood can profit a heretic to salvation, because there is NO SALVATION out of the Church."

(Letter LXXII of Cyprian of Carthage)

Cyprian of Carthage 210-258 AD

>>16547131
>Books are only burned if they actually have evidence of demonic activity
Can toilets have demonic activity too? Mine always clogs up.

>>16545683
> This DOES NOT make Christianity look any more appealing!

Have you seen the shit that man has done in the name of science.....or x, y and z - anything else for that matter?

People are mad.... which is more or less what's been preached since day 1.

>>16548026
Why would the Reformation be God's punishment?
>Who the fuck is he with then
All believing Christians. To limit him to a single institution is simply incorrect.

File: 1592066158971.gif (810 KB, 160x160)

810 KB GIF

>>16548028
>"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold on to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Can you name and provide proof of a single apostolic teaching that wasn't written down in scripture. If you can't *opinion instantly ignore*
>None of your quotes indicate that scripture is the only infalliable authority
No of your quotes prove that your church has infallible oral authority.
Ergo if you cannot provide evidence of another objectively infallible authority then we must act as tho only scripture is infalliable.

>Picrel is the mathematical formalization of.....
nope sorry I'm not addressing that for 2 reasons
1) I suck at maths
2) turning a verse into a mathmatical equation is the gayest reddit-tier thing ive ever seen.
>Notice how it doesnt say the one who works not is justified.
ARGH what is it with reddit palamites and dog shit arguments.
NO ONE IS ARGUING FOR ANTINOMIANISM!
Faith Alone saves but a saving faith IS NEVER ALONE!
>James 2:24
Again, a saving faith will never be alone. The UTTER FUCKING STATE of Palamites.
You know what, Okay I'll prove how you are misunderstanding that verse. Lets assume you are right. Man is justified by Works. Now how many works are required to be justified.
1 work
2 works
3 works
100 works
1000 works
a higher balance of good deed than bad deeds
How many anon?
If you can't answer definitively that it means you don't understand your own soteriology.

File: WaitYourSeriousGIF.gif (1.22 MB, 288x198)

1.22 MB GIF

>>16548028
>>16548532
>A man is NOT Justified by Faith alone.
CORRECT! Because a Justifying (saving faith) will
NEVER
BE
ALONE
You are shadowboxing against antinomianism.
>Yeah, so it is an... infalliable tradition?
Not scripture isn't a tradition, its infallible. It could have popped down 1 second ago and it would be infallible.
>Right? Not by letter, but by word?
The words were occuring during a time of active revelaiton so no it would have been impossible to set a canon during a time of active revelation (when they were speaking). Again you still have ZERO evidence on Apostolic teachings outside the Bible.
>He also admonishes the gnostics for not following scripture NOR apostolic tradition.
He admonishes the gnostics for pretending that scripture isn't clear, because they were LARPing and saying "no no scripture isnt clear and needs to be understood in light of apostolic teachings which we have btw". Sounds like Palamites desu.

>>16548038
>it is a rule of faith that the Nicene-Constantinople creed cannot have addition, subtraction, nor changes in any word or in anyway.
Of course it can, that Constantinople part got added to the Nicea part. Your just saying it can't know as an excuse. There was zero statment as Nicea that it couldnt be added to.
>apparently in Florence, the patriarch was killed days before the signing.
Literally irrelevant they all signed but 1. Thus it fit the defintion of an ecumencial council.
>For a moment in time
This is a cope I hear often "okay the church isnt one, but like only in time guys". By your logic the Baptists could actually be part of the One True Church and you are only currently divided in time. Cause ya never know, could turn out they are right and you will rejoin their one truth pastor jim bob church
The UTTER STATE of Palamites.

>>16548038
>>16548547
cont.
>THERE IS ONE BODY OF CHRIST
Boring, see (>>16547965)
>AND ONE EUCHARIST
yawn* see (>>16547965)
>UNDER A BISHOP. YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE BISHOPRY HE SAYS CLEAR AS DAY.
Even the Anabaptist have bishops.
You are doing a very obvious motte and bailey tactics.
(motte) The Church is One is one institution guys you are either a part of it or you aren't
(bailey) No there can be divisions, it doesn't matter. These 2 separate institution that aren't in communion thats fine, Christs singular body can be split in 2.
You are a bit of a maggot aren't you?
>Pure cope. Ignatious makes a distinction in 80-140 AD
A distiction which you don't understand
Jerome (347-420): Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.
Therefore, as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are to be subject to him who is placed over them so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment, and ought to rule the Church in common, following the example of Moses, who, when he alone had power to preside over the people Israel, chose seventy, with the assistance of whom he might judge the people. We see therefore what kind of presbyter or bishop should be ordained. John Harrison, Whose Are the Fathers? (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1867), p.488. See also Karl Von Hase, Handbook to the Controversy with Rome, trans. A. W. Streane, Vol. 1, 2nd ed. rev. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909), p. 164.
>and you cite a church father 300 years after.
Call Jerome a heretic then, I don't care.
>The quote I sent by the Smyreans says "let the deacons be subject to the presbytery and the presbetry to the bishop".
>so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment

File: 1629838508693.gif (1.63 MB, 360x270)

1.63 MB GIF

>>16548038
>>16548532
>>16548547
cont.
>Already in the late 1st century and 2nd century the second succssor of St. Peter the apostle talked about a division between bishops and presbytery.
*sighs*
of Custom. If it was a binding divine office that Jerome was denying you would have to call him a heretic.
If you call him a heretic then that means he cant be a saint
If he isnt a saint you church made a mistake
if you made a mistake your council is wrong
BOOOOOOORRRRRIIIINNGGGG
>It absolutely WAS. The 8th council, EO Photian....
Photian was a layman and a sperg and also I topic I give few shit about. I want to mock your hypcrasy on Le One True Church concept.
>Are Muslims going to heaven? What about Mormons? It was in Jesus' name?
:))
Are Russians?
Are Greeks?
One of the Sides has to be outside the Church and is against the Other Church.
So how about you ACTUALLY FINALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION, and then, I will happily and swiftly answer yours.
No more motte and bailey bullshit. Just honesty.
You have been flip flopping all day anon.

>Most Protestants do not.
Many have Presbyters, which fulfill the role needed. Bishop is just a customary honorific but again don't care, ONE TRUE CHURCH IDEA.
>The Amish are another issue.
They are great aren't they. Orthopraxy compared with your LARPodxoy.
>The issue was ONE church and a bishopry
Which you keep flip flopping on and lying about. 1 Minute its an institution the next it can extend past a schsim of institutions.
Odd that, almost like you have no actual consistent principles.

>On salvation outside the church:
>"This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails" (Jerome, Letter 15)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So who is outside the ark? the slavoids or the greekoids
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

File: 1.png (149 KB, 634x650)

149 KB PNG

>>16548038
I'm going to go to bed but by tomorrow I expect a clear answer on which of the institutions in schism (the Russian Church or the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece, Cyprus Churches) are the One True Church and which are damned heretics.
If you can't answer that simple question then I will be satisfied you have no consistent theology and are not a serious person.

>thread about how only insane abrahamics see meaningful differences in their death cult sects and how everyone else doesn't
>they spend it arguing over which branch is real and which isn't instead of reflecting for even a second

>>16545683
to make it easier lets just put anything done by Christians, Jews, Muslims or Freemasons down to Abrahamism

File: Screenshot from 2024-04-2(...).png (122 KB, 1276x650)

122 KB PNG

>>16548547
>CORRECT! Because a Justifying (saving faith) will
>NEVER
>BE
>ALONE
>You are shadowboxing against antinomianism.


(1) It still says We are not justified by faith alone. So "Sola fide" is a manmade addition to scripture which contradicts scripture

(2) By this I assume you think Dead faith does not save a person?

Let use look at the following verses (picrel is the formalization of them)

Romans 3:28 says "A man Justified pistei choris ergon (of the law)"

δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων (νόμου)

James 2:26 implies "pistis choris ergon IS necra"

Therefore, pistei chrois ergon is Dead AND Justifies us. So, scripture interprets scripture and Dead faith Justifies us! The phrase "faith choris works" is only found in James and Romans 3:28.

And, where is this idea of a "Saving faith"? Is there a Bible verse showing this? For we follow SOLA SCRIPTURA, and not tradtions of men, correct? Isn't that right!

>Not scripture isn't a tradition, its infallible.

The Canon is. Where in scripture does it say the Gospel of Thomas is not scripture? Or Maccabees, or Tobit, Or Judith? Where does it say The Gospel of Judas, Mary, Acts of Pilat, Sherperd of Hermas is not scripture? If scritpure is the only infalliable authority, then the canons must be in there! Otherwise it is tradition.

>The words were occuring during a time of active revelaiton so no it would have been impossible to set a canon during a time of active revelation

Hmmm, I wonder if that applies to anything else? Or maybe youre just being selective!

>Literally irrelevant they all signed but 1

The Patriarch of Constantinople died prior to it being signed, the Pope said he signed it for him, which is suspicious. Do you know what a Robber council is and how the Anti-photian council worked (people there were beaten into submission to conform to the decisions of a select authority).

>>16548547
>This is a cope I hear often "okay the church isnt one, but like only in time guys". By your logic the Baptists could actually be part of the One True Church and you are only currently divided in time. Cause ya never know,

False, they are deemed heretics and were excommunicated. Paul never excommunicated other apostles, nor apostles did him. This is a different paradigm. The church always tends to be divided until an eccumenical council, hence why they're convened.

>Again, a saving faith will never be alone

Where does it say that? Can you find a verse that interprets scripture that says that "saving faith", or "σῴζω pistei"? Where in the Bible does it talk about "saving faith", and where in the Bible say that "works accompany faith", where does it say that "faith is never alone"?

Where does it say "pistei is never monon?"

> Now how many works are required to be justified.

How many works are needed to demonstrate a saving faith? How many sins to know that a person never had saving faith?

1 work
2 works
3 works
100 works?

The laity will be saved in the end if they die at a state of Grace. Each Confession and Eucharist washes the sins of the man and cleanses their soul from sin. We have a degree of assurance of salvation if we are to die in such a grace. Having taken the divine Eucharist and having Confessions properly, with contrite repentance.

>Can you name and provide proof of a single apostolic teaching that wasn't written down in scripture.

Wait? I thought scripture interprets scripture? What is this? You are blatantly ignoring scripture saying right there that by word or letter we hold onto Tradition?! And yet, you, will not concede?

You see I dont need to find apostolic teaching, because it IS Apostolic, it IS written in scripture, right there. Furthermore, nowhere does the Orthodox church state that every tradtion need be enumerated. Our own foundations do not conform to this crtieria (You) forced upon me. I do not need to play

>>16548532
>>16549203
I WILL however, give you quotes, since there is an adbunance of them!

“At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition” (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 4:21)

“That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF TRADITION, which was handed down to those to whom they ENTRUSTED BY THE CHURCHES?” (ibid., 3:4:1).


“Again we write, again keeping to the APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS, we remind each other when we come together for prayer; and keeping the feast in common, with one mouth we truly give thanks to the Lord” (Festal Letters 2:7 [A.D. 330]).

>No there can be divisions, it doesn't matter. These 2 separate institution that aren't in communion thats fine, Christs singular body can be split in 2.

False. If a two people who consider themselves to be THE church are not in communion, one of the institutions are the church, and the other is not. For there is ONE Eucharist. Meaning, for an institution to be part of "the church" they must be able to partake in communion with one another. This is what I was trying to say, and you didn't read Ignatius clearly.

>>16548565
>A distiction which you don't understand
>Jerome (347-420): Therefore, as we have shown, among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person.

Then this doesnt matter and doesnt hurt the point. Let everyone be subject to the bishop and let every church have this distinction.

>Call Jerome a heretic then, I don't care.

A heretic is apart from being wrong

https://www.catholic.com/qa/church-fathers-are-not-infallible

>The quote I sent by the Smyreans says "let the deacons be subject to the presbytery and the presbetry to the bishop".
>so let the bishops know that they are above presbyters rather by custom than by Divine appointment

"It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer sacrifce (communion)" (Chapter 8, Smyrneans Ignatius)

"Be ye subject to the bishop, as to the Lord...It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things ye do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be yet subject to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Christ..." (Trallians, Ignatius)

^Above shows the nature of the distinction. Bishops have a highest authority doctrinally than the prebsytery.

> If it was a binding divine office that Jerome was denying you would have to call him a heretic.
>If you call him a heretic then that means he cant be a saint

Strawman and FALSE. Nobody in the Orthodox church believes this is true. Church fathers are NOT infallible. Stop arguing something the Orthodox church doesnt argue. STRAWMAN.

>So how about you ACTUALLY FINALLY ANSWER MY QUESTION, and then, I will happily and swiftly answer yours.

No no no pal. You're the one who sent me that Mark verse about people baptizing in Jesus' name. And I finally responded. (YOU) now have to answer my question on what this verse means.

But I will say: yes, they are equally in the body of Christ (the russians and the greeks), since laity can still partake in communion.

>>16548590
>Bishop is just a customary honorific but again don't care,

Ignatius says "Do nothing without the bishop", this cannot be the case, otherwise "The Gates of Hades have prevailed", in like what... 40 years? Wow, didn't take long. And God just sat and waited patiently for 1400 years to correct his mistakes via some monk who:

(1) Married a nun
(2) Advocated burning down catholic churches
(3) Never made a prediction about the future (see the Torah and criteria for a prophet)
(4) Removed 7 books from the Bible of his own church
(5) contemplated removing the epistle of James from his Bible
(6) added the word "alluen" to Romans 3:28, when it wasn't there in the first place.

>So who is outside the ark? the slavoids or the greekoids

You and every Protestant.

>>16548600
>I expect a clear answer on which of the institutions in schism (the Russian Church or the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece, Cyprus Churches) are the One True Church and which are damned heretics.

All of them are part of the same body of Christ, as laity can still commune. It is the priests which cannot commune with one another. Supposing the schism continued, then we would have a situation like asking whether the Latin church or Eastern Orthodox church is the body.

File: IMG_6171.png (48 KB, 680x284)

48 KB PNG

>>16549203
>What is this? You are blatantly ignoring scripture saying right there that by word or letter we hold onto Tradition?! And yet, you, will not concede?
The great archbishop of Jerusalem Cyril provided the final DEATH Knell in the anti-scripture alone coffin. He showed that the true patristic interpretation of St. Paul’s words concerning “hold fast to the traditions you were taught" 2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition but rather about the creedal statements handed on and taken SOLELY FROM SCRIPTURE

Cat. Lect 5.12, 4.17 and 12.5
>>16549263
It is always amusing to see the slander people say about Luther. It is usually a litmus test on whether they are an idiot and know nothing about history.

>>16549783

>It is usually a litmus test on whether they are an idiot and know nothing about history.

Alright, then tell me which part I got wrong! Which parts were factually incorrect! Go on. Or do you need me to send you sources and show how utterly wrong you are.


>blah blah blah I will use church fathers despite scritpure alone being true

You have no grounds to cite the church fathers. Scripture interprets scripture. So, what use is it to use a church father? And you have no grounds to use against the Orthodox, as they are not seen as infalliable. I sent my verses and supposing your interpretation is right, they are in opposition. "Let us not look to the fathers and see what scripture is about".

"2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition"

This is one church father, and you cherrypick which one you like. If you want a holistic review of how it was interpreted:

https://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/FathersScripIndex/texts.php?id=53002015

"Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle(6). And to the Corinthians he writes, Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you" (https://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactiv.html#BOOK_IV_CHAPTER_XVII)

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the TRADITION OF THE APOSTLES and the apostolic seat, “that our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, may comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good work and word.” (https://catholiclibrary.org/library/view?docId=Fathers-EN/anf.000270.TheDecretals.TheEpistleofPopeAnterus.html&chunk.id=00000003)

But, even so, addressing your quotation:

This still doesn't resolve traditions.

>>16549959
>>16549783
... still doesn't resolve traditions.

Indeed, a person ought not depart from scripture, but what does it mean when Jesus said "I am the Son of God", is he a demi-God? Full God? Where in the scriptures, do tell me, does it explictly say Christ has two natures.

One must infer these things BY reason. And one can only have assurance BY the HOLY SPIRIT.

And, again, you are on no grounds to use the fathers other than for historical proof of something existing and something being the case.

I have demonstrated through the fathers: an episcopate existed and the majority of the church converged on the idea of no salvation outside the church.

You quote church fathers like you cherrypick verses of the Bible.

And, again, you have failed to demonstrate to everyone which of the scriptures ARE infalliable. What writings makes scripture scripture? No council even had a notion, not even by Cyril's time, of a canon. All of this was VIA traditions and held by the aposotolic catholic, holy church.

"Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation." (2 Peter 1:10)

You have failed to show in the Bible where scripture says only scripture is the valid authority, instead you cherry picked one church father on this matter, which does not deny the need for the church to interpret nor set the bounds for scripture. Paul constantly corrected the churches saying "dont do this" "dont do that", and guess what...? A lot of the time he used reason and the tradition which Jesus bestowed upon the apostles.

Where in the Old Testament is there anything about head coverings? Where is there anything about female pastorhood? Where is there anything about men being the head? Where is there anything about only divorcing if a person commits adultery? Often his ideas used reason to connect points he was bestowed from Jesus and Scripture.

>>16549783
Final point, I realized how silly this is

"2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition but rather about the creedal statements "

Where in the verse does it say anything about creedal statments? Was there creeds of faith going around at that time of the writing? Why didn't paul say anything about councils in his letters or creedal statements then?

Also, it literally says that


"Hold fast to the traditions (παραδόσεις), whether by word (logou), or by letters(epistelous) by us"

Oh my goodness! It even makes a distinction between EPISTLES! It is in the greek, "Epistelous". It means that there are things outside the EPISTLES (Letters) that need to be held!

Anyways, it says hold fast to traditions if tradition is by logou or by epistles

Tradition is "paradoseis".

Word tradition by us: [speech, reason, utterance] tradition by [the apostles/church]

https://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/2-15.htm

File: IMG_6172.png (31 KB, 680x209)

31 KB PNG

>>16549959
>Which parts were factually incorrect!
All of them. For (2) I have no idea at all where that is from. The rest I know are wrong.
>You have no grounds to cite the church fathers.
You have no grasp on what scripture alone means. The church fathers are still an authority for the church along with your pastor, or confession of faith.
>this is one church father.
I too was in denial like you. I was DESPERATE for answers. Even though I had begun to see that Protestantism was TRUE I still did not want to act on it. Some people tried to explain away by pointing to St. Athanasius’ praise of traditions and their necessity. I SO wanted to explain this away but when I considered how Athanasius defined Scripture as something HANDED DOWN (paradosis, i.e. tradition) then I saw that he did indeed confess the Protestant view because in the HANDED DOWN divine books are ALONE the doctrine of godliness. Hilary of Poitiers, the Great Western Champion against the Arians concurred, Hilary on the Trinity 4.14

File: IMG_6174.png (92 KB, 680x567)

92 KB PNG

>>16550119
Additionally, Basil the Great straight out denies that the teachings of the faith can be sought in other places than in the Holy Scriptures and he respects no traditions except those that agree with Holy Scripture. Basil of Caesarea, Concerning Faith, St Basil Ascetical Works p. 57 and 58-59

>>16550027
>Where in the verse does it say anything about creedal statments?
What parts of the creed are not in scripture? Did you even read the the quote. The tradition in the verse is about what we know from scripture. Not traditions that is found outside of the Bible.

>>16550119
>All of them.

(1) Married a nun

Katharina von Bora

"After years of being a nun, von Bora became interested in the growing reform movement... Martin Luther, as well as many of his friends, was at first unsure of whether he should marry. Philip... thought that this would hurt the Reformation by causing scandal. Luther eventually decided that his marriage would 'please his father, rile the pope, cause the angels to laugh, and the devils to weep'."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharina_von_Bora#Marriage_to_Luther

(2) Advocated burning down catholic churches

"In two later works, Luther expressed anti-Judaistic views, calling for the expulsion of Jews and the burning of synagogues...These works also targeted Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and nontrinitarian Christians."

(https://archive.org/details/luthersworks0035unse/page/n455/mode/2up)

(3) Never made a prediction about the future (see the Torah and criteria for a prophet)

Unfalsifiable, but apparent

(4) Removed 7 books from the Bible of his own church

The Protestant Bible is the Catholic Bible apart from: Tobit, Sirach, 1&2Macabbees, Psalm 151, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Esther, and Baruch.

"Though included, they were not numbered in the table of contents of his 1532 Old Testament, and in the 1534 Bible they were given the well-known title: "Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#View_of_canonicity

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2022/04/why-are-protestant-catholic-and-orthodox-bibles-different/

1/2

>>16550119
(5) contemplated removing the epistle of James from his Bible

"Therefore St. James epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it". (Luther's Works, Vol. 35, pg 362)

"Initially Luther had a low view of the Old Testament book of Esther and of the New Testament books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation of John. He called the Letter of James "an epistle of straw", finding little in it that pointed to Christ and his saving work. He also had harsh words for the Revelation of John, saying that he could "in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#Mistranslations_and_controversies
https://archive.org/details/luthersworks0035unse/page/n455/mode/2up


(6) added the word "alluen" to Romans 3:28, when it wasn't there in the first place.


"The Luther Bible (German: Lutherbibel) is a German language Bible translation by the Protestant reformer Martin Luther. A New Testament translation by Luther was first published in September 1522, and the completed Bible, containing a translation of the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, in 1534. "

In the Luther Bible:

"So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, ALLEIN durch den Glauben" (Romans 3:28)


^It adds "allein", which isnt found in Romans 3:28. It adds another word in general, which is an adjective, not a preposition or verb quantifier, a completely new adjective.


"Luther controversially added the word "alone" (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 so that it read: "So now we hold, that man is justified without the help of the works of the law, alone through faith".[24] The word "alone" does not appear in the Greek texts"

Luther Bible:
https://www.ntslibrary.com/Bible%20-%20German%20Luther%20Translation.pdf

https://archive.org/details/lutherbibel1535

Wiki Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible#Mistranslations_and_controversies

>>16550119
>You have no grasp on what scripture alone means.

"INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS. Wherefore we do not
despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor re-
ject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as
they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them
when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether
contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any
wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not
have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command
us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept
what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement." (Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter II)

"The infallible standard for the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. And so any question about the true and complete sense of a passage in the Bible (which is a unified whole) can be answered by referring to other passages which speak more plainly." (Westminster Confession of Faith for the EPC church)

"The Bible is its own interpreter, and so we compare Scripture with Scripture. The Bible is a unity of truth and contains no real contradictions. When, therefore, there is a question about the true meaning or full sense of any part of the Bible, it must be determined by other parts that speak more clearly." (Baptist Confession of faith, 1966)

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith


https://ccel.org/creeds/helvetic.htm

Sola scripture Means Scripture interprets scripture. The church fathers are not a valid authority if they contradict scripture.

>then I saw that he did indeed confess the Protestant view because in the HANDED DOWN divine books are ALONE the doctrine of godliness

Infalliable holy tradition is a stronger supposition. Supposing holy tradition is infalliable, we see that holy tradition says itself is infalliable. 2/3

>>16550119
...Again, no where in scripture does it say that scripture is the alone infalliable authority.

Supposing sola scriptura, we find the opposite that in scripture it says to hold onto tradition by word and letter.

On Hilary: No where are the words "scripture alone" used and nowhere does it say "they use traditions apart fom scripture", nor does it say "scripture is the only authority". It says people PERVERT scripture, just like Protestants and Calvinists PERVERT scripture by saying we are jusitified by faith alone.

>>16550132
On Basil: Once again, one church father. This doesn't break Orthodox presuppositions, and we have other quotes from other church fathers.

NOW, this being said, this is more aligned with the Orthodox view of things. The Orthodox believe they are following the apostolic faith, while the Catholics believe they may add to the faith. The Orthodox believe they are interpreting scripture and thus do not see things like 'angeology' as dogmatic, as much of it is entirely out of scripture. All things which are infalliable are related to scripture and the Orthodox will insist on not developing doctrine, so this is in align to that.

>>16550193
>What parts of the creed are not in scripture?

A lot of the parts of the creed was in scripture. This is a strawman of what I was saying. You said:

>2 Thess. 2:15 were NOT ABOUT unwritten oral tradition but rather about the creedal statements handed on and taken SOLELY FROM SCRIPTURE

And I am saying that this is not found in scripture. There is no ideas of a "creed" or "creedal statements", those words aren't in the epistles and Paul doesn't talk about such things. These ideas only existed after the apostles, and this isn't relevant.

You are also adding to scripture, it says "by word or epistle", where does it say "by word, which is solely reliant on scripture"? Where? Where does it say that? I cant seem to find this!

It says logou OR epistelous, if you indicate that logou is from scripture then..

>>16546560
>those fucking Christians why cant they just be a monolithic block that all think alike whit no schism whatsoever like every other major faiths in the world
you sound like a retard faggot anon

>>16550193
...Then Paul wasn't saying anything, but that is (You) interpreting scripture, once again.

How do we know whether or not oral tradition is infalliable as scripture or not? How can your epistemology show that? It cannot. You have to suppose this fact and deny Pentecost and the preservation of the church and interpret "the Gates of Hades shall not prevail" means something else.

As to which parts of the creed: Christ and his two natures and his "consubstantiality" with the Father. The greek word for "consubstantial" is:

ὁμοούσιος, which is "homoousios"

You will NOT find this word in the Bible. In the same context of the creed. This is the closest resemblance: "homoios"

https://biblehub.com/greek/3664.htm

By your own standard,>>16550132

We therefore conclude consubstantiality is an extraterpolation of Scripture and therefore is not infalliable! By youre own quote! Unless it means something else!

Second we find the word "essence" (οὐσία) nowhere in the Bible either! So we cannot be certain that God is one essence, nor that Jesus is the same 'ousia' with the Father.

(https://biblehub.com/greek/3776.htm)

I am finished writing, for now

File: IMG_5975.jpg (81 KB, 720x577)

81 KB JPG

>>16550792
>(1)
She wanted to leave the monastery. Her father forced her into the monastery and vows that bind the conscious are not pleasing to God. Luther did not Mary a nun. He married Katherine after she left.
>(3)
Luther never claimed to be a prophet. Even you can’t find anything about it so you’re just making shit up.
>(4)
See pic related. He never removed anything and was being conservative by following the example of the church fathers.
>(5)
He questioned its canonicity. Which wasn’t novel or bad for the time. Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan also questioned its canonicity. There are even church fathers that questioned its canonicity.

>>16550805
>(6)
Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. fitzmyer writes concerning this topic: "Two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him."
fitzmyer lists the following in support of Luther's translation: John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Origen, Hillary, Basil, Ambrosiaster, Bernard, Theophylact, Theodoret, Thomas Aquinas, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine. The issue to Luther was a translation issue far more than a doctrinal issue in his translation of Romans 3:28. He was simply striving to bring the precision of the Greek into the German. Paul is setting up an exclusive statement. "We conclude that a person is declared righteous."
But then Paul front-shifts the instrumental dative for emphasis (prolepsis) out of its normal position. So we would add weight and emphasis to this by saying something like,
"We conclude that a person is declared righteous by faith!!!"
Next Paul continues with a very strong ablative aduerb (xwpis). We would express this in English by saying something like, "without any sort of law-works at all!"
When anyone claims that Luther added a word to the German it carries with it the unspoken assumption (accusation) that he added to the meaning of the Greek. This is simply not the case.

>>16550805
>(6) cont.
You're repeating a myth (lie)

>The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
>
> At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
>
>Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
>
>Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
>Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
>Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
>Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
>John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
>Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
>Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

>Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

>>16550833
>Sola scripture Means Scripture interprets scripture. The church fathers are not a valid authority if they contradict scripture.
scripture alone means the Bible is the sole infallible authority. Scripture interpreting scripture is one principle among three for reading the Bible without making mistakes. These principles are at least implicitly taught by the Bible itself, so it cannot be said that using them involves the imposition of foreign or unwarranted rules. You just have no grasp on what it means.

roman catholicism=pedophile cult
history reveals this

>>16545683
>horrible shit Christians have done
because the person saying this is usually from a race that still practices human sacrifice or child prostitution.

>>16550962
you just described every democrat run city

>>16550897

(1) "Katharina had lived in convents since she was very young, placed there by her parents who were too poor to supply her dowry. Unhappy there, Katharina found both the opportunity and inspiration to escape when the Protestant Reformation began to spread. She and several other nuns secretly contacted Martin Luther and asked for help to escape the monastery. Luther obliged."

https://breakpoint.org/the-remarkable-story-of-katharina-von-bora-wife-to-martin-luther/

He still married a nun. And, helping someone is one thing. Marrying someone who you helped escape is another. Evidence of lustful thinking and an unrepressed urge for the passions. Many Church father saints were celibate, as was Paul and Jesus himself was celibate.

(3)
>Luther never claimed to be a prophet. Even you can’t find anything about it so you’re just making shit up.

I never claimed he claimed to be a prophet, I was appealing to this law:

“But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him” (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

What Made Jesus justified was he fufilled this qualification and through his Ressurection showed himself to be God.

>See pic related. He never removed anything and was being conservative by following the example of the church fathers.

(i) He Removed it relative to the church of his time

(ii) The Septuigant (LXX) has existed since before 0 AD, and was the standard text which the apostles used in their quotations

(iii) You are probably cherry picking church fathers.

>(5)

Which is exaclty what is the essence of what I said..

>>16550897
>There are even church fathers that questioned its canonicity.

Then why don't you question it? Is this supposed to aid in your point? What is the justification of the Biblical canon if it isn't found in scripture?

>(6)
>Blah blah blah cope cope cope, even though he is right

So you said "all of them" with respect to what I said was false, and you now decide to cope and justify him adding the adverb to the text.

>Next Paul continues with a very strong ablative aduerb (xwpis).
>When anyone claims that Luther added a word to the German it carries with it the unspoken assumption (accusation)
>This is simply not the case.

Anon, we discussed this. In James 2:24 the word for "alone" is "monon". Alone is an adverb. No greek word indicated anything of the sort.

Now let us actually look at James 2:26 and see if Luther did the same treatment.

Again, Romans 3:28

δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου
(Justified pistei anthropon choris ergon nomou)

(Justified faith man without works law(gent.))

James 2:17

πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν
(pistis choris ergon nekra estin)

(faith without works dead is)

Luther Translation of James 2:17:

Denn gleichwie der Leib ohne Geist tot ist, also ist auch der Glaube ohne Werke tot

Ok, Ok... hmmm. Where is allein! How strange, doesn't "choris" imply "alone"! Rules for thee and not for me I guess!

You sly serpent. You will not twist scripture you coping heretic. Repent and admit all of what you said was fucking bullshit. You are just like the LGBT community who reinterpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 and Romans for their own devilish and selfish purposes.

This is ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and you know it. ACTUAL COPE.

LUTHER

ADDED

FAITH

ALONE

okay I just skimmed the thread
you guys are giving leftist memes a run for their money

>>16545683
>Why the fuck whenever people point out the horrible shit some atheists did in the past do people resort to sectarian shitflinging like "oh those fucking Bolsheviks/National Socialists/Khmer Rouge/ Spanish Anarchists" This DOES NOT make Atheism look any more appealing!
>Man what these Bolsheviks did in Russia really disgusts me
>Oh those were the FUCKING Commies dude you're not looking at the right sect

Wow that was easy

>>16550909
>You're repeating a myth (lie)

It is not a lie, he "added", whether you want to twist my words and misuse terms for "added", the word "allein". He put that in there. He added the word in his own greek interpretation. In James 2:24 he translated it:

"So sehet ihr nun, daß der Mensch durch die Werke gerecht wird,
nicht durch den Glauben allein"

He at least admitted it said Allein, which he translated from NOMON. NOMON is not in the Greek for Romans 3:28.

https://www.ntslibrary.com/Bible%20-%20German%20Luther%20Translation.pdf

>>16550936
>Scripture interpreting scripture is one principle among three for reading the Bible without making mistakes.

In the Reformed Catechisms (PCUSA compilation of Confessions of faith) if you do "ctrl+F" on "interpret" those quotes:

"The interpretation of Scripture, we
confess, does not belong to any private or public person, not yet to any
Kirk for pre-eminence or precedence, personal or local, which it has
above others, but pertains to the Spirit of God by whom the Scriptures
were written. When controversy arises about the right understanding of
any passage or sentence of Scripture, or for the reformation of any abuse
within the Ki. of God, we ought not so much to ask what men have said
or done before us, as what the Holy Ghost uniformly speaks within the
body of the Scriptures and what Christ Jesus himself did and commanded.
For it is agreed by all that the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of unity,
cannot contradict himself. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theo-
logian.. or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in
any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the
true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils,
realms, and nations have approved and received.. We dare not receive or
admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our
faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love." (Scots Confession)

>>16551033
>>16550936

"THE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. The apostle Peter has
said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation (II Peter
1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations. Nor conse-
quently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the
Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is,
what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be
thrust upon all for acceptance. But we hold that interpretation of the
Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scrip-
tures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were
written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set
down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of
many and clearer passages) and which agree with the rule of faith and
love, and contributes much to the glory of God and man’s salvation.
5.011INTERPRETATIONS OF THE HOLY FATHERS. Wherefore we do not
despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor re-
ject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as
they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them
when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether
contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any
wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not
have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command
us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept
what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement." (Helvetic)

>>16551043
"The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scrip-
ture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and
full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be
searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.20
10. The Supreme Judge, by whichg all controversies of religion
are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient
writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and
in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit
speaking in the Scripture." (Westminster)

>>16550936
>Scripture interpreting scripture is one principle among three for reading the Bible without making mistakes.

No where in the Reformed confessions, does it say this. And the Bible either says nothing in align with the confessions (making them self refuting) or they contradict the confessions

>>16551043
>said that the Holy Scriptures are not of private interpretation
>2 Peter 1: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
It says prophecy, not scripture.

guys, you are talking to someone who thinks demons and magic are real, instead of sending him to /x/.

>>16552007
If you believe in God, you must believe in demons. Any Christian or Abrahamic adherent which says otherwise is in denial and just wants to look cool.