The Church of England follows some church traditions and even describes itself catholic, it's not very strict and is really in the middle between sects.

>>16880585
Those are traditions they think conform to the Bible, they just toss away everything they think isn't with the Bible, so, they're pretty much scripture based only believers.

>>16880563
roman catholicism isn't christian, and they don't claim to be christians either. Why are they here?

>>16880599
Hi, I'm catholic, not only we claim to be christians, but we claim to be the real ones lol.
You know, only in america catholicism isn't considered as christian, if you come in Europe and you say to an orthodox or a catholic that they aren't christian you'll just look like a jehova witness or a mormon to us, if that isn't already the case lmao.

>>16880609
okay, completely irrelevant to anything in reality. Jehova's witnessess and mormoms were started by roman catholicism too, and they function like it, because they are one and the same.

>>16880648
How are jws the cause of catholics...? Jehova witnesses just took the Bible, scripture only, ignored what the first christians believed and got their own interpretation of the Bible just like the lutherans or the baptists did.

>>16880655
You're the european, you're supposed to know everything on the planet off-hand. Why don't you ask your neighbors Abdul or Muhammad about it and discuss it with them?

>>16880563
I like how not having random bullshit added to things that never called for it is somehow a bad thing now.

>>16880662
just go back to your congregation/family reunion aahhh religion and leave the apostolic christians alone.
Study what we believe or don't talk about it. I know that when people say we worship Mary or stuff like that they just never digged in what we believe

>>16880673
Study what? By who? Pedo VIII, or Faggot IV?

>>16880670
That's because sola scriptura is an invented idea, there was no concept that christianity should only be based on what it says in the bible before late medieval times. The bible was complementary to tradition.

>>16880701
Christianity was attacked and subverted so many times by several different cults since it was created at the beginning of time. Tradition as a word doesn't even mean anything in this context.

>>16880715
But your holy book was never edited?

>>16880724
Edited by what? The Bible was there in beginning
>John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The Word was Jesus, who is the author of everything. If you don't believe the Bible, you believe in a separate God, and a different religion.

>>16880753
You're relying on faith your holy book wasn't edited then, as catholics rely on faith that the tradition wasn't edited.

>>16880767
There is no faith though, in what I said, or what you're saying. You're an esl, and it shows.

>>16880803
Your argument for sola scripture is that you twisted a verse to be in support of it, that's faith.

>>16880609
>if you come in Europe and you say to an orthodox or a catholic that they aren't christian you'll just look like a jehova witness or a mormon to us, if that isn't already the case lmao.
Why should anyone care what Europeans think? They’re basically all sodomites by association.
America is where civilization (and Christianity - synonyms, really) moved to after Europe. Europe has been dead for a while. America is now dying. I wonder where civilization will move further. Probably some enclave in* America.
That said, Europe is fodder.

>>16880924
I'm sorry but that is completely delusional. While it is true europe has become completely atheist and secular, it wasn't the case before WW2. And while we have kept high education and civilisation everywhere, you guys are just a very rich country filled with 3rd world country people. Americans barely know anything, wether it's geography, science, a lot of them are really uneducated. And that's the same for religion, you guys have no idea what you're talking about. Basically in Europe we maintain the tradition that we'hve had for 2000 years. All your congregationist, methodist, episcopalian, baptist and all the other bs late christian denominations is completely unrooted from the basic christian principles, such as mass for example. Even the lutherans have mass, how can you claim that you're a christian when you don't have mass and the eucharist? You guys claim to follow the Bible, but the Bible is SO clear about the fact that the bread we partake in and the wine we drink is the body and the blood of Christ. And guess what, it needs a priest to turn them into the body of Christ, and priests always existed. There never was such thing as a pastor before. The christianity you always knew from tv shows and your culture since a kid is an illusion, the foreign christianity with statues of mary, icones, and mass, is the actual christianity that was practiced for centuries. Period.

File: jpeg.jpg (221 KB, 800x1206)

221 KB JPG

>>16881032
>Basically in Europe we maintain the tradition that we'hve had for 2000 years.
In a sense, you're correct. But that doesn't make you right*

>>16880594
nah they're catholic through and through. they reject one single teaching, which isn't really enough to differentiate them unless you have autism

File: Michael Servertus burns a(...).jpg (314 KB, 765x1024)

314 KB JPG

Seduce christians into infighting. Have christians destroy christian property. Make christians blood sacrifice one another. Have a Kenyan protestant go and vandalise an Ethiopian tewahedo church. Possess a KJV-only-ist to go stab an NIV street preacher through the heart. Stoke a sectarian conflict between Namibian protestants and Angolan catholics. Make an Angolan inquisitor tire-necklace a Zambian pentecostal into charcoal. Have a sedevacantist push a mainstream catholic bishop out of a window in Prague. Have Russian Orthodox under the spell of the Protocols of Zion send Baptists to Siberia. Have Jesus himself say 'the Father is greater than I' in front of John Calvin while Michael Servetus sheds tears into his own charring flesh in the background. Have a Septuagint reader plant a yellow star on a Masoretic Text user. Send Jeanne d'Arc to Bohemia to hack off some Hussite heads. Turn her into a piece of swiss cheese with muskets from behind a wagon fort. Send a protestant son-of-a-settler into an Irish catholic pub and have them play minecraft. Magically switch Magdeburg 1631 and Constantinople 1204 around and have Landsknechts violate purpleborn princesses. Have a KJV-only-ist point out that the NIV is published by Zondervan, child of HarperCollins, child of News Corp and therefore is a Synagogue of Satan counterfeit. Have Sky News and Fox News journalists gangstalk the KJVOist until the latter does something they can't take back. Have an ESV reader bitch and moan about how everything is tending to a second Great Depression. Make the NIV reader accuse the ESVr of economic demoralization. Have an NLT reader anxiously pass by. Send a polite Nestle-Aland critic to mediate between the NIVr and ESVr and give the NLTr some hope. Have a Tupolev fire a KH-101 blessed by a Russian Orthodox priest blow them into smithereens. Cultivate a new protestant-orthodox sectarianism while catholics stare on hungrily as if at boys. Have christendom vaporize christendom with a raygun.

>>16881046
Bruh idk what you smoke but what you wrote is freaking hilarious

>>16880563
>"written tradition only"
>relies on oral tradition to know which books are from the Apostles
lol

>>16881095
Yeah? It's the best way to do? Saint Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Saint John. Who better could we trust to know what books and letters are authentic?

>>16880648
> Jehova's witnessess and mormoms were started by roman Catholicism too,
No they weren't. They are offshoots of protestant and reformist traditions. This claim is just bizarre.

>>16881104
>Saint Iraneus was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of Saint John.
Is a claim very few secular historians take seriously.

>>16881124
ok, whatever you say.

>>16880563
the sola scriptura crowd has completely splintered
christianity is now almost a religion of 1

>>16880563

>We have no connection to the Catholic church! Its all the Bible!

Trinitarianism.
All those "independent" sects follow the Trinitarian theology of the early Roman church. It's not found in the Bible, it all comes from church history.
Cringe sects like the JW and Mormans have a better claim to being independent than Baptists and Lutherans lol

>>16881596
Yet JWs and mormans are closer to roman catholicism than baptists, as they imitate their theology, because they are one and the same religion. Lutherans likewise are just roman catholics from 500 years ago. But considering how aggressively dishonest you are, I'm assuming you don't care about the reality of things.

>>16881621
>Yet JWs and mormans are closer to roman catholicism than baptists, as they imitate their theology, because they are one and the same religion.
Crazy talk. JW's have just as low an opinion of Catholicism as you do.
>Lutherans likewise are just roman catholics from 500 years ago
Except for all that stuff they disagree with The Catholics about. Do you think the Lutherians, Mormons and JW's are taking orders from the Pope in secret?

>>16881104
That's a church tradition too

>>16880563
how are Eastern and Oriental Orthodox different? the names mean the same

>>16880701
it's a logical cope, I mean idea, since there isn't such a thing as experimental theology, you cannot either observe gawd or devise and perform experiments to figure out his properties. oral tradition is a mixture of chinese whispers and making up shit to help with the current issue. so all you have is the bible.

>>16880563
Sedevacantists are just evangelical Christians larping

>>16880609
>, if you come in Europe and you say to an orthodox or a catholic that they aren't christian you'll just look like a jehova witness or a mormon to us
Mutt. "Christian" and "Catholic" are separate categories in the protestant parts of Europe.

>>16880563
There has been a recent schism in the eastern orthodox church because of the Russia Ukraine conflict.

>>16880563
I kind of have to agree with this. Christianity with oral tradition is already dumb, but it becomes completely bonkers when you rely on scripture alone. For example, the scripture makes it very clear that yehowah is not omnipotent.

>>16882443
I live in a protestant part of europe and never heard this. are you sure you aren't making shit up based on your flyover state frog-perspective?

>>16882443
nah. "christian" is used as an abstraction. people aren't christians but catholics, lutherans, calvinists etc.

>>16882447
>For example, the scripture makes it very clear that yehowah is not omnipotent.
worse: it both claims he is omnipotent and shows that he is not. the entire bible is about either how not everything happens as he wants or about what is it that he wants. on the other hand, "with god all things are possible", including creating false history from scratch (turning stones into sons of abraham, although john the baptist might have been mistaken there).

Anybody please give me some of that "oral" tradition which can be traced back towards the Apostles.

Thinking about oral tradition and setting oral tradition as a standard to see who is rightous, thankfully we have something in the written standard:

7 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus 2 and saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[a]) 5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?” 6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Also the bible is NOT written tradition. Tradition is man-made and the bible is god-given.

>>16882748
>people aren't christians but catholics, lutherans, calvinists etc.
>catholics
christians
>lutherans, calvninists
heretics

>>16883224
>noooo!!! you can't hold to Pauls prescptions for the selection of bishops and consider yourself to be a Christian

>>16883346
It does not have to. The bible contains that which is deemed relevant by God.

>>16883270
sorry, heretic, it is what it is

>>16882748
That's just not true. "Christian" means protestant and protestant only.

>>16883428
the first christians would disagree with you...

>>16883340
They do all seven it's just that they don't consider them all sacraments

>>16883116
>Anybody please give me some of that "oral" tradition which can be traced back towards the Apostles.
The names of several new testament books. You also use tradition to understand it, without that you get ahistorical nonsense like JW theology.

>>16882443
Not a thing in UK, you probably made this up

>>16882443
"protestant europe" you mean 3 countries? Bro germany uk and sweden ok bro get LOST lmao

>>16883574
The letters of the Apostles are not oral tradition...

>>16883474
The bible is without contradiction. Are the church councils also without contradiction?

>>16883599
The rest of Europe is basically irrelevant tho.

>>16883644
yeah the letters are not oral tradition, they're the written down. Now do you think Paul and the other apostles wrote EVERYTHING our religion teaches... the gospel and the letters are too small to contain the 3 years Jesus preached and taught to the apostles lol... Yes the Church Councils are also without contradiction

>>16883656
Trient made the Vulgata mandatory and no other translation of the bible. However nowadays the Roman church accepts other translations of the bible as well. What's up with that?

>>16883656
The church cannot verifiably trace anything outside of Scripture back to an apostle or Jesus.

>>16883687
desu you guys should just search for real catholic theology answers and not just ask random catholics online. That's what I did and I haven't finished to actually learn about my religion, our tradition is extremely rich and complex and you won't get all your doubts answered by asking some people on 4chan or doing a google search

>>16883644
But the names of them are, not all of the books are signed.

>>16883705
I didn't claim that the Councils were without contradiction. If you are the poster which I have replied to, you should be more careful with your claims, when you can't back them up. What I am asking you to do is way easier than the complete study of Roman church history that you demand.

>>16883715
But you don't know the oral tradition of the apostles. If you know the oral tradition of the Apostles, please tell me what they said.

>>16883744
As you put faith in that the epistles are unchanged, catholics put in faith that the oral tradition remained unchanged in the church.

>>16880563
Yet it still leaves out like half of them. What a mess!
At least it looks cool.

>>16880585
Anglicans are, per dogma, 'media res' between Protestants, and Catholics

>>16883715
Post the chapter where it says that service should resemble quaker meetings not organized rituals, these epistles barely resemble what christianity became.

>>16883753
>the absolute state of papism
Grim

>>16883753
The thing is: you cannot even point to a single statement of the oral tradition and trace it back to where it came from. Thus it gives no legitimacy to any act of the church. It only serves to legitimize those aspects of the Roman church which do not originate from the bible. And why is it oral tradition? Because oral history a priori legitimizes the Roman church (despite us not knowing a single statement of oral history). If I am wrong, please correct me.

>>16883754
>Remember how Jesus granted Peter the power to bind and loose on heaven and earth? That has something to do with it.
This strange argument can be used to justify any ungodly act ever performed by a clergyman (e.g. the complete ban of reading the scripture for laymen by Gregory XV.).

Also: not sure about Liturgy, but there is a great multitude of Catholic bibles in the English language alone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible

>>16883791
What do you have a problem with?

>>16883797
You can't trace the new testament back to its authors either

>>16883808
Maybe there are arguments about the authorship of specific books in the bible, but at least we know the text. Oral tradition is the exact opposite. We don't know the text, but we supposedly know where the tradition comes from. And if it was god's will for the text to be preserved within the church, then we'd know it.

>>16883799
Why should I believe the papist church’s oral traditions are the traditions of the apostles when you can’t verifiably trace anything outside of Scripture back to an apostle.
>>16883808
>the toxic acid of skepticism.
The gospels are quoted and received almost immediately in the church and is within written records.

>>16883820
What is the name of the secret prayer? If it is a part of the Liturgy it has a name.

>>16883808
It's generally recognized that several of the Apostles were real people, and many of their burial sites are known or at least claimed. Although literary analysis suggests the same apostles were responsible for multiple books under different names

>>16883829
Some of the books were written into the late second century according to many historians, and not all apostolic churches actually agree on canon. Mary veneration is as old as the church, so is thinking Jesus isn't god. You need tradition to work against this.

>>16883831
You cannot verify any of the gospels to the apostles, it's all faith in fact.
>The gospels are quoted and received almost immediately in the church
In the second century

>>16883841
You don't even know how Liturgy works.

>>16883820
Yes quakers allow atheists as do other christian groups. The reason the church doesn't resemble what they do is because there were many competing christianities.
>also is nobody going to respond to
It's yet another theory trying to explain errors

>>16883849
The council of Jerusalem as described in the Acts of the Apostles describes Mary veneration or Arianism?

>>16883844
>Although literary analysis suggests the same apostles were responsible for multiple books under different names
The mainstream opinion is the opposite, that much of is is pseudepigrapha. What you're saying seems to be tradition when they identify different individuals.

>>16883831
>when you can’t verifiably trace anything outside of Scripture back to an apostle.
The only parts of Scripture that can be reliably traced back to an "apostle" are some of Paul's letters, about half of them are legitimate.

>>16883864
Does it mention the trinity?

>>16883883
What was the point of writing something that confuses people?

>>16883678
My understanding is it was animals and then man. Would be kind of weird to create humans and make them stewards of the Earth if there's no life. Also, weird to make the first species omnivores - like what are they meant to eat?

>>16883874
>dodging the question
I’ll wait for you to verifiably trace an oral tradition to an apostle.

>>16883891
Maybe you should verify an epistle to an apostle first?

>>16883900
>still dodging the question

>>16883904
But there's no way to answer it, catholics rely on faith that the oral tradition is legitimate. As you do with scripture.

>>16883879
It doesn't have to. The Gospels are sufficiently clear on that.

>>16883878
I don't consider the church fathers to be without disagreement with each other. To this post I'll post the canon of St. Athanasius and his comments to the nature of the canon.

>>16883901
But the disciples got the context eventually, it seems unclear what this means and more unclear what the purpose of confusing people is.

>>16883916
5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

6. These are the fountains of salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me.

7. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

>>16883916
The gospels aren't clear on it at all

>>16881692
> Do you think the Lutherians, Mormons and JW's are taking orders from the Pope in secret?
yeah, they aren't considered protestant for a reason, they're subversive groups. as for mormons, look at The Chosen. They're both luciferian cults casting their nets to draw everyone into the one world religion

>>16883928
Read Mathew 28 and then Hebrews 1.

>>16883907
Go ahead anon I'm interested.

>>16881692
Are you dispensationalist?

>>16883944
It doesn't say anything like the trinity. If you're confused you can easily find JW or unitarian refutations online.

>>16883891
not that anon, so I wasn't dodging anything. The fact is there not a verifiable unchanged tradition, written or oral that goes back to the apostles who knew Jesus. The proposition is completely one of faith either way.

>>16883915
So the oral traditions are not the traditions of the apostles. I’m Glad you concede.

>>16883937
So what cult do you belong to?

>>16883967
That was your strawman. But thank you for conceding that your scripture doesn't go back to the apostles either.

>>16883937
>yeah
I just want to make sure, since I don't want to be rude. You really think these groups, founded in the US, by former members of reformed Churches, at a time when Catholics were generally disliked in the US. Groups that try to convert Catholics today and even dislike them (The JW's consider the Catholic Church the start of the great apostasy) take their orders in secret from the Pope in Rome?

>>16883955
In Hebrews God speaks:

8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.”
10 And: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment;
12 Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.”

Basically God confirms that:
His son was around when the foundations of the earth has been laid and that his son is unchangable. Being around when the earth was formed and being unchangable are properties of God.

>>16883985
According to unitarians this is because it refers to God's plan always existing

>>16883971
not your luciferian, pedophile cult. low energy troon
>>16883980
Joseph Smith was a jesuit, Charles Russell was a freemason. Freemasonry was started by jesuits, who created it as a continuation of the knights templar. It's why in the highest levels of the papacy the cardinals in Rome are composed of freemasons, with a jesuit as the pope

>>16883994
Well: I don't speak any Greek but the English text says something else. This passage is explicitly directed from God towards his Son.

>>16884001
Are you dispensationalist?

>>16884001
I hate it when people say stuff like
"x guy from this background started this"
"bolshevism is jewish because it was started by someone who used to be a jew"

Like bro, if he was a jesuit, and he created a new religion, then he's not part of that religion anymore. So no freemasonry wasn't started by the jesuits, it was started by one jesuit.

>>16884004
But it doesn't actually say your trinity tradition without interpretation

>>16884018
no, and since you brought it up, dispensationalism was started by a jesuit, Manuel De Lacunza, in his book "The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory". If you want to fact check that.

>>16884030
Read the whole passage. "In Hebrews God speaks: " doesn't just mean that it is the word of God by virtue of being scriptural. The previous passage before my quote see below. In the following "He" refers to God the Father.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:
“You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”?
6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
7 And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.”

>>16884060
What's your point here? Where does it say the trinity tradition?

>>16884046
Thanks a lot. This name is going on the list.

>>16884071
It says that Jesus is God the Son, which was the point where this argument began.

>>16884075
Where does it say the Son is the same as the Father?

>>16884085
The Son is not the same as the Father... But the son is unchangable and is eternal, which are the characteristica of God.

>>16884096
What does it say then?

>>16884096
>ancient mystery schools
Here we go. We gotten to the base of it. Gnosticism here we come again. Let's make a drive through the levels of enlightenment and sooner or later you'll be 33rd degree.

>>16884158
1 Corinthians 12 has nothing to do with instruction. It's about gifts coming from the Spirit.

>>16884001
>Joseph Smith was a jesuit,
No he wasn't He was associated with the methodist Church before he started his movement.
>Freemasonry was started by jesuits,
Catholics are not supposed to even be Freemasons, on penalty of excommunication even, and there is no documentation to the claim they were started by Jesuits. On the other hand many of the founding fathers, who belonged to protestant Churches, were Freemasons, so I assume you think they were Satanists taking orders from the Pope too? This is crazy conspiracy shit.

>>16880563
The biggest problem with this picture is that it puts lutheranism in with all the other protestant denominations despite the fact that Lutheranism is the earliest and least corrupted interpretation of the Bible (it's Roman Catholicism without the corruption and weird nonsense.)

Another thing that this picture incorrectly assumes is that oral tradition is a good thing??? Why would fallible oral tradition be considered automatically good? If anything it's much worse than written tradition.

>>16884116
The gnostics lost and most later movements were popular rather than elitist, stop using them for your pro jew conspiracy theories

>>16884210
>preaching mysteries in his sermons to the public
Things preached in public cannot be mysteries, for they are public.

>>16884248
>later movements were popular rather than elitist
Like monasticism?

>>16884302
In terms of the gnostic heresy he seemed to have referred to, it was popular with the lower class

>>16884328
Christianity is not a mystery cult like you are implying that it was. The entire discourse has always been public. The councils have been performed in public. Esotercism is what has mislead millions into Satanic constructs like Cabalism. Esotercism has never been considered to be an element of Orthodoxy (see St. Athanasius on secret writings >>16883926).

File: 14.jpg (107 KB, 976x850)

107 KB JPG

Why do you post on a history board without knowing the first think about history?

File: 4A77E9EA-DE14-40D5-8694-0(...).jpg (88 KB, 998x971)

88 KB JPG

>written tradition only
This is a retarded bait thread right off the bat. SAGE IS A GREEN PLANT THAT GROWS IN ALL FIELDS
What is the basis for Lutherans not being on the tree to the right?
Hussites, Old Catholics, “True” Orthodox, Old Calendarists & Pastor Jim Bobs radio Bible Hour should also be on the tree.

>>16881551
Now make like a baptist church and split

>>16884677
Half the people here believe academic history is an evil conspiracy to control the sheeple, and that freethinkers and true Christians have a duty to refute it.

File: tree1.png (1.07 MB, 651x1268)

1.07 MB PNG

>>16880563
God's people are not a church but the church can only be formed from God's people.

>>16884328
>No one lights a lamp and hides it in a clay jar or puts it under a bed. Instead, they put it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
Luke 8:16-17

>>16883465
That's not relevant to the discussion you retard.
But also not a single one of the earliest Christians would recognise the Catholic Church
>>16883583
I mean first off, liar.
Second, the UK is barely protestant.

I wish protestants would go back to their roots and live up to the original definition of their name.
They were just catholics "protesting" the pope's bullshit like he is infallible and honoring gay marriage.
All this revisionist, sola scripture, and calvinist bullshit is exactly was Jesus warned about.

>>16885432
The popes bullshit derives from claims that he can just say "Tradition" and use that to justify any nonsense he wants.
Sola Scriptura is the only coherent take

>>16880599
>roman catholicism isn’t Christian
>they don’t claim to be Christians
Who gave you this information?
As an Easter Catholic, I can confirm we all consider ourselves Christian
>>16880648
>Jws and mormons started by Catholics
JWs were started by Russel who was a Protestant
Mormonism was started by Joseph Smith who claimed that God the father and Jesus told him both Protestant and Catholic churches were false
>>16880685
The Bible and for Catholicism specifically the Church writings
>>16880715
Apostolic tradition
The tradition practices by the apostles
>>16881041
Protestantism/JWs/Mormons are all false

>>16881596
>its not found in the Bible
It is
It is found that Jesus is God
The Holy Spirit is God
And God the father is God

>>16882334
Oriental don’t believe Christ has 2 natures
They believe he has one nature

>>16883116
JESUS SAYS THAT ONE MUST HEAR THE CHURCH, WHICH HE NEVER WOULD HAVE SAID IF THE BIBLE TAUGHT SCRIPTURE ALONE

If the Bible is the only rule of faith for a Christian, then logically the Church would not be a rule of faith for a Christian. However, the Bible clearly teaches that one must hear the Church.

Matthew 18:17- “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.”

Luke 10:16- “He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.”

This teaching of Jesus, that one must hear the Church under pain of being considered a heathen, refutes the entire idea of Scripture alone.

John 15:20- “… if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.”

Hebrews 13:17- “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls...”

THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT THE CHURCH, NOT THE BIBLE, IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH

1 Timothy 3:15- “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

>>16883116
THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT ORAL TRADITION MUST BE ACCEPTED ALONG WITH SCRIPTURE

The following passages completely refute the idea of Scripture alone. They show that the Bible teaches that apostolic tradition must also be accepted. This apostolic tradition was given by Jesus to the Apostles, but not every part of it was necessarily written explicitly in the Bible. As an example, in Jude 1:9 we read:

"But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, 'The Lord rebuke you.'"

This dispute between the Devil and Michael the Archangel is not described in any detail in the Bible. The writer is drawing on a tradition. The following passages from the New Testament confirm Catholic teaching on the necessity to accept both Scripture and Tradition.

>>16883116
2 Thessalonians 3:6- “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”

2 Thessalonians 2:15- “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

This clearly shows that the Bible itself teaches that not everything that must be believed is written down, but some of it is delivered by the oral tradition.

2 Timothy 2:1-2- “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”

1 Corinthians 11:16- “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

1 Corinthians 11:23- “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you…”

1 Corinthians 15:2-3- “By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received…”

As these passages prove, Jesus’ condemnation of the “tradition of men” (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:8, etc.) had nothing to do with the true apostolic tradition, which the Bible says we must accept. Jesus was condemning the man-made practices of the Pharisees.
>>16885363
Th

>>16885363
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus himself and St. Peter was its first leader

>>16881596
Exodus 13
>21 And the Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, so that they might [a]travel by day and by night.
>22 [b]He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from the presence of the people.
Deuteronomy 32
>4 The Rock! His work is perfect,
For all His ways are [a]just;
A God of faithfulness and without injustice,
Righteous and just is He.
>15 “But [a]Jeshurun became fat and kicked—
You have become fat, thick, and obstinate—
Then he abandoned God who made him,
And [b]rejected the Rock of his salvation.
> 18 You forgot the Rock who fathered you,
And forgot the God who gave you birth.

1 Corinthians 10:1-4
>10 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea;
>2 and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
>3 and they all ate the same spiritual food,
>4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.

Jude 1
>4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand [a]marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into indecent behavior and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
>5 Now I want to remind you, though you know everything once and for all, that [b]the Lord(Ἰησοῦς/Iēsous/Jesus),after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, [c]subsequently destroyed those who did not believe.

>>16886628
>this means a church which is going against the cannonical teaching of the apostles is the same church founded by Christ

>>16886739
It is not going against cannonical teachinf

>>16886801
1 Timothy 3:
1 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Overseer is in the greek text ἐπίσκοπον, which means bishop.

>>16880648
As an ex-JW, you're wrong.

File: BibleKJV.jpg (14 KB, 320x240)

14 KB JPG

>>16886605
>This teaching of Jesus, that one must hear the Church under pain of being considered a heathen, refutes the entire idea of Scripture alone.
Not if the church itself recognizes Scripture as the only infallible authority, which it does.
>THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT THE CHURCH, NOT THE BIBLE, IS THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH
Because they have the Bible, which is the truth.
>2 Thessalonians 3:6- “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
And the tradition we have directly received from the Apostles is the Bible that they and the Old Testament prophets wrote. We have received it directly from them with no middleman, we can read what they wrote by opening the New Testament. No middleman required.
>This clearly shows that the Bible itself teaches that not everything that must be believed is written down, but some of it is delivered by the oral tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 shows that reading the words written by Paul is equal in authority to hearing him say it to us in person. At the same time, it also shows that one does not have to be able to read (literate) to be saved, since hearing the word of God preached to you is no better/worse than reading it with your eyes.

Paul is not teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 that there is a super secret gnostic teaching or tradition that is not allowed to be written down, except where he mentions it one time here.

>As an example, in Jude 1:9 we read:
A reference to Zechariah 3:2. The "body of Moses" is a reference not to Moses' physical body, but to the congregation that existed under the Mosaic law, which was being questioned by satan at that time. The usage of this term is analogous to how the "body of Christ" is the church.

>>16880563
Redeemed zoomer posting, wow /his/ is literally retarded.

>>16886858
I agree
>>16887039

>because they have the Bible which is the truth
The bible wasn’t compiled when the Pauline epistles were written
>No middleman required
In the end of the gospel of John, Jesus says that there are things taught orally not written down
>2 Thessalonians 2:15
But he mentions tradition that is taught
>body of Moses
Okay thanks for this one I will look it up

File: Nomen_Sacrum_in_Revelatio(...).png (440 KB, 895x251)

440 KB PNG

>>16887114
>The bible wasn’t compiled when the Pauline epistles were written
The word of God was legitimate from the first time it was spoken, even if it wasn't put into a single physical tome until later. It was legitimate before that. Paul for instance refers to Luke 10:7 as "scripture" in 1 Timothy 5:18, where he quotes from that verse of Luke alongside a quote from Deuteronomy.
>In the end of the gospel of John, Jesus says that there are things taught orally not written down
It says that there are many things that Jesus did. The word "taught" was added by you just now.

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
- John 21:25

>But he mentions tradition that is taught
Doesn't imply that it is apart from the word of God.

>>16887121
>it wasn’t put into a physical tome until later
But this shows that the physical bible you are referring isn’t the reason St. Paul said the church was the pillar of truth
>taught
I meant that things Jesus did weren’t all written down
You get my point
>doesn’t imply that it is apart from the word of God
Ofc I never said it was separate
But it shows that the Bible isn’t the only source of belief for us

It is getting late in my timezone
Have a good night
I will answer tomorrow
Also what denomination do you belong to?

>>16887131
>But this shows that the physical bible you are referring isn’t the reason St. Paul said the church was the pillar of truth
The chuch has all of God's scriptures. Now they are the Bible as a whole, since the New Testament is written.
>You get my point
The things that God does are innumerable, but what God has given to mankind for our doctrine is inspired as Scripture. That's my point.

Consider what it says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Verse 17 shows us that "all scripture" allows the man of God to be "perfect" (meaning complete) and furnished throughly unto all good works. So there is nothing that is missing.

>But it shows that the Bible isn’t the only source of belief for us
I don't think it is the only source for anyone, but it is the only infallible source since it is inspired by God.
>Also what denomination do you belong to?
Thanks for asking. My church is not in a formal denomination. And we are one of the churches that never recognized "infant baptism," or the other innovations that were added by men later outside of the Bible. There have been various different names given to churches that helped to preserve what we call the "received text" and that hold to credobaptism and congregational church polity throughout history.

File: Arianism Got Instantly Tabooed.png (1.87 MB, 1080x1534)

1.87 MB PNG

>>16880563
>>16880599
>>16880810
Sol's Scripture;
Arianism was right.

Insanely retarded. St.Paul speaks of the Palamite essence energy distinction in the epistles within the Bible. You’d have to know Greek to know that.

>>16887223
where does he talk about that?

>>16881046
this is some high level memeing

>>16882334
Orientals are a pre-schismatic split who only adhere to the first three Ecumenical Synods.

File: 1718685284050962.jpg (58 KB, 505x505)

58 KB JPG

>>16887246
Encourage even more christian infighting. Persuade christians to annihilate christendom. Make christians cannibalise each other. Give a catholic nun the schwedentrunk with some surströmming as seasoning on a lenten Friday. Ban Christmas for not being puritan enough. Have west and east excommunicate each other over the Filioque. Scourge and crucify an NLT editor for the sake of the KJV 1611. Have the apostles angrily argue with one another whether Greeks should be circumcised to join the church or not. Have cathars murder the papal legate. Deus vult and mow down a gorillion cathars with heavily armoured mounted knights. "Away with this popish idolatry!" Pull down a cross in iconoclastic fury! Imitate the Muslims preying on the Eastern Roman Empire's borders. Alienate the bishop of Rome by smashing a Christ Pantocrator. Travel through time and burn down Notre Dame as iconoclasm! Sic a KJV 1611-ist against a KJV-1769-ist and have the 1769-ist smash the 1611-ist's skull in with Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language. Go dump 144,000 JWs into a portal to Calvin's Geneva. Violently persecute non-Chalcedonian churches even while war with the Sassanids rages on draining blood and treasure. Have the Copts betray the Eastern Romans to the Rashidun out of resentment. As Kaiser call upon the Turkish Caliph to declare jihad upon your co-religionist christian Entente powers. Accuse protestants of being in league with jewry. Have Klansmen burn a cross in front of a catholic church. Be a KJV 1611-larper who quotes from what is really the 1769 KJV and get your head smashed in by a super-large print Geneva Bible 1560. Have a paedobaptist dunk a credobaptist to death. Write a diatribe on free will to Luther. Reply to Erasmus with a screed on horses and bondage. Escalate the Reformation. Have an Orthodox Serb forcibly convert to Roman Catholicism at lugerpoint. Feed them to an alligator anyway. Have Longinus slice the body of Christ in half with a katana.

>>16887239
https://www.stgeorgeministry.com/essence-and-energies/

>>16880563 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5c7YT7oEpRSIQysIgyXl5s-hFm9yF_kY

>>16887840
>that's a cope
But it is equal in authority, anon. What you say doesn't matter because we have what the actual apostles themselves said. It is as if they are here with us right now saying these things to us. Obviously I'm going to take their word over yours.

That's why in 2 Thessalonians 3 it says: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

So, if you don't receive what comes directly to us from them (part of which I just quoted to you), that's on you. That's what God provided for us. I don't need a gnostic secret mystery religion to reveal some esoteric extrabiblical teaching that goes against what the Bible teaches.

>that doesn't mean we can just ignore the fact that they taught people things Jesus did and said that aren't written down in the bible
I know. For instance, in Acts 28 it says:

"And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening."
- Acts 28:23

Do we know exactly what Paul said to them there at that time? No we're not told. But it is definitely from somewhere in the Bible. Specifically, the law of Moses and the prophets. Likewise, every single doctrine that was ever inspired by God can be found in the Bible. Recall what was said here: >>16887161 And like it says in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

>not everything is written down in the bible
Everything inspired by divine revelation is written down in the Bible. Since God preserves His words.
>there are prophecies concerning Jesus written in the New Testament that aren't written in the Old Testament,
Yet there are zero (0) examples of this. They never have actual examples of this.

>>16887987
>"He will be called a Nazarene."
>This is not found in the Old Testament.
Isaiah 11:1
"And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:"

>Branch
>וְנֵצֶר (nēṣer)

Matthew 2:23 is clearly referencing the word "Branch" in Isaiah 11:1.

>So you agree that the written scriptures are part of apostolic tradition, and do not constitute the entireity of it.
I agree with what I said a minute ago, which is the following sentence: "2 Thessalonians 2:15 shows that reading the words written by Paul is equal in authority to hearing him say it to us in person."

This is what you or the person I responded to before denied, and I reasserted it a second time.

>You already assume that God never inspired any doctrine that isn't explicitly found in the text of the Bible.
No, because I didn't write 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I already explained this in an earlier post which I already linked back to.
>So you're just telling me what *you* already believe, not providing an argument it's true.
Did I write the above passage of Scripture? I don't think so. That's where I'm getting this. 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
>Why couldn't God have inspired doctrine that isn't written in the Old Testament?
God also inspired the New Testament as well.

"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."
- Galatians 1:11-12

File: C5B2D7AA-7583-4FE3-BA8F-A(...).jpg (33 KB, 640x480)

33 KB JPG

>>16884001
>Joseph Smith was a jesuit
You are mentally retarded and I hope you repent for lying.
>>16884194
You are just as retarded as he is.
Joseph Smith investigated Methodism, talked with a Methodist Priest and wrote that he liked them. He wasn’t part of the Methodist Church, Holiness movement nor did he hold to Wesleyan Theology.
I hope you go to confession for your lies. If you wrote out of ignorance then it’s rash judgment.

>>16883928
>The gospels aren't clear on it at all
NGMI
1st Corinthians 2:14

>>16885374
Sorry kid but someone has been lying to you.
Sola Scriptura =/= Solo Scriptura.
Lutherans uphold tradition, they just measure it against scripture before accepting it as true

>>16887161
>bible as a whole
Than why didn’t he mention scripture being the pillar of truth?
And said the Church was the pillar of truth
>scripture
Yes I agree about this

>only infallible source
I believe it is infallible
But I also believe the apostolic tradition to be infallible because whatever Jesus taught the apostles can’t be wrong
>infant baptism
What’s wrong with infant baptism?
You are saved by grace alone anon
It isn’t because of your faith or works
Everyone deserves this gift from God
Infants didn’t have proper faith or any works to give
It is just a gift from God
Which is why we baptize them

>>16887201
>>16886683
Jesus is YHWH

File: Southern_Cross_Constellation_1.jpg (1.34 MB, 2560x1668)

1.34 MB JPG

>>16888688
>Than why didn’t he mention scripture being the pillar of truth?
Scripture is the truth itself. The church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" because the church has Scripture. So there is a distinction between the truth and the "pillar and ground of" the truth.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
- John 17:17

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
- 1 Thessalonians 2:13

>What’s wrong with infant baptism?
Because according to the Holy Bible, it is something that those who believe and profess that Jesus Christ is Lord participate in.

"And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him."
- Acts 8:36-38

"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
- Acts 2:41-42

>>16888747
>because the church has scripture
Do you mean the church has authority to interpret the scripture and determine which books are cannonical?
>baptism
But it is a gift
You don’t do anything to merit it
It is a gift to the infant

>>16882443
>>16883599
It's not a thing in Sweden. In Sweden Christian refers to both Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox. But most Swedes aren't Christians anyways, and don't know jack shit about any of the major denominations. You're automatically born a member of the Swedish church and have to manually opt out of it however, and most Swedes don't bother despite themselves saying they're not Christian and that they have no idea about what's written in the Bible, etc. If you're an active member of the official Swedish church then you're not a Christian anyways as the Swedish church ain't Christian anymore (i.e. priests publicly identifying as not believing in nor following Christianity). The Swedish church is just a location for musical concerts, school graduations, islamic prayer sessions, etc.

>>16887576
Firefox said this site is a virus
Just tell me the passage.

>>16880563
ye, is a tree, the same exact sacred tree you joomers cut off, that's the state you're in rn, eat it, faggot

>>16880563
There is something really funny about "non-denominational" pretending they did not grow out of Roman Catholicism's legalist autism

>>16880648
>were started by roman catholicism too
Nigger what? Mormons directly descend from the Mayflower

Roman catholicism is basically Talmudic judaism for Christians. All those "apostolic" church traditions are the Talmud.

File: 03f026906.png (7 KB, 523x150)

7 KB PNG

>>16890322
Yes, and all these groups are also teaming up more and more openly with each other now that the end of things is approaching, which further blurs the lines between them.

>>16891128
You don’t know what you’re talking about because Lutherans have 3 sacraments and do confirmation and marriage.

>>16891199
>not sacramentally
And? Define what you think a sacrament is. Marriage, confirmation, and ordination are still rites in the Lutheran church. So there is no cut off from orthodoxy.

>>16891273
> a vehicle of grace
So marriage forgives sins, confirmation forgives sins? Where does Christ attach the promise of forgiveness of sins to marriage or confirmation.
Phillip Melancthon very succinctly summarizes the proper distinction of a sacrament and a rite.
>If we call Sacraments rites which have the command of God, and to which the promise of grace has been added, it is easy to decide what are properly Sacraments. For rites instituted by men will not in this way be Sacraments properly so called. For it does not belong to human authority to promise grace. Therefore signs instituted without God’s command are not sure signs of grace, even though they perhaps instruct the rude [children or the uncultivated], or admonish as to something [as a painted cross].
Marriage has God’s command and promise, but God does not promise grace, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life through it. In the New Testament only baptism, confession and absolution, and the Lord’s supper are instituted by Christ and have the promise of the remission of sins.
Melancthon goes on to explain why confirmation is not a sacrament.
>Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore it is not useless to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s express command and a clear promise of grace.
https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-number-and-use-of-sacraments/

>>16891454
Grace does not mean consecration in any biblical sense.

>>16890684
You do know that they mean Muslims only follow a vague sense of Abraham's God that has since been twisted and corrupted into the one they follow today?

>>16880648
>Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons were started by Roman Catholicism
Supreme bait anon, have another (you)

>>16890322
Apostolic traditions trace back to the apostles you retard

>>16886391
This. Hundreds of years of Catholic legalism is probably the last thing the apostles would have liked to see happen.

File: 1721996342305.png (527 KB, 2000x1500)

527 KB PNG

>>16880563
small fix

File: 1710098149593444.png (333 KB, 593x596)

333 KB PNG

>>16880563
A lot of Catholic traditions go directly against scripture and even break some of the commandments.
When I was a Christian, I was Lutheran since it made the most sense.

File: 1691654307624585.png (826 KB, 1400x956)

826 KB PNG

>>16892840
What are you now?

>>16881046
Dangerously based

>>16881046
>>16887358
Catholic here, pretty sad this guy is so objectively correct about what happened everyone is pretending on /his/ that this post never happened

>>16892840
>prayers to
>idol worship
Tell me you know nothing about Catholicism without telling me you know nothing about Catholicism

File: Ruckman Reference Bible r(...).jpg (2.6 MB, 2746x3661)

2.6 MB JPG

>>16893578
>>16893363
Encourage christian infighting. Persuade christians to destroy Christendom. Tempt christians into physically devouring one another. Nail the 95 Theses onto the door of All Saints Church. Have American christians pay taxes to fund bombs for Jews to bomb the remnants of Eastern christians into the rubble. Split the Eastern Orthodox church and have Kievan and Muscovite conscripts mow each other into worm food for the trenches. Inspire every Calvinist to follow Calvin's example and grill Jehovah Witnesses alive a la Servetus. Divert the crusaders to Constantinople. Have those crusaders utterly sack, destroy and rape the easternmost city of Christendom. Loot the Horses of St Mark. Install a prostitute into the Patriarchal Throne. Liever Turks dan Paaps! Have protestants ally with the ottomans to degrade the Habsburgs. Invite Reformed French to a royal wedding. Betray them. Paint Paris red with Reformed blood. Sack Magdeburg into a copy of Baghdad. Exclude Roman Catholics from the throne Confiscate the property of Roman Catholics. Bar Roman Catholics from their inheritance. Have protestants defenestrate a Hapsburg governor out of a window. Paris is worth a Mass! Form a sacrilegious union of the lily and the crescent, create modern geopolitics and realpolitik. Ally the Kingdom of France with the Ottomans. Have Roman Catholics kill Roman Catholics for royal glory and power. Deport southern French towns to host Muslim pirates and slavers to destroy Hapsburg galleys and send their galley slaves to the bottom of the sea. Have protestant leaders and theologians invite Jews into their countries and justify charging interest. Inspire a KJV-only-ist to go to Zondervan's office and shoot an NIV editor in the head. Make a Douay-Rheims-only-ist lock all the editors of the ESV in Crossway's headquarters and arson it down with the staff inside. Make a tradcath call a brown pentecostal a nigger. Make christians slice each other with a katana.

>>16888280
Joseph Smith wasn't a Methodist himself, but most of the early converts were Methodist and the early meetings were liturgically very similar to Methodism. It's not wholly wrong to say that early Mormon culture drew a lot from Methodism. It wasn't until later that major theological differences started to appear

>>16880563
it's all one big religion bro