Which branch of Christianity most closely follows the teachings of Christ as written in the bible? There's too many offshoots to sort through. Are there any books that could help with this process?Catholics, Coptics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists , Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Mennonites, Amish, Quakers, Gnostics, Evangelicals, Assyrians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, gnostics etc etc etc Where to begin? My gut tells me Quakerism.
>>23525497You'd be surprised to know that most don't actually disagree on what Christ taught. They disagree on Christology itself and the exact nature of Christ. Secondly, they disagree on the order of Salvation - which of those things Christ taught is necessary for salvation and which are expectations of holiness.
the gnostics
>>23525497Jehovah's Witnesses.Read jw.org for Biblical proofs of their beliefs
>>23525528Gnostics aren't Christian.
>>23525531JW aren't Christian. They're goy Jew larpers (Adventists) who believe Christ is Michael the Archangel. Not THE Son of God, but "a" son of God.
>>23525534gnostics are the only christians
>>23525539They most closely follow the teachings if Christ as written in the Bible though
>>23525524They may not disagree in what he taught but they most certainly disagree in which teachings are emphasised or not. For example Christ was fairly disparaging of wealth accumulation in Mathew and Luke in a way that is not seen as important in many branches of Christianity today (naming no names lol)
>>23525534Its a fairly wide and vague term that encompasses so many differing groups of people with differing beliefs that its almost useless.
>the lost religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Non violence in early Christianity.
The anabaptist tradition, i.e., mennonites (and amish) take his teachings against divorce, violence, and wealth seriously
>>23525544>They most closely follow the teachings if Christ as written in the Bible thoughDoesn't matter that they follow the ethical and behavioral teachings of Christ if they miss by a mile on who Christ really is
They all do and they’re all full of hypocrites, you will see plenty of both regardless of the church. You can and should take responsibility for your own life as a Christian—read, pray, meditate, contemplate, then turn that outward and do the best you can in the world. Many of the churches have produced really good mystics, saints and astute interpreters of the scripture. Look for what takes you to a better place and then look at what church meant for those favorite writers of yours. A good church will support that by keeping you from error, by the sacraments if you are looking for that, by fellowship, etc. I believe in one church and I pray for an end to schisms. Love and blessings to everyone in this thread and hope everyone makes it.
>>23525544They don't follow anything that could be considered "the Bible" as their version of the Bible was custom written after their conception to match their pre-existing views. They are as artificial as the Mormons. Sure, other sects have issues with translations and interpretations, but at least those are mostly in good faith, where some medieval monk made an honest mistake in copying and then they had to go back and compare the ancient Greek and Hebrew. The New World Translation that the JWs use is a forgery, published exclusively by and for JWs. If you read literally any other widely accepted version (KJV, Douay-Rheims, NIV, New English) you would not come to the scriptural conclusions that the JWs do, so they made their own Bible, and then dishonestly base their theological arguments in the guise of Biblical literalism.
>>23525587At least they get their conception of who Christ is from the Bible rather than some "tradition.">>23525654Their Bible mostly just uses the actual name of God which was censored for millennia despite being present in the original hebrew. Aside from that they just removed trinitarian interpretations that were inserted to the Bible that aren't present in the original text. They still recognize and use other Bibles like KJV, though.
>>23525497
>>23525830Not the Bible
Why don't you just read the gospels and figure it out for yourself? All His teachings are written there in plain language.
>>23525497Christ founded only one Church, on Peter, the Rock. Only to him and his succesors, Christ gave the Keys of the Kingdom. (Matthew 16:18-19).
None of the churches out there actually follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.He warned us that men would come and fool even His elect (Matthew 24:24). He specifically warned us not to believe people who claimed to encounter Him in the wilderness (Matthew 24:26)Then behold, Saul comes and claims to encounter Jesus Christ in the wilderness. He preaches doctrine that directly contradicts Jesus Christ on major topics, again and again and againHere's just a few examples-On absolute depravity->'There is none righteous no, not one.'(Saul the Defiler, Romans 3:10-12)>"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechari'ah the son of Barachi'ah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." (Jesus Christ our Lord, Matthew 23:35)On whom the Lord will save->"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Saul the Defiler, Romans 10:13)>"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven." (Jesus Christ our Lord, Matthew 7:21)On the Law of the Torah>'For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.' (Saul the Defiler, Romans 10:4)>"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished." (Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior, Matthew 5:17-18)In addition to all of this, Christ himself congratulates the Ephesian church in Revelation 2:2 for "rejecting false apostles". Guess who the one and only man ever established by the Holy Bible as rejected by the Ephesian church is? It's Saul himself, as he plainly states in 2 Timothy 1:15
>>23525497>Which branch of Christianity most closely follows the teachings of Christ as written in the bible?The one you make for yourself after examining the bible as well as your surroundings in good faith. It may or may not align with your local church, but that's not important.
>>23525924Shut up, Satan.
>>23525960What's evil about my post? If I had to recommend a faith I would recommend catholicism.
>>23525960My favorite Catholic teaching: reading the Bible is evil.
>>23525974Satanism is to make yourself your own god. If you can make for yourself your own religion, you are following the promise of Satan "you will be like gods, who know good and evil"
>>23525844I didn't ask "what were the teachings of christ" I asked "Which branch of Christianity most closely follows the teachings of Christ as written in the bible?". Sifting through the multitude of differing beliefs and practices of the various branches of Christianity is laborious and complex. I was hoping for a book recommendations that would at least lay some ground work.
>>23526012Branches of christianity are not religions in themselves. Read my posts again.
>>23525900As a non-christian can you elaborate on:>For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.Does this mean you still have to do all the shit in Leviticus? Is there a list of what exact laws need to be followed?
>>23526018So did you want someone to just name a particular branch without elaboration? Any such statement would entail you researching the doctrines and them comparing them to Scripture. To have the grounds to even begin to know which church practice is more in line with Christ's teachings requires you to first know what Christ taught. Until you read the gospels, you cannot know that. If you want to research different branches beliefs, you will then have to "slog through" their catechisms and confessional statements. You're not going to get spoonfed an easy answer.
>>23526028Look up noahide commandments
>>23525900This is why Allah sent Muhammad (pbuh) his final prophet to correct the corruptions of Christ's teachings.
>>23526028The anti Paul retard won't have an answer for you. You contrast that statement with the Sermon on the Mount and it will become clear that Christ's new covenant supercedes The Law. Yes, The Law is still valid, but on account of Original Sin, it is impossible to live up to. The Law is "fulfilled" by Christ imparting his grace into you so that you can live well without being under its yoke. Read Romans 5.
>>23525497Gnosticism
>>23526049>So did you want someone to just name a particular branch without elaboration?"I was hoping for a book recommendations that would at least lay some ground work."
>>23526073Blood meridian sucks
>>23526064>Dude, it's too hard to follow the law, it's impossible!It really isn't though?
>>23526075Yeah well a book laying ground work means "slogging through" different doctrines. I'd reccomend The Book of Concord, The Catholic Catechism, and the Orthodox Catechism. They represent the three major pillars of Christianity. If that's too much to "slog through" then just don't bother.
>>23526082You never sin?
>>23526089You dont sound like a person who should listened to in these matters. You're rude, uncivil and ignorant (replying to posts with no tact or grace that you did not even have the common decency to read properly first). If you adopted a trip I would filter you.
>>23526091First define what sin is
>>23526028Yes, we're supposed to follow the Law as established in the Torah. Follow first and foremost the one's Christ directly mentioned, then after that study Levitical Law
The Catholic Church, since it follows the teachings of the Disciples of Jesus. He didn't write a book, he left disciples to teach us (some of which wrote books).>>23526028Jesus perfected the laws. Take divorce, for instance:>3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”>4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”>7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”>8 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.”
>>23525497it doesn't matter we're all brothers in christexcept for unitarians
>>23526098>reccomend me books on doctrine, but I don't want to have to slog through doctrineYou were never going to be satisfied with the answers in this thread.
>>23526137tl; dr
>>23526148Yeah, I know you don't read.
>>23525547>For example Christ was fairly disparaging of wealth accumulation in Mathew and Luke in a way that is not seen as important in many branches of Christianity today (naming no names lol)Yeah ive wondered how boomers didnt catch this. Jesus goes straight communist multiple times. If he was alive today, he would probably just shoot himself, but if he did pick a side im sure it wouldnt be corporate pigs
Whatever Tolstoy was talking about when writing about his religion which if I remember rightly was essentially -Fuck the irrational/mystical aspect just follow Christ and what he taught.
>>23526153I didn't read your post beyond "(you)". You're not somebody to be listened to.
>>23526158
>>235261561 Tim. 6:17 Charge those who are rich in the present age not to be high-minded, nor to set their hope on the uncertainty of riches but on God, who affords us all things richly for our enjoyment;The Bible is neither pro wealth or anti wealth. The real point is that it doesn't matter one way or another. Jesus charges us to be "poor in spirit" and not poor in bank account. That verse I quoted comes from the same chapter where Paul says "love of money is the root of all evil." The point we can discern is that one turns away from God when one idolizes Mammon. It is not in the possession of wealth that one sins, but in the vain pursuit of it.
>>23525497Genesis says: she seems to have an invisible touch yeah. God knows what that means.
>>23525497Christ did not exist and even if he did we already only know about him from people who were just editing his words to fit their schizophrenic ideas so your question is stupid
>>23526125The doctrine on divorce is a very simple way to show why the Catholic Church is the only one that has kept the faith. There is actually no "sexual immorality" exemption, that's a misreading of the text:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7CCx1LKQgSQIt's the Catholic Church, OP. The answer you don't want to hear, of course, all the more reason why it's the correct one given human pride.
>>23526236Well ..... if you're being really pedantic about it, the question ("Which branch of Christianity most closely follows the teachings of Christ as written in the bible? ") can still be valid and answerable even if christ never existed and all his adherents were deluded fantasists.
I don't get it, is Paul a prophet?
>>23525900The Book of Matthew came after the works of Paul, so it's entirely possible that Matthew is the "incorrect" portrayal.
>>23526261I thought paul came after the synoptic gospels and that he never met jesus?
>>23526268Paul met Jesus as a glowing light in the wilderness, and he contradicts himself every time he tells the story for some weird reason
>>23526181I don't know whether or not Tolstoyism is the correct branch of Christianity to follow, but I sure do like this cover.
>>23526261>>23526268Neither Matthew or Paul are wrong.Paul was converted in the 30s and I think Matthew wrote his Gospels in the 40s or 50s.The Gospels of Mark and Luke are quite similar to that of Matthew and the two of them were companions of Paul (Mark was also a companion of Peter).
>>23526250This is still impossible for several reasons. Firstly the early christians thought that the world would end in their lifetimes. Since no one thinks the world ended in 100 AD, the best you can do is get someone who is also a doomsday cultist and believes the world will end any day now, e.g. Jehovah’s witnesses. But even then, the new testament writers did not believe the new testament was infallible scripture, in fact “the new testament” didn’t even exist until what, a century after it was written? Then there’s also the fact that the bible writers clearly could never could have conceived the church not having a line of succession to christ and the apostles, so protestantism is eliminated even if you wanted to go with JWs or Quakers. But the catholic and orthodox church have so much crap that isn’t in the bible that you can’t go with them unless you believe that tradition can basically just override common sense hermeneutics. Not to mention that no one will EVER actually follow Christs’s practical injunctions except literal schizos
>>23526299>the people with me saw the light but didn't hear the voice>no, wait, the people with me heard the voice but didn't see the light>no, waitWhat did he mean by this?
>>23526259Paul claims to have a vision where Jesus tells him to spread His faith, but then the details of the faith spread by Paul come from Paul's gut feelings and from his Talmud-style sophistry. Like, if I recall correctly, God never actually sends Paul a vision where God reveals that circumcision is no longer necessary, and instead Paul just decides on his own that it must not be. Paul's Christianity is the one that says that good works are no good, that atheists and pagans who live kind noble generous charitable upstanding lives are still going to Hell because only Christian faith saves souls.Only you can decide for yourself whether Paul is a holy stumblingblock who keeps unbelievers away from the one true faith, or whether Paul is a sinner who corrupted the faith.
>>23526348>God never actually sends Paul a vision where God reveals that circumcision is no longer necessaryPaul doesn't seem to be certain himself on the subject. He circumcised his follower Timothy after all>"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." (Galatians 5:2-3)>Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him. (Acts 16:3)He had been Christian for 15 years when he decided to circumcize his follower physically. I think these verses clearly establish that Judaic law overrides Christ's sacrifice in Christian theologyAgain,>"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." (Galatians 5:2-3)>Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him. (Acts 16:3)
>>23526352Cool half cited verseActs 16:3 Paul wanted this one to go forth with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.The Book of Acts shows Paul battling with Judaizers and even struggling to overcome his own Jewish tradition. This is all evidence that the Old Testament tradition was an obstacle to spreading the Gosepl.
>>23526405NTA but you seem like a biblical expert. Does God ever tell us in His own words that circumcision isn't necessary anymore?
>>23526405>The Book of Acts shows Paul battling with Judaizers and even struggling to overcome his own Jewish traditionSo he chose the Jewish tradition? He literally chopped part of Timmy's penis off in accordance with the law of the Torah
>>23526434it was crucial to the ministry for them to be accepted as timothy's mom was a jew. they were trying to win over unbelieving jews. titus was a gentile and paul refused circumcision in their situation.
>>23526434The council held tha abolished circumsicion was in Acts 15, which is chronologically prior to Acts 16. In Acts 16 Paul is actually spreading the decrees of the council held in Acts 15. Earlier even in Acts 11 it shows Peter being condemned by the Jews for eating with the uncircumcised. In Acts 11 Peter rebukes the Jews not only on the issue of circumsicion but also on the subject of eating certain animals. We can see that every step of the way the Jews and Judaizers try to assert their tradition to prevent the Gospel. Paul and Timothy did not choose Jewish tradition over Christ as both have already asserted that Jewish tradition was no longer necessary. We can ascertain from the text that Timothy was circumcised "because of the Jews" and not because of the Gospel, Holy Spirit, or anything else of the New Testament covenant. The Jews would not have listened to Timothy were he not sacrificed, so taking some liberty here, I would interpret this as a personal sacrifice on the part of Timothy so that he could be among the Jews to spread The Word.
I think the "Pauline Christianity" conspiracy theories trying to separate the teachings of Paul from the teachings of the Gospels make no sense.Luke and Mark were both companions of Paul.
>>23526469If Paul is essential to Christianity, then it would prove Christianity false unless Paul was a prophet with direct revelation from God.
>>23526417Well the Bible asserts itself as the Word of God. As far as I'm familiar with the Gospels, Jesus neither affirms nor condemns circumsicion specifically. However, Jesus DID overturn the covenant Moses had with God for the Jews to establish a new covenant. It should only follow that this indicates the Mosaic Law was abrogated. This video explains the change of covenant withint the first 25 minutes. You could probably safely skip the first 5 minutes as he's just introducing himself. https://youtu.be/jxc9t70mY5o?si=UfiVoApI872xBn-p
>>23526475Isn't that a Talmudic approach, forming doctrine based on interpretation rather than direct revelation from God or Jesus? To go back to OP's original question, is there any form of Christianity that removes Paul's Talmud-style interpretations and goes back to only what God or Jesus directly says?
>>23526471Paul was a prophet with direct revelation from God.
>>23526486The Bible is the revealed Word of God. The entire exercise of theology is an analysis and interpretation of Scripture. All sects of Christianity have done this for all of its history. That's why Acts details multiple councils. Even Protestants and Catholics fundamentally agree on that.
>>23526486Half of the Gospels were written by followers of Paul. If you doubt Paul, you would doubt Mark and Luke. Meaning you would doubt Matthew, which is pretty close to those two.
>>23525547Yeah it also didn't have the family oriented view people today view it as having.>Matt 10:34Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
>>23525832Lots of things necessary for confirming the Bible exist outside the Bible as well.
>>23526486I think there's a kind of irony to the phrasing of your question in that the Judaizers were non-Pauline or anti-Pauline Christians. Otherwise you would be looking at certain Gnostics. Other than that, any established Church whose Bible excludes Paul's writings are unknown to me and probably very rare.
>>23526417One take I heard is that some (most) of the laws in leviticus etc apply to the first Israelites. Some of the laws apply to everyone, including strangers living among the Israelites. Those are the ones about eating food offered to false idols and sexual immorality (which is clearly defined). These are the laws Paul argues still apply to gentile converts to Christianity. Circumcision is not one of those laws.
>>23525497>Are there any books that could help with this process?The Westminster Standardshttps://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-westminster-standards
>>23525497Look for groups that preserve the best continuity with the traditions of mediaeval and late classical Christianity.
>>23526487Where is the proof? I don't think it says that anywhere nor did he claim to be.
>>23526523Well wasn't Paul a professional Christian murderer? Is it so hard to conclude that he probably murdered all those who disagreed with him?
>>23526533>Circumcision is not one of those laws.But it is one of those laws.9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
>>23526556i think that's a stretch after he was struck blind with a theophany, then cured by Ananias.
>>23526553But that was the time period that introduced pagan practices into christianity
>>23526556Paul was also executed for his faith. That's why his conversion is so compelling. He went from being the biggest persecutor of Christianity to its greatest advocate.
>>23526494>>23526500So what's the difference between this and Talmudic interpretation? >The difference is that our faith is real and their faith isn't. Sure, okay, but I see Talmudic interpretation criticized all the time by the same people who believe wholeheartedly in this Talmud-style interpretation for Christianity. >>23526523I wouldn't ask for a Church that rejects Paul, but I would be interested in a Church that has only the direct word of God and Jesus as mandatory for faith, and considers the Talmud-style interpretations of man to be non-mandatory. Christianity is already about picking-and-choosing, so is there a Church which picked-and-chose that?
>>23526563>>23526571Well to be more accurate, he became the biggest proponent of HIS christianity that HE created, not the christianity that was practiced by the followers of Jesus who he persecuted, whose religion he basically completely changed.
>>23526560Levitical Law came from Moses.
>>23526554He claims to have had a direct revelation.
>>23526533Did anybody ever make a complete list which separates the two kinds of laws (laws which last until Jesus, and laws which last even after Jesus)? I would be interested in seeing what the criteria are.
>>23526573You keep saying "Talmud style interpretation" and I don't really get what you mean by that. Were the Greek philosophers who discussed Homer practicing Talmudic style discourse? >>23526575What's your evidence that pre Paul Christianity was something different? Jesus very clearly came and overturned the covenant with Moses, abrogated the Law, and rejected the Jews in exchange for the Gentiles. Are you saying Paul was more or less Jewish than Jesus?
>>23526573>Talmud-style interpretationsJesus being the universal savior of mankind who cancels the original religion is itself an act of pilpul
>>23526583Phew, this. Your quote is with Abraham and those in his household, not Moses leading a heterogeneous group. Thanks anon, I almost looked dumb on 4chan.
>>23526598We have Biblical laws that are given to us directly by God (a quotation when God spoke to a prophet) or directly by Jesus (a quotation when Jesus spoke to an apostle). Then we have Talmudic laws, where a council of men has a debate and decides what the law should be. That's how, for example, God never says to stop circumcision and Jesus never says to stop circumcision, but we've decided to stop circumcision. I'm not criticizing this action. The Bible has many unanswered questions, and the debate of councils is how we arrive at some answers. My questions would be (1) why are the decisions of these councils given equal weight to the words of God and Jesus, (2) are there any branches of Christianity which believe that the decisions of councils do hold a lesser weight than the words of God and Jesus, and (3) why does the Talmud seem to be so hated around here when it's basically the same thing?
>>23526591I heard this from Lord of Spirits podcast which I highly recommend. The list for everybody including strangers among the Israelites really is supposed to be pretty short, just the couple things Paul upholds. Peter et al were simple folk and are seen as such in Acts. Paul really seems to know his shit. And for all the people who are all “he’s a jew,” dude was on a Bobby Fischer level if you pay attention to what he says.
>>23526620There's a history of covenants and associated laws, Abraham's and Moses's being different. When you discuss Levitical Law by citing Abraham, you make a fundamental mistake. It also shows that you missed large swathes of the New Testament which explicitly discuss the covenant with Abraham, such as Galatians 3.
>>23526637Nta citing Abraham, I agree with you re levitical law, sorry for ambiguity from phone posting while watching kids.
>>23526630The Talmud is the discussion of Jews surrounding post 2nd Temple Judaism. It outright rejects Christ and asserts the supremacy of Jews over Gentiles, which offends most people. There isn't really an antagonism over interpretation itself. The answer to your questions, like the rest of Christianity, come down to faith. Of course there's historical arguments, but why do you trust the recorded words of Jesus in the gospels at all? It really isn't a stretch to put faith in Scripture (including Paul's writings) which was initially promulgated specifically to solve certain problems. I'm personally a Sola Scriptura kind of guy myself, so I don't think Roman Catholic councils in 1965 have the same weight as the councils held by the actual apostles. Your questions really just affirm the necessity of Scripture. Without it, we're totally lost. I was just reading Calvin discuss this in The Institutes.
>christian>chantardChoose one
>>23526642>If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
>>23526711Meant to quote >>23526637
>>23526711>and would keep the Passover to the LordFirst Christians (hellenized jews) kept going to second temple. Gentile converts would not necessarily be “double dipping.”
>>23526651I'm aware that the Talmud is made by different people reaching different conclusions, but the act of making it seems to be the same. And as for offensiveness, doesn't Paul-style doctrine offend many people by teaching that good people who lives good lives full of good works are still going to Hell if they don't have a Christian faith? You may believe that it's true, but I don't think you would deny that it's offensive to modern sensibilities.But within the Christian faith there are divisions that confuse me. Both Catholics and Protestants generally follow the actual words of God and the actual words of Jesus, and where they disagree with each other is when it comes to Talmud-style interpretations from councils of men. If a Catholic thinks that Protestants are going to Hell, then doesn't that same Catholic give the councils of men an equal (or higher) weight than the words of God and Jesus? If a Protestant thinks that Catholics are going to Hell, then doesn't that same Protestant give the councils of men an equal (or higher) weight than the words of God and Jesus? We find plenty of Christians who place councils of men as higher than God and Jesus, but we struggle to find the reverse.
>>23526735The Catholic and Orthodox Churches both agree that they, via apostolic succession, have been given authority to both interpret and extrapolate upon the Scriptures in light of the teachings of the Apostles and Church Fathers and traditions of the Church. They both arrive at this conclusion via scriptural evidence. Protestants in general tend to rely more solely on scripture to prove their ideas and since they have no central source of authority there is really no other option but to sort through their various interpretations and choose one, or simply be a Christian outside of any physical church and trying to understand the Word of God in light of all of these traditions but without being bound to them.
>>23526764There are valid reasons for the split to exist, but I don't understand why the split is treated so zealously. Both groups do their best to follow the words of God and the words of Jesus, so both groups should still be able to say to each other "You are wrong, but I'll still see you in Heaven, where you'll finally be able to admit that you were wrong". The division comes from the councils of men, and yet we have Catholics and Protestants saying to each other "Even though you do your best to follow the words of God and Jesus, you're still going to Hell because you don't follow my team's council of men (which has equal or greater weight than the words of God and Jesus)".I would even go so far as to describe zealotry over this split as blasphemous.
>>23526453>>23526453>it was crucial to the ministry for them to be accepted as timothy's mom was a jew. they were trying to win over unbelieving jews. titus was a gentile and paul refused circumcision in their situationThey had penis inspections in the early Christian ministry?
>>23525497Fundamental Bible-believing Christians are protestants because the RCC is clearly false and if you actually believe the Bible you'd have to protest their false gospel and false church, their traditions are more important than God's laws and commandments and their gospel is false and does not save anyone.The RCC does the same thing the Pharisees did in holding man's tradition in higher regard than God's laws, but they're worse since it's full of idolatry and Mary worship and calling their cult leader poope "Holy Father" and their priests "Father", clear blasphemy. Christ's followers would also want to obey God's commandments out of love for God, rather than man's traditions, this includes the 4th commandment, the sabbath commandment, rather than Roman tradition rooted in sun worship of sunday sabbath. >Which branch of ChristianityYou're already on the wrong path. Your mind is not in the right place. You want to follow man rather than God.>Where to begin?You begin with the Word of God, not some church/organization. God promised to preserve his words and they were faithfully translated in the King James Bible. Also, it's worth noting that Paul condemned the Judaizers for simply teaching one more thing: circumcision, just one work they said people must do; but the RCC and many of its harlot daughters add many more works to the faith than just one thing. But the RCC cult will try to call you a Judaizer for promoting obedience to God (including ALL of the 10 commandments, that includes not bowing to graven images as well as the sabbath commandment) rather than Popish traditions.>>23525994Don't forget burning people alive for owning Bibles/manuscripts and burning their Bibles too. >>23526053The RCC gets along with the world, lol. It even has relations with many of the world's governments. >>23526125>>23526249RCC forbids its preists and nuns from marrying, the Bible plainly calls that a doctrine of devils. It has a false works-based salvation, self-rightoues, and Catholics are full of hate as a result. Just look at history, so full of hate they'd torture and murder anyone for simply asking their church questions or simply owning a Bible. I hope you don't own a Bible, your own church would've tortured you to death for it in the past.
>>23525531Jesus is God in the flesh. JWs are a result of Alexandrian heretics like Origen denying that Jesus was the Son of God, hence why they removed verses like Acts 8:37 from their counterfeit manuscripts. >>23525528>>23525543>>23526073>OT God is le bad because he punishes the wickedStupid nonsense. It's the same God in NT and OT. And in the NT God personally killed two people for lying to the Holy Spirit for the love of money.>>23525844>just read the gospelsThat's not enough.Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.II. Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.>>23525900>NoneYou don't know that. There are still some churches I've seen here or there which submit themselves to the authority of Scripture.>>23526058Quran contradicts the OT, and Mohammed (piss be upon him) raped a 9 year old. It promotes lying, murder, and Jihad (committing atrocities in the name of Allah) as how to earn the greatest reward in heaven.>>23526101I. John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.Sin isn't breaking some tradition, like the Popish cult claims not attending their "Mass" they claim is a sin.>>23526259Yes, if you know the Biblical definition of the term prophet.II. Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
>>23526849>Christ's followers would also want to obey God's commandments out of love for God, rather than man's traditions, this includes the 4th commandment, the sabbath commandment, rather than Roman tradition rooted in sun worship of sunday sabbath.
>>23526793read: >>23526464paul was trying to convert very rigid jewish unbelievers.
>>23526849>You begin with the Word of God, not some church/organization. God promised to preserve his words and they were faithfully translated in the King James Bible.
>>23526849>Also, it's worth noting that Paul condemned the Judaizers for simply teaching one more thing: circumcision, just one work they said people must do; but the RCC and many of its harlot daughters add many more works to the faith than just one thing.
>>23526856>submit themselves to the authority of Scripture.Last one for now.
>>23525497from my research, probably Seventh-Day Adventists. There is no Biblical authority to change the Sabbath to Sunday (Colossians 2:16 doesn't cut it) and it was clearly a man made decision. They also keep the clean/unclean animal laws which applied at the time of Noah (refer the different number of clean/unclean animals taken on the ark. Mosaic law then gave the first comprehensive list of what constitutes a clean/unclean animal). They keep all Ten Commandments which many churches say do not apply because Colossians 2:16, largely to avoid the Sabbath, when the better view is that the 'handwriting of ordinances' that was nailed to the cross is the handwritten law of rituals and ceremony that was recorded in a book by Moses as it was dictated to him by God and then placed on the side of the Ark of the Covenant, not the Ten Commandments that were dictated by God and then carved with His own finger into stone and placed in the Ark of the Covenant. See also various verses by Jesus 'if you love me keep my commandments' scattered in the Gospels and also Revelation. This is also why their churches do not have a cross ('no graven image'). With that said they are not perfect as some of them tend to hold their founder Ellen White in a bit too high regard, such as following a vegetarian diet and avoiding alcohol and coffee. It is true that the original diet for man was fruit with seeds and the like, but we no longer live in the Garden of Eden. I don't know much about Quakerism. Most of what you have listed have branched off from their predecessor due to a distinct doctrinal difference such as one man having full authority (pope), full immersion baptism, predestination etc.
>>23526878*** Sorry Colossian 2:14 has the 'nailed to the cross' reference not 2:16
Is there a church to join where you sell all your things and live in a commune
>>23526861Paul pulled Timothy's penis out so they could inspect it?
>>23526735>Talmud-style interpretationsYou're really wearing that phrase thin. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use when you take into consideration that the councils even predate the Talmud. You've already conceded that there's nothing particularly unique about the Talmud being an interpretative text, so the phrase is itself is just redundant. You may as well just say interpretative style interpretations. To say I dislike one interpretative text invalidates all other interpretative texts is just a nonsense argument. You may as well say the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution is "Talmud style." Continually referencing the Talmud is entirely pointless in this conversation. Even if we had only the gospels (which would be a weird position given that Luke followed Paul and recorded Acts) people would still disagree on what the words of Jesus mean. They even do today. If you're going to say disagreement delegitimizes all Scripture then you're going to have to deny the whole Bible altogether, at which point it seems like your attempt to find a non Pauline Christianity becomes moot. Most Schisms weren't even about the contents of Scripture itself, and you'll find that just about every Christian agrees on the fundamentals.>We find plenty of Christians who place councils of men as higher than God and Jesus, but we struggle to find the reverse.No we don't. Even Catholics and Orthodox assert the primacy of Scripture in all matters. Protestants are defined by the rejection of ecclesiastical councils. Your rejection of Paul's epistles have led you to an entire unraveling of Christianity itself. This is the logical conclusion of your position. Paul's ministry makes Christianity coherent. This is by design.
>>23526878>They also keep the clean/unclean animal laws which applied at the time of NoahDon't you know about Peter's vision?
>>23526929That is some odd shit though.>God tells Peter to eat the animals>Peter wakes up and says "God was telling me to preach to gentiles.">later, the other Christians ask Peter why he was preaching to gentiles>"I was preaching to gentiles because God told me to eat the animals."
>>23526935It makes sense when you understand that the clean/unclean distinction applied directly to Jew/Gentile. Jews were a people set aside, cultivated as if a vineyard. They weren't even allowed to eat with Gentiles. The symbolism is clear.
>>23526567The advent of Christianity occured within a millieu that was highly influenced by Helleno-Roman culture.
>>23526849OP asked about the teachings of Christ as written in the bible, not the bible in its entirety.
>>23525497Orthodox is closest. Read the Church Fathers and early saints. Catholocism has changed some of their teachings and fallen away from orthodoxy - TLM trads are still trying to push those teachings.
>>23526929Yes I do and it is all part of the great commission, namely to make disciples of all peoples of all nations and to baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. No longer was Jesus for the lost sheep of Israel. Read all of Acts 10 and it is clear but below are I think some key points“You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for." [when speaking to Cornelius and his travellers]...."While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God."
>>23525900Could you provide more examples of supposed Saul/Paul and Jesus contradictions. I'd like to discuss this with a pastor. Thanks.
>>23526995http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
>>23526567Yeah and the 1500s were about the time when Anglo-Germanic cultural arsonist influences started creeping in culminating in the present.
>>23526964>what has Athens to do with Jersualem?
Why do Edgyptians make Mark the apostle nearly indistinguishable from ΙΗCΟΥC?
>>23525900Paul is defended by Acts which was written by Luke. The author of the Gospel was pro-Paul and if you can't trust the Gospel what can you trust? Also >>23526261. Being anti-Paul is such a midwit trap.>>23526268Paul's letters are older than the Gospels. They are the oldest Christian texts even though their placement in the New Testament places them after for the sake of presenting things "chronologically" rather than in the order of when they actually circulated.
>>23526860Christ is risen however and not at rest.
>>23527398The circulation of the epistles is probably what prompted the writing down of the different gospel testimonies which up till then were an oral tradition as with most literary religions. The gospels are also often the first thing to be preached to newcomers rather than epistles or OT scriptures.
>>23526895Yeah, Jonestown.
>>23526158No, he explicitly said to embrace the irrational because a rational perspective on life inevitably leads to despair.
You forgot presbyterian, which is the correct option. Read RC Sproulhttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NH3a874RcNo&pp=ygUYcmMgc3Byb3VsIHByZWRlc3RpbmF0aW9u
>>23530255I always find it amusing how they used to set up stage living rooms to deliver filmed lectures. Like, no one has ever sat on that couch man. That's not a real window.
>>23526158Mysticism is cool though
Just scratch Prots off the list, they don't have it right and there's no way their religious practices and atmosphere are even remotely similar to ancient Christianity.
>>23530848I really find it funny how Catholics think an imperial church headed by a political authority, covered in gold and burning people at the stake has anything in common with the Ante Nicean church which was simple people meeting in living rooms
>>23530884I'm not a Catholic, that incorrect guess with that much confidence just shows how ignorant you are overall, not surprising coming from someone who thinks Germans somehow recreated a first century Jewish sect perfectly.
>>23530995Oh okay, Orthodox. Big difference. >Germans somehow recreated a first century Jewish sect perfectly.The Germans just read the Bible and started doing what it said.
>>23530999The fact you're not even slightly ashamed of your overconfident incorrect assumptions about other people really says it all.
>>23531002You're clutching, lad.
>>23531002Oh yes, you have such deep and esoteric beliefs but won't say what they are. You sound just like a tradlarp. If that offends you, stop sounding like a tradlarp.
>>23531004Really? So you're saying you didn't make an overconfident wrong assumption? I wonder what else you're extremely overconfident about, but are wrong on. Probably a lot of things.
>>23531006>Oh yes, you have such deep and esoteric beliefs but won't say what they are.What are you even on about? What in my posts indicated this at all? Just insane insecure projection tbch
>>23531009What are you even on about? How mysterious you are and how nobody guessed your niche internet larp belief?
>>23531013Legitimately crazy, get help + last post from me
>>23531017K bye
>>23530999>The Germans just read the BibleAnd from where did they get the Bible?
>>23531031From God Himself. The Word says it is "God breathed" which means that it was holy as soon as the pen was put to paper. To say the Bible came from the Church puts the cart in front of the horse because 1) the Bible establishes doctrine and doctrine establishes the Church and 2) to say the Bible is legitimized by man is to put fallen man's word in authority over God's word, which is idolatry. I know you think this is some great gotcha question but it's been answered by Reformers literally since the 1500s. Calvin wrote a great little chapter on it.
>>23531041And what did Christians do before they had a Bible?
Reject all semitic desert sects
>>23526968The King James Bible in its entirety is the teachings of Christ (all 66 books, apocryphal books contradict each other and the established Scripture, they were only kept for historical purposes, none of the KJB translators thought they were inspired and they weren't the first to know this either). Jesus Christ is God, he is the Creator.>Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.>John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.>Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:>Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.>1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.>2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:>>23530848>>23530995Your church worships idols.>it's an icon not an idol>it's veneration not worshipMental gymnastics don't matter. You can scratch both Catholics and Orthodox off the list because they bow to and kiss and pray to that which their own hands have made. Scripture makes it clear what God considers idolatry through his commandments and through example when Biblical Israel fell into apostasy and idolatry and that is idolatry. >>23531057There was always a Bible, what do you think Christ quoted from, the Scripture, the Bible. It just had more inspired books added after Christ's ministry on earth. Neither your church nor the popish church can claim monopoly or authorship to any of it, nor authority over it. Your false world religions are based on appealing to the so-called authority of man rather than the authority of Scripture, and appealing to man's opinions and traditions and mental gymnastics to justify disobeying God's plain commandments.>And what did Christians do before they had a Bible?You're basically calling God a liar when he said he'd preserve his words, when you ask this, "before they had a Bible". They always had one. How did the Bereans verify the teachings of an apostle? By comparing it to Scripture. More books being added doesn't mean it disappeared and was solely in the hands of some idolatry cult.
>>23525497Why did god let his word be so misinterpreted? It seems impossible to know which christianity is correct and then all the others are heresies (nevermind other religions). Pascal was wrong, it's better not to choose
>>23532430>The King James Bible in its entirety is the teachings of Christ (all 66 books, apocryphal books contradict each other and the established Scripture, they were only kept for historical purposes, none of the KJB translators thought they were inspired and they weren't the first to know this either).I just know I'm going to get a bunch of strawmen and nonsense in reply to this too. It's all so tedious dealing with people who deny God divinely preserved his words and that they were faithfully translated into English over 400 years ago.
>>23532437Freewill. People choose to misinterpret and use inferior text because they want to cling to man's traditions instead of God's Holy Word. God wants his kingdom to be full of people who want to serve him, not with mindless automatons who have no agency. Man is made in the image of God, not as mindless robots. Also see pic: >>23526863
Were the gospels written by the actual apostles or by people/s using their name?
>>23525497Christian Science
>>23532448>Man is made in the image of GodGod cannot be as flawed as we are unless he was some kind of demiurge
>>23531057What do you mean? They had the old testament, the gospels, and all the epistles before the end of the first century. All doctrine was immediately recorded and divinely inspired.
>>23525497Poor hick evangelicals are probably the closest
>>23532535in the sense that god is a mind, body and spirit, so are we; we have all these things but i doubt your post was in good faith.
>>23525497Eastern Orthodox have the unbroken apostolic line of succession. Catholics would be next best but they're schismatic. The rest are one form of heresy towards outright Satanism on the spectrum. Anything protestant is subjective, homosexual and feminist.
>>23532535>getting your theology from feminist female-worship maymaysGnosticism is rooted in a deliberate misunderstanding of Genesis 1-3.
>>23533843I actually got it from google image search. "demiurge meme"
>>23533708Do you mean to tell me that I can't receive the Holy Spirit unless an Orthodox priest puts his hands on me?
>>23533882I've seen it posted on /x/ a lot and many of them take it seriously. I guess you don't, nor do you take seriously the words you speak. Do you not know that every idle word we'll give an account on the day of judgment?
>>23534067The entire function of 4chan is idle words.
>>23534046Orthodox and Catholics consider each others' sacraments to be valid.
>>23534273So I can't receive the Holy Spirit unless a catholic or Orthodox priest puts his hand on me?
>>23534296You can, but you'll be outside the ecclesiastical authority of the church. Remember, the church was formally established by Christ, and the church fathers predate the Bible. Ecclesiastical authority isn't something to be avoided because you think attending church is gay or something. You attend church because church tells you and everyone else to not be gay. Unless it's a heresy aka prot "church" in which case you know, Jesus is non binary and god is a woman and the pastor is a "married" lesbian.The Bible cannot provide you with a patriarchy. The church is explicitly designed to do so.
>>23535040>For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of themThis is the essence of the Church
>>23535129Maybe, but that doesn't tend to produce great works, does it.
>>23535169All works are vain works. All that matters is expressing Christ and converting believers.
>>23535040You're so brainwashed. Nobody has even proven from Scripture that man ever has authority over God's Word, but Scripture isn't your authority hence why you're always citing "muh church fathers". Not that they're even the fathers of the NT church, the real church fathers wrote the books of the NT, but you shouldn't call them father anyway unless you love to disobey God, which you do, hence why you're always appealing to the so-called authority of man.
>>23525497It's probably Eastern Othodoxy. But Catholics, Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox seems to me they have the exact same doctrines, while give emphasis on different aspects of them. The Catholic Church has some strong western european folkloric influence in its traditions, but the doctrines are exactly the same. Coptics seem older though, but I don't know much about them.And Prostestants aren't christians.(with the exception of Lutherans, Anglicans and Episcopalians, all whom are heretics)
>>23526158Tolstoy is bonafide.>>23525497Kierkegaard is probably worth a mention also, with his anti state-church and mainstream church sentiments, and his dedication to faith and all that stuff. He was also anti-Paul, for whatever that's worth.Above all, just read the Gospels.
>>23532430>Mental gymnastics don't matter.>Scripture makes it clear what God considers idolatry through his commandmentsYou know the Bible was written in greek and hebraic right? And you know idolatry, adoration and veneration are completelity different concepts in those languages, right? You fucking imbecilic retard?
>>23535246What is God's word exactly? Retard.
>>23535334Your man-centered religious systems claim God isn't powerful enough to preserve His words as he said he would. Christ showed the authority of Scripture, he never came along and disputed "akshually, I said this to Moses" or told them to go searching in the desert caves for scraps of papyrus smaller than a postage stamp to "recreate" and "find" God's word. He never appealed to any religious leaders, that's for sure. You're nothing like Christ, you might as well be a professing atheist, because you are clearly without God and atheism means without God. And of course, the fruit of your false religion is hatred.
>>23532723What about the 10 to 20 years of Christianity before Mathew and Paul started writing the first parts of the New Testament? Was that generation of Christians particularly bad?>>23535246Do you think you understand Christianity better than the disciples of the Apostles? That you, 2000 years separated from the writing of the Gospels, understand the New Testament better than those who were from the same culture of the writers and who knew the writers of the Bible or were students of the students of the writers of the Bible? Didn't Jesus leave his disciples to teach people? And didn't some of those disciples (or their disciples) then went on to write the new Testament?And didn't the Gospels note that not everything taught by Jesus was in the Gospels? Didn't their letters show how Paul and John taught people face to face?
>>23535328The fruit of your religion is hatred, clearly proving it's false. You know they had to repair this idol's foot multiple times because people won't stop kissing it. >>23535350You're so brainwashed, it's unreal. You can't even argue from Scripture, all you cultists ever do is appeal to the so-called authority of man and slander everyone and spew hate.
>>23535347>Go off, kingWas it meant to sound like that in your head or something? Cus it didn't. I asked you what the word of God is, and you had an actual melt down and said I'm full of hate. You're a retard.
>>23535353>You're so brainwashed, it's unreal. You can't even argue from Scripture, all you cultists ever do is appeal to the so-called authority of man and slander everyone and spew hate.That's not an answer to my points.Let's think of an example: who knows better about Christianity?A student of Matthew who was personally taught by Matthew... Or some 21st century Academic who tries to twist the words of the Bible to claim sodomy is not sinful?
>>23535364Who are you quoting? You proved you're not willing to argue in good faith. I'm calling you out for your hatred which is the fruit of your false religion.
>>23535366It is an answer, but you can't refute it. Still appealing to the so-called authority of man and peddling the same lie from your cults that your cults can trace their roots back to Christ (they can't). Go worship your idols.
>>23535370Your words wash right off me mate I've a large loving family and you're either a chat bot or as dumb as you sound. Have a good one.
>>23535373You are just trying to escape. Who can interpret the Gospel of John better? Someone who knew John, was taught by John, spoke the same language he did... ... Or a liberal 21st century Academic?
>>23535375Now he pretends to be calm and rational and respectful once called out. Hilarious. You're no different than the atheists on /his/.>>23535386>You are just trying to escape. Pure projection. >Who can interpret the Gospel of John better? Someone who knew John, was taught by John, spoke the same language he did... ... Or a liberal 21st century Academic?The Holy Spirit. You should actually read the Bible and believe it instead of parroting these stupid anti-intellectual talking points. But you can't rely on the bibles you use because they contain contradictions and errors and are counterfeits, they're not the pure words of God.
>>23535366What basis do we have to make such a judgement if our modern interpretations are so faulty?
>>23535375Oh wait, no, I didn't read his whole post, he's still full of hate and still no real arguments. Typical of Cathodox idolaters who worship and follow man instead of God.
If the Bible is all that is necessary, why do no Protestant denominations agree with each other to the degree the apostolic churches do on matters of doctrine?
>>23535412>You should actually read the Bible and believe itBut different people have different interpretations of what is written in the Bible. A Calvinist, an Orthodox and a Lutheran might have different interpretations of the same passage.How do we know who is the right one?
>>23535414Well, that seems logical, doesn't it? That someone who was taught directly by an Apostle will have a better grasp than someone who doesn't speak primarily the same language, doesn't have the same cultural background, etc.Someone interpreting the Scriptures with the help of the early Fathers should have an advantage to an Atheist who solely ignores them and mostly focus on word structure.
>>23535350I always find this line of reasoning so weird. The apostles wrote their works after Christ's ascension. Therefore there's an unbroken line of infallible Popes for all perpetuity? It's such a weird leap of logic and I've never seen it justified. If Scripture were unnecessary and all we needed was succession, then Scripture would never need be written. This idea that there's a parallel authority to Scripture is a totally post hoc invention for politicians to claim more power.
>>23535386You're still appealing to the authority of Scripture here. There's an interesting historical argument there. That being, the 1st century Church knew the apostles directly. But you haven't made an argument from infallibility. Do you mean to say someone who knew John directly has absolutely inerrancy in doctrinal statements, equally valid to Scripture itself? That's a leap. We were left Scripture precisely because time corrupts. The medevial church was corrupted by time, which is why it was necessary to make a push back to Scripture
>>23535499I don't know if it seems logical, that's not for me to say; ask an apostle.
>>23535449If apostolistic succession is necessary why did the apostolistic churches Schism? It's such dumb argument that can be thrown back in your face. By the way, the Catholics and Protestants agree more on the Trinity than the Orthodox and Catholics do. You're trying to act like there was some great unbroken stasis of Christendom where everyone was in lockstep until that darned drunk German nailed those papers to a door. It's so ahistorical.
>>23535678Jesus didn't leave a book. He left a Church under the authority of the Apostles and their disciples. The Bible is important too, of course. Very important. I don't want anyone to think I'm saying otherwise. But the Bible doesn't contain all the teaching as written in the Bible itself, in John 21:25.
>>23535690I didn't make a (stronger) supernatural comment on infallibility, apostolic succession, etc which are valid arguments.I make a simple, human, natural argument. That the people who were direct disciples of the Apostles had a better grasp of the New Testament teachings than someone who ignores them and just tries to get his own meaning from the texts.
>>23535697Other than some Anglicans, Catholics are closer to the Orthodox than to the Protestants.
>>23535353>The fruit of your religion is hatred, clearly proving it's false. You know they had to repair this idol's foot multiple times because people won't stop kissing it.Lmao, dodged my question.
>Noooooo, you have to listen to the human disciples, you can't make your own opinions. You have to be loyal to the Pope.
>211 posts>4 or 5 book recommendationsThis post is sponsored by meme generator. joking aside, do you guys read actual books about this stuff or is it all internet shite (blogs, yootoobers, podcasts, wiki articles, online journals etc etc).as /lit/ ages i get the impression that, for want of a better description, "topic" orientated threads have become more popular than book orientated threads and that they're frequented by contributors who don't actually read books.
>>23525497What teachings? Don't kill children, something no moral system advocates? Christ didn't give a single instruction.
>>23536593sermon on the mount
>>23536593Liberals by and large support abortion
Picrel was right.
>>23532430Your own hateful and ignorant attitude is enough to prove you false, you don't show the fruits of the Spirit so you're discarded. Trees are judged by their fruit, and the great saints are all Catholic and Orthodox.
>>23535820The Church is simply the body of believers. Not some quasi civi bureaucratic institution with unquestionable authority
>>23525524>You'd be surprised to know that most don't actually disagree on what Christ taughtI would be very surprised indeed to know that because it's not remotely true and I studied theology extensively
Can we have one theology thread without the word ‘retard’?
>>23526158You basically have it right. I was obsessed with this several years ago and it’s been on my mind ever since. The beauty of the simplicity of ignoring the supernatural and focusing on the teachings. Christ is not god because he raised Lazarus from the dead, died and was resurrected, etc. Instead, Christ is God because embracing his teachings saves us from ourselves.
>>23537249Why were there 12 Apostles and why did they choose successors for the Apostles?
>>23537930Apostle means messenger, not a ruler or rule maker. This is such a weird spin that's been invented. That somehow the office of Apostle is something ascended to like a government office and that whoever takes that office is infallible for all pperpetuity. It's totally nonsense and unsubstantiated.
I'm not even practicing but it's pretty obvious that either the Catholics or EO who are right. Historically, no one else has any ground to stand on, the Catholics/EO developed organically from the first Church in Jerusalem, and there are good records for all of this. When you read early Christians, they sound like Catholics/EO not protestants. And as for "boo hoo organized religion is bad Jesus hated organized religion" - really? Because I remember him laying down rules for excommunication and speaking of founding a Church. As for which one of those two, I can't pretend to settle that dispute, if I was Greek or Serbian I'm sure I'd be EO. I'm a Catholic because I'm a westerner, my ancestors were all Catholic (Irish/Bavarian), etc, that's good enough for me.
>>23538567I think it's funny how people totally overlook the mixing of Church and Empire by Constantine and how it totally transformed the Church. Revelation specifically mentions how the Church would degrade over time. >Luke 13:20 >And again He said, To what shall I liken the kingdom of God?>Luke 13:21 >It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened.
>>23538580Everyone interprets Revelation differently, it's actually a pretty good example of why we need a Church in the first place. Yes, Constantine brought the Empire and the Church together, but the Church was already there - a Church with bishops, patriarchs, robes, incense, veneration of Mary, the whole nine yards. The argument that "welll it was all fine and then Constantine made it Catholic" is absurd, it's not even worth addressing. You might as well try to tell me that the constitution was written in 1934. But people do fall for these (laughably weak and bad) arguments. Why? Because they want the freedom to commit certain sins that the Church rightly opposes.
>>23538594And then we finally get back to the point always side stepped: What makes the Pope infallible? You merely take it on faith. It's obvious to that the absorption of the Church into the Roman government was an act of corruption, and the centuries of degradation and abuse, like burning people for reading the Bible (like what you just now explicitly supported). Treating the Church like a government to impose laws on sin is literally reestablishing The Law and is an act of vanity. You want unity rather than truth. And you're happy to discard truth in favor of a single, doctrinally wrong, and tyranical Church. It shows you don't have the faith to let the Holy Spirit guide people to Christ and try to use the force of man instead.
>>23538613>What makes the Pope infallible? You merely take it on faith. It follows logically from there being a Church at all. There has to be one ultimate locus of authority. That said, EObros have their own arguments here, I know that, I'm not really trying to quarrel with them. But I think we Caths and EOs can both point and laugh at people like you. You don't know what the Law is, apparently; for you, it's any moral rule, which is why protestants tend to slide nicely into outright antinomianism. We can do this all day, with you taking Biblical language, misinterpreting it, and repeating historical falsehoods. I don't care, I'm positive that we are right, we've been here from the very start. When was your... err... ecclesial community founded? Our Church goes back over 2000 years now.
>>23538631Your church began in the 4th century with Constantine. If you think the Church is supposed to be a civic organization then yeah okay, there might be an authority. But that's entirely post hoc, and has nothing to do with the early church, or even before rhe 5th century when the pope finally claimed temporal authority. I think contemporary reactionaries are very funny in how they revise and twist history. The history of the Roman Church is fraught with internal instability merely because the Pope tried to be a king and emperor. You'll side with EO today, glossing over The Great Schism and pretending like centuries of mutual antagonism didn't exist. You'll forget that the Catholic west didn't blink when the Ottomans took Constantinople simply because they saw them as heretics. You'll ignore that the EO still see Catholics as schismatics and no different from Protestants. Should we talk about the Avignon Papacy and the crisis of the three Popes? Should we mention the Council of Constance which in fact directly contradicts Vatican 1 by saying the Pope answers to the Church? Catholics have this pretension of sophistication, but it's just a veneer. Lurking under the surface is nothing more than base superstition and historical ignorance. It comes down to your fundamental misunderstanding of what the Church is. It isn't a branch of a defunct empire. It's nothing more than the body of believers. With Christ as the head. Not some homosexual South American communist.
>>23538668>Your church began in the 4th century with Constantine.No, it didn't, this is demonstrably false. Here, read Eusebius, it might cure you of your heresy:https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm>I think contemporary reactionaries are very funny in how they revise and twist history. This from the guy who thinks the Church emerged out of whole cloth with Constantine. Have you ever read anything besides chick tracts?>The history of the Roman Church is fraught with internal instability merely because the Pope tried to be a king and emperor.I agree with you. The pope himself would agree with you, so would all the modern popes. Benedict XVI actually quotes a 12th century bishop who compared the Church to a hideous monster. This is because it is composed entirely of sinners.>You'll side with EO today, glossing over The Great Schism and pretending like centuries of mutual antagonism didn't exist.I don't pretend that at all buddy. But they are in schism, they aren't heretics. That means we agree on virtually everything important. It's natural to see them as allies, this is how most Caths think of the EO. >It comes down to your fundamental misunderstanding of what the Church is. It isn't a branch of a defunct empire. It's nothing more than the body of believers. With Christ as the head. Not some homosexual South American communist.A body of believer with Christ as the head should agree amongst itself as to what it believes, don't you think?
>>23538686Eusebius, the Arian and Constantine fan boy, kek. The Church didn't just appear out of thin air with Constantine. The Roman Church began by mixing the Ekklesia with state, which was an act of leavening. The fruits of which are obvious. As soon as it became political, it's main interest turned toward power and wealth, while pastoral issues ceased. Why else would they burn bibles, kill those who owned them, and deny the laity the wine at communion? >Luke 8:16 >Now no one who has lit a lamp covers it with a vessel or puts it underneath a bed, but he puts it on a lampstand in order that those who come in may see the light.You've just directly contradicted yourself. First, if we're all sinners, Popes included, then none of us can be infallible, Popes included. And if you agree with me that there's so much internal division of the Roman Church, then you agree that even believers in the Roman Church, as one Body, disagree with one another. Your point is moot.As for the EO, it's an entirely recent phenomenon for Catholics to see them as brothers. They're in schisms and deny Papal Primacy and the fillioque, but aren't heretics? Protestants and Catholics have more in common than either do with EO on our shared western foundation. And I can assure you, the EO does not see the Catholics in the same light.
>>23538504????I think you are very ignorant of Catholicism if you think we believe all Bishops are infallible. The Pope himself is infallible only under very restrictive guidelines.You are confusing the Magisterium of the Church with individuals.
>>23538731These revisions were formulated only after Vatican 1. People used to be burned at the stake for questioning the Pope.
>>23538725>Protestants and Catholics have more in common than either do with EONo, we don't. A portion of the Anglicans are pretty close to Catholics, but we are much closer to the Eastern Orthodox than to other Protestants.
>>23538744What a meme.
>>23538746Cool argument, bro.
>>23538738You are extremely ignorant of Catholicism. Or of history, even.
>>23538752You too
>>23538580Why can't the Church have political power? While it could and has been abused, that same power also spread the Gospel to all parts of the world and has been the greatest charity in all of history to all peoples. You seem to have an unfortunate jaundiced view of authority. But we should not let fear influence such important matters, there's no better place to be but in the Bosom of the Church.
>>23538725>The Church didn't just appear out of thin air with Constantine.Indeed not. For the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ when He walked the earth.The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is stated by Paul: To ensure that the Apostles’ teachings would be passed down, Paul told Timothy:>“[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tm 2:2).In this passage Paul refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.From the beginning the Catholic Church has had a hierarchical, apostolic structure, as testified in the 100s by St Ignatius of Antioch and St Irenaeus.By the year 180, apostolic succession was understood as the sure indicator of orthodoxy. Thus St Irenaeus of Lyons, writing against the Gnostics in that year:>Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who... whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized AT ROME by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.>For it is A MATTER OF NECESSITY that EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH [i.e. Rome], on account of its preeminent authority.-St Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.3.2, 180 AD (emphasis added)Note that what he is claiming here is that the Church at Rome, which traces its origin to Peter, is *infallible*, for it would be false that "it is a matter of necessity" that every Church should agree with the Church at Rome, if the Church at Rome could fall into heresy or apostasy.The idea that every other Church should agree with the Church at Rome depends upon there being some special divine gift of unique authority given to that Church, and thus to the Apostolic founder of the Church at Rome and to his successors.But, it may be added, if we wish to locate the Church founded by Jesus, we need to locate the one that has the four chief marks or qualities of his Church, as set forth in the Nicene Creed. St. Irenaeus emphasized only one of these: that the Church must be apostolic.But the true Church is also: One, Holy, and Catholic, in addition to being apostolic. And the Catholic Church is the only Church which possesses those four marks. By contrast, the Eastern Orthodox churches are neither one nor Catholic, being primarily ethnic churches.
>>23538824I'll get back to you later on the subject. I'm too busy to discuss it now.
>>23525497Quakerism is the worst choice you can make. Literally were the blueprint for all the ills in the world we see today, despite Nixon being raised in the church.Some key points:- if the church preaches predestination, avoid it- if the church preaches sola fide, avoid itAnd lastly - if the church promotes women preachers, definitely avoid itI cannot speak on transubstantiation as my autist brain cannot really comprehend or compartmentalize that concept but I’m sure it’s important
>>23538725>Eusebius, the Arian and Constantine fan boy, kek.He was more of a semiarian. Yeah he was a Constantine fan boy, as you put it, his history is still quite legit and more than enough to overturn the idea that Catholicism started with Constantine.>The Roman Church began by mixing the Ekklesia with state, which was an act of leavening. The fruits of which are obvious.You're just taking metaphorical verses in the Bible and interpreting them to support a position you've already assumed. That's why we need a Church to interpret the Bible in the first place, to put people like you in their place (read: fire).>The fruits of which are obvious. Yeah all those charities and hospitals and saints, what awful people the Catholics are.>As soon as it became political, it's main interest turned toward power and wealth, while pastoral issues ceased. There was always a mixture of both, actually.>Why else would they burn bibles, kill those who owned them, and deny the laity the wine at communion?Denying laity the wine at communion started because of fear of people dribbling it or spilling it. Not such a wacky idea if you think it's the blood of Christ. The theology of all this is interesting (for example, why we reversed course) but I think this conversation has to stick to a low level. As for killing those who owned a Bible - nigger, nobody owned a Bible in the middle ages, unless you were a king or a nobleman. Do you have any idea how expensive a Bible was? And the vast majority of people couldn't read the Bible, either, because it was in Latin translation (though there were some vernacular translations of portions that circulated and would have been read publicly). Why wasn't this a big deal? Because Christianity has never been a religion that's primarily about reading the Bible. Most of the apostles could probably barely read at all. The NT puts almost no stress on studying the scriptures because so many of the early Christians were poor/uneducated (and the same is true today, I suppose).>First, if we're all sinners, Popes included, then none of us can be infallible, Popes includedNo, that does not follow logically. You're one of the least-skilled protestants I've ever argued with here.
>>23538829> to put people like you in their place (read: fire).Stop scandalising the Catholic Church.
>>23539130This is how people talk on 4chan. I do not actually advocate that protestants be burned alive, I don't say "nigger" either, but this is the culture of the site. If you don't like it, you can go back to the other place.
>>23538829>and more than enough to overturn the idea that Catholicism started with Constantine.The Imperial Church existed before bein part of the empire? Kek, if you say so. >metaphorical versesOkay, and it's a metaphor for what exactly? Can you think for yourself or do you jeed someone to tell you what to think? I find it very telling that when confronted with Scripture Catholics will dismiss it. The Bible doesn't matter to you. You'd rather follow a false doctrines than think for yourself.>That's why we need a Church to interpret the Bible in the first place>1 Cor. 14:26 >What then, brothers? Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.Here Scripture says the whole Body of believers should be interpreting, not just some pedophile in a robe. You have the cart in front of the horse. We need scripture to constrain the church. Not the other way aroun. And of course, in your wickedness you'd have me burnt at stake for just reading the Bible. You're a sick person.The fruits of th Catholic Church are entirely worldly. Wars, massacres, burnings at the stake. Okay. Ignore that?>The theology of all this is interesting (for example, why we reversed course) but I think this conversation has to stick to a low levelFunny how you'd make excuses for that. Denying the lay people a very important sacrament and you just shrug your shoulders? And the infallible Church "reverses course" acknowledging that it was wrong and infallible? Proof again you've done nothing but outsource your thinking to others.>nigger, nobody owned a Bible in the middle agesI shouldn't be surprised at the historical ignorance. Catholics never know history. The Chuch confiscated and burned Bibles from the Waldensians and Hussites, murdered Tyndale for publishing one, and we're mortified by the printing press and the Gutenberg Bible. You can deny history all you want, but the medevial Church had a vested interest in supressing the Bible. >No, that does not follow logically. You're one of the least-skilled protestants I've ever argued with here.Again, thr typical pretentious Catholic with his veneer of sophistication. It absolutely does follow and until you can explain how a fallen, corrupt, sinful man, whom you've conceded has been the central contention of division in Churc history can somehow also be perfect and infallible, I'll just accept that you have no counter argument and do nothing more than say "nuh uh!"
>>23539425It took him over two hours to come up with this post, that's the first thing I want to point out.>The Imperial Church existed before bein part of the empire? Kek, if you say so.No, the Church itself, the Church you reject.>Here Scripture says the whole Body of believers should be interpreting, not just some pedophile in a robe. You have the cart in front of the horse. We need scripture to constrain the church. Not the other way aroun. And of course, in your wickedness you'd have me burnt at stake for just reading the Bible. You're a sick person.I'm not saying that believers have nothing to say, but you have to be submissive to the bishop. That's all 1 and 2 Corinthians are about, Paul trying to get people to submit to his legitimate authority. If every believer had an equal right to interpret scripture, he would have no leg to stand on.>The fruits of th Catholic Church are entirely worldly. Wars, massacres, burnings at the stake. Okay. Ignore that?I explicitly acknowledged it above. I talked about Benedict XVI quoting a medieval bishop comparing the Church to a hideous monster. But it's not really fair to say that's all there is - like I said, charities, hospitals, saints. You act like Catholicism is nothing but inquisitors.>I shouldn't be surprised at the historical ignorance. Catholics never know history. The Chuch confiscated and burned Bibles from the Waldensians and Hussites, murdered Tyndale for publishing one, and we're mortified by the printing press and the Gutenberg Bible. You can deny history all you want, but the medevial Church had a vested interest in supressing the Bible.Because heretics were twisting vernacular translations of the Bible to justify their heresy. As I said, sitting around reading the Bible is not really an important part of being a Christian. There's nothing in the Bible about it, anyway.>t absolutely does follow and until you can explain how a fallen, corrupt, sinful man, whom you've conceded has been the central contention of division in Churc history can somehow also be perfect and infallible,He isn't perfect and you don't understand how infallibility works. As I said, a very poor performance. Any objective anon reading this exchange can see what a fool you are. Now I'll pose my question again - my Church goes back over 2,000 years. When did your, er, ecclesial communion get its start?
>>23539451I don't sit on here all day. I spent the two hours living my life, not outlining an argument. Im sure you sat glued to this thread, refreshing the page waiting for me. Go outside sometime. >the Church you rejectI mean, sure, the Church of Constantine means nothing to me. I've said repeatedly, the Church is nothing more than the Body of bbelievers. You can insist that the Church is actually an arm of the Roman government (now defunct) but I don't really care.Other than this, you didn't really say anything of substance other than to agree with most of my points and then admit that you were wrong about bible burnings. Like I said, Catholics don't really care for the Bible, which is obvious in how you act and how you respond. That's why it's impossible to have conversations with Catholics. We depend on the Bible, while you don't care at all what the Bible says. >muh ex cathedra!!!I don't care, you can soijack about Vatican 1 all you want, but at the end of the day it's all incoherent mental gymnastics. >he's the ultimate authority, but he's a sinner and wrong, but he's infallible sometimes, but he's also the cause of division and corruption, but I'm obligated to submit to him for some reasonIt's funny that you'll condescend as if you're the smart one here, but bein smug is about half of what being a Catholic is anyway.
>>23539474>I mean, sure, the Church of Constantine means nothing to me. I've said repeatedly, the Church is nothing more than the Body of bbelievers. You can insist that the Church is actually an arm of the Roman government (now defunct) but I don't really care.In pre-Constantinian Christianity, you had two groups: 1) the Catholic/Orthodox Church; 2) various heretics of all stripes. But by your logic the people in 2) are actually Christians (they believe in Christ, after all), and you also continue to bizarrely claim that 1) did not exist before Constantine. These are simple points, and since you don't answer them, I'm just going to assume you can't. The real reason people like you take the position they do is pride. They think they have a special connection with God that lets them understand the Bible and religion in a way that no one else does. Usually they are attached to some sin (jacking off, homosexuality) that the Church rejects.
Look up the letters of st ignatius of antioch
>>23539141Be in the world (4chan), not of the world (4chan).
>>23539804I'm a completely different poster from the one this post is replying to and from the one who made the post itself, I would just like to urge all Catholics that they need not at all concern themselves with the effectiveness or success rate of their witness. God calls us only to be faithful to Him and full of love for others, therefore, we can relax in the face of insult, misunderstandings, fears, hatreds, etc. because the fruit of our labor belongs to God, meaning He does not need us at all—please internalize this—He only calls us to fight or play faithfully and lovingly.>Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose. Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain. But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.
>>23540009>Christians are called to love so it doesn’t matter if they don’t love. Huh?
>>23538725>deny Papal PrimacyIronically EO literally accept Papal Primacy lolhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenna_DocumentThey think the Pope should ideally be the first among the Patriarchs, they just think the Papacy is in heresy over the filioque (but in reality the filioque is just a wedge issue; it's really because the Byzantines were upset that the Pope privileged the HRE as the "new Rome" over them)
What do you guys think about Pope Francis, the "synodality" thing, and the recent Vatican document concerning the Pope's position as Bishop of Rome?
>>23540457>they just think the Papacy is in heresy over the filioqueDo the Orthodox consider it a heresy? It's a strange issue since the Eastern Catholics say the Creed without the Filioque and Rome is okay with it.
>>23538746Byzantine Catholicism is literally just Orthodoxy that also accepts the Pope. Their liturgies aren't even required to have the filioque in their creed.>>23540465The whole "synodality" business seems like something Francis is trying to use as a blueprint for the Church as a whole when it seems to mostly stem from the Germans. I was worried that the whole """Synodal Way""" shit in Germany was bordering on schism but they seem to have had more than one round of talks with the Vatican and it seems to be smoothing over. I think that shit developed in Germany mostly because Germany has a really weird church subsidy tax system that makes census demography a really big deal in the German church. That system might be "nicer" to the Church than bullshit French laicite but if it leads to promoting irreconcilable beliefs (gay marriage, women priests) under the guise of positive demography and better treatment under their subsidy system that's no good at all.
>>23540410Trading petty insults humorlessly is your idea of love? I can see why would return with insults, but it doesn't add at all to the message, it actually subtracts.
>>23540468It's mostly online EO, who are largely converts, who dig in and try to say the Caths are heretics.
>>23532440>EVERY CHRISTIAN FOR THE FIRST 1,600 YEARS OF CHRISTIANITY GOT IT WRONG! ALSO, ONLY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED, NOT TRADITION, EVEN THOUGH THE CHURCH DIDNT HAVE THE BIBLE FOR THE FIRST 400 YEARS. AND EVEN THOUGH THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THE BIBLE WAS CANNONIZED, THE KING JAMES IS THE REAL VERSIONThat's how stupid Prots sounds.
>>23541141Yeah, they don't have much of a leg to stand on. I can understand why someone would be Eastern Orthodox, but protestants are out to lunch. They have no future, either, because they embraced contraception. These goofy homeschooling families at church with 6-7 kids will dominate the country in 100 years.
>>23525497anything except protestantism which is a foul disorder of the human mind a complete perverse expulsion of human sensuality and wisdom and feeling and emotion and love and expression the entire protestant sect shoudl be on great pyres of fire and their screams shoudl shake the entire planet until they disappear and lay forgottne, like when a great coment smashes into some planet we don't see. it causes a great ripple, storm, maybe even alters the planet for awhile but over time its just a crater and even that crater may soon grow over with new life.
>>23540993Your church didn't even exist until the 4th century, and it was and always was and still is full of paganism.>>23541141>>23541148>>23541153Literally all you guys have is LIES and FALSE WITNESS or strawmen arguments and circle jerking. You might as well be on r/atheism and tipping a fedora.Go worship your idols.
>>23541161or maybe i'll take a fucking 2x4 and break it over your fucking head until your brain is chock full of splinters and you go into an epileptic fit how does that sound you shithead?
>>23541161You're a really boring troll. I could actually shill for protestantism better than you do. You don't even quote the Bible all that much. Anyway, let's approach the NT as an outsider. What's the big concern of the apostolic letters? Christology, ethics, interpretation of the OT, sure, but the huge overarching theme is the problem of false teachers with heretical doctrines. The Bible, if you've ever read it, is at least on the face of things quite contradictory, you can justify almost anything with Bible verses. To this day Jews use the OT to deny that Christ is the messiah. So how do we distinguish true from false teachers? The Bible? Give me a break, anyone who reads the Bible independently will come up with something different. It's the Church, which in the NT depends on the bishop (or depending on the book bishop-presbyter as the distinction was not yet worked out). We Caths and EO descend directly from this Church in the NT, you don't. You're heretics, we're right. Seethe more.
>>23541164Classic Papist, so full of hate and murder in his heart from worshipping idols and believing lies. That's not the faith written about by the saints who wrote the Bible. Ironic you guys are always promoting works-based salvation, but your fruit is as corrupt as the atheists and unbelievers. But you guys don't read God's Word for yourselves, you let some priest tell you what it akshually says who lets some bishop tell him what it akshually says who relies on Rome's private interpretation despite that the Bible plainly says scripture is not of private interpretation and to study to show yourself approved unto God a workman that needeth not be a shamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. >>23541169Crying "troll" is not an argument, it just shows you're a loser with no arguments so you have to cope somehow. You don't quote the Bible at all, you just quote one or two twisted verses and cite your pederast cult's false interpretation thereof.
>>23541141It is an interesting phenomenon that a person in the modern world can divide his loyalties so precisely. One person might be 25% Christian and 75% Atheist, or 80% Christian, 10% Atheist and 10% American, or 50% Christian and 50% Randian. The assumption underlying Protestantism is that the only evidence of God is to be found in a book, that the first shot from the Gospel of St. John should read instead, "In the beginning was the Holy Bible, and the Holy Bible was with God, and the Holy Bible was God." This is because the Protestant inheritance spreads a bottomless distrust in the Other, even if that other is the Holy Spirit or God's own Church. Sola scriptura means one can only trust one's own understanding. In this sense, it will forever insulate the Protestant from coming to a wider understanding, because he will need faith sufficient to trust any other being but himself.
>>23541173It's interesting that you're just posting more lies and false witness proving you're not Christian at all. Literally all you guys ever "argue" with is lies, slander, and bearing false witness. Such corrupt fruit. Explains why your cult had to rely on torture and murder to spread their lies in the past, oftentimes for just owning a Bible.
>>23541177I don't think I misrepresented anything at all, save for such rhetoric for amusement and style. I'm open to hear where you think I've faltered.
>>23541172Dude read through this whole exchange, I btfo your notion that the Church was founded by Constantine and you keep saying it anyway. You have no answer because there is none."These men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.[d] 9 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.”[e] 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed. 11 Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam’s error, and perish in Korah’s rebellion. 12 These are blemishes[f] on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever."THELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOUTHELORDREBUKEYOU
>>23541172If you have met an Apostle, would you say he would not have anything to teach you? Do you consider yourself more knowledgeable and a better Christian than the Apostle James or Mary Magdalene were before the Gospels and Epistles were written?
>>23526515>Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.How is this reconciled with "give the other cheeck" maxim? Not a Christian, obviously...
brb gotta get ready for 11am mass
5 Reasons Catholics aren't Christian:https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1719673638453360.webm>>23541191You did, you literally created a false quote to lie about those who don't bow to the Pope, but you don't care, because you don't have the light of God in you. You don't care to lie more to cover your previous lies, because your cult was created by the father of lies, and the line of texts you use was also from the father of lies. Not one of you religious hypocrites have addressed any arguments in this thread, you just create your own strawmen (which is lying/false witness, and the Bible reveals you hate those who you lie against, so according to the Bible, you're full of hate and lies, i.e. not Christian) to deflect from it.>>23541194>asserting his position as right, without proving it>copy/paste walls of text (probably from his "experts" he's told to trust implicitly)>spamI don't have to read the thread to know Popery is a false religious system that keeps people in bondage and has a false gospel that doesn't save and is full of idolatry and Mary-worship. Mary is not the cause of salvation. Mary is not a co-redemtrix, nor a co-mediator. Mary can't hear your prayers on one side of the planet and another papist's on another, she's not omnipresent. They also put a snake under their idols' feet, because they distorted God's Word in Genesis 3:15 for their Mary worship.But you don't care because your cult told you to "trust the experts", just a good little NPC golem for Popery. Peter knew Christ was the rock, your cult's ONE misinterpreted verse does not and would never justify their sins and abominations and lies and idolatry and Mary-worship and calling the Pope "Holy Father". You don't care about the Word of God, only the traditions of man and the distorted view of history your pedophile cult told you. A real Christian church wouldn't have covered up for pedophiles like yours did, btw. It's not that they had wolves among the sheep, it's that the entire system is a bunch of wolves; and rather than shed light on evil, they covered up evil. Just as they try to cover their sins by their own actions their own deeds their own works, their lie of "mass" which is from their misinterpretation of the last supper to lie and tell their members they must go to them to receive Jesus, which is a lie. >>23541225It's always an appeal to man, rather than God or God's Word. The epistle of James condemns your cult's false religious system, btw. But you guys hyper-focus on one single verse and ignore all the rest of it. If you break one, you're guilty of all. And your cult lies and claims not all sins cause death, a blatant lie from the devil going back to the same lie he told Eve. You don't care, because your tradition is more important to you than God's Word. None of you have any real arguments and you certainly can't argue from Scripture, and you don't even recognize when I'm quoting Scripture if I don't give a book, chapter, and verse reference.
>>23541259>copy/paste walls of text (probably from his "experts" he's told to trust implicitly)IT"S THE EPISTLE OF JUDE YOU LITTLE TURD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>23541259You didn't answer the question.Let's just repeat them1) If you have met an Apostle, would you say he would not have anything to teach you? 2) Do you consider yourself more knowledgeable and a better Christian than the Apostle James or Mary Magdalene were before the Gospels and Epistles were written?
>>23541161 #>Catholicism and Orthodoxy are wrong, even though all archeological evidence and earliest non-biblical writings confirm that's what the earliest Christians believe. And icons are idols, even though icons existed for millenia before my denomination existed. A denomination that was founded a couple hundred years ago by some grifter in a tent who's ideas would be considered heresy by every single Christian that existed for the first 1600 years of the religion. And of the 40,000+ protestant denominations, mine is actually correct.This is what protestants actually believe. The mental gymnastics required to be a protestant are almost unfathomable. You have to be completely ignorant or in denial of history to be a prot. And the whole "Christians just stole from paganism!" is a shit Jr High argument that edgy prots and athiests use to sound smart when there's zero evidence outside of what anti-Christian retards have made up. Even a small amount of actual research would prove it all wrong. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/asd/2018/12/05/no-christmas-is-not-pagan-just-stop/
>>23541400I work with a lot of protestants. This is what they're like:>God is good huckahuckahuck God is good! God give me good things! God is good PRAISE him huckahuck>It's the END TIMES, dese wildfires prove it's de END TIMES(ofc they know with 100% certainty that they are saved no matter what they do)>huhhh what I gon have fo breakfast uhh biscuit and gravy and bacon and corned beef hash mmmhmmm God is good mmmhmmm(70% of them are obese, the other 30% are morbidly obese)>Israel is de CHOSEN PEOPLE we gots to support dem!(even though Paul speaks of them as being grafted back in, i.e. they are not "in" the Church right now; John refers to them as a synagogue of Satan)It just seems really shallow compared to what I've experienced with Catholics. Basically self-help/oprah winfrey stuff with some bible verses thrown in. And they hate gays but will say lewd things about women without thinking twice.
>>23541259You know the church pre-dates the Bible right?The Catholic/Orthodox practice of scripture+tradition makes sense historically, logically and theologically. The protestant foundation of Sola Scriptura is a chicken/egg conundrum that collapses your entire system of belief before it even begins. If the only source of faith is the Bible, how did early Christians know what to practice and believe without canonized scripture? How can the New Testament even be written without relying on tradition and thought being passed down? It simply can't. And who canonized the Bible? Men who you call heretical, pagans etc.Protestantism makes zero fucking sense
>>23541141I really don't understand their KJV thing.
>>23541400You don't even need to go into "denominations" for images when God literally commands the creation of statues of saints in the Bible (Exodus 25:18). What's even weirder is that these Evangelical types get upset about churches being "too opulent" when they ignore the extreme opulence of Solomon's Temple. (I will cede that this doesn't apply as much to traditional mainline Protestants, but the hardcore Evangelical types don't even regard them as much better than Catholics tbqh)
Why are Christians so keen on infighting and creating new denominations?Can't they all just get along.?
>>23542893That's all the Catholics want. The only way for us to get along is for us to be one Church. "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." But then you have these heretics messing it all up and things have to get a little heated, if you catch my drift.
>>23540468Filioque is considered a heresy in Orthodox Christianity. The fact that Vatican is willing to be inconsistent with their dogma and allows Eastern Catholics to see St. Gregory Palamas as a Saint when his metaphysics are the exact opposite of Catholicism is only more proof of the fact that Vatican is relativistic in its dogma.
>>23540991I'm a Christian from one of the oldest Orthodox nations, no American convert bias here. The hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit is dogmatic for Orthodoxy, the way that the Holy Spirit spirates is an issue that can be possibly debated but the hypostatic origin of the Spirit is The Father. The Father is the monarchy of the trinity, that is his relation to the other persons of the trinity that he is the eternal father beyond causality.
>>23525528So tired of this meme getting parroted by teenagers ad infinitum.
>>23541280Some garbage papist translation, that's not the Word of God, it's a counterfeit. The Bible doesn't use quotations marks in the text nor all the Shitkipedia-tier references to (assuredly) Papist notes with those [e][f] etc.>>23541289>still pressing the issue of appealing to man>falsely equating his pederast cult leaders with people who wrote the Bible>can't address any arguments, so he demands you jump through his hoopsYour wafer god can't save you.>>23541448>trust the experts, chud!>bow to the idols, chud!Go get your science jab.
>>23542331Because you're too busy arguing with strawmen then professing yourself wise after knocking down a lie you created. People hate the KJV because it's God's words preserved in English, it doesn't conform to this world or world religions. Popery conforms to this world, hence all the pagan idolatry and ecumenism and getting along with Islamist leaders (and it's interesting Islam is the only religion that promotes beheading people, reminds you of prophecy, no? -- but they probably don't teach any of that). It's not a burger king bible, you don't get to "have it your way". It doesn't conform to this world because it's the pure word of God inspired, preserved, and faithfully translated into English.
>>23542893First off, not everyone who calls Christ Lord is Christian, especially those with a works-based salvation, see Matthew 7:21-23 KJV, and note how they're proclaiming all the righteousnesses or good works they've done, also see Isaiah 64:6 KJV, it's all just filthy rags.And God said no:>II. Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,>James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.And God specifically calls people to leave the whore of babylon (the RCC):>Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfaHzhmmUN0
>>23541448>The Catholic/Orthodox practice of scripture+tradition makes sense historically, logically and theologically.It really doesn't. Hence why they killed so many people.>The protestant foundation of Sola Scriptura is a chicken/egg conundrum that collapses your entire system of belief before it even begins. If the only source of faith is the Bible, how did early Christians know what to practice and believe without canonized scripture? How can the New Testament even be written without relying on tradition and thought being passed down? It simply can't.You're so brainwashed. Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine. So is assurance of salvation, but your cult can't teach that then they'd lose all their members. Not like you even read the Bible, you just let some pedophile you call "Father" in a dress tell you what it akshually means.>>23542893>>23543105Also, James 4:4 condemns ecumenism.
>>23541448>The Catholic/Orthodox practice of scripture+tradition makes sense historically, logically and theologically.And in practice, your tradition ALWAYS is more important than God's Word, and your magisterium just twists Scripture while ignoring the rest to defend their man-made traditions. In practice of Popery, the Scripture is ignored unless they can twist a verse to justify ungodly traditions.
>>23543141Magisterium doesn't exist in orthodoxy.
>>23542893>Can't they all just get along.?It's not Bible-believers who tortured and murdered millions of people, nor is it Bible-believers who bow to and kiss and pray to statues/paintings like the Cathodox religious hypocrites.
>>23543151They all hold man's traditions in higher regard than God's laws and commandments, and they justify it in different ways citing different religious leaders, it doesn't matter if one calls them "popes/bishops/priests" and the other "patriarchs". None of them worship and serve God, one of them even calls their cult leader "Holy Father", but you'll probably hyper-fixate on that to ignore all the other points I brought up. Faggot.
>>23543141"Twists scripture" says the protestant, one of tens of thousands of denominations, which more and more each week, because they want to bend scripture to their own beliefs.
The KJV-only guy in here really just spamming dumb jpegs and pretending it's an argument. Very 2013 atheist-style behavior, evangelicals and atheists really do have the same weird mannerisms on a lot of shit.
>>23543001Orthos are really autistic about the whole saints in Eastern Catholicism thing. Palamas isn't "a saint" in "Roman Catholicism" because the RCC was not the entity that canonized him. He was accepted as a saint in a church that reconciled with Catholicism, so letting them keep that status is actually a way of the RCC being nice and accepting Eastern autonomy. If this is an argument against Catholicism, the Orthodox are no better because ROCOR and ROC literally have different processes for approving canonizations and have canonized the same saints at different times despite being the same denomination on paper.And more importantly being wrong about shit doesn't mean you can't still be a saint. Aquinas didn't accept the idea of the Immaculate Conception of Mary even though in the centuries after his death it has since become an infallible dogma of the Catholic Church. Someone being a saint means that in death they are spiritually perfect. That doesn't necessarily require being intellectually perfect in life.
>>23543221>evangelicals and atheistsIt's the children of such evangelicals that become the rabid atheists. If I had such a parent, I'd hate religion too.
I genuinely don't understand why the schizo protestant even cares about this shit. In his mind, zero other people are necessary to a Christian, as one's interpretation of the Bible is obviously always correct, and once one accepts salvation (whatever that means) one can't lose it. To him, churches are unnecessary, as are all the sacraments or performing any good deeds whatsoever.
>>23543216>>23543221>>23543264>slander>lies>false witness>misdirection>never addressing a single argument anyone ever postsJust keep proving the corrupt fruit of your false religions.- If you break one, you're guilty of all.- Forbidding to marry is a doctrine of devils.You should already know which books those two are from, but you probably don't. It takes no effort to prove your religious system is false and a lie, but you don't care because you're brainwashed cult members.
Pic related sums up these interactions nicely.
>>23540610No, I seriously don’t understand what you’re saying. It’s either wrong or I can’t comprehend it.
>>23543354>>never addressing a single argument anyone ever postsThere are literally multiple posts in this thread that you ignored because they BTFO you too directly for you to weasel out of by spamming glorified r/atheism jpegs and endless paragraphs of rambling angry sophistry.
>>23543097>>falsely equating his pederast cult leaders with people who wrote the BibleKing James of the KJV was a documented pederast kek
>>23525544They rewrote the bible to fit the narrative of the psycho that started their cult.
>>23526849King James was a man, bro.
>>23526849What man decided that the KJV is God's perfect word?
>>23526863Who translated into the King James? Was it an organization that translated the words?Was King James a King of an organization? Is a country an organization?
>>23543354Based, Latter Day Saint. Stay winning theologian
>>23543097But you didn't really answer the questions.In your opinion, the Apostles and Mary Magdalene didn't know enough about Christianity because unlike you, they didn't read the English translation of the Bible?
