/christian/ - christian

>>27981 (OP) 
The rock that Jesus established his church upon was the revelation that even though everyone was telling Peter that Jesus was this or that and not to believe him that when he prayed to God for the answer God answered that Jesus Christ was the Messiah. That's what he founded his church on and the church of Christianity, that is the church which teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ that For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again three days later and ascended to Heaven and will return come Judgement Day, that church in whatever form it takes will endure forever. 

The Catholic's claim to fame is that they're based out of Rome and as such must be the best church because that was the capital and most powerful city in the world. Likewise the Orthodox claim to fame is being the churches Paul founded and those they e established since but all of those things are earthly boasts. The Bible has many stories but an overarching trend is God exalting a man to lead his people with his Word and then that person or the next generation of people falling astray and doing wrong in the sight of the LORD leading to punishment until someone realizes how far astray theyve been lead and leads them back onto the path. There's no reason why that couldn't be the case for Protestantism and even now that most of those churches are falling astray. 

What's most needed is for all of us to read the Word of God so that we know the truth and so that the wicked can't make things up to shake our faith or lead us astray. Hardly a week and sometimes not even a day goes by that I don't see someone lying about what's in the Bible and what God would want us to do, and if you don't read the Bible you may not be able to recognize these lies for what they are, either. Read the King James Bible from start to finish. The answer will present itself to you if you open your heart to the LORD.

>>27981 (OP) 
Orthodoxy: You either do it the right way, or your wrong. The papists are finally learning that, the hard way.

>>27981 (OP) 
Because it is pure religion derived from only the word of God and all of the word of God.
t. Reformed
>>27984
Of course the Greek church is overcome with superabundant idolatry, so it is also doing it wrong.

>>27993
Based on what, pastor Jim bob's 3 years at seminary? Your brand of ignorance is closer to mohamedian thought than the Church with almost millenia of tradition and succession. Almost as dumb as thinking that Orthodoxy==Greek.

>>27995
> pastor Jim bob's 3 years at seminary
Wisdom comes from the fear of God and Knowledge comes from the Word of God.

>>27981 (OP) 
Anything but the protestant heresy. Or you will end up like this anon >>27982 that believes in the Sola Scriptura bullshit and reads the KJV bible like if the bible was the ultimate wisdom and writes "Word of God" in uppercase. Despicable, subversive, jewish cult.... A blatant parody of Christianity.

>>27995
>>27999
>Ad hominem
I'm convinced!

church_fathers_on_idolatry.jpg
[Hide] (1MB, 1866x1780)

>>27995
>Based on what, pastor Jim bob's 3 years at seminary? 
No, based on the word of God.
>Your brand of ignorance is closer to mohamedian 
"This is totally muslim or something" is not an argument. Muslims believe there's one God, therefore we must reject that, right?
>the Church with almost millenia of tradition and succession
The Church which Jesus Christ founded is not a hierarchy of bishops (of which the word of God knows nothing, but is a man-made novelty) but consists of every believer throughout the world in all times and places. Now, two things are two be observed here: 1. History is not theology, and we can say what so and so believed at such and such time, but unless so and so is named Spirit of Truth his opinion is not to be taken for justification of anything, and merely speaks to what he believes, not what is true. To this perhaps it will be objected that the fathers operated on traditions of men and not only the word of God, which is firstly false, and secondly irrelevant, for this is a circular argument, since the significance of the fathers is precisely the question at issue. 2. The tradition of image worship cannot be traced to the apostolic age, its first appearance in history is in the late 4th century, at which time it was a folk practice of laymen very rarely seeping into the clergy, and receiving incredible hostility from the authorities of the Church who sought to curtail the practice. Augustine related that the pagans objected to Christian criticism of idolatry, "you also have your adorers of columns and walls", to which he replied, "would that we did not have them, and would that we would not go on having them, but at the same time this is not what the Church teaches you". After the fall of Rome the practice greatly increased in popularity (in Italy and the east, at least), and many were ordained in the clergy who had been surrounded by these images all their lives, and had known nothing else, which led them erroneously to believe this was passed down from the apostles. Still, resistance to the images persisted, culminating in the iconoclasm of the 8th century, when Emperor Leo sought to abolish the idolatry within his realm with the support of many clerics, and ultimately the Franks.
>Almost as dumb as thinking that Orthodoxy==Greek.
That's funny, because that's how your church describes itself (as they also refer to western Christianity as Latin, the distinction coming from the old empire). New convert I'm guessing?

>>27998
If wisdom is the only prerequisite, then why do adventists go to church on Saturday? Why does an anabaptist insist that you retake the baptism: What's the point of the first one if it can be arbitrarily invalidated? Is their wisdom better than yours?

>>28000
>Accusation of ad hominem
If you think you lack the ability to learn, I can see why any criticism of your worldview can be seen as a personal attack. Here's an ad hominem for you: Grow up.

>>28001
>retort 1
See above.
>retort 2
Iconoclasm is a fundamental belief of mohamedans, one that temporarily even tainted our faith. Were you aware? 
>Muslims believe there's one God, therefore we must reject that, right?
The mohamedans worship the moon god, which its why their emblem. They are materialists who worship creation and not the creator.
>TLDR about separating history and tradition as though possible.
That's nice. Did you, O pope of one, come up with that yourself? You quote Blessed Augustine, but he didn't live long enough to see the fruits of that particular folly. A correction which needed to written in blood.
>Orthodoxy==Greek. That's funny, because that's how your church describes itself...
Orthodoxy is Eastern Catholicism, where as Roman Catholicism is Western. While certain autocephalous jurisdictions exist, it is a mistake to paint with such a broad brush. But I guess history must be thrown out if the pope of one disagrees, my apologies your excellence.
>New convert comment
It would be convenient for your ego to think so.

>>28002
>pastor Jim bob's 3 years at seminary
>Your brand of ignorance is closer to mohamedian thought 
>protestant heresy
>Sola Scriptura bullshit
>Despicable, subversive, jewish cult.... A blatant parody of Christianity
These are all ad hominems. The closest thing you had to an argument was when you criticized anon for thinking the Bible was the ultimate wisdom. You're among fellow professed believers in Christ. If your arguments have merit, it's vanity because they won't be convincing if you're rude. "If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." 1 Corinthians 13:1

>>28002
>Iconoclasm is a fundamental belief of mohamedans, one that temporarily even tainted our faith. Were you aware? 
This simply ignored the response and repeated the invalid reasoning, and this arrogant attitude while obstinately repeating absurd things honestly tempts me to respond in the flesh.
>The mohamedans worship the moon god
Insofar as this is true (which is dubious) it is true only of the origins of Islam and not its present experience, it is also flatly irrelevant because believing there is only one God, even if it is "the moon god", is still monotheism.
>>TLDR about separating history and tradition as though possible.
>That's nice. Did you, O pope of one, come up with that yourself?
Again, I am strongly tempted to respond in the flesh. I think this part alone is sufficient to expose your character, and at this point it's basically unnecessary to refute you, you are your own refutation. You have rhetoric and not reasoning.
>he didn't live long enough to see the fruits of that particular folly. A correction which needed to written in blood.
You aren't in lord of the rings.
>your ego
You have the self-awareness of a goldfish

>>28003
Are you implying that 3 years is the same as ~2000 years when it comes to Church wisdom, doctrine and tradition? Are you implying that ignorance is a genetic trait and not something that can be cured with education? Which book of the bible is sola scriptura in?  Was Jesus being rude when he called jews a den of vipers? So then, being rude can't be a problem as long as one is being honest and telling the truth? Can answer any of these questions without dissolving into insults and non-sequitur? Then yes, it is an ad hominem and you are despicable, subversive, and/or a jew parodying Christianity. 

>>28004
>repeated the invalid reasoning...
What's invalid, your feelings? No really: What did I say that wasn't valid that isn't just you disagreeing?
>Insofar as this is true...
You needing to believe something isn't a requisite to it being true. One can be completely ignorant to how electronics works to use devices which utilize it. This is solipcism at its finest, and you should feel bad for being so.
>Again, I am strongly tempted to respond in the flesh...
Nobody cares about your feelings in a debate of ideas. Want to call me a bad word, would that make you feel better?
>You aren't in lord of the rings.
You aren't qualified to have a discussion at all if you can't even contemplate a statement on its own merit instead of jumping to IS THAT A LE POP CULTURE REFERENCE?! The 8th century was a tragic time for the faith.
>You have the self-awareness of a goldfish
This statement says more about you than you even realize, you solipsistic, emotional, child. Let adults speak and educate yourself on the faith you claim to have before you humiliate yourself debating someone ON YOUR OWN SIDE again. Its pathetic, I have gotten more earnest debate FROM WOMEN.

>>28005
>Are you implying that 3 years is the same as ~2000 years when it comes to Church wisdom, doctrine and tradition?
A theology that takes three years to teach =/= it took three years to invent. Orthodox seminary is also three years, post bachelor's degree. Most seminaries build on the overwhelming majority of doctrine in church history that is acceptable, only taking issue with doctrines that appear clearly contrary to scripture.

>Was Jesus being rude when he called jews a den of vipers? So then, being rude can't be a problem as long as one is being honest and telling the truth?
Jesus knew what was in all men's hearts. He reserved these harsh words for specific men, and for specific reasons. He didn't call Nicodemus, a Pharisee and Sanhedrin member, a viper. We can't see each other's hearts, so I presume that everyone else here is a Christian brother speaking sincerely. Our purpose here isn't to anonymously sling insults at each other, it's to discuss/convince.

>Which book of the bible is sola scriptura in?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17
The words here, looking at many different translations, are these: perfect, complete, thoroughly furnished, fully equipped, adequate, proficient, etc... These verses teach the sufficiency of scripture.
I'll repost my argument from another thread:
All major denominations hold that the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, the correctness of each church (and its traditions) that holds this position can be judged by its doctrinal adherence to the Bible. "Where" or "which church" we got the canon from is irrelevant to the point at hand. Any church that holds the Bible as the word of God validates the Bible as a measuring stick, and this provides a common denominator to compare churches that hold this position. If a church claims to be the one true church, and also holds that the Bible is the word of God, it follows that if it holds a tradition that is in opposition to the word of God, then that church has self-refuted its claim to be the one true church. The New Testament epistles contain correction for the Christian churches that had fallen into false practice and incorrect doctrine in the lifetime of the Apostles. Revelation contains warnings and threats to churches (including the removal of their lampstands). If churches had fallen into error and sin in the first generation (while the Apostles were still around to correct them), what makes someone think the same would be impossible a hundred years later, or a thousand years later? And if a church fell into error at some point in the last 2000 years, how could we know when, where, about what, how frequently, and to what degree? Therefore, the Bible is the only reliable measuring stick we have to judge doctrine and practice, and holy tradition is next to worthless - because at best, it's superfluous (not needed for salvation); at worst, a sinful corruption making the word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13).

>>28006
I see you're attempting more of an effort.
>Paragraph 1
Even being charitable, a heretic's seminary is founded on cursed luther himself, an error just 500 years. Because it is founded on error, which never saw the rigor of a synod to even have the benefit of being corrected as such, how valid can it ever claim to be? If one's beliefs cannot be challenged, it makes them unfalsifiable. Even in the world of the mundane, an unfalsifiable idea is of little value on a philosophical level. As such, its even more preposterous from a theological mode Our Lord demands. Make no mistake, whatever flowery word used, such as"non-denominational" or "protestant" etc., it is by definition heresy. That's nothing to say that the devil and his children played a large hand in this and every heresy, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.
>Paragraph 2
We cannot see hearts as the Lord does, but through the wisdom that only He can give we can see, analyze and ascertain a person's words and actions on their own merit. Nicodemus welcomed Our Lord and as such was blessed, as were many other jewish clerics vaguely mentioned throughout the Gospels through their hidden baptisms. I reiterate that the difference between critique and insult is that the latter is taken. I don't have the power to forgive sins, but I have a mind gifted to me by The Lord to see through so many "christians" that, instead of choosing introspection when a rebuttal is presented, will wear their outrage like it grants them anything but an L. Hiding behind hurt feelings to keep from seeing the error of one's logic is the way of cowards. But like any character trait a man can possess, he can rid himself of it through discipline. The idea is attacked and if all that is returned are the symptoms of hurt feelings, a reflection is done to make a point. 
>Paragraph 3
The inspiration of God being the key point: Scriptures are derivative from the eternal Logos. If you want to be one of these people who only argue from their vulgate, I understand your limitation, but it all leads back that to that conflation. Logically taken to its limit, only the Pentateuch, Prophets and the Gospels would be considered canon as they contain words from God, with the rest of the books being reduced to apocrypha because of that limitation. We wrote them down to serve as proof for future generations, but even as soon as The Lord departed us, the need for exegesis was necessary. What are the epistles if not an elaboration on the prophets and gospels? But if we then include the epistles, why would we stop at revelations? Paul never even saw Christ in the flesh and yet is considered an Apostle and Saint. So why then is it that every one of you heretics trample each other to desecrate the church, its fathers, the councils, the history, the tradition, the Deuterocanon... All for the crime of being post Paul, who himself is an appendix to the Gospels? Only to then be deluded by an untested innovator on what was already 1500 years of Rigorously attested Doxology in his day?
>All major denominations hold that the Bible is the word of God...
You really have to take the accusation of heretic as an insult, because such ignorance can only come from someone who believes that they can conjure ideas from the ether and posit them as anything other than opinion. All of that flowery prose is the heresy of ecumenism: The very thing Saint Paul was staunchly against. Is not the book of Hebrews a scathing rebuke of jews looking to synthesize mosaic law with the Evangelion? Is not 1st Corinthians Paul chastising believers against drawing arbitrary lines based on who performed their baptism, and in so few words wrote in stone that a baptism is only in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God through the Holy Spirit? Are we to break bread with those who claim that Christ was but man and not the Son of God, solely because it makes them feel better? So please, hold the hippy crap. Every one of you heretics think that you stumble into something profound in the absence of correction, when in fact heresies of all stripes have been the bane of our faith since Christ came and went. It is the work of the devil and his children that such blasphemies continue to permeate until today. So if you continue to feel offended by being called what you are, plebbit is down the hall and to the left.

>>28007
Just for clarity, you're talking to (at least) two anons, as I'm not the only one replying.

I'm dumbfounded that you latched onto my statement that "all major denominations hold that the Bible is the word of God", and then argued against ecumenism. I never argued for ecumenism. My whole argument was that the Bible is the only infallible, and thus trustworthy, authority. 

>Logically taken to its limit, only the Pentateuch, Prophets and the Gospels would be considered canon as they contain words from God, with the rest of the books being reduced to apocrypha
>Paul, who himself is an appendix to the Gospels
I have no idea what denomination you could be advocating for, because Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not rank the books of the Bible by level of authority, they are all equally-authoritative. Paul's epistles are equally-authoritative as the Gospels.

>desecrate the church, its fathers, the councils, the history, the tradition, the Deuterocanon
Tradition is not per se wrong. Only traditions that are contrary to scripture. The same goes for the writings of the fathers and councils: the fact that the fathers disagree with each other on points of doctrine is sufficient proof that someone is in error if they can't both be right. But since Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants all agree that the Bible is an authority without error, then that is the only 100% guaranteed safe authority to trust. If a priest shows me a Bible and says: "these are the words of God", and then tells me to believe a doctrine contrary to what it says, then he has contradicted himself. Either he was wrong about the Bible being the word of God, or he was wrong about the doctrine he told me to believe - but he couldn't be right about both.

>>28005
>Are you implying that 3 years is the same as ~2000 years when it comes to Church wisdom, doctrine and tradition?
This is sophistry, for several reasons 1. It is a category error, conflating a human being with a tradition, as though these two are in any way comparable 2. It assumes the modern Greek church has existed for 2,000 years, which is neither granted nor true 3. It assumes we are without tradition, which is again not true 4. It directly misrepresents sola scriptura as being "reinvent the wheel every generation", while in reality sola scriptura simply means you are not permitted to invent religion. True religion is bestowed by God, the doctrines invented in the minds of medieval monks are false religion. And this entire post is full of of this type of childish empty rhetoric, such that you may as well have simply declared Protestants are dumb dumb stupid poopooheads. Some of the things you unfortunately said are so absurd I am passing over them because they are incomprehensible. I wager you are an underage teenager with a grossly inflated view of your own competence and a deep misunderstanding of what compelling rhetoric looks like.
>Which book of the bible is sola scriptura in?
Genesis to Revelation.
>Was Jesus being rude when he called jews a den of vipers? 
Of course, I think it's fair to say in any event what Jesus was not doing was being a self-inflated imbecile making a fool of himself.
>What's invalid, your feelings? No really: What did I say that wasn't valid that isn't just you disagreeing?
"Such and such people which I dislike agree with your conclusions (for completely different reasons), therefore it's false" is logically invalid and irrational.
>Nobody cares about your feelings in a debate of ideas
It is incredibly ironic for you to make such a pronouncement when it is blatantly obvious your opinions and attitude are motivated by nothing besides your emotions.
>jumping to IS THAT A LE POP CULTURE REFERENCE?!
I don't know if it's a pop culture reference, and I don't care. It was embarrassing. You sound like you're trying to write dramatic dialog for a fantasy character.
>Let adults speak and educate yourself on the faith
You are a complete idiot and nothing you've said has any substance, let alone value. There has been no theological debate here, you are not remotely competent to engage in such a discussion, and I do not intend to waste my time further by continuing to read your meaningless drivel. I highly recommend everyone else to likewise ignore you, because this is pearls before swine.
God bless you.

>>28008
>First Part
While I truly appreciate your candor, this is the limitation of your understanding. You HAVE to use words like "denomination," a monetary term (hint hint,) like it has any place in the Church. There is, literally and theologically, Orthodoxy or heterodoxy. These two things are fundamentally different and incompatible. So for you to make any declaration equating the two is ecumenism, full stop. Its why that your whole paragraph is a nonstarter, and why you may have perceived my response as a non sequitur. Its why I continue to show you that part of the fallacy is having to cope with this binary with inventions like "denomination, protestant, lutheran, calvinism" et cetera. In Orthodox Christianity, invoking the name of a heretic is to speak of the heresy, as the person themselves aren't worthy to be taken seriously if they risked their salvation spouting them to begin with. 
>Second Part
There's that "d" word again. You're right, that's why the Orthodox and the Papists have the Deuterocanon, and understand the context of church history, traditions, the works of the early church, et cetera. But it still didn't stop the Papists from cleaving the church in two with its many innovations, the first of which was declaring that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both God the Father and God the Son.
>I have no idea what denomination you could be advocating for... and the Third Part
The question was directed at you rhetorically, and I can see your gears turning at how ridiculous a proposition it is. Sadly, it still didn't stop you from considering the rest of your words:
>Tradition is not per se wrong.
Are they or are they not?
>Only traditions that are contrary to scripture.
Who told you they were contrary to scripture?
>If a priest shows me a Bible...
On what grounds, other than just contradiction because something seems oxymoronic a prima facia? Even if he shows you the exact quote from the exact Bishop that wrote the exegesis on that specific passage 15 centuries ago it wouldn't sway your heart, because you've already made yourself a pope of one at the behest of your own material eyes. Your material brain has decided that its "post Paul" so its not canonical. Oh, but luther/calvin/etc are right, even though they also are post Paul? The same Saint Paul who wrote less and said more, despite being post Gospel? Its a slippery slope all the way down.
>Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants all agree...
There is only Orthodoxy, or heterodoxy. Do you see how you continue to assert things that just aren't true, to continue the farce? You don't even know the creed of the faith you claim to have. 
>The same goes for the writings of the fathers and councils: the fact that the fathers disagree with each other on points of doctrine is sufficient proof that someone is in error if they can't both be right.
Your ignorance shows once more. The bishops of their day were all learned men, and words didn't travel at light speed as they do now. So a lot of it was delays in corrections propagated through Christendom. They didn't "agree to disagree" like the cowards of today, they met in synod to debate whether or not any thought was theologically sound before including it as doctrine. To be charitable, the only error that could be granted was that of iconoclasm, which was more due to political ecumenist pressure from mohamedans of the time. After a century of persecution and war caused by that fallacy, the heresy was canonized at the 7th and final Ecumenical (as in, encompassing the whole Church) Council. Many men wiser than I'll ever be were confronted by the same truths. This watered down faith you proclaim is designed to be this way by the very people who hate Christ, and such ignorance is overdue for correction. Admission of ignorance is the root of all knowledge, and the fear of The Lord the root of all wisdom. So think and make a choice.

>>28009
You argue like a woman. Women should not be suffered to teach. Begone.

>>28010
It seems like you're deflecting rather than answering the argument about the Bible being the only infallible authority.

I will be able to speak clearly, in terms more acceptable to you, if you will plainly state which church you are advocating for.

>>28011
Where's the deflection? Saying something doesn't make it true. Your assertation regarding the bible is just that, an assertation. Its been explained that lauding the material is the limitation of understanding. The book didn't make God into being or the Church. Record keeping is how we as humans come to terms with our mortality. Come up for air. 
>if you will plainly state which church you are advocating for.
Do your eyes not work? What theme is repeated the most in the post you're quoting?

>>28012
>Do your eyes not work? What theme is repeated the most in the post you're quoting?
All I asked is what church you are advocating for. If you won't give a straight answer, I'm done.

>>28013
Can't even hazard a guess? Have a nice day.

>>28009
Based Anon. I tried to respond with Scripture and got an autoban which makes me think either a mod is either a Catholic or Orthodox or one was being obnoxious and got certain passages autofiltered

>>28016
Was it a global autoban or a board one? I can't do anything for you if it was a local one.

>>28016
You probably used naughty words on a /christian/ board, as expected of an apostate. Right before Christmas too, couldn't be me.

>>28019
>zero hesitation to bear false witness

>>28020
Only a few things get you autobanned on /christian/, and the accusation wasn't refutted. But whatever makes you feel better.

>>28021
>the accusation wasn't refutted
That's not how it works, you aren't justified in throwing out baseless accusations because you weren't refuted. Your throat is an open grave, the poison of asps is under your lips, there is no fear of God before your eyes.

>>28022
Nice try. Then how's this: How does one get auto-banned on /christian/? What does the word "probably" mean? What can be said about a person who can't communicate without breaking those rules? And please, just answer the questions. Hold the goalpost moving and mirroring if you want a response. You zoomers really are an emotional bunch, never to grow if the mommy and daddy issues aren't overcome.

>>28023
>What does the word "probably" mean?
Oh that's the magic one that makes it morally permissible to bear false witness when you say it.
>And please, just answer the questions. Hold the goalpost moving and mirroring if you want a response. You zoomers really are an emotional bunch, never to grow if the mommy and daddy issues aren't overcome.
There you go again. You are incapable of treating your fellow man with respect, you have no hesitation to bear false witness against your neighbor, you have no shame when your sin is called out, you betray your pride and contempt constantly. Is there any wonder why you are enthralled with a false religious system? It is because you are unregenerate, you have not been born again, you are still in the flesh, you are still in your sins. You are on the road to hearing the words "I never knew you". My friend, when you die you will go to hell, where your pseudo-religiosity and pride will avail you nothing, you will drink the whole cup of God's wrath, and you will not be released until you pay the last penny. But the Lord provided a way out for all who believe, I tell you that if you repent of your sins and throw yourself on the mercy of God in Christ you will certainly be forgiven and saved because Jesus paid the price for all of His people, He took the curse of the law in their place, so that by His righteous life they can stand before God holy and blameless, and He will lose none of them but raise it up on the last day.