The one Church founded by Christ: the Orthodox Church.
This is a choir, rehearing as a Western Rite Orthodox Cathedral in Paris, they are singing a selection from the Liturgy of Saint Germanus (a 6th Century French Liturgy that was revived by the Orthodox Church); the icons are in Western style, as you can clearly see from the carving and painted icons as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKXQUgEckfU
Orthodox pastebin for Catholics and Protestants and atheists and others who have objections or concerns about the Orthodox faith, along with a reading list and links for those whose desire to know more intensifies: http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
> Jesus
> founding church
top kek
>>1350580
"On this rock I will build my sauna"?
>>1350597
"What"?
Christians and their never-ending sectarianism.
I hope you all kill each other, I'm sure Jesus would've wanted that.
>>1350609
Jesus only founded one church, not half-a-million.
>why don't the people in the Church Christ founded just go with the flow regarding a bunch of organizations that weren't founded by Christ and often teach things that directly contradict him??
>>1350609
Jesus would've wanted all christian men to sleep in the basement so refugees can sleep in their beds.
Christianity is a slave religion. Only makes sense that people want it reformed, again.
>>1350626
>Jesus only founded one church
You say that, and yet hundreds if not thousands of denominations exist.
Just going by that, you should assume just yb statistical probability that you have the wrong denomination and that you're a heretic and will go straight to hell when you die.
>>1350630
>You say that, and yet hundreds if not thousands of denominations exist.
But the vast majority have zero claim to even being a thousand years old, let alone being founded by Christ.
>>1350627
Only people Francis is a slave to are globalists desu
>>1350652
Accepting gays, abortion, contraceptives are all steps the church will take to adapt to the times.
>>1350655
The Orthodox Church has always accepted contraception
"If for a certain period, you and your wife have abstained by agreement, perhaps for a time of prayer and fasting, come together again for the sake of your marriage. You do not need procreation as an excuse. It is not the chief reason for marriage. Neither is it necessary to allow for the possibility of conceiving, and thus having a large number of children, something you may not want."
-Saint John Chrysostom
We certainly won't accept abortion or homosexuality, however.
This declaration came from the Orthodox Church in America just after Francis said the Catholic Church should apologize to gays
>The statement outlines the Orthodox Christian’s "sincerely held religious belief" that marriage is "a lifelong, exclusive relationship between one man and one woman," and therefore any sexual relations outside of natural marriage "is immoral, and therefore sin."
>The encyclical continues, "We believe that God created the human race, male and female, and that all conduct with the intent to adopt a gender other than one’s birth gender is immoral and therefore sin
>Even more explicitly, the document states, "Marriage can only be between two people whose birth sex is male and female.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/orthodox-church-in-america-aims-to-protect-itself-from-lawsuits-with-strong
>>1350664
>marriage is "a lifelong, exclusive relationship between one man and one woman," and therefore any sexual relations outside of natural marriage "is immoral, and therefore sin."
So premarital sex is a sin? This is a very outdated view, another one that will change if the religion is to persist.
What is the Orthodox view on divorce? Thats yet another thing that has to be incorporated.
Practical things like that, that weren't practical before, weren't everyday before, but have become now, will have to be accepted.
Homosexuality isn't "everyday" or "normal" yet, but will become eventually, and thus has to be accepted eventually.
Funny, considering christianity's creationist views, religions has to, and always has been, evolving to get in with the times.
Sadly these days there is no roman emperor to call all the big shot priests and force change on them, so it will have to be a slow struggle with out of touch grandpas acting out of desperation as they see the number of their followers diminish.
>>1350645
>But the vast majority have zero claim to even being a thousand years old, let alone being founded by Christ.
So the age of a denomination is how you determine whether it is correct or not?
Then why aren't you Gnostic Christian?
>>1350678
>So premarital sex is a sin? This is a very outdated view, another one that will change if the religion is to persist.
Persist like the Episcopal Church is persisting (dying out rapidly)? nah
>What is the Orthodox view on divorce? Thats yet another thing that has to be incorporated.
Divorce is permissible in adultery or abandonment. Our policy on this hasn't ever changed.
>Funny, considering christianity's creationist views, religions has to, and always has been, evolving to get in with the times.
Christianity never had a dogmatic conception of Genesis apart from Adam and Eve were real individuals who did something really wrong. Saint Augustine took a lot of it literally, but he also took a lot of it non-literally (for instance, he did not think God would need six days to make the world, and said it was just a division for various reasons he wrote about). Saint Basil said we know that Genesis is not all literal, since it features God walking around in the Garden, and God did not have a physical body until he was incarnate as Christ through the Virgin Mary.
You should really read Chapter 19 ("On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to
unbelievers") of "On the Literal Meaning of Genesis," by Saint Augustine
>Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
cont
>>1350694
> Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
>>1350682
Gnostic Christianity doesn't exist anymore, clearly not the sort founded by Christ
>but people still claim to subscribe to it!
Gnosticism's core was about special, mystical names you needed to get through different astral planes, that only the initiated could be taught. There is no record of these names anymore.
I have questions and I'd like to know that you aren't just role playing as a Christian online so you can pretend to be a knight or a crusader or something. Do you sincerely believe in the religion?
>>1350708
Yes.
If I wanted to LARP as a crusader, why would I be Orthodox? We didn't have a single crusade.
>>1350694
>>1350696
I haven't read any theology myself, as I don't really read much at all other than fiction. I am indeed a lazy loser who spends his free time in video games and fantasy books.
However even my simple mind can come up with contradictions to the formula, and you would have to make many more such "it wasn't literal" concessions to solve them, up to the point where you almost completely denounce the faith.
An easy vector of attack is that God is "all good" and that we are "created in his image".
We clearly aren't all good. Where did this corruption come from? Why was it allowed? Shoddy craftmanship or was God not all good to begin with?
Further, scripture insists on God punishing people. Why punish if he is all good? Why allow situations where punishment is needed if he is all powerful and all knowing?
And the church is heavily against cloning or other genetically pursuits. Why are we, who are like the Creator, not allowed to create? And if we are indeed doing what He was doing, and we are doing thus thanks to our knowledge of science, physics, biology and other disciplines that undermine Christianity, then isn't this a self defeating proposition? Using un-Christian thinking we come closer to the Christian deity.
If we use the defense you proposed, that its not all literal, we'd end up with a god who isn't literally all good, or not literally all powerful, and from there other cracks show, as to why we would follow a flawed creator, or what his actual purpose is since it may not be a good one, or how can we be sure that this not so powerful being did a good job with creating things and so on.
I am with you in that Christianity needs to separate the fairy tales from the actual discipline of its faith, but doing that too often degrades the faith itself, leaves people wondering if the little things that are taken literally aren't also made up. Doesn't help that the rules for what is literal and what isn't change over time.
>>1350711
How do you reconcile going on 4chan? I've been going on here since 2009 and I can't that I think this place is the best for someone religious
>>1350717
Technically he can reason that he is spreading and defending his faith by coming here, as he is attempting just that in this thread.
Also I do believe that Orthadox christianity isn't opposed to fun. Not all songs have to praise the Lord, not all art has to be divine oriented, and not all of your free time should be spent praying.
>>1350721
Le 4chains is lucky it has such an addictive format.
>>1350713
>We clearly aren't all good. Where did this corruption come from? Why was it allowed? Shoddy craftmanship or was God not all good to begin with?
Humans, properly speaking, are completely good. Sin impairs our humanity, which is restored through Christ.
>Further, scripture insists on God punishing people. Why punish if he is all good? Why allow situations where punishment is needed if he is all powerful and all knowing?
The Old Testament might clear things up for you here, see Proverbs 3:12 and Ezekiel 18:23
>And the church is heavily against cloning or other genetically pursuits. Why are we, who are like the Creator, not allowed to create? And if we are indeed doing what He was doing, and we are doing thus thanks to our knowledge of science, physics, biology and other disciplines that undermine Christianity, then isn't this a self defeating proposition? Using un-Christian thinking we come closer to the Christian deity.
We are allowed to create, it's called procreation. When we start engineering human beings, we must ask: what is the purpose we engineer them for? Do you just want to clone them for the novelty? If so, creating life purely for novelty is wrong. If that is not the case, what is your end here?
>If we use the defense you proposed, that its not all literal, we'd end up with a god who isn't literally all good, or not literally all powerful
It's true that univocity of being is a completely foreign concept to Orthodox Christianity. When we speak of God in terms, it's only how to explain complex things to a baby, it's not an exact description. God is ineffable.
>>1350717
Threads with porn are bad, otherwise I'm not sure how you see it as terribly worse than the world in general.
>>1350733
>We are allowed to create, it's called procreation. When we start engineering human beings, we must ask: what is the purpose we engineer them for? Do you just want to clone them for the novelty? If so, creating life purely for novelty is wrong. If that is not the case, what is your end here?
If so, what is the purpose of God creating people? He must have a purpose, else he was wrong.
Similarly for all the planets and stars, and volcanos, and bacteria and viruses, and cancer growths and poisons, and the many causes of child mortality, ending life before the person could've been capable of understanding faith and religion, thus killing them as an atheist, thus denying them access to haven.
They must all have a very good purpose to exist, else their creator is wrong by your reasoning.
Also, there are reasons to clone, and explore genetics. The reason is to fight imperfections, and sickness, and diseases, and to grow replacement organs so that owners of faulty ones can live decently.
Basically the reason for man to be a creator is to fix the mistakes of the other creator, which you would call the intelligent designer, and others would call the long game of chance that is evolution.
Do you struggle with lust? Do you ever indulge an erg edge to "rub one out?"
>>1350745
>If so, what is the purpose of God creating people?
Love
>They must all have a very good purpose to exist, else their creator is wrong by your reasoning.
All creation is meant to be harmonious with human life. Sin is what contaminates and disorders it.
>he reason is to fight imperfections, and sickness, and diseases, and to grow replacement organs so that owners of faulty ones can live decently.
How does cloning a human being do that?
>>1350757
I get a little frisky sometimes but I don't masturbate. I have before and it is not a good feeling.
Normally I can't really get aroused knowing there's no feeling of romance or affection, though. Serious love is the greatest turn on.
>>1350765
>masturbation is not a good feeling
You are a seriously disturbed individual.
>>1350765
Do you have a gf?
>>1350765
Honestly, I wish I had the moral fortitude that you do.
>>1350765
What kind of hobbies do you have? Do you like movies? Video games?
>>1350801
>the moral fortitude to deny yourself pleasure and fight your biology
why?
>>1350806
Jesus, love, 4chan, making chairs and watching moe anime.
>>1350810
Because I do already and I'm miserable. I hate touch bodily fluids and I hate sexuality in general.
>>1350819
You are broken. Seek a specialist who can attempt to repair you. No cost is too high.
>>1350813
>watching anime
Whelp, right when I thought you were kind of a cool dude you had to go and fuck it all up. Good job
>>1350821
Been there, done that.
I have "severe" OCD. I hate the medication so I never take it. I'm not like a sociopath like Adam Lanza or anything, in fact most of obessions are guilt related. On the plus side, my hands are also always really clean
>>1350825
>I hate the medication so I never take it
Then get a different one.
Stop being a quitter.
>>1350845
No way man, I've been on so much shit. Either it works too well or not at all. Also, the side effects - don't get me started.
Beautiful church, icons and music. Now that he RCC has sold out to the devil, orthodox Christianity should rightfully claims its flock and western heritage. I've heard an orthodox priest say that before the schism, all of western Europe, from Ireland, to Spain, to France, was orthodox, and that there is an orthodox western liturgy and all. Tell me more about it.
Western orthodoxy should be more explored, instead of trying to export Russian, Greek orthodoxy.
>>1350813
How do you feel about war?
>>1350858
>Either it works too well
Sounds like you're comfortable being miserable.
>>1350738
I bet you go to porn treads naughty boy
>>1350894
Really you couldn't understand. I don't mean to make it sound like this is some kind of edgy affliction that makes me a tormented loner or something but really you wouldn't understand unless you have it f a m.
I've never found a medicine that comfortably balances suppression of my obsessions with reasonable side effects. I was actually referring to when I took Prozac; I experienced unpleasant sedation and ended up flunking out of university that semester.
>>1350572
Get a life, leave your house - make friends - talk with people outside, stop breaking canons and trying to convince anime degenerate faggots to practice orthodoxy.
In most of the threads you start and survive long enough they start to sexualize Mary and say lots of stupid and insult shit about Christianity.
>>1350606
She's losing her mind, ignore her.
I can't understand your brain.. but it's maybe because you're female and you're different.
>>1350920
What Constantine is female
>>1350920
You've got it mixed up. The original Constantine was a LARPer tranny. This new one took on the mantle of Constantine because he was obsessed with that tranny.
>>1350955
I don't buy into this story. Why would an orthodox person use the name of a known tranny?
>>1350962
We know he's a sexually repressed autist, if this thread is any evidence. I don't think it's a stretch to assume mental instability.
>>1350976
Constantine is a girl though.
>>1350976
Well meme'd
>>1350980
I want to see this claim being made by someone wearing the appropriate tripcode.
Right now its just you memeing.
>>1350984
Constantine is a girl. She has a girlcock. I've seen it.
I want to draw animu in service of the faith but I feel I am not good enough ;___;
>>1351010
fap on it, you will feel better
>>1350914
Just saw your post and I would like to say that I know what's it's like. I have a severe OCD myself, also (though not exclusively) about the fear of bodily fluids. I missed a lot in life because of it - because instead of doing something productive when I could I was often just dragging through weeks, months or even years of unending misery. I don't know what to tell you. I can't wish you to recover from it, because you can't recover from OCD. You may think you're *almost* healthy, but then a random event throws you into yet more suffering. And it feels like even these moments when you feel like you're alright are contributing to the pain that follows them.
>>1351010
Is this by you? It looks great.
>>1351050
It isn't
>>1351039
I cannot. It's fasting season now
Constantine, i must say i enjoy and appreciate your posts on /his/, even though im not religious i like all the references to church fathers etc that you bring up. Interesting reading.
>>1350572
>The one Church founded by Christ: the Orthodox Church.
The orthodox church is not a Jewish messianic cult, therefore you are wrong.
>>1350626
Then why are you shilling for Eastern Orthodoxy and not Ebionism? It's Christianity, not Paulianity.
>>1350694
Mainstream maybe. Evangelical churches are growing
>>1350793
constantine is a female, and im p sure she's married
>>1351149
It kind of is, though tbqh distant relative
>>1350697
>it doesn't exist anymore therefore it isn't legitimate
This is a fallacious point. What the anon implies is that there existed HUNDREDS of different small Christian sects in the early years after Jesus' death. The canon wasn't unified, theology and dogma were nebulous, and thus teachings were different from place to place. Eventually a hierarchy and orthodox set of beliefs formed around the 5 patriarchs, but in that time numerous "heresies" formed amidst the orthodoxy. What were heresies were simply different theological opinions which, like the Gnostics, existed since the very early years of Christianity itself.
Some of these "heresies" begat separate churches with their own followings. A great example would be the Monophysite heresy, which led to the modern Oriental Orthodox churches (not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy). The original followers of this sexy existed for hundreds of years amidst other Christians with differing beliefs, and a separate sect only formed when their beliefs were declared heretical. What does this mean? It means there never was a single church, there never was a single doctrine, there never was a single leader. Orthodoxy arose out of popular opinion, from orthodoxy arose a mainstream church, and small sects arose from differing but coexisting opinions.
>>1350597
Lol
>>1350875
If the American orthodox church wasn't an offshoot of the Russian church I'd be more interested
>>1350822
That wasn't Constantine
I bet Constantine is done with this thread but still, I'm curious.
How do you justify tripfagging? Seems like a pretty vain thing to do.
>>1350806
Reading, playing with dogs, riding horses, hiking, bicycling, singing.
>>1350822
That's not me, I don't watch anime
>>1350871
There were a ton of Western Liturgies before the schism. So far there are three Western Liturgies approved in the Orthodox Church since the research on them in the 20th Century, and several artistic styles for icons including Romanesque (pic related, a contemporary Western Rite Orthodox icon in Romanesque style).
Western Orthodox Liturgy, like Eastern Orthodox Liturgy, does not generally use instruments or polyphony.
Here is some more from the Liturgy of Saint Germanus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GI92g8JWwn8
The other two Liturgies besides Saint Germanus are Saint Gregory (Basically an Orthodox version of the pre Trintidine Mass, here is what it sounds like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31TqJsTObBc) This Liturgy utilizes the "Orthodox Missal"
And the Liturgy of Saint Tikhon (a Liturgy for converted Anglican parishes, this Liturgy uses "Orthodox Book of Common Prayer", which is a modified Anglican Book of Common Prayer to accord with Orthodoxy, and the Liturgy itself is modified to accord more with the standards of Medieval Catholic Liturgy
We are still working on reviving Western Liturgies and art, and if you want to be part of this movement, the major Church involved in it right now is the Antiochian Church (although Romanian and Russian are also fairly involved), which has gone so far as to set up Western Rite missions for evangelism.
>>1351118
Thank you, I appreciate that.
>>1351216
Ebionism is a heresy, Christ instituted the new covenant foretold by the old testament.
>>1351433
>This is a fallacious point. What the anon implies is that there existed HUNDREDS of different small Christian sects in the early years after Jesus' death.
Source? I knew there were heresies within the first Century, but hundreds?
>The canon wasn't unified, theology and dogma were nebulous, and thus teachings were different from place to place.
Hence the importance of Apostolic teaching.
> A great example would be the Monophysite heresy, which led to the modern Oriental Orthodox churches (not in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy)
Monophysites believe Christ only had divine nature (monopysitism means solitary nature); Oriental Orthodox are miaphysites (uni-nature). For the record, we both fully acknowledge each other as the One Church and allow communion with each other under numerous circumstances. The issue is just that the anathemas haven't been lifted, but if they were, we would formally One Church; as it stands, we are de facto One Church. The miaphysite formula was authorized in the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Neither of us have changed; even though the Latins have, we still remain the same after 1,500 years of formal separation, attesting to our validity.
>>1351665
Ebionism is a "heresy" because Paul, not Jesus, is the source for modern " orthodox" belief, and because the Ebionites taught what Jesus was saying, Paulians claimed they were heretics and stamped them out.
>>1351707
>Ebionites taught what Jesus was saying
Source?
>>1351720
The Epistles, how they predate the Gospels, and how all modern Christianity views them as valid, inspired-by-god-and-perfect never mind their obvious errors, especially any time Paul opens his mouth about contemporary religious structure or his own impossible past.
Now look at which "heresy" was deemed such because they rejected Paul again, and there you have it.
>>1351707
We don't know what Jesus said because we don't have a single Christian document dating to when he was alive. We have the misattributed gospels. We have the translations of translations. We have fragments of papyri. We have the codex sinaiticus. We have the political struggles of Jews against Romans as documented by Josephus and Tacitus. We have the ratified dogma of the early church a few centuries after Christ. We have information about the early schisms, and how heated even the early Christians were with each other.
The fact that Jesus preached and was crucified is the only thing universally adhered to in Christendom. Even some sects think resurrection and salvation are up for debate.
This is something we will likely never know enough about.
>>1351735
Why evidence do you have to suggest that the Epistles of Paul predate Matthew and Mark?
>>1351737
>We have the misattributed gospels.
On what are you basing Matthew and Mark and Luke to be misattributed?
>>1351746
Most scholars agree all four gospels were written anonymously some time after Christ died.
The titles were attributed to the disciples later.
>>1351746
>>1351746
.
>>1351746
Here's John, for good measure, since you asked.
>>1351784
*even though you didn't ask
>>1351778
So your evidence is that because Christ predicts persecution, it must have been written after the persecution started?
I'm also going to challenge here, the notion that Matthew used Mark as a source. In fact, I will say that I believe Matthew to be the earliest Gospel, and here is my argument
when Christ says it is not when goes in which defiles, but that which comes out, Mark 7:19 has the gloss explaining in saying this, Christ made all foods clean, something that was only universally accepted after the Council of Jerusalem; Matthew has no such gloss, indicating that it is the earliest Gospel, and predates the Council of Jerusalem. If Matthew were written after the Council of Jerusalem, and was using Mark as a source for this saying, surely it would have included this gloss. There is also another gloss, in Matthew 19:29 says those who leave mothers and brothers and wives and fathers and sisters and houses and fields for Christ's sake will receive a hundred times in the age to come; Mark 10: 29-30 says the same thing, but then adds a parenthetical gloss right after Christ says a hundredfold, saying "now" repeating what Christ just said, explaining "with persecutions", (as in you will lose these things in persecutions, maybe these things might even be doing the persecuting); then the parenthetical gloss ends, and Christ finishes "in age to come". Mark was clearly written after the persecution of Christians became intense, whereas Matthew was written before then. Rather than Matthew and Luke using Mark as a source, is make more sense to say Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources.
cont
>>1351809
Finally, Matthew was clearly written in Hebrew and translated (as Papias says), unlike the other Gospels, because it uses Hebrew syntax and tense; for instance, see the very Greek syntax of Mark 15:21: "And they compel passing a Simon [a passing Simon] of Cyrene, coming from country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, that [he might] carry the cross of his [Christ's]." This sort of syntax sounds natural in Greek (where inflection and declension almost completely determine grammatical relations), but in English or Aramaic, languages that rely heavily on syntax to express grammatical relations, it's chore to parse (and remember there was no punctuation, lowercase and uppercase, or even word spaces, in ancient times); Matthew 27:32, by contrast, reflects a Aramaic or Hebrew syntax: "Going forth and they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they compelled to carry the cross of his [Christ's]." Here is another example, Mark 1:12: "And immediately the spirit him drives into the wilderness." Compare the Aramaic Matthew 4:1: "Then he, Jesus, was led into wilderness by the spirit." In Mark, the indirect object is adjacent to the object, which is quite normal in Greek, but generally not feasible in Aramaic or Hebrew.
All this and more is in the pastebin of the OP, if you care to look
>>1351741
For starters, the earliest manuscripts predate the earliest gospel manuscripts.
Secondly, you have Clement's letters in 95, which refer to the OT, they refer to Hebrews, they refer to Paul's stuff, but for over 100 citations to the above, he never quotes the gospels once or refers to them. Ignatius of Antioch never quotes the Gospels either, which would be damn odd if they've been floating around for near 50 years at that point.
>>1351809
>, is make more sense to say Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources.
Although I will add that I hold to Papias's account, and believe Mark to predate Luke, and Matthew were used as a source, it was secondary to Peter's testimony)
>>1350572
Jesus: 32 AD
Orthodox Church: 1066 AD
Try again bitch.
>>1351780
There are no "contradictions" in the bible, only idiots pretending there are.
Everyone knows Luke wrote Acts, because he wrote it to the very same Theophilus he wrote his ordered account of the gospels to.
>>1351796
Incorrect. I was arguing that the gospels were anonymous, and later attributed to the disciples. You asked for evidence that they were misattributed, and I posted the scholarly consensus, as documented by wikipedia. Further reading is naturally warranted by someone as serious about this as you, but I gave you a direction to go. Start with the citations on those images. Go to the gospel articles on wikipedia ctrl+F anonymous. Read the scholarly works wikipedia cites on the matter.
Knowledge is difficult to attain. Certain Knowledge is even more difficult.
Moreover, It was easy for Christ to predict persecution. He lived in the middle of it. I wouldn't be surprised if an American black man c. 1900 predicted persecution. It made sense given the political climate. Jesus was a political meteorologist, the way I see it. He saw how the tug of war of incentives and urges would further increase the hostility between the Jews and Romans.
But the fact is, is that these things weren't written down by a person sitting next to Jesus. Jesus didn't dictate like Muhammad did.
He preached. He went among a largely illiterate population, too poor to afford writing materials, too overworked to want to sit down and write what Jesus said, and it was from oral accounts among this population, decades or even a century later, that the gospels were written down.
Even as an agnostic I believe in a historical Jesus, or at the very least a handful of crucified Jews he was based off of. But we have to be realistic with the NT, and treat it as a historical document from well after Jesus died, that passed through the hands of biased parties who had something to gain in his name. We have to look at the political, economic, cultural, and social incentives driving the rise of Christianity, and not just embrace the NT based off of the simplistic and troublesome notion of divine inspiration.
Is that good with you?
>>1351817
>For starters, the earliest manuscripts predate the earliest gospel manuscripts.
So you are dating them according to their oldest extant copies?
>Secondly, you have Clement's letters in 95, which refer to the OT, they refer to Hebrews, they refer to Paul's stuff, but for over 100 citations to the above, he never quotes the gospels once or refers to them
I'm going to have to review them closely to verify that.
>Ignatius of Antioch never quotes the Gospels either
pic related
>>1351844
Your contention is biased in favor of Christianity, and based on much less evidence than the scholarly work done by historians and archeologists.
That is not to say that their motivations aren't potentially biased, too, but that they come from a place that isn't trying to prove the claims of the Gospels right from the get-go.
For instance the Gospel of Mark that comes down to us has additional material to the earliest manuscripts and papyri we've been able to find. People added things. People edited things. People mistranslated things, both on accident, and on purpose.
Most Christians for most of history were illiterate, and received their understanding and interpretation from a priesthood.
From the standpoint of preventing confirmation bias, this is troubling.
>>1351844
>Everyone knows Luke wrote Acts, because he wrote it
>>1351741
It is widely held by scholars
>>1351864
>So you are dating them according to their oldest extant copies
In part yes. It avoids the rather tortured pretzel logic necessary to suppose why we have thousands of NT manuscripts, but none that have older gospels than epistles. How do you suppose that EVERY SINGLE pre-Paul gospel vanished?
>pic related
Does not prove knowledge of the gospels. He never sources his lines to Mark or Matthew. All it proves is that he's familiar with concurrent lines of tradition, which is easily plausible when even the traditionalist Christian view posits at least a 17 year gap between Jesus preaching and any Gospel being written.
Enjoy hell bro
Salvation is by FAITH alone
>>1351886
Gospel of Luke: I write this to you, my dear Theophilus.
Acts: I write this to you, my dear Theophilus.
Early church: Luke wrote it and included himself in the narrative when he was present.
Bart Ehrman; HERP DERP DERPIETY DRIP DERP HERP NUH UH
You: There seems to be differing opinions. I'll go with the retard.
>>1351951
Well that's said because I find difficulty having faith.
Moreover I refuse to perform rituals and profess faith if I secretly don't have it, as that would be dishonest before mankind, and before any Gods potentially listening.
I'd rather be honest to God and wrong, than dishonest and right.
I shouldn't cower to Pascal's wager. The sum of my knowledge or lack thereof makes belief at present difficult. Any conversion would purely be a gesture on my part to placate a community, and to make them happier with me.
>>1351879
You can worry about confirmation bias all day every day, and it will get you nowhere.
Nor will it address your standing with the risen Christ Jesus.
Maybe in a perfect world the only people who would study the scriptures and the sciences to support the scriptures would all be God fearing men whose goal was to find the truth.
In the real world, Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman outsell the bible itself.
>>1351973
No, you're just ignorant, and ignorance is curable.
When I say that you are ignorant, I refer specifically to the meaning of the word "faith".
You take faith to be a religious conviction, when it is not.
Faith is the human ability to believe things you have not seen. Everyone has faith, in some measure, some greater than others. You have a measure of faith, and you use it constantly. It's one of the things that separates men from animals. The ability to believe the unseen.
>>1351970
Did Luke ever go "Hey, this is Luke writing to Theophilus."
or did the early church go "Hey, Luke was writing to Theophilus. This is our belief now."
Showing up in the narrative doesn't make sense as someone else could have simply included stories they heard about Luke.
The citation I posted said the majority of modern scholars not just Bart Ehrman.
Moreover, most Christians don't even investigate their own faith, or its origins. Gettign to even read and interpret the bible as an avg. worshipper is a relatively new phenomenon, too. Why should I go with Christian contention over historical and archeological disciplines?
>>1351970
>Ehrman
>Retarded
[citation needed]
>>1351986
Yes.
Luke 1
... it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.
Acts 1
The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen,
Colossians 4:14Luke the beloved physician and Demas greet you.
2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for ministry.
>>1351991
https://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
>>1351986
Reading an atheist like Bart Ehrman on the bible is a fool's mission.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
>>1351995
Okay. You're right. Bart's wrong. Converting to Christianity right now. The bible is infallible. The motivations of the disciples, the early church, Constantine, etc. aren't questionable. Jesus is God, and I'll burn in hell forever if I don't believe in him. Bada Bing Bada Boom.
>>1351932
>He never sources his lines to Mark or Matthew
Hardly any of his quotations of Paul source him either.
Christians talk about Ehrman as if he is some loan cook, but most academics believe something similar to what he is saying
>>1351973
That pic self contradicts by first saying Hell is just one way of experiencing God's love and then later says Hell is seperation from God's love
"""""""Orthodox"""""""" are just PseudoArians anyway
>>1352048
I get when Christians dismiss some of the more fringe scholars like Carrier but yeah the crusade against Ehrman is very strange. I guess because he's a Paul-like figure, switching sides once he saw the light.
>>1351951
Nope, even demons have faith, as James says
The works Paul is talking about, that aren't required, are works of the LAW (such as circumcision and eating Kosher), not works as in living as Christ tells us. See Romans 3:28, Romans 4:10, and Galatians 2:16.
>>1352048
He's a very good scholar, but also very polemical. His work is on the level of William Lane Craig's work on the historicity of the Gospels (which is far above the rest of Craig's work), except atheist instead of Christian.
>>1352054
No, it's because attacking Christianity is part of his agenda. Most scholars of the Bible who don't believe in God are just looking for answers, they aren't try to sway Christians away from their faith, they dgaf
>>1352014
Bart Ehrman became a scholar as an enthusiastic Christian who was certain of the divine inspiration. The more he read and understood about the church, the less certain he became about his faith.
Is it possible that scholarship and understanding often run contrary to being indoctrinated into a faith whose members mostly don't care about the factual basis of their supernatural claims?
Again. Bart Ehrman isn't the only one I was citing.
The idea that there was a man named Yeshua around whom God's entire plan for the universe revolves, who preached, was crucified, resurrected, ascended to heaven, and is going to come back and kill us at any moment is dubious at best.
That is a hell of a list of assumptions to start with, and it's a hell of a thing to claim is proven by a handful of manuscripts and papyri written in Greek, whose contents haven't yet even reached all humans. (There are still uncontacted tribes. Why would salvation be based on faith in Jesus if there are still people on Earth who live and die without hearing about him? The apologetics and mental gymnastics around THIS ISSUE ALONE is absurd.)
All we have are the historical documents of people claiming to believe for political reasons, a church forming for political reasons, dogma being disseminated for political reasons, authority being justified for political reasons, and schisms in the church for political reasons.
This is a dogmatic organization based on the claims of fallible humans dealing with Roman oppression two centuries ago. Whatever morals or lessons you get out of the tradition can be gotten from outside of the traditions. The fact that our world still revolves so heavily around the Abrahamic faiths is more a testament to their appeal than two their factual basis.
The truth of a claim doesn't change with the number of believers.
>>1352057
I dont know that he considers himself an atheist, but he came to his studies as a Christian, his primary scholarly influence is still a Christian, he lost his faith as he studied the issue
>>1352057
>(which is far above the rest of Craig's work)
Bill "Butcher the Babies" Craig confirmed for shit then?
>>1352071
Maybe he is so motivated because he knows first-hand what having an unwavering belief in dogmatic claims can do to people/society.
>Most scholars of the Bible who don't believe in God are just looking for answers, they aren't try to sway Christians away from their faith, they dgaf
I doubt this is true. The basis for textual criticism is that people engage in academia for biased reasons. Wouldn't most textual critics themselves have biases and motives to contend with, regardless of their origins?
I admit I prefer the secular scholars, but only because they start with fewer assumptions, not because they start with NO assumptions.
>>1352056
>And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Luke 18:19
>And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Mark10:18
We can never earn salvation, we are all wicked sinners.
>>1352078
When talks about anything outside his field of expertise (moral philosophy, physics, etc.), he's Stefan Molyneux tier. But when he discourses on his field of expertise (textual analysis of the New Testament), he's very academic.
>>1352089
Put it this way, most secular scholars of the New Testament are no more likely to public a book aimed at the general public and "exposing" contradictions ("Jesus, Interrupted"), then they are likely to public a work aimed at the general public about the contradictions in the Avesta.
>>1352093
Doing works doesn't earn you anything, but works are required.
>>1351992
That first and second verse doesn't claim Luke is the one writing it is just a first person narrative that makes claims of knowledge of Jesus's teachings.
Moreover, in the second verse, the apostles are referred to in the third person, in this translation at least.
Also, the claims of the bible ought to be investigated, not justified with other claims from the bible. The whole point is that this was written by people who had motivations, just like our posts are.
The third verse is third person, and is in the larger context of a narrative that has passed.
Again, the context of a narrative that has passed.
Why is it that you claim likely forgeries justify other likely forgeries? Why is dogma included in a book of ratified dogma any sort of proof of dogma?
>>1352119
>Doing works doesn't earn you anything, but works are required
This is a self-contradiction
Good works are the mark of faith.
>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
James 2:26
>>1352131
>This is a self-contradiction
No it's not, unless you think faith earns you salvation
>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
So it would be pretty silly to say, "Life by body alone."
>>1352162
>No it's not, unless you think faith earns you salvation
God's grace is what saves you, you don't "earn" it. We all deserve Hell, God is loving enough to spare us.
>So it would be pretty silly to say, "Life by body alone."
Is a person without a soul a person?
The point is faith without works is not faith.
>>1350655
Do you think Christ wants us to adapt to these disgusting times?
>>1352172
>God's grace is what saves you, you don't "earn" it
God's grace is what sustains everything, nothing could exist without it.
>Is a person without a soul a person?
No, just a body.
>The point is faith without works is not faith.
No, since Saint James said even demons have faith (belief and faith are two translation of the same Greek word), and tremble. He's saying faith is useless without works just like a body is useless without a spirit. Works give life to faith, faith alone is dead.
>>1352210
Are good works the consequence of faith?
>>1352191
Christ has no idea about modern times, and therefore no opinions.
He is dead, or never existed.
>>1352223
Does faith require effort of will? If yes then of course faith is the anchor of works since such serves as its motivator. But if faith does not require effort and is merely passive as sola Fide defines it, then no. The language of PAUL and James entails a person with free will who Acts in faith and hence puts in effort. The person is not a passive thing that got mind controlled or is somehow doing everything because of such
>>1352223
Perfected faith. Faith isn't a dichotomy, it's an ongoing struggle. Certainly Luther has some sort of faith, but he also was wicked.
![[Protestantism intensifies].gif](https://i.imgur.com/nd37gml.gif "[Protestantism intensifies].gif")
>>1352222
>God's grace is what sustains everything, nothing could exist without it.
[citation needed]
>>1352249
>Does faith require effort of will?
You can't choose to believe something
>>1352249
>>1352258
This is where the proponents of works based salvation are always defeated. Because, if works are a consequence of faith then Sola Fide is true!
Because you cannot have faith without works and vice versa.
If good works are not a consequence of faith, then the heretic is directly denying Psalm 14:1
>The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
They deny this because if works are not the consequence of faith then good works are independent of sanctification (or worse, sanctification can occur without faith), and if works are independent of sanctification (regeneration) then atheists can, should and will do good works.
So which will it be, works based salvation or biblical inerrancy, you can have only one.
>>1352282
We are told that "faith" is passive and not active. Hence it is not of will or of the person but of God Alone who acts. The person doesn't. But this makes James and Paul's language sounds so absurd and silly when it is written such that it is only sensible when they are supposing free will and that everyone they are addressing possesses freedom of action. That the faith they profess is of their own and not of some outside force mind controlling them as your view is suggesting. The whole question of Sola Fide doesn't lie in works being a consequence of faith but of the activity of man in Salvation. In your view, none. In PAUL and James, men are active which is why they must be reminded of the need to act consistently with what they profess as James shown. So no, it is you who is defeated here as Clement of Rome shows
>>1352282
Sola Fide destroyed
>>1352282
>[citation needed]
Wow, you're actually denying God sustains creation and resorting to deism?
Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 36:6,
> Because, if works are a consequence of faith then Sola Fide is true!
Faith is needed for Christian works, but you still need to chose to add works. Otherwise you have the faith of demons: they have great faith and fear God, but choose not to do works.
>>1352307
>Colossians 1:17, Hebrews 1:3, Psalm 36:6,
Not one of those verses says God's grace sustains everything.
>Faith is needed for Christian works, but you still need to chose to add works. Otherwise you have the faith of demons: they have great faith and fear God, but choose not to do works.
You make no sense, having faith causes one to desire to do good works. If they desire to do good works they will.
>>1352295
>We are told that "faith" is passive and not active. Hence it is not of will or of the person but of God Alone who acts. The person doesn't
You can't choose to believe something, but it's good to know you went with salvation by works over biblical inerrancy.
>>1352033
Perfect!
Now do it again with sincerity.
>>1352051
Papist Lite
>>1352056
>demons have faith
Dumber than a bag of rocks.
>>1352341
>pope is antichrist
>papist lite
>>1352074
>The truth of a claim doesn't change with the number of believers.
Or disbelievers.
>>1352347
James 2:19
Again, I'll remind you, that "belief" and "faith" are two renderings of the same Greek word, which has a verb form (unlike the English "faith").
>>1352102
No, he isn't. He's populist and sensationalist so he can sell books.
Can't you find a man to make sammiches for so we don't have to wade through your idiotic posts?
>>1352128
I know the bible to be the inspired word of God.
You don't.
You think you can treat it like any other ancient manuscript, like Bart Erhman things.
You can't. And he can't either.
>>1352334
The act of belief demands thought and delibration. Stay mad Calvinist scum
>>1352233
>t. confused as fuck
>>1352249
The return of the "no effort" guy.
I had hoped you died.
>>1352348
Their patriarchy are also antichrist. And the pope is the False Prophet, not the Antichrist.
>>1352353
Dumber than a bag of hammers.
>>1352366
True, but i think Francis might actually be THE Antichrist
It wouldn't surprise me.
>>1352370
Responding to Constantine has made me ponder which is actually dumber, a bag of rocks? or a bag of hammers?
I would think rocks, yes? As they are dumb hammers?
So bag of hammers > bag of rocks > Constantine's nonsense
>>1352373
I similarly believe Francis to be THE False Prophet.
>>1352334
>Not one of those verses says God's grace sustains everything.
They say God sustains everything. Which is, by definition, his grace (favor, kindness).
> having faith causes one to desire to do good works
No, faith is not some metaphysical force, it doesn't force anyone to do anything. Good works ought to be the fruit of faith, but they aren't always. When they are not, faith is alone, without works. Faith alone. Like the body without the spirit, just a body.
>>1352370
So no one's struggling when there is doubt?
>>1352370
>There is a difference between belief and faith
Not in Greek or Hebrew.
>>1352366
PROTCOCKS EXPLAIN
>>1352365
Stay mad that I desrroyed Sola Fide with Scripture and one of the earliest Church fathers, Clement of Rome backed up by scholarship.
>>1352387
Faith is an absolute, either one has faith or they don't.
>>1352389
As different definitions of the same thing there is
>>1352392
Ancient tradition was based on scripture, something both cath and ortho have forgotten
>>1352386
>No, faith is not some metaphysical force, it doesn't force anyone to do anything. Good works ought to be the fruit of faith, but they aren't always.
So then good works is chosen through the will, meaning it is a choice independent of God's grace and therefore something certainly practiced by all sorts of people, including atheists... despite Psalm 14:1
Into the trash biblical inerrancy goes!
>>1352398
>Stay mad that I desrroyed Sola Fide with Scripture
You've quoted no scripture, heretic
>>1350572
Daily reminder that constantine is a tripfag
>>1352408
>As different definitions of the same thing there is
Show me your reasoning behind James using a different definition of faith in his epistle than the rest of the New Testament does.
>So then good works is chosen through the will, meaning it is a choice independent of God's grace
That's not what free-will means. Free-will is itself a product of God's grace.
>>1352415
Source?
>>1352408
Scripture was based on Tradition, Tradition is what interprets Scripture. Stay mad loser. HISTORY IS NEVER ON YOUR FUCKKNG SIDE
>>1352424
Catholic Church confirmed for being on the right side of history
>>1352408
The issue here is the role of the human will. If the human will is active then faith forms his convictions which he must struggle to live by which is done through works. Both PAUL and James used Abraham as an example and Abraham's situation has his faith in God pitted against the love of his own son Issac. Abraham wasn't mind controlled, he must struggle and choose between God and Issac. Stay mad Gnostic scum
>>1352418
>Show me your reasoning behind James using a different definition of faith
If demons have faith then they believe in Jesus
Christ as their savior
If demons have belief they simply know Jesus Christ is God
>That's not what free-will means. Free-will is itself a product of God's grace.
lad...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
>Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
I agree with the other guy, you are dumber than a bag of rocks
>>1352424
Heresy
>>1352434
If you hate history then fuck off from this board
>>1352434
>If demons have faith then they believe in Jesus Christ as their savior
They certainly kneel before him and beg him for mercy. Whether or not Christ is their savior depends on if he actually saves them.
>Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
Which is a product of God's grace, God graces us with free-will, we can't have it without him, we can't even exist without him.
>>1352433
>Abraham wasn't mind controlled
>Gnostic scum
pic
If Abraham refused to sacrifice Isaac he would be rejecting God, or in other words losing faith
>>1352440
No, rejecting God's command does not abnegate belief in him.
>>1352440
Which he does so of his own free will. Once this is accepted, the entire premise
Of sola Fide falls to the ground when we see an active individual who is striving to act in accordance with faith. God didn't mind control him as Sola Fide teaches
>>1352447
>Belief in him =/= faith in him
It does in Greek and Hebrew. The distinction between belief and faith is something very modernist, not Biblical.
>>1352447
The use of academic sources to back my point up is not shitposting. Whining like a bitch without argument is the epitome of PROTESTANT apologetics!
>>1352454
>It does in Greek and Hebrew
You are completely retarded
>>1352454
I can know God exists and choose to rebel against him instead. Is that faith, or belief?
>>1352455
You should probably stop ogling anime girls. Just sayin'
>>1352461
There is no distinction, Biblically speaking. It's both faith and belief, but without works.
>>1352465
I can ooogle at 3D too
>>1352472
The concept can be defined, Biblcially. To believe in is to accept something exists. Demons not only accept that God exists, they proclaim that Christ is the Son of God (Luke 4:41)
>>1352479
But they don't have faith in God
>>1352476
You should probably get married senpai
>>1352481
If you define faith Biblically, they do.
>>1352482
Will God make me marry qts like her?
>>1352493
God won't make you do anything.
>>1352486
Let me put it this way
They know he exists. They have been in his presence. They do not have faith in him as their Lord
>>1352498
Why doesn't God give me a wife like her?
>>1352503
They sure do, they bow before him (Mark 3:11)
They know full well he's the top banana.
>>1352512
God wants you to have a wife that you love spiritually, not just carnally.
>>1352512
God doesn't "give" you things. You get what god has allotted for you by following the righteous path.
>>1352520
All I only want is to have a loving relationship with loads of lewd cute sex
>>1354280
Then you should get married.
>>1351665
>I don't watch anime
faith restored
why is orthodox stuff always so dour
>>1354434
I only want Yerin
>>1350765
You're so qt.
>tfw no Constantinewaifu
>>1354956
We're really not, it's just our expressions of joy are more ancient in mood.
This, for instance, is our most joyous hymn, it's sung on Pascha (referred to by Protestants and Catholics as Easter) and throughout the Pascha season: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a6-u_6dZ8M
English: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_FQ_blPYY
This is the very anthem of the Church to Orthodox Christians. When Orthodox hear it, they will invariably chime in and sing along. It affects our hearts profoundly. To us, it is the deepest possible expression of joy, It doesn't really sound like modernist expression of joy, which is more like "Funiculi , Funicula"
>>1355092
Well at least your crush is 3D.
>>1356364
>ywn watch Constrannyteen touch her feminine benis
>>1358062
>benis
>feminine
Is anime responsible for this sort of cognitive dissonance?
>>1358086
O-oh, hello Constantine. We weren't talking about you at all. No.
>>1358086
Casual observer here, are you actually a woman?
>>1358132
I'm not going to say, but supposing I were, why would I want to be seen as such on 4chan? This isn't facebook or reddit, being seen as a woman here would make it impossible to post without being hassled.
>>1358155
If you were a man, you'd just say it, no problem, no foul
Since you prefer to remain ambiguous it can only be inferred you're a woman
Also you saying masturbating felt weird, I don't think there's a man on this planet that word agree with that statement, or that they only did it once.
Why do you like using the trip of Constantine if you're not a man? Isn't that disgraceful to his memory especially because you're no layman?
>>1358175
There are plenty of women named after Constantine, the name is just feminine form (Constantina).
You're making a mountain out of a mole-hill, and I'm unsure what you're looking to prove or gain or what any bearing this has on anything,.
Quick question lads...was the christian practice of tithing supposed to be done away with by the new testament?
>>1358205
No. It says clergy should be paid (this is said by Paul, who himself refused payment, and did manual labor to get by). Also, there's a lot that goes into maintaining a parish besides clergy, there's maintenance, leasing or building, charity (which all parishes are supposed to provide to), cleaning, and so many more things that add up..
>>1358255
alright, thanks
>>1357836
I can't decide between Arin and Yerin ;___;
