Hey /his/
could someone give me a rundown of principal differences between Christian denominations?
>>301401
there are a lot of denominations, senpai
>>301401
Literally Luther
>>301427
based post
Our KJV
Who art in bookshelf
Inken be thy words
Thy Proddies come
Thy text be done
In tongues as it is in megachurches
Our Book of Sovereign James, who art bound in leather,
with iron gall are made thine words, on a press, by no quill of papist monk.
Give us this day our daily division of pronouns between thy and you, and forgive us for considering douay-rheims, as we forgive the papists for denying henry his wife.
And lead us not into the temptations of non-textus-receptus translations, but deliver us from vulgate. For yours are the cords and the vellum and the square set type of gutenberg, forever.
Amen.
>>301401
Heretics and non-heretics
>>301401
>Sola Fide
The notion that belief in or trust in Jesus as your God is what gives you salvation. Protestants support this.
>Sola Scriptura
The notion that the bible is the final authority on the Christian faith and that no group or person has the authority to make interpretations of scripture that have the authority on scripture. Protestants support this.
>Lack of centralization
The previous point has led to several different understandings and why Christianity now have thousands of different sects. Having no centralizing element to Protestantism rather than the book itself - no comment on how it's understood - is how Protestantism differs from Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Simply not having a centralizing force behind them.
>some different books
Martin Luther, who kickstarted the Protestant Reformation, removed some books from the Biblical Canon. This has been pretty universally accepted.
To add, Orthodox bibles are larger than Catholic ones but that's only because some old Orthodox churches used scripture from before the biblical canon was established so Orthodox bibles are extra large to accommodate all those people. Regardless, Orthodoxy and Catholicism share the same canon.
>Apostolic succession
The Catholic and Orthodox church both have the history to back their claim that their clergy has a lineage in authority given to the apostles. They both explain the lineage in different ways, which separates them both, but Protestantism denies them both while asserting the Bible being the center of the faith. You can see how that's affected American perceptions of Christianity.
Coptics are simply a splinter group that come from one bishop that disagreed with the church's position on an early council about the nature of Jesus
Part 1/2
>>301715
Orthodoxy and Catholicism is a much more challenging discourse but largely their split is over church structure and innumerable minor theological issues. Thankfully because of it we can fairly say that both can fairly lead people to Christ despite their differences. For the sake of discussion I'll focus on purely the church authority disagreement. When all the apostles got successors that ensured successors for the position that apostle was in. Of those offices, both Orthodoxy and Catholicism assert that Peter does in fact have primacy over the other offices but the core split is over whether the primacy is purely honorary (the Orthodox position) or has mechanical function in the church structure (the Catholic position) and that man in the office of St. Peter is called the Pope
>>301717
And, to add, culturally Catholicism tends to stick to the scholastic side of Christianity with a few mystics while Orthodoxy tends to stick to the mystical side of things with a few scholastics.
>>301717
The Orthodox have no issue calling him Pope. Of course, other bishops have historically been called that too, like the Bishop of Alexandria, who was often called Pope since before the schism.
>>301401
Well there's Catholics, and heretics.
