The New Testament was originally written almost exclusively in Greek. That means that the most authentic teachings of Christ the Redeemer were preserved in the Greek world.
What kind of Christianity is predominant in Greece today? Orthodox Christianity.
Checkmate Catholicfags.
And by extension: Checkmate Protestantfags, wasting their time talking shit about the Catholicfags instead of being True Orthodox Christians. Shame.
>>917274
What are the stats on the Analovos?
What kind of retarded logic is this?
Orthodox Christians have sicker robes than anybody else.
>>917274
And before that it was passed down orally in Aramaic
>>917282
>I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me
Literally Wh40K Avatars
>>917285
Oral doesn't count :^)
>>917274
That is dumb as shit, you think Catholic theologians don't know Greek? You think they don't study Greek at Catholic seminaries?
>>917286
>>917274
As someone who was raised Protestant, I've got to say that the spiritual theology of the Orthodox Church is absolutely beautiful. It has a sweetness to it that I haven't seen in any other denomination, and I think it does a wonderful job of answering both logical questions and questions of the heart.
That said, I haven't had the chance to try to join. There are some practices that I personally can't get behind (and that I'm sure are minor enough that there's at least one parish out there that would accept me), but it's something I'm seriously considering.
I do think that there is something to the value of tradition as passed from the apostles, and the Western Catholic view on other denominations that I often see is far too cold for me to recognize as being from God. I personally consider all genuine Christians to be my brothers and sisters; despite disagreements, the Orthodox tradition is the only one which really seems to take a Christ-like stance on the issue, at once asserting itself clearly, but doing so in a way that's loving and encouraging enough to not alienate people.
>>917274
In a way, the fact that an Undivided Church of sorts managed to stay firmly rooted in an area such as Greece and other Hellenistic-era countries while every other area developed along Catholic or Protestant lines, sometimes flip flopping between them...it makes the Orthodox claim to the One True Church a bit stronger than before.
>>917291
Lel, if you think Catholics can be cold (and they can be) then you haven't been listening to some Orthodox anti-ecumenists then.
>>917301
Good point, except those people you're referring to are basically charlatans.
>>917301
The Orthodox church does seem to be pretty diverse. In my opinion, I wouldn't mind being a part of a church that at once is full of loving, wise clergy and similarly wise wizards with a cold streak who will slap my shit in an argument. The fact that the Church is actually able to handle such diversity speaks volumes about its strength.
I'm also somewhat biased towards the beards.
>>917289
They study how to get #rekt. Stop being a pleb, go to an Orthodox seminary, and git gud.
>>917282
lol, whatever bro...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grmlE39QQdo
Non-Christian here.
From my research here is my take an which is the "real Christianity" and how old each sect is
The original Christianity was a folk religion centered around Jesus. If you think there is a diversity of beliefs now, it was even more chaotic back than. There was no "one church" early on or a way to authentic texts. Christianity was a bunch of pocket communities that all believed radically different things. This was Christianity 1.0 although in my opinion the group that was closest to the original teachings of Christ were the Adoptionists & Jewish-Christians, who were defeated.
There were multiple churches formed eventually but none were legitimized. Christianity 2.0 happened with Constantine. The first form of legitmize the "false" from the "real" Christianity was through cooperation with the Roman government.
This "legitimized" Christianity was Orthodox in nature. The bishops were not a rival to government but complentory (and the word Pope didn't even exist).
What I call "Proto-Catholism" was just the Western part of the Roman Orthodox Kingdom being butt-hurt that they were being controlled by the distant East. Catholicism, in it's identifiable form, was invented in a forged document called the Donation of Constantine. "Catholics" before that were rebellious Orthodox.
Protestantism as it was originally conceived is whack and has nothing to do with Christianity. It's intention was good but the people in charge were poor scholars.
7the day advents and Mormons are probably the most "legit" Protestant Christianity.
tldr: There is no such thing as authentic Christianity, however some are older than others. Of the one types still being practiced in large numbers the Orthodox is the oldest.
>>917338
>Mormons are probably the most "legit" Protestant Christianity
Lolwut
>>917347
I second this
>>917338
There was no "one church" but the first three hundred years (before the first ecumenical council in 325) were consistently Orthodox in nature. A lot of the influential church fathers not recognized by the catholic church as being important to the Christian theology are revered in the Orthodox church today. Comparatively speaking, I'd say the Orthodox church is more inline with the earliest incarnations of christian churches than any other denomination.
I'm Muslim, but what's the proof for papal supremacy from the Christian perspective?
>>917382
The idea is that the Pope is the direct successor of Saint Peter, whose authority they inherit.
>>917382
None, Catholics just made shit up. Everybody but the Catholics will agree to that statement. The Catholic might say something like how Peter the Apostle was the "first pope", and they claim direct lineage from him.
>>917388
And so did Peter have supremacy, or primacy?
>>917397
Yes.
>>917351
were consistently Orthodox in nature
Only if you disclude the numerous writers and congregations who were not orthodox, but then your augment becomes circular
>>917397
Neither. Both those descriptors would be applied anachronistically, and thus incorrectly.
>>917288
That's what op's mum said when I cucked her
>>917382
The Catholics argue that the church councils made him head of the church, and this is affirmed by Christ naming peter the head the church on earth
Orthodox argue that he his only first among equals and cannot overrule the other bishops
>>917382
He's officially the Arch-Bishop/Patriarch of Rome, the title held by Saint Peter himself. Saint Peter was entrusted the church and its flocks by Christ himself, and therefore, among all Patriarchs and Bishops he's supposedly the one who has been directly given the responsibility for the Church as a whole. Don't believe >>917394 there's actual precedent for this sort of shit.
The Orthodox/Catholic split really doesn't firmly happen until the mid 1080's or so and the split was primarily a political move that has to do with Byzantine stuff. Orthodox priests and rituals are pretty much entirely catholic as is and the theological split is so minor to not be really important unless you're crazy like some Protestant sects. Hell, IIRC an orthodox priest can perform rites for catholics like marriage and vice versa.
>>917397
Both really. He was the most trusted of the apostles and the Rock on which the Church was built.
Yeah I'm sure those "Christian" saints are 100% Christ the Redeemer approved. That goes for you too Catholicucks.
>>917351
>but the first three hundred years (before the first ecumenical council in 325) were consistently Orthodox in nature.
Early Christianity did not have a closed cannon. There was nothing to stop you from saying Jesus wasn't the son of God (as most early Christians did beleive). Most likely it's not even what Jesus said about himself.
How "authentic" early proto-Orthodox is really depends how you want to define authencity. If you want to base it on the majority, the origenal Christians were all Jewish-Christians until Paul's influence (who himself would be a Heretic by Orthodox convention, since he seems to paint Jesus as some sort of angel or prophet).
What we call Orthodoxy's origin was a bunch of people going around and granting themself divine authority Ignatius of Antioch, declares that Bishops are equal to God in authority. Other people did this too. This is not a continuation of Christ's organization but a new one entirly. Afterwords there is a huge period where the bishops basically cherry-pick what is "true" and what is "false"
In this regard they are equally valid as the Gnostics, the Mormons, and the Muslims. The very idea of an official priesthood, of there being a cannon at all, is so far removed from the 1st century Christianity. Orthodoxy is simply very old, compared to the Catholics or Protestants, but it's not the original: that was destroyed by the "Orthodox"
>>917411
The councils over what was doctrine and what was not got very violent at times too, bishops shanking each other over stuff like Arianism.
>>917382
It's the idea that Jesus gave a ton of power to Peter and Peter has the power to appoint successors.
Historically Peter probably wasn't a Bishop in Rome and the real power of the Pope came from a forged document called the Donation of Constantine which basically says the bishop of Rome gets to be the emperor of all of Europe. Before than the Bishop of Rome didn't have any special power, he had some indirectly since Rome was a major city.
>>917418
>He had some indirectly
He was basically the Emperor in the West's go to guy in matters of faith. He was directly extremely powerful and indirectly as Peter's successor most of the western bishops followed his example.
>>917408
So where would one look for the proof of this stuff, if they wanted to settle a debate? Is it in your Bible, or some other document?
>>917423
The best comparasion for how the Bishop of Rome acted would be to say he was like the mayor of New York. He's the most prestigious mayor, other mayors will look up to him and see him as a mentor. He may even command lesser mayors by the power he has over New York.
But he is not officially above the other Mayors. He cannot pass laws that affect the Jurisiction of other mayors.
And Peter never was a bishop of Rome.
The claim to Papal infallibility is one of the most fucked up things to happen to Europe in all of history. It basically divided the society in two and led to all sorts of wars from half of Europe denouncing their Emperoror so that the Pope can get his 30 pieces of silver.
>>917431
It's... complicated. You know the hadith's and shit? We've sort of got them to a degree, but that's more of a catholic thing and related to the popes and such. But really, you have to dig into a loaaaad of fucking letters, multiple councils of bishops, the political environment at the time and the nearly endless amount of 'heretical' strains of belief in early Christianity.
It's insanely complicated, it's late where I am, and I really don't want to dig up sources and shit, most of this is half remembered stuff from my CCD stuff (lapsed roman catholic here) and my own research.
>>917431
The roots of Catholicism and Orthodoxy predate the bible.
Christianity was a religion that did not start with a holy book and it's leader died before the religion ever got big. This essentially meant that there were dozens of people running around with their own version of the religion competing for territory. It was only after the proto-orthodox/catholic power structure already had it's bishops in place that they began to structure the bible.
The bible also says prettty much ZERO about how the church should be structured. The Christians just try to look back history and figure out what people used to do and copy that. This leads to a ton of arguements about how history unfolded that cannot be directly affirmed by holy text.
>>917438
Ah ok. Maybe someone else can dig them up.
>>917443
>The bible also says prettty much ZERO about how the church should be structured.
What about Paul's letters and the Peter rock thing?
>>917274
You mind telling us who it was that set about to compile the most renowned versions of the Greek text, promoting it's usage and thereby pulling it out of practical obscurity?
>>917309
>The Orthodox church does seem to be pretty diverse.
>The fact that the Church is actually able to handle such diversity speaks volumes about its strength.
Double-edged sword with this though and the more spirtually-focused nature of the Orthodox Church though is that you can have wildly different theological and ecclesiological opinions within the body of the church. Members from different may have deep rooted spiritual disagreements, let alone those from different nations.
Say what you want about Roman Catholicism, but the message and beliefs you'd get in Boston are the same you'd get in Buenos Aries, which are the same you'd find in Rome, which are the same you'd find in Dodoma, which are the same you'd find in Manila.
>>917458
We got some structure from Paul, nothing really advanced: rules about how priests should or should not marry. And what exactly does this mean? Paul was not a formal leader and he is in constant arguement with other people over how to run the church. Advanced hierarchy (bishop, cardinal, etc) is simply not there either.
Peter and the rock is not exactly the most clear of passages. We get only one line from Jesus and there's all sorts of different interpretations.
I'm mostly replying to these guys:
>>917458
>>917443
Let me start off by simply commenting:
There is lots of talk here about Christianity 1.0, and although it looks chaotic and can lead to organically generated forms of variety;- at least those developments would be authentic, made by people with some form of genuine condition of faith (for better or worse), which might then be potentially addressed one day to be developed along some sort doctrinal evolution.
My knowledge of the bible is sparse, but also has great depth on certain doctrinal points. Also, I am not affiliated with an organised religion. But I do know that there are very clear scriptures detailing the purpose of a Church, the component relations within the "body of Christ". Also, I know this will make me sound like a contrarian hick against all you organizationally thought-controlled bred cattle: but maybe the reference to Peter being the head of the Church, was not fucking literal. 2000 years ago, what do you think the word "Earth" even meant to the people of that time???
The general tone of this thread, and the huge dependency of some form of organisational umbrella, to further as an disembodied-collective-ego, to assuage the fears of death and offer some sort of eternal comfort in being a part of some autocratic machine that conveys the energy of your demented form of mental-subjugation, so your eternal spirit can infinitely utter the phrase: "I bet on the right horse" in it's dormant and atrophied stasis.
So called Christians, you taste of death to me.
I don't have a drop of Slav or Greek in me. Am I still allowed to do Orthodox?
>>917549
Jesus Christ your fedora is fucking insane.
>>917549
>although it looks chaotic and can lead to organically generated forms of variety;
This is true. However I personally see there are major shifts in modern Christianity with the original growth spurts. I think no matter which branch of Christianity you pick today it represents a new genius of the religion, evolved from but distinct from the many flora that came from the first seed.
>what do you think the word "Earth" even meant to the people of that time???
This never occurred to me. Are you implying that the "earth" is a local piece of land? Such as a city, county, or at the very most a country?
>>917562
You can search the Scriptures yourself to verify.
But for me it clear that the "Earth" is something like the basic sustaining energy of that feeds all immediately felt experience. In this way, in modern conceptual speak, it most likely refers to the 'power of the mind' that is seated with the actual (organic) brain. In short, it is the energy that your experiences are (mentally) constructed from.
>>917554
Also, maybe focus on understanding Book 1 Chapter 1, if you what you believe doesn't sound mentally-ill after that, then your plastic cartoon of a Christian- part of the world (of organisational matrix thinking).
I bet all you simpletons are reading NIV and getting mislead by the guesswork of modern philistines.
>>917575
Ok so let me get this straight. To the ancients "earth" was a spiritually charged word right? In the same way they would have thought stars and planets were made of some sort spirit/material substance they would have thought the same about "earth" right?
So talk of Peter being the head of the earth means he has been exalted to a position of great spirtual understanding? Like being "enlightened" or "harmonic"? At the very least it's not a political statement?
Also what are some lay-man books relevant to understanding how the ancients viewed their Christianity?
>>917605
Spiritually charged I can agree with..
in the same way that "stars and planets".... wtf?
Stars have their own very distinct meaning, and their own distinct spiritual connotation. Again you reference this in the Scriptures yourself (Book 1, Chapter 1); also you might want to think about what "Morning STAR" actually means.
I wouldn't recommend any books to you, other than looking at the bible, but maybe try it with your own eyes (reading it [only] for yourself) this time...
Also, you seem to have very weird understanding of what a "Church" even is or is for. If you read the Scriptures, you would know this is often spoken about in the Scriptures in terms of great mysteries. So not only Church is much more complex a topic as you are projecting onto it, but yes, also the "earth" doesn't fit into any mental-framework of organisational-drama. (Only an organisation thinks of the earth as a fucking territory etc.)
>>917628
cont...
The worldly authorities have crept into and displaced pretty much every corner of so called Christian-thinking, and then it masquerades as a spiritual project, when really its just a...
Principality like all other false doctrines.
But I really can't win and am probably wasting my time, because I don't even want to teach Christianity to people, I want to do the work that happens after that battle is won;- and people can't even identify that with Christianity, because they are so entrained to meddling drama's of dogmatic and stupefying man-made faiths that only allow themselves to continue because they can't read enough of a proper Bible a way that actually makes sense enough to rob them of their blindness.
Read 1 John Chapter 5, and realize how your religion will never come close to understanding those words, only interepreting them into shallow frauds. You get nowhere in the full language because your understanding of grammar is corrupted and needs to be reworked by proper doctrine. But the Bible alone won't give you the full resources to achieve such an understanding, which is why it regulates the functioning of the true salvation: the body of Christ. But all authoraterian oganisations are disembodied by their formality, and the formality exists to serve the interest of the disembodied interest for continuinity of the organisation (at the very least). But the Scriptures do stand as the many mysteries to be unlocked by those willing to follow, but so few are capable of making the sacrifices needed, I have only known of one, myself, and I have done great works, and I stand alone. The Irony is not lost on me.
>>917274
Ancient greek weren't turkish-bulgarian-gypsy rapebabies though
>>917274
I recently missed out on a vacation hike to Mount Athos. We would've had some "dragon" or however that is spelled ranked priest help us up, we'd stay for five days total. No women allowed. Mobile phones are okay.
I guess I'll try to catch the second one in September this year. Should be an interesting experience.
>>917674
As opposed to what? Germano-arab rape babies in Italy? Negro-mexican rape babies in USA? Mongolo-russian rape babies in Moscow?
>>917288
>>917317
>these are actual orthodox converts
>>917291
> There are some practices that I personally can't get behind
literally denying yourself the truth to stay in your heretical comfort zone. Enjoy Sheol you fucking idiot.
>>917338
> folk religion
It was just judaism with jesus shoved into it.
>>917669
This is stupid.
If any your whole bullshit contradict Biblical scholarship and Patristic thought.
This is the only way for Sola Scripturists to win.
>>917274
Nigga no! Catholics are absolute bro teir, better than protestants who fell for le faith without works may-may.
>>918786
There are many early church doctrines that are practically identical to mine, they were just destroyed by the thought-control organisational types, pretty much exactly your sentiment right now. This is why Christianity was destroyed, by those who have no faith except in dead worldly instruments, who get to win and rewrite the ancient past so that they can see only themselves in it.
Again, your idea of Church is obviously very foreign to everything that is described in the Bible, if you would ever bother to actually read and understand those things.
All Christ was probably saying, is that Peter was the perfect Elder, and Peter's account of the Gospel should probably be seen as having that force of influence;- which to my mind is still quite insignificant compared to the fundamental core of the faith espoused by John.
You Simpletons get tripped up in the exoteric descriptions of "Christian" appearances, that make you obsess over the minutia that only even becomes close to useful after you've have some idea of what the Scriptures prescribe for production of a real salvation.
I'm gonna glide past some of the stepping stones to get straight to the point in this context: On some level salvation is quite simply obtained, the tricky part is coming to know Christ, which is only possible with some form of authentic exchanges between 'members in particular' of the body of Christ;- this is so you have the culture upon which you can meditate on yourself enough to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling' as the Christ is revealed by studying the works of the body. This is a very intellectual thing to work out, and there are Scriptures that detail the vast scope of this project, which the modern Church with its alienated and disingenuous forms of superficial discussion fall short of ever attaining to.
>>919490
This nigga gets it. Exoteric Christianity is meaningless without the Esoteric component. Although the following quote is from the Muslim tradition, I think it applies to all major religions, especially Christianity. It goes something like "There will come a group that will read the Qur'an but the words will not descend through their throats and into their hearts," which is seen as a danger, as the inner dimension is necessarily intertwined with the outer one.
>>919490
And yet,
ZERO citations from any scholar or figure who supposedly hold onto your crappy teachings.
Fucking hell, the idea of an organizational Church is in the fucking Bible itself. It's already quite solidified in Paul's epistles.
In fact, in the Jerusalem church, James is the fucking leader over there.
The worst part is perhaps the very fact that scholars agree that most of the population at the time is illiterate. Any reading is by hearing and that means community which means organization.
Fucking idiot.
The only groups that are against organizational structure and the mainstream church would be the Gnostic heretics like you.
>>919934
I could cite stuff, but really its beneath me and a waste of my time.
Also its beneath me, because worldly authority and is a shamble of filth, much like the edifice you have constructed to to keep your false religion safe from the ravages of direct critique.
Good Luck, and Have fun in your mainstream.
>>919974
>arrogance
>claim to be able to cite stuff
>cite nothing
>>917351
>There was no "one church" but the first three hundred years (before the first ecumenical council in 325) were consistently Orthodox in nature
Confirmed for not knowing what you're talking about.
>>919974
cont.
Also:
Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
-----
further explanation, not that any quantity of schooling could assist your present condition of deluded-ness (but some others can see your rebuke plainly enough, and it is them I would convince):
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Joh 5:41 I receive not honour from men.
Joh 5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
Joh 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. (Therefore Jesus Christ is not his own name, nor the name of a person {its not the name of a man}, Jesus Christ is a spiritual name, literally translated it is: [Jesus-] Jehova saves; [Christ-] the anointed of God.)
Joh_8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
---
Luk 12:32 Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.
Luk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
----
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
---
2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
---
1Co_8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Eph_2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
>>920112
further cont.
...
Eph_2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph_4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
---
Php_2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
---
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
>>920112
>main argument about the state of hierarchy in the Early Christianity and in the Bible
>Post Bible verses that have completely nothing to do with it
>still dare to arrogantly call schooling
Retard
>>917274
That only means that after centuries of schism, the east was unable to teach Rome that Petros is not petra.
>>917338
You started strong and then went completely whack. Mormons say Jesus and satan are brothers, and the JW say Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
>>917382
From the Christian, none. From the Catholic, it's self-imposed by the people at the top.
>>920129
further cont.
1Jn 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
--
1Jn 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
--
1Jn_3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
>>917408
>the title held by Saint Peter himself
Nope.
>>917408
>Saint Peter was entrusted the church and its flocks by Christ himself,
Nope.
>>920136
>Retard
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
>>917408
>he's supposedly the one who has been directly given the responsibility for the Church as a whole
Nope.
>>917408
>Both really. He was the most trusted of the apostles and the Rock on which the Church was built.
Nope.
>>920161
>Can't answer argument
>resort to arrogant self righteousness
TYPICAL PROTAUTIST
>>917411
>In this regard they are equally valid as the Gnostics, the Mormons, and the Muslims.
You should probably stick to something you know something about.
>>917418
>and Peter has the power to appoint successors.
That's another leap they make, without any biblical support.
The Roman Catholic Church is run like the Roman Empire.
>>917443
>Christianity was a religion that did not start with a holy book
Jesus taught the Law of Moses, which certainly predated Christianity.
>>920178
In the New Testament a twofold attitude to tr adition can be discerned. The tradition of the (Jewish) elders, together with ot her human traditi on, is rejected. 7 At the same time there is good apostolic tradition which is simply the Christian faith as it was proclaimed and transmitted by the apostles and their associates. 8 The New Testament writings sprang out of this latter tradition at different stages in its history. There is therefore an important sense in which (apostolic) tradition precedes Scripture, an aspect largely ignored by traditional Protestant theology. But although this has important implications for the origin of the New Testament it does not foreclose the question of the subsequent relation between Scripture and tradition. The New Testament may derive from the original apostolic tradition but once it was produced it became distinct from that traditi on and the relation between the two became an open question. It also became a question which could not long be ignored for the original apostolic tradition did not suddenly die when the New Testament was produced but remained as the context in which it was read and interpreted.
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol09/scripture_lane.pdf
>>917458
Peter being the foundation of the church is based on a deliberate lie.
Jesus asked His disciples who they said He was. Peter said "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus commended him, saying he was blessed, because you cannot know that unless the Father reveals it to you, and you believe.
Then Jesus says "I will call you Petros, and upon this petra will I build my church, and the gates of hell will not withstand it."
Petros is a masculine word in the Greek, and is a man's name, and does connote "Rock".
petra is a feminine word in the Greek, and literally means rock, like a cliff.
By using both words, it is abundantly clear to reasonable people that the author precluded Petros from being the petra. If Petros was the petra, the foundation, Jesus would have said "I name you Petros, and upon you, Petros, shall I build my church."
That is what Jesus would have said if Petros was the foundation. He isn't.
The petra, the Rock, is Jesus Christ. It is the divine utterance "You (Jesus) are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." That is the foundation of the church, all of the apostles, and all of the prophets making the body of the church, with Jesus as the head.
By deliberately misusing "Peter, you are the Rock, and upon this Rock (Peter) will I build my church", the Catholics assume authority over the church that they do not have. They assume the necessity (and existence) of apostolic succession. They assume the transference of the keys to heaven.
The Vatican is a den of iniquity, and the Roman Catholic church is the most evil institution on the planet, having been based on lies, thefts, and murders.
Including the murder of Peter.
>>917549
>So called Christians, you taste of death to me.
Do we, or does your imagination of us taste thus? Because I assure you, I will not taste of death, myself.
>>918404
He was not shoved in; He was prophesied by Moses and the prophets, hundreds of times.
When they said Messiah, they meant Jesus. Jesus is the Messiah.
>>920136
You have violated "Thou Shalt Not Murder" with this post.
>>920136
>>920141
I really am not going to enter such a stupid specious argument. And there are lots of Early Christian groups that had very similar doctrines, it really quite easy within my power to fish out the name, but like I said, its fucking beneath me.
Maybe read the parts of the bible you think are proof of Hierarchy, and ask yourself what Hierarchy (if at all) was in power over those recorded disputes.
Carry on with your Godless minutia, by all means, I've done my time in this thread.
>>920212
>guy fulfils half the prophecies told by the old prophets (with some shoehorning) but fails to fulfil the other half at all
>dies before he can
>oh shit guys, what do we do
>I know, say I had a VISION, and saw he fulfils all that other stuff in he FUTURE
>fuckin genius John, you saved us
>>920223
Except of course, we all know you have no power at all, just a bunch of incoherent ramblings that can't even answer the main argument.
Whenever someone calls you out on your retardation, you simply flaunt arrogance.
Fucking autist.
>>920191
Not by my count. The traditions of the pharisees were rejected by Jesus as falsely replacing the laws of God, and the traditions you speak of are best summarized here:
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
There is no tradition in the bible of a man ruling over other christians; that is the way of the Nicolaitan, having clergy over laity, and imposing men between a man and God.
Look up Nicolaitan in the bible to see how much Jesus hates it.
And then look at the abominations the "traditions" of the Catholic church have produced over the ages.
>this entire thread
Hylics will literally burn each other at the stake over costumes and minor linguistic issues yet not one of them knows the living God.
>>920229
That's simply not true. Jesus fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies that were ripe, and was rejected by the people.
The prophecies concerning what Jesus will do after being accepted by the people will all be fulfilled, when they are ripe.
You do not get to murder your Messiah, and then enjoy His eternal kingdom. Just doesn't work that way.
>>920257
Please remove. Is very offensive.
>>920256
So how do you explain James being the head of the Jerusalem church then genius?
Either way, the point made by ANS Lane is simple, there is no Sola Scriptura in the Early Church. Tradition is used to interpret Scripture and forms it in the case of the NT.
>>920272
Quite easily. James was a Judaizer. He taught openly in the Temple, and the Jews had no problem with what he was teaching. Get circumcised, get baptized, and follow the Law of Moses. The Jews had no problem with what James taught.
When Paul taught the New Covenant, the Jews chased him out of town, beat him, killed him, mocked him, and ridiculed him. Turns out the Jews had a problem with men who taught Christianity.
They had no problem with Jews who were Judaizers.
Paul went to Jerusalem, to speak with James, and John, and Peter, and what did Paul have to say?
That those so-called "pillars of the faith" added nothing to him. Not one thing.
>>920272
Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.
>>920283
2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
>>920272
>there is no Sola Scriptura in the Early Church.
The apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Church's faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
>>920280
Paul also wrote with authority as well.
The Pillars of Faith accepted Paul as a missionary to the Gentiles in Acts as well. The whole council of Jerusalem thing that took place there already imply hierarchical structure of some form with the Apostles on top.
>>920283
So the Tradition which Paul taught to the faithful are man made and vain. Ok, got it!
>>920272
>there is no Sola Scriptura in the Early Church
The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
When are you going to come to grips with your desire to lie, lie, and lie?
>>920300
Nonsense. James was being condescending and told Paul to go tell the Gentiles whatever he wanted to. The Gentiles didn't matter to James.
Only the Jews.
>>920300
>So the Tradition which Paul taught to the faithful are man made and vain.
They were written down in the scriptures.
Why do you care, when you're not even a believer?
>>920296
False, it is the teaching of the Church and the very rubric of approaching Scripture.
This is how Irenaeus and Tertullian got to the concept of Regula Fidei, it is the teaching of the Church which informs one on a cue to reading Scripture.
It is the very hypothesis to approach it and there is only one hypothesis unlike the variants of the heretics, which is of course found in Protestantism.
Irenaeus himself used Apostolic Succession as a measure of how the Church's doctrine is antique and not something new which he immediately mentions right after this.
If any, Irenaeus and Tertullian are no Sola Scripturists. They are simply taking the Coincidence view which ANS Lane pointed out. Later on, Lane shows how the view of Irenaeus and Tertullian differ from Sola Scriptura in the very same essay.
Either way eventhough Scripture is held in the highest regard, Irenaeus and Tertullian still see Tradition as important to guide its reading and arrange its plot. This is simply a sort of Prima Scriptura.
>>920305
>hurr extensive use of scripture means exclusive use of scripture!
Have any actual arguments?
>>920321
I smelled you from afar, lost one. You care too much about this issue, and you're wrong on it, and proven wrong, each and every time.
Yet you return to it, like a dog returns to its vomit.
Why do you care, when you're not a believer?
What "tradition" is Paul talking about to the Thessalonians, that is not enumerated in scripture?
>No early church fathers taught the scriptures.
>>920305
My point or Lane's isn't that the Church Fathers didn't cite Scripture or hold it in high regard. It's that they are not Sola Scripturists.
Clement of Alexandria himself as Lane pointed out believes in a secret Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles which is classified as the Supplimentary view.
If any, we only see you lie and blatantly misrepresent my point here.
Good job.
>>920339
What did they teach, that is not in the scriptures?
Can you name one single thing?
>>920339
The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to Sola Scriptura
From the very beginning of the post apostolic age with the writings of what are known as the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) there is an exclusive appeal to the Scriptures for the positive teaching of doctrine and for its defense against heresy. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin Martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
>>920331
If any, you failed to do so. You can't even cite any proper scholar to back your point up.
I cited the Reformed Protestant, ANS Lane to back up my point.
Tradition would be the stuff that Paul taught the faithful and those he addressed. But this isn't Scripture. The fact that this Tradition itself is recorded and taken to be authoritative already implies that Tradition itself is authoritative, otherwise such wouldn't be the case.
And I never even said that none of the Church Fathers taught Scriptures. I said that they aren't into Sola Scriptura. Fucking idiot.
>>920272
>ANS Lane
Talk about authority of God's word.
Heathen makes logical fallacy of appeal to authority
But not the authority of God
my sides
>>920358
Yes, you continually make the same logical fallacy, an appeal to authority. It's kind of hilarious.
You reject God's authority, and the authority of the Word of God, for some liberal professor.
You say "this man did not believe this!" and I quote where that very man believes that very thing.
Like a dog returns to its vomit, so does a thief to the scene of his crime.
>>920358
Name
One
Tradition
>>920348
So they cite Scripture, and they also showed the importance of Tradition such as in their way of approaching it and their stance on various issues such as free will, baptism, eucharist...etc and the use of the Regula Fidei.
This means, if any, Scripture and Tradition are intrinsically linked together in the thought of the fathers. And we see this through the style of approaching it and their consensus on matters of faith. One which we don't get from Protestantism.
We also see the use of Apostolic Tradition
>>920367
What
Tradition
>>920363
Citing scholars isn't an appeal to authority dickhead.
I even laid out the context and overall matrix of their thought to show how your abuse of them is dishonest.
>>920367
>Regula Fidei
Are you a seminary drop out? Is that your thing? You came from some small town, kind of thought you were a Christian, wanted to be a priest, joined a seminary, and got BTFO? And you're in desperate need to prove that anyone in your position would have been BTFO?
Is that why you keep regurgitating the same false arguments?
>>920369
This shows how idiotic you are. I had already laid out what Tradition is that is,
a)The teaching of the Church
b)Apostolic Succession
c)Approach to Scripture
d)Universal agreement in doctrine
All you are doing here is simply asking a question that had been answered like a fucking autist
>>920372
It absolutely is.
>Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.
Lane is not an expert on the authority of the scriptures, at all. He's a lost sinner in need of a savior.
>>920377
My arguments are what anyone can find in academical books about the Early Church.
If you have been observant enough, you'll see that nowhere do I cite any apologetical source to prove my point but scholars.
>>920379
The teaching of real churches is the scripture. So no, this is not a tradition.
Apostolic succession is a lie, not a tradition.
The scriptures speak for themselves, so no, again not a tradition.
Agreement in doctrine is not a tradition either, as it does not exist.
NAME
ONE
TRADITION
THAT
IS
NOT
IN
SCRIPTURE
>>920387
Yes, you continually make the same logical fallacy, over and over and over again.
As though "scholars" did not exist on both sides of the argument.
You pick the one you like, and disregard the people with the opposite opinion.
You enjoy being a slave, I suppose.
>>920383
Except of course, he is.
It's only that he disagrees with you that you say this shit.
Apologetical sources are not authorities since they are biased. Scholarly sources are since they are secular
>>920394
And again, there are people who disagree with your pet scholar.
As do most people who know that hard determinism is a lie.
>>920390
No, it is what the Church got from Scriptures overall and what that had been taught to them.
Agreement in doctrine exist and must by definition imbecile. A cannot be not A simultaneously.
If the Scriptures speak for themselves, why does it contradict itself on so many matters of faith amongst Protesturds?
>>920393
Let's face it, no scholar would agree with your shit. I know cause I'm well versed on the area of the Ante Nicene church.
You aren't and can only vomit what your shitty Reformed apologists spew out. You are nothing but a filthy Calvinist puppet
>>920394
>The word ‘tradition’ is notoriously ambiguous.
Yeah, that's a real expert right there.
>>920396
Except of course you can't even provide any citations whatsoever from a valid scholarly source.
>>920402
The scriptures never contradict themselves, and they are without error. Assuming the autographs. As to the manuscript copies, they are 99.5% intact, and contain a few copyist errors, a few spelling variants, and a few idiomatic changes.
Nothing touching doctrine.
I don't know why you care about this, when you're going to hell to be eternally tormented for your unbelief.
Only Catholics would back up your "tradition is the same as scripture and can only be seen in the operation of the church" garbage.
And again, Catholic garbage has given us the Whore of Babylon, not the body of Christ.
>>920390
The Trinity.
Nowhere in the Bible does it limit the number of hypostates to only 3. Nowhere does it say that the Holy Spirit is itself God as opposed to just His Spirit. These things are solely tradition.
>>920408
The bible count?
2 Timothy 3
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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Gee, complete and thoroughly equipped for every seems quite complete to me. Wonder where this "tradition" fits in?
Oh yeah. The incinerator.
>>920411
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.
>>920413
In context, that refers to the Old Testament. Tradition itself is mentioned through the act of being taught close to that verse as well.
So this is pointless.
>>920417
Maybe scholars don't have authority over God? Maybe scholars don't have authority over the Word of God?
Is that possible?
>>920421
Since it's the last letter Paul wrote, or close to it, no, not so much. If you believe the NT is not as sacred as the Old, you're a Jew, not a Christian.
>>920415
>first citing the Comma Iohanneum, a later interpolation that is not in the oldest manuscripts
>second citation is never said in the Bible to refer to the Trinity, it's only by tradition that this reference is understood
Not even trying, are you?
>>920422
>Bible
>Word of God
>Literally worshipping a book
Or maybe God in Protestantism loves contradicting himself
>>920421
To be fair, you could also be a Muslim.
The one thing you couldn't be, is a Christian. Catholic would be fine, though. They have nothing to do with the bible whatsoever.
>>920424
Since the NT arise from Tradition, by that logic, Tradition itself is equal to Scripture in terms of authority.
>>920426
200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
Hmmmm, maybe the "majority" isn't a "majority" after all...
>>920427
Jesus is also referred to in the bible as the Word of God, so, no. Nice try, but no.
>>920429
>can't answer argument
>hurl in red herrings
The epitome of Protestantism
>>920431
And yet, all of those traditions are written down in the scriptures.
See, that's how it works.
>>920433
>Can't argue Trinity in Scripture
>Resort to Tradition
Protestant hypocrisy right there
>>920438
It's true. You cannot be a christian and hold that the New Testament is not the Word of God.
But you can be a Catholic, or a Muslim, and hold that belief, easily.
>>920448
>It isn't in the earliest manuscripts!
>Early christians citing it from early manuscripts
#rekt
>>920453
>NT
>set of documents
>Equivalent to Jesus the Word of God
Can't make this shit up
>>920456
Based on the Church's interpretation of those manuscripts!
>>920454
Nope.
The traditions of the church are the traditions of pagan Rome, and are anathema to God.
>>920462
Hahahaha, once we see you get BTFO on this, we can only see your typical Fundie bullshit fearmongering
>>920465
How is that fear mongering, again?
by saying the traditions of the Romans are the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church?
Like many of the beliefs and rites of Romanism, transubstantiation was first practiced by pagan religions. The noted historian Durant said that belief in transubstantiation as practiced by the priests of the Roman Catholic system is "one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion." The Story Of Civilization, p. 741. The syncretism and mysticism of the Middle East were great factors in influencing the West, particularly Italy. Roman Society From Nero To Marcus Aurelius, Dill. In Egypt priests would consecrate mest cakes which were supposed to be come the flesh of Osiris. Encyclopedia Of Religions, Vol. 2, p. 76. The idea of transubstantiation was also characteristic of the religion of Mithra whose sacraments of cakes and Haoma drink closely parallel the Catholic Eucharistic rite. Ibid. The idea of eating the flesh of deity was most popular among the people of Mexico and Central America long before they ever heard of Christ; and when Spanish missionaries first landed in those countries "their surprise was heightened, when they witnessed a religious rite which reminded them of communion...an image made of flour...and after consecration by priests, was distributed among the people who ate it...declaring it was the flesh of deity..." Prescott's Mexico, Vol. 3.
>>920464
Good job, I never said those manuscripts don't exist retard.
PROTAUTIST BTFO
>>920470
There's your "tradition" of the "Eucharist"....here's some more "traditions"!
The Christian Church for the first three hundred years remained somewhat pure and faithful to the Word of God, but after the pseudo-conversion of Constantine, who for political expedience declared Christianity the state religion, thousands of pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone with out true conversion. They brought with them pagan rites which they boldly introduced into the church with Christian terminology, thus corrupting the primitive faith. Even the noted Catholic prelate and theologian, Cardinal Newman, tells us that Constantine introduced many things of pagan origin: "We are told in various ways by Eusebius, that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own...The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church." An Essay On The Development Of Christian Doctrine, pp. 359, 360. This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god. This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church.
>>920470
This is so stupid, even the Protestant Patrick Holding had to debunk this.
>>917274
it was written in ancient koine greek by hebrews who's first written language was Hebrew and their native tongue was aramaic
I've read the new testament in, what many biblical historians consider, its original text. The new testament is understandably pretty poorly written. They don't understand Greek sentence structure and many times just use hebrew or Aramaic grammer instead of Greek. They only once use the Optitive, I know it's a rare mood but when talking about religious matters like these it would be more common and there are definitely places it could have been used, and they used it as a weird subjunctive. But you can't really blame them this is their probably 4th 5th or 6th language.
I don't like Nietzsche but he was right when he said how strange it was that God only knew how to communicate through poorly written Greek or whatever. The idea of trying to teach modern day religion and ethics through the worst form of two millennia old linguistic phone game sounds like a nightmare.
>>920472
>>first citing the Comma Iohanneum, a later interpolation that is not in the oldest manuscripts
#rekt
>>920478
Rome is Babylon.
The Vatican is the Whore of Babylon.
Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon.
>>920475
Here's how real scholars see the issue of the Real Presence,
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=98Aefvi_MTAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=crockett+eucharist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBprPzt-7LAhWIVRoKHbrZAXcQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=crockett%20eucharist&f=false
>>920478
>Patrick Holding
rationalwiki
Yeah, that's some great source right there.
>>920481
I dare you to say Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Romans were written poorly.
>>920482
Wow, that isn't even part of my argument.
The point is that the doctrine of the Trinity is part of the Church's Tradition which is read into Scripture
>>920490
Good job moron. He's not even fedora
>>920489
The "real presence" in the vatican is Lucifer.
Most frighteningly for John Paul, he had come up against the irremovable presence of a malign strength in his own Vatican and in certain bishops' chanceries. It was what knowledgeable Churchmen called the 'superforce.'
[The] incidence of Satanic pedophilia - rites and practices - was already documented among certain bishops and priests as widely dispersed as Turin, in Italy, and South Carolina, in the United States. The cultic acts of Satanic pedophilia are considered by professionals to be the culmination of the Fallen Archangel's rites...
Malachi Martin, Keys of This Blood
>>920495
I didn't say that.
I did say that.
#rekt
Father is God
Son is God
Spirit is God
There is One God
That's the Trinity, and it's throughout the bible.
>>920499
rationalwiki
expert on things of God
pick one
>>920499
Is it true that J.P. Holding is not your real name?
Not anymore.
What are your credentials?
I have a Masters' Degree in Library Science. What the runs down to is, I'm trained in looking things up and answering questions.
Priceless
>>920512
He's a whistleblower, not a conspiracy theorist.
At this point in time, I have to assume you're a Jesuit who has taken the oath to stab women in their pregnant bellies and drag out their babies to be dashed against the ground.
No sane person could restate the same oft refuted point a dozen times, and be serious.
>>920514
At least he can show me the proof that such is bullshit.
But no actual scholar would believe in this bullshit you spew. If there are any, where?
>>920521
>got BFTOed
>resort to conspiracy theories not related to topic
>>920512
Pope Francis Declares Lucifer As God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcpVrtv2t-M
Published on Jul 4, 2014
Pope Francis and the Vatican has introduced the world to their god they been worshipping all along, Lucifer. According to Pope Francis and the Catholic Church, The Morning Star is the creator of the world and the father of Christ. He brought "light" to the human race.
This announced was made to the world April 27th, 2014 during a ceremony where Pope John paul the 1st and Pope john Paul the 2nd.This declaration is unprecedented and should cause concern to the world. It's no coincidence that the first Jesuit Pope would make such a shocking statement. He has been overhauling the Vatican since he got in. So far he has said Athiest will enter heaven as long as they do good works. He also stated Jesus is just a man and prays to the father and he is a co-mediator with mother Mary between God and man.
This is their new statement made during Mass and other ceremonies:
"His flame dawning his own son
May, I say to you O' lucifer who knows no setting
Christ is your son who came back from the dead
and shed his light to the human race
and is alive and reigns for ever and ever"
oops
>>920524
You just quoted a librarian as an expert on the scriptures and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, because he knows where to find the bible in the Dewey decimal system.
kek
>>920528
It's spot on.
When you leave the bible, and start relying on the traditions of men, you get the whore of Babylon, and not the Body of Christ.
You get people praying to Mary and other dead people, and not to God.
You get people calling Lucifer God.
>>920538
>stray from main topic
>hurl in red herrings
This is what they teach in Protautist seminaries
>>917282
>not having cardinal vestments
>having best robes
pick one
at least orthodox robes are looking badass, but they lack sublimity
>>920493
depends on what version you are talking about, realize I'm looking at it from a perspective of learning 5th century greek by reading greek techs from that time period. I'm not saying it's better or worse on content just when you are raised on that grammer reading the bible is fucking arcane and just nonsensical. Koine is a bastardized version of greek that became a means for communication between two people that spoke entirely different languages, not for providing a bedrock of a religion. You take that and then learn Greek by reading only from the greek philosophic golden age by some of the best greek writers to ever live, yeah none of the old testament is that impressive linguistically and any good versions of it there may be are probably more likely to Byzantium's revisions than the original text.
>>920542
That's because you rely on scholars, and I rely on the bible.
I'm happy to let those chips fall where they may.
Er, what point? That the Roman church is evil? That's my point, not yours.
>>920546
Yeah, no. Never been. Just don't like people having to rely on the liars of the Vatican to answer their questions about God.
>>920560
Koine Greek, you say? Hmmm, almost as if the authors wanted the common men to read it for themselves.
>>920561
Where in Scripture is the proof of God's existence?
>>920555
I agree. Nude is better, especially when we are wrestling together on the bed
>>920566
It assumes it before the beginning. It's quite elegant.
Genesis 1
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth - the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.
God's not concerned with proving His existence to you. He's just not. If you can't figure that simple fact out, then you cannot proceed to a place where God is actually going to be able to make sense to you out of what He is doing.
>>920575
That isn't proof of his existence or even a case for it.
>>920583
Did you miss the part where I said God doesn't need to prove Himself to you?
desu God wanted it to be translated into English, and made sure the word was translated accurately, and even more precisely than the greek or latin.
>>920587
So how does one even know he exists?
>>920524
Um, no, upon actually reading him, your librarian does not back you up, at all.
The closest thing that Mithraism had to a "Last Supper" was the taking of staples (bread, water, wine and meat) by the Mithraic initiates, which was perhaps a celebration of the meal that Mithra had with the sun deity after slaying the bull. However, the meal of the initiates is usually seen as no more than a general fellowship meal of the sort that was practiced by groups all over the Roman world -- from religious groups to funeral societies. [MS.348]
That's communion.
>>920565
maybe so I don't know what you are implying though, I didn't in any part of my post disparage them for doing so. I agree with you that doing so was probably to their benefit. Just because something can be read by many people does not however make it well written, original or linguistically interesting. just look at twitter.
>>920596
How does one not?
>>920609
There are people in this thread, and breathing air right now, who believe that you must have an expert on the bible tell you what the bible says. That would be contrary to the intent of the authors, who wrote the gospels in Hebrew and common Greek, for the Hebrews and then the gentiles to read.
Romanism tells people the bible is impossible to read and understand.
So they demand you trust them to tell you what it really means.
It's pure evil.
>>920607
Beck.PO -- Beck, Roger. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras. London: Brill, 1988.
Biv.PM -- Bivar, A. D. The Personalities of Mithra in Archaeology and Literature. New York: Bibliotheca Persica Press, 1998.
Cum.MM -- Cumont, Franz. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York: Dover, 1950.
Frek.JM -- Freke, Timothy and Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? New York: Harmony Books, 1999.
Gor.IV -- Gordon, Richard. Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World. Aldershot: Variorum, 1996.
Lae.MO -- Laeuchli, Samuel. Mithraism in Ostia: Mystery Religions and Christianity in the Ancient Port of Rome. Northwestern U. Press, 1967.
MS -- Mithraic Studies: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Mithraic Studies. Manchester U. Press, 1975.
Spei.MO -- Spiedel, Michael. Mithras-Orion, Greek Hero and Roman Army God. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980.
Ulan.OMM -- Ulansey, David. The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World. New York: Oxford U. Press, 1989.<
Ver.MSG -- Vermaseren, M. J. Mithras the Secret God. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1963.
Wyn.MFC -- Wynne-Tyson, Esme. Mithras: The Fellow in the Cap. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1958.
>>920614
>literally never been repeatable, reliable, hard proof of somethings existance
how could you not know it exists?
>>920614
Then Agnosticism is the most rational position to take
>>917274
Too bad the oldest actual teachings and oldest actual congregations don't exist anymore and the oldest surviving church body didn't go along with the Chalcedonian heresy and uses the Aramaic that Jesus himself spoke as liturgical language.
>>920627
Oh, you're looking for God using a microscope.
You won't find Him that way.
>>920631
To the lost, yes. To the saved, no.
>>920658
ha hah aha hah ahah ahah ahha
>>920621
What? It was written to be intentionally cryptic. You obviously don't understand either greek or hebrew if you are writing that. In Ancient Greek words can have dozens of meanings depending on the context, the prepositions alone can have thousands, their verbs have something like 100's of different forms. In greek you can remove words simply because they don't fit the meter of the sentence, or more confusingly you can just remove letters to make words look like other words, or change letters to make words look like made up words just to make the sentences to sound prettier. This is just some of the weird shit greek does, and the people that wrote the new testament did a shit ton of it which actually makes a lot of passages in the bible way more ambiguous than people would like to believe.
Further you realize by the time the books of the bible were being written Hebrew was largely a written language and was rarely used for speaking outside of religious contexts, as such it had actually changed quite a bit. It only had one tense for past, present, and future not to mention a plethora of strange practices that are paradoxical when trying to write anything.
Whether they were trying to connect to the people of their time or not doesn't really matter to the people reading it hundreds or thousands of years latter. The bible is full of idioms and colloquialisms that don't translate and people read way too much into like that stupid eye of the needle bullshit.
All that being said there is no reason why a person can't teach it in modern english, if god is real it's not like he would allow his own word to be misconstrued and used for evil, otherwise he would be culpable for evil. And according to most modern christians god can't do evil.
>>920657
cool thanks for admitting he has yet to be proven to exist, making him a possibility not a certainty, not invalidating him simply allowing for multiple answers to a question.
>>917431
Perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a reference for you, but the only primary source I can think of is a history by Eusebius (?), and if you are looking for just primary soures, try Reading the Middle Ages, edited by Barbara H. Rosenwein, second edition. If I remember correctly the Petrine Doctrine was written by pope Leo around the mid 5th century.
>>920691
Whatever, have fun in Sheol fag lmao
>>920691
>Only things I can see under microscopes exist.
Do you know what God owes you?
Nothing.
Not one single thing.
If you can't figure out that God exists, well, that's really hind teat, isn't it.
>>920797
>Sheol
Gets translated some times into hades.
Most people went into sheol/hades-
cant be that bad there and the truly godless wont miss the presensce of god either on the siding of souls.
>>920809
I don't expect god owes me anything, but then again I am not asking him to love me unconditionally and follow my rules without providing ample proof as to why he should.
Just because I can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means it is possible it doesn't. I personally think there is nothing illogical about some kind of god existing. Whether that god is the christian god has yet to be shown with any real evidence.
>>917274
>scripture written in language "koine X"
>denomination has the word "X" in its name
>therefore
>denomination is correct
F L A W L E S S
L
A
W
L
E
S
S
L O G I C
O
G
I
C
