Protestantism is a heresy and a sin under every historical interpretation of Christianity up until its own emergence, proving it is a false religion.
Prove me wrong (you can't).
>>921915
Christianity is a heresy and sinful under every historical interpretation of Judaism up until its own emergence, proving it is a false religion.
Prove me wrong (you can't)
>>921915
doesn't matter because christianity isn't true
>>921926
Yes it is
>>921923
Except the premise of that comic is made up.
>>921924
Christianity doesn't claim to be a Jewish religion.
>>921915
Christians are kaffir either way.
>>921938
Of course it does. It claims to be the fulfillment of God's covenant with man under the historical and theological underpinnings that Judaism laid out. The only way you could say that Christianity doesn't claim to be Judaism is by setting forth the argument that Christianity claims to be something that supersedes Judaism.
In either case though, it relies fundamentally upon the veracity and a mode of analysis that invalidates its very existence, thus proving its invalidity.
>>921944
They do not claim to be Jews. Rabbinical Judaism is actually newer than Christianity as well.
>>921958
>>921915
Then again, it's likely a Catholic posted this.
Therefore, invalid.
>>921970
Your logic doesn't follow try again
>>921927
prove it :^)
>>921975
Catholics can't understand logic.
So, clarifying and/or repeating won't assist you.
>>921964
The point is based on invalid premises so it doesn't matter what you were trying to say.
>>921915
No one will prove you wrong since the other religions don't care, and it is widely known the Protestants are illiterate.
>>921915
>rotestantism is a heresy and a sin under every historical interpretation of Christianity
so is Catholicism
>>922006
Have you actually read the Bible? The Gospels and the Epistles quote the Old Testament left, right, and center. Jesus admonishes people to fulfill the laws and commandments of the older prophets stringently on the sermon on the mount. You have a claim that older prophets were in fact heralding the coming of Jesus. That the God of Israel is a real, potent force affecting the life and death and after-death judgment of literally every person who existed or ever will exist. That this God spoke to a number of people, predominantly Hebrews, setting out a code for them to live by and for them to receive further revelation.
Yeah, most Christians don't claim to be Jews; but that's the invalid premise. They certainly claim the validity of Judaism as a once historically valid path, the revelation that God passed down. You can't accept that part and then conveniently ignore the rest. Christianity is a Jewish heresy, pure and simple.
>>922037
There is no extant form of Judaism that in any way approximates the beliefs of the pre-Christian Jews so no it is not a relevant comparison at all. Protestants fully claim to be Christians but are not according to the definitions of any of the Church fathers, East or West.
>>922040
>There is no extant form of Judaism that in any way approximates the beliefs of the pre-Christian Jews
A) I think modern Jews would care to dispute that
B) So what? It doesn't change that it was certainly a radical and contemporaneously thought of as heretical movement.
> Protestants fully claim to be Christians but are not according to the definitions of any of the Church fathers, East or West.
Christians fully claim to be following the will of the same God that appears in the Old Testament, the one whose worship manifested as Judaism first. Christians fully claim to be following that God's will, to be fulfilling his covenant, but not according to the definitions of any Hebraic leaders, Sadducee, Pharisee, or Essene.
>>922052
This thread isn't about whether Christianity is a Jewish heresy it's about whether Protestantism is a Christian heresy. Stop trying to change the subject.
>>922062
Bravo. I didn't realize anyone was that capable of doublethink. Have you risen high in the Party?
>>922062
if Christianity is a Jewish heresy then Protestantism is a heresy. A heresy is a heresy. Shouldn't that be enough to satisfy your hate boner for the eternal anglo?
>>922069
Both propositions can be true. You're a pleb for thinking that they are mutually exclusive. Whatever the logical ramifications of one or the other being true isn't really pertinent to the question at the beginning of this thread, which is whether or not Protestantism is a Christian heresy. I'm not arguing about complete worldviews or religious systems here, just the simple question of whether or not Protestantism is a heresy.
>>922097
Of course they're both true. That's the bloody point. The same reasoning you use to lead to the conclusion that Protestantism is a Christian heresy and ergo wrong would lead you to concluding that mainstream Christianity is equally heretical and also, ergo wrong. Why even care at that point?
That you treat them like they're two vastly different things, or that the notion of "Heresy" has any damn meaning outside of any one particular sect's views, is absurd. Hell, you can go full Jack Chick and claim that no, it's Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox that's the heresy, because they don't live up to a Protestant view of what "proper Christianity" is, through their line of logic about what's a valid authority and what isn't.
Unless, of course, you're say, a Catholic apologist, who wants to smear a rival sect. At which point /his/ might not be for you.
>>922107
Your insistence to contextualizing the argument into something outside of the scope of the original question is out-of-order. I never said that heresy from Christianity is bad or that sin is bad or that Christianity is good. Those are value judgments that you imputed yourself.
This isn't about value judgments it's about historical analysis, so trying to make moral equivalencies really IS irrelevant.
The corpus of material used for making the judgment should be the works of the Early Church, since that is what people like Luther, Calvin and Knox claimed they were restoring.
There is no hypocrisy here.
>>922120
if you want to talk about historical analysis then Catholicism is a heresy of the Orthodox church. Rome never had consolidated authority in the early church. the early church was very decentralized in authority with Rome whining in the distance "I-I'm Peter guys!"
>>922120
>Your insistence to contextualizing the argument into something outside of the scope of the original question is out-of-order.
ahahahahahahahahaaha. This is 4chan. You really expect any thread to stay on the topic? Especially because OP (which I am assuming is you) wants it to stay that way? Rejecting the fundamental premise of the thread is something done all the time here.
Not to mention the smug pepe image and the "prove me wrong, oh wait you can't" formation shows a fundamental disinterest in open debate and rather projecting smug superiority at the notion that your faction is better than whatever the rival faction of the OP is.
tl;dr go fuck yourself you pathetic, lying hypocrite.
>>922127
Again, irrelevant to the scope of the question.
>>921978
Prove it's not
You made the first claim
>>922134
showing OP to be a faggot is always within the scope of the question
ITT: christians in full damage control mode after their logic backfired
>>922129
This is 4chan. Formulating OP's as bait is a proven tactic in getting responses. Same as clickbait on any news website.
>>922136
First let me start with a premise that Jesus believed Abraham, Moses David to be more than just historical figures but who they are presented as in the bible which I believe is supported in the canonical gospels as Jesus quotes Psalms as David in an argument with a Pharisee, meets with Moses and refers to the Law as coming from Moses, and says that Abraham knew him.
First off, Hebrew is a Western Semitic language which cannot be connected back to Sumeria, where Ur is, Abraham's home town. It is very closely related to Phoenician, even uses the same alphabet. Before 1000BC paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician are indistinguishable as different languages. Therefore the Israelites are linguistically at least the same as Canaanites. The relationship to Abraham is strained, however it can't be wholly rooted out. Let's look at the language of the Torah: yes, it's hebrew. Supposedly the Torah is written by Moses and remember that Jesus confirms this. First off how did Moses manage to write this in Hebrew in 1400 or if you prefer 1200 when Hebrew as it is in the Torah did not exist at the time? There is no tradition stating that the original writings of Moses were translated and in fact a priest under King Josiah found one of the original works of Moses which was supposedly lost in the Temple until then. It is unlikely that Josiah or any of his officials knew how to read bronze age era Egyptian or the ancestor language of Hebrew that existed at the time (which Moses is unlikely to have had access to anyways as his life was spent in Egypt and living among the Midianites who were unlikely to be literate. So the Torah could not have been written by Moses.
>>922185
Cont.
Archeology has yet to find any sign of the United Monarchy that was ruled by David and Solomon. At the time that they would have been alive the population of Judah was only a couple thousand while the Ephraim highlands alone had around 40,000 so a conquest by Judah is implausible. There have been few to no public works that have been found that could be attributed to any large state before the 800s BC. Some walls have been attributed to Solomon but were redated to the Omride dynasty. Sure later reference to the House of David have been found but these references aren't contemporary to David and only show that Judah's monarchy claimed to have an ancestor named David. Even if we assume that they were correct that they had an ancestor named David, this isn't the David of the Bible who ruled from Aram to the Brook of the Nile, this is at most the founder of their state limited to Judah or some pre-state tribal leader
Therefore Jesus believed something incorrect about at least two of these three figures and could not be perfect, let alone God
Says the polytheist Catholic idolater.
Read Genesis you mongoloid.
>>922136
A man can't be God.
>>922243
Mine was simple. His would have to be fact-checked, and takes time to read.
>>922247
your's is just a bait answer. it doesn't actually disprove Christianity
>>922185
bump. want to see the christfags' rebuttal
reminder
http://www.protestanterrors.com/
>>922414
>The Protestant reformers had no legitimate mission from God (or from someone given power by God) to reform the Church:
Right from the start this site gives a shitty argument. this is easily refuted by any evangelist who claims to have received messages from the Holy Spirit telling them to preach. Oh but it's not the real Holy Spirit. But I seem to remember an extremely retarded method from 1st John that says that you can tell whether these spirits are from God: if it claims that Jesus came in the flesh. These preachers would agree to that so they must have the real Holy Spirit. You're welcome protest-tards, I did your work for you
