Christian General

File: notmessiah.gif (1MB, 245x245px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x245px

>>2822258

>>2822258
Not a christian but wondering what you guys think of Mary Magdalene, any sects believe her to be the wife/lover of Christ?

File: Screenshot_20170516-183036.png (327KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1080x1920px

>>2822258
wondering if a non-fundamentalist can respond to what this anon posted in a thread not too long ago. I don't mind arguing with fundamentalists but a fundamentalist already responded to this earlier and like always they weren't too convincing and were engaging in ad homs. if you're going to argue for a double prophecy please give reasons for why this passage should be interpreted that way, preferably with textual evidence from Isaiah and addressing the linguistic point he makes.

>>2822258
>Protestants should be able to accept that a unified institution of the faithful under the successors of the Apostles has allowed our faith and tradition to flourish, and has kept them secure for most of their existence.
Firstly, by "successors of the Apostles" I'm guessing you mean priests. This is false, since there is no Christian priesthood, the apostles were not priests.
Secondly, organizing all saints into a single insitution is not better for purifying the faith. To the contrary, it makes it easier for Satan to take control of the church.

>>2822301
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srFgZbcGMUI

>>2822309
posting 30 minute youtube videos is bad form and pretty sure I've already seen this video posted before and he doesn't address the points made by this anon

File: FB_IMG_1494899342517.jpg (43KB, 562x799px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 562x799px

>>2822304
>Firstly, by "successors of the Apostles" I'm guessing you mean priests. This is false, since there is no Christian priesthood, the apostles were not priests.
They literally appointed Bishops in Acts and took under disciples, many of them martyred and became Saints. Christ is the High Bishop of the Church.

>Secondly, organizing all saints into a single insitution is not better for purifying the faith. To the contrary, it makes it easier for Satan to take control of the church.
What are You trying to even say here?

T. Orthodox

>>2822295
No, just a shady tactic to lower Christ

>>2822304
>Firstly, by "successors of the Apostles" I'm guessing you mean priests.
More specifically I am referring to the patriarchs, including that of Rome, as apostolic successors. As >>2822339 said, the Apostles passed their authority onto others as recorded in Acts 1:15-26. It may be argued that since Peter said "Out of the men who have been with us the whole time that the Lord Jesus was living with us, from the time when John was baptising until the day when he was taken up from us, one must be appointed to serve with us as a witness to his resurrection." succession required one to be witness to the resurrection, yet all Christians who believe the Gospel are witnesses as such and Peter, with the same authority, as granted by the keys of heaven, established Apostolic succession through the patriarchs. The authority of the papacy is another matter and a contestable one, but this is not.

>This is false, since there is no Christian priesthood, the apostles were not priests.
>Secondly, organizing all saints into a single institution is not better for purifying the faith. To the contrary, it makes it easier for Satan to take control of the church.
You're going to need to elucidate these points; they aren't particularly self evident.

>protestants

>>2822258
How do we stop Jews from casting doubt on people's reading of the Bible? It seems like every Christian thread I've ever seen, there's at least one (often lots) of them nittering away at obvious passages, claiming they're mistranslated or misunderstood and obviously we can't or don't read the Bible. And then when you call them out on it, they resort to arcane formulas in Hebrew that are completely incomprehensible.

>>2822295
Are you afraid of the word I'm or do you hate the English language or both?

>>2822301 Too

What do you guys think of unique American heretical sects like the Mormons or Christian Identity

>>2822301
>listening to Jew Lies.

This will tell you everything you need to know. Buy it today.

https://www.amazon.com/Jews-Their-Lies-Martin-Luther/dp/1593640242/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1494986194&sr=8-3&keywords=On+the+jews+and+their+lies

>>2822339
>They literally appointed Bishops in Acts
They sure did. It's just that bishop doesn't mean what you think it means. A bishop isn't one that stands in authority above priests, the bishop is one and the same as the presbyter, as proven by Titus 1:5-7
>What are You trying to even say here?
If you take all the Christians in the world, and put them under the authority of a handful of men, all Satan has to do is corrupt those few men, and he can mislead Christ's entire Church.
>>2822381
>the Apostles passed their authority onto others as recorded in Acts 1:15-26
Matthias was not made an apostolic successor, he was made an apostle. We can agree there are no apostles today, yes? This succession died with John.

>>2822438
oh wow, people are using the primary sources to formulate arguments? how dare they! Jesus christ, learn hebrew yourself or just find scholars, etc who know hebrew to counter these claims. I don't even know hebrew nor have I claimed to and you guys will ad hom me as a Jew just because I cite somewhat obscure OT passages in english which you can look up yourself.

>>2822258
>>1.) If Atheists can recognize that large swathes of western philosophy, from Socrates to Kirkegarde, concerned itself with God as a logical axiom, then we can recognize that from your standpoint God is illogical, a completely understandable standpoint.
I guess this is fair enough, but what precisely do expect somebody who doesn't believe in your faith to contribute here? We are coming at this from two incompatible points of view. You have faith, and I do not.

>>2822452
only if Luther knew hebrew and addresses the passage in question

>>2822465
>only if Luther knew hebrew
He did

I like this passage by Galileo 2bh. It brings to mind American Evangelicals and their "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

"With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come."

>>2822475
ok, does he address this passage? if so please quote from it. As far as I am aware this book is just an angry rant about the Jews because he failed to convert them.

>>2822438
If you have the means to counter their arguments, do so. If not, do your research. As someone who has studied the Jewish Kabbalah, I can attest that the Jews have insights into the faith that are certainly worth considering and not contrary to the Christian faith, especially given that from the 1st century onward Christians rooted their theology in Greek tradition far more than in Jewish tradition, i.e. Jesus's tradition For example, the Kingdom of God in medieval times was often considered a terrestrial kingdom to be established. In Jewish tradition, the kingdom, or Malkhut, was simply the summary effect of God's breath and his will; the ideal that God has in mind for all man. Jesus himself said that the Kingdom of God was in our hearts, but without a firm root in the concept of Malkhut/Kingdom, many western societies ran rampant with this notion of a physical kingdom and attempted to forge it by the sword. It's important to remember that the tradition on which Christianity is based is Judaism, and that if one wants to understand Christianity in its entirety, one needs to understand Judaism.

>>2822458
Nowhere in that passage of Acts is the word Apostle even used, yet what else could the successor to an Apostle be but an Apostolic successor? If Peter had the authority to make one man an Apostle, why does he not have the authority to make another?

>>2822464
Whatever you want to contribute, I'm simply trying to stop full blown fedorism before it starts.

>>2822485
>Nowhere in that passage of Acts is the word Apostle even used
Verse 26
>If Peter had the authority to make one man an Apostle
He didn't, and he didn't. Jesus chose Matthias, not Peter.

>>2822459
Translating isn't difficult. It's the good old tactic that Muslims use too, "you have to read it in the original Arabic to fully understand".

No you don't.

>>2822465
You're missing the point.

Suppose you know a guy who just got out of prison for scamming a bunch of people out of their money. And he tells you that he has a wonderful investment idea for you, with a bunch of paperwork about how the scheme is going to unfold.

Do you check it up against an academic's knowledge of sound business practices? No, you call him a scammer, a thief, and a liar, and you ignore him. Jews are the sons of the devil, (John, 8:44), and you don't listen to them, because everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

>>2822491
>Verse 26
Blargh. Basically irrelevant but blargh.

> Jesus chose Matthias
It was the Lord's will but he was chosen through Peter and the apostles, as all bishops are, in theory, chosen.

>>2822495
translating is always imperfect. primary sources should always take priority over a translation for interpretation, especially if someone can point to a specific issue in a translation that doesn't match the primary source well. you don't neccisarily have to know hebrew yourself, just find someone who does who's trustworthy and hear what they have to say about the passage.

>>2822515
>Jews are the sons of the devil, (John, 8:44), and you don't listen to them, because everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

Interesting. Were Einstein's theorems lies? Was Jonas Salk's development of the first successful polio vaccine a lie?

>>2822532
>you don't neccisarily have to know hebrew yourself, just find someone who does who's trustworthy and hear what they have to say about the passage.
Yeah, we call those bible translators.

>>2822515
either fuck off or find a non-jew who knows hebrew to counter the claim. it's not that hard considering there's non-jewish scholars and pastors who learned it in seminary.

>>2822545
alright, quote me a bible translater justifying this translation of the passage

>>2822258
How long does it take to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy if you were raised without religion?

>>2822518
>It was the Lord's will but he was chosen through Peter and the apostles
No, he was chosen through lot.

As a primitivist Christian, I have a question for those who hold are strong view of tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinism and Lutheranism), what if you see a doctrine that is out of place with the scripture? As a person who believes that we need to get to the root of scripture and scripture only, what do you say about doctrine that have been challenged recently like.
1. The New Perspective of Paul over the traditional view
2. Original Sin problem
3. Eternal Security
4. Marian Dogma

>>2822560
That essentially means that he was chosen through God's will, which would be the case anyways since it was God's most faithful choosing. When Jesus gives Peter the authority to "bind and loose" in establishing the Church, he does so in the knowledge that Peter would do so according to God's will. Does this invalidate Peter and the Apostles in this process? No, because the Apostles are still needed as terrestrial representatives of God's authority, ministering to the faithful (i.e. priesthood) and acting by the will of God. God did not directly command them to choose another apostle in response to Judas's death, they did so knowing that it needed to be done and asked God who should fill it, as is the case with all popes, patriarchs, and bishops. If Peter chooses another to succeed him as an Apostle, it is God's will that he did so.

Ultimately this is a matter of whether or not the leaders of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths have true authority, as the apostles are distinguished through the fact that they are the Lord's chosen leaders of the flock. Does being an Apostle mean one is automatically correct? No, as Judas and Thomas show. Does it mean that the faithful are obliged to follow you? No, you are only obliged to follow Jesus. What it does mean is that they are chosen to spread the Word to the world through the Holy Spirit and minister the faithful, which we can both agree that the Church has done a fine job of.

>>2822725
>That essentially means that he was chosen through God's will, which would be the case anyways since it was God's most faithful choosing.
interesting that you mention that, because this has OT parallels for "divining" YHWH's will through lot such as the ceremony where Saul was selected to be king and when Jonathan was shown to have broken the vow Saul made to not eat during a battle. there was also mention primarily in Samuel of the use of Urim and Thummim which, although we're not sure, seems to have worked similar to a coin toss.

Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

Clarice Starling: He kills women...

Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?

Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...

Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.

Clarice Starling: No. We just...

Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

I'm going on a mission trip to a location I'm not allowed to disclose in about a month. It's in the 10/40 window if you know what that is.

Prayers appreciated.

>>2822779
It's likely in regards to predicting the future, not necessarily using it to divine God's will as that practice is well established in both testaments. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Leviticus or Jewish tradition to say for certain, I'm simply making a logical deduction.

>>2822817
nah, this was after Jonathan had already ate honey. also Samuel doesn't view it as a sin since Jonathan wasn't aware of the vow and had his life spared as a result. it's similar to in Joshua when someone takes gold from Jericho when they weren't allowed to and the entire group suffers as a result in the next battle, which is resolved by identifying the person who upset YHWH, and then giving a death sentence (which Jonathan was spared from due to it being an accident)

File: Joseph_Smith1_Mormon.jpg (41KB, 385x550px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 385x550px

Post yfw he was right all along

>>2822809
God be with you anon.

>>2822725
>God did not directly command them to choose another apostle in response to Judas's death
Yes He did, Acts 1:20

>>2823458
Thats not a direct command son.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/direct
Direct: without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.;immediate; personal.

>>2822555
>How long does it take to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy if you were raised without religion?

I was 14 years a fedora before admitting I was wrong, allowing Christ into my heart, and joined Christ's Church (Orthodox Church). It's been a year since I started attending, and was recently Chrismated so now I'm in full Commuinion with Christ through His Body and Blood through His One Church.

Ultimately, it's between God and you, talk to the nearest Orthodox Priest if you want to know more or have questions. Perhaps I can answer some as well, God willing.

>>2824531
Well, if you accept Peter's interpretation that Psalm 109:8 is about Judas,
as well as Jesus' statement in Matthew 22:31 that the scriptures are the words of God, then yes, that's a direct command.

>>2822295
Just Dan Brown fiction.

>>2822301
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

>>2822301
With all that said, even if the meaning "virgin" is ascribed to "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, does that make Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy about Jesus, as Matthew 1:23 claims? In the context of Isaiah chapter 7, the Aramites and Israelites were seeking to conquer Jerusalem, and King Ahaz was fearful. The Prophet Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and declares that Aram and Israel would not be successful in conquering Jerusalem (verses 7-9). The Lord offers Ahaz the opportunity to receive a sign (verse 10), but Ahaz refuses to put God to the test (verse 11). God responds by giving the sign Ahaz should look for, "the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son...but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." In this prophecy, God is essentially saying that within a few years' time, Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At first glace, Isaiah 7:14 has no connection with a promised virgin birth of the Messiah. However, the Apostle Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connects the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23) with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 should be understood as being a "double prophecy," referring primarily to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer.

>>2822301

Now try to think for yourself.

Jew: It's young woman. The sign to the world that the Messiah is born is the birth of a boy child to a young woman. That's the sign to the world.

Christian: The sign to the world that the Messiah is here is a boy born of a virgin, a unique event in history.

Which one of those explanations fits "a sign to the world"? A boy being born of a young woman, or a boy being born of a virgin?

>>2822301
“The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural form of ‘you’ in the original Hebrew of v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who was present, v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would be destroyed (vv. 15–17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated by the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew—atah אתה) and the house of David as a whole (indicated by the plural form—lachem לכם).”

>>2822438
Quote Paul at them, because they have been blinded by God.

2 Corinthians 3
Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.

The autistic Jew you refer to obliquely has absolutely no understanding of Moses and the prophets, as the verse above indicates. He does not believe his own prophets' statements about the Messiah, and does not know that Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus.

Further, he stands for the proposition that Hebrew cannot be translated into English without completely changing the meanings of the passages to what he says they mean. And mostly, of course, he refers to the talmud, and not to the bible at all.

Finally, he is a Jew, and if that is an "ad hom" attack, then so be it.

>>2822448
Islam for Whitey, and Nazism for Americans.

>>2822708
I'm an Orthodox Christian, I'll try to help you out.

>As a primitivist Christian
What do you define this as?

>I have a question for those who hold are strong view of tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinism and Lutheranism), what if you see a doctrine that is out of place with the scripture?
Such as the Solas or Iconoclasm? Traditionally, Orthodoxy and thus Christianity has held Councils to address heresies that have arisen: Arianism, Modalism, Adoptionism, Donatists, Iconoclasm, Nestorianism, and such heresies. They weren't called to define what Christianity is, but to delineate what is wasn't. Orthodoxy (Christianity) can most simply be defined by the Nicene Creed. This is before the Bible was put together, and is a part of Holy Tradition.. that same Holy Tradition that is preserved to this day is the same that the Orthodox Bible came from, and what discerned authentic Gospels from say the Gosoel of Thomas, Barnabas, or Mary, which through Tradition and bring it recent time at that time, were known not to be written by the Apostles.

>As a person who believes that we need to get to the root of scripture and scripture only
What makes you believe this? Scripture is entirely within the Church, and in in that context without exception. A literal interpretation, for example, is a very barren, empty, and 2D caricature way of reading the Bible. There us no context or heart in that, and certainly not the Spirit.
How do you think Scripture came to be preserved and learned, even assembled? How did Christianity survive the first 3 centuries without the Bible? The Orthodox Church and Holy Tradition via Apostlic Succession by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit in our absolute faith in Christ as Savior.

>>2822458
Jesus picked all of the apostles, ending with Saul/Paul. Mathias was nothing more than the roll of a dice, and then never mentioned again.

>>2822478
>Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come."

Entirely proper.

It doesn't matter how smart a man is, if he is a natural man, spiritually dead, he cannot understand the things of God.

>>2822708
Part 2 since the respinse was too long.

>1. The New Perspective of Paul over the traditional view
Elaborate, please.

>2. Original Sin problem
The Orthodox position, and early Christianity, is that we have the sinful effects of the fall through from the choice of Adam and Eve, but we are not guilty of their sin. Original sin is a western (Roman Catholic) doctrine.

>3. Eternal Security
Elaborate, please.

>4. Marian Dogma
Elaborate, please, so we can narrow down what you mean. Roman Catholic innovations and heresies that were not present in the early Church nor Orthodoxy today are the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary as co-Redemptress, and that she is without sin. Protestant heresies are largely Jewish in nature, in that many will claim she didn't give a virgin birth, that she had relations with Josiah after, or that she cheated on Joseph. These are all equally incorrect, and are a result of lack of context via lost in translation from the original Greek to English.

Thanks.

>>2822485
>If Peter had the authority to make one man an Apostle, why does he not have the authority to make another?

He didn't. He arrogated that power, and Matthias was a mistake.

Peter's life is full of mistakes to the point where Jesus had to call him Satan.

>>2822533
>Were Einstein's theorems lies?

Kind of. They weren't his. He stole them. He didn't have the math to explain them. He was, as Nikola Tesla pointed out, a fool, a beggar wrapped in purple robes.

Einstein couldn't even pass a university entrance exam and his professional life was going from a third grade patent clerk to a second grade patent clerk.

>>2822708
Into the trash it goes.

However, I don't know what you mean by 1. or 2., but 3. is true for people in this age and 4. is the cause of much blasphemy and abominations.

>>2822301
Adressing the linguistic issue here:
English is not my first language, nor the language in which my hebrew grammar explains things, so bear with me: הָרָה֙ can mean multiple things:1 הָרָה֙ is literally a feminine adjective according to my dictionary, meaning "pregnant". Of course, hebrew being hebrew it could also be the perfectum masculine 3rd person of the root הרה maining "becoming pregnant", in the perfectum thense either 2: something happening right now, or 3: an act that is not done and completed at ONE moment, but one that takes time. (either from past->present, or present ->future or past -> future, I think)
My hebrew bible says: הָעַלְמָ֗ה : THE virgin/young woman. note the article הָ (the) which literally is in my hebrew bible. (biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, thus based on the Leningrad codex, which jews also hold in high esteem, from what I know)
וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת is a absolute participle from the qal stem, in this case the translation is debatable since the clause does not have a subject written in it (one can derive the subject of the previous clause is the subject of this clause from context)
In a discursive text, [participle-subject] in a clause would indicate a factual statement, a [subject-participle] would again indicate a process, an act that happens over some time (since participles have no proper "time" one can argue that it is about the future.)
Now I have no idea what a preterite verb is, since my hebrew grammar explains everything not in English. I must also say I do not have a degree in theology, I'm now on my second year of university, and I had slightly higher than a passing mark for my second hebrew course (it's somewhat harder than say, learning another european language) . But I would assume there are plenty university papers on this issue.

tl;dr: The linguistic issue is not as clearcut and simple as your image says, and multiple interpretations (Jewish or Christian) are possible.

>>2822809
Luis Bush seems okay. Godspeed.

>>2823458
The "other" is Paul, not Matthias. Paul is the greatest of the apostles; Matthias disappears.

>>2824577
Fulfilled by Jesus selecting Saul of Tarsus.

Jesus picked all of his own disciples, knowing one was a devil.

>>2824590
The Sepuigint was translated explicitly as "virgin" by the Jews to the Greeks 200 years prior to Christ. It means "virgin". The false OT used by Protestants and some Catholics is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled about 1000AD with the strict purpose of disproving Christ as the Messiah. They inserted the vowel sounds into the words, hence changing them to their liking.

I get your analysis, but contextually it's virgin, as you imply.

>>2824590
first, that fails to address the difficulty of the past tense which that anon mentions is in the verse. second, I can tell the source of your information is terrible because no such 3rd century meeting is recorded as happening. several such councils were suggested as possibly happening by later talmudic rabbis but they had no record of them and neither do we. few scholars take these claimed councils seriously anymore. also there's the issue that in order for this to even possibly refer to Mary it has to be interpeted as a double prophecy as this prophecy is already fulfilled within the text of Isaiah, and you have given no support for that.

>>2824632
>Protestant heresies are largely Jewish in nature, in that many will claim she didn't give a virgin birth, that she had relations with Josiah after, or that she cheated on Joseph.

No Christian espouses any of those things, but for her and Joseph having relations, and children, subsequent to Jesus. Because, of course, it's in the bible.

Matthew 1
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

>>2824658
Aye, it's virgin, with the caveat that a young woman at that time would be expected to be a virgin, or never marry and be a burden to her family forever, and a shame to her village. Or killed, of course.

I can't get over the fact that people who can tie their own shoes think that a "sign to the world" is a boy being born of a young woman.

In the words of Mick Jagger, "it just happens every day".

>>2824663
It does not, as Isaiah's son is not yet 13. Isaiah's wife would have been pregnant however many years in the past that the child was then.

The near prophecy is that before Isaiah's son reaches 13, the age when he should know good from evil, the kingdoms threatening Israel will be no longer a threat.

Then the broader "you" is the far fulfillment.

>>2824690
Oh, and as names used to mean things, Isaiah's son's name means "a remnant shall return". This is written prior to the Babylonian captivity. And lest anyone think Isaiah only mentioned this Immanuel, born of a virgin, once:

Isaiah 8:8 goes on to refer to Immanuel as the one to whom the land belongs, so the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 is brought over into the greater context, and not as a mere bystander. Isaiah 9:6-7 describes the promised Son who will sit on the throne of David and rule forever. Isaiah 11 speaks of a shoot from the stump of Jesse (David's father) and rule in righteousness. The image is of the house of David as a tree that has been cut down to a stump, but then a new shoot springs forth from the tree and brings forth new life. It is an image of a future restoration through a new Davidic king. There is a consistent theme of a future Messiah to be born. It runs throughout the passage and begins with Isaiah 7:14 and the first promise of Immanuel.

>>2822555
Generally, it takes anywhere between six months and two years for someone to go through RCIA and become a Catholic, depending on their prior experience with Catholicism & Christianity as a whole. If you have little-to-no knowledge, it would probably be on the longer side.

>>2824673
>No Christian espouses any of those things, but for her and Joseph having relations, and children, subsequent to Jesus. Because, of course, it's in the bible.

It's also in the Bible that God will be in glory until His enemies are at His feet. Does that mean He will not be in glory after? Of course not.
Again, "brothers" of Christ must be taken in context.. in the Greek it relates to friends, companions, and Joseph's kids from the prior marriage. If Christ had siblings through the Virgin Mary (He didn't), then they would have cared for her instead of St John doing so.

The problem with Protestants is that they have no context in which to read the Bible, and that is the Church which was started on Pentecost and established by the Apostles.
Galatians 8-12 warns of you.

>>2824809
>galatians 8-12
Protestants would say that venerating mary and saints would be the other doctrine that galatians 8-12 warns of, would they not?

>>2824831
>Protestants would say that venerating mary and saints would be the other doctrine that galatians 8-12 warns of, would they not?

Except that the Holy Virgin Mary has been venerated since their time, as evident by her falling asleep in the Lord and all but St Thomas were transported there by the Holy Spirit. Further, St John cared for her as they fled persecution.
>John 19:27

As for Saints, Revelation makes mention of them, but in general asking the prayers of our brothers and sisters in Christ is nothing wrong, nor new, but has been done since the beginning. You ask your family and friends to pray for you, correct? Same thing.
It's as the Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III said, "the difference between saints and everyone else is seriousness in the spiritual life".

It's like Protestants have amnesia of how the Church is, and how early Christianity was. 1000 years and several degrees of separation will do that, I guess. Yet, it's all here still, thank God.

redpill me on why yahweh is such a cunt? why is he not like literally almost every other human god, i.e, he doesn't care about the existence of other gods? is it because he's jewish?

>>2825548
kinda a complex question we don't have a clear answer to. scholars are pretty sure that the early development towards monotheism began with the Ba'al polemics in the north, especially when Jehu killed many of the priests of Ba'al. other key figures are King Hezekiah and King Josiah in whose reign an early form of Deuteronomy was written.

>>2824625
>A literal interpretation
So Jesus' biblical hermenuetic
>How do you think Scripture came to be preserved and learned
The Holy Spirit
>assembled
This never took place. It's commonly thought to have happened, but no group of men ever decided what the word of God is. Rather, it was received as what it is from the moment it was given.
>How did Christianity survive the first 3 centuries without the Bible?
Have you ever considered reading the writers of the early church?
>>2824632
>The Orthodox position, and early Christianity, is that we have the sinful effects of the fall through from the choice of Adam and Eve, but we are not guilty of their sin
That's nice. The biblical position however is that everyone is imputed the sin of Adam.
>>2824658
>The false OT used by Protestants and some Catholics is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text
The OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek.
>>2824809
>in the Greek it relates to friends, companions
The word adelphoi could not mean friends, companions or cousins in the 1st century.
>Joseph's kids from the prior marriage
What prior marriage?
>then they would have cared for her instead of St John doing so.
Was Jesus not free to choose His mother's keeper?
>The problem with Protestants is that they have no context in which to read the Bible
The context of scripture is scripture itself.
>Galatians 8-12 warns of you.
I want to point out the tremendous irony of this. In citing this, you have added the perpetual virginity of Mary to the gospel itself, thus bringing yourself under that very anathema.

>>2824896
>Except that the Holy Virgin Mary has been venerated since their time
False. The worship of creatures is a novelty from many centuries after the apostles.
>Revelation makes mention of them
No it doesn't.
>but in general asking the prayers of our brothers and sisters in Christ is nothing wrong
Necromancy is a serious sin.
>You ask your family and friends to pray for you, correct? Same thing.
I do not pray to them, nor do I use the exalted language of them that you do of saints.

>>2825512
I'm not Christian
But how does it feel knowing all those people doomed to Hell because they were fooled into thinking they could buy their way into heaven?
Like holy shit what the fuck was the Catholic church thinking? Why did they think this was okay?

>>2826372
Not a papist, but technically they weren't buying their way into heaven, they were buying their way out of purgatory. More of a shortcut to heaven rather than an entirely different way in.

>>2826363
Not the anon you are talking with but can you elaborate on those points he requested in his posts?

Im very interested in hearing the answer to this as Ive never seen a protestant on /his/ argue for the early church not being Catholic/Orthodox and Im very interested in this issue.

File: La-Vierge-aux-Lys-William-Adolphe-Bouguereau-500x339.png (281KB, 500x339px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 500x339px

If anybody has questions about Catholicism or relating to it, I'm happy to answer.

>>2826516
What points?

>>2826368
You imply veneration equals adoration, God himself venerated Mary.

Catholics aren't Christian.

File: Martin Luther.jpg (155KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1200x1200px

>>2826545
Why didn't you listen to Dr. Luther?

>>2826554
That's blasphemy

>>2826368
If you do not pray for your people you aren't following Christ completely.

>>2826561
Where did I say I don't pray for my people?

>>2826363
Scripture cannot by itself decide what Scripture is, and a Cannon of Scripture was not given in some biblical event like with Moses on Mt. Sinai. God's Church, with the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost complied a Cannon of Scripture over time.

>>2826558
Catholics are completely insane. I don't think they can even legally be charged with heresy.

>>2826558
Sir I ask, do you know what Catholics mean by veneration?

>>2826570
I apologise, I misread.

>>2826574
>Scripture cannot by itself decide what Scripture is
Why?
>a Cannon of Scripture was not given in some biblical event like with Moses on Mt. Sinai
That's true. In fact, the canon of scripture was never revealed at all.
>>2826579
Yes, I do. I know that biblically it is worship.

>>2826575
2,000 years of theology destroyed. I guess I have to convert now.

>>2826587
I like how Catholics like to say "2,000 years" as if though that means something. As if though most of their mythology wasn't created in the last millennium.

>>2826585
Sir, please tell me where in scripture does scripture give a list of requirements for scripture. I would disagree as Scripture's purpose is to foretell Christ and that purpose has been served. And no, veneration is not biblical worship. That would be adoration. You're definitionally wrong.

>>2826600
Empty insults.

>>2826585
Also please provide where in scripture does it provide a Cannon of Scripture

>>2826602
2 Peter 3:15, 1 Timothy 5:18, John 10:27

>>2826623
It doesn't, I told you, the canon was never revealed
>>2826602
>Scripture's purpose is to foretell Christ
Not according to 2 Timothy 3:17. Its purpose is to govern the Church.

>>2826625
>John 10:27
Irrelevant and not what I asked for
>2 Peter 3:15
Again, irrelevant and not what I asked for
>1 Timothy 5:18
Irrelevant and not what I asked for.

>>2826631
2 Timothy 3:17 doesn't disprove that's Scripture's goal, but it does prove that it is not a side-goal of scripture. It can do both. But every accepted book of scripture foretells of Christ.

File: Savior.jpg (329KB, 561x750px) Image search: [Google]

329KB, 561x750px

Reminder that the early Church called itself Catholic and Ignatius of Antioch said that wherever the bishop of Rome goes Christ is with him.

Indulgences are acts of Charity to act of temporal punishment for sin, they aren't a ticket to Heaven, they aren't even a ticket out of Purgatory.

>>2826649
In 2 Peter 3:15, Peter says that the writings of Paul are scripture. In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul quotes Luke 10:7 as scripture. In John 10:27, Jesus says His sheep will hear His voice. These scriptures prove that a definition of canon is unnecessary, those who God chooses to save will also be enlightened. There are two canons, God's canon and man's canon. God's canon is infallible, it is His perfect knowledge of what He has inspired. Man's canon is after-the-fact and retrospective. Man says "This is the canon" after God opens man's heart to believe His word.
>>2826682
Ignatius never mentioned the "bishop of Rome", because the bishop of Rome didn't exist yet. This is because Rome still had the biblical scructure of presbyter-bishops working together. That's why his epistle to the Roman church is the only one of his where Ignatius makes no mention of bishops, of the bishop of that church, and why he greets her that "presides in the place of the region of the Romans".
Yes, they used the term catholic, likely a term originating in the Judaizing contraversy, to contrast themselves with the Judeo-exclusivists.

>>2826723
Maybe you're not citing the Peter verse correctly, and I know there are biblical writers that were alive and citied other books of Scriptures that's not my point. My point is that Scripture hasn't decided on a Cannon so how do we know what is and isn't Scripture? For instance, how do you know gnostic letters aren't Scripture. This is where the Holy Ghost comes in, to inspire God's Church and guide it to compile a canon so man not be led astray. As for the verse of John, I just don't see your point.

>>2826723
2 peter was not written by Peter Its doubtful it was even written in the 1st century

File: ignatius-of-antioch-st-peters-at-night-featured-w480x300.jpg (115KB, 480x300px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 480x300px

>>2826723
I apologise. I misremembered the Ignatius quote.

>>2826752
>Maybe you're not citing the Peter verse correctly
Sorry, it was the following verse
>how do we know what is and isn't Scripture? For instance, how do you know gnostic letters aren't Scripture
His sheep know Him and hear His voice. A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.
>This is where the Holy Ghost comes in, to inspire God's Church and guide it to compile a canon
Did divine revelation cease with the apostles?

>>2826758
euphoric

>>2826781
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter#Composition

>The date of composition has proven to be very difficult to determine. Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160. Many believe that it was written between 65-68 A.D. because Peter was martyred around 68 A.D. by Nero and also because Peter references his approaching death in 2 Peter 1:14 ("since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me").[3]
Two sides of the Papyrus Bodmer VIII. This Papyrus today is the oldest source to the Second Epistle of Peter

Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]

File: trash2.jpg (18KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 210x240px

>>2826795
>wikipedia.org

>>2826777
I wish it was as simple, that however begs the question of how do you determine what's a follower of Christ. And yes, the faith was revealed with the Apostles and grows with the Church.

>>2826808
>how do you determine what's a follower of Christ
Scripture
>And yes, the faith was revealed with the Apostles and grows with the Church.
Was the canon of scripture revealed to the apostles?

File: 1463281216756.jpg (105KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 640x480px

>>2826802
>has no refutation
>resorts to insults and attacking the source

That the best you can do champ?

>>2826813
>Scripture
How do you determine what's Scripture? How do you not see how this is circular?
>The Canon isn't a dogma of the faith

>>2826587
>traditions of men and doctrines of devils

>>2826819
>How do you determine what's Scripture?
You don't, that's God's job.
>How do you not see how this is circular?
Oh, it's completely circular. I just recognize that in Epistemology everyone is forced to choose between circular logic or infinite regress. I also recognize that circular logic is a coherent position, while an infinite regress is not.

>>2826844

Lol, fucking idiot.

>What I say is true because this book said it
>How do you know the book is true
>You don't, that's God's job

>>2826853
>Lol, fucking idiot.
Good argument
>>How do you know the book is true
The correct answer to this is "Because the book is true"

>>2826857

>Admits to using circular logic and not knowing what the fuck he's talking about

Good argument.

>Because the book is true

Except you have no way of proving that

>>2826857
Pressupositional apologetics has been debunked son.

File: not an argument.jpg (237KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 598x792px

>>2826860
>>Admits to using circular logic and not knowing what the fuck he's talking about
Not an argument
>Except you have no way of proving that
I refer you to the book

>>2826868
Wrong

>>2826869
I had a sneaking suspicion he was a retarded Mormon lol

>>2826869

Circular logic is inadmissible.

Next.

File: 26730b804b41cd46d54f2b3afb03e714.jpg (54KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x450px

Mary was a virgin forever lol.

>>2826893
Please read literally any philospher. Preferably Aristotle, but literally any.

>>2826909
>spurious quotation

>>2826931

>Aristotle

Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>2826933
Yeah it's suspicious but it's just crappy editing. Plus it's absolutely right.

>>2826940
It's not just suspicious, it's completely fraudulent. It's not in any of Ignatius' 7 epistles.

>>2826948
Hm, that's gay. Wish I could delete it now.

>>2824625
>What do you define this as?
Usually it is a deconstruction of the traditions and rituals primary found in later denominations and sects of Christianity. Primitivist will approve of traditions and creeds that can be demonstrated with good biblical exegesis or practices that are solidly placed in the 1st to 2nd century early church rather than later developed ideas that may more focus on the tradition of the church than biblical material itself. Primitivism is usually found in protestantism and restoration movement around the world.

>Christianity has held Councils to address heresies that have arisen: Arianism, Modalism, Adoptionism, Donatists, Iconoclasm, Nestorianism, and such heresies.
I highly agree with you on this view, these abhorrent heresies that have no scriptural basis

>A literal interpretation, for example, is a very barren, empty, and 2D caricature way of reading the Bible
Exegesis is the heart in which one of our interpretations are correct, I commend the Orthodox for your rejection Catholic teachings of original sin, since the transmission of Adam's guilt is not grounded in exegesis but presuppositions to the text.

>How did Christianity survive the first 3 centuries without the Bible?
Through oral tradition, look at how scripture is written. The early church father were also affirm much of the scriptures and showing that these writings were consistent with one another. Revelations was the one that most church fathers were disputing as authentic NT scripture but was the last to be authorize (myself which like every Christian agrees with)

I can't answering everything here because I'm only just studying up Orthodox theology but hopefully this is a good response.

>>2827048
>highly agree with you on this view, these abhorrent heresies that have no scriptural basis
Except Iconoclasm, right?

>>2827058
>Iconoclasm
Pardon me if I made an incorrection along the way, but I feel this form of doctrine is peripheral, images to primitivists are not really focus on, unless in the fringes of some than anything else, to me anyone who goes against the Trinity which is clearly seen in the biblical scriptures is heresy.

>>2822295
Literally no basis in reality or even myth.

Just the imaginings of bad authors and """historians""" of the past century.

The saddest part is that the BS ends up overshadowing the huge significance of Mary M. I mean she's literally called called Equal to the Apostles and is the first person Christ reveals Himself to. She's a fascinating character - but no let's focus on pseudohistory.

>>2824632

1. The New Perspective of Paul is a scholarly movement by Christians who view Paul's perspective of law, works and salvation as being different to that of Protestant tradition (Calvinist especially), they believe that Paul never was demonstrating that the Jews were a works based religion that earn their way to salvation by the works they did according to the law, instead the Jews had a form of proto-grace in which YHWH saves those who are loyal to him, this redefines how the Law was used back in the OT. And that the ceremonial laws focus more on being close to God rather the totality of their sins washed away by ceremony. Calvinists have been the more vehement against this position, though both old and new perspectives of Paul go both ways.

2. The Orthodox position is more sound than the Catholics and Protestant denominations that have adopted Augustine's theology. Lutherans, Calvinists and Catholics face the greatest problems since they rely on the tradition of Augustine instead of actual solid exegesis. They read their presupposition into Roman 5:12, in which the transmission of Adam's guilt is passed down generation to generation (not his sin which we all have but the guilt of sin which leads to damnation). No evidence of this is found and leads to Christological problems. Orthodox followers shouldn't worry about this position since you do not follow Augustine's teachings of this. In fact both Primitivists and Orthodox would soundly agree on this position from what I've been told.

3. Eternal Security is a protestant doctrine that believes that when saved by faith we are secure and assured of salvation 100%. This relies on predestination and the elect being fused together. This produces many problems including Israel's election in the OT and lessens works even more, the Epistle of James becomes in my opinion less relevant.

I'll get to Marian dogma next.

>>2822444
underrated kek of trips

>>2824632
Part 2 of Marian Dogma

The catholic view of Original sin leads to Jesus have the guilt of Adam causing him to have inherited his sin, this lead to problems and it later developed Marian view of her being sinless and Jesus having no other relatives.

>Protestant heresies are largely Jewish in nature, in that many will claim she didn't give a virgin birth, that she had relations with Josiah after, or that she cheated on Joseph
I don't know any of these heresies in the Protestant sect, it must be a fringe view, a majority if not all Protestant believe in the virgin birth.

>>2822295
No none, it was likely a gnostic view like many other unhistorical myths about Jesus. Gnostics wanted to know more about Jesus so they wrote their own stories to suit their own views, such as Jesus making clay birds, a walking talking cross, Jesus had wife and child.

>>2822258
ultra vires

>>2822555
Depends on the parish/priest.

Any priest worth his salt should catechise (instruct in the faith). In the early church this process sometimes took several years.

The Divine Liturgy is actually divided in two: the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Faithful. It is during the latter that the epiklesis (the entreating of God to 'enter' the bread and wine as body and blood) and communion itself are found.
Traditionally those not yet baptised and chrismated had to leave the church building, or at least the nave for the narthex.

In fact, the two liturgies are very stark in their contrast. The Liturgy of the Catechumens is very didactic, with hymns and scriptural readings. The Liturgy of the Faithful however takes on a more mysterious character, beginning with the Cherubic Hymn.

Speaking of which, I hope all can appreciate the beauty of the words of this hymn; this is perhaps the best English rendition:

https://youtu.be/4d6TbAyUmgo

>>2827129
P.S. Personally, it took me ~8 months from admission as a catechumen to baptism.

>>2826547
The

>1. The New Perspective of Paul over the traditional view

>3. Eternal Security

and

. Marian Dogma

>>2827147
Oh didnt refresh enough ingnore that post

>>2827048
Which denominations come closest to being genuine christian primitivists?

>>2827147
>1. The New Perspective of Paul over the traditional view
Heresy, to my knowledge. Tends to go hand in hand with Liberalism, since the theology of the New Perspective requires a limited Pauline corpus.
>3. Eternal Security
It depends on what is meant. If by that you mean the Antinomian concept that apostates will be saved, it is heresy. If you mean the Reformed doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints, it's biblical.
>. Marian Dogma
They're unbiblical, but some of them are also ancient. The bodily assumption, for example, is completely barren in the early church, but perpetual virginity dates back to the patristic period.

And as for Original Sin, the doctrine is clearly taught by Romans 5:12-19

File: url (3).jpg (7KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x224px

Does anyone know of any post-schism Orthodox wonderworkers that have had the miracle of resurrecting others from death attributed to them? My Google-Fu must be poor because when I explicitly search for this I only get either get pre-schism saints revered by both Eastern and Western traditions or Roman Catholic saints like St. Francis Xavier or St. Vincent Ferrer. Can any Orthodoxbros help me out?

>>2827257
Primitivists vary due to different approaches (I'm a pragmatic primitivist) but I would consider the closest to be Free Will Baptists, Credobaptist Evangelicals and the Church of Christ. These would be considered the most pragmatic and general the denominations that people point to for primitivism.

>>2827276
>And as for Original Sin, the doctrine is clearly taught by Romans 5:12-19
Primitivist here, we do not deny Original Sin but rather the transmission of adam guilt. We believe that Sin came into this world through one man and that the rest of mankind experiences sin. The problem was Augustine didn't exegetically analyse the text he relied on the Latin than the Greek and had to look as Non-Pelagian as possible.

>It depends on what is meant
Like that of lock and key, once saved there's no way to fall into apostasy

File: Denominations_Historical_TreeChart.png (110KB, 837x500px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 837x500px

What is the true denomination?

>>2822295
I'm actually rare in that I don't think it would hurt the message too much i.e I wouldn't really care if it was true, but there isn't any basis for it. It's literally on the same tier as "lol Jesus went to India and studied buddhism lmao"

>>2827338
Majority of Christians believe that if one holds the essential core doctrines found in the biblical text is the correct view of Christianity. It is not known which is the correct one since everyone has a different opinion.

>>2827332
>we do not deny Original Sin but rather the transmission of adam guilt
That's generally what is meant by Original Sin
>We believe that Sin came into this world through one man and that the rest of mankind experiences sin.
But do you believe man is born in sin, with the condemnation of sin?
>The problem was Augustine didn't exegetically analyse the text he relied on the Latin than the Greek
He exegeted the Latin, but it's not as though this were some horrible mistranslation that led him astray.

so what (if anything) makes christianity better than islam?

>>2827108
Maybe... The gnostics were correct and Christians are the wrong ones

Why do christians hate european culture so much?

>>2827473
European culture IS Christian culture.

>>2827477
European culture is 500000 years old, and how is worshipping a middle eastern jew european culture?

>>2827446
Truth

St. Augustine was a secret Manichean lmao Christians got cucked

>>2827479
You're making a pretty big mistake by underestimating the effects that Christendom had on Europe. For a while the papacy was primarily political, with religion being a secondary concern. The power of the Pope during and after the Middle Ages was massive, not to mention the effects that Constantine's Roman Empire would have on the continent for centuries. Jesus may not have been a European, but the religion had immense effects on Europe, not to mention the rest of the world. Never underestimate the effects that religion can have on culture and therefore history.

>>2827509
I thought he gave up his manichaeism? In what way was he a secret manichaen?

>>2827518
Christian influence was minimal. At best they took certain trends that were already present and increased their prominence. European culture in the post-roman era may have been less sex negative without catholicism or other forms of abrahamic faith, but that's about it really.

>>2827522
Again, you seem to be ignoring the political power the Vatican held. For centuries Popes acted essentially as powerful kings in the region. They influenced numerous historic events, enabled the Crusades, etc. When every single ruler on the continent also follows your religion, you have a lot of sway as the leader of that religion. One good example of this would be the Borgia family.

>>2827525
The only thing the vatican really did was prevent the rise of a new roman successor state in the west after the ERE ravaged italy. All that other stuff you're talking about is rather trivial in comparison.

>>Crusades
Western states would have sought influence in the middle east regardless of faith, as it is an important trade hub with access to markets further east.

>>political infighting
Would have occurred anyway, with different justifications at most. Ambitious people want wealth, power and prestige no matter what the era, faith, ethnicity, or level of technological development.

Is it true that the East Orthodox Church is unchanged in its dogma, doctrine and practices from the early church?

Also was changing the Sabbath to a Sunday a move to distinguish Christianity from the Jews?

>>2827519
He's at least part of the reason that you see so much prudish thought among the more conservative parts of various christian denominations. That prudery has more to do with the faith that he practiced prior to his conversion, people just don't lose the prejudices/taboos they possessed before converting to a new faith, they just find new justifications for those prejudices/taboos.

>>2827542
>Is it true that the East Orthodox Church is unchanged in its dogma, doctrine and practices from the early church?
No.

>>2827579
can you go into a bit more detail please?

>>2827425
Again this is the Catholic/traditional view of Original Sin. I have studied up on the issue and found it wanting.

>But do you believe man is born in sin, with the condemnation of sin?
No, there's no biblical basis for it. To say we are born into sin is to imply the transmission of Adam's guilt,
>He exegeted the Latin, but it's not as though this were some horrible mistranslation that led him astray.
I know that's true but it's better to know the Greek than the Latin, I will not hammer him too hard on it though, but he was still incorrect on his analysis of Roman 5:12. But to say he lead people astray is another thing, I'm not of authority to judge. But it did lead to the one of biggest problems I had and that was if Jesus had Adam's guilt he was also born with his sin, the Catholic church knew this and so they made Mary also sinless.

>>2824645
thanks anon, appreciate it. actually starting my first course in hebrew next fall

>>2827660
>No, there's no biblical basis for it
Romans 5:12-19
>To say we are born into sin is to imply the transmission of Adam's guilt
Yes, we are imputed the sin of the fall
>if Jesus had Adam's guilt
He didn't. That's why the virgin birth was necessary, to protect Jesus from Original Sin.

>>2826363

>The word adelphoi could not mean friends, companions or cousins in the 1st century.

Yes, it could.

>>2824896
Taking shit that is not in the bible and pretending it is must be a Catholic hobby.

>>2826372
Start with the premise that everyone deserves to go to hell, and then go from there.

>>2826502
There is no purgatory; that's a Catholic invention to make people pay indulgences.

Christianity predates Scripture.

Checkm8 Proddies

>>2826516
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.

>>2826554
The mouth of the harlot does nothing but spout abominations and blasphemy.

>>2826574
>Scripture cannot by itself decide what Scripture is,

Unless the other component is the Holy Spirit of God, you're off on the wrong track. The bible does explain itself, and the Holy Spirit is there for the children of God who desire wisdom.

>>2826575
You're right, they can't. They changed the meaning of the word heresy to stand for anything that is against the Roman Catholic Church.

>>2826600
>>2826609

Mary wasn't a true goddess until 1854.

>>2826682
Yes, we know papists were devil worshipers from the start.

>>2826752
You're missing the subtle inference of Paul's letter to Timothy.

All scripture is inspired by God.

Is this letter/book/missive inspired by God? If yes, then it is scripture. If no, then it is not.

>>2826795
People who say the bible is not the bible are not worth listening to, much less citing in a fallacious appeal to authority. Over the word of God.

>>2826808
If you can say out loud that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you are a follower of Christ Jesus.

These are supernatural acts shown to you by the Holy Spirit of God, whose assistance is required to perform them.

File: IMG_1265.jpg (408KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1600x1067px

Love is a burnin' thing
And it makes a fiery ring
Bound by wild desire
I fell into a ring of fire
I fell into a burnin' ring of fire
I went down, down, down
And the flames went higher
And it burns, burns, burns
The ring of fire, the ring of fire

>>2827129
>Any priest worth his salt

None.

>>2827332
That's because you don't know what happened in the Garden of Eden.

Adam, made in the image of God, spiritually died the day he ate the fruit, and the Holy Spirit who had been living in him, fled.

Adam, now spiritually dead along with Eve, could only produce children in their own dead image.

Heaven is the Kingdom of the Living, not the Kingdom of the Dead. Dead people do not go to heaven.

Hence the requirement to be born again, in the Spirit, to regain the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of the Living.

>>2827539
They didn't prevent it; they are it.

File: FB_IMG_1494684350258.jpg (76KB, 566x663px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 566x663px

>>2830468
I think we've spoken before and IIRC you have such a warped view of the early Church and Orthodoxy. To put it briefly, if you and your denomination were transported back in time from 33AD until 1054AD, you would be viewed as heretics, not allowed Communion with Christ, and asked to repent. Likewise, if an Apostle were transported to your denomination, he would not recognize you as Christians,based on your man-made traditions and cherry-picked beliefs. He would not partake in Communion, nor would your elder allow him, more than likely. Loom into that, and you'll seehow far removed you are from Him in your half-empty faith.

Firstly, St. Constantine legalized Christianity, he didn't make it the state religion.
Second, Temple and Liturgical worship is directly from Christianity's Jewish roots, and the earliest Christians and the Apostles would recognize it absolutely and as True. The Messiah was prophesied as coming from the East, as Christ did riding the donkey through the Lord's Gate. He will come again from the East, as in Revelation. This is why all Orthodox Churches face East, in reverence awaiting His glorious return.
Further, candles, prayers, praying in chanting (especially chanting the Psalms), and Liturgical chanting come from the same roots, the OT, while the absence is in Revelation. Orthodox Liturgical service is more than just an earthly worship service, it is the single point of the meeting of creation with the eternal, by the grace of God, and is a mirror of the eternal praise, worship, and glory given to God in all aspects and senses given to Him in Heaven. Protestants do not do this, nor understand this due to being so far removed from Christianity and the fullness of the faith. You're not to blame, you were raised that way. However, knowing and refusing is no excuse.
Icons are not images nor idols. God commanded Jews to prostrate before the Arc in reverence, even though it was engraved with Angelic Icons. Honor to all things Holy.

File: FB_IMG_1482452420580.jpg (100KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x960px

>>2830468
>This unholy alliance also allowed the continuance of the pagan custom of eating and drinking the literal flesh and literal blood of their god.

The Roman government ordered spies to infiltrate early Churches. They reported it was full of madmen wailing their sins to all and eating the Body and Blood of God, something thought abhorrent to the Roman Authorities. They were accused of cannibslism, atheism, and incest.
>Backgrounds of Early Christianity by Everett Ferguson (Aug 19, 2003) ISBN 0802822215 pages 504-596

>This is actually how transubstantiation entered the professing church
Again, dead wrong. Transubstatiation is a Roman Catholic heresy and innovation introduced into the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages in an attempt to explain the Divine Mystery of the Consecration. This came due to the worldly Western idea of Scholastocism, something that plagues Catholics and Protestants even today.
Orthodox have always accepted it as a Divine Mystery forever beyond our understanding. It is a miracle and Divine Mystery we are blessed every week at a minimum to partake in as Orthodox Christians, the Holy Body and Blood of our Risen Lord and Living God, Jesus Christ. It is both fully bread and wine, yet fully His most Holy Body and Blood taken for the remission of sins.
To believe anything less is to deny Christ, as He instructed us to partake in Him.

File: FB_IMG_1483584089613.jpg (118KB, 596x800px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 596x800px

>>2830452
>Taking shit that is not in the bible and pretending it is must be a Catholic hobby.

I'm not Roman Catholic, I wouldn't know.
So then, what happened to the Apostles and the Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, after the Bible? Did they just vanish? No, of course not. Your legalism is Pharisetic.

After the Ascension of the Lord, the Mother of God remained in the care of the Apostle John the Theologian, and during his journeys She lived at the home of his parents, near the Mount of Olives. She was a source of consolation and edification both for the Apostles and for all the believers. Conversing with them, She told them about miraculous events: the Annunciation, the seedless and undefiled Conception of Christ born of Her, about His early childhood, and about His earthly life. Like the Apostles, She helped plant and strengthen the Christian Church by Her presence, Her discourse and Her prayers.

The reverence of the Apostles for the Most Holy Virgin was extraordinary. After the receiving of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles remained at Jerusalem for about ten years attending to the salvation of the Jews, and wanting moreover to see the Mother of God and hear Her holy discourse. Many of the newly-enlightened in the Faith even came from faraway lands to Jerusalem, to see and to hear the All-Pure Mother of God.

During the persecution initiated by King Herod against the young Church of Christ (Acts 12:1-3), the Most Holy Virgin and the Apostle John the Theologian withdrew to Ephesus in the year 43. The preaching of the Gospel there had fallen by lot to the Apostle John the Theologian. The Mother of God was on Cyprus with Saint Lazarus the Four-Days-Dead, where he was bishop. She was also on Holy Mount Athos. Saint Stephen of the Holy Mountain says that the Mother of God prophetically spoke of it: “Let this place be my lot, given to me by my Son and my God. I will be the Patroness of this place and intercede with God for it."

Quastion for Roman Catholics/
Popes have a church rule to shave their face. But Popes of 16-19 centuries were unshaven. Why so?

File: FB_IMG_1492509717632.jpg (106KB, 1064x799px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1064x799px

>>2826363
>So Jesus' biblical hermenuetic
Throigh the Holy Spirit, the Bible is so mich more than reading it, analyzing it, taking it at face value. This 2D approach as such has brought forth the the near countless Protestant interpretations of men, lacking the Holy Spirit, then s all the varieties. The Holy Spirit doesn't change, nor is there any new revelation nor second Pentecost as per Scripture. Galatians 8-12 tells us this as well.

>This never took place. It's commonly thought to have happened, but no group of men ever decided what the word of God is. Rather, it was received as what it is from the moment it was given.
>decided the word of God

You're a fool to believe that, that men decided what it is. The Holy Spirit fills and guides the Church and Her Christians. Those who wholly accept God becime filled with Him and His grace, while others sin and turn away. Those that are filled are known as Saints, and every moment of the Church has been graces by God to have them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Eastern_canons

This was by the Holy Spirit, as by their fruits you shall know them. Likewise, we know Luther by his fruits and all Protestantism - the traditions of men, slander, lust, hate, greed, and worldly things. He even removed Books from the Biblical Canon and the entire OT used by Christ in favor of a Jewish unholy revision known as the Masoretic Text, which was written specifically to disprove Christ as Messiah, God forbid. Why would you use such blasphemy?

Christian people are the best people. Even in this cesspool of the internet that is 4chan, there they are, posting some of the only posts that are worth reading, starting some of the only threads that have any meaningful conversation in them.

File: FB_IMG_1490459174207.jpg (236KB, 1216x2000px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1216x2000px

>>2826363
>Have you ever considered reading the writers of the early church?
Yes, and yet you seem to have not have done so, or you did as Luther did and only acknowledged what he agreed with.

>That's nice. The biblical position however is that everyone is imputed the sin of Adam

Show me, because Orthodoxy is the Biblical position. Again, without Holy Tradition to guide us, Christianity would have been Gnostic long ago. Protestants wouldn't have survived the first centuries of persecution, nor would have Christianity if it was based on Protestant ideas back then, God forbid.
Scripture was not written in a vacuum as you like to believe.

Concerning the original—or “first”—sin, that commited by Adam and Eve, Orthodoxy believes that, while everyone bears the consequences of the first sin, the foremost of which is death, only Adam and Eve are guilty of that sin. Roman Catholicism teaches that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of that sin. Holy Scripture is Holy Tradition, and Holy Tradition is very much in Scripture. They came from each other. They are inseparable for Truth, but removal of one or the other leads to half-truths, such as the solas ie traditions of men. And where did your understanding come from, exactly? Not by the Holy Spirit, surely, as the Holy Spirit already revealed all.

>The OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek
Again, you don't know history noe facts, it seems. Drop your arrogance.
https://www.biblica.com/bible/bible-faqs/in-what-language-was-the-bible-first-written/
>around 300 BC a translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek was undertaken, and it was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues. It also became a wonderful missionary tool for the early Christians, for now the Greeks could read God’s Word in their own tongue.
So the New Testament authors wrote in Greek as well.

File: FB_IMG_1483413654273.jpg (65KB, 853x640px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 853x640px

>>2826363
>The word adelphoi could not mean friends, companions or cousins in the 1st century
Says who, you? I'll trust the Greeks, not some American. Further, although I'm not Roman Catholic this has a good understanding and Scripture explanation that I hope you actually read and comprehend:
http://www.marian.org/news/Part-8-Objections-to-Marys-Perpetual-Virginity-6383

>What prior marriage
And to help you with the previous question and this:
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-ever-virginity-of-the-mother-of-god

Again, Protestants are all missing the fullness of the Faith, but pray by God they abandon arrogance and denial of those blessed by Him and come to Orthodoxy, Christ's One Church.

>The context of scripture is scripture itself
The context is God in all His Glory, Hos Son our Savior, and the Holy Spirit, as revealed by Him through His Apostles and Saints. Scripture is the Gospels of the Life of Christ, thank God. But you've stripped it by putting layers of man-made, uninspired traditions over it such as literal interpretation, and modern, and translated words.

>I want to point out the tremendous irony of this. In citing this, you have added the perpetual virginity of Mary to the gospel itself, thus bringing yourself under that very anathema.
The Apostles and early Church did not doubt her perpetual virginity, who are you to think otherwise of a miracle of God? They were illumined by the Holy Spirit, we aren't so blessed as they as we continue to sin more and more. Again, your heresy us answered in the above link regarding the Holy Virgin. Or, I'll ask in your format: where in Scripture dies it say she lost her virginity? Even Luther believed in her perpetual virginity.

>>2830694
>It is both fully bread and wine, yet fully His most Holy Body and Blood taken for the remission of sins.
>To believe anything less is to deny Christ, as He instructed us to partake in Him.
I'm not doubting you, but could it not be that Christ's words were metaphorical, "just as this bread and wine is given up for you, so shall my Body and Blood be for all people to partake in." I completely could see that it is not, but would appreciate a detailed explanation, just to clear out any misconceptions I have.

I just recall another passage where He is speaking to a woman at a well, and makes an analogy between physical water and the Spirit of God, saying that while you must keep drinking and drinking and still you will thirst, once you drink from the Spirit you are never thirsty. Obviously there he was not saying the water was literally the Holy Spirit, or even that the Holy Spirit is water at all. He was using an analogy to demonstrate a concept that might have been beyond people's understanding if explained literally.

File: FB_IMG_1494528745863.jpg (9KB, 266x190px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 266x190px

>>2826368
>False. The worship of creatures is a novelty from many centuries after the apostles.
And I wouldn't know a thing if it, I'm Orthodox, not Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, or Hindu. Veneration doesn't equal worship, they are not synonymous in English nor the original Greek of the NT nor the Septuagint translation of the OT.

>No it doesn't.

>praying for the forgiveness of sin for the deceased is necromancy
Now you're just trolling. Luther in his self-vainglory removes reference of praying for the departed by removing Maccabees in particular. It has always been a part of Christianity and His Church.
This is known as Intercession. (“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;”-1 timothy 2:1)
For more about it, read here:
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/intercession-of-saints/

We prayer for those who are no longer in this worod because they are not dead, but very much alive in the Body of Christ. Those in Communion with Christ are alive in Him through His Body. It's a beautiful divine mystery. You misunderstand this and by doing so, reject Christ and His Promise and deliverance of Salvation.

>I do not pray to them, nor do I use the exalted language of them that you do of saints
You twist my words. I didn't say you pray "to" them. We only pray to God, yet ask for the prayers and intercession of Him and all His Saints. Just as Abraham intercedes through prayer for Lot and His family.

I pray you put behind you your misunderstandings.

>>2826363
>The context of scripture is scripture itself
But it was written by certain people, in a certain place, at a certain time, for a certain reason. What else would you call that but context?

File: FB_IMG_1495044797458.jpg (57KB, 679x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 679x720px

>>2831074
I get you, no worries. Good that you bring up the Samartan at the well, it was just this past Sunday read at Liturgy:)
Christ often spoke in analogies for us as one would little children, because we are such, and should be such in our innocence and understanding. Not analytical, scholastic adults. Yet, in this, our acceptance of Him telling His Apostles to take His Body and Blood is required as a child would believe - with full faith and awe and love. Even then, they dud not recieve the full Truth until Pentecost by God's grace. After, they still preached of taking His Body and Blood the same as they had prior. If they preached it, it was through the Holy Spirit for the Salvation if all those that believed.
I understand where you're coming from, but does that help some?

File: FB_IMG_1492972699697.jpg (71KB, 960x538px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x538px

>>2830903
God bless you, keep you safe, and grant you peace, friend.

>>2829081
>Romans 5:12-19
it is still not shown by any biblical exegesis here that the traditional view of Original sin exists. Verse 12 is the key focus of this passage, I get that surrounding context helps but it doesn't here, Augustine relies on verse 12 the most.
>>2830515
>Adam, made in the image of God, spiritually died the day he ate the fruit, and the Holy Spirit who had been living in him, fled.
[book, chapter and verse] please, Genesis yes talks about the fall but the addition of the Holy Spirit fleeing is in no verse I know of.
>Adam, now spiritually dead along with Eve, could only produce children in their own dead image.
We are made in the image of God, we are his representation, we do not bare a dead image of God. When Adam sinned it produced death and death spread to all of us, but also Adam lost his righteousness for just sin.
>Hence the requirement to be born again, in the Spirit, to regain the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of the Living.
Amen to that.

File: image.jpg (100KB, 755x755px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 755x755px

*blocks ur emanations*

So what are some of the differences between Plotinus' conception of the Trinity (Divine Triad) and the Christian conception?

File: FB_IMG_1488361503329.jpg (49KB, 960x723px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 960x723px

>>2831126
>Hence the requirement to be born again, in the Spirit, to regain the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit of God, in order to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of the Living
Of water and the Spirit, anon. Not one without the other. This is shown by St Paul's Baptism, the Ethiopian, and the Centurion, just to elaborate. Many Christians today go against this saying water is nor necessary, though it's always been both.

>>2831339
>Many Christians today go against this saying water is nor necessary, though it's always been both.
the protestants will continue to debate endless on the issue, and accuse each others of heresy

File: IMG_5785.jpg (95KB, 750x452px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 750x452px

>ITT: heathens not following Nestorius

He got cucked out of truth by Cyril of Alexandria

File: fd4cdb208407555d9656b4938648f6b8cdca1098.jpg (201KB, 550x399px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 550x399px

What do you guys think about Hesychasm or other mystical practices that claim experience of God through asceticism?

File: FB_IMG_1495044788683.jpg (121KB, 1347x960px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1347x960px

>>2831416
>Hesychasm
A beautiful understanding of the path to God, Theosis. God bless St Gregoru Palamas. It came just in time for the upcoming trails under the subjugation and oppression of Islam, thank God.
It is to live in constant prayer of the heart by the grace of God, just as the Apostles said to do. They also lived ascetically, remember. On fact, the prayer of the heart is what is meant by "speaking in tongues"... much more than the modern physical interpretation, which is so shallow indeed.
>For I thank God I speak much more in tongues than ye
Really makes sense as the inner prayer of the heart rather than physical speech, in all context where mentioned.

>>2830888
>You're a fool to believe that, that men decided what it is
I think you misread me, I explicitly denied they did
>The Holy Spirit fills and guides the Church and Her Christians
Did you just call the Spirit by a feminine pronoun? Blashpemy
>we know Luther by his fruits and all Protestantism
Yes, and those fruits are millions of sinners being saved.
>He even removed Books from the Biblical Canon
Those books were never canon
>the entire OT used by Christ
Christ did not use the Septuagint
>Why would you use such blasphemy?
Why are you so bold to call the word of God blasphemy?
>>2830941
>Yes
Then would you please explain the statement that there was no bible for three centuries in light of the fact that every single church father quotes copious amounts of scripture?
>Show me
Romans 5:12-19
>Again, without Holy Tradition to guide us, Christianity would have been Gnostic long ago
Why do I need your rabbis, and their tradition?
>Scripture was not written in a vacuum as you like to believe.
I believe no such thing
>Holy Tradition is very much in Scripture
Where is your tradition in scripture?
>Again, you don't know history noe facts, it seems. Drop your arrogance.
>https://www.biblica.com/bible/bible-faqs/in-what-language-was-the-bible-first-written/
Do you realize you just proved my statement?
>So the New Testament authors wrote in Greek as well.
I said the Old Testament, not the new.
>>2831026
>Says who, you?
Says the fact it was not used to mean such things in the 1st century.
>Protestants are all missing the fullness of the Faith
Jesus warned us to test traditions by the scriptures to show which were from God, not to place blind faith in rabbis.
>But you've stripped it by putting layers of man-made, uninspired traditions over it such as literal interpretation
In every verse where Jesus interprets the bible, He does so with a literal interpretation. I will trust Jesus' interpretation more than yours.

>>2831086
>nor the Septuagint translation of the OT.
The words latria and dulia are both translated from the same Hebrew word. Yes, they are the same thing, they are both worship. Nowhere in scripture is the latria-dulia distinction made.
>I didn't say you pray "to" them
But your church does
>yet ask for the prayers and intercession of Him and all His Saints
>and all His Saints
That is Necromancy and is strictly forbidden. Do not communicate with the dead.
>>2831339
When in John is water defined as baptism?

>>2830642
primitivist anon can you respond to this post?

>>2827542
>>2827579
>>2827582

bumping for an answer to these

File: FB_IMG_1493983377228.jpg (57KB, 1152x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 1152x720px

>>2832518
>Did you just call the Spirit by a feminine pronoun? Blashpemy
Blasphemy? Hardly. In Hebrew and Greek, the Holy Spirit is traditionally referred to as such. Read St Silouan the Athonite, in particular. Referred to as "His" or "Her", with full and proper honor, love, and praise. Again, you need to get out of your Protestant shell.. God is more deep than is preached at your mega church.

>Yes, and those fruits are millions of sinners being saved
Saved by Christ, perhaps, but not by Luther. He slandered, fornicated, defiled Scripture, was vain and wrathful. Not that we are dufferent, but he turned far and away from God. Equivalent to a false prophet in his new, man-made interpretations. Calling for peasant massacres for not paying taxes and for monastics to give into lust. Very much filled by his passions and temptations of Satan. I'm not passing judgement, but rather discerning.

>Those books were never canon
Except they were, see the NT canon as preserved by the Orthodox. You have no evidence to back your slandor.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Scripture
Look at other sources if you wish, but you can't change facts. You might as well make things up and be Mormon if you keep this path.

>Christ did not use the Septuagint
Except He did, as that was the surviving and used Scripture at that time. Again, go research some. Whst else would have been used, then? Do tell. Here is a link, but there are plenty other sources you might like better saying the same:
http://www.theorthodoxfaith.com/the-bible-of-the-early-church/

>Then would you please explain the statement that there was no bible for three centuries in light of the fact that every single church father quotes copious amounts of scripture?
Scripture, thank God, has been around since at least the 40s AD. The Biblical canon, however, was not codified and complete until the 3rd or 4th century.

>Romans 5:12-19
Now read the entirety of Roman and remember it's context of when and why it was written.

File: FB_IMG_1490204071843.jpg (36KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x375px

>>2832518
>Romans 5:12-19
Further, take that entire Epistle and take it in context with all the NT, without disregarding anything or leaving this out you disagree with. If you do this, every Protestant sect falls apart and you are now reading as the Holy Fathers, Saints, and Orthodox Church do. Good job.

>Why do I need your rabbis, and their tradition?
You day that as an insult. God have mercy. Holy Tradition is what preserved the True Faith and Scripture throughout the time of the Church. Meanwhile, Protestants perform gay marriage, women clergy, and serve crackers and graphics while denying the Body and Blood. I've already stated, Scripture was not written nor preserved in a vacuum, but by Holy Tradition in the Orthodox Church. They go hand in hand. Once removed, you get Protestants and 30,000 sects and Mormonism. That's why. You doubt the Apostles, their Disciples, and Pentecost in that case, who indeed have the Holy Spirit.
>I believe no such thing
Yet your words and understanding say otherwise.

>Do you realize you just proved my statement
That it was written in Greek? That's not your statement, but mine.

>I said the Old Testament, not the new.
Which was preserved in Greek, again. It is the same as what Christ read at the Temple, Scripturally, unlike what you read today in the Masoretic Text.

>Says the fact it was not used to mean such things in the 1st century.
It was, and you know this. All Greeks know this. You have nothing to back your fantasy. Go study some, bitter anon.

>Jesus warned us to test traditions by the scriptures to show which were from God, not to place blind faith in rabbis.

We put our full faith in God. However, you put your full faith in men being Protestant, since your various doctrines come from them, not the Apostles nor the Holy Spirit. You doubt the Holy Spirit if you doubt the Apostles in their teachings, and they passed this on through Christ's Church they spread on Earth.

File: FB_IMG_1487218158341.jpg (106KB, 622x960px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 622x960px

>>2832518
>In every verse where Jesus interprets the bible, He does so with a literal interpretation. I will trust Jesus' interpretation more than yours.

Christ read by the Spirit, not literally as you think. In coming in glory in the clouds and by the donkey, how can that be literally? A literal translation is exactly what mislead the Pharisees. You have so mich to grow still. Also, I was referencing NT, it is not to be under a literal interpretation, which is a modern, Protestant idea to do so.
God bless you and may He heal your heart.

File: FB_IMG_1483413636742.jpg (32KB, 736x551px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 736x551px

>>2832536
>That is Necromancy and is strictly forbidden. Do not communicate with the dead
You're a fool if you sincerely believe this. We are alive in Christ, unless you do not believe. To deny that is to not believe in the Resurrection. Good job.

>When in John is water defined as baptism?
Aside from water? How about the Greek word "Baptizo", which literally means "immersion/submersion"? Aside from the NT examples I provided. To preach any different us to preach again Christ, as it is against Him and His Word. Lord have mercy.

File: 1490218194896.jpg (358KB, 875x600px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 875x600px

>>2833207
and
>>2832518

It seems like you guys are going in circles of just saying the other is wrong and to read more.

To make things simple what evidence specifically would you need to see the other anon provide to demonstrate that the early christian church was Orthodox or Protestant?

File: FB_IMG_1484783855482.jpg (119KB, 716x955px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 716x955px

>>2827542
>Is it true that the East Orthodox Church is unchanged in its dogma, doctrine and practices from the early church?
Yes to dogma, which differs from Roman Catholicism and is rooted in Christ, not a Pope.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-dogmatic-tradition-of-the-orthodox-church

Doctrine has been codified in the Church Canons, see the Councils and learn why they were called and what was determined.
https://www.goarch.org/-/teachings-of-the-orthodox-church

>Also was changing the Sabbath to a Sunday a move to distinguish Christianity from the Jews?
The Sabbath is still Saturday, but we celebrate the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ every Sunday, so this is where Sunday came from early on in Christian history.
http://www.saintsophias.org/the-sabbath-day.html

File: FB_IMG_1492828601601.jpg (118KB, 1061x792px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1061x792px

>>2833235
>To make things simple what evidence specifically would you need to see the other anon provide to demonstrate that the early christian church was Orthodox or Protestant?

The evidence is there, read the various Church Fathers, men and Saints that devoted their life to God entirely and suffered for their Faith. This type of devotion is only really found in the Monasteries and Convents anymore. Also, by default, Protestantism isn't early Christianity nor resembles it as it started in the 16th century. It decided to make Christianity a buffet where one can pick and choose which Scripture to observe, which to ignore, and take it outside the context in which it was written.
It's like a rebel without a cause. They react but forget why, and misidentify Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism. I understand the context it doesn't forth, but at this point it's a self-licking ice cream cone of self-gratification rather than rejoining or "finding" Christ's Church which has been since She was established by the Apostles on Pentecost.

>>2833169
>He slandered
What did he slander, and how?
>fornicated
That is a lie. Luther was celibate until he married
>defiled Scripture
How so?
>was vain and wrathful
That he was, because he was a sinner
>Calling for peasant massacres for not paying taxes
That's not why he supported peasant massacres. He supported peasant massacres because they were rebelling against their lords, killing innocent men, women and children, killing priests and monks, burning churches and monasteries, turning cities into dens of grave sin, etc etc. Do you support these things?
>and for monastics to give into lust
If any of his clerics were caught fornicating they would be severely reprimanded.
>Except they were, see the NT canon as preserved by the Orthodox.
We don't have a dispute over the NT canon.
>Except He did, as that was the surviving and used Scripture at that time
Our Lord spoke in Aramaic. He would not have been using Greek, which was not the only form the OT existed in at that time.
>Whst else would have been used, then?
He would most likely be quoting from the Aramaic Targum.
>Here is a link, but there are plenty other sources you might like better saying the same:
I know the early church used the Septuagint, because they spoke Greek. But Jesus did not.
>Scripture, thank God, has been around since at least the 40s AD. The Biblical canon, however, was not codified and complete until the 3rd or 4th century.
You are clearly very ignorant of what the canon is. The canon is simply the list of scripture. It is not made by men, it is passively recognized by men. The canon was complete from the moment the last book of scripture was written.
>Now read the entirety of Roman and remember it's context of when and why it was written.
Ok. Now what?
>>2833207
>Further, take that entire Epistle and take it in context with all the NT, without disregarding anything or leaving this out you disagree with
Done. Now what?

>>2824658
>The false OT used by Protestants and some Catholics is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text
It is the literal opposite you idiot. Catholics use the Septuagint, it is protestants that use the masoretic canon

>>2827104
>The catholic view of Original sin leads to Jesus have the guilt of Adam causing him to have inherited his sin
wrong

>>2827104
>>The catholic view of Original sin leads to Jesus have the guilt of Adam causing him to have inherited his sin
if you really want to entertain this retarded thought made up purely to discredit Catholicism, then you have to be coherent and entertain the idea that Christ had concupiscence and therefore loved sin, because orthodox believe that ancestral sin gives concupiscence.

>>2833207
>Holy Tradition is what preserved the True Faith and Scripture throughout the time of the Church
Your tradition is a myth. It is full of novelties.
>Protestants perform gay marriage, women clergy
Slander. Pure slander. If the Liberals are Protestant, then the Soviet Union was an Orthodox state.
>Protestants and 30,000 sects
This number is a myth or a lie. There are 21 distinct Protestant theologies, and they are all in fellowship with each other. There are 9,000 Protestant institutions, but even that is inflated.
>That it was written in Greek?
Maybe you should read your sources before you post them, it says it was written in Hebrew.
>Which was preserved in Greek
It was not written in Greek, thus it could not be preserved in Greek. Unless you want to say the Greek is an infallible translation, but that would put you on the same footing as the KJVOnlyists.
>It is the same as what Christ read at the Temple
Christ did not speak Greek to Aramaic speaking Judeans.
>It was
Ok. Prove it.
>We put our full faith in God
Oh, good, so you believe along with me that we should test tradition by scripture in order to weed out traditions of men and ensure it remains apostolic, yes?
>However, you put your full faith in men being Protestant, since your various doctrines come from them
You are indeed correct. Every doctrine I believe comes straight from the men who wrote the bible.
>>2833217
>Christ read by the Spirit, not literally as you think
Like it or not, Christ interprets literally.
>In coming in glory in the clouds and by the donkey, how can that be literally?
He came on a donkey, and He will return on the clouds.
>I was referencing NT
Our hermeneutics should be consistent from Genesis to Revelation.
>literal interpretation, which is a modern, Protestant idea to do so
Literal interpretation was here since the apostles.
>>2833223
>We are alive in Christ
Do saints die?
>How about the Greek word "Baptizo"
I'm not seeing baptizo in John 3:1-15

>>2833710
>The evidence is there
It most certainly is. Evidence of development and innovation, even all the way back in Ignatius. An example of innovation being icons, which were strongly opposed by the fathers of the day it began in. For example, when preaching against pagans, we see Augustine in agreement with the Iconoclasts in sermon 198: "'We,' they say, “don’t adore images, but what is signified by the image.” I ask what images signify, I ask what the image of the sun signifies; nothing else but the sun, surely? For yes, perhaps the explanation of other images convey deeper, more hidden meanings. For the time being let’s leave these, and put them on one side to come back to shortly. The image of the sun, certainly, can only signify the sun, and that of the moon the moon, and that of Tellus the earth. So if they don’t adore what they see in the image, but what the image signifies, why, when they have the things signified by these images so familiarly before their very eyes, do they offer adoration to their images in stead of directly to them?"
>It decided to make Christianity a buffet where one can pick and choose which Scripture to observe, which to ignore, and take it outside the context in which it was written
Do you think a single Protestant reformer would agree with you on that?

File: Boss_The_Lamb.png (2KB, 169x112px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 169x112px

Is playing the Binding of Isaac heresy?

>>2829081
>>if Jesus had Adam's guilt
>He didn't. That's why the virgin birth was necessary, to protect Jesus from Original Sin.
So sin is patrilineal?

What does "let the dead bury the dead mean"?
by that I mean what is the traditional understanding of that, what did people in the middle ages, be it the west or greek east, think that meant?

>>2822478
I've never met a literal interpretationalist stand up to scrutiny. Because they always admit there are some parts of the Bible that are not to be taken literally. Which begs the question: who decides what is and is not to be taken literally? Their answer always falls upon some person, some man, or the judgment of men. So it's always, "this part and not that part is to be taken literally because some man decided it is so". It's entirely arbitrary and not divinely inspired at all.

>>2834364
As is most everything in the Bible.

>>2822478
The worst thing about "muh literal" people is that it's such an arrogant position. "This is what the immediate words and grammar on the page signify to me so that's what it means."

In attempting to go beyond the literal/what it appears to immediately mean and to try to find the underlying message being conveyed, you essentially undertake an act of attempted empathy with the authors of scripture.

>>2833710
Orthodox anon I think you missed the point of that post indeed you are literally giving me the same treatment as that other anon "Read more X"

Is it correct to say that there is no possible evidence that exists or *could exist* that would convince you otherwise?

>>2834122
>>2834131
prove me wrong, instead of asserting or calling the thought retarded, show me that Augustine didn't imply a transmission of a inherited sin

I want a bible in Spanish (my first language).

I read different versions on biblegateway and my favorite is Reina Valera (the newer one).

Thing is I'm Catholic, and as I understand our bible is the Biblia de Jerusalén, should I get that one instead?

File: IMG_0104.jpg (566KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 2048x1536px

>>2836082
>Is it correct to say that there is no possible evidence that exists or *could exist* that would convince you otherwise?

That early Christianity was more akin to Protestantism than Orthodoxy?

File: 1494734200654.jpg (101KB, 419x600px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 419x600px

>>2834736
>What does "let the dead bury the dead mean"?

I'd rather provide St John Chrysostom's homily on it than give my own, ignorant opinion. Be blessed, hid insight is thanks to him being filled with the Holy Spirit and grace of God.
>https://books.google.com/books?id=YLmbkbpANpAC&pg=PA550&lpg=PA550&dq=orthodox+let+the+dead+bury+the+dead.&source=bl&ots=_9V2yb_lt6&sig=zXaLlufz0nQZzfWk1uIlmVrlJe4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgypXa1P3TAhVi_4MKHRtxCDEQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q=orthodox%20let%20the%20dead%20bury%20the%20dead.&f=false

>>2830903
It's more that this thread was started in good faith by an OP who laid out some ground rules to try and prevent excessive shitposting. Most threads on 4chan aren't started this way for various reasons.

>>2824593
Only a christfag can make such a stupid argument

>>2837063
Yes, that early christianity was more akin to Protestantism (in any of its specific forms)

>>2837234
Dude stop, the fundy nutbag isn't really involved in this thread. Let them have their discussion in peace without blatant shitposting.

File: FB_IMG_1492777035439.jpg (59KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1080x720px

>>2837242
>Yes, that early christianity was more akin to Protestantism (in any of its specific forms)

It wasn't, again. Otherwise Christianity would be very, very different, or wouldn't not exist today. The Orthodox Church, unlike Protestantism, is nor the vain traditions of men, but surely from God Himself, thanks to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost to the Apostles and their Apostolic Succession via their ordaining clergy.

>"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes. 2:15)

>"And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2)

Here are characteristics of Early Christianity/Orthodoxy that Protestantism lacks/diminshes/negates:

>Temple Liturgical worship
This was evident from the beginning, the alter being the tomb of Christ, the Churches having a familiar layout as the Temple, the Bishops and Priests presiding, the central celebration if the Resurrection and the Eucharist.. Highly recommend you read this, it's sourced well, too.
http://www.passaicrussianchurch.com/books/english/early_christian_liturgics.htm#_Toc52771847

>The Holy Eucharist
The Holy Gifts (bread and wine), when consecrated, have always been know to be the full Body and Blood of Christ. Many Protestants do not believe this, sadly and to their detriment. Here are many Saints and Church Fathers stating as such (sourced), thank God:
http://stpeterorthodoxchurch.com/new-to-orthodoxy/the-church-fathers-on-the-holy-eucharist/

>Baptism of the water and Spirit
Baptism (Greek "Baptizo" for submersion/immersion) was always in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with (three) full submetsions, followed by the Eucharist. Not simply "a Baptism of the heart" as many Protestants will think. Many will "baptize" in unholy ways, not in the name if the Holy Trinity.

File: FB_IMG_1483931628076.jpg (138KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 960x960px

>>2837242
>Baptism (cont)
Additionally, infant Baptism is how the early Christian Church Baptised, not "let's wait until they're adults to see and make a choice". Adults obviously werre baptized too as converts, but infant Baptism was standard. A sad thing in Protestantism is thus: if a child is mentally retarded, them how will they ever be baptised according to their paradigm?
http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/ocrc/2009/06/infant-baptism-as-scriptural-tradition/
https://www.goarch.org/-/infant-baptism
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Baptism.htm

>Original Sin
Protestants inherited the Augustinianidea of "Original sin", that we are born with the guilt of Adam. Not so, and this is not found in Orthodoxy. We suffer the Fall, but not the guilt. Read these links (sourced) for more:
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/08/16/original-and-ancestral-sin-a-brief-comparison/
http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/original.htm

>Salvation
Under this, the Protestant Solas exist. However, such beliefs are 16th century, man-made traditions, and find no place in Early Christianity. Salvation is not instantaneous, but a lifetime. This is in the early Church.
For examples, St Paul, nor the thief on the cross, nor the cebturion, nor the Ethiopian were saved by "faith alone", for all had Baptism after their confession of faith in Christ. The thief literally was baptised by dying with Christ. He professed, confessed, attempted to bring Christ into the heart of the other thief (good works, gasp), and was baptised, thus Christ allowing him into His Kingdom.
This link is very lengthy, but explains in detail the differences between Salvation in the Early Church (Orthodoxy) verses salvation according to Protestants.
>THE ORTHODOX TEACHING ON PERSONAL SALVATION (sourced)
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm
>ORTHODOX CRITICISM OF THE WESTERN CHRISTIAN TEACHING ON PERSONAL SALVATION (sourced)
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46465.htm

File: FB_IMG_1492262886309.jpg (97KB, 800x472px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x472px

>>2837242
>Priesthood
This is directly from God at Pentecost, working through His Apostles. The Apostles established His Church so that the continued presence of Christ our Savior would be spread and preserved without deviation through out the world. Not women, not gay, not as Protestants would have it. They work by God and by His grace and perform nothing on their own, just as the Apostles.
This link explains it further, as it has always been since the beginning:
https://oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith/worship/the-sacraments/holy-orders

Your supposition that early Christianity could be more Protestant than Orthodox is absurd, as early Christianity is Orthodox, and Orthodoxy is early Christianity. There is no way to separate, as they are the same. I can't convince you perhaps, then it's up to you to search for yourself, and my God guide you and fill your heart with love and compassion, anon.

>>2830642
>>2830694
>>2830740
>>2830888
>>2830941
>>2831026
>>2831086
>>2831115
>>2831125
>>2831449
>>2833169
>>2833207
>>2833217
>>2833223
>>2833683
>>2833710
>>2838278
>>2838337

kek, heretical protestant innovating cucks B T F O by based orthoanon

>>2822258
This is probably more of a new-age thought, but what do you guys think about the idea of christ-consciousness. is such a concept even in the bible? If it can be considered legitimate, how does it reconcile with the teachings of jesus.

If this is a Christian general, what are the fundamental beliefs that are needed to be accepted as a Christian here? Submission to Rome? Salvation by faith alone? Acceptance of the trinity/Christ's divinity?

>>2838699
did you really have to link all of his posts to write this? Could you be anymore obnoxious

>>2834325
not heresy, blasphemy is the word you're looking for
and probably, even if it isn't really intended to be

File: FB_IMG_1487614153721.jpg (14KB, 400x282px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x282px

>>2839712
The Nicene Creed.

I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all ages;

Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten,
not created, of one essence with the Father
through Whom all things were made.

Who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven and was incarnate
of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man.

He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried;

And He rose on the third day,
according to the Scriptures.

He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father;

And He will come again with glory to judge the living
and dead. His kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life,
Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, Who
spoke through the prophets.

In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the age to come.

Amen.

>>2839877
isn't the date for that a bit late to be considered an accurate representation of early Christian doctrine? I know 300 ad is early relative to us, but 300 years is still plenty of time for error. Even Paul had to correct heresies in his day.
Would the apostles creed be more suitable?

I imagine the interpretation of "one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" causing some division here

File: FB_IMG_1482281386657.jpg (38KB, 960x537px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 960x537px

>>2839895
The Nicene Creed is a summation our Faith, put into words by the Holy Spirit through the Ecumenical Councils. It defines and clarifies the mystery of Orthodoxy, of things always believed.

This explains it better than I can, forgive me.
>Since the earliest times, the Church has believed in the saving, redemptive action of baptism. “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). “We enter, then, the font once: once are sins washed away.”[42] It, perhaps, goes without saying, that the Church has never believed in the “magical” powers of baptism. The condition for receiving the forgiveness of one’s sins in baptism is his free desire to stop the old life of sin (that is, repentance.) The visible form (immersion) is the symbol of the rejection of that old life.

>It is also important to emphasize that baptism has never been seen as a “legal” act of giving the pardon of sins committed. In baptism, one’s sins are not just forgiven by God but erased. The early Church believed in the regenerative power of baptism: “According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). In his First Apology, St. Justin the Martyr describes the early-Church rite of baptism: the new converts “are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated… In order that we… may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe” (Chapter 61). In general, a complete destruction of one’s sins is the only form of forgiveness of sins known to Christianity.
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/46463.htm

>>2839966
how is it Paul says we are saved by faith alone yet Peter says we are saved by a work namely baptism?

File: FB_IMG_1488747348115.jpg (31KB, 640x359px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 640x359px

>>2839989
Among the requirements of knowledge is not to depend on one verse. The Bible is not one verse but a Book. And a mere verse does not give a complete meaning of God's aim and commandment. Therefore, read all in entirety, not in a vacuum, not picking and choosing as Luther and Protestants do.
If anyone says to you "so it is written", reply, "and the Lord said "Again it is written..." Matthew 4:7.
The verses of the Bible - if collected together - will form integration, consistency and depth of understanding.

>>2836571
I have already proved you wrong by showing the fault in your reasoning. You can't use that kind of reasoning for original sin but not use it for ancestral sin, it's intellectually dishonest. You are biased and clinging desperately to made-up theological reasons why Catholicism is wrong. You orthoconverts behave the same way as protestants, your insecurity and lack of faith shows in the fact you have to try and demolish Catholic doctrine and thus fall into stupid errors like this.

>>2822258

That is such a great picture.

>>2840078
So whats the integration, consistency and understanding between Paul saying we're saved by faith alone and Paul saying we're saved by a work namely baptism?

File: FB_IMG_1488166224285.jpg (145KB, 1067x800px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1067x800px

>>2836571
>>2840103
St Augustine did just that in his understanding, but no man us without error. If we relate his understanding to the rest of the Early Church Fathers and Scripture, however, we can see that his understanding, which Roman Catholicism adopted, is innovative and in disagreement with the rest. Taking one idea from one man us dangerous, as this same method and from this same Saint also led Calvin to believe in predestination.
Not sure if that anon is Orthodox, but I am. We are guilty of the effects, but not the fall. A father's sin does not transmit to his son. Thus, Adams guilt of his sin is his, not ours. Babies do not go to hell for something they did not commit, friend. We recieve the fallen effects and sinful state, not the guilt of his personal sin.

God forbid, but if a mother cheats and has a child out of wedlock and gets herpes from her paramour, and the baby gets blinded by it, the baby suffers the effects of her sin, but is not guilty of her sin.

Not even going to address and dignify your ad hom.

File: FB_IMG_1495228309419.jpg (79KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 960x540px

>>2840133
We aren't saved by having faith alone, nor by Holy Baptism alone, nor by any "sola". Salvation is a life-long process, as Christ and the Apostles preached.

>>2840219
>We aren't saved by having faith alone
then why did Paul specifically say we are saved by faith alone more than once?

File: FB_IMG_1489055211950.jpg (57KB, 456x607px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 456x607px

>>2840245
Remember the context in which Romans was written, to Jews who had the Law but not Faith. St James preached yet that faith alone is dead. Again, context to whom the letter was written to. One doesn't negate the other at all, but rather the whole Bible must be understood and taken in, not as a verse or two, or letter or two in a vacuum.

Why would Christ Himself say: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). The necessity of works is further illustrated in the following passage: to the man who asked “What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”, Jesus says what he needs to do – and this is not just to have faith or be baptized: “go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me” (Mark 10:17-21)

>>2840382
I thought the Roman church comprised of Jews and Gentiles? Regardless, if it were intended exclusively for Jews then couldn't it be interpreted the same exact way? "we just need faith, we aren't required to follow these laws or sacraments". the recipients didn't have the letter from James and possibly not the gospels either (almost certainly not John's) so they wouldn't have been able to interpret it systematically as you are

>>2838210
>the Churches having a familiar layout as the Temple, the Bishops and Priests presiding
But there was no office of priest in the beginning. That was a development that took centuries. In the earliest church, every believer was a priest (1 Pet 2:9), and there was one High Priest, Jesus Christ. There was also no distinction between the bishops and presbyters, the office was one and the same (Tit 1:5-7). They were elders within a grand priesthood, no more priests than the layman.
>The Holy Gifts (bread and wine), when consecrated, have always been know to be the full Body and Blood of Christ
You would think, if this was so important, the apostles would have seen fit to mention it. Not only that, but there is clear evidence that this too was a novelty, as Irenaeus tells us: "For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect." (Fragment 13)
>(three) full submetsions
This too was an innovation, which originated in Egypt, later spread to the rest of the east, and never took hold in the west.
>followed by the Eucharist
Pedocommunion is also innovative, as the apostles required believers to self-examine before partaking (1 Cor 11:29), which children cannot do.

>>2838278
>Protestants inherited the Augustinianidea of "Original sin", that we are born with the guilt of Adam
Augustine wasn't some evil mastermind that invented this idea as Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians like to believe.
>However, such beliefs are 16th century, man-made traditions, and find no place in Early Christianity
Such a statement is wholly indenfisible, as I have yet to see a single father who contradicted sola fide, but have seen many who explicitly believed it. Take, for example, blessed Chrysostom, who said "They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed, but he (Paul) shows that he who adhered to faith alone, is blessed." (3rd Homily on Galatians)
>Salvation is not instantaneous, but a lifetime
Quite true, and so did the reformers rightly teach. But salvation is not a synonym of justification.

>>2838337
>This is directly from God at Pentecost
Already we have a break between western and eastern tradition on this, as the Romanists would point to the Last Supper as the time of their ordination.
>Not women, not gay, not as Protestants would have it
Stop bearing false witness
>>2839989
What was left out of that verse is the immediate explanation by Peter "not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ". For Peter, baptism doesn't save, but what it represents is what saves, namely, an appeal to God for a good conscience.

>>2840382
>James preached yet that faith alone is dead
Lone faith is dead. True faith works through love, but the one with living faith is justified from the moment of faith, before they do anything good.
>Why would Christ Himself say: “If a man love me, he will keep my words
Precisely to annunciate Protestant soteriology, that those who truely love Him will keep His words.
>Jesus says what he needs to do – and this is not just to have faith or be baptized: “go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me”
Yes, that is what he must do, if he wishes to do something to inherit eternal life, since it is the doers of the law, not the hearers of the law, who will be justified. But, just as Paul did, so too does Jesus here point this out, since there are no doers of the law, therefore it must be by faith, as our Lord goes on to say: "Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”
Mark 10:23-27

>>2840103
>>2840184

anon here, I'm a primitivist christian. I agree with the Orthodox position but maybe arrive to it from different conclusions. I agree with you on the idea that we must not always to one idea from one man, indeed we must assess their ideas and see if they match up with scripture through sound exegesis. As for the Catholic, I have not seen your refutation, but maybe cause you believe that I am an Orthodox Christian, when I'm far from it. But I bring this issue up for the Catholics because it is something I found wanting and is a thorn in the side when assessed with scripture, not some presupposition against the Catholics, for there are many out there who would condemn you without even debate, for even the protestants among us get things wrong but we argue to correct one another.

>>2839989
A baptismal regenerate would likely class it as a work, but really we saved by faith and baptism is a commitment of faith in which God does the work for us by washing away our sins.

>>2840676
>For Peter, baptism doesn't save, but what it represents is what saves, namely, an appeal to God for a good conscience.
This is the Protestant view yes?
>>2840730
>baptism is a commitment of faith in which God does the work for us by washing away our sins.
so does God wash our sins through baptism in your perspective?

>>2840741
>This is the Protestant view yes?
It is a Protestant view. Lutherans would disagree, and say baptism itself is regeneration.

>>2840746
I just don't understand his exact phrase "baptism now saves us". Is there like some Greek grammar issue behind why he'd phrase it this way?

>>2840741
>>2840746
>For Peter, baptism doesn't save, but what it represents is what saves, namely, an appeal to God for a good conscience.
>This is the Protestant view yes?
Actually this is the Baptist view of mere symbol, the Calvinist see it as the sign of the covenant and the Lutheran as the regenerative work of God.

>so does God wash our sins through baptism in your perspective?
According to scripture most likely, Acts 2:38 is definitely a key theme of baptism, but there nothing in the water or in the act itself, then it becomes legalistic, we are saved by faith through our baptism in which God acts by giving us salvation.

>>2840752
It's because of the context. He's saying baptism not only represents this pledge to God but also represents the global flood.

>>2840756
>the Baptist view of mere symbol, the Calvinist see it as the sign
isn't this the same? symbol/sign?
It was always my understanding of acts 2:38.... that when Peter says "be baptised for forgiveness of sins", he is saying that forgiveness has already occurred.. the same way you take medicine for a headache because you already have a headache not in order to receive one... I think its also important to note this isn't Peters direct words, it is Lukes recording of Peters words. Its important because when Luke is recording Paul's answer to "sir, how are we saved" Paul's response does not include baptism

>>2840776
>He's saying baptism not only represents this pledge to God but also represents the global flood.
whoa whoa... what does the global flood have to do with this..

>>2840756
>Actually this is the Baptist view of mere symbol, the Calvinist see it as the sign of the covenant
Clearly, you don't understand the Calvinist view, since the Baptist and Reformed views are the same. The difference between them is Ecclesiological, not Sacramentological. They believe the same things about what baptism is, the disagreement is over who it is for.
>>2840780
Read the whole passage.

>>2840778
>isn't this the same? symbol/sign?
Not really, the symbol is more your already confession to Christ through faith in him. It also might be the differentiation between who is to be baptised. For the Calvinist baptizes the child more than the adult(paedobaptism), while the Baptist only baptizes the believer (credobaptism). The Calvinist most likely sees the baptism also as an entrance into the covenant of God.

>It was always my understanding of acts 2:38.... that when Peter says "be baptised for forgiveness of sins", he is saying that forgiveness has already occurred.. the same way you take medicine for a headache because you already have a headache not in order to receive one... I think its also important to note this isn't Peters direct words, it is Lukes recording of Peters words. Its important because when Luke is recording Paul's answer to "sir, how are we saved" Paul's response does not include baptism
I'm quite busy at the moment I might get back to this later

>Clearly, you don't understand the Calvinist view, since the Baptist and Reformed views are the same. The difference between them is Ecclesiological, not Sacramentological. They believe the same things about what baptism is, the disagreement is over who it is for.

I never said there were huge differences but there is a slight difference, it's hard sometimes to distinguish. Both are ordinances are they not? You are also talking about you is meant to be baptized too no?

>>2840807
>The Calvinist most likely sees the baptism also as an entrance into the covenant of God.
Not exactly. It's a requirement for them to already be in the covenant, but baptism is seen as the ceremony of entrance into the covenant. Like how the king is king before he is actually coronated.
>I never said there were huge differences but there is a slight difference
Not really
>Both are ordinances are they not?
What do you mean 'both'? Are we talking about more than baptism?
>You are also talking about you is meant to be baptized too
What?

>>2840807
just so you know, its possible and common to be Calvinist and baptist. See James R White

>>2838337
>>2838278
>>2838210

>Your supposition that early Christianity could be more Protestant than Orthodox is absurd, as early Christianity is Orthodox, and Orthodoxy is early Christianity. There is no way to separate, as they are the same. I can't convince you perhaps, then it's up to you to search for yourself, and my God guide you and fill your heart with love and compassion, anon.

Anon you literally ignored what I posted I *literally* did not make any claims either way all I asked you was what evidence you would need to see in order to invalidate your own point and accept an opposing one. When I said yes I was answering your question regarding context.

All I want to do I see what evidence both of you the primitivist anon and the Orthodox anon would require to accept the others view. The primitive anon ignored me and you simply posted something wholly unrelated to this with a big dose of unwarranted condescension at the end.

What do you think I posted ?

>>2840933
I'm not the self-identifying "primitivist".

>>2841005
>I'm not the self-identifying "primitivist".

That "you" was a typo, you were the Orthodox anon I was referring to. Or are you not the anon who misread my post and went on a 3 post tangent?

File: 20170513_220525.jpg (362KB, 960x690px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 960x690px

>>2840933
>The primitive anon ignored me and you simply posted something wholly unrelated to this with a big dose of unwarranted condescension at the end.
>What do you think I posted ?

Forgive me, I must have mis-read your post. I didn't mean to come off as condescending. IIRC, I likely thought I was responding to the Protestant who kept answering in one-liners.

As a matter of Faith, I'm Orthodox, and to renounce/accept anything less than the Orthodoxy is to renounce Christ, His Gospels, teachings, and the Church He established on Earth. He said His Church is the One that hell shall not prevail against. Not many, not even two. Many branches will fall and have, yet His Church has survived Roman Imperial persecution, heresies, Islamic invasion and subjugation, Roman Catholic persecution, Humanism, Secularism, and Communism. We are a Church of martyrs for Christ, unlike so many who are heterodox, Lord have mercy on us all. Forgive me if I sounded boastful, I'm not.

If you took a Protestant denomination back to early Christianity, it would not be allowed, nor in, Communion with the Church.

I'm a sinner and make many terrible choices, but I won't leave Him for anything less, and to accept that anon views is just that, as he preaches another Gospel and thus another Christ from God the Son.
I hope that answers your question.

>>2841025
Neither

>>2841034
>as he preaches another Gospel
I preach the same gospel as Paul, which is a gospel of grace, not of works, lest any man should boast

>>2841034
So it would correct to say that you take East Orthodoxy to be correct as an axiom and that its truth is the basis on which everything else can be correct or false when it comes to Jesus or truth in general?


>Forgive me if I sounded boastful, I'm not.

Its not boastful as much as confusing as things like that paragraph make it seem like Orthodoxy being true is not an axiom but contingent on other things (like some of those events mentioned).

>>2841044
I was refering to the anon who authored >>2822708 and the following posts.

>>2841081
But >>2833235 referred to me

>>2841129
My apologies then for mischaracterising you.

Given the Orthodox anons opinion in >>2841034
is there room for discussion?

>>2841177
>is there room for discussion?
Of?

>>2822448
>Mormons
>Christians
They regard Joseph Smith as more relevant than Jesus himself. They are no more christian than muslims are.

File: FB_IMG_1494495520773.jpg (106KB, 600x805px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 600x805px

>>2841056
>I preach the same gospel as Paul, which is a gospel of grace, not of works, lest any man should boast

They all spoke the same Gospel, the Gospel of the Life of Christ, but more importantly they lived it, the path to accepting Salvation by God. It's terribly insincere to say his is "of grace, not of works", as that is not true at all. It's like taking Scripture in a vacuum, then pretending the Apostles and Virgin Mary had no life outside it if it wasn't written.
If it's different from what was preached, preserved by the Church via the Holy Spirit and Holy Tradition, then it is of a different Gospel and preaching another Christ.
Examples: predestination, reincarnation, the solas, "Baptism of the heart", Christ assuming God, but born a man, Christ having no free will, Iconoclasm, no prayers for those passed away, millennial ideas, the Rapture as understood by popular western ideas, Purgatory, Salvation through our own merit only, the Eucharist not being the Body and Blood literally, the Immaculate Conception, etc.
etc.

>>2841355
>It's terribly insincere to say his is "of grace, not of works", as that is not true at all
Ephesians 2:8-9
>If it's different from what was preached, preserved by the Church via the Holy Spirit and Holy Tradition
Mark 7:13
>predestination
The bible teaches this
>reincarnation
Protestants do not believe this
>the solas
The bible teaches this
>"Baptism of the heart"
This expresses nothing
>Christ assuming God, but born a man, Christ having no free will
Protestants do not believe these
>Iconoclasm
The bible teaches this
>no prayers for those passed away
It depends on what is meant by this
>millennial ideas
This expresses nothing
>the Rapture as understood by popular western ideas
This is adiaphora
>the Eucharist not being the Body and Blood literally
The bible teaches this
>the Immaculate Conception
>Purgatory, Salvation through our own merit only
You mean papist doctrine?

>>2841322
the early church and question of which way of worshiping Jesus is correct.

If both of you have mutually exclusive axioms can you really do anything but state your own opinions and get angry at one another?

File: FB_IMG_1492385739113.jpg (20KB, 555x370px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 555x370px

>>2841073
>So it would correct to say that you take East Orthodoxy to be correct as an axiom and that its truth is the basis on which everything else can be correct or false when it comes to Jesus or truth in general?

It's truth is based on Christ. Anything contrary to Him has been weathered and overcome by God's grace through the centuries, as Christ said.

Here are some good reading materials:
Reading:
>The Orthodox Way by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware
>The Path to Salvation by St Theophan the Recluse
>Orthodox Study Bible
>Rock and Sand by Fr Josiah Trenham

A decent secular history of it would be A History of Byzantium
https://www.amazon.com/History-Byzantium-Timothy-Gregory/dp/140518471X


>Heavy Reading
https://www.christianbook.com/the-early-church-fathers-38-volumes/9781565630819/pd/30815

File: FB_IMG_1491139744464.jpg (57KB, 800x828px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 800x828px

>>2841406
If you're the same one-liner as before, Lord have mercy.
Even Satan quotes Scripture.

>>2841424
>It's truth is based on Christ

Yeah but your understanding of what constitutes the truth of Christ and his teachings are predicated on the truth of this certain church - which is what makes it the axiom - which is why in your view to reject the Church is an automatic rejection of Jesus.


Its kind of like the fedora who claims truth is based on science when in actual fact its based on the metaphysical naturalism and materialism which underpin it.

>Here are some good reading materials:

I dont know if Im being unclear but why do you keep on throwing things to read at me which have nothing to do with the content of my posts (which is effectively questions of epistemology and effective communication) - indeed almost every post of yours directed at me is telling me to read a huge amount about your own beliefs.

File: 1491186092054.png (64KB, 794x390px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 794x390px

>>2827542
Not when it comes to contraception at least.

Orthobro, how is this different from the Orthodox position?

from CCC:
416 By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin".

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

>>2841850
and check this too:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

File: FB_IMG_1487771071945.jpg (88KB, 540x663px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 540x663px

>>2841512
>Its kind of like the fedora who claims truth is based on science when in actual fact its based on the metaphysical naturalism and materialism which underpin it.

Well, in with that analogy it would be that Truth is the Holy Trinity, with Salvation being from Christ, who is God who became fully man while being fully God, inseparable, unconfused, two natures. This underpins how we are granted Salvation, that He lifted man back to our original state as God intended, as God by grace. This is because of being fully man, which His death trampled death as Hades cannot contain God, thus freeing us from it and opening the Kingdom of Heaven to Man. Christ's essence is what underpins His Truth, and since His established Church on Earth is the Orthodox Church and no other, by His glory it is Truth. This direct connection van be found through history as Orthodoxy is the Early Church, very much still alive today.
Not sure how to put it, I'm not a philosopher, nor a Theologian.. Just a simple Orthodox Christian.
The reading material is so you can have a start if you're more interested seriously instead of asking an anon on 4chan. And they do directly deal with your questions.