/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's literally just:

>original two churches (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox)

>infinite autistic protestant denominations (the result of Catholic autism)

Read what the early Christians wrote and you'll see who is the most legitimate.

If Christianity is true then there are demons that want to harm the faith, so many denoms is pretty straight forward.

As far as which denom is right I don't think you ave to worry about thousands of denoms, really if you can study the history of the Scriptures and Church Fathers and decided if you think Christ is one person, full divine and fully man, and if he has a two natures, a divine nature and a human, nature, then you'll know whether you fall in with the Nestorians, the monophysites, or Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The great schism is harder to tackle, but if you look into claims on papal authority, the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, and the essences and energies of God you'll probably come out with a conclusion on whether the Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox are correct

>>522710

This basically.

>>522710

It's more like this:

>Originally, the church is comprised solely of Independent Fundamentalist Baptists in perfect doctrinal agreement

>A pastor gets stranded in the woods one day at a local soul winning march

>Grows a long beard while not eating anything

>Goes crazy and starts vainly repeating words

>Invents Eastern Orthodoxy

>Others join him

>One day, someone forgets to put yeast in the bread

>They schism over the flatbread and invent Roman Catholicism

>>522716

>Grows a long beard while not eating anything

Teaches him to miss his daily Vitamin K supplement

>>522709

It's because most people pick and choose which parts of the bible they'll believe

>>522710

Can you give me a recommendation of writings by Early Church Fathers to read to help me see the light? The earlier the better.

>>522720

Or it could be that the Bible is vague and can be interpreted in many different ways?

>>522710

>Read what the early Christians wrote and you'll see who is the most legitimate.

This

>>522722

Yeah, you definitely want to read the earliest Christian writings there are. These writings should completely determine what church you choose, and any church which teaches anything contrary to the teachings of these writings should be rejected as either satanic or human, depending on how averse they are to these writings. These writings are: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John.

>>522709

Because Jesuit lies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1956752/posts#Independents

>>522723

1 Corinthians 2:10-13

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

John 14:16-17

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

90% of denominations don't differ over salvific things. Like, my denomination believes that churches should be independent of one another. Other denoms believe that churches can have a governing authority deciding what's right. However, they don't think that independent churches go to Hell, and I don't think united churches go to Hell. If we're gonna split churches up based on salvation doctrine, you can pretty much divide it into a few small groups: sacrament based salvation vs. sola fide salvation. Sacrament based salvation divides up into Catholic, Orthodox, conservative Anglican, and faith based salvation divides up into costly grace (essentially faith alone but you should also do x, y, z) vs free grace (pure faith alone). A lot of other divisions aren't salvific. For example, if one church has an episcopalian structure, and the other church has a presbyterian structure, that's not an issue of salvation. As for the "THERE ARE TEN THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS!" meme, it's just innacurate. There was some study a while ago that managed to find 30,000 denoms of Protestantism and 600 denoms of Catholicism, the issue was that they took even the slightest difference of prayer, culture, etc. to be a complete denominational difference. It's really not that complex

>>522723

>Or it could be that the Bible is vague

Of course not silly, we're not Gnostics! We don't believe scripture is some special book with secret knowledge that only the top pneumatic caste can understand. It's just like any book: Clear, because it is designed to communicate. Why should the fathers be any clearer than God's own word?

>>522729

>the fathers

Matthew 23:9

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

>>522728

Wait, are telling that you look at another protestant group that fully accepts the five solas, and can confidently say they're fellow Christians?! Gasp!

B-b-but my priest, who's my bf, told me that protestants hate each other, then disappear in a matter of centuries, while we were making out!

>(Hol up. I know how to defeat them)

>Take out recorder

>press play

"Which holy, apostolic, catholic church created the bible?

<stop recorder

<(heh, got em!)

>>522709

There are only 4 church factions, romans, eastern, orientals and assyrians. Really most laity should only worry about joining their cultural rite and leave it to their bishop to worry about the autism of communion politics. Everything else exists outside of the church and is trash

>>522747

Do Baptists on here actually believe the Trail of Blood stuff? Like for real?

meant to link

>>522742

Our church never left the Bible to follow da patriarchs in the first place.

>>522748

Just the truth. And the idea's way older than the trail of blood. That publication is not even a good example because it has several bad sources like the supposed Newton quote.

There has always been believers in every generation though. That's why they kept passing laws outlawing our practice.

>>522752

So were they undocumented or do you go for the we was arians or we was nestorians, etc. stuff?

>>522755

Well there is a law against "rebaptizers" passed in the early 5th century that was upgraded to death penalty a few years later, then fast forward 116 years later and Justinian specifically decided to reinstate that law while getting rid of hundreds of others. In fact the only two things earning the death penalty from Justinian were "rebaptizer" and "anti-trinitarian." Then Charlemagne had to pass a law specifically against it, one of just 32 laws he passed in his capitulary.

Do I sound like an arian? We was literally called anabaptists according to the reformation era theologians on both sides. Although sometimes were being conflated with the latest schism of the day by catholics. Obviously the most reliable proof of this is that my beliefs line up the best with scripture though, because that's the only basis for any of this. But since you ask yes I've done some research on my own.

>>522758

This is boiling down Baptistry to just rebaptizing, and even then with no mention of credobaptism

Anabaptism is a meme

>>522759

>Anabaptism is a meme

A meme perhaps that existed with churches Switzerland, Germany, Holland, England and Wales in the early 1500's with no "reformer" founder being claimed for them or by them.

The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, p.251 (1830)

>It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.

>>522734

Early church father (ECF) is a historical designation of the earliest Christian leaders, so-called due to the fact that their influence has largely shaped Christian thought down to this day. Christ's command is concering the use of father as a spiritual title, spiritual fatherhood, such as the papists use when they call their priests "father".

>>522762

Or when Paul calls himself a father

>>522709

Semi-Nestorians broke up with the Church because they separated the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus too much. They are now known as the Church of the East.

Then Miaphysites broke up with the Church because they separated the two natures of Jesus not enough. They are now known as the Oriental Orthodox.

Then there was a clear East-West schism caused by disagreements on the filioque (a particularly Western development that confused the East) and the authority of Rome (is she the big sister of the house who has occasionally acted like a mother, or is she the mother of the house who has occasionally acted like a big sister?) The two halves of the schism are now known as the Catholics (for the West) and the Eastern Orthodox (for the East).

Then Catholic autism eventually led to the Reformation, giving birth to Protestantism (which itself covers a large variety of beliefs), and the English Reformation led to the birth of the Anglicans (still Western but not under the Pope, and somewhere in-between Catholic and Protestant).

If you're Catholic, you're sure your denomination is right because you have the Vicar of Christ to lead the Church.

If you're Orthodox, you're sure your denomination is right because you have the patristic tradition to back you up.

If you're Protestant, it really doesn't matter for you because what matters is faith in Christ most of all.

>>522769

"Or" what?

>>522769

>>522773

He's probably talking about 1 Corinthians 4:15. But he fails to note that isn't a title, but referring back to Christ for something done in Christ: begotten through the gospel. They are AS sons to him, not actually, because the Father of spirits is in heaven and there's only one. When a Christian talks about fathers they are either talking about a biological father or THE Father. Nothing else makes sense.

1 Corinthians 1:13

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1 Timothy 5:1

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;

>>522722

There's obviously the New Testament. For what comes right after that, you have volume 1 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that covers the apostolic era (late 1st to early 2nd century), with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus as well (both mid-2nd century) since they were the first to give elaborated descriptions and apologetics of Christianity.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.i.html

The first 3 generations of Christians are:

>1

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Paul

James

Peter

Jude

>2

Clement of Rome, disciple of Paul

Mathetes, disciple of the apostles (possibly of Paul)

Polycarp, disciple of John

Ignatius, disciple of John

Barnabas, possibly disciple of Paul if he is related to the Biblical Barnabas

Papias, disciple of John

>3

Justin Martyr, a pagan philosopher who converted to Christianity and wrote its first major apologies

Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp

>>522777

The trips have definitely not been with me today, well played.

Since you seem to have some in-depth knowledge can you explain to us your view of who has the Holy Spirit, and why Luke 11:9-13, John 14:17 and 1 John 2:27 appear to say anyone who asks and has faith can receive Him?

>>522709

It's this:

Orthodox

Catholic

Oriental

Anglican

Methodist

Baptist

Calvinist

Everything else is probably heresy.

>>522849

>methodist/baptist

Why these before high, trad Lutheran churches?

>>522849

>Orthodox

>Catholic

>Oriental

all fine i suppose

>Anglican

the only high church prots that are ok

>Methodist

tranny decons

>Baptist

ok tier

>Calvinist

literally autistic tier

you really only have 2; catholic (orthodox and catholic), and everything else (all prots)

>>522849

>God tier:

Orthodox

Catholic

High traditional Anglican

>Acceptable tier:

Copts

Baptists

Traditional Lutherans

>Garbage tier:

Calvinism

Modernist protestants

Liberal Anglican

Exterminatus on sight tier: Basically every other denomination or religion

>>522879

I should've also mentioned the baptist heresy of "Bow to your KJV; IT IS GOD" .

Im actually wondering if there's any historical precedent of such nonsense, was their an ancient heretic who thought this as well?

>>522882

>Im actually wondering if there's any historical precedent of such nonsense, was their an ancient heretic who thought this as well?

Muslims

>>522782

>Since you seem to have some in-depth knowledge can you explain to us your view of who has the Holy Spirit, and why Luke 11:9-13, John 14:17 and 1 John 2:27 appear to say anyone who asks and has faith can receive Him?

Since I'm Orthodox, the dogmatic statement here is "we don't know". As the Lord says, the Holy Spirit blows where He wills. Furthermore, He allowed certain people to do great things in His name even though the same people refuse to follow the apostles the Lord Himself appointed, so clearly something is going on here.

There are two main schools of thought in the Church: "only the Church has any saving grace, which means any sacraments", and "other Christian communions may have valid but illicit sacraments". I honestly don't know yet what to think.

An article on the subject: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2012/06/28/the-limits-of-the-church-by-fr-georges-florovsky/

>>522878

Anglicans are better than Copts?

>>522716

This was all caused by the lack of vitamin K when he wasn't eating anything, see >>522717

Arianism is the only real christianity

>>523008

I'm gonna reinforce what we learned here >>522492

>>522709

>if being a human is the state of man, then why are there so many different countries.

Look, regardless of whatever anyone says, denominations are basically the ethno-national expression of a central christian truth.

Catholicism is for non-germanic western euros and their colonial dependants.

Protestantism is for germanic peoples, and each sect of protestantism reflects the many nations of the germanic peoples.

Orthodoxy is for weird easterners who've been under the influence of domineers like the ottomans and mongols.

Overall, though yeah: denominations are just races and nations expressing their interpretation of christianity. There is a core truth to it all that we all affirm in the creeds and first 7 ecumenical councils…all the other shit is just the autism of our ancestors' particular places in history, linguistics and geography.

>>523088

Facepalm: The post

>>523088

>You know man the truth is just relative to you culture and sheet.

>>523088

You literally could not be more wrong, and absolutely nobody during the Reformation would have agreed with you.

>>523093

I don't care if anyone during the reformation would have agreed with me.

It's simply obvious when you look at the churches.

when it comes down to it, most christians do the same things: they have faith, they do works (regardless of what they think the meaning of these things is), and they do a water-ritual, and a grape-liquid/bread ritual, all while holding to the basic tenants of the first 7 ecumenical councils.

all the distinctiveness of denominations just answers the question "is he a whop, a kraut, or a rooskie". srsly, I've just named all three major branches in those ethnic slurs. It's a good joke to consider…

>>523095

Here's the 3 things you should do

1. Stop reading deranged /pol/ shit

2. Read the bible

3. Read the reformers

>>523095

>all while holding to the basic tenants of the first 7 ecumenical councils.

are you really this ignorant? Monophysites and nestorians exist because they disagree with councils.

>>523099

they aren't christians then.

>>523024

To be fair, 1 John 5:7 isn't legitimate scripture as it was added later

There are plenty of good verses defending the Trinity, but the Comma Johanneum isn't one

>>523024

To be fair 1 John 5:7 isn't a good example because it's not scripture, it was added later most likely by a monk in the 10 or 11th century

There are plenty of legitimate verses defending the Trinity, but the Comma Johanneum is not one of them

>>522710

>original two churches (Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox)

>and Eastern Orthodox

being pissed at Charlemagne and the pope doesn't make a church valid.

There is only one Church, and that is the body of Christ - every genuine believer. The physical churches are how we as Man organize ourselves based on organizational or theological disagreements.

>>523104

>the Oriental Orthodox are not Christians

>the Assyrian Church of the East is not Christian

Out of all the stupid things you've said, this has been the most stupid.

>>523095

>>523088

>There is a core truth to it all that we all affirm in the creeds and first 7 ecumenical councils

>Lutheran

>Following ecumenical councils

What?

>>523388

Being pissed at Empress Eirene (pbuh) doesnt make a church valid either

>>523392

t. Nestorian monophysite

>>522709

>How are you so sure your specific denomination is right

Because it was founded by the Son of God himself and not by some fallible man of questionable motivations like the thousands of protestant cults out there

>>523412

>Implying we're pissed at a woman who really should be a Saint for what she did to fight against Iconoclasm.

>>522857

Does removing 7 books sound familiar?

>if there is one truth then why are there people who are kind of close to the truth but have slight disagreements

niqqa you're not that smart are you

>>522709

Because the denominations still believe in core things like Jesus died on a cross and rose again, the bible is the written word of God, and the Holy Trinity though we have disagreements on how it works we still believe in it. JW, SDA, and Mormons are heretics to all Christian Denoms.

>>522760

>with no "reformer" founder being claimed for them

Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz

>>522710

>original two churches

Stop pussyfooting with this false RCC/ortho unity; your church's ecclesiology precludes you from saying that the RCC is the original church.

<The Church's Oneness is found in visible unity

<there are two or more visible communions in the Church

Pick one and only one (protip: if you pick the second you're a protestant)

>>526759

>your church's ecclesiology precludes you from saying that the RCC is the original church.

should read "an original church" I suppose.

>>531274

>Sola Scriptura divides us more than strengthens us because in attempting to Protest the evil Catholics they end up becoming Catholics themselves with their interpretations of the Bible.

You forgot to factor in the Holy Spirit.

>>531280

And how do you determine when someone has a "true" revelation from the Holy Ghost? Pretty sure you're that dude from the other thread, but let me add to that conversation by saying:

When Protestants have "The Holy Spirit" there is absolutely no litmus test other than "how many dudes can you get to believe". It's "Might makes Right" but in "Enough believers means it's real". That is the only functional test for any protestant revelation.

>>531283

We may fail, but the Holy Ghost can not.

>When Protestants have "The Holy Spirit" there is absolutely no litmus test

There is. It's called actually having the Holy Spirit indwelling, and hearing and believing the word of God. Also please don't put his name in quotes like that.

1 Thessalonians 1:5

For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.

2 Peter 1:19-20

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>>531291

>>531291

You're side-stepping the issue, much like Luther himself did when he begged the princes around him to put down Thomas Muenster like a dog. Read a history book.

History is full of people faking the in-dwelling of the Holy Ghost, and protestants have a terrible track record of controlling con-men and the mentally ill.

>>531302

>You're side-stepping the issue,

I'm saying that before you can tell who has the Holy Spirit, you yourself must first have Him. You have to accept that he exists. You have to call on him. That's the only way. There is one Spirit of God, and he is very much real. And that's how we know. You're not supposed to just believe other people, first you're supposed to believe the Spirit and the word himself. Because without the Spirit existing we would all be lost, as many describe. He's the real source of that one truth, not any of us.

You can't turn to any of us as your infallible source unless you want those interpretation problems.

>>531310

You have addressed absolute 0 of my posts. How do you know if you have the Holy Spirit? How do you know you're qualified to know if the other person has the Holy Spirit? What if their revelation runs counter to Christ? What if it claims it has superiority over Christ's revelation? What if, what if, what if.

Either the state of Protestant apologism is garbage-tier, or you're just trolling.

>>522709

>Denominations

There's only one church. Catholics and LUCITHER just foolishly thought they could add crap to it.

>>531363

Is LUCITHER supposed to be Martinus "sola fide, quia ego sic dico" Lutther, OSA

>>531364

That was the joke, yes. Thanks for killing my meme, it was supposed to be pronounced "loosther" I grew up with all manner of protestant heresy and am currently a catechumen at a greek orthodox parish. There's a whole generation of protestant men who aren't baptist who are fed up with it.

>>531317

>How do you know if you have the Holy Spirit?

You'll know because you believe the word of God. The answer for how do you know is: because, it is written.

Hebrew 6:17-19

Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;

>What if their revelation runs counter to Christ? What if it claims it has superiority over Christ's revelation?

Is this a serious question? That means they're wrong obviously.

The point is, as a believer, you can be guided to all truth through the word with the Spirit to teach and bring all things to your remembrance. You don't need to worry about what other people claims for that.

>>531368

>even though in the Bible it tells you the exact opposite in Acts 8:26-40

Uh, no it doesn't. And if it did say the opposite of that, it would be contradicting John 16:13.

>Then I looked around; I looked at the MEN preaching different ideas in the same kind of churches claiming they come from the same Holy Spirit.

You're trying to rely on those men and not the Holy Spirit. We're all fallible and have to recognize that getting the whole truth is a process of learning and growth. You can't expect any man to fill in for God, not even the pope. So why are you looking for men and not asking God?

>The only way it can be true is if the men are lying, wrong, or that the Holy Spirit deceives men.

It just means we're all fallible, and some of those men are simply lying. How can one know or discern this? Because you are supposed to try the spirits, 1 John 4:1.

>>531368

>>531371

Look dude, I'm not here to fling crap at anyone else. Baptists are the only non orthodox denom that even has my respect at this point. As much as I love them, they still have a problem with greed via gaudy megachurches, and softening up to social issues (ie single mothers) via cuckservatism/cuckstianity. What did it to me was independent studying of Christian history and early heresies like montanism, as it was revealed to me via this board. The majesty of my first liturgy brought me to tears.

>>531376

I'm 100% convinced that Luther would have just converted to Orthodoxy if he only had the chance to travel east or southward.

>>531379

I think if he were a little less autistic and the catholic church a little less corrupt, there would have just been a lutheran order added to the catholic church and shit would've been more contained

>>531379

Have you ever read Luther? The man was far too interested in ranting and raving about the Church and society, he quite clearly put the rhetoric above the reason. Many people emulate him in this era.

Furthermore, Now that I think about it, was there anyone Luther did NOT beg to have killed? He quite clearly wanted "Lutheranism" to be the alternative to Catholicism, nothing else. When I discovered that Luther promulgated his "enslaved will" philosophy and attacked the Thomist/Scholastic tradition because…he didn't like Aristotle…I realized the guy has always been Satan's arse.

>>531373

>You don't need to worry about what other people claims for that.

You keep changing the goal-posts constantly, HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW IF THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS GIVEN SOMEONE A TRUE REVELATION IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE METHOD TO DETERMINE IF IT IS FACTUAL?

This is the entire issue with Luther, the SECOND he made it about Sola Scriptura, any jack and bill can claim they are receiving visions and IT DOES NOT MATTER if they are legit, what matters is HOW MANY PEOPLE they can get to believe.

Luther caused Christians to break away from the umbrella of the RCC, instead making many Christians going for whomever had the best "vision" or the best argument, which is EXPLICITLY Talmudic in nature.

>>531388

you're scaring me bro, don't do that

>>531392

Not my fault protestants keep messing with alacrity demon.

>>522776

You are making up exceptions to retarded interpretations by heretics.

It doesn't matter if you want to call it a title or not. The condemnation of the rabbis is because of their pride and how they love their positions.

This is clear, but I guess ther moment you give the Bible to simple people, they will take it, spit on you and start twisting it.

>>531387

>HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW IF THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS GIVEN SOMEONE A TRUE REVELATION IF WE DO NOT HAVE THE METHOD TO DETERMINE IF IT IS FACTUAL?

I already answered this. I told you this question is irrelevant if you have the Holy Spirit yourself. I assume you ask this because you want to know who is right or wrong, but that question is rendered moot if God Himself teaches you what's right or wrong through the Spirit.

>any jack and bill can claim

It doesn't matter because I put my full faith in what God says, not what jack or bill says.

>what matters is HOW MANY PEOPLE they can get to believe.

Maybe to this world.

>Luther caused Christians to break away from the umbrella of the RCC,

It was never an umbrella, that's just their version of history. They have been giving the death penalty to "anabaptists" since the 400s AD. And then there's all the huge branch-offs before Luther they've constantly been dealing with. I could go on and on. You're operating under a meme version of history if you think Luther was somehow different from other schismatics or the first schismatic Catholic.

>Why are there so many contradicting interpretations then?

Because from these conversations it's pretty clear a lot of people don't believe in the Holy Spirit or consciously ask him to guide them. I'm no better than a spiritually blind person without God to open my eyes, neither is anyone else. I am also fallible and never stop learning. I'm just telling you my trust is in no man but it's entirely in the infallibility of God and what he said will come to pass.

>there's also things they disagree on hence so many churches.

Well first off technically a church is a local congregation, not the same as a denomination, which is kind of a political association composed of local churches. Secondly, I am fully confident the doctrinal differences could be resolved through the Spirit if given the chance.

>That means were fallible to believing other spirits. I agree. No church is safe from man's fallibility; at the same time no man's infallibility is safe from an organized church who refuses to accept the traditions of man.

The only thing saving us is the existence of the Spirit who leads us all to the same truth if we let Him. Just read the Word and believe it because it's from Him, that's how God intended things.

<1 Corinthians 1:18-21

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

<2 Corinthians 1:21-22

Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

<Ephesians 1:13-14

In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

<1 John 2:27

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

<Luke 11:9-13

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

<Acts 11:15-17

And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

>2 Corinthians 13:14

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

>>531407

>I told you this question is irrelevant if you have the Holy Spirit yourself.

…so is the Bible the Holy Spirit, or do you mean I must receive counter-visions or have the Holy Spirit on personal speed-dial in order to fact-check an Adamite or a Pentecostals claim to legitimacy to start my own denomination?

>It doesn't matter because I put my full faith in what God says

OH OK, so pure Sola Scriptura. You use the original greek then right?

>that's just their version of history.

So what is the true version of history?

>>531411

>so is the Bible the Holy Spirit,

The Bible is a book in which is written the Word, i.e. the word of God.

>or do you mean I must receive counter-visions or have the Holy Spirit on personal speed-dial in order to fact-check an Adamite or a Pentecostals claim

Not sure what personal speed-dial means. It's nothing like a sign or wonder. My way to describe what I've been given is sure knowledge. It's not something I can describe better than that.

>to start my own denomination?

Why?

>You use the original greek then right?

I refer to it sometimes. I'm eventually getting a nice interlinear for that. I recognize the fact that I'm not a speaker of Greek though.

>>531422

>Why didn't the Holy Spirit speak to the Eunuch.

He had not yet believed. That's why God commissioned us to spread the Word in the first place. It's only when someone has believed that their eyes may be opened.

Romans 10:17

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>Don't like what you hear? Start your own cburch.

Yeah, I know. I've heard it. The only missing element in that picture is the Holy Spirit, who protects against this if we let Him. He is the basis of our agreement, He has taught the same truth to each believer when we were obedient and listened. No Scripture is of any private interpretation.

>>531422

>Why didn't the Holy Spirit speak to the Eunuch

He did, He did through the scriptures that His servant made clear.

>>531511

>Correct?

Not even remotely.

>Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only thing necessary

It says the bible is sufficient in 2 Timothy 3:17. But what it never does is say any other source of doctrine and practice is necessary.

I can't be sure I'm 100% correct, but I know that the Christian God is a just God. Whatever God's judgment for me is I can know it's a just one. The best I can do is look for truth to the best of my ability and pray for guidance.

>>531544

>>531562

not sure who is more heretical

>>531594

God is unjust? Wow, I didn't know that's what the Roman Church taught.

>>531603

what

>>531603

Ah I see, I misread your post. I originally thought it said,

>but I know that the Christian God is just a god

my bad

>>531544

Except for the fact were supposed to carry Oral Traditions.

The thing with Protestants is they are detached from the history of the church. News flash the printing press wasn't around when the Apostles were spreading their word. Oral traditions are just as valuable as written traditions.

Also in the Bible it says "profitable" not sufficient. big difference.

>not even remotely

Alright well I guess all are equally correct and the Holy Spirit it just telling them different things.

>>531603

Why was he warned? The person he replied to clearly misunderstood his initial statement and gave a faulty reply.

He literally was just verifying what the other Christanon said so why wasn't he warned as well?

I don't even like Calvinist but come on man.

>>531612

No worries. We all make mistakes sometimes.

(posting from a VPN because I was just banned for the post)

>>531618

Yeah the Catholic bias is strong here and annoying. Sorry for your ban; atleast I know what you meant and know you weren't claiming that about the Catholic Church.

>>531616

(you)

>>531511

>Again, if all disagree then the Holy Spirit is not among you. Correct?

Not enough information.

>Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible is the only thing necessary.

2 Timothy 3:16-17.

>Not your own interpretation.

I guess you still don't believe the Spirit of truth could possibly exist. Very troubling.

>>522709

>UUs

>Christian denomination

if martin luther was right, and went to heaven for his deeds how come there's no lutheran visions? or is he in hell?

>>522723

no! this is why we have "sola fide" and so if you say so you got visions in your sleep and wage war and win, this means your denomination* is legit**

*this is what protestants actually believe

**this is the same reasoning islamists use to justify their religion, "we wun lotza of wars allahu akbar"

>>522716

Now this sounds like my personal flavour of christianity. What denomination can I join like this to suit me? Should I just create my own and then claim to be like the early christians based on my poor understanding of poorly translated English copies of the bible without any knowledge of the early church fathers? Yep that sounds right to me. Sola ego.

If mathematics is true then why are there so many different answers to the same math problems? This has always been an issue for me. How are you so sure your specific answer is right when there's thousands of others out there and they all think the same thing just as fervently as you do.

Just because there are different answers to the same math problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't have a single correct answer. Just because people are errant in their summations to math problems doesn't mean mathematics itself is a fabrication or social construct.

TL;DR - There are many different denominations for the same reason there are many different answers to the same math problem…

>human fallibility and error

>>522735

Baptists: when meme is indistinguishable from reality

Not even once

>>535139

ya like 2 +2 and 1 +1 +1 + 1 = 4

the former is Roman Catholicism, the latter is orthodox

>>535139

but to be serious for a moment, the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, means that definitive statements are possible in this reality. so, you cannot say "wow so many ways to go to the same truth" and say that the 3000,0000 protestant denominations of past, present, and future are all correct, because every single one of them need to arrive at that same precise truth.

what deviates from this truth, is a heresy/apostasy/lie.

>>522724

How about you read the Bible instead to see waht Jesus actually taugh. Pual warned about heretics even in his day.

>>522714

>tfw orthobro defends catholic bro when he could have just thrown them under bus

orthoBRO confirmed

>>531959

You keep cutting off verse 17. Is it a mental block?

>personal interpretations

Already answered. The Holy Spirit exists, and no scripture is of any private interpretation.

>If the Bible was formed in around the 4th century

The Word of God has always existed.

>if Adidas is true why are there so many fake branches out there?

>>523456

The Pope fabricated a document giving him the authority to declare Charlemagne emperor because he hated Irene so much

>>523201

>To be fair 1 John 5:7 isn't a good example because it's not scripture, it was added later most likely by a monk in the 10 or 11th century

>To be fair 1 John 5:7 isn't a good example because it's not scripture, it was added later most likely by a monk in the 10 or 11th century

>To be fair 1 John 5:7 isn't a good example because it's not scripture, it was added later most likely by a monk in the 10 or 11th century

LOL. So this monk secretly edited the text of all of the hundreds of thousands of Bibles in the world