/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>837392

> If you're protestant, check out a mormon church

Uh, no. What are you? A child? How about educating yourself on Mormonism? They believe God is a space alien and was once a mortal himself. Now he rules earth as a god. And Mormons get to graduate and "rule" their own planets as gods, just like this one does.

>>837393

It's the mormon who comes here to pretend he's a Christian.

>>837395

Ah, well, I guess that's somehow even less pathetic. But still pathetic.

>>837392

https://cesletter.org/CES-Letter.pdf

>>837392

>Every month or so attend a church other than your own. If you're protestant, check out a mormon church, if you're catholic, check out a protestant church.

This is fine to do out of curiosity, however you want to be firm in your faith if we are to move forwards. Discuss with other believers, but don't simply accepts all beliefs because they will contradict each other.

>>837393

"you shall know them by their fruits"

The mormons are breeding white people. the mormon church has a strong emphasis on family. They believe some weird s—, but the belief that determines whether they are Christian or not is whether they believe Jesus Christ is Lord.

I thought like you at one time, and I know about a lot of the insanity of the mormon church. Joseph smith was a conman/freemason, he claimed he translated the Doctrine and covenants from an egyptian papyrus because no one knew how to translate ancient egyptian at the time. A few year later the rosetta stone was found so now we know that papyrus was an egyptian book of the dead. etc.

The church is in such a sorry state right now so none of the churches are in a position to point fingers at the mormons.

>>837639

>the belief that determines whether they are Christian or not is whether they believe Jesus Christ is Lord.

No it doesn't. Jesus Christ is not the brother of Lucifer. I bet you consider the Process Church to be Christian also?

>>837639

Where does the bible say that “breeding white people” is a goal of the Church?

>>837641

>Jesus Christ is not the brother of Lucifer.

The bible says they are technically half brothers, you just never realized it-

>Gen 6:1-2 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

The bible calls the fallen angels the sons of God. The difference is Jesus was God's only BEGOTTEN son.

>>837643

>Mormon doctrine is incompatible with the Bible.

The problem is that we all believe crazy s—. Half of us worship a pope as God and the other half worship a book as God. Salvation is not a result of having the right set of abstract opinions, it's a state of the heart.

Christians have been trained by their leaders to divide. An argument over the weather is enough for a church to split in two. You're going to have to lay aside the traditional division with the church if you don't want to be swept away into the insanity of these final days

>>837643

>Where does the bible say that “breeding white people” is a goal of the Church?

do you even know what sage does? There's no point saging anything on this board because there isn't enough activity to make a difference. All you're doing by saging it is keeping it 4th from right in the top row rather than third from right.

>>837499

>however you want to be firm in your faith if we are to move forwards.

You're substituting church attendance for faith. It's a shame that you really believe what you're saying because you're only hurting yourself.

>>837442

That's just dogma. In order to be saved, you have to have the concept of the trinity which is stated on their paperwork. In reality, very few people can wrap their head around the concept that God is three while also being one. That's an enigmatic belief. If you really cared about that aspect of Christ then you would spend years thinking about it, comparing scriptures, etc. to get it clear in your head. And even then your opinion would be subject to change over time.

In reality, they are just demanding that you claim to hold that belief- right from the beginning, before you've had a chance to even put a little thought into it. It's a dogmatic practice that has no other purpose but to divide.

You can believe that, there's nothing wrong with it at all but demanding obedience to it is just splitting hairs.,

>>837698

I actually agree with you, it is dogmatic but it is still revealed as truth after inspection

Switch 2 with 1 in order and we're all set.

Christianity is a school and method of interpreting scripture and Jesus is our founder by fact that he is Christ as foretold by scripture. It was only after the Apostles died that their pagan pupil converts created a whole religion out of it and then everything devolved into the continuous pagan division and fragmentation of europe, and by extention the whole planet by using Christ's name for their human pagan interests for the past 1985 years of Christendom.

Real Christianity died with the Apostles, and its high time we do away with ALL the pagan influences that creeped into our faith, and a scholarly and faithful reflection on how these facts affect our present and our future as a community of believers

>>837849

There are no pagan influences in Christianity at least not any major influences, stop spreading the "muh paganism" myth.

>>837392 I don't consider most Protestants but you want me to accept Mormons

>>838167

Just because some dude in caption claimed XYZ doesn't make true.

>>838169

And who are you?

>>838164

If you read the very first christian writers they're packed full of pagan influences. If it wasn't for the Pagan tertullian there would never be such a thing as the concept of "Trinity". In fact all denominations fall apart if they don't use greek paganistic philosophy to prop their theologies. Don't get me started on things like bells (celtic paganism) rings (persian paganism) icons, christmas, christmas trees, birthdays, and many others which christians took from their pagan ancestors and incorporated them into the faith

>>838164

Your history revisionism is like that of a communist.

>>838223

Lukewarm christians will never inherit God's kingdom

>>837849

>Real Christianity died with the Apostles

>and a scholarly and faithful reflection on how these facts affect our present and our future as a community of believers

I guess you're the man for the job? You seem to have the hubris necessary for it, if scholars over the last couple of millennia have completely missed what you understand so clearly? What areas of research have you been working on, and could you please some us some links or citation? Thanks, m8.

>>838288

And neither will Anti-Trinitarian heretics who mistakenly believe themselves to be Christian

Do people still believe in the legend of the Great Apostasy?

>>838295

What scholars? People from various denominations wanting to twist and spin the historic past of Christianity in order to fit their pre-concieved conclusions. What scholars are you talking about ? If christianity was based on scholarship and not on deifying Christ and rebranding their pagan temples putting his statues in place of pagan statues we would have lived in an entirely different world. But the world the apostles preached was a world filled with pagans, and their elements seeped into the religion as water did in wine the moment the apostles were no longer around to stop the pagan interpretations of their pupils.

>>838296

Trinitarianism is a result of wholly paganistic exegesis. If you didn't realize that yet you're either deluded or in denial. Because that does not stem from Apostolic tradition

>>838320

Oh, so I see you have nothing and are just merely voicing an opinion.

>>838325

After lurking this place enough i realized its full of illiterate lukewarmers and larpers which frankly i dont see any reason to individually educate on matters of the faith they larp as. Read a book

>>838352

you are not even Christian

get out of here

>>838356

>you are not even Christian

>Said the papist

lol

>>838352

>Read a book

ok boomer

>>837392

The Catholic Church is the one true church, no you should not attend protestant "churches"

>>838456

The Roman church is not even a true church at all. It is a sin for any true Christian to participate in their pagan ceremonies

>>838466

please tell me why you use scriptures from The Catholic Church then

>>838474

I use scriptures from God I'm sorry you've been deceived into thinking the men who own your soul are God

>>838485

you didnt answer the question friend

>>838487

ok who decides what is scripture and how is their decision ordained by God (granted infallibility)

>>838488

I wasn't the one you asked but if you'll use your noggin you'll see that I'm claiming the authority of the scriptures don't rest on the authority of the RCC, much less the RCC today

You've moved past your backup argument about cyprian I see

>>838488

>who decides

God decided when he did or didn't inspire them

The right question is "how do we know which is which"

>>838490

>>838489

im all ears, how do we know

>>838493

We evaluate the evidence

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm

The Protestant just removes the step of implicitly trusting an institution who evaluates that same evidence. This is still a matter which was entirely settled centuries ago and there's no real debate.

>>838496

>we evaluate the evidence

right so how is this decision infalliable exactly

>>838488

>ok who decides what is scripture

God

>how is their decision ordained by God (granted infallibility)

This doesn't happen. Imagine if a man were to come to your town with some random books he picked out arbitrarily and he said "this is the infallible word of God, you should believe that because I said so, nothing I say can be wrong". Now imagine being enough of a fool to actually believe this person. You are that fool

>>838493

The first thing to recognize is that this is not the first generation of Christianity. We don't have to go on the hunt to reinvent the wheel and figure out which books are divine. Furthermore this question must be answered on the basis of scripture. We are not pagan philosophers who pretend to climb the mountains and divine of our own wisdom the true nature of God, we are Christians and we receive revelation from above. Therefore, our justification of the canon must rest on the foundation of the presupposition of scripture; we are already know it is true, the question is merely how we know it is true. Hence the authority of scripture is not in question here whatsoever since it is self-authenticating.

We must first acknowledge that the New Testament was not the first revelation, not even the first new covenant revelation. God has spoken to fallen man continually ever since He first called out to him saying "Where are you?" From that moment God has given to fallen man the scraps of light upon which he is totally reliant, in both written and spoken forms. And after Christ left this world, He continued to reveal Himself. Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, and their words were the word of God long before they were recorded in scripture. The Christians of that day were therefore well familiar with God's voice once they received it in a written form. They had no difficulty in recognizing it, since as Christ had said, the sheep hear the voice of the good shepherd. Since that time the saints have all accepted the same canon of scripture with very little controversy, except for very few books.

Now as far as personal knowledge goes, every regenerate soul possesses instinctive knowledge that he is reading and hearing the word of God, just as much as Moses did when he heard the words "I am that I am". The order for an individual is first, I believe, and then the word tells me why I believe.

>>838497

It isn't and doesn't need to be

That knife cost me $75 American stickers. Give it back you turd.

>>838499

The papist epistemology is precisely as absurd as my description of believing some random man to be infallible simply because he said so, that is not even an analogy, it is merely a simplification of their actual belief system. That is why when the sophists are trying to slave some fundamental Christian doctrine to their masters, they rely on the presupposition that this doctrine is both true and desirable. In this case their formula is "so you want to believe the bible is true, then you must submit to our masters". Even though it is designed to undermine the bible it relies on the bible being true, if the answer to "so you want to believe" is "no" they are quite disarmed. They would not dare actually defending their own epistemology, they never give a reason why you should believe as they do, only why you should not believe what you do now. They could never convince you to accept their absurd beliefs without tricking you into thinking you have to.

>>838503

>it doesnt need to be

if you follow something you yourself know is not without error you may wish to rethink your decisions, this is the Word Of God we are speaking about not some wordily philosophy or creed

>>838499

>the saints

who decides who is a saint

>every regenerate soul possesses instinctive knowledge that he is reading and hearing the word of God,

so what your saying is because of this book you believe you have instinctive knowledge from believing in Christ and possessing The Holy Ghost and because of this instinctive knowledge you know the book is infalliable? right, this is exactly what you mentioned before;

>"Imagine if a man were to come to your town with some random books he picked out arbitrarily and he said "this is the infallible word of God, you should believe that because I said so, nothing I say can be wrong". Now imagine being enough of a fool to actually believe this person. You are that fool"

>>838514

It's without error. It's not infallible.

>>838517

but how do you know this and how can you prove it

>>838514

>so what your saying is because of this book you believe you have instinctive knowledge from believing in Christ and possessing The Holy Ghost and because of this instinctive knowledge you know the book is infalliable? right, this is exactly what you mentioned before;

The Hebrew Scriptures were clearly the words of God because Jesus himself was promised through them - and then when he came, he was quoting them. The New Testament is clearly the words of God because they attest of him and his closest followers.

You didn't need any bigger established church to confirm this. It was self-evident even in the 100s AD, in the days of Polycarp, who was a follower of the Apostle John himself and some say was instrumental in distributing the books of the New Testament. Then Polycarp's own disciples like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus attested to the scriptures further, without a need for overarching governing bodies to put their "stamp" on it. And most of these men willingly died to defend the things they said. Like the Apostles, they didn't budge an inch.

All the later church bodies did is simply acknowledge the legacy passed on to them.

>>838526

In short, denying the scriptures means denying the promise of Jesus first and foremost, or even the idea of a Messiah.. and then denying his very existence or words or acts.

People who try to even talk about Jesus without referencing the scriptures make zero sense. Your very soul and what you even know about Christ hinges on it. Your choice is to either accept it or go to destruction. That's it. There is no "middle ground" or "third way". It's all or nothing. Choose wisely.

>>838522

Can you explain where the disconnect is?

>>838529

>The Bible is The Word Of God because it is self-testifying

Right, so why did, after 1500 years protestants remove books from The Bible if it is self-testifying and infalliable, was The Bible not infalliable until luther turned up?

Likewise how does one determine how this Book that is self-testiftying is supposed to be interpreted? a book that nobody knows how to read isnt very useful

It is as simple as this - there MUST be a determinate authority from God to decide what is and isn't scripture, a bunch of men as you are so keen to point out cannot determine what is and isn't inspired, without this EVERYTHING in The Bible in terms of what should and should not be considered inspired is mere conjecture and pontificating from the individual and their own individual biases, Christ did not come down, hand St. Peter a KJV and go back up to Heaven, he established Shepard's and a Church, you cannot have a book that canonizes and interprets itself

>>838529

Sola Scriptura is based on three false assumptions:

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 1:The Bible was intended to be the last word on faith, piety, and worship.

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 2:The Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, whereas Tradition is simply a "human corruption" that came much later.

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3:Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or herself without the aid of the Church.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

>>838514

>who decides who is a saint

God

>what your saying is because of this book you believe you have instinctive knowledge from believing in Christ and possessing The Holy Ghost and because of this instinctive knowledge you know the book is infalliable?

No.

>>838539

>after 1500 years protestants remove books from The Bible

Ahistorical papist fiction

>Likewise how does one determine how this Book that is self-testiftying is supposed to be interpreted?

It is to be interpreted with regards to its historical, immediate and greater context and in light of the rule of faith.

>>838541

>there MUST be a determinate authority from God to decide what is and isn't scripture

Again, scripture is decided by God, not man. Man's role is to passively receive it. Scripture is the word of God, therefore if a man presumes to decide the content of scripture he presumes to tell God what He may say.

>a bunch of men as you are so keen to point out cannot determine what is and isn't inspired

A bunch of men, sir, is precisely what your church is and what you pretend decided what is and is not the bible

>without this EVERYTHING in The Bible in terms of what should and should not be considered inspired is mere conjecture and pontificating from the individual and their own individual biases, Christ did not come down, hand St. Peter a KJV and go back up to Heaven

This is a strawman argument, see >>838499 for the actual position you are opposing

>>838542

>FALSE ASSUMPTION # 1:The Bible was intended to be the last word on faith, piety, and worship.

The bible actually was the last and is the only surviving piece of divine revelation given to man kind. If it is not the last word, then do you pretend to tell God what is?

>FALSE ASSUMPTION # 2:The Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, whereas Tradition is simply a "human corruption" that came much later.

That is a fact. Tradition has existed since the earliest days of the church, but not all of it was apostolic, and all that was apostolic could also be found in the scriptures, and after the apostles traditions that popped up were simply corruptions.

>FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3:Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or herself without the aid of the Church.

The Holy Spirit is the one who was given to guide us into all truth, not the false prophets you follow.

>>838553

>Ahistorical papist fiction

yea right, the pope must of conspired with the eastern orthodox to add books into their canon 500 years after they went into schism

>It is to be interpreted with regards to its historical, immediate and greater context and in light of the rule of faith.

Right so what about the 1500 years of every single Christian on the planet believing Christ actually established a Church, and the very very early Church having the Eucharist and Ordained Priests

>Again, scripture is decided by God, not man. Man's role is to passively receive it. Scripture is the word of God, therefore if a man presumes to decide the content of scripture he presumes to tell God what He may say.

Yes, that's what protestants do, that is what everyone who does not have authority does

>God determines saints

Yes thats right, how do we know who

>>838456

>The Catholic Church is the one true church

And Israel was once God's chosen nation. The sin of the catholic church has been far greater than the sins the Israeli's committed. While the catholic church may have been the one true church at one time (MAY have) their evils were so great that God caused the protestant reformation.

Now look at the catholic church- half the clergy are pedophiles or gays. Your pope is one of the most evil men on the planet. The Jesuits have been kicked out of almost as many nations as the jews.

That isn't to say that there are no catholic Christians because there are. But the Catholic church definitely doesn't hold the keys to salvation. God doesn't just let people commit in sin without withdrawing whatever blessing they had while pure.

>>838558

>Right so what about the 1500 years of every single Christian on the planet believing Christ actually established a Church, and the very very early Church having the Eucharist and Ordained Priests

More ahistorical papist fiction

>Yes thats right, how do we know who

If a man is a Christian, he is a saint.

>>838542

>FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3:Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or herself without the aid of the Church.

and why do we need to ask satan worshipping pedophiles to explain the bible to us?

>>838562

>While the catholic church may have been the one true church at one time

If this Church that claims ABSOLUTE singularity in its divine founding was at one time the True Church then it is always The True Church, no matter the wicked men who run amock, the people of Israel were still the people of Israel despite having evil rulers, do you really think the reformation is the work of God with all of the division this has caused? Arguably being the reason for the entire collapse of the Christendom as a whole, this is not the work of God.

The Early Church had the Eucharist

>>838577

>If a man is a Christian, he is a saint.

WRONG

>Matthew 7:21

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

>More ahistorical papist fiction

right prove it

>>838581

>WRONG

Nope, it's right. See Ephesians 1:1

>right prove it

Oh you don't know how this works, if you want to push your ahistorical fiction you have to be the one to give evidence

>>838586

see

>>838480

i would suggest reading the church fathers, the didache ect.

>>838589

I accept your concession.

>>838597

i just gave you a quote from an early church father?

whatever the case i will pray for you friend

>>838599

>>838589

I gave you a quote disproving your doctrine from the exact same author in the exact same source

>>838581

>If this Church that claims ABSOLUTE singularity in its divine founding was at one time the True Church then it is always The True Church,

Nonsense. We can see from the example Israel gave us that God's chosen people can lose their status by sinning. The children of Israel engaged in sin so God smashed Israel into separate states. The catholic church was engaged in sin so God brought the protestant reformation.

The catholic church is evil. That's why so many of your priests rape children. You current pope is the false prophet named in the book of revelations.

> do you really think the reformation is the work of God with all of the division this has caused?

Of course I do. But at this stage the protestants have followed the same path as the catholics and lost their grace as well.

>>838539

>Right, so why did, after 1500 years protestants remove books from The Bible if it is self-testifying and infalliable, was The Bible not infalliable until luther turned up?

The Apocrypha do not exist in the original Hebrew language, they are not preserved. The only place you find them is in the Septuagint of Origen written in Greek. This is why some people (albeit mistakenly) call them "Deuterocanon" instead of apocryphal. They at least agree they are a different category because they aren't preserved in the originals. Furthermore, there were no prophets in the inter-testament period, and this is referenced in Matthew 11:13 where it says "All the prophets and the law testified until John."

>Likewise how does one determine how this Book that is self-testiftying is supposed to be interpreted?

The Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth. See John 16:13-14, 1 Cor 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:18, 1 John 2:27. This source of interpretation and understanding makes sense too because the word of God was inspired by Him; all scripture is given by inspiration of God; and, holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It makes sense then that He would be guiding them into the truth of the same Scriptures.

>there MUST be a determinate authority from God to decide what is and isn't scripture

Sure, the true church has safeguarded the Bible to this day, as it is mentioned in 1 Timothy that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. We're talking about the true church though, not the people who corrupted and wrote the Vulgate though. There have always been Christians using the received text.