Which is the true continuation of the Christ's word through the apostles, their disciples and the early church fathers and early church?
Orthodoxy or Catholicism? Prots, gnostics and other cults need not apply.
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
The One True Church
Which religion bases all its teachings on God’s Word, honors God’s name, and proclaims God’s Kingdom as mankind’s only hope? Which group practices love and shuns war? What do you think?
I've been leaning towards Orthodoxy as the answer but like anyone should, I want to potentially see more perspectives, arguments, sources, etc.
The Papal forgeries that have come out lately are a big argument against Catholicism but I've found Orthodoxy also had some forgeries as well, though not a fraction as impactful or significant.
When you compare two religions who both claim to be Christian you must use Scriptural evidence to identify the true Christians. These evidences are not complicated.
Scriptures say true worshipers could be identified in at least three main ways: Love, Truth (Jn.4:23; 17:17), and Fruitage (Mt.7:16ff). Conversely, by these we can also identify the false.
I agree, as long as said scriptural evidence is interpreted using the same agreed intepretations of the early church. Or else even those with the best of intentions will fall to confusion and delusion in their own personal interpretation and zero connection to the early church fathers or selective cherrypicking which has created the current situation of 40k+ Prot denoms.
It's this whole idea of unchanged truth, unchanged interpretation which got me at least this far to be stuck between these two Churches rather than many more
The True religion would be primarily known for it's love toward all (Jn.13:34,35; 1Jn.3:10-12; 4:7, 8).
This would include their enemies (Mat.5:44-48; Rom.12:17-20; 1Pet.2:21-23; 3:8- 9). It would not participate in or condone carnal war (2Cor.10:3,4; Isa.2:4).
Apply this basic evidence to what happened in both world wars and current conflicts.
People of the same religions met on battlefields and slaughtered one another because of nationalistic differences. Each side claimed to be Christian, and each side was supported by its clergy, who claimed that God was on their side.
The definition of a "Christian" is "one who does what Christ would do" (1 Pet.2:21). That slaughter of "Christian" by "Christian" is rotten fruitage. It is a denial of any claim to being the true Church (cf. Mat.26:52). No Christian would continue to associate with these religions (Rev.18:4). What is the historical record of Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants regarding warfare?
Jehovah’s Witnesses have never participated in warfare!
Lmao
No sacraments, no apostolic succession, agreed to still leave books out of the bible they personally didn't care for. That's a big no from me chief, sorry.
In his illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jesus foretold a great rebellion (apostasy) against true Christianity. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43) For a long period of time, true Christians and false Christians would be indistinguishable. Just as Jesus foretold, the apostasy flourished after the apostles died. (Acts 20:29, 30)
Jesus also predicted that the distinction between true and false Christianity would eventually become clear. This has happened in our time, during the “conclusion of a system of things.”—Matthew 13:30, 39.
Anon, it's all fraud. The problems really start with Paul, but if you want the most authentic form stick with one of the Orthodox Churches since they are allergic to significant doctrinal developments. They had a civil war in the Byzantine Empire over the "divine energies," so you can rest assured that they have stayed the most stable.
Which Orthodoxy?
Old Believer Orthodox (many Old Believers are not in communion with mainstream Russian Palamites in addition to groups such as the Bespopovtsy)?
Oriental Orthodox?
Assyrian Orthodox Church of the East?
Eastern Orthodox on the side of Russia in the current schism?
Or Eastern Orthodox on the side of the Constantinople, Alexandria, Ukraine, Greece & Cyprus in the current schism?
Or Old Calenderist Eastern Orthodox (such as the Matthewites & Cyprianites)?
Or Western Orthodox Churches (such as the Celtic Orthodox Church & British Orthodox Church)?
Or “True” Orthodox?
Probably neo-orthodox
>The Papal forgeries that have come out lately are a big argument against Catholicism but I've found Orthodoxy also had some forgeries as well, though not a fraction as impactful or significant.
I got bad news for you. John of Damascus’ arguments for icons cited multiple forgeries include pseudo-Dionysius. These argument formed the foundation for the iconophile case in Nicea II and are still held up as the master class example of arguments for iconophilia.
If you accept forgeries as a case for disqualification then your best option is Church of The East or Oriental Orthodox.
On the council of ConstantinopleIII the letter of Saint Pope Agatho saying that Rome never erred nor will err and will keep the Church undefiled to the end thanks to the promise of Jesus to Peter, was accepted by all, thus there is no room for being sepparated from Rome or thinking Rome can fall to heresy and schism.
So how did the same council condemn a past Pope for error? Two options:
-It was about private corresponce of a pope, not papal teaching. Thus Rome didnt teach error.
-The letter was wrongly interpreted as explained here:
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-truth-about-pope-honorius
>catholic.com
>Affiliated with Catholic Answers
>Same channel that infamously made the AI Priest and caused that contracersy
Vat II golems don't even try
>baptizing your child in gatorade is...LE BAD
???
Based and Anabaptist-pilled
Sorry! I m much patriarchal for this
Wft? I said "that"
Anon.. women can be based too
Indeed, they can! But they have their place and role and patriarchy is natural!
Praying for Christ to lead you to the truth is good, no Father of either Church has said otherwise to me on that.
As far as the site possessing aggrevation shills attempting to conflate modern, khazarian-originating "jews" to the israelites of Christ's day I'd say just look at what these so-called israelites even practice or study. The Talmud is babylonian, the kabbalah is an amalgamation of pagan teachings from all the other peoples from that region like the canaanites. solomon started practicing kaballah when one of his foreign wifes introduced it to him and a lot of insidious secret societies today see him as a sort of founder.
They are the synagogue of satan, specifically mentioned in the book of Revelations. I expect only adhoms and aggrevation tactics in return though since that's the pattern I see across multiple boards for years
forgot pic
As I said, I'm too patriarchy for this.
Mainly the right-wing feminism trad It's really not a good way to combat feminism using feminist tactics....Catholics are always the softest towards women
I still have no clue what you're trying to say. Their role is subordinate to men in every way just as the mind leads the heart
traditional old-world catholic: "dundee look at how incredible these women are and how extremely grounded and impressive they are, these are the most important women in Christian history and the most influential!"
feminist: "sexist look how empowered these women here are and how important they were in history! They did this and it shows how much women are capable"
the difference at the end of the day does not exist or is low. Catholics fight and respond to feminists using the same tactic of showing influential, important, capable women, heroes, etc., etc. an attempt to combat feminism on its terms, in fact.
related video is something Catholics use to refute feminists.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6cDFKTxBL6/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
Are you the same guy as yesterday? Anyway, I'm going to say the same thing I said earlier.
Many of the women have certain indirect tendencies of "inclusion" and "greatness" that are exaggerated exactly for this reason, why these women are often remembered based on Catholic history. some may say that this is not necessarily bad, but in the long run it can have the same effect that feminists do on young women by showing their gurus and examples of empowered female figures can inflate their egos or bring about any kind of exaggerated (mis)perception or even a little "feminist" depending on the woman. I don't know if I managed to express myself.
My Muslim wife, in our conversations about the differences between the sexes and their peculiarities, basically commented that the female mind is shaped by the words of others, if you say that women are strong and empowered or that they can do thing X and thing Y they will really believe this, and this can be dangerous for several reasons.
Well, may Jesus bless you.
>differences between the sexes and their peculiarities
Yes, like this one;
>object location memory, perceptual speed, verbal memory, numerical calculation and manual dexterity. To these must be added higher averages obtained by women in spelling (Lynn, 1992) and foreign language ability (Lynn & Wilson, 1993), and higher averages obtained by men in mechanical aptitude (Feingold, 1988, Lynn, 1992). .
and of course, the greater probability and ease of women being mystics.
Does me saying this make me "weak feminist"?
and women can teach, boil traitor to their people and religion. It is literally a sin to marry a pagan, the friction of faith is immense. Sameflag
Are you ok man? I'm not the same guy lol.
What do you mean by making it easier to be mystics? I've never heard that before. Well, I don't have time to go through what their sources actually say, but I'm SURE at least one of Lynn and Wilson's studies uses children and teenagers in their sample. interpret this however you want. and why is my wife important in this conversation? lol there's no friction really. I love her she loves me, in fact sometimes I refute her faith. stop being an incel and a white knight
Kabbalah was crafted by Moses de Leon in the 13th century, Solomon had nothing to do with it.
The Bible believing one I began in my house.
why don't you just ask rabbi jesus?
Miaphysitism everyone else goes to hell
>The One True Church
>Orthodoxy or Catholicism?
You have misunderstood the nature of the Church.
Ironically the quote you posted fits here.
>One can be a great scholar, with academic qualifications, and yet remain completely ignorant about the path of salvation.
You falsely think the Church and the path to salvation MUST be limited to a single institution despite the scriptures never saying that.
38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
“Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.
Mark 9:38-40
I can see your iPhone hashed filenames mr Ecumenist modernist. Ecumenism is a very new heresy, more reason to reach back to the early church and get away from spiritual anarchy, confusion and babble
>NOOOOOOOOOO YOU CANT TOLERATE DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS THAT HECKIN ECUMENISM!!!!!
I never denied I’m an ecumanist (depending on how broadly you define it).
Also Mark 9:38-40. Touch grass and read the scriptures.
If you want to reach back to the early church stop seething over autistic differences and focus on living a Christian life.
>unfunny forced attempt of memeposting as an "argument"
I can't even tell if you were trying to be funny or if you think this doesn't further detract from anyone taking you seriously
I literally stated in the OP I'm stuck between two churches. I'm not a Christian yet. Are you by any chance, moronic?
>*fails to provide any argument*
>gets memed at because a serious response isn't warranted
>ummmm acktchually thats a unfunny forced attempt of memeposting as an "argument"
Seethe Harder next time come up with a serious response instead of this shit (
) at least I had the decency to cite a bible verse in my response to your reddit-tier assertions.
Something something about hypocrisy *insert bible verse here*. I can't be arsed with you.
Ecumenism being a couple hundred years old shouls tell anyone with half a brain what they need to know. Along with your absolute mountain of buzzwords to replace the hypocritical reality that you don't have any argument other than that looking for objective truth is apparently too "autistic" for this board
>Ecumenism being a couple hundred years old shoulds tell anyone
*pic related*
Additionally, BORING, False appeal to tradition.
Ecumenism has existed for centuries just not your moronic understanding of it. The very idea of reunion councils such as the one that ended the Photian schism was BY DEFINITION ecumanist because it saw 2 different traditions engage in dialogue and pursued closer relations and mend divides.
There was nothing in the early church that said that Christians can't tolerate, have dialogue with and positive relations with Christians that weren't a part of their tradition. In fact the early church specifically testifies to that given that the Filioque was tolerate by the East for centuries prior to 1054.
Church Fathers who opposed the Donatists said that those who were otherwise unable to receive sacraments could obtain them from Donatists if needed.
The Council of Trullo said that even Arian baptisms were valid meaning they possessed grace to some degree.
& of course Mark 9:38-40 which you still have failed to address.
So no, ecumanism isn't new. Your reddit tier view of it is. It is an autistic LARP that associates closedness with true faith, in some weird rip off of gnosticism.
You dishonestly sidelined the part of modern ecumenism where anyone of any christian denom or church can be saved. This board is godawful
>You dishonestly sidelined the part where anyone of any christian denom or church can be saved.
link the post where I said that or admit you are bearing false witness.
I will wait.
>This board is godawful
Yep, but mostly because of people like you.
I’ll take the delay as you being unable to find a post to link and have chosen to run away. Next time actually attend a Church and become a Christian before you run around telling people what is and is not a heresy in an E-Christian LARP.
You couldn’t even tell the difference between Christian Universalism (anyone of any christian denom or church can be saved) and Ecumanism (the concept and principle that Christians who belong to different Christian denominations should work together to develop closer relationships among their churches and promote Christian unity)
It’s possible you could have also created this “which is le one true church?” thread and attacked ecumanism as heretical (despite not even being a Christian) because you actually just wanted to sow discord and disunity between Christians online.
>I'm not a Christian yet
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Okay then, *opinion instantly disregarded* I don't listen to the views of people who act as they know what Christianity is all about but don't actually go to a church.
>Are you by any chance, moronic?
Very possibly but give how you are faring against me that is a scathing critique of your dog shit opinions.
>Arrogant fake laughter to mask how moronic you are when I literally asked what's true in the OP
I'm really not sure how you think this is worthy of narcissistic laughter
Stay mad kid, come back and talk a big game when you have actually touched grass and been to a church.
NEXT!
Pointing out a very new idea and heresy is not "autism". Trying to label anyone trying to actually discern the fullness of the straight and narrow as "autistic" already tells me just how genuine you are.
So far the closest thing to an actual usedul post this entire thread is
Thank you whoever you are.
By any change are you a convert?
>this israeli guru is better than this israeli guru
pass
>Christianity
> israeli guru
midwit
>jesus never says a word about god/himself changing his mind about circumcision
>paul "oh, the new covenant entails a SPIRITUAL circumcision, not a physical one!"
lol
Bublical circumcision and modern circumcision are not the same. This board is the peak of confusion accompanied by tactics of dogpiling and distraction to keep ignorance of the truth in place.
why do you want foreskins so bad? Not mutilating kids is a good thing.
Christianity is Saul’s Church, a continuation of Judaism, so whichever particular cult you choose isn’t relevant.
>It doesn't matter if you choose something that claims to be something yet fricking removes a ton of things or makes up things
This board is more harmful than useful. Imagine being SMUG about being moronic
I have no idea what you’re babbling about, there’s 0 evidence Christianity isn’t a israeli heresy and that Abrahamism isn’t just institutional conflict by Semites against Europeans.
I see you patrolling other threads you know.
>be the one true church who preserves the apostolic teachings
>change the apostolic teaching
Is this a gotcha? All these quotes support the protestant position
Have you not been posting as much lately?
I haven't yeah
It’s bait, it looks like it’s anti-Protestant but it’s not.
Clever
Billy Bob's Independant Baptist Church in Bumfrick Alabama is unironically the true church and I'm tired of pretending it isn't.
The EOC are simply the original Protestants and I have no idea how anyone entertains their nonsense. Protestants actually have more organic disputes with Catholic theology, while the Eastern-Orthodox just don't like the West or the Pope and have devoted a lot of energy into manufacturing artificial theological disputes to look non-Western.
You say that because you have a western perspective of eastern Christianity mostly informed by converts and a superficial understanding of protestantism
They have their own theological paradigms you absolute mouth breather. They never needed the Pope and while you are correct that they contrive theological controversies, this does not mean that Catholicism is inherently correct.
The true church is whoever believes in the Gospel, blessed is he who hears and listens with an open heart to the good news.