Which religion is true? Which interpretation of said religion is correct?

Which religion is true? Which interpretation of said religion is correct?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lIi9rrIDq7E
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=ITtp534OcKM
youtube.com/watch?v=vpe5oOjfgXk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Traditionalist Roman Catholic

Roman Catholicism.

Not so fast Enrique

Only the Quran (the recitation) has been perfectly revealed and preserved. It is a direct revelation from God revealed through Gabriel. No other holy text can compete.

Roman Catholic church is the only true church

Esoteric Kekism

Roman Catholocism

If it was true it wouldn't be a religion.

What makes your sect more true than say Protestantism?

none (they're all fairy tales)

Roman Catholicism.

What is the sick fascination with this leaf in op pic related? He looks like an autistic Amish reject

inb4 that's the joke

Protestants don't follow the divide word of god and the Pope. The engage in degeneracy and even they can't agree on what they believe

He's the ultimate numale, the beard, the jawline, the glasses, everything

Esoteric Knowledge found in Fmonry/Ancient Egyptian philosophy and Rosicrucianism.

Protestantism and the C of E was started so a king could divorce his wife and take a new bride. It's a chucked vision of God.

The current pope isn't a man of God at all. He's a marxist puppet of the elite. John Paul II was the last real pope

>Religion
>Truth

Im afraid the two are mutually exclusive, OP.

Catholicism is the first church started by Jesus himself when he named Peter the first Pope; Peter, the rock, the foundation of His church.

Everything else, including everything that existed previously, is all SATAN!

Heil Hitler.

My top contenders are Hare Krishna, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Sufism and Zoroastrianism. I don't know enough to judge though.

Kekism

Buddhism

Even Catholics can't agree on one thing though, not just the schism with orthodox but a lot of people not recognizing the authority of the new pope. See this guy

>this religion is the most common where you live so it must be right

Kabbalism

not anymore

And Taoism

well there is valid concern with the current Pope, Catholics still adhere to their maintained values

Daoism / Zen / Buddhism

Agnosticism

Kekism is the only one true religion.

Here's an actual rating of religions

Kekism is basically satanism, pure chaos + do as thou wilt

The fuck is wrong with this guy's facial hair? His neckbeard is like 2 feet long but he can't grow a mustache?

>catholic
>not heretical
Pick one lmao

youtube.com/watch?v=lIi9rrIDq7E

How come that agnosticism is in witchcraft tier when it fuckin states that "You cant prove that there is ore there is no god" which is actualy true...

Non Denominational Christianity. Make your own connections with God, dont let some cuck priest talk to God for you.

Why does the guy in the OP have EverQuest gnome aesthetics?

because agnostics don't even exist yet people in an act that resembles witchcraft claim it's a real belief system. Agnostics are just atheists that are either too much of pussys to admit it or want to distance themselves from autism fedoras

bullshit orthodoxy is bro tier, it's literally just eastern catholicism pre 1054

none.
we are all trapped in this state of existence and the only way out is personal death which will lead to unexistence.
Enjoy the ride
>Jehovas Wittnesses and Mormons are not in desperate need of crusade
try again

Fuck all y'all, none of you've said Norse. We have it all, and it'll all be known soon. The gods have been kind to some very special people who are now some 20 million strong. This is is, dreams can come true. Belief.

Current Pope is the same as weed guy or merkel, they had to pick someone, but they didn't have a good candidate, so they picked whatever.
>judaism
>not in the same tier as satanism

>implying christ wasnt the first christian priest and then pass his authority on to a bunch of other priests called the apostles

non denoms confirmed for not actually knowing anything about christianity

...

Eastern Orthodoxy

Roman Catholicism is cucked beyond redemption
Oriental Orthodoxy was OK until the Ethiopians started saying they have the Ark of the Covenant
Church of the East = filthy Nestorian heretics
Lutheran, Calvinist, Baptist, Anabaptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Quakers have retarded and faulthy theology all because they couldn't grasp the most basic shit out of the Catholic Church

Judaism was fulfilled by Christianity and God clearly punished them over the centuries
Islam, Mormonism make historical claims that got proven wrong
Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, etc. are not inherently bad but only contain a little bit of the full truth found in Eastern Orthodoxy

>Preists today are anything like Jesus

also forgot to say Anglicans are also cucked beyond redemption, to the point they're one step away from Unitarian Universalists

The new Final Fantasy has nice graphics

Literally taken Biblical Christianity duh.

Gnosis.org

Your own interpretation is as good as any other. As you gain knowledge you will move up the ladder.

>Islam...make historical claims that got proven wrong
Where?

Okay just who the fuck is this bearded freako? He's fucking everywhere.

The religion that nobody expects it the least to be the correct one.

Jehova's Witness

Odinism, but only if you're of Norse blood. Niggers may not apply for Odins wisdom.

Either they're all true (i.e. they have some truth in common, just different interpretations), or they are all false.
One being true and the others false seems extremely unlikely and illogical.
I myself find all of them being true not very likely, so I lean towards none of them being true.

Can Protestants explain this?
hapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 41. Continuation of the Same Subject.

Let every one of you, brethren, give thanks to God in his own order, living in all good conscience, with becoming gravity, and not going beyond the rule of the ministry prescribed to him. Not in every place, brethren, are the daily sacrifices offered, or the peace-offerings, or the sin-offerings and the trespass-offerings, but in Jerusalem only. And even there they are not offered in any place, but only at the altar before the temple, that which is offered being first carefully examined by the high priest and the ministers already mentioned. Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. You see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed.

newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Regarding the actions and beliefs of the early Church. Regarding the "perfect preservation" of the Quran as well, as we now know it wasn't that simple. Academic discussion on the Quran is actually pretty difficult nowadays because errors in the Quran are a very sensitive issue, as a serious consideration of them would require re-interpretation, while Saudi Arabia is trying to make sure Wahabism becomes and remains the main theological school in Islam worldwide.

Advaita Vedanta

What does this mean?
I prayed [to the Angel of Repentance, who is called the Shepherd] much that he would explain to me the similitude of the field…And he answered me again, saying, “Every one who is the servant of God, and has his Lord in his heart, asks of Him understanding, and receives it, and opens up every parable; and the words of the Lord become known to him which are spoken in parables. But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask Him. But you, having been strengthened by the holy Angel, and having obtained from Him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from Him?” I said to him, “Sir, having you with me, I am necessitated to ask questions of you, for you show me all things, and converse with me; but if I were to see or hear these things without you, I would then ask the Lord to explain them.”

The Shepherd of Hermas, 3.5.4
Rome, Date questionable; perhaps as early as AD 85-90, perhaps as late as AD 140-155 [1]

>Regarding the actions and beliefs of the early Church.
This is quite ambiguous. Allah reveals what he intends. It does not negate secondary sources only decides the focus.
I would prefer if you could be more specific.

The fathers of the church spoke as they did because they regarded themselves as interpreters of the Scriptures. Therefore they are not to be made a substitute for the Scriptures; nor can the Scriptures be understood apart from the authoritative interpretation which tradition places upon them...if tradition is primitive, Protestant theology must admit that ‘Scripture alone’ requires redefinition. (Jaroslav Pelikan, Obedient Rebels, Harper & Row: New York, N. Y., 1964, p. 180 – bold emphasis mine.)

What does this mean?

Your Allah is a moron

The Holy Word of Allah

Sola Quran

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
Qur'an 18:86

>not acknowledging prisca theologia
This board is full of idiots, I swear.

I unfortunately can't help right now because I'm busy studying, but for instance, Islam (or at least Islamic tradition) claims that someone else was crucified in Jesus' place, and the first followers of Christ did not believe in a triune God, and Paul corrupted the original message of Christianity, and such other things. What we historically know today contradicts these things.

I'm not trying to argue or turn you away from Islam, I'm just pointing out that what Islam claims about early Christianity does not just not line up with what we know, it outright contradicts it. To put it simply, it is as likely as the claims made by Joseph Smith.

But if you're looking into knowing more to expand your understanding of both Islam and Christianity, you can always ask on reddit. r/Catholicism and r/OrthodoxChristianity are good with history.

>Which religion is true? Which interpretation of said religion is correct?

*tips banana into anus*

>What we historically know today contradicts these things.
The Church insists on this but they are mistaken.

Thank you for being polite and referring to relevant pages.

Orthodox Christianity for ethnic white privilege purposes, Buddhism for peace and philosophical purposes, and deism for intellectual purposes

I've been studying the Bible with a Jehovahs Witness and they seem to have the right translation. JW.org has a lot of useful information for newcomers, like myself.

>The Church insists on this but they are mistaken.

I mean, of course Church tradition (both Orthodox and Catholic) disagrees heavily with Islam, but I am talking about history, such as epistles written by the early Church fathers, and contemporary artwork, etc. that was discovered.

>Thank you for being polite and referring to relevant pages.

No problem, Muslimbro. We both fast, pray and praise the God of Abraham, who is Most Merciful, while anticipating the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement of all. Our religions have had a rocky history together at times, and we disagree heavily on some very important doctrine, but it's important to focus on what we share first, particularly in these times when there is a lot of tension among Muslims of different denominations, as well as persecution of Christians in Egypt by Muslims, and extreme Muslim armed organizations trying to get rid of everyone who is not a True Muslim(tm).

Most of my family is Muslim, so I find it to be a beautiful religion. It's important for us to understand each other's faith better.

I hope you find satisfying answers and information!

Your holy book says the sun sets in a muddy spring

Orthodox Christianity. youtube.com/watch?v=ITtp534OcKM

Your welcum

Fuck off leaf, you are not allowed to be right

youtube.com/watch?v=vpe5oOjfgXk

the sandnigger muhammad's real name is gabriel?

>imaginary ancient friends thread

>surrounded by all this gold and marble
>thinking they're in it for anything besides shekels
Christianity has truly lost it's way.

...

Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven. We are saved through grace alone, faith in grace.

I bet I could guess which option they chose.

KEK is real

Gabriel is the deathangel you uneducated fuck

What's with the name? You that much of a pussy that you think you'll be persecuted for a few racist jokes? This isn't Germany shithead.

Implying the house of worship should look like garbage.

Christianity at it's core promotes freeing yourself from materialism.

...

Personally, I would rather have a closer relationship with God by talking with him daily than have His messages brought to me weekly from someone else.

Kenan B. Osborne’s (O.F.M.) Reconciliation & Justification – The Sacrament and Its Theology (Paulist Press – 1990).

In this chapter [“In The Patristic Period”] we will consider the emergence of a ritual of reconciliation as we find it documented in the pages of church history. Remarkably, it is not until the middle of the second century that there is a clear indication in the available data of such a ritual. Nonetheless, even from the middle of the second century onward there are, at first, only scattered historical data which indicate the way in which the early patristic church through a ritual isolated, repelled and negated sin. At the height of the patristic period, i.e. in the fifth and sixth centuries, one finds a clearer picture of both the theology and of the liturgy of reconciliation in this period of church history.

One must keep in mind that in the history of this sacrament there has not been an organic development. One generation’s practice did not, at times, lead smoothly into the next generation’s practice. From the patristic period to the twentieth century, there have been several “official” positions of the church as regards the ritual of this sacrament. (Pages 52, 53.)

Jesus Christ BTFO

Kekist/christian Gnosticism

As a result of the renewed attention to Evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Greek Orthodox relations, there is increased interest among Evangelicals in the early sources of Christian doctrine and exegetical practices. This too is certainly to be welcomed, though with cautious enthusiasm, since the current reconsideration of the patristic era is not a “return the sources” (ad fontes), but governed by a very specific agenda: to read the ancient fathers through the lens of post-Reformation Protestantism in the search for criteria, such as sola scriptura, embedded within the religious consciousness of the early church. Ancient vindication of such religious ideas would presumably further the claim that Protestants, not Roman Catholics, are the upholders of true faith. Witness the recent attempts to find a “patristic principle of sola scriptura” in Irenaeus(11) or Athanasius, from which the conclusion is reached, “Sola scriptura has long been the rule of believing Christian people, even before it became necessary to use the specific terminology against later innovators who would usurp the Scriptures’ supremacy in the church.”(12) Is the principle sola scriptura historically tenable in the form which is usually defined so that the Bible is the only normative source for the Christian faith and practice? Do the writings of the early church affirm this principle? As will become apparent, the very search for such a principle in the writings of the fathers is misguided in the light of the early church’s understanding of apostolic authority. Even if one argues that a biblicism that approximates sola scriptura can be detected within the patristic age, it in no way guarantees a Christian doctrine of God or salvation. On the contrary, a scripture-only principle was found to create greater problems which have plagued Christianity ever since. (D. H. Williams, “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church”, Interpretation vol. 52.4 (October 1998) pp. 355, 356.)

Notes:

(11) T. Nettles, “One Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church,” Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us, ed. J. Armstrong (Chicago: Moody, 1995) 40. Nettles seems oblivious to the crucial distinction between written and oral authority in Irenaeus when he says, “The Scripture is that which is ‘handed down,’ that is, tradition.”

(12) J. White, “Sola scriptura and the Early Church,” in Kistler, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible, 53. White's essay exhibits very limited familiarity with patristic doctrinal history such that it claims Athanasius stood against Liberius’, bishop of Rome (p. 42), whereas in fact, Athanasius sought the protection of Liberius’ successor, Julius, during his exile, and he, of all the Greek fathers, remained the most intimate with Rome after Julius’ death in 352. There is hardly a case for a proto-opposition between “Protestants” and “Roman Catholics.” Moreover, it is striking White argues that Athanasius makes no appeal to unwritten tradition, and yet in the very citation offered as proof of this point (Oration Against the Arians 3:29) Athanasius refers to Mary as Theotokos, bearer of God; an Alexandrian tradition which few Protestants would espouse! [D. H. Williams, “The Search for Sola Scriptura in the Early Church”, Interpretation vol. 52.4 (October 1998) p. 365.]

“What was new here? Not the idea that the Bible, being God-given, speaks with God’s authority—that was common ground to both the Reformers and their opponents, and was indeed at that time an unquestioned Christian commonplace, like the doctrine of the Trinity. Nor was there anything new in the Reformer’s insistence that Bible reading is a sweet nourishing activity for Christian people. What was new was the belief, borne upon the Reformer’s by their own experience of Bible study, that Scripture can and does interpret itself to the faithful from within...From the second century on, Christians had assumed that the traditions and teachers of the church, guided by the Holy Spirit, were faithful to the biblical message, and that it was safe to equate Church doctrine with Bible truth.” (J. I. Packer, “‘Sola Scriptura’ In History and Today”, God’s Inerrant Word, ed. James Montgomery, pp. 44-45.)

sola scriptura btfo

>surrounded by all this gold and marble
>he thinks we need to worship God with the shittest shit around
We build big cathedrals and golden parishes and dress well and put incense all over the place because we love God, dumbass

>Kenan B. Osborne
>1990
>makes a living off of selling his versions of theological doctrines
lol

No, YOU love God. THEY love money.

Proddies explain

“Along with total commitment to the Scriptures as the norm of all doctrine, a new and clear conviction concerning the authority of oral tradition began to develop. This oral tradition, handed down from generation to generation and going back through the apostles directly to Christ, in no way conflicted with the Scriptures. But it did aid the church in interpreting the Scriptures and particularly in summarizing the Christian faith and thus protecting Christians against the aberrations of Gnostics and heretics. To Tertullian and Irenaeus, who developed this position, such apostolic tradition, which faithfully transmitted Christ’s teaching, was, like Scripture, infallible.” (Robert D. Preus, “The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church Through Luther”, in Inerrancy, edited by Norman Geisler, Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 1980, p. 359)

Does this guy know he's a meme?