Orthodox Christianity

Hey pol. I'm a Christian and I have been for most of my life. Nearly every Wensday and Sunday I attended 2 hour masses. Granted at the time it was mostly because my school forced me to. However now I feel that regular Christianity just isn't enough. I find that by the time the youth reaches their teens they're either one whores or two cucks.

On one hand I want to maintain the beliefs of my family. On the other I want my offspring to lead a life that I can consider morally sound.

Although I'm not leaving this decision entirely up to you guys I at least want to hear what you guys have to say. Whether it's from shit posting to genuine responses. If anyone has a experience with both please let me know.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RGtQpLmEP14
youtube.com/watch?v=_cQzbfFittA
earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html
youtube.com/watch?v=-33BUmx91BE
youtube.com/watch?v=oCQh04hhSoY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

NO GODS NO MASTERS

Orthodoxy is infested with idols and has a false gospel. Beloved, flee from idolatry, and if any come to you preaching any other gospel than that of scripture, let him be anathema.

How can you be sola scriptura and hate the church that gave you it?

Best thing to do is go to a vespers service then talk to the priest. Liturgy might be a bad first service.

Sup Forums is not a good place to go for information on christianity - pic related

Also go to an American Orthodox Church

Yeah I have one in mind.

> Wensday

The scriptures are God's words. No man gave me it, only God did.

I can't read it senpai. It's a bit blurry.

Same.

Talk with your local orthodox priest.

>Christianity is just another holy book-based religion

Stop thinking like a Muslim, or a Jew. The primitive and low-tier religions are based on holy books. Christianity is based on the written word. Christianity is based on the idea that the Word becoming flesh.

It may be that authentic archaic Christianity is dead and gone. It may be true that Orthodoxy isn't even a valid continuum of the Early Church. But whatever the modern state of Christianity. The original Church was not based on text. It was based on the real person of Jesus, the apostles, and their successors. It was transmitted by Man, not by writtings.

Orthodoxy will eat you up and spit you out if you are not in it for the right reason. Examine yourself, talk to a priest, and do it for the right reason.

>It was based on the real person of Jesus, the apostles
How do you know what these are again?

Oi listen up you little shit. If this was a fucking spelling bee I guess you would've won. But instead you feel the need to correct me for misspelling something when I'm dead tired. All I want is advice you snarky little burger. Crawl back into your trailer park you fuckin trash.

You're thinking of the Koran. The Gospels are more like the Muslim Hadiths. They are first hand accounts of the exploits of Jesus by the men who knew him. The scriptures explicitly state if and when God is being quoted. Everything else is the word of Man, inspired by God (aka Truth), and thus considered true in the purest sense, but not literal quotations.

Again, stop thinking like a Muslim. Understand the reality of Christianity or don't bother.

According to Jesus, the written scriptures are the voice of God
And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God
Matthew 22:31

Just open in a separate window and you should be set.

>I'm a Christian
>feel Christianity just isn't enough
>whore
>cucks
You really need to check yourself user. Are you really a Christian? Are you living the way Christ calls us to live? Did you give yourself to Christ?

>beliefs of my family
Won't do you any good if you aren't with them in Heaven, just saying.

This may be an opportunity to come to Christ user. Will you accept him?

You can go to an ancient See, and inspect the lineage of bishops all the way back to the Apostles. The records have been very well kept. The Jesus's Church is a historical entity, not just a metaphysical concept. Take a trop to Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Constantinople, or Rome. There are lists of the Patriarchs of each See going back to the beginning. The records are better than even those for the Roman Emperors.

Incidentally, those source documents pre-date even the New Testament as a canon text. There was no canon Bible until the 4th century until the CHURCH identified it explicitly.

The real question is why YOU believe in the canonical status of the New Testament if you don't trust the Early Church, or the Bishops (successors to the Apostles) who deemed is such to begin with.

The simple fact is that if you take things like recorded ancient easter martial arts lineages of grand masters and that sort of thing seriously, then you shouldn't roll your eyes at simple lineage charts of Middle East Christian Patriarchs going back to the time of the Apostles.

I'm not even a Christian, but it really pisses me off when people fuck of basic historiography.

So you have to be literate to be a Christian?

This guy will break it down for you. He was an Evangelical protestant, and son of a major preacher.

youtube.com/watch?v=RGtQpLmEP14

youtube.com/watch?v=RGtQpLmEP14

Lad when I refer to cucks and whores. I'm referring to the majority of the Christian mindset. The whole idea of not living like Christ while outside church. However, inside church everyone plays the card of "I'm such a good person."
I'm not afraid to "give myself to Christ" it's more of finding a group that isn't so degenerate. On a side note I'm pretty sure the first 6 years of my life amounted to all the time you've spent at church.

>You can go to an ancient See, and inspect the lineage of bishops all the way back to the Apostles
How does this tell me that God was made flesh, and that He sent apostles?
>The Jesus's Church is a historical entity, not just a metaphysical concept
The ecclesia against which the gates will not prevail is a congregation, not an institution.
>The records are better than even those for the Roman Emperors.
Since monoepiscopalism was foreign to the apostles, this is impossible.
>Incidentally, those source documents pre-date even the New Testament as a canon text. There was no canon Bible until the 4th century until the CHURCH identified it explicitly.
Since the scriptures are the very words of God, when you open a bible you hear God's voice just as much as Moses did. This means God speaks directly to you as you read. Thus, scripture has equal authority to God Himself. To claim the Church has the authority to authenticate scripture is to claim the Church has the authority to authenticate God.
>The real question is why YOU believe in the canonical status of the New Testament
Because His sheep know His voice, and to the voice of another they will not follow.
>who deemed is such to begin with
As soon as God inspired the books, they were scripture, it did not take a bishop to make them canon, they were from their beginning.
No.

>retarded amerifat
>doesn't know what "idol" means

>American Orthodox Church
No, they are cuckolded liberal apostates. Avoid them.

>The records have been very well kept.

This is misleading, whilst later lists of people might be well kept the actual evidence for people on those lists is very sparse.

>Incidentally, those source documents pre-date even the New Testament as a canon text.

But not the documents themselves which is crucial in the religious viewpoint.

>The real question is why YOU believe in the canonical status of the New Testament if you don't trust the Early Church, or the Bishops (successors to the Apostles) who deemed is such to begin with.

For protestants the answer is because the New Testament is a divinely inspired and guided text(s) which pervailed inspite of humans rather than because of it.

>you shouldn't roll your eyes at simple lineage charts of Middle East Christian Patriarchs going back to the time of the Apostles.

The trouble is that the group which defines just who is and who isnt a church father or early christian had a monopoly on which views and texts were preserved. At importantly this monopoly was based on the violence of the Roman Empire and who literally destroyed the texts which did not agree with it (to the point that only texts which they didnt support which survived were those which were lost or in the trash)

It makes perfect sense for people to trust in a text they believe was divinely guided than the works of a group who gained influence by aligning with imperial power and destroying all other views.

>I'm not even a Christian, but it really pisses me off when people fuck of basic historiography.

Same here and this is what you are doing with ancient history. Our knowledge of texts and that time in general is tiny and to declare with certainty about the accuracy of the records of that time is either arrogance or ignorance.

Where would I go?

Hello Sup Forums's Orthodox Recruiting Department!

How are you boys, tonight?!

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, or the Presbyterian Church in America. Go to them and seek guidance.

brother nathanael makes me like orthodoxy
youtube.com/watch?v=_cQzbfFittA

ROCOR is generally good. Better than amerifag (un)orthodox that is packed full of liberalizers and sodomites.

Technically America should have its own national church, but America is a cancerous hell hole and the domain of satan so you cannot trust the subhumans here to do anything right.

>Since monoepiscopalism was foreign to the apostles, this is impossible.

I said you can go to any of the 5 Sees.

>As soon as God inspired the books, they were scripture, it did not take a bishop to make them canon, they were from their beginning.

Bishops didn't "make" them canon. They simple made a unanimous statement on what they recognized was already true. The issue is that without that direct teacher/student/teacher/student... experiential knowledge of the Apostles (the first Bishops, and the guys who where THERE), and their disciples, and their disciples, and so on (the succession of Bishops), who would have been in a position to say they knew the guy who knew the guy who knew the guy who knew Jesus, and yes, these written accounts of what happened are accurate?

Again, it's a historical question, not some esoteric theological debate.

>How does this tell me that God was made flesh, and that He sent apostles?

It doesn't. The justification for faith is not contained within the Bible. THAT'S THE POINT. The justification for faith is the lives of the Men who knew Jesus, and SAW the whole thing go down, and the fact that we have a living lineage of the men who knew the men who knew the men....etc...who can experientially attest to God in the flesh.

At least, that was the rational of the Early Christians by their own account. Read the Church Fathers like Irenaeus. earlychristianwritings.com/churchfathers.html

Again, I'm not a Christian. I don't believe the Bible of the word of God. I don't care about those arguments one way or the other. I don't speak about anything regarding Christianity with regard to any of it being true or not. I'm only interested in what the early Christians thought of their religion, and what they THOUGHT was true. It have a purely historic interest in Christianity.

Go to divine liturgy, hours or vespers and talk to a priest.

There is no place on Earth more peaceful than being in the midst of an Orthodox divine liturgy be it in English, Slavonic, Greek or Arabic. It's a ethereal, transcendent experience.

Being an orthodox christian is far less and yet far more demanding from being a catholic for example.

Here how it goes, the church want you to save your own soul alone. The attendance is not mandatory, we do not have confessions nor penance. However you are required to have deep faith and live your life with accordance with it. You do not have the safety nets of catholicism. It is more stoic denomination. Thus it is not for everyone.

lmao, protestants rekt

>At importantly this monopoly was based on the violence of the Roman Empire

I suggest you read more about the history of the EASTER Empire, because virtually all protestant rationalizations are restricted to the context of Rome and the Western Empire. Protestantism has never made a rigorous argument against Easter Orthodoxy, let alone Oriental Orthodoxy, which makes sense since the only reason protestantism exists is because of Roman Catholic issues.

Also,
>divinely guided
is not a quotation. There's a reason Jesus' direct speech is colored differently in many or most Bibles (there are different formating choices obviously). The reason is the words that aren't red (or whatever color) are NOT the direct words of Jesus (God). If the whole Bible was just the Voice of God transcribed in ink (like the Koran), then it wouldn't make sense to differentiate parts of it as quotes and other parts as not quotes (ie. not the voice of God).

This is what I hear from a friend of mine who is a Greek Orthodox.

Don't forget, Sup Forums! But especially you the Orthodox Recruiting team that comes here every day and night to bring in lost boys...

Sola gratia justificamus et sola fide justificamur et sola scripture docentur.

>I said you can go to any of the 5 Sees.
No thanks, I'll go to the scripture instead.
>Bishops didn't "make" them canon
Oh, good, so you agree.
>Again, it's a historical question
No, it's a theological question.
>It doesn't.
Oh, good, so you agree.
>the justification for faith is not contained within the Bible.
Correct.
>The justification for faith is the lives of the Men who knew Jesus, and SAW the whole thing go down, and the fact that we have a living lineage of the men who knew the men who knew the men....etc...who can experientially attest to God in the flesh.
Wrong. The justification for faith is the Holy Spirit, who comes into the saints heart and cries "Abba! Father!"
>Read the Church Fathers like Irenaeus
I do, and they did not believe one needed bishops to know what the scriptures are.
Stop pretending to know what Christians believe concerning the scriptures, since clearly you do not. You even misrepresent Cathodox belief here.

I forgot to expound on the first point. The point was that there was no such monopoly on authority in the East during the Early Church Period. That only happened after Constantine converted, and even then, the monopolization was nothing compared to what Rome claimed 500 years after that. You can't have a Christian theological monopoly when there wasn't a universal Bishop (Pope) that was recognized throughout all of pre-Schism Christianity. If one or several Bishops tried to go loopy, the rest could simply ignore them in their own territory.

There's a reason Protestantism never happened in the East. It wasn't necessary. Which, again, calls into question the historical necessity for Protestantism in the first place. If Luthor had access to more books, and/or had been better traveled, he would have understood that the historically valid response to Roman Catholic oversteps was simply to turn to Orthodoxy to avoid corrupting monopolies of the kind you refer to.

>I suggest you read more about the history of the EASTER Empire, because virtually all protestant rationalizations are restricted to the context of Rome and the Western Empire. Protestantism has never made a rigorous argument against Easter Orthodoxy, let alone Oriental Orthodoxy, which makes sense since the only reason protestantism exists is because of Roman Catholic issues.

You think Constantine was burning those books in Rome? You think state based violence only took off after the schism?

Reread you history user. The state based violence I talked of was in the East just as it was in the West even if the examples I gave were in the East.

Persecuption and threats of death and property deprivation were carried out in both parts of the empire.

>is not a quotation. There's a reason Jesus' direct speech is colored differently in many or most Bibles

Reread that comment I made, whether Jesus words are direct or indirect literally have no bearing on it. Divinely guided or Inspired = not equal Jesus wrote it.

>There's a reason Protestantism never happened in the East.
The only reason is because God did not want it to.

lol. All these Orthodox Recruiters on Sup Forums. What are there, like 10 of you trying to recruit 1 guy? Ha, that's if I believe even the OP isn't an Orthodox Recruiter just larping for other real recruit lurkers.

You Orthodox Recruiters are getting more and more embarrassing, desperate, and sad.

Find Christ, OP. That's what you need to do. Read the Gospel.

Research the Essenes.

I recommend you meditate on it for a couple of years while reading extensively and attending Divine Liturgy when you can. I am still Catholic. Did the Diocesan Latin Mass thing for a while. But I am looking at Orthodoxy with quite a lot of confidence these days.

>I do, and they did not believe one needed bishops to know what the scriptures are.

And you don't need scriptures to know who Jesus was. There weren't exactly a lot of books floating around the Levant in the first and second centuries, yet Christianity spread and was practiced just fine. The Holy Sacrifice was made, and the liturgy was carried out. THAT was what Christianity was for hundreds of years, even before a single Ecumenical Council, and MUCH longer before the printing press existed.

Christianity spread by Man and by word, not by text, for the first few hundred years. That's SEVER generations of Christians being born, living, and dying without ever reading a single line of the Gospels. Protestants have NO answer to this other than woowoo invented concepts like feeling a voice in your heart or something.

Early Christians didn't need any of these protestant superstructures because they were simply talking to a real person who said "Yeah, I saw my friend in preternatural flesh who holes in his hands, raised from the dead, and then he transfigured and rose to Heaven before my very eyes. Others were there too, and can attest to the same thing."

They didn't say "here, read this book."

Please, user. Stop embarrassing yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=-33BUmx91BE

Find the Lord, user.

Orthodoxy do not practice missionary conversions. If you want to convert, people will tell you about it but you will not get a door knock and a brochure m8.

Ignore the Protestant cucks. A lot of very bright people have turned to Orthodoxy from Catholicism and High Church Anglicanism. A lot of Catholics go on this trajectory of Traditionalism with the Latin Mass then eventually get fed up and head over to Eastern Orthodoxy. Here's a video which is a must watch pointing out the flaws in Catholicism from an Orthodox point of view.

youtube.com/watch?v=oCQh04hhSoY

>I forgot to expound on the first point. The point was that there was no such monopoly on authority in the East during the Early Church Period. That only happened after Constantine converted, and even then, the monopolization was nothing compared to what Rome claimed 500 years after that. You can't have a Christian theological monopoly when there wasn't a universal Bishop (Pope) that was recognized throughout all of pre-Schism Christianity. If one or several Bishops tried to go loopy, the rest could simply ignore them in their own territory.

Nice strawmanning, I *never* said the early church was had a monopoly on authority.

To use my own words

"The trouble is that the group which defines just who is and who isnt a church father or early christian had a monopoly on which views and texts were preserved"

All we know of the early church is from the texts of those preserved by the group that won the political intrigue and gained the patronage of the empire.

Who knows how many church fathers there were who had Arrian views and had their works destroyed by Constantine.

>There's a reason Protestantism never happened in the East. It wasn't necessary

Debatable given that the reformation, had huge political elements to it

>If Luthor had access to more books, and/or had been better traveled, he would have understood that the historically valid response to Roman Catholic oversteps was simply to turn to Orthodoxy to avoid corrupting monopolies of the kind you refer to.

Not at all, the Lutherans did get int touch with the Orthodox and were horrified at it. Lutheranism whether high or low is directly opposed to the apostolic claims of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

lol. Right. But you'll have 10 people shill on Sup Forums and go all reddit /r/hailcorporate for it.

Embarrassing, tbqhwyf. And I'm not even a member of the knock knock and recruits.

And they also didn't say "accept Jesus into your heart". They said "It [fucking] happened."

"It [fucking] happened." is the core statement of Christianity, and more profound than the entire Bible, more profound than Catholic Mass, or Orthodox Liturgy, or any guitar and tambourine Protestant rock concert.

I don't think "it fucking happend", which is why I'm not a Christian. But holy fuck if it DID happen, then we really would live in some kind of God-thought quasi-holographic universe, and a future imminent reset is really on its way and we really will be resurrected in preternatural flesh in an everlasting perfect existence in the presence of the Glory of God.

Why the fuck do modern Christians never seem for cut the shit and just say "It [fucking] happened." It's like they have a fetish for fluffy feminized rhetoric, and debating book editions.

The bulgarain user is right they do not evangilise indeed the closet they came to that was when Russian Tzars and Boyars would use violence to convert or Russify people.

What you see on Sup Forums is simply that same nonense we saw with Athiesm

"I have a new idea and want everyone to know about it and think the same, only idiots would think differently"

This user is honest to God retarded.

If they do, I believe they are doing it out of ignorance. In the orthodox faith one do not tempt others with sweet words or material gain to make them convert. The choice must be made out of free will.

Not retarded at all, hes just someone who has Orthodox Sympathies and a bit of historical study.

It takes a decent amount of research or personal revelation for protestantism not to seem rather silly

>And you don't need scriptures to know who Jesus was
I do to know He is God.
>There weren't exactly a lot of books floating around the Levant in the first and second centuries
You're right, they were significantly more widespread.
>The Holy Sacrifice was made
You cannot find me a single person for many centuries who believed the Lord's Supper to be a propitiatory sacrifice.
>Christianity spread by Man and by word, not by text
By text though the words of man. If I read my bible out loud, is it still the bible?
>Protestants have NO answer to this
Nor do we need one, since this says nothing of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura is the doctrine that scripture alone is inerrant.
>"Yeah, I saw my friend in preternatural flesh who holes in his hands, raised from the dead, and then he transfigured and rose to Heaven before my very eyes. Others were there too, and can attest to the same thing."
Hey, i've heard of that! It's called the New Testament
>Who knows how many church fathers there were who had Arrian views and had their works destroyed by Constantine.
I think this absurd statement perfectly underlines the errors of the Baur Hypothesis. I know how many! 0, since the "proto-orthodox" fathers would have attacked their teachings.

Go to an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. What state do you live in, I might be able to recommend one.

Sure.

I gotta get some sleep.

I just read through your posts and almost everything you said is wrong.

You're a beautiful person and however you chose to find God will be the right choice.

Books were rare as they had to be written by hand to make each new copy. Many early Christian communities would not have physical access to a physical copy of the Gospels except perhaps when a regional Bishop might ride into town with his copy.

And early Christianity was not an ancient religion for the people practicing it. The word of the Son of God rising from the dead in Jerusalem and the promise he made is what converted people early on.

>Hey, i've heard of that! It's called the New Testament

If you lived in 50AD, and someone offered you two options: (1) you could sit and talk with an Apostle of you chosing, OR (2) you could have a copy of the Gospels, which would you pick?

What if I said you couldn't talk to an Apostle but you could talk to one of their students, disciples. What would you chose then? Would you pick the written text over a 10 year apprentice of Mark, or John?

Sorry, part 2 was for you

> I'm a Christian
>regular Christianity

I love how you didn't even specify to which of the more than 30,000 protestant denominations you belong to.
It means that there's a big chance you're not even really protestant but belong to some kind of interdenominational movement like the evangelicals.

You do realise that your "regular Christianity" is viewed by the Orthodox as the heresy of a heresy of a heresy begotten by a schism?

They even call their priests "father".

> I know how many! 0, since the "proto-orthodox" fathers would have attacked their teachings.

Our studies in comparative religions show that they wouldn't. They would simply view them as illegitimate. Remember when it comes to Church Fathers the importance is not what is said but who said it. Hence if you think someone is not legitimate they do not have to be answered.

Its for the same reason why we did not see any responses to the forged letters of Paul or despite knowing that these forgeries exist.

To put it another way it would be like saying back in 1950s that hey we know Joseph Smith wasnt a convicted con man because the Mormon Church would have published a work refuting this claim

>would have attacked their teachings.

The only instances we have of this are when dealing with philosophical contentions and even then they only have a handful of quotes from entire books.

Hey do you want to continue this discussion on histography or would you rather have protestants yell insults at you?

Right. Jesus left us a church, not just a book.

So what would you pick? 50AD. Lunch with a disciple of an Apostle, or a book. You can only pick one.

I was hoping more that you could respond the post I made which demonstrated you misunderstood me. in >So what would you pick?

Do you think Im a protestant?

>Our studies in comparative religions show that they wouldn't. They would simply view them as illegitimate
Take this thesis to the text of Against Marcion and Against Praxeas and tell me how it works out
Erroneous scenario, we live 2,000 years after the apostle which makes for substantially different variables

God inspired not god made. The church wrote the scripture

America Christian are mostly Protestant and those are mostly Baptist which is technically evangelical. Likewise we view your idolatry and prayer to mary abd saints as absolutely unchristian.

My answer to that would be that those listed as Church Fathers are not all exactly "kosher". Origen is a good example. Also, there are other surviving Early Christian texts besides the Church Fathers. I don't care if Arians were right or not. Maybe just as many early Christians were Arians. I suppose it's possible. But I am much more certain that no early Christians were anything resembling Protestants.

>Erroneous scenario, we live 2,000 years after the apostle which makes for substantially different variables

Not entirely. If you would more readily chose a disciple over a text (as most people intuitively would), then you understand Apostolic succession. Everyone would trust an Apostles account. Most people would trust a 1st generation disciple's account of what his teacher (the Apostle) taught him. Well, what's wrong with a 2nd generation disciple's account of his teacher? What about a 3rd, or 4th generation? What about a 10th generation? At what point does the direct experiential teacher/student succession not longer connect you to a direct account of the crucifixion and resurrection, and a lived friendship (or "relationship" to use the protestant preferred term) with Jesus?

That is what "authority" means in the apostolic succession (aka the priesthood). It's not about power, those Roman Catholics act like it does now. It's the authority of experiential knowledge-like when someone says "so and so is an authority on X". Priests aren't like cops who get to tell people what to do because they have a badge. Bishops have experiential knowledge of a prior generation Bishop who has experiential knowledge of another man who has experiential knowledge of another man who... .... has experiential knowledge of an Apostle who had experiential knowledge of Christ.

>Take this thesis to the text of Against Marcion and Against Praxeas and tell me how it works out

It depends on the content of the text, did Marcions work contain appeals to the Church Fathers and those who personally were taught by the Apsotles?

Does Marcion's work exist outside of quotes in the text perserved by the Church?

Not trying to be funny, but I gotta get some sleep after this.

Listen, dude. You don't know what you're fucking talking about. You're way out of your element. You're not a Christian. That's fine. No one cares you think you've found the secret Atheism or whatever.

Christianity is absolutely an ancient religion. You would know this if you've read more than a wikipedia page or went to Church more than Christmas or Easter and then never thought about it again. You would know this if you read anything other than or listened to anything other than whatever some kike priest fed through your thick skull.

As far as your question about would you rather listen or read, it doesn't fucking matter. Christ preached that IN HIS OWN FUCKING TIME people would come and try to mess it up. He said, word for word, "Do not listen to who is teaching, but what is being taught." It's the message, the scripture that is important. Not who said it, even if they're fucking Peter.

And teaching scripture does not just mean the words written on the page, retard. Jesus Christ, none of us mean that literally except backwoods inbreds. Scripture means story and sayings and everything to get the message across. For fuck's sake, Protestantism wasn't just like, "a thing," that only stupid people haven't got over. It's not like it just appeared because people one day decided they didn't like the Pope or the Patriarchs telling them what to do. It was around pretty much since the beginning.

But you go ahead and keep being a retard.

Do yourself a favor. Start reading about the Essenes and the true origins of Christianity. Consume everything you possibly can about early Christianity, read the Church fathers, move on to Augustine and Aquinas, and into the reformers and follow how the philosophy behind the whole shit moves. Try Melanchton instead of his hothead best friend, Luther.

Do that and then come back someday months from now and we can start Christianity 201.

For fuck's sake.

Do you see how you misrepresented me or is that not an issue anymore?

>hose listed as Church Fathers are not all exactly "kosher"

The point is who got to deternime what was kosher or not and how they came to that position.

>Also, there are other surviving Early Christian texts besides the Church Fathers.

How many of them are extent and how many were produced by those outside of the church?

>I don't care if Arians were right or not.

This has a pretty signifigant bearing on

> Maybe just as many early Christians were Arians. I suppose it's possible. But I am much more certain that no early Christians were anything resembling Protestants.

From the arguments Ive seen from you there is not that much justification to be so certain.

lol. Yes. Certainly, no man would ever lie to another for power and corruption. Certainly, no man or group of men would ever bastardized or manipulate the fundamental teachings or words of anyone for their own personal gain. Certainly, this has happened throughout all of time and all of the world but, certainly, the Lord above would not have thought of this and known this was an impossibility but he certainly taught that the Apostolic way was the absolutely only way and that the Catholic Church should be given your money and all the people of the town must confess the bad things they did to the priest and in no way will that be used for political gain in any way shape or form.

> It's the authority of experiential knowledge-like

Is there a game called chinese whispers in your country?

>It depends on the content of the text, did Marcions work contain appeals to the Church Fathers and those who personally were taught by the Apsotles?
I find it extremely unlikely
>Does Marcion's work exist outside of quotes in the text perserved by the Church?
What an interesting presupposition you're functioning on, we can't trust the Church's testimony since we know they were covering up the diverse orthodoxy of Christianity, so the evidence is made irrelevant. It's not as though they would refute any utilization of those who came before, because it's not as if this would make for significantly more effective polemic
It's also interesting you chose to ignore the Modalist and focus solely on the Gnostic

Is "protestantism" was extant from the very beginning then why would even the Apostles have anything authority?

Any form of succession by it's nature (except maybe the Sith) fractured into exponentially more offshoots each generation. At least in the early period, each Apostolic lineage, though traced to the same source, could hold each other to account if any one Bishop or group of Bishops started saying things that weren't in a continuum with the whole succession. Combating corruption is built into succession lineages.

The only way to maintain a corruption is to break off and claim to be correct. That's why historians tend to discount the notion that splinter groups are somehow the disaffected majority in reality. It's usually corrupt minorities vying for power, otherwise there would be no reason to break away.

As for Catholicism, there's misteps are why the Schism happened, AND why Protestantism happened. I actually think Protestantism was a reasonable response to Medieval Catholicism, but that doesn't make it historically coherent with original Christianity. It makes Protestantism a reaction with WITHING a corrupt offshoot.

And it's usually in the first or 2nd transmission that the message gets fucked up. Also, the transmission is usually quite uniform after the 2nd or 3rd transmission because it's already been "translated" into something more instantly understandable. If Christianity was fucked up, it was the Apostles themselves or their first disciples that were most likely to have done it if you accept the "telephone game" comparison.

>I find it extremely unlikely

How so either it contains them or it doesnt.

>What an interesting presupposition you're functioning on, we can't trust the Church's testimony since we know they were covering up the diverse orthodoxy of Christianity, so the evidence is made irrelevant

Not my point at all. My point is that our knowledge of the early period of Christianity is sparse and the information that does remain was preserved by a group which destroyed the texts and exiled people who disagreeded with it.

Therefore one should speak with a little more humility and less certaininty when talking of that period and the strength of Apostolic Succession which people greatly inflate.

>It's also interesting you chose to ignore the Modalist and focus solely on the Gnostic

As a prohpet based religion who states something is more important than what is said (including the gospels). Hence who gets to be seen as an early and legitimate successor to the apsoltes is extremely important (all the more so for the Orthodox or Catholic).

Philosophical and interpretative argumentation from late commers is a secondary and lessor concern compared to say the existence of early and "legitimate" successors of the Apostles who had different views.

To illistrate this -

The court records of Jospeh Smith scamming people with his seer stones and the reports of him from familiy members of inventing native American history as a child for fun is a far more serious and damaging point to Mormons than say the various debates between them and Christians over their interpretation of Genesis 1:5 or the philosophy of Gods nature and Qualities.

Whats with the sudden interest for orthodoxy from burgers and europeans?
Is it a meme or indeed more people are turning to orthodoxy as they say?

>Is "protestantism" was extant from the very beginning then why would even the Apostles have anything authority?

Because they accurately taught the teachings of Jesus.

> first or 2nd transmission that the message gets fucked up.

Is there a source for this? sounds interesting

> If Christianity was fucked up, it was the Apostles themselves or their first disciples that were most likely to have done it if you accept the "telephone game" comparison.

Even whilst Paul was living he had to deal with people distorting his teachings likewise *uniform does not mean correct or original*

So you call all proddies corrupt, and yet you do unbiblical things too.

See
Its a combination of contraian memery with a small core of people who have genuinely found the Orthodox Church to be true

>unbiblical
I don't do anything because I'm not a Christian. If I were a Christian, I wouldn't justify my action by referencing texts compiled, verified, and canonized by an institution (The Church) that I claim to be illegitimate.

Orthodox Recruiters on Sup Forums. I'm guessing either student priests who grew up with the internet on here in their spare time or it's part of the whole "muh russians" with proxies narrative. And sure, I'm sure there's 1 or 2 of them that are frustrated with modern degeneracy and don't think either the Protestant or RCC is doing enough about it. Even if BOTH churches have a loooooooooooong line of history to show they're just not at the break point...yet. They'll get there...eventually.

>How so either it contains them or it doesnt.
You asked me if Marcion quoted church fathers
>As a prohpet based religion who states something is more important than what is said
Tertullian could not both say the things he says in those books and ignore a proto-Arian
>the existence of early and "legitimate" successors of the Apostles who had different views.
Something for which there remains no evidence. Something which can be affirmed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>The court records of Jospeh Smith scamming people with his seer stones and the reports of him from familiy members of inventing native American history as a child for fun is a far more serious and damaging point to Mormons than say the various debates between them and Christians over their interpretation of Genesis 1:5 or the philosophy of Gods nature and Qualities.
That is because the prophethood of Joseph Smith is wholly dependent on those things being of divine origin. The analogy is false.

Dude, half of Paul's teachings are fuckin' corrupt.

And it may or may not be his fault for God's sake. The scholarship is still out on it.

Hell, the guy wouldn't shut up. Talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. I mean, have you ever heard a chatterbox in real life? They can't keep the same story straight for 5 minutes let alone the years and years they preached.

That doesn't mean they're awful people. No.

They become awful people when they claim infallibility and anything they say goes and they are the ultimate authority on all things Christian.

Most everybody white is protestant. We are taught why we arent catholic.

But these atheists taking interest? Whether they do or not, its better than atheism i suppose.

This guy indeed lurks

>You asked me if Marcion quoted church fathers

Which is why an answer other than yes or no struck me as odd.

>Tertullian could not both say the things he says in those books and ignore a proto-Arian

How does that refute or respond to my point about the source being the important part of legitimacy when it comes to prophecy.

>Something for which there remains no evidence. Something which can be affirmed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

>That is because the prophethood of Joseph Smith is wholly dependent on those things being of divine origin. The analogy is false.

The authority of the Church depend on the the teachings of the aposotles and the teaching of those who came after them of being divine in origin. It holds out fine.

>Dude, half of Paul's teachings are fuckin' corrupt.

Wait what, how did you come to this conclusion? I thought that was just the merey of 18th Century Germans

its a good thing imo, w/e helps draw people from atheism. The RDF has good memes.

>Wait what, how did you come to this conclusion? I thought that was just the merey of 18th Century Germans
Read Paul. Again, I'm not even saying he'd doing it intentional. I'm just saying, there's a reason Paul's in the Bible. I believe he was intended, in part, to be a teaching tool.

Your religion is a scam
Your god does not exist
Your priest is a liar
And you have been conned

Don't poison your children's minds with the same disease which infected you.

>Which is why an answer other than yes or no struck me as odd.
We don't have Marcion's writings.
>How does that refute or respond to my point about the source being the important part of legitimacy when it comes to prophecy.
I seem to have misunderstood what you were saying.
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
You are indeed correct. Absence of evidence is absence of evidence however, so since your historiography has as much supporting evidence as the invisible unicorn, I feel compelled as a rational man to dismiss it.
>The authority of the Church depend on the the teachings of the aposotles and the teaching of those who came after them of being divine in origin
It does not require a divine origin for the successors, only the apostles themselves. In fact, I believe that only the teachings of the apostles had divine origin, so any later teaching which is not found in the writings of the apostles is undivine.

You have a responsibility to offer people an alternative, otherwise you are a golem of Jewish deconstruction, and a scion of rising Islam.

New Atheism seemed interesting and promising in the mid 2000's when I was a edge college kid, but it quickly revealed itself as just another leftist hive. Yes, Christianity is untenable, but you're not special or advanced for recognizing this. You're the guy who slept the entire time the Titanic was sinking. At least pick up a violin and play with the band, but if you really want to be someone worthwhile, you'll find a lifeboat for the West.

If you're a Leftist, a Muslim or a Jew though, I would expect you to throw people into the icy water yourself.

Actually, ironically, the Muslims are pulling alongside with their own lifeboats, but the price of boarding is arguably worse than drowning/freezing to death.