/xpi/ Apostolic Christianity

Alright it's time us Apostolic Christians got together to purge all this shit tier heresy thats been flooding the board here lately. Orthobros, Latins and like the three Copts on this board need to purge this shit tier heterodoxy off our board, It's time for a Memeumenical Council anons.

The number of the_donald refugees who have flooded here over the past year who don't realize that Sup Forums is a Christian board is quite disturbing.

Vargfags gotta go

Oh I'm glad to see you. I was wondering...
Do you believe that Jesus has the power to command (whether inherently or granted by Father) Holy Spirit?
If so, does He command Holy Spirit by the means of His divinity, or by the means of His humanity? (i.e. because He is true God, or because He is true man?)
For example, Jesus existed before the ages, because He is true God. And Jesus could be born and die, because He is true man.

Christ’s humanity and divinity distinct but inseparable

Meh

1 = granted
2 = Nether. He just can now.
3 = He existed before ages, because he was created before the universe, and before his angelic brothers.

Purge this board for her

Christ isnt human anymore

I don't claim one could separate them, but distinct them - yes.
>1 = granted
>2 = Nether. He just can now
Ok, take then st. Peter for example. Jesus promised him:
>whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 16, 18
The Peter, does not have that power inherently, from birth, it is granted to him and by that his human nature is changed (i.e. this special power is "attached" to Peter's specific nature and a part of it).
By granting Jesus power He didn't have from being born out of Father, logic breaks. Because it's not in nature of divinity to change
>For I am the Lord, I do not change
Malachi 3, 6
And it makes no sense for humanity to command divine that is Holy Spirit (could a man command Jesus?). Therefore for it to be correct, the power to command HS must be by the means of divinity, and it must be inherent, for divinity does not change.
>3 = He existed before ages, because he was created before the universe
*Begotten by Father and that is why Father can send Him. Father begotten Him by the means within Father's divinity. Similarly Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, this process is a part of divine natures of Father and Son. And that explains why Christ can command spirit.

Reminder that these patriarchs are the chad popes compared to the le virgin roman catholic pope.

>Chalceldon

That is a heresy. If he wasn't human, he would not die.
The truth about Son is in Revelation 2, 9
>These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life
"First and the Last" is divine attribute, "was dead, and came to life" is a humane attribute, because God doesn't "start" nor "end".
And there is no separation between them in this passage (they both refer to one and the same Son), but a distinction can be made from reasoning behind them.
He is the "First and the Last", because He is true God.
And He "was dead and came to life", because He is true man.

Apologize.

>whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16,18

Other christians could do that too. This was not only for Peter. Mat 18:18

>The Peter, does not have that power inherently, from birth, it is granted to him

Like Jesus.

> and by that his human nature is changed (i.e. this special power is "attached" to Peter's specific nature and a part of it).

This doesn't necessarily work like this. No need to change. If I give you a key to open a door, it doesn't change your human nature.

>By granting Jesus power He didn't have from being born out of Father, logic breaks. Because it's not in nature of divinity to change

Jesus received full power and authority (except over his God and Father) after his resurrection. He received something he did not have before coming down to earth, and while he was human (if was very limited after his baptism, in a certain way)

>For I am the Lord, I do not change. Malachi 3, 6

This verse is about YHWH, the Father. So the rest of your post is irrelevant.

...

>These things says the First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life

About his human life on Earth.

>He is the "First and the Last", because He is true God.

No, he is the First and the Last and the living (1,18)... it's a whole expression about being the first and the last in his resurrection (the only one to be resurrected directly by his God and Father, all the other will be resurrected through Jesus)

> (You)
>>Chalceldon

Pre chalcedonian chads

I'd say Pre-nicean for me, here.

> (You)
>Apologize.
Blocks your path

> (You)
>I'd say Pre-nicean for me, here.

Nay, the oriental orthodox church came about as a break away from the mainline church because the mainline church decided to change the doctrine on christs human and divine nature. Theyre pre chalcedonian by definiton.

>If I give you a key to open a door, it doesn't change your human nature.
As before I could be described as human, now I would be described as human with a key. It changes my description, and while my body remains unchanged, nature of things that I can do as a person - changes.
>Jesus received full power and authority (except over his God and Father) after his resurrection.
Verse?
>This verse is about YHWH, the Father.
This is about Lord, the God. Jesus is God and Father is God. Jesus is Lord and Father is Lord. There's but one Lord in three persons and but one God in three persons. Divine nature does not vary between persons. Rather to what exactly divine nature is used.
>Like Jesus.
Could Peter be granted authority over Son, from Father?

Yeah I know, I was talking about my own christology

>Blocks your path.
>Proceeds regardless, because gates of Hell will not prevail against Church.
Your move.

> (You)
>Yeah I know, I was talking about my own christology

So youre protestant then?

> (You)
>>Blocks your path.
>>Proceeds regardless, because gates of Hell will not prevail against Church.
>Your move.

Blocks your path with 6 times the power of one patriarch

>As before I could be described as human, now I would be described as human with a key. It changes my description, and while my body remains unchanged, nature of things that I can do as a person - changes.

The "nature of things you can do" isn't your "nature" in itself. You are still human.

>Verse?

Mat 28:18 for example

>This is about Lord, the God. Jesus is God and Father is God.

Jesus isn't God. He is divine, like any spiritual creature is (and heavenly christians are). But he isn't God himself.

>Could Peter be granted authority over Son, from Father?

I don't like to play with "could" and "if".


--------------

>So youre protestant then?

Kinda... unitarian.

--------------

>because gates of Hell will not prevail against Church.

This verse is so badly used and understood it's painful.

>
>>As before I could be described as human, now I would be described as human with a key. It changes my description, and while my body remains unchanged, nature of things that I can do as a person - changes.
>The "nature of things you can do" isn't your "nature" in itself. You are still human.
>>Verse?
>Mat 28:18 for example
>>This is about Lord, the God. Jesus is God and Father is God.
>Jesus isn't God. He is divine, like any spiritual creature is (and heavenly christians are). But he isn't God himself.
>>Could Peter be granted authority over Son, from Father?
>I don't like to play with "could" and "if".
>--------------
>>So youre protestant then?
>Kinda... unitarian.
>--------------
>>because gates of Hell will not prevail against Church.
>This verse is so badly used and understood it's painful.

So you submit to the 5 solas then?

>It's time for a Memeumenical Council anons.
>Posters proceed to race who can reject more ecumenical councils.

Hmm... not really.

The only council I'd accept would be Jerusalem 49, then. Hehe.

> (You)
>Hmm... not really.

I am not sure christianity works that way. I dont think you can just start your own church without apostolic tradition and succession, it kind of defeats the purpose of the christian church left by the apostles. Protestantism is split into over 40k groups cause guys like you want your own christology and it just doesnt work like that.

No need for the succession when you have the Parable of the weed.

About the 5 solae, I have a problem with the sola fide of Luther because it doesn't take James inspired letter into account.

>Matthew 28, 18
>And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth"
Why do you interpret this as meaning He didn't have that power before?
Father has given authority to the Son, by giving birth to Him, before all ages.
>You are still human.
And Peter is still human, but he has greater power now. It's exactly what your nature is, what you can and can't do.
>Jesus isn't God.
Titus 2, 13 would like to have a word with you:
>looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
What is wrong with "if" and "could"? We make hypothesis and then by following on that logic, we found were it leads. When it leads somewhere stupid (like man, or angel being able to command God), then it is flawed logic. Heresies are contradictory, Truth is logical.

> (You)
>No need for the succession when you have the Parable of the weed.
>About the 5 solae, I have a problem with the sola fide of Luther because it doesn't take James inspired letter into account.

>Father has given authority to the Son, by giving birth to Him, before all ages.

No. Jesus was exalted after his death, way higher than before.

>And Peter is still human

No he isn't, he is a glorified spirit in Heaven. There is no flesh nor blood over there.

>Titus 2, 13 would like to have a word with you:
looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

You forgot a "of our" before Savior Jesus Christ. It's a common mistake in some trinitarian translation (NAB, ASV, etc don't have it)... consistency problem with Titus 1:4

>doesn't take James inspired letter into account.
And 1 John 1,6-9; 2,1-6; 3,4-18; 4,4; 4,20; Jude 18-19; 1 Corinthians 13,2; Revelation 2,23; 20,12; etc.
It's amazing really.

Yeah, Luther was too focused on his anti-catholic rant to get a proper understanding of the Bible teaching.

...

>
>Yeah, Luther was too focused on his anti-catholic rant to get a proper understanding of the Bible teaching.

Martin regretted starting his reformation shortly before his death.

Well, he was correct on some point tho. The Catholics were too wrong on many points.

> (You)
>Well, he was correct on some point tho. The Catholics were too wrong on many points.

But how does that make protestantism any better? Its literally just making a church because you disagree with someone.

Well, he couldn't change catholicism, so it was like a schism... like Orthodox did, in a way.

Catholics and Orthodox eh? Just a couple of questions...

> Does the Holy Spirit comes from the Father alone or both the Father and the Son?

> Can you use unleavened bread in the communion?

2 posts by this ID, the author left the topic.

People still believe in gods? hmm..

Well i guess some of you never finished elementary school.

> (You)
>Well, he couldn't change catholicism, so it was like a schism... like Orthodox did, in a way.

The orthodox church didnt schism, the oriental orthodox church in 451 AD refused to be part of the main church because they wanted to keep and maintain the teaching that christs human and divine nature is only one without confusion without seperation, the post chalcedonian churches literally went along with this councils decision and accepted more changes into the western christian church which dun goofed up at the council of chalcedon, which is why now you have catholic church and eastern orthodoxy and protestantism and protestantism seperating from protestantism and now you have protestant churches that perform gay marriages and a bible with books taken out to fit their narrative.

Bible books taken out... it depends on the churches...

But that's true that some even refuse Luke's gospel, Peter and Paul's letters... for reason... heh... we had a guy like that here a few days ago.

> (You)
>Bible books taken out... it depends on the churches...
>But that's true that some even refuse Luke's gospel, Peter and Paul's letters... for reason... heh... we had a guy like that here a few days ago.


How can you be protestant and believe the bible is the only source of christian worship you supposedly need if your protetestant bible is missing all the other cananical books?

Are there really canonical ? I don't think so. They are more like fanfictions.

>No. Jesus was exalted after his death, way higher than before.
What leads you to believe that?
>There is no flesh nor blood over there.
Humans have soul, you know? And he will have body, after 2nd coming of Christ.
>Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Do you claim that this body will not be human? Then why does it say redemption?
>consistency problem with Titus 1:4
There is none, unless Titus 1,4 uses same wording in the original as Titus 2,13
>from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
In other words: from Son and Father. It's like saying that: in the name of Father and Son, and Holy Spirit is inconsistent.

>Paul
>apostle
According to whom (hard mode: anyone other than Paul)

> (You)
>Are there really canonical ? I don't think so. They are more like fanfictions.

They were written by the early church, explain how that is not cannanical?

You must literally be retarded if you dont think Sup Forums is the ultimate form of sattire.....

Praise kek you faggot nigger!

>Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Forgot to write were is it from. Romans 8,23

Blessed Pius XII, how much we need him today.

> (You)
>Are there really canonical ? I don't think so. They are more like fanfictions.

Youre literally just picking and choosing what you want to follow in the christian religion.

>refuse Luke's gospel, Peter and Paul's letters... for reason... heh... we had a guy like that here a few days ago.
Don't even start on that, mere mentioning of him gives me conniptions.

I’m still here I’m just mobile now cause I’m at work. Dealing with a chlorine gas leak.

Anglicans have Apostolic Succession.

>Anglicans have Apostolic Succession.

Oh reallty, tell me how the anglican church started?

Founded in the sixth century by Saint Augustine of Canterbury

Didn’t the orthodox pretty much tell them this when they were trying to join communion with the east not tooo long ago.

There are so many burgers here now, I'm not sure Sup Forums can still call itself a Christian board. Too many heathens...

>No. Jesus was exalted after his death, way higher than before.
>What leads you to believe that?

From the Bible, Phil 2:9 for example.

>Humans have soul, you know?

We ARE souls, it's not HAVE souls.

>And he will have body, after 2nd coming of Christ.

A spiritual body isn't a human body.

>There is none, unless Titus 1,4 uses same wording in the original as Titus 2,13

It's not about wording, it's about what was established in the beginning of the letter.

God the Father... Jesus the savior... that's why you need "and of our savior Jesus". It's not the same.

----------------------

I'm not talking about apostle here.

>They were written by the early church, explain how that is not cannanical?

Moses, David, Apollos could write a book of his own, that doesn't make it canonical. The Bible speak about such books and letters, but we don't have them. It's just that they weren't inspired by God, even if the content can be interesting, in a way, it's not God's holy word.

There's an old saying in England
>we're not religious, mate. We're Church of England.
That goes back decades before they let women and poofters preach. They are heretical to the point that they shouldn't even be considered to be heretics anymore. They're apostates.

Crass materialism is the real enemy. Even a Muslim or a Mormon is better than an atheist.

You're are just adding and choosing what you want to follow in the christian religion...

> (You)
>Founded in the sixth century by Saint Augustine of Canterbury

>>founded and established by a post chalcedonian church that changed the doctrine of christs humanity and divinity in 451 AD.

Nice try nigel thornberry

ikr... back in the day when I used to debate on Paltalk, there was a guy like that... unbearable.

Ok, be careful.

Yes, to supplant the Celtic Church which took inspiration from the Desert Fathers and looked to Alexandria and Antioch for spiritual guidance.

I've only noticed this reply now.
>it's a whole expression about being the first and the last in his resurrection
It's undoubtedly an attribute of God.
“Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel,
And his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
‘I am the First and I am the Last;
Besides Me there is no God'"
Isaiah 44,6

> (You)
>>They were written by the early church, explain how that is not cannanical?
>Moses, David, Apollos could write a book of his own, that doesn't make it canonical. The Bible speak about such books and letters, but we don't have them. It's just that they weren't inspired by God, even if the content can be interesting, in a way, it's not God's holy word.

A cannical book is any book that came from the early church regardless how what you think or how you wrongly interpret it, if its from the early church its part of the christian cannon.

Different context... Isaiah isn't about resurrection. Unlike Jesus talking in the Revelation.

>A cannical book is any book that came from the early church regardless how what you think or how you wrongly interpret it, if its from the early church its part of the christian cannon.

No it's not. Being canonical is not temporal, it's spiritual.

> (You)
>Didn’t the orthodox pretty much tell them this when they were trying to join communion with the east not tooo long ago.

Theres two orthodoxies, the oriental pre chalcedonian church which formed in the 5th century because they didnt want to change the doctrine difining christs human anx divine nature, and the eastern orthodox church that resukted from the catholic church and constantine church disagreeing.

> (You)
>>A cannical book is any book that came from the early church regardless how what you think or how you wrongly interpret it, if its from the early church its part of the christian cannon.
>No it's not. Being canonical is not temporal, it's spiritual.

And who told you this?

How is it relevant ?

Luther did nothing wrong by demanding a reformation of the church.
It's the Kings to took the opportunity to size power and free themselves from Pope authority that caused the actual split.

> (You)
>How is it relevant ?

Disregard that, there are about 81 books in the original bibke written over 15 centuries ago by the early church and all christians at some point well after the council of chalcedon decided to review the bible and take some books out that didnt agree with their newly formulated doctrine.

...

> (You)
>Luther did nothing wrong by demanding a reformation of the church.
>It's the Kings to took the opportunity to size power and free themselves from Pope authority that caused the actual split.

The catholic church was corrupt at that point 500 years ago, but martin luther tried to reform the church to what is was prior to its tomfoolery but failed and now has spawned the protestant church which got out of control, he regretted starting the movement before he died.

There are 66 books in the Bible.
The other are fanfictions and/or historical (Macc.).
--------------

Luther isn't the only one relevant about the Reform... Waldo, Servetus, etc... there were some clever guys, back in the day.

>corrupt
Pope Leo X was elected to be pope with 36 years and was not even priest.
The shit was fucked beyond repair.

Non-Protestant individuals are literally heretics that must be kept out of public office by use of an established Church, as in the old manner of doing things.

> (You)
>There are 66 books in the Bible.
>The other are fanfictions and/or historical (Macc.).
>--------------
>Luther isn't the only one relevant about the Reform... Waldo, Servetus, etc... there were some clever guys, back in the day.

What makes those 15 books fanfiction compared to the other 66? They were from the early church so explain that.

>Phil 2,9
Well I have Phil 2,7 for you:
>but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men
made Himself, because He became human and didn't use the power inherent and authority inherent to Him.
2,9:
>Therefore God also has highly exalted Him
It might not mean receiving power and authority, rather praise. Nobody praised Jesus before, for humans didn't know Him. Only after He came from Heaven to live as human and humbled Himself by dying upon cross. And that God (Father) is stated as the one exalting Christ after this, might just be a leap of logic on behalf of Paul, as God being cause of all things, by allowing them. It happened in the inspired text before, compare 2 Samuel 24,1 and 1 Chronicles 21,1.
>We ARE souls, it's not HAVE souls.
I could argue that we're in possession of both body and soul, but consciousness resides within soul, so you are right.
>A spiritual body isn't a human body.
It is human body, as it was created initially, without sin.
>It's not the same.
Yeah it isn't. The Father =/= Son, but Son = God.

Inconsistent with the Message of the 66 inspired ones. Not considered as relevant by the first canons

> (You)
>>corrupt
>Pope Leo X was elected to be pope with 36 years and was not even priest.
>The shit was fucked beyond repair.

I know, but forming some random non apostolic churches with no apostolic tradition didnt help.

> (You)
>Inconsistent with the Message of the 66 inspired ones. Not considered as relevant by the first canons

Who declared those 15 books as non cannanical?

>not being Calvinist
Sucks for you that God didn't choose you.

I agree with your initiative, BUT

>wants to fight for our Lord
>violates His second commandment in the pic

Explain this heresy.

Greetings, brothers! Christ is in our midst!

Calvinism is basically Islam for Christians.

He's not completely white

The Council of Chalcedon was necessary and anyone who does not agree with it is a heretic. If Egypt was correct they would not have been completely so btfod that Egyptians ceased to exist within egypt within a few hundred years afterwords from the mudslime invasions

...

St Augusttine of Canterbury took orders from the Bishop of Rome,Pope St. Gregory the Great, who we still have letters of issuing orders to. he was undoubtedly a Roman Catholic not Anglican

That we are chosen to salvation, doesn't mean we don't have free will and can't lose it:
>For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Mark 13,22

>We ARE souls, it's not HAVE souls.
That's a tenent of Gnosticism found in Against Heresies by St Irenaeus. We are composed of body and soul. To say we are just soul with a body tacked on like some extra is heretical. The body and soul are inseparable and it's what makes Man Man