Jew here. I have questions about Christianity

Jew here. I have questions about Christianity.
1. What is the practical difference in beliefs between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox?
2. What is the difference period between Catholics and Orthodox?
3. Are Mormons Christian?
4. What is the Holy Ghost? I understand what the Father and Son are. I get that they're three pieces of God or something, but that's all.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni_Sancte_Spiritus
catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-requirement-regarding-yearly-confession
catholic.com/tract/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

1. Protestants have the best critical / historical stuff, Catholics best art, Orthodox best meditation
2. Orthodox priests can marry once. Orthodox use Greek, Catholic Latin
3. Yes. but they were created by a Freemason. They control Pepsi.
4. Egyptians had Father, Mother and Son but Christians turned the Mother into a Ghost. Other than that, there's Mary. The originals were Osiris, Isis and Horus

Catholics and Othodox both claim to be the original Apostalic Church having both been created as the result of the great schism between the faith. Roman Catholics as the name suggests consider the Pope in Rome the suprieme pontif. Protestants come from the reformers during the Renaissance, mostly in Northern Europe who did not like the abuse of power that the Papal States were projecting and would would decide into other denominations.

Mormons have some roots in the denominations but rapidly become it own religion due to their further created but also follow a third book of the Bible written by one man as opposed to the Old Testement (Similar to Torah) and New Testaments. The new book talks about Christs visit to the Americas.

The Holy Spirit is the breath of life that Christ breathed into the apostles at pentacost. It is the third form of God which Christians welcome of their own free will into their hearts where the Lord dwells within us. It governs or thoughts and actions and gives the understanding to comprehend the word of the Lord and theirs for a greater relationship with God. It completa the trinity that makes our Lord: The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are all three one God and yet they are unique.

>3. Are Mormons Christian?
No.

Eastern Catholic priests can be married like Eastern Orthodox ones, even in some rare cases Latin Catholic priests can be married (e.g. if a married Anglican priest converts to Catholicism and becomes a Catholic priest)

Christian trinity has nothing to do with trinities from other religions.

>It is the third form of God

God doesn't have forms, that's modalism.

>1. What is the practical difference in beliefs between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox?

Protestans are diverse bunch that includes such heresies as prosperity gospel and nontrinitarianism, there's a big difference between orthodox and oriental orthodox and catholics also have a bit of variety.

1. What is the practical difference in beliefs between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox?
too long
2. What is the difference period between Catholics and Orthodox?
dogma twists
3. Are Mormons Christian?
No
4. What is the Holy Ghost? I understand what the Father and Son are. I get that they're three pieces of God or something, but that's all.
a ghost

1. No pope, 1 pope, lots of popes.
2. dah schism
3. NO
4. holy ghost = holy spirit

>Orthodox use Greek

1. Protestants tend to be more focused on working. They tend to be more logical minded. Only the Bible is protestant Christianity. Other than Evangelicals who are there own thing entirely.
Catholics tend to romanticize things more and basically the church can add whatever they want to the religion.
Orthodox are more similar to Catholics because they broke off earlier than protestants. There is something I know that Protestants and Orthodox share that Catholics don't but I can't remember.
Mormons are Christians depending on interpretation. They are but they aren't. They have some strange beliefs similar to scientology that are nothing like other Christians. The Holy Spirit is basically the spirit of God who possesses the people who are righteous and Holy. It's like God's will merged into the human. You are one with God. There's God the Father. God the Son, Jesus. And the Holy Spirit which is also an embodiment of God. Except in Arianism which is largely dead where Jesus is not God he is a prophet and Yahweh is God alone.

Basically Protestants follow the Bible first and foremost where the other churches have Saints and place a lot of value on tradition.

>1. What is the practical difference in beliefs between Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox?

It's a really long story. Catholics and Orthodox have more in common with each other than with Protestantism, and there are too many varieties of Protestantism to sum up easily. Reading the Wikipedia articles will give you a good idea.

>2. What is the difference period between Catholics and Orthodox?

Their practices and beliefs are often identical or at least similar. About a thousand years ago they split and have remained apart mainly over issues of authority in the church (i.e. the extent of the Bishop of Rome's authority).

>3. Are Mormons Christian?

I wouldn't say so, they believe in multiple gods.

>4. What is the Holy Ghost? I understand what the Father and Son are. I get that they're three pieces of God or something, but that's all.

There aren't three pieces to God, God doesn't have parts. The Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is one of the three persons who is God. The Holy Spirits comforts people, intercedes for them, inspires faith, etc. There's an old Latin hymn called "Veni Sancte Spiritus" which gives you some idea of what Christians believe about the Holy Spirit:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni_Sancte_Spiritus

Disgusting kike slime

This is now a Merchant Hate thread

>mostly in Northern Europe who did not like the abuse of power that the Papal States were projecting and would would decide into other denominations

Yes, in a certain way this is right, but the biggest reason was the belief that one can achieve his salvation by faith alone. There are however some misunderstandings surrounding the role of works in protestant ethic (as there are also variations on the understanding), but roughly good works flow forth from faith.

Yes, in effect you are right, he made the statement sound very sabellian but I think in his wording he shows an 'orthodox' understanding of the trinity. It can be very hard to put these things in words in a correct manner.

>4. Egyptians had Father, Mother and Son but Christians turned the Mother into a Ghost. Other than that, there's Mary. The originals were Osiris, Isis and Horus

If I got a nickle for every time I hear someone say that this I would be so rich I could end up becoming the owner of Pepsi. You can look for a trinity (though this one was radically different than the chritian one), but even if you do that please prove that trinity influenced the christian trinity. Suggestion is not enough, show historical data that can back this claim.

The word "form" triggered me

>2017
>Bending the knee to religion
Why do you faggots keep believing this crap? It's outdated, has no liable evidence and god hasn't shown himself or done ANYTHING in 2000 years, except stick the tip in and drop his load in some chick without consent.

Atheism and the like is becoming more and more common, 1 in 7 people in the world and that stat gets bigger everyday, why don't you join us in the future?

>it's outdated

Waaaah old things are bad!

>no reliable evidence

But there are good arguments for God's existence

>god hasn't shown himself or done ANYTHING in 2000 years

But he has

>without consent

But that's wrong

>atheism is becoming more and more common

Atheism is actually on the decline worldwide as a proportion of the population, it's only growing in the West. Also irreligion is not the same as atheism.

It's pretty clear that you don't know what you're talking about m8

We're expected to have something like 70% of Australians be irreligious by 2040 , feels good man.

t. Ignorant proddy

1. catholics love the one pope, orthodox love natinal popes and protestants say "Fuck the pope"
2. fucking schism
3. as much as muslims are christians
4. the third part of the holy trinity, not a part of god

>protestants say "Fuck the pope"

It is not so much a hate for the pope, most protestants would agree that he is a honorable man. It is the idea that the pope is the vicar of Christ which sounds just blasphemous. Christ needs no vicar in the eyes of many protestants, he is the head of the church, and while Catholics affirm this too, the whole usurpation of roles of Christ is what bothers.

But it was not even the biggest issue of the reformation, like I said in another post, the idea of salvation by faith alone was the biggest one. In a letter to Erasmus Luther thanked him for keeping his response to the reformation of him to the point on just that, all other things Luther thought were not as important (though still to an extent of importance) among that the role of the pope.

faith has always been tested, and yet it endures because of the personal connection that people have with their Lord and Savior. It is completely your free will to not believe in God, but it doesn't take your belief in the God for you to still be used as a tool to his great plan. When you think about the infinite numbers of cause and effects that occur throughout you life and the infinite possibilities it is pretty amazing to know that your choices will be constructed toward His purpose, even if you don't believe in Him.

Kill yourself.

Catholics don't think the Pope is a usurper of Christ or that he embodies Christ or anything of the sort. The Church has had Pope to guide the Church to keep the faith protected. Historically the Papal States were their own country for a time, requiring all the necessary leadership of any other country and a standing army to protect it. As society grew and the Church became the Vatican city of today, such protections were no longer necessary.

The Pope has been and continues a symbolic leader for the Church who prayers for guidance for her continued well-being and for the faithful. The idea of having to confess sin to a Pope or priest or that the bible must be received and not read has long been updated. As a Catholic of today, you don't have to go to confession and can read and discuss faith and scripture openly.

What make the Catholic faith unique are the sacraments, which does include confession, if you wish to partake of them. They are comforting blessing, not an requirement.

this is the worst fucking answer of all possible answers.

No you are right, Catholics do not believe this, I am aware of this. My point is the roles that he fulfills as a vicar, coming in my understanding from vicarus which means something like 'instead of' is seen as at best blasphemous. The times of calling the pope the antichrist however is over for most denominations.

>you don't have to go to confession and can read and discuss faith and scripture openly.

Now, correct me if I am wrong but this is however something that is required. I mostly use catholic answers for these issues, a good site though at times a bit too polemic for my taste.

catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-requirement-regarding-yearly-confession

"For instance, he moves you to repentance, and if you take the hint you can find yourself in the
confessional, where the guilt for your sins is remitted (John 20:21–23). Through the sacrament of penance, through your reconciliation to God, you receive sanctifying grace. But you can lose it again by sinning mortally (1 John 5:16–17).

Keep that word in mind: mortal. It means death. Mortal sins are deadly sins because they kill off this supernatural life, this sanctifying grace. Mortal sins can’t coexist with the supernatural life, because by their nature such sins are saying "No" to God, while sanctifying grace would be saying "Yes."

catholic.com/tract/grace-what-it-is-and-what-it-does

Certainly my apologies if I get it wrong but it seems most required to do these things.

Catholics are strongly encouraged to go to confession once a year for reconciliation to take part in the sacrament, however their are no Catholic police to come get you if you don't. The idea behind confession is that the experience of sharing something in person forces you to confront your sin and also directly feel the forgiveness through fellowship.

>The idea of having to confess sin to a Pope or priest

No, you must confess your sins to a priest in order to receive communion.

>or that the bible must be received and not read

This was never a thing, until widespread literacy the clergy had to read it to the people.

Well no, I do not assume there is a catholic policeman going around to force you but what I think is good to disseminate is the 'forcing' and the 'required of a good catholic' part. To make a comparison a father is not required by law to give his children a hug, but it is required in a good upbringing that you do things like that. It does seem as though the catholic church pretty much requires these thing.

>This was never a thing, until widespread literacy the clergy had to read it to the people.

Now not to go really really Luther on you or something there is at best a 'sort of' truth to it. But it is a bit more complicated, there never really seemed to be a widespread ban on reading the bible. Some will mention several councils like in Toulouse or Taragonna in which the bible was banned, but those were at best regional or very temporarily.

What could be said with more certainty that the writing of vernacular books was largely prevented. This might sound soft, but certainly in our Germanic speaking parts and later on also those that spoke Roman languages moving away from the vulgate it does make it de facto impossible to read the bible (or to hear someone read it). Case in point is my own language, we got a translation into middle Dutch (partially) in rhyme, which is a shadow of course of the real text, it only was a representation of the stories. A real translation came later which did not even include the synoptic gospels in 1361 which was met with opposition of the church. A later bible appeared 1477 which also did not include the gospels. It was only in 1548 that we got a real Dutch bible that was however translated from the Vulgate instead of directly, we are now already in the age of the reformation.

Even those part that were written in English were scarce at best, they were not as widespread in use as the vulgate which had to be read by someone that knew Latin. The problem with a later Wycliffe seems to be that he wanted it spread.