/lit/ - Literature

Orthodox Christians didn't

>He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him.

They haven't. Protestants are not Christians.

PRAISE DA LORD
PRAISE DA LORD
OOOHHH LAWD BE PRAISED
YOU THE LAWD LIKE NO OTHA

>>12013268
Make fun of black people all you want, he has found God and you have yet to do so

>>12012763
"The Mass was best in Latin
They never should have banned it
It doesn't make sense now that
We can understand it"
- DAAS, "Go To Church"

>>12012781
orthodox Christians generally don't write on Christianity

>>12012763
It's archaic but it's style widely used.

>>12013255
You are most likely a larper, opinion discarded

>>12013268
Looks like that white chick just realized she's surrounded by niggers.

>>12012763

>>12012763
Write like what? A translation that happens to have archaic English syntax?

>>12013453
Better than saying "the man upstairs" in that weird stereotypical evangelical accent.

>>12013276
So an even better reason to make fun of him than his skin color? Okay.

What's so archaic about the quote, OP? The syntax looks contemporary to me, alike what I wrote in another thread >>12010824.

>>12013244
>gospel of thomas

>>12013453
I think he’s referring to theosis, which Protestants never really talk about and seem to think is blasphemous

>>12013463
Thats used ironically

>>12014067
???
I disagree, it's talked about just not in the same form

>>12014070
half of my family is protestant

I went to their "mass", we had donuts and coffee and the preacher compared the holy spirit to the reverberations of a strong bass in a car

>>12014075
>I went to their "mass", we had donuts and coffee and the preacher compared the holy spirit to the reverberations of a strong bass in a car

>>12014075
I've never come across that, even in very low-church protestant services. Anyway, it's unrelated to theosis.

>>12014075
>I went to their "mass", we had donuts and coffee and the preacher compared the holy spirit to the reverberations of a strong bass in a car

>>12013244
faggot

>>12013244
>gospel of thomas

>>12014070
Protestants don’t even believe in the Eucharist. That’s two steps away from being an atheist.

>>12013244
>quoting a gnostic "gospel"

>>12014559
>Protestants don't believe in a magical incantation from a priest in a funny outfit to turn bread and wine into flesh and blood of jesus Christ so they can they their sins wiped for a short time

And does the water of baptism turn into a real freshly womb?

>>12013491
>>12014535
>>12014540
>>12014568

Replies worthy of the Church.

>>12013288
I don't think OP meant just writing. The Orthodox Church has prayers and hymns, both old and modern written in this exact style. Though in foreign languages, when translated it becomes pretty similar.

>>12014559

Catholics don't believe in Morality. That's actually being an Atheist.

>>12013244
Why is the stench of gnostic heresy always so obvious?

>>12014513
I forgot to mention it took place in a renovated former Winn-Dixie (Georgia Supermarket)
The point is without the structure of the Holy Apostolic church protestantism has degraded immensely which is the exact opposite of the theosis ideal.
Albeit the anglicans have maintained their tradition just as well as the Novus Ordo has maintained catholicism.

Striving for beauty is the signature of the divine, when things are ugly and crude it is the exact opposite.

>>12012763
>>12012781
this, just read more Orthodox literature. A lot of it is just old monks pontificating in that poetic manner like the good old days.

>>12012763
Our priest with polish origins speaks like this

>>12014997

It is expected to angry at that which is not coercive when it reminds you that you are being coerced. The idea is somewhat prominent.

>>12014997

It is expected to get angry at that which is not coercive when it reminds you that you are being coerced. The idea is somewhat prominent.

>>12014969
Protestants presume that they’re sins are forgiven. That’s actually Satanism.

>>12014579
>muh metaphor

Eucharistic miracles say fuck you.

>>12012763
>that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself
Apotheosis?

>On this account, therefore, I have not hesitated nor have I been ashamed to call you my brethren and my companions, because ye will be fellow-kings with me in my kingdom. This, therefore, I say unto you, knowing that I will give you the mystery of the Ineffable; that is: That mystery is I, and I am that mystery

>>12015173

Protestants accept knowable Morality and accept accountability in transgressing it. Catholics accept neither.

>>12014997
but didnt the gnostics want to ascend to their spiritual world and away from the sneaky spurdo demiurge? in the gospel of thomas theres a line that mentions something along the lines of jesus saying heaven is right here in front of us. isnt that exactly the opposite of the gnostic stuff? someone please elaborate.

>>12015173

>>12014579
You know that all the early Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, right?

If there is no infallible interpreter for an infallible text, then the early Church Fathers have you beat on interpretation of correct Christian doctrine in regards to the Eucharist.

I'll take the word of men taught under the apostles and the men taught under them, rather than what Zwingli (1500 years removed from Christ), Calvin (1500 years removed from Christ), Pastor Jim Bob's Crossroads Church of Christ (2000 years removed from Christ), or any of you First United Evangelibapticostalists have to say.

>>12016190
I believe in the 66 books of the Bible and what's written there. Not in the teachings of men, even if I study them and agree with them.

>>12016317
what did Christians do for the several centuries before the canon was compiled and distributed? or for the thousand plus years before widespread literacy and the printing press? where is Sola Scriptura in the bible? why do you accept the 66 books as canon if you don't accept the authority of the church that compiled it? why does Paul tell Timothy to hold fast to the tradition that has been given to him? former prot here lad, think about these things

>>12016570
>what did Christians do for the several centuries before the canon was compiled and distributed?
You do realize they had the old testament right? Do you think Paul's letters gathered dust till 1400?
>where is Sola Scriptura in the bible?
Where is the churches authority over the scriptures in the bible?
>why do you accept the 66 books as canon if you don't accept the authority of the church that compiled it?
Which church are you talking about? Because the Catholics have extra books.
>why does Paul tell Timothy to hold fast to the tradition that has been given to him?
....what do you believe that tradition was? Cause if you believe its latin incantations, you are wrong friend.

>>12016190
You know that all the early Christians believed in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, right?
2000 year old heretics? Nah I'll take the bible instead

>>12016190
This isn't really correct. In ancient writing there is a conflation of the thing and the thing signified. It's hard to explain, but an ancient person could say that X, which symbolizes Y, *is* Y, while not believing that it actually turned into Y in a literal fashion. If you read their works assuming the modern dichotomy between mere symbolism and actual change then you are being anachronistic.

>>12016650
Point being, it's easy to read the Church Fathers and think they're talking about whatever modern debate you happen to be worrying about, but they most likely aren't and are speaking from a way of viewing the world that you don't necessarily share, so you must take extra care when reading them and not take what they're saying out of its actual context (assuming you even understand that context to begin with).

>>12016570
Your problem was following a denomination in the first place. But what's infinitely more humorous is your objections that were somehow, in your mind, condemning enough to make you leave Protestantism.

But they haven't.

https://youtu.be/5PwYEyBNXKs

>>12014075
That sounds pretty based desu.

>>12016633
>>12016622
Good bait friend

>>12015174
Fungi is pretty cool, but hardly miraculous

>>12016650
>>12016664
>(((context)))
>(((modern dichotomy)))
You have nothing in common with ancient Christians, goy! Your beliefs are totally different!

>>12016949
If you think people from 2,000 years ago viewed the world in the same way you do, you're delusional.

>>12016949
Get a hold of yourself, brother, and stop blaming the Jews for your problems. Christianity has developed over the millennia (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), and Christians across the world have always understood the word in the context of their culture and historical period.

>>12016819
>get btfo
>ummmmm b-bait...

>>12016949
Its true histroy repeats itself, but read some church history they definitely had problems exclusive to them because of the time period.

>>12017146
Indeed, the Church Fathers also speak about things in an undeveloped manner. Because certain things had not yet becomes issues of dispute, there was less carefulness in expressing ideas as well as a lack of clarification in terminology. They may just simply stick to how scripture expresses something, rather than laboring to explain exactly what that means. Historically, theology only becomes clarified as it becomes a problem. So you can see a deep discussion in the Church Fathers over the divinity of Christ and how that relates to his humanity, as this was a pressing issue; the same cannot be said for the Eucharist until a later point in history. So again it can be easy to take something out of context and think that it is a careful theological statement, when it really isn't.

>>12016862
You materialists, always trying to weasel out of things.

>>12017277
No one is obligated to believe in Eucharistic miracles, Marian apparitions, etc.

>>12013255
This.

>>12017280
Unfortunately, you're correct. Even the Church doesn't require it. They list these things as "worthy of belief," but don't require belief in them in order to be a good Catholic.

I think this is a mistake. The Church should force the modern world to confront direct evidence of God's actions on Earth. The healings, the apparitions, the miracles should be required beliefs for Catholics. This is a religion, not a social club. You signed up for the terrible power of God when you received your First Communion.

>>12015173
They hate you because you speak the truth.

>>12014969
this is true
>>12015173
this is also true

t. atheist lol’ing to himself

>>12017288
This is an unreasonable and unhealthy view, I think. You demand more of people than God himself does, to prop up your own zealotry. It's nothing more than pride.

>>12017286
/thread

>>12013255
This is heresy as it denies baptism. Catholicism doesn't teach anything like this.

>>12015266

Dialectic, not Dual.

>>12016650
>>12016664
lol okay

>>12016317
>>12016633
it's your interpretation of the Bible versus the early Church Father's interpretation of the Bible.

If you aren't a retard, you would err on the side of them

>>12017357
Where is there evidence that you shouldn't believe in miracles, the Resurrection, and literal Bible? Orthodox do.

>>12018249
>it's your interpretation of the Bible versus the early Church Father's interpretation of the Bible.

Yeah its mine, noooooo one else believes the same......NO ONE.
Truth be told im surprised no one has come to the same revelations as me.

>>12018284
lmao
>what is the Catholic Church
if you're trying to say that number of believers harks to the true Christianity, the based Catholics have you beat, champ

>>12013268
These practices were adopted from Anglo run Baptist churches

>>12018296
No you said its my interpretation and it's not its just what the bible says and plenty of other people have read the bible and come to the same conclusion as me, look lets agree to disagree you can follow mother pagan church and I'll read the bible.

>>12013491
>>12014535
>>12014540
>>12014568
>>12014767
kek

>>12018273
Orthodox general public followers are more medieval locked in their brains than you'd expect - this comes from a guy who grew in an ultra Orthodox country and travelled to Greece and other ultra-orthodox countries.

The Church as an institution is universally very corrupted - look at my country if the average wealth per citizen this include all assets under his legal possession is 8000 usd. It's not unusual if you befriend a monastery administrator to learn that he has at times if not hundreds of euros, millions under the management most of which came from donations - and does not know what to do with.

Priests, your average city priests... to exit from 100k + euro car that he owns, bought with the profits from Church mission...


Orthodox Church is very profitable only because it keeps its followers mindset in the medieval scheme of things, doses not allow anyone to come out with a different perspective.

It's all like in byzantine empire, with a lot of byzantinism magical thinking, miracles that are absurd - probably invented by greedy priests and faked out like a theatre play in front of people... EXCEPT today there's no more Byzantine King to defend them... hence their popularity and user-base is declining really quick - and eventually the wholesome of it will get unmasked in the eyes of the world - when Eastern world either becomes more civilized or starts to do things to put in in the spotlight.

>>12019062
Well the current heads of the orthodox church are illegitimate as consequence of the Raskol, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it has corruption.

>>12018404
>its my interpretation and it's not its just what the bible says and plenty of other people have read the bible and come to the same conclusion as me

>it's the Church Fathers' interpretation and it's not its just what the bible says and plenty of other people have read the bible and come to the same conclusion as them

Do you know see the issue here?
Interpretations from men like St. Ignatius of Antioch are much more probable than the Protestant positions. Does it not bother you that some of your beliefs are in total opposition with those who most likely than not got it right?

>Example: Eucharist
-There are at least 74 quotes from the 1st to 5th century in favor of the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

-There are at least 34 sources from the 1st to 5th century in favor of the Catholic position on the Eucharist.

-There are at least 30 quotes from 15 sources from either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century. All of those sources are pre-Nicene (before 325AD) Christians. To add to that, documents from 258AD-325AD are not accounted for.

-40% of these quotes come from either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century (not including 258AD-325AD).

-44% of the sources—from either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century (not including 258AD-325AD)—account for 40% of these 74 quotes quotes.


Again, it's one group's interpretation of the Bible (let's say John 6 in regards to the Eucharist) versus another group's interpretation of the Bible (John 6).
It's you and whoever came to the same conclusion as you versus men who lived within the first 5 centuries (were some were taught under an apostle or taught under students of the Apostles).

>Who would you bet on being right?
>Pastor Jim Bob or St. Ignatius of Antioch, taught under the apostle St. John, who lived in the first century?

Here's a thread with most of those early Christian quotes; if anyone knew Christianity authentically, it'd be them...:
>>11796366
>>/lit/thread/S11790868#p11796201

>>12019637
>>>/lit/thread/S11790868#p11796366

here's the table of contents post for all those quotes in that thread

>>12015173
Catholics believe in connection through an organized, systematic church where a pope or saint acts as a bridge. That's actually idolatry.

>>12012763
what do you do when a christian girl tells you that "christianity has no rules to follow"

>>12019724
teleport behind her

>>12019721
That’s actually biblical.

>>12019721
>"That's actually idolatry" without explaining how it is idolatry

>>12019721
>That's actually idolatry.
what?

>>12019724
that's code for
>I let chad and his friends run trains on me every weekend and give bjs to Tinder matches whenever I don't feel like paying for dinner but want to go somewhere fancy, but I still want to pretend that I'm a good individual who upholds a rigorous moral standard (look at how different I am from the other girls!) and will be rewarded with a golden palace in the sky after I die
So if you're chad, go for it she's an easy lay. If you're not chad, I hope your bank account is fat enough for her to see you as a potential betabucks atm retirement plan once she's in her thirties and "ready to find the man the Lord has chosen for me".

>>12019868
Anon that was really specific

>>12012763
Vatican 2. The mysticism of the Church was erased on purpose, to fit the fashion and capability of normies.

Also, a question for any STEMfriends here, regarding data compression.

If we can only reduce data so much using our own symbols... how much sense does the concept of God make? A single inexpressible symbol that caused All.

>>12013244
of course you realize the early Church was hardly cohesive and there were a lot of sex cult / body fluid cult leaders, right?

*pops a cap in your ass*

>>12013244
sounds gay af.

>>12012763
Actual Catholic mass still uses it a lot, Catholics who are also yanks might have changed some shit

>>12019868
Do you think they really believe their own lies or under the layer of superficiality they can feel their soul decaying? I've always wondered this. I think most people aren't aware of their soul enough to feel when they degrade it, we need a revival of the soul.

>>12020200
if they were aware of what they were losing, they wouldn't be so cavalier about it. though somewhat aware of their sin because of social norms conditioning, they don't actually have a real understanding of the consequences of their actions. they're brainlets and not suitable for marriage (for me, imo).

>>12020200
What are you talking about?
Nobody actually believes in "souls" nowadays. "Soul" has basically just become a word that entails a vague idea of the personality somehow being infinite (lol). Obviously that isn't the case.
I'm just saying that "christian" girls are exactly the same as every other girl and their religion is entirely a cosmetic accessory along with being a nice little cope they can fall back on when the world starts to get too rough (like when for instance they find chad cheating on them with a girl half their age and they are so outraged they don't have sex with that particular chad for at least a month to punish him and instead have sex with a bunch of randos so they can feel pretty again).
Guys who claim to be christians are basically the same just minus the sex part and they use the religion as a cope for not getting laid by thinking "heh, well, a girl may not ever have sucked my dick--but that's a good thing because that would be a sin!" However, as opposed to girls, some guys will actually delve into their delusion to the point of forming a concrete moral system to which they actually adhere, whereas women think that the fact that they thought about what a sin it would to have this married chad plow their ass while their boyfriend was at work alleviates any guilt they might bear in the situation.
Christianity is like the golden fucking ticket for women's bizarre-o conceptions of morality because it is such a pussified religion and indulges the idea of "well, I can do whatever I want and repent of it before I die so yay cock-carousel here I come!"

>>12020267
what the fuck anon

>>12020234
So many issues would be solved if everyone were more self-aware, but it's not fun confronting the shadow. It's often demoralizing and you realize terrible things about yourself. Then you have to go and put in effort to fix those things otherwise the knowledge that they're there eats you up, and that's a lot of time and work.
And even when people do realize it society tells them it's ok, it's ok to be terrible. HAES, no slut shaming, embracing victimhood, etc. It's like there's some force making sure people stay unaware.
Ignorance is bliss, at least a superficial level of bliss. The non-ignorant pay the price so that the ignorant may have their bliss.

>>12020267
>Nobody actually believes in "souls" nowadays.
Yes, that's exactly the problem. You're preaching to the choir about people using Christianity as a tool to aid them in their mental gymnastics in absolving the guilt from immoral acts. The fact that they need to use it as a "cope" means subconsciously they know what they're doing is wrong, and that's what I mean about "feeling their soul degrade"
Society has built so many "copes" to absolve the guilt of doing immoral actions. The whole empowerment and love your body/ self-movement for example.

>>12014075
>talking about Protestantism as if it is catholicism
:think:

>>12020267
What about serious believers? Are they just coping? It's far more worrying to think about your soul in Hell after death than worrying about being a virgin.

>>12020468
>What about serious believers? Are they just coping?
yes, as I said. It is simply a delusion carried to the point of mental manifestation. They might believe it in good faith, but ultimately it is a cope. Whereas almost every woman's religious beliefs are in bad faith.

>It's far more worrying to think about your soul in Hell after death than worrying about being a virgin.
There is nothing after death, you dumbass. The very idea itself of there being something after death is nothing but a cope for all that you missed out on while in life. Thinking that there will be some kind of recompense in store if you are obedient and don't let gays marry.

>>12020481
It's not a relief to think about life after death unless you're some Protestant or something who believes you just have to go to church on Easter and Christmas and be a decent (average) person. If you believe Heaven and Hell and that everything you do matters to that end then that's stressful, moreso than worrying about virginity. Neither do I think it is cope for serious believers because they likely don't hold sex as their primary goal, or even something to strive for.

>>12013255
My friend took a picture of DBH in the grocery store last week

>>12020520
Do you have the pic?

>>12019637
>>12019642
the protist tard didn't reply

>>12019637
>>12019642
>>12021536
Well I wasn't going to say anything but you insist, cathocuck.

I dont decide upon the truth by man's words or even the oldest quote possible, instead I use the bible and communion being a metaphor is really simply shown in the word of God so I don't need man's vanaties or tradition I need God's traditions and words.

Simply said, you can follow the roman catholic church and I'll follow Jesus like many before me.

>1 Corinthians 10:12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

>>12022187
>don't be confident in anything because you might be wrong
pretty sure Paul didn't mean this and your just a smarmy son of a bitch who cites scripture wrong to avoid being btfo in an internet argument
I bet you can't even read Greek

>>12019890
the symbols are the information
compression reduces one set of symbols to another, but they need not represent anything
God is not a symbol in that information theoretic sense unless you arbitrarily treat represent him as one (maybe the string G-o-d, maybe some properties you choose to differentiate between Him and the non-divine) - but even that (and any) interpretation of your data is perpendicular to the information content
there is no overlap between theology and mathematics here

>>12022467
I quoted scripture as a warning, there are so many more heresies in your false church.

Please and I say this with meaning even though this is an "internet arguement" search the scriptures and ask God for grace, look into the counter arguements at least, study without other mens opinions blinding you, Just look at it as a whole. don't live in willful ignorance.

>>12022187
>I dont decide upon the truth by man's words or even the oldest quote possible, instead I use the bible and communion being a metaphor is really simply shown in the word of God so I don't need man's vanaties or tradition I need God's traditions and words.

The early Church Fathers used the Bible too. Why are you correct and not them?

It's the same old issue over and over

>I'll follow Jesus like many before me.
The early Church Fathers believed they followed Jesus. How are they wrong, but not you?

Same old issue...

It's not about who follows what, because we're all claiming to follow the Bible; it's blatantly about what interpretations we adhere to.

So, why is your interpretation of following Jesus and the Bible correct as opposed to the early Church Fathers' interpretation of following Jesus and the Bible? Do tell.

>>12022187
>I dont decide upon the truth by man's words
>I use the bible
>decides upon the truth by a man's (his own) words

>I don't need man's vanaties or tradition
>Bible was composed through tradition
>let's not dive into infallibility either

>>12022786
I don't see how trusting a student of an apostle over some guy is heresy
the devil also has great faith that his intellect is the best

>>12012763
I'm more of an OT guy, bless me with prosperity, confound and obliterate my enemies sort of thing

>>12022876
>>12022873
>>12022865
Look Im not gonna write an essay, Its simple God saved me and I read the bible, The church saved you and you use the churches word. I will say nothing else.

But I will continue to monitor this thread.

>2 Corinthians 11:3-4 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

>>12022939
>beguiled
by St. Ignatius? by John? if you're saying I can't trust the apostles or their judgement then the entire New Testament is suspect and this religion goes out the window

>>12022939
great job at avoiding the issue you can't handle

again, it's not what the Bible says vs what the Church says.
It's what you think the Bible says vs what the Church thinks the Bible says.

you have no justification for your Christian beliefs; by that, they are quite literally in vain.
Catholics actually provide a justification, which literally divine. Jesus Christ bestowed that ability to discern truth infallibly and the Holy Spirit guides the Church dogmatically.

You say you follow the Bible (made possible through tradition not to mention), but it's really you interpreting it with merely a subjective affirmation.
The Church says She follows the Bible, and she has the justification to interpret it without error, a power bestowed by Christ Himself, a process never abandoned by the Holy Spirit. We follow the Bible and our interpretation is Godly, for it is the will of the Father.