Discuss Orthodox Christianity.

>>17752787 (OP)
It's gay.

Why is he wearing a Bavarian flag?

>>17752787 (OP)
Paganism.

>>17752787 (OP)
Which one? Every Christian church church claims to be orthodox Christianity.

sick of hearing about it from western larpers

>>17752834
Calvinists are actually right about it though obviously.

>>17752854
But Calvinism is heretical and unbiblical.

>>17752867
How?

>>17752787 (OP)
Anathematizes the historical teachings of Jesus, the Apostles and the Church Fathers. Engages in rampant historical revisionism. Creates new doctrines to benefit it's organization. Has sub-sects that have excommunicated each other. Selectively chooses what so called "infallible ecumenical councils" to follow (has changed their opinion on what councils are valid multiple times based on what was politically convenient). Is simply not historic Christianity nor even "the full teaching of the Church".

See: https://ante-nicenechristianity.com/
If you want to know what the Church Fathers (inheritors of the tradition/teachings of the Apostles) taught.

>>17752787 (OP)
If orthodox means traditional and the entire church structure and hierarchy was created after the life of Jesus and his ministry which it's bears little in common with ... Then it's all made up horseshit isn't it?

Orthodox positions get replaced by Vatican 2 which totally goes against the traditions of the past ...

look guys we wuz orthodox an shiet!

>>17752787 (OP)
Based. Hail Jay Dyer!

>>17752878
Enjoy hell.

>>17752854
>>17752867
>>17752878
>>17752900
lmao

>>17752787 (OP)
Still not entirely convinced that jay dyer is the son of god

>>17752878
Working yourself to death for profit is good, Usury is good, God wants you to be rich and fuck everyone over. If you are successful by screwing someone over then God obviously wants that. The hand of Satan is absolutely not at work.

Why can't we just have a thread talking about a specific Christian church without other Christians getting angry?

>>17753094
Christians have a right to be angry if it's not biblical.

>>17752787 (OP)

>>17753206
What did Christianity look like in the first 3 centuries AD before the books of the gospel were canonized?

>>17752879
All this could be said of Protestantism, except replace the bit about ecumenical councils with theological debates limited to the past 500 years.

>>17752879
But enough about roman catholicism

>>17752787 (OP)
The least defensible denomination of Christianity, IMO. For over half a millennia they were in communion with a Rome that held to Papal supremacy and the filioque and assign infallibility to the first millennium western fathers and councils that taught those doctrines. Protestants can just say they were wrong and church history is messy and fallible but EOs have to do ridiculous ad hocs around stuff like Agatho's letter for their system to be internally coherent. Given that EO only exists because of ethnic resentment as that's the only real reason they didn't bury the hatchet with Rome a long time ago. If I were to choose a based trad spiritual church I would go with Oriental Orthodoxy because at least they can just say Rome and Constantinople defected in the 400s and were all heretics without having to cope around their canonized saints like Ambrose teaching the filioque for centuries. Literally the only reason I can see for thinking EO is more true than OO is a philosophical commitment to dyophysitism, which no one really cares that much about and Chalcedon was only accepted in the East on the basis of Rome's teaching authority with the Tome of Leo anyway.

>>17753746
I can't tell if you're playing stupid. Those revisions were enforced by the patriarch of Rome, not the other patriarchs.

>>17753761
Yet EOs remained in communion with said patriarch and western fathers teaching heresy for something like 600 years and accepted statements from said patriarch of Papal infallibility in ecumenical councils they themselves believe are infallible.
EOs have no good answer for this problem. OOs have all the advantages of EO in adherence to tradition plus they can just call the Latin church heretical since the 5th century.

>>17753206
Every Christian think their version of Christianity is Biblical and others are not.

>>17752787 (OP)
Pedophilic cult, like all the other branches of Christianity. Nothing else to discuss here.

>>17753090
This is what Cathodox think Reformed theology is

>>17753584
The books of the bible were canon when they were written.

>>17754531
Calvinist are the most materialistic and fatalistic denominations of Christianity
Unironically hylic tier

>>17754699
Pic related

>>17754699
Explain what you think a "calvanist" is.

I'm a lutheran who's been inquiring for a couple months at an orthodox church but I still don't get a few things, mainly intercession.

Jesus is "the supreme mediator" in 1 Timothy 2:15, but I do understand the idea that prayer to saints comes from Revelation with the pouring out of the prayers. But I don't understand when one would ask saints to pray for them over just praying to Jesus.

With icons I get filtered by people kissing them and the idea of asking them to pray for me while looking at a painting still feels like idol worship.

>>17755084
I think the practice with icons is that you can think of them as pictures of persons dear to you. Like having a picture of your girlfriend, you can look at it and get comfort from it, but you would be doing it because it has a person that you love in it, not that you are adoring the picture itself.

So icons are a way of staying in touch with people that are saints, people that live in heaven with Christ. They are not dead, but can hear you, and you can talk to them and show love towards them through an icon. It is an effective way for us to look in to heaven with the aid of our material eyes.

Heaven is a place that we are not going to be alone in. It has a lot of people in it who can help others who still live in this world. And it is always Christ that helps you, but why would he not do it through his saints if he can? So that the glory and joy would be even greater and manifold.

Can you think of some events in your life where some people have helped you to a path of goodness and truth? Well it is Christ that helped you, but through these people. So it is with saints. And asking them for help is like asking a family member or a friend to help you.

Sorry for my rambling.

>>17754699
>hylic

>>17754531
Did Calvin not approve of interest on loans? Or that financial success proved God favors you. They were called Christian Hebraists for a reason.

>>17755459
>Or that financial success proved God favors you.
This specifically is a misrepresentation of Reformed theology derived from Max Weber's sociology.

>>17752787 (OP)
All Orthodox Christian countries have always been shitholes which tells you everything you need to know about this religion.

>>17754534
Objectively false.

>>17753746
A Church Father saying something =/= it automatically being true. These copes from you people are so tired. Are you intentionally being deceptive or do you actually believe the slop you're posting?

>>17755084
The saints are closer to you, therefore more accessible to you. Same exact reason you'd ask a friend to pray for you instead of praying to Jesus directly. The ladder to Heaven consists of more than a single rung.
In addition the saints aren't disconnected entities floating around (this one is very tough for Prots to understand) they are part of Christ's body. Christ has an entourage of saints - the saints are Christ's. They are in a sense extensions of Christ. Any veneration of a saint passes to Christ also.

>>17752787 (OP)
I tihnk the churches look cool

>>17755084
>but I do understand the idea that prayer to saints comes from Revelation with the pouring out of the prayers. But I don't understand when one would ask saints to pray for them over just praying to Jesus.

There is no doubt that Christian’s should honor the saints who have died. But it is an unchristian to honor them with spiritual veneration. The invocation has no foundation in God’s Word. There is no command, no promise that prayers will be heard; no example, not a single report that such invocation is pleasing to God. Invocation is an honor that belongs to God, an honor he is not willing to share with anyone else. All the commands regarding invocation, all the promises attached to it, all the formulas and examples have only God in view, so that, where any creature is called upon with spiritual devotion, there idolatry has been committed.-A Comparison of Roman and Evangelical Doctrine, 85. Nicolaus Hunnius
There is no reason to spiritually invoke the saints. It is utter superstition and no backing for it. The saints pray for us in heaven but there is no word to pray to them or promise they can hear them.

>>17756289
If anyone's phrasing is disingenuous it's yours, not mine. I did not describe just "a Church Father saying something", it's the unanimous patristic tradition in half of the church from the 4th century onwards that modern EO doctrine contradicts. To hold to modern EO doctrine consistently one has to be an Oriental Orthodox and believe the western church had defected by the time of Chalcedon. Which is plainly ridiculous given it would condemn dozens and hundreds of EO fathers and saints as heretics. EOs simply have no good argument that explains how they shared a patristic tradition with filioquists and Papists for 600 years if that tradition is infallible.

>>17756297
>The saints are closer to you, therefore more accessible to you
Sorry. Are you really saying that saints are closer to us than Jesus is? Incredible. Orthobros truly are cooked by idolatry.

>>17755737
No, objectively true. This is a denial of the doctrine of inspiration. Could the church have made the Gospel of Thomas canonical?

>>17756663
You're conflating inspiration with canonization. Yes, the scriptures were inspired when written. But the process of canonization took hundreds of years to complete. The latter is just historical fact.

>>17752833
...is the logical conclusion of rejecting the essence-energies distinction.

>>17753746
>For over half a millennia they were in communion with a Rome that held to Papal supremacy
Wrong.

>and the filioque
Anastasius the Librarian and John Scotus Eriugena rejected dual procession of the Son as taught by Florence in the 9th century.

>Chalcedon was only accepted in the East on the basis of Rome's teaching authority with the Tome of Leo anyway.
No it wasn't. Fucking retard.

>>17756657
>it's the unanimous patristic tradition in half of the church from the 4th century onwards that modern EO doctrine contradicts.
Really isn't though.

Not Christians why are you saying they are? They are idolaters and pagans that worship images, statues, and Mary, just like Roman Catholics and Protestants (who are also not Christians and idk why people say they are, it's factually wrong). They are going to hell and will burn for all eternity unless they repent and believe in Jesus.

>>17757779
Everyone who rejects the essence-energy distinction is who is truly committing idolatry and paganism. Repent of your Satanism.

>>17757779
Why do you think Protestants worship images, statues, and Mary?

>>17757810
Lutherans adorn their "churches" with idols as do Anglicans. Calvinists don't, sure, but Calvinism is not Christian since they worship a Satan as God. They are evil. If you want to be saved you must find a KJV only Baptist church where MONOTHEISM is believed in and we worship God the Trinity ALONE. Protestantism is nothing but a Roman Catholic offshoot. Romans Catholics have been persecuting Christians (Baptists) since their religion was invented in the 4th century. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism are polytheistic religions.

>>17757784
Enjoy hell.

>>17753090
Imagine having the gall to post this on this board and hope nobody calls you out on how bullshit it is.

>>17759187
Mental illness. You need meds

>>17759193
You don’t seem to be loving your neighbor very much

>>17759410
>a random (probably brown) heretic on the internet
>your neighbor
Pick one.

>>17752787 (OP)
their groomers are based

>>17759418
Hope you enjoy burning!

>>17759243
I even have the gall to post my source