Which one of you is correct?

The only real Church is the inner Church

It's ok to identify with these institutions as a means of having community or categorizing ones specific beliefs, but anyone who thinks theirs is the one true Church has just made an idol out of their institution

>>40696286 (OP)
KJV baptist protestant is probably the most Biblically accurate denomination you'll find. make sure the doctrines are correct:

- The Trinity
- pre trib rapture (rapture happens 3.5 years at the mid way point into the tribulation, before the last 3.5 year wrath period)
- saved by grace through faith purely, not work, but work evidences the inward transformation of being born again
- not cessationist, but not charismaniac either (often demon slayer type ministries messing around with demons incorrectly, alot of nonsense and superstition, or they end up manifesting the kundalini which has nothing to do with Christianity). it's a balance when it comes to this
- outreach. if your church does no door to door evangelizing, its not doing its job
- doesn't praise israel, they are the synagogue of satan collectively (judaism), but individual jews can be pulled out of the fire
- must be spiritually born again. this is important, because spiritually dead Christianity, which looks like or imitates Christianity, is the religion of the antichrist. think catholicism, head knowledge, theology, a political Christian. zero spirit in any of that. the antichrist represents the sun and has alot to do with aryanism and the catholic church, its a false counterfeit version of Christianity

>>40696286 (OP)
Anyone who knows Christ in their heart.

>>40696286 (OP)
i rest my case

>>40696349

one more thing to bare in mind, KJV baptist protestant can be "robotic". be wary of "spiritual deadness" within these churches. they have alot of knowledge, theology, rules etc, but are missing out entirely on The Spirit

charismaniac/contemporary or pentecoastal churches, like those with bands, purples lights, the hipy trendy pastor preaching from the NIV. those kinds of churches CAN be infected with the kundalini. alot of superstitious nonsense aswell regarding spirits and demons

you need TRUTH and SPIRIT. the baptists have the TRUTH part nailed down for the most part (accurate doctrine), the contemporary churches have good elements of THE SPIRIT part, as in they praise and worship God, prayer for one another, believe in spiritual warfare etc

YOU NEED BOTH

>>40696286 (OP)
Jesus is correct thats what matters

>>40696286 (OP)
None. Christianity is incorrect

>>40696390
It's this.

Follow Jesus Christ, as He asked us.

Follow Him and know Him, through The Word; a KJV bible is a good place to start.

Trust in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, to guide and teach you.

Love God, as the source of all that is true, right, just and holy, and pray to the Father, through the Son, in meekness, and in all faith and hope!

Bless the Lord!

>>40696286 (OP)
Idk honestly as a Christian I just assume Catholicism because they have the most compelling claim to legitimacy

>>40696286 (OP)
Confirmed there are as mani denomations as genders

>>40696469
Are the historical facts that theres no trace of a vatican, papal seat, or icon veneration in the early church part of that claim?

>>40696455
The spirit of truth thought me that the bible is a book that contradicts itself.
So I realized christianity is incorrect.

>>40696482
I don't care to debate you anon you can be whatever form of protestantism you are I don't care. God probably doesn't either. As long as you are serving him in good faith he's not going to just launch you into hell on the day of judgement for being a Baptist or Orthobro or whatever. You only know what you know, and you don't know what you don't. God knows what's in our hearts.

>>40696533
True but you shouldn't make historical assertions that you aren't willing to discuss in that case

>>40696482
Jesus tells Peter in the bible to me a stone of his church and something.
basically peter is the first pope or "vicar" or deputy of christ on earth "keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19)
so as his deputy him was given the power to forgive sins etc.
and the priestly power is power given my jesus to the apostles who are the first priest
every energy transmission, ordaining a priest, is tied back to the apostles
so the catholic church claims it's priestly legitamcy goes back to the apostles and peter as the first pope.
it's not arbitary at all.

I know that as a non christian why don't you?

>>40696547
I do not have the information to justify my position within immediate recall but I came to this conclusion after years of passively absorbing information. Idk something something Peter something something they're the oldest and easiest to trace something something. I don't have a photographic memory.

>>40696455
Amen.

>>40696559
>>40696556
Yeah that's it lol.

Cathars.

>>40696286 (OP)
It doesn't matter they're all LARPchristians. Find me one self-proclaimed christian who follows the bible to a T and actually gives a shit about all their sinning.

>>40696323
Mines the one true religion and im the only member.

>>40696594
His name was Jesus

>>40696594
following the bible is impossible because the bible contradicts itself.
Anyone claiming to follow the bible is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy

>>40696556
>>40696559
The Greek words for Peter are 2 separate words for rock
Peter is a little rock, the rock Jesus references is a big rock, and he's referring to what Peter said about Jesus being the Messiah, not Peter himself

Main point being here, 2 separate words for rock are being used and Jesus is making a pun. Consult the Greek and next time don't be so uppity

>>40696706
>The Greek words for Peter are 2 separate words for rock
Not the Greek words for Peter, I meant the 2 words for rock that Jesus uses. I typed too fast

>>40696286 (OP)
not a single one of them is remotely correct.

>>40696323
only the inner Church and direct Christ communion are correct. read what he preached

I am a Presbyterian a member of the PCUSA.

>>40696706
18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.”
It meaning little or big rock, changes nothing about the meaning in context.
Jesus gives Peter highest authority both in earth and heaven, basically making Peter the first pope.

Or how do you think big and little rock changes that?

>>40696725
I just explained it to you
Look at the full verse and google the Greek on bible hub if you want
The big rock is what Peter says, about Jesus being the Messiah. Peter is a little rock, his name is a specific greek word that means little rock

>>40696752
I could force either reading desu
>On this rock
>Jesus is the rock, referring to himself
Or
>On this rock
>Jesus is referring to Peter, who's name means stone
It depends on how you want to interpret it. Papists see Peter in the rock, proties see Jesus. The language is poetic. If you deconstruct it, you can come to the conclusion you want it to be, no matter what. Depends on what you want him to be saying.

>>40696725
"Peter" represents anyone who regards Jesus as the Christ and the Son of the living God. Such are the bedrock of the Way.

>>40696776
They are literally 2 different words
You are little rock, and upon this big rock

>>40696776
>Papists see Peter in the rock, proties see Jesus
Kek gee I wonder which is more Christian

>>40696776
why would jesus give himself the keys to the kingdom of heaven? he already has them?

I think the only thing that makes sense in context is that Jesus is giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter.
Or how do you explain it that this is not the case?

>>40696777
No evidence in the bible that Peter represents anyone else than Peter.
If we just randomly invent what words and names in the bible represent. it will mean all and nothing, anyone can spun their own version of "following the bible" which completely hollows any clear meaning the bible can have

>>40696827
>why would jesus give himself the keys to the kingdom of heaven? he already has them?
>I think the only thing that makes sense in context is that Jesus is giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter.
>Or how do you explain it that this is not the case?
Did you reply this to the wrong person

>>40696777
also it happens a lot that people who regard Jesus as the Christ and Son of the living God do not agree with each other on other things.

So if what you said was true and "peter" would represent "anyone who regards Jesus as the Christ the Son of the living God", would that not mean that the kingdom of heaven would be divided against itself?

>>40696847
Yes..:
"why would jesus give himself the keys to the kingdom of heaven? he already has them?

I think the only thing that makes sense in context is that Jesus is giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter.
Or how do you explain it that this is not the case?"
was meant for :>>40696752

>>40696854
>I think the only thing that makes sense in context is that Jesus is giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter
That is what's happening yes
Now you have to support your presupposition that this is somehow related to a papal seat. We could both read a bias into this verse.

>>40696286 (OP)
None

>>40696827
>randomly invent what words and names in the bible represent
It's not "random", it's right in the text. Peter, by confessing "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" is initiated into the inner church.

>He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16:15-18)

>>40696850
Jesus doesn't care about human cultural peculiarities. He's looking for people who resonate with his Word.

>>40696899
I couldn't care less about supporting that claim
I am neither catholic nor christian, but I know the catholic church basically draws their idea of pope from these bible verses and claim their legitimacy from those.
To me it is the most plausible claim of legitimacy among all christian dogmas I have came across.
i think you asked about it here: >>40696482 if you are that anon.

I don't know about "icon veneration" I don't think that catholic statues are meant to be idols, more like supports for the mind, instead of a word you have a word and a symbolic representation an image or statue,
now afaik catholics don't pray to Mary, they just ask her to pray for them to God. It's a controversial concept among christians I know that.
I have no stake on this. But I agree that it seems to be from an absorbtion of pagan rites.
I frankly don't care, because I am not a christian.
I do not accept christ and I think the bible contradicts itself numerous times.

>>40696286 (OP)
>Which one of you is correct?
None of those in that image is correct. I'll explain...

At least one rapture has already occurred. This planet is, in fact, the place that some people from Earth (such as myself) were raptured to. We weren't "taken to Heaven." We were brought here instead. We're now on a real, physical, 3D planet that is definitely NOT Earth.

Bottom line: This planet is Bozrah, not Earth. Moreover, the event in which Jesus destroys this planet is called "the day of vengeance." There will be no 7-year Tribulation or Antichrist here—because this isn't Earth. Earth is roughly 75,000 light years from here (and is currently going through the Tribulation). This is just an impostor planet.

Make sure to read my pinned X thread (all four posts). And regarding my X bio, I'm exactly who I say I am. Bozrah natives must break free from the spell they've been under. This entire situation has gotten so ridiculous. At this point, I'm just waiting for the day of vengeance.

Pinned X thread:

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1742924942151438589
or
https://bozrah.info

And I'm genuinely curious: How long will you keep pretending this is Earth? The time for pretending has long since passed.

>>40696286 (OP)
None and all of them

God can work through many congregations and situations. Even outside them.
None of them know 100% the entire truth.

>>40697021
>None of them know 100% the entire truth.
See this post ... >>40697015

>>40696995
You're arguing for something you don't understand
The point was that their claims to legitimacy do not hold up historically or necessarily theologically, not that these claims don't exist.

>>40696362
>no LDS
What am I MEANT to say?

Apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox and the churches aligned with them) and it isn't even up for debate.

The less your brand of Christianity resembles what you read in the Didache and the Church Fathers, the worse it will be.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

>>40696286 (OP)
Jesus could be a mahayana buddhist. Several reasons why

Jesus is also for sure a muslim
Several reasons why, a ton really

>>40697045
I can imagine how they are not holding up historically but where a post hoc invention to claim legitimacy. I think christianity was very decentralized in the early days, and only later centralized when the concept of "bishop of rome" was introduced.
I am on the same page on this with you, if that is your historic position.

But theologically? It's hard to argue theology.
I think their claim of legitimacy from matthew 16:18-19 is pretty solid.
If Jesus wouldn't have wanted there to be a powerful deputy on earth to create and lead his church than these verses wouldn't exist.
I think it is a pretty solid theological claim of legitimacy.
What makes you think it doesn't necessarily hold up theologically?

>>40697074
Where is papal seat and icon veneration mentioned in Didache

Don't change goal posts now

>>40696286 (OP)
>that pic
none of them.

>>40697082
>If Jesus wouldn't have wanted there to be a powerful deputy on earth to create and lead his church than these verses wouldn't exist.
Nonsense.

>>40697082
>I think it is a pretty solid theological claim of legitimacy.
>What makes you think it doesn't necessarily hold up theologically?
Because it's reading too much into the text, particularly in a way that isn't reflected in early church documents. For example this,
>If Jesus wouldn't have wanted there to be a powerful deputy on earth to create and lead his church than these verses wouldn't exist.
Does not necessitate the existence of a papal seat. I could just as easily say the keys to heaven have been passed down to every good, gospel preaching church leader. But that would STILL be reading a bias into the text, my point being it's just as credible (or uncredible) as what the Vatican would go on to teach many years later.

>>40697120
Why do the verses exist then?
If you have 12 disciples, why give only one the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

>>40697124
>Does not necessitate the existence of a papal seat. I could just as easily say the keys to heaven have been passed down to every good, gospel preaching church leader. But that would STILL be reading a bias into the text, my point being it's just as credible (or uncredible) as what the Vatican would go on to teach many years later.
Problematic because gospel preaching church leaders do not necessarily agree with each other on all interpretations of the bible.
But differences of interpretations of the bible can cause huge schisms, and some christian faith have violently opposed each other in the past.
If all of these good, gospel preaching church leader who DO NOT AGREE with each other, would have the kingdoms of heaven then the kingdom of heaven would be divided would it not?

Matthew 12:25:
"And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand."
Mark 3:24:
"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand."

These verses together with matthew 16:18-19 seem to make a theological plausible case for a universal central authority for all christians, the idea of a pope.

Or where is my reasoning here implausible or illogical?

>>40697241
Because whatever central authority you choose (which at this point would be arbitrary) would also be subject to error
The saving work of the Holy Spirit remains undivided and effective in spite of our human efforts, not because of them.

>>40696286 (OP)
marcionites are the correct one
you guys feel the evil jewish god's tricks

>>40697420
you guys fell for the evil jewish god's tricks*

>>40696286 (OP)
No LDS/Mormon

The right answer is that man lost truths over time, and God restored the truth through Joseph Smith and his successors.

>>40696286 (OP)
the one excluded by this serpent seed
Christian Identity

>>40697294
>Because whatever central authority you choose (which at this point would be arbitrary) would also be subject to error
I don't think that the central authority of the pope is considered to be arbitrary in any way by catholic dogma.
The catholic priesthood is not just an arbitrary school or study course.
If I remember correctly
It goes back to direct transmission from Jesus to the apostles.
And from the apostles to their successors and so on until you arrive at the modern catholic priest.
So these ordained priests, successors of the apostles come together and pray for guidance from Jesus and the holy ghost etc to guide them in their decision of electing the pope.
If we follow dogma and assume it to be true, the holy spirit should be guiding them and the pope too.
But the holy spirit is god himself, so it can not be subject to error, or who wants to judge god?
So assume there is error you assume the holy spirit has left them?

Again I am not a catholic and I believe neither in the bible nor in Jesus christ, but I still think the catholic church makes the most plausible claim to legitimacy.
Most plausible and in line with the actual words of the bible.

Again call me out, where you see error in my reasoning.

>The saving work of the Holy Spirit remains undivided and effective in spite of our human efforts, not because of them.
how do you verify if someone who is claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit is indeed inspired by the holy spirit and not just delusional?

>>40697049
>>40697093
BASED. I didn't know there were so many /x/phile members.

>>40696495
The Book of Mormon will help you realize that there are no contradictions once you understand the full picture of God's plan.

>>40697241
>Or where is my reasoning here implausible or illogical?
There's no point in trying to interpret scripture if you are not graced by Christ with the Spirit of Truth.

>>40696286 (OP)
No denomination is correct
Don't follow man follow God.
Truth is self evident in intelligent design.
It's not up to anyone.

It will become apparent.
The core is God is the creator.
Jesus is the Messiah.
Because we are sinners we have to take
perfect peace into accordance and Jesus
is the shepherd of peace leading this way.
If we will be faulty in our dealings with
perfect peace we have to believe on his
sacrifice.
Peace is perfect faith.

>>40697472
>how do you verify if someone who is claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit is indeed inspired by the holy spirit
Because the Holy Spirit informs you.

>>40697491
We have no way of verifying who of us is graced by christ with the spirit of truth.
Which means what you are saying is basically:"You are wrong because I say so"
Or what is your point here?

>>40697474
>The Book of Mormon will help you realize that there are no contradictions once you understand the full picture of God's plan.
Can you give me a QRD?

>>40697510
Yeah but anyone can claim the holy spirit informs them, or maybe delude themselves that it is the holy spirit that informs them.
Or do you think it is impossible that anyone can be deluded into thinking the holy spirit informs them?

>>40697472
You don't prove a institutions dogma by appealing to its dogma
>how do you verify if someone who is claiming to be inspired by the holy spirit is indeed inspired by the holy spirit and not just delusional?
By whether or not they live a changed life compared to who they were before, and whether or not they love their enemies. this is a complicated issue though and I don't do the whole "you're a fake Christian thing" for the most part

>>40697474
I'm not a Mormon. I just prefer them to 99% of protestants and 100% of catholics.

>>40697535
You do not prove dogma in general. because it is dogma. Dogma is not subject to proof or debate, that is what makes it dogma.
You either accept/belief it or not. In case of catholic dogma it is considered to be directly divinely inspired.
I was saying I think the catholic dogma makes the most plausible claim to legitimacy. Plausible f.e in regards of the bible verses I have been mentioning before.

>By whether or not they live a changed life compared to who they were before, and whether or not they love their enemies. this is a complicated issue though and I don't do the whole "you're a fake Christian thing" for the most part
So you say are saying a person must be, without question, directly inspired by the holy spirit if:
- they live a changed life compared to who they were before
- they love their enemies
correct?

Where are these 2 criteria of evaluation come from and how are they justified and qualified to prove without a doubt that a person must be inspired directly by the holy spirit?

I believe both of these criteria can be faked, do you agree or disagree?

>I don't do the whole "you're a fake Christian thing" for the most part
I don't either I am not even a christian, but the "you are a fake christian" is a very real phenomena among christians, I have been in some christian chats and i know from firsthand experience of how much they can despise each other because of minor variations of dogma.

Which is see as evidence for my assumption that it is impossible for us to tell who is inspired by the holy spirit and who is not.

>>40697529
>Yeah but anyone can claim the holy spirit informs them
Claims are irrelevant. The Holy Spirit tells the truth.

>>40697529

St. Ignatius has a step by step process called The Discernment of Spirits. Its a process of contemplative self reflection in which you verify if information is coming from God, the Guardian Angel, or Holy Spirit based upon how it stirs your soul. Unfortunately Protestants will never be able to apply it because they've stripped contemplation, meditation, and ritual from the religion but if you're a part of one of the Orthodox Churches you should be able to pick up on the technique relatively quickly.

>>40697524
It depends on what your specific contradictions are, but I'll assume that it's the Old Testament vs New Testament difference in laws, ethics, and approaches to holiness. The Book of Mormon explains that the Law of Moses given to the Old Testament people was a preparatory law that was meant to be superimposed by Christ's grace when he came. The granular laws were meant to help the ancient people learn through metaphor, the emphasis on physical cleanliness was meant to be preparatory to spiritual cleanliness, and the emphasis on justice was to help people understand that justice is incomplete if not tempered by mercy (Christ's grace). Hope this helps.

>>40697613
>The Holy Spirit tells the truth.
This is irrelevant, if you can't identify if it is really the holy spirit who is talking to you or if it is a demon or some delusion

>>40696286 (OP)
Ethiopians have the fewest redactions and oldest living version of the Bible.

>>40697084

Where does it say I cannot venerate the incarnate "Image of the Invisible God" (ikonos) who is Christ?

Where does it deny the immense dignity and authority given to Peter in the Scriptures or deny the special significance assigned to him by history and tradition? The headquarters of early Christianity is literally built over his body: subtle enough for you?

Does your church have

Bishops
Closed communion
The Real Presence
Confession
The Trinity and so on as spelled out in that document, or would you happen to one of the 'false prophets and corruptors' it warns of that deny these things?

What church do you go to? What leaders do you submit yourself to and obey to watch over your soul as the Scriptures command?

>>40697598
>You do not prove dogma in general. because it is dogma. Dogma is not subject to proof or debate, that is what makes it dogma.
>You either accept/belief it or not. In case of catholic dogma it is considered to be directly divinely inspired.
>I was saying I think the catholic dogma makes the most plausible claim to legitimacy. Plausible f.e in regards of the bible verses I have been mentioning before.
Dogma should be backed up by evidence of some sort otherwise there's no reason to believe it.
>So you say are saying a person must be, without question, directly inspired by the holy spirit if:
Not without question. This is a rule, not a law. For all I know, someone could convert in their death bed.
>Where are these 2 criteria of evaluation come from and how are they justified and qualified to prove without a doubt that a person must be inspired directly by the holy spirit?
They exist more to judge ourselves with. Others could only be judged after getting to know them, and nobodys judgement is infallible. I error on the side of the benefit of the doubt because we all need God's mercy and I don't want to be a hypocrite
>I believe both of these criteria can be faked, do you agree or disagree?
Agree. Anything can be faked
>Which is see as evidence for my assumption that it is impossible for us to tell who is inspired by the holy spirit and who is not.
It is impossible for us to know with absolute certainty like it is for most things. We can only judge from whatever evidence and hints we're given

>>40697689
>the incarnate "Image of the Invisible God" (ikonos) who is Christ
We have no such image, and the rhetoric your church uses to explain why this doesn't violate the second commandment is just mental gymnastics

>>40696349
>KJV baptist
>most Biblically accurate denomination
>doesn't praise israel
lmaoooooo

>>40697634
I have read spiritual practices of Loyola, they are publicly available, spiritually intense and impactful, no doubt about it. It is a practical approach. Commendable, but I think other approaches would also claim doing this or that stirs their soul in some way and that by thus they assume information is coming from god.
But yet they can have very different views.

>>40697712
>Dogma should be backed up by evidence of some sort otherwise there's no reason to believe it.
"dogma
/ˈdɒɡmə/
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas

a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

the definition doesn't require evidence

> This is a rule, not a law.
more like a very broad estimation

>judge ourselves
you judge yourself with some moral principles you extract from the bible.
what I don't understand if you ought to love your enemies and if we want to follow christ
how do you explain it that christ jesus throws people into hellfire?
should he not love them as his enemies and redeem them instead?
>nobodys judgement is infallible
Okay so you agree we can't really know if someone is inspired by the holy spirit but does that not make your statement
;"The saving work of the Holy Spirit remains undivided and effective in spite of our human efforts, not because of them." (>>40697294)
null and void?
>We can only judge from whatever evidence and hints we're given
I agree in a general sense, not just in regards of the holy spirit

>>40697646
>This is irrelevant, if you can't identify if it is really the holy spirit who is talking to you
You will know.

>>40697716

>we have no such image

Are you Jewish or Muslim? Let's continue to discuss Christ instead if you don't mind.

What church do you attend?

>>40697793
>what I don't understand if you ought to love your enemies and if we want to follow christ
>how do you explain it that christ jesus throws people into hellfire?
>should he not love them as his enemies and redeem them instead?
He does redeem them. Hell is a temporary restorative state. Acts 2:31 says everything will be brought back to restoration, and the word translated as eternal, aionion, can actually mean "an indefinitely long period of time". The Septuagint uses the same word in Jonah, referring to being inside the fish for 3 days.
>The saving work of the Holy Spirit remains undivided and effective in spite of our human efforts, not because of them." (>>40697294 (You) #)
null and void?
No. Why would it? i don't need to be a perfect judge of such a metric for it to be true, like every scientist doesn't need to have perfect judgement for the scientific method to be generally true
>>40697823
Non denominational. I'm broadly baptist

>>40697827
It's actually acts 3:21 sorry

>>40697827
> Hell is a temporary restorative state.
Torture to break them? Is that what loving your enemies means?

>>40696286 (OP)
Frens, I want to convert to Christianity.
But I want to prioritize a personal connection and guidance with God as opposed to studying the Bible. I believe since the bible is written by people, it's inherently fallible.
Wat do?

>>40697893
The words in the red letters come from God. Meditate on those words with a sincere heart, resonate with them, follow them, and you will know him.

>>40697876
It's foul tasting medicine to heal them from sickness
Fire is meant as an allusion to refinement, as in with metals and such

>>40696286 (OP)
The biggest issue I have with Christianity is that Christians claim there is a separation from God but then they also claim God is the foundation of reality and that nothing can exist in the absence of God essentially making everything a part of God. So if everything is a part of God, and it is impossible for it to be separated from God (because it wouldn't exist if it was separated from God) then why the fuck do we need faith to link back up with God? We can't be separated from God because we are here, existing. It's a mind fuck and I cannot see through the contradictions.

>>40697893
>I want to convert to Christianity.
>the bible is inherently fallible.
Pick one.
Or don't bother and become just a deist.

>be non-catholic christian
>believe the bible is infallible
>say catholics are wrong
>don't reallize that catholics assembled the bible

christians maan...

>>40697983
You're looking at two separate strings of attachment and separation being attached to God through sheer existence does not mean we can't be detached from him in a difference sense, like in character/morality

>>40698107
But if all that matter, and your soul and your personality are reliant on God how can they be separate from God? The more I dig the more things to suggest that we are part of God, in the literal sense. A body and a slice of Gods mind. Fuck knows though, I could just be going insane.

>>40698131
The bad parts of you aren't dependent on God. Those bad parts could only exist if God allowed you to have autonomy.

>>40697827

>Non-denominational
>I'm broadly Baptist

What kind of a creed is that? Sounds newly minted to me: are you sure it is the church yhat Jesus Christ wanted?

>>40698154
You didn't ask me about creeds
You're obviously trying to lead me somewhere. Just make your point if you want.

>>40698142
Define bad. The bible seems to have a pretty liberal view on what's good and bad, the definition of which changes over and over, which adds to the confusion.

None of them.

>>40698197
Romans 7:6
>But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Good generally means to be Godlike/Christlike. It can mean different things in different contexts, so you'd have to refer to the bible for all of it to make a case for any particular action.

>>40697983
>why the fuck do we need faith to link back up with God?
You need faith for salvation of the soul. Your spirit is always continuous with God.

>>40698229
What's the difference between a spirit and the soul?

>>40698169

The point is that you have nothing to attack me with, since you have no point. You set yourself up as the judge of ancient churches founded by Christ Himself and propagated by the very men who walked with Him, while having nothing to offer in return.

Two-thousand years since the Last Supper, anon. Two thousand years east and west, and none of the oldest churches practicing anything close to what I understand to be your position: does that worry you?

Calvin; Luther; Zwingli, and Erasmus all disagreed: are you wiser than they?

>>40696286 (OP)
>Which one of you is correct?

None of them. Christ is just a deification of the sun.

https://youtu.be/-NHDvWabiyM?si=RagTvMWHnR0WRTlP&t=569

>>40698334
How could I determine whether your, or anyone else's, conception of "the church" is true without appealing to my sense of reason

>>40698254
Changes, depending on who you ask.
One refers to the eternal self, atma in a better model. the other refers to the subtle/astral body, or manas/buddhi/ahankara - mind, intellect, ego.

>>40698425
Thank you.

>>40698254
Spirit is the source of consciousness, Soul is the character of the perspective that Spirit inhabits.

>>40698425
No, Spirit is the pure presence-awareness that is the hypostasis of consciousness, the Amness of Being.

>>40698473
>>40698488
See, this anon has spirit = atma.

>>40696286 (OP)
non trinitarian adventists are the closest to the truth I've found.

>>40698883
Spirit is the continuity between the Brahman and the Atman.

>>40696286 (OP)
I AM Moravian
get on my level
not a single anon is, here, either I bet have you heard of us
my ancestors fought and died fighting the catholic church
my ancestors reformed over 50 years BEFORE Martin Luther
you all bend the knee to OUR lamb that has conquered
>proven before time
>next

>>40696286 (OP)
I was catholic. I'n not sure about the whole Rome or Pope thing, but otherwise it's pretty cool.

>>40697045
nah. you are coping

Orthodoxy. We are all all about transcendental mystical experience, esoteric Scriptural hermeneutics, and Apostolic transition of Tradition. We are the OG. We seek Theosis, and nothing less..

>>40696323
well said

Ethiopian orthodox is unironically the most accurate. they believe in the book of enoch and other books removed from the bible. and they don’t make up random shit like the rapture or saints. or 144000

only problem is they still believe in an eternal hell which has no biblical basis. jesus is clear that eternal life is exclusive to believers in heaven and on the remade earth aka paradise. and that non believers will face the second death. which is destruction in the lake of fire

>>40699984
>>40696323
As in you believe the truth is a form of christian mystiscm? Im just asking curiously, because I know many churches today don't teach the interpersonal, mystical aspects of God. Many that ive found online who do claim to do it often eventually reveal itself as gnosticism, and ends up bringing up far fetched ideas like the demiurge, or other non biblically supported conjecture that takes a clear effort to twist scripture or scrutinize it in a way that is clearly motivated by pre concieved ideals.

I know there is freedom in a close personal relationship with God and the Divine, but i often only hear about the "don't do this, or that" in lots of churches (though have had some good advice on the personal relationship aspect of christ and mysticism". I want to learn about it without the new age falsehoods and jumps that gnostic christians often make in their logic.

Catholicism because their exorcists take demons seriously which I have first hand experience of.

>>40696599
Can’t wait for them to go into the light just to find out that no miracles happened and Jesus was a liar. Devil is misunderstood by large margin

>>40698416

Why do you ask more questions instead of answering mine? Non-denominational more like Nonsense lololol

Next week I get confirmed and can finally (after four month of bureaucracy) convert to becoming roman-catholic :)

>>40696286 (OP)
>denominations
do satanists really?

I have no wish to congregate. Ive been reading the king james version online, but more importantly, researching the translations and the context behind them. It has really shifted my entire perspective on not just what was actually written, but the crystal clear agenda behind dishonestly translating it to push a kike agenda

>>40696286 (OP)
the orthodoxy is the only unchanged church since the time of Christ himself. all other denominations are schismatic offshoots from the orthodoxy, including catholicism.

>>40701932
>far fetched ideas like the demiurge
lol

>>40704382
Dividing the body of Christ into opposing 'denominations' is among their proudest achievements.

>>40699949
>Theosis
You guys love to LARP about this but when Kenneth Copeland talks about Little Gods Doctrine you call him a demon.

1 Corinthians 1:10 says to avoid divisions within the church (I say 'church' with a lower-cased C for a reason)

>>40696594
All the monks

>>40705517
>we are "little g gods"
theosis is about becoming one with God, copeland is stuck in copeland

>>40696286 (OP)

Roman Catholicism.

Eucharistic Miracles, Marian apparitions, sightings of saints, etc. We have it ALL. Not BillyBob the Lutheran, or Alexanderovich the Serbian Orthodox.

The Bishop of Rome. Follow His Holiness.

>>40699984

Are you from the first /turin/ general?

>>40706727
I am very much interested in miracles.
Can you give me a list of the most impressive and convincing, well documented eucharistic miracles. Ideally documented and found to be unexplainable by independent scientific researchers with no conflict of interest.

>>40706682
If anyone's stuck in cope land it's the trad larpers crying about his watches and private jets when their patriarchs do the exact same thing but it's ok because it's "aesthetic"

>>40707045
there was one Orthodox patriarch photographed wearing a watch he was gifted. is that the same as a megachurch pastor preaching prosperity gospel? no.

>And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

none of them and catholic the least, new covenant means that anyone can reach full connection with god through jesus christ alone, no blessings from a priest are necessary for this and jesus christ is the power of creation within you.

jesus gives us many ways to worship him

>>40696286 (OP)
Christianity is a religion that was made to enslave people and make them passive, same goes for Islam, Judaism and every other popular religion.
There is only one religion that is true, this religion is the one of the elite, the one of the only one true god Jahbulon (TGAOU).
I'm telling all of you this for pity's sake, since you are all so blinded by the mist.

>>40696349
>doesn't praise israel,
they suck jewish cock all day everyday
t. baptist

>>40696286 (OP)
Jesus has only one Church, the Roman Catholic one. Everything else is false.

>>40696723
>I am a Presbyterian (faggot) a member of the PCUSA (LGBTQ+).

>>40708177
The PCUSA as a denomination is liberal but my church is conservative so it doesnt really matter

>>40696286 (OP)
>Which one of you is correct?
The one that follows Christ.

>>40697638
doesn't the book of galatians talk about this in its framing of the law as a curse? not super knowledgeable in the bible but

>>40696286 (OP)
I think as long as you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior then everything else is secondary. Of course this might be more of a protestant view. In this lense most denominations are correct.
You should just read the new testament and try to envision what sort of follower Jesus would want.
Roman Catholics and Orthodox will argue they have the right apostolic succession, but since they can't even agree and they sure know their Church history then it's safe to assume it's too muddy.

>>40696286 (OP)
non-denominational church of christ

>>40697765
>>40708129
That's only if you're american. As soon as you leave america that vanishes very quickly.

>>40696375
Its protestantism, aka legalism what Jesus fought

>>40697765
Its most accurately translated English Bible, yes. Blue letter Bible app lets you compare hebrew of old testament translations and greek for new testament

>>40708138
Hey yknow whole peter thing? When did he die? And uhhhh when was the whole schism from orthodox

>>40696286 (OP)
This is the correct way to state your basic standard.
>"I'm a Christian first called Christian from Antioch; that is my denomination from Antioch."

You go back to the root fuckers DAMN EVEN LDS DON'T ACKNOWLEDGE ANTIOCH ENOUGH!

Like what if I made a fuckin Church of Antioch and pulled off a Joseph Smith and had a revelation huh?

No Church under imperfect man is a true Church but a shack of filthy rags who worship lower than the angels with traditions of man and giving woman roles they aught not to have in the Church.

Be a free thinking Christian who isn't afriad to question the strange God..
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoE5nA3zCCA&t=660s