/theo/ - Theology General

[Anonymous No.6845848]

What church are you guys part of? Ex-Presbyterian Anglo-Catholic here?

[Anonymous No.6845856]

>>6845848
episcopalian

[Anonymous No.6845858]

RCC, baby

[Anonymous No.6845867]

Could it be that one could be born without purpose?

[Anonymous No.6845869]

Ay /theo/ degenerate agnostic-athiest scum here; I plan on reading the Bible (Norton Critical King James edition) due to its literary merit and the colossal influence it's had on western culture. Can you tell me what the 'essential' books are? I don't mind reading alot I'd just rather not drag myself through a catalogue-of-ships sort of book (which I've heard there is, the genealogies?) Cheers in advanced lads and may God bless you

[Anonymous No.6845882]

>>6845869
Really you should read it all but the first four books of the Old Testament and the Gospel are the real big dogs.

[Anonymous No.6845919]

>>6845869
Genesis
Exodus
Deuteronomy
Judges
Samuel
Kings
Daniel
Ezekiel
Maccabees 1 & 2
Ecclesiastes
Psalms
Job
Le Gospels, all 4
Revelation

[Anonymous No.6845933]

Erisian.

[Anonymous No.6845941]

>>6845882

[Anonymous No.6845945]

>>6845919
You can't skip all of the epistles.

[Anonymous No.6845967]

Gnostic :^)

[Anonymous No.6845979]

>>6845882
>>6845919
>>6845945
Cheers fellas :)

[Anonymous No.6845981]

>>6845945
Yeah but I don't know them well enough to offer particular suggestions.

[Anonymous No.6845983]

>>6845967

[Anonymous No.6845997]

>>6845919
>Deuteronomy

Only one I'd skip out of those. It's awful and horribly boring to read through.

[Anonymous No.6847745]

>>6845919
I would add Ruth, Isaiah and Corinthians to that.

maybe Jonah too since it's so short.

[Anonymous No.6847750]

Valentinian gnostic here

[Anonymous No.6847753]

PKD cultist

[Anonymous No.6847764]

The Church of Satan

[Anonymous No.6847773]

>>6845869
For literary merit:
Ecclesiastes
Psalms
Proverbs
maybe Song of Solomon

for cultural references:
Genesis
Exodus
Job
Daniel
Ezekiel
the Gospels

for apocalyptic weird shit:
Revelation
Isaiah

[Anonymous No.6847783]

Catholic here. Born into the Church, took a hard turn towards traditionalism in college, am now something of a Medievalist, and I am surprisingly starting to turn into a full-blown theocrat.

[Anonymous No.6847790]

>>6845848
The "church" of Abraxas, I suppose

[Anonymous No.6847796]

>>6845848
>The One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Christian Church splits from Roman Catholicism
>

[Anonymous No.6847809]

>>6847796
>implying the Roman Catholic Church is not the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Christian Church
You guys admitted it yourselves back in 1439.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetentur_Caeli

[Anonymous No.6847818]

>>6847809
>Bishop of Rome
>infallible

[Anonymous No.6848029]

>>6847818
>he doesnt know about St Stephen on Baptism

[Anonymous No.6848640]

>>6848029
>>6847809
>>6847783
>>6845967
>>6847750
>>6845858
heretics

>>6847783
I had a similar experience tbh.

[Anonymous No.6848643]

>>6848640
How can Protestants call people heretics? I've never understood this. You guys don't have a standard set of doctrines, your sects differentiate themselves from each other over trivia and national boundaries, and there's no one who has any particular authority in interpreting the Bible. So who decides what is and isn't heresy?

[Anonymous No.6848646]

>>6848643
>there's no one who has any particular authority in interpreting the Bible
the sinner before god does

[Anonymous No.6848657]

>>6848646
So you're saying that if two people disagree about the meaning of a passage in scripture, and one of them is better educated in exegesis, tradition, and sacred history, his interpretation is no better than that of an opponent who never received anything like that education? If not, please explain what exactly you do mean.

[Anonymous No.6848669]

>What church are you guys part of
None since the plurality of the set of offshoots of Christianity implies that the doctrine it purports to be is nothing more than a miserable enterprise that succumbs to arbitrary modifications of fellow humans either by extension or reduction or substitution.

[Anonymous No.6848672]

>>6848640
>dat pic
>Acts 7:2, Romans 9:10, and the context clearly show that Matthew 23:9 is not criticizing the title of father in general but criticizing the pride that scribes and Pharisees often arrogated
>implying confession is the same thing as forgiveness
>implying praying to someone for intercession with God is consulting or summoning them
>implying Catholics don't believe in the unique mediation of Christ: "the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men ... flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it" (Lumen gentium, 60)
>implying John 14:13 says "only" anywhere
>implying there's idol worship in the Church
Not a single honest reading of the Bible to be found. One more verse, then, to summarize your picture's author:

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

[Anonymous No.6848689]

>>6848646
Protestants are simply more sophisticated idol worshipers who have made the Bible an idol and started replacing God with words. The Holy Scriptures are inspired, true, but it is through the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ that we must understand them, as is done in the true Orthodox Church. Because you did not have the tradition of the Apostles and the Church fathers, whom the Holy Spirit guided in their interpretations, your modern heresies are just that — heresies.

[Anonymous No.6848707]

>>6848689
Based Orthodoxy
I'll pray for reunification at Mass later
t. a Catholic

[Anonymous No.6848719]

>>6848707
Thanks; many Orthodox are anti-unification, but honestly I think it is more a result of historical grudges than any truly insurmountable theological problems. Personally I think it would be wonderful to see the bishops of the East and West reconciled. I will pray for the same.

[Anonymous No.6848727]

ITT: preposterous juggling of meaningless symbols that fail to refer to reality

Kids, just what in the world are you doing with your empty lives?

[Anonymous No.6848729]

>Episcopalian
>Anglicanism
>Catholicism
Literally all the same thing

[Anonymous No.6848746]

>>6848727

[no caps guy !!6P/WhzicJTl No.6848751]

op, your chart says that eastern orthodoxy is an offshoot of roman catholicism, but as i understand it it is the other way around. anyone have an opinion on the matter?

[Anonymous No.6848755]

>>6848751
Considering that they started to define themselves against each other at the same time over the same issue I think it's fair to say that neither is an offshoot of the other.

[Anonymous No.6848764]

>>6848751
Official stance of the Orthodox Church before the schism of 1054 was that Rome was merely the "first among equals" in the Pentarchy (opposed to Rome's stance that it was the supreme capital of the church). The churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem always recognized that Rome was the spiritual heart of the empire and Peter picked as Jesus' successor from the earliest days of the movement. Op's image was meant probably as a subtle jab against Orthodox Christians since Catholicism has always had the strongest claim of "true church" through history, despite that Christianity was far more widespread in the Greek speaking parts of the empire while the Roman Capital was still a struggling congregation.

[no caps guy !!6P/WhzicJTl No.6848768]

>>6848764
i'm not very knowledgeable on church history, but do we know who peter's immediate successor was, an then his successor, and so on?

what is the orthodox refutation?

[Anonymous No.6848793]

>>6848768
Linus, then Cletus

I couldn't tell you about the Orthodox's official stance, possibly they accepted the Catholic line of Church leaders up till 1054. But the Orthodox church strongly harmed their claim with their doctrine of Caesaropapism (religious leaders of church are subordinate to will of Byzantine Emperor), making them look politically greedy and willing to sacrifice church procedure just to "win". Not that the Catholic Church hasn't also harmed their integrity in exchange for political victory as well.

So despite the Catholic Church always having the most legitimate claim, the Orthodox Christians in 1054 had plenty of justification to be pissed off. Catholics may've been correct, but at the time Rome was acting greedy even though the Orthodox Christians were already willing to grant them as "head" of the Church. The Orthodox just wanted more spiritual sway in Church councils and recognition that the Christians in the Greek parts of Rome did much more to ensure the survival of Early Christianity than the Christians in the Latin West.

There's much more to the story and this is oversimplifying things, but the essence is that Rome was right, but Constantinople was justified in its descent.

[Anonymous No.6848827]

>tfw no Anglican/Catholic/Orthodox reunified super church
hold me /lit/

[Anonymous No.6848838]

[Anonymous No.6848850]

>>6848838
>Shinto isn't bro tier

[Anonymous No.6848859]

>>6845848
>What church are you guys part of?
The University of Natural Science

[Anonymous No.6848860]

>>6845848
>Theology General
>Only Christian Theology is discussed

[Anonymous No.6848883]

>>6848860
>>6848850
>>6848838
>>6848827
>>6848793
>>6848768
>>6848764
>>6848859
>>6848764
>>6848755
>>6848751
>>6848746
>>6848729
>>6848727
>>6848719
>>6848707
>>6848689
>>6848672
>>6848669
>>6848657
>>6848646
>>6848643
>>6848640
>>6848029
>>6847818
>>6847809
>>6847796
>>6847790
>>6847783
>>6847773
>>6847764
>>6847753
>>6847745
>>6845997
>>6845983
>>6845981
>>6845979
>>6845967
>>6845945
>>6845941
>>6845933
>>6845919
>>6845882
>>6845869
>>6845867
>>6845858
>>6845856
>>6845848
>>/lit/ - Literature<<
I'm fucking sick of it. Why are all the "theological" discussions held here ? go to >>>/pol/ or /int/ or/b/ for Christ's sake!

either 4chan will soon have a /rel/ board or /lit/ will become one.

[Anonymous No.6848884]

>>6848827
FUCJ off where do u think u r
Fucking maniac

[Anonymous No.6848897]

>>6848883
Many of the posts you're responding to are literally recommending books

[Anonymous No.6848903]

>>6848883
Bad shitposting, my friend

[Anonymous No.6848912]

>>6848883
>criticising people for discussing books
shit shitpost friend

[Anonymous No.6848913]

>>6848883
Agree. Why don't mod's ban them? I got banned for less just yesterday. Go away church faggots. It's not literature.

[Anonymous No.6848942]

>>6848793
>I couldn't tell you about the Orthodox's official stance, possibly they accepted the Catholic line of Church leaders up till 1054.
They did indeed accept them (as "first among equals"). The main problematic points between the two churches from the Eastern perspective were theological ones, especially the Western Church's addition of the word "filioque" to the Nicene Creed and its use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist instead of the original leavened bread. The Eastern prelates did not "just want more spiritual sway in Church councils", they thought the West had strayed into error or, later, even heresy through these changes.

I would say Rome was certainly right in asserting its primacy, but certainly wrong in attempting to impose its theological innovations.

[Anonymous No.6848957]

>>6845848
That chart is wrong.

[Anonymous No.6849151]

>>6848883
>fedoras are so triggered by people actually discussing books and not talking about raiding booktubers
I'm sorry but you're the cancer killing /lit/