Sola scriptura

>Be papist
>Make "Bible" 300+ years after death of JC >The selection of writings within said tome is decided by pagans at Council of Nicea
>Decide JC is now "Son of God" and worship him (which he never asked anyone to do).
>Erect stautes of "Jesus" as "Sol Invictus", which more resemble Abraxas or Apollo
>Use "Bible" to revitalise Roman grip on the planet, claiming authority to make kings, or to denounce them.

Fuck Catholicism. Every Catholic female I know has kids born outside wedlock which they ALL refer to as "mistakes".

>fucking brit
KEK at you. your religion was created becasuse your king wanted to fuck other girl everey few months

So the pagans were right all along.
The "pagan Christianity" works...
The Protestantism allowed the jewish usury.

>>Decide JC is now "Son of God" and worship him (which he never asked anyone to do).

The Bible said He was born of Mary by immaculate conception and that none may come to the father but through Him.

...

This.

the only true version of christianity is iconoclasm

? protestantism wasn't created in england
England wasn't even the first country to convert.

What fucking part of "the bible was written by men 300 years after the birth of Jesus Christ" did you not understand?

>the bible was written by men 300 years after the birth of Jesus Christ
No it wasn't.

You don't even know what information that picture presents you fucking idiot

He is wrong and an idiot but that image doesn't even make any claims about when the NT was written.

Good religions are true, bad religions are not. A lie cannot have any good influence on the long run.

>all that parchment and time that were wasted on copying the bible instead of the latter books of Polybious and Livy and the lost books by Aristotle
This makes me sad.

I thought all the original works by Aristotle were lost quickly and all the Aristotle books are student records.

>believes the words of a man hat in a silly trumps the word of God
>believes that cannibalism and blood magick is what Christ intended
>believes he needs to pay for indulgences
>believes murdering his fellow Christians is a-ok
>believes being fucked up the ass by his pastor is a normal part of Sunday school
>believes that random old pedophiles who hold drug-fuelled gay orgies in the Vatican with their money are holy men
>believes in two false books that agents of Satan put into the Bible
>believes shoving 800 babies into a septic tank is God's will
You're in no position to call anyone else a Satan worshipper, heretic

>it's another catholics vs protestants thread
I'd tell you to fuck off and find another place to hold your autistic slapfights, but I honestly don't know which place would accept it

No, although it's difficult to know the circumstances behind many of the texts.

Also, yes, it's very sad that hebrew mythology is a best seller while thousands of real classics have been lost. Abrahamic religion will be on the chopping block soon enough.

>what is church of england

As a protestant(lutheran) I think catholics are ok.

It's the fucking idiot evangelicals, babtists, adventists and other american pseudo-heretics I can't stand.

what are differences between all these protestant denominations btw?

This graph is extremely misleading. You're also a fucking imbecile.

Are you implying that Christianity existed outside of England? Then why is the Bible in English? Ever think about that, stupid?

...

He really nailed the 95 theses on the church door? What a fucking vandal.

new testament are NOT really ancient.

Homer 800 BCE??
Aesop (c. 620 BCE)
Buddha (563 or 480 BCE)
Confucius (551 BCE)
Socrates (470/469 BCE)
Hippocrates 460 BCE
Sun Tzu 544 BCE
Epicurus (341 BCE)

cannibalism aka the eucharist too

>unconditional eelection and limited atonement isn't in the Bible
u retard?

chapter and verse???

most likely u don't understand anything at all.

romans 9:15-16 u brainlet't

Unconditional election = Predestination
Romans 9:15–16 don't.

mad cat'likk cannit read
fagoy

Friendly reminder that impious wretches go in
>>>/hell/

In any case you cannot find the words "unconditional election" in the bible. You can read between the line and hallucinated some verses read "unconditional election" but no not even protestants agree on that.

What does this image prove ?

Actually, Luther's canon was about as fluid as that of the medieval Church in general... perhaps less so. There was a thoroughgoing doctrine of the inspiration and unique authority of Scripture in the 14th and 15th centuries, but the canon itself was much more fluid than it has been since the Counter-Reformation and post-Reformation Protestant Orthodoxy. The question was less "which books belong?" than "what is the authoritative foundation for dogma and what are the rules for its interpretation?" Luther's innovations had much less to do with the canon than with the continuing modification or abandonment of the quadriga and the glossa ordinaria.

This entire chart is completely and laughably wrong.

>sola gracia
>there's a verse in the bible that explicity says you can't achieve salvation by grace alone

AYY LMAO
At least they recognise them as mistakes, unlike new-born protestants who just erase that part of their lifes and say "It's because I didn't believe in God back then therefore I didn't have free will". No wonder why they shout like retards at church, thinking the louder they are the greater are the chances they will go to heaven.

Fun fact: the "5 points of Calvinism" are almost certainly 20th-century inventions, loosely based on the Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht, which posed five objections to the five articles of Remonstrance posed by Arminian ministers in the churches of 17th-century Holland and West Friesland. The canons were a negative statement of theological correction to what the Reformed ministers saw as incorrect theology, NOT positive or constructive statements of their own theology. The notion of "unconditional election" was only really formulated as a way of denying that the decree of election was conditional in some way, based on a foreseen fulfillment of some condition on the part of the individual elected. Constructed positively, you'd never have heard the 17th century Reformed ever speaking of "unconditional election" or "limited atonement." The very earliest you can find some formulation of a "limited atonement" was in the Marrow Controversy in the 18th century Church of Scotland, and even then, the critics of the Marrow Men who chafed against a universal declaration of atonement would probably struggle to understand what the hell you were talking about. They didn't think of salvation in these terms. The 5 points are basically a mangled devolution, in the manner of a game of Chinese whispers, of polemical interactions regarding the ordo salutis, atonement, election and predestination, ripped from the context of history and the positive symbols of the faith (the historic Reformed confessions of faith and catechisms), presented as though they were the core and basis of a system of theology that had never conceived of them that way in the first place.

>fluid
>much more fluid
weasel words?

If there is a GOD, HE Himself has speech impediment.

>This entire chart is completely and laughably wrong.
Post you own. Something all Christians can agree upon.

>weasel words?
Facts. Sometimes you just have to face the fact that the questions you are asking weren't necessarily the ones people were asking centuries prior, and the assumptions you hold weren't theirs.

>Post you own. Something all Christians can agree upon.
This doesn't even make sense. How would one even construct a chart about the differences between Christian traditions that everyone can agree upon?

But really, where does one even begin with this chart? As I said, nearly every box is wrong. Perhaps the most laughable are:

>Lutheranism: Ministers and clergy of all believers
Nope. Preisthood of all believers (in terms of having access to Christ through prayer and the Sacraments). It is demonstrably untrue that every believer is clergy in the Lutheran Church.

>Calvinism: Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin
Zwingli is a fair start, but Calvin was a second-generation Reformer who had absorbed the work of many theologians prior: including Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Oecolampadius, Myconius, et al. And the likes of his contemporaries, such as Peter Martyr Vermigli and Wolfgang Musculus, who were trained very scholastically, would never have seen themselves as playing second fiddle to Calvin. Calvinism really isn't indebted to Calvin in the same way as Lutheranism is to Luther.

>Lutheranism and Calvinism: Bible must be read by individuals and helps towards salvation.
Both traditions considered the Bible to be the Church's book (although encouraged individual reading -- NOT interpretation -- when possible), but considered the Bible to be the very active and efficacious Word of God, and the preaching of the Word to be the very Word itself, and thus a corporate means of grace.

False.

if by "the bibile" you mean the ecumenical councils of the early church this was mostly due to the proliferation of blatantly false gospels and contradicting accounts. Even the 4 gospels they chose have certain contradictions which atheists will gleefully point out but they did the best they could.

Which books did protestants remove btw not familiar with this particular heresy? Is it the same for all denominations? that seems almost impossible

>Calvinism: Rejected most sacraments except baptism which minister could oversee.
Calvinists regard Baptism and the Eucharist as holy sacraments, and the minister doesn't oversee, but ministers them. Just as their preaching is the actual Word of God, their ministration of the Sacraments is a real, effectual means of grace.

>Calvinist: Faith: justification is God's endorsement of your morals. Good works are a precondition of justification.
This is literally the opposite of what Calvinists teach. You can find it in literally every Reformed confession and catechism. Justification is by grace alone, and faith is the instrument of reception, but good works don't enter into it at all. Their doctrine of justification is nearly identical to the Lutheran one.

>Anabaptist: No official founder but inspired by Zwingli and Erasmus
Not only is this pedigree questionable, but many Anabaptist groups are quite explicitly founded by certain individuals, such as Menno Simmons, Jakob Hutter, Balthasar Hubmaier, Alexander Mack, Jakob Ammann, et al.

>Calvinist: Predestination -- salvation is known only to God and is determined at birth.
Complete misrepresentation. Besides the misleading and unclear language, I know of no Calvinist theological who believes that one's election occurs at birth.

>Calvinism: Good works may or may not be evidence of justification.
Again, explicitly denied in pretty much every major Reformed confession. Good works ARE evidence of justification.

>Catholic: Only clergy may administer sacraments and interpret scripture.
Not only do they believe in lay Baptism in cases of emergencies, but there is no indication that the Catholic Church teaches that only ordained clergy can interpret scripture.

>Lutheran: Callenged sale of Indulgences
Yes, but that was not the cause for Protest, nor the reason they became Protestant rather than remaining Catholic.

>chapter and verse....
>for something that isn't in any chapter or verse...

>Calvinism: Reformation concerned more with moral regeneration of the church and the community, than with the individual.
Were that the case, they'd never have become Protestant in the first place. They held to the formal and material principles of the Reformation, as did the Lutherans.

>Calvinist: Presbyterianism
Quite a lot of Calvinists were not presbyterian, many were congregationalists. Most of the Puritans were congregationalists. Some of the biggest controversies in the American Presbyterian Church were over the extent to which it should be acceptable to cooperate with congregationalists and Baptists.

>500 years
>still butthurt

I'M GONNA SAY IT
ANY CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION BESIDES AMERICAN PROTESTANTISM IS ALRIGHT WITH ME

like i said god have speech impediment

im sorry u wasted that much of your life on those nonsense

>muh bible
>argues about science
>what science refutes becomes a parable

Meanwhile meditation has been proven to cause spiritual experiences and to improve health.

>by Anglo-Saxon
yeah because only them fought right?
also kind reminder that Anglo-Saxons are Germanic too, basically Germans who settled on the British Islands

>KJV
found your first problem
Also
>no 2 were exactly alike
no shit, every historical artifact is distinct

>im sorry u wasted that much of your life on those nonsense
Historical ignorance isn't something to be proud of.

>apocrypha
>Not full of shit

It wasn't part of the bible.

As a deist (who still tries to live by Christian values) who was raised by a Catholic mother and a Protestant father, I can verify that both sides have their fair share of ups and downs. On one hand, I prefer Catholicism's cultural and historical actions to Protestant's non-existent contributions. On the other hand, some of Catholicism's traditions are a bit too crypto-Pagan for my liking. Honestly, as long as you're not a child-molester or a "PRAISE JEBUS!" evengelical, you're good in my book. Besides, both are a lot better than mudslimes, nu-spiritualists, and r/atheists.

REMINDER:

Soul = Ka
Piety = Ma'at
God = Ra
Satan = Apep
Virgin Mary = Isis
Jesus = Horus

Christianity is a ripoff of Egyptian religion via Judaism and nothing more than a glorified solar cult.

>On the other hand, some of Catholicism's traditions are a bit too crypto-Pagan for my liking.

But that's the best part. Abrahamic religion is fucking shit.

Actually, the apocrypha were printed in Protestant Bibles for a while. Both Luther and the early Reformed tended to consider them as being of some profit and worthy to be read, but as lacking the authority of the canonical books. In the earlier editions of the Belgic Confession, I can think of at least one proof text taken from the book of Wisdom. The main reason their use in the churches dropped off was because they lacked authoritative status for the establishment of dogma. Thus, the Protestant Orthodox codifiers saw no need to consult them in developing their dogmatics, they weren't included in Protestant lectionaries, and they eventually moved the apocryphal books to an appendix to printed Bibles, and eventually disappeared from Bibles altogether. But they didn't view them as being "full of shit."

There are people who actually believe this

What did he mean by this?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans 8:29&version=KJV

Catholic up until the 16th century when Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church instead of the Pope.

But all those are protestant and their kind of fuckery what comes to mind when you say protestant, to be honest. At least to me.

there are people who actually believe in an abstract sense of god that nobody even knows how to describe because it's completely subjective

>kjv

most protestant denominations are branched from church of england not luther.

Not an argument.

King James did not translate or edit the bible and had basically nothing to do with it.

>the gay bible

No thanks.

Now I gotta reread the three musketeers.

>All the Catholic butthurt in this thread

Why would you waste what little time you have before going to hell on losing internet arguments?

>Jesus
>Amen I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise
>Martin Luther
>Nobody goes to Heaven, the soul sleeps forever

He removed those books from his Old Testament because the Jews removed it from their Old Testament. The Jewish Bible used to have more books. Look up the Septuagint.

No, you are misreading my post.

I believe in the True Gods, foremost among them Ra, He Who Rises on the Horizon Every Day, the All-Reachingg and Father of All Things.

He is destined to destroy Apep the Serpent, Lord of Darkness, when the time of dissolution comes.

Your Abrahamic religions are nothing more than child's play, vile mockeries of the One True Religion, and their very existence is anathema to Ma'at, the true way of living as commanded by the Lord of Time.

>Soul = Ka
Soul is Akh, not Ka.

Ka isn't even personality, it's the animating spark.

...

>yall chilling and he gives you this look

<

Not even actual Egyptians believe in this crap anymore. If your gods are so powerful how come dead religion?

Universal truth does not dissappear just because Humans deny it.

...