Debunking Protestantism

>implying most lutheran churches arent pozzed these days

I never said they couldn't be brown shirts.

Why should we argue, the only difference between us is that you pray to the goddess mary and we dont
>protestantism
>state control
I beg your pardon?

the average cuckolded mainliner is not a nazi closet or otherwise

This is why you must stick to the bible; to not be like this person.

2 Peter 3
Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

>You can't revive authentic Christianity based only on the Bible.

Nor is anyone trying to.

Nice strawman.

Whatever they say is bible tradition, is bible tradition.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

>be protestant European country
>sanction your gorrilionth special snowflake state church

Define your terms.

Protestants were Catholics who protested Rome, the pope, the Vatican, and the evil practices done by same.

They were all Catholics.

They are all dead.

So when you speak of "Protestants", you are speaking of dead Catholics.

...

I'm speaking from personal experience, I went to a lutheran elementary school and the school literally became taken over by nazis. I first started to suspect when the new history "teacher" started preaching about land bridges to america and the aztecs were atlantean whites. Only later did I find out that's the exact summation of the neo nazi hyperborean hypothesis. Now it all makes sense, principal skinhead, new kids bragging about knowing the kkk, etc. They went bankrupt a year later because nazis can't run a business.

This would be the "Counter Reformation", and it was indeed headed by assassins, aka Jesuits.

Their sole purpose was to kill Christians and burn bibles.

>it's hard to challenge people's fundamental axioms

>hyperborean

That's Conan the Barbarian dude.

>Source: thousands years of history

And what is the summation of that godless history but conquest, death, and plunder?

What is that painting a depiction of?

you really gotta be there man. These are literally flat earth tier fags, you won't believe it until you meet them in person.

Ossian Receiving the Spirits of the French Heroes
Painting by Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy-Trioson, 1801

wow at my elementary school we were still learning the abcs but you were already hearing about land bridges, aztecs and atlantis. it must have been a school for gifted children.

>principal skinhead
was his name professor x?

>Nah, you're right, it's actually really easy to change people's basic preconceptions about the world

>2000 year old teachings shouldn't prioritize tradition

You have a lesbo as ur preacher m8?

With God, all things are possible.

I was making fun of how banal his post was baka

>it must have been a school for gifted children.

no it was a christian school lawl, definitely the exact opposite of that

I once convinced a protestant priest that you could worship Norse gods and still be a christian

It was a stupid post, I just don't understand why you chose to greentext the only part that was correct.

jesus is the gift giver user

Becoming a Christian is a permanent transformation in this age. Once permanently transformed, a Christian is at liberty to do as he wills. If he falls into some sort of deception and worships pagan gods, that does not revoke his Christianity.

It will only shame him later, in heaven, when he has to explain to the living God why he worshiped other people.

They are just the names of angels, right?

I'll put Sir Isaac Newton up against anyone you have, friend.

No, they're deified people from Babylon. All pagan religions go back to Babylon.

>refine his post into one sentence
>post a big brain wojack

Anglicans are protestant in name only son.

Protestantism is a sub-group of Christianity. Since all forms of mainstream Christianity openly contradict the Old Testament, which they view as the inspired word of God and thus explicitly correct, none of them can possibly be true.

u wot

t. synagogue of satan

...

/pol/ is primarily Protestant?

>low-church.jpg
There is your answer

anglicans are anglicans mate

>...ol/ /pol/ /pol/ /pol/ /po...

O B S E S S E D

If we're only talking about the Christian /pol/acks, then it's a mix of genuine hardcore Protestant fundamentalists, Catholic Crusader LARPers and people who claim to be Orthodox but are actually basement dwelling NEETs who really just think that Orthodoxy looks cool.

Euros are godless heathens

Catholics can't take down shit because even a cursory review will reveal they are more inconsistent than your average braindead evangelical.

But not all Anglicans are Low Church Anglicans. Personally, I have never seen a Low Church Anglican church in my life.

This board has many user from /pol/, you can note with their replies and of course you can see it in threads, go see the catalog, you will 3-4 threads about jews, 3-4 about nazis/hitler and a couple more about germany in general

Its everyday

ok but they are all literally protesting rome regardless

So the reason you know nothing about genius Christians is that you have never studied genius Christians.

And your ignorance is imputed to us, how, again?

>Everyone I don't like is Jewish!

No, seriously. One of the central tenets of Christian theology is that blood and death is necessary for forgiveness of sin. You once imperfectly got there by ritually sacrificing animals (except when you didn't), and now you get there through the death of Jesus. Except of course we can point to OT verses where God forgives explicitly without the shedding of blood, like leviticus 5:11 or Jonah 3:10. You really have to wonder why Paul doesn't seem to know about these.

...

the protest is political rather than spiritual, that's why so many conservative anglicans are eager to rejoin catholicism, also anglicanism does not share most of the traits of mainstream protestantism, and is often referred to as protestant in name only.

>attempts to refute my anecdote about shitty USA bible elementary with the example of the literal "king's school" of England

That's a completely retarded comparison. Everyone knows USA education sucks, and everyone knows "christian schools" in the usa are just a front for dumbass fundies (and usually refers to protestants, since catholic schools call themselves catholic to make the distinction). So that's two strikes already. You compare that to the best school in a European country. Also Newton didn't go to King's School until he was 12, so it wasn't "Elementary" now was it? I would have killed to have private tutors at that age. I would have loved to learn latin and greek, instead of bodega spanish. Fuck you and your assumptions.

Someone please briefly tell me what the major differences between the largest Christian denominations are

Catholics expect mercy

Christians ask for grace

It has a lot of Russian who are genuinely Orthodox

I'm a protestant myself and I've never had an argument with a catholic or any other denomination. I even go to events in the local catholic church by invitation of some friends, from time to time. I'm always well treated.

Because if the Bible is to be believed (Mark 3:28-29), the only sin that could never be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which I was taught means refusing to learn about God's Grace even if given the chance. Since the Holy Spirit acts upon us to help us learn and see the truth of the Law, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would be to refuse His help.

Therefore, all christians from all denominations have a chance of being saved and transformed, even though we all seem to disagree on certain topics. If you do your best to learn the Law and follow it, you will be judged fairly. That is all God ask of us and that is His promise to us, should we accept Him.

Which brings me to my final point: why do we constantly bicker at each other? I know you can't except much from a board on Veeky Forums, but I see disagreement and hatred IRL too, and I can't compute it. It doesn't make sense. Chill out, say your prayers, read the Bible, study it, go to church, help people, be nice. No christian denomination says anything about these things, therefore we can conclude at least those are right things to do.

>amerifat detected
protestant churches were headed by the King, Church of England/Prussia/Sweden
in the USA a State Church was never implemented because by the Independence the colonies were already religiously diverse and would lead to internal upheavel

>protestantism
>religion
Ohh, i guess you're american?

Here we can see the perfect example of why protestantism is proto-liberalism

>catholics
>equal to orthodox

Catholics to Orthodoxs are what Protestants to Catholics. illeterate about religious matters.The catholic who opened "christian general" threads didnt know what nicene creed was, for quite some time.

also they are obnoxious as fuck, most orthodox I have seen are quite chill, the asbergers from /pol/-Veeky Forums and octos /christian/ come primarily from catholics.

There's no christian denomination that is 100% correct in their rules, i have went to an orthodox church a few times, to a catholic church a few times, and i go to a protestant church every sunday because i my parents kinda force me to. İ rather consider myself non-denominational, but the problem with orthodoxes and catholics for example is that when the preaching starts, they do it in latin or old church slavonic, amd there is no point for 99% of the people who are in the church to be there because it is all incomprehensible. Also they do not preach the bible to the normal people, and in SOME cases even dont allow the normal man to read the bible. Why? Well, because simply of they start reading what the bible says, they will start questioning the church because those churches do many things wrong. Some protestants are good, but some are absolutely disgusting for me. For example charismatians scream and shout like they are possesed by satan or some stuff like that. And also many protestants (mainly in the west), consider stuff like masturbation, cheating, suicide and homosexuality not a sin, while it is DİRECTLY mentioned in the bible (new testament) that it is a very big sin, and it can even get you straight to hell of you dont change something about it. İ go to a catholoc school myself and what they are teaching us is absolutely heresy and bullcrap, idk if the catholic church recognize the teachings that they are giving us here, but it is absolitely terrible. They tell us that homosexuals will enter heaven, that all what is written in the bible didnt happen in reality and is just written there to give us a morale, but that it's all fictional. Also, they dont believe in the existance of hell and satan, so yeah. The orthodox church has also many problems because in many cases (not always) in russia mainly, idk about the rest, they ask money for everything, they ask money for simple things like the eucharisty, baptising and sometimes even entering the church.

What i can say is simple, just read the bible, doesnt matter how, slow or fast. And make your descision, go to a local church for prayer etc, but dont choose a specific denomination and hate your other christian brothers.

>implying Peter actually wrote these

"Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.[1][2][3]"

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

I don't believe forgiveness is proto-liberalism, but if it is, then there's a guy named Jesus who you aparently would hate a lot, because he was as proto-liberal as possible.

Now debunk me with arguments, don't diminish me with strawmans. That is, after all, what the thread is all about.

Explain to me: do you disagree that, in theory, all types of christians have a shot at being saved? If so, tell me where, in the Bible, that is explained. Or quote the Pope, if you don't believe in Sola Scriptura. Even though I'm not catholic, I'm not going to throw a pious man's words down the drain.

(((scholars)))

I don't know what's up with your experience with the Catholic Church. Unless you're specifically seeking out Tridentine masses or you're in a really conservative country, you should have no problem finding a Mass in the vernacular. And I haven't heard of a Church that told people not to read the bible in the last several centuries.

As for the teachings of the Catholic Churc hthat you're learning in school, I think there may be some misunderstandings. They teach that yes, homosexuals can enter heaven, but if they abstain from homosexual sex and remain celibate. As for teaching things that happen in the bible, they do acknowledge things like the events in Genesis and Exodus as having a basis in fact (the Exodus, the flood), and some being myths because they didn't have the expertise to know the proper reason (the creation of the world), but that doesn't invalidate the message they try to teach.
And yes, the Catholic Church does believe in Hell and Satan, it's just that Hell isn't the Dante-esque pit of torture run by Satan, and Satan isn't the dualistic pseudo-deity who opposes God at every turn as seen in popular fiction.

>it waz da joos
Not an argument

>sola scriptura
>but I get to decide what is scripture and what isn't, because there's no scripture that mentions what is or isn't scripture
I can see why most of the issue proddies raise may merit discussion, but sola scriptura is a disgrace and any sect that accept it automatically loses any and all claims to intellectual honesty.

>the problem with orthodoxes and catholics for example is that when the preaching starts, they do it in latin or old church slavonic, amd there is no point for 99% of the people who are in the church to be there because it is all incomprehensible. Also they do not preach the bible to the normal people, and in SOME cases even dont allow the normal man to read the bible
I was raised catholic and I never actually went to a latin language mass, I always listened to three excerpts from the bible every mass (two read by the people and one by the celebrant), and the reading of the gospel was always followed by a homily explaining it.
I don't rightly understand if you're larping 9th century christianity or if you're just straight out lying for no obvious purpose, since it's too blatant to expect people not to call you out on it.

>>protestantism
>>state control
Anglins and also known as the church in England is an example of

No.
Catholics live in constant suffering for Him. Catholics hold thy tonges, and break bread with strangers for no reward.

you don't even understand what it is to be christian to pass judgment like you just did.

You must be aware of the difference between Sola Scriptura and Nuda Scriptura, correct?

The principle of Sola Scriptura doesn't neglect Tradition, it only implies that in matters where the Scpriptures and Traditions are in conflict, the first should always be understood as truth rather than the latter.

Nuda Scriptura, on the other hand, teaches the complete disregard for anything other than the Bible. This idea rose in the XIX century from the likes of the anabaptists. I know catholics have a tendency to put all protestants in the same basket, but you understand there are worlds of difference between some of us, right? Some of us have been calling Sola Scriptura the "Prima" Scriptura nowadays for this very reason. It's important that we don't mistake the two concecpts.

We lutherans even keep most of the catholic traditions, like the Eucharist, alive and well. The problem is when it comes to worship of saints, for example, where tradition says it ok, but the scriptures clearly say it's not. In this case, Prima Scriptura works its magic and clears things out without remaining doubts.

As to what is Scripture and what isn't, we protestants use a Bible that contain only the books from the original Hebrew scriptures. That's as far as we can get from using exactly the word of God as it was passed down to His people, in the days of the Israelites. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, uses the deuterocanonical books added by a couple of councils on the IV century A.D.

That's a ways after when it had already been estabilished what the Bible would be. So when you argue that we protestants are just deciding out of the blue what is and what isn't scripture, it certanly looks the other way around to me. It was the catholics that "got to decide" those new deuterocanonical books would be added, just because there was nothing in the Scriptures saying otherwise. We just went back to the Scriptures that everyone used forever since before the Councils.

>We just went back to the Scriptures that everyone used forever since before the Councils.
This argument would hold more weight if the deuterocanonical books hadn't only been removed from the hebrew canon in 70AD. It's not like the jews kept the old testament the same throughout the history of judaism, proddies trying to pinpoint the canon at one specific point in time is no more honest than early christians deciding the canon at proper councils, especially in light of the attempts at doing away with the antilegomena out of the need to eliminate passages in disaccord with lutheran theology.

Why not use the original Dead Seas Scrolls instead of what this pagan decided that fit his world view.

AND the protestant version isn't the same as the Hebrew version. They left out the stuff about Alexander the great.

why not actually source instead of posting a meme?

Eh. Really? You don't know history of Constantine.

Fact: He presided over the council in 325.

Fact. He was a pagan until his deathbed conversion in 337 (some say he wanted to hold off baptism until he got as many sins as possible forgiven).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#Agenda_and_procedure
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great

Yeah its wikipedia but click on the source material links. I learned this shit before Wikipedia was even around.

Again... A bunch of men got together on the order of a Pagan Emperor to decide what books would be in the official doctrine. The excuse was that these men were divinely inspired.

But Constantine was a person of questionable nature and an opportunist (why wait to convert?)

Why did they throw out some books and keep others? Why was it against the law to agree with this council?

Why aren't we using the books from Ethiopia?

Why not the dead seas scrolls? Why not the original Hebrew translations?

Oh and don't get me started about KJV translation errors.

At least Islam got that right with their versioning and official language.

Did you not read the meme? It said you can look this shit up and posted a source on one of them.

thanks friends im just a dumb frogposter

Well, the idea that the deuterocanonical books where originally a part of the Hebrew Scriptures and were removed in 70 A.D. is a fairly disputed claim (department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm). There is no historical evidence to back it as far as we know. You can use it as an argument, but don't state it as if it was a fact. It's a theory.

I'm well aware that the Hebrew scriptures were not the same during the entire period they were used. They discussed it amongst themselves, as we do, and they had their doubts, as we do. The deuterocanonical books have been around way before the Councils, that is a fact, but nowhere it is stated or even implied that they were considered part of the Holy Scriptures. The very doubt about that should already be reason enough to not use them.

But, even if you believe there were changes to the Hebrew Scriptures, how does that justify changing it further? How does one go from "the Scriptures have been changed" to "I might as well change it too"? If Tradition is the main argument as to which version should be used, then isn't the Hebrew version as it was around 100 A.D. our best option? Versions before that are lost in time, incomplete. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls are incomplete. How could we use that?

Luther himself advised all christians to read and learn about the deuterocanonical books. The difference is protestants do not believe it to be the actual word of God. There's nothing wrong in that, but it certainly can't be used to justify Faith. Many good books written by humans without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit should be read by christians, but not used as justification for anything. You want to know what in the deuterocanonical books is right and what isn't? Easy: Prima Scriptura. If it doesn't conflict with the Bible, then it's fine.

Let's not use "they've already changed it anyway" as an argument to allow further changes. That cannot be correct.

> They discussed it amongst themselves, as we do, and they had their doubts, as we do
In some ways, they had a much more "aggressive", for lack of a better term, approach to it than Christians do. I don't remember the exact page citation, but I saw in a thread about the Talmud some time back a discussion among Rabbis about how the book of Esther, which every Christian group I'm aware of includes in their canon, only barely made it into the Hebrew one. (apparently there are a lot of sexual double entendres if you read it in Hebrew, and it was considered by some Jews to be too lewd to be in the canon.)

Anyone who has done a basic rudimentary study of Roman Catholicism can see it is Mystery Babylon the Great Harlot counterfeit church that persecutes true believers.

Tons of documentaries have been made exposing Catholicism for the unbiblical, crypto-pagan mess it is.

>Let's not use "they've already changed it anyway" as an argument to allow further changes.
But that's exactly what you're doing. Going back to a previous state no more certainly correct than the current one is a further change, no way around it. It's simply not an original change, but that means shit all.
The issue is not so much wanting to claim the catholic canon as the correct one, as disputing the protestant claim to have the correct canon.

Protestants did not change the Bible. That's the thing. The Reform hit more than a thousand years after all the catholic, orthodox and hebrew councils were done changing everything. Luther merely studied and compared the apocrypha, as we call the deuterocanonical books, to the protocanonical books and noticed discrepancies such as Maccabees supporting the doctrine of purgaroty after death (2 Maccabees 12:43-46), even though the protocanonical books would say that the dead know and have nothing (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6) and compared death to sleep (John 11:11-14). These discrepancies, added to the fact that the authorship of the deuterocanonical books is highly contested, made Luther believe something was fishy about them. Between going with the Catholic decision on the Councils of the IV century or going back to the decisions made on the Councils of the first century, he went with the latter. Made sense. Both were changes. What Luther did was choose between those changes, not change anything himself.

To this day, this issue is studied and discussed by all protestant theologists. The argument remains the same: too much conflict between deuterocanonical and protocanonical books. And if the protocanonical Bible is to be taken into acount before the Traditions, then we simply cannot accept the apocrypha as the Word of God.

Everything we're discussing here has already been discussed by much more pious man than us. And they haven't been able to reach an agreement. I can't see how we could. That is why I go back to my original point: all christian denominations have a shot at Salvation because none of us commit the only unforgivable sin, which is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. Everything else is just politics.

That's all I have to add.

What do you have to say about the Vatican fitting all the check marks of Mystery Babylon in the book of Revelation?

Just a coincidence? Yeah of course.

Popes are antichrists.
Mary worship is Semiramis/Isis/ancient fertility goddess worship.

Roman Catholicism is Paganism repackaged to fight the true Gospel.

Do you get this teached in your church?

niggas should specify what their church is with their posts

No, I actually study and research.

You know, read books and look up documentaries instead of blindly believing what a child-raping Latin priest tells you.

>Detailed Documentary Exposing Catholic Church (8 hours)
youtube.com/watch?v=5bVEXZ38Vs8

>The Real History of the evil Roman Catholic Church
youtube.com/watch?v=LClaSilFlA8

>The Jesuit Agenda Exposed
youtube.com/watch?v=oTo2wbfvT9E

>The Real Bible Version Issue
youtube.com/watch?v=KHcf3E8qOqA

>The Catholic and Islamic Connection
youtube.com/watch?v=ll0otULYzms

Satan couldn't stamp out Christianity by force (Roman state persecution) so his plan B was to subvert and create a counterfeit religion.

>No, I actually study and research.
But with a big bias