Which church stays more closely to the teachings of Christ? Orthodox or Catholic?

Matthew 16:18

>Catholic music > Orthodox music
LOL

Thats not what Jesus is saying at all. Hes saying not to be a douchebag who always asserts their superiority over others by praying so everyone can see. In no way is he condemning coming together as a church community.

The Orthodox have it on the surface level, with the Greek and the wizard clothes, but have underlying theological problems. The Catholic Church has, in some dioceses, bitten the "guitar mass" bait. Byzantine Catholics have everything, sound theology + Rome + Latin + cool cloaks and Gregorian chant.

Again, every Church is evil. Jesus

Protestantism

>Catholic music > Orthodox Music
Someone hasn’t listened to enough Sviridov. youtube.com/watch?v=MQvtD2zTyVs

Jesus likes rocks. Obviously so.
Stonehenge anyone. Temple.

Its hard to say since both had control of the political and historical narrative of that region

...

>Catholic music > Orthodox music
Awful taste.

lol

Catholicism
>Pray to saints (polytheistic)
>Extravagant
>Trinitarian
>Change rules to keep up with modernity

Nothing about this Christlike

the post is more Veeky Forums less /hum/

How about posting an accurate one?

why aren't samaritans continuing to the present day?

according to this, what exactly did Martin Luther do to "bring it back to their roots" I've only ever heard it from the side of he broke away from the Catholic church so therefore it can be seen as breaking away from tradition

Change it so that only teachings found in the Bible were kept/practices.

The general idea behind Protestantism is that rather than clarifying existing ones, superfluous practices and teachings based on references to non biblical sources were added to Christianity over the decades by the Cathodox.

Early Christianity was a religion of the poor and minorities, and is thus fundamentally different from great churchs with economic and political power. I don't think any modern church really comes close to the the old teachings.

That's theoretically self-defeating though, since that's simply affirming that if any faith grows large enough, it becomes incorrect. Unless you're applying that only a small subset of the population will be saved, sort of like the Johova's Witnesses (I think, not sure if its them or another denomination that think only 44000 people will make it to heaven).

What a terrifying chart as a christian trying to reason for the correct denomination.

Its even worse when it comes to theology and philosophy even once you get past textual issues.

At the end of the day there are no simple answers here that can be reached without much research and a whole lot of faith.

Coptic

There is none. Church was a mistake. Build a personal connection with God yourself.

>t. Muhammadan

They teach the same thing and have signed joint statements to this effect.

Shitty chart is shitty. The oriental orthodox church split is due to nationalist politics and minor disagreement over wording. The "great schism" of the eastern orthodox is just revisionist history. It was more of a gradual distancing and isolation than any real dispute. Then like the oriental orthodox, when Muslims took control of the church, they split on national lines for fear of foreign meddling. Protties are just nutjobs that can't prove they have anything in common with early Christianity and think Jesus poofed the complete bible into existence.

...

Orthodox seems to have cooler doctrine.
How can Catholicism compete with concepts like theosis?

Please give an example of a theological problem.

Lutherans

who can compete?

ancient anime and larping

Orthodoxfags eternally BTFO

Oriental Orthodox.
Maybe the Chaldeans.

It seems an Armenian Creed coupled with Oriental miaphysite Christology and a Syrian liturgical system would be the most sensible practice, IMHO, but I don't think anyone actually meets that litmus.

An impossible question to answer since you can't know god's will, and thus cannot know which church better aligns to it.

Neither they're both aberrations.

You call it wording but the fact is that the division between the Orthodox and oriental had huge repercussions in the roman empire. They may today attribute it to language differences but at the time people took the split pretty seriously

Why are his abs a huge throbbing cock?

>Catholic music > Orthodox music

youtu.be/5_yqSmRU9qo

>Which church stays more closely to the teachings of Christ? Orthodox or Catholic?

Neither. The teachings of Christ are renounce Judaism or go to hell.

youtube.com/watch?v=b9h5Ul9je8Y

...

Neither. We have little information about the earliest Jewish proto-Christian movements formed from interaction with Jesus of Nazareth and his original apostles, and it is unlikely that much was ever even written down about it - his movement drew from illiterate working class populations, and as a backwater carpenter's son Jesus himself probably could not read or write. Next, there's the matter of Paul. The people that knew Jesus IRL had an antagonistic relationship with Paul, with Peter and Jesus's brother James being particularly notable opponents of his teachings judging from Paul's non-pseudepigraphical letters. Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy heavily venerate Paul and consider him and his teachings core components of their forms of Christianity. James led some kind of Jewish reformation movement in Jerusalem that might have emerged from that of Jesus, and like his brother was hated by the Sadducees (aristocratic priestly class) and ultimately railroaded into execution.

Any religious communities initially inspired by Jesus' movement were almost entirely obscured in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt, during which the Roman Emperor Hadrian got sick of putting down Jewish uprisings and initiated a brutal crackdown with the express purpose of destroying anything with a whiff of Judaism. Mass executions, enslavement and exile of survivors, banning the religion, building pagan temples on the temple mount, attempting to literally erase Israel off the map by redrawing borders + pumping in Roman settlers, etc. The proto-Christian communities elsewhere in the Empire tried differentiate themselves from Judaism as much as possible to avoid getting the hammer brought down upon them too. Largely successful, they promptly engaged in theological dickmeasuring contests and wrote countless polemical texts attempting to tear down other Christian communities and label them non-Christian, further obscuring earlier beliefs.

Why the oriental ORthodox?

I'd say the teachings started straying around the time the New Testament was formed.

This sadly. We'll never know what was original to his teachings and what wasn't.

>Latin > Greek
Some fucking Roman gayboy language over the language of the Gospels? fuck that

bu bu bu but the filioqueeee

I guess the eastern and oriental Orthodox churches resemble the spirit of the apostolic age more by allowing for greater autonomy and uniqueness. The Catholic Church operated like this before the great schism and the reformation back when there were dozens of local liturgies.
Aesthetically Orthodox churches appear to also have conserved a style closer to early and medieval Christian periods as far as what is known or still extant from them.

Not user but they along with other eastern churches seem to convey a more communal demeanor while the eastern Orthodox churches look more institutional which may be a remnant from the time when it was part of the united empire's church. That however may just have to do with a difference of being the dominant institutions in their respective countries or not.

>Beards
90% of the priests I see have beards

>Married priests
Can still be married

>Wizard clothing
Yep

>Orthodox churches
Perhaps, I'll cede this point

>Latin
Try Aramaic

>History of Orthodox nations
Interesting, to say the last

Try Eastern Rite Catholicism.

t. Maronite

>What a terrifying chart as a christian trying to reason for the correct denomination.
>trying to reason

Pretty sure you are doing it wrong.

But if you really think you can logic your way through it:

selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=christiandenom

>Catholic music > Orthodox music
Nigger what

Should we bring back the beard tax?

Not him but I'm an atheist and I got liberal quakerim.

Well the Catholic Church throughout history probably did have more resources and expertise to develop perhaps some of the most sophisticated and polished compositions known to man.

I used to get the same result a few years back when taking the test back when I was less knowledgeable on the historical organization and functioning of churches. After listening to some lectures and working out the different points the same test yields highly for denominations like Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Orthodoxy.

That's really interesting desu. Know where I can read more about that?

>be raised atheist
>mfw I find out I'm actually a liberal quaker

Based Quakerism.

>History of Orthodox nations > History of Catholic nations

>Sitting in Catholic church > standing in Orthodox church
Fucking eh right

Well pews likely didn't come about until centuries after the advent of Christianism so having no seats is more authentic. Also kneeling and putting the hands together when praying appears to have been a Roman custom and perhaps standing with palms up might more closely resemble the customs of what the earliest Christians might have done and what Jesus hismself is in the Gospels mentioned doing like stretching forth the hands. Also surviving Jewish practices are also done standing.
youtu.be/DaEOsRX9IzQ

Ebionite

It's one of those things nobody believes are still around, like pagers and Atari.

>not being a Protestant
It's like you've never even read the Bible

Off the top of my head: "Paul Was Not a Christian" by Pamela Eisenbaum. Sensationalist title, but gives a solid overview of what historians know about the life of Paul, his relationship with what became Christianity, and the contemporary religious situation - TL;DR version is that he and his contemporaries saw themselves as a Jews ushering in a reformation of Judaism that was expanded to include Gentiles rather than converts to a new religion, many elements we consider key to Christianity had yet to develop or were just one among many contemporary ideas, and that modern Christianity is strongly shaped by Paul's belief that the end times were nigh and that they were living in the last generation.

I'll give you a more comprehensive list tomorrow when I'm not about to pass out for the night.

Catholic have kept Christ's universalism while Orthodox is a slavic only social club

Your post just screams millennial faggot.

keep me posted

Jewish lies

Whatever Paul's intentions were, he certainly pissed off many Jewish members of the early Jesus movement. There were Jewish Christian sects up to the Middle Ages that rejected Paul and required following the Torah.

Neither of them is anywhere close. Jesus claimed to be a messiah, a war-leader of the Jews, and that's ALL he claimed to be. He would be beyond horrified to see all these disgusting subhuman goyim worshiping him as a god.

The funny thing about proddies/evangelicals is that for all their bashing of Catholics/Orthodox and claiming to follow Jesus original message, they still defend the NT canon and many of the doctrines those churches established, like the Trinity and the Virgin Birth.

Some argue that the Jewish Christians who survived Rome's persecution went down to Arabia and influenced the creation of Islam.

Both are miles better than contemporary Protestant music.

As an orthodo man,I can tell you that this religion seems a lot more spiritual. It never called for war as an agressor, only as a defender.

It helped a lot trough life, as silly as that might sound. Going into their church is a lot more hearth warming than any other christian holy places. It is just...warm. Orthodoxy doesn't call for life of no pleasure, but rather a life of traditional values.

Amen.

>but rather a life of traditional values
Such as sucking up to a literal heretic who also fucks your wife in the meantime?

As an agnostic, I can confirm. Orthodox churches and lythurgies are heart warming and inspiring. Never had an "orthodox crusade" or anything similar ( except some Balkan politics over grabbing control over some lands with the Catholics during Ottoman rule - but nothing big ).
Catholic heretics need to repent, abandon the filioque, purgatory and papal supremacy and become Christian again. Protestants are just so far away from true Christianity that they should be targets for new Crusades though...

>Jesus himself probably could not read or write
How did he study the Torah and read from it in the Temple then?

>Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy heavily venerate Paul and consider him and his teachings core components of their forms of Christianity.
This applies to Protestantism and the Sola Fide concept in the first place

the second part needs some verification but sounds very pseudo-scientific.

Well, I have a few reasons, most of them covered here: I think Rome was a fluke. I think nobody in the early Christian church expected that in a couple hundred years they'd have control of the imperial apparatus. I think Rome would have been a spiritual backwater in the time of Paul and shortly thereafter, and it was not until the martyrdom of James the Just that Rome even began to ascend into relevance. I think the Alexandrians, Copts, etc., were closer in ideological structural and philosophical bent to the early Jerusalem church due to a number of them, proximity foremost.

With this in mind the history of the early, uh, "church" becomes a bit more temporally sinister - The 5th C. appears to be a time of consolidation when the popular and appealing doctrines of the majority population pushed out communities which themselves had been with the program from the outset. Some of these anathama worthy Christologies (and don't get me wrong here I think Nestorianism is pretty crappy theology) weren't then-contemporary innovations, they'd been around since the early practitioners. So then yes we have a period of Gnostic crackdown but otherwise there's zero church disturbance for five hundred years or so. To that end I feel like anyone positing mainstream Orthodoxy over the Oriental churches because of *tradition* are missing how recent the Great Schism was in church history, and I think anyone who actually cares about Tradition needs to go older and weirder.

And who leads those crusades if crusades are such big sins for the catholics?

>the second part needs some verification but sounds very pseudo-scientific.
The last part of the last part is just basic anthrpological community differentiation but I'd agree that Christ was probably way more educated than even many believers give him credit for, and would assert that we've got a fairly decent preservation of early Christian communities in the archaeological record and in more isolated groups that didn't really have other Christians to differentiate themselves from (which is another reason I'm partial to Syrian rite, between the utter clusterfuck of pagan outfits and comparative isolation as you get toward the mountains in the east and the sort of closed communal tendencies of those outfits it seems to me they'd be content to practice as delivered rather than make constant revisions against contemporary competitors, at least until the great split).

Lots of text, little content.

?
I just think isolation was probably a benefit for preservation of practices in like an Oriental Ethiopian context or with Syrian liturgical formats compared to groups with more direct sectarian competition.

>Byzantine Greek
>Koine Greek, the language the new testament was written in, is now "Byzantine Greek" and inferior to Latin translations
Ok.

>Patriarch Nikon
>late 15th century
holy shit this was put together by a retard

>Catholic art > Orthodox art
Classical art is inherently European, specifically Greco-Roman, pagan.

"The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity" provides a good overview of how amorphous early Christianity was. TL;DR version is that it took centuries for the beliefs that eventually became orthodoxy to gain dominance, and early on beliefs that would be labeled radically heretical by modern believers were quite popular. Because they eventually won dominance and official codification, it's easy to fall into the trap of projecting beliefs informed by orthodoxy on what is Christian vs non-Christian back on people living during a time when Christianity was much more loosely defined and still forming.

Aslan's "Zealot" relies on outdated scholarship in some areas and pushes the "volatile rebel Jesus" angle too hard, but it's about the best popular history work on Jesus and contemporary regional upheavals.

The ancient Jewish historian Josephus' will give you detailed information on the political tensions and religious unrest that characterized 1st c. Roman Palestine, including an overview of the Jewish apocalyptic/messianic movements that kept popping up left and right and driving the Romans nuts.

"Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels" splices passages from Matthew, Mark and Luke describing the same events onto the same page for easy comparison of their content.

What's your explanation for the heated debates over adherence to Jewish law? If these earliest movements considered themselves utterly divorced from Judaism, why would Paul and other early figures have cared so much about questions regarding circumcision, keeping kosher, etc?

>Jesus would be okay with people who accept him as their savior and believe/worship God.
>The Catholic Church who says they are founded by Jesus calls these people Heretics and prosecute/demonize them because they don't suck the Pope's cock.
>The Pope can excommunicate someone from the Church and God
Really makes you think,

>The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity" provides a good overview of how amorphous early Christianity was
I see your decent text and raise you Kurt Rudolph's "Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism".