Christian Denominations

One achieves salvation by removing ego, which naturally happens when one is abiut to die if they can 'let go of material world'.
They all teach to that path but why I call that true is because zoroastrianism is good thinking and truth.

I will repeat though, Christianism has good values for our society.

Westboro baptist

Your behaviour is controlled both by your physiology through your hormones and energy, you wouldn't give me shit if you were hungry and tired, but yet you're still a shit. Someone taught you to be a shit and you know just what to say to shit me.

So why are you a shit? Is it your mind or your body? No, shit is purely your essence. You define shit as an epitome.

The only thing that is shit is your manners. You are unable to do a basic task such as having an extending intellectual discussion. You are everything that is wrong with the world.

May God have mercy on your poor soul.

They are quite blunt which is desirable.

If you're too insecure and defensive to understand what I just wrote for you then you're not ready for it. The Buddhists also have some truths, the ego isn't your friend.

There is no such thing as a denomination, you are either a part of the Catholic Church or you are not.

Don't try to mask insults by making obscure insults. I am willing though to hear you out on your points.

Try again without calling me a shit.

the Amish

Fair enough, but the Catholic Church's isn't the only religion that claims to be the only truth. Essentially, prove it.

Theyre all man-made bullshit worshipping an imaginary Jew God and his circumcised semite rabbi son, so whichever one convinces you to have 10 white children is the right one.

Why not? Are you too above being criticised by little old me? If so, then clearly there's nothing you could learn from me making this quite futile on both our parts.

Anyway, the trinity isn't polytheism.

None. Jesus was just an egotistical man that wanted to control people. He was not god. The real god does not say "believe or die".

God knows that the most important thing in life is to be a good person. God is the one that helps us make the right decisions in life. Mass murderers are deranged because they have lost their connection with god. An atheist that helps his community has a strong connection to god, but they just haven't realized it yet. Some people eventually realize that God exists, but you can't force it on people.

All and none. The only thing that is right is God's Word. For what is a man's interpretation compared to the understanding brought on through the Holy Spirit? You need not no preacher, pastor, or priest, cardinal, bishop, or otherwise and you certainly don't need a pope either. There is only one Teacher, one Instructor. Jesus Christ. He is the middleman between you and the Father. You need no other to help you get there besides Him, for no other can.

gnostics are right. gnostics were the original christians, and they were genocided en mass by the roman orthodox, which eventually because the catholic church. those hypocrites couldnt stand genuine christians so they decided not to turn the other keep and kill all of them, and their wives and children too

modern Christianity is a joke and all 4 gospels are corrupt horseshit, matthew being the least corrupt. the gospel of john is especially bad horseshit, it was originally written from the signs gospel

in fast LITERALLY the earliest christian sect in existence, the ebionites, considered the gospel of matthew to be an abomination, and all of thier literature was burned and they were killed by the easily offended mainstream christians

If you're invited to the party but do not attend then you'll simply starve and anyone else will become invited in your place. Enlightenment is yours to lose, not a promise owed to you.

I never said that the Trinity was polytheism. I only said that some would consider it to be.

>the pope is infallible

Attached: 1542311230110.jpg (638x1000, 92K)

Why did your Jew God order his followers to mutilate the genitals of their children?

There's basically 3 things you have to convince someone of to become a Catholic that exist in a kind of hierarchy:

1. God exists - this makes you a theist
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was raised from the dead - this makes you a Christian
3. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ - this makes you Catholic

This thread is only meant to deal with the question of point 3, since you imply that ITT we take points 1 and 2 for granted. On this subject I say that Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of his church on earth, and he granted him the authority to govern it (Matthew 16:18-19). Past this, we know that all of the early Christians recognised that they were all part of one church and were subject to its one head. This is why we see the term Catholic (which means universal) come up to describe the early church. It signifies that the early Christians, on questions of doctrine, saw it as being that you were either in conformance with the one universal Church, or separated from it because of some heretical doctrine (like Arianism).

But there are a million versions of The Bible. Which is supposed to be the most true to His teachings?

Non-denominational

He's not a Jew God. Jew is a word that didn't even exist in those times. He was a Nazarite, hence his long hair, that hailed from the town of Galilee. He did not instruct his followers to mutilate the genitals of their children. That is a kikeism that for some unknown reason to me, was adopted by Western culture.

Attached: circumcision.jpg (1008x1580, 540K)

> Matthew being the least corrupt

> John especially bad horse shit

I know this is Jow Forums but you have no understanding whatsoever about early Christianity and the dating of the gospels. It's almost the exact opposite from what you said. Mark, the founding texts of the Synoptics, is the oldest excerpts we have followed by John. The shit from Matthew and Luke don't come until after Marcion and are not referenced pre-Marcion. No fragments of those gospels exist prior to Marcion. Considering Luke is a bastardization of Marcion and Matthew is a bastardization of Luke and Mark, Matthew is the least reputable and Mark and/or John (different traditions) are the two most reliable. Matthew is a Catholic work of fiction.

Attached: DaiIOENV4AA0HTY.jpg (556x720, 68K)

>some unknown (((reason)))

I'm referring to your god YHWH, not his semitic circumcised rabbi son that you worship. The genital mutilation is in your scripture, its how you believe your god began his covenant with mankind.

FINALLY A COLORIZED MAP OF

SELF IMPOSED MENTAL DISORDERS.

>is the oldest excerpts we have followed by John
first of all its commonly said by most mainstream theologian researchers that the earliest we have is mark, and that the latest of the 4 gospels is john

>Matthew is a Catholic work of fiction.
matthew is an exceptionally jewish gospel. its repeatedly says to follow the law and the teachings of the torah, etc. john is loved by most people because of john 3:16, but its extremly anti-semetic and it was orignally written from the signs gospel, which was a gnostic in nature

all 4 gospels are horseshit because they made it into the bible. the orignal ones like the gospels of the ebionites or nazaremes or essenes did not make it in the bible because it upsets people. catholics hate matthew because jesus repeatedly says if you do bad stuff you will die

This is not true, we even see in the Pauline Epistles discussing various Church practices, and Paul and Peter themselves having minor disagreements.

Historically, the Early Christian Church was very fragmented, with only a handful of Churches in communion with one another, Rome being one of the major ones. However, most of the Early Christian texts are either Gnostic, Johannine, or from the book of Mark and considering the book of Mark has not been seen in separate use outside of the Proto-Catholics, it can be assumed that Mark is the original holy text of the Catholic Church and won out over all the others.

>Paul and Peter themselves having minor disagreements.

Yes, showing that the Pope can be wrong and can be corrected, something that Catholics still believe in our day.

>Historically, the Early Christian Church was very fragmented, with only a handful of Churches in communion with one another, Rome being one of the major ones

No

>However, most of the Early Christian texts are either Gnostic, Johannine, or from the book of Mark and considering the book of Mark has not been seen in separate use outside of the Proto-Catholics, it can be assumed that Mark is the original holy text of the Catholic Church and won out over all the others.

There is no such thing as the "original holy text," what Jesus gave us was oral teaching that the Apostles learned very well, and later on people who knew the Apostles personally wrote down what they were teaching about Jesus.

Why do you believe Saul was correct and Peter incorrect? Saul never even knew Yeshua.

When one does the historical research though, one finds fragments of John scattered through the 1st and early second century. One also finds fragments of Mark in those times as well. John is only put at the end because the Catholic Church likely wanted to omit John (a favourite of Gnostics) but couldn't due to its popularity. From archeological evidence, it doesn't make sense for John to be the latest.

> Matthew is an exceptionally Jewish Gospel

Matthew and Luke are both heavily Judaized because they were made to rebuke Marcion. The Gospel of Luke is just the Gospel of Marcion MADE JEWISH. The original Gospel of Marcion has no Jewish connection and Marcion himself was one of the first Church figures to say one does not need to be Jewish before Christian (as was practiced at the time, baptized Jewish then Christian) and rejected the Jews.

Attached: 1541389781255.jpg (699x1024, 235K)

>Which one is right pol?
The ones that follow the tend commandments without alteration. Closest you'll get are probably Seventh Day Adventists.

paul is a serial killer who never met jesus and distorted the saying of jesus. WHY is this false apostle in the bible? paul shouldnt be in the bible. honestly i hate modern christian retards who unironically believe pauline theology and shit like john 3:16 and casually ignore all the other burnt gnostic gospels, even though some even predate the modern 4 gospels. the modern bible is an abomination and a joke

jesuswordsonly.com/recommendedreading/175-pauls-contradictions-of-jesus.html

That's all stuff that Jesus Christ came to correct. He says in the New Testament that it's a circumcision of the Spirit that matters, not the flesh. There are two reasons, or perhaps three, why the kikes continue circumcising and pressing it on people. One, they charge you for something they're going to sell at a premium to make up companies, also ran by kikes. Two, the PTSD angle, to make us more war capable for the wars for the state of Israel. And three, it screws up the sensitivity of the penis so more pressure is required to get off. What has more pressure? A vagina or an asshole? See the globohomo long game?

Anglicanism is basically Catholism with a triggered king

Because Jesus did away with the Jewish ceremonial laws, and so you don't have to be Jewish to be Christian. Peter at the time basically thought that Jewish converts to Christianity should be treated better, so it was right for SAINT PAUL THE APOSTLE to correct him

>John is only put at the end because the Catholic Church likely wanted to omit John (a favourite of Gnostics)

There is nothing more anti-Gnostic than John Chapter 1.

Anglicanism is basically the desires of the Anglo-Saxon ruling class presented through a religious lens

>the most Jewish gospel is Roman Catholic fiction

I'm sorry, but based on the physical evidence, it's true that there were multiple Early Christian Churches, and the Catholic Church happened to win out over the others.

Mark, or at least Original Mark, is likely the original text of the Proto-Catholic Church. Mark isn't popular in any other circles outside of the Catholics, but John is. That's why personally I believe John to be the closest to the word of God in the Bible, but one can make a convincing case for Mark as well.

I'm talking based on the physical evidence we have found, if you'd like to believe otherwise, you're welcome to do so. I'm just trying to put down an archeological timeline based on the information I've researched.

Attached: judahchan5.jpg (1024x712, 71K)

Are you sure it wasn't Saul who said that, and not Yeshua?

But the point remains- you beleve YHWH to he all-knowing and eternal, its not like his mind would change- why did he order his followers to mutilate the genitals of their children and slaves for centuries? Seems like a fucked up deity to worship.

I know it's the kikes. That's obviously demonstrated by the image I included. I mean that I don't know how they convinced the West to adopt the practice. I'm betting though that it has something to do with that abomination, the scofield bible.

Aight Jow Forums, heres a stupid idea for you yellow jackets out there. How about we stop using the kike Euro, and instead boycott it with using the French franc instead? All we need is a bunch of shop owners willing to help, and left over coins and notes. Maybe you can think of a better idea?

Attached: 10000-french-francs-100-nouveaux-francs-banknote-napoleon.jpg (1019x534, 264K)

Pre-Constantinian Christians and Anabaptists.

>A man who never knew Yeshua knew better than Peter, Christ's closest disciple and the Rock of His Church

...why? This seems like a ridiculous conclusion to reach. Of course Yeshua didn't do away with all the practices of Judaism; are you saying Christians don't follow the 10 commandments?

Keep in mind this isn't just an issue of slight disagreement in practice- Peter wouldn't even eat dinner at the same table with uncircumcised people, and he kicked Saul out of the holy land when Saul suggested he should. Obviously deferring to the judgment of the Rock of Christ's Church seems a lot more reasonable than deferring to some Roman citizen who wasn't even one of the apostles.

I'm not at the level to debate John in depth, but it's likely that John (as well as Mark and a few other Christian texts found in the Bible) have had multiple authors (up to I believe 3 in the case of John) who added to John. Like Luke, it's likely that certain elements were added to John to make it more "Religiously Correct" but the core of John is still very important spiritually.

Other than looking at Christianity through New Testament Apocrypha or directly reading the sources, people should check out the YouTube channel youtube.com/user/Xoroaster for an honest look at Early Christian texts. The man talks about it from the perspective of an atheist, but he presents all the facts correctly even if I think his conclusions aren't all correct.

Attached: 1541512466169.jpg (1223x1223, 1.34M)

It symbolizes spiritual truths.

People didn't start hating Jews in the Roman age, People didn't like them back then either. You should check out "Differences between Gospel of Luke and Gospel of Marcion" to see just how much pro-Jewish stuff was shoe-horned into the Gospel of Luke just because the Gospel of Marcion was popular.

>to find truth, mutilate your son's penis

Sandnigger religions are fucked up

Any and all denominations willing to gas d&c kikes like OP.

Attached: 1479290354146.gif (300x300, 1.28M)

The early church isn't the same thing as the RCC ehich was formed 200-300 years later by merging pagan religion (among others sun worship) with Christianity

According to Valentinianism, YHWH is the Demiurge, the Clockmaker God, who built the physical Earth. He is locked in a constant struggle with Satan who is purely material being of pure evil. YHWH is an imperfect good God fighting a perfectly evil being. YHWH's intentions are good, even if his methods are not. He believes Jesus to be the Son of His when Jesus is actually the Son of the Perfect Good God, because YHWH lacks a soul that humans have to understand perfect good. He just sees evil wants to cleanse it with fire.

That's at least one explanation from Early Christianity how YHWH can be considered good and worthy.

As long as they believe Jesus was who he said he was - they are Christian. All the multifarious differences are merely disagreements about the incomprehensible, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau said.

To be honest no amount of man-made philosophy can elucidate the Revelation for us. All this talk about hypostasis, procession of the holy spirit and human/divine nature of Christ is not based on any reality that we are able to quantify. I don't think this is what Jesus looks at primarily when deciding to send you to Heaven or Hell.

Not necessarily. I don't resort to calling the Father by name because even Christ didn't do that, but just referred to Him as Father and My Father, respectively. You all always bring up YHWH, but you steer clear of Jehovah even though that name is mentioned in the Old Testament in reference to God too.
I look at it this way. Christ came to correct the kikes. They refused Him and had Him killed. The descendants of those kikes still refuse Him today and still follow the old ways that Christ told them to stop, such as swinging a white chicken overhead to somehow put your sins into it and then killing it to kill your sin. Those are the old ways. Seeing then the obvious difference between that and what Christ instructed, I believe that is prudent to stick to that, as He said that He only came to fulfill the Law, not change it. Because He said this, it can be gathered that everything He instructed was indeed the Law to be followed and supersedes any previous instructions from in the time of Abraham. But to sum up, is it more prudent follow a prophet of God or more prudent to follow the Son of God who is the Living Word become flesh?

>which fiction is more right?
>which way breaking boiled eggs is right?

>globohomo long game
That was quite the redpill friend

>no “right”
>Just do what feels good to you, man!

How does it feel being a subjectivist Christian? Does the cognitive dissonance ever hurt?

It's what I do. Cheers m8.