I have a lot of questions about Orthodoxy

What did he lie about?

When it was established by Jesus Christ in 33 AD. He's also attempting to persuade you into the unbiblical belief that faith alone will ensure salvation, despite faith without works being dead.

CONGRATZ YOU ARE SAVED!!! :D You are on the direct path to heaven now. And you know what's even more awesome, literally no absolutely matter what you do you can never ever ever lose this gift! Never! It's a free everlasting gift! How awesome is that? Salvation can never be lost. You will never be unsaved. However, if I were you, to really know you are truly saved I advise you find a local KJV only Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church and study the Bible with them. In time they will baptize you and you'll be a full member of Christ's body. :)

Get thee behind me, Satan! I will not let you steal another soul. Ye hypocrites! Ye brood of vipers!

Wait? How do I know who is telling me the truth… Do you guys have any proof?

Do not listen to him! You are saved now friend, please go find your local KJV church.

Jesus Christ in 33 AD established a church with the apostles as heads. Those heads spread out through the world and created the church which now takes the form of the Orthodox Church. Every priest has an unbroken chain of ordination back to an apostle. IFBs have nothing like that and believe that Christ himself established a church that failed.

Pretty sure this guy isn't even baptist, he sinposts like an Andersonite.

…

Just how many people are LARPing in this thread?

Attached: 59196b79525243e727daa3c1073659d3e6dc0b632ca83ef39a0a802b3e57afb9.gif (964x912, 703.25K)

It might help to meet an actual idolator. For example, I met an Indian (pajeet, not a redskin) that told the basics of her religion - that their god resided in the temple 'in' or as an actual statue. In other words, the statue in the center of the temple is literally their god. They bow down and worship the statue, they sacrifice goats and calves and fruits to the statue. Women are not permitted to touch the statue. Etc.
There are also other forms, such as where each family has a plant growing outside their house. This plant is their familial god, and if anything should happen to that plant and it wither and die, the family in question is seen as cursed - as the pajeet girl said, 'bad things will happen to them.'

Icons are not seen in this way. If your icon of your patron saint burns there are no spiritual repercussions. We do not worship the icons. They may be holy, but at the end of the day they are still nothing more than paint and wood. It is the image of the holy person(s) or event that makes them holy, not their mere existence.

Similarly, we do not worship saints. We venerate saints. I'm sure someone will post an image equating veneration with worship, so I feel it is necessary to say this: some may take veneration too far and in those cases it may become worship, but in a similar light someone may take a useful tool, such as a hammer, and use it for some evil purpose, such as bludgeoning another individual to death. This does not make hammers evil or unnecessary; it merely means they can be misused. God knows the hearts of men as they pray, and thus can tell the difference between veneration and worship even if our fellow men cannot.

Wrong. Jesus founded the original Baptist congregation. He was the head Pastor. Baptists have existed since the beginning. The Roman Catholic Church was founded in 325 A.D. by a pagan Roman emperor named Constantine. Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism are spin offs of Roman Catholicism. Baptists have nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. We are the original Christians. And actually our Pastors can trace a long line back all the way to John the Baptist. This is why we have authority to even baptize.

OP, please see picture for proof that Baptists are the true Christians.

Attached: trail-of-blood-chart.jpg (1726x1195, 350.92K)

...

...

Ah yes I remember the good old days when the KJV was made and Jesus was walking around the streets of London finally preaching the true Gospel

My god… I hope this is just trolling.

It is, just filter him

...

Do you mind showing precise differences between what is considered "veneration" and worship

Pick one.

He is also parroting the lie that Christianity is secretly Babylonian Paganism, except his brand of Christianity of course.
Which is what one woulf say if we were still only under the Old Law, when Jesus was only word and not flesh. You see. God the Father is pure infinity. Moses was be unable to witness Him for this reason (hence why God only showed Moses his back side). Which is pretty inconvenient for God considering He wants to be in our lives. Do what is a supreme diety to do? God the Father put all His glory in His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus has a face. Jesus is the antithesis to Exodus 33:20. Those that were alive during Jesus' life saw Jesus, they saw God, and they didn't die. Now that Jesus is in Heaven, we must continue to remember Jesus to the fullest extent. We paint icons to help remind us that Jesus is not just 100% God, but also 100% man. We make icons of the saints so we are reminded of their blood, sweat, and toil they did to help bring Jesus' message to this world. We venerate the icons as a way to help remind us of our devotion to Christ and His Church. and no veneration does not equal worship. Asking the Saints to pray for us is not worship.
A Lutheran satire video on the absurd notion that Christianity is some pagan trick.

This will answer all your questions OP:
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbDsxw-e0m3mIkapUEZ_-5BEOr19F4t73

Worship is a matter of faith and belief, so the difference can be understood in terms of fath and belief. Veneration is ultimately, paying respect for what the icon depicts. For example, lets take an icon of Christ. An Orthodox Christian would see the image of Christ depicted, and pay respect, ultimately to the man it depicts. We don't believe it to BE God, we believe it to be an IMAGE of God. We physically show our adoration of God by kissing the image we can physically touch.

However, I've heard stories of people enshrining certain icons that have been said to have "performed" miracles, and simillarly trekking to the icon to be healed and such. I would say that something like that is stepping over to idolatry though, because you're losing focus on what is depicted and starting to focus on the thing itself. As if a piece of wood could perform miracles. Any miracle occurring with an icon present should be attributed to God, not the icon.

Well for one, I call myself a Christian. I do this because I try (sometimes in futility, I may add, but I do try) to follow Christ. I don't call myself a Maryonite (ha ha) or a Christopherian, or a Johhanite. I call myself a Christian, after my God - Jesus Christ, whom I worship.

I don't partake of the body and blood of any of the saints. Even if I attend a service for the commemoration of a saint, the Eucharist is still served, underlying the presumption that the holiness of all saints comes from God.

I make the sign of the cross over myself in an effort to call upon the sacrifice that God Himself made for my sins. Other saints were killed in this way, yes, but it is not them I am specifically remembering when I perform this ritual and simultaneously evoke the Names of the Persons of the Trinity.

In a similar fashion, language plays a relatively big part. John Chrysostom, great as though he may be, is not the Lord of Hosts, the King of Kings, Whom is surrounded by an innumerable hosts of angels that continuously cry 'Holy Holy Holy…' etc. He is not One in Three, nor Three in One.

There are other ways I could come up with, if you really so desire, but I think that veneration is also more of a mindset than actions performed. Like I said, God knows the hearts of men (1 Kings 8:39) and He can tell the difference between veneration and worship, even when other men do not. It's similar to how He can tell if you are looking at a woman with lust or not. Can you show me precise differences between what is considered a lustful look and merely looking?

If this is true, then you guys really dropped the ball on all the church sacraments and structures plainly described in the Bible. No bishops? No liturgy? No eucharist? And how did you guys magically end up using the butchered Protestant bible anyway, if you're supposedly "more authentic"? The Greek Septuagint is still the oldest, most authentic and internally consistent version of the scriptures to date, so how did you guys decide that you had it all wrong before and that Martin Luther was the one that finally got it right?

Funny you should say that because the Bible does not teach sacraments or the Eucharist, it teaches ordinances and the Lord's supper

You're replying to a false flagger though. He's not genuinely a Baptist putting forward our beliefs.

If Jesus was speaking metaphorically about the Eucharist, why did so many people leave him after he doubled down on it?

Let's look at it
I'm assuming you mean John 6
John 6:61-64 KJV — When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

I'm immediately reminded of Matthew 13
Matthew 13:10-17 KJV — And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.

He's affirming what he said, knowing they will misunderstand him as promoting cannibalism, to weed the ones "who believe not". Notice the immediate clarification given, "the flesh profiteth nothing". What could that possibly mean if not that partaking in the flesh was a purely spiritual matter?
You're right that they left after believing that he wanted to be literally eaten, but that was intentional. I'd also like to point out the deficiencies in this literal argument in application to the Lord's supper. How could the items at the last supper have been literally flesh and blood when he was there, in the flesh and blood? Does not "in remembrance" immediately imply symbolism to the matter? Even if it were real flesh and real blood, how can you justify participation in the ceremony being a requirement for salvation given that salvation comes through faith, not of works?

Jesus Christ………..

Attached: 022bc4423974eaa9b31fa33d53323d13a0d91b917f37fee6893cf47930306f5b.gif (450x375 645.37 KB, 35.51K)

Okay, this is epic.

Attached: disgust.png (355x350, 28.34K)

yeah, what's the point when there's people like steve anderson to do that better

This thread is such a flaming pile of garbage.

Christianity is usually categorized into 3 major traditions: Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox. But not every denomination in each tradition is in communion with each other (that is, recognize one another as having the true faith and being part of the Church). In the case of "Orthodox", this includes the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East, among other smaller denominations. I am Eastern Orthodox myself, which is the biggest of these by far (like how the Roman Catholic Church is the biggest of the Catholic denominations by far), but for the sake of clarity I will address the 3 denominations that are most often put under the "Orthodox" moniker even though they disagree with each other.

The Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the one and only true Church of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox Church makes the same claim. The Roman Catholic Church (including the Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Pope) makes the same claim, too.

You would need to attend church to learn about Christ and see how worship is conducted. Then you can tell the priest that you would like to become a catechumen (someone being taught the faith while preparing for their Baptism). When your catchumenate is over, you are Baptized with water in the name of the Trinity, which unites you to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see Matthew 20:17-22; Matthew 28:19; Mark 10:33-40; Mark 16:16; Luke 18:31-34; John 3:1-10; Romans 6:3-11).
Then you are Chrismated with oil, which seals you with the Holy Spirit and gives you His gifts, letting you share in the priesthood and kingship of Jesus (see Acts 8:4-25; Acts 19:1-7; 2 Corinthians 1:21).

After this, you are given Communion, which is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, through which you become trully and fully united with Him and you receive His divinity, becoming a member of His Body (not that you become God, but you become a sharer in God's inner Trinitarian love and you become Christ-like; see Matthew 26:17-30; Mark 14:12-26; Luke 22:7-39; John 6:43-58; 1 Corinthians 11:23-32).

Any denomination that claims to be the one true Church obviously would like if you could convert as soon as possible.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is made of 14 independant (autocephalous) Churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Georgia, Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Georgia, Poland, Czech lands & Slovakia. The countries of Greece, Moldova, Cyprus, Serbia, Georgia, Romania, Belarus, Montenegro, Ukraine, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Russia are majority Eastern Orthodox.

The Oriental Orthodox Church is made of 6 autocephalous Churches: Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, India. Armenia is majority Oriental Orthodox.

The Assyrian Church of the East is now a single Church today, with jurisdiction over Assyria.

Catholics and Orthodox both believe that their Church is in direct continuity with the Church established by Jesus and the apostles in the New Testament, through what is called apostolic succession. Having kept the true faith and remained in communion with the Church since its beginning, they are protected by the Holy Spirit and therefore cannot fall into heresy (but this does not mean groups cannot cut themselves off from the Church - and they accuse each other of being outside of the Church).
So their argument rests on having kept the true faith. It would be long and complicated to describe the histories of these churches and how they defend their claims in the face of the others, so instead of answering your question I will point out how they have distinguished themselves from the rest of Christianity.

(cont)

- The Assyrian Church of the East separated from the rest of Christendom in the 5th century, after rejecting the doctrinal claims of the Council of Ephesus. This is what the council was about, from the site of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America:

- The Oriental Orthodox Church separated from the rest of Christendom in the 5th century, after rejecting the doctrinal claims of the Council of Chalcedon. From the same source as above, this is what the council was about:

- The Eastern Orthodox Church separated with the Roman Catholic Church in the 11th-12th century, over disagreements on jurisdiction and other doctrinal matters. But a council to discuss these issues together was not held until the 15th century, the Council of Florence, and the Eastern Orthodox rejected it, therefore finalizing the schism. The Council of Florence defined that: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (the Orthodox say from the Father alone), this clause (the "filioque") was added to the creed lawfully by the Pope (the Orthodox disagree), the Pope always has supreme authority due to being Peter's successor (the Orthodox disagree), both unleavened and leavened bread can be used for Communion (the Eastern Orthodox insist on leavened bread alone), and the souls of those who die without major sin but with imperfections need to go through Purgatory to be able to enter Heaven (the Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory but still pray for the dead).

This is a question too big to take on here. I would of course argue that the Church's doctrines are true and have always been held, and that the Eastern Orthodox Church alone gives the fullness of communion with Jesus Christ, but I'm not going to write an essay and debate with 10 people just to say "I believe in Orthodoxy".
Do your own research. You can read Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Church" and "The Orthodox Way", I hear they are very good introductions.

Also, OP, is most likely a Baptist (Baptists are Protestants). Just so you know where his perspective comes from.

At least half the people on this board are ironic shitposters. It's why I only come here for dank memes these days.

The account of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5 says you're wrong.

Orthodoxy is the true Church. It is not for weak pussy bitches though.

That story has literally nothing to do with salvation. Have you read it?

Meanwhile there are dozens of clear scriptures teaching that you can't lose your salvation.

How do you understand Romans 11:19-24 ad 2 Peter 2:18-22 anyway?

Very convincing, your move '"'real presentists''" tfw you were hoping there was a cool sounding word to describe this doctrinal issue like there is for soteriology or christology or similar but there isn't

Attached: download.jpeg (184x138, 5.94K)

Yes, I've read it several times. So, are you telling me that Ananias and Sapphira didn't receive salvation on their initial becoming part of the body of Christ and that no action on their part removed them from that same body?