Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Menassa]

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Purim is not observed, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

I don't know man, the second one seems pretty legit.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the awesomeness of Mordecai, and much grace was upon them all.

Maybe you are right.

It's in the Scripture homie.

[Constaniana]

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Purim is not observed, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

I don't know man, the second one seems pretty legit.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the awesomeness of Mordecai, and much grace was upon them all.

Maybe you are right.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. But enough about that story, because it's just an invention of the nefarious pagans.

[Herskerstad]

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Purim is not observed, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

I don't know man, the second one seems pretty legit.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the awesomeness of Mordecai, and much grace was upon them all.

Maybe you are right.

Galatians 1:6

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-

Galatians 1:6

I find it totally rad that you're not conforming to like, majority positions and that you like, spiritualize your own path to salvation and stuff.

This is the greatest achivement since the l33t bible.

[Murkwood]

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the awesomeness of Mordecai, and much grace was upon them all.

Maybe you are right.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. But enough about that story, because it's just an invention of the nefarious pagans.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He didn't become flesh, because that'd be like...paganism, or something.

[Murkwood]

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Acts 4:33
With great power the apostles continued to testify to the awesomeness of Mordecai, and much grace was upon them all.

Maybe you are right.

Galatians 1:6

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-

Galatians 1:6

I find it totally rad that you're not conforming to like, majority positions and that you like, spiritualize your own path to salvation and stuff.

This is the greatest achivement since the l33t bible.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. And that's okay. We all have our own paths to God, y'know? I'm no square.

[The Union of the West]

Galatians 1:6

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel-

Galatians 1:6

I find it totally rad that you're not conforming to like, majority positions and that you like, spiritualize your own path to salvation and stuff.

This is the greatest achivement since the l33t bible.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. And that's okay. We all have our own paths to God, y'know? I'm no square.

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is not really my body given for you, it just kinda seems like it. It's all really just symbolic; do this in remembrance of me, but not too often. Maybe once or twice a month."

[Murkwood]

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. And that's okay. We all have our own paths to God, y'know? I'm no square.

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is not really my body given for you, it just kinda seems like it. It's all really just symbolic; do this in remembrance of me, but not too often. Maybe once or twice a month."

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am only kinda part of the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through mixing my teachings with those of the Buddha. All other religions are pretty chill, though."

[Benuty]

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is not really my body given for you, it just kinda seems like it. It's all really just symbolic; do this in remembrance of me, but not too often. Maybe once or twice a month."

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am only kinda part of the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through mixing my teachings with those of the Buddha. All other religions are pretty chill, though."

What is this...Epic Verse battles of History?

[Herskerstad]

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am only kinda part of the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through mixing my teachings with those of the Buddha. All other religions are pretty chill, though."

What is this...Epic Verse battles of History?

No, this is a combined effort to create a politically correct bible.

[The Union of the West]

What is this...Epic Verse battles of History?

No, this is a combined effort to create a politically correct bible.

We should make one...

[Constaniana]

What is this...Epic Verse battles of History?

No, this is a combined effort to create a politically correct bible.

And God saw the light, that it was as good as everything else, and God kept it together with the darkness so as to not support the racist umbraphobic patriarchy.

[The Alexanderians]

No, this is a combined effort to create a politically correct bible.

And God saw the light, that it was as good as everything else, and God kept it together with the darkness so as to not support the racist umbraphobic patriarchy.

Damn it guys, this needs to be a thing now.

[Herskerstad]

And God saw the light, that it was as good as everything else, and God kept it together with the darkness so as to not support the racist umbraphobic patriarchy.

Damn it guys, this needs to be a thing now.

Genesis 19:5-6 They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"

To this Lot replied. " Who am I to judge what other people do in their beds or on the street for that matter? In fact, as long as this is all loving and consensual I think it can be a great way to like, coexist and stuff. "

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

If the Pope were to call an ecumenical council, and invite the Orthodox Church to take part, would they attend?

[The Archregimancy]

If the Pope were to call an ecumenical council, and invite the Orthodox Church to take part, would they attend?

How on earth would anyone posting on this thread know? It's not as if I have a direct line to my homies Bart and Kyrill.

Wouldn't it rather depend on the context of the council, and the goals thereof?

In any case, the Roman Catholic Church has unilaterally held 14 'ecumenical' councils since the first seven true Ecumenical Councils. Of those, the Eastern Church was represented in some manner at three:

The Fourth Council of Constantinople as reckoned by Catholics of 869-870 - not to be confused with the Fourth Council of Constantinople as reckoned by the Orthodox of 879-880. The Catholic version deposed Patriarch Photius; the Orthodox version restored Photius.

The Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431–1445), with East-West reunification discussed from 1438-1439, and even a small delegation of Ethiopians and Copts turning up in 1441 after the news of the (temporary, failed) reunification had been proclaimed.

Vatican II, where the Orthodox Church was invited to send observers; while said observers were indeed sent, they didn't participate in discussion.

Ferrara and Florence from 1438-1441 is the closest we've likely come to a true Ecumenical Council since the Second Council of Nicaea in the 8th century - but the failure of the union, largely down to the Catholics taking advantage of the political crisis in the Orthodox world to assume that 'negotiation' actually meant 'you have to agree with our position on all issues of substance', ultimately meant that its ecumenical status is only recognised by Rome.

[The Archregimancy]

The first place where the Church formed a centralized leadership was in Egypt (probably due to the strong tradition of centralism in Egyptian culture dating back to pharaonic times), and shortly thereafter a similar structure was also formed in Italy. It is no coincidence that the bishops of Alexandria and Rome are the two that received the title "Pope". The other Patriarchates came later (first Antioch, then Constantinople, then Jerusalem).

Important correction:

Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria were the three historic patriarchates in place before councils in the 4th and 5th centuries added Constantinople and Jerusalem to form the Pentarchy.

And centralised monarchical episcopacy was almost certainly in place in Antioch before it was in place in Rome - and also seems to have been in place in the Roman province of Asia before Rome.

The evidence comes from 1 Clement and the Ignatian Epistles.

Clement's epistle (c.96 AD) places some weight on apostolic succession for the first generation to be born into Christianity, but uses the terms 'bishop' and 'presbyter' interchangeably, and clearly indicates that he was working in a context where the communities he was familiar with had multiple bishops/presbyters rather than a single leading bishop - and this from the individual traditionally named fourth in the list of Popes.

The epistles of Ignatius (c.107) were written by the bishop of Antioch, mostly to communities in Roman Asia, while on his way to his martyrdom in Rome. With one exception, the epistles are either written to the city's bishop, or contain strong admonitions to the local communities to obey their bishop - they are the earliest unambiguous statements in favour of monarchical episcopacy. The one exception is the epistle to the Romans, where he writes to the local community to ask them to not try and stop his martyrdom, but uniquely fails to discuss loyalty to the city's bishop or in any way communicate with the bishop - strongly indicating that there was no individual recognised as equivalent in rank to the monarchical bishops of the East in place in Rome at the beginning of the second century. Ignatius also fails to mention apostolic succession, strongly suggesting that it wasn't as central to his conception of episcopacy as it was to Clement's conception of church leadership.

The positive evidence in Clement combined with the negative evidence in Ignatius strongly suggests that, in the late first and early second centuries, apostolic succession was better-developed in the West, but monarchical episcopacy was better-developed in the East.


Pope Anicetus (Pope c.157-c.168) is the first Pope where we have unambiguous evidence of a Bishop of Rome acting as the sole leader of his local community, via A) his interactions with his fellow bishop Polycarp of Smyrna (recorded by Anicetus' contemporary and Polycarp's student Irenaeus of Lyon) - and even here their meeting is clearly a meeting of fraternal bishops agreeing to disagree over Quartodecimaniansim - and B) a surviving passage from Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius noting that Hegesippus had 'made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleuterus' while in Rome.

The historical - as opposed to theological - reasons why the Patriarch of Rome rose to prominence are therefore more to do with the city's status as imperial capital rather than any unusually early foundation of Rome's patriarchate.

[Constantinopolis]

The first place where the Church formed a centralized leadership was in Egypt (probably due to the strong tradition of centralism in Egyptian culture dating back to pharaonic times), and shortly thereafter a similar structure was also formed in Italy. It is no coincidence that the bishops of Alexandria and Rome are the two that received the title "Pope". The other Patriarchates came later (first Antioch, then Constantinople, then Jerusalem).

Important correction:

Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria were the three historic patriarchates in place before councils in the 4th and 5th centuries added Constantinople and Jerusalem to form the Pentarchy.

I knew that, but I was under the mistaken impression that Antioch's patriarchal function - i.e. the extension of some type of authority by the bishop of Antioch over a wide geographical area, well beyond the normal authority of a regular bishop over the city of Antioch itself - came at some point later than the patriarchal function of Rome.

I had this impression because I remembered that a canon of the First Ecumenical Council confirmed the "ancient custom" of the bishop of Alexandria having authority over "Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis" (i.e. a very large area) and mentioned a similar custom existing with respect to Rome (but without indicating the specific area over which Rome had authority). A quick google search a few minutes ago reminded me that Antioch was also mentioned in the same canon right after Rome (also without specifying the precise area of jurisdiction).

So I stand corrected.

For the benefit of others reading this thread, I will additionally mention that Constantinople was raised to the rank of Patriarchate in 381 at the Second Ecumenical Council, and Jerusalem in 451 at the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

Regarding the rest of your post, thank you for the information! I was vaguely aware that monarchical episcopacy probably started in the East, but you brought the issue into focus and added key details and sources.

[The Archregimancy]

Important correction:

Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria were the three historic patriarchates in place before councils in the 4th and 5th centuries added Constantinople and Jerusalem to form the Pentarchy.

I knew that, but I was under the mistaken impression that Antioch's patriarchal function - i.e. the extension of some type of authority by the bishop of Antioch over a wide geographical area, well beyond the normal authority of a regular bishop over the city of Antioch itself - came at some point later than the patriarchal function of Rome.

I had this impression because I remembered that a canon of the First Ecumenical Council confirmed the "ancient custom" of the bishop of Alexandria having authority over "Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis" (i.e. a very large area) and mentioned a similar custom existing with respect to Rome (but without indicating the specific area over which Rome had authority). A quick google search a few minutes ago reminded me that Antioch was also mentioned in the same canon right after Rome (also without specifying the precise area of jurisdiction).

For further clarification, the Pentapolis here is the Western Pentapolis - in other words, the coastal bulge in modern eastern Libya - and not the Biblical Pentapolis.

The titles of the two Patriarchs of Alexandria still contain the reference.

The Coptic Pope is "Pope and Lord Archbishop of the Great City of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy Orthodox and Apostolic Throne of Saint Mark the Evangelist and Holy Apostle that is, in Egypt, Pentapolis, Libya, Nubia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and all Africa" (interesting that his full title still implies primacy over the autocephalous non-Chalcedonian churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea).

The Orthodox Pope is "His Most Divine Beatitude the Pope and Patriarch of the Great City of Alexandria, Libya, Pentapolis, Ethiopia, all the land of Egypt, and all Africa, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Prelate of Prelates, thirteenth of the Apostles, and Judge of the Œcumene".

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

If the Pope were to call an ecumenical council, and invite the Orthodox Church to take part, would they attend?

How on earth would anyone posting on this thread know? It's not as if I have a direct line to my homies Bart and Kyrill.

Well of course no one would actually know for sure. I just meant it speculatively.

[Mostrov]

Speaking of such oddities in titles, it strikes me as rather strange that there is no appointed Primatial appointment for England by the Roman Catholics; despite the Bishop of Westminster being granted the right to wear the Pallium amongst other dignities. At the same time the Archbishop of Canterbury retains, including a proper curia with all of the medieval 'officers', Primatial dignity over all England despite there being no clear reason for the retention of that title post-reformation.

As if the two medieval institutions had attempted to go on with business as though nothing had changed.

[The Archregimancy]

Speaking of such oddities in titles, it strikes me as rather strange that there is no appointed Primatial appointment for England by the Roman Catholics; despite the Bishop of Westminster being granted the right to wear the Pallium amongst other dignities. At the same time the Archbishop of Canterbury retains, including a proper curia with all of the medieval 'officers', Primatial dignity over all England despite there being no clear reason for the retention of that title post-reformation.

As if the two medieval institutions had attempted to go on with business as though nothing had changed.

That's because the Henrician and Elizabethan Anglican Church considered itself to be the true continuation of the Catholic Church. Hypothetically, nothing had changed - according to original Anglican self-justification, the Roman Church was in error, and the Anglican Church merely continued the true pre-Reformation settlement that had been in place since Augustine's arrival in Canterbury in 597 AD.

Absolutely nothing to do with Henry VIII wanting to impregnate Anne Boleyn, you see.

Modern Anglican branch theory is just a lightly developed modern version of this argument that tries to argue for equality of apostolic succession across the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches, which are all justified in considering themselves branches of the One, Holy, Undivided, Apostolic and Catholic Church. Where the Copts and Church of the East fit in here isn't entirely clear; and branch theoreticians seem wholly unperturbed at how perplexed both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are by this unilateral Anglican declaration.

[Mostrov]

Speaking of such oddities in titles, it strikes me as rather strange that there is no appointed Primatial appointment for England by the Roman Catholics; despite the Bishop of Westminster being granted the right to wear the Pallium amongst other dignities. At the same time the Archbishop of Canterbury retains, including a proper curia with all of the medieval 'officers', Primatial dignity over all England despite there being no clear reason for the retention of that title post-reformation.

As if the two medieval institutions had attempted to go on with business as though nothing had changed.

That's because the Henrician and Elizabethan Anglican Church considered itself to be the true continuation of the Catholic Church. Hypothetically, nothing had changed - according to original Anglican self-justification, the Roman Church was in error, and the Anglican Church merely continued the true pre-Reformation settlement that had been in place since Augustine's arrival in Canterbury in 597 AD.

Absolutely nothing to do with Henry VIII wanting to impregnate Anne Boleyn, you see.

Modern Anglican branch theory is just a lightly developed modern version of this argument that tries to argue for equality of apostolic succession across the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican churches, which are all justified in considering themselves branches of the One, Holy, Undivided, Apostolic and Catholic Church. Where the Copts and Church of the East fit in here isn't entirely clear; and branch theoreticians seem wholly unperturbed at how perplexed both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are by this unilateral Anglican declaration.

It was more comment on the fact that Rome didn't create a new Primate more than anything, especially given that they were so inclined as to raise the status of the Archbishop of Westminster. It as though both sides continued to honour each others titles, despite this not being the actual situation.

And considering that the Catholics dispute the very basis of the validity of Anglican succession on the basis that Thomas Cranmer was a reformer and that the Edwardine Ordinal contained deficiencies in 'intent and form'; it doesn't seem that Henry VIII had much to do with the matter.
I don't think it can be said with any degree of certainty that Anglicanism was a continuation given the serious changes in theology that occurred during the era.

This whole concept of continuation is merely a result of the trend of Ritualism and the rise of Tractarians. Its a 19th Century invention of medievalists than an actual part of history.
To be fair to Branch Theory its largely an internal justification, which is why so little was cared for when the Apostolicae Curae was published so Anglo-Catholics can sleep at night. Similarly with the Oriental Orthodox; because Branch Theorists regard themselves as the Third main division because they are the third largest.

[Murkwood]

Damn it guys, this needs to be a thing now.

Genesis 19:5-6 They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"

To this Lot replied. " Who am I to judge what other people do in their beds or on the street for that matter? In fact, as long as this is all loving and consensual I think it can be a great way to like, coexist and stuff. "

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. lol, I'm kidding. Everyone goes to Heaven. Just go to Church on Christmas and you'll be great.

[Constaniana]

Genesis 19:5-6 They shouted to Lot, "Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!"

To this Lot replied. " Who am I to judge what other people do in their beds or on the street for that matter? In fact, as long as this is all loving and consensual I think it can be a great way to like, coexist and stuff. "

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. lol, I'm kidding. Everyone goes to Heaven. Just go to Church on Christmas and you'll be great.

Genesis 4:8
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and made him check his privilege.

[Dragonir]

Obviously only the eastern orthodox church and roman Catholicism is legitimate and possibly the coptic church of egypt are all legitimate Protestantism Is not legitimate