I’ve been looking into various different Christian churches and their beliefs lately...

Try to find a former Baptist ministry that has gone Wesleyan. They're rare, but the have the proper structure for a solid Church while providing the openness that is desired in Christ's word. You'll probably only find these ministries in the borders area around the South, and maybe further into Texas/Florida, but the word they preach is more true to today than anywhere else I have found.

>Episcopalians
Big yikes. Never join a religion founded for political or personal reasons. It’s literally the Church of England, which was made up because Henry didn’t want to kowtow to the pope. And then rebranded in America because independence. Seriously it’s not a doctrine of faith. And you can see it in their modern agitation and lack of faith. Might as well be a Scientologist.

methodism: basically an episcopal guy wanted as many people to go to heaven as possible (a noble goal) so instead of actually going around enriching people in the word of god, he developed a *method* (hence the name) to get people salvation as quickly as possible with the bare minimum of effort required. as you might imagine, god does not take kindly to people trying to exploit loopholes, although at least his efforts made a lot of people nominally christian if nothing else.

episcopalianism:
female ordination: refuted in 1 corinthians 14 and the first 1900 years of christian history
gay marriage: refuted in matthew 19 and the first 1900 years of christian history
eucharist not being true body: refuted in 1 corinthians 11 and the first 1500 years of christian history
deuterocanon: despite being in the scripture book jesus used and quoted (the "septuagint" look it up), the anglican communion (and every other protestant denomination) rejects it

remember: when jesus built his church, he said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. the true church of christ has existed continuously since then.

Jesus probably quoted the original Hebrew Bible, not the Septuagint. He came from a traditional Jewish household and lived in Israel/Judea. Plus he spoke Aramaic not Greek. Are there any red letter passages that quote the apocrypha? I can’t think of any.

Everything else you said is right and Episcopalians are gay

I’ve been United Methodist most my life and I’m obviously biased, but I’ve been to many an Episcopalian service. What I’ve gathered is this: Epis. is more traditional Christian beliefs and they typically have services in an older church. I think there’s a stronger base of middle age+ in their churches, and when it comes to making your faith deeper through older people pouring into you, def a good route to take. Out west they have more modernized churches but still hold core beliefs closer. Methodist churches on the east coast are a majority in older built churches, however, I’ve always joked non-denominational churches are just United Methodist churches that don’t know it yet. United Methodists seem to be more laid back in my experience. Their services feel more informational. Epis. Services have always caught me as more consistently convicting. United Methodist also seems to have a younger bunch of people. If you’re anywhere in your 20’s, you’ll probably find more people your age in the United Methodist church. United Methodist churches also seem to be modernizing quicker than many of the other denominations.

we actually know for certain jesus quoted the septuagint, as there are important translational differences that he quotes, like luke 4:18-19. modern scholarship indicates (and this concords well with church tradition) that jesus likely used greek, aramaic, and hebrew. obviously though, being god, he was able to speak any language. I'm not aware of any times jesus quoted the deuterocanon, but there are a great number of uncontroversial OT books he also did not quote, and the apostles reference the deuterocanon very frequently. you may use the argument that you trust jesus over the apostles, but keep in mind who jesus entrusted with his religion, and who wrote the bible itself.
kjvodebate.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/luke-418-and-the-lxx/

Hogwash.

this is so gay dude... if only you could replace all the religious "elements" with pointers, objects, patterns and refactoring... you'd start at 100k a year.

Thanks for the good info about Greek quotations. Will look into it.

My point was that if Jesus never quotes the apocrypha that doesn’t prove one way or the other about if it should be included. I don’t know how it got into the Septuagint either actually. Seems strange to include books the Jews didn’t consider scriptural.

I wish I was retarded enough to understand all of this.

Attached: 264113001_f1ed3fb11e_m.jpg (233x240, 24K)

that's the thing though, the jews DID consider them scriptural.* that's why they were included in the septuagint, which was the only officially commissioned translation of the original hebrew. heck, hanukah celebrates an event recounted in maccabees (which jesus attended a precursor of in john 10 btw)! it was only centuries after christ that jews definitively removed them with the standardization of the masoretic text.
*the clique jesus mostly hung out with did anyway. the various different groups pharisees, sadducees, samaritans, etc all had differing canons, and sometimes different ones within the groups. for example, the sadducees only accepted the first five books of the bible.

This I’m pretty sure is wrong. I’ve studied the OT and it’s history quite a bit. We don’t know exactly how the lxx came to be written. But we know even in the first and second centuries Jews were criticizing it and using other translations. Discussions of why certain books were excluded from the canon are also found in the first centuries AD.

The fact that the book of Maccabees recounts Hanukkah doesn’t prove Maccabees is canonical. The Book of Mormon talks about Jesus, that doesn’t prove its canonical for Christians. There are also good historical reasons to think the rabbis wouldn’t like some of these books. Eg Maccabees makes the priest class look good, which the Pharisees wouldn’t like.

It’s possiblr that alternative books were in use by other groups like sadducees and Samaritans. But pretty sure the mainstream canon was already in place.

>We don’t know exactly how the lxx came to be written.
perhaps from a modern, scholarly perspective, but tradition at the time (as repeated by philo, among others) was that it was commissioned by king ptolemey ii and done by israelite scholars.
>in the first and second centuries Jews were criticizing it and using other translations
the first and second centuries jews were also the exact ones who rejected christ.
>Discussions of why certain books were excluded from the canon are also found in the first centuries AD
perhaps certain books, but such discussions were also found in BC. as I said, there wasn't a universally-accepted jewish canon at the time. that's why its important that we use the canon that was in the standard jesus used and the books the apostles quoted.
>But pretty sure the mainstream canon was already in place.
it really wasn't. the absolute earliest anyone thinks it happened was the last first century, decades of the death of christ, and most scholars today think it actually happened much later: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia

Go to a Baptist church, Catholics worship false idols (saints, the Pope, virgin mary), Episcopal and Methodists are full of faggots and trans now, orthodox are cool but unless you live in Greece or Russia than it isn't an option, Baptists follow the bible more closely in my opinion than any other church

orthodox christians outside russia/greece make up around half the orthodox population. there are thousands of parishes in the US alone.
also, lol @ saying catholics worship false idols then saying orthodox are cool. we commemorate "our most holy, pure, and most blessed, glorious Lady, the Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, with all Saints" multiple times in any given service. in the front of all of our churches there is an image of jesus with mary directly to his right.
while I would agree that there are some baptist churches that are at least trying their best, "baptist theology" is a contradiction of terms. you have hundreds of different competing theologies that all disagree with each other and are wildly different. there are plenty of baptist churches that ordain women and marry gays, I assure you.

it's all fake, you religionfags ruin everything. atheists actually can get something done withouth prasing the sun unliks you retards

Attached: flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.jpg (750x1000, 100K)