>>1347 >lol what happened to 8k It's a garbage website with nothing going on for it. >>1541 The guy who made those posts is a griefing troll that's just causing drama for the sake of it. Report and ignore him moving onwards

>>1614 >3 And he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, according to all that David his father did. >4 He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.  2 Kings 18:3-4 When you start worshipping it and not the God behind it.

Saints are people that we know are by the side of God after death. Prayers to saints are prayers to intercede in earthly matters, not in matters of the soul. It's an awareness of >I know this man has died and gone to heaven >I know that in heaven he is pure >I know I am sinful >If I were to ask God for something earthly, it would be tainted by my sinful desires, impure thoughts and needs >But this man can ask God for all he wants and receive it, because he is pure of those sins and by the side of God >So I can ask the man who I know is pure in heaven, to pray for me so I have safe travels, get a girlfriend, overcome this difficult situation etc. Icons help us be aware that these people exist by the side of God. They're not supposed to be worshipped so characterizing them beyond the bare minimum runs the risk of people misunderstanding the saint, rather than his life for Christ, as sacred. It's a fine line that Byzantine Iconography has been treading perfectly: All icons follow a specific symbolic tradition to the point where the symbols become a separate language. Pic related is Philoumenos of Jacob's Well. A modern martyr that has been killed by jews for being a Christian monk on "their" land. The second pic is a depiction of saint George. The third one is a depiction of Christ's baptism. Notice that despite the different subjects and time periods depicted, all follow the same symbolic style. They're always outdoors, the body proportions are always the same, there's no modern objects depicted, the expressions have a serenity to them, text provides some minor context. I'm not specialized in byzantine iconography, so there's probably more common details. That's why in Orthodoxy icons are "written" not drawn. It's an entire code one has to learn to be able to properly depict a saint. Other than avoiding idolatry by codifying the lives of saints, these kind of icons also attain a timeless quality that is central to Orthodox art. A medieval greek faithful that has walked into any modern day orthodox church will be able to understand the hymns, the timing of the liturgy, the locations in the church.

And yeah >>1615 is right since that picture is idolatry. But compared to certain Catholic "icons" it's almost tame.

>>1651 I still need to read "The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome." It seems like there would be a lot of answers in there as to the decline and paganization of Catholic art.

>>1686 The Catholics staged the Counter-Reformation in the 1600s in response to those criticisms. It didn't continue with its paganized styles. Whether it was successful is debatable, since just because you stopped flagrantly putting your lusts on public display does not mean you no longer hold them.

>>1468 What do you mean with observe them?

>>1468 >He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. (Romans 14:6)

>>1467 December 25th was literally just the date of the annunciation + 9 months. Jewish and Christian tradition held that the world was created on March 25, therefore the coming of the new world through Christ in the annunciation to Mary was held to also be March 25th. The December dating had nothing to do with the actual physical dating of things but of internal logic. This is why, for instance, the Orthodox Church doesn't care that their dating of Easter is shifting later in the year over time with respect to actual astronomy. The date of Easter was fixed to be the first Sunday after the first full moon after March 21 on the Julian calendar by the Council of Nicaea, but the Julian calendar is slightly longer than the actual solar year which results in it falling behind by a day every 128 years. That's a self-correcting issue though, because after a long enough time it means Easter (as well as Christmas) will have been celebrated on every single day of the year! This effect isn't present with the Gregorian calendar though, which the Roman Catholic Church instituted in the 1500s to try and bring things back in line with the solar year due to advances in astronomy by Copernicus, Brahe, etc. While that's fine for secular and civil purposes, whether it made the church more credible from a religious point of view is your call. For what it's worth, the calendar included in the publication of the King James Version in 1611 was Julian. When England switched to the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes in 1752, the calendar became obsolete. If the church actually wanted to use astronomy and astrology to determine the dating of Christ's birth, keep in mind they had access to the works of ancient mathematicians, astronomers, and astrologers. They had access to the works of the people that invented these fields that have long since been lost to modernity. The Egyptian city of Alexandria, aside from being a major centre of Christianity, was also a major centre of ancient astronomical observation. In fact, an Alexandrian had established the Julian calendar and the city was given the honor by the church of spotting the first full moon after March 21st for Easter in recognition of their talents. They went with the calendar of dates established and have stuck with it through the centuries despite the church being divided by politics and turmoil.

>>1703 And I forgot to include this point: if you should celebrate Christmas, then it would only be logical for you to defer to the authority of antiquity on its dating rather than seeking after some peculiar new doctrine. If you should reject that tradition in favor of modern understanding, and you aren't on a stepping stone to the radical rejection of the word of God wholesale, what is being celebrated in Christmas at all? It's not called for in scripture. The very name of the holiday is rooted in Catholicism (Christmas = Christ's Mass). Is there a good reason to believe in ritual masses and ceremonies without the Pope bearing down on you? Historically, it wasn't a major Christian festival either, in contrast to Easter. Unless you personally have a firmly rooted spiritual purpose for the day of Christmas, that isn't simple deference to worldly convention, its just a day off to exchange material gifts.

>>1468 Christmas is not Pagan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca_Yx3aMCiE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfcvJWPTY64

The Enemies We Face Derek Prince, an explanation of the satanic spiritual power structure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3q3GgIIONs Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cd6AvqELGLk Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3c7WuI9pGg Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8vnMDtQvjk Part 4

Don't know if it counts as a hymn but "Pecador, Contempla" slaps. Also: "Salve Regina" and "Anima Christi."

Psalm 22 in the Scottish Metrical Psalter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbx51GSxAEg

I think this is a hymn, not sure.

When they hold up the pointing finger to their lips it's called the vow of silence. He is also doing the one eye symbolism. Hes not really Christian, he even denies Christ in Avengers infinity war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIoYMIDB_iU

The writer of twilight is supposedly a christian.

>>1685 Sorry, I didn't know the truth had a national / country component to it. That's all. I thought the one faith, one Lord and one baptism meant exactly that. I didn't know you had to be a certain ethnicity or whatever. I thought the truth was eternal and didn't rely on such things as nationality. Even though I'm not personally of Greek nationality, my church would be considered truly orthodox, and the New Testament was written in Greek, so I guess that means me. But you seem to have the wrong idea about what the word orthodox means, because it means the truth, not nationality, so you have need of correction on that front. >that claims Orthodox = Hasidic = "what is Orthodox, really? Can you point out a 'pure' Orthodox? Define Orthodox". That's not how that post went at all. I was just calling out the hypocrisy of someone who thinks that a cult should be considered "the orthodox religion" just because they put that in their title when they also worship idols at the same time, which is something that is absolutely forbidden the commandment of God. You can't be orthodox just because you call yourself that. Being true is a whole lot more than that. Hopefully that now makes sense, and of course you are not saved by your ethnicity. Contrarily, you are not prevented from the truth simply not by being a certain race. That's not how it works. That's not what the apostles wrote in the New Testament. >Must be all the talmudic muh scriptures autism You think the talmud is scripture? I've been talking about the Bible this whole time. Do you think the Gospel of John or of Mark is the talmud? I mean, that's what you're saying now. Quoting Scripture like Acts or Romans is somehow "talmudic," according to you? Or is the real problem just that you simply do not know the word of our Lord, and so demeaning the Bible by calling it talmudic is your "comeback" to that? What are you even doing on the christian board with that kind of irreverent attitude? What's worse, is that you have been couching your irreverence with a holier-than-thou attitude and terminology, calling yourself the arbiter of the truth, even though it's clear you don't actually know a single bit of God's word. But you still think some combination of your ethnicity or doing some cultic rituals like sprinkling an infant, counts more than the word of Christ? You know the Gospel was meant to be preached, right? If you don't like it, then by all means, stop posting until you have a better understanding of it. You are encouraged to go read Scripture if you are unfamiliar, and doubly so if discussion of the eternal Truth bothers you that much. You know, the pharisees didn't like the written word of God. They would rather talk about their own "oral law" which was basically their manmade tradition. That was what they were comfortable talking about. It's the same with all these false christians in the world as well. They are worldly as well. You are only comfortable when talking about manmade traditions. The word of God makes you uncomfortable. You don't like it. The truth rebukes your errors. Like it says in John 3, "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." And again, "every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." It was the same with the pharisees - Which is why they even wrote the "talmud," ironically, in the first place. It was their own little side tradition, which the Lord Jesus Christ told them directly violates the truth of Scripture. It wasn't the word of God. It wasn't the Scripture. So, do you really think the talmud is scripture? or is that your only comeback which ironically applies more to the idol-worshipping cultists with the big funny hats, more than it does to someone who actually knows the Scripture? I guess when you made that irreverent comment, you were just way too busy trying to protect whatever cult leader and you didn't realize you just insulted the word of God by comparing it to the god-forsaken talmud.

>>1687 lol, I knew some bait would get you to crawl out of the woodwork to write another theology novel.

>>1690 Glad I could be of help, anon.

>>1687 Even if I don't agree with the idea of monarchies as the only correct political system,as from my point of view there isn't enough evidence on the Bible to support that.I agree with you in that Jesus cans save everyone no matter his ethnicity and that we shouldn't obsess in rituals and focus more on actually doing the word of God.

>>1551 >implying demons don’t also suffer from infighting and internal power struggles

>>1628 Cool. I presume by Pew version, you mean the 200 Hand Size?

>>1664 Yes, that is the one. Hopefully they restock soon.

>>1642 We have the Internet now and have so many resources at our disposal that we can read the entire wealth of knowledge of the church on scripture. The best part of the KJV is that it captures plural pronouns from Greek and Hebrew and it's obscurities lead you to make comparison between versions and the Greek to seek out the source meaning. It was written in a pre-modern era when the authors sincerely believed that the terms of the Bible were a genuine reflection of the nature of reality and of faith. That can no longer be done following the Industrial Revolution since we're inclined to seek mechanistic understandings of the operation of the world. The KJV has the Bible as it was recognized in its final form, not in the drafts of fragmentary pieces of papyrus found in ancient trash heaps. The richness of the faith poured forth through the centuries towards the generation of manuscripts it was sourced from, and the "additions" that are found in later versions of the texts and not the earliest do not serve to detract from the understanding of the faith but to enhance it. The truth is alive and self-persevering, if you believe in God, you would believe that He maintains access to what He wants to be understood, that inspiration doesn't have a termination date (by a miracle, it could be possible for modern academics to produce as dutiful of a work). That is what the movement to seek the autographs of the 1800s missed; they forsook the good that they had to try and retreat to the infancy of the faith, before it was subject to persecutions and to heresies. Lo, in their search they ended up without any faith at all for their failure to assemble the autographic gospel led to them increase in doubt. They picked scripture apart and operated on every line and letter, it was just a piece of literature, without inspiration, a dead letter. They claim to produce literal transcriptions yet let their interpretive sensibilities spill into the work, detracting from its character. For example, 1 Kings 16:11: KJV >And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. The Hebrew for the term, Strong's 8366 >shathan: to urinate >Original Word: שָׁתַן The "literal" NASB >And when he became king, as soon as he sat on his throne, he killed all the household of Baasha; he did not leave a single male alive, either of his relatives or of his friends. NIV >As soon as he began to reign and was seated on the throne, he killed off Baasha’s whole family. He did not spare a single male, whether relative or friend. ESV

>>1689 Anon, the reason they changed that verse was because it offended their sensibilities. There are even worse examples than this. For instance in 2 Kings 23:29, the modern versions reinterpret the verse, based on a modern understanding of the Pharaoh's intent, to say the opposite of what it says in the KJV. They say he went "to the aid" of the Assyrians rather than "against" them. So, the exact opposite. This includes also the NKJV (New King James Version) as well as the others. They have stated this is because they don't understand why he would go against them. But it's not their place to alter the text based on that alone. The problem is made worse by the fact that a parallel verse in 2 Chronicles 35:20, that says the same thing exists, and cannot be changed in this way, leading to the creation of a contradiction in the NKJV. Another example of a contradiction being created in the New Testament is Mark 1:2, where it changes the accurate statement "it is written in the prophets," to the contradictory statement "it is written in the prophet Isaiah". The quote that follows in Mark 1:2 is partially from Malachi and that part is not written anywhere in Isaiah. There are plenty of more contradictions created by the various changes in modern versions. Some of which are specific to one particular modern version, for instance, Matthew 1:7-8 is changed in the ESV, where one of the names is changed from "Asa," a king of David's line, to "Asaph," the psalm writer (see Psalms 50 & 73-83) who was not a king. This is a contradiction that is contained only in the ESV. The changes deeply affect doctrine. For instance, in Genesis 22:17, the singular "seed" and "his enemies" (referring to Christ - similar to Genesis 3:15) is replaced with the plural "your descendants" and "their enemies." This changes the focus from the singular Christ to the plural, which is in line with modern Zionist interpretation. The change is also in the NKJV as well as the modern versions. If you use the KJV or any translation based on the original received text, there are none of these blatant contradictions because it is the actual inspired version of Scripture. The contradictions only come about if you use the modern versions, and this is why people who use them have lost faith in the Bible. The modern versions also have changes that erase teachings against specific sins, for instance they universally change the term "fornication" which has a specific definition, to the term "sexual immorality" which can be defined by the surrounding culture. This is to meet the sensibilities of the world. Another change is where the term "sodomite" is obscured to some other word (cf. 1 Kings 15:12, Jude 1:7) or where the same term is wrongfully included in the list of 1 Corinthians 6:9, in order to make it appear to be just another normal sin (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:11). The fact is that God had some strong condemnations of that abomination in the Old Testament, canonically equating sodomites to dogs (cf. Deuteronomy 23:17-18 KJV). This is echoed in the New Testament several times (cf. Philippians 3:2, Revelation 22:15). But all of this information is lost in the modern versions, whose translators alter Deuteronomy according to their own sensibilities. >and the "additions" that are found in later versions of the texts and not the earliest do not serve to detract from the understanding of the faith but to enhance it. I wouldn't class these as "additions," because the Bible doesn't change, just as the truth itself is immutable. I would base the deduction that the Bible changed from the first century as a false one. Rather, there have always been groups that altered the Bible, even in early times, creating corrupt variants, and that is what has been discovered by Tischendorf and others. The actual originals which match the received text were altered by the writers of the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The lacuna at the end of Mark 16 for instance. I would recommend reading Burgon's scholarly work, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established which was published in 1871 and shows that, based on the manuscripts, the Aleph and B texts are not reliable (they show signs of alteration), nor are they somehow a "better representation" of the original inspired New Testament. Pic related.

>>1691 By the way, the pic is not from Burgon's work, but it makes a similar point. The actual book can be found here: https://archive.org/details/lasttwelveverses00burg/page/n13/mode/2up

>>1666 Jesus will save the rigth ones, also I am the only one who find satiric versions of Satan like the South Park one smarter than the real one, I mean the real one is like a dumb kid who thinks he is cool by being fedora

>You're all going to hell now. That is for God to decide.

>>1666 You already lost bro.

>>1666 You already made this same thread a few months ago faggot OP

>>1343 they need to be saved by Jesus too. According to Narnia there is a Jesus in every alien world and in every part of the omniverse but he isn't subject to time and space

The space trilogy by C.S. Lewis talks about this.

>>1343 Mark tells us to preach the gospel to every creature. Christ saved humanity which was created in God's image on Earth. Aliens would be in the same category as animals in relation to Christian salvation, but if they have some form of original sin the preaching of the gospel to them would be a witness to the necessity of salvation.

>>1343 The so called aliens of today are more than likely demons. They torture and sodomize, confuse, are driven away by our Lord and Savior Christ the King. There are threads on the various /x/ bunkers here on the webring about it. I think /truth/ has one.

>implying space is real >implying NASA isn't a freemason psyop >implying "evil aliens" aren't just demons >implying "good aliens" aren't just demons preaching the gospel of space worship >implying satan won't create illusions of "alien spaceships" to make you lose faith in Christ >implying you should be looking at the sky in the endtimes >implying the governments of the world won't be united in fighting "aliens" >implying they won't be fighting angels instead >implying you won't be drafted to fight against God's army if you look at the sky >implying you won't go to hell if you look at the sky Just be careful out there.