>>13496 Well I'm not letting you have a front page reply being a dick to Asians and if you think that way you're too concerned with invoking race and not enough with invoking god.

>>13603 >Weimar Germany, the French Revolution, the Spanish Influenza pandemic, Mao's China, the Burmese Junta, The Khmer Rouge, the American Civil War under Lincoln's tyranny, and Stalin's USSR (let alone the absolutely godless state of degeneracy under Lenin) i said we are in the end times i didnt say at what point and it wont all just happen in one day, revelations will likely take part over the course of 1-2 centuries if not longer depending on how you look at it. Hell if you actually look into some of the verses and compare them to recent historical events (i use the word "recent" loosely here) then the Four Horsemen arrived almost 200 years ago. and i really dont think you fully comprehend just how much worse things are going to get. Obviously i cant back up those claims because its all in the future but if we keep heading in the direction we're heading we will literally be nosing diving toward the conditions need to necessitate the rise of the antichrist, those conditions being chaos and suffering which will manifest as desperation. Which for those of you who are not historically inclined is the primary condition needed for a major change in power, a good example of this is communist revolutions, the way they get into power is by exploiting the desperation of lower classes who are easier to manipulate due to their conditions, the only difference now is that instead of exploiting pre-existing desperation theyre creating their own. Why do you think Biden's president?

>>13606 sorry.

>>13603 >We haven't even gotten close https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czxDxeW7F-M we're there, buddy. while i believe many of the signs indicate that we are indeed in the "end times" i also agree that there are many times in history when people thought it was the end times, and that there is a high likelihood that the current regimes which we believe to have control of the world are swiftly losing their control and will topple in the coming years. many signs do indicate we could be in the end times, and we must live as if we are even though it may be another 1000 years.

>>13606 I'm not sure if using those words is actually a sin. It's my understanding that when the swears and curses the Bible talks about are the original meaning of the word. The Bible does speak against using foul language, Paul himself once said he wished people who demanded circumcisions to emasculate themselves which Most people would consider that foul language. So what is foul language, and is it a sin or simply distasteful?

>>13621 Without knowing Greek I can't translate the literal passages, but cursing was understood to mean swearing at someone and the bible states on several occasions that it's a sin as is foul language. It also implicitly says that you can use foul language among groups of men so long as you are doing so without truly ill intent.

Just saw some photos of him on facebook. He now even has his own farm. A large family. He travels overseas. He has a pension plan. Etc. But I still have to leach off others in my 30s. What did I do to god to not receive any of his kindness?

>>13579 >>13553 Why be a sadcunt? You could get creative about how to go about life, try changing your demeanor... Anon suicide is a zero-sum game. You can always change your situation by force while alive but once you're dead that's it. You're dead. If you suicide you'll cease to exist, if you're an atheist you already ineherently believe you'll cease to exist, and if you're a waifuist then even Gensokyo carries its own special hells and tribulations for those who take their own life.

Anyone know where I can get a facsimile of a catholic Bible? I like the Geneva but it doesn't include the apocrypha.

>>13579 >the perfect person probably not, there are like 500k mcdonalds needing people RN

>>13612 If you're asking for a Bible like the Geneva Bible, the actual KJV (not the version commonly used today) contains those books. They weren't removed until the end of the 19th century meaning the KJV we have today is not the version authorised for use within England and her colonies. I had a brief look for a pdf version with verse numbers and without the awful typography that results in s's looking like f's and found this, https://ebible.org/pdf/eng-kjv/

>>13610 well we cant prove anything definitively ofc because we dont have access to the resources needed to do such a thing but from what research i have done i can say quite confidently that satan worship was widespread in ancient times especially during the times of Babel. in fact i have an entire thread dedicated to it errors and all: https://anon.cafe/christian/res/7790.html tl;dr tho (atleast from what i have gathered and hypothesized) is that all the other demons died either during or before the flood and satan was the only one left (probably due to his supernatural ability which the other demons didnt have, as evidenced by various verses in the Bible). After the flood satan yet again tried convincing humanity to follow him, he somewhat succeeded and began convincing some people to worship him. Satan wanting to take over the world and corrupt the beings within it likely tried to bring the demons back, my guess is that he experimented by having demons posses animals (like goats etc) and having them fornicate with human women, experimenting along the way. goddesses like Ishtar and god's like tammuz would become deified personifications of these "rituals" which were later replicated via ritual prostitution and beastiality (depending on the culture) Interesting enough tammuz is supposedly related to enki which to my understanding is basically the devil who had a kingdom on earth at Babel. Over time alot of the traditions got spread out, re-interpreted etc. From there things kinda become a dead end atleast for me since i largely lost interest but an interesting place to pick up from would be greek and asian mythology since the greeks had prometheus who seems to mimick satan and many of the asians (particularly the chinese) seem to reference things like creation and God in elements of their old language and religion.

I feel that the LORD tried to reveal Himself and offer His friendship to several peoples, who began migrating from Mesopotamia, from Africa, from Europe, Canaan and the Altay. As those people tended to accept the LORD's majesty (i.e. developing a monolatristic fervour), the Spirit of the LORD drove them to the Levant, fleeing from idolatrous, polytheistic members of their native communities. When the revelation is concretised in the Levant, through the work of the Patriarchs, Hell began to target the people of the LORD by seducing their neighbours into idolatry and other abominations. When you read about Philistine or Moabite religions, for example, it becomes quite obvious that their gods were, really, demonic agents, bent on destroying the People of the LORD.

I also don't suppose you know any good books on ancient satanism?

>>13614 this is all just theory btw, so if youre wise you wont take it all too seriously

>>11435 The pic I shared in OP is the Psalter that I own; it uses the Coverdale translation as well, slightly augmented to fit the Psalter structure that the Orthodox Church uses. They are sorted into "Kathismata," which consist of generally 3 psalms, with interspersed Orthodox prayers, followed by more Psalms. The monastic rule of praying the Psalms is organized that they would pray the entirety of the Psalms in one week normally, and they would pray the whole Psalter twice a week during Great Lent. I, being a layman and also bogged down by sins of laziness and apathy, obviously do not keep this rule. Generally I'll just read some prayers, recite 3-8 Psalms, and close in prayer.

>>11689 It's a true delight to read, isn't it? It may be the most beautiful writing ever put to the English tongue. I feel sorry for any ESL-kun who can't appreciate it. If you follow the BCP properly, you are supposed to get through the entire psalter every month but there are certain psalms that are read more frequently. Here's a comparison of Psalm 51. 50 for you >Coverdale/Great Bible/BCP Have mercy upon me, O God, after thy great goodness : according to the multitude of thy mercies do away mine offences. Wash me throughly from my wickedness : and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my faults : and my sin is ever before me. Against thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight : that thou mightest be justified in thy saying, and clear when thou art judged. Behold, I was shapen in wickedness : and in sin hath my mother conceived me. But lo, thou requirest truth in the inward parts: and shalt make me to understand wisdom secretly. Thou shalt purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : thou shalt wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Thou shalt make me hear of joy and gladness : that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Turn thy face from my sins : and put out all my misdeeds. Make me a clean heart, O God : and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence : and take not thy holy Spirit from me. O give me the comfort of thy help again : and stablish me with thy free Spirit.

>>11364 No it makes me feel jewish

>>12509 aloha akbar shalom my brudder

The psalter is good reason to learn classical Hebrew. The perfection of the hymns becomes evident syllable by syllable. Surely, the Hebrew language does NOT belong to the Talmudic 'Israelites' of today any more than it belongs to the followers of the Messiah.

>>13546 are you sure it's muslim? Either way Jesus says to love your enemies and your neighbor.

>>13573 "Love" doesn't mean sexualize, pervert

>>13594 You're a retard.

>>13604 your wife likes black man "energy" if you know what i mean

>>13615 >I have no argument and i must post.

https://larscatrate.blogspot.com/2010/04/paul-aka-saul-of-tarsus-pharisee-false.html Going into all of it would take forever, so I'll post this and let you do your own research. >>12582 This anon was right, I was taking the verse out of context because I thought it was a full on confession that he was lying. So that was pretty bad on my end. However there is still evidence that shows Paul isn't to be trusted like his contradictory conversion's and 2 Corinthians 12:16 saying he caught someone with Guile.

>>12861 >Paul was a fraud fascinating.

If anyone does think Paul changed Christianity, that's true he had an impact on it. Unlike all of Jesus' disciples Paul was a well-read religious leader, he knew the scriptures and in many ways understood Jesus better from that perspective and he constantly uses the scriptures to point out what he is talking about. We have nothing to indicate Paul was rejected by the Jerusalem Church, according to Luke he was embraced. God really didn't allow any indication to survive that the 12 Apostles rejected him? They didn't. And even in Paul's letters he commends people for comparing what he writes against the scriptures that would be including the Gospel of Matthew already. I'm not sure I agree with Church revelation and evolution past the death of John the Apostle but we know the Church did evolve in a major way at least once at the Jerusalem council 50 AD and this was officially done by Peter and James and the other elders, not Paul. Paul was a grunt at that point and just brought the council's decision to Antioch. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=KJVs. Later he became the Apostle of the gentile. On Paul people say faith salvation came from him. Despite the fact Jesus constantly says things like whoever believes on him will have everlasting life and the work he wants you to do is believe in him. Also the Holy Spirit can come BEFORE or after or during water baptism, why I keep hearing water baptism is automatically associated with receiving the Spirit I do not know. Have they ever read Acts 10:47 in their life? Water Baptism was a ritual for non-Jews who wanted to be Jews, because gentiles were considered unclean, Peter and James didn't even want to eat with Gentiles. John the Baptist came and said no even you Jews better start washing up too. I can't think of anything Paul said that isn't true, Paul was against people identifying themselves by their preachers, like him and Apollos. He said you are all from Christ not from Paul. People will say, but James had different theology and Paul changed it. The two earliest surviving Church letters, James' letter to the Jews 44AD and Paul's letter to the Galatians 49AD it's no secret they had different theology, they may even contradict each other. But neither of them are Jesus if that's the whole argument and in the end everyone agreed in 50 AD of a more faith based interpretation and clearly Peter agreed gentiles didn't need circumcision and frankly I believe Peter was saying gentiles didn't need any of the law of Moses. Which people also accuse Paul of inventing that he wanted to get rid of the law and Jesus was all about the law. Part of the reason there's a difference in Paul and James is simply because of the way Paul got saved and we see that throughout the church today always. Paul was saved not of works AT ALL, he was met by Jesus and then a few days later believed. So of course his perspective is going to be a lot of talking about faith and grace because what great grace he was given. Part of the problem is what "the law" is and what that meant for a 1st century Jew and what people mean when they say that. There's no doubt Jesus promotes salvation by faith and he encourages doing good deeds, being sinless. Jesus forgives people's sins and heals people based on their faith multiple times and this was before the Holy Spirit was even coming onto them. Now Jesus promotes the law and the Pharisees teaching of it. He does also say the law would pass away when all is fulfilled which was done at the cross. But even otherwise, when Paul talks about living under the law he literally means being a Pharisee, returning to Judaism is to be under the law. Someone who is trying to get saved by the law when Paul proves it has always been since Abraham about faith first. The law has always condemned people to Sheol because no one is perfect under the law. Jesus allows us to escape that judgement. That doesn't mean we can go and do evil and break laws. Paul says, "Is the law sin? God forbid." But going back to the law and sacrificing goats for the remission of sins is a rejection of the cleansing of sins by Jesus' blood. The new covenant which Jesus began which God said he'd give to his people.

>>12868 And a side note "well it's all about what Jesus said." Jesus gave authority to his Disciples and told Peter to feed his sheep and then of course the touchy verses about the rock of the church and keys of Heaven and all that. He told his disciples to go out and preach the Kingdom of God, yes we should compare what they say against what Jesus says. Jesus clearly trusted his Disciples, trusted them enough that he had them write what he said and preach what he said, Jesus was on Earth for 3 years and wrote nothing of himself. He trusted his Kingdom. He said he would use his Disciples, he says that John would tarry not doing much at all. Why? Because he knew he had use for him 60 years later to write Revelation.

Daily reminder that YHWH is an evil being that wants to eat your soul.

>>13533 dumb frog poster also you wont be freaking out about eternity in the afterlife (unless you go to hell) so why be a bitch about it now?

>>13562 i dont want to bitch about it, i just cant calm myself down about it >>13548 it never ends not that ending would be any better

How does the Hilbert Hotel make you feel? https://youtube.com/watch?v=OxGsU8oIWjY

>>13562 >Unless you go to hell There is no afterlife if you go to hell, only a waiting period until you get obliterated from existence.

>>13602 Why don't you believe what the bible says?

>>13540 >People who get extremely strict about the Sabbath are less than human and deserve to suffer immensely. They are the same scum that stoned Stephen in the book of Acts and believe that Jesus Christ was a sinner, pretenders and fakers who never read the Bible and, when they do, have no relationship with God so they cannot comprehend it. I would not want to stand before the Lord Jesus and be called to answer for these words

>>13540 >If we are not to be so absurdly legalistic, then what case or argument is there for the Sabbath autists? idk, i just follow the Bible, i dont care what other people believe

>>13550 >Such works which are necessary to do in order to function as a human being on this earth are not considered labor under the Sabbath command In that case, can you provide a specific explanation of what actions cannot be performed on the Sabbath? >I repeat that the Sabbath was and is *not* a piece of the old law, anymore than "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" or "Thou shalt not kill" were mere pieces of the old law Worshipping false idols and murder are clearly still sins even despite the fulfilling of the law. What must be understood is that the observance of the Sabbath is not really a part of the new covenant between all of humanity and God, hence why works which would have defiled the Sabbath were permitted in the New Testament (here again I cite Luke 6:1-5 which contrasts with Exodus 16:23-29). As well, man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for man. You are free to observe it as Paul said in Colossians, however it should not serve as any basis of judgement of other people. "You don't observe the Sabbath? Then you aren't a real Christian like me!" It is nonsense to think anyone more or less holy for their observance of the Sabbath now that we are under the new covenant. >Again, this is transforming the ten commandments into the nine commandments It was already made clear by the other anon that there were more than just ten commandments, such as that of circumcision of male Israelites. You weren't allowed to eat pork under the old covenant, but now such is not the case because the old covenant was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Whether you want to eat meat or wither away as a vegetarian is entirely up to you, much like how it is up to you whether you want to keep the Sabbath. This is not diminishing the ten commandments or cheapening what God has commanded, otherwise it would be wrong to claim that circumcision is no longer necessary. >Both Lutheran and Reformed The l*therans and r*formed are not Christians. They are an affront to God and, unless they turn from their pagan ways, will suffer on the day of Judgement. If the False Prophet is going to be in the Lake of Fire, where do you think they will end up, what with their false doctrine and hatred of Jesus? >>13551 Are you going to cry? Tell your mommy I was being mean to false prophets and wannabe Pharisees/Sadducees on the internet? The Pharisees fought to the very end to murder Jesus, succeeding only temporarily in his crucifixion. This was not enough for them, and despite trying even today to appear as an oppressed minority and victims of "antisemitism", as they call it, had such influence and power even in those days that they were able to quite skillfully persecute the early church exceedingly. No matter where any Christian went, the Jews followed closely behind, getting them kicked out of nations or lynching them as was the case with Stephen. They tried to label Jesus a sinner/blasphemer over and over again, failing each and every time. The same demons that controlled them live inside of men today.

Does anyone have that pic of God offering a crying wojak a bread with a wojak's face on it?

>>13596 >In that case, can you provide a specific explanation of what actions cannot be performed on the Sabbath? Anything which is not dedicated to the worship of God which is also not under those exceptions. It would be unacceptable to do things which could be done on a different day (such as conducting business), or which are for our own pleasure (such as watching TV). >Worshipping false idols and murder are clearly still sins And why is that? Because they were condemned once for all in the holy law of God. The law is the representation of God's character, it was given in part to show us the way we ought to live, though much of it was already clear in nature. One such thing was the Sabbath, which was established not when Moses was given the law but when God rested from His works at the end of creation. >What must be understood is that the observance of the Sabbath is not really a part of the new covenant between all of humanity and God What must be understood is this is flatly unbiblical as has already been established without response. Nor is it true that the new covenant is "between all of humanity and God", the nature of the covenant has not changed since it was first established, but it is now as it has always been between God and all who believe, both Jew and gentile. >here again I cite Luke 6:1-5 which contrasts with Exodus 16:23-29 Here again I say that such things are not considered labor under the Sabbath. There is no sin in preparing one's food on the Sabbath if they were prevented from doing so ahead of time for any reason other than neglect. Even were we to accept the already well-refuted idea that the Sabbath was somehow peculiar to Israel under the old law this remains the only possible interpretation of the text, since our Lord was born as a Jew and lived as a Jew and kept the entirety of the law in order to fulfill it; He was circumcised, He observed the holidays and festivals, and He most certainly kept the Sabbath. He was like us in all ways except without sin. >As well, man was not made for the Sabbath, but Sabbath for man. The Sabbath was made for man to worship God upon it. It was not made for man's pleasure or convenience, but its purpose is divine. >You are free to observe it You are not free to observe it, you are bound to observe it. The laws of God are not suggestions, they are commands. You either obey God and keep the Sabbath or you sin, there is no alternative. >however it should not serve as any basis of judgement of other people. "You don't observe the Sabbath? Then you aren't a real Christian like me!" As I recall, you were the one who called me a subhuman and a killer of Christ because I dared to seek the righteousness which God commanded us rather than paying Him mere lip service, Antinomian. >It was already made clear by the other anon that there were more than just ten commandments, such as that of circumcision of male Israelites. There is such a thing as the ten commandments, they are referred to as such in the text of scripture itself. The law is summarized in them as every law may be folded under one of the commandments. Consequently they form two chapters or "tables", the first in commandments 1-4 concerns man's relationship with God and the second in commandments 5-10 concerns man's relationship with man, subsequently these are themselves summarized respectively in the commandments "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself".

>>13529 i kinda went on an autistic rant here. anyways, whether they genetically recreate our "ancestors" or not the law of conservation will forever be a thorn in their side since autistic ramblings aside its still not physically possible that a ape could turn into a human no matter how many billions of years you add to the timeline and even if you said that apes didnt turn into humans they just gradually took the shape of us it still wouldnt make any sense. Even taking mutations into account (which are almost always net negatives) the only viable way for a mutation to become a dominant gene would be for two people with the exact same mutation to breed, otherwise it just decreases in prevalence with every generation.. The only possible way you could create an ape out of a human or vice versa is if you used modern science to genetically butcher the human (or ape) body into taking the form of the ape (or human) body and even then that would require careful and well thought out design and the likelihood of that happening in nature would be slim to non especially considering the vast nuanced differences between the two. And really aside from our mental capabilities humans are largely inferior to apes. Our arms are less versatile and less strong and are smaller in length, our teeth arent as sharp which makes eating foods like meat more of a challenge, our fingers arent as long which makes it harder for us to grab and hold onto things, etc etc etc. The only real "evolutionary" advantage humans would have gained over apes was our increased brain power which makes the likelihood of this evolution even less likely since the logic of evolution relies upon the idea of natural selection which implies that the traits chosen would all be positive. If that were the case then we would basically just be monkeys with smarter brains. In other words the only way for humans to exist is if the entire universe just conveniently managed to trip over itself and cause a huge clusterfuck multiple times over the course of a couple billion years which at that point sounds more like an excuse to just not believe in God than proof of evolution. and thats without getting into the fact that if humans evolved from apes THEN WHY THE FUCK DO APES STILL EXIST? tl;dr evolution is stupid and makes no sense.

>>13534 and just to put into perspective how radical of a change it would be to go from an ape to a human, heres a picture of a human and a chimpanzee

>>13529 >>13534 .this is supposedly cron-magnon an early human. Idk about you guys but it looks identical to modern humans to me. Pretty much. They mixed assaulted and raped with Neanderthals whom had raly pretty eyes and light face features and that's where modern humans come from

>>13537 or its just a human skull that scientists dug up/recreated and gave a funny name

if humans came from apes then that means we should share the same base DNA just like how all the breeds of dogs share the same base dna with wolves (im sure "base dna" isnt the right term but whatever). if thats so then scientists should be able to take away all the "human traits" (eye color, hair, height, skull shape etc) and whats left should be the exact same as an ape. am i correct?