/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (54.61 KB 512x330 unnamed-2.jpg)
Dugin Anonymous 05/05/2021 (Wed) 04:37:03 No.810 [Reply]
Is this would-be Rasputin right? Are the days of antichrist imminent? https://invidious.kavin.rocks/watch?v=vNfEaZpE2mI

Open file (402.01 KB 500x475 Luther.png)
Anonymous 05/04/2021 (Tue) 21:24:48 No.803 [Reply]
What did he mean by these?
>>803 Judging by the pic related, Martin Luther was not a christian albeit he and many other men were used by God to bring people out of popish bondage.
>>803 Ah, the wonders of out of context quotes.
Open file (110.54 KB 640x820 martin-luther-1098249.jpg)
Open file (889.44 KB 1079x653 Peasants.png)
>>804 >>805 Selective quotation aside, Luther was known for having a... colorful style of writing.

Anonymous 04/24/2021 (Sat) 10:34:49 No.589 [Reply] [Last]
Peter is not the rock. The Revelation that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God IS the Rock. Jesus did NOT say "That thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". Jesus said "That thou art Peter, and upon THIS ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it". The catholics have sadly missed it for more than 1700 years. "Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." With all due respect to catholics but the Precious Rock of christians is their Lord Jesus Christ but the rock of the catholics is the rotting carcass of Peter.
56 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>789 Hey anon, I support using the KJV as an accurate translation into English and most of what you said. But there's nothing wrong with theology, as long as it is done properly according to first principles from the word of God. When you say that, you might make people think that you mean studying the divine (theology) itself should be avoided. I don't think this is necessarily the case if done rightly. This is sort of like how I have seen people sometimes say, "stay away from doctrine," in actuality Scripture says (2 John) – “He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.” We don't want to let modern "intellectuals" lay exclusive claim to these things, anymore than we should allow the enemies of God to lay claim to the rainbow (as a symbol of God's covenant).
>>796 I see what you mean, anon. But please remember that the Bible says that we ought to speak as the oracles of God (Written in 1 peter 4:11). And so, we should not use words that are not in the Bible when we speak about the Bible. My firend, christians do not use theology. Instead they read and cherish the Word of their dear Father as it is written and obey it. Let me make myself clear, I have nothing against people using original languages for their own interests to see how the Bible was written. Where the problem starts is when people begin using this narrative: "Well, when we read verse X, we see that the word Y is translated incorrectly. In the original greek, the word Y should be actually Z. This is the CoRrEcT eXeGeSiS of this particular passage." Hearing people say "well in the original languages it should say this/that" makes my blood boil seeing people in their foolish pride using vain terms (theology, exegesis, eisegesis, and so on...) to degrade God's Holy Word.
>>798 >that we ought to speak as the oracles of God (Written in 1 peter 4:11) Amen. Today the world in its pagan ways seeks to be oracle of everything aside from the life-giving Truth.
>>798 >seeing people in their foolish pride using vain terms (theology, exegesis, eisegesis, and so on...) to degrade God's Holy Word. Yes but remember, whosoever rejects God's word, the same will judge them in the last day (John 12:48).
>>799 >>800 Praise God, Amen.

Salvation Anonymous 05/03/2021 (Mon) 23:57:55 No.759 [Reply]
How to be saved according to the Holy Bible: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu-uORAGx58
Amen.

Image Thread Anonymous 05/15/2020 (Fri) 03:23:27 No.52 [Reply]
Post Christian art and images here. I have a massive folder from years on 8/christian/, but I understand cafe's resources are strained from all the refugees and additional boards so I won't dump them all at once.
18 posts and 40 images omitted.
Open file (348.04 KB 620x320 ark-of-the-covenant.png)
>>491 "You shall make a mercy seat of pure gold; two and a half cubits shall be its length and a cubit and a half its width. And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work you shall make them at the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat."
>>760 Thas a cute bunner

Calendars Anonymous 05/03/2021 (Mon) 00:52:15 No.729 [Reply]
Gregorian? Julian? Or doctrinally inconsequential object of false pride?
>>729 The Julian calendar was the one agreed upon in ancient councils. the Gregorian calendar is a concession to sc*entists. I know which one I'd rather follow.
>>730 What about the Revised Julian of the Greek Orthodox? The Julian calendar itself was drafted by the ancient pagan mathematician Sosigenes out of Alexandria, and instituted by Julius Caesar. Are they trustworthy simply out of convention? The Jews still operate their own Hebrew calendar independently.
>>732 They're trustworthy because they were adopted by Christians for use officially. I believe at Nicaea. In other words, the Julian calendar was instituted by an Ecumenical Council. The Revised Julian is better as a compromise because at least it doesn't move Pascha, but I really don't see a reason to not just use the original Julian calendar.

Christianity Proofs thread Anonymous 03/09/2021 (Tue) 22:32:22 No.465 [Reply] [Last]
this thread is for various proofs of the truth of christianity and evidence which supports the bible since i lost my old folder which contained alot of stuff this could include stuff like miracles, philosiphical proofs or historic evidence
46 posts and 11 images omitted.
>>747 Remember what it says also in John 8:47, which Jesus openly said to the scribes and Pharisees, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." And again John 10:2-5 tells us, "he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." Further in John 10:26-28, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." >Remember also that trying to prove the Bible to unbelievers would also waste precious time in debates. The fact that there are people who choose not to believe in the Bible reflects the truth of what God said, that there would be some that would not believe. All things contained in Scripture need to be fulfilled. At worst, we can be a warning to people who may never believe. Or at best, what we tell them is rejected now, but in the future some of these people will realize it was right and repent based on what happens in the future. If someone just wants to debate and dramatise rather than what they ought to have which is a good faith conversation, just remember the conclusion of the following passage: 1 Timothy 6:3-5 >3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; >4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, >5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. And also 2 Timothy 2:24-26

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>748 Amen. Well said, anon. Thank you for sharing.
>>747 >>748 False teachers are a different question entirely than people who are led astray by them. In Matthew 23:37, we hear Jesus say to Jerusalem, "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" There are atheist/cultist/heretical teachers to whom those passages against the Pharisees applies, but from my experience, most people who follow them are simply ignorant of the truth of scripture. Whenever the churches of God were given over to heresies in New Testament times, did the Apostles just say "meh, they don't believe the Gospel because they knowingly deny it, so it's no use arguing with them"? No! Paul and the other Apostles wrote to these churches, correcting their error and explaining the Gospel to them - these very letters are part of inspired scripture. There are very good reasons why the Apostle Paul repeatedly says things like "Be not deceived" (1 Corinthians 6:9), "Be not deceived; God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7), " Beware lest any man spoil you" (Colossians 2:8), so on and so forth. Unfortunately, a grrat many people have been decieved by liars. There is a reason why the Bible says Satan "deceiveth the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). Many of the people who see street preachers, unfortunately, have been told by other people that Christians are just insane or primitive, and thus ignore their call to repentance. The Bible itself, not just people who believe it, is the target of slander these days. Paul tells us to expose the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). We should expose the lies directed against the Bible with whatever means we have.
>>756 Heh, don't let it go to your head Anon, but you seem to me to be inspired by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. It's pretty refreshing to see such council here. It's a deep mystery to me where the inspired, eternal, holy wisdom of God Himself crosses over into the temporal realm. But plainly, it does. Again, drawing on 2 Peter (he was quite the fisherman, yes?) : >but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. https://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-21.htm I strive regularly to discern the Holy Ghost's wisdom on a topic. My calling seems to regularly draw me into discussions on science and philosophy in this regard. As you point out, there are already many imminent men who have addressed the biblical and theological implications, so it's of little account for me to attempt addressing such matters on that playing field; It's already been well-rehearsed. :^)
>>744 > say this because it is important to realize that God has given us his word and every person is to base their understanding on what they learn there. digits confirm.

Open file (12.60 MB 1280x720 tyndale.mp4)
Anonymous 04/19/2021 (Mon) 20:31:07 No.500 [Reply]
Based Tyndale opposes the popery.
9 posts and 3 images omitted.
>>625 Based.
Open file (257.05 KB 852x743 32128c069.png)
Open file (296.28 KB 833x836 03f5269e7.PNG)
>>625 Yep. Here's a small bit of research.
>>656 Thank you for sharing, anon.
Tyndale: 1 The popery: 0
The beat at the end fits well with the final response.

Age of the earth. Anonymous 04/26/2021 (Mon) 09:34:31 No.634 [Reply]
What is the exact age of the earth according to the Holy Bible? If we were to add everyone’s age from Adam until today, how old would the earth be? Has anyone tried this?
5 posts and 1 image omitted.
Open file (393.55 KB 960x1310 screenshot.png)
>>642 Anon, you could at least give us sources before simply repeating something someone told you. >Sir Isaac Newton (You know, single smartest man who ever lived? Yeah, that one) was the first scholar who made a concerted effort at answering your question. Wrong. You have plenty of ancient church witnesses, as well as the work of chronologists like James Ussher, who despite me not completely agreeing with him on every point, did a pretty thorough job on chronology, such that even Isaac Newton defended him. See attached. >We don't know from the Biblical text. It is indeterminate. If you want to go by the Biblical text, I can show you directly how we can place Adam's first day at 4270 ± 13 BC. This is by my own derivation, which is not too far removed from Ussher. Now, if you want to talk about how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, that is a deeper question. For this reason alone, I do not provide a creation date for the universe itself. But for Adam and the beginning of human history? The Bible tells you directly. In fact, I'll even tell you the short version of the explanation. The time from Adam to Jacob being 130 years old when he entered Egypt was 2308 ± 11 years. The time from the entrance to the exit of Egypt was 430 years (Exodus 12:40), plus 40 years of wandering in the desert. The time from the entrance into the promised land until the fourth year of Solomon was 480 years (1 Kings 6:1). From there, you can see that kings reigned in Judah according to Kings and Chronicles was 425 years ± 1 year. That ended in 586 BC, the well-attested 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8), which is the year the First Temple was destroyed (Jeremiah 52:12), and this is where the Biblical calendar converges with the AD/BC calendar. See how simple that was? Praise the Lord. Amen.
>>657 My source was already plainly spelled out friend. To wit: Sir Isaac Newton himself. >Now for ye number and length of ye six days: by what is said above you may make ye first day as long as you please, and ye second day too. >before simply repeating something someone told you. With all due respect (and please pardon me if you are in fact authentically doing original Biblical or other exegesis research), but just out of curiosity; which bit of what you're claiming in your post was something that wasn't you simply 'repeating something someone told you'? Again, I'll refer to Sir Isaac Newton, who addressed this very topic concerning himself in likely his most famous quote: >If I have seen further it is by standing on the sholders of Giants. and also: >I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me. If a man so brilliant could say such of himself (the latter as he approached death), then I would argue that we could all use that as an example of personal humility. What do we have that we weren't given? None of us know the absolute truth of this universe's history, only the higher spiritual beings can make any such claim. Certainly God Himself is perfectly aware of literally everything. All we have to go on (naturally-speaking) of any highly-legitimate source of reliability is both the book of scripture, and the 'book' of nature. They are both reliable sources revealing both the character and handiwork of God, and by definition, are in concordance with each other -- both having the same perfectly honest 'Author'. All the rest is -- roughly speaking -- mere hearsay.
>>723 >My source was already plainly spelled out friend. To wit: Sir Isaac Newton himself. You never gave a source to show that there were no scholars to ever calculate the age of the earth before Newton. For instance, what about Sir James Ussher, who came before Newton, who was a scholar which made a concerted effort at answering this question (not to mention many ancient church writers) thus not making Isaac Newton the "first" to attempt this, as you claimed above? I can repeat this question if it is not answered below. >which bit of what you're claiming in your post was something that wasn't you simply 'repeating something someone told you'? The problem lies in the repeating of the tale without performing any attempt to verify the facts from any sources. In this case, your claiming that no one had ever attempted to date the earth before. That is, unless you want to define your own unique class of people called "scholars" which excludes everyone before him, simply for the purpose of making your misleading point that he was the first. >of any highly-legitimate source of reliability is both the book of scripture, and the 'book' of nature. The popular belief called "evolution" of the earth, etc, may be popular. But the belief is not really scientific as much as it is built on metaphysical axioms. Furthermore, this popular belief, which I believe you made a direct reference to above, clashes with the order of creation given in the first six days of Genesis. In the modernist theory that you are (it seems) going on, we didn't have herbs appear before the sun/moon appeared in the sky, and we didn't have all birds appear on the fifth day while all land creatures only appearing on the sixth day. The account given by Genesis actually conflicts with the popular theories of abiogenesis and evolution from common ancestry in said ways. It also conflicts with the statements made there that every kind reproduces after itself; not after each other, or one kind giving rise to many. Those who truly believe the Bible and don't reduce all of God's word entirely to one's own personal allegory have to reckon with this. So don't pretend like the Genesis account needs to bend to modern popular ideas with an air of pomp to them. Christ Himself, as recorded in the New Testament, refers to the events covered in the book of Genesis literally as factual events. By laying aside all the testimony of God like this, someone, who really just wants to believe in "popular" ideologies no matter what they are – and evolution (as the whole thing is commonly referred to) is popular with the lifestyle and ideology of today – has shown that they disagree with God's sacred account. They've shown their real predisposition, which is toward the world and the things that are of this world as opposed to accepting the true sayings of God. It shows that someone values prestige from the world more than they do the glory of God. What's even worse is when some are actually willing to claim to be followers of the Bible when really they reject it by trying to change it: and even try to publically mislead others about what it actually says to make matters even further worse still, as you have done here.
>>733 Anon is trying to compromise between reason and faith when there are some things that cannot be directly observed, that must be held on faith through its revelation in scripture for a full comprehension of the mechanics of salvation. He may not have nefarious intentions for doing so, because all men are by nature bent toward the world, and the world's pride is so-called reason. The object of this bargain is to convince that faith can be "proved" before peers as is done in the material sciences, to validate it was one would a hypothesis. In truth however, if they're not drawn by God's grace to become Christians the non-believers will never be convinced of the validity of the faith and of Christian morals and ethics; scripture isn't a hypothesis, materialists debase it by dragging it down to that domain. Then they bait those who are not aware of this sleight of hand to argue against their observational consensus not so much to prove that the scientific position has answers but rather to allow the world to make a mockery of inherent truth. Vast swaths of lukewarm Christians have fallen for this trick, once a breach is made in the wall of faith all the forces of doubt, of conceit, of covetousness, of mischief pour into the sanctuary of the believer's soul and corrupt in ever manifold manner. The devil issues a counterfeit of life, but taking a seat at the banquet of his world earns one death by poison.
>>734 Amen. What this lukewarm stuff describes is like it says in Proverbs 14:15, "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." And also 1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:" Christians are not to be naive and foolish. Like it says in 1 Cor. 14:20, "Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men." And again, Colossians 2:8. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

Open file (1.28 MB 1270x1994 hannibalbarca.png)
History of ancient Israel. Anonymous 05/02/2021 (Sun) 18:08:51 No.724 [Reply]
The truth is that ancient Phoenicia and ancient Israel were one and the same. The Pheonician's were a seafaring people who used their sailing skills to traverse vast distances and this is where the majority of the revenue for solomon came in, Moreover the sea people as they are called by modern scholars were also the ancient Israelites, Mainly because if you look what happened is that the only country that wasn't majorly affected by it Assyria was never in close proximity to Israel during the exodus this is also the reason why Egypt fell, And more importantly the canaanite/hittite empire fell completely. It also makes sense why solomon would've been highly regarded among the other rulers at the time. Solomon himself was best of friends with the king of tyre, So Phoenicia was most likely a union of many smaller kingdoms.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?