/christian/ - Christianity

Discussion of Christianity, the Church, and theology

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.1 (updated 2021-12-13)

Board Owners: Hourly thread limits and Early 404 help protect your boards against erasure under slide attacks. Enable them today.

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

Max message length: 20000

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

no cookies?
Board Rules

(used to delete files and postings)

John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Open file (297.53 KB 862x1130 NNNov.jpg)
No-Nut November Anonymous 11/01/2022 (Tue) 19:44:31 ID: 9d3af7 No.20787 [Reply] [Last]
Are you participating my brother in Christ? Or have you already failed?
123 posts and 38 images omitted.
>>23741 try something else for once. for example, use a chalk instead of cocaine to teach you not to stop taking drugs.
>>23743 would rather buy a comic just to use it for references for most of time
>>23745 also, wasting so much money on streamers, especially vtubers, just because you want a shout out, is stupid.
>>23746 btw, i only wrote separately because this board or site only allows 112 characters for me
>>23747 no it doesn't?

The Authentic Text of the Old Testament Anonymous 02/05/2023 (Sun) 06:37:01 ID: b9a9e5 No.23624 [Reply]
It's remarkable how much academia has engaged in textual criticism of the New Testament, questioning every jot and tittle of the Greek manuscripts, yet comparatively barely any attention has been directed by them towards the Old Testament. Not that we should wish those atheistic scandalizers should desecrate the text, but I wanted to bring this subject to attention of the board for some opinions on it: what is the authentic text of the Old Testament? The vast majority of modern Bible translations use the Jewish Masoretic Text, which was composed by Pharasaic Jews in the 10th century, some 2000 years after the events described in it took place. It makes no sense that Christendom should be using an adulterated text from a sect that by its very nature is anti-Christian. But then what remains? From what I can tell, there are the following sources: - Jerome's Latin Vulgate (from circa 400 AD), which he translated out of the original Hebrew from the ancient manuscripts available to him - The Syriac Peshitta (100 - 200 AD), while the New Testament appears to derive from the Greek manuscripts, the Old Testament seems to be of a parallel tradition to the Septuagint. Syriac is a language that is related to Aramaic and Hebrew, so it's less likely to have misrenderings as a result of having to translate from a Semitic to an Indo-European language, and it uniquely contains some elements that provide additional context for events. - The Targums (200 BC - 200 AD), informal spoken translations of the Old Testament. They are extremely paraphrastic. - The Dead Sea Scrolls (300 BC - 100 AD), hidden by an esoteric Jewish sect, the Essenes, in caves during the Roman-Jewish Wars. Technically, the oldest copies of the Hebrew scriptures. However, as they were produced by a sect that was outside the mainstream of contemporary Jewish society, it should raise questions about whether they maintained the integrity of the scriptures. - The Septuagint (300 BC - 100 BC), the Greek translation of the Old Testament. It was used by the early church. There are various issues with the Septuagint manuscripts available to us today however; the extant copies date to the fourth century. In ancient sources, the Septuagint was described only to be a translation of the books of Moses, whose origin and quality were remarkable, but the Septuagint as we have it today contains the prophets and the writings. If you look up any Septuagint based translation, you will find portions missing verses (e.g. 1 Samuel 17:12-31) because they're not in the manuscripts we have. Lastly, the insufficiency of the Septuagint was part of what prompted Jerome to begin his project of re-translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to Latin for the church to have a better text for its understanding. - Samaritan Torah (>300 BC??), the Samaritans, who were rejected by the Jews upon their return from Babylon, have a unique version of the books of Moses (and of them only). It includes such deviations from the usual Jewish text as commandments to worship on Mount Gerizim instead of the Temple Mount of Jerusalem. Some of these are supported by witnesses in the Dea Sea Scrolls. However, as it is a sectarian work, the same question about whether they would have maintained the integrity of the scriptures hangs over it. So, before we even tackle the issue of translating into English, what is the source text we ought to be translating from? Frankly, the institutions of learning seem to have been quite useless in giving an answer, because so far they either uncritically accept the Masoretic Text and the apparent impeccability of its authors, or say that it's literally anything but what the church historically believed (because Christians are retards and us enlightened secularists are obviously right!!!), or put forward that the original text never existed at all.
4 posts omitted.
>>23627 I found this story while investigating the Psalm issue: >"Concern for doctrinal position and religious implications continued to influence interpretations in the modern critical period. When the famous editor/publisher Daniel Bomberg was preparing a rabbinic Bible for publication [c.1517], he noted that the word in question appeared with a VAV rather than a YOD. It was changed to YOD because otherwise, Bomberg complained, “no Jew would buy copies of his Hebrew Bible.” [Kristin M. Swenson, Psalm 22:17: Circling around the Problem Again, Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 639] https://www.christian-thinktank.com/ps22cheat.html This makes the issue of determining the authentic text even more critical.
Open file (95.50 KB 1024x640 000_339C3AQ-1024x640.jpg)
Codex Sassoon Heads to Auction >Sotheby’s has announced the upcoming auction of Codex Sassoon aka The Damascus Pentateuch. They are dubbing it “The Earliest, Most Complete Hebrew Bible” and anticipating that, at $30–50m, it could be “the highest valued manuscript or historical document ever offered at auction.” From their description: >The earliest, most complete copy of the Hebrew Bible is actually a book known as Codex Sassoon, named for its most prominent modern owner: David Solomon Sassoon (1880–1942), a passionate collector of Judaica and Hebraic manuscripts. Dating to the late 9th or early 10th century, Codex Sassoon contains all 24 books of the Hebrew Bible – missing only 12 leaves – and precedes the earliest entirely complete Hebrew Bible, the Leningrad Codex, by nearly a century. https://www.sothebys.com/en/articles/sassoon-codex-oldest-most-complete-hebrew-bible
>>23737 Why is it called a Pentateuch if it's a complete Old Testament?
>>23737 finna whip this bad boy out and start quoting from it any time i get in an argument about religion.
>>23738 The original article I found about it seemed to be confused between two manuscripts, Sassoon 507 is the Damascus Pentateuch but the one being auctioned is actually Sassoon 1053. It also seems that someone took photos of it before it was privately bought: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tanakh-MS-Sassoon-1053 https://archive.org/details/Sassoon_1053_Tanakh

Open file (22.23 KB 399x319 themiddle.jpg)
Anonymous 05/24/2022 (Tue) 01:39:55 No.11599 [Reply] [Last]
There seems to be a multitude of users on imageboards stuck living generally broken lives. How can /christian/ minister to this?
85 posts and 37 images omitted.
Open file (167.39 KB 400x480 156186291393.png)
>>18389 Hilarious misinterpretation. I'm new at this and even I know why god "commanded" certain people to be eunuchs. That has to do with with "putting away" a wife (in other words not having sex with her). Which probably means that said husband is either gay, or adulters behind everybodys back.
>>17081 Why are you here exactly? Everyone already knows that your precous talmud says about the Messiah.
Open file (170.61 KB 736x782 675e6a4aeaa3b.jpg)
>>11599 Ironically, the more the world becomes soulless and empty, the more by contrast the Word of God becomes bright and fulfilling. Humanity can't live without faith in God, so the more the decaying modern culture tries to push people away from God, the more the thirst of God and holyness of the people remains unsatiated. So just study the more positive and constructive parts of the message of God, the gifts and blessings which God gives to humanity, and deliver the good news everywhere and anytime, for anyone waiting for God to reach them.
Open file (64.56 KB 840x345 kike faggots talmud.png)
Open file (59.93 KB 640x575 1659308332581899.jpg)
Open file (2.42 MB 848x576 say jesus is lord.mp4)
/thread and fuck all the jewish diversions and anti-christian propaganda may God have mercy of their lost and confused souls
>>23669 Blessed. What movie is that with based JUST DO IT man?

Open file (39.92 KB 384x527 15378.jpg)
I have been spiraling Anonymous 01/25/2023 (Wed) 02:13:47 ID: d41be8 No.23523 [Reply]
Anon's this board may not be perfect but it has been a good place for me to be whenever I am online. To be frank I have not been at peace the past few days. My father is not saved and he is getting old, I have been debating with myself whether free will is even real, how predestination works and if it does, does that mean anything I do has true meaning or am I just a pawn in things I do not understand. I have only found peace with prayer and working out, I have faith in my Lord but perhaps this is just showing me how much I have to grow in trusting the Lord, perhaps this is just my flesh fighting my spirit but advice or prayers would be greatly appreciated.
3 posts omitted.
>>23526 >as such thinks of churches as businesses Unfortunately, he's probably right about many (if not most) of them. (2 Peter 2:1-3) Maybe if you show him that the Bible warned us about these false teachers it might break the ice. Keep praying every day for God to open his eyes. It may ultimately be up to your father's free will, but God can break through the toughest hearts. He loves you because you trusted in Jesus. Trust that he'll also love the people you love. >he takes everything very jokingly and not seriously That's a tough one. Maybe he's uncomfortable/terrified being reminded of certain death and is trying to put it out of his mind, hence the interruptions. The only thing that can relieve that fear is the faith that Jesus paid it all.
>>23523 >I have been debating with myself whether free will is even real, how predestination works and if it does, does that mean anything I do has true meaning or am I just a pawn in things I do not understand. You are free when you are a participant in God's grace which cleanses you of your sin. Otherwise you are a slave to sin. Free will is kind of a moot question because freedom apart from God is vanity.
>>23532 Yes I figured that would be the case, a brother of Christ IRL told me something the night before that has encouraged me a little. I am still demoralized in many things atm but I do hope deep down my father will hear me out, God willing that be the case
>>23533 If you could explain that if possible I would appreciate it, bible verses would be a great help also
>>23535 I am just going to post these verses which I assembled, but held off on posting earlier as I was looking for an additional verse which I was unable to find: "Watch and pray so that you will not enter into temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak.” Matthew 26:41 Paul elaborates in Romans chapter 7 and 8: "We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot discover how to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful man, as an offering for sin. He thus condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous standard of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

Resolving the Filioque Anonymous 02/01/2023 (Wed) 21:30:53 ID: f7a4c4 No.23586 [Reply]
It is no secret the Eastern Orthodox reject the Filioque of Rome. But what is definitive Orthodox statement of what exactly is going on in the trinity? The Catholics can point to Florence. Is there a similar Orthodox statement? Part of me thinks that had Florence not dogmatized the filioque as "one principle and a single spiration" The Catholics and Orthodox would've reunited under an agreement that each side had a permissible theological opinion. I mean, the ultimate reality of the Holy Trinity is unknowable. That said, is there any way to resolve the controversy without rejecting the other side as heretical? I see all over the place bickering over who is right and who is wrong. But never do we examine any potential compromises or solutions. Perhaps we could say the Father alone is the principle/cause of the Trinity. The Father however, directs the Holy Spirit as Spiration to the Son initially, and the Son responds in like, unified spiration. Therefore, the Son’s presence to the Father calls forth the Spirit from Him, in a sense. It is by his eternal and natural and proper love as Father for Son that the Ekporeusis of Spirit from Father is begun. It is by his eternal and natural proper love as Son for Father, that the Son calls forth the Spirit from the Father. The Spirit’s hypostasis is sealed in its procession by His resting upon the Son. Or perhaps would it be possible for the Latins to revoke the dogmatic pronouncement retroactively as the Greeks never ratified it? Starting the discussion again from the beginning? Have you guys read or heard any proposed resolution on the controversy?
21 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>23614 >the sons role isnt made clear if it means temporal procession as in pentecost or eternally. That's the great tragedy of Florence. The Emperor specifically forbid them to discuss Palamas' essence/energy distinction. So the Latins, operating on theology Augustine and Aquinas didn't know enough about Eastern theology to find the way forward to synthesis, but they knew enough to write themselves into a corner. There was also some question about the letter's authenticity. Which looking back today, seems strange to me. Who cares who wrote it if that's the way to create union? It's a real shame they couldn't engage with Maximus on his own terms. >proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. One principle = father >one spiration = sharing of common divine nature between >father and son since there is only one divinty Grab a pen and paper and draw it. The way Florence is written forbids a reconciliation. Unless the Catholics are going to rewrite dogma and admit they were wrong. >>23615 >the son has no role is spiration Spiration is a Latin theological term coming from their idea of defining the Trinity's relations by/in opposition. Such is foreign to the Orthodox.
>>23615 It also lends itself to the possibility of subordinationism and Arianism that the filioque is designed to exclude. >>23616 >Grab a pen and paper and draw it. It's just a matter of perspective. The Father begets the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the two as if a single principle. So if you didn't draw the relations as a triangle, but rather were looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source. Our God is three-dimensional.
>>23618 >from the two as if a single principle. And we know from Florence, Latin principle = Greek cause. Therefore >from the two as a single cause >From the [Father and the Son] as a cause. Therefore, the son IS a cause of the Holy Spirit. Which s EXACTLY what the Orthodox reject. They believe the father is the only cause. There is no way around it now. 2=/=1. Catholics would have to backtrack the declarative statement of a council ratified by the Pope 600 years ago. Which they cannot and will not do. If it were so simple as saying "from the Father through the son" we would've reunited it by now.
>>23618 >looking at the situation head on, the Son being the very image of the Father, it would appear that the Spirit is proceeding from a single source. Rev 22:1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
>>23619 >They believe the father is the only cause. But do they actually, since they seem to believe in a variety of things so long as they disagree with what the scummy Latins believe.

Open file (1.22 MB 500x281 akko_shocked.gif)
New Bible Translation Dropped Anonymous 01/08/2023 (Sun) 01:42:45 ID: a86c32 No.23175 [Reply]
The Majority Standard Bible - MSB (www.MajorityBible.com) © 2023 by Bible Hub and Berean.Bible. https://biblehub.com/msb/matthew/1.htm The MSB is the Byzantine Majority Text version of the BSB, including the BSB OT plus the NT translated according to the Robinson-Pierpont Byzantine Majority Text (byzantinetext.com). The MSB includes footnotes for translatable variants from the modern Critical Texts (CT) such as the Nestle Aland GNT, SBL GNT, and Editio Critica Maior. Major variants between the Majority Text (MT) and Textus Receptus (TR) are also noted. For a few passages not included in the MT, the TR translation is denoted with [[brackets]] and also footnoted. This text is a first version draft and is open to public comment and translation recommendations. please send all corrections and recommendations to the Berean Bible Translation Committee through the contact page at Berean.Bible.
28 posts and 1 image omitted.
>>23396 >would you accept the Confraternity Bible? I'm Catholic, and my grandparent's Bible is a mix of it and D-R Challoner revision. I have no idea about the Confraternity Bible. Father made me toss out this one Bible I had because I bought it before I learned the faith and it was a protestant Bible. It was really kewl, leather cover but the best part was that it had maps and stuff in the back so I could see what they were talking about. If your priest says it has to go, say that it's not the Bible to you, but a family heirloom. I'm guessing he'd be merciful and let you keep it, especially if you say it would seem a sinful dishonor to your grandparents to part with it. To be accepted even by the Novus Ordo/FSSP, it has to have a Bishop's imprimatur, which is found in the front. Anon 252fd8 said mentioned that my Knox Version should be acceptable to me because the Knox version came out before Vatican II, in 1945. While 252fd8's knowlege of Catholic and Quasi-catholic bibles is impressive, this Knox version bears the Nihil Obstate of Father Cowan and Imprimatur of Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who was born in 1945 and couldn't have anything to do with a pre-war Knox version. I don't really care about the history of various Latin Vulgate versions. I just get the right one and I'm done. Once I've made sure I got the divinely inspired Bible, what remains is to read and study it.
>>23399 this makes sense, thanks. it's a fine book, hardcover with gold-edged pages, illustrations, and has family records, so it's definitely an heirloom. I just checked, and it has a nihil obstat from a censor librorum, and an imprimatur from an abbot-ordinary. I wonder how well that measures up? Also, Confraternity text is Genesis-Ruth, Psalms, and NT, while the rest of the OT is Douay-Challoner. My understanding is that the Confraternity Bible is the last traditional Catholic version before Vatican II, so that's why I asked. My version is from 1960.
>>23398 >The Council of Trent says that there wasn't one standard edition. That's why the named one. They declared that the Vulgate was the authentic and authoritative text, which is not the critical point of controversy. Rather, the question is over the fulfillment of their intention to disseminate an edition that was free from errors: >Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. >And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm Several editions were subsequently approved. Since the latest edition by the Vatican II church is a counterfeit that doesn't deserve the name, and the previous traditionalist revision was never fully completed, is Clement's the de facto optimal edition? Was the idea of attempting to revise it at all defective?
>>23245 True, there are still 350 million people with their language untranslated
>>23396 >The same is true for learning Japanese just to play certain games. You generally need other motivations besides that, otherwise you're better off relying on translations; they may not be perfect, but a quality translation serves as a bridge to the original. This is doubly true of learning an ancient language that has limited utility outside of certain fields; at least with the Japanese example it's a current, living language. My friend, you cannot compare weeabooism with dedicating your time by understanding the mysteries of God better. You think that Latin and other ancient languages are dead while you could not be further from the truth. These languages are alive eternally because they are tied to a past we do not know, to a time and to a class of people that understood and were closer to God. As God never changes, so never do liturgical languages, while vernacular languages die and born again every once in a while.

Open file (71.56 KB 367x313 repent.jpg)
Repentance? Anonymous 01/14/2023 (Sat) 23:00:54 ID: 277326 No.23432 [Reply]
Has the definition of "repent" been changed over time? Should "repenting of sin" be included when preaching the Gospel? Does it turn the free gift of salvation into a works-based program, denying that Christ's life, death, and resurrection was sufficient to reconcile us to God? I used the following Bible word search website as a resource to find every time the word "repent" was used in the KJV Bible: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/simple.html In the Bible, the word "repent" is used 112 times. Forty-six times in the Old Testament, and sixty-six times in the New Testament (I've excluded its apocryphal uses). Out of 112 times, only five times was it used in reference to "repenting of sin", and never used that way in regard to the Gospel or eternal salvation. Contextually, it commonly means one of the following three things: -Changing one's mind (whether God or man); -Being grieved inwardly (may include regretting); and/or -Turning from worshipping idols to worshipping God Examples of God repenting (many cases, only a few listed for brevity. Some uses are God deciding a different course of action, some are Him being grieved): >"And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." -Gen.6:6 >"And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people." -Exod.32:14 >"...and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel." 1Sam.15:35 Examples of repenting meaning "turning to believing the truth (from falsehoods or idolatry)" (these are most used in reference to eternal salvation):

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

3 posts omitted.
>>23432 >Should "repenting of sin" be included when preaching the Gospel? Yes, but only if repentance is fully understood. When you repent of a thing you 1. Stop doing thing 2. Recognize thing as sin and abhor it 3. Stop trying to justify having done thing in the past 4. Actively reject the temptation to do thing ever again It has nothing to do with paying money or tribute or honor to any man or organization made by men. Those are abuses. Even abstract acts of penance are questionable. At best they are as Matthew 6:16 "When you fast, do not be somber like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they already have their full reward." At worst they seek to preempt the judgement of God and deny His mercy. Repentance is best explained by Romans 12:2 "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." >Does it turn the free gift of salvation into a works-based program, denying that Christ's life, death, and resurrection was sufficient to reconcile us to God? Salvation is not a free gift. You must believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and you must stop sinning. Both are a form of repentance. Then, when you are ready, God will give you works to do according to the measure of your faith and ability. But these works will be a joy, serving the living God, rather than the obligated misery of human penitence. There is already enough suffering in this world without inflicting it upon ourselves.
>>23441 >Salvation is not a free gift. It was the costliest gift that ever was, or will be. But it was paid for by God with the blood of his only Son. He gives it freely to us: 1)"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -Eph.2:8-9 2)"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -Rom.5:15-19 3)"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" -Rom.3:24 4)"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." -Rom.3:28 5)"And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." -Rev.21:6 6)"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." -Rev.22:17 >4. Actively reject the temptation to do thing ever again By that definition, the apostle Paul was unrepentant: "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do." -Rom.7:19 "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" -Rom.7:24 >Repentance is best explained by Romans 12:2 Here Paul was speaking to believers. He was discipling, not preaching the gospel. Encouraging brothers in Christ to live holy lives is perfectly fine. Making it a condition of salvation is not. Read Romans 4:3-8. Our righteousness is an imputed righteousness. God chooses to see us as righteous because we're in Christ, but without that covering, let's not delude ourselves and call God a liar... we're not righteous at all.
>>23445 It seems you misunderstand, or perhaps I misunderstood you. A 'free gift' implies it's available to anyone without obligation like a pack of tissues handed out in the street. My point is that there is an obligation. Not to live according to the sinful nature but according to the spirit. You have written an awful lot of words trying to convince us of something but what that thing is is not clear to me. Can you state your views on repentance succinctly?
>>23448 After reading every one of those 112 scriptures, I'm thinking "repentance" as used in the Bible regarding salvation is referring to faith alone in Jesus. I would agree that you have to believe God raised Jesus from the dead, but I don't see any scriptures that make one's salvation additionally-contingent upon a cessation from sin. Every saved person should strive to live a holy life free from sin, and this the epistles entreat us; but even if we don't: "...to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -Rom.4:5. For the longest time, I assumed repentance meant "turning from sin", or what the common parlance of our day defines it as. How many evangelists on TV and radio would always add "turn from sin" to the promise of this "free gift"? If you have to turn from sin to be saved, then it's not a free gift. That kind of obligation is a mountain so tall we could never climb over it. It's so disheartening that you couldn't even call such a gospel "good news". But the real good news is that even though we all die because of Adam's transgression, we believers will all have eternal life because of Jesus' righteousness.
Open file (21.57 KB 480x480 ICXC_NIKA.svg.png)
>>23441 If you don't accept that you have been called to salvation by God in your heart, attempting to live in the spirit on human terms is futile. You have to recognize that Christ as Lord has the power to purify your being of your sins through His atoning sacrifice first as the good news on which you premise your repentance. Unless you set your hope on faith in the truth of His resurrection, victory over death, and the certainty of His coming Kingdom, you'll immiserate yourself over your individual powerlessness over sin, despair that you have too much sin such that no amount of repentance will ever be enough, and set yourself up for failure in worldly mindedness. "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied," as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19. "But in fact," he continues, "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep... Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 'For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.'" 1 Corinthians 20, 23-27; and furthermore "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: 'Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?' The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:52-58 Amen.

Open file (170.71 KB 2448x3264 Pope.jpg)
Catholic/Protestant Slapfight Thread christianjanny Board volunteer 11/05/2022 (Sat) 15:40:18 ID: 5f869a No.20996 [Reply] [Last]
Due to several threads being dragged wildly off-topic by some anons' inability to hold themselves back whenever someone says the Pope is the antichrist or that Martin Luther destroyed Christianity, this thread will serve as a pseudo-containment thread for dialogue between Catholics and Protestants. Rules still apply in here, keep the thread on topic, do not make one-liner insults or ad hominems, keep it civil and respectful. Posts that try to start fights between Churches and drag the OP off-topic in other threads will be deleted, no matter how many there are.
453 posts and 101 images omitted.
>>23311 Ah! Catholic! Which one? Novus Ordo? FSSP (Novus Ordo lite), SSPX, SSPV? Sandbornist? >you love dividing, don't you? No, I hate dividing. That the issue. There is ONE Catholic faith, and the divine revelations are found in the Bible, where we see Our Lord Jesus Christ founding ONE CHURCH on Saint Peter the Rock and giving him the keys to heaven (faith and morals). Thus, the Bible and the Popes become the true Catholic Faith. And by Saint Paul, we know that Church tradition, e.g. the form of the various valid Holy Masses per the Council of Trent, are part of the faith. So, why are there 5 different "Catholic" religions, and most importantly, why do none of them keep the Catholic faith?
>>23313 I donno. It may be because he put a pagan idol on the Alter of Saint Peter. On that day, the Alter of Saint Peter was desecrated. He's not even a heretic. He'd have to have been a Christian to be a heretic. He's more in line with Freemason beliefs, like John Paul II. Problem with that is if you're a Freemason, you absolutely cannot be Catholic, and a Pope has to be Catholic. And a Pope, being a Vicar of Christ, can't be an anathema either. True Catholics must shun an anathema. Every "Pope" since Pope Pius XII has said that the mass can be changed, that the Holy Eucharist can be taken in un- ordained hands, that the mass can be said in the Local venacular. Because Bergoglio made the FSSP become an anathema too. The Council of Trent has to be true, thus the Vatican has lost all legitimacy. Yeah, crazy me. I don't think Popes should be popular. That is a quality of the anti-Christ.
Open file (16.95 KB 480x360 hqdefault.jpg)
>>23321 >Btw, that's not scripture. Wow, I had no idea. >It references scripture, but its not, and it's taking things out of context. My bad for preferring a Catholic theologian in the process of canonisation over some random on the Internet. >>23322 >division through unity You need to understand you're not doing anybody any favours with your black and white thinking. Good riddance you're not listened to. Also meds. >>23323 Meds here too. There's nothing wrong with syncretism to spread the faith so long as it isn't replaced/diluted. Those aren't pagan idols any more. The Andes is one of the most devoutly Christian regions but you lose your shit over handicrafts.
>>23321 You do realize that there have been at least two other people in this thread?
>>23327 >My bad for preferring a Catholic theologian in the process of canonisation over some random on the Internet. Catholic faith is that divine revelations come from the Bible and the Popes, not Saints. And the naming of saints a matter of fact. Popes, even speaking from the chair, are not infallible on matters of facts. I don't trust Saints. Saints have been wrong. For example, the Lord told the Apostles not to kill those who wouldn't convert, while some Saints, like Saint Louis, was saying run them throught with a sword. So... I like to go back to the Bible and Popes, those you HAVE to believe, and only by understanding them first can you detect what errors the saints made. >You need to understand you're not doing anybody any favours with your black and white thinking. Good riddance you're not listened to. Also meds extra ecclesiam nulla salus The Catholic faith, as taught in the Bible and the true Popes, IS black and white. You have to believe it all. If that seems crazy to you, you are what Catholics have named as the invincibly ignorant. Sorry if that seems unfair to you, but I trust the perfect Justice of the Lord Our God.

Open file (154.16 KB 500x500 ClipboardImage.png)
Christianity is literally the best and perfect religion Anonymous 12/08/2022 (Thu) 10:24:03 ID: 75c0e6 No.22012 [Reply]
>judaism: incites extreme racial supremacy and hatred, and rape-torture of children >islam: incites violence and murder of people with different beliefs, and woman oppression (and it also indirectly forbids anime because art is haram) >hinduism, buddhism, folk religions, etc: utter schizo shit, and many of them are inhumane too >no religion: makes you a gay rootless redditor who thinks he's smarter than everyone >Christianity: preaches love, etc and if you look at it from a religious perspective it's also beautiful because of the whole God sacrificing his son for humanity's sins thing >it's also not schizophrenic/too unscientific Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
3 posts and 2 images omitted.
You forgot the most important part >Christianity: Is true.
Open file (202.61 KB 443x261 our vs their.png)
Why do you talk about beliefs like they're fashion statements? >it's also not schizophrenic/too unscientific So you think it's somewhat unscientific? Why do you believe in it then? Because you don't want to be a "gay rootless redditor"? You want to be cooler than "those people"? That's pride.
>>22332 Natural science isn't the end of all that is possible to be known.
>>23273 True. The very fact we have directly-observable scientific proof of the historical beginning of the universe is the Christian's best friend when it comes to apologetics. Sadly, the vast majority of the body of Christ today don't even recognize the wonderful boon to our gospel message that the so-called 'Big Bang' actually is. It directly correlates with the Christian Biblical message, and is an extremely strong argument for the Divine inspiration of the Biblical canon. Many non-theistic scientists & philosophers from the 1700s through the mid 1900s recognized that if it could be shown that the universe was in fact limited in time & space, then it threatened their materialist views at the most basic & fundamental level. They proposed the 'steady state' universe with both infinite time & infinite space to explain the observable -- particularly life. After Einstein, et al, and particularly with modern astronomical/cosmological observations, we know the hot creation origin of the universe is real, and that the Christian Bible got it right all along. >tl;dr Even a child knows that if the universe had a beginning, then something must have existed before it. What Who was that?

Is this for real? Anonymous 12/31/2022 (Sat) 22:19:49 ID: ea4bcc No.22783 [Reply]
I was searching the various Eastern Christian Churches that are called "Orthodox" and came across the Brother Nathanael Foundation. I wanted to know the details of the these Eastern faiths. I feel a bait and switch was done with the Roman Catholics; I did Catechism out of Father Cogan's "Brief Catechism for Adults" and then a whole different faith is thrown at me from Aquinas' huge "Summa" which changed everything. So, I wanted to know what the real faith is of the Orthodox. Some say they're not in Mary worship, and they tend to keep the same faith, but the Orthodox in America are known for preaching sodomy is not a sin. Anyway, I'm getting off subject in my own OP. Seems Brother Nathanael a Jewish man who converted to Russian Orthodox. Seems a bit over the top. Thoughts? Would like to hear from a Russian orthodox especially.
36 posts and 10 images omitted.
>>23121 And there you go again, accusing me of lies and ad homs, while you ad hom yourself. Either answer my question, or I'm going to assume that your de facto answer is number 3 and ignore you for the troll that you are. Final chance.
>>23122 You did lie about me. You answer every argument I made by lying about me. You said I had autism. Lie. You said I was a professional Troll. LIE You said I'm looking for ways CAtholism can be debunked. LIE. And you made you lies about what I said look like clipped quotes. And you're lying in this post. Why should I answer your questions when you're just going to make MORE personal attacks and lie about what I said? There. You've done it. You got my goat by lying about me viciously. You have no spirit of God in you. You've won.
I have become convinced that in many protestant religions, the sin of false witness is allowed especially against Catholics. Done with this. Christ isn't in some people, only hate. and they hope to bring you down to their level. Demons are in them. I've never had the Bishop's blow. There is no obligation for me to try and save the wicked from their demons.
>>23125 >>23126 Disappointing but not surprising. As that old saying goes: "When people show you who they really are the first time, believe them." Time and again you've shown me who you really are; whether you start threads like this under a false pretext, or you engage in slimy and slippery mental gymnastics, twisting of words, arguing in bad faith or projection. Especially projection. Everything you said in these two posts describe your tactics to a T, and you project them on to me. On the bright side, in my discussions with you, by your behavior and tactics, as well as your arguments and espoused beliefs, I have become all the more convicted and convinced that Roman Catholicism is a false and demonic religion of Satan; not merely just misguided brothers and sisters in Christ. A religion so infected with doctrines of demons, that adherents like you are literally willing to defend it even as it damns them to Hell by made up sins beyond their control. Think about it: you're literally willing to go to Hell for a "church" that flagrantly falsely holds you accountable for the sins of your wife and daughter, that you can't even control. You're clearly either a professional troll, or someone with severe mental issues, as these are the only two explanations that explain your obsessive, monotonous and infuriating behavior. The same posts, the same arguments, the same phrases, the same pics, the same twisting and mental gymnastics and lies over and over again. Well, I'm done. I'm tired of beating my heart against some madman's wall. When I say I'll pray for you, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, because it is a colossal waste of my time to try and reason with you anymore.
>>23131 Prove I have autism. prove I am a professional troll. Explain how it was not false witness to provide quotes that I did NOT say. OR confess you bore false witness and stop pretending to be the victim.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms

no cookies?