/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

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

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 (78.00 KB 720x720 1629406610886.jpg)
How can I find a racist church? Anonymous 12/11/2021 (Sat) 17:16:28 No.2018
I just can't go to a place and hear the father doing the I am not racist sermon. Or even the liberals are the real racists sermon. It makes me pissed. I want nothing to do with cultural marxism. I want to go to a church where there's truth. Even if in secret. And I know for sure that the races aren't equal.
Racism and Christianity are incompatible. This is only natural that communists and christians would end be the same bunch of people. Christ was the first wokeist.
>>2489 >if you don’t support my retarded racial politics you’re identical with communists who slaughtered millions of Christians! /pol/ is brain-rot
>>2491 Nice strawman, jew.
>>2493 >Nice strawman, jew. This reply just supports my claim.
Open file (56.04 KB 501x263 antichristian.jpg)
>>2489 One of these morons again. Here I'll give you /pol/folk some good advice. Be wary of anyone bashing Christianity. They've already made their allegiances known!
>>2441 >If you were truly familiar with God's word, you would realize that 'Pharisee' is not synonymous with 'evil'. Jesus even calls the teachings of the Pharisees orthodox in his day Remember that this was before they crucified him. Don't you find it suspicious that he would even still call himself a pharisee when he should know that identifying with such a label after the crucifixion where most of the pharisees rejected Christ would put him in a bad position at best among Christians. Again Jesus also said be wary of the leaven of the pharisees. Which I have been doing. >>2457 >To Paul's credit, even if they abandoned him at that point in his life, they seemed to have returned to his teaching later on. However this touches on a bigger issue that will be discussed later on. Remember that the book of revelation was written by John the apostle. Which means that the timeline for my argument lines up pretty well. If Paul was rejected by The churches of Asia and then John proceeds to right what Jesus tells him towards the same churches then it makes a lot of sense that Paul was a false prophet. It's much closer chronologically than someone like Eusebius for example. >Friend, when you start waving around accusations that major portions of the New Testament are invalid, do you know what the effect of that is? I understand to the effect of what I am preaching. However consider this, Does God's word actually change if you reject Paul? OF course it doesn't, God is eternal and never changing. The bible becomes far more consistent when you remove Paul's epistles which have inconsistencies and even something which goes against the God's word in the whole eating meat sacrificed unto idols ordeal I brought up. >To raise doubt in those that believe, and ridicule from those don't. 1) I haven't ridiculed anyone if anything I'm the one that's being ridiculed >>2349 for example mocks me by claiming that I believe myself to be "Oh so correct". If I have in the case that I can't recall then I ask that you forgive me. 2) Nothing about the fundamentals of Christianity change in the event that the Pauline doctrine is exposed as false we still get to heaven from the sacrifice of Christ(It replaced the sacrificial laws and circumcision.) For we are justified through Jesus. 3)In times of doubt it is necessary to pray to God. I pray everyday For remember "ask and ye shall receive Matthew 22:12 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." To get the truth simply pray to God that's what I did. >The Muslims would wholeheartedly agree with what you've written and use it as a point to discredit Christianity entirely. The muslims worship a false prophet however, The core of Christianity is the worship of Jesus as God in the flesh and to believe in him to be the promised messiah of the Old testament. >You raised up the Old Testament law being in effect: that is what they believe too, I've already brought up why Islam is a heretical religion. 1/2
>>2457 >As a Christian, you believe in the ability to grace to make up for our faults in pursuing God's righteousness. No as a christian it is our duty to worship God with all of our heart and all of our soul and all of our mind. It is our duty as a Christian to follow in God's footsteps and become the example that God showed us and we are to replicate that. The definition of a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". And remember that your belief is manifested through your works. According to James. >We don't live in a world of perfect nuance, where people will understand that God saves imperfect people. People use obedience to the law to raise themselves up and to put down others. Understand that this isn't true, That is what a pharisee does however they don't truly follow the law. Remember that we have an example of how to behave as Jesus showed us. Even further back than that if you give Ecclesiastes a read you'll realize that God has practically given us a blueprint on things that Christians debate a lot. Like war. >You must be careful in your examination. If you have doubts, you musn't declare them as an authoritative position. I do not consider myself as absolute when it comes to the bible. I've messed up quite a few times. However through trial and error we eventually reach a point were through Belief in God and our own determination to get closer to God you can hopefully learn the truth. I believe in what I state. Even if it may hurt for other Christians to hear I will sing them out loud in hopes of hoping people come to what God has shown me. After all Jesus was always willing to speak his mind. >That is exactly how critical modernist scholarship has torn apart the body of Christ by picking at every jot and tittle of the faith. "modernist scholarship" is just a term if you actually look at the people behind these fancy terminologies you'll notice they are an unrighteous lot. Most people are against Adultery for example. But most people seem to support Sodomy now. Which directly conflicts with nature and God's design for man. These people defend this repugnant behavior. They harm others for their own benefit and among other things it's clear that something is off about them. >And this is where I wanted to discuss the ethics of Paul. Paul in Romans shows that he is willing to comply with Roman law in a way unlike that of Jesus or the other apostles. This may have contributed to his own grief, since if the churches of Asia did abandon him, it was because they were following the decrees of the emperor just as he preached. His act of appealing to Caesar at the end of Acts eventually got him beheaded by Nero, which flies in the face of his argument that earthly authorities are justly apppointed by God, with Nero being a megalomaniac that only got in through his mother's assassination of the emperor Claudius. So while you are a little boastful, in that you speak freely without an ever-present sense of imminent danger and threat of death, a death that Paul ended up suffering, I don't condemn you for aspiring to a certain ethical purity. However what the end of that purity decides where you fall between orthodoxy and heresy, as I pointed out earlier, some of what you believe may lead you on a path to renouncing Christianity and to destruction. So it is a worthwhile discussion to be had in this thread, about this part of Paul's doctrine, as if it worked to his own death, what is the meaning in the series of events? This is not like the suffering of Jesus, because the suffering and crucifixion where part of the atonement and necessary for the forgiveness of sin in the resurrection. What was Paul's goal by this? We neither often mind the event of his martyrdom as well. You can be a cynic or an optimist, but I don't think we have a conclusive view on the matter, as between churches some submit to the state while others defy it. I may make a thread about it. Churches shouldn't submit to the state, The state should submit to God. I'm a monarchist because I believe that it's God's natural system. As God himself was ruler over Israel before he appointed David to be the king. Next I'll say this my faith will never falter. I have absolute faith that Christ is the messiah because I have seen everything that has unfolded when we have rejected God. We live in such a world right now and everyone is miserable. I love God with all my heart. As the 1 John 4:18 says "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."
>>2515 That's even more ridiculous than the Soywaffenfag. >when you hate your earnest Protestant Dad so much you'll side with /pol/ perennial bugbear over him
Open file (367.85 KB 988x1096 Pelagius.jpg)
>>2557 >No as a christian it is our duty to worship God with all of our heart and all of our soul and all of our mind. It is our duty as a Christian to follow in God's footsteps and become the example that God showed us and we are to replicate that. The definition of a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ". And remember that your belief is manifested through your works. According to James. You only have a faith to manifest in works because it is a gift of God. It is not something that you accomplished on your own. None of your belief would have been possible but for God's intiative in Christ. The crucifixion was an act of God's grace and mercy, which surpasses all understanding. That power to justify is not our own. >For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10 I have diagnosed your misunderstanding: you are Pelagian.
>>2556 >1) I haven't ridiculed anyone >Paul was a false prophet. >I have already posted numerous examples of Paul being shady >Paul lied in order to promote God. >Paul contradicts himself a lot. One bit you have him attacking circumcision the next you have him circumcising timothy. You notice his 3 contradictory accounts and yes they are contradictions because each of them is different. >Most importantly though. Paul is a liar he even admits he's willing to lie. Ridicule: the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior. It sure is easy to ridicule someone that isn't here to defend himself. >>2368 >Paul on the other hand is saying people in general aren't righteous. Yet there are numerous instances in both the old covenant and new covenant where this is proven to be the case. You are Pelagian.
Open file (62.06 KB 640x480 pelagius augustine.jpg)
>>2565 And in case you don't know what Pelagianism means, here is a picture.
>>2565 The whole argument we are having is on the legitimacy of Paul. And while yes it clearly is ridicule. It makes sense that I'd bring up such statements to explain my view, Especially the first one which is what the whole topic is about. It's much different than the anon I brought up on my example or the other anon mocking my "reading comprehension" >>2043 Which is ridiculing me to attempt to discredit my arguments in general. >I am pelegian Looked it up and Yes I do agree with what a lot of this guy preaches. However looking at the core of his doctrine from the albeit untrustworthy wikipedia "The view that mankind can avoid sinning, and that humans can freely choose to obey God's commandments, stands at the core of Pelagian teaching" I believe that we have all sinned at one point in our life which was the point of Jesus sacrificing himself to begin with. Pelagius is mostly right though. Because it appears his teachings are that we obtain salvation through Christ and good works. Which is directly what the bible says. And obviously we can choose good. I believe in a sort of predeterminalism. In which there are two paths the path of life and the path of death. What enables us free will is our ability to choose what Path to go down. Hence God gives us free will even though the paths are predetermined.
>>2598 There is also Semi-Pelagianism, which is very close to regular Christianity with one key difference: >Those who were afterwards called semi-Pelagians (they belonged chiefly to the churches of Southern Gaul) were orthodox except in one particular: In their anxiety to justify, as they thought, God’s dealings with man, they held that the first step in the way of salvation must be from ourselves: we must ask that we may receive, seek that we may find, knock that it may be opened to us; thenceforward in every stage of the road, our strenuous efforts must be aided by divine grace. While I can understand why you would pursue a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian direction, because it is to human minds much more logically close ended, it was ultimately not the direction the church opted to raise as orthodox. Pelagius in particular, for the reason in the quote from Wikipedia you posted, thought that as by his scheme people could accomplish sanctification by their own faculties alone (he denied the doctrine of original sin and the fallen nature of man), the vast majority of humanity was going to Hell since it failed to follow the obligations God had laid out. It was condemned as God's mercy in salvation for all men covers faults in the pursuit of godliness as an atoning sacrifice as you brought up earlier. Some churches in Southern France continued as Semi-Pelagians, described in the quote above. There are Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Cassian that Western Christianity would accuse of having Semi-Pelagian leanings. So your position is not outright absurd. This they maintained however, while accepting the canon with Paul included. Thus, Paul doesn't need to be thrown out to hold your positions, and you don't need to set yourself against historical tradition by excommunicating him even if you think his unviability is unprofitable for the faith. I will not toss out cheap condemnations as for example, great swaths of Protestants are technically Jovinianists, but they aren't actually aware of it; I don't have the authority as an anonymous poster anyway. It is better to know where you stand in the myriad understandings of the faith throughout history, that your positions are not unique but have been sounded before, and that conversation was had on them, even if to reproof. For a summary on the church's response to Semi-Pelagianism, continuing on from the quote above: >They did not understand, or did not grant, that to that same grace must be referred even the disposition to ask, to seek, to knock. See Prosper’s letter to Augustine. The semi-Pelagian doctrine was condemned in the second Council of Orange (a.d. 529), the third and fifth canons of which are directed against it.
>>2600 >While I can understand why you would pursue a Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian direction, because it is to human minds much more logically close ended, it was ultimately not the direction the church opted to raise as orthodox. Pelagius in particular, for the reason in the quote from Wikipedia you posted, thought that as by his scheme people could accomplish sanctification by their own faculties alone (he denied the doctrine of original sin and the fallen nature of man) I already told you this isn't what I believe, We are justified through christ and we accomplish our redemption through our works to glorify his name. That is what a christian is. My belief stems from the fact that God made us and it's in our best interest to follow Jesus' teachings because it will allow us to become closer to God. Because you can't be perfect in general but if you don't believe in God. You become worse than a fool. Original sin or not this will always be a fundamental fact of life. >the vast majority of humanity was going to Hell since it failed to follow the obligations God had laid out I know this might be hard to hear but this is something that came straight out of Jesus' mouth so I feel it is appropriate. Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." This might be hard to believe but in my opinion most people will be going to the lake of fire. Because it's something that's taught in the bible. Heaven has borders and those borders happen to have pretty steep regulations for entering. Belief in God is simply the first part, We as Christians should be leading people to the gate that gives them life but the majority are going to go to the gate that will lead them to damnation. >There are Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Cassian that Western Christianity would accuse of having Semi-Pelagian leanings. So your position is not outright absurd. This they maintained however, while accepting the canon with Paul included. Thus, Paul doesn't need to be thrown out to hold your positions My position is the glorification of God. If I see it such that I believe that Paul's writing contains things which I see as contrary to God's word, Then I will proceed to exclude him from my faith as God's word is absolute. I believe that Matthew and John are the only legitimate gospels because they were made by two separate apostles and due to the fact that it's in line with the fact that God always goes by two witnesses.
>>2610 So what do you think about the thief on the cross, that was saved despite not having any works to his name?
>>2612 Where does the bible say that the thieves were saved in any capacity?
>>2618 >Where does the bible say that the thieves were saved in any capacity? >Where in the bible Dude... https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+23%3A39-43&version=NIV
>>2620 Read my posts again. Because I've already stated that I believe that both Luke and Mark are not canon to scripture. Only Matthew and John are.
>>2622 >Because I've already stated that I believe that both Luke and Mark are not canon to scripture Imagine thinking you just pick and choose what is canon is what is not. This is your brain of Protestantism
>>2622 Also what about babies that die in infancy with no works to their name?
>>2624 >Imagine thinking you just pick and choose what is canon is what is not. This is your brain of Protestantism Let me explain my thought process to you. God says two witnesses for something to give it credibility. Both Matthew and John are two witnesses. Mark can be discredited because of the fact that he says something which directly contradicts revelation which was written by John. And Luke is untrustworthy due to being a close associate with Paul. Which Mark also is a close associate with Paul. >>2633 I think our all merciful God would save babies that died in infancy. Salvation is through Christ after all. Works throughout our life determine whether or not we get into heaven and where we place in heaven. But infants who die in birth are a topic which I haven't really dug into yet. Matthew 18:4 "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." The gateway to heaven goes like To you believe in God and that Jesus is the messiah and God in the flesh? Yes move onto the next checkpoint. Have you done good works in order to glorify God and what about your sins? if you pass this then you get into heaven. An infant would easily pass the second test. And I think when babies are born they automatically believe in God and it's only through the world's vices where their belief diverges.
>>2639 >Which Mark also is a close associate with Paul. John Mark and Mark the Evangelist are not the same person. Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark as a summary of the preaching of Saint Peter. After he went Alexandria in Egypt to found the Coptic Orthodox Church. Paul never went to Egypt.
>>2640 To add on to that, even if you think they are the same person, Paul kicked Mark off his trip because he didn't like him. Mark has no reason to write good things about Paul.
>>2191 >God would only use two witnesses as in line with his law. >>2639 >Matthew and John are two witnesses Matthew says Jesus says 2 or 3 witnesses: >But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 18:16 Hebrews says 2 or 3 witnesses: >He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Hebrews 10:28 Deuteronomy says 2 or 3 witnesses: >One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15 >At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:6
>>2642 so i guess i destress by hitting you with stick?
>>2639 babies are only accesories to the family like anything in life. by nature we re not gonna create anything without the grace of god. nothing worthy is gonna happen without the lord here and i guess thats just show how far you mean in this life and whether if anything has meaning at all.
>>2639 i ve always had issues with anything but i try my best to not snap. but i guess the only way to be happy is to be complete ignorant like an autist or a mentaly ill
>>2639 >>2644 >>2645 he also knows that button that ll make you insane and presses you because he doesnt care what happens here at all really. not even with his best people or whatnot because you are not that important
>>2641 Where does it say that all I can find on it is that mark was profitable to Paul. 2 Timothy 4:11 "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry." Paul himself states that mark is good for his ministry. And Mark wrote in his gospel. Mark 7:18-19 "And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; 19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?" Which directly conflicts with revelation as John wrote what Jesus told him in that eating meats sacrificed unto idols was a bad thing to do. Revelation 2:20 "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols." >>2642 While this is true. It doesn't really negate my point in that only two true witnesses are necessary for something to be true. Though I do need to read through everything Luke wrote to see if he contradicts scripture in anyway. Because he was technically a historian.
>>2643 >>2645 >>2646 What is this?
>>2648 which god they refer to again sorry i was told 3 out of five major religion worship the same one.
>>2649 I know this is bait but I'll bite anyway, Jews worship the devil which means they are the enemies of Christians even though most Christians don't realize it, Muslims worship a pedophile called Muhammad. And Christians worship God.
>>2650 Specifically, the Rabbinicals worship a weird and blasphemous pared down version of God when they're not doing even weirder things with the Kabbalah, in which case they might actually worship Moloch or Saturn; go check the questions thread for more information, currently phoneposting. Islam's God is a harsh and unloving Master, but not Father.
>>2647 >Though I do need to read through everything Luke wrote to see if he contradicts scripture in anyway. Luke is Scripture. I have no idea why the mods on this board are letting you even post this nonsense.
>>2652 Presumably for educational purposes.
>>2647 >>2647 >Where does it say that all I can find on it is that mark was profitable to Paul. Acts 15 >36 And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. >Paul himself states that mark is good for his ministry. By 2nd Timothy Paul was in prison and desperate. So it makes sense he would have tried to come to terms with people he strove against for assistance. >And Mark wrote in his gospel. How do you reject Mark when Matthew says the same thing: >10 And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man >15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. Matthew 15:10-11, 15-18 The difference being that Mark used the least sophisticated language of the gospel writers and didn't elaborate on it as Matthew did. Also if you don't take Mark for a witness many of Jesus' sayings are not attested to with two witnesses between Matthew and John, because Matthew, Mark, and Luke reinforce each other.
>>2674 >Mark used the least sophisticated language of the gospel writer Was that to reach poorer, less educated people, or something else?
>>2674 >The difference being that Mark used the least sophisticated language of the gospel writers and didn't elaborate on it as Matthew did. Also if you don't take Mark for a witness many of Jesus' sayings are not attested to with two witnesses between Matthew and John, because Matthew, Mark, and Luke reinforce each other. Alright I'll concede on both Mark and Luke being more credible, However that still doesn't make Paul credible. I still think they aren't as reliable as Matthew and John though. You'll have to forgive me because I haven't read either mark nor Luke in a long time. So it could just be a case of simple misinterpretation of their scripture on my end. This guy >>2372 adding the "thus all foods are clean" didn't really help much either. Because checking up on the verse in the kjv shows that it doesn't even say that, It just says it purges all meats. I really should reread those two gospels.
>>2686 >It just says it purges all meats. A perfect example of why you shouldn’t be reading the KJV—the language is out of date. “Meat” used to have a broader semantic range than it does in modern language. “Meat” in the time of the KJV meant “food” in general. We can see this old use of “‘meat” in terms such as “sweetmeat”, which refers to various sorts of sugary foods and has nothing to do with animal flesh. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sweetmeat#English https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/meat Also, if you say Luke is credible, you are thus saying that Acts are credible, because they have the same author.
>>2680 Early church documents advise that the Gospel of Mark was a rough summary of Peter's preaching of which copies were then made for an audience of Roman soldiers that thought it was interesting. Mark serve Peter's secretary at the time: >This too the Elder used to say: Mark, having become the recorder of Peter, indeed wrote accurately albeit not in order whatever he [Peter] remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he [Mark] had neither heard the Lord nor was a follower of him, but later, as I said, of Peter, who used to deliver his teachings in the form of short stories, but not making as it were a literary composition of the Lord’s sayings, so that Mark did not err at all when he wrote down certain things just as he [Peter] recalled them. For he had but one intention: not to leave out anything he had heard nor to falsify anything in them. Papias of Hieropolis as recorded by Eusebius >Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter Clement of Alexandria
>>2693 Huh, I was right. It helps that Peter was a mere fisherman himself.
>>2689 >A perfect example of why you shouldn’t be reading the KJV—the language is out of date. “Meat” used to have a broader semantic range than it does in modern language. “Meat” in the time of the KJV meant “food” in general. We can see this old use of “‘meat” in terms such as “sweetmeat”, which refers to various sorts of sugary foods and has nothing to do with animal flesh. That's not the point. We have an example of the new testament saying that eating meat sacrificed unto idols is unclean from revelation. and that means it's inconsistent. Since if it simply says it purges all meats then that doesn't automatically mean that it's good for you to eat said meats and it doesn't conflict with revelation, This "thus all foods are clean" jargon is directly contradicted by revelation meaning the gospel you are using has a mistranslation. >Also, if you say Luke is credible, you are thus saying that Acts are credible, because they have the same author. Luke is a historian he was simply chronicling everything he heard it's why he wrote down Paul's 3 separate stories. And how he wrote about James saying that meat sacrificed unto idols was also bad. As well as animal blood. Acts 15:20 >But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. If anything Luke is one of the most reliable sources against Paul. And forgive me for this earlier >>2620 I had just reread what the thieves were talking with Jesus about. And it appears that they accepted that Jesus was the messiah but more importantly they accepted that their punishment was justified. But the issue I have with it is that Matthew seems to portray the thieves in a different manner. Matthew 27:44 "The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth." See this is the only amount of context we get of the thieves in Matthew and it seems they only had contempt for him. Obviously I can't be too sure about this because I wasn't there at the time. But they are portrayed as more villainous than in Luke. The thing is though is that Luke being a historian may have just been writing what he had heard. Which would make him closer to a secular source. I also found a theory that Luke and Plutarch were the same person. >>2640 >>2693 Alright thanks for the clarification. I'm beginning to think I wrote off mark because I kept associating him with Paul. I think this is a good lesson. If you find an error in your doctrine never try to keep your doctrine the way it is try to see where you made the error and adjust where appropriate.
>>2650 >>2651 everyone names their god allah and they say they come from the same desert/garden whatever
>>2650 >>2651 easy for me to let this all pass because i mostly hear hate speeches in religious preaches
>>2700 Allah is literally Arabic for "God," though (Arab Christians still call Him that). Also, the Levant was green before the havoc brought by the Arabs and then the Mongols. To call the various peoples of that place "all the same" is the dullest and most uninspired brand of laziness. >>2701 Unless you bother to listen, you will remain ignorant and without understanding. Who do you listen to, anyway? What is hatred?
>>2018 racism isn't a real term I believe. It's made up >I want to go to a church where there's truth. Go to one that isn't Novus Ordo then? Or protestant
>>2701 I reported your post for hate speech.
>>2724 Racism is real, but the term has been co-opted and overblown by leftists, which ironically enough for them, is actually creating more racists. And this is what is to be expected given the narratives being peddled by the media and academia.
>>2747 America is a land obsessed with race in one way, the other, or both at once.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?