/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)


He who is not with Me is against Me Anonymous 09/23/2021 (Thu) 22:09:03 No.1551
>Matthew 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? So it's pretty established that the Catholic church is NWO which is satanic. Yet they perform exorcism, so does the bible show that if a Christian (or a Christian organization) drives out Satan, and worships Satan, that he is still a Christian, just a heretical one? I'm going to offend Catholics, but i am trying to understand something.
>>1551 >So it's pretty established that the Catholic church is NWO which is satanic Why do you mean that the Catholic church is NWO? Also, Matthew 7:21 >“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
>>1558 The Catholic church has been in the public's eye for a long time, they have ties to pagan secrets societies like the knights of Malta and the Jesuits, they also do peculiar satanic stuff like name their telescope Lucifer and build a church that resembles a snake head, they also have ties to the world religion conspiracy by making videos affirming other religions as acceptance of different paths to God. They also have pagan symbolism in their churches. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07dPzM5q43c
>>1559 >If it's not jewish it's pagan Really tired of these kind of protestants. An absolute lack of understanding that a religion born in the roman empire would make use of roman symbols and roman thinkers. Like that guy in another thread that complained the bible was written in greek. At this point just get circumcised and make Aliyah.
>>1559 Not a catholic, but: >they have ties to pagan secrets societies like the knights of Malta and the Jesuits how are they pagan? >name their telescope Lucifer that's not true https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/does-vatican-have-telescope-called-lucifer/ But as for the stuff about promoting a one world religion, that's true (and one of the reasons I'm not a Catholic)
>>1561 You're right, that Catholicism has to do with a lot of the origins of Christianity, and I'm not saying Protestantism isn't innocent either. >An absolute lack of understanding that a religion born in the roman empire would make use of roman symbols and roman thinkers. Does that make it okay, should Christians embrace sun worshiping and pagan Egyptian symbolism? The Jews are not 100% of the elite, so getting rid of them would leave the non-jewish elite dominating and subverting the word in secret societies, big businesses, intelligence agencies, ect. >>1562 Okay so that rumor about the telescope was not true. >How are they pagan? For one thing, they are part of the freemasons. http://www.surreyknights.org/News_0056.html >The Preceptory was first opened in due form with the Eminent Preceptor and the Provincial Sub Prior greeted with loud acclaim and the usual business of the Preceptory was despatched with haste as the Knights eagerly awaited the Malta """Ceremony""" which was to follow. https://www.ancientpages.com/2017/02/26/ggantija-double-temple-on-malta-is-older-than-stonehenge-and-great-pyramid-of-giza/ This is kind of a stretch but the Island of Malta had Goddess worshiping temples that still exist today. Here are some connections to intelligence agencies and people in power i've found about the Knights of Malta, and the intelligence agencies and people in power are usually secretly involved with pagan ritual, often satanic rituals. Reinhard Gehlen was a Knight of Malta, given its highest award for helping to setup the CIA after WW2. He was head of East German intelligence. Gehlen was beloved of the Jesuits. Prince Anton Turkul was a Knight of Malta and subservient to the Jesuits of Rome. Turkul worked with Gehlen. He held up the Temporal power of the Bishop of Rome in the USSR. John McCone was a Knight of Malta and was subservient to his master Francis Cardinal Spellman of New York. William Casey was a Knight of Malta and helped (along with Allen Dulles) to bring Gehlen into the USA on Eisenhower’s VIP jet to help create the CIA. James Jesus Angleton was a Knight of Malta, manned the Vatican and Israeli desk for the CIA. Under the Temporal Power of the Pope Here is the Jesuit's proof of Satanic Ritual Abuse, it's kind of disturbing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbDBBxPtAbo
Open file (45.42 KB 620x330 milky.jpeg)
>>1564 Well I think that because there have been cases of pedophilia,(which disgusts me),doesn't mean that all the Jesuits are Satanic pedos. Let's say I call myself a true "christian protestant" and help in my church, but kill and rape several kids, would you throw out all the church as satanic,I wouldn't and maybe the pure hard of those church think that me """""innocent"""" Billy and think that they may help me recover from the corruption in my heart. Also modern Catholics don't adore the sun for what I know ,and if you say "but in old paintings/text/rituals",you have to consider that for the human mind that was one of the biggest things ,nowadays we know that a sun is to God as a neutron is for us and even less, but because are minds are little and we cannot comprehend the strength and the intensive size of God ,we imagine it as what we know as more powerful in the natural world,which is false obviously.We cannot imagine God as he is to complex and powerful for our brains ,machines,and honest everything,but your brain will take the most big and "powerful" thing you know , to medieval people it was the sun , for us the constellation,for the future generations particles and matter which could bend reality, but none of them gets close the power and size God and his Son have.
>>1571 >Let's say I call myself a true "christian protestant" and help in my church, but kill and rape several kids, would you throw out all the church as satanic If it kept the person inside it without any questions after finding that out, then yes. Also, if it knowingly kept false prophets that teach false doctrine in it, which goes against the Bible, then I would call it satanic as well.
Open file (15.90 MB 854x480 Knights of Malta.webm)
>>1571 The Jesuit Oath is also concerning >I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus. >would you throw out all the church as satanic That's a good point, Lets ignore the disturbing topic of pedophilia. I know that there are ex-satanic "priests" that have gone Christian who were involved in terrible rituals and practices, and it's good that they repent. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water, but i don't think it's good to support any church (including protestants) that has their elder members supporting secret societies and satanism. >and if you say "but in old paintings/text/rituals" I was going to say that it's their churches, and the Eucharist has sun symbolism. That is a fine excuse for medieval people, but for the present day Christianity, we should remove it's ancient influence of paganism, in my opinion.
>>1576 Huh fair enough I agree
Open file (27.20 KB 320x240 BibleKJV.jpg)
>>1576 >I know that there are ex-satanic "priests" that have gone Christian who were involved in terrible rituals and practices, and it's good that they repent. Anon, the fact that these organizations have infamous sinners in their positions of leadership should be enough to tell you that you aren't dealing with something that qualifies as a church according to Biblical principles. See 1 Timothy 3:1-7. >This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. >A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; >Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; >One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; >(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) >Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. >Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. That's literally what the New Testament says. If you have an organization with unmarried men, or men who drink... much less men who are not blameless (i.e. they were involved in infamous crimes like satanism at some point in the past) being appointed to the office of Pastor or Bishop... if there is anyone falling under any of those categories having any position of leadership in that capacity, then you already know you are not dealing with the church of God, as described in the New Testament. The requirements for pastors are laid out directly in 1 Timothy 3, Included in that Scripture is that they must be married, and be "blameless." If someone doesn't meet that bar, but they are still repentant, then they can be members of the church, yes - but not Pastors. (Or deacons, see 1 Timothy 3:8-13). Also only men can be Pastors, obviously. Any so-called "church" that appoints disqualified individuals in these respects, is not even a valid church and nobody should be a part of it. Such an organization is just a cult or false religion - take your pick - masquerading as one, while openly denying the above tenets of the Bible to the shame of all of those that are willfully involved in that deception. Not only that, but said false churches are promoting false doctrine by pretending to be a church and leading others astray despite their willful and heinous violation of this direct biblical fact, which relies totally on ignorance of this clear statement in Scripture and the New Testament which is against them, their cause, and their wicked and deceitful practices to the contrary of this plainly and easily ascertained fact which is found directly from the book of 1 Timothy and can be quoted directly to immediately prove them wrong, and show them immediately to be utterly wicked and completely abhorrent to what Scripture directly requires and says.
>>1582 Good point also, sorry if I didn't read it at first I thought it was form another thread. So yeah good point,I personally know that I am not good enough to say who should be a leader of this or that church ,so Im personally not concern
>>1564 >Does that make it okay, should Christians embrace sun worshiping and pagan Egyptian symbolism? Using the sun as a symbol for the light of God is different from using the Sun as a symbol for the Sun-god. Literally no Catholics in the history of mankind used sun symbolism to worship a sun-god. Early Christians were persecuted and used depictions of palms they found in catacombs as a symbol for Christ. Were they a "palm cult"? There's a clear difference between worshipping a symbol, and using a symbol for worship. Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it state that symbols are used for worship. >The Jews are not 100% of the elite, so getting rid of them would leave the non-jewish elite dominating and subverting the word in secret societies, big businesses, intelligence agencies, ect. I wasn't blaming jews. I was calling you a jew. If you think symbolism during worship is pagan, you might have more success adopting more iconoclastic form of abrahamism like Judaism or Islam. Because nowhere in the bible does it say God can't be represented as the sun. Especially since there are many verses clearly referring to God as the sun.
>>1585 >Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it state that symbols are used for worship. Does it state that symbols are worshipped*
Open file (96.42 KB 720x663 sun.jpg)
Open file (27.46 KB 470x303 sun 2.jpg)
Open file (51.39 KB 400x294 sun 3.jpg)
>>1585 >There's a clear difference between worshipping a symbol, and using a symbol for worship. Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it state that symbols are used for worship. When you have suns on churches, it's very clear that a church and what is built on it is suppose to be holy, the same as the Eucharist. Worshiping is very easy to do, The sheer act engaging in our politics is worship in itself. >If you think symbolism during worship is pagan, Is it not? > you might have more success adopting more iconoclastic form of abrahamism like Judaism or Islam. I don't think that depictions of God should be destroyed, just not worshiped. Also no thanks, Judaism is the religion of the Anti-Christ and Islam is more pagan stone worshiping. I just don't want any form of satanism in my Christianity, no freemasonry, no pagan secret societies, no world leaders, no government official, no intelligence members. Christianity (any denomination of it) is suppose to go against the Satanic world, not be secretly/subtly be consumed by it. >Especially since there are many verses clearly referring to God as the sun. There are also metaphors describing God as a mother, yet that doesn't mean that God is female, or that we should depict him as a female. <Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. <4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
>>1564 Jews are the root of it. I feel like we’ve had this discussion a million times before.
>>1585 >Using the sun as a symbol for the light of God is different from using the Sun as a symbol for the Sun-god. But that's the whole thing. You are "using" symbols, meaning worshipping them. And that's the problem here, not the symbol in and of itself. The New Testament prohibits all idolatry. What these Catholic leaders do is beyond merely draw a piece of art or whatever. They are engaging in worship acts with their symbols. That's why they always include them in said rituals. They are "using" the symbols. Meaning using them as worship objects. You see how that's different than having a piece of artwork with the sun on it, which is obviously not what we're talking about here. But that's a nice deflection anyway. >Literally no Catholics in the history of mankind used sun symbolism to worship a sun-god. No true scotsman fallacy. There are millions, probably billions, that have been openly documented, with real pictures and evidence, to do so. You're going to deny them and say they don't exist? You're going to deny the existence of the symbols of worship? >There's a clear difference between worshipping a symbol, and using a symbol for worship. Disagree: The leaders of Catholicism are no different than the leaders of Islam for worshipping physical objects. They have a black cube they worship, and this is no different than that. It's idolatry. And that's not iconoclastic, as I have nothing against regular art. I only have something against worshipping idols, because the Bible says not to do it. It's one of the Ten Commandments and it's repeated in the New Testament. >If you think symbolism during worship is pagan, you might have more success adopting more iconoclastic form of abrahamism like Judaism or Islam. Judaism worships the moon during the lunar waxing phase, they call this "kiddush levanah." Therefore, they are idolators just as much as islam with its black cube worship. Only God Himself is to be worshipped, like it says in the Ten Commandments. >Because nowhere in the bible does it say God can't be represented as the sun. Your representation of God cannot be worshipped. It's a symbol, not God Himself, and this is actually explicitly prohibited in the Bible as idolatry. I have even seen Roman Catholics try to argue that some drawing they made is literally Christ and then have people bow down to it. That is wicked and false, anon. Nowhere in the Bible is idolatry allowed or sanctioned, not once. We are supposed to turn away and separate from idolatry as it's unclean and sin. It is the unclean thing.
>>1593 >for worshipping physical objects. Jesus Christ is physical, so if we would worship Him that is allowed by the Bible and encouraged. I wouldn't really describe the Lord as an "object" though because He is alive and is now risen, at the right hand of the Father, not limited to just being an inanimate object or painting as Roman Catholics repeatedly claim.
>>1590 What gives Jews their power isn't their race it's their money, so how is their race at the root of it? Also you can't really be against the Jews and be Christian, even if you abide by /christian/'s distinction of Good israelites and bad modern Jews (when the Jews of the OT also worshiped Moloch as well as modern satanic jews) , you're still offending Christ by his human race. >I feel like we’ve had this discussion a million times before. Probably on /pol/, but not here, if i asked this on /pol/ or any /pol/ dominated site i'd just get told to go to /leftypol/ or get pictures of tyrannies.
Open file (127.39 KB 499x686 928891889.jpg)
>>1595 The large amount of money comes from their dishonorable conduct - their cheap and dishonorable swindling of others, taking advantage of others' trust not to turn back on their word which they then betray. This dishonorable conduct and swindling of those who inadvisedly trust them and do business with them, comes from their willingness to defraud outsiders. The willingness to defraud comes from the hatred of the non-Judaic by the Judaic. And this hatred of the "other" comes from the rituals of the false religion of Judaism, which teaches them to hate. It tells them a long, fake history of their own supposed persecution and also tells them that "goyim," as they say, are not even human and are meant to be slaves to them and therefore it is okay to take their money by tricks due to not having to uphold their word when it comes to their dealings with them. So in other words, the money, power, corruption, greed, betrayal, trickery, deceit, and willful lies, all boils down to the religion of Judaism itself and the babylonian talmud, which teaches supremacy (it says of race but this is not even true), and dehumanizes any human being that they call "goyim" essentially reducing them to animals, but then makes a long sob story about how supposedly it is they themselves that are persecuted, when in reality this is not the case in the slightest, but they make themselves believe it. Why make themselves believe this? It is necessary in order to justify to themselves the montrous acts they perpetrate against us, corrupting our culture with promiscuity and dirty dealings, and stealing money from us with dishonorable schemes that only benefit purely them. But we forgive them anyway, as long as they have an opportunity to repent and still to get right with the Lord in this life and become saved before it is eternally too late. If one of them dies unrepentant then they will burn in the lake of fire eternally and it will be entirely deserved for rejection of the only begotten Son of God, like it says in the New Testament: "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him"? It is true that they are the root of a lot of corruption though. But that corruption is attributable to the devil, as the Bible says, this is the synagogue of Satan: "those who say they are Jews and are not."
>>1596 >The large amount of money comes from their dishonorable conduct - their cheap and dishonorable swindling of others But their Rich status helps them to get away with it more, if they didn't have money they would just be terrible people in poverty destined for jail, without means to buy good lawyers or fallguys. >It tells them a long, fake history of their own supposed persecution and also tells them that "goyim," as they say, are not even human and are meant to be slaves to them and therefore it is okay to take their money by tricks due to not having to uphold their word when it comes to their dealings with them. The specific passage of the Talmud that you're referring to is in reference to ancient pagans who where known to be dangerous people. Skip to 25:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M60FUPVtq9k >therefore it is okay to take their money by tricks due to not having to uphold their word when it comes to their dealings with them. Lots of rich people take the money of other people. The Book "A people who shall not dwell alone" says that Jewry isn't unique to the Jews, their predatory lending practices are also done by the Chinese. >corrupting our culture with promiscuity and dirty dealings, and stealing money from us with dishonorable schemes that only benefit purely them. Non-jewish rich people also do this also, like Hugh Hefner, Walt Disney and Aleister Crowley. I'm not saying that Jews aren't a powerful group of corruption in the elite, but they aren't the only group corrupting/subverting humanity. There are countries in the world where the elite has no Jews in them, even counting the international Jews. To say they are the source of corruption is to be blind to non-jewish elite who also subvert the world. I get that you guys have studied racial science but that can only tell you so much, there are going to be rich whites who also subvert the world also, To me it's satanism that is the source of the corruption on the world, in all it's non-christian forms.
Open file (164.86 KB 621x1024 a9492ab06.jpg)
>>1597 >To me it's satanism that is the source of the corruption on the world, Like was said before, Judaism is the synagogue of Satan. There isn't really a racial element involved. It's about satanic belief. That can be cured for an individual by believing in the Lord. But until then, if they do not repent of that whole system, they are the enemies of God and fundamentally opposed to the truth. >The specific passage of the Talmud that you're referring to is... They aren't gonna give you a straight or reliable answer. We shouldn't trust the video; We shouldn't rely on the explanations given by leaders of that movement. Those explanations are only meant for the public to misdirect and mislead. To support this, consider the following dark teachings from the Babylonian Talmud (BT): A gentile who studies the Law deserves death. (BT Sanhedrin 59a). It is forbidden to teach gentiles the Law. (BT Hagigah 13a). Jews may use lies ("subterfuges") to circumvent a gentile (BT Baba Kamma 113a). The passage I was referring to regarding "not upholding their word" was the Kol Nidre itself, which was in the attached image. There are also a few other places in the Talmud that can be cited as support for my claims. See the following citations directly from the Talmud: A Jew need not pay a gentile the proper wages owed him for work (BT Sanhedrin 57a). If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should put on dirty clothes and go to a city where he is not known, and do the evil there. (BT Moed Kattan 17a). If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile it does not have to be returned. (BT Baba Mezia 24a. claimed also in Baba Kamma 113b). Women cannot conceive before they reach twelve years and a day, according to the Rabbis. When asked how it was possible that a gentile girl had conceived at age six, the Rabbi replied that gentiles are not human. (BT Niddah 45a). "It is forbidden to praise them, even to say, 'How good-looking is that gentile.' Certainly you are not to speak in praise of a gentile's deeds or to respect any of his words, for this also comes under the heading of 'You shall not show them grace." (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, 167:15) Property of gentiles is like the desert; whoever among the Jews gets there first, owns it. (BT Baba Bathra 54b). A Jew was flogged by a rabbi for sexual intercourse with a gentile. The Jew went to the Romans, who in turn asked the rabbi why he had done this. The rabbi told the Romans that the Jew who was punished had engaged in sexual intercourse with a female donkey. The Romans exonerated the rabbi after Elijah the prophet came down from heaven and declared that the rabbi was telling the truth. After this, the Jew who was flogged called the rabbi a liar. The rabbi replied that he didn't lie, since "all gentiles are donkeys." The Jew who had been punished decided to tell the Romans what had really transpired, but the rabbi killed him. The rabbi was justified in killing him. (BT Berakoth 58a).
Open file (244.04 KB 1920x1080 53d21b63b.png)
>if they didn't have money they would just be terrible people in poverty destined for jail, without means to buy good lawyers or fallguys. A lot of people in Judaism are just pawns of the leaders of the cult. They are terrorized with stories about how everyone except the leaders of the cult are out to get them. I consider these victims of the cult more than anything, like someone who is, or allows themselves to be manipulated by Jim Jones or something similar. The primary difference is the scope. This is an international crime ring. They have been manipulating international politics and been the primary corrupting influence over what we are now told to call "the West" in a bid to make us forget our real roots in Christianity and the Bible. When I say primary, I mean to say that, if it wasn't specifically for the lies of this synagogue of Satan, a lot of the social problems of the world would never be. Things like abortion, divorce, pornography, drug abuse, all of these things are promoted against good doctrine by Judaism in order to weaken and corrupt the culture enough to be taken advantage of. They run modern activist organizations like ADL, SPLC, ACLU, in order to sue small schools in the middle of nowhere who have prayer times or write Bible verses in an exercise of free speech and freedom of religion, and use bribery and corrupt judges to remove the influence of the Bible as much as possible, while promoting promiscuity through the funding of hip hop and other disgusting "comedy" entertainment, including being the ones running and profiting from the porn industry and the divorce-lawyer industry, which their people fought to make legal and normalized in modern society, whereas before this was illegal. They also have a hand in the abortion industry. This is because killing the unborn, fornication and promuscuity and so forth are all allowed under Talmudic law, but the Bible rightly condemns it. The talmudists have sought to normalize all of this destructive behavior because they use it to benefit them at the expense of everyone else who is manipulated through watching Hollywood films and television shows, and again, Hollywood is a town "they" built up and is run by them. The purpose of Judaism in Hollywood, just as the purpose of Judaism in lobbying Washington and in activism against Christianity in small towns, has been to corrupt the culture to make it easy to profit from the misfortune and misery of others who are led away from Scripture and taken advantage of through various immoral profit mechanisms which they have set up in "the West" since the 1960s. That is also why you see so many of "them" (that is, active practicioners of talmudic judaism) in the legal system and among the judiciary. They are trying to replace the common law system we have inherited, which is based on Biblical principles like the Ten Commandments (which they try to remove from the courthouse), with something that is talmudic, where the judge legislates from the bench as is done in talmudic courts. There is a concept called "seven noahide laws" that they are trying to bring us under, see for instance Public Law 102-14 in the U.S. In Judaism courts, only the word of a person who claims to be a Jew is taken as valid, whereas "goyim" are considered animals. This is the direction these people are trying to take the world. They start with things like forcing abortion on our countries, which most of us still oppose but they get their lawyers and judges to force it anyway, and the end game they are aiming for is complete dehumanization (built on Judaic supremacy) based on explicitly anti-Christian systems like this, which purposely discriminate against Christians, as we see in the Colorado baker case as one example. Also the talmud allows sodomy, which is the true reason why they have been behind making it legal from the beginning. You have people like Saul Alinsky, Stanley Levison, Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer trying to create a corrupt, pro-Judaic modern culture that is explicitly anti-Christian and it's due to their malign, deliberately corruptive influence that things have gotten to the point that they are. Without that, we wouldn't be seeing the levels of degeneracy, sodomy and so forth that we are seeing. There would still be sin and corruption of some level, sure. But not the accursed aborted body parts industry, the Hollywood porn industry, the divorce lawyer industry, or the anti-Christian activist and lobbyist industry. It's really them, and their money, such as that of George Soros and others of the same type, that are behind it all. Public law 102-14 is their attempt to lay the groundwork for a future government system exclusively for the benefit of them, as opposed to the current Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) which is of the people, by the people, for the people as Lincoln once described it.
>>1603 There is some debate about these claims of the Talmud, some say they aren't there and others say they're in a special version of the Talmud, i can only confirm the part of Jesus boiling in excrement part. I need to do more research. Just right now i can't find the quote of "the jews are human being. The non-Jews are beasts and not human (Baba Mezia 114b http://www.halakhah.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html#PARTb http://www.halakhah.com/babamezia/babamezia_114.html#PARTb Which is odd because the video says it's there. >>1604 Do you really believe that that everything was fine before 1840 in America? The CIA also lead many civil rights groups like feminism in the 1960s. I know there are Jews who are in power, i just don't think they're a monolith of racial unity, Even if you were right about the Talmud, that would only be Talmudist part of Judaism, there are many kinds of different Jews with contradicting ideologies. Not all of the Jews have the capital means to enact their subversion, and what is to stop others in power from corrupting the world once the Jews are removed, especially when predatory lending practices aren't unique to the Jews? I don't think extermination is a very Christian or good way of handling it, but conversion is easily faked.
>>1551 no in the book of acts it shows non Christians casting out demons and also the Jesuits which is the military of the catholic church which controls all world governments https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=UKwYOK4Pcyk
>your sect is less shit than mine! fucking hell, the faux-analysis of this whole this is whole thread is laughable. I hope none of you think you have a high-ground over Qanon adherents.
>>1613 This idea that you HAVE to be a protestant or a Catholic is flawed, you can be neither and still be a Christian, there are non-denominational Christians regardless of Catholics believing that non-denoms are prots.
Open file (46.17 KB 480x480 1468021106862.jpg)
>>1611 >Just right now i can't find the quote of "the jews are human being. The non-Jews are beasts and not human That was in BT Niddah 45a, as quoted from my other post above. >There is some debate about these claims of the Talmud, some say they aren't there and others say they're in a special version of the Talmud Of course they say that, because they are just trying to hide the facts. Like how in islam, they use taqiyya, and taqiyya about taqiyya, etc. There are so many references though, there are so many places where this claim is made that it is simply untenable to defend it when presented by open scrutiny. Beyond what I have said, I have many more prepared to show that all these things are fact. For instance: All gentile children are animals (Yebamoth 98a). Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth (Abodah Zarah 36b). Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal. (BT Sanhedrin 59a). To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for it the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly. (BT Libbre David 37). If a Jew be called upon the explain any part of the rabbinic books, he ought to give only a false explanation. Whoever will violate this order shall be put to death. (BT Libbre David 37). Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording. (BT Schabouth Hag. 6d). Do not save Goyim in danger of death. (BT Hilkkoth Akum 11). A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them. (Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17). >I know there are Jews who are in power, i just don't think they're a monolith of racial unity, I agree, they are not a race at all. They merely have a lot of recessive genes due to too much inbreeding, and you might call them a caste in the same way that European royalty used to be one. This caste, mainly of eastern europeans, has nothing to do with the original Jews of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And we learn in the New Testament that the only Person whose racial descent actually matters is Christ. Otherwise, it doesn't have an effect on your ability to be saved. What matters is whether or not your mind and soul are right with God, and saved. >there are many kinds of different Jews with contradicting ideologies. Not all of the Jews have the capital means to enact their subversion Correction, there are many different people who mistakenly think they are "Jews" based on a misunderstanding of Scripture, which has modernly arose, that this even matters. The only true people of God are the saints. Among this group of people who claim to be Jews, and are not Jews as Jesus himself prophesied in the book of Revelation (chapter 2:9), among this group there are many who follow the Talmud which falsely teaches that one is saved by race. But both their assertion to themselves being the chosen people, as well as the idea of being saved simply by your parentage, whatever it may be, is false. >I don't think extermination is a very Christian or good way of handling it, but conversion is easily faked. Biblically speaking, we are not supposed to harm or remove the wicked, that is the job of government. Simply do not believe them or join them. If you can, show and expose where they are wrong from a Biblical mindset. And I would rather allow myself to be killed than agree with the claims of those false prophets/illegitimate Jews. That's because they go against the Bible.
Open file (57.36 KB 590x332 0002b.jpg)
>Do you really believe that that everything was fine before 1840 in America? No, there was slavery which was also supported by the non-Christians, the talmudists, who ran the slave ships and brought the slaves to America. They were also the majority of the slaveholders, despite what modern Hollywood depictions (which are also created and influenced by them) say. Most slaveholders in the pre-Civil war United States held to Judaism, not Christianity - This is despite the fact they were also a very small minority. They were behind much of the cause of the Confederacy existing. Zionist judaism was also behind the Nazi regime, which was officially Zionist and Nazy Germany killed many non-zionists of all backgrounds, even those professing to be Jews but also Christians, and others. This was in part to eliminate their ideological competitors. Everything, every great geopolitical war crime, everything goes back to talmudism, Judaism and the kabbalah as the entity responsible. And as I have said, with Biblical evidence, Satan is behind that. This is why Judaism should be opposed resolutely and with full determination, as it tries to replace our government(s) with a new "state religion" based on its "woke," or "politically correct/humanist," or "secular humanist" sensibilities. Secular humanism is an ideology that is ultimately based on the kabbalah, which is a system that is based on the Babylonian Talmud of Judaism. And we have already shown how Talmudic literature has, at its core, a kind of Judaism-supremacy built into the fabric of it. That is to say, anyone outside of those claiming to be Jews (even though ironically this is a false claim) is not even a human being, according to the Talmud and everything that recognizes that system. Talmudism is very supremacist. The only way to oppose it is to study the Bible, repent and follow the way of Christ. We have to join with Jesus Christ in His way that He started. In doing this, you can start to undo the lies, see the light of the truth which shines most brightly to those in a dark place, and the truth shall make you free, like it says in John chapter 8, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
Open file (187.42 KB 824x1174 878b1559e.jpg)
Open file (89.76 KB 602x372 1471813694334-1.JPG)
Open file (193.97 KB 834x794 MwvQw32.PNG)
>>1622 Couple more references here. Note also that the idea that blacks were the "descendants of Ham" and thus were properly slaves, that story actually has its original basis in the Talmud. It's not anywhere in the Bible, which is why you will never be able to find it there.
>>1621 I didn't find the quite of "Jews are human being, the non-jew are beasts and not human" But i found the disgusting and disturbing paragraphs about having intercourse with a three year old. >Biblically speaking, we are not supposed to harm or remove the wicked Propaganda of the deed isn't effective at all. > that is the job of government. I respect Scripture, but the government is full of terrible people defending those in power, like Michael Aquino. >. Most slaveholders in the pre-Civil war United States held to Judaism, not Christianity I picked 1840 because it was supposedly when German Jews immigrated to America, but i forgot about slavery. >This is why Judaism should be opposed resolutely and with full determination, as it tries to replace our government(s) with a new "state religion" based on its "woke," or "politically correct/humanist," or "secular humanist" sensibilities. I agree that liberal wokeness is Orwellian policing of the people, but the right wing is also in public's eye and have been compromised by intelligence agencies and the ruling elite like trump. Christianity is also been taken by it's enemies, there were freemasons ceremony present at KJV Baptist Church.
Open file (61.65 KB 576x768 Gorgia Guide Stones.jpg)
>>1622 >The only way to oppose it is to study the Bible, repent and follow the way of Christ. We have to join with Jesus Christ in His way that He started. In doing this, you can start to undo the lies, see the light of the truth which shines most brightly to those in a dark place, and the truth shall make you free, like it says in John chapter 8, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." totally agree. 2/2
Open file (1.59 MB 1920x1080 kjv_7.png)
>>1625 >Propaganda of the deed isn't effective at all. Trusting in God is highly effective. Romans 12: "17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." – Romans 12:17-21 "See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men." – 1 Thessalonians 5:15 "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." – 1 Timothy 2:1-4 >I respect Scripture, but the government is full of terrible people But see Romans 13: "1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." - Romans 13:1-7 And what does the Bible say about rioters and rebels? Well, there are a few passages on that: 2 Peter 2:9-14 "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin;" Proverbs 17:11 "An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him."
Open file (48.34 KB 474x355 stone.jpeg)
>>1627 Totally agree, putting our judgement onto others is a bad idea,as only Jesus and God will judge, the only thing I think we could do is lead them through the good path with conversion. Also the bible makes several reference that church/religion must not interfere with government ,that is where the phrase "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s". Also if we united both things ,we could have a similar church/government to the medieval ages, a church which made several decisions based on political circumstances,and ""christian"" rulers which only listened to the bible when they could use it on their enemies. In shor-term this is bad as it degenerates the church and the population,but in long-term is worst , as it creates a generation who has suffered under non-Christians that call themselves Christians ,so they start relating bad things to Christianity and won't accept Jesus because they don't want to know about Christ as for them it only brought destruction,while in reality Jesus brought salvation ,but some people used his named to corrupt and hurt many souls. Also John 8:7 " So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. "
>>1630 Also take my opinions with a big grain of salt , as those are opinions not truth
>>1627 You can be against the government without conflicting with Romans 13. When the government says to do something we should do it, but there are times where they try to superseded God's authority. Speaking against the government is lawful. God dose not give moral sanctions to immoral actions just because it was done by the Government, you can disagree with them. I can pay my taxes, and follow the government, but i can still speak against the government and unjust laws which is allowed by the government, and does not qualify as rebellion.
>>1630 >Also the bible makes several reference that church/religion must not interfere with government Well, individuals in government could be morally righteous and godly. There is no contradiction there. The people who founded the colonies and later the republic in the U.S. knew a lot about liberty. We have benefitted from that understanding of what "liberty" really is, which is biblical in origin (the word occurs in the Bible and they used that definition), because they have had a tremendous influence on world history. The problem that the founders sought to prevent was not that people must have "separation of belief from state." A separation of church and state was all that was intended. As we can gather from the "establishment clause." A church is a collective entity, not an individual simply expressing his convictions, whether they are religious or otherwise. Atheist humanists, which again partially includes Judaism, have long sought to create confusion about this, and to make all religious exercise be banished from government, and even from schools, etc. But of course, the secular humanists conveniently do not consider their own beliefs to be "religion" even though they are just as ideological in nature and even though they are faith-based assertions about the nature of things. Because of that misapprehension, those ideas are allowed free course in government. This is actually a whole new religion that is designed to evade this barrier, and it is called "wokism." The woke, politically-correct cult is cancerous and self-destructive of the very environment in which it was created in. Wokism is trying to become the new state religion, and it already has in some areas. In a lot of left-leaning areas, like Cali and New York, the state religion is already "politically correct wokism," and the public is not even allowed the option to believe otherwise for themselves (see various state government mandates with no exemptions allowed built on wokist principles). The rulers are shoving wokist, communist-style ideology (essentially, a religion based on pseudoscience) into everyone's face, whether they want to believe it or not, meanwhile Christians who have their own beliefs are not even allowed to openly express what they believe, because supposedly that goes against the separation of church and state. And supposedly, the founders intended this to happen? I think not. The real people that are trying to take over and destroy everyone's liberties are the politically correct wokists. >as it creates a generation who has suffered under non-Christians that call themselves Christians This is a fulfillment of Scripture, where it says in 2 Peter 2: "1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of." - 2 Peter 2:1-2 It also says this in 2 Timothy: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 2:3-4 And there is plenty more to speak of besides. Paul also spoke of his encounter with them once: "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." - Galatians 2:4-5 The original disciples also had Judas Iscariot in their midst. And Jesus knew it, according to John 6:70-71. >>1632 I think when you say "against government" you just mean peacefully disagreeing on some particular point, yes? That's not the same as wanting it to be overthrown though. In the rare case where the government does tell a Christian to violate the faith of Christ the Lord, the most honorable thing they can do is knowingly refuse and peacefully accept the punishment from the government. "For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:" - 1 Peter 2:19-21 And remember also what the word of God tells us in another passage: "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13
>>1636 >I think when you say "against government" you just mean peacefully disagreeing on some particular point, yes? The government is not our authority, God is. We are to obey the laws because it's good to do, and because of our conscience. However the authorities are only God's servants. In the OT authority/Kings is/are always corrupted, God sets the standard for valid authority but it's on earth it's always evil. I will peacefully disagree on government. The government is evil. https://archive.is/ZNn2N https://archive.is/ZSdup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SUNSHINE
Totally agree >>1639 with ,our and most governments in the past weren't created by God. >>1636 >Says that woke ideology is ruining the world no the government. > Meanwhile governments are anti-christian and follow wokism. The problem is that governments are becoming more and more anti-christian, and we can't just accept it, also as other people said ,not accepting the government ,means that I'm gonna start a violent takeover ,but maybe just move out, many Christians in the old and in the new testament keep circulating threw cities because they were hated , so if I find a land with no ownership(hypothetically most land is of greedy and suppressive governments) , would I be in sin only because I wanted better conditions for me or my family?,which didn't involved the damaged or the lose of faith, and just simplifies on me just not wanting to give money to anti-Christians which suppress me. >Also it's according to scripture This doesn't mean we can overlook or stay with a smirk on our face while we are save and the rest of the world burns. We need to improve the errors of the old corrupting church so the effect that i explained doesn't happen again. Also let's have a brain experiment: Let's say that your son is addicted to porn during the start of the apocalypse. The reasonable thing is to help him and show him salvation,but wait Revelation 22:11-15. Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy. So you know your sons lust and corruption is okay ,don't worry it was all planned. Being a Christian doesn't mean to do nothing while you assure yourself you will be saved, is knowing that you won in God's kingdom thanks to Christ sacrifice while you know you are gonna loose in man's-"kingdom" ,it's about smiling when you get rocks thrown at you,is showing salvation to those you know may never come back from Satan, is to do everything to save the word as Jesus said even if you know you will fail. So if we have been like this all of our history why stop during apocalypse . Also I would want to give an idea,(that maybe wrong), what if we aren't in apocalypse , there has been several "Fake apocalypse" ,haven't we all heard the theories about Roman times, during the medieval ages there were several things such as females rulers which could represent the woman who is with the beast, then in the contemporary age we see several people who opposed faith on God and tried to centralize power,what if this is just another "Phew we cascaded from it ",(remember this is just a thought not a claim).
As an Orthodox, the only political position allowed by the church fathers is imperial Christian monarchism. Western Christianity wouldn't have developed the heresies of secularism, ecumenism and liberalism if it stuck to the original political position of Christ which is an empire uniting all faithful under a basileus. Begome ordodogs :DDDD
>>1647 From my position as someone who follows the Bible, you are ecumenistic. That is in the sense that the various EOC communities allow all kinds of mystical, gnostic types of false prophets to have a place, even if what they say has no foundation in the teachings of Christ. It is also secular for the same reason, in the sense that it allows the politics of the world to influence it. That is why various eastern orthodox (which is what I'm assuming you mean) are based on worldly kingdoms, and not the one, heavenly kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And it will be present in the world when Christ returns. That's not an allegory for some manmade empire, it's a literal return of Christ in the flesh, just as He ascended into heaven, as it says in Acts 1. It already is present among the churches as well. But that would not include those who replace Christ as their head with a mere man, as the "state church" does. They think it's all just an allegory for some manmade kingdom. How misguided they are. My prayer is for them to accept the Savior now, to accept His words before it is eternally too late.
Open file (63.79 KB 803x803 1630854991936.jpg)
>French clergy sexually abused over 200,000 children since 1950, report finds https://archive.is/OnIaJ#selection-279.0-279.76 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/report-finds-216000-children-were-victims-french-clergy-sex-abuse-since-1950-2021-10-05/ That's 2,850 kids per year. You can't pretend it's just a few bad apples. It's systematic. The catholic church harbors the worst kind of sexual abusers, and does everything possible to cover up their crimes. Anyone who calls themselves catholic is a coward and a traitor to the human race. I can't think of an institution with a longer and more storied history of evil and wretchedness. There was a pope in the middle ages who said sex with kids was as natural as rubbing one hand against another. Clearly, that tradition lives on today. The Orthodox Church doesn't seem to have this problem.
>>1652 >mystical What's wrong with mysticism biblically? >Gnostic Orthodox church authorities do not acknowledge a demiurge or that the flesh is inherently evil. >false prophets John the Baptist was the last prophet. The church does not acknowledge new prophets. >That is why various eastern orthodox (which is what I'm assuming you mean) You really don't know anything about non-protestant Christianity do you? There's one Orthodox church. The greek orthodox, russian orthodox etc. are all part of the same church. These are regional distinctions, but all are united and equal in the same church. >are based on worldly kingdoms, and not the one, heavenly kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ They're not based on worldly kingdoms. The kingdom of Christ is not an allegory for a man-made empire. But it is a kingdom. It's not a "republic of Christ". Christ explicitly refers to his coming rule as a kingdom. If Christians are to organize in a community, and choose a government form based on Christian principles, then only monarchy makes sense. A single source of authority to which everything is subject. All western democracies were born as a rejection of Christian monarchical authority, and therefore are demonic. >>1656 Not forcing your priesthood be celibate helps avoid pedos. But to be fair to Catholics, homosexuals have infiltrated their clergy decades ago.
>>1658 >What's wrong with mysticism biblically? When it's used as a sieve to inject gnostic philosophy into things it is very wrong. >church authorities do not acknowledge a demiurge or that the flesh is inherently evil. Ok, good. But that alone doesn't make a person not a gnostic, or accepting of various ideas of that type. I'm thinking stuff like hesychasm, ascending to godhood, etc. >John the Baptist was the last prophet. The church does not acknowledge new prophets. If you know the Bible, you'll see that false prophets are mentioned by Peter in 2 Peter 2. He says that there shall be false prophets among you. John says the same thing in 1 John 4:1. Paul says the same in Acts 20:28-32. St. Jude says the same in his epistle, verses 3 and 4. Jezebel is claimed to be a "prophetess" in Revelation 2:20. These people claim to bring new revelation or new teaching, sometimes under the guise of it being "church tradition" but which is not in Scripture. This is similar to the pharisees whom Christ rebuked in Mark 7, saying, "laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men," and also, "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered". With this in mind, we are warned by Paul to withdraw from those who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which we have learned, and avoid them (Romans 16:17) and that, (1 Timothy 6:3-5): "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; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself." >There's one Orthodox church. There are many who claim to be orthodox. Even Judaism claims itself to be orthodoxy. Then you have monophysites, and so on. They claim to be the one true way. However, there is only "One Lord, one faith and one baptism" according to Paul, in Ephesians 4:5. And all of these are in disagreement despite whatever titles each applies to themselves. >A single source of authority to which everything is subject. The Constitution recognizes the Lord in the part where it mentions the year of our Lord, and the Declaration of Independence recognizes the Creator. Everyone, including the three branches of government are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, wherein God is recognized as the Supreme authority. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling (United States v. Macintosh, 1931) mentioned that "we are a Christian people," in reference to the argument made by Associated Justice David Brewer to the same effect in another ruling about forty years earlier, frankly acknowledging this fact. If you have a worldly king who is placed above you, then you are no longer part of "one nation under God." Under the so-called monarchic structure, you actually have a duopoly between serving a man (the "monarch") and God. So-called "monarchies" are actually duopolies, because it's not "one nation [directly] under God." Only by being one nation under God can one best serve and be protected from interference to serve God without interference. That is why we have freedom of religion, although that is under threat by wicked forces now; and I suppose always has been. Man cannot step into the authority of God. If you have imperfect man choosing what is allowed to believe, that prevents the spirit of liberty from prevailing. And liberty is a Biblically-defined concept, spoken of in multiple places in the New Testament. Hopefully that helps explain why replacing God with a man (in absolute authority) is not a biblical practice. After all, we learn that one cannot serve two masters. "Either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Matthew 6:24. >All western democracies were born as a rejection of Christian monarchical authority, and therefore are demonic. Nice misplaced nationalism. Not that I have a problem with that idea in itself. We see that the nations still exist in the final kingdom. But if you think that replacing truth with eastern mystical philosophies, like meditation to make oneself ascend to godhood, then you are incredibly misguided. The truth is not based on a geographic location. Being located in a certain vicinity does not make one true. Being located in Asia does not make a belief system reliable, and if you base your thought process on that kind of thinking you are severely misguided and vulnerable to subversion by satanic falsehoods, which you will swallow because they come from a certain region. If you want to talk Hollywood or western media, then yeah definitely that is very demonic. But that comes from Judaism, as I have previously argued above; If Judaism was in Russia, that would not make it any more true. And in fact, that was the basis of revolutionary bolshevism originally.
>>1658 God and Jesus are the only ones who can be kings,as they are perfect.While human kings make errors and could even sin. And before you say dinasties were choosen by God, the political landscape changes, maybe they marry and have kids with non-choosen people,maybe they are killed in a war,etc. God is perfect and cannot make error humans can,so I think that just don't having a monarchy would affect. Besides in the bible they are very clear that church must be separated from state,unlike judaism which have both into one.
>>1662 All power comes from God. So it doesn't matter whether a dynasty was "chosen" or not. Man errs, falters and sins. But if Christians are to organize politically, it's only under a monarchical system. There's many Christian arguments for monarchy that don't amount to divine bloodlines. The simplest and most compelling one is that God's kingdom has one ruler, therefore a Christian kingdom is to have one ruler as well. >>1661 The Orthodox teachings aren't gnostic. If you're talking about the essence-energy distinction, you don't understand it. >There are many who claim to be orthodox. Even Judaism claims itself to be orthodoxy lolwut Orthodox is simply a word that means "true faith". Orthodox Jews share only the name with Orthodox Christians. All Christian denominations lay claim to following the "true faith" so in a sense all claim themselves Orthodox. The term is used to distinguish our Church from Catholicism. But our Church defines itself as Catholic as well. Catholic means "universal" and I assume most Christian denominations would define themselves as universal as well, according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Monophysites aren't Orthodox because they are, well, monophysites. Monophysitism isn't upheld by Biblical or Church tradition, therefore it is heretical. But there isn't a Monophysite church. What you're referring to are the Miaphysites. And they too, are not Orthodox because Jesus wasn't of two natures but one. There is one Orthodox Catholic Apostolic church. The various Patriarchates recognize each other as equal and participate in the same tradition. Apostolic being the keyword here. Christ had disciples, his disciples were commanded to spread His word. They did so by establishing a Church to continue his teachings. All Orthodox Patriarchs can be traced to the Apostles through apostolic succession. And a continuous living and breathing union of all faithful through the ages is necessary. Both for the survival of the faith, and to maintain a correct understanding of His teachings. Hence Orthodox, hence Catholic, hence Apostolic. Case in point: >We see that the nations still exist in the final kingdom. Nations didn't mean "countries". It meant "ethnic groups" or "races". The reference in the passage is to the differences between humans persisting, rather than being mixed out. >replacing truth with eastern mystical philosophies, like meditation to make oneself ascend to godhood, then you are incredibly misguided. Are you referring to Hesychasm? It's not about "ascending to Godhood", but knowing God's energies. Not God himself, for He is unknowable by human understanding. But his emanations. And it has not much similarities with meditation. There's no stilling of the mind, but an intense focus on the name of Jesus Christ and prayers calling out to Him. An intense focus on Jesus Christ isn't unbiblical. And the Bible often refers to mystics and mystical experiences. It's not a practice for laymen. It requires intense ascesis, an absolute detachment from the world of man with the intent to focus on Christ alone. Ascetism isn't unbiblical either, in case you want to go there. >The truth is not based on a geographic location. Being located in a certain vicinity does not make one true I'm not sure where you're going with this. The Orthodox Church is based on truth because it follows the true teachings of Jesus Christ correctly through the ages. >If you want to talk Hollywood or western media, then yeah definitely that is very demonic. But that comes from Judaism And Judaism was let into America by Protestants. These are Protestantism's fruits, and by Protestantism's fruits the whole world knows Protestantism. There's such a thing as too much freedom, unbridled individualism. The opposite proposed by Catholicism, a strict collectivism, is also evil. The answer is a synthesis. Not a middle ground. But the totality of all faithful united in a common love. That's Sobornost. It is found in Orthodoxy.
>>1663 "True doctrine" not "true faith". Sorry.
Open file (78.42 KB 1024x837 6569273e.jpg)
>>1663 >Orthodox is simply a word that means "true faith". Actually it means "right way/doctrine" like said above. Ortho- is a prefix literally meaning right. I'm glad to see you recognize this point though, so I don't have to keep explaining it. There are many, whether you want to or they want to call them, oriental orthodox, eastern orthodox, Roman orthodox, Joseph Smith orthodox, it doesn't matter. They all disagree, despite all claiming that name for themselves and none of them represent the Biblical faith that is founded upon truth. They do not stand on Scripture as their foundation, but something else, something other than God's word. That means they are manmade and bound to fail. "Falsehood" is all that will fail. It will fail you. Unlike the word of God (which is Truth), falsehood will end up destroying those that place their faith in it, for they are placing faith in something outside of God and His word. I think I said this before at some point but I'm just repeating it again just in case to make it clear. If you place your faith in anything except God's word, then it is bound to fail. Because it was made by man. Peter distinguished the two clearly in 2 Peter 1:20-21. The difference is that Scripture, which is the entire Old and New Testament, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This is the true basis God gave for all to believe. And it says in 1 John 5:10, "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son." The Bible is the record that God gave of His Son. I implore you to study these things and find that there is no basis in Scripture for mystical meditations to reach higher states of "quasi-godhood," nor for many of the other things like worshipping images, infant baptism, and so forth. That is all manmade tradition, which is why you won't find it in Scripture, such as what Christ rebuked in Mark chapter 7 as previously cited. That is false teachers, who are rebuked in the following passage: "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered". It is said that they had laid aside and abandoned the commandment of God, the written word given in Scripture, which is what contains the doctrine of Christ. And the Holy Spirit is God, who teaches us from Scripture, as it says in 1 Corinthians 2:12-13, "12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." (cont'd)
>>1668 There is one Teacher and Master for us, even our Lord God. And the people of God are able to be taught and made whole through the study of God's word. See 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Acts 20:32. We have no need that man teach us some new thing, after the faith "once delivered to the saints" was given, as John told us already in 1 John 2:27. "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." - 1 John 2:27 The false prophets I was mentioning before, who enter in, like it is warned about in the New Testament, have no chance to get in between the people of God and His word. More or less, nothing you said was based on a single reference of Scripture. The basis of what you say has no authority, as it is not in line with the Holy Bible. What I have been pointing out however is merely in line with standard biblical doctrine. You can look up these things for yourself directly in the Bible. I have been quoting Scriptures consistently to show that these things are so. This is all the evidence anyone ever needs to see what God's word, the Bible, actually teaches and actually says. In this way I have given people a biblical reason why they should consider these things. This is far superior to the mere word of man alone and authority of man alone. Also, I'm not going to get into discussing gnostic practices with you at this time. I've pointed out the error, now it's on you to find that out for yourself. If you want to follow Christ, you cannot do so if you reject His word. But you can if you believe His word, like it says of Abraham, who was justified by his faith in God's eyes, before he had done any works. This is what is said in Romans chapter 4. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said, in John 11:26, "And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" -- Now whoever will not believe (i.e. John 5:40), that is, does not want to believe, what Jesus Himself has told us, has made God a liar as I already quoted above in 1 John 5:10. Christ Jesus again also told us in John 12:48, that whosoever rejects Him, and does not receive His words, has one that judgeth him: "the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." Don't let that be you simply for rejecting the Gospel message of our Lord Jesus while you had the chance in this life. If you have questions, I will try to find biblical answers for you. Otherwise, I'm praying for you; Stay safe, anon. "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men." - 1 Cor. 7:23.
>>1668 >>1669 That post above was me correcting myself. You claim orthodoxy as well, which is the point I was making. The usage of the term is a convenience to distinguish us from Protestants and Catholics. But historically we have simply referred to ourselves as Christian. >More or less, nothing you said was based on a single reference of Scripture That's intentional. I don't use my personal interpretation of biblical texts as a way to decide my morality and theology for myself. That's too much hubris. Too much pride, self-aggrandizing and glorifying of the pitiful disgusting human ego as divine. Which is what you're doing. The bible doesn't give you "hard truths", it suddenly leads you to discover that ZOGmerica is the new Jersualem of all Christians, you're the true inheritor of a sacred tradition and that only you understand it correctly and properly. The reason being, that "jesus" dubiously blessed you to understand a collection of books compiled in 400 AD by Orthodox (well, Chalcedonian) Christians. Somehow those Christians were wrong in everything they ever believed, but the books they selected are the correct ones. These books were written by the Apostles. And according to you, they didn't pass down their authority to anyone. Instead they somehow expected that these books would be properly organized by a group that is "not Christian" 400 years later. Then translated and edited by a rosicrucian pederast (Francis Bacon was a Rosicrucian). And that only the citizens of a baby-sacrificing sodomite corrupt zionist republic would be the ones to understand it correctly. I'll leave talmudic analysis of scripture to Jews. They can quote obscure verses from dead books to explain why they're the only ones chosen by God all day long. But the Bible is alive, and part of a living tradition that survived unchanging since the birth of Christ. You can quote scriptures to prove ascetics praying earnestly to Jesus Christ is suddenly heretical. I could even reply back by bringing up Bible passages that support Ascetism and Mysticism (trust me, there's many). But I don't care to do it because it's vulgar and cheapens the Good Book. It turns the whole thing into the talmudic screeching of two senile rabbis. This is what I meant when I said Protestantism is overly individualistic. Your worldview is one where the individual, not Christ, is king. There's no authorities over you but God, whose word you can twist and interpret to your liking. The conclusions you come to are suspiciously what you wanted to hear. Which sounds a lot like the suggestions of a certain guy downstairs. But I'm trying really hard not to judge so I won't go there.
>>1674 >That's too much hubris. Too much pride, self-aggrandizing and glorifying of the pitiful disgusting human ego as divine. No, it's because you don't have any biblical basis. If it was so you'd be able to show me. In Acts 18:28, it is said that the apostle Paul did not rely on his own word alone, although he very well could have. What he did was show by the scriptures that these things were so. We also see that the Bereans are an example of a Christian church, and in Acts 17:11 it says, "they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." I am sure there are plenty of readers who are willing to receive the word and search the scriptures. Paul himself said in Romans 10:17 that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Therefore, you can't promote faith without also having the word of God, which is the written Scripture, the written word in the Old and New Testament. Without it, you are going nowhere. You're just relying on your own authority, or placing yourself on the same level or a superior level, as if no biblical justification was needed and people should just believe you alone. Christ also commanded us to "Search the Scriptures" in John 5:39. And at the beginning of the book of Revelation, it says "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand." So, there absolutely is no reason to be superstitious about biblical doctrine. God is not the author of confusion. As it says in Ephesians 2:18, "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." So then two saved people will be able to come to the same conclusion, because it's the same "Spirit of truth" (John 16:13) that is guiding them. It is God, not man that is responsible for convicting the world. And we are commanded to use His word. 2 Timothy 4:1-2 "I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." Titus 1:9 "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." 1 Corinthians 4:1-2 "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." So that proves that we are to use the word of God to exhort others unto the truth. 2 Timothy 2:24-25 says "the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth". The Psalmist also wrote in Psalm 119, "And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth; for I have hoped in thy judgments." The Gospel is something fit to be declared. For evidence of that, see what Tyndale, one of the translators of old wrote, a man from England/Wales who first translated the New Testament to English in 1525, >Evangelion (that we call the gospell) is a Greek word; and signifieth good, merry, glad and joyful tidings, that maketh a man's heart glad, and maketh him sing, dance, and leap for joy. As when David had killed Goliath the giant, came glad tidings unto the jewes, that their fearful and cruel enemy was slain, and they delivered out of all danger: for gladness whereof, they sung, danced, and were joyful. In like manner is the Evangelion of God (which we call Gospel; and the New Testament) joyful tidings; and as some say, a good hearing published by the apostles throughout all the world, of Christ the right David how that he hath fought with sin, with death, and the devil, and overcome them. [...] This evangelion or gospell (that is to say, such joyful tidings) is called the new testament. Because that as a man when he shall die appointeth his goods to be dealt and distributed after his death among them which he nameth to be his heirs. Even so Christ before his death commanded and appointed that such evangelion, gospell, or tidings should be declared through out all the world, and there with to give unto all that believe all his goods, that is to say, his life, where with he swallowed and devoured up death: his righteousness, where with he banished sin: his salvation, where with he overcame eternal damnation. (cont'd)
Open file (1.62 MB 310x566 1507317925181.gif)
>The reason being, that "jesus" dubiously blessed you to understand a collection of books compiled in 400 AD by Orthodox (well, Chalcedonian) Christians. Somehow those Christians were wrong in everything they ever believed, but the books they selected are the correct ones. In Acts 12:24 it says, "But the word of God grew and multiplied." So we see that the word of our Lord was already spreading, and this is before the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John was even written. If people heard the word of God in the book of Acts and the Gospels, and took those things on God's authority, being convicted of the truth of God's word, it's the same today. Nobody during the Gospels was looking for the seal of approval of some group of humans to make sure they were hearing the word of God. If they did, they turned to false bodies like the pharisees. Talmudic, pharisaical, and state church intepretations (whether Roman, oriental state church, etc.) are of the same type: Extrabiblical, something extra on top of what God inspired, and not in line with God's word. If you want to place your belief in men rather than in the veracity of God to commend His word to us, that makes you a believer in men. That makes you a believer in forces of this world, rather than our Lord in heaven. But I take God as an authority, which is why I rely on His word, like it says in 1 Thess. 2:13 and 1 John 5:9, and it is God who I trust, not men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." That's what the apostle John wrote. Now with regards to your specific council. I am pretty sure those people added apocrypha, if I am not mistaken. If they did add apocrypha then that shows how misguided they are, and that I do not rely on them. If they did not add any apocrypha, then good for them. >And according to you, they didn't pass down their authority to anyone. Right, there are not new prophets and apostles writing new books of the Bible today. The apostles we have, who are currently in heaven, are still fulfilling their role every time we open the New Testament and read their pure and uncorrupted words from the 1st century AD. That's why I've been quoting from them incessantly. Of course, we also read that the natural man receiveth not the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14) and that they are foolishness to him. So, many unsaved people reject the word of God that they are given, and so have a difficult time understanding it. As it says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." >ZOGmerica is the new Jersualem of all Christians, Did I say that? >Instead they somehow expected that these books would be properly organized by a group that is "not Christian" 400 years later. St. Peter knew, according to what he wrote in the book of 1 Peter, that the word of the Lord endures forever. So yes, the apostles did have the faith that the inspired word of God (which they received - S. John 17:14,20, Galatians 1:12) will never pass away or vanish (i.e. Matthew 24:35, Luke 16:17, 1 Peter 1:23-25, Psalm 119:160, Proverbs 30:5-6, Isaiah 30:8, Isaiah 59:21). This is the same thing that I believe today. And no, it doesn't come through the group you claim it for, it comes through the church: which is the pillar and ground of the truth. They are the safeguarders of Scripture, if you will. >And that only the citizens of a baby-sacrificing sodomite corrupt zionist republic would be the ones to understand it correctly. Again, it's not specific to one region or country. I don't know why this is tripping you up. Anyone who is saved by God's grace will come to the same conclusion about Scripture. The Spirit of truth is the guide into all truth, and He will teach and bring all things to the remembrance of his people (John 14:26, 16:13-14). >You can quote scriptures to prove ascetics praying earnestly to Jesus Christ is suddenly heretical. Yeah man I never said this. >There's no authorities over you but God, whose word you can twist and interpret to your liking. Not at all, I believe I quoted Romans 13 above >>1627 There are spheres of authority God has set up. Jesus said to Pilate that no man could have any power except it were given to him from above. There is the government, the family and the church - three. Each of these spheres operates in its own authority. But of course, God is above all, and has established all. It is according to His wisdom that we are placed under these authorities. Hopefully that makes sense and I need not provide more Bible quotes to prove that point also.
>>1551 anything that isn't greek orthodox is hertical cathloics worship satan and the "pope" is a gaint faggot that deservs to burn prods never shut the fuck up about how you are wrong every other sect just worships the anticrist
>>1682 So if you're a Russian, that's heretical?
>>1684 Russian Orthodox are the same denomination as Greek Orthodox. By "greek orthodox" he meant "orthodox christians" to differentiate from orthodox jews. Might sound dumb, but we have retards like >>1661 that claims Orthodox = Hasidic = "what is Orthodox, really? Can you point out a 'pure' Orthodox? Define Orthodox". I swear some protestants are as bad as Jews in playing dumb to win arguments. Must be all the talmudic muh scriptures autism that allows both of them the racial perk of feigned retardation.
>>1685 Sorry, I didn't know the truth had a national / country component to it. That's all. I thought the one faith, one Lord and one baptism meant exactly that. I didn't know you had to be a certain ethnicity or whatever. I thought the truth was eternal and didn't rely on such things as nationality. Even though I'm not personally of Greek nationality, my church would be considered truly orthodox, and the New Testament was written in Greek, so I guess that means me. But you seem to have the wrong idea about what the word orthodox means, because it means the truth, not nationality, so you have need of correction on that front. >that claims Orthodox = Hasidic = "what is Orthodox, really? Can you point out a 'pure' Orthodox? Define Orthodox". That's not how that post went at all. I was just calling out the hypocrisy of someone who thinks that a cult should be considered "the orthodox religion" just because they put that in their title when they also worship idols at the same time, which is something that is absolutely forbidden the commandment of God. You can't be orthodox just because you call yourself that. Being true is a whole lot more than that. Hopefully that now makes sense, and of course you are not saved by your ethnicity. Contrarily, you are not prevented from the truth simply not by being a certain race. That's not how it works. That's not what the apostles wrote in the New Testament. >Must be all the talmudic muh scriptures autism You think the talmud is scripture? I've been talking about the Bible this whole time. Do you think the Gospel of John or of Mark is the talmud? I mean, that's what you're saying now. Quoting Scripture like Acts or Romans is somehow "talmudic," according to you? Or is the real problem just that you simply do not know the word of our Lord, and so demeaning the Bible by calling it talmudic is your "comeback" to that? What are you even doing on the christian board with that kind of irreverent attitude? What's worse, is that you have been couching your irreverence with a holier-than-thou attitude and terminology, calling yourself the arbiter of the truth, even though it's clear you don't actually know a single bit of God's word. But you still think some combination of your ethnicity or doing some cultic rituals like sprinkling an infant, counts more than the word of Christ? You know the Gospel was meant to be preached, right? If you don't like it, then by all means, stop posting until you have a better understanding of it. You are encouraged to go read Scripture if you are unfamiliar, and doubly so if discussion of the eternal Truth bothers you that much. You know, the pharisees didn't like the written word of God. They would rather talk about their own "oral law" which was basically their manmade tradition. That was what they were comfortable talking about. It's the same with all these false christians in the world as well. They are worldly as well. You are only comfortable when talking about manmade traditions. The word of God makes you uncomfortable. You don't like it. The truth rebukes your errors. Like it says in John 3, "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." And again, "every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." It was the same with the pharisees - Which is why they even wrote the "talmud," ironically, in the first place. It was their own little side tradition, which the Lord Jesus Christ told them directly violates the truth of Scripture. It wasn't the word of God. It wasn't the Scripture. So, do you really think the talmud is scripture? or is that your only comeback which ironically applies more to the idol-worshipping cultists with the big funny hats, more than it does to someone who actually knows the Scripture? I guess when you made that irreverent comment, you were just way too busy trying to protect whatever cult leader and you didn't realize you just insulted the word of God by comparing it to the god-forsaken talmud.
>>1687 lol, I knew some bait would get you to crawl out of the woodwork to write another theology novel.
>>1690 Glad I could be of help, anon.
>>1687 Even if I don't agree with the idea of monarchies as the only correct political system,as from my point of view there isn't enough evidence on the Bible to support that.I agree with you in that Jesus cans save everyone no matter his ethnicity and that we shouldn't obsess in rituals and focus more on actually doing the word of God.
>>1551 >implying demons don’t also suffer from infighting and internal power struggles

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?