/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.
Open file (419.75 KB 729x718 ClipboardImage.png)
>pic related is /pol/-tier mixing with zuckbook-tier meme formatting >muh cultural marxism >And I know for sure that the races aren't equal. if you aren't aware that God doesn't favor any particular race, you're doing it wrong. fuck off back to your containment board on halfchan. if you're actually serious, practice inviting God and worshipping him in your own home if you're so inclined. you must be retarded to not realize that "racist" churches like that barely exist outside of small white sub-urban towns (even then it's no guarantee), let alone have that way of thinking as a christian. or just suck it up and ignore that part of the sermon and quit your bitching.
>>2018 Not possible in weimerica
>>2021 Except God clearly does favor a race. He made two separate humanities. And Israel is his peculiar people.
>>2023 no. see gen 1:26-27 and john 3:16
Open file (138.00 KB 881x703 1632519843000.png)
>>2021 >if you aren't aware that God doesn't favor any particular race The thing is races aren't equal. That's the simple truth. Like individuals aren't equal or men and women aren't too. Equality is a lie made by envious and destructive people. There is no love in equality. Love gives each person what he/she needs which may be more money or even going to jail to learn. And cultural marxism is very real. If someone says it doesn't exist and is a conspiracy them the Frankfurt school doesn't exist which is basically another name to the same thing. And it does. You can even read the books like authoritarian personality which is a empirical study built backwards from the conclusions. And it basically does what politically correct ideology does. Blames white males and healthy white family values for everything, You should study more if you aren't being deliberately ignorant >>2023 Jews rejected christ. The ones we have probably don't even are descended from ancient 0 AD jews. And if God favors the people who lawyer around his own laws on that satanic book called talmud and are involved in all sorts of evil things like Epstein which he condemns then God is stupid or a liar. But he is omnipotent and good. Therefore he can't be. Therefore can't favor the jews currently.
Open file (115.06 KB 300x236 ClipboardImage.png)
>>2025 >The thing is races aren't equal. you're strawmanning btw. no one said races are equal. but right, races aren't equal. however, the problem is that you're ignoring the fact that all races are a product of God's creation whether you're a kike, nigger, yt, spic, zipperhead, and God loves them all equally and that's the truth. but there's nothing wrong with respecting them without conflict because we aren't animals. we're human and we're better than dogs that can't even recognize each other without smelling their asshole. each race has their weaknesses and strengths. there's many ways you can respect another race without kneeling down to suck their dick, believe it or not. one of those ways, to not only respect them better, but also give respect to yourself is to stop fearing them (AKA stop giving a fuck). for one, look at you're hamming on about cultural marxism this and politically correct that, you look so weak. that kind of shit genuinely belongs at /pol/ and this really isn't the place nor religion to do this here. do you seriously think God wants you to fear His creations? second, you're ignoring the wishes of God, to respect his creations, purposefully ignoring the holy texts. you're sinning and He's punishing you right now with fear. idk bud, but it looks like to me that you're the one being deliberately ignorant of our own religion.
>>2026 also wanted to add that the fathers doing the "i'm not a racist" sermons and shit like that are also sinning too FYI. this is the reason why i exclusively worship and do everything related to God at home.
>>2026 >you're strawmanning btw. Now you are too >but also give respect to yourself is to stop fearing them I don't fear God fearing blacks who attend a good church and act respectful. But I don't know in what planet you are living but they are doing huge lootings, black athletes spike drinks to rape white girls along others and our Babylon you know what overlords enable and weaponize them in a form of anarcho-tyranny where you can't defend yourself or you are "racist". They basically spoil the blacks into becoming a bunch of grown up violent brats and you tell me ohh well you are just afraid of them. Why don't you just accept it. You are like one of those soccer mom's that says boys will be boys after her son took a dump in the church pan for a communal lunch. If you are being sincere you have no common sense. That's not what's better for them. That's not love. >>2027 I have seen some videos of orthodox fathers that seem pretty good. But there isn't any in my town. And some do the I am not racist thing. I think I will have to do just that like. Maybe find some like minded Christians on the internet in a safer place than anonymous image boards to bond
Open file (888.11 KB 754x1000 ClipboardImage.png)
>>2031 i see. i understand you a better now, but it's still a bit disappointing to hear that you're still captivated by fear and politics and are still fearmongering. you might have misconstrued what i said in >>2026 but i never meant that as in a "just deal with it" way like you interpreted it. i never advocated that it's fine and normal. the fact is tragedies happen every day in this world, i hate to break it to you, but unless something immediately personal like your sister got raped, there isn't anything we can do about it right now other than pray and just spread messages and thoughts of goodwill to one another and discouraging that type of that uncivilized behavior, because we simply won't have power or relevance in that scenario especially in the fucked judicial system in both america and europe. we have more control in a personal case-per-case basis, you see what i mean? really the only way to reform the problems you mentioned is to become a politician (KEK) or become a member of law enforcement which comes with its own caveats. >I think I will have to do just that like. Maybe find some likeminded Christians on the internet in a safer place than anonymous image boards to bond can't give any suggestions on any online sites. you may have better luck with sites with communities that are strict with the division of Christianity and politics (i guess you can consider me as a part of a community like that. but mind that the reason why this thread irked me is because you'd be fine with current-day politics mixing with our religion as long as you agree with it, eg. races aren't equal, and you never addressed and outright refused loving God's creations) you can start with your immediately family and friends if they're Christian and do studying with them. if they (or anyone else) are curious why you don't attend church if they also go to church, you can simply explain that you invite God into your own home and life and feel comfortable and blessed to worship Him there. it's seriously really fun and involved making your own sessions, taking it at your own pace. for example, i keep a personal journal writing down verses i love, and i set goals for myself in that journal as well. the hardest part honestly is finding things to do and of course, you are no longer part of a bigger community, but it's liberating in a sense and i just feel that much closer to God that way.
Open file (164.88 KB 500x671 1632869159505.jpg)
>>2032 You don't seem to listen to me so I gonna treat you like a shill and write for the lurkers. Turning the other cheek is about revenge. Not about being a doormat without assertiveness which is what you are preaching. Being passive in the face of evil is being an accomplice. I don't feel revengeful against blacks that loot and murder. If they repent and stop doing it (which they likely won't) I won't retaliate. If they threaten someone on the other hand and I can do something to prevent it then I will. You'd do an awful parent with that thinking. Just letting your kid do anything he/she likes without consequences. Politics is a way to assert yourself. Being apolitical is basically being a cuck a doormat. What you are doing is the same as watching all women in the west being raped with a taser in your hand while you say: Oh well, my unitarian pastor said I can't do anything... >and you never addressed and outright refused loving God's creations Liar. Your nose is probably hooked
Open file (944.43 KB 1508x1000 ClipboardImage.png)
>>2039 >You don't seem to listen to me so I gonna treat you like a shill and write for the lurkers. >Turning the other cheek is about revenge. Not about being a doormat without assertiveness which is what you are preaching. >Politics is a way to assert yourself. Being apolitical is basically being a cuck a doormat. What you are doing is the same as watching all women in the west being raped with a taser in your hand while you say: Oh well, my unitarian pastor said I can't do anything... >You'd do an awful parent with that thinking. Just letting your kid do anything he/she likes without consequences. LOL, you are severely lacking in the reading comprehension department if you're too blind to see what i wrote, because that isn't my mindset at all. specifically, i have even said that i worship God at home, so i don't have a pastor because i don't believe in that kind of thing. what's funnier about your post is that you took it as a malicious attack instead of genuine advice like all the other usual /pol/ "OMG HES OUT TO GET ME" schizos do, and attempt to divide us by "speaking for the lurkers". go ahead and continue to feel that way, you're only continuing to do yourself a disservice. >Liar. Your nose is probably hooked typical /pol/ack retardation-phrase that every single sturmfag turns to when their feelings get hurt. you lack zero self-awareness you poor fool.
Open file (255.77 KB 558x781 Church_of_Sweden.jpg)
>>2039 No one even brought up turning the other cheek. There's a difference between working to build up immediate relationships with your family, friends, and community versus politics. The world of politics involves jockeying for power at all costs, even undermining people doing work that would benefit a nation as a whole just because they're on the other side in some other political question. When politics and law are seen as natural solutions, rather than flawed ones, it promotes the spirit of division. In addition, the result of conjoining faith and politics has always been the desecration of faith in favor of politics, never its elevation. In 1900 by all accounts Sweden was one of the most pious societies in all Europe, with a strong state church established during the Reformation by Gustav Vasa. The Social Democratic Party that came into power in the 20th century used this arrangement to destroy the church from within by elevating those that supported their political positions and excluding those that did not. Faith is corrupted by officialdom. The national churches of Europe were happy to oblige the state at the height of European imperialism, but that same relationship with the state led to their secularization until by the early 2000s they may as well not be considered Christian. You can see the same pattern in the mainline church organizations in the United States, which went along with whatever was dominant in politics at the time and now go along with the ideology of the woke. You can see it in the past with the continual manipulation of church appointments, most of all the Holy See, throughout Medieval and Early Modern Europe. The same pattern of the subjugation of religion to the concerns of the secular, destroying the health of the former and the soul of the latter. This is a confusion that Constantine introduced into the church when he made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, and it's a confusion that should be cast out.
I'm afraid the truth has nothing to do with radical racism. While the Orthodox church has laws about not buying from jews (because of all the slaughter they did), no one, ever would try and mix racism with Christian doctrine. >>2025 >The thing is races aren't equal. That's the simple truth. Like individuals aren't equal or men and women aren't too. And? Why does it matter when the society gives out the basic rights necessary for one's spiritual development? >>2031 >But I don't know in what planet you are living but they are doing huge lootings, black athletes spike drinks to rape white girls along others and our Babylon you know what overlords enable and weaponize them in a form of anarcho-tyranny where you can't defend yourself or you are "racist". Do you really need a separate church teaching to support you in these times of extreme hypocritics? It seems you've just adopted their narrative: "if you oppose the spoiling, you're a racist". You're playing along. Lol.
Okay, sorry about that >>2057 rant earlier, I've re-scrolled the thread and it seems there's a lot of bs going on at the protestant churches. I don't take back my words about adopting the narrative though. What's especially wrong about racism is that you judge by bodily image, not heart. I think any old church would do: classic catholics, eastern orthodox and so on. >>2039 > Being apolitical is basically being a cuck a doormat. That's also bs btw. You just juggle with imaginary worldy concepts. Please figure out what you want to actually DO. I highly doubt that it's called "politics", rather something about a grassroot community.
Reminder that Jesus Christ our lord and savior is pro guns.
>>2062 Read Luke 22:36 and Luke 22:37 right aftewards, then change your opinion.
>>2023 Israel was never some racially exclusive entity. Are you forgetting that Moses married Zipporah, a Midianite? Or the entire book of Ruth? Esther 8:17 talks of large amounts of people becoming 'Jews' as well. Racism is not Biblical. This doesn't mean that races don't exist.
Open file (90.44 KB 633x797 adam_blessed_lineage.jpg)
>>2021 I disagree.. God certainly favors Japheth and Shem, though both in different ways. He favors Israel over Judah, just as he favored Abel over Cain. God has always had a "favored son," just as he favored certain people to be Prophets.
>>2107 >He favors Israel over Judah That He let them be destroyed first?
Open file (1.83 MB 921x2396 etymology_of_jew1.jpg)
Open file (1.41 MB 840x2043 etymology_of_jew2.jpg)
>>2108 Even after the Kingdom of Israel is destroyed, the Israelites are favored. Judea was the home of the Pharisees and Edomites, whereas the former Israel was partitioned by many tribes and Kingdoms, including Galilee.
>>2109 >the Israelites are favored. > He favors Israel over Judah Yeah, and that's why Jesus comes from Judah lol
>>2118 Judea and Judah are entirely separate, Judea was a province in the roman empire which was similar to a melting pot. While Judah was one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Either way God's word indicates that God's chosen people were supposed to set an example for the other people groups to follow. Hence why the 6th church in revelation is praised so thoroughly, As they spread the word of the lord throughout the world, While the 7th church that doesn't follow God's righteous law is condemned. The only benefits of being God's chosen people are being favored by God which admittedly is pretty big. but also having to bare the responsibility of such a favor. The Jews also fit none of the prophecies which the Tribes of Israel were meant to fulfill. It's also why I find it hilarious when this anon >>2026 says God loves all people. When he clearly says in Malachi 1:3 "and hated Esau and laid waste his borders, and made his heritage as dwellings of the wilderness?" If god was always tolerant then he can't love because without hatred you can't love. And God has clearly shown he at least hates the edomites. You can also add the Canaanites to the mix of people groups God clearly disliked.
>>2123 God does love all people, that is why out of His inexhaustible love and mercy He sent his only-begotten Son into the world. We also know that God is a God "who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) and wishes for the repentance of all rather than their condemnation (Ezekiel 18:23). People such as the Edomites and the Canaanites indeed arouse God's ire for their actions - as Psalm 5:5 says "You hate all evildoers". I do wonder though if the hatred held by God is a hatred different from the hatred of man, because from Scripture we simultaneously have statements of both God's love for all, and his hatred of evil, and of evildoers - while seeming to love them still. He died for sinners, even the most abominable ones. I think it would be silly to claim that God hated Canaanites and Edomites for merely existing. He hated them because they were workers of evil. If they had repented, it would have been a different story. Ironically, their refusal and genocide by the Israelites in the case of the Canaanites was probably to their benefit, otherwise they would have persisted in their Moloch-worship until the ends of their natural lives. It was a blessing and a mercy in disguise.
>>2135 Indeed. The war in Canaan can be better understood as the Israelites coming in to reinforce their extant correligionists in the region. Those who bowed to God were spared. Those who insisted on offering human sacrifice to devils masquerading as gods, or even fusing their flesh to them as gigantic abominations, were put to the sword. When God destroys someone, it is made clear that they have chosen this fate by their deeds.
>>2135 >Pauline doctrine Paul's the false apostle spoken of in revelation anon. I can show you the evidence if you want.
>>2156 Yes, please show us how the man who showed his bona fides to the Apostles, was accepted by them, and honorably died by the side of Saint Peter himself was in fact a mighty bamboozler.
>>2156 I'm not interested in hearing your false gospel. You're on the same level with Muslims.
>>2107 >>2109 >>2123 refer to >>2024. there are no exceptions.
>>2160 Gonna be multiple posts because the meat is pretty thick. But a good place to start is acts. Where peter decided to actually state what makes an apostle an apostle. Here's proof that it is indeed peter that begins the conversation. Acts 1:15 "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)" Here is the qualifications of being an apostle Acts 1:21 "Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us," Acts 1:22 "Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection." This causes them to appoint to candidates to take the place of the traitor Judas. Named Judas and Matthias Acts 1:23 "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Most importantly they pray to God himself to choose between Matthias and Barsabas. Acts 1:24 "And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen," Proof that they are talking about apostleship Acts 1:25 "That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." And eventually Matthias is chosen as the replacement of Judas. Acts 1:26 "And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." We also learn that in revelation there are only 12 apostles guarding the twelve gates. Revelation 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." That without a shadow of a doubt proves that their are only 12 apostles and we never hear about Matthias being replaced either. Now all I have to do is to show why paul is an untrustworthy source. which is pretty easy. Continued in my next post.
>>2170 Paul wasn't one of the twelve, anon. This is basic knowledge, and he himself even refers to 'the twelve', debunking your entire argument.
>>2170 Alright it should be noted that Paul stated that the churches in Asia turned away from him. 2 Timothy 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes." At the beginning of revelation we hear Jesus calling out to the 7 churches in Asia. Which one of them is praised for rejecting false apostles. Here's Jesus calling out to the 7 churches in Asia. Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Ephesus was the one that was praised for rejecting False apostles. Revelation 2:2 "I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:" I want to go back to 2 Timothy because it's quite important that I debunk this. 2 Timothy 1:16 "The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:" 2 Timothy 1:17 "But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me." 2 Timothy 1:18 "The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well." Notice that Paul never mentions whether or not Ephesus itself either rejected or accepted him. In fact I'd go with the fact that they probably rejected Paul because of the phrase "was not ashamed of my chain", Adding onto this we can clearly see this onesiphorous character ministered unto paul yet we have no indication of who this guy even is. In fact his name only appears in Timothy. I'll go over some other things which in the pauline epistles straight up contradict God's word next.
>>2176 Paul promoted the eating of meat that was sacrificed unto idols. 1 corinthians 8:8-10 "But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;" Jesus himself states in 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." This is clearly a contradiction, But there's much more where that came from. The Old testament law is in full effect according to Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This is seemingly contradicted by paul. in Galatians 3:24-25 where he states that. "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Now this is what I believe Jesus is referring to in Matthew 7:22-23 when he states "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." It's this whole saved by faith alone doctrine that I believe is what will lead people down the path to where Jesus says this to them. As the word iniquity in the original language for that specific verse refers to lawlessness. https://biblehub.com/greek/458.htm Late in his ministry. From acts we learn that Paul still referred to himself as a pharisee. Acts 23:6 "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Remember what Jesus said you were to do when confronted by the pharisees. "Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees." If paul was still calling himself a pharisee that late into his ministry then it's clear he's not to be trusted especially considering the fact that he was previously killing christians before his supposed conversion. Speaking of his supposed conversion. He has 3 separate accounts of it and all 3 of them contradict each other which I'll go over in my next post.
>>2187 >"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The law is fulfilled through loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus himself says this in Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:37-40, etc. Plus, we know that by the standards of the letter of the law, that Jesus was seen to be breaking the law, as when he declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19, and when he was said to be working on the Sabbath. Paul preaches the same thing. If you think that Jesus came to just reaffirm the Law of Moses, you are a heretic and nothing more, because even God says these statutes were given to the Jews because they were rebellious against God in Ezekiel 20:25 - "So I gave them commandments that were not good, and ordinances in which they should not live" >From acts we learn that Paul still referred to himself as a pharisee. Jesus recognizes the Pharisees as legitimate spiritual authorities in the Gospels, you act like this was exclusively a pejorative term. Christians were closest to the Pharisees in terms of doctrines. Matthew 23:1-4: "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them." Heretics are always the same, Biblically illiterate.
>>2187 Finally we are onto paul's conversion stories. Acts 9 "3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: 4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. 7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. 8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. 9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. . 10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. 17And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. 19And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. 20And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. Version 2 Acts 22 "5As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. 6And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. 12And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, 13Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. 14And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." Version 3 Acts 26 "Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, 13At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. 14And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. 15And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; 17Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, 18To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me. 19Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:" As you can see all of the accounts have contradictions in them and this is the main reason why I don't trust saul of tarsus.
>>2189 " The law is fulfilled through loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself. Jesus himself says this in Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:37-40, etc. Plus, we know that by the standards of the letter of the law, that Jesus was seen to be breaking the law, as when he declared all foods clean in Mark 7:19, and when he was said to be working on the Sabbath. Paul preaches the same thing. If you think that Jesus came to just reaffirm the Law of Moses, you are a heretic and nothing more, because even God says these statutes were given to the Jews because they were rebellious against God in Ezekiel 20:25 - "So I gave them commandments that were not good, and ordinances in which they should not live" You are misquoting those passages. Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." This has nothing to do with abolishing the mosaic law, You can see where he says that the mosaic law is built on these two commandments but never does this passage even suggest the law has been abolished. Yet the passage I quoted I.e Matthew 5:17-18 clearly states that the law won't go away till every prophecy has been fulfilled. Matthew 22:37-40 is an even more disingenuous example as all it's saying is that the mosaic law and all the prophets were held on those two commandments which is true. But never does it disregard the mosaic law. Matthew 22:37-40 "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." >Mark It contradicts Revelation thus the gospel of mark is unreliable because the apostle John is a more reliable source. Plus if you knew biblical doctrine it would make sense that God would only use two witnesses as in line with his law. Also this part is really precious >because even God says these statutes were given to the Jews because they were rebellious against God in Ezekiel 20:25 - "So I gave them commandments that were not good, and ordinances in which they should not live" My counter argument Ezekiel 20:24 "Because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols." God purposefully gave them bad statutes because they were being disloyal. and you leaving out the context is really sketchy. >The second bit Literally none of that disproves any of the points I've made. All it does is say that pharisees preach but don't actually practice what they preach. Paul is in a similar boat especially considering he is identifying with the group he was with when he was killing christians. Not exactly a good look. Never call me "biblically illiterate" while you actively misquoted the bible.
Open file (209.12 KB 512x512 suit pepe laugh.png)
>>2191 > thus the gospel of mark is unreliable Enjoy hell.
Open file (106.30 KB 640x189 Aquinas_heretics.jpg)
>>2191 >It contradicts Revelation thus the gospel of mark is unreliable because the apostle John is a more reliable source. Not even atheists are so far gone as to argue this
>>2170 >>2176 >>2187 >>2190 >>2191 Is all of this supposed to be some grand theory of "how the Church went wrong"? Because I can tell you pretty easily that it came much more from the foolishness of kings and theologians many years after the fact than from any supposed sin of the Church Fathers.
>>2196 No it's explaining why I believe the apostle paul is a fake. And I gave the evidence towards it.
>>2198 Oh, anon, but it is! Why else would you do all this cherrypicking and creative interpretation about the world's most famous Heel to Face turn? Because your "findings" would have it that Christianity went wrong immediately after Pentecost. According to you, every good man and every Saint (and there are many) inspired by Paul's holy wisdom is a fool, and followed the huxterism of a fraud. According to you, history's greatest evangelist was a liar, and all his deeds were nought but self-aggrandisement. According to you and your contradiction of the Gospels, we have all been wasting our time. Did you even remotely consider the consequences with God and among men if you were actually right?
elaborate.
>>2199 Tell me how me pointing towards Paul writing 3 separate accounts on his conversion in the book of acts with contradictions in each of them is cherry picking. I posted it here >>2190 Now onto the next bit. >According to you, every good man and every Saint(And there are many) inspired by Paul's holy wisdom is a fool, and followed the huxterism of a fraud. Understand this, I do not see myself as the end all be all of scripture. I've come to this conclusion based on evidence I believe to have been accurate. Have you heard of the parable of the sower? Where the sower sowed lot's of seed and most of them failed to grow? I'll post it because it's relevant to this discussion. Matthew 13:3-8 "And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; 4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: 5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth: 6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold" This parable is saying that most people will be choked out by something before their faith can truly shine. So yes I do believe that the good man and saints had erred in doctrine. Though I dare not call them fools for they more than likely had as much faith in God as I have. >According to you, history's greatest evangelist was a liar, and all his deeds were nought but self-aggrandisement. According to you and your contradiction of the Gospels, we have all been wasting our time. I'd like to start off by saying that being "histories greatest evangelist" doesn't automatically make you right. And that alone is a terrible argument to make. I would also like to point out that just because a christian has erred in his doctrine doesn't make him a liar. As he isn't purposefully preaching false doctrine. Now if it was on purpose then the accusation of lying would be more applicable. Next you go onto say I have contradicted the gospel when I pointed out evidence that Paul and the gospel of mark are untrustworthy even if marks gospel was written in good faith. And no we haven't been wasting our time. We have been trying to form a closer bond with God and follow his Judgments, The fact you think Paul's doctrine being false somehow invalidates that is concerning. >Did you even remotely consider the consequences with God and among men if you were actually right? There is no consequence in relation to God concerning what I have written. However caring about the doctrines of men is the same error the pharisees did. God should be your foremost priority. And the words of a preacher should only be listened to if their doctrine is in line with what the bible teaches.
>>2201 >Tell me how me pointing towards Paul writing 3 separate accounts on his conversion in the book of acts Paul didn't write Acts hahaha
>>2202 Alright you are right on that, It was written by Luke a historian. Still doesn't change the fact on what I said.
Open file (329.32 KB 600x800 891.png)
>>2176 >In fact I'd go with the fact that they probably rejected Paul because of the phrase "was not ashamed of my chain" Dude, get a study bible. That means Onesiphorus didn't abandon him due to arrest by the Romans, not that they rejected Paul's leash. You're reading modern idioms on to ancient letters in Greek. >This is clearly a contradiction, But there's much more where that came from. The Old testament law is in full effect That is for the Jews. The obligation of Gentiles is to the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, sealed by James, the brother of Jesus: >19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: >20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. >21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. >22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: >23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. >24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: >25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, >26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. >27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. Acts 15:19-27 And confirmed in Acts 21:25 >As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. In addition we have the vision of Peter regarding the clean and the unclean, before Paul even starts ministry: >9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: >10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, >11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: >12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. >13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. >14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. >15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. >16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. >17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate, >18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. >19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. >20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. Acts 10:9-19 >If paul was still calling himself a pharisee that late into his ministry He uses it to trip up the Jewish high council, just like Jesus did. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the Sadducees didn't. As a result of bringing it up, they found that were divided in opinion amongst themselves and found nothing with which to condemn Paul on. >>2190 Those are inconsistencies, not contradictions, and all three speak to the same message through the Holy Spirit, not in opposition, of whom you would have faith in if you actually are a Christian and not a neo-Judaizer. >>2201 >I'd like to start off by saying that being "histories greatest evangelist" doesn't automatically make you right. And that alone is a terrible argument to make. Paul, just like Peter, was able to confer the Holy Spirit on the churches of his ministry: >5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. >6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Acts 19:5-6 >6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.  2 Timothy 1:6 Along with many other miracles of healing and of power. Things you, the oh-so-"correct" one have no ability to do, and will fail to achieve, so long as after the likes of Simon Magus you strive to garner grace through human vanity in supposition. It is left to you to repent. And for shame /christian/, that this went unreproved!
>>2349 In our limited defense, we were and are but ogres with clubs. We can tell that there's something wrong on its face, but we didn't know how to put it into words beyond laughter.
>>2349 >Dude, get a study bible. That means Onesiphorus didn't abandon him due to arrest by the Romans, not that they rejected Paul's leash. You're reading modern idioms on to ancient letters in Greek. You gotta put it into the full context though, You completely missed 2 timothy 1:15 which directly states that the 7 churches of Asia rejected paul's teaching and that the verse directly after that states that Onesiphorus wasn't afraid of the chains that binded Paul in the asian churches. We know this further because we learn that this Onesiphorus directly made contact with Paul in Ephesus and taught him things. It's because Ephesus was mentioned specifically. And the fact that ephesus was directly praised by christ for rejecting false apostles that leads me to believe that Paul is a deceiver. >That is for the Jews. The obligation of Gentiles is to the decision of the Council of Jerusalem, sealed by James, the brother of Jesus: I believe in single seedline christian identity the one that believes that Europeans are God's chosen people. But also don't believe in some of the most ridiculous garbage ever conceived, I.e The Dual seedline position. The jews themselves blaspheme Jesus on the regular and are gifted endless money by gullible christians who believe in their lies. Remember what an antichrist actually is. 2 John 1:7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." The jews fit this description the most out of any other people on the planet as they actively reject Jesus. It should be noted that helping the Jews is actively going against Christ. According to John 2 John 1:8-11 "Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 9Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." In other words helping the Jews actually makes you equally responsible for their crimes. Remember that Christ's doctrine is to keep his commandments and believe on him as the messiah. John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments." Obviously the most important commandment among these is to Love God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, And the second most important is to love your neighbor as yourself. However most people don't seem to realize what Jesus said after that. "All the laws and prophet hang on those two commandments." Which is true. If you look through the old testament law. Most of the commandments had one of these two as the purpose behind it. Even things like eating pork. I do believe non Israelite peoples will be saved. Heck it's the whole reason why the missionaries are considered great in the eyes of God. As if you read about the 6th church of revelation which was the era before the age we currently are in then you'd know it's about the christians that spread the gospel throughout the entire world. However the Jews are clearly not the chosen people. I think they are the synagogue of satan which were spoken of in revelation. Enough of that rambling more importantly is everything else. >He uses it to trip up the Jewish high council, just like Jesus did. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, the Sadducees didn't. As a result of bringing it up, they found that were divided in opinion amongst themselves and found nothing with which to condemn Paul on. Yes inconsistencies which are many and far between in pauls writings, I already pointed towards the fact that he promoted eating meat sacrificed to idols which Jesus praised a church for avoiding but, He also mentions that there is no one righteous. Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" You begin to notice that in 1 John specifically lot's of comments are made seemingly in contrast to Paul's writings. 1 John 3-7 "Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." Note just because a man does indeed sins doesn't in anyway make him unrighteous as paul seems to think. But a righteous person would understand his mistake and try to overcome them to follow God in a better manner than previously. The sins we commit are forgiven through Worshiping God and Jesus' sacrifice. But without works our faith dies out as is so stressed in James 2:20. Here's Jesus calling Abel righteous. Matthew 23:35 "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." 1/2
"Along with many other miracles of healing and of power. Things you, the oh-so-"correct" one have no ability to do, and will fail to achieve, so long as after the likes of Simon Magus you strive to garner grace through human vanity in supposition. It is left to you to repent." Remember what God said? Matthew 24:24 "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." We aren't to judge them on signs and wonders but their doctrine. if their doctrine is righteous and true then. Then they come from a reliable source. If their doctrine is suspect then we must evaluate everything until we come to a conclusion. Then if their doctrine is revealed to be false, We should reject it. >>2351 If Jesus came up to you and said. Why aren't you reading the scriptures that worshiping me is dedicated on? How would you respond? It's the duty of any good christian to read the bible at least once a day. And to engage in trying to expand his knowledge of the bible and try to get into a closer relationship with God. God has given you a way out when the inevitable mark of the beast comes yet you probably don't even know it. 2/2
>>2358 > And the fact that ephesus was directly praised by christ for rejecting false apostles that leads me to believe that Paul is a deceiver. It says 'false apostles' in the plural. It doesn't single anyone out, and Paul himself, needless to say, frequently warns against false apostles in his own writings. >I believe in single seedline christian identity the one that believes that Europeans are God's chosen people This explains a lot of your retardation. Christians are the chosen people, and your ethnic nonsense has nothing to do with it. > I already pointed towards the fact that he promoted eating meat sacrificed to idols Irrelevant. The decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts was aimed at Gentile Christians coming into the church, to keep them away from paganism and from lapsing into old habits. Paul rightly says it doesn't matter, it's just meat, but that we shouldn't cause those weaker in faith to sin. The gods of the idols don't exist. Those advanced in faith know that. People are forgetting that Paul is writing to mostly Gentiles in 1 Corinthians. >"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Cherry-picked quote. You do realize that Paul is quoting directly from Psalm 53:3 here, don't you? These aren't even Paul's words, but he's using them to make a point. Let's also point out the fact that this follows after a lengthy discussion of the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul talks about how the Jews boast over their works and the law in Romans 2. Gentiles have the advantage where the law is written in their hearts and their conscience makes them do the things of the law (Romans 2:14-15), but they are at a disadvantage because they do not have the fullness of revelation in the Scriptures (Romans 3:1). This is what Romans 3 is about. All fall short of God's glory and sin! And then you fail to realize that in the very same chapter of Romans, that Paul goes on to say that RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM GOD COMES THROUGH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST TO ALL WHO BELIEVE (Romans 3:22). Righteous is possible. Justification is through faith. >You begin to notice that in 1 John specifically lot's of comments are made seemingly in contrast to Paul's writings. Again, it's not even Paul's words, he's quoting a Psalm of David! So even though you tried to prove that Paul is somehow discordant with John, you've brought yourself to a point where you are indirectly claiming that John is inconsistent with the Psalms. >"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous." To continue the point, Paul says that justification is through faith in Jesus Christ, as has already been demonstrated, and faith is dead without works, as we know (and as Paul says himself), so this quote says nothing inconsistent with the teachings of Paul. >Note just because a man does indeed sins doesn't in anyway make him unrighteous as paul seems to think Keep on attributing a Psalm of David to Paul lol. >"That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Paul would call Abel righteous because he has faith. You don't even know Paul's teachings. Have you not read Hebrews 11:4? Paul clearly states that Abel's faith was key to his offering to God >By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.
Open file (187.59 KB 870x1592 paul martyrdom.jpg)
>>2359 >"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." This doesn't prove anything unless you are relying on the presupposition that Paul is a false prophet. I would just counter with Matthew 7:15-23 where Jesus Christ says to judge prophets by their fruits. As we know, Paul traveled far and wide across Europe, spreading the Gospel, founding multiple, multiple churches, and still somehow finding the time to write to these churches and to guide them in their growing faith in God and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. For this, Paul was rewarded with martyrdom. What more beautiful fruits than these are there? I forgot to mention as well that Simon Peter himself refers to Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 >Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Peter here says that Paul wrote with the "wisdom that God gave him" and NOTICE HOW PETER CLASSES HIS LETTERS WITH "THE OTHER SCRIPTURES", mentioning how those foolish and ignorant distort his teachings to their detriment! If you reject Paul then, you reject Peter. You reject the Peter to whom our Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 16:18 that "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." I pray you repent of these heresies, because they are truly grievous ones. To slander an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ as a 'false prophet' on the level of Muhammad or other obvious false prophets is a tremendous sin. Your knowledge of Scripture is poor. You cherry-pick, you are unable to discern the difference between Paul saying something himself and Paul quoting from the Old Testament. May God grant you true wisdom, and deliver you from your judaizing heresies.
>>2361 >It says 'false apostles' in the plural. It doesn't single anyone out, and Paul himself, needless to say, frequently warns against false apostles in his own writings. Preaching against false apostles doesn't mean Paul himself isn't one. I'm going to lump this in with your third point because they are both relevant. To this point >Irrelevant. The decision of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts was aimed at Gentile Christians coming into the church, to keep them away from paganism and from lapsing into old habits. Paul rightly says it doesn't matter, it's just meat, but that we shouldn't cause those weaker in faith to sin. The gods of the idols don't exist. Those advanced in faith know that. People are forgetting that Paul is writing to mostly Gentiles in 1 Corinthians. Because if you read the bible you'd know this isn't the case, Because if it wasn't relevant then God wouldn't have scolded the church of Thyatira for "eating meat sacrificed unto idols" You can't bring this to somehow make sense. Paul promotes eating meat which is sacrificed unto idols. Then God proceeds to scold one of the 7 churches for breaking this. 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." >Cherry-picked quote. You do realize that Paul is quoting directly from Psalm 53:3 here, don't you? These aren't even Paul's words, but he's using them to make a point. I know Paul is quoting psalms, The difference is though is the context in which he is quoting it. In Psalms God is rebuking the atheistic fools who don't believe in him. Meanwhile Paul is using it as a way to undermine the mosaic law. So no it actually isn't a cherry picked quote because when you read the context you'll understand that both situations are vastly different. But more importantly Jesus literally made a parable about the old covenant and the new covenant. Matthew 9:17 "Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." Notice Jesus said that BOTH are preserved. The new covenant is required for salvation but the old covenant is where you get the requirements to get said salvation. Adding that onto the previously mentioned Matthew 5:17-18 and you'll begin to understand that the law was never done away with. >This explains a lot of your retardation. Christians are the chosen people, and your ethnic nonsense has nothing to do with it. Anon, I think the Jews have muddied your view on what the Chosen people are actually meant to do. They aren't supposed to see themselves as superior to other peoples and genocide them. They're supposed to set an example and allow other people groups to follow in their footsteps. Similar to how we as christians have to follow in the footsteps of God. I'll skip the next bit because I've already given my explanation on that. >Paul would call Abel righteous because he has faith. You don't even know Paul's teachings. Have you not read Hebrews 11:4? Paul clearly states that Abel's faith was key to his offering to God Faith and works are interconnected. It's why James says in 2:20 "Faith without works is dead." and it's a position I firmly agree with. I also agree that Faith in God is the key to get into heaven. But truth faith manifests through the works one does for others and themselves. Because God doesn't say love others more than yourself. He says love others as much as you love yourself. 1/2
>>2362 >This doesn't prove anything unless you are relying on the presupposition that Paul is a false prophet Read what you wrote again. You said this "Along with many other miracles of healing and of power. Things you, the oh-so-"correct" one have no ability to do" I was using that as a retort to this. >I would just counter with Matthew 7:15-23 where Jesus Christ says to judge prophets by their fruits. As we know, Paul traveled far and wide across Europe, spreading the Gospel, founding multiple, multiple churches, and still somehow finding the time to write to these churches and to guide them in their growing faith in God and the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. For this, Paul was rewarded with martyrdom. What more beautiful fruits than these are there? Yes, Jesus did say to judge the prophet by their fruits and I have been judging Paul by his fruits and have seen flaws in his doctrine. I'm of the opinion if I can save even a single soul I'll be happy. Obviously if I can save more that's great but I wouldn't twist my doctrine into things which the bible clearly teaches against. Like promoting drugs for example. Paul did travel far and across Europe and he did found many churches, But these alone aren't enough to get you off the hook. You need to see to it that your doctrine which has been taught is righteous and in line with God's love. Remember one of the laws in the old covenant was not to add anything to it. >I forgot to mention as well that Simon Peter himself refers to Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 I also understand this argument. My counter argument will always be the same. 1 Peter 5:12 "By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand." In other words it wasn't directly written by peter. Thus I don't consider it trustworthy.
>>2363 >Because if it wasn't relevant then God wouldn't have scolded the church of Thyatira for "eating meat sacrificed unto idols" Thyatira was a gentile church, this wouldn't contradict with anything that I have said. Let's not even forget that Paul has nothing to do with this church, and it evidently involves some so-called sexually immoral 'prophetess'. Paul would have condemned this behavior as well. >Paul promotes eating meat which is sacrificed unto idols. No, he doesn't. He fully acknowledges that this could cause those weak in faith to trip us, as I have already said. In Mark 7:18-19 Jesus of course says that "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” Mark concludes by adding "(Thus all foods are clean)". Don't give me some ad hoc nonsense about not trusting Mark either, because that is what all of your arguments rely on, ad hoc arguments and cherry-picking. >In Psalms God is rebuking the atheistic fools who don't believe in him Bad reading comprehension. The Psalm moves a more general sense in verse 2, saying "God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if any understand, if any seek God." This is talking about the sons of men in general. And then verse 3 speaks in the most broad and general sense possible, saying "All have turned away, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one." The meaning of this cannot be more clear. There is no one at all who does good. Paul uses this to say that both the Jews and Gentiles are sinners; the Jews with the Law, the Gentiles without the Law. Paul never said that righteousness was impossible or something, as was said literally five or six verses after this. > Adding that onto the previously mentioned Matthew 5:17-18 and you'll begin to understand that the law was never done away with. "until everything is accomplished". >the old covenant is where you get the requirements to get said salvation I guess we're all going to hell because we're not eating kosher and aren't having Levites do the correct animal sacrifices for our sins! >you'll begin to understand that the law was never done away with. The essence of the law was not done away with. >Anon, I think the Jews have muddied your view on what the Chosen people are actually meant to do. They aren't supposed to see themselves as superior to other peoples and genocide them. They're supposed to set an example and allow other people groups to follow in their footsteps Europeans are not the Chosen People. Christians are. >But truth faith manifests through the works one does for others and themselves Paul teaches this.
>>2364 >I'm of the opinion if I can save even a single soul I'll be happy. You are damning souls with a false gospel. >"By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly, exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand." This is called dictating a letter to a scribe, dude. This is like claiming that Romans was written by Tertius because it says in Romans 16:22 >I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter, greet you in the Lord. Yet of course Romans begins with" >Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, and set apart for the gospel of God— In the same way, 2 Peter begins: >Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, So this is not an argument, because it clearly refers to a scribe to whom the epistle was dictated to. Otherwise you have to make a silly argument that Silas was pretending to be Peter, and then gave himself away at the end. Or that Tertius was pretending to be Paul, and then exposed himself at the end.
As an addendum, it is hilarious that you quote 2 Timothy as proof that Paul is a false apostle. Do you even know who Timothy is? Timothy was doing pastoral work for Paul in Ephesus! This is said in 1 Timothy 1:3, and Paul even advises Timothy in 1 Timothy 4 on the topic of false teachers who are afoot >Now the Spirit expressly states that in later times some will abandon the faith to follow deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons, influenced by the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences are seared with a hot iron. They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creation of God is good, and nothing that is received with thanksgiving should be rejected, because it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. These sound clearly like false apostles that the churches of Ephesus would have rejected! Paul cannot have been rejected in Ephesus, because when he writes to Timothy, he is writing to one of the people who were literally working with Paul in Ephesus! >Timothy or Timothy of Ephesus (Greek: Τιμόθεος; Timótheos, meaning "honouring God" or "honoured by God"[8]) was an early Christian evangelist and the first Christian bishop of Ephesus,[9] who tradition relates died around the year AD 97. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Timothy
>>2365 >Thyatira was a gentile church, this wouldn't contradict with anything that I have said. Let's not even forget that Paul has nothing to do with this church, and it evidently involves some so-called sexually immoral 'prophetess'. Paul would have condemned this behavior as well. None of this disproves my point. I said that God condemned Eating meat that was sacrificed to idols and he is lambasting the thyatira church for it. Also gentile church is a oxymoron. Thyatira was praised by God for their good works. Similar to how most denominations have some good qualities about them. If you're into prophecy then Thyatira is actually the roman catholic church. And the church that follows smyrna is the protestant churches. >No, he doesn't. He fully acknowledges that this could cause those weak in faith to trip us, He clearly does. He should be putting his foot down and say it's absolutely forbidden because God clearly doesn't like it which I have proved. Here's the full verse. 1 Corinthians 8:7-8 "Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." Maybe promoting was the wrong word. But he clearly isn't against it. Again Faith without works is dead and Eating meat unto idols is against God's word. And thus you aren't keeping his commandments. However God is merciful and will forgive us if we repent. But repentance actually requires us to put in the work to stop doing that which is an offense to God. >The Psalm moves a more general sense in verse 2, saying "God looks down from heaven upon the sons of men to see if any understand, if any seek God." This is talking about the sons of men in general. You're the one taking it out of context. God is looking to see whether or not there are any people who still believe on him and follow his commandments in which there wasn't a single one. Hence why there wasn't a single righteous man among them. Hence the "If any seek God". 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. Heck the entire book of Job was about a righteous man in the eyes of God. >"until everything is accomplished". Yes every prophecy. Some of which haven't come to pass yet. >The essence of the law was not done away with. The law in general wasn't done away with. That's Pauline doctrine mainly from Galatians 3, It's why james explains in his epistle that faith without works is dead and why he stressed it so heavily. >Europeans are not the Chosen People. Christians are. We fulfill most of the earthly promised which God promised us. >Paul teaches this. 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.
>>2366 >This is called dictating a letter to a scribe, dude. This is like claiming that Romans was written by Tertius because it says in Romans 16:22 Yeah but the problem is, We've already come from numerous perspectives on this matter. Both John and James are at odds with Paul as you can clearly tell by their letters debunking most of Paul's doctrine. As well as revelation. Promoting someone like Paul who I've already proven has numerous issues. But want to know what's even funnier. Peter was supposed to be the Apostle to the gentiles not Paul. "And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." Most importantly though. Paul is a liar he even admits he's willing to lie. 2 Corinthians 12:16 "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile." Romans 3:7 "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" So not only is he inconsistent at best straight up contradicting himself at worst. He's admitted to straight up lying. Willing to use his position as a pharisee when he's supposedly a christian their worst enemies. Promotes doctrine that is contrary to God. More than enough reasons to doubt the authenticity of 2 Peter.
>>2367 >These sound clearly like false apostles that the churches of Ephesus would have rejected! Paul cannot have been rejected in Ephesus, because when he writes to Timothy, he is writing to one of the people who were literally working with Paul in Ephesus! You clearly don't seem to understand that just because Paul says something is true that doesn't mean it's true. Again I have already posted numerous examples of Paul being shady and John's letters as well. You trying to dismiss my arguments doesn't mean they aren't valid.
>>2370 Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus and a close friend of Paul. Revelation says Ephesus rejected false prophets. These false prophets clearly can't be Paul, as Timothy was in accordance with Paul and warned against heretics. You've lost the argument. Give me evidence that Timothy, friend and co-traveler with Paul, rejected Paul. I'll wait.
>>2368 >Also gentile church is a oxymoron. Descending into pilpul like a real Jew now, are you? You know exactly what I mean by this term. >He should be putting his foot down and say it's absolutely forbidden because God clearly doesn't like it which I have proved This is an unproved interpretation. I'll just repeat myself: In Mark 7:18-19 Jesus of course says that "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” Mark concludes by adding "(Thus all foods are clean)". It's just meat. Paul knows this, but it is not edifying for Christians to partake in these things. In 1 Corinthians 8:7, Paul is referring to those who do not have knowledge, to those who do not know that meat is not just meat, and that it is actually sacrificed to some sort of 'god'. 'HOWEVER, you seem to conveniently forget that Paul doesn't necessarily approve of this stuff at all, saying in the same letter (1 Corinthians 10:19-22) >What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? Therefore Paul is in perfect agreement with Jesus Christ. Meat is meat, but one should not be doing such things, as one cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons, as Thyatira seems to have tried to do. >Paul on the other hand is saying people in general aren't righteous Do all sin, Jew and Gentile alike, yes or no? This is Paul's point, and I can't believe you cannot understand this, even after I explained it. >Yet there are numerous instances in both the old covenant and new covenant where this is proven to be the case. Heck the entire book of Job was about a righteous man in the eyes of God. And they were righteous in faith, anon, just like Paul says. You are once again forgetting that in the exact same chapter of Romans, Paul says that righteousness is achieved through faith! More cherry-picking and pilpul. >Yes every prophecy. Do you even know the words of Jesus Christ? John 19:28-30 >After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. >The law in general wasn't done away with. Jesus taught the spirit of the law, and the letter, Pharisee. >We fulfill most of the earthly promised which God promised us. Europeans are not the Chosen People. Christians are. >you have him circumcising timothy Paul didn't condemn circumcision in total. Paul condemned dead works and taught that they did not bring one salvation. Circumcision of the flesh is not required. Circumcision of the heart is what counts, and the circumcision of the flesh will not avail you otherwise. Timothy was circumcised so that his uncircumcision was not a stumbling block to the unsaved Jews they were preaching to. You just don't understand Paul because a demon has set you against him.
>>2371 I have provided numerous examples of Paul straight up lying and being contradictory. That alone is more than enough proof. Wikipedia also isn't a reliable source either. Because timothy isn't once referred to as a bishop of rome and if you look at the Britannica biography on timothy it straight up says it was a tradition. So it's not reliable.
>>2369 >But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I caught you with guile. Paul is talking about accusations being made against him. They were saying he was being sneaky to defraud them, which was a lie. Paul frequently references slanders being made against him. Hence why in this section he says things such as "I am not seeking your possessions" and "for the sake of your souls, I will most gladly spend my money and myself" and "I urged Titus to visit you, and I sent our brother with him. Did Titus exploit you in any way? Did we not walk in the same Spirit and follow in the same footsteps?" >"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" More out of context quotes from you. Romans 3:3-4 >What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Certainly not! Let God be true and every man a liar [...] Here we see Paul saying that even if some do not have faith, God remains faithful, and even if they abandon him, God will remain true. Verse 5 continues: >But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms. 'OUR' unrighteousness - whose then? The Jews. Verse 7 has him personify the objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent among all authors; and it is found sometimes with the authors of the Scriptures: see Ecclesiastes 3:19-22, 1 Corinthians 15:32. >He's admitted to straight up lying. You are the liar.
>>2373 > Because timothy isn't once referred to as a bishop of rome Timothy wasn't bishop of Rome, genius, he was bishop of Ephesus. >you look at the Britannica biography on timothy it straight up says it was a tradition. So it's not reliable. Britannica isn't a reliable source. >Wikipedia also isn't a reliable source either The claim is from Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, one of the main sources for the early history of the church. > Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus http://prenicea.net/doc4/40201-en-01.pdf
>>2372 >Descending into pilpul like a real Jew now, are you? You know exactly what I mean by this term. No I'm saying that thyatira wasn't a gentile church because you can't be a gentile church you are either a christian or a heathen nothing more nothing less. God was talking to them to try and improve his relationship with them. > This is an unproved interpretation. I'll just repeat myself: In Mark 7:18-19 Jesus of course says that "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, because it does not enter his heart, but it goes into the stomach and then is eliminated.” Mark concludes by adding "(Thus all foods are clean)". AND AGAIN both are DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY REVELATION. WHICH DIRECTLY SAYS THAT MEAT SACRIFICED UNTO IDOLS IS NOT TO BE EATEN. Furthermore both Mark and Luke are both accomplices of 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" Thus I don't consider either of them trustworthy. >Do all sin, Jew and Gentile alike, yes or no? This is Paul's point, and I can't believe you cannot understand this, even after I explained it. All do sin. What I'm saying is that doesn't mean no one is righteous. What that means is that people need to believe in christ and ask for repentance. Not that people aren't righteous in general. Which again Jesus and John both retort this line of thinking. >>After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, “I thirst!” Now a vessel full of sour wine was sitting there; and they filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on hyssop, and put it to His mouth. So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit. Do you know where the word ALL is there? Don't get me wrong Jesus obviously fulfilled a lot of prophecies. But Jesus himself gave prophecies just before this happened and yes we are still under the law. It's more like a contract. If Jesus is the job then the law is the requirements to get into said Job. >Jesus taught the spirit of the law, and the letter, Pharisee. You want to know why Jesus rebuked the pharisees. because they taught the law WITHOUT ACTUALLY FOLLOWING THE LAW. They followed their oral traditions over the law and Jesus stated that you were to follow the mosaic law. >Paul didn't condemn circumcision in total. Paul condemned dead works and taught that they did not bring one salvation. Circumcision of the flesh is not required. Circumcision of the heart is what counts, and the circumcision of the flesh will not avail you otherwise. Timothy was circumcised so that his uncircumcision was not a stumbling block to the unsaved Jews they were preaching to. You just don't understand Paul because a demon has set you against him. Paul straight up said the law wasn't necessary anymore. "23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" Paul straight up tells us we don't need the law anymore in this verse because all we need to have is faith in Jesus. Which while yes Faith in Christ is the main gate to salvation said faith is manifested through the law.
>Paul is talking about accusations being made against him. They were saying he was being sneaky to defraud them, which was a lie. Paul frequently references slanders being made against him. Hence why in this section he says things such as "I am not seeking your possessions" and "for the sake of your souls, I will most gladly spend my money and myself" and "I urged Titus to visit you, and I sent our brother with him. Did Titus exploit you in any way? Did we not walk in the same Spirit and follow in the same footsteps?" No he isn't, he straight up said I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE. You can't spin that in any other way. Paul was the one that caught them with Guile. He was admitting it. Read the passage again. Paul is trying to calm down the situation as he didn't want it to devolve into debates. Precisely because of the deceit that had Just taken place. >Here we see Paul saying that even if some do not have faith, God remains faithful, and even if they abandon him, God will remain true. Verse 5 continues: That's not the point Paul is justifying his use of lying to promote the will of God. Yet John directly stated that. "No lie is of the truth." I'll provide the full passage here. 1 John 2:21 "I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth." >'OUR' unrighteousness - whose then? The Jews. Verse 7 has him personify the objector, or he speaks in the name and person of such a one. This way of speaking and writing is very frequent among all authors; and it is found sometimes with the authors of the Scriptures: see Ecclesiastes 3:19-22, 1 Corinthians 15:32. Again none of this debunks the claim which I made. That Paul lied in order to promote God. Which again is directly against biblical doctrine as you clearly don't need deceit to promote the word of God because God's word is the absolute truth. >Timothy wasn't bishop of Rome, genius, he was bishop of Ephesus. It was a mistake. >The claim is from Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, one of the main sources for the early history of the church. Eusebius still came a some 200 years after Timothy so it's not like he's the most reliable source either.
>>2359 >You gotta put it into the full context though, You completely missed 2 timothy 1:15 which directly states that the 7 churches of Asia rejected Paul's teaching The churches of Asia continued believing in Pauline doctrine after the Neron persecution. In fact, they doubled down on Paul: Marcion of Sinope, born in Roman Asia immediately after the events of the New Testament, spread a heresy that Paul's teaching was the only true teaching of Jesus Christ, and that the Old Testament was condemned. >We aren't to judge them on signs and wonders but their doctrine. if their doctrine is righteous and true then. Then they come from a reliable source. If their doctrine is suspect then we must evaluate everything until we come to a conclusion. Then if their doctrine is revealed to be false, We should reject it. That which I posted is substantiated by multiple texts from the first and second centuries AD. They saw Paul and Peter as united in the gospel's mission and martyrs both for Jesus Christ. Either you have a problem with the reality of Christianity, or the gospel never saved anyone because the church was irreversibly corrupted by the end of the New Testament and not worth believing in: >17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Acts 7:17-20 And you cannot be a church of one man: >For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20 You can take after what you will. The Jews didn't irreversibly corrupt their own teachings until long after these events transpired, and many at the time thought they were still open to accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Whether they still are today is a different matter, but the power of God works miracles. >Note just because a man does indeed sins doesn't in anyway make him unrighteous as paul seems to think. In that part he is expositing the fallen nature of man towards Pagans, because unless you first accept that you have fault you cannot do the following: >But a righteous person would understand his mistake and try to overcome them to follow God in a better manner than previously. The sins we commit are forgiven through Worshiping God and Jesus' sacrifice. And that second sentence you spoke, is straight out of Paul: >24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26 to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Romans 3:25-26 >9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:9 So if you believe in doctrines which Paul himself exposits, and claim to be a believer in the faith of Jesus and the apostles, why do you refuse to be like James, and amend Paul with the context of the rest of the faith outlined in the New Testament, instead of splitting yourself off from all tradition to denounce Paul, and making your bed with heretics like the Ebionites and non-believers like the Muslims? Paul, Peter, and James died one and the same death by persecution in the name of Jesus.
>>2364 >Read what you wrote again. You said this "Along with many other miracles of healing and of power. Things you, the oh-so-"correct" one have no ability to do" I was using that as a retort to this. You're responding to a different anon here by the way. >>2368 > Again Faith without works is dead and Eating meat unto idols is against God's word. And thus you aren't keeping his commandments. However God is merciful and will forgive us if we repent. But repentance actually requires us to put in the work to stop doing that which is an offense to God. When Paul was preaching this, it was during a time of rising suspicion from the Roman authorities about Christianity being a subversive religion that didn't worship the emperor. In order to demonstrate that you conformed with Greco-Roman pagan religion, you were expected to partake in animal sacrifices to the gods and in the subsequent feasts. During the persecutions, not obliging to the imperial cult was punishable by death. Paul is trying to work around the authorities to continue preaching, not advocating to participate in the sacrifices and feasts. Those that did were excommunicated from the ancient church, that upheld both Paul and Peter, and not allowed to return except upon their deathbed. You can talk boastfully in our time, because the world has been transformed by their efforts and we no longer perform animal sacrifices to natural spirits or men on pain of death. That transformation was sealed by the blood of martyrs, among them Paul, Peter and James, because the ambitions of the Roman emperors had no bounds.
>>2383 >>2384 It's getting pretty late so I'll make a response in about a day or two.
>>2359 Anon, I say I am an ogre with a club because I am blunt. Telling you very clearly what the consequence of your misinterpretation would be should have told you it was an incredibly bad idea without mining Scripture. Any fool can read the Bible, any idiot, and he can reach any number of equally ludicrous conclusions because he has no guide. Why else do you think the modern-day Protestant scene is such a horrible theological and political mess? I am beholden to my wise priest, his hierarchs, and the Triune God they answer to. I learned to follow the traditions of Orthodoxy before I began reading Scripture, and I view Scripture through that ancient lens. A lens far closer in context to Scripture than what you are proposing. Tradition is the democracy of the dead, as GK Chesterton said. The dead of Christendom live on in Heaven and affect the present through the traditions they passed down. The dead get their vote. And so I listen to them.
>>2383 >The churches of Asia continued believing in Pauline doctrine after the Neron persecution. In fact, they doubled down on Paul: Marcion of Sinope, born in Roman Asia immediately after the events of the New Testament, spread a heresy that Paul's teaching was the only true teaching of Jesus Christ, and that the Old Testament was condemned. Yeah but we clearly see that we have two different accounts of events. 1 saying that the churches of Asia rejected Paul. Where the source is from Paul himself. Because 2 Timothy 1:15 can't be any clearer. >That which I posted is substantiated by multiple texts from the first and second centuries AD. They saw Paul and Peter as united in the gospel's mission and martyrs both for Jesus Christ. Either you have a problem with the reality of Christianity, or the gospel never saved anyone because the church was irreversibly corrupted by the end of the New Testament and not worth believing in: The problem with that is though is from the fact that Paul himself has straight up said all the churches of Asia left him. I'll even show you what 2 Timothy 1:15 says in it's entirety. 2 Timothy 1:15 "This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes." Again you've got texts from the first and second centuries AD, While I have the writings of the actual man in question admitting this to be the case. I don't deny that it could've happened later. Ephesus is brought up in particular. >Or the gospel never saved anyone because the church was irreversibly corrupted by the end of the New Testament and not worth believing in: No, That's an absolutely ridiculous stance to take. We all make errors but our faith can be true. A lot of the people who martyred themselves in the name of God are clearly going to get saved because through their sacrifice through their love of God they glorify God. Their doctrine may have been imperfect but that doesn't mean they themselves will "burn in hell for all eternity" as you seem to believe. Again James said that Faith without works is dead. And through works we glorify God. Through Faith we Redeem ourselves. God is merciful. He isn't looking to genocide as many people as possible because he wants too. He wants to save as many of us as he can. It's the whole point of the parable of the sower. Some will grow among thorns, Some will get on bad land but the ones that do indeed grow are the ones that will produce fruit. Some will produce more fruit than others. Again. We are already on the road to heaven by believing on Christ as the messiah, We only fall off said road If we refuse to comply to God's righteous works. >And you cannot be a church of one man: I obviously agree with this. It's why I'm here. >So if you believe in doctrines which Paul himself exposits, and claim to be a believer in the faith of Jesus and the apostles, why do you refuse to be like James, and amend Paul with the context of the rest of the faith outlined in the New Testament, instead of splitting yourself off from all tradition to denounce Paul, and making your bed with heretics like the Ebionites and non-believers like the Muslims? Paul, Peter, and James died one and the same death by persecution in the name of Jesus. Because Paul is untrustworthy. I've already went over why but he's given 3 contradictory stories, Stated he's willing to lie twice to glorify God, Which might seem noble I posted counter evidence that you don't need to lie to glorify God. I also showed that Paul couldn't be an apostle in the likes of Peter, James, Matthew, John, Thomas etc. And already showed that Matthias was the one who replaced Judas. it's also the fact he was unwilling to let go of himself being a pharisee. And Jesus said to be wary of the leaven of the Pharisee. Philippians 3:5 "Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;" Again I agree with what you posted, "Judge them by their fruits. But I also listen to God's word and if he says to be wary of the leaven of the pharisees and Paul labels himself as a Pharisee. Then I'm going to Question him until I come to a conclusion. Contrary to what your thinking I'm glad we are having this conversation. To engage with a brother or sister in the faith is to be celebrated. Especially when we conflict in doctrine. It's best for us to look at each others perspective.
>>2384 >You're responding to a different anon here by the way. Alright, I was simply explaining the reasoning on why I posted that. > When Paul was preaching this, it was during a time of rising suspicion from the Roman authorities about Christianity being a subversive religion that didn't worship the emperor. In order to demonstrate that you conformed with Greco-Roman pagan religion, you were expected to partake in animal sacrifices to the gods and in the subsequent feasts. During the persecutions, not obliging to the imperial cult was punishable by death. Paul is trying to work around the authorities to continue preaching, not advocating to participate in the sacrifices and feasts. Those that did were excommunicated from the ancient church, that upheld both Paul and Peter, and not allowed to return except upon their deathbed. You can talk boastfully in our time, because the world has been transformed by their efforts and we no longer perform animal sacrifices to natural spirits or men on pain of death. That transformation was sealed by the blood of martyrs, among them Paul, Peter and James, because the ambitions of the Roman emperors had no bounds. You don't comply with the Worldly law if it conflicts with God's law. This in my opinion is one of the worst things you could do. After all. The antichrist is going to force the mark of the beast onto people and I can tell you for a fact we aren't supposed to take that. Furthermore I will say that I believe I'm not being boastful. I've been trying to keep myself calm during this argument as I believe it to be very immature to use swear words and I still do it quite a bit. I've been trying to stop but it's been pretty difficult. What I'm saying is you've gotta be open. You gotta work to love yourself and others. Self improvement is honestly one of the cornerstones of Christianity and it's a shame that it isn't talked about more. Either way I wish you the best anon and I hope you get as close to the truth as possible.
>>2435 >Paul labels himself as a Pharisee 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 Matthew 23:1-3 "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.…
>>2435 >I don't deny that it could've happened later. Ephesus is brought up in particular. 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. >Their doctrine may have been imperfect but that doesn't mean they themselves will "burn in hell for all eternity" as you seem to believe. 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? To raise doubt in those that believe, and ridicule from those don't. The Muslims would wholeheartedly agree with what you've written and use it as a point to discredit Christianity entirely. You raised up the Old Testament law being in effect: that is what they believe too, including the ritual law, in halal. As a Christian, you believe in the ability to grace to make up for our faults in pursuing God's righteousness. 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. You must be careful in your examination. If you have doubts, you musn't declare them as an authoritative position. That is exactly how critical modernist scholarship has torn apart the body of Christ by picking at every jot and tittle of the faith. >>2437 >You don't comply with the Worldly law if it conflicts with God's law. This in my opinion is one of the worst things you could do. After all. The antichrist is going to force the mark of the beast onto people and I can tell you for a fact we aren't supposed to take that. Furthermore I will say that I believe I'm not being boastful. 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.
>>2435 >But I also listen to God's word and if he says to be wary of the leaven of the pharisees and Paul labels himself as a Pharisee. Then I'm going to Question him until I come to a conclusion. A thought struck me after making the previous post and it hits at an undercurrent of Paul's thinking. Paul brings up that he is a Pharisee exactly because it raises your train of thought. His past as a Pharisee condemns him. He read the scriptures and realized that the Jesus was the Christ, but he had no power to save himself from the weight of his persecution of the church. His entire ministry is a penance before Jesus, because he realized how low he is; in what he used to pride himself on in keeping the law, it was thrown in his face because his pride had blinded him to the truth. That was the thorn in his side, that could never go away. Being wrong, and to such an extent, he devoted himself to the Christ triumphant to hope through faith, that he may of grace receive salvation, even towards death. That is the meaning of Paul, a most ardent opponent of the faith, put to shame in submission and to repentance, for the work of God.
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?