/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

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

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

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Christianity Proofs thread Anonymous 03/09/2021 (Tue) 22:32:22 No.465
this thread is for various proofs of the truth of christianity and evidence which supports the bible since i lost my old folder which contained alot of stuff this could include stuff like miracles, philosiphical proofs or historic evidence
>>465 So, mind sharing some of your own views on this topic OP? Interestingly, according Jesus' words, it's your belief (or not) that will determine your eternal destiny. So, seems like an important, basic, topic.
Open file (379.91 KB 1024x784 christcuck death cult.jpg)
>prove a death cult not even once This shit is kiked and you people have to write a new book.
Christianity stands on such a flimsy foundation that it’s laughable
>>467 That's like those Ashtar sheran pics or whatever. >>468 Shitty reddit meme. Atleast use a better pic.
test.
>>465 Wouldn't we see more mixing of mammals and dinosaurs? What's the argument for there not being any dinosaurs in the highlands?
>>471 Dinosaurs didn't exist
>>472 Based and dragon-pilled. What about other stuff though? is there stuff from before the dinosaurs real? The ancient marine life?
>>466 >it's your belief (or not) that will determine your eternal destiny. of course but there's so much evidence for God that to not believe in him is inexcusable evidence supports belief in God
>>477 >implying God = the cosmic Jew
>>477 >inexcusable Sin is inexcusable, actually. Oh wait, Someone did step and make sin not the issue any longer. Accept that gift or not, your choice. You'll receive the outcome of it, either way. And yes, there's a mountain of evidence for that propitiatory Being's activities and (indirectly therefore) His existence.
Open file (261.96 KB 1024x768 1484762185659.jpg)
I've seen this pic. Is there someone who knows about ancient history who can tell if this is true or is it made-up?
>>529 With all due respect, anon but what difference does it make? The Bible says that it happened and therefore... it happened. Everything in the Bible is true and accurate. Even if all people on earth were united against God's Holy Word to disprove it with their "evidence", they would fail miserably and make themselves look like clowns. If man says one thing and the Bible another, then man is automatically wrong.
>>530 I'm asking to see if this image would be useful for evangelism. If people like Thallus and Phlegon actually wrote the things described in the pic, then that would be very useful for convincing people of the truth of Christianity. If the Bible is shown to be historically accurate ... well, that would certainly convince people to believe it.
Open file (1.49 MB 920x3040 πραΰς.png)
I had this saved for a while. Thought it was interesting. That being said, I wasn't able to find anything about horse training here - https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/πρᾶος
Open file (445.16 KB 1427x714 19349735848.jpg)
>>531 Recall what happened with the rich man who ended up in hell and, while talking to Abraham across a great gulf, asked for a sign to be sent to his brethren who were still alive. Here is the dialogue of what happened at the end of the story. "Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." This is also why it is said in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Really, this makes sense. If God sent His Word among us, and there are people that choose to ignore that truth ("holding the truth in unrighteousness", as Paul says in Romans 1:18), what kind of sign would convince them otherwise? Our senses are just not that trustworthy. A sign can be explained away by people who choose not to believe in the word. In fact, they already do explain away Creation itself. After all, Paul goes on to say this in Romans 1:20, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
>>581 It makes sense, You train horses to be calm and disciplined, but the way he said it makes him sound like he's spouting pseudo-intellectual babble with all this war-horse and military training stuff... Oratory really is an art
Open file (31.45 KB 700x394 ssqwe_download.jpg)
>>465 In order for Christianity to be true, the foundation, Judaism, also had to be true. Judaism is founded upon the idea of a mass revelation of God at Mt. Sinai, where the entire nation was witness to God. They recorded and preserved the history of that event both orally and written, in an unbroken line of tradition. Many jewish families today can trace their lineage back to that generation
>>597 Depends on what you mean by "Judaism". If you mean the revelation of God to Israel in ancient times, then you are right in that this is the basis of Christianity. If you mean the religion practiced by most Jews today, with their particular interpritation of the Law and Prophets, then Judaism defenitely is not the foundation of Christianity.
>>611 Yeah, this. Anything that has called itself "Judaism" is based on the rejection of Christ actually. The "Talmud" that they follow was written and codified around 499 AD. In it, Jesus Christ was explicitly denied and his name blasphemed. They try to confuse you by claiming to always be the true faith. But Islam also claims Moses, etc were muslims. It's not true. Judaism right now just happens to have deep pockets to fund good propaganda for itself at the moment. That is all. It's foundationally a rejection of Christianity, a tradition that gradually formed in the Anno Domini era. In addition to this propaganda, they have corrupted our culture as well in modern times through their infiltration of various institutions. Why are so many of them on the Supreme Court, for example? Whether abortion or sodomy, Why is it that orthodox judaism just so happens to support everything that these people in the "progressive" movement of today also promote?
>>465 >Western Christianity attempts cataphatic theology again, AD 2021
Open file (2.91 MB 854x480 1615232346433.webm)
>>611 >Depends on what you mean by "Judaism". The valid Judaism is Pharisaic Judaism, but regardless; Between the Essenes, Saducees, and Pharisees, and all others; They all universally accepted the mass revelation at Mt Sinai, so "Which Judaism is Valid Today" is immaterial insofar as the basis of Christianity is concerned. >If you mean the religion practiced by most Jews today, with their particular interpritation of the Law and Prophets, then Judaism defenitely is not the foundation of Christianity. That is arguable, given that Jesus states that the Pharisees and Scribes sit in the seat of Moses, and that you (Jews) need to abide by their dictums. Jesus also arguably quotes Hillel the Elder, which implies that his issue with the pharisees may have directly concerned Beis Shammai, and not Beis Hillel. >>615 >Yeah, this. Anything that has called itself "Judaism" is based on the rejection of Christ actually. Very true. However, just because Judaism today is based on the rejection of Christ, does not mean it is not valid. The basic reasoning is this: >Were Jews given the right to reject Prophets by God? >>Yes. >Is it possible for the Jews to reject a technically valid prophet? >>Yes. >They try to confuse you by claiming to always be the true faith. But Islam also claims Moses, etc were muslims Even so; the muslims still affirm the mass revelation. Also; a johnny come lately based upon a credulous account from Mohammed, does not have much of a leg to stand upon. >Why is it that orthodox judaism just so happens to support everything that these people in the "progressive" movement of today also promote? That is completely wrong. I've been through an Orthodox Jewish Conversion. They have far more conservative values than any Christian I have ever met growing up, with very few exceptions. The detractions you see from this come from political pundits such as Ben Shapiro, but even this is a problem concerning the Conservative Movement writ large. They also do promote multi-culturalism, but only to the extent that it allows them to persist. They are not exactly multi-cultural when it comes to letting Muslims into western countries, given that they are targetted.
Open file (27.20 KB 320x240 BibleKJV.jpg)
>>627 >They all universally accepted the mass revelation at Mt Sinai, so "Which Judaism is Valid Today" is immaterial insofar as the basis of Christianity is concerned. Absolutely wrong. John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? >However, just because Judaism today is based on the rejection of Christ, does not mean it is not valid. Absolutely false. 1 John 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Open file (164.99 KB 777x656 Argument.png)
>>654 >But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? This doesnt deny the mass revelation, so I assume what you are suggesting is that how Jews interpret the bible, is relevant insofar as the basis of Christianity is concerned. Its not given it is a matter of opinion how the Torah should be interpreted. The Christian Tradition is to interpret the Torah as if it speaks of Christ. Judaism does not have to interpret that tradition; They have that right, even according to Christ: Matthew 23:2-3 New American Standard Bible >2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. >3 Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and [a]comply with it all, >but do not do [b]as they do; for they say things and do not do them. Meaning, that they have authority, even though they are not rolemodels of what they preach. >Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. >Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. This is a letter towards Christians. Not Jews. This is speaking on the authority of Catholicism, not on the authority of those who sit in the seat of Moses, aka the Pharisees.
Open file (131.68 KB 720x720 9fa5825bf.jpg)
>>673 >This doesnt deny the mass revelation The Lord Jesus Christ says in John 5:46, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me." This means that according to the Lord Jesus Christ, anyone who believes Moses also would have believed Him, Christ. Therefore, those that do not believe Christ, do not believe Moses either. This is what Jesus himself taught. >Matthew 23:2-3 This is referring to the fact that the Herodian sanhedrin was then politically in charge of the province of Judea. Jesus never taught rebellion or insurrection against the existing government. He famously said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." This case of the sanhedrin of Herod being the appointed government over the province by the Romans was no different. However, they and their political authority were eventually rendered defunct by the Romans in the first and second century AD. >This is a letter towards Christians. You mean 1 John 2:22-23, what I quoted? According to the word of God, this epistle is on the authority of God and is His word also. Because this is what S. John says later in the same book, 1 John 5:9-12 >If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. >He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. >And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. >He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. The apostle Peter also said, in 2 Peter 1:20-21, >Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. >For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And the apostle Paul tells us that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," (2 Timothy 3:16) and that we are, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;" (Ephesians 2:20). So then the apostles and Old Testament prophets are on the same authority, of having inspiration by the Holy Spirit of God to speak God's word. This is also why Hebrews 1:1 says, >"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" The Lord Jesus also said, >"That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him." - John 5:23 Notice: ALL men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father which has sent him! You cannot deny Jesus Christ the only begotten Son without denying God the Father, as John says in 1 John 2:22-23 already quoted.
>>654 Bravo!!
>>588 Praise the Lord! This guy gets it.
>>673 >Pharisaical Judaism >makes its bed with the Romans >their failed compromise gets Jerusalem destroyed >rewrite everything in exile against Christianity to enforce a neo-orthodoxy despite records showing they agreed with a lot of what Christ preached in the gospels Sure, they can assert to themselves that it is valid. That doesn't make those works any less dead. >>529 I don't get what this is trying to say. That natural events cannot be concurrent with the divine will?
>>677 >This means that according to the Lord Jesus Christ, anyone who believes Moses also would have believed Him, Christ. Therefore, those that do not believe Christ, do not believe Moses either. The whole idea of "Mass Revelation" is that they did not need to depend upon Moses to assert the existence of God, because God came to the people themselves. Its also fairly obvious that Jesus is not making a literal claim here, but is asserting his authority as a pretender to the title of "Messiah" >This is referring to the fact that the Herodian sanhedrin was then politically in charge of the province of Judea. No this is wrong. Its referring to this in Deuteronomy: >8 If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. >9 Go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. >10 You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they instruct you to do. >11 Act according to whatever they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. Pharisaic authority is derived from these verses. >Jesus never taught rebellion or insurrection against the existing government. He famously said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." He said that out of a frustration to people who were caught up in the mundane business of paying taxes in light of other pressing spiritual matters. He also said to sell your cloak and buy a sword. >You mean 1 John 2:22-23, what I quoted? Yes. >According to the word of God, this epistle is on the authority of God and is His word also. Its the word of God, but it is only applicable to those who fall under it. Circumcision for example is only for Jewish People, because it is a law given specifically to the Jewish people. That is why Paul said that you do not need to be circumcized to be a Christian. >For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Its irrelevant. Gods dictum for one, may not be the dictum for another. >So then the apostles and Old Testament prophets are on the same authority, of having inspiration by the Holy Spirit of God to speak God's word. Still irrelevant. Their authority does not supercede the authority given in Deuteronomy on behalf of the Jewish People. It applies to Christians. >You cannot deny Jesus Christ the only begotten Son without denying God the Father, as John says in 1 John 2:22-23 already quoted. You can. Deuteronomy 13 and 18 talk about the obligation to put false prophets to death. Who gets to determine if Christ is a false or a true prophet? According to the scripture; if the predictions come true and whether he keeps the law, that is how you will know. Did Jesus follow the law? Contentious, otherwise Jesus would not have had the enlongated debates with the Rabbinical authority. Did Jesus's Predictions come true? Contentious given that Revelations is seen as a pending event, and that the messianic era has not commenced. And all in all, your biggest issue at hand is that it is not clear by any stretch of imagination, when the authority was officially and formally transferred from the Scribes and the Pharisees, and given unto Paul, Peter, and the Apostles on behalf of the Jewish People. Given that it wasn't, rightly or wrongly, power over the Jews still resides under the Pharisees.
>>687 >rewrite everything in exile against Christianity to enforce a neo-orthodoxy despite records showing they agreed with a lot of what Christ preached in the gospels >Sure, they can assert to themselves that it is valid. That doesn't make those works any less dead. Still valid. From the Talmud: [An oven] that was cut into parts and sand was placed between the parts, Rabbi Eliezer maintained that it is pure (i.e., not susceptible to ritual impurity). The other sages said that it is susceptible to ritual impurity.... On that day, Rabbi Eliezer brought them all sorts of proofs, but they were rejected. Said he to them: "If the law is as I say, may the carob tree prove it." The carob tree was uprooted from its place a distance of 100 cubits. Others say, 400 cubits. Said they to him: "One cannot prove anything from a carob tree." Said [Rabbi Eliezer] to them: "If the law is as I say, may the aqueduct prove it." The water in the aqueduct began to flow backwards. Said they to him: "One cannot prove anything from an aqueduct." Said he to them: "If the law is as I say, then may the walls of the house of study prove it." The walls of the house of study began to cave in. Rabbi Joshua rebuked them, "If Torah scholars are debating a point of Jewish law, what are your qualifications to intervene?" The walls did not fall, in deference to Rabbi Joshua, nor did they straighten up, in deference to Rabbi Eliezer. They still stand there at a slant. Said he to them: "If the law is as I say, may it be proven from heaven!" There then issued a heavenly voice which proclaimed: "What do you want of Rabbi Eliezer — the law is as he says..." Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said: "'The Torah is not in heaven!'1" ... We take no notice of heavenly voices, since You, G‑d, have already, at Sinai, written in the Torah to 'follow the majority.'"2 Rabbi Nathan subsequently met Elijah the Prophet and asked him: "What did G‑d do at that moment?" [Elijah] replied: "He smiled and said: 'My children have triumphed over Me, My children have triumphed over Me.'"
>>691 >from the Talmud, a reactive work Cope, Rabbi, it's called cope.
>>690 >Did Jesus's Predictions come true? >Contentious given that Revelations is seen as a pending event, and that the messianic era has not commenced. >And all in all, your biggest issue at hand is that it is not clear by any stretch of imagination, when the authority was officially and formally transferred from the Scribes and the Pharisees, and given unto Paul, Peter, and the Apostles on behalf of the Jewish People. Given that it wasn't, rightly or wrongly, power over the Jews still resides under the Pharisees. Are you a Christian?
>>690 >The whole idea of "Mass Revelation" is that That was made up by people who reject Christ much later. As quoted in John 5, whoever believed Moses would also believe our Lord Jesus Christ. Whoever did not believe Him, also did not believe Moses. This is what He said in John 5. You quoted Jesus from the gospel earlier as an authority, so either you were wrong before or you are wrong now when you changed your mind. You logically cannot be right. >Its also fairly obvious that... You are lost. You are lost and blind spiritually, and you do not understand Scripture. You also reject Christ openly. Either you are a false prophet, or have been repeating what false prophets say. Everything you say in this regard is damnable heresy, according to the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
>>465 Respectfully, OP, the Bible is the final authority of every christian. Christians are called to speak the truth of the word of God in love to people. It is not for christians to prove the Holy Word of God. Please, read what >>588 rightly wrote. Either people will hear the word and obey it, or they will cleave to their sins and perish. It's just that simple.
>>588 >>704 Based and Bible pilled
>>588 >In fact, they already do explain away Creation itself. I deal with several literal scientists, engineers and other leadership type people. This simple fact you mention to me is the most profound evidence I can personally think of for the delusional powers of prideful sin. Creation itself convicts every man's consciousness of the existence of God. Stubborn refusal to accept the blatant and obvious examples all around us is clear evidence of the fact they are under spiritual blindness. Sir Isaac Newton, among many thousand of other spiritual writings he made, left us this one amusing yet profound little quip: >In default of any other proof, the thumb would convince me of the existence of a God.
>>531 >If the Bible is shown to be historically accurate ... well, that would certainly convince people to believe it. I'm pretty skeptical of that claim personally. There are more than two dozen creation passages in the Old Testament. And quite apart from the obvious historical, political, and other easily-discernible facts within the Bible, the fact it's gotten several profoundly important scientific truths right and first (by thousands of years) is monumental evidence for Scripture's veracity. Those who refuse to accept this laundry list, in fact revile those who do, is pretty clear evidence that a) you're claim isn't really accurate (with all due respect to yourself), and b) the god of this world is real. He has blinded their minds and covered them with spiritual darkness so they won't come into the light, repent and be cleansed of their sins. >tl;dr People most often intentionally choose not to be convinced.
>>735 Anon, I always think about how just because sun rises and sets regularly on a set period of time, the fact this is a common occurrence as well as many other things does not make it any less incredible and Creation should not be taken for granted. People have been led astray by sin and gradually filtered these things out, darkening themselves (Romans 1:21 - "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.") until gradually they become cold and dead inside. As it says in Matthew 24:12, "And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold." If we are branches, then Christ is the vine, and without God we can do nothing. John 15:5, "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing." Also 1 Thessalonians 5:18, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."
>>738 >Also 1 Thessalonians 5:18, "In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." Thanks Anon, appreciated. I've been forgetting to do that much lately. :)
>>737 >People most often intentionally choose not to be convinced. Yet God is sovereign over ultimate fate. If salvation were left to man alone, we would all be doomed against the letter of the law. You would do well not to become a Pelagian; he was convinced that the vast majority of Christians were going to Hell because logic charged all to obey God unfailingly and though Christ opened the door, it was up to men to earn their own salvation. Augustine and Jerome appealing to the universal mercy of Christ and in the mantle of Saint Paul expounded the doctrine of the original sin of Adam and the impossibility of man to perfect himself under his own volition being a slave to sin. Any merit we have before God was not our own work but that of Christ's atoning sacrifice alone. Understanding this, in humility we must be bountiful in our charity, that some transformation may bring the light to the incredulous, even to those deplore the faithful, as did Saul before Damascus, or Augustine in his youth.
>>740 >Pelagian Doesn't the Pelagian philosophy deny original sin? You can be sure I'm not in that category Anon. I consider it pretty obvious that both God's will, and our will are fundamental to the salvation of a follower of Jesus Christ. However (of course) God isn't limited to the timespace of this universe. His transcendent nature allows for "Those He foreknew, He predestined", and without violating any man's free will. This seems almost like an irreconcilable mystery, but is really merely an artifact of our currently being constrained to just the timespace dimensions of this universe. God hasn't such constraints (and neither will we ourselves after our deaths), and He can sovereignly move on our behalves to so order events in our lives to bring us to the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, and to eternal life thereby. Pretty wonderful and comforting to know we don't (indeed, can't) have to get everything just perfect in this life to be able to accept Christ's lordship over our lives.
>>704 >>588 But anon, there are a lot of lies being spread around about the Scriptures - that they are historically innacurate, that they are contradictory, etc. People may misinterpret the Scriptures because they read it with misconceptions in mind. Shouldn't we try to defend the Scriptures and clarify what they mean? In Acts 8:27-37, we read that an Ethiopian man had trouble understanding Scripture, so Phillip helped him out. Shouldn't we be like Phillip, helping people to understand the scriptures better so they can come to Christ? The Apostle Peter told us to: >"sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15) Now, I'm not saying that we should not have the Bible as out final authority. In terms of doctrine we should not go beyond what is written (1 Corinthians 4:6). But, as Peter said, we should always be ready to defend and explain the scriptures if it will bring people to Christ - if that means relying on extra-biblical sources (not as a source of doctrine but as confirmation of Scriptural doctrine), then so be it.
>>742 Not that Anon, but I agree with your perspective on this topic, and I certainly affirm 1 Peter 3:14-22 https://biblehub.com/bsb/1_peter/3.htm We're going to suffer for Christ in this life for our faith. After all, God Himself intentionally allows us to go through this test, for our ultimate benefits in eternity & preparing us to judge angels and all our other, unimaginably amazing experiences to come then. Indeed, 1 Peter 3:15-16 is kind of a cornerstone passage for the topic of this thread; Christianity Proofs.
>>742 Yes, if people are not in line with the word of God, then it is up to someone to bring this to their attention. If they want to place manmade tradition over Scripture, they should be warned, about what Christ said in Mark 7:7-13. If someone wants to go beyond what is written, it is a risk that comes with consequences; they could end up being wrong. So we should be careful where we draw the line between Biblical doctrine, as presented, versus what we draw from it. I say this because it is important to realize that God has given us his word and every person is to base their understanding on what they learn there. Like it says in Jer. 2:13, "For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." Again 1 John 2:27, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Now, people have raised concerns about differing interpretations. Of course we know that there exists unbelievers who "wrest [...] the scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16). But Peter also tells us in the same epistle, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20) This can only be true if God who inspired his word is working in our lives today. Hence, the apostle could write, "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father." (Ephesians 2:18). And also, "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase." (1 Corinthians 3:6-7). So our role as I see it would be to bring people's awareness to the Scriptures, pointing out where someone has gone against what is written, including "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9). Then it is up to them to receive God's word or else hold the truth in unrighteousness, and we have cast the seed of the word in this way. We also need to love others like God does in order for this to work. Hence, "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:2) Furthermore, of course we need to be in God's will first in order to be effective, hence removing the log from our eye before helping the lost brother with a speck in his eye. Otherwise we might be saved, but not be an effective witness.
>>741 >Doesn't the Pelagian philosophy deny original sin? Yes, in its original form. Theological rant ahead as I found it one of the most interesting controversies of the church: It argues that man's logic is enough to earn salvation, and therefore each man is obliged to live a sinless life by reason and those that fail to do so have earned destruction by their own free will. A soteriology of works in which Christ doesn't seem to have an active role in mediating for the world. Pelagius was a die-hard ascetic after his philosophy and thought it was a solution to a church he thought was degenerating as more and more converted after the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. He thought these customary Christians did not live up to the standards of the martyrs and saints that preceded them. He started protesting after encountering Augustine's work in a public lecture and found it objectionable, as he thought the idea of original sin gave license to believers to blame their faults on nature than the weakness of their will. He misses that original sin extends sympathy to sinners and makes all men equal before Christ in their redemption, that Christ came to save normal human beings and not just super-monks. Strangely, Pelagianism was popular with rich Romans, and modern liberals think Pelagius was some jolly defender of free will against the dour Augustine when the opposite was true. Augustine understood that man's true living freedom was only found in Christ and that it should be brought to as much of the world as possible, whereas Pelagius simply thought salvation was the final privilege of slavish devotion to the law rather than the full-hearted embrace of God through the gift of grace. There's no impulse to conversion in there, and it could practically be a secular philosophy because there isn't a faith in there. There is alao semi-Pelagianism, which is a weak form that is ambivalent on the impact of original sin as it conjectures that in the order of salvation man can by logic initiate his journey, that seems illogical by its construction as man's salvation is only made possible by the fact that Christ extended his love to humanity on the cross. Without his act as predicate, salvation is just a conjecture; without the real crucifixion, atonement, and resurrection Christian religion is a moralistic fable on the same ground as Stoicism or Buddhism. The wholesale integrity of Christianity, and its fruit in enabling full human happiness, are what convicts the most that it alone, among all the spiritual traditions humanity claims to be efficacious, is the one that is derived from the ultimate transcendent God. Lastly, there is the pseudo-Pelagianism of Catholics (and some Protestants), where somehow despite having in its stead all the church doctrines that would enable them to come to an accurate evaluation (indeed, they claim to be Augustinians) they instead preach an entire galaxy of redemptive rituals that vainly transplant the mystery of grace from a thorough transaction between the believer's conscience and God to ceremonies. Ceremonies may confirm; that was the original intention, alongside devotion and celebration. In their misguided manner though, they seem to promote a confusion of the outward showing of the work of grace for being the work of grace that comes through faith itself, and gone on doing that for the past five centuries despite having it pointed out to them as corrupting the original message of the gospels, despite even having such policies in their catechism as "baptism by intention" (that is, if a man intends to be baptized into Catholicism but dies before undergoing the ceremony by their own admission is rendered saved). If anything, all the decorum is derivative of their desire to invoke the adulation afforded to the kings and emperors of old, but not towards God -- instead, towards the political ambitions and worldly lusts of the Roman Curia. Let the glory be to God, amen.
>>742 I see what you mean, friend. But when Philip helped the ethiopian, he explained the scripture to him and made him understand what it meant. He didn't use extra-scriptual proofs to show that the Bible is accurate. Furthermore, the Bible also says >The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. This is written twice in the Bible. So wouldn't it just be better to witness to people from the Bible and pray that the Lord would convict their heart unto repentance to obey the gospel of salvation? Remember also that trying to prove the Bible to unbelievers would also waste precious time in debates. Time you could use to witness to other people who could potentially hear the Lord's Holy Word, wouldn't you agree, anon?
>>747 Remember what it says also in John 8:47, which Jesus openly said to the scribes and Pharisees, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." And again John 10:2-5 tells us, "he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers." Further in John 10:26-28, "But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." >Remember also that trying to prove the Bible to unbelievers would also waste precious time in debates. The fact that there are people who choose not to believe in the Bible reflects the truth of what God said, that there would be some that would not believe. All things contained in Scripture need to be fulfilled. At worst, we can be a warning to people who may never believe. Or at best, what we tell them is rejected now, but in the future some of these people will realize it was right and repent based on what happens in the future. If someone just wants to debate and dramatise rather than what they ought to have which is a good faith conversation, just remember the conclusion of the following passage: 1 Timothy 6:3-5 >3 If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; >4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, >5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. And also 2 Timothy 2:24-26 >24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, >25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; >26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
>>748 Amen. Well said, anon. Thank you for sharing.
>>747 >>748 False teachers are a different question entirely than people who are led astray by them. In Matthew 23:37, we hear Jesus say to Jerusalem, "how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" There are atheist/cultist/heretical teachers to whom those passages against the Pharisees applies, but from my experience, most people who follow them are simply ignorant of the truth of scripture. Whenever the churches of God were given over to heresies in New Testament times, did the Apostles just say "meh, they don't believe the Gospel because they knowingly deny it, so it's no use arguing with them"? No! Paul and the other Apostles wrote to these churches, correcting their error and explaining the Gospel to them - these very letters are part of inspired scripture. There are very good reasons why the Apostle Paul repeatedly says things like "Be not deceived" (1 Corinthians 6:9), "Be not deceived; God is not mocked" (Galatians 6:7), " Beware lest any man spoil you" (Colossians 2:8), so on and so forth. Unfortunately, a grrat many people have been decieved by liars. There is a reason why the Bible says Satan "deceiveth the whole world" (Revelation 12:9). Many of the people who see street preachers, unfortunately, have been told by other people that Christians are just insane or primitive, and thus ignore their call to repentance. The Bible itself, not just people who believe it, is the target of slander these days. Paul tells us to expose the works of darkness (Ephesians 5:11). We should expose the lies directed against the Bible with whatever means we have.
>>756 Heh, don't let it go to your head Anon, but you seem to me to be inspired by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. It's pretty refreshing to see such council here. It's a deep mystery to me where the inspired, eternal, holy wisdom of God Himself crosses over into the temporal realm. But plainly, it does. Again, drawing on 2 Peter (he was quite the fisherman, yes?) : >but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. https://biblehub.com/2_peter/1-21.htm I strive regularly to discern the Holy Ghost's wisdom on a topic. My calling seems to regularly draw me into discussions on science and philosophy in this regard. As you point out, there are already many imminent men who have addressed the biblical and theological implications, so it's of little account for me to attempt addressing such matters on that playing field; It's already been well-rehearsed. :^)
>>744 > say this because it is important to realize that God has given us his word and every person is to base their understanding on what they learn there. digits confirm.
Open file (529.44 KB 854x595 numbers31.png)
Seeing as Numbers 31 is among the most abused passages by atheists, this should be useful
Haaahaahahhaah
>>482 Yes you could be sacrificed for someone's sins like a sacrificial lamb, it is murder for accepting their sins, it is their fault and they murder you for it. Do you accept this as your destiny?
Open file (1.59 MB 1920x1080 kjv_7.png)
>>762 Proverbs 3:5-6 >Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Open file (911.35 KB 1280x720 physicalism debunked.png)
Not a proof of God, but intimately related. Physicalism is proven false. How can computation objectively exist when the language that is being computed does not objectively exist and is subjectively defined. Once you realize physicalism is incorrect, dualism (and monotheism as the best form of dualism) soon follows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUjQWxMJsQY&ab_channel=imsmarturnot
>>482 The Original Sin never made any sense to me. It paints God as completely unjust. >Children of Adam is guilty of a sin that Adam made. >that means if your father killed someone, you deserve to be executed too. The only way to salvation is to accept Christ >so the people who lived and died before Christ came along are doomed to burn in hell forever, without any way out >the same goes for infants who died before they can even understand words. Jesus's Sacrifice also makes no sense >God demands his son to be sacrificed to forgive humanity's sins, instead of just forgiving them >Said son also knows that he's coming back later, so it's not really a sacrifice >He's just taking a hiatus
Open file (88.98 KB 398x400 cicular genetic code.png)
Open file (68.67 KB 828x608 The-Genetic-Code.jpg)
>>1119 One exceptionally provocative objective evidence for a mind behind the creation of life is the genetic code. This isn't just some haphazard arrangement but is rather a highly-specific and near-perfectly optimized code. -A. It can't be a 'frozen accident' as Francis Crick would call it -- it's near-perfect. There's simply no evolutionary pathway to explain it's appearance. -B. It's a highly-specific code. Given the 20 amino acids, and permutations of the codons possible, it would take ~10^54 random searches per second if you both grant a naturalistic means for testing assembly (how does that work, btw?), and allow the entire age of the universe to explain the appearance of the genetic code. There simply isn't enough time. -C. This isn't just a single code, but rather is at least six different coding systems all wrapped up in the same substrate. Again, near-perfect optimization & a highly-specific code. -D. Every normal encounter in life tells us that codes come from minds. They simply don't occur in a happenstance way -- codes come from minds. While there's probably been other insights gained more recently, these four fundamentals have been clearly known for more than a decade. They are certainly highly predictive characteristics of an intentionally-designed coding system, rather than some chance assemblage. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics + dirt simply do not display these characteristics, regardless of timeframe.
>>1133 >The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics + dirt simply do not display these characteristics, regardless of timeframe. It's called "evolution".
>>1203 >dirt comes to life by itself where's the life on mars my boy, your "evolution" should have evolved to survive it.
>>1209 >where's the life on mars Bad example given that there is proof that the planet has strong indications of nuclear activity at some point in its past, which so far hasn't been proven to happen naturally.
>>1210 Right the nuclear wars on Mars, gotcha.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?