For all things Christian
Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike are welcome to discuss theology. Try to be polite.
Atheists also welcome, but try to be constructive.
Pastebin for believers and curious folk.
http://pastebin.com/xMQ9wAwW
Pastebin for Orthodox
http://pastebin.com/bN1ujq2x
Sunday, June 6, 2016
Liturgical Year C, Cycle II
Today's Mass
Monday of the Tenth Week in Ordinary Time
Readings for Mass
First Reading: First Kings 17:1-6
Responsorial Psalm: Psalms 121:1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8
Alleluia Matthew 5:1
Gospel: Matthew 5:1-12
Today's Rosary: Joyful Mysteries
Good Scenes to watch
>Jesus Anime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d-uB0vaoQo
>Jesus of Nazareth Sermon on the Mount:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCbJ4vnMNg
>Jesus chases Jews out of the Temple
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEtBs6j7QgU
>Jesus gives sight to the Blind....and takes sight from those who can see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY7vamVg99E
>Roman Centurion has more faith than anyone in Israel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNLSBjYDPko
>Ben Hur scenes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVlf7OiiTJE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fbt2UUthWg0
>Why Atheists shouldn't discourage Christianity even if they don't believe in it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c
>Thread Theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5YEKO04RDI
>>76284611
You know what I mean
We are talking about behavior
A cult that demands his followers to turn into mindless spreaders of the cult without concerns for themselves (Matthew 5:39), for tomorrow (Matthew 6:19) or for their own families (Luke 14:26, Matthew 10:34) is fundamentally incompatible with a civilizational project, which require self-interest and accumulation of riches
>76284736
Even if your declaration was correct, that isn't an argument that denies that Christianity spread by force from Constantine onwards, even among populations that never threw them to the lions, from saxons to aztecs
>>76284919
>We are talking about behavior
So am I.
>A cult that demands his followers to turn into mindless spreaders of the cult without concerns for themselves (Matthew 5:39), for tomorrow (Matthew 6:19) or for their own families (Luke 14:26, Matthew 10:34) is fundamentally incompatible with a civilizational project, which require self-interest and accumulation of riches
Only if that civilization persecutes any belief system which is non-pagan. The Romans killed the Christians because they didn't want people to convert or have different opinions.
As long as you don't threaten Christians with death, they will continue their occupations and will stimulate the economy as any other citizen would. The difference being that they will preach and talk about their beliefs with others.
There is nothing harmful about this.
>>76284919
>selflessness is bad
Right.
Equality, as in treating people equally, actually requires effort.
>>76284765
Hey, is this the Kek praise thread? He spoke earlier today and wondering if he still is.
Orthodox Jew here, can I be part of the discussion?
Did you know that Jesus was a false prophet, Anon-kyun?
>>76285346
Kek is a demon derived from Ba'al.
Pic related, also link related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuk_(mythology)
>>76285346
/pol/ is a Kek praise board.
>>76285202
not sure why you think that is an argument: that is exactly my point
Egalitarianism handicaps a civilization
>>76285162
> they didn't want people to convert or have different opinions.
Hardly, the Roman Empire had a huge level of religious diversity
> There is nothing harmful about this.
Spreading demoralization and division among your own ranks is extremely harmful
I find it bizarre how you ignore all the promises of Jesus about the effect that the spread of his cult would have on the family and on christian themselves
>>76284765
Wow what the fuck I'm a #CrossMissile now.
>>76285717
>Hardly, the Roman Empire had a huge level of religious diversity
Pagans were willing to take part in their worships of the Roman Emperor and Gods.
Christians were not willing to compromise on this issue at all. That's why they started executing Christians in the gladiatorial pits.
>Spreading demoralization and division among your own ranks is extremely harmful
Staying true to your own beliefs is only harmful if your beliefs are outlawed.
>I find it bizarre how you ignore all the promises of Jesus about the effect that the spread of his cult would have on the family and on christian themselves
I think you're making a huge mistake in trying to hold onto that argument in the manner that you are.
>>76285717
>Egalitarianism handicaps a civilization
Well that's really determined by your definition of egalitarianism, simple question, equal opportunities or equal representation/outcome?
The former actually requires effort to actively identify prejudices/stereotypes that you hold in order to treat people equally so they can compete equally.
Meanwhile, the latter actually involves the opposite and using those stereotypes to enforce an outcome, which is obviously not incentivising success and therefore sill handicap civilisation.
>>76285910
So we come back to the main issue: you are a "christian" that actually does not believe in the promises of Jesus
You don't seem to believe the Sermon of the Mount or the promise of the Apocalypse were real
How exactly is the idea that "Christians just wanna be left alone to practice their cult indefinitively" compatible with the great tribulation that the same cult promises?
>>76284919
> slave to sin
> slave to Christ
Pick one
>>76286118
Egalitarianism, defined as, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"
That is the stupidest thing ever said
>>76286242
le false dilemma fallacy
>>76286153
>You don't seem to believe the Sermon of the Mount or the promise of the Apocalypse were real
I do believe those things.
>How exactly is the idea that "Christians just wanna be left alone to practice their cult indefinitively" compatible with the great tribulation that the same cult promises?
Christians are supposed to witness, preach and try to spread their faith. That's part of the purpose for these threads.
The only way preaching Christianity is intolerable to a society, is if that society is so insecure that the VOCATION of those beliefs to others in the hopes of converting them is outlawed.
You're basically saying that the Romans were right to be scared of words.
>>76286260
I call that false pragmatism.
Whether it's true or not, no fucks should be given, but ideally everyone should be *treated* equal and that's sometimes not an easy thing, especially if you've got your brother on one hand and a hypothetical extra terrestrial on the other, but that's my point and actually Jesus's as well.
>>76286392
Sorry, not vocation, I meant proclamation.
>>76286317
Nope you are either one or the other, the blank slate theory is false. You can be bound by perverse passions, dishonesty, and violent behaviors which lead to misery, death, and eventually Hell
Are Gnostic Christians allowed to post ITT?
>>76286624
The original heresy
>>76286260
Created equal, but not created equal in all things.
Equality of opportunity is necessary. But that doesn't mean someone is more talented in one thing, but more retarded in another.
That's why the autistic mute kid with down syndrome is a prodigy with music for whatever reason. But will never ever be able to dance or give a rousing speech.
You have to take into account what is meant by equality.
>>76286242
Christ has no slaves. Only followers
>>76286317
Or Be bound to Christ where you will be dead to sin and know true meaning and understanding of life
>>76286392
You seem to believe that words are somehow powerless: But Christianity is the equivalent of screaming "fire" in a civilizational theater
You are actively trying to convince people that a huge catastrophic end of the world is coming soon and that long-term civilizational concerns are pointless, that the only hope of salvation is to try to convince others of the same incoming catastrophe
Like its other jewish twin, Marxism, a healthy society would disallow the spread of such demoralizing cults
Thread theme: https://youtu.be/KY2KzjVNoKY
>>76286779
Once your saved your are in Christ and bound to his will
>>76286891
Free will is still a thing.
CATHOLICS DO NOT BELONG IN NORTH AMERICA
>>76286443
why is treating other people "equally" an ideal?
I don't treat a stranger the same way I would treat a brother
>>76286979
I believe in corrupted choice but not libertarian free will, I believe we choose according to our nature
>>76286885
>You seem to believe that words are somehow powerless: But Christianity is the equivalent of screaming "fire" in a civilizational theater
So are you in favor of censorship?
>You are actively trying to convince people that a huge catastrophic end of the world is coming soon and that long-term civilizational concerns are pointless, that the only hope of salvation is to try to convince others of the same incoming catastrophe
I'm trying to personally convince others, whether they are believing or not, that there is a Globalist Agenda which is rapidly succeeding.
The fact that is corresponds perfectly with Christian prophecy is mere (((coincidence)))
>Like its other jewish twin, Marxism, a healthy society would disallow the spread of such demoralizing cults
Censorship it is.
>>76286542
You can be a stoicist without having to believe in the Jesus non-sense
You seem to believe that all non-christians are mindless murderers
>>76286698
> Created equal, but not created equal in all things.
that sounds like an oxymoron
> Equality of opportunity is necessary.
Why? If i have a chance to give my own children more opportunity than others have, i should
Someone wanted a reply
>>76282853
>How do the words attributed to Jesus strike you?
It varies. I think each writer does him different. I love Thomas, certain part of Mathew are good. At other times Jesus sounds like a cult leader or it's shallow squabbling.
What is the goals of Christ's philosophy?
Religious philosophy is harder to break into when you don't believe it. It's possible but requires metaphorical reading.
Here's my take. I take great liberty with the interpretation because I think the texts are alter by each author to fit their own agenda and the real truth is between the lines.
I don't think the original Jesus taught about a hell, it violates too much of his other philosophy. "The kingdom of heaven" is a state of mind. In Thomas he says the kingdom has already came but men don't see it, in the canonical Gospels when he says the kingdom isn't of this world he doesn't mean it's part of another world, he means it's not a physical reality. I think he did teach there was a mystical element to the kingdom but that's only relevant if you think there really is a heaven, and God which I will not address.
The goal of the philosophy is complacency, to close oneself off from external pain and focus on the kingdom of heaven. You forgive people expecting nothing return, reject all material things because they are a distraction, that's why he says it's good to be poor. Most of Jesus's early followers would have been people living miserable lives, if they were not slaves they would be dirt poor, they were also under Roman rule and didn't even have full freedom. So he wanted to have a way of obtaining bliss under miserable conditions, you're awake but no longer experiencing the world in the mundane way.
Read the Sermon on the Mount and the 3rd line of Thomas and try to see that context in there.
I think it's a philosophy for people that feel the world closing on them.
>>76287027
How would you feel about losing a job opportunity via nepotism?
>>76287145
Just don't do it by limiting the opportunity of others.
>>76286888
>that get tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GWUW0W_xY4
>>76286666
>6666
Satan copyrighted Gnosticism.
>>76287145
>that sounds like an oxymoron
Everyone is made in the image of God. If that is hypothetically true then each has unlimited potential. This can be meant spiritually, it can also be meant physically.
>>76287098
> So are you in favor of censorship?
Who isn't? Or will you tell me that you are in favor of child pornography?
We can both agree that things that are damaging to the morale of society shall be banned
> I'm trying to personally convince others, whether they are believing or not, that there is a Globalist Agenda which is rapidly succeeding.
Are you spreading Christianity while you do that?
Because if you do, then why should they fight against it? Didn't Jesus promise a Great Tribulation? Well... they will have it!
>>76287027
We're all brothers
>>76286994
We were there first. Also, why do those fags stolen traditional catholic
outfit?
>>76287317
If it means physically then it is false
If it means spiritually then that claim is meaningless
As if i said "I am as sacred as God". i am really not saying thing. Sacred is a matter of perspective
>>76287221
>>76287181
Shouldn't people be allowed to be nepotistic if they want?
Most people in /pol/ are nationalistic, and that is a form of extended-family nepotism
>>76287145
Not necessarily, but they are a slave to some sin, whether it be pride, lust, drunkeness, unrighteousness anger, sexual degeneracy, etc. I would say most people start with small sins, but can be given over to larger sins, so a person who has anger problems might end up killing someone, or a person who is sexually perverse might try to do something really bad Romans 1 explains this
>>76287346
No we aren't.
That would render the "word" brother meaningless
>>76287491
KEEP YOUR PAGANISM IN EUROPE
>>76287501
If it's a family business they should. But in a publicly held corporation absolutely not.
>>76287507
What about Buddhists?
Surely they reject all the sins you mention, without any need for Jesus
As a bonus, they actually don't believe in the "do not resist evil" nonsense
>>76287330
>Who isn't? Or will you tell me that you are in favor of child pornography?
I'm against censorship as long as it doesn't hurt others.
It should not be illegal to profess beliefs or opinions.
>Are you spreading Christianity while you do that?
Yes.
>Because if you do, then why should they fight against it?
Because we are supposed to resist evil.
At this point, your problems with Christianity are just your misunderstanding of doctrine.
>>76287501
That's your opinion.
>>76287613
If the leader of the corporation is a complete stranger, how can you trust he will promote your interests?
Have yo ever meet a mormon IRL? What makes them different from another christians?
>>76287221
Very idealistic, but where's the line drawn?
(Unfortunately I'd actually prioritise my brother and help him get a job because job competition is so harsh here, but I'll at least feel guilty about it).
>>76287501
You're either trolling or Panamanian culture has more internalized inequality than I've realised, can you see how if it becomes who you know instead of what you know then suddenly building merit becomes a fruitless activity past a certain bear minimum? Does that sound healthy for society?
>>76287641
> Because we are supposed to resist evil.
"Do not resist evil" means nothing for you. If anything, you seem to believe Jesus said the opposite of everything he said
At this point, it becomes evident that you are a roleplayer
>>76287638
We are all guilt of committing one sin or another, James says that he who commits one sin is guilty of them all, Bhudists believe the can work their way out of suffering, but Christians know that our works are like Rags to God, until we are apart of Jesus, eph 2:8-10, but if a Bhudists where to repent and put there trust in Christ alone, they will go to heaven
>>76287638
Buddhist are way more pacifist than Christians
>>76287914
Romans 12:21
>Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
Luke 22:36
>He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
>>76287910
I am not representative of Panamenian culture at large. Panama is extremely christian, to my distaste
> who you know instead of what you know
You are commiting the mistake that socialists do. You seem to believe that policy is implemented by abstract policy itself, instead by actual human beings with loyalties of their own
>>76287872
They reject that Jesus is God
For the glory of kek.
>>76287608
>Paganism
Oh my fucking sides. Next what, you will claim that we worship idols? XD Or that you did not works? Or that apostolic tradition need not apply? My dear leaf, stop embaraisng yourself.
Oh.
And only for you:
Vive le Québec libre, mon amie.
>>76288065
Socialists are worse, they don't even use the word "know" and instead spout sophistry about oppression or privileges to justify not hiring based on merit. You talk about healthiness to society, what's healthier than meritocracy?
Look, you're not going to win an argument against a libertarian Christian. We are literally right about everything, I know it's insufferable, but it's just how it's got to be. You shut the fuck up and listen to us.
>>76288028
> overcome evil with good.
A suggestion that you answer to bullets with flowers does not really change the whole idea of "Do not resist Evil" that Jesus declared. It is entirely compatible with it: Cucking for your enemies is the opposite of defeating them
>>76288281
I'm more of a conservative authoritarian, but I think autonomy in business, each man is King of his own castle, and freedom of association are great libertarian values
>>76288028
>He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
What is this with you taking random bits out of chapters and then using them out of context?
You do know that he reprimanded them when they actually tried to use a sword against their enemies right?
He didn't say to Paul and Peter "hack those that wanna kill you", he told them "Submit to your crosses"
And they did
Jesus NOWHERE says that the sword will be used against your enemies, he does heavily imply it will be used against your family. He is a bringer of inner glory, not a bringer of military glory
When Jesus said: "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well", "do not resist evil", "I have come to turn a man against his own household", "if you don't hate your self and your own family you can't follow me", "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors", "the meek will inherit the Earth", "those that wanna die will live", "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom", "do not save treasures for tomorrow", "carry your cross so that you can receive eternal reward", "Sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you'll have treasure in heaven", "it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for the rich to enter Heaven", "Woe to you who are well fed, Woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep"... you seem to believe Jesus actually meant the OPPOSITE of all that, and that Jesus wants you to defend your family, that Jesus wants you to kill your enemies, to become prosperous, well-fed and rich in this world, and to avoid persecution and death!
Only a person that does not actually believe in the Heaven bullshit and in eternal rewards for dying a martyr would actually re-interpret Christianity as a cult of earthly power which declares "the strong shall inherit the Earth" and about "destroy your enemies and conquer their resources"
>>76288462
You must have missed the part where Jesus told Peter to buy a sword.
Christian here... Not really any denomination, raised and confirmed Catholic,
Do you guys think the end times are upon us... Trans humanism is the mark of the beast, illuminati anti christ,
Or am I a paranoid schizophrenic?
>>76288554
* He is a bringer of inner division, not a bringer of military glory
>>76288599
You must have missed the entire rest of the Gospel when
a) Jesus told that the sword was to be directed against your own household
b) When they ACTUALLY tried to use the sword to defend themselves, Jesus reprimanded them
c) Paul and Peter didn't hack their enemies to death
>>76288554
>Jesus NOWHERE says that the sword will be used against your enemies.
You're making no sense at all. He told Peter to buy the sword so that if anyone tried to kill them, they could defend themselves.
>You do know that he reprimanded them when they actually tried to use a sword against their enemies right?
Only because Jesus knew that HE alone was meant to go and allow himself to be crucified.
and you want to complain to me about context?
Why do YOU think Jesus told him to buy that sword?
>>76288599
I also find it bizarre that you people have a thousand individual verses going the "love your enemies" "submit to your cross" "blessed are those who are martyred for me" way, and because an easily contradicted verse declares that you should buy a sword, suddenly the rest of the Gospel can be ignored and you should go out of your way to avoid being martyred
>>76288764
>Jesus told that the sword was to be directed against your own household
How so? Are you talking about when he said that he was not there to bring peace, but a sword?
>>76288922
There is a difference between raising a sword to a criminal attacker and a government agent, Romans 13
>>76284765
>>Jesus Anime
DELETE THIS
>>76288854
then why was Peter martyred as well, if that sword was to be used against your enemies?
"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." is a typical example of "Right Wing" Christians taking what is a hyperbole as literal, and what is literal as hyperbole
Here, Jesus suddenly actually wants people to get pursues and bags! Pursues and bags are surely a key part of Christian doctrine!
He surely isn't talking about readiness for the end!
it is not like Jesus said "ENOUGH!!!" when he realized his followers missed the point, and started to bring stuff with them
But when Jesus means anything else in the Bible, anything that would actually imply that his promises of Sermon of the Mount are true... then he was actually using hyperbolle...
>>76289278
You gotta reach the weaboo degenerates somehow anon.
Jesus here, I'm an impostor, Satan is the true one.
Anybody wanting to be saved must say with his mouth: Save me Satan.
You will not find a single child of the evil one who loves a person who thinks Satan is the original god and the saviour.
you will however find that everyone who claims to be your enemy, suggest Satan is the one behind this.
Meanwhile you don't have a way to confirm identity other than the word of those who constantly accuse Satan.
>>76288959
Sure I do, but surely Jesus actually meant the opposite, as always: Jesus actually meant that he was going to bring peace to the family
I forgot that Jesus always means the opposite of what he said (are you sure you are not satanistic?)
>>76289317
I know, but converting weaboos to christboos (is there a term?) seems a bit far stretched
>>76289306
>"But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." is a typical example of "Right Wing" Christians taking what is a hyperbole as literal, and what is literal as hyperbole
So Peter only figuratively bought a sword?
Don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that Peter was told to buy a sword while they were in danger of being killed?
>then why was Peter martyred as well, if that sword was to be used against your enemies?
Because he wasn't trying to stage a violent rebellion against the Roman Empire.
>>76289468
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>76289490
It's not like I can go invade their basements and start preaching the gospel to them.
>you will never be taken back in time to the Israelite camp and then follow your brothers and sisters in to the enemy's land and have God bring them out at your feet
>you will never destroy dozens of filthy goyim cities without using siege equipment
>you will never fill your pockets with goyim money and take their cattle back to your own land as victory spoils
>you will never set fire to their empty cities as you head back to the city of the great King
>but you were born just in time to receive God's grace and watch Him destroy all your enemies
What a time to be alive.
>>76289672
> So they said, "Lord, look! Here are two swords." He answered them, "Enough of that!"
Jesus really getting tired of their shit
Peter bought the sword but that was a waste of time. He would never get to use it, and once he realized that, he realized that Jesus actually meant that Peter would be martyred as well... he panicked and rejected Jesus 3 times
> He wasn't trying to stage a violent rebellion against the Roman Empire.
Exactly! Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world.
God be praised.
I'm about to cum guys, you won't mind me cumming in the spirit of jesus, disregard the aids.
*aaaah*
>>76289918
Luke 22:38
>And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Clearly they had enough swords.
>Exactly! Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world.
Yes, and Peter was just trying to spread his religion. He wasn't trying to stage a coup.
That's why if you leave Christians alone, they'll preach but they won't attack you in the streets. You're essentially backing up my claims at this point.
Christians will defend themselves, but they won't try to stage a rebellion against their Government.
Look at the merits of the Knights Templar Code to understand.
>Be without Fear in the face of your enemies
>Stand Brave and Upright that the Lord may love thee
>Speak the truth always, even if it means your death
>Protect the helpless and do no wrong
Self-sacrifice where it's necessary. Force is applied as well when necessary, but only in moderation.
>
>>76286242
This. People don't realize how small and powerless we really are in the big scheme of things, at least on our own.
>>76290700
Yep
>>76287098
Remember that the apocalyptic events described in the bible are akin to the burning of the dead branches talked about by Jesus. Metaphorically, it's like giving flesh a chance to heal and come back alive while providing medical treatment for a while before cutting off the dead parts all at once.
>>76289490
That was a powerful video
>>76291091
What a time to be alive.
>>76290444
The "It is enough" translation is laughable
Sudenly Jesus thought only 2 swords that they were NEVER going to use were enough for the self-defense of their thousand of followers
The ISV Bible's translation of Luke 22:38 makes far more sense
It also answers the question: Why did Peter think they were going to fight the Romans off that night?
And the answer is that, up to that point, Peter was convinced they were going to rebell, he thought the "swords" bit seriously, and misconstructed the "enough" bit
To give you a historical context, Judea was the most rebellious province of the Roman Empire, and zealots were preparing for the coming of a leader that would free the jewish national state
So here you have a bunch of people ready to die for the freedom of Judea, no matter who they had to kill, no matter what the sacrifices
The Romans and Pharisees arrive that night... and Peter think that is what Jesus has been preparing them all along... the rebellion was finally starting!!
Only that it wasn't... there was no going to be rebellion... the Kingdom of Jesus was not of this world...
it all came to his head... the words that Jesus had been saying about the persecuted being the people of his kingdom, about those that wanted to die being the ones that would live forever... it all made sense...
and he started fearing for his life... he was not going to die fighting romans like a man, he was going to submit to death and be killed kneeling... his spirit was so broken (blessed are those in spirit) that he submitted to this rotten fate
The Knights Templars are nothing but another round of zealots trying to create a thing that Jesus never promised
Because when Jesus said "Do not resist an evil person".... he actually meant it
>>76291204
* (blessed are those poor in spirit)
>>76288665
Well?
>>76291204
>The "It is enough" translation is laughable
That's the majority of translations.
There are only 4 translations where he says "That is enough"
1 translation where he say's "It is sufficient"
and only one translation where he says "Enough of that"
>And the answer is that, up to that point, Peter was convinced they were going to rebel, he thought the "swords" bit seriously, and misconstructed the "enough" bit
I'm sorry but your opinion on this is just that, an opinion, and not one that is widely accepted even by secularist students of the Bible.
>>76288665
>Do you guys think the end times are upon us... Trans humanism is the mark of the beast, illuminati anti christ,
You're not shizophrenic
But you are paranoid, like me.
Given the amount of Globalism that is being pushed, along with the degeneracy of "liberalism", it's fair to say that at the least we're getting there.
>>76291763
You don't care that "That is enough" makes zero sense?
They were not going to rebel. They were not going to use swords. They didn't need them.
Jesus would go on and ask everyone to carry his own cross. Jesus had already made many promises along the lines of "the meek, the persecuted, the suffering, those that cry = blessed", "the happy, the rich, the healthy = damnation". The "New Israel" was completely abstract. An inversion of the values of Nature
Why exactly do you think that Peter misunderstood Jesus? Because he was dumb?
Why do you think he rejected Jesus 3 times when he had already proven he was ready to fight?
Surely, if Peter was a coward, he would have not drawn the sword to begin with!!
>>76291929
OK just making sure...
>>76292197
>They were not going to rebel.
I never said they were.
>You don't care that "That is enough" makes zero sense?
You're so desperate at this point that you'll say that a translation that is clearly in a minority of one is the best translation.
What, do you think Jesus changed his mind about buying the swords?
>>76291651
This, except Jesus with an assault rifle is cool
>>76292480
>>76292362
> What, do you think Jesus changed his mind about buying the swords?
That is exactly what I am asking you
Why did Jesus ask them to buy swords they were never going to use?
Why would he suddenly contradict everything he said:
> "if they take your coat, let them have your shirt as well"
> "do not resist an evil person"
> "love your enemies, pray for your persecutors"
> "blessed are those the persecuted, for they will be my Kingdom"
> "do not save treasures for tomorrow",
> "those that wanna die will live"
> "woe to you who are well fed, for you will starve; woe to you who laugh, for you will mourn and weep"
?
Why would he suddenly want you to resist an evil person, to be well fed, to laugh... just so that you could buy a sword you will never use?
>>76292881
>Why would he suddenly contradict everything he said
It doesn't.
>love your enemies, pray for your persecutors
This means you should hope that even your enemies find God.
Do not return evil with evil. Don't be malicious as your enemies are.
>Exodus 23:5
If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.
Notice how even in the Old Testament it talks about helping your enemies, and how in Psalms, King David talks about not resisting the persecutors, and praying for your enemies.
Yet, David went into battle with those who sought to destroy his country.
You need to realize that YOUR idea of what Christianity is, isn't actually what Christianity is.
>>76292881
> why did he have them buy swords
It could be a number of different reasons. Perceived security maybe? He doesnt need a reason. Why do you post here when it serves no purpose to you? If the man wants to buy swords let him have his dang swords
>>76284765
/pol/ is a Christian board.
>>76293484
This day, this day of wrath
Shall consume the world in ashes,
As foretold by David and Sibyl.
What trembling there shall be
When the judge shall come
To weigh everything strictly.
The trumpet, scattering its awful sound
Across the graves of all lands
Summons all before the throne.
Death and nature shall be stunned
When mankind arises
To render account before the judge.
>>76293402
> Do not return evil with evil
Surely Jesus realized that was very silly advice, and that to survive in this word one needs to fight fire with fire
Jesus' advice is an advice to become the loser, the victim, the persecuted
Do you think it is some sort of accident that he reserves his blessings to those in a position of powerless and victimhood, and the woes condemned those in position of power and strength?
> King David talks about not resisting the persecutors
That is just bizarre. Do you have a source for that?
Remember, gentle Jesus,
That I am the reason for Thy time on earth,
Do not cast me out on that day.
Seeking me, Thou didst sink down wearily,
Thou hast saved me by enduring the cross,
Such travail must not be in vain.
I groan, like the sinner that I am,
Guilt reddens my face,
Oh God spare the supplicant.
Thou, who pardoned Mary
And heeded the thief,
Hast given me hope as well.
Give me a place among the sheep
And separate me from the goats,
Let me stand at Thy right hand.
When the damned are cast away
And consigned to the searing flames,
Call me to be with the blessed.
Bowed down in supplication I beg Thee,
My heart as though ground to ashes:
Help me in my last hour.
>>76293902
* world
>>76292881
>Being in this much denial
>>76293902
>Surely Jesus realized that was very silly advice, and that to survive in this word one needs to fight fire with fire
You fight fire with water.
Actually, to help you understand the Christian philosophy on persecution and self defense, let me refer to to Shaolin Monks who practice Taoism.
Vid very related. Please watch it, it may help you understand the concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2fq9K1yE4k
>>76284765
I want to become christian but I love hitler
>>76294555
> Taoism
> Christianity
u wat
I will have to ask you again:
Do you think it is some sort of accident that he reserves his blessings to those in a position of powerless and victimhood, and the woes condemned those in position of power and strength?
>>76288009
Flase. Check out the various wars being fought by Buddhists. They're just as violent as anyone else.
>>76294767
>u wat
It's only a fair comparison in regards to the philosophy of being able to defend ones self, but also doing ones best to try and not hurt others at the same time.
If you can understand that, you can understand why Jesus would tell them to buy swords, yet prevents Peter from actually killing the Roman Soldier
>Do you think it is some sort of accident that he reserves his blessings to those in a position of powerless and victimhood, and the woes condemned those in position of power and strength?
No, but he doesn't condemn those in power and strength unless they choose evil.
There was actually a Pharisee who ended up helping Jesus.
Vid related is from a Templar movie, and shows Arn practicing the exact same teaching of Jesus.
To defend life as much as possible, while willing to use force.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNi2kDiu0L0
>>76294987
No it isn't. We are talking about Jesus' teaching, not about Tao
You would have to me to believe that Taoism has anything resembling "do not resist an evil person"
> he doesn't condemn those in power and strength unless they choose evil.
Jesus said nothing about "choosing evil"
You simply don't believe in the promises of the Sermon of the Mount
That is there is to it
>#BREAKING: (AP) - Experts begin first renovations of Jesus' tomb in 200 years after rare accord among Christian sects.
???
>>76295325
* That is all there is to it
>>76295325
>You would have me believe that Taoism has anything resembling "do not resist an evil person"
That's one of the biggest themes of the philosophy of the Tao actually, but I was only using it to give you an idea.
If you watched the video with Arn the Templar, you'll see that he did everything he could to end the conflict without death.
He was not trying to be in contention with anyone.
But, he defended himself.
>Sermon on the Mount forbids self-defense
No, it doesn't.
>>76295344
catholics do the plastering
copts do the tiling
orthodoxmen do the heavy lifting
and armenians do the planing
>>76293484
>/pol/ is a Christian board.
Then why does it need a Christian general?
>>76295738
That was pretty funny.
>>76295685
I am not going to watch any video. I am not going to dissect an entire video for you
If you can provide a readily verifiable verse providing that Taoism has anything resembling "do not resist an evil person", then I can believe that Christianity and Taoism are somehow equivalent
I am debating with you here, hoping that we can exchange logical arguments. I am not going to ask you to watch atheistic videos and then come back to me
> No, it doesn't
Let's dissect the Luke 6 then
I shall start by asking you this:
What is important for a christian in this Earth?
a) To be happy in this Earth
b) To ensure his future happiness in Heaven
How is Christian peace different than globalism?
>>76296267
Give evil nothing to oppose
and it will disappear by itself. ~ Lao Tzu
>What is important for a christian in this Earth?
Both are goals that a Christian aspires to.
But happiness in heaven is most important.
>>76296501
Globalists on earth seek to rule through the power of men.
Christians will not accept a World Government unless God himself is at the head. Christianity is extremely anti-globalist for this reason.
>>76296583
> Give evil nothing to oppose and it will disappear by itself
That is an incredibily stupid declaration. I will give you that then, Taoisim is a deluded as Christianity
Only a fool isolated in a bubble would believe that a murderer is going to kill you, will no do such thing provided that you offer no resistance
> Both are goals that a Christian aspires to.
Here is the mistake I see.
You seem to believe that christians should look for earthly happiness, something that the Sermon directly rejects
You wanna have the cake and eat it, but if you already have earthly happiness, you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you
>>76294742
I hate to be that guy, but there is a good chance hitler is in hell
>>76295742
To remind people broeder
AVV
A
V
VVK
V
K
>>76294911
Oh but they teach that you can't even hurt animals
>Believing in God
Grow up, please
>>76297351
You know God exists
>>76297070
That depends on what you mean by earthly happiness.
Because you can be the poorest motherfucker on the planet and still be happy.
You can also be the richest man alive and be miserable.
Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is already here, within you.
>That is an incredibily stupid declaration. I will give you that then, Taoisim is a deluded as Christianity
and yet the Shaolin Monks train to be better at combat than anyone else.
Is it contradiction? It probably is, but only based on your limited understanding of the philosophy.
Christians are not pacifists. They just strive towards peaceful resolution rather than violence, and are even willing to die, and accept self-sacrifice if it means achieving such a resolution.
Yet also, just as willing to fight to the death if it is the only necessary way to defend the innocent.
>>76174491
>>76174923
>>76175209
>>76175645
>>76175780
To continue this discussion from yesterday.
This asks for a very based and balanced start. And the ability to do it and take into account that it could have to be left for and passed on to posterity. And seeing the sufficient benefits of it in all cases.
It needs this very realistic position. The best example could be a hobby.
And more things (at this moment related)
- I could also go fast suddenly
- Money (personaly I don't see it should be this donate button based kind of thing or draining to participants)
- decision and reasons to open it up to anyone that is interested. Becoming and advertising it as being something that all christians should or could become a member of. In this thread or other threads here, basically yes.
- Being organised as a part of all churches and denominations. This is where its participants come from. Being their friend, part-of, famalam. Not a separate church. Just people from all denominations that are interested in this. Other people are welcome too. It is about the common local spiritual house.
>>76296686
I agree with this, but it's annoying how many people promote socialism/communism as the way of Christ
>>76297351
Grow up, please
ah yes because not believing in god is a magical cure for all irrationality
>>76297566
This first post should really be included too
>>76174392
>>76297575
Those are the same people who think we should condone gay marriage because Jesus said not to judge anyone.
Because that's how they think logic works.
>>76297575
Well I mean the church is a better alternative to the welfare state
>>76297679
They don't read Matthew 7 in context
>>76297832
I don't think they read.
>>76297899
I think if a Christian reads his Bible, he can solve most of the problems in his life
>>76297747
one moral issue i have with this that people point out is that there is a large and growing amount of atheists in our world
I know charitable acts are choice and a demonstration of faith, but since the churches are so weak right now many Christians I know are choosing the latter. It feels like the end times because of this with all of the poverty/destruction in the world today
>>76297542
Happy people, even if poor, laugh
The same rule applies: they are happy in this world, so they will weep insofar they already got their reward
they can't have their cake and eat it
> It probably is, but only based on your limited understanding of the philosophy.
The full understanding of the philosophy is that its verses are actually demented, insane advice that they need to ignore to survive in this world
aka, it is a pointless philosophy
Is it that hard to simply say "Do not do to others as you don't wish they did to do"?
DO they have to twist the Golden Dawn into insane, false verses?
If so, I question the value of such philosophies
Not politics.
>>>/asp/
>>76298042
It also doesn't help when the mega churches buy their pastors privet Jets
>>76297542
* the Golden Rule
>>76297679
look the new testament is only against gay marriage not homosexuality as far as i know
the sharia law tier martial law set upon the jews until Jesus came was what opposed it
>>76298295
Romans 1
My friend's fiance is trying to set me up with a 23 year old Una Voce member who has never had a boyfriend but is now looking for a potential future husband.
Going by a few pictures I've seen she is quite cute.
Advice?
>>76298044
>People who are happy on earth are damned
>You un-ironically believe that's the correct interpretation
Please go to the corner where some edible glue and soft scissors await.
>>76298295
>look the new testament is only against gay marriage not homosexuality as far as i know
Nope.
>1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.
>>76298536
True happiness is in Christ, sin is short term happiness, but in the long run leads to regret and depression
>>76298403
>Advice?
Meet her and evaluate. What have you to lose? Worst case scenario, she's not right for you.
Best case scenario, she's a fantastic girl and you should marry her.
>>76284765
For the mudslims
http://www.answering-islam.org
>>76298651
oh wow the english versions are p tame mine says no faggots(meant as men who take it up the ass but arent gay for men per say general bi) no homos (catholic version)
the other lutheran bible said man fuckers instead of homos
ah well sucks for (((milo)))
>>76298536
Why would that not be the correct interpretation?
Jesus even expressed that following him would require harsh sacrifices, and that those that didn't hate themselves and their families, and didn't carry their own crosses, could not follow him
That the rich, to follow him, would have to sell everything away, because saving things and treasures in this world was pointless
Certainly that does not sound like the path to happiness in this Earth
But why should it be? Jesus called this world its enemy. That was the great relevation! That this world was a lie! And that you win by being "wiser" and doing everything inverted, everything non intuitive
It really seems to be like you don't care about the supposed rewards that you would receieve in Heaven
You want me to believe that you are supposed to be alive in Earth, because Jesus wants you to love yourself and your own family, and be rich and prosperous
You wanna have the cake and eat it, you wanna believe that all this system of self denial laid down in the Gospel is some sort of huge, massive accident
>>76298779
I intend to do that, the thing is I've never had any experience meeting with particularly religious girls before. Everyone's nominally Catholic here in Poland, but most aren't exceptionally into it, especially among young women (I have aunts who are nuns though).
She's a student of French philology and her hobbies are playing church organs and translating old French (Crusade era - think Thibaut de Champagne or Conon de Bethune) poetry into Polish.
It's all rather bizarre. I've met my friend and his fiance on Saturday. The fiance mentioned this girl once and I jokingly expressed interest ("Do you have her number?"). I have been bombarded by my friend's fiance with endorsements of the girl and offers to get us on a date ever since. I think I'll just go with the flow and see where it takes me.
>>76299483
I think the English language might just have a bit more to work with. But I could be wrong there.
>>76300187
>translating old French (Crusade era - think Thibaut de Champagne or Conon de Bethune) poetry into Polish.
That's fucking cool.
> have been bombarded by my friend's fiance with endorsements of the girl and offers to get us on a date ever since. I think I'll just go with the flow and see where it takes me.
I think you should definitely explore this option. As you said, see where it takes you.
>>76288665
I've had similar thoughts. Saint Bridget centuries ago said that 40 years before the year 2000 the devil will be unleashed upon mankind for a time, and the signs of this is that men will dress like women and women like men. Considering this is the first time transgenderism is really taking off, it makes one wonder.
Not to mention the push towards a global one world government. There will be one last World War, I think, and it will happen in our century.
What do you mean about transhumanism being the mark of the beast?
>>76285162
>There is nothing harmful about this.
Unless it is Christians killing Christians in the streets of Belfast. Or Christians massacring Muslims in Bosnia.
>>76301157
>Unless it is Christians killing Christians in the streets of Belfast. Or Christians massacring Muslims in Bosnia.
I was discussing the scenario of the Roman Empire, and saying that generally Christians don't want to be bothered.
Many situations where Christians kill Christians are politically driven, the simple fact remains that people in general are bloodthirsty.
The ideology of Christianity is not a violent one. The guy from Panama in fact was arguing to me in many ways that Christianity is too passive and went so far as to say that he was in favor of censorship.
>>76302495
This
>>76300202
I think it's just that the word 'effeminate' is used in its archaic literal form here. However, if you study what the Greek word here, μαλαkός (malakos), means and how it has been used in Classic Greek writings, it is quite apparent that it refers to a man who commits homosexual acts.
>>76284765
One of my major concerns is the separation between us as Christians.
I mean the differences between our particular denominations.
Catholic vs. Protestant, Orthodox vs. Cathothic. And other permutations.
Yet there is infighting, which puzzles me. And I'd like to explore it.
As it is a barrier to knowing our Lord.
An example: my church has helped me so much. My denomination is High Church Anglican.
It's a traditional expession of faith. Very close to Roman Catholic and Orthodox, but we don't recognise the Pope as head of the church. Only God.
We don't pray to Saint Mary, the mother of Christ. Nor Saints. They are seen as examples of divinity.
There can be no intermediary between God and the individual. Direct experience of God is the only link.
There is no formal 'confession' as only God can judge us sinners. No priest can give me forgiveness.
My denomination is High Church Anglican. It is traditional, socially conservative, very much based upon the teachings of Christ.
My daughter prefers to go to the Methodist church. She's 17 and goes with her friends. She gains a lot from church attendance.
She meets her friends, goes on organised excursions, does voluntary work working with elderly people in our community.
My church is a bit too 'old fashioned' for her. Pic related. It's the interior of my church. It's very old.
Peace.
>>76288665
They will come when they come, watch out for the signs of the End drawing near. Matthew 24, Luke 21 spell out what happens at the End times, and Revelation obviously does too. Keep watch for the things which are written of regarding the end times. Also, don't be afraid.
Romans 10:9
"and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake"
I don't see this happening?
But hey, watch the buttrage when I say the magical words.
Say this with your mouth: SATAN SAVE ME.
Do it, challenge them.
>>76303576
You sound like you have a pretty good life :)
I completely agree with your point, we should focus on the similarities we have instead of the differences. This has troubled me in the past few days on /csg/ - there has been much interdenominational infighting in these generals. We need more focus on what brings us together in these generals and also do focussed and legit Bible discussion, otherwise people are just going to be disinterested and uninspired to partake in these threads.
>>76303576
Is the Methodist Church liberal?
>>76303576
I do religios support in the army, and I just witnessed a protestant service overthrow a catholic service yesterday as though it was second nature. The service was moved to a new location that had working air conditioning. The chapel HVAC system was repaired so the protestants moved everything including the catholic items as a show of good faith. The catholics took this as a disrepectful prank.
I just don't get it. I read recently that at one point Muslims, Jews, and Christians all got along together and yet I never even see Christians get along with each other.
>>76303576
>Pope as head of the church. Only God.
Isn't queen head of you church?
>We don't pray to Saint Mary, the mother of Christ. Nor Saints
No one prays to Virgin Mary nor to the Saints. We ask them to pray for us because we are almost 100% sure that they are in state of grace and all that shit. And it's not something new, we do it since apostolic age.
>There can be no intermediary between God and the individual. Direct experience of God is the only link.
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus!
>There is no formal 'confession' as only God can judge us sinners. No priest can give me forgiveness.
Yes, but John 20:21-23
>My church is a bit too 'old fashioned' for her.
Take her to a Latin Mass. I know, that most of protestant are all for "Whore of Babylon! Idol worshipers!" bullshit but you don't have to participate in mass. Just go there and listen to the Holy Sacrifice. You both do not have idea, what "old fashioned" mean...
Chevalier d'Artois reporting in. Who else wants to join the crusade?
>>76305248
I do, but I'll only use a sword made of paper and bound in leather, unless I legitimately must use a sword made of steel.
>>76305604
The pen is mightier than the sword
>>76305924
Amen
>>76305604
Ecclesiastes 3:8
>>76306524
Ephesians 6:12 :^)
Orthodox checking in
>>76308189
Hello Orthodox
>believing in dune tomes
>on my board
Hi
>>76304916
Life can be complicated, mate. I'm a single dad with a spinal injury. I can't turn my head.
Car crashes can be very bad.
The point I was terying to make is that there seems to be a lot of animosisty between different paths of our faith.
I'm trying to understand it.
As Christians, we accept Christ. We know that He was resurrected. We follow his teachings, as much as we can (we are all sinners), yet I do see a bit of discord in these /csg/ threads about one branch of our faith being 'better' than another.
All of it is the church. It's all valid. As long as one follows Christ then there is no heresy.
I explained why my daughter goes to a Methodist church and I go to High Church Anglican.
Is one better than the other? Really?
Is a Catholic closer to God than a Protestant? Is a Protestant closer to God than an Episcopalian? Is an Orthodox closer to God than a Protestant?
It's all wrong. There is ONE church through Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian, then you are part of that ONE church.
It doesn't matter about denomination. Most Italians, Irish, and Polish are Catholic. Most English, Dutch, Norwegians are Protestant, most Russian, Greek, Serbs are Orthodox,
Eitheir we're all wrong or we're all right.
I go with the latter - we're all right, as we seek God.
>>76308281
Hey, got any questions about Orthodoxy?
>>76309073
No, no real questions.
Basically I know about orthodoxy. Or other. As far as I know.
>>76305240
I'm not getiing into inter denominational disagreements about which is the best form of Christianity.
Please read my post
>>76308761
And listen to some Serbian Orthodox Liturgy. I hope you like it. (I'm not Orthodox but it is beautiful).
I hope you can see the link between culture and religion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-J2kuSCLvE
Another pic of my church. I'd love to see your church, mate. Just a google street view or something would be appreciated.
I love church architecture.
Peace to you.
>>76309073
Tl;dr on Orthodoxy
>>76310038
Orthodoxy is the ancient faith, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is what western Christendom was a part of until 1054 when the Romans excommunicated Constantinople. Since then the Roman-Catholic Church has added many dogmas that are foreign to the Orthodox world, and the Protestants have over 30,000 different sects, but the Eastern Orthodox faith remains unchanged.
>>76303576
>>76308761
>>76309506
Listen to your elders younglings. They know something you don't.
Guise, something actually came to my mind in a previous /csg/, which might solve the difference between the Old- and the New Testament. Not sure if I can word what I think, but I'd like to share it with you.:
>In the Old Testament te laws were laid strictly in an eye-for-an-eye way. This might be because before the redemption, the whole world was like a flock of sinners, and according to this, the sole way to forgiveness was an equal punishment.
>After the salvation through Christ, we gained the chance to earn forgiveness not through the vengeance of other people, but our faith, hope and love in THE LORD.
>>76310579
they are neither One nor Catholic though.
>>76310679
How so?
>>76310952
>>76309506
It's not about denominational. It's about fulfilment of Truth. But I respect Anglicanism (and rest of Great Heretic Three) more than rest of 99 997 denominations.
>>76311050
Most of those were granted their autocephaly by the Patriarchates, hence they are all part of the same Church.
>>76310952
Armenian, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian etc. You've got as many splinters as the protestants
>>76311624
>granted their autocephaly by the Patriarchates
The Pentarchy didn't exist before the schism
>hence they are all part of the same Church
There is no central authority, so no, you can't say they are part of the same Church.
>>76311624
But there are not united therefore there are not One. Or Catholic what mean Universal (ergo there cannot be national churches)
>>76311050
We are all united under the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We just do not worship the Patriarch of Constantinople as a demigod like Catholics do with the Pope.
>>76311813
>The Pentarchy didn't exist before the schism
Maybe not to the Romans, but it certainly existed to everyone else.
>There is no central authority, so no, you can't say they are part of the same Church.
They all adhere to the canons of the seven great ecumenical councils, say the Nicene Creed, they even have the same architecture. And if you're baptized and chrismated in one of them, you're a member of all of them.
Idk if it was shown upon formerly, but i was lazy to check it.
So. Why do catholics and orthodoxes have pope/patriarch? I mean, it's such a bullshit that God would need a "governor on Earth".
>>76310617
Guys? ;_;
>>76311934
These Churches are all united with each other
https://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_churches
>>76311951
>We are all united under the Patriarchate of Constantinople
You mean the patriarchate of Istanbul? Seems like the gates of hell prevailed on the center of the orthodox church
>as a demigod like Catholics do with the Pope.
Again, everytime you guys get called out for your flaws your revert to protestant strawmen. We don't worship the Pope as a semigod, we simply acknowledge his role as vircar of Christ and servant of the servants of God.
>>76312338
>Maybe not to the Romans
lmao. We have a stronger case for papacy being precedent to the Pentarchy, considering the are eastern Churches with latin rite, but no western churches that are part of the EO
>They all adhere to the canons of the seven great ecumenical councils
Actually not all of them adhere to all seven. Some of them don't acknowledge some of them as ecumenical.
>And if you're baptized and chrismated in one of them, you're a member of all of them.
That's not much
>>76312465
It sounds good, but is there any scriptural basis in it?
>>76311951
>We are all united under the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
more than one Church, focused on ethnicity rather than theology then it's not united as One and Universal Church (but I must admit, at least it's apostolic).
>demigod like Catholics do with the Pope.
Prove that we do it.
>>76312338
>Maybe not to the Romans, but it certainly existed to everyone else.
[citation needed]
>Nicene Creed
>ALL of them
>ONE<, Holy, UNIVERSAL and Apostolic
Church
>>76312528
Then they are not ONE Church.
>>76310617
See Council of Jerusalem circa anno Domine 49. Mosaic Law was discussed there.
>>76312596
>We have a stronger case for papacy being precedent to the Pentarchy
The Council of Jerusalem that takes place in Acts 15 says otherwise.
>Actually not all of them adhere to all seven
And not all western Christians are papists, what's your point? I never said we didn't have our own schismatics. We have the Old Believers and Oriental Orthodox just like you have Sedevacantists and SSPX. But that doesn't change the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church is united in our faith.
I am interested in Eastern Orthodox, can I get some help?
>>76312762
>The pentarchy was first tangibly expressed in the laws of Emperor Justinian I (527–565), particularly in Novella 131. The Quinisext Council of 692 gave it formal recognition and ranked the sees in order of preeminence. Especially following Quinisext, the pentarchy was at least philosophically accepted in Eastern Christianity, but generally not in the West, which rejected the Council, and the concept of the pentarchy.[3]
>The pentarchy was first tangibly expressed in the laws of Emperor Justinian I (527–565), particularly in Novella 131. The Quinisext Council of 692 gave it formal recognition and ranked the sees in order of preeminence. Especially following Quinisext, the pentarchy was at least philosophically accepted in Eastern Christianity, but generally not in the West, which rejected the Council, and the concept of the pentarchy.[3
>>76313338
Didn't mean to paste it twice
"Quinisext Council". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved February 14, 2010. "The Western Church and the Pope were not represented at the council. Justinian, however, wanted the Pope as well as the Eastern bishops to sign the canons. Pope Sergius I (687–701) refused to sign, and the canons were never fully accepted by the Western Church".
And btw, if I was baptized by Catholic rite (thanx great-grandma...), can I do the Lutheran confirmation or I should be re-baptized?
>>76313213
Sure anon, what do you need help with?
>>76313157
>The Council of Jerusalem that takes place in Acts 15 says otherwise.
it doesn't
>And not all western Christians are papists, what's your point?
Only those who rejected tradition and apostolic succession.. Those """"christians"""" are heretics, not schismatics.
>We have the Old Believers and Oriental Orthodox just like you have Sedevacantists and SSPX
Completely false equivalence. The SSPX will come back into the flock sooner or later, talks are in the process. The point is that they are part of the Church only once they are in full communion with Rome, there is no space for diluition of truth in the Catholic Church. Sedevacantists are heretics, only slightly better than protestants.
Oriental Orthodox have just as much authority as EO, so you can't compare them to SSPX and Sedevacantists.
Gotta go pray the Rosary, later.
>>76313548
In my early age, I was a Baptist. I have found myself distanced from this church and I am looking for a more traditional outlook.
How do I start?
What are some things that I need to know?
What separates these churches from my previous church?
>>76313644
The EO/OO reunification will probably happen in our lifetime, anon. It was mostly misunderstanding that led to the schism in the first place.
>>76313766
>The EO/OO reunification will probably happen in our lifetime
not an argument. Reunification CC and EO will probably happen in our lifetime too.
>It was mostly misunderstanding that led to the schism in the first place.
That's how schism happen in general
>>76313338
>The pentarchy was first tangibly expressed in the laws of Emperor Justinian I (527–565),
so an emperor literally invented it. lmao.
Does not sound like Tradition, more like the temporal power meddling with the EO as usual
>>76313157
>The Council of Jerusalem that takes place in Acts 15 says otherwise.
Oh you mean that council where Peter locuta, causa finita?
>>76313338
>>76313481
So it was not Ecumenical Council.
Ok anons. I go to sleep. To not blow this place up. Pax vobiscum!
>>76313680
I would highly recommend reading "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy(now Kallistos) Ware. Lots of other good books but that is essential for converts so that's a good start. Start looking for an Eastern Orthodox parish near you. Typically in the US that means Antiochian, Greek, or Russian. Go to a Divine Liturgy if you can, try to find one in English, shouldn't be that hard. Also check out deathtotheworld.com and Ancient Faith radio.
>>76314348
Goodnight brother
Let us first survey the evidence found in the more obvious and well-known sources. It appears from Acts that Paul was at first called 'Saul', and that his birthplace was Tarsus, a city in Asia Minor (Acts 9:11, and 21:39, and 22:3).
Strangely enough, however, Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he came from Tarsus, even when he is at his most autobiographical. Instead, he gives the following information about his origins: 'I am an Israelite myself, of the stock of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin' (Romans 11:2); and '... circumcised on my eighth day, Israelite by race, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born and bred; in my attitude to the law, a Pharisee....' (Philippians 3:5). It seems that Paul was not anxious to impart to the recipients of his letters that he came from somewhere so remote as Tarsus from Jerusalem, the powerhouse of Pharisaism. The impression he wished to give, of coming from an unimpeachable Pharisaic background, would have been much impaired by the admission that he in fact came from Tarsus, where there were few, if any, Pharisee teachers and a Pharisee training would have been hard to come by.
>>76314135
That "meddling" is what gave us Hagia Sophia.
We encounter, then, right at the start of our enquiry into Paul's background, the question: was Paul really from a genuine Pharisaic family, as he says to his correspondents, or was this just something that he said to increase his status in their eyes? The fact that this question is hardly ever asked shows how strong the influence of traditional religious attitudes still is in Pauline studies. Scholars feel that, however objective their enquiry is supposed to be, they must always preserve an attitude of deep reverence towards Paul, and never say anything to suggest that he may have bent the truth at times, though the evidence is strong enough in various parts of his life-story that he was not above deception when he felt it warranted by circumstances.
It should be noted (in advance of a full discussion of the subject) that modern scholarship has shown that, at this time, the Pharisees were held in high repute throughout the Roman and Parthian empires as a dedicated group who upheld religious ideals in the face of tyranny, supported leniency and mercy in the application of laws, and championed the rights of the poor against the oppression of the rich. The undeserved reputation for hypocrisy which is attached to the name 'Pharisee' in medieval and modern times is due to the campaign against the Pharisees in the Gospels -- a campaign dictated by politico-religious considerations at the time when the Gospels were given their final editing, about forty to eighty years after the death of Jesus. Paul's desire to be thought of as a person of Pharisee upbringing should thus be understood in the light of the actual reputation of the Pharisees in Paul's lifetime; Paul was claiming a high honour, which would much enhance his status in the eyes of his correspondents.
Before looking further into Paul's claim to have come from a Pharisee background, let us continue our survey of what we are told about Paul's career in the more accessible sources. The young Saul, we are told, left Tarsus and came to the Land of Israel, where he studied in the Pharisee academy of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).
We know from other sources about Gamaliel, who is a highly respected figure in the rabbinical writings such as the Mishnah, and was given the title 'Rabban', as the leading sage of his day. That he was the leader of the whole Pharisee party is attested also by the New Testament itself, for he plays a prominent role in one scene in the book of Acts (chapter 5) -- a role that, as we shall see later, is hard to reconcile with the general picture of the Pharisees given in the Gospels.
Yet Paul himself, in his letters, never mentions that he was a pupil of Gamaliel, even when he is most concerned to stress his qualifications as a Pharisee. Here again, then, the question has to be put: was Paul ever really a pupil of Gamaliel or was this claim made by Luke as an embellishment to his narrative? As we shall see later, there are certain considerations which make it most unlikely, quite apart from Paul's significant omission to say anything about the matter, that Paul was ever a pupil of Gamaliel's.
We are also told of the young Saul that he was implicated, to some extent, in the death of the martyr Stephen.
The people who gave false evidence against Stephen, we are told, and who also took the leading part in the stoning of their innocent victim, 'laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul'.
The death of Stephen is described, and it is added, 'And Saul was among those who approved of his murder' (Acts 8:1).
How much truth is there in this detail? Is it to be regarded as historical fact or as dramatic embellishment, emphasizing the contrast between Paul before and after conversion? The death of Stephen is itself an episode that requires searching analysis, since it is full of problems and contradictions. Until we have a better idea of why and by whom Stephen was killed and what were the views for which he died, we can only note the alleged implication of Saul in the matter as a subject for further investigation. For the moment, we also note that the alleged implication of Saul heightens the impression that adherence to Pharisaism would mean violent hostility to the followers of Jesus.
The next thing we are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest. Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judaea feels the presence of an important problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect.
The next we hear of Saul (Acts, chapter 9) is that he 'was still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord. He went to the High Priest and applied for letters to the synagogues at Damascus authorizing him to arrest anyone he found, men or women, who followed the new way, and bring them to Jerusalem.' This incident is full of mystery. If Saul had his hands so full in 'harrying the church' in Judaea, why did he suddenly have the idea of going off to Damascus to harry the Church there? What was the special urgency of a visit to Damascus? Further, what kind of jurisdiction did the Jewish High Priest have over the non-Jewish city of Damascus that would enable him to authorize arrests and extraditions in that city? There is, moreover, something very puzzling about the way in which Saul's relation to the High Priest is described: as if he is a private citizen who wishes to make citizen's arrests according to some plan of his own, and approaches the High Priest for the requisite authority. Surely there must have been some much more definite official connection between the High Priest and Saul, not merely that the High Priest was called upon to underwrite Saul's project. It seems more likely that the plan was the High Priest's and not Saul's, and that Saul was acting as agent or emissary of the High Priest. The whole incident needs to be considered in the light of probabilities and current conditions.
The book of Acts then continues with the account of Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus through a vision of Jesus and the succeeding events of his life as a follower of Jesus. The pre-Christian period of Saul's life, however, does receive further mention later in the book of Acts, both in chapter 22 and chapter 26, where some interesting details are added, and also some further puzzles.
In chapter 22, Saul (now called Paul), is shown giving his own account of his early life in a speech to the people after the Roman commandant had questioned him. Paul speaks as follows:
I am a true-born Jew, a native of Tarsus in Cilicia. I was brought up in this city, and as a pupil of Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in every point of our ancestral law. I have always been ardent in God's service, as you all are today. And so I began to persecute this movement to the death, arresting its followers, men and women alike, and putting them in chains. For this I have as witnesses the High Priest and the whole Council of Elders. I was given letters from them to our fellow-Jews at Damascus, and had started out to bring the Christians there to Jerusalem as prisoners for punishment; and this is what happened....
Paul then goes on to describe his vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus. Previously he had described himself to the commandant as 'a Jew, a Tarsian from Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city'.
It is from this passage that we learn of Paul's native city, Tarsus, and of his alleged studies under Gamaliel. Note that he says that, though born in Tarsus, he was 'brought up in this city' (i.e. Jerusalem) which suggests that he spent his childhood in Jerusalem. Does this mean that his parents moved from Tarsus to Jerusalem? Or that the child was sent to Jerusalem on his own, which seems unlikely? If Paul spent only a few childhood years in Tarsus, he would hardly describe himself proudly as 'a citizen of no mean city' (Tarsus). Jews who had spent most of their lives in Jerusalem would be much more prone to describe themselves as citizens of Jerusalem. The likelihood is that Paul moved to Jerusalem when he was already a grown man, and he left his parents behind in Tarsus, which seems all the more probable in that they receive no mention in any account of Paul's experiences in Jerusalem. As for Paul's alleged period of studies under Gamaliel, this would have had to be in adulthood, for Gamaliel was a teacher of advanced studies, not a teacher of children. He would accept as a pupil only someone well grounded and regarded as suitable for the rabbinate. The question, then, is where and how Paul received this thorough grounding, if at all. As pointed out above and argued fully below, there are strong reasons to think that Paul never was a pupil of Gamaliel.
>>76314175
No, the council where James(the first bishop of Jerusalem) had the final say, as the bishop of Jerusalem presiding over a council in Jerusalem.
>>76312661
>>76312899
I think most of it coincides with Acts 15:8-11, 27-29, so maybe this thought was simply the answer for what I've been wondering about for a while.
>>76288665
Non-denominational Christian here. I think we're getting quite close, anon. Honestly, I've had a weird sort of "premonition" or foreboding feeling that it's going to all end during my lifetime, and seeing the direction we're going, I almost can't see how it won't. Stay strong, and keep the faith.
>>76314774
>I got a shiny building out of it so it's ok
no
Also it's a Mosque now.
I found an Orthodox Church. When I visit, do I address the Pastor as "Father?"
>>76315987
You afraid of asking him yourself?
>>76315591
The pentarchy was not something he invented, it was something he philosophically understood to be true. But the pentarchy is not dogma anyway.
>>76315987
Yes
>>76313680
Stick with southern or reformed Baptist
>>76316503
>it was something he philosophically understood to be true
so he made it up in his mind, philosophically or not literally changes nothing.
>But the pentarchy is not dogma anyway.
>the pentarchy is true and the papacy is false
>even though the pentarchy is not tradition
>even though the pentarchy is not dogma
k
>>76312391
Hence why I'm a Baptist
Any good documentaries about the Virgin apparitions, or miracles that happened to saints?
>>76284765
Habitual masturbation is a hell of a struggle. Pls pray for me and other anons, guys.
>>76317951
All believers are saints
>>76317425
The point is whether Rome has the most power, or Constantinople, or all five together, or those plus Moscow or whomever, we don't believe papism is valid. And as far as we are concerned papism isn't limited to Rome, we have our own charges of papism with the Church when it comes to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
>>76318011
I know brother. I've endured not doing it for 3 weeks now, and it's really worth it. Be strong and you'll succeed.
