This triggers the orthodox

The
>
>
>
most resolutely and completely triggers the orthodox

>yfw

This triggers pretty much everyone

Yes, yes it does.

Feels good, man.

What's going on here?

Daily reminder.

Picture related.

Disputation of Barcelona. It was a debate on Judaism v Christianity where the Jew was guaranteed absolute and total free speech.

Christianity got absolutely and totally BTFO.

You forgot a couple

...

Catalans not even once.

>At the end of the disputation, King James awarded Nahmanides a prize of 300 gold coins and declared that never before had he heard "an unjust cause so nobly defended"

The jews lost so hard they gave them a pity prize

At first sight that looks pretty accurate. I love infographics.

Don't forget that this is a debate refereed by a bishop and judged by a Christian king.

>no atheism
>no new atheism
>no atheism+
you had one job

Yeah, that's why poor old Pablo Christianiti (they couldn't even get a home grown debater, had to import a Jewish convert) ran to the Pope to get him to condemn the proceeding and retroactively change the result.

...

the guy who gave them the prize said they were wrong. He probably condemned the proceeding because, as you just showed us in this thread, jews would have used that to claim "le christianity btfo XDD"

So orthocucks how do you justify that our lady cringes upon looking at you and that she doesn't so much as set a foot in orthomeme lands, but asks the Pope and bishops to bless Russia from a safe and far away distance?

He would have been excommunicated had he given the prize to the Juden. People don't realize what excommunication implied in that time. For instance, if you were a ruler, your subjects didn't have the obligation to obey you or pay taxes anymore.

>Y-y-y-you're wrong! I don't know how! I can't prove it! I don't have an argument, but you're wrong!

Utterly BTFO.

James couldn't afford to get too harsh on the jews because the aragonese monarch was traditionally very poor and the catalan and aragonese elites were never very collaborative, so he relied hard on strategies like (for example) protecting the jews to get money. He was probably just throwing a bone to those who were funding him with all this show.

>Since the Dominicans claimed victory, Nahmanides left Aragon never to return again and in 1267 he settled in Palestine. There he founded a synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, the Ramban Synagogue:[12] it is the oldest synagogue in Jerusalem.

>In August of 1263, King James ordered the removal of passages deemed offensive from the Talmud.[13][14]

Seems like he was pretty sure of his decision, and the jews were pretty sure of their loss. But as usual it is more convenient to believe in "le ebil papal conspiracy"

>being this triggered
my argument is that jews always twist truth to fit their wounded ego. You clearly showed me that is still the case in 2016

>Seems like he was pretty sure of his decision, and the jews were pretty sure of their loss. But as usual it is more convenient to believe in "le ebil papal conspiracy"
I didn't know all the facts. I stand corrected.

You're the one claiming that it was a "pity award" when literally all the contemporary evidence agrees that the Jews won the debate.

But it's in the nature of Christians to misrepresent spiritual matters. After all, if they didn't, how would they come to the conclusion that the OT supports the NT?

Also, the part you responded to the other guy.

>I need to literally change their holy books to delete the opposing argument.

Is what the guy losing does, not the guy winning.

Just from reading the wikipedia article it seems pretty clear that the Jew was correct, but the entire thing was a political sham.

Why would a Christian monarch risk his country's economy, or worse, excommunication? No one went into that debate with any hope of "converting" anyone. The Jew was even bribed to just shut up and go away. Hell, the king broke bread with the Jews after the debate to try and smooth matters over.

>when literally all the contemporary evidence agrees that the Jews won the debate.
[citation needed]

>evidence agrees that the Jews won the debate.
He literally said "an unjust cause so nobly defended". Can you read English? He said they lost but their efforts deserved recognition anyway. Also this based user gave more hard evidence > how would they come to the conclusion that the OT supports the NT?
Because it literally does

>>I need to literally change their holy books to delete the opposing argument.
lmao, this is rich coming from you. The qumran manuscripts literally proved us that the jews changed a couple of words in the OT to try and hide the fact that the prophecies of the Messiah mentioned the crucifixion.

>Just from reading the wikipedia article it seems pretty clear that the Jew was correct, but the entire thing was a political sham.
It was a sham in favour of the jews. Read > The Jew was even bribed to just shut up and go away. Hell, the king broke bread with the Jews after the debate to try and smooth matters over.
Nice fan-fiction m8

when I say the OT of course I mean the rabbinical version, not the Septuagint

>The Jewish residents of Barcelona, fearing the resentment of the Dominicans, entreated him to discontinue; but the King, whom Nahmanides had acquainted with the apprehensions of the Jews, desired him to proceed. At the end of the disputation, King James awarded Nahmanides a prize of 300 gold coins and declared that never before had he heard "an unjust cause so nobly defended."[8] On the Shabbat after the debate, the king also attended the Sinagoga Major de Barcelona, arguably one of the oldest synagogues in Europe,[9][10] and addressed the Jewish congregants there, "a thing unheard of during the Middle Ages".[11]
Did you actually read the article?

>He literally said "an unjust cause so nobly defended". Can you read English? He said they lost but their efforts deserved recognition anyway.

Not him, but no, that's not what that means. The king was saying the rabbi's position was wrong from the start - he never had any intention of believing otherwise - but that he didn't expect the rabbi to be able to duke it out as well as he did.

No response then? I would be quiet too if I had been rejected by God and our Lady.

I did, and you?

>>Since the Dominicans claimed victory, Nahmanides left Aragon never to return again and in 1267 he settled in Palestine. There he founded a synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, the Ramban Synagogue:[12] it is the oldest synagogue in Jerusalem.

>In August of 1263, King James ordered the removal of passages deemed offensive from the Talmud.[13][14]

We agree basically. He still thought their position was wrong, and he wasn't convinced otherwise. But the jew itt pretends that the King gave them the gold so the King must have thought they were right and Christianity was btfo.

...

I think it would be too much to say they have been rejected by God.
I simply cannot stand their LARPing on Veeky Forums lately, as if they have unequivocably proven they are the true Church, when they are very very far from doing any of that.
Regarding Our Lady, they will answer the same way a protestant answers everytime they find themselves in disagreement with the Catholic Church: didn't happen, the jesuits made it up, it was demonic, etc. etc.

>We agree basically. He still thought their position was wrong, and he wasn't convinced otherwise. But the jew itt pretends that the King gave them the gold so the King must have thought they were right and Christianity was btfo.

Not their position, just the faith in general. Had he thought the position itself was wrong he would have promoted the victory and the Dominicans to increase their efforts in converting the Jews. The rabbi then was clearly successful, and managed to prove the Dominican argument wrong such that their point that the Talmud supported the tenets of Christianity was not used for future proselytizing and instead the Talmud was just censored for being anti-Christian. Had the Dominicans really won, they would have begun spreading pamphlets and books on how to preach the truth of Christianity from rabbinical writings to the Jews, but this did not happen here.

I believe sincerely in Christ - but you guys have to accept already he is our alien overlord, and once we die all of us will rejoice in galactic federation.

>Had he thought the position itself was wrong he would have promoted the victory and the Dominicans to increase their efforts in converting the Jews
proofs? now you are just coming up with fan-fiction based on your bias. Who are you to say what he thought and pushed by what motivations he acted the way he did? Sorry but I trust his words as recorded to understand his opinions and not your wishful thinking.

>, and managed to prove the Dominican argument wrong
[citation needed]

>Had the Dominicans really won, they would have begun spreading pamphlets and books on how to preach the truth of Christianity from rabbinical writings to the Jews, but this did not happen here
Biggest non-sequitur ever experienced in mankind's history. I wonder if you unironically think you are being objective, or you know you are full of shit but you are trying to twist reality anway as an intellectual endeavour

>Sorry but I trust his words as recorded to understand his opinions and not your wishful thinking.
You're just doing the same thing as me, only with more limited information and more reaching. You shouldn't take words out of their context of time and place, and the disputation of Barcelona had a very particular context. The king was approached by a Dominican ex-Jew with a case that he could prove, he was a Christian king, and he took no deliberate action to suggest any other belief than the one I just suggested.

>Biggest non-sequitur ever experienced in mankind's history. I wonder if you unironically think you are being objective, or you know you are full of shit but you are trying to twist reality anway as an intellectual endeavour

None of this was non-sequitur. The disputation was purposefully convened for this very purpose, and we know what happened in the following decades and centuries after other disputations that led to specific policies concerning the publication of the Talmud in Latin Europe.

1. Pablo Christiani says he can prove the talmudic texts support Christian beliefs
2. His rabbi opponent argues no Christian truth can be supported by the talmud
3. The king orders all objectionable passages in the talmud to be expunged

Had the first position been proven, there would be no cause for the third action. Had the second position been proven, then we have a reason why the third action would have taken place.

>Now called aya sofya

>Now under Turk control

Orthodox confirmed failure

>You're just doing the same thing as me, only with more limited information and more reaching.
pot calling the kettle black.
I am literally doing nothing but receiving the words of King James. He said it, I believe him. Period.
>You shouldn't take words out of their context of time and place, and the disputation of Barcelona had a very particular context.
Of which you know nothing about except the info written in the wiki article
>he took no deliberate action to suggest any other belief than the one I just suggested.
he took not deliberate action to suggest what you are suggesting either.

>le 3 positions
You have made up these positions in an attempt to create a framework upon which to debate based on your own rules. Why are jews so fucking slimy and sneaky in their dissertation? I should simply refuse to stoop to your level and refuse your made-up premises in the first place, but whatever. I will do it because they are shit premises in the first place.

>Had the first position been proven, there would be no cause for the third action
Except the questionable passages in the Talmud blaspheme Jesus. If Jesus had been proven not to be the Messiah, they wouldn't be blasphemous in the first place and there would be no need to censor them.
>Had the second position been proven
The second position does not need to be proven because it is a fallacy. The Talmud was chronologically written after the NT. It is not Christian truth that must prove it's supported by the talmud, it is the talmud that must prove it is supported by the tanahk.

Fucking creepy.

Judaism v Catholicism

When will Veeky Forums learn?

Holy Fuck, this thread is absolute cancer. I actually love enjoy reading discussions about the nuances of theology, christology, etc but this is just pointless middle school-tier shit flinging. I mean Marian apparitions as "proof" of Catholicism's superiority over Orthodoxy? That's fucking weak, even the Vatican basically says "yeah... apparitions are probably bullshit."

What would I expect on infantile sectarian religiousfags though.

>Dominican Friar Pablo Christiani

>pot calling the kettle black.
Not at all. More like the pot calling the kettle small.

>I am literally doing nothing but receiving the words of King James. He said it, I believe him. Period.
That's not what you're doing at all. You're interpreting his words one way, based only on what he said and your interpretation of what he meant by them without any knowledge of the context in which he said these things, or even what actions he took.

>Of which you know nothing about except the info written in the wiki article
jstor.org/stable/1508588?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I do my due diligence when it comes to putting out my opinions.

>he took not deliberate action to suggest what you are suggesting either.
Besides pardoning the rabbi, forcing the Dominicans to appeal to the pope, and ordering the Jews of his kingdom censor the talmud of all offensive (in this context anti-Christian) verse.

>You have made up these positions
I have not. What do you think the Disputation of Barcelona was even about? Have you even read any of the arguments and counter-arguments therein?

>Except the questionable passages in the Talmud blaspheme Jesus. If Jesus had been proven not to be the Messiah, they wouldn't be blasphemous in the first place and there would be no need to censor them.
The point of the debate was that the Talmud proved that Jesus was the Messiah. If this were proven, then censorship would be counter-intuitive. Instead the rabbi, in the course of the debate, countered saying the talmud did the opposite, which is of course an offense for Christianity.

>The second position does not need to be proven because it is a fallacy.
So you fully admit you're not even familiar with this event and are yourself concocting a story to justify words (I would also say actions but you seem unfamiliar with any of them so far) you don't understand?

>Not at all. More like the pot calling the kettle small.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean

>That's not what you're doing at all. You're interpreting his words one way, based only on what he said and your interpretation of what he meant by them without any knowledge of the context in which he said these things, or even what actions he took.
1) The context you call upon does not exist. I am valuing the facts for what they are. King James said they lost. They left Spain. The talmud was censored. These are facts. Your fan-fiction about the hidden thoughts and the unsaid words of King Jams constitute no context whatsoever, except in your twisted mind
2) King James honoured the people who defended their position even though they were wrong, not the position itself. To project the that honour from the individuals to the position itself is clearly wrong and ill-intentioned

>jstor.org/stable/1508588?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
>roth
nice try

>Besides pardoning the rabbi,
He literally left the country right after
>ordering the Jews of his kingdom censor the talmud of all offensive (in this context anti-Christian) verse.
So you are proving me right. If the christian position had been proven wrong, there would be no need to censor anti-christian verses.

>I have not. What do you think the Disputation of Barcelona was even about? Have you even read any of the arguments and counter-arguments therein?
Not a rebuttal. You are just shifting the attention of me because you cannot prove you made up those positions. The proceedings were about this:
whether the Messiah had appeared or not
whether, according to Scripture, the Messiah is a divine or a human being
whether the Jews or the Christians held the true faith.
Now compare them to what you wrote and you'll realise that the implications of your statements and their content is different from them. In fact, the fact itself that you wrote your own interpretation of the proceedings is proof that you are trying to hide the truth in favour of your bias.

>The point of the debate was that the Talmud proved that Jesus was the Messiah
And judging from King James' comment, it did so

The statue was terminated by the angels Gabriel, Michael and Raphael, together with St.Assisi (who by that time was dead).

Short video explains it:
youtube.com/watch?v=hAxsYPOmAb8

The statue also took life for some time and the event was witnessed by many people from the village who aòò had enough time to rush to the place to see it moving (it moved for 30 minutes or so)

*St.Fransis of Assisi

>even the Vatican basically says "yeah... apparitions are probably bullshit."
lol no, absolutely wrong. There are approved apparitions and unapproved one. You are not forced to believe approved ones, but you are prohibited to believe unapproved ones. The approved ones are absolutely real.

>. I mean Marian apparitions as "proof" of Catholicism's superiority over Orthodoxy?
You don't get it. Marian apparitions were followed by miracles and conversions, and other times by prophecies that came true. They always have a purpose.
Muslim sources /so unbiased) speak of a Lady that came down from the sky during the battle of Lepanto
Our Lady of Good Success happened in 1600 and perfectly predicts moral degeneracy in the 20th century. She also predicted perfectly the problems of the Church in this same time period. How many people would have thought that Masonry would have control over the whole world in 1600?
This miraculous event converted all of latin america in one single moment. The image should have also degraded in 30 years because of the material it is made of. After hundreds of years, it is still intact.
Prayer given by Our Lady to Saint Dominic. Thanks to its recitation the Battle of Lepanto was won.
this painting was commissioned by Jesus to Faustina Kowalska. He also taught her the prayer of the divine mercy.

Ugh. Absolutely demonic.

Daily Reminder that all Marian apparitions are just demons.

it is an approved apparition, therefore not demonic. Also she warned us against the masons who are the troops of the devil on earth. As Jesus told the pharisees, the devil would never attack and kick out himself.

Here's the prayer that one of the """""demonic""""" apparitions taught us in Fatima, and that since then is recited as part of the Rosary:

>O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy. Amen.

Totally sound like word the devil would want us to say, amirite?

>implying the devil can predict the future, especially 400 years ahead

>Totally sound like word the devil would want us to say, amirite?
The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

>ITT: Catholic trying so fucking hard

That prayer is not in Scripture. so your argument is invalid. It also did not exist before Our Lady of Fatima gave it to us.
Are you unironically claiming that the devil would be able to teach us a prayer that asks Jesus to save souls from hell and have mercy on us?

not an argument

You have been here for 4 hours and 30 minutes to try and trigger any Orthodox you see
Holy shit you're fucking pathetic

""""""""""Your""""""""""" Lady would be embarrassed of you

>it is an approved apparition, therefore not demonic.

Things approved by demons and the servants of demons are demonic, yes.

You needed a demon to deliver the gospel to you?

>O my Jesus
Jesus belongs to none.

>forgive us our sins
Already accomplished at the cross 2000 years ago!

>save us from the fires of hell
Do what is necessary to be saved then.

>lead all souls to Heaven
Most souls go to hell, per God.

>especially those most in need of Thy mercy.
That would be everyone.

Protip: Don't get your gospel from a demon. They're smarter than you. They'll twist a little truth around huge lies and make you believe it's from God.

To cover his devilry in the guise of faith, to get his idol worshiped and lead catholics to hell faster than they normally would. Yes.

Marriage has been attacked for 6000 years.

If the Lord tarries, there will be people attacking marriage in 500 years.

t. hyperblased orthodox without a shred of an argument

>Things approved by demons and the servants of demons are demonic, yes.
The Catholic Church believes in Jesus. According to prottie theology we are saved. You shouldn't talk shit about your brothers in Christ.

>Jesus belongs to none.
LMAO. Plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as "my Lord". Try again ;)

>Already accomplished at the cross 2000 years ago!
So you have never sinned? If you commit sins he has to forgive them

>Most souls go to hell, per God.
I thought it was enough to declare Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and you'll automatically go to Heaven? You are contradicting yourself. Also how can they go to hell if you just said Jesus forgave all their sins 2000 years ago? Step it up user.

>That would be everyone.
Remember that Jesus came for the ill, not for the healthy, and spent his time with sinners while on earth especially for this reason. Hence there are some that need his mercy the most. Funny how you share the views of the pharisees without noticing it.

>Don't get your gospel from a demon
I don't use the KJV, so I am safe, but thank you for your concern

That prayer does not even mention the Church, it is all about Jesus and worshipping Jesus only. Try again ;)

>Marriage has been attacked for 6000 years.
[citation needed]
When in the last 2000 years was gay marriage institutionally approved by the government, exactly? I am curious

Okay, go on worshiping your statues. Don't say we didn't warn you.

>literally not an argument
Repent user, you are still in time to do so

This is the most assblasted come back I have ever seen, not even christian but dude, are you literally 12?

This chart seems fake. Which country is over 80% atheist and has an average IQ of 94-ish? Which country has an IQ of almost 110 and is 12% atheist?

The devil believes in Jesus.

You are at devil tier belief.

Do you honestly believe that homosexuals are a modern phenomenon?

Have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Yes, because you don't know how to accomplish that.

You do not know what salvation is, or how it is achieved.

So telling you something half true, they have deluded you into believing that you are saved by your good wishes for all mankind.

>LMAO. Plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as "my Lord". Try again ;)

If Jesus is my Lord, He does not belong to me.

I belong to Him.

You do not understand this because you do not have a Lord.

>So you have never sinned? If you commit sins he has to forgive them

What part of "all sins were forgiven at the cross" do you not understand?

>I thought it was enough to declare Jesus as your Lord and Saviour and you'll automatically go to Heaven? You are contradicting yourself. Also how can they go to hell if you just said Jesus forgave all their sins 2000 years ago? Step it up user.

No, but even then, not "most" people even accomplish that.

Bible says few find the narrow path.

You have not found him yet.

>Remember that Jesus came for the ill, not for the healthy, and spent his time with sinners while on earth especially for this reason. Hence there are some that need his mercy the most. Funny how you share the views of the pharisees without noticing it.

Nobody needs God's mercy more than anyone else; we're all condemned men awaiting destruction.

We all need it desperately. The self-righteous are deluded into thinking they don't need it at all.

People like you.

>I don't use the KJV, so I am safe, but thank you for your concern

The KJV is the most faithful translation out of the original languages that exists on planet earth.

Keep reading your pagan bible where Mary is the hero.

Not even him, but the KJV literally changes the meaning of Greek passages, because clearly, they know better than the original authors.

Daily reminder that according to the KJV,

Ἠσαΐᾳ*

Means "the prophets" and not "Isaiah"

>Implying Isaiah is not a prophet.
>Implying not more than one prophet's works was written on a single scroll.
>Implying you would not refer to the senior prophet.

kek

So why doesn't it move today?

>"miracles only happen in the age before cameras."

>implying Isaiah is more than one person
>implying the writing habits are relevant
>implying that the next passage even comes from Isaiah at all.

No, it's just a cut and dry example of the KJV needing to correct the original.

Do you even comprehend that the KJV is not a transliteration of the original, but a translation?

Has that thought ever entered into your consciousness?

Strong's Concordance
Esaias: Isaiah, an Israelite prophet
Original Word: Ἠσαΐας, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: Esaias
Phonetic Spelling: (hay-sah-ee'-as)
Short Definition: Isaiah
Definition: Isaiah, the prophet.

Gee, according to the Strong's dictionary too.

Where was it you were getting your information from?

Are you retarded? Why do you use words when you clearly don't know what they mean?

A transliteration reproduces the sounds of another language, but not their meaning. If the KJV was a transliteration, Genesis 1:1 would read something like

>Braysheet bara Elohim et hashamayim v'et ha aretz

It does not do that, because it's a translation, an attempt to bring the meaning of the words, not just their sounds, to another language.

The problem is, if they did this faithfully, those poor English speaking bible readers might pick up on all sorts of nonsense in the text, so our translators went with the expedient route and just changed the meaning.

Then, gullible idiots like you think that the meaning was always there.

Yes, the Greek means "Isaiah". But if you look at the KJV of Mark 1:2, it's "translated" as
>the prophets

Presumably to cover up the fact that the next part quoted isn't from Isiah at all.

You just proved my point that the KJV is not a transliteration of the original.

What else did you prove?

Mark did that all the time. He made sandwiches out of things two prophets said, and attributed the sandwich to the most senior/respected prophet. You can probably blame Peter for that.

That your command of the English language is roughly at a 4th grade level.

In Matt. 27:9-10, more than one prophet is cited in a quote; yet only one is mentioned by name. In 2 Chron. 36:21, the first part of the verse is drawn from Lev. 26:34-35, the second is from Jer. 25:12, yet only Jeremiah is listed.

What does this tell us? That it was an accepted practice to list the prophet who was making the main point. Composite attributions suit a common practice of Jewish exegetes. Z. H. Chages in The Student's Guide to the Talmud [172ff] relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name. The rabbis "adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions."

Hmmmm, methinks me 4th grade grasp of the English language just put you in a tailspin m8.

>The self-righteous are deluded into thinking they don't need it at all.
The person that thinks he is saved just for saying a couple of words like a magical spell.
Pot calling the kettle black to the maximum

>Bible says few find the narrow path.
I thought once saved always saved? It seems you are confused about your own theology.

>faith alone
lmao

wtf did I just read? Stop doing damage control. It is used in the Bible, therefore it is ok to me. If you want to follow unbublical traditions of men, suit yourself

Stop trying to evade my question. No gay marriage was institutionalized until the current time. Neither was abortion, or widespread contraception, or hooking up apps like Tinder

So you are saying you are the devil. ok.