All Christians, report in this thread! Come one and all! All traditions welcome!

All Christians, report in this thread! Come one and all! All traditions welcome!

Protestant: youtube.com/watch?v=0aGJwAENQuk

Catholic: youtube.com/watch?v=XN6UNVwlRbk

Orthodox: youtube.com/watch?v=LUjtgV6OPBM

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A&list=PLGX4mNJduw9qaFXUhByyOy8k99F0NN2i4&index=7
youtube.com/watch?v=2jVBoPCnQ7c
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html?_sm_au_=i7V5jR7L7D47L5tH
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Ebionite master race reporting in.

...

I would make a snark statement, but this is good. At least you christfags have a containment general thread

Yes, following the teachings of Jesus over Paul. Such heresy.

Right click, hide

you posted this shit on /pol/ earlier

I fail to see how one could be a /pol/lack and a christian

But the Gospel of the Hebrews is gone, so you're stuck with Pauline Gospels. So what do you rely upon?

Why?

Thank you for your contribution.

SSPX laity master race

VatiIIcucks are eternally BTFO

...

Psalm 114:2
Psalm 78:68

...

Catholics aren't Christian

>we need to return to our old traditions (which includes papal infallibility)
>if the pope says something we don't like then it's wrong
Catholicism is just one big mess. Byzantines should have finished them off.

...

That's still your pope, faggot

"Judaism" is actually just Phariseeism, so of course it is anathema. Trying to make it about race is really stupid though.

>I reject the defining dogma of Catholicism
>but I'm a Catholic

>He doesn't understand Papal Infallibility

Doesn't mean I have to like him

It is bigger than race no doubt about that.

Vatican II says Catholics are bound to follow the Pope even when he is not speaking ex cathedra

>He doesn't understand Papal Infallibility
Neither do Catholics, since they never actually defined what makes a statement from the chair.

When the Jews brought the blood of Christ upon their heads and the heads of their children, God cursed their bloodline with Psychopathic pathology

...

How can you say this isnt roleplaying with an OP like that? Especially that Cancer incarnate image?

No Jew who thinks crucifying Christ was wrong suffers any guilt of it. The only ones who suffer guilt are those who think it was the right thing to do (which a lot of Orthodox Jews do to this day).

Ezekiel 18:20

This really annoys me because most of you are even Christians who have have the Living Lord.

Have fun burning in Hellfire.

Easy there cowpoke, how are we less Christian than you?

Matthew 27:25
God honored their request. Every Jew is guilty of killing Christ.

wtf is that guy lifting?

Have you met the Risen Christ?

Also, that verse doesn't apply to curses. We are all guilty of Adam's sin

Rather quick to judge mens hearts, aren't you?

Adam's Sin is just a metaphor for sex outside marriage. We have known this since St Augustine.

Pelagius pls go

Your heart is black.

Not in Orthodoxy

Who pissed in your cereal?

Actually, Adam's sin was listening to Eve rather than God.

Every Sunday, in the flesh.

I haven't plagiarized anything in my life, heathen.

So the """"Orthodox"""" deny original sin now?

I don't listen to lying Demons.

Would the christianity practiced in ancient Roman Catholic Europe (crusaders n jerusalem n shit) be considered a branching church of its own?

They considered standing up for what you think is good mattered more than treating fellow mean equally and peacefully, gave the old testament way more reason than the new testament, and encouraged a God-follower relationship more than a priest-follower relationship.
These 3 bold differences already differentiate it quite a bit from the rest of christianity.

I am going to marry Constantine!

This is wrong.

Eve was an evil bitch that led mankind astray but men as the stronger sex always have to take responsibility for their actions.

We don't deny the sin occurred, we just deny that we bear any juridical culpability for it.

The Crusaders, except for those who reported directly to the Pope, were mongs.

Adam is responsible.

He is responsible for choosing to act on Eve's suggestion to eat the fruit.

However unlike Eve, Adam was not deceived by the serpent but he ate anyway.

Adam didn't take responsibility, he immediately blamed Eve

Semi-Pelagianism

Synergism

The RCC teach inheritance of the guilt as well as consequences of original sin, as well as Synergism

We reject the satisfaction theory of atonement

>ywn read the Bible holding Constantine's hand at home on a summer afternoon
>ywn smell her sandalwood perfume as her face nearly touches your face
>ywn hear her whispering verses from the Song of Songs into you ear
>ywn caress her pale-white breasts like two little doves
Why even live?

What is your view of atonement?

You know your Vatican got you dumbasses back in line, right? You'll be a personal ordinate by the end of the year.

Christus Victor

Anybody who believes in the book of genesis should be executed by the church.

If you want an illustration of this theory, by the way, C.S. Lewis portrays it pretty accurately in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

>COME

>ONE

>COME

>ALL

50 posts later

>MURDER

>THE

>HERETICS

Typical. What happens when you ignore the law that is nature to believe in some human-shaped spirit buggaboo

A cuck is a cuck in three things: He idolizes women. He fosters a dole economy, not self-reliance. He believes in a God.

'sup cuck

Yeah, most cucks are God-fearing Christians. That's why they supported the mainstream candidates instead of the Bern. Bernie was the only one who would have restored America back to the hands of the people, but now we're hopelessly cucked by politicians.

"Aha cucks! They're god-fearing socialists!"

"Muh socialist afeism"

Don't talk down to me, ape. It's not my problem the NT subspecies is incapable of holding all the eternal truths in their head simultaneously.

>But the Gospel of the Hebrews is gone, so you're stuck with Pauline Gospels. So what do you rely upon?

The Pauline canon which is obviously flawed, as can be seen in Paul's own nonsensical "autobiographical" sections, and the nonsensical claim that the High Priest could send agents to arrest people in Damascus, or that a devout Pharisee would be working for said Sadducee High Priestin something illegal both under the extant religious law as well as the Roman law.

I have met Jesus. That's how I know about the Pauline fraud.

(You)
>I have met Jesus.
No friend you met Satan, repent and believe the gospel

The Pharisees in conjunction with the High Priest put James the Just to death illegally, according to Josephus anyway

Hey, at least

>ywn feel her "girl"-cock pounding your asshole.

>(You)

Speaking in clichés. I'm not impressed

What are you gay?

Nah dude, it's easy to tell when you're meeting the adversary. He lies, a lot. You know you have God when you have perfect truth.

When you see the Pauline "gospels" you see a lot of lying going on.

Not according to my copy (which is in English, so I freely admit the possibility of translation error). It says he assembled a gathering of judges, but at the very least the high sanhedrin (which wasn't itself needed to pronounce a death sentence) shouldn't have been called by the High Priest (as the office of Av Beit Din had split off around the time of the Maccabean revolt), and yet Annus is definitely convening this court.

youtube.com/watch?v=VRI8nLuwn-A&list=PLGX4mNJduw9qaFXUhByyOy8k99F0NN2i4&index=7
For you, heretic

Run out of original idiocy to spew? You used to be able to go on for a lot longer than this.

And now you're demonizing each other because of mistranslations! It's like the dispues apes have before splitting to form new bands.

You both must be aware of this, even if only conceptually

I accept your concession.

ITT:

WEAK MINDED PEOPLE FIND COMFORT IN COSMIC FAIRY DADDY NONSENSE

Let's make something more creative and start our own christian fanfiction. Kek maybe christfags in 2000 years will believe it has true.

Beg pardon? I'm not following what you're saying.

He says that the Pharisees and Sadducees got together to do in James the Just. I don't see that in Josephus.

Yeah, because you can watch an hour and a half documentary in defense of Paul and keep up with a Veeky Forums thread.

You're an imbecile. If you had a point to make, you can type it out and I can trash it.

Otherwise, here's my rebuttal.

youtube.com/watch?v=2jVBoPCnQ7c

How do we kill the cancer that is the current churches?

The believers?
From the videos i have seen from africa, fire seems to be pretty efective against them.

kind of ironic right? kek

The first entire, ecclesial, apostolic canon, yet rejected by Cathodoxes.

"There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament."

" But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." -St.Athanasius.
bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

Are former Christians welcome?

Sure
Why did you CHOOSE to burn in hell?

You aren't Christian filthy kike

You guys are demonizing each other because of differences in your belief system that come from imperfect translation of history.

There are so many things wrong with this entire situation. And it;s not an isolated incident.

You people have schismed in to a thousand pieces, making bloody war on each other over this human tendency to accidentally screw up or misinterpret your dogma.

What you believe cannot be true if it is so broken.

Because if God gave me a mind to think rationally then it would be a sin to not use it. I was caught between a rock and a hard place.

I follow the teachings of Jesus.

You follow the teachings of the imposter Paul. You're not a Christian, you're a Paulian.

>You guys are demonizing each other because of differences in your belief system that come from imperfect translation of history.

Not at all. The fundamental divide is whether or not you believe Paul, and that is not based on translation error; at best, the more sane user I was replying to and I disagree over a statement of Josephus's that the Pharisees and Sadducees co-operated on occasion; that's as far as you can get from translation issues.

And I don't demonize him over it, lots of people have fallen for Paul's glibness. I feel a bit sad, but that's it.

Unless you're referring to the protestant lunatic, a la but that's again a seperate issue, his rather vile spewing of idiocy and bringing down the threats of hellfire.

>What you believe cannot be true if it is so broken.

Which is a statement I very much agree with. The Pauline "canon" is so fragmentary, so self-contradictory, so full of nonsense that I would prefer to make a blind leap into a set of teachings which have mostly been lost rather than try to sort out the nonsense that's involved in it.

>Because if God gave me a mind to think rationally then it would be a sin to not use it.

God already told you what to do in the holy scriptures and the consecuences for not doing it.

You're being irracional for following your own mortal and imperfect logic over the perfect and limitless wisdom of God our lord.

The only rational way in life is faith and obedience in the path our lord has shown us.

I hope it's not to late for you former brother. Repent.

If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Nah dude, he's coming back.

But seriously, stop and think for a minute. Do you really think God would come about and teach this supposedly perfect awesome Law, and then LIE to millions of people for about a thousand years about little things like the possibility to live by it and the ultimate fate of your soul and what its effect on you and the world is, you know, unimportant stuff like that.

Not to mention that Paul repeatedly confuses the concepts of sin and ritual purity/cleanliness, which is an awfully odd thing for someone who is essentially a new prophet.

>All the Early Church Fathers are wrong for accepting Paul as an Apostle
>I +2000 years later know more about true Christianity than those who died for it

Pride is a sin. As is heresy.

You have an extraordinarally poor understanding of Christian theology, Chaim.

No, you've had plenty of people who saw as I do. It's just that Paulians like yourselves, after losing the arguments, went the "Kill them all" route. As Christianity became less violent, the flaws start to sprout its new "heretics".

And Paul had an extraordinarily poor understanding of extant Jewish theology that he was supposedly an expert in, and couches his own teachings with! There's a fun kind of symmetry to this, don't you think?

You do realize that to be justified by the law, you must be perfect in the law? Yet even David, the man after God's own heart sinned wickedly.

>You do realize that to be justified by the law, you must be perfect in the law?

No you don't. You think those repentance aspects weren't intended to be used? You think all those legions of prophets telling people that they need to repent to re-gain their righteousness were lying or mistaken?

> Yet even David, the man after God's own heart sinned wickedly.

So? I don't think anyone's ever claimed that David kept the Law perfectly.

Ebionites were never persecuted by Christians, you simply lost relevance after losing both the debate and your gospel

If you are not perfect in the law then you have not kept it at all. Either you are wholly righteous, or you are not righteous at all. Only perfection can be worthy of God.

Christcucks go lick refugee feet!

What debate? There are no recorded debates, just a bunch of denunciations of "Judaizing heretics". How do you think a gospel disappears? People don't just forget where they left them, they get burned by people who don't like the message.

>If you are not perfect in the law then you have not kept it at all.

Which God says in what verse again?..... Oh wait Paul made it up.

Meanwhile, in the parts of the Bible that actually come from God, you have long bits about repentance,you have a cycle described of wavering and returning, and you have quite a few laws devoted to atonement, both for the personal and the communal. Again, according to you (and Paul) they were just included for no good reason, God just yanking people's chains or something.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/11/papal-fallibility.html?_sm_au_=i7V5jR7L7D47L5tH