Christian General

Haven't seen a Christian general in a while, so why not.
This thread is for the discussion of topics concerning Christianity as a religion, philosophy, and historical phenomenon. Please consider posting your questions concerning God and Christianity here instead of making your own thread, as many of the latter tend to die and clog up the board.

Two points I would first like to make, based on my observations of previous threads.
1.) If Atheists can recognize that large swathes of western philosophy, from Socrates to Kirkegarde, concerned itself with God as a logical axiom, then we can recognize that from your standpoint God is illogical, a completely understandable standpoint.
2.) If Cathodox Christians can accept that the Church at the time of Luther was objectively corrupt and that Luther's split from the Church was at least in good faith, Protestants should be able to accept that a unified institution of the faithful under the successors of the Apostles has allowed our faith and tradition to flourish, and has kept them secure for most of their existence.
"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Mt 18:20
Strawmen and shitposting, which have plagued this topic on Veeky Forums, are masturbatory attempts to project a sense of superiority towards both others and yourself, which, if you had any confidence in your beliefs as they are, you wouldn't need. They warp and dilute the truth and are antithetical to anyone in search of it. I can't prevent any of you from ruining this thread, but I can say with certainty that by the end of the thread you will have changed nobody's opinions.

That being said, I have faith in ya'll, so don't let me or Jesus down.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=srFgZbcGMUI
amazon.com/Jews-Their-Lies-Martin-Luther/dp/1593640242/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1494986194&sr=8-3&keywords=On the jews and their lies
dictionary.com/browse/direct
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Not a christian but wondering what you guys think of Mary Magdalene, any sects believe her to be the wife/lover of Christ?

wondering if a non-fundamentalist can respond to what this user posted in a thread not too long ago. I don't mind arguing with fundamentalists but a fundamentalist already responded to this earlier and like always they weren't too convincing and were engaging in ad homs. if you're going to argue for a double prophecy please give reasons for why this passage should be interpreted that way, preferably with textual evidence from Isaiah and addressing the linguistic point he makes.

>Protestants should be able to accept that a unified institution of the faithful under the successors of the Apostles has allowed our faith and tradition to flourish, and has kept them secure for most of their existence.
Firstly, by "successors of the Apostles" I'm guessing you mean priests. This is false, since there is no Christian priesthood, the apostles were not priests.
Secondly, organizing all saints into a single insitution is not better for purifying the faith. To the contrary, it makes it easier for Satan to take control of the church.

youtube.com/watch?v=srFgZbcGMUI

posting 30 minute youtube videos is bad form and pretty sure I've already seen this video posted before and he doesn't address the points made by this user

>Firstly, by "successors of the Apostles" I'm guessing you mean priests. This is false, since there is no Christian priesthood, the apostles were not priests.
They literally appointed Bishops in Acts and took under disciples, many of them martyred and became Saints. Christ is the High Bishop of the Church.

>Secondly, organizing all saints into a single insitution is not better for purifying the faith. To the contrary, it makes it easier for Satan to take control of the church.
What are You trying to even say here?

T. Orthodox

No, just a shady tactic to lower Christ

>Firstly, by "successors of the Apostles" I'm guessing you mean priests.
More specifically I am referring to the patriarchs, including that of Rome, as apostolic successors. As said, the Apostles passed their authority onto others as recorded in Acts 1:15-26. It may be argued that since Peter said "Out of the men who have been with us the whole time that the Lord Jesus was living with us, from the time when John was baptising until the day when he was taken up from us, one must be appointed to serve with us as a witness to his resurrection." succession required one to be witness to the resurrection, yet all Christians who believe the Gospel are witnesses as such and Peter, with the same authority, as granted by the keys of heaven, established Apostolic succession through the patriarchs. The authority of the papacy is another matter and a contestable one, but this is not.

>This is false, since there is no Christian priesthood, the apostles were not priests.
>Secondly, organizing all saints into a single institution is not better for purifying the faith. To the contrary, it makes it easier for Satan to take control of the church.
You're going to need to elucidate these points; they aren't particularly self evident.

>protestants

How do we stop Jews from casting doubt on people's reading of the Bible? It seems like every Christian thread I've ever seen, there's at least one (often lots) of them nittering away at obvious passages, claiming they're mistranslated or misunderstood and obviously we can't or don't read the Bible. And then when you call them out on it, they resort to arcane formulas in Hebrew that are completely incomprehensible.

Are you afraid of the word I'm or do you hate the English language or both?

Too

What do you guys think of unique American heretical sects like the Mormons or Christian Identity

>listening to Jew Lies.

This will tell you everything you need to know. Buy it today.

amazon.com/Jews-Their-Lies-Martin-Luther/dp/1593640242/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1494986194&sr=8-3&keywords=On the jews and their lies

>They literally appointed Bishops in Acts
They sure did. It's just that bishop doesn't mean what you think it means. A bishop isn't one that stands in authority above priests, the bishop is one and the same as the presbyter, as proven by Titus 1:5-7
>What are You trying to even say here?
If you take all the Christians in the world, and put them under the authority of a handful of men, all Satan has to do is corrupt those few men, and he can mislead Christ's entire Church.
>the Apostles passed their authority onto others as recorded in Acts 1:15-26
Matthias was not made an apostolic successor, he was made an apostle. We can agree there are no apostles today, yes? This succession died with John.

oh wow, people are using the primary sources to formulate arguments? how dare they! Jesus christ, learn hebrew yourself or just find scholars, etc who know hebrew to counter these claims. I don't even know hebrew nor have I claimed to and you guys will ad hom me as a Jew just because I cite somewhat obscure OT passages in english which you can look up yourself.

.) If Atheists can recognize that large swathes of western philosophy, from Socrates to Kirkegarde, concerned itself with God as a logical axiom, then we can recognize that from your standpoint God is illogical, a completely understandable standpoint.
I guess this is fair enough, but what precisely do expect somebody who doesn't believe in your faith to contribute here? We are coming at this from two incompatible points of view. You have faith, and I do not.

only if Luther knew hebrew and addresses the passage in question

>only if Luther knew hebrew
He did

I like this passage by Galileo 2bh. It brings to mind American Evangelicals and their "literal" interpretation of the Bible.

"With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come."

ok, does he address this passage? if so please quote from it. As far as I am aware this book is just an angry rant about the Jews because he failed to convert them.

If you have the means to counter their arguments, do so. If not, do your research. As someone who has studied the Jewish Kabbalah, I can attest that the Jews have insights into the faith that are certainly worth considering and not contrary to the Christian faith, especially given that from the 1st century onward Christians rooted their theology in Greek tradition far more than in Jewish tradition, i.e. Jesus's tradition For example, the Kingdom of God in medieval times was often considered a terrestrial kingdom to be established. In Jewish tradition, the kingdom, or Malkhut, was simply the summary effect of God's breath and his will; the ideal that God has in mind for all man. Jesus himself said that the Kingdom of God was in our hearts, but without a firm root in the concept of Malkhut/Kingdom, many western societies ran rampant with this notion of a physical kingdom and attempted to forge it by the sword. It's important to remember that the tradition on which Christianity is based is Judaism, and that if one wants to understand Christianity in its entirety, one needs to understand Judaism.

Nowhere in that passage of Acts is the word Apostle even used, yet what else could the successor to an Apostle be but an Apostolic successor? If Peter had the authority to make one man an Apostle, why does he not have the authority to make another?

Whatever you want to contribute, I'm simply trying to stop full blown fedorism before it starts.

>Nowhere in that passage of Acts is the word Apostle even used
Verse 26
>If Peter had the authority to make one man an Apostle
He didn't, and he didn't. Jesus chose Matthias, not Peter.

Translating isn't difficult. It's the good old tactic that Muslims use too, "you have to read it in the original Arabic to fully understand".

No you don't.

You're missing the point.

Suppose you know a guy who just got out of prison for scamming a bunch of people out of their money. And he tells you that he has a wonderful investment idea for you, with a bunch of paperwork about how the scheme is going to unfold.

Do you check it up against an academic's knowledge of sound business practices? No, you call him a scammer, a thief, and a liar, and you ignore him. Jews are the sons of the devil, (John, 8:44), and you don't listen to them, because everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

>Verse 26
Blargh. Basically irrelevant but blargh.

> Jesus chose Matthias
It was the Lord's will but he was chosen through Peter and the apostles, as all bishops are, in theory, chosen.

translating is always imperfect. primary sources should always take priority over a translation for interpretation, especially if someone can point to a specific issue in a translation that doesn't match the primary source well. you don't neccisarily have to know hebrew yourself, just find someone who does who's trustworthy and hear what they have to say about the passage.

>Jews are the sons of the devil, (John, 8:44), and you don't listen to them, because everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie.

Interesting. Were Einstein's theorems lies? Was Jonas Salk's development of the first successful polio vaccine a lie?

>you don't neccisarily have to know hebrew yourself, just find someone who does who's trustworthy and hear what they have to say about the passage.
Yeah, we call those bible translators.

either fuck off or find a non-jew who knows hebrew to counter the claim. it's not that hard considering there's non-jewish scholars and pastors who learned it in seminary.

alright, quote me a bible translater justifying this translation of the passage

How long does it take to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy if you were raised without religion?

>It was the Lord's will but he was chosen through Peter and the apostles
No, he was chosen through lot.

As a primitivist Christian, I have a question for those who hold are strong view of tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinism and Lutheranism), what if you see a doctrine that is out of place with the scripture? As a person who believes that we need to get to the root of scripture and scripture only, what do you say about doctrine that have been challenged recently like.
1. The New Perspective of Paul over the traditional view
2. Original Sin problem
3. Eternal Security
4. Marian Dogma

That essentially means that he was chosen through God's will, which would be the case anyways since it was God's most faithful choosing. When Jesus gives Peter the authority to "bind and loose" in establishing the Church, he does so in the knowledge that Peter would do so according to God's will. Does this invalidate Peter and the Apostles in this process? No, because the Apostles are still needed as terrestrial representatives of God's authority, ministering to the faithful (i.e. priesthood) and acting by the will of God. God did not directly command them to choose another apostle in response to Judas's death, they did so knowing that it needed to be done and asked God who should fill it, as is the case with all popes, patriarchs, and bishops. If Peter chooses another to succeed him as an Apostle, it is God's will that he did so.

Ultimately this is a matter of whether or not the leaders of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths have true authority, as the apostles are distinguished through the fact that they are the Lord's chosen leaders of the flock. Does being an Apostle mean one is automatically correct? No, as Judas and Thomas show. Does it mean that the faithful are obliged to follow you? No, you are only obliged to follow Jesus. What it does mean is that they are chosen to spread the Word to the world through the Holy Spirit and minister the faithful, which we can both agree that the Church has done a fine job of.

>That essentially means that he was chosen through God's will, which would be the case anyways since it was God's most faithful choosing.
interesting that you mention that, because this has OT parallels for "divining" YHWH's will through lot such as the ceremony where Saul was selected to be king and when Jonathan was shown to have broken the vow Saul made to not eat during a battle. there was also mention primarily in Samuel of the use of Urim and Thummim which, although we're not sure, seems to have worked similar to a coin toss.

Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? What does he do, this man you seek?

Clarice Starling: He kills women...

Hannibal Lecter: No. That is incidental. What is the first and principal thing he does? What needs does he serve by killing?

Clarice Starling: Anger, um, social acceptance, and, huh, sexual frustrations, sir...

Hannibal Lecter: No! He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.

Clarice Starling: No. We just...

Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?

I'm going on a mission trip to a location I'm not allowed to disclose in about a month. It's in the 10/40 window if you know what that is.

Prayers appreciated.

It's likely in regards to predicting the future, not necessarily using it to divine God's will as that practice is well established in both testaments. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Leviticus or Jewish tradition to say for certain, I'm simply making a logical deduction.

nah, this was after Jonathan had already ate honey. also Samuel doesn't view it as a sin since Jonathan wasn't aware of the vow and had his life spared as a result. it's similar to in Joshua when someone takes gold from Jericho when they weren't allowed to and the entire group suffers as a result in the next battle, which is resolved by identifying the person who upset YHWH, and then giving a death sentence (which Jonathan was spared from due to it being an accident)

Post yfw he was right all along

God be with you user.

>God did not directly command them to choose another apostle in response to Judas's death
Yes He did, Acts 1:20

Thats not a direct command son.
dictionary.com/browse/direct
Direct: without intervening persons, influences, factors, etc.;immediate; personal.

>How long does it take to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy if you were raised without religion?

I was 14 years a fedora before admitting I was wrong, allowing Christ into my heart, and joined Christ's Church (Orthodox Church). It's been a year since I started attending, and was recently Chrismated so now I'm in full Commuinion with Christ through His Body and Blood through His One Church.

Ultimately, it's between God and you, talk to the nearest Orthodox Priest if you want to know more or have questions. Perhaps I can answer some as well, God willing.

Well, if you accept Peter's interpretation that Psalm 109:8 is about Judas,
as well as Jesus' statement in Matthew 22:31 that the scriptures are the words of God, then yes, that's a direct command.

Just Dan Brown fiction.

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

With all that said, even if the meaning "virgin" is ascribed to "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, does that make Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy about Jesus, as Matthew 1:23 claims? In the context of Isaiah chapter 7, the Aramites and Israelites were seeking to conquer Jerusalem, and King Ahaz was fearful. The Prophet Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and declares that Aram and Israel would not be successful in conquering Jerusalem (verses 7-9). The Lord offers Ahaz the opportunity to receive a sign (verse 10), but Ahaz refuses to put God to the test (verse 11). God responds by giving the sign Ahaz should look for, "the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son...but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." In this prophecy, God is essentially saying that within a few years' time, Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At first glace, Isaiah 7:14 has no connection with a promised virgin birth of the Messiah. However, the Apostle Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connects the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23) with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 should be understood as being a "double prophecy," referring primarily to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer.

Now try to think for yourself.

Jew: It's young woman. The sign to the world that the Messiah is born is the birth of a boy child to a young woman. That's the sign to the world.

Christian: The sign to the world that the Messiah is here is a boy born of a virgin, a unique event in history.

Which one of those explanations fits "a sign to the world"? A boy being born of a young woman, or a boy being born of a virgin?

“The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural form of ‘you’ in the original Hebrew of v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who was present, v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would be destroyed (vv. 15–17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated by the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew—atah אתה) and the house of David as a whole (indicated by the plural form—lachem לכם).”

Quote Paul at them, because they have been blinded by God.

2 Corinthians 3
Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart.

The autistic Jew you refer to obliquely has absolutely no understanding of Moses and the prophets, as the verse above indicates. He does not believe his own prophets' statements about the Messiah, and does not know that Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus.

Further, he stands for the proposition that Hebrew cannot be translated into English without completely changing the meanings of the passages to what he says they mean. And mostly, of course, he refers to the talmud, and not to the bible at all.

Finally, he is a Jew, and if that is an "ad hom" attack, then so be it.

Islam for Whitey, and Nazism for Americans.

I'm an Orthodox Christian, I'll try to help you out.

>As a primitivist Christian
What do you define this as?

>I have a question for those who hold are strong view of tradition (Catholic, Orthodox, Calvinism and Lutheranism), what if you see a doctrine that is out of place with the scripture?
Such as the Solas or Iconoclasm? Traditionally, Orthodoxy and thus Christianity has held Councils to address heresies that have arisen: Arianism, Modalism, Adoptionism, Donatists, Iconoclasm, Nestorianism, and such heresies. They weren't called to define what Christianity is, but to delineate what is wasn't. Orthodoxy (Christianity) can most simply be defined by the Nicene Creed. This is before the Bible was put together, and is a part of Holy Tradition.. that same Holy Tradition that is preserved to this day is the same that the Orthodox Bible came from, and what discerned authentic Gospels from say the Gosoel of Thomas, Barnabas, or Mary, which through Tradition and bring it recent time at that time, were known not to be written by the Apostles.

>As a person who believes that we need to get to the root of scripture and scripture only
What makes you believe this? Scripture is entirely within the Church, and in in that context without exception. A literal interpretation, for example, is a very barren, empty, and 2D caricature way of reading the Bible. There us no context or heart in that, and certainly not the Spirit.
How do you think Scripture came to be preserved and learned, even assembled? How did Christianity survive the first 3 centuries without the Bible? The Orthodox Church and Holy Tradition via Apostlic Succession by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit in our absolute faith in Christ as Savior.

Jesus picked all of the apostles, ending with Saul/Paul. Mathias was nothing more than the roll of a dice, and then never mentioned again.

>Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands and eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of things past and ignorance of those to come."

Entirely proper.

It doesn't matter how smart a man is, if he is a natural man, spiritually dead, he cannot understand the things of God.

Part 2 since the respinse was too long.

>1. The New Perspective of Paul over the traditional view
Elaborate, please.

>2. Original Sin problem
The Orthodox position, and early Christianity, is that we have the sinful effects of the fall through from the choice of Adam and Eve, but we are not guilty of their sin. Original sin is a western (Roman Catholic) doctrine.

>3. Eternal Security
Elaborate, please.

>4. Marian Dogma
Elaborate, please, so we can narrow down what you mean. Roman Catholic innovations and heresies that were not present in the early Church nor Orthodoxy today are the Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Mary as co-Redemptress, and that she is without sin. Protestant heresies are largely Jewish in nature, in that many will claim she didn't give a virgin birth, that she had relations with Josiah after, or that she cheated on Joseph. These are all equally incorrect, and are a result of lack of context via lost in translation from the original Greek to English.

Thanks.

>If Peter had the authority to make one man an Apostle, why does he not have the authority to make another?

He didn't. He arrogated that power, and Matthias was a mistake.

Peter's life is full of mistakes to the point where Jesus had to call him Satan.

>Were Einstein's theorems lies?

Kind of. They weren't his. He stole them. He didn't have the math to explain them. He was, as Nikola Tesla pointed out, a fool, a beggar wrapped in purple robes.

Einstein couldn't even pass a university entrance exam and his professional life was going from a third grade patent clerk to a second grade patent clerk.

Into the trash it goes.

However, I don't know what you mean by 1. or 2., but 3. is true for people in this age and 4. is the cause of much blasphemy and abominations.

Adressing the linguistic issue here:
English is not my first language, nor the language in which my hebrew grammar explains things, so bear with me: הָרָה֙ can mean multiple things:1 הָרָה֙ is literally a feminine adjective according to my dictionary, meaning "pregnant". Of course, hebrew being hebrew it could also be the perfectum masculine 3rd person of the root הרה maining "becoming pregnant", in the perfectum thense either 2: something happening right now, or 3: an act that is not done and completed at ONE moment, but one that takes time. (either from past->present, or present ->future or past -> future, I think)
My hebrew bible says: הָעַלְמָ֗ה : THE virgin/young woman. note the article הָ (the) which literally is in my hebrew bible. (biblia hebraica stuttgartensia, thus based on the Leningrad codex, which jews also hold in high esteem, from what I know)
וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת is a absolute participle from the qal stem, in this case the translation is debatable since the clause does not have a subject written in it (one can derive the subject of the previous clause is the subject of this clause from context)
In a discursive text, [participle-subject] in a clause would indicate a factual statement, a [subject-participle] would again indicate a process, an act that happens over some time (since participles have no proper "time" one can argue that it is about the future.)
Now I have no idea what a preterite verb is, since my hebrew grammar explains everything not in English. I must also say I do not have a degree in theology, I'm now on my second year of university, and I had slightly higher than a passing mark for my second hebrew course (it's somewhat harder than say, learning another european language) . But I would assume there are plenty university papers on this issue.

tl;dr: The linguistic issue is not as clearcut and simple as your image says, and multiple interpretations (Jewish or Christian) are possible.

Luis Bush seems okay. Godspeed.

The "other" is Paul, not Matthias. Paul is the greatest of the apostles; Matthias disappears.

Fulfilled by Jesus selecting Saul of Tarsus.

Jesus picked all of his own disciples, knowing one was a devil.

The Sepuigint was translated explicitly as "virgin" by the Jews to the Greeks 200 years prior to Christ. It means "virgin". The false OT used by Protestants and some Catholics is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text which was compiled about 1000AD with the strict purpose of disproving Christ as the Messiah. They inserted the vowel sounds into the words, hence changing them to their liking.

I get your analysis, but contextually it's virgin, as you imply.

first, that fails to address the difficulty of the past tense which that user mentions is in the verse. second, I can tell the source of your information is terrible because no such 3rd century meeting is recorded as happening. several such councils were suggested as possibly happening by later talmudic rabbis but they had no record of them and neither do we. few scholars take these claimed councils seriously anymore. also there's the issue that in order for this to even possibly refer to Mary it has to be interpeted as a double prophecy as this prophecy is already fulfilled within the text of Isaiah, and you have given no support for that.

>Protestant heresies are largely Jewish in nature, in that many will claim she didn't give a virgin birth, that she had relations with Josiah after, or that she cheated on Joseph.

No Christian espouses any of those things, but for her and Joseph having relations, and children, subsequent to Jesus. Because, of course, it's in the bible.

Matthew 1
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son.

Aye, it's virgin, with the caveat that a young woman at that time would be expected to be a virgin, or never marry and be a burden to her family forever, and a shame to her village. Or killed, of course.

I can't get over the fact that people who can tie their own shoes think that a "sign to the world" is a boy being born of a young woman.

In the words of Mick Jagger, "it just happens every day".

It does not, as Isaiah's son is not yet 13. Isaiah's wife would have been pregnant however many years in the past that the child was then.

The near prophecy is that before Isaiah's son reaches 13, the age when he should know good from evil, the kingdoms threatening Israel will be no longer a threat.

Then the broader "you" is the far fulfillment.

Oh, and as names used to mean things, Isaiah's son's name means "a remnant shall return". This is written prior to the Babylonian captivity. And lest anyone think Isaiah only mentioned this Immanuel, born of a virgin, once:

Isaiah 8:8 goes on to refer to Immanuel as the one to whom the land belongs, so the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 is brought over into the greater context, and not as a mere bystander. Isaiah 9:6-7 describes the promised Son who will sit on the throne of David and rule forever. Isaiah 11 speaks of a shoot from the stump of Jesse (David's father) and rule in righteousness. The image is of the house of David as a tree that has been cut down to a stump, but then a new shoot springs forth from the tree and brings forth new life. It is an image of a future restoration through a new Davidic king. There is a consistent theme of a future Messiah to be born. It runs throughout the passage and begins with Isaiah 7:14 and the first promise of Immanuel.

Generally, it takes anywhere between six months and two years for someone to go through RCIA and become a Catholic, depending on their prior experience with Catholicism & Christianity as a whole. If you have little-to-no knowledge, it would probably be on the longer side.

>No Christian espouses any of those things, but for her and Joseph having relations, and children, subsequent to Jesus. Because, of course, it's in the bible.

It's also in the Bible that God will be in glory until His enemies are at His feet. Does that mean He will not be in glory after? Of course not.
Again, "brothers" of Christ must be taken in context.. in the Greek it relates to friends, companions, and Joseph's kids from the prior marriage. If Christ had siblings through the Virgin Mary (He didn't), then they would have cared for her instead of St John doing so.

The problem with Protestants is that they have no context in which to read the Bible, and that is the Church which was started on Pentecost and established by the Apostles.
Galatians 8-12 warns of you.

>galatians 8-12
Protestants would say that venerating mary and saints would be the other doctrine that galatians 8-12 warns of, would they not?

>Protestants would say that venerating mary and saints would be the other doctrine that galatians 8-12 warns of, would they not?

Except that the Holy Virgin Mary has been venerated since their time, as evident by her falling asleep in the Lord and all but St Thomas were transported there by the Holy Spirit. Further, St John cared for her as they fled persecution.
>John 19:27

As for Saints, Revelation makes mention of them, but in general asking the prayers of our brothers and sisters in Christ is nothing wrong, nor new, but has been done since the beginning. You ask your family and friends to pray for you, correct? Same thing.
It's as the Coptic Orthodox Pope Shenouda III said, "the difference between saints and everyone else is seriousness in the spiritual life".

It's like Protestants have amnesia of how the Church is, and how early Christianity was. 1000 years and several degrees of separation will do that, I guess. Yet, it's all here still, thank God.

...

redpill me on why yahweh is such a cunt? why is he not like literally almost every other human god, i.e, he doesn't care about the existence of other gods? is it because he's jewish?

kinda a complex question we don't have a clear answer to. scholars are pretty sure that the early development towards monotheism began with the Ba'al polemics in the north, especially when Jehu killed many of the priests of Ba'al. other key figures are King Hezekiah and King Josiah in whose reign an early form of Deuteronomy was written.

>A literal interpretation
So Jesus' biblical hermenuetic
>How do you think Scripture came to be preserved and learned
The Holy Spirit
>assembled
This never took place. It's commonly thought to have happened, but no group of men ever decided what the word of God is. Rather, it was received as what it is from the moment it was given.
>How did Christianity survive the first 3 centuries without the Bible?
Have you ever considered reading the writers of the early church?
>The Orthodox position, and early Christianity, is that we have the sinful effects of the fall through from the choice of Adam and Eve, but we are not guilty of their sin
That's nice. The biblical position however is that everyone is imputed the sin of Adam.
>The false OT used by Protestants and some Catholics is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text
The OT was written in Hebrew, not Greek.
>in the Greek it relates to friends, companions
The word adelphoi could not mean friends, companions or cousins in the 1st century.
>Joseph's kids from the prior marriage
What prior marriage?
>then they would have cared for her instead of St John doing so.
Was Jesus not free to choose His mother's keeper?
>The problem with Protestants is that they have no context in which to read the Bible
The context of scripture is scripture itself.
>Galatians 8-12 warns of you.
I want to point out the tremendous irony of this. In citing this, you have added the perpetual virginity of Mary to the gospel itself, thus bringing yourself under that very anathema.

>Except that the Holy Virgin Mary has been venerated since their time
False. The worship of creatures is a novelty from many centuries after the apostles.
>Revelation makes mention of them
No it doesn't.
>but in general asking the prayers of our brothers and sisters in Christ is nothing wrong
Necromancy is a serious sin.
>You ask your family and friends to pray for you, correct? Same thing.
I do not pray to them, nor do I use the exalted language of them that you do of saints.

I'm not Christian
But how does it feel knowing all those people doomed to Hell because they were fooled into thinking they could buy their way into heaven?
Like holy shit what the fuck was the Catholic church thinking? Why did they think this was okay?

Not a papist, but technically they weren't buying their way into heaven, they were buying their way out of purgatory. More of a shortcut to heaven rather than an entirely different way in.

Not the user you are talking with but can you elaborate on those points he requested in his posts?

Im very interested in hearing the answer to this as Ive never seen a protestant on Veeky Forums argue for the early church not being Catholic/Orthodox and Im very interested in this issue.

If anybody has questions about Catholicism or relating to it, I'm happy to answer.

What points?

You imply veneration equals adoration, God himself venerated Mary.

Catholics aren't Christian.

Why didn't you listen to Dr. Luther?

That's blasphemy

If you do not pray for your people you aren't following Christ completely.

Where did I say I don't pray for my people?

Scripture cannot by itself decide what Scripture is, and a Cannon of Scripture was not given in some biblical event like with Moses on Mt. Sinai. God's Church, with the infallible guidance of the Holy Ghost complied a Cannon of Scripture over time.

Catholics are completely insane. I don't think they can even legally be charged with heresy.

Sir I ask, do you know what Catholics mean by veneration?

I apologise, I misread.

>Scripture cannot by itself decide what Scripture is
Why?
>a Cannon of Scripture was not given in some biblical event like with Moses on Mt. Sinai
That's true. In fact, the canon of scripture was never revealed at all.
Yes, I do. I know that biblically it is worship.

2,000 years of theology destroyed. I guess I have to convert now.

I like how Catholics like to say "2,000 years" as if though that means something. As if though most of their mythology wasn't created in the last millennium.

Sir, please tell me where in scripture does scripture give a list of requirements for scripture. I would disagree as Scripture's purpose is to foretell Christ and that purpose has been served. And no, veneration is not biblical worship. That would be adoration. You're definitionally wrong.