/christian/ - christian

>>25517
>but it doesn't change the religion
No, there's a very clear delineation between Judaism & Christianity in the New Testament. Christ Himself is the 'scandalon' (rock of offense in the Greek), and was anathema to the Jews. They literally killed Him over His claim to be equal to God the Father. 

With all due respect, I believe you're allowing your modern sensibilities to cloud your judgment on this matter. Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today, regardless of the deeper truths of God that extend back past before the time of Abraham. I'm also skeptical of the claim that believing Christians are somehow 'Israel' today. Jesus & the rest of the NT are quite clear that we are distinct groups, and that we have been "grafted in" as additions, not replacements.

>tl;dr
Just ask an orthodox Jew what he thinks about Jesus Christ, Anon.  :^)

>>25518
>'Judeo-Christion' is a political term not a theological one.
Fair enough. But I know of a lot of nominal Christians in the evangelical Protestant branch who claim that that phrase is both completely-real, and applies to themselves directly. There are plenty of Jews themselves who are promoting this idea as well.

Please understand I'm not disagreeing with you you Anon, 

>>25519
>With all due respect, I believe you're allowing your modern sensibilities to cloud your judgment on this matter. Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today
I get what your trying to say. But I feel that you are mistaking what is identified as Judaism today, Rabbinic Judaism, with what was practiced during the time of Christ and the Apostles, ie 2nd Temple Judaism. The consensus is actually beginning to shift and show that during that time there were multiple sects of Judaism being practiced. The most well known sects being the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and the Christians. The Christians being the only ones that accepted Christ as the messiah of course. However, as the others fell away after the destruction of the Temple, Christianity survived and continued the 2nd Temple liturgical practices with some modification to place emphasis on Christ. Nowhere at this time was anything resembling what we know today as Rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic Judaism came about much later primarily as reactionary movement against the growing influence of Christianity among the remaining Jewish population. There was no complied Talmud or Masoretic text at the time of the Apostles. And these texts would not appear for another 500+ years. The Judaism today is not the Israelite religion. The Israelite religion is Christianity. Another good video that debunks the claims of Rabbinic Judaism is Marching on Zion. 
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=8cVL0ViBB7E

>They literally killed Him over His claim to be equal to God the Father. 
That does not invalidate the fact that the religion was the same. It simply reiterates what we already know, that some Jews refused to see Christ as the messiah and the Son of God. 

>Judaism and Christianity are very distinct religions today
I agree with this, because Rabbinic Judaism is much younger and lacks direct continuity with the 2nd Temple. I just want to emphasis again that for the Apostles, while there was a change in some practices and views within the religion with the coming of Christ, the religion stayed the same. Our worldview is the same, and our worship is directed toward the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. We don't say that Abraham and Moses have a different religion from each other just because the pre-incarnate Christ revealed different things to each of them, or that their worship patterns were different, one with an altar outside and one with a tabernacle. So in that respect Christ revealing Himself to the Apostles doesn't change the religion to a distinct separate religion, it simply deepens the fullness of our religion. Everything that the prophets foretold, the apostles believed and witnessed through Christ. This was the acceptance of the faith of their fathers, that the prophets were correct and God is now among them.

>Just ask an orthodox Jew what he thinks about Jesus Christ, Anon.
An orthodox Jew practices Rabbinic Judaism. Again this is a much later reactionary innovation.   

>I'm also skeptical of the claim that believing Christians are somehow 'Israel' today.

>>25523
Hey you seem to be quite well informed on these things and my interest is in the early Quakers, basically do you know if they have any biblical authority on refusing to call their worshipful meeting houses "churches"?

I know they have expedient reasons for doing so, but I don't really know if they have biblical proofs for doing so. I miss decorations and embellishments and big pipe organs. Also if you're going to have a structure that is not primarily used/owned for humble ploughwork then in what way is it any different from the other buildings whose main function is worship?

Semantic autisimo is not sufficient for me to hold an idea as a divine necessity.

>>25524
To be honest I am not very familiar with the Quakers. You may have to fill me in a bit on this, but I guess I would want to know how they are defining "Church" that they would refuse to use that to define their place of worship? Is it a reaction to the idea of a controlling hand of "Big Church?"

>>25525
Basically this. But they said people who were humble shepherds made better adherents and were used to prophetise more as the result so we should get back to that somehow. Funny thing is I don't know any Quaker groups who even in fine weather would take their meetings outside any more. I assume they view dedicated church buildings as just another ritualist extravagance like all the other Catholic stuff.

It's not an outrage or anything to come to this conclusion it's just that the idea of permanence of a meeting house where it's sole job is a meeting house makes it sound a lot like a church house doesn't it. A lot of them were just accomodating homes that a Quaker lived in, but I think if you're going to have a permanent structure it should be used for humble work foremost and praying in it should be it's secondary purpose. It's that or you're not respecting what the decree was trying to put across.

Modern Quakers are a co-opted white guilt activism worse than Anglican/CofE (maybe "no leadership lol" lets it all get in idk) so the plain conservative variety have retreated to the hills to form tiny pockets that barely hold onto continuity. I should see what happened to the Moravians and see if their outcome has been any better.

If I'm to keep on the topic of the thread and on the original followers from Judea, what other yard sticks besides faith and obedience can be used to measure belief in the fir

>>22819 (OP) 
Hes not wtrong. Most men are duplicitous faggots.

>Thread >>25418 on this subject is gone.
I should have guessed so, it was full of insults and overly-emotional statements. No archive either. I'll have to find my previous genuine responses in my offline-notes. Will post momentarily, if I can find them!

sad_.jpg
[Hide] (30.3KB, 451x458)

I don't 'want' Sunday to not be the sabbath as I don't want to believe so many people could be wrong. And I would 'like' to believe that maybe the "it's Saturday" people are just misinterpreting whatever callender says the day changed. I fear heaping 'difficulties' on my life, despite knowing it is most likely 'wrong' of me to feel this way. I'm also find myself (refrencing the patterns of my previous behavior and my current-emotions) too 'lazy, prone to procrastination,' & 'afraid' to verify for myself, the 'truth' of the 'Sunday is incorrect' idea. I suspect these are flaws within myself.

'Found this, it might be helpful:'
https://biblehub.com/library/watson/the_ten_commandments/2_4_the_fourth_commandment.htm
https://archive.ph/QCYET
I should next show you the modes, or manner, how we should keep the Sabbath day holy; but before I come to that, we have a great question to consider. 

'How comes it to pass that we do not keep the seventh-day Sabbath as it was in the primitive institution, but have changed it to another day?' 

The old seventh-day Sabbath, which was the Jewish Sabbath, is abrogated, and in the room of it the first day of the week, which is the Christian Sabbath, succeeds. The morality or substance of the fourth commandment does not lie in keeping the seventh day precisely, but keeping one day in seven is what God has appointed. 

But how comes the first day in the week to be substituted in the room of the seventh day? 

Not by ecclesiastic authority. The church,' says Mr Perkins, has no power to ordain a Sabbath.' 

(1) The change of the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first was by Christ's own appointment. He is Lord of the Sabbath.' Mark 2: 28. And who shall appoint a day but he who is Lord of it? He made this day. This is the day which the Lord has made.' Psa 118: 24. Arnobius and most expositors understand it of the Christian Sabbath, which is called the Lord's-day.' Rev 1: 10. As it is called the Lord's Supper,' because of the Lord's instituting the bread and wine and setting it apart from a common to a special and sacred use; so it is called the Lord's-day, because of the Lord's instituting it, and setting it apart from common days, to his special worship and service. Christ rose on the first day of the week, out of the grave, and appeared twice on that day to his disciples, John 20: 19, 26, which was to intimate to them, as Augustine and Athanasius say, that he transferred the Jewish Sabbath to the Lord's day. 

>>25454
The Gospel scriptures themselves specifically spell out the days involved. 'The first day of the week' is definitely Sunday. As Christians, we have adopted it as our holy day, in honor of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We're not Jewish, we're Christian, Anon.

Why would you help the poor if you need to scam people in order to become and remain wealthy? Actually wealthy and successful people charge protection money from small businesses or vandalize them or set them on fire. They collect "charity funds", pocket the money and distribute absolute pittances if anything at all while benefitting from loopholes in the tax law. 

Christians need to be aware that the entire economy is a ripoff, that charities are a ripoff and that they cannot be sheep in this era.

In order to do anything effectively, build groups around your own kind. Basic in-group, out-group dynamic, the kind that is commonly demonized. Prioritize Christians. CHRISTIANS. Do you understand?

>>25385
the healthy do not need a doctor

>>25385
The idea is to make the non-Christians into Christians as you give food and water.

>>25386
those without sin deceive themselves.

>>23703
There is never going to be a christian 4chan board. I's write a big textwall about why but who cares: nobody. Because the born agains are going to come here sometimes and like Christiana they'll let the dirt sink to the bottom and drink, they're used to that at church anyways, actually I wouldn't even describe this as a puddle, it's more the born agains just come to put water on parched ground because there's a christian sign on the ground and they're confused. Being a leader of falsehood will not make the judgement easy, you know the requirements for bishop and elder. He say, "Oh it's not that serious" Oh I know this is not that serious, that's the problem. But I say this all for no reason (Matthew 21:45).

If you try to make friends on here you won't be allowed, but that would be much more helpful than anonymous whatever, to have someone. For example my grandfather has helped someone get off crack cocaine. He did it by being there for him whenever the man was tempted he would call him and God has been with both of them very wonderful. The netizen is a loser and when he gets saved he's still like that, I hope no one comes here for serious stuff but for the happiness when you see another pilgrim. But netizens don't really exist anymore either, which is good. But it takes a netizen to give his life to internet stuff that others just come by for sometimes. But nothing will change, but with enough compl

>>25373
>There is never going to be a christian 4chan board
There "is" it's called /his/

>>25374
Actual 4chan is definitely not going to have one, hopefully not. Because there's no independent boards there, so if Hiro or whoever owns that website now made such a board you have to understand the person in charge of such a thing is also in charge of the rest of 4chan. And if you want a church run by mcdonald's CEO people will go, sadly. Blind men, and as blind men they lead the blind and they both go to hell. Or maybe they took "theology and religious studies" in college and got a big fat head and a shrunken skull.

But I do mean 4chan as in all the futaba imageboards.

>>25375 
I understand that, I was remarking on how everyone on the history board over there seems to be roleplaying as either internet Christians, Muslims, or atheists. I never went on that board until recently and found it an awful place where nobody actually seems to know much or is interested in sharing their knowledge, yet are keen make arguments among themselves with each poster being convinced of his own genius.

>>25374
/his/ used to have a strong Christian community but recently it's been flooded with atheist blasphemers

Why is romantic love (certainly in a woman) based on immodest degradation OP? Specifically from a divine context, not evolutionary theory?

Asking for a friend. Also, mainly for myself. I want to know because it fucks with my head how horrible the dynamic is despite being the one necessary to give new life. I feel that God didn't have to include that dynamic at all.

Also while on the subject, explain to me how I'm supposed to love all of God's creation? I struggle to give all the roundworms and flatworms and tapeworms pet names... Really I just don't know why most things exist, and I don't wanna be told through a bunch of Jewish obfuscation terms, I just want an answer for how potato blight bacteria was made for man's custodianship the same way as, say, a zebra.

Oh and here's another one... If marriage is so important according to Christ, then why doesn't the Bible detail the mechanisms for saving a marriage that's on the ropes and close to sin/infidelity? I've given relationship counselling before and it works okay, but it's all based on fallen world stuff. None of it has been really biblically based. I think the specifics of frame holding/losing/regaining in a relationship ought to be spelled out more given man's/woman's propensity to cheat.

I'm a Christian, but it's really notional only once you dig below the "Christ is manifest virtue" rhetoric. The rest I've not been able to make sense of.

>>25322
You can do it to any book, interview or article in any context, though. Print the snippet you want and leave the part out where you have to be capable of repentance to not be judged.

Out of every problem I've got with Christianity, that it operates as a bit of a free love cult except (until recently) for sexuality doesn't really bother me. I do not think that aliens will ever come visit us until we're capable of expressing Agape as a matter of default. I think Christianity is right to try to reach for it aspirationally.

>>25325
>Why is romantic love based on immodest degradation
Can you explain what you mean by this? What is immodest degradation?

>>25328
Vanity or immodesty are a prerequisite to romantic love. From a male point of view, men care about your fertility and not your feelings, as the norm rather than the exception. Visual appearance is a clue to that fertility. If you're ugly, whether it is anybody's fault or not, your list of potential suitors goes down. So women focus on vanity naturally, and it's kind of our fault.

Meanwhile women have a more obvious or direct degradation mechanic to me. They will sit at a bar imagining or mentally cucking you. I barely understand the dynamic, but by point of comparison I ought to try looking like a better protector and a better provider, in the way of physical or social muscle or throw some cash around. On the quiet I only care about these things to be more useful to others, but when dating it helps that you can flex immodestly.

If you confuse Eros for Philio, or Agape and you're not careful to cross the beams then you'll be deemed to "catch feelings" and dropped for being a man with desperate vibes, or for being emotionally needy. You basically have to love conditionally, or at the very least form an omission of the truth if it isn't.

Further still, if you consider being kicked out of the garden of Eden as being given exactly the kind of environment you need or maybe even asked for as a species because you all wanted to understand truth by having some frame of reference (I realise may not be canon

>>25330
I don't think I have a good answer for you but here are my thoughts.
You're talking about two different things. First is the situation of people finding certain things attractive and some people being more attractive than others. The second is people's responses to that situation. Is the first thing a bad thing? Is it a sin? It's hard to say that it is. Beauty exists and it is good. Beauty of body, of behaviour, of character, and so forth. You can't blame people for being attracted to attractive people and some people are just more attractive than others. Regarding the second part, vanity is a part of our fallen world. I don't know if all attempts to make yourself more attractive are vanity or sin in some way. Maybe it depends on motive or circumstance. Maybe it depends on how you do it. If any women are sitting there mentally cheating on men then that's a sin and part of our fallen world as well.

The problem you have is that people realise what the game is and then go to desperate lengths to make themselves appear more attractive. The problem is when they are consumed by it right? That obsession is what drives them towards vanity. They have set up a false god in their hearts. It compels them into the mentality of both "I'm never good enough" and "my girl/boyfriend isn't good enough." They act on that and it compounds their sin and degrades them by their subjection to the false god. It's easy to say

8a615e56d629825da5c45b44b11fce107b752f107a2b0fa3197aa1a624598609.png
[Hide] (250.3KB, 431x322)

>>24957 (OP) 
who would win? 
Thousands of years of documented and verified history, evidence, and supporting rationale.

OR

some random guy on /pol/

>>24972
The guy on /pol/ is also referencing history as well.

dont think it matters, seems like a cope for antisemitic christians to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their religion having association with JEws. 

Might be a useful trope to use to evangelise to 'alt-right' types.

>>24981
i think youd cause more harm in the long term using that to evangelize to WN because then youd have to go through the works of abolishing the lie you created.

Italians uses "hebe" to call all the jews because for them they're all the same.
Antisemitism isn't just against jews, semites so all hebes.
Happened like that in history, it's the english that turned it into "all hebes are jews and jews are hebes"

>>25192
I understand and sympathise with this attitude. It's humbling, sobering. Still, a more sensible bet would be for us to cultivate our own intellectual class. If we did so, and the Lord allowed it, we could experience something like at least a spark of the Patristic Age again. It was just as rife with heresy, but also with no shortage of men of knowledge that were full of the Spirit.

>>25192
This is a good point. Anyone considering seminary should be certain of its theological orthodoxy ahead of time, since many have drunk the coolaid of secularism. At many if not most seminaries today your teachers will, instead of teaching you how to lead God's people and defend the faith, attempt to do everything in their power to destroy your faith and convert you to damnable heresy. It is unlikely in 2023 they will even tolerate a believer, should they fail to shipwreck your faith.

>>25195
In the early 16th century when scholars and men of that sort still seriously believed and were not Marxists.

>>25210
17th*

>>25210
Erasmus was Catholic yet the reformers didn't see an issue with using the Textus Receptus he published as long as the work was good, not that much good comes out of today's liberal seminaries.

Modern academia wants to be loved by the god-denying secular world so that even if there are Bible believing Christians within their institutions they force them to shut up or face demotion unless they toe their lines that the Bible is a manmade creation, that God doesn't exist, that what scholars produce is always right like their denial of (what they call) the long ending of Mark or John 7:53 to 8:11, and that everyone else has to bow down before their credentials because they're indisputable geniuses. Yet none of that is worth anything because the castrated Bible translation that they produce, the New Revised Standard Version, is literally one of the worst-selling in existence with the only thing saving it being that they lobby liberal denominations to buy it in bulk to fill empty pews. The sad part is that historically orthodox Christian colleges like Harvard and Yale were hijacked by their perversion and conservatives need to assert their right to the institutions of their forerunners:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RBSOGG7amM

Also, some paywalled or partially-walled whitepapers like https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09018329908585155?needAccess=true&journalCode=sold20 may need to be accessed through sci-hub but that's beyond the scope of what I can automate atm.

>>25026
Nice hacking Anon. BTW, the '[Embed]' string thing can be dealt with by a) you using codeblocks, and b) BO making a minor tweak to his custom.css to accomodate that. Good work.

seed.png
[Hide] (316.7KB, 848x1219)

>>25026
If anyone who's already done this wants to make a torrent I'll seed it.

>>25043
Hey Thanks.
>BO making a minor tweak to his custom.css to accomodate that
Any ideas how to do that? I've no experience with CSS.

>>25060
>Any ideas how to do that? I've no experience with CSS.
You might try experimenting with your custom.css file, and trying out the code settings sections in this CSS example:
>>>/agdg/522

>>23315 (OP) 
>How do you convince people that homosexuality is wrong? 
There's no need to "convince" anyone. The scripture is plain, they just don't care about God or His laws (first five books called the law, specifically) or Christ and His message (e.g. Mt 5:17) and therefore they're not worth your time. Period. /thread

>>23538
>it posts this image on a website that hosts porn
the irony

>>23561
gay
>>23562
very original

>>23470

King

>>23470
>They used the idea of a gay gene to get acceptance even though the science behind it was bunk.
I read into that one time and all I found was some mentions of genes that were more prevalent in gays, and maybe increased the likelihood of gayness, but nothing that could be called an actual CAUSE of that.
The "born that way" argument doesn't even work in their own framework because they still accept/talk about the existence of bisexuals, even though the entire premise behind it is 100% choice.

>>24881
i dont find the idea that christians were suffering from mass delusions or psychosis very plausible.
i also personally believe that the field of psychology is a very suspect science in general and that mental illness is mostly a recent phenomenon(its certainly been on a dramatic rise in the past century compared to before(one may note the corollary that atheism is also on the rise this past century))
i think psychoanalysing people from 2 millennia ago is unreliable anyway
>Paul as a Gnostic, or someone who entirely misinterpreted the Gospel/Christianity.
the other apostles didnt think so

if someone has gone through robbers and shipwrecks to get a message to me, im naturally going to take his message much more seriously and as being more sincere, its not "persecutory mania"
most of that post takes for granted that Pauls writings were either written by someone else, written later, dishonest or delusional which i dont accept
it seems like suppositions based on very little to me

>>24881
I have no idea why you are so troubled by this brother, after glancing at it it's clearly the same kind of circular, anti-evidential, speculative, anti-Christian drivel you expect of secularists. In fact, this combined with a single post from your idea has me a little suspicious that this is concern trolling. 

Maybe Paul and Jesus were lunatics. Maybe they were raving madmen and everything they were saying and believing was the product of a deranged mind. *Or*, maybe Christianity is true. I suppose to determine which it is we'll be needing the other side to present their evidence and make their case to establish their historical claims. Unfortunately this is always where the wheels fall off for them because they have no evidence and they have no case, consistently the only response I have ever encountered to this incredibly basic challenge to the secular history of early Christianity is "how dare you question us". That's it. Appeal to authority is all they have. Their fiction is derived from a method that starts by prejudicially assuming what Christians have always believed is false, coming up with excuses for why all the evidence which exists doesn't count, and finally deriving history on the basis of nothing but divination of their own farts. Learning to deal with appeals to academic authority are something which anyone getting into apologetics needs to do because it now stands as the foundation o

>>24884
>a single post from your idea
Your ID*

>>24802 (OP) 
>How do I know whether or not I should practice Judaic law or not? Christ said he is here to fulfill the law, but he also said he would not abolish it.

the only aspects of the Old Law youre meant to follow as a Christian are the Moral Law and, if you want, the feasts and Saturday Sabbath.

>>24802 (OP) 
>How do I know everything written is scripture or not?
I presume you meant 'everything written in scripture is [legitimately Spirit-breathed, inspired] scripture'?

You might start by investigating the ICBI statements on that very topic Anon. [1]

>1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

>2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

>3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

>4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

>5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church