/christian/ - christian

c61cf765e84c27e1cafa01a5688605fce08da4719102292c80268e50255891aa.png
[Hide] (380.7KB, 1414x1000)

The Protestant Reform is heresy.

• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, a former monk of the Church, in the year 1517.
• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in 1534, because the Pope did not allow you to divorce with the right to remarry.
• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded in Scotland by John Knox, in the year 1560.
• If you are a Congressionalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown, in Holland, in the year 1582.
• If you are a Baptist, you owe the content of your religion to John Smith, who started it in Amsterdam in 1606.
• If you are a Dutch Reformist, you recognize Michael Jones as the founder of your Church, because he originated his religion in New York in 1628.
• If you are an Anglican Protestant, your religion is a branch of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the seventeenth century.
• If you are a Methodist, your religion began through John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
• If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded his Church in London in 1774.
• If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started his religion in Palmyra, New York in 1829.
• If you are an Adventist, you must recognize G. Miller as the founder of your sect in 1831, and that the group of Seventh-day Adventists, formed by Joseph Bages, James White and Ellen G. White, separated from it in 1845.
• If you are part of the so-called Salvation Army, your sect began in London, with William Booth, in 1865.
• If you belong to the sect called Jehovah's Witnesses, you should know that their religion was founded by Carlos Taze Russell in 1870, and modified by his disciple Rutherford in 1918.
• If you are a Christian scientist, you will look at the year 1879 as the year in which your religion was born, which was founded by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy.

And these are just a few examples of the countless Protestant sects.

Now, from the preaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the birth of these and other sects, a long time passed... centuries passed, when these sects did not exist. Where were these religions from Christ to the date of their foundation?

Therefore, if they were not the work of Christ, whose work were they? Do you realize that cults are inventions of men and not works of God?

But if you are an APOSTOLIC AND ROMAN CATHOLIC, you know that your Religion was founded in the 33rd year of the Christian era by Jesus Christ, God and true man, and that it has not changed since then.
Those who have tried to change it have been left out of it, because it is not possible to change the truth without abandoning it.
Protestants were never of Jesus Christ. Jesus God founded his Church on the immovable rock of Peter (St. Matthew, XVI, 18).

He also knows that Jesus Christ said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you disguised as sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves. So you will know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew, VII, 15-16),
And that Jesus Christ also said: "If then they say to you, See, the Christ is here or there, do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and they will do wonderful things and wonders, to the point of leading astray, if possible, even the elect" (St. Matthew, XXIV, 23-24).

Therefore, do not be deceived by the so-called Protestant "Pastors", of whatever sect they may be, who want with their false doctrines to separate you from the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, which is the only true one, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is, as He Himself said, "the Way, the Truth and the Life" (St. John, XIV, 6).

The vast majority of "sects" were and are attempts by Judaism to attack the Church and its followers.
From the Albigenses (Waldenses, etc.) against whom a crusade had to be armed that cost thousands of lives on the battlefields. They were proposed, devised, financed, ordered and defended by Jewish kabalistic, gnostic societies, etc.
Others like Calvinism, directly its leader (Calvin, he was a Jew: Kohen). And its bloody fruits like all the revolutions and "popular" acts that ravaged Christianity and Christian societies from the first century to the present.
Protestantism (which now helps to celebrate the misfortune of the Jewish Pope Francis that we suffer) was the biggest blow given to the Church so far (not counting Islam, which also has a lot to do with the syncretization of Eastern Gnostic beliefs). Hence arose the revolts and "wars of religion" that plagued Europe for centuries.
The Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, are already to feed them separately. In fact, more than churches, they are authentic SA. Multinationals of the industry of making goose paste from thousands, millions, of sectarian slaves who work 10, 12, or 17 hours a day in their restaurants, printing presses, etc. with no other reward than the "spiritual" of those sects.
All the "Moderna" sects are daughters (or granddaughters) of Freemasonry, the Jewish sect par excellence. From the 33º the Masons have a Corsican patent to "establish" their own sect. And as we know the leaders of Freemasonry (with an endless number of Jewish rituals, words, signs, etc.) belong to the "special" Freemasonry of the B'nai B'rith that "curiously" only admits Jews in its ranks.

>>26696
As a preface, this is not a defense of every sect you listed (of which some are clear cults, not even Christian).

>centuries passed, when these sects did not exist. Where were these religions from Christ to the date of their foundation?
Think of it in terms of video games, or a similar hobby. Old video games were (for the most part) all about gameplay. Then the money interest got involved. They tried to appeal to the masses of people who never played games in order to increase sales. Now games are all about the cinematic movie-like experience, with endless cutscenes and very little game, or they're psychologically-manipulative slot machines. What "video gaming" is has changed. It's still called by the same name, but it's not the same thing anymore. The old gamers are playing old games instead, or quit playing and left the pastime altogether.
Thus,
>Those who have tried to change it have been left out of it, because it is not possible to change the truth without abandoning it.
This is a true statement, and it happens to be the argument that the other denominations make: that the Roman Catholic Church has changed over the millenia. When the doctrines changed, the true followers of Christ that held to His (and consequently His Apostles') doctrine no longer considered themselves part of the RCC. There were always Christians who were part of Christ's Church (the gates of hell never prevailed); however, those believers held that it was the RCC that "left" Christ's Church. The truth lives on in God's Word. It lives on even if the leadership of the RCC invented new doctrines over the years (thus abandoning the truth). It lives on even if those holding the truth don't have an official denomination with a name. Re-embracing ancient true doctrines found in Scripture that the RCC abandoned doesn't mean I "founded" a new church.

>>26697
I agree, the Catholic Church has been subverted. But Protestantism remains as heresy.

>>26696
>he doesn't know that the Catholic Church openly admits to changing over time in the theology of the Development of Doctrine

>>26639 (OP) 
Based OP

>>26696
cringe

aristible_apostle_of_britain.jpg
[Hide] (59.1KB, 419x600)

>>26696
> Where were these religions from Christ to the date of their foundation?
Cant speak for the rest but the baptist and presbyterian churches began during the ministry of christ

GDrK0Fnb0AAWdj5.png
[Hide] (12.8KB, 618x559)

Hello anon, I'm a dissapointed Catholic interested in Calvinist Theology. Do you have any book recommendations or resources for me to look into?

>>26696
"Ay ése señor, don't become el protestanto! Masonico y satanico anglomasonico! Become a based tradcath and defile your G-d given genes by marrying a fat old latinx orc"

>>26696
>The vast majority of "sects" were and are attempts by Judaism to attack the Church and its followers.
From the Albigenses (Waldenses, etc.) against whom a crusade had to be armed that cost thousands of lives on the battlefields. They were proposed, devised, financed, ordered and defended by Jewish kabalistic, gnostic societies, etc.
Others like Calvinism, directly its leader (Calvin, he was a Jew: Kohen). And its bloody fruits like all the revolutions and "popular" acts that ravaged Christianity and Christian societies from the first century to the present.
Protestantism (which now helps to celebrate the misfortune of the Jewish Pope Francis that we suffer) was the biggest blow given to the Church so far (not counting Islam, which also has a lot to do with the syncretization of Eastern Gnostic beliefs). Hence arose the revolts and "wars of religion" that plagued Europe for centuries.
The Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, are already to feed them separately. In fact, more than churches, they are authentic SA. Multinationals of the industry of making goose paste from thousands, millions, of sectarian slaves who work 10, 12, or 17 hours a day in their restaurants, printing presses, etc. with no other reward than the "spiritual" of those sects.
All the "Moderna" sects are daughters (or granddaughters) of Freemasonry, the Jewish sect par excellence. From the 33º the Masons have a Corsican patent to "establish" their own sect. And as we know the leaders of Freemasonry (with an endless number of Jewish rituals, words, signs, etc.) belong to the "special" Freemasonry of the B'nai B'rith that "curiously" only admits Jews in its ranks.

Hate to break it to bro, but this is all basically just a random conspiracy theory that no logical Christian would agree with.

>The vast majority of "sects" were and are attempts by Judaism to attack the Church and its followers.
No, they weren't. Christian sects came from people differing in theology, usually via different interpretations of scripture and tradition. Most sects were created by Christians (Protestants, the Great schism, etc.) Even most Gnostics were not just Jewish belief, but often influenced by pagan folk religion and pagan philosophy.

>From the Albigenses (Waldenses, etc.) against whom a crusade had to be armed that cost thousands of lives on the battlefields. They were proposed, devised, financed, ordered and defended by Jewish kabalistic, gnostic societies, etc.
While some sects were Gnostic or Kabbalistic Jewish, they were not all. Waldenses were not either of these, and literally still attended the Catholic mass. Many of these groups were not "proposed, financed, ordered, and defended", by these groups, since if the had an relations to them, it was because they usually broke off from them.

>Calvin, he was a Jew: Kohen
John Calvin was a definetly not a Jew. He was born and raised devout Roman Catholic who came to change his views on Catholic doctrine, becoming a reformed Christian theologian (He actively wanted the Catholic church to accept his doctrine, hence the reform, not revolution).

>Jewish Pope Francis
Pope Francis is not a Jew, he's a Roman Catholic...

> Islam, which also has a lot to do with the syncretization of Eastern Gnostic beliefs
ACTUALLY TRUE! Good Job Anon.

>The Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses, are already to feed them separately. In fact, more than churches, they are authentic SA. Multinationals of the industry of making goose paste from thousands, millions, of sectarian slaves who work 10, 12, or 17 hours a day in their restaurants, printing presses, etc. with no other reward than the "spiritual" of those sects.
Mormons and JW's are not Christian, they're two different religions. What's all this random stuff about sweatshops? Not sure what "SA" means, but you're arguing that these groups are bigger than the appear and controlling multinational corporations, which has absolutely no basis and is definitely a conspiracy theory.

>All the "Moderna" sects are daughters (or granddaughters) of Freemasonry, the Jewish sect par excellence. From the 33º the Masons have a Corsican patent to "establish" their own sect. And as we know the leaders of Freemasonry (with an endless number of Jewish rituals, words, signs, etc.) belong to the "special" Freemasonry of the B'nai B'rith that "curiously" only admits Jews in its ranks.
Freemasonry is not Jewish. Freemasonry created zero Christian denominations. The B'nai B'rith are a Jewish service organization, hence why the only admit Jews. This is not "curious", it's literally obvious.

Also, all the posts about Protestantism creating wars, is only half true - War was waged by both Prots and Catholics, so you can't just blame one side. Most prots were not actively trying to cause wars.

In conclusion, this anon is incorrect in his claims. Please factcheck before posting next time.

>>26709
Sorry, the first block of text is supposed to be all green. Sorry, I must have accidentally pressed enter.

>>26696

>• If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, a former monk of the Church, in the year 1517.
• If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in 1534, because the Pope did not allow you to divorce with the right to remarry.
• If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded in Scotland by John Knox, in the year 1560.
• If you are a Congressionalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown, in Holland, in the year 1582.
• If you are a Baptist, you owe the content of your religion to John Smith, who started it in Amsterdam in 1606.
• If you are a Dutch Reformist, you recognize Michael Jones as the founder of your Church, because he originated his religion in New York in 1628.
• If you are an Anglican Protestant, your religion is a branch of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the seventeenth century.
• If you are a Methodist, your religion began through John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
• If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded his Church in London in 1774.
• If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started his religion in Palmyra, New York in 1829.
• If you are an Adventist, you must recognize G. Miller as the founder of your sect in 1831, and that the group of Seventh-day Adventists, formed by Joseph Bages, James White and Ellen G. White, separated from it in 1845.
• If you are part of the so-called Salvation Army, your sect began in London, with William Booth, in 1865.
• If you belong to the sect called Jehovah's Witnesses, you should know that their religion was founded by Carlos Taze Russell in 1870, and modified by his disciple Rutherford in 1918.
• If you are a Christian scientist, you will look at the year 1879 as the year in which your religion was born, which was founded by Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy.
Not all of these are Christian denominations, and the dates here are for their status as an "official" denomination, not their specific theology.

>But if you are an APOSTOLIC AND ROMAN CATHOLIC, you know that your Religion was founded in the 33rd year of the Christian era by Jesus Christ, God and true man, and that it has not changed since then.
Development of doctrine, the Roman Catholic teaching that Roman Catholicism has not had the same doctrine since the time of Christ, but has expanded and changed it's doctrine. Also, many Protestants claim Apostolic Succession, such as some Lutherans and Presbyterians. Other non Prots, such as every "Orthodox" denomination claims Succession as well

>>26706
The Potter's Freedom by James White is the best entry-level work on the doctrines of grace there is imo.

>>26706
>>26853
Would also recommend R.C. Sproul's "What is Reformed Theology?" series which you can find on youtube for an introduction.

>Even most Gnostics were not just Jewish belief
Gnosticism and Judaism are almost* diametrically opposed.

Christianity has both Jewish and Greek ideas in its origin. If you remove the Greek components, you end up with "Judaism for Gentiles" - i.e modern 'Evangelical' heresy that worships earthy state of Israel rather than our Lord Jesus Christ. And if you remove the Jewish parts, you end up with Gnosticism. Complete with very Greek thirst for mysteries and anti-cosmism.

>>26703
>baptist and presbyterian churches began during the ministry of christ
You don't have to lie to make friends. No church historian Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or secular takes this trail of blood theory serious.

>>26711
>>26858
What's in a name? What religion was Adam, the first man? What religion was Noah? They didn't call themselves Christians, but they knew the same God. Was Noah of a different religion because he didn't call himself a Roman Catholic? I'm not a Baptist or Presbyterian, but it does stand to reason that a religion is its God and His doctrines, not the name of a particular denomination. If a particular denomination's doctrines change over time, is it still the same church? If a "new" denomination adopts the ancient doctrines abandoned by an older denomination, which has the greater claim - the one that retained the old name, or the one that reclaimed the old doctrines?

>"4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?" 1 Corinthians 3:4-5 KJV

Let us not forget that it is not a church denomination that saves us. It's God that saves us through the atoning death and resurrection of his Son the Lord Jesus Christ.

>>26855
>Christianity has both Jewish and Greek ideas in its origin
This is often said but entirely false. Christianity has divine ideas in its origin-- it is not man-made. To mix it with pagan philosophy is to muddy and downgrade the faith, at best.

>>26859
I get what you are attempting to say, as there is only one religion of which the Church, being directly identified with Israel, is the organ of expression of that same faith of Adam. However, to suggest that Baptists and Presbyterian churches were present at the time of the Apostles is misguided at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

>Christianity has divine ideas in its origin-- it is not man-made.
Now this is actual heresy. Bible might be divinely inspired, but it was still written by MEN. Holy Men and Saints, but even Saints were not saintly in every single moment of their lives. Case in point: arguably the greatest of saints, Paul, at some point was an evil and corrupt Pharisee...

And if Bible is not related to any pre-Christian philosophy, than what does first verse of John mean? Why does Ep 6:12
>For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Use straight up Gnostic language? (Archon is Greek for 'ruler').

>>26864
>it was still written by MEN. Holy Men and Saints, but even Saints were not saintly in every single moment of their lives
They were sinners like all men, but that had no effect on the divinely inspired words they wrote, because it was God ensuring the work:
>"6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6-7 KJV

>And if Bible is not related to any pre-Christian philosophy [...]
While you can pick out some similarities, that does not equal causation or indicate origin. God had planned this salvation from the beginning (at least), long before either of these nations or cultures existed: the Bible calls Jesus "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." (Rev 13:8). All the Old Testament stories that foreshadow Jesus, were they influenced by nations and cultures that hadn't even come into existence yet? While you made a very thought-provoking observation about the heresy on either side (Gnosticism and Judaism), the Bible and Christianity are either true, or they aren't. The truth doesn't find its origin in falsehood simply because some fragments of both align.

>>26864
>Bible might be divinely inspired, but it was still written by MEN. Holy Men and Saints, but even Saints were not saintly in every single moment of their lives. Case in point: arguably the greatest of saints, Paul, at some point was an evil and corrupt Pharisee.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. It sounds like you're trying to fight about nothing.
>if Bible is not related to any pre-Christian philosophy
This is a strawman.

CatSmoker.jpg
[Hide] (423.2KB, 1600x1600)

>>26865
>>26866 (pity it ain't 666, would be more fitting)
>The Bible is true and without error because the Bible says so
Is this "anon" a Muslim apologist setting up a strawman so that it can be attacked by well-known, pre-packaged Muslim arguments later?

>>26871
I'm in agreement with this anon >>26866, in that I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. If this >>26864 is you, then you're moving the goalposts. Are you saying that the official Christian position is that the Bible is NOT the preserved word of God? Christians believe that it is. If you believe it is imperfect because it was written by the hands of imperfect men, then you undermine the whole book and cut off your own argument at the legs. Everything you know about the men who wrote the Bible comes from the Bible. What extra-Biblical evidence do you have of Moses striking the rock, or Isaiah's unclean lips? There is none. If the Bible is subject to error, what reliable way can I determine which parts are true and which are false? Rationally, you must either accept it as true or disregard the whole thing.

>The Bible is true and without error because the Bible says so
From a more practical standpoint, there is plenty of archaeological evidence for the places and people groups described in the Bible, and the locations and chronology of these nations/empires line up well-enough with the physical evidence. If the Bible was right about the things we can verify, then it would not be unreasonable to trust that it is right about the things we haven't been able to verify yet.

>>26639 (OP) 
welcome to a good proper tradition of the Faith fren, may God continue to guide you until the end

>From a more practical standpoint, there is plenty of archaeological evidence
This is evidence for SOME parts, namely, parts that deal with history of ancient world (which were already ancient history by the time books of the Bible were first put to writing) being not a complete falsehood or fabrication. I hope one does not need to mention that this is not by any means a proof that any given Biblical record is completely free of author's bias, imperfection of his knowledge of events he is describing (even Gospels & Acts are not all immediate eyewitness accounts), or is not straight up falsified at some later date.

So, yes:
>then it would not be unreasonable to trust that it is right about the things we haven't been able to verify yet
Is extremely faulty motivated reasoning and it sounds dishonest.

>>26876
>this is not by any means a proof that any given Biblical record is completely free of author's bias, imperfection of his knowledge of events he is describing (even Gospels & Acts are not all immediate eyewitness accounts), or is not straight up falsified at some later date.
Then post an example of an error in the Bible due to a particular human writer's bias or imperfect knowledge of events.

>Then post an example of an error in the Bible due to a particular human writer's bias or imperfect knowledge of events.
Jesus' genealogy is given in two Gospels (Matthew and Luke) out of four considered canon. Ironically, including one written by a Gentile, to whom it should had been irrelevant.

They don't match, and the other two Gospel writers (Mark and John) clearly do not consider it something worth putting to writing.

If the Bible had indeed fallen down from Heaven in true, complete and incorruptible form, not dependent on perceptions of men (aside from an ability to read and write Old Hebrew and Koine Greek), how would such a thing be possible?

>>26878
Do we know this is an error? I thought the consensus was that Luke traced Mary's lineage and Matthew traced Joseph's. Please correct me if I am wrong.

>>26878
>"However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies. [...] In fact, between David and Jesus, the only names the genealogies have in common are Shealtiel and Zerubbabel [...] Even the reference to Shealtiel and Zerubbabel likely refer to different individuals of the same names. [...] Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), through David’s son Nathan. Since there was no specific Koine Greek word for “son-in-law,” Joseph was called the “son of Heli” by marriage to Mary, Heli’s daughter. Through either Mary’s or Joseph’s line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah."
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

>>26879
It has to be this. Otherwise it was just made-up wholesale. Before the Second Temple was destroyed, the Jews kept meticulous genealogical records. The fact that there was no challenge to Jesus' genealogy during his ministry is an implicit admission by his opponents that, as least as far as his lineage was concerned, he met that necessary precondition to be the Messiah. The first thing the Pharisees would've done would be to run to the Temple and check the genealogical records. If they could show his lineage wasn't sound, that would've been the end of it.

>>26880
What you suggest still doesn't imply that it was an error if they are tracing separate geneologies.

>>26880
Sorry, just realized I read this completly wrong. Pay no attention to this reply >>26881 
I have the flu so it making it hard for me to follow along

>>26879
>I thought the consensus was that Luke traced Mary's lineage and Matthew traced Joseph's
>>26881
>What you suggest still doesn't imply that it was an error if they are tracing separate geneologies.

It's a cope. Here is my arguments:
1) In ye olde jewish religion, descent is from the father.
2) Matthew occasionally mentions women, in case of adultery or when a known ancestor had more than one wife - but Luke mentions only men - all the way to Adam!

>Before the Second Temple was destroyed, the Jews kept meticulous genealogical records. The fact that there was no challenge to Jesus' genealogy during his ministry is an implicit admission
This is an even bigger cope, since it pre-supposes jews being trustworthy, whereas we know very well that they are not. Not to mention that when Pharisees were around, Gospels were not yet written, and when Gospels were around, Pharisees were mostly dead and Temple was already demolished by the Romans.
>However, there is good reason to believe that Matthew and Luke are in fact tracing entirely different genealogies...
Occam's razor suggests they are different because both are completely fictional. The sentence given above is an example of faulty motivated reasoning where you know your conclusion a priori and try to find arguments to fit it.

By the way, it doesn't matter because the only point of including lines of descent is to show the Jews that Jesus was their awaited Messiah - but Jews have already rejected Him and have wanted the Anti-Christ instead. I'm pretty damn sure he will have a perfect recording showing being a purest-blooded jew who ever jewed.

>>26884
>1) In ye olde jewish religion, descent is from the father.
>2) Matthew occasionally mentions women, in case of adultery or when a known ancestor had more than one wife - but Luke mentions only men - all the way to Adam!
If descent is from the father, then any Messiah born of a virgin can't be in the line of David since he would have no human father. There's a very good reason to record the genealogies of both Mary and Joseph in scripture: it heads-off any claims by Jesus' opponents that he wasn't born in the line of David. If Mary descended from David, but Joseph didn't, they could claim Jesus wasn't in the line of David because descent is from the father; if Joseph descended from David, but Mary didn't, they could claim Jesus wasn't in the line of David because Joseph is not his father (Mary was a virgin). Modern Judaism looks to the mother to determine if the child is Jewish - the exact opposite of what you claim the ancient Jews believed. So it turned out to be very beneficial that we have the lineages of both Mary and Joseph. He's the Messiah no matter which parent you calculate descent from.

>Not to mention that when Pharisees were around, Gospels were not yet written, and when Gospels were around, Pharisees were mostly dead and Temple was already demolished by the Romans.
The Pharisees existed before Jesus incarnated, were mentioned frequently in the Gospels, and existed long after the Temple was destroyed. I tried reading some of the Talmud, and in the preface, the Jews boasted that the book was written by Pharisees. Regardless, Jesus had plenty of opponents during his earthly life (the conspiracy that led to his crucifixion should suffice to prove that point). The Priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians all had reason to want him discredited, and they would've checked his genealogy as the path of least resistance toward achieving that goal.

>Occam's razor suggests they are different because both are completely fictional.
Occam's razor isn't a law of nature - it deals with probabilities ("The simplest explanation is usually the best one.") And if your instinct is to apply it to Bible verses, I don't know why you would stop there and not continue applying it to the whole book. Isn't it simplest to assume the whole Bible is fictional and Jesus never existed? Why be a Christian at all? Why are you even here? "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." 1 Cor. 15:19 KJV

>faulty motivated reasoning where you know your conclusion a priori
The problem at hand doesn't give you an alternative. We don't have the ability to go back in time and watch scripture being recorded, or to peer into the minds of the inspired men whose hands recorded it. You're never going to be able to test and prove it 100%. You have to look at whatever evidence is available, and decide for yourself what is most likely. I'm convinced that the Bible is more likely true than fictional. If the scriptures are fictional (or even just unreliable) then being a Christian would be as foolish as worshiping Peter Pan. I speak for myself, but I learned about Jesus only through the scriptures. Is your experience different? Did Jesus personally appear to you like he did the Apostle Paul?

>>26884
> Not to mention that when Pharisees were around, Gospels were not yet written, and when Gospels were around, Pharisees were mostly dead and Temple was already demolished by the Romans.
This is doubtful, since we have very good reason to believe that almost all of the NT was written prior to the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Bringing up the Pharisees means very little, if you have actually researched the time period of the 2nd Temple.

>>26888
>>26889

More of the typical Jewish nit-picking. I swear, this board was created by Satan to convince the casual observer (casual observers on sleepychan, that's a funny joke) that Christians are really what "pagans" on /pol/ say about them.

Let's go over the two given lines:
>Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; And Judas begat Phares and Zara of Thamar; and Phares begat Esrom; and Esrom begat Aram; And Aram begat Aminadab; and Aminadab begat Naasson; and Naasson begat Salmon; And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias; And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa; And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias; And Ozias begat Joatham; and Joatham begat Achaz; and Achaz begat Ezekias; And Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat Amon; and Amon begat Josias; And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor; And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud; And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob; And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
>So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

So, Matthew explicitly traces the line to Joseph.

>Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

What do we see? Another line traced to Joseph, this time, one which mentions a total of zero women (the idea that women can become "sons" wasn't invented yet).

I would really like to see the mental gymnastics required to explain why, somehow, one of those is somehow not about Joseph, but about Mary. When one explicitly goes through Abraham to Joseph and the other runs backwards from Joseph to Adam, and Mary is mentioned only once as Joseph's wife.

Second point - why does it matter? You are not a Jew (hopefully; if you are, please, seek MAID), so what do ancient Jewish prophecies matter when you have a posteriori knowledge that Jews have rejected the Messiah and are awaiting the Anti-Christ? And if it is really that important, why do the other two gospels omit the genealogy of Jesus entirely?

>>26890
Why do the other gospels have to even have to mention his geneology? The Gospels were written for different audiences. The Temple was standing when Jesus was alive, it was standing when he was crucified, and was standing when the Gospels were being composed. Anyone could go into the Temple and verify the records for themselves. If this was a major issue then we would see sufficient records from his opponents that this wasn't the case. foremost Pharisees such as Saul, Gamaliel, Nicodemus would have been well aware of His geneology. Pharisees and others of the various Jewish sects continued to decide to follow Christ way after the death of Jesus and the Apostles. They also would have been very aware if there was an issue with his geneology.

>The Temple was standing when Jesus was alive, it was standing when he was crucified, and was standing when the Gospels were being composed. Anyone could go into the Temple and verify the records for themselves...

I am not arguing with Jews, or people who argue like Jews. Any actual human being presenting actual human arguments there, or can we conclude that:

>>26888
>If descent is from the father, then any Messiah born of a virgin can't be in the line of David since he would have no human father

Provides the best possible answer to the topic at hand? And that, unfortunately, means that 2/4 canonical Gospels have a detail that is, at best, unnecessary and at worse, a complete fabrication.

P.S still waiting on the explanation how:
>>Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli...

>And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Is somehow related to Mary's lineage and not Joseph's.

>>26899
>I am not arguing with Jews, or people who argue like Jews. Any actual human being presenting actual human arguments there, or can we conclude that:
Getting pretty close to ad hominem levels of cope. How about you just relax and try to think things through. Heli is another name of Joachim the father of Mary the father-in-law of Joseph. Mary had no brothers only a sister so Joseph as son-in-law is the legal son and inheritor of Heli. Church historian Eusebius sees one line as being a legal line and one line being a birth line. So, if that is the case it still doesn't cause any contradictions. If the question is truly that the lines are not accurate, again the records would have been completely available to his opponents, something that they do not attack him on. 
>Provides the best possible answer to the topic at hand?
Why? Even through Joseph's line, Jesus as his legal son is fully seen as his son and would be his inheritor and therefore is in the line of David. Again, the Sadducees and Pharisees never attacked Jesus through his genealogy 
Maybe this will give you a better perspective
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA&t

Tired_MangaGirl.png
[Hide] (274.2KB, 1000x1000)

>>26706
>Soyjackers have found their way here.
It all started with the brainlet memes of 2016, where wojack stopped being a meme referring to oneself, and shifted to the 'other'. The memes of this branch have never been funny, only existing to mock others; and to say I am right and you are wrong because you look dumb and I look cool. A pity.

>How about you just relax and try to think things through.

That's funny coming from someone who has to undergo pretty entertaining mental gymnastics:
>Heli is another name of Joachim the father of Mary the father-in-law of Joseph.

>Mary had no brothers only a sister so Joseph as son-in-law is the legal son and inheritor of Heli
(I'd like scripture cited for both of these claims, by the way)
>Again, the Sadducees and Pharisees never attacked Jesus
Jew, you could put a full stop here.

The funniest thing about all this argument is, however, that this 'apparent contradiction' is more or less irrelevant. Meaning of Christ's sacrifice, and of the following sacrifices of Apostles and other Witnesses is not in any way hindered if Joseph was, in fact, a bum and not a direct descendant of kings (how many direct descendants of kings with working class jobs do you know?).

A camera can still take a picture despite specs of dust clinging to the lens and dead channels in the matrix. Likewise, truth in the Bible can still shine through despite imperfections of its' writers, whether due to their memory, lack of formal education in a kind of high-brow Greek that is used in philosophical discussions, or plain error accumulation inevitable during the times when books had to be transcribed.

"Every single word in the Bible is perfect, completely free of error and not only figuratively but also literally true" is a thinly veiled muslim/jewish attack on Christianity and should be combated.

>>26913
Heli is short for Heli-Achim ("God prepares"), and the variant is Jeho-achim. John 19:25.

>Jew, you could put a full stop here.
Another ad-hominem. I can tell you do not want to argue in good faith since you purposely conflate rabbinic Judaism with Christianity. Unless you are one of those from /pol/ who do not understand the difference between Israelite religion, Christianity, and rabbinic Judaism. Be that as it may, I don't plan on continuing this debate since you lack sincerity.

>you purposely conflate rabbinic Judaism with Christianity
Were you looking in a mirror while writing this post? 
>understand the difference between Israelite religion, Christianity, and rabbinic Judaism
Difference between Jewish religion and the other Jewish religion (rabbinic Judaism): none
Difference between Christianity and either: infinity.

See, this is a problem. Not listening to the good man Marcion ended up with the Church being forced into a schizophrenic position where you have to truly believe that at some point in (mythic) history, Jews were good and Godly people, whereas evidence of your eyes and ears, as well as testimony of the ancient peoples who were contemporary of those mythical "Good Jews", point towards the fact they had always been a tribe of desert marauders following Hottentot morality and possessing proclivity for thieving only matched by Gypsies.

>>26696

>APOSTOLIC AND ROMAN CATHOLIC
>Jewish Pope Francis

Who's gonna tell Anon that this isn't how it works lmao

>>26919
Meds