/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Become Catholic.

It's okay. I wouldn't want to learn slavonic either. If there's a greek-speaking church, check there. Usually greek churches also do english. Even if not, the greek liturgics be better. And you'll figure out what they're saying over time anyway. If you like, check out agesinitiatives dotcom, they have all the daily services with greek and english side by side

LOL he fell for the orthodox meme

Sometimes that's simply the cross we have to bare. If there is another parish nearby that is mostly English speaking, you may want to visit there too. If your only option is the Russian parish, I would pick up a copy of the Antiochian Little Red Prayer Book which includes the full Liturgy of St John Chrysostom (which is used pretty much all year, the only exceptions being Lent, Christmas Eve, and the Feast of St James, depending on your parish). That should at least help you follow along for everything except for the daily troparion and kontakion and the readings, and I've never been to a parish in an English speaking country where they don't at least read the Scriptures in English and the native tongue. If for some reason they do just use the native tongue for readings, you can find a list of the readings online and read them ahead of time. It's certainly not ideal, but that's the situation.

In Japanese Orthodoxy, the Liturgies were translated by St Nikolai into archaic, formal Japanese. It's the highest and most formal use of the language, with it's own vocabulary that most Japanese people don't even understand. It's the kind of speech you would use with the Emperor. One monk at Holy Cross Monastery in WV is Japanese, and he can't even understand the Liturgies in his native language, but he can understand it in English, ironically. So, you're not alone in that struggle.

*I know

You can read the Bible and become a Mormon or satanist or atheist or whatever.

This would be similar.

>>856163

Neitzsche was only inspired insofar as Dostoevsky is a progenitor to existentialist thought. That in itself is just a framework, but there are Christian and non-Christian approaches to it (Keirkegaard and Doestoevsky were the main Christian examples).

>>856268

One more thing: Another novel approach the NKJV follows is the systematic removal of "Belial" all throughout the Old Testament. All modern translations do this. The new scholarly consensus is that "Belial" is merely a compound word meaning a "worthless" person or something to that effect. It's completely bogus. Old Testament era Judaism had a more developed sense of demonology, with Belial, lilitu demons (Lilith), and the like. All of these modern approaches especially were disproven when they discovered that the Dead Sea Scrolls had notions of Belial all throughout their writings. Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphical texts also mention Belial. The LXX wasn't quite as extensive, but it also mentions Belial from time to time. The Vulgate and Syriac do as well. The KJV was simply following the teaching handed down to them.

There's a reason why Paul mentions Belial in his epistles. Or that Jesus engaged in exorcisms as a main part of his mission. Demons didn't just pop up out of nowhere.

>>856208

It should be pretty obvious that the liberty that The Holy spirit brings, does not include sodomy, blasphemy, or idolatry. These are evil things and God does not bring evil. Simply because you have redefined the word 'liberty' to mean debauchery, doesn't mean that God now stands for debauchery.

Hebrews 8 and 9 explain why animal sacrifices are no longer required to obtain God's mercy. It does not abolish the old law. If you think that it does, then you clearly think God is some sort of charlatan who makes mistakes and then has to fix them later. Or maybe you think God is a moral subjectivist who suddenly changed his mind and now putting sodomites to death is a bad thing despite him commanding it to be done previously.

And no matter how many times you copy and paste those two passages, they still don't support your position. Loving your enemies doesn't mean to give all criminals a free pass.

>>856209

>You say people have no right to property

No I do not. The right to property is probably the only right that actually IS in The Bible. God said 'Thou shalt not steal' therefore property is a concept given to us directly by God. However freedom of speech, religion and sex, are nowhere in The Bible. The laws God gives us against blasphemy directly contradict free speech, the command 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me' directly contradicts freedom of religion and the laws against sodomy, fornication, and adultery clearly contradict your 'right' to sleep with whoever you want.

>What you're advocating is just going out onto the street and killing random people who you think are sodomite without any trial or due process. It's basically Robespierre's "reign of terror" from the French Revolution period, with nothing other than pure mob rule. A perfect stage to enact satan's schemes against the brethren. By placing false accusations against them in a public square and riling up the senseless communistic mobs to lynch them.

Now you're just straw manning. I never said anything about getting rid of due process. Leviticus says that no one can be put to death on the testimony of only one witness so due process is clearly supported by The Bible.

>What you suggest has been tried before and has failed

What I suggest is that we follow and enforce the law of God. The law that built Ancient Israel and provided the foundation of Europe's incredible civilizational success. If these are what you consider failures, then I'm fine with living in a 'failed' civilization.

>It is the practical result of such a theory of reducing men to animals with no shred of dignity, without a right to trial, self defense, to stand before their accuser, or even a right to live!

In my opening statement, I clearly said and I quote "The only right anybody has is the right to live a pious Christian life." That right alone would entail both life and due process, so I don't understand why you are making these accusations. I stand by the statement that freedom is a fake value because if freedom is the ultimate gPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>856209

>What you do not or do not want to understand is that it is exactly this framework when properly administered that keeps in check the same modernists who seek so much to abuse and undermine it

It has failed time and time again. It failed in France, it failed in Russia, it is currently failing in The US. Everywhere that enlightenment 'values' have taken root they have given way to anti-Christian regimes. Enlightenment values are leftist by their nature. That is why it is necessary to forsake enlightenment values because they are nothing more than a secular fabrication. They are fake. Piety, honesty, virtue, dignity, these are real values and our laws should be designed to be most conducive to these things, not individual freedom. Luckily for us, God already gave us a law code that perpetuates these things. Unfortunately, God's law doesn't guarantee you all of the rights the US Constitution does. The rights that are not in God's law are fake and should not be considered rights to begin with. My ideas are not new. Literally the entire world used religious values as the basis for civilization prior to the 17th century.

>Violence is not the answer here. If we are saved we see that God is in control of all things, even now.

If you think that the leftists are going to listen to your arguments, you're delusional. They despise us, God, and everything having to do with God on principle. You cannot convince them to leave us alone and let us live peacefully, they won't allow that. Violence is the only answer now. I still don't understand why you are so afraid to stand up for yourself and your fellow Christians. Yes, God is in control at the end of the day, does that mean you're free from all obligation? NO. 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a man who doesn't provide for his ilk is worse than a non-believer. It is your God-given obligation to protect your family and your fellow Christians from harm even if that means resorting to large scale violence.

>>856210

>>In 70 A.D. when God let the Romans sack Jerusalem.

>What kPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>856242

>>856251

>because if freedom is the ultimate good, then all law is evil since law is inherently antithetical to freedom.

Nobody ever once said that in the first place though… Where are you getting this stuff from? Your fake history again? Who exactly said that which you are arguing against?

>The rights that are not in God's law are fake and should not be considered rights to begin with.

In 2 Thessalonians, Paul tells the church that they should withdraw from those that walk disorderly. He says nothing about throwing those that walk disorderly in prison. That is the state's role. In 1 Corinthians, chapter 5, Paul talks about how we deal with those who hold a doctrine or pattern of living contrary to the word of God. He says in 1 Corinthians 5, verse 13, "But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

>I would go so far as to say that this is what The USA has become.

The things you speak of about anarchy only exists because of Judaizers who want to undermine the country. That's why you see people flag-kneeling. They want to teach people a fake history of this country, one that involves terms like "enlightenment," and make the U.S. look as bad as they possibly can to support their argument. They are the ones seeding discontent themselves. Create a problem, propose a "solution."

I know at least one person, me, who will not be deceived by this ploy. You all are evil and I am well aware of these methods, and I do not believe they will work. Even if they do, then when Christ returns you will be judged as enemies of the cross.

I suggest here, and I rebuke the fact that you've sought only to bring other people into physical bondage through violence, and you taught lies all along, about yourself and others, from the beginning even until now. You are not what you say. In reality you are nothing but satan's puppet, as it says in Romans 6, "sPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>while the Lord said “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,”

He also said "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you."

When Christ says that "flesh profits nothing" he means that material things and material food won't profit you. But Eucharist is not eaten in a sense that this little peace of bread will materialy feed you, but it gives you grace and gives you spiritual life. Augustine comments on this saying: "Yea, but as they understood it, for they understood that the flesh was to be eaten as it is divided piecemeal in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles, not as it is quickened by the spirit (…) Let the spirit draw nigh to the flesh (…) then the flesh profiteth very much: for if the flesh profiteth nothing, the Word had not been made flesh, that It might dwell among us."

>"Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you."

Yeah and the Eucharist literally fits this description to the letter

>How they reconcile this by stating that the Christ's blood and spirit are in the same

Literally no one says that Christ's blood is the same as His spirit, this is metaphysical nonsense. It's so idiotic that it doesn't affirm monophysitism any more than "rhghhhrae" does.

>Additionally the apostles decreed that believers aren't to drink blood, yet they commemorate Christ with the Eucharist, how? Because they viewed it as spiritual food.

Yea, we view it as a sipritual food also. Not that Christ's body and blood is only spiritually there, but in a sense that this food nourishes the soul, not the body. Seriously, from purely materialistic perspective this little piece of bread won't feed anyone

>>856158

>this dude thinking Mary of Magdala is the mother of Jesus

Absolute state of catholicism.

>>856153

Baptists do not reject Christ or the four Gospels, they reject the idea of someone after Him claiming to speak for God. Also that verse is talking about rejecting Jesus as the Son of God, which no denomination actually does

>>855692

/thread

>>855676

it's not in my special book so I don't like when people do it

>>855676

This is a logical conclusion when you reject intercession of saints

However it is a wrong conclusion

pray for me frens pray that Gods will be done for me please above anything else

>>855676

Besides this conclusive post >>855692,

starting in genesis this is all over the place. God telling Abraham to pray for that dude that wanted his wife, Abraham interceding for Sodom, Moses constantly interceding for the people, etc etc.

And in the OT when the centurion asks the elders in good standing to intercede to Jesus in his stead. Jesus found that a show of great faith and humility.

So clearly God wants us to pray and intercede for one another.

I wouldn't say so. True, the sacrifice is offered to the Father, but what is being worshiped in the Father is also true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. That's why it is said, that even if you only pray to Jesus, you pray to the whole Trinity - because they share divine nature.

Nah never heard of him. He sounds like a d— tho. Sorry he stabbed your baby, bro

>>855688

>A Jewish survivor of Jasenovac, Egon Berger, described Filipović's sadistic killing of Serbian children,[18]

So the source of the entire story is the account of one jew? Jews would never lie to us, would they?

>>855689

>Sounds like the Balkans version of pic related.

Except he was nicknamed Brother Satan by his fellow camp guards and was expelled by the Franciscan Order for his sadism.

>>855688

>A Jewish survivor of Jasenovac, Egon Berger, described Filipović's sadistic killing of Serbian children,[18]

this is the point qwhen i realized all these claims are fabrications. a good rule of thumb to live by is to never trust a jew, especially a jew making claims about a Christian

Cool judeo-communist fairy tale

Israel is not a legitimate state

Judaism is not a legitimate religion

Jews are not a legitimate people

Every single Jew who follows Judaism will burn in Hell.

But you're right, anon.

Matthew 6:24

Man is imperfect. Let god wait for the scales to still

>>854713

All nations are, but at least the US has freedom, and many states and cities still have traditional values

>>856144

>The Pharisees prided themselves as masters of the scriptures. Knowing them to the T, but never actually living by them and coming up with man-made traditions of their own, not the traditions passed down from Moses.

Not exactly true. The pharisees taught that Moses passed down the written law (torah) and the oral traditions (talmud). Jesus was saying that the oral traditions were heretical and evil, that they barred men from God, and had no relation to the torah.

>It wasn't until the Council of Rome when the entire biblical canon was standardized and distributed to the various episcopal sees.

And a great deal of human history magically disappeared from scripture. You ever wonder why the book of Genesis only mentions the giants and the sons of God in passing? It's because the full stories had already been written down in the book of enoch. Both the church and the Jews tried to suppress the book of Enoch but since it was divinely inspired, Enoch's prophecy came to pass

>1.1 The words of the blessing of Enoch, according to which he blessed the chosen and righteous, who must be present on the Day of Distress, which is appointed, for the removal of all the wicked and impious.

Enoch said he wrote the book for those living at the end of the age and the book disappeared until right before the end of the age. Coincdidence? I don't think so.

>>856145

Ok, you're forgetting the baptists though. The independent churches that are free from any denomination continue to exist from the early church era and follow the Bible, which represents the written word of God. I'd say that's better and more in line with what the church was always meant to be than any of the options you mentioned here.

>>856159

What exactly is the relevance of this? Are you saying there is a contradiction somewhere in Scripture? We know who the apostles were. Paul was an apostle, he had a direct encounter with Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. That means he was one of the original apostles sent to plant churches. Like he said in 1 Corinthians 3,

>10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

>11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

It also says in Ephesians this:

>21 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

>20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Lastly, you yourself even agreed that it was important to know who the apostles were based on what Paul was quoted as writing in 2 Timothy 3:14, where he said: "But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;" So if you accept that emphasis on knowing who the apostles were, you have already implicitly accepted Paul as being one of them because he wrote that passage of Scripture. Hopefully that helps clarify.

>>856144

in >>856093 i said;

< this means that early Christianity didn't have a centralised seat of authority

you respond with;

> This is just blatantly false. The church did have centralized seats of authority… Rome… Antioch and Alexandria

(emphasis my own)

how you went from seeing me employ the singular 'a' and interpreted it in the plural i don't know…

didn't you see me in the very next line speak of the Church Fathers and their missives to one another – and didn't you recognise that as relating to the 'localized authorities'* as you yourself call them, where Bishops of many seats remonstrated with one another as equals ?

this evidences there wasn't A centralised seat of authority ANYWHERE and this state of affairs lasted for several hundred years after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD

(and even thinking that City was a centralised seat is debatable, since the Apostles were peripatetic in the extreme, just as their Lord was)

moreover, how you think listing several localised seats (plural) is an argument for one singular seat of authority, is beyond me

is this what passes for rational thought in your world and are such self-defeating, internally inconsistent statements really what you imagine sound argumentation to look like ?

or should i think the worst and see it as a deliberate act of obfuscation on your part, demonstrating your vast knowledge by listing some historical sites witPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>856181

>how you went from seeing me employ the singular 'a' and interpreted it in the plural i don't know…

He's probably ESL

>is this what passes for rational thought in your world and are such self-defeating, internally inconsistent statements really what you imagine sound argumentation to look like ?

In reading this post I agree with you. But this is the internet, so the ability to generate outrage and make outrageous statements is one strategy you often see employed. Usually they don't bring it to the anonymous boards though, because it doesn't work without that tribalistic tendency of personality cults that you see elsewhere, so I would consider his style the inherited behavior of a net migrant who accidentally left his containment zone and somehow wound up here not knowing that that's not at all how things work around here.

Likely, he is regurgitating phrases and sentences that have been drummed repeatedly from such social circles. It is likely that many or most of the original thoughts are not his own, they are just things he keeps saying over and over in his head and never bothering to verify if any of it is true. Very indicative of a cult like behavior. When encountering something that contradicts it, he begins to repeat the pre-existing narrative like a broken record. The concept of "persuasion" or demonstrating anything that might work to convince another human being is not a thought that crosses the mind in this state. For instance, he talks about what 1st century churches had as if he was personally there, and speaks with an air of confidence to the level that, without exception, he knows what every single church was doing. There is no room for qualifications or nuances. Either you accept his narrative or else you get to hear the robotic repeating of the inner script a repeated time.

That's what you find a lot of on the internet.

>>856138

If I click on this video will the FBI raid my house?