/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>854098

You protestants are cancerous and toxic. You don't believe in tradition, liturgy. You just only believe to worship IsraeI.

>>852980

> if the Protestants went on any crusades

The protestant reformation started in the 1500s. The last crusade ended by the 1300s.

Bit of a chronology problem there, mate.

>>855506

Pretty much this. The only independent and Bible-following churches during that time would have been the baptists.

A thread died for this. Quit shilling for this guy. Or at least keep it in one thread.

>>855486

You claim to worship one God yet you turn around and name three gods? Do you not see the folly in your claims, sir? But I digress.

I will answer your question as if you asked it earnestly without any strife, contention, and pride.

The Son of God is called God because God is in him. He is without sin.

A christian who has the Holy Ghost (The only true God, the Father) will not become God for that is error. A christian is not without sin. He was not conceived without sin like the only Begotten Son of God was.

And so, when the Son of God was thirty years old, he went and was baptised in the Jordan river. God his Father anointed his Son with his own Spirit. And from that day forward, God was manifest in the flesh. The Word (Who is God himself as the scripture declares) was made flesh.

Amen.

>>855489

three Gods? you have no idea how the trinity works. According to you, Jesus was born man, but since he has God in him, he is God, but at the same time nah jk he's only man, unless when he is God. The Holy spirt is God too, but let's call him ghost (kids are gonna love it) and btw he is literally God, nothing like a trinity nah nah, but He is separated sometimes.

Do you have ANY early church document that is at least 50% befitting your argument? what you say does not come from bible, does not come from Church, does not come from culture or reason, you should call yourself a pagan because that is what you are, or just declare yourself Islamic, 'cause I (and everyone here) don't see difference

>>855493

The Lord rebuke you. Your blood be upon your own head. My hands are clean.

>>855494

rebuke me? so he also rebuked all Church fathers? if what you say is true, at least one of them would acknowledge your ideas, but none of them did that. I truly fell sorry for you, but at least even the modern degenerates don't fallow such travesty of ideas.

>>855489

>You claim to worship one God yet you turn around and name three gods? Do you not see the folly in your claims, sir?

All three of those persons - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost - are one God. This is one of the most basic aspects of the Christian faith - that the one and only God is more than one person. I am quite saddened that whatever church you went to did not introduce this concept to you.

>A christian who has the Holy Ghost (The only true God, the Father) will not become God for that is error. A christian is not without sin. He was not conceived without sin like the only Begotten Son of God was.

Seeing as God washes away the sins of the Christian (Acts 22:16, see also 1 John 3:9), your argument backfires. Are you to suppose that we become God at baptism? I don't think so.

Can you do this in one thread

>>855437

I try to keep the commandments of God. It doesn't turn out very well, but I'm striving for improvement. 😄

>>855440

Wonderful! Praise God. Have you been baptised for the remission of your sins and have you received the Holy Ghost?

>>855442

I was baptized with three dives in water.

>>855449

Unto what were you baptised?

>>855449

What was proclaimed over you when you were baptised?

>>855396

this

>>855395

It might be evidence for God, but that doesn't mean it will necessarily convert a skeptic. In my experience, skeptics usually have an emotional barrier that prevents them from believing, not a intelectual one.

btw, proof only exists in math.

How about you do your own homework bro?

t. fanatic roman catholic

>>855393

Catholics are modern day pharisees

>>855389

>Thats the first time I'm posting here, I feel like this board is full of fanatics roman catholics who will fight and crusade anybody from a different denomination

That used to be moreso true before 8ch got taken down now the old mod 'trad'cath cabal is gone.

And no. Im not gonna do ur 'homework' even.if ur a.seminarian

Their theology was trash but their willingness to commit violence to defend their beliefs is commendable and I wish more Christians would follow suit.

>>855267

Looks like a sect

>>855267

>>855311

Great song too, reminds me of the nasheeds I used to listen to. Saved.

What is this

>>855375

>>855376

And let me post that Scripture again even though it's already copied once above just so you can't pretend you did not see it.

Romans 1:26

<26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

So we see here that it is them that change the natural use into that which is against nature. It has nothing to do with the way man is created or his default nature, as we see here. God is not the author of sin.

>>855376

>What makes you say that?

I'm just following your words to their logical conclusion. If God affirmatively protects us from homosexual temptation, those afflictions were already within them a person given up by God, that means our default state, without God's intervention, is homosexual.

I think you're the one misunderstanding here.

>>855359

>Then says they were "washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." It seems to me therefore, homosexuals can be saved.

Both premises of this conclusion fall independently of each other. Just because it says some at Corinth had done some of those things does not mean that some at Corinth had done all of those things.

We see in 1 Corinthians 10:13, that there had been no temptation which they, the Corinthian church, were taken with that was "uncommon to man." Here is the quote:

>13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

This means that sodomite lust could not have been among the temptations taken by any of the Corinthians. Therefore, we see that regardless of what your translation says, it would not be a contradiction because Paul merely says that some Corinthian church members had done some of those things, not necessarily all of them. So your conclusion positively falls short.

Furthermore, it says in 2 Peter 2:9,

>The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

So we see that God, the Lord knows how to protect the godly from temptations. In this passage, Peter had just gotten finished writing about how Sodom and Gomorrha had been destroyed by God, and how we learn God had protected Lot from this temptation, one that is not common to man.

Over in Romans 1, we see a clear, undisputed description of sodomite lust. There, it says in Romans 1:

>26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

>27 And lPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>855359

Now let's look at the translation of your word. We see that Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1525) and every Bible up until and including the KJV used the same terminology, and none used the term homosexual, which is a recent invention.

As to what the word means, your elaboration already sufficed. It means someone who, for whatever reason, allows themselves to be abused by a male. This could be a prostitute of any type. We also see that in both lists, the word in question is placed next to a slavery-related sin. In 1 Corinthians 6:10 (KJV) it says thieves after this entry. In 1 Timothy 1:10, it says menstealers after this entry. This context suggests that this term is related the context of human trafficking, such as prostitution. People who would willingly give themselves over to prostitution would be said to be defiling themselves, according to a word description like this.

If theoretically Paul had meant to signify sodomite then the actual word for it was not chosen in either place in either passage. Actual usage of terms that indisputably refer to sodomy occur in other passages. So this >>855359 explanation for the modern and your translation of this word does not account for its non usage in the Greek here or explain why Paul didn't just use that term in 1 Corinthians 6:9, if it was what he meant. For this reason, the translation is inaccurate; It would possibly be used by an uncharitable person to accuse the church at Corinth; and indirectly, Jesus Christ, as well, as we see in Hebrews 4:15.

>and where I went wrong?

The answer here is slightly more nuanced: In starting out with the purpose of justifying modern perversions, and rebelling against what Scripture says, the start of this error began. The end-goal of saying that sodomites are somehow ok is a very bad goal to be wresting and twisting Scripture around for, especially when the Lord condemns it as an abomination so strongly throughout his Word.

>>855378

Romans 1:26 says otherwise. Speaking specifically of the reprobate in question in the passage, it says they changed themselves. It says these mentally depraved people changed their own behavior to go against nature. This passage has nothing to do with people like us who are outside of that. It's specific to the reprobate. God gave them up, in the end, to corrupt themselves. He neither created them or us that way (no one is born that way), nor did God positively force anyone to do it (he is not the author of sin). Rather than any of these things, the wicked (not Christians) had that vile sin within them, and once the wicked rejected God, because of their rejection then God gave them up to those lusts. As for the vast majority of us, to whom that passage does not apply, we simply never had that within us at all because it is not in our nature. Hopefully that makes sense.

>>853550

Oh yeah thats right. I noticed that about a year ago if i recall.

I can recommend Seraphim Rose Books