/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Don't go, just read the Bible for 30 minutes when you first wake up in the morning instead. Do that for a few years and believe what God says.

>My family and society in general is very secular, and I feel that will put a lot of pressure on me to be able to defend the faith properly.

Until you have yourself under control 1 corinthians 15:31 don't worry about preaching to them, as they will just leaven you Galatians 5:1-9. Don't be a castaway 1 corinthinas 9:25-27.

>>536943

>telling someone not to go have fellowship

What are you, a Buddhist?

>>536936

Find a Latin mass parish.

This way you can be sure the people are conservative and not pozzed.

A lot of the denominations are really self-serving pyramid schemes. They claim to be faithful spiritual peoples but its a facade for their materialistic self-interest. Many have incorporated pseudo mysticism and eastern beliefs in order to sell their 'belonging' package by preying on the elderly (who leave large amounts in their will) or the young (who are vulnerable to dogma mostly heresy.)

The most egregrious example I can think of is the idea of speaking in tongues. Which is quite hilarious to witness as they encourage the congregation to take turns standing in church and babble as a child, while sounding like they are imitating various animal noises or howling incoherently. After a few moments of this embarassing spectacle in which their egotistical display of pseudo tourettes somehow enables them to believe that they truly inherited a meaningful power to communicate God's word that normal humans cannot comprehend. In the face of this mockery of faith, I feel only terrible grievance at the downfall of the church.

The catholic church is so different but they are sitting on hoards of wealth. I'm not sure how reasonable it is to demand they simply give it away however. In my opinion its fair criticism of them for being too focused on Paul and ignoring some other accounts.

Hearing a trusted friend tell various accounts was enough to convince me of their complete corruption, fraud and insanity. I can almost understand the brutality of the inquisition in suppressing them. They are without a doubt an evil.

The catholic churches I've been in on the other hand are very solemn, traditional and ceremonial. Some churches you go to its just a job for whoever runs it.

Which is very dissapointing and honestly hurtful if you want to take your faith seriously.

>>536947

That's not a guarantee of anything. Also, Novus Ordo is legitimate Mass and you should not be dissuading people from attendance.

>>536949

Go spit your BS somewhere else please, I was asking for help and all I get is nervous shilling.

>>536950

Every serious Christian should read http://www.uwyo.edu/lawlib/blume-justinian/ajc-edition-1/

For historical interest.

Book links are in the side bar on the left.

It gives perspective on the early schisms and founding of the Justinian church. Which was eventually overthrown (if you like, lots of Justinian priests were killed) during the protestant reformations. Kinda sorta relevant to this thread.

>>536953

Who am I shilling for?

>>536946

>how should I know how to interpret the Bible without the (((teachings of the Church fathers passed on in the Catholic Church?)))

Those teachings come from the post 18th century with occasional writings of (((random scholoars))) of the pre 18th century. Technically there is only one true Christian faith of the Bible because of Ephesians 4:3-5

>Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

>There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

>One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

>One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

So in looking for how to intepret, no interpretation of scripture should be private as stated in 1 peter 1:20. Another point is that prophecy came from holy men of God as they were moved by the Holy Ghost as said in 2 peter 1:21. You should be looking for something that doesn't make God a liar titus 1:2. This is because by looking for things that don't make God a liar you can realise what intepretations are of God or just private via their fruit matthew 7:15-20.

>I believe the Bible is telling me the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Jesus

How did you come to this intepretation? What verses do you base this on?

I think catholics or any other denomination are not such because they could never explain 1 samuel 17:51, 2 samuel 21:19, mark 1:2, malachi 3:1, acts 7:45, and deutoronomy 31 and 32 without resorting to a private intepretation that they could not explain to you. Similar to what fake tongue intepreters do as pointed out by >>536949 . But instead of babling out loud they babel in their writings and only occasionally with spoken word.

>>536936

>Thoughts?

Go for it! After mass go up to the priest and tell him your situation. I'm sure he can help guide you better and maybe introduce you to some other people who were/are in the same situation. They may also have advice for you as regards dealing with your family.

>>536943

>Jesus said to him, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God.”

>>536956

Who are you exactly to think you know better? I could address what you are saying but I don't have the time. To start off with sola fide and sola scriptura are incoherent and unbiblical. So therefore anything but Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Coptic Christianity is flawed by nature, because it Christianity was never meant to be coming from the Bible alone.

>>536960

>Who are you exactly to think you know better?

I don't, I am just quoting what God says.

>To start off with sola fide and sola scriptura are incoherent and unbiblical

>because it Christianity was never meant to be coming from the Bible alone.

How did you come to this interpretation in accordance with 1 peter 1:20?

I think sola scripture has merit because of psalms 138:2

>I will worship toward thy holy tyemple, and praise thy name for they lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Because of psalms 138:2 what God says in His word is more important than tradition or oral teachings from humans not of God.

Sure oral tradition could have some meaning because of 2 thesselonians 2:15. But God's word is above His own name. Along with the God's word denouncing tradition that makes His word of none effect in Matthew 15:1-6, Mark 7:1-13, and Psalms 33:10. Therefore it clearly is more important then tradition.

Unless you have verses that prove tradition is higher then God's name itself. Then this a obvious case. As "the scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35 as stated by Jesus Himself.

>>536975

>tyemple

Should be

>temple

>>536949

>The most egregrious example I can think of is the idea of speaking in tongues. Which is quite hilarious to witness as they encourage the congregation to take turns standing in church and babble as a child,

Kek'd Pentecostals are really pathetic

>>537096

Oh ok A.I. I recognized those filenames from pol. How about you actually give me your interpretation based off of what the Bible says then? I take the Bible literally and use the KJV only.

>I bet if you found a Protestant study Bible it would say they mean something completely different.

The doctrines are different because the version you use makes God a liar if it were true, which it is not. You could never explain 1 samuel 17:51, 2 samuel 21:19, mark 1:2, malachi 3:1, acts 7:45, and deutoronomy 31 and 32. Which you still haven't explained for our edification.

<because that would be circular reasoning.

>what is faith.

<because the Bible never says which books are inspired

>what is faith that God will preserve His word as He said he would in 1 peter 1:25

Just stop. You won't like where this goes. Faith is illogical. It's circular in requiring you to have faith God exists in the first place.

>>537099

>1 Samuel 17:51

David kills Goliath

>2 Samuel 21:19

Elhanan kills Goliath’s brother the Gittite

>Mark 1:2

Mark introduces God`s messenger, as was prophesied by Isaiah, you can use the same cross-references as below as well as Luke 7:27, Exodus 23:20 and Isaiah 40:3

>Malachi 3:1

This verse can be interpreted a lot of ways, you can cross-reference to Matthew 11:10, 11:14 and Malachi 3:23, to conclude that it is talking about the messenger

John the Baptist, who is called Elijah.

>>537099

Whoops posted too soon, but what is the point that you trying to make? I don’t believe believe scripture to be infallible or all of it to be literal, if that has anything to do with your point.

>what is faith

Don’t strawman pls :)

>>537099

Oh btw I am not A.I.

I never post on pol xD, I guess I must have saved his picture at some point.

>>537103

Ok let's go over this one by one.

>Mark introduces God`s messenger, as was prophesied by Isaiah

No, read Isaiah 40:3

>The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Now malachi 3:1

>BEHOLD, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

Now mark 1:2 KJV

>As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.

Clearly this verse is in reference to malachi 3:1 because of the "prepare thy way before thee" part. How would you explain this in another version? You still haven't adressed acts 7:45 and deutoronomy 31 and 32.

<I don’t believe believe scripture to be infallible

See John 10:35

>If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Just stop, I tried warning you.

>>537110

>No, read Isaiah 40:3

Isaiah 40-55 are usually designated to Deutero-Isaiah.

I didn`t address acts-deut thing because I knew it would just be more grappling in the dark shilling.

>John 10:35

“The Bible is infallible because the Bible says so”

First of all that is circular reasoning, second of all that is not what this verse is about. What It is saying here is that scripture should not be ignored, it has nothing to do with infallibility. You are taking it out of context.

> just stop, I tried warning you

*Nervous shilling intensifies*

>>537118

<First of all that is circular reasoning,

>what is faith again

>second of all that is not what this verse is about

>What It is saying here is that scripture should not be ignored

How did you get that from "the scripture cannot be broken"? I came to my conclusion because in psalms 138:2 it states God's word is above His own name, literally. So scripture/God's word should be placed in higher then God's name in importance. So it would make sense if God, who cannot lie titus 1:2, also said "the scripture cannot be broken".

<Isaiah 40-55 are usually designated to Deutero-Isaiah.

<I didn`t address acts-deut thing because I knew it would just be more grappling in the dark shilling.

>not a arguement

>admiting you are too lazy to actually study this topic

Care to edify my on your interpretation? Or are you just grasping at straws at this point?

>>536950

Sure it's legitimate, but I'd sooner lose my faith in a NO parish than keep it.

>>536959

>I would recommend OP attends Novus Ordo until he's comfortable with everything, starting off with Latin Mass sounds horrible especially if they're going alone

Besides having been a cafetaria catholic who hadn't gone to even a single Christmas mass in a decade I knew next to nothing about catholicism.

Didn't know what vespers were, how and what exactly the trinity was, that the Eucharist was meant to represent the Blood and Body of Christ and actually was it too etc.

I'll tell you even more; if I had never heard about the Tridentine mass before I'd have lost my faith altogether.

So in all honesty OP, please do find yourself a Tridentine mass.