/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>everyone is a long haired sissy

delte this

>>554342

Is this a meme or do some Baptists really think this?

>>554342

>I worship masculinity

>>>/pol/

>>554357

>anything that I don't like

>hurr durr go back to pol nazi

>>554342

Do you even logic?

Rhetorical question, of course you don't - you are baptist

>>554342

>believing le "Jesus had a crew cut, wore slacks and a red tie" meemee from angel pastor jim's wife's son aka pastor meme, the potassium preacher, stevie "no beers allowd, not even one" anderson

>>554342

This

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

>>554516

t. Samson

Wow that IS cute. I am studying icon painting but haven't seen many Coptic icons. Are they all like this?

Anyone have all those adorable Coptic icons from the last thread?

>>554338

>>554344

>>554346

Don't post images like this depictions of God are strictly forbidden

>>554540

> Showing off a cross tattoo

> Dressing like a THOT

She’d be better off without the tattoo and with some modest clothes. I don’t want to go full Liviticus on these people since I don’t think it’s literally forbiden, nevertheless in most cases I don’t think getting a tattoo is profitable.

>>554590

*Leviticus

I’m a dummy

>>554590

>> Dressing like a THOT

even thots need to be saved. good for her.

>>554594

Of course thots need to be saved, same as the greedy, boasters, masturbators etc. But part of being saved is moving away from your old sinful identity. I should say that by today’s low standards of dress, that girl in the pic is hardly that bad, and I was memeing a bit with the whole thot thing. She definitely should be dressing more modestly and wearing dresses instead of pants or shorts. I’m sure there are plenty of well meaning Christian women who avoid fornication and yet are “bluepilled” on modest dress.

>>554357

>hating your God assigned sex this much

>>554555

found the muslim

>>554792

This is in the bible

>>554771

There were theophanies before the incarnation

<In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple

>>554807

>This is in the bible

Urrr muh graven images totally means we should support Iconoclasm

What is that, he was referring to Pagan statues? Nah no. I am right. You are wrong.

>>554810

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+4%3A12-18

>>554844

>>Main argument is that we have not seen his form

>>But now we have seen the form of The Son

This passage is not an explanation of why you cannot make an image, but why you saw no form ("you did not see any form on the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure"), so the reason God did not reveal any form to them was specifically to prevent them from making an image. An image of God is therefore strictly forbidden.

>Looks null and void to me

Mark 7:13

>>554850

also, forgot to mention, there were theophanies before this commandment was given, so if the incarnation nullifies it it was null before it was even given

>>554850

>Mark 7:13

This might look like a complete destruction of my argument to you but before me and many others it means nothing

It is something you should review after the argument has been won. Very telling that you think it is already won, of course.

>so the reason God did not reveal any form to them was specifically to prevent them from making an image. An image of God is therefore strictly forbidden.

Is this backpedaling? At most, this argues that you can not depict The Father, not The Son. But then at that point, you wouldn't be able to post >>554555 because all of those images are of The Son.

By the way have a bible verse.

Exodus 25:18 "You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat.

Was God wrong?

>>554871

>This might look like a complete destruction of my argument to you but before me and many others it means nothing

>It is something you should review after the argument has been won

You literally called scripture null and void

>Is this backpedaling?

How is it backpedaling?

>At most, this argues that you can not depict The Father, not The Son. But then at that point, you wouldn't be able to post >>554555 (You) because all of those images are of The Son.

The passage says YHWH, which the New Testament identifies the Son as.

>Exodus 25:18

Last I checked cherubim are not God

>>554522

nice orthobro

see also this https://churchpop.com/2015/03/09/6-of-the-oldest-images-of-jesus/

>>554852

>>554807

The theophanies are clearly different to the incarnation, and they did not "see" god in the same physical way that we could have seen Jesus. The theophanies were not men seeing the father otherwise Jesus is a liar.

John 1:18

>No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].

>>554784

You're the one who hates it, since most men don't conform to your idiotic stereotypes of manhood.

>>555130

>Complains people don't like masculinity

>Pushed in

>Complains that people have the wrong view of masculinity

Did you change your argument?

Not a fan tbh

>>554540

should have got 1 corinthians 3 16-17 tattooed instead

>>555121

>The theophanies are clearly different to the incarnation

So? They were still men seeing God

>and they did not "see" god in the same physical way that we could have seen Jesus

They saw God with their eyes. Some even touched Him. How is it not the same physical way?

>The theophanies were not men seeing the father

I know, they were men seeing the Son.

>>554338

>>554344

>Liking anime

Are you one of those homos too?

>>555450

>projecting this hard

>>555557

>another picture of Jesus

cease and desist

>>555559

This isn't /islam/.

>>555555

>>554555

t. Abdul Al-Sheik Muhammad

>>555600

Shoulder length hair wasn't considered long during that time.

being a faggot is a sin, OP

>>555765

yeah cultural standards of the time period aren't in the kjv ergo it doesn't exist

t. andersonite