/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>not having faith in Pastor Jim

for shame

>>572945

After learning what the kikes/babylonians did to germany for fighting them, what Christians having been literally preaching against (((them))), and preaching against the world since time began then no. It's fabricated for sure. Now I have no doubt that (((they))) have a real history of the church since Jesus came back lieing around somewhere. But it's going to be a list before the "dark" ages since the dark ages were more like the years the kikes didn't completely control everyone and everything and you could worship/serve God without being beheaded as easily along with being self-sufficient.

>>572945

Anabaptism was a mistake

>>572954

why yes Pastor Jim, all those historical records going back each and every one of those 2,000 years are all lies, the real church of Christ were actually aryan KJV baptists

>>572956

>all those historical records going back each and every one of those 2,000 years are all lies

Do you have proof? Like I said it was very likely. I don't have proof of such though, other then (((their))) past/recent behaivor and (((their))) Biblically reported behaivor in daniel and the bookof kings.

>the real church of Christ were actually aryan KJV baptists

1 corinthians 3:18-20

>Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in the world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

>And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

1 corinthians 1:18-28

>For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

>For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

>But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

>But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger then men.

>For ye see your calling, brethern, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

>But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

>And the base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

>aryan

Why aryan? Why not other races? There is neither greek nor jew galatains 3:28…. Surely there are other english speaking races that recognize there is nothing in the KJV that would make God a liar if it were true.

>>572979

so you're going with the

>you can't prove they were not OSAS KJV baptists

line huh. at least you're not a racist.

>>572991

No, to you I am preety racist. I recognize that babylonians/fake jews are shorter people with longer noses. I recognize that blacks are physically stronger people that are generally stupid when it comes to carnal knowledge but not spiritual sometimes. I recognize that chinks are a small people. I recognize that mexicans and indians generally have better muscles and stink more then other humans. I recognize that whites are generally better at carnal knowledge, taller, and thinner then other races.

But I have not respect of persons i.e James 2:1-9, especially not because of some carnal difference that is vainity.

get triggered btw

i've only ever heard catholics bringing this up to feel intellectually superior or something, no baptist i know believes this.

>>573011

>trail of blood is a catholic falseflag to counter baptists who claim catholic doctrines believe in works without faith is applicable

interdasting…

>>572945

Actually own a physical copy,it's good for a laugh though.

>>573017

>trail of blood is a catholic falseflag

that's not what i'm implying, i'm sure there are a few hundred baptists who actually believe modern baptists and 2nd century montanists believed the same things.

i've just never met one, or seen anyone on this board defending this belief, yet this trail of blood meme is brought up at least once a week.

>>572991

>>573001

Paul was a "racist." Remember that section in Titus where he basically says everybody from Crete is lazy moron who needs to be corrected firmly? Yeah, pointing out that people of a specific ethnic group have common characteristics, especially negative ones, is in keeping with the modern definition of a "racist."

>>572945

My favorite LOL about this graph is that all those groups have wildly divergent doctrines and would have, if they'd been around at the same times, happily burned each other on stakes for those divergent beliefs.

The good news is, only a small subset of prots believe in the "trail of blood." They're probably fewer in numbers than Watchtower or Seventh-Day Adventists desu.

>>573025

>trail of blood meme

Because it is a meme version of what really happened, that's why they like to call it that in the first place. See >>562154

The 1931 publication called Trail of Blood was a very flawed and unscholarly book that used several fake citations and presented ideas clumsily but the idea behind it however is far older. That's what you're not supposed to be aware of, you're supposed to think the whole idea is based on that book.

It sort of makes sense that the Church has a long history of killing various sects with extreme prejudice that Baptists or even Protestants in general might sympathize with. However, I don't get how Baptists claim to have descended from those sects, considering they all held different doctrines, none of which even remotely resembles Baptist doctrine (save for that of Anabaptists and maybe Petrobrusians and Henricians).

>>572945

Looks like I'm gonna have to start over again.

So-called anabaptists were being persecuted as early as A.D. 405, and put to death for this act in the Roman Empire as early as 413. They are not and were not reformers, they simply do not believe in a state-run church in the first place. But if all you recognize are state-run churches, then you won't ever notice the fact there have been these independent churches all along who believed different than you.

>>573035

>Anabaptists in 405

Huh?

>>573036

Ok first off when you refer to Anabaptists as one of your groups, you probably mean to say specifically the characteristically pacifist churches that organized in certain areas of Switzerland and Germany such as the Mennonites. Those people were originally organized together from certain independent churches, but there were also many other churches of the same sort that remained unorganized in countries like Holland, England and Wales that were not involved in that. In fact the act of organizing more than one church into an official "Baptist denomination" is pretty much a political thing and not all of us agree with it. Nonetheless, many have tried. The Mennonites were the early attempt at this and so they are sometimes known as "the Anabaptists" today, even though that was really a derogatory term going all the way back used against anyone who didn't accept infant baptism. Later attempts took on the name for themselves "Baptist" and yet these groups also were organized denominations. What we call IFB churches today are not organized beyond the church unit. They plant a new church and then there are two independent churches, not a bigger denomination.

>Anabaptists in 405

See Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 16.6.4. It's a law passed by Honorius stating that anyone who they consider to be an anabaptist will suffer the penalty of forced poverty. Eight years later it was increased to the death penalty for both the baptized and the minister of the baptism.

>>573031

>the idea behind it however is far older

Yeah, and that was no less unscholarly and false. This mythology began with the Anabaptists

>>573035

Being the state church doesn't mean being a state-run church, it means having a church-run state. These independent churches never existed and the first credobaptist was Conrad Grebel

>>573037

>the characteristically pacifist churches

That's modern anachronism. They weren't very pacifistic at all until late in the game, they brought peasant revolt nearly everywhere they went

>that was really a derogatory term going all the way back used against anyone who didn't accept infant baptism

That's because it was the only thing the Radicals had in common

>Imperatoris Theodosii codex: Book 16, Title 6 16.6.4

How many times do I need to tell you you're reading this anachronistically? Anabaptist was a synonym of Donatist. This is about Donatists. In fact, the Anabaptists were probably so called because they were charged under these laws.

>IFB churches today are not organized beyond the church unit.

Tell me more. What is the doctrine they profess? What is IFB? Why not just call themselves Christians? If it is unscriptural or false I will destroy their profession of it with all my might.

>>573048

>state church

Who cares? Serve God.

>Yeah, and that was no less unscholarly and false.

Although you have a point about age being vainity, why do you reject colossians 2:8?

>they brought peasant revolt nearly everywhere they went

Did they themselves revolt or is this just (((heresay)))?

Sage for I really don't care tbh.

>>573036

Lower case 'anabaptists' (re-baptisers), not Anabaptists. The law was targeted mainly at the heresies Donatism and Novatianism which held that sinners, particularly traitors to Christendom (naturally many recanted during the persecutions) should be permanently expelled from the Church, and held clergy that they disapproved of so as completely illegitimate and that by extension any sacrament administered by them was null and void (hence anabaptism). The only anti-infant baptists at the time I’m aware of were Pelagians (understandably Baptists are silent on *that* connection), but I don’t think they were anabaptists.

>>573057

Actually even Pelagians were pedobaptists. If you read Augustine he uses it as an argument against the Pelagians, that they wouldn't dare oppose infant baptism because the whole church would be against them, but they really had no reason to do so without original sin.

>>573011

You must not have been on this board for very long. The baptists here very often bring up the whole "we wuz donatists" or "thre wuz always babdists" memes.

>>573060

>pedobaptists

Baptists are pedos??? This is a serious charge.

>>573028

I define racist as believing entire swathes of people (usually black for people here) as your objective inferiors. If this was so, then how could they be held culpable for their sins? Animals are our inferiors, and they do not sin.

You think blacks are lazy and rude? Yeah, many are. Blacks are inferior? We are all equal before God, my man.

>>573067

Beasts/animals do sin though? What do you think a human is? Read ecclesasties 3:18-21.

>>573075

So Jesus Christ died for the sins of animals?

>>573080

Linnaeus is wrong, animals are in no way Humanity's equal; and, they most definitely cannot sin.

I'm not campaigning for Christians to run around to step on puppies, but there is a clear distinction between Man made in the image of God, and animals. If you really think otherwise, you got some big issues.

>>573077

Read down from this link >>571435 and define men.

>>573083

There's nothing more needed to debate or define, if you really think Our Lord went through the passion for the sins of animals, what can I say to argue with a lunatic?

Men aren't animals. God is not an animal. Why would He see fit to give us dominion over our equals?

This is your soul on Sola Scriptura.

>>573085

>Men aren't animals.

Wrong, now to show you how you are a liar, ecclesasties 3:18

>I said in mine heart concerning the esate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

The writer goes on to justify himself and say in ecclesasties 3:19-20

>For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even on think befalleth them, as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

>All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

>God is not an animal.

God in the form of Jesus Christ was indeed in the fleshly body of a beast. He died and rose from the dead in matthew 27-28. He literally came by flesh and S/spirit because of john 19:34.

>Why would He see fit to give us dominion over our equals?

>equals

There's your problem, by definition of not being christians who can exist forever and either be thrown into the lake of fire or serve God because of 1 corinthians 15:44, the beasts such as the sons of men, are not the equals of Christians. Equality is a false god, do not worship it and serve the living God of abraham, isaac, and jacob. Now read all the verses in that thread linked and repent.

>>573067

Really poor logical fallacies being employed on your part.

This:

>I define racist as believing entire swathes of people (usually black for people here) as your objective inferiors.

Doesn't imply this:

>If this was so, then how could they be held culpable for their sins? Animals are our inferiors, and they do not sin.

For the record, what Paul says about Cretians is racist by your definition BTW.

Are you jewish? Because this:

>We are all equal before God, my man.

is a very slippery-logic, jewish kind of stupid statement. You are probably a troll.

OTOH on the one hand it's true, but only in the senses that we are judged equally and are all equally icons of God, and are equal at the Chalice and will be equal in the Kingdom.

OTOH on the other hand it's false, and trivially easy to prove. We are not all the same height. Paul mentions in that we all have different spiritual gifts. Christ mentions that some are given more talents than others. God made us all, black and red and yellow and white, and we're all precious in his sight, but that doesn't imply that all of us are equal in terms of worldly or spiritual gifts. Just as Danes are taller than Pygmies and Chinks have a different hip geometry and tooth construction than Micks do, some races are objectively smarter or lazier or more violent than others.

But none of that has shit to do with Salvation. God saves who He will. One race being stupider than another is irrelevant to Salvation, but it has pretty big impacts here on Earth. As Paul attests to in Titus.

>>573075

You have not read all of Ecclesiastes. Please read all of Ecclesiastes. The author lays down a series of rhetorical questions answered by nihilist (in the strict sense) observations, but ultimately his conclusion is:

>Fear God and keep His commandments,

For this is man’s all.

>For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil.

Can animals fulfill God's commandments to man? Or was man alone given commandments? You know the answer to that.

>>573083

i aint reading all that, lol

But here is what man is.

Man is a living creature created by God on the sixth day of creation after all other creatures (according to Genesis 1) or on the first day (according to Genesis 2). Man is given the following honor:

>God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him

What does it mean for man to be made in God's image? It means the following:

- Man is given dominion over the universe, not as a deity but as a king (Genesis 1:26)

- Man is made male and female (Genesis 1:27), reflecting God as Trinity (Genesis 2:21-23 - woman proceeds from man to reflect the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father; Genesis 4:1 - child is begotten of man to reflect the Son being begotten of the Father), and overall making man a creature that is given the purpose to love (Genesis 2:18; 1 John 4:8)

- Being made in the image of God also means man must till the earth, thus not only having dominion over the world but being also its preserver and caretaker (Genesis 2:5)

- Being made in the image of God also means that man is given the gift of prayer and fear of God (Genesis 3:10) and the gift of free will (Genesis 3:1-6; James 1:13-16)

- Man is not naturally mortal (Genesis 3:22) or immortal (Genesis 2:17) but the misuse of his free will made him listen to the devil (Genesis 3:1-6; Revelation 20:2), choose sin (Romans 5:12), and suffer the natural consequence, which is death and loss of communion with God (Genesis 3:16-19)

- All creation will return to God, but man, and man alone, is offered by God to retake his inheritance of ruling the world and being its caretaker at once (Matthew 23:11-12), by restoring that image of God within him which was soiled (or destroyed if you're Reformed) (Romans 5:12) and being called a son of God again (Ephesians 1:5; Luke 3:38)

And my most important point:

- Man was originally made to become like God, with both eternal life and knowledge of good and evil, but man rejected God by wanting those gifts early rather than growing in obedience. Indeed, God may have forbidden man to eat of the tree of knowledge, but He would have ultimately given Him its fruit. Why? Because, in Christ, we are given the fruit of the tree of eternal life (Revelation 2:7), which is in fact Christ Himself (John 14:6). By having partaken of the fruit of knowledge without God's permission, we were excluded from communion with God, but in His divine providence, He has provided us the means to restore our original nature and to partake, in all obedience, of both the fruit of knowledge and the fruit of life. Fulfilling our original mission, which is to choose godliness and life rather than sin and death, we are truly restored in the image of God (Colossians 3:10) and partake in the divine nature (John 10:34-36; 2 Peter 1:4).

In the strict, biological sense: yes, we are animals. But we are not beasts. We are eucharistic animals, we are the monarchs of the universe, we are its caretakers and servants, we are truly the image - the reflection - of God in creation. We have used our most divine gift - the freedom of choice - to exclude ourselves from this mission and inheritance, thus becoming more like beasts than like gods, but it does not mean we truly and fully were reduced to beasts, or else the fruit of life would not have come to us, and we would not be able to pray or to love at all without being baptized.

>>572945 (OP)

Yeah, 'em baptists never existed before Luther. That what's what my priest BF told me when I was young and while I was sucking his-

>They ridicule us for baptizing infants, praying for the dead, and asking the prayers of the saints. They lose no time in cutting Christ off from all kinds of people to both sexes, young and old, living and dead. They put infants outside the sphere of grace because they are too young to receive it, and those who are full grown because they find difficulty in preserving chastity. They deprive the dead of the help of the living, and rob the living of the prayers of the saints because they have died.

>They do not believe that there remains after death the fire of purgatory, but allege that when the soul is released from the body it passes straight to rest or to damnation. Let them ask of him who said that there was a sin which should not be forgiven in this world nor in the world to come.

-Bernard of Clairvaux, 11th century

http://hymnsandchants.com/Texts/Sermons/SongOfSongs/SongsSermon66.htm

>>573105

>What does it mean for man to be made in God's image?

First read Mark 10:6-8

>But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

>For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

>And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Read Genesis 5:1-2

>This is the book of the generatios of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

>Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Now re-read Genesis 1:27-28

>So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

>And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the eaerth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

>but man, and man alone, is offered by God to retake his inheritance of ruling the world

Wew, read galatians 2 as Jesus is the "seed" spoken of that recieves the inheritence and not men or angels or dogs.

>Can animals fulfill God's commandments to man?

Define man. This answers your question you lazy reprobate >>571435

>Man was originally made to become like God,

Ok.

>with both eternal life

Ok.

>and knowledge of good and evil,

Wrong, Christians were never meant to know things, they were meant to discern i.e hebrews 4:12. By knowing you are going over God's head as a authority and stating something. By taking away God's authority to declare it so, or to know, you are usurping Him which is evil against romans 13.

>But we are not beasts.

Holy shit this is so blatently wrong re-read ecclesasties 3:18

>I said in mine heart concerning the esate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

It literally states the sons of men "are beasts".

>>573114

>Galatains 2

Should have been Galatains 3.

>>573116

People here might not believe the Trail of Blood, but there are IFBs that do. Pastor Anderson has taught about it before, for instance

>>573118

Pastor Anderson doesn’t believe in the specific trail of blood taught in the book. Like he doesn’t say Donatists and Paulicians were Baptist. He believes, and I think most IFB on this board believes, that there have always been independent churches teaching proper Biblical salvation

>>573114

>Mark 10:6-8

>Genesis 5:1-2

>Genesis 1:27-28

I don't get your point.

>Wew, read galatians 2 as Jesus is the "seed" spoken of that recieves the inheritence and not men or angels or dogs.

Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords, nonetheless, His eternal mission of ruling the world is temporally reflected in man's mission of ruling the world, to "fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." Christ will share His throne with the saved, see Revelation 20:6. Man couldn't recover God's grace on His own, but God brought him back from the abyss and restored him to his first mission.

>Define man.

that's what I did in the post you replied to

>By taking away God's authority to declare it so, or to know, you are usurping Him which is evil against romans 13.

So God cannot teach us anything, we can only "discern"?

Why are you even citing Hebrews 4:12? It says that the Word of God passes judgement on us. How does it relate to what you said?

>Holy shit this is so blatently wrong re-read ecclesasties 3:18

Read Ecclesiastes from beginning to end.

>It literally states the sons of men "are beasts".

Actually, don't even read all of Eccleciastes. Just read chapter 3. Carefully, and several times. Use multiple translations if you need to.

>>573118

The guys who wrote this article probably weren't IFBs either.

The Edinburgh Encyclopedia, Vol 3, p.251 (1830)

>It must have already occurred to our readers, that the baptists are the same sect of Christians which we formerly described under the appellation of ANABAPTISTS. Indeed, this seems to have been their great leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present day.

>>573112

>Claiming fucking Cathars pre-configure your beliefs

Don’t do this to yourself, Baptistbro

>>573124

>in man's mission of ruling the world,

Wrong, that was the old commision given to the phsyical israelites. But dominion and authority was taken away from them in 2 kings 24-25 and given to the (((khazar babylonians of chaldea))) and Satan of matthew 4:8-10. Jesus is given back authority in revelation 11:15 but until then christians have no authority. Save that explicitly given to them by God, Jesus, and or if they take/accept authority by Satan which by extension glorfies Satan intead of God due to the wording of worship being synonymous with serve in matthew 4:10.

>Use multiple translations if you need to.

There's your problem. You are dodging the literal words of God by cherry picking what you want to believe of what God says. If you are going to use another version then the KJV, then you need to prove that the version you use doesn't make God a liar against what titus 1:2 says. Name the version and I will help you proof it.

>Why are you even citing Hebrews 4:12? It says that the Word of God passes judgement on us. How does it relate to what you said?

Are you intentionally trolling me now, do you even have eyes to see and ears to hear? Word of God = Jesus as stated in John 1 but word of God = Bible/scripture as stated in hebrews 4:12. I quoted it to make a point of using discernment.

>I don't get your point.

Then you probably don't have eyes, nor ears, nor smell, and any other sense to discern what God says. Why are you larping as a Christian on a anonymous image board if you aren't a christian and just doing it for the feeling? Get out and go back, you don't belong here if that is the case. unless I am just wasting time responding to the cianigger A.I again, in which case DELETE YOURSELF.

>>573131

There's no real proof that Cathars were truly gnostic. That's just Catholic propaganda against a reliopolitical threat.

>>573131

Also Bernard never identified the "heretics" as Cathars in the first place.

>>573131

Now I'm replying to you for the third time to annoy you.

>>573132

>that whole post

What are you doing in our thread m8?

>>573138

Entertaining angels unawares I guess. Or just practice in a worst case scenario. I was originally waiting for someone/thing to tell me what IFB is but I figured it out and they are just as corrupt for wanting a physical comminion against what romans 8:8 says.

>>573098

>Pic related

Ridiculous conspiracy theory

>No it wasn't. I know this because the very next law in that code of laws mentions Donatists by name

Donatists were one sect of something which we look back at and call Donatism. All rebaptizers rejected infant baptism in practice, not on principle.

>Furthermore, there were more enforced infant baptism laws under Charlemagne, one of only 32 laws he passed dealt solely with this

Source?

>Acts 8:37

No church under the sun will baptize an adult without profession of faith.

>the doctrine is clearly there

Proofs?

>your revisionism

Do you know what that word means?

>You can't prove what every single person for centuries thought, it simply cannot be done, and the evidence is there

Show me someone before the 16th century who believed only those who actually profess faith should be baptized

>So shift goalposts, make far-fetched claims

Literal projection

>>573141

>but I figured it out and they are just as corrupt for wanting a physical comminion against what romans 8:8 says.

Are you talking about fulfilling Hebrews 10:25 (Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is) as somehow being in the flesh?

>>573132

>Wrong, that was the old commision given to the phsyical israelites.

Adam and Eve are the ancestors of the entire human race, and in them God spoke to humanity as a whole.

Noah is also the prototype of humanity after the Flood, and in him, God spoke to humanity as a whole.

Abraham is the prototype of all who have faith in God.

It is with Moses and the Israelite emigrants from Egypt that God gave commissions that are exclusive to the Jews.

>There's your problem. You are dodging the literal words of God by cherry picking what you want to believe of what God says. If you are going to use another version then the KJV, then you need to prove that the version you use doesn't make God a liar against what titus 1:2 says. Name the version and I will help you proof it.

The Bible de Jérusalem and the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, as well as the NT interlinear (together with David Bentley Hart's translation).

>Are you intentionally trolling me now, do you even have eyes to see and ears to hear? Word of God = Jesus as stated in John 1 but word of God = Bible/scripture as stated in hebrews 4:12. I quoted it to make a point of using discernment.

"Scripture" is "rhema," "Jesus" is "logos," when speaking of the embodiement of God's commandments in Jesus, "logos" is used to cut both ways. It is "logos" that is used in Hebrews 4:12. Unless you think that it is not Jesus Himself who will judge us at the resurrection, but a KJV…

>Why are you larping as a Christian on a anonymous image board if you aren't a christian and just doing it for the feeling? Get out and go back, you don't belong here if that is the case.

Dude, not a single person here ever agreed with you, you know that, right? Are you the guy who said Jesus had to be sacrified twice, once for the Old Covenant and once for the New?

>>573142

>Proofs?

Acts 2:41-42, Acts 8:37, that should put the issue to bed, only those who gladly receive the word and believe are baptized.

Acts 16:33? Acts 16:34.

>>573146

>Unless you think that it is not Jesus Himself who will judge us at the resurrection, but a KJV…

Well not exactly… but what about John 12:48? Hard to say it's not referring to him and his words at the same time.

>He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

>>573148

It means that His words witness to those who reject them. They are holy, eternal, and from God; thus there is no testimony more solid than these. But the actual act of judgment is done by the logos, Who is Christ but also Who is God's commandments and ordinances incarnate, so to speak. Which is why His words "judging us" is such a heavy statement.

>>573149

Keep in mind the next verse as well, Jesus immediately says after this that He has not spoken of Himself, but the Father has told Him what to say. So in a sense, Jesus is the very Word that He has spoken because John 12:48 is the Father speaking through the Son, as it says in John 12:49. Not the utterance or the written word in a language, but the word itself in abstraction. As in Hebrews 1:2.

So I get where he's coming from there.

>>573146

>Dude, not a single person here ever agreed with you, you know that, right?

Then surely I should leave if there is not a single christian here then. Don't agree with me, agree with what God says in the Bible and ignore what I say.

>Are you the guy who said Jesus had to be sacrified twice, once for the Old Covenant and once for the New?

See hebrews 9:26, revelation 20:10,14-15, and then john 19:34 and hebrews 9:16-20.

>"Scripture" is "rhema," "Jesus" is "logos,"

Do you speak greek and or babylonian/hebrew or english? How did you come to these conclusion in line with 2 peter 1:20 that jesus = logos like the sign/symbol? and that scripture = rhema literally what??

>The Bible de Jérusalem and the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, as well as the NT interlinear (together with David Bentley Hart's translation).

>Bible de Jérusalem and Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible

https://archive.fo/es33k and https://archive.fo/X3rtu In mark 1:2 of that link is states the quote of mark 1:2 is in isaiah, it is not. It is located in malichi 3:1 and not isaiah. Mark 1:2 can not be true or titus 1:2 would be untrue in those versions which would make God a liar if that version were true.

>NT interlinear

https://archive.fo/1CDny in 2 samuel 21:19 it can't decide whether elhanan killed goliath or david did in 1 samuel 17:51.

>David Bentley Hart's translation

I can't find it on the internet, do you have a electronic copy or link that's not a virus I could go over?

>>573155

Acts 2:41-42

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Acts 8:36-37

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

>>573134

Please, if there's another heretical sect at the same time who rejected sexual relationships and "married" virgins, abstained from meat, rehashed Donatist nonsense and were generally crypto-Manichaeans, then… I would be surprised and it still wouldn't make you look any better.

>>573133

So every historian who documented their beliefs and every theologician who corrected their heresies were complete and utter liars? Not only would that make them all look like abject fools and entirely defeat the purpose of their work, it would require an incredulous level of collusion that could be argued to discredit any historical event. Say, you're starting to sound awfully like a secular Bible historian here…

>>573153

Man, you're making my head hurt.

The Nativity Fast isn't over, so I'll refrain from getting angry over this. Stop telling people that they're not true Christians or that they're completely ignorant of what the Bible says.

You do you - why don't you try to rally people to your doctrines, anyway? You have a solid system, surely you can discuss that in a more stable setting than an anonymous imageboard.

God bless you, and please pray for the sinner that I am. I forgot to do my morning prayers with all this.

>>573157

Where does the New Testament describe someone being born and raised in the Christian Church but only baptized once they themselves confess Christ? Let's be clear, that is your position, not merely requiring profession of adults.

>>573160

When does it say only adults have to confess? It doesn't say that anywhere, there is no limitation on that requirement or it would say so.

>>573146

>The Bible de Jérusalem and the Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible

My man

Also, just a tip. Never tell these KJV-ONLY folks your preferred translation. 99% of the time it's irrelevant and it only puts them in an offensive position. Here, the topic was about the meaning of the Greek words, not whether the Bible dé Jérusalem is a perfect, infallible translation–the inevitable next step for these guys.

>>573164

>Never tell these KJV-ONLY folks your preferred translation.

If I had KJV only folks making fun of my translation for putting the name of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12 I would probably hide my translation as well. That would be an auto-loss in many cases.

>>573165

Is this about winning to you? Why isnt this about edifying other christians in line with 1 corinthians 14:26??? Let all things be done unto edifying after all.

>>573164

If you didnt use a version that makes God a liar and we could agree on how to communicate common english words and their meanings this wouldnt even be an issue.

>>573163

How many of the people in those passages are infants?

>>573153

>>573165

a) The passage in Malachi also appears in Isaiah (40:3), making the statement absolutely true

b) The identification with Isaiah isn't just some inserted commentary, it's a legitimate textual variant that evidently does not change the meaning of the text

c) I'm sure you can come up with a billion other trifling differences but Mark 1:2 has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and Isaiah 14:12 doesn't even have said insertion in the French versions, making it a complete non sequitur

>>573172

Thanks for your response, but,

<Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:

This is found only in Malachi 3. The second part of the quote from Mark 1:2 is from Isaiah 40, but NOT the first part, so saying that Isaiah is the source of both parts is factually false; it is only correct to say "in the prophets" as the full quote is from both Malachi and then Isaiah. You can't find it all in Isaiah.

>it's a legitimate textual variant

Can there be a variant in the word of God?

>that evidently does not change the meaning of the text

It makes it false and I've seen people complain about it.

>Isaiah 14:12 doesn't even have said insertion in the French versions, making it a complete non sequitur

Ok good. I know plenty of serious, serious differences in the critical text. For instance in Mark 10:24 Jesus says:

<Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

Yet in the critical text they remove the words "for them that trust in riches"

In Matthew 5:22 Jesus says:

<But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

Yet in the critical text they remove the words "without a cause."

In Luke 2:33 the critical text says "his father and mother marvelled" instead of "Joseph and his mother marvelled." In John 4:42 the critical text says only "we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world" instead of "this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world."

>>573116

>Hieronym

That's funny his bible wasn't a KJV

>>573090

They don't have soul either.

>>572945

>Cathars

>Gnostic

Chart is complete BS

>>573165

>Isaiah 14:12

See? Irrelevant to the trail of blood theory we're discussing.

>>573167

>If you didnt use a version that makes God a liar

If you didn't base your whole theology on a work of fallible men and instead based it on the inspired words the Bibical authors actually wrote maybe we could agree on something, but alas

>>573240

>theology

>literal synonym of philosophy

I don't use philosophy/theology because of colossians 2:8. Christians use doctrine see 2 timothy 3:16.

>and instead based it on the inspired words the Bibical authors actually wrote

You do realise they were inspired by the Holy Spirit 2 peter 1:20-21 right? Which means God gets the glory for authorship of the Bible, not the physical falliable men who actually penned it down.

>maybe we could agree on something, but alas

But alas you think God is a liar and didn't literally preserve His word forever as He said He would in 1 peter 1:25. If God didn't preserve His word then what basis is there for the Christian faith? hint there isn't one in such a case as titus 1:2 wouldn't hold true either But God did preserve His word and the KJV is that word for today. Will it fade away and be replaced by His word in another language some day? Maybe. Till then care to show me another version that could fit the description for the unfalliable word of God?

>>573153

>logos like the sign/symbol?

I hope this is bait

>>572956

Historical records shouldn't be held to as high regard as physical evidence.

>>573254

>The resurrection of Jesus the Christ is the basis for the Christian faith, not the Bible.

Why do you keep distancing from the term "the word of God"? Does the word of God exist today?

Luke 4:4

<And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

>The KJV is a translation of the word(rhema) into English. There is absolutely no reason to believe it is uniquely inspired above the text the authors wrote.

So we should learn Greek or else we don't know the word of God? Or are you subtly implying "the text the authors wrote" is gone now? This sounds like an excuse to ignore it either way. I already linked John 12:48, perhaps you should read it again.

<He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

1 John 2:4-5

<He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

<But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

>having nothing to do with the Trail of Blood theory we were discussing

Then respond to my posts on it. You could have done that anytime you wanted. So far all we've had in this thread is one person asserting his disagreement to me without providing any evidence, much less scripture to justify the disagreement. All the evidence I have brought forward thus far stands.

>>573001

>I recognize that blacks are physically stronger people

No, they really aren't.

>>573307

>Why do you keep distancing from the term "the word of God"?

Because you conflate "logos" and "rhema". This is based on your ignroance of the language God inspired His authors to write in and your faith not in the His word, but in an English translation that appeared 1500 years after.

>Does the word of God exist today?

If by "word of God" you mean the text the authors wrote, then yes. The Bible is the most widely attested to document of all antiquity. We can say with great confidence that we know exactly what the apostles wrote.

If by "word of God" you mean the message of salvation, then yes of course it still exists.

If you mean "an infallible, perfect English translation of the inspired Hebrew/Greek text such that the originals don't matter and all other attempts at translation are doomed" then no.

>So we should learn Greek or else we don't know the word of God?

If by "word of God" you mean the text the authors wrote, yes.

If by "word of God" you mean the message of salvation, no.

if by "word of God" you mean "an infallible, perfect English translation of the inspired Hebrew/Greek text such that the originals don't matter and all other attempts at translation are doomed" No.

>Or are you subtly implying "the text the authors wrote" is gone now?

Well the text isn't gone, but the handwritten originals from the authors have likely been destroyed. Copies of the handwritten originals exist today.

>This sounds like an excuse to ignore it either way.

I believe you're the one advocating for ignoring the Greek/Hebrew in favor of a 1611 English translation.

It's funny you bring up John 12:48, because in the Greek, there is a distinction made that is invisible in English. Jesus uses both rhēmata and logos in that sentence. This proves my point.

>Then respond to my posts on it. You could have done that anytime you wanted.

I believe the orthobro was, until you changed the subject to criticizing his preferred translation. I frankly have no interest in the topic.

>So far all we've had in this thread is one person asserting his disagreement to me without providing any evidence, much less scripture to justify the disagreement.

The truth of the trail of blood is a matter of the recording of events that happened after the writing and compilation of the scriptures. The trail of blood book presented little evidence to support its hypothesis, and therefore little evidence needs to be presented to reject it. Further, you shouldn't expect a biblical citation to justify disagreement with extrabibical events.

>>573336

Let me clarify something

>So we should learn Greek or else we don't know the word of God?

<if by "word of God" you mean "an infallible, perfect English translation of the inspired Hebrew/Greek text such that the originals don't matter and all other attempts at translation are doomed" No.

We do not need to learn Greek to know the message of salvation. Someone had to learn Greek to render the text into English, but no particular individual must learn it to be saved. Further, because of the lexical differences between Konie Greek and English, (indeed between all languages), "an infallible, perfect English translation of the inspired Hebrew/Greek text such that the originals don't matter and all other attempts at translation of the text are doomed" is impossible. Thankfully, such a perfect translation of the text(rhema) is not necessary.

>>573336

>Because you conflate "logos" and "rhema".

John 12:48 doesn't and it proves my point. Same with 1 Peter 1:23-25. The word that he spoke is the same word of God, and 1 Peter 1:25 equates it with the Scripture of the New Testament as well— (And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.) Even Hebrews 1:1-3 which I mentioned earlier in this thread draws the same equation and equivalence.

>If you mean

I mean the word of God of 1 Peter 1:23-25.

>an infallible, perfect English translation of the inspired Hebrew/Greek text such that the originals don't matter and all other attempts at translation are doomed

We have a correct translation. Nobody said other attempts at translation are doomed, although many the other attempts I've seen at trying to translate deviously change the meaning from the correct translation that we do have. Those games are not gonna fly here. People who don't even know Greek should not be interposing their personal translation of Greek words to change the meaning of God's word.

>I believe you're the one advocating for ignoring the Greek/Hebrew

Not at all, I look at the underlying text all the time. However I don't accept false translations of the text.

>This proves my point.

It actually disproves your point which is why I brought it up. The word (logos) he has spoken!

>The trail of blood book presented little evidence to support its hypothesis, and therefore little evidence needs to be presented to reject it.

Maybe if you read this thread at all you would already know that this topic is not about disproving the 1931 publication. >>573031

>Further, you shouldn't expect a biblical citation to justify disagreement with extrabibical events.

If you read this thread you would already know that the discussion in this thread in part revolved around the fact that only believers are baptized in the Bible, and so our doctrine already existed when Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Peter and all relevant scriptures were first written. Which is what really matters, to be honest. But as I said, he couldn't find either historical or scriptural evidence to support his disagreement here. He could simply disagree.

>>573105

don't argue with literalists, they are beyond reason

>>573344

>John 12:48 doesn't and it proves my point

I am afraid it does not, friend.

>The word that he spoke is the same word of God, and 1 Peter 1:25 equates it with the Scripture of the New Testament as well— (And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.)

Keyword: preached. Not written. There is a distinction that you are not getting because in English, "word of God" refers to both.

>I mean

1 Peter 1:25 uses rhema twice. You're proving my point and you don't even see it.

>We have a correct translation

The KJV is not a perfectly correct translation. Such a feat is impossible. Our disagreement over the meaning of the word "word" used in the KJV proves this point because in the Greek there is a distinction between "rhema" and "logos". Both "rhema" and "logos" can be translated as "word" in English.

> the other attempts I've seen at trying to translate deviously change the meaning from the correct translation that we do have.

Because you are erroneously using an English translation as your standard for the meaning, not the words the apostles and prophets wrote. I do not deny that there are some terrible, heretical translations out there (the New World Translation favored by JWs comes to mind). But I reject that the KJV is "correct" in every rendering of every word in every sentence without fail, such that we should exclude other translations.

>I don't accept false translations of the text.

Amen.

>The word (logos) he has spoken!

Exactly! There is a difference!

>Maybe if you read this thread at all you would already know that this topic is not about disproving the 1931 publication.

You completely missed my point.

>>573349

>Keyword: preached. Not written.

John 15:25.

>1 Peter 1:25 uses rhema twice.

Missing the bigger picture here. 1 Peter 1:24-25a is a quotation of Isaiah 40:8, so you have to pair those together. And 1 Peter 1:24 starts off by saying "For," meaning it is referring back to and justifying the statement of 1 Peter 1:23; which is about the word of God which liveth and abideth forever, by which we are born again, and which is incorruptible. You can't cut off verse 25 from its context.

>The KJV is not a perfectly correct translation.

Define what you mean by perfectly correct before you start using it. Are you saying it's incorrect somewhere, and if so, where.

>Our disagreement over the meaning of the word "word" used in the KJV proves this point because in the Greek there is a distinction between "rhema" and "logos".

Or how about John 12:48 proves that they are the same word whether in abstract, spoken, or written and that the passages I've mentioned are in fact meant to emphasize this fact, and we can appreciate this of course by seeing the original.

>Because you are erroneously using an English translation as your standard for the meaning,

No I just believe it is a correct representation of the originals. If you speak another language you need a correct and unbiased translation from the originals, not KJV.

>But I reject that the KJV is "correct" in every rendering of every word in every sentence without fail, such that we should exclude other translations.

You do realize that even with the word of God, nobody can learn or understand the truth without the Holy Spirit to guide them right? Words alone aren't enough, God has to be real, otherwise we're blind. As it says in John 16:13—

<Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14

<Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

<Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

<But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

All that to say this, a person will only be able to understand the intended meaning of the word of God through the work of God inside them. They have to believe the word of God first, and faith is something not all men have gladly received.

1 Thessalonians 2:13

<For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

>>573360

At this point, we're just talking past each other

>You can't cut off verse 25 from its context.

I am adding context by acknowledging the distinction that is invisible in English.

>Define what you mean by perfectly correct before you start using it

You tell me man, you're the one who advocates that position.

>Or how about John 12:48 proves that they are the same word whether in abstract, spoken, or written and that the passages I've mentioned are in fact meant to emphasize this fact, and we can appreciate this of course by seeing the original.

But they are not the same word. John 12:48 does not conflate them the way you want to. I will admit there is often over lap between the rhema and logos, but they are not the same word; they have different meanings.

>No I just believe it is a correct representation of the originals.

Exactly. If I told you I liked the NIV best (I don't), what would you use to prove the NIV's renderings are incorrect? The Greek or the KJV? You'll probably say "the NIV makes God a liar and that can't happen" and then cite some perceived inconsistency. But you have to prove it is inconsistent by comparing it to another text, otherwise I could argue that you're just taking it all out of context and the verses don't actually relate.

>You do realize…

At this point you're not even trying to dialog. I pray that someday your eyes will open to see your errors.

>>573383

>At this point, we're just talking past each other

How? You said "logos" is different than "text(rhema)" so I referenced John 12:48 to prove it is spoken. Then you said it is "preached. Not written", so I referenced John 15:25 to prove it is written.

<But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

And it's the same again with 1 John 1:1-5, the word is seen, heard, written all in one sentence.

>I am adding context by acknowledging the distinction that is invisible in English.

1 Peter 1:23-25 is saying they're the same thing here. We can't cut off the statement by discarding verses 23 and 24. We just can't. So I guess what you've said here is that you don't care to even defend this action and refuse to even acknowledge what I've just pointed out.

>you're the one who advocates that position.

Please don't tell me what I advocate or put words in my mouth. I've spent long enough dealing with all these stupid caricatures of what we believe.

>I will admit there is often over lap between the rhema and logos, but they are not the same word; they have different meanings.

I don't see how you can escape from 1 Peter 1:23-25 or Luke 4:4 for that matter.

But because I was waiting for your response that never came let me just add one more confutation to your idea— 1 John 2:14 says "the word of God abideth in you." So does this mean something different than John 15:7 where Jesus said "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."

Are you saying 1 John 2:14 is talking about something different? Is there another, separate word of God that is NOT the words in John 15:7? So then why is this alleged distinction never mentioned? These questions need answers.

>what would you use to prove the NIV's renderings are incorrect?

I'd probably start with Mark 1:2 if all else being equal. It's self-contradictory.

>But you have to prove it is inconsistent by comparing it to another text,

I could do that too, and I would compare it to one of the correct translations of the originals. Since there's only one original, and therefore since they all mean the same thing, there can't be differences in meaning between two correct versions, so if there is a difference it means one is incorrect.

>>573383

>what would you use to prove the NIV's renderings are incorrect? The Greek or the KJV?

Neither, it would have to be a internal inconsistency that would make God a liar if it were true.

>But you have to prove it is inconsistent by comparing it to another text, otherwise I could argue that you're just taking it all out of context and the verses don't actually relate.

Read Revelation 22:16 NIV https://archive.fo/gDNri

>“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

Read Isaiah 14:12 NIV https://archive.fo/LuqT7

>How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

This passage is equating Jesus to one the morning star, who had been cast down to earth and once laid low the nations. Yet later in isaiah 14:14 NIV it says that same morning star would be cast down to hell. How can salvation come by Jesus if he is cast into hell? This cannot be of God, whom cannot lie because of titus 1:2, and yet still be true.