/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

What's her denomination? I'm seeing from ther videos that she took the Road to Rome. It's just a matter of time, brother. Pray and she will be converted.

>>578610

She was Church of Christ, but has said she's taking RCIA (didn't say this super publicly) and has said she's decided to convert to another form of Christianity and will reveal during Easter time. Her folks sent her many "anti Catholic" books and she was reading them and she said that the books make her see that the books are working against their favor. She also told her folks and they took it pretty harshly. So I think it's sort of 90% safe to say she's gonna be a Cat.

>>578606

>dogma is the highest level of objective absolute truth

>tosses scripture into the dumpster

Ok, so this is another one of those pseudo-Christian channels. The cup guy was better. The jesuits making conversion threads on here are best.

how do you, like, listen to this woman for like, more than 2 minutes? like, i wouldn't be able to like, sit through 22 whole minutes of this. but like, i'd like someone to type up what the 5 reasons are.

>>578612

Better at hiding their actual beliefs under the pretense of swaying others, is what I mean.

>>578614

>>578611

Check her previous videos. She was 100% Church of Christ, but over the past year her theology has been changing since she started reading the Church Fathers.

>>578609

Yes, yes you are weird.

Not because you look at Youtube vids with cute girls in them and instantly give them a score, no no.

Let it be clear that you're weird because that girl is cute in your eyes.

Then again we're all a bit weird right?

That's all m8, merry Christmass.

>>578615

Well she hid it for a total 27 seconds before simply stating with no reservation that she doesn't regard scripture as the final authority. That's her right to believe (John 12:48) but why would she have to wait until Easter to be honest with other people? I find it troubling. Also

>female youtube vlogger

seems a bit like an underhanded ploy to me.

>>578617

>score

I never thought in such terms, beauty is infinite therefore a cute girl is perfectly and infinitely "Positive",as both accident and quality,in my eyes.

>>578617

I think that might be a bit harsh, she is obviously attractive and (I think) there is nothing wrong with admitting that. She is, after all, a creation of God and we are appreciating that.

We're (>>578623) just admiring her journey towards Catholicism.

>>578624

no

>typical stance of "catholic church is ebil cuz its my pastor said so"

>>578623

>beauty is infinite therefore a cute girl is perfectly and infinitely "Positive"

No they aren't.

One can be cute but still not as cute as another girl.

>>578626

>she is obviously attractive

Her face is rather oval-shaved, which is denoted extra by her long straight hair.

Her mouth and nose are a bit on the larger side, and she dyes her hair.

Moreover she either uses too much tan powder when doing her make-up or she has a flatter face than what's usual for an average girl…or both.

Finally, she has no mention-worthy, unique facial features that set her apart from other girls and makes her interesting.

In all, she's at best a 7/10 just because she can still have a nice body silhouette-wise and there's nothing that makes her ugly.

She's pretty passable but by all means not cute.

t. fine-ass women sommelier who can't get a gf sort of

Lol. James would like a word with you OP. So would Joseph, Mary, and Jesus' other brothers and his sisters too.

>>578630

I already talked about this.

God isn't evil, no way his creation is hierarhical in terms of beauty(yes in intelligence and spiritual gifts tho)

you are basically enabling THOTS who say they (the thots)are prettier than nonthots.

>I like androginous girls,my judgement was even objetive

>>578630

I don't know, looks aren't often the very top priority to look for in a wife. For example, I'd rather marry her and actually have a life companion that I have a lot of similarities with and can actually enjoy my time with rather than marrying some bimbo. nomsain

>>578624

Her review of the Divine Liturgy was that it was nice, but she disliked the constant "Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy" because she feels that we shouldn't be begging God for mercy since He has already promised us salvation.

If >>578611 is saying the truth, then she will begome gadolig.

>>578631

embarrassing post

>>578643

embarrassing post

>>578631

Yeah I just watched the entire video. It's the usual "if we just nullify Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, we can make the case that it is ambiguous" and emphasizing the fact they only have to nullify a few scriptures to make their view almost feasible.

The first point is John 19:26-27 and arguing that it is simply beyond imagination that an apostle could have a closer spiritual relationship than a physical brother. Next two points are nullification of scripture, fourth point is making the claim that Numbers 7 proves that those twelve men it mentions never slept with their wives again (it doesn't). She doesn't get into any detail here, but does mention things like heathen marriage customs and vestal virgins and things like that. The last point takes up over half of the content segment of the video and this is where she sets aside the pretense of the authority of scripture and starts making a lot of claims how X and Y couldn't possibly be wrong, and also assuming we have eveyone's authentic uncorrupted complete works, and so on. Even while, ironically, she is using the NIV, which uses textual criticism that doubts the authenticity of its own Scripture, thinking that the Word of God may be misunderstood and/or corrupted today from its original form. This "fathers approach" is also very similar to how some people will just tell you "jewish culture was like Z" and it couldn't possibly be some other way, because they personally think so, not because of Scripture. Oh yeah. She did that too, in point 4 about "celibate marriages."

But the worst part is when she used and abused 1 Corinthians 7 at 13:05. This passage actually states that you MUST not defraud your husband or wife, except it be by consent for a short time for prayer and fasting.

>Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

That is not celibate marriage at all. And Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19 is about whether or not to get married. Once you ARE married, you can't choose that anymore, this is clear from the next part of the passage:

>I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

>But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

>And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

She says Paul raves about not having sex and getting distracted from God. But she leaves out this information, leading people to misbelieve what 1 Corinthians 7 actually says. Which is that if you try to do this "celibate marriage," you will be defrauding your husband or wife. No matter what reason you have, because it says right there that "by consent, for a time" is temporary and commands to then come together again, if you do this, in 1 Corinthians 7:5. The way she just casually tosses this commandment of God in a few seconds, when it singlehandedly demolishes the entire position of Catholics, shows again that scripture is not the final authority in this presentation.

>>578619

I don’t know if it is traditional or a modern thing, but the Church seems to be in the habit of receiving new members at Easter, if possible. Can any Roman Catholics give me some info please?

>>578609

Having bad taste in women is indeed a bad thing. You are a pleb. Sad to say, anon, but it's true.

Mary wasn't a perpetual virgin. Sorry folks, you can stop fantasizing about baking cakes for the queen of heaven with her now.

>>578606

Keep your eceleb promotion out of this place. /christian/ is the only at least half-decent board on this chan and half chan. Stop ruining it by promoting un-relevant stuff, which is prolly you anyway.

It's bad enough we have so many anime degenerates. We don't need your e-celeb shit. Take it to /tv/ or whatever. And why the F would you promote small and irrelevant channels and people ? Why not Fr. Mike or Fr. Ripperger who have a huge ton of incredibly helpful and insightful videos ? No, you choose the "hey she's getting better and better" channel that prolly even promotes a highly biased view anyway.

This. Is. Not. Helpful. So. Keep. It. Out. Of. Here.

>>578704

So then, where are the brothers and sisters of God? Even though Christ said we are all equal together as brothers and sisters, would they not have been held up as people to look forward to? Or, perhaps even some Islamic-like squabbles over whom has authority?

Don't be fooled, Mary never had more children.

I looked up her other videos. She is bipolar and a vegan. And now Catholic too? Too bad, she seems nice enough.

>>578704

>>578740

show me the receipts

where are the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ? Would there not be established genealogies of the brothers and sisters of God?

There were no others!

>>578731

Jesus had brothers and sisters from Mary and Joseph, they all had to be saved the same way even Mary did.

Joseph was MARRIED to Mary. Married people have sex. Did they just have a sexless marriage? That's ridiculous..

Lol did the angel come back and be like "I changed my mind you're not going to have sex ever especially not with your own wife!"

Did the angel then laugh in his face?

Garbage doctrine.

>>578642

>because she feels that we shouldn't be begging God for mercy since He has already promised us salvation.

why don't protestants think they have to repent smh

lizzie will become orthodox

>>578779

>these "arguments"

You argue just like a child. It's pathetic. KEK

>garbage doctrine

>calling the doctrine of the Church Father garbage

I wonder why you guys just have voice in the most degenerate country in the world.

>>578744

>>578731

see

>>578656

Why would the children of Joseph and Mary inspire a genealogy, which Paul said to avoid? Why would they special authority over the apostles, when they laughed at most of what he said to begin with? Joseph and Mary were just regular human beings… Mary was granted the blessing of giving birth to Jesus' fleshly body. This was a great privilege, but Jesus said that the saved Christian is even more blessed.

Luke 23:

>27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

>28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

>>578877

Mark 6:3

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

>>578878

>70 year old Joseph has 8 kids with sweet virginal 14 year old Mary

<no problems!

>50 year old Muhammad has 0 kids with 9 year old Aisha

<ohmergawd horrifying

Fuck you, /christian/.

>>578878

Yeah keep telling me how you can read the bible by yourself, how you don't need Church and then fail miserably to understand even that simple passage. Good job Mr Baptist

>>578882

>70 year old Joseph

where are you getting this?

the "History of Joseph the Carpenter" says he was 90-111 years old

>>578882

>>578883

>no scriptural arguments

Prove to me that Joseph was an old man, or that Mary was that young.

>>578882

Joseph didn't have any kids with Mary, he was her guardian.

Ignore Baptists.

here's her arguments for those too impatient to watch:

1: Mary was given away when Jesus was dying on the cross.

(John 19:25-27)

>If Jesus had any other siblings, Mary would automatically default to the next oldest son

>It would have been disgraceful, unheard of for Jesus to give his mother away to one of his friends if he had a living sibling

<Jesus would not have done anything that seemed disgraceful or unheard of, therefore, Jesus had no other siblings

2: The Greek word for siblings and cousins is the same word.

>so any Bible verse where it says "Jesus' brothers" or "Jesus' brothers and sisters" could mean cousins

>the people in Matthew 27:55-56 were mentioned in Matthew 13:55

>"The only conclusion is that Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother, the who is called by John the Evangelist Mary of Clopas" – St. Jerome

3: The word "until" in greek

>it doesn't necessarily mean that after the point, the thing happened

>if it did, Matthew 22:43-44 would mean Jesus wouldn't be sitting at the right hand of God after he defeats satan

>therefore, Matthew 1:25 doesn't necessarily mean that Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus was born

4: Celibate Marriages were part of their culture

(i skipped this section)

5: In the early church, you couldn't be a Christian if you didn't believe Mary's perpetual virginity

>after Mary gives birth to Jesus, it's just not right for them to have sex, since God is so holy

>it's like in the old testament, the ark of the covenant, if you touched it, you'd die

>everyone in the early church who wasn't a heretic believed in this

>origen, justin martyr, iranaeus,

bonus:

>[she admits it's a "fake gospel"] the Protoevangelium of James goes out of its way to show this teaching

>the fact that the protoevangelium of james exists proves that for the second generation of Christians, in the early second century this teaching existed

>and yet it (the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary) was not pronounced a heresy

>anyone who believes that someone who believed differently from what the apostles taught in the first or second century undetected has not read enough of the early church fathers

>there is no way that any dogma we're seeing in the 3rd or 4th centuries that survived were not part of the main line church that was there from the beginning

>>578903

my take on them:

1: obviously untrue, from a cultural perspective, Jesus broke all sorts of norms and customs that would seem "disgraceful and undheard of" to that culture:

>called a tax collector to be a disciple

>ate with tax collectors and those who didn't follow the pharisaical interpretation of the torah

>allowed an unclean woman to touch his garment

>taught samaritans

>included women in his circle of disciples

>allowed women to travel with Him and financially support Him

>after His resurrection, instructed women (who wern't allowed to be legal witnesses) to go and tell people

>touched dead people

>taught monogamy, taught against divorce

>etc

2: doesn't seek to prove the doctrine, just shows it's a possibility

3: doesn't seek to prove the doctrine, just shows it's a possibility

4: doesn't seek to prove the doctrine, just shows it's a possibility

5a: there is nothing unholy or defiling about sex between husband and wife.

5b: would be a great argument if i recognized the authority, authenticity, and fullness (by this i mean i think a lot of the earlier texts that disagreed with later teachings were lit on fire) of the writings of the early catholic church

sage for doublepost, and this guy ( >>578779 ) is right

>>578877

>Catholic reads the Bible and calls it heresy

>>578875

A guy wrote a good poem about those verses a few centuries ago:

Suppose he had been Tabled at thy Teats,

Thy hunger feels not what he eats:

He'll have his Teat ere long (a bloody one).

The Mother then must suck the Son.

>>578606

Oh look a micegenated mess AND a Catholic. Never seen that before…

>>578611

>Church of Christ

So she wasn't really a Protestant

>>580249

How is Church of Christ not protestant

>>580271

They reject sola fide.

>>580275

You got a wiki link or something? I can't even find what "Church of Christ" actually is on wiki. I know she isn't United Church of Christ.

>>580240

>implying I’m not 100% right about the miscegenation machine called the RCC

>>580275

Where does it say that a protestant have to accept the fides? Is there some official protestant church that has authority on this?