/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's a type of Our Lady, and another example in the Bible of a righteous woman crushing the head of a proud tyrant.

Remember, we're not talking about some black widow that kills men for fun. She slew the lustful nemesis of her people, who threatened to wipe them out.

>>681705

But women murdering people are ok ?

Don't we have rules of honnor in war ?

I don't see her act as righteous.

>>681714

Saint Joan of arc killed no one.

Now go back leftypol.

The woman kills an enemy general by cutting off his head.

The enemy general represents Satan.

HOMEWORK QUESTION

Who does the woman represent?

>>681716

Maybe it's because you don't believe in the ideal of honour in war that you accept every mean to find "victory".

Yes, maybe victory in this world, but honnor worth better than any of this kind of victory.

Rules of honour don't change according to the adversary.

>>681717

You said it's unnatural for a woman to fight.

You can fight without killing people.

That's why she was burned by the way.

>>681720

Yes, I thought about it myself, but should we believe in this event as historically true ?

If it's only a spiritual figure about the role of the virgin and of women in general then it cannot be feminist and there is no problem.

Is that ok to reject it's historically truth and so to reject the moral lesson one can make out of it ?

>>681723

Porte-banner =\= fighter in the melee who kill and have to confront with others

Don't play with me words.

>>681722

>Rules of honour don't change according to the adversary.

<there is honour in investing a city in order to starve the population into submission, take it by storm, sell the women and children into slavery and execute the men because "muh might is right"

OK dude.

>>681726

>Pagans have no honnor so we should be like them

Ok dude.

>>681717

>>681724

>feminism

>leftypol

Stop thinking christianity in term of politics.

It's ashtouning you're ready to dismiss christianism because something that ridiculous bugs you. It's really no better than liberals dismissing christianity because some books are violent and/or Paul hurt their feefees

>>681728

We are like them, though.

War isn't honourable or regulated at all. I really don't know where you are getting this romantic notion from.

>>681729

>Stop thinking christianity in term of politics.

I don't do that. I do it in term of spirituality. But in this situation what interest me is the domain of morality.

>It's ashtouning you're ready to dismiss christianism because something that ridiculous bugs you.

Don't make me say something I didn't say.

>It's really no better than liberals dismissing christianity because some books are violent

I understand mineral's difficulty with some part of the OT. Stop playing the Pharisee, there is real difficulties. They just don't have the spiritual keys understand them.

>And/or Paul hurt their feefees

If I were totally disagreeing with saint Paul I wouldn't be here. I obey because I know he is right. Stop crying over a legitimate discussion of the Bible.

You're an idiot, go away.

>>681735

We should not be like them.

I'm getting this from chivalry, the ideal of the crusades, saint Bernard of Clervaux for example. And all other examples of a classe of fighters in traditional civilisations like Kshatriya in India…

>>681742

Thanks leftypol.

Your kind is always very charitable.

>>681710

You can't murder an unrighteous king. It's an extermination.

>>681740

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. The way you came here, with the angry wojak and the stupid "are we feminists now???" made me think of you as a "cultural christian" because it's "best for europe or whatever.

To answer your problem. I don't think there's anything wrong with the book of Judith.

She simply used feminine perks that are usually considered to lead mean astray for the greater good. That's the "moral" of the story, that even a nature that is considered "evil" can brings justice.

The symbolic nature of this book is more important but even if it really happened : who cares? Sure it's "bad" but the good outweight the bad by miles, so who cares if she fights or whatever. Who cares if any woman fights if it's for the greater good.

>>681750

to lead men astray*

sorry for the others typos as well

>>681749

Nice legitimation of vengeance.

You know it's still murder.

>>681743

But as corruptible, perishable, passionate human, we are, and there is nothing that we can collectively do about this. You and I might be able to refrain from excess or from imitating pagans, but to stop everyone isn't humanly possible. That's the mission of the Church.

>I'm getting this from chivalry, the ideal of the crusades, saint Bernard of Clervaux for example.

I guessed that. I don't think I need to say that the romance isn't the reality, though, especially the Crusades.

>>681755

Indeed, spiritual writings acknowledge the weakness of men. Though the ideal stay the same.

And the Bible make an example of Judith. So it must be considered in regard of the ideal.

>>681750

You judge to quickly and you make as hominem.

Anyway your forgiven from the moment you make them. I just do not believe in your good intention now.

The act of murder of Judith is presented as good.

>>681716

> Lady Liberty going to to crush the Bolshevik dragon

Like we should have let Germany do in the first place.

>>681764

Sort of. Like I say upthread, it was and still is often considered as a parable. St Jerome himself had misgivings about how accurate it was historically, but accepted that it was based on some kind of fact.

Basically I wouldn't get bent out of shape worrying if it is "feminist" or not.

And yes, it is a foreshadowing of Our Lady, just like when Abimelech got his head smashed by a mill stone, thrown by a woman, and Jael slammed a tent peg into the head of Sisera while he slept.

The ultimate fulfilment off all of these is Our Lady, standing before the cross on Calvary. Our Lady stood on the Skull, treading down death with the Lord.

>>681772

What differenciate murder from killing?

If "murder" is simply the act of killing someone when they're unable to defend themselves, then a thief robbing a house and killing the man of the house after he defended himself didn't commit murder.

If by "murder" we meant killing an innocent person for a selfish and malicious act, then Judith certainly didn't commit murder.

She killed him, in a sneaky way, but she killed him. And she killed him because he was evil and tyranysing the hebrews.

Now let's push this analogy further.

Does God murder people when he destroys Sodome, or taint the waters of egypts… or does he kill evil people?

>>681777

Trips of perfection :)

Do you have the sources for saint Jerome please ? I whould like to read it ?

The figurative reading of all of this is good indeed

>>681778

I mean it like murder is killing in an inappropriate manner (so without honnor).

Be it the situation (you are a robber), the protagonist (a child of a women killing a man,…), The manner (killing someone desarmed or sleeping)….

This morality is applicable for the creation only because God gave us roles we have to respect in order to obtain sanctity.

God isn't bound to human morality. He is beyond honnor because every honour is defined in relation to Him.

The Book of Judith is simply nationalist propaganda.

>>681793

His preface to the book is as follows:

>Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; its warrant for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work, translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.

Basically he wasn't sure about it, since the only access he had to it was an Aramaic/Chaldean version, rather than the Hebrew or Greek, but deferred to the Nicaean Canon, and the request that it be included in his translation.

>>681754

>Putting a murderer to death

>Vengeance

Oh hi, /leftypol/.

>>681800

No u

You don't kill a king, even if he is unrighteous. As a real man of the right you might know that.

And murderers should be killed with style in honnor, traditionalists know that.

>>681799

Ah ok thanks.

I didn't came here to debate but that's what I had to do, your answer is the only material I found here thanks.

>>681805

>Unironically abloobloo-ing over the death of an unrighteous, murderous tyrant

What's the Biblical punishment for murder? Death by stoning. Judith did nothing wrong, cry more.

>And murderers should be killed with style in honnor, traditionalists know that.

Death by stoning.

Some Jew wrote the apocrypha, I wouldn't put much weight to it.

>>681863

is this ironic?

>>681866

How? God gave us his word in the Bible, then you have some Jews who authored the apocrypha. They are arbitrary folk tales written and conceived by some Jews, not scripture. Jews were not very righteous or upright people, as seen by God personally rebuking them in both Old and New Testament.

>>681870

Jews authored the entirety of the Scriptures, even the New Jews, the new Israel for the NT.

Unless, you're telling me you make zero distinction between Jews by blood and Jews by covenant, which is a great error, anon.

btw, the Holy Spirit authored the deuterocanon, reject them at your own peril.

>>681871

>Jews authored the entirety of the Scriptures

You have just unfortunately blasphemed the word of God in this statement. The author of Scripture is God, not man.

Now the author of apocrypha, you are right, is man. But it's not the word of God. Maybe if you distinguished this and stopped giving credit to jews you would have seen this by now.

>>681874

The author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit uttered through the words of men, yet, divinely inspired.

> But it's not the word of God. Maybe if you distinguished this and stopped giving credit to jews you would have seen this by now

when Luther removed the deuterocanon, he took the authority of Jews when he did so, they even made up a false council to justify it (the council of jamnia), so now that you despise Jews so much, why do you then decide to disregard Scripture at their word?

>>681877

So we're on the same page that Jews did not author any part of Scripture, actually God did. And if you read places like Jeremiah 36 where the Jews tried to destroy it, you would realize it was God keeping his word against them preserved. And they're preserved for all time.

Now the only question is why bother with the Jewish stuff? Don't you realize they were the ones behind it which is why the originals aren't even around anymore? We only have a Greek translation? Ever read Matthew 11:13?

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

>they even made up a false council to justify it (the council of jamnia), so now that you despise Jews so much, why do you then decide to disregard Scripture at their word?

I don't follow councils to obtain scripture. Neither do the people who safeguarded the scripture up until this point. So this really doesn't apply to me. Maybe if you found someone who referred to councils in their argument it would.

Now even more importantly, if you call it "deuterocanon" why is that? Is it called that by Catholics because of Luther and before him everybody couldn't tell the difference? The reality behind this is that nobody was coerced into accepting otherwise until the Council of Trent, which is obvious because anyone who doesn't believe that council doesn't treat them as such. And in all honesty, we all realize they are manmade, that's why the distinction is made.

>>681883

>So we're on the same page that Jews did not author any part of Scripture, actually God did.

Through the Jews, whose writing was divinely inspired, yes.

>And if you read places like Jeremiah 36 where the Jews tried to destroy it, you would realize it was God keeping his word against them preserved. And they're preserved for all time.

that's a fancy bit of circular logic

>Now the only question is why bother with the Jewish stuff?

Salvation comes from the Jews; Jesus Christ came to perfect the Law, not abolish it. The new covenant is about the New Israel by virtue of the spirit, but the divine writings by the old covenant are still divine.

>Don't you realize they were the ones behind it which is why the originals aren't even around anymore? We only have a Greek translation?

that's some fancy logic

>I don't follow councils to obtain scripture

Then why Luther? Why 16th century mosaic Jews?

>Neither do the people who safeguarded the scripture up until this point. So this really doesn't apply to me.

???

>The reality behind this is that nobody was coerced into accepting otherwise until the Council of Trent, which is obvious because anyone who doesn't believe that council doesn't treat them as such.

Then why accept any council's proclamations? Why accept the Trinity? Why accept the hypostatic union? and so on and on

>>681717

In that case, order of the Hatchet and saint Irina of Kiev

>>681886

>that's a fancy bit of circular logic

Not really. Read Jeremiah 36 for a great example of how the Jews could never destroy the word of God no matter what. Or do you just say this to anything?

Do you think Jeremiah 36 didn't happen or something?

>The new covenant is about the New Israel by virtue of the spirit, but the divine writings by the old covenant are still divine.

Yes but the apocrypha are neither, those are just manmade things the Jews made up. Please stop crediting the Jews with authoring scripture as if you didn't just accept it was actually the word of God, not of Jews. I guess we're back to square one here. OT inspired, apocrypha not.

>Then why Luther? Why 16th century mosaic Jews?

Where did I mention either. I never once did, so why are you asking me?

>Then why accept any council's proclamations? Why accept the Trinity? Why accept the hypostatic union? and so on and on

I accept these things because they are in the word of God, not because some council said them. And the word of God already existed before any council, all councils did was screw it up.

Some of them added things wrongly, others produced corrupt translations that don't agree with the received scripture.

>>681899

>Read Jeremiah 36 for a great example of how the Jews could never destroy the word of God no matter what. Or do you just say this to anything?

that's the textbook definition of circular logic anon, I'm serious, look it up

>Yes but the apocrypha are neither, those are just manmade things the Jews made up

And how do you know? The Jews also kept many other writings you hold canonical.

>Where did I mention either. I never once did, so why are you asking me?

You do so on their authority.

>I accept these things because they are in the word of God, not because some council said them. And the word of God already existed before any council, all councils did was screw it up.

haha? is this a joke?

>>681900

>that's the textbook definition of circular logic anon, I'm serious, look it up

Ok so you don't think Jeremiah 36 really happened. Sorry, I just assumed you believe that the book of Jeremiah, in the Old Testament, was inspired. I thought I could treat it as factual with you to show an example.

>And how do you know?

Because it's the word of God preserved from change.

>You do so on their authority.

I rely on none of them. I believe the word of God which says that his words shall never pass away.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Psalm 12:6-7

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

>>681902

???

>Because it's the word of God preserved from change

???

>I rely on none of them. I believe the word of God which says that his words shall never pass away.

Liar, you rely on both Luther and the Jews who threw out inspired Scripture.

>>681908

>Liar, you rely on both Luther and the Jews who threw out inspired Scripture.

See >>681899, 2nd and 4th parts

>???

Again see >>681883, the second paragraph.

>>681888

One honorific order (note it's not a fighting order) that means nothing and cannot speak for christendom For the other one I didn't find her on Google or Wikipedia.

You have nothing.

>>681915

Thank you, that's interesting.

Do you have some examples of these anachronism ?

>>681940

Isn't the thread enough?

>a women wHo seduce, lie, and kill a desarmed men who were sleeping after some drink. I find it very scandalous with no honnor at all. And why should a women fight ? It's unnatural, and even commit a murder…

This isn't loving your neighbor, fighting smartless, nor self defense.