/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Not even Jesus followed the OT. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

>>835820

We would do well to follow many of them though. Slavery/servitude only lasted 7 years (plus slavery functioned as a penal system back then.. which is more productive than prisons). After which, you were obligated to free them. Same goes for debts: All debts were canceled after 7 years. Who wouldn't like that nowadays?!

We could learn a lot from the Torah. But Christians aren't obligated to follow ritual/cleansing/temple laws specifically.

No. Not all. Personal example: Honor your father and mother.

My parents are part of a cult. Their version of me honoring them requires I bow spiritually to their cult leaders and their doctrine. I do not bring dishonor to my parents, but according to them I do. But many are in denominations that everyone here disagrees with. For them to honor their own parents they would also hold on to their false teachings. Almost all parents are retarded most of the time. That’s why when Jesus came 2000 years ago He destroyed this law. We are to Honor our Father and Mother in Heaven. Not the ones on earth. The ones on earth always have their own non-spiritual agenda. And Jesus told the people around Him that if they do not hate their mother, father, sister, brother, they can’t follow Him. This is just one commandment that Jesus destroyed.

The Holy Spirit tells us what commandment to follow and what’s null and void. Jesus also destroyed polygamous marriages, he was setting new laws, old Jew laws are void. Anyone adhering to them is rejecting Jesus to some degree. Jesus set new ones.

Have at it gentlemen.

>>835825

What they think doesn't matter. It wasn't your parents who gave the Law at Sinai, was it? It was God. It's his version of honor that matters, regardless of whatever weird thoughts your parents may or may not have. You're obligated to at least carry out the basic duties of a son or daughter and not treat them like dirt. And don't even bring up Mary and curse this law in the same breath. You wouldn't even have Mary at all if it wasn't for Jesus honoring her by giving her John and the Church to be her new family - and vice versa. He was following this very law in the purest way when he did this. We should follow his example.

Sidenote/hypothetical: There could be a wacko culture out there that believes in abandoning it's elderly, for example, but what they would want doesn't matter. God wants us to take care of the sick and we would be truly honoring our parents by keeping them alive in such a situation.

Actually, I'm surprised to see that coming from a Catholic. Am I talking to another larper? It seems that whenever I go to hospitals or the cemetary, it's either Asians or Catholics (at first glance at least). Their families are large and tight. It's the rest of the degenerate Americans that seem to live on an island and created this culture of lonely old people dying in resting homes and cemetaries overgrowing with weeds.

I'm not even Catholic myself, but it's one thing I admire about them.

>>835827

You speak of Mary being honored but believe The Father didn’t respect that union by stealing Mary from John after death. Such a union God would never break apart. You believe God steals other men’s wives. Mary isn’t the Holy Spirit. The Bible says the Holy Spirit put Jesus into Mary’s womb. The Father and The Holy Spirit Created Jesus at the very beginning, before creation began. The Father designed marriage after his own way of life. We bring children into earth by that same design. You have no honor. you believe God’s a pimp. And the laws of Moses were given to men, the mother and father the laws are referring to are not our Heavenly mother and father, but our earthly. There’s nothing to love in your version of God. And God is astonished at your peoples discussing view of Him. Don’t ever lecture anyone on honor. You don’t know what honor is.

Romans 8:1-12 NASB — Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh—

Law has multiple meanings in the Bible. The short answer is that ceremonial laws are done away with, legal laws for the political nation of ancient Israel should be guidelines for our own government, and moral laws are absolute.

>>835823

Yes he did

>>835820

Gee Anon, lets take a look at the OT itself and see. Book 1: Adam and Eve were banished from paradise for eating from the tree of the KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Well well well, it seems adhering to any kind of morality is not only unconstructive but also damning. The only law we should concern ourselves with is natural law, which the OT happens to align itself with 99% of time.

>>835820

According to the council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts, you are supposed to avoid food offered to idols, food made from blood (or possibly just food which still has blood), meat which has been strangled, and sexual immorality. These are the confirmed holdovers. Other than that, it's mostly morality stuff + don't do magic. Entirely within the realm of reason.

>>835827

Don't bother with Ex-Brother, he's a schizo non-trinitarian who bases his belief off divine revelation and vague correspondence.

Once Christ appeared on earth the laws prescribed of the old were superceded by the law of Christ.

Circumcision was replaced with baptism

Temple sacrifice was replaced by Christ's ultimate sacrifice and so on

If you're asking what the concrete jurisprudence should christians follow, then there's no such theology invented yet to justify its existence. Which is a shame, jews have halakha, muslims have their own thing but christians just follow the jurisprudence of arbitrary secular men and their secular pagan courts

>>835839

This is a very accurate description of me, well done. You might not know it, but I just gained a very faint respect for your ability to summarize people in a few word. Very faint, but it’s there alright.

>>835820

>If so, which? I'm having a hard time if these laws are truly archaic and not required.

More than anything else, you have to remember that these laws were only meant to apply to the Hebrews. They were basically clauses in the contract that God made with the Hebrew people through Moses.

So if you're not of Hebrew descent (i.e. you're not a Jew or Samaritan), then there has never been any need for you to follow these laws. Even the Jews agree on that.

But as other anons have already pointed out, there are more fundamental notions of right and wrong that both Mosaic law and Christianity are based upon. This means that, while Mosaic law can sometimes be useful as a cue (for example, 'do not use the LORD's name in vain'), it shouldn't be your main point of reference.

Your main point of reference should always be what Jesus said (love thy neighbour, for love does not do harm; love the LORD above all), and your secondary point of reference should be what Paul the apostle has to say about the law (and he *really* goes into detail about what is or isn't relevant for gentiles and why).

What's also important to remember is that much of the OT's laws concern physical cleanliness (like the instructions on how to treat a dead body and what to do when you touched one), laws for everyday affairs (like how to handle debts, or what to do with a thief), and laws for rituals whose main function is to distinguish the Hebrews from gentiles (whose goal is to prevent the assimilation of Hebrews into other ethnic groups).

Jews historically believed that physical uncleanliness equals spiritual uncleanliness, but Jesus disagrees with that - "the soul is not polluted by what goes into the mouth, but by what comes out of it", paraphrasing Matthew 15:11.

So the OT laws on physical cleanliness ultimately only affect physical hygiene.

Civil and criminal laws are, to put it blunt, things that we don't necessarily need God's direct input on. God gave us the mental capabilities for coming up with adequate legal systems *without* Him constantly having to tell us what we should and shouldn't do - and so, God expects us to be independent. He *did* go out of His way to guide the Hebrews, but that's because the Hebrews were chosen to be His servants, so they were kept on a tight leash.

God *does* expect us to be just. But as Abraham and Melchizedek showed, you do not need to be bound to a divinely revealed legal code to be just.

And laws that only really make Hebrews look and act differently than non-Hebrews (such as the rules on how to cut your hair and beard in Leviticus 19:27) obviously just serve to help prevent Hebrews from assimilating. It would be pointless or even inappropriate for gentiles to follow them.

If you love Jesus, you’ll keep his commandments (jn 14:15)

>>835838

Wait a second.

Blood sausages are a no no?

>>835850

For the church in jerusalem, no

Catholics have a catechism that explains the Bible and how we are to live and a priest to explain these things.

Must be hell to be a protestants and in a state of constant confusion and doubt.

>>835853

Protestants have their own catechism, though.

Protestant exegesis has been a thing for over four centuries.

>>835853

Protestants have dozens of catechisms man

>>835860

>>835854

And yet, here is protestant Op Bro asking, because all those catechisms and pastors say different things.

In fact, protestants seem to shop denominations for what best fits THEIR OWN BELIEFS rather than what God is taught.

>>835873

Can you go a single thread without doing this

>>835853

I don't support any man-made cathechism or add-on to Scripture, for obvious reasons.

>>835883

The Jesus of your scripture said to turn the other cheek to evil and love whores, something no prot I know or Christian in general does. Either the KJV is wrong and everyone knows it or if God did come in the flesh his name was Thomas Aquinas.

>>835889

Why don't you leave and start your own catholic only board if you literally can't handle the presence of other opinions.

I'm sure non petulant Catholics would appreciate it if you weren't here making a bad example for them.

Look, this one exists >>>/cath/

>>835889

It's not wrong, dipmuffin. It's right there in the first three gospels. You can deny reality like a schizophrenic or face the fact that the book you worship isn't God and actually has very little to do with God.

>>835892

This is what you said…

>The Jesus of your scripture said to turn the other cheek to evil

No catholic believes that. We have a right to defend ourselves and a right to defend the innocent from being harmed.

> and love whores,

Not exactly, we love the sinner but hate the sin. Christ told the adulterer to sin no more.

>something no prot I know or Christian in general does.

There are protestants who are totally non-violent for example our Amish bros. You can find a protestant that has any kind of belief you can think of.

>Either the KJV is wrong and everyone knows it

I seriously believe our Baptist bros believe that the King James Bible is the inspired word of God and is infallible. I think they also believe that they are the last word in interpreting it, which is why you have dozens of different Baptist churches saying different things…. :-D

> or if God did come in the flesh his name was Thomas Aquinas.

No one thinks Saint Aquinas was God in the flesh.

Now, it seems that everything you said was wrong, which is what I said. Are you even a real catholic or just false flagging for trolling purposes?

Maybe lying about me more will make your argument better. Go on, call me more names.

>>835896

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I am a cradle Catholic who never lapsed. I am decades beyond you in terms of development of faith. What the hell do you know? I could cite the exact verses the creature you assume to be Jesus says "I say to you do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek turn to him the other." What you believe are memes. Catholics believe in self-defense but Matthew 5 most certainly does NOT. If you truly believe in sola scriptura like the baptists do you either don't believe in self-defense or are actually not sola scriptura. Aquinas is the closest man to God you will ever have the grace of reading. Jesus is not some as the kikes say (((rabbi yeshua))) who wants you to be a cuck. He is the Logos. The more tightly you grasp onto your sin of believing Jesus is some buddha-like sage like the gnostics do the longer your sin will hold onto you.

>>835900

It is humble. You're just so degenerated you have no clue what that means.

>>835916

They do call war “theater”, literally every time. That’s all I have on this. Not the first time Simpson’s has pulled this off.

>>835889

>denomination is man made.

Big implications.

I'm still studying God's direct words, I haven't the time to tack on dogma and "cathechisms" just yet.

>>835898

> I could cite the exact verses the creature you assume to be Jesus says "I say to you do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheek turn to him the other."

You're not interpreting that the way the Catholic church teaches.

>Catholics believe in self-defense but Matthew 5 most certainly does NOT.

>I am a cradle Catholic who never lapsed.

These two statements contradict one another. If you don't accept the entire Catholic belief, you've lapsed.

>If you truly believe..

I believe in the entire teaching of the Catholic faith.

> Aquinas is the closest man to God you will ever have the grace of reading.

You said "if God did come in the flesh his name as Thomas Aquinas", and this is heresy.

Saint Aquinas is not a god. Our Lord Jesus Christ came in the flesh, and he is God in the 2nd Person, the Word of God.

I'm sorry, I don't even think you're a real Catholic, I feel that you're trolling me with a false flag.

““Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. “But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭5:17-20‬ ‭NLT‬‬

https://www.bible.com/116/mat.5.17-20.nlT

>>835962

> the fact is the scripture is wrong, which is why the Bible should've been kept out of pleb hands but Luther screwed it up

Arbitrary. Completely untenable. The scripture is either all right or none of it is, since it claims to be inspired.

Your religion is subjective.

>>835963

It’s obviously not “all correct”. There are many things in it that when used in life, prove false. There are several things you can try to apply in life to no success, many things when taken at face value are not blessed. Life should’ve shown you what these things are when you try and apply them. The truth leads to fruits and lies to failure. Many things read in the Bible and applied lead to failures, and if you haven’t noticed this maybe your not paying attention to your own life.

>>835963

Where does the Bible say Matthew should be part of the Bible? Where does the Bible even say the Bible is the objective truth?

>inb4 contents lmao

>>835963

And clearly there are things in it that work. I think your horrified at the thought that one must use critical thinking.

>>835964

THANK YOU

>>835967

I know the feeling, but I don’t think this is over. We got a Bible worshipper here.

>>835966

>>835964

>>835965

2 Tim 3

>Where does the Bible say Matthew should be part of the Bible?

That's a canon question, different debate

>>835968

What makes you say that?

>>835970

Do you not believe, by saying the Bible is inspired, that every word in it is exactly how it should be and that there are no inaccuracies? If you don’t then I was wrong to say that. Was I wrong?

>>835972

Yes I believe in inerrancy, No, that is not worshipping the Bible.

>>835973

It is. If you payed attention to your own life then you should have naturally seen that many of it’s teachings are not blessed by God. You also show you worship not only the Bible, but you put full confidence in the people and churches that have put them together. Churches your church also does not believe in. Peoples you wouldn’t agree with if they were alive to argue in this board.

You say you have faith in God but the Bible has passed through many hands and translated many ways before even the people you disagreed with got a hold of it, to say it’s not been molested and is totally accurate is foolishness, it reveals many weaknesses about your personal faith, and reveals your arrogance as well. You also show without a doubt that you follow your church like it’s a God, because it’s only natural that a rational person would have questions after reading any book of the Bible. You go to your leaders to fill in the blanks, not to the Holy Spirit and not to God himself in prayer, which is what Christians were told to do. So now your leaders, to you, are Gods as well.

Anyone who says they understand the Bible and every word in it must be followed to the letter is a liar when it comes to the faith. You are also a liar. You can’t say the Bible is word for word God’s word to his people and not reveal these things about yourself, it comes with the territory. That’s what makes you a Bible worshipper. No education from the Holy Spirit whatsoever, you don’t want the Holy Spirit. Have you not read yet, that the Holy Spirit is supposed to fill in the blanks and guide us? Maybe you believe that’s a gift for only the saints? If you really pay attention to the words you read, then you would know it’s a gift that every Christian can attain. How have you not realized all of this yet? Do you not see what your revealing about yourself?

>>835974

You're not in any place to be pointing fingers about critical thinking skills.

I'm not going to engage with these non arguments unless you engage in the one I've already brought to you.

If part of the Bible is not credible, why is any of it?

2 Tim 3:16, "All scripture is God breathed". If you claimed that the passages you find objectionable are wrongly classified as scripture that would be a valid different argument, but that's not what you're doing.

Liberals already went down this road and it was a joke. Have you heard of the Jesus Seminar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

>>835975

I didn’t say the Bible is useless, it’s just not perfect. Your pointing to scriptures that were written before the Bible was molested, at a time when the writers of those books were addressing the people of those times. You are the only one assuming “we have to throw the baby out with the bath water”. The Bible is our ‘tutor’, not our God (Paul said so himself). And if you want to keep at this here’s an example of how the apostles even had contradictions as well.

The apostles had a meeting and put laws together that banned the consumption of meats sacrificed to idols. Later Paul was seen eating meats sacrificed to idols and some were stumbled by it. Paul explained that it’s not wrong because the sacrifice doesn’t change the physical structure of the meat and doesn’t curse it. It’s still just food.

Also, Paul shows a lot of sarcastic swipes toward the original apostles by calling them ‘superfine apostles’. Paul had a huge problem with the apostles hoarding the direction of Christianity. The original 11 apostles saw Paul as unorthodox. The entire NT is an example of what happens when Christianity is guided by humans and not by the Holy Spirit. The NT is not a guide to how Christianity is suppose to be.

You haven’t learned anything. You read every book of the Bible without comparing it to the others. And as far as my weaknesses in critical thinking, they will be proven as weaknesses or as strengths in due time. Critical thinking is something you must train and strengthen, no one’s strong at it from the start. Just because it’s challenging to critically think doesn’t mean one must never critically think.

You sir, don’t critically think at all. Not a bit. You’ve sacrificed that gift to your priests, and poor interpretations of scriptures. They think for you and you eat sloppily from their hand whatever it is they wish to give you.

I’ve trusted my critical thinking to the Holy Spirit, to Jesus, and to The Father. Once my critical thinking abilities are merged with their’s and perfected, I will obtain perfect thinking. It’s a process though, one I’m getting better at by the day.

Also, if you were really honest and had trust in your faith, you would fill in the name section so we could see your whole personality and the beliefs that come with your flag. Notice how I’ve made it possible for everyone here to know me and see the whole picture of who I am and what I believe and why I believe it. Everyone here has the simple gift of picking up where they left off with me. Even you. The only way your able to know anything about me is because I’ve gifted everyone in this board with that ability. It might be frowned upon in message boards, but it’s proof of confidence in what I believe, be it wrong or not. It also allows people to correct me, when they actually have a good point. Let’s face it, I’ve become one of the only ones on this board who people know best. Even if I’m wrong every now and then, everyone will know it. And because I come with no denomination and no flag I have no organization to control what I say, and no one to embarrass but myself. If someone corrects me I can accept it. If someone corrects you you won’t accept it no matter what, because correcting you means correcting those that are under that flag. I’ve said this before but I was scolded. This is a Christian board, hiding behind the cross is not what a mature Christian that has confidence in his beliefs does. Posting with a flag kills ones ability to take correction because your going to feel like your letting down that flag. I’m happy to see your using the gift I’ve given everyone here to it’s full potential.

As for my flat earth beliefs, I proudly stand by them with my chest, and chin, high to the heavens. People should wonder why that is.

>>835984

I just did. Many different ways. Do you still worship idols and use items in prayer? That was much easier to debunk and now you want to learn something more complicated. Were you able to fix that about your beliefs? No? Then why are you asking for something more difficult to accept? Read my posts on this forum.

>>835987

I don’t care. I already know your this type of person. And now we all know your unreasonable.

>>835984

Thanks for the meme. I love it.

>>835986

>Do you still worship idols

So you don't understand what an idol is?

>use items in prayer

Such as?

>>835990

God doesn’t use any idols, he doesn’t stand next to or dwell in any man made object.

As fore items in prayer. Prayer beads, the clutching of a crucifix while praying. Things of this nature.

Do you naturally approach a crucifix on a wall or face it while in prayer? Do you enter your church and seek the centerpiece crucifix in it as you kneel or bow your head?

>>835992

This is all idolotry

>>835992

>God doesn’t use any idols

I don't use any idols either. I am really getting the hint that you do not understand what an idol is. Maybe read over the OT again?

>As for items in prayer. Prayer beads, the clutching of a crucifix while praying. Things of this nature.

Your point?

>>835994

You don’t kneel before the cross? That’s what idolatry is, kneeling/praying to/seeking an item in order to communicate with a God.

As for items in prayer I made my point already.

None of the apostles used these things. What more is there to say? These things didn’t exist for any first century Christian. Man added these things. How can I make it simpler?

>>835995

Lord have mercy, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

Lesson 1:

What is idol? An idol is something that is worshiped as god. This is why God was upset in the OT when people turned to certain objects and saw these objects as a god in and of itself. A carved wooden cow for example became the creator of the universe by the people of Israel out of their own stupidity and stubbornness.

Lesson 2: Objects and motions used in worship are not God

Did not God tell the Israelites to carve Cherubim upon the Ark? Were not carved depictions within the Temple? Did not the priests have to wear specific garments and perform certain gestures of worship? Now tell me if you think the priests actually thought the gestures they performed were actually god in itself?

>As for items in prayer I made my point already

No you didn't because you confused it with idolatry, which must be something you learned from your JW background and are just parroting it.

>None of the apostles used these things.

The apostles didn't use prayer?

What more is there to say?

There isn't because you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>835999

I’m sorry. It is you who don’t know the definition of idolatry. The Father told the Israelites to do those things because he was dwelling in that temple. He wanted a footstool fit for Him. He wanted the majesty of His splendor to show in His dwelling. Even then the Israelites where not worshiping the objects, they simply knew It as decoration of God’s place of dwelling. Even then only the Most holy priests would go into the most holy of holies only once a year, they would die if they didn’t because of God’s presents. He was physically in there, they knew this. God destroyed that system of worship when he tore the curtain separating the holy from the most holy the moment His Son died.

You’ve simply been fed clever lies to make you believe what your doing is ok. Nowhere were in the NT were Christians told to remake those old traditions with Christian elements. Those systems are not what God wanted anymore. The seven churches in Revelation had no such rooms where God physically occupied.

There’s a big difference in items for decoration and items used for prayer. That system was later hated by God for it’s ability to blur the lines between worshipping Him and worshiping fancy objects. You have been mislead. So has your church, bit by bit. The objects the priests were to wear was specifically taught to them by God after they were saved from Egypt. We have scriptures in the OT of this. When Christ died God abandoned all of that. And there is no record in NT of God telling Christians to adopt such things. You have been tricked with a clever lie. God would’ve clearly told the first century Christians to do this if He wanted it, just like He clearly told the Jews in the OT. God detailed how everything was to be made in the temple. You have taken the Jewish design by God and applied it to Christianity. Well not you specifically, but your religion.

The Jews had to make a sacrifice every now and then also, Christ removed that as well. Are you going to do sacrifices of animals now too? No I’m assuming, because Jesus died and removed that clause. You are not accepting the changes Jesus made to worship. Those days are over, been over for 2000+ years. It is the enemy that tries to use clever false reasoning to bring it back.

In mathematical terms, you are removing numbers from inside of the parentheses and mixing it with those on the other side of the equation. No where in the NT did God ever give specific and detailed orders of how to make a crucifix, where it should be placed, how many candles should accompany it, what the curtains must be made of, and so on and so forth. The OT however, carries every single detail about the temple and how it must be made. And the Lord does have mercy, he’ll give it to you when you accept the truth.

>>835999

The apostles didn’t use prayer? What? Have you not read about Jesus telling his followers to pray for guidance? Are you serious?

>>836002

Oh I see, I read that wrong. What I was saying is the apostles didn’t use items in prayer. I didn’t say they don’t pray.

>>835999

You don’t seem to understand that I hate the JWs and their teachings. This doesn’t mean I reject what little truth they have unearthed. That would be foolish. You seem to think they are wrong in literally everything. Why do you keep assuming I kept the poisons they fed me? Did I not tell you the 144,000 number is in revelation. Your kind completely ignores this number. I have the right to keep the truth of anything no matter what denomination it’s from. God owns the truth. Why do you never discuss that number? It’s in the Bible isn’t it? And you believe every word in it. So what’s your excuse for not understanding that number or at least that it’s in revelations? Stop with this ‘Your poisoned by the JWs’ nonsense. You don’t know what spiritual poison is. You’ve avoided looking into the 144,000 all because the JW cult talked about it first. Are you scared you might actually agree with them on something?

>>836001

>You’ve simply been fed clever lies to make you believe what your doing is ok.

So your argument boils down to this? We have a record of what early first century Christians did. They are in a couple sources that I higher recommend reading. First is Acts which might sound familiar to you, then there is the Didache. Apparently you still cannot comprehend the notion of what an idol is.

>>836002

I was responding to this post of yours >>835995

>That’s what idolatry is, kneeling/praying to/seeking an item in order to communicate with a God.

>None of the apostles used these things.

Guess you didn't see my question mark? And I definitely urge you to read Acts if you believe the apostles did not pray in order to communicate with God. Pretty sure the Lord taught the apostles a nice little one called the Lords Prayer.

>>836006

We both misread something. My argument was that they didn’t use items in prayer. You were typing away at the time, understandable. My next question would be why you think items are necessary for prayer.

>>836007

Again the NT has no such details on the building of a church.

>>836006

I read no sources from man. The Bible is all we have. If your supplementing it with man’s interpretations, then you don’t believe in the holy spirits guidance. My argument didn’t just boil down to you being lied to. I had good reasons to prove it. You just can’t accept your spiritual leaders are wrong. You feel a need to hold up that flag.

>>836004

>You seem to think they are wrong in literally everything.

Not necessarily, but they are heretics so I take a generous salt bath before anything that comes from them.

>I read no sources from man.

Does that count St. Paul? Because in another thread you were telling me that Paul was completely wrong in many parts especially about marriage. It must be nice to pick and choose what sounds good to you.

>The Bible is all we have.

No we have history as well. We have record of continuity of worship. Your denial of this is just delusion upon your part.

>I had good reasons to prove it.

You didn't prove anything. Your just pulling out your own interpretation and telling me I am being lied to.

>>836011

When I say I don’t read books written by man I’m talking about everything other than the Bible. I think I’ve been very clear about this. The word ‘inspired’ is not used properly now a days. People take the word inspired and replace it with inerrant often. Even I have to assume when people say inspired they’re really saying inerrant, and they hardly correct me. The only book we have is the Bible, and it’s been molested. That is why most people use supplemental books written by men. I don’t supplement any book written by man to the Bible, which is written by men too of course. The Bible is the only thing that survived those times. Many books that were supposed to be in it were removed. (7 missing apostle accounts, the true ending of the book of Jonah, the order of it’s books scrambled…etc).

My biggest disappointment in Paul was that he believes marriage is only to suppress carnal desires, the way the Bible’s translated leaves us with no other conclusion about Paul and his belief on marriage. Yes I disagree with him on some other things. But that was the one that made me most annoyed. I am not picking and choosing what I believe like you make it sound. Paul did the same things when addressing the teachings of the 11 remaining apostles. Paul disagreed with them in many things and they didn’t like Paul or took him seriously. The evidence is there for that. If I was really picking and choosing what i wish to believe and what I don’t, my faith would not have survived. And this ‘pick and choose argument’ of yours is one of your favorites. You say it every time someone gives you a good argument of why your wrong on something. You also accuse people of arrogance often when they provide you with a good argument.

As far as historical data of churches, it’s not biblical data. Historically, when the apostles died the churches took a hard turn to the left. History gives us evidence of their actions, yes, the Bible shows us those actions were not biblical. History tells us their mistakes, that doesn’t mean we need to adopt those mistakes.

I gave you a very good reason why you were wrong about the idols you carry. You, as one who believes the Bible is inerrant, can’t show me a single verse on how a church must be designed. Why is this? We’re books left out? Are you supplementing history books to the Bible now? And if so did you decide for yourself to do this or did your church leaders tell you what you can supplement? Was not God’s word perfect, according to you? Did he not leave these details of church design to us? Why are there no accounts of Paul or any other apostle praying before a cross or complimenting the design of one in the NT? Many of the things you believe are not biblical, but taught to you by man. If you quell your anger and your arrogance, you will see I have given you very good arguments. I on the other hand have been proven wrong many times in my day, I’m very used to it.

>>836014

You don't believe the Bible according to your own posts. There's really no point in discussing what the inspired Scripture says with someone who writes posts confessing nonbelief in it. Also if you are the same guy who earlier used the name field "ex brother" then you have denied God himself in your posts. Here you are saying Paul who wrote Scripture by inspiration of God, is wrong. And you are saying that God failed to preserved His words. Please stop posting these lies here.

>>836034

Your a troll. No one else is here after that gay porn incident. Just you. I addressed everything you can possibly fight with on this topic. You have no life troll.

>>836034

You haven’t read my posts. My belief in the Bible is obvious. Your education on Christianity is severely flawed, if your even a Christian. Your not fooling anyone. Where were your questions before that gay porn thread appeared? You weren’t even here until then. And you didn’t have the time to read all of this if you actually cared about what I said in my posts. You are a disgusting creature.

>>835820

Generally accepted view of most denominations: the moral laws are still valid (all the sexual acts listed as sins in the OT are still sins, as are murder, theft, blasphemy, bearing false witness, etc.) Laws that deal with ceremonial cleanliness are not, and the food laws were specifically abrogated.

>>835962

>why the Bible should've been kept out of pleb hands

Why would you willingly prevent the circulation of thee Word of God ?

>>836048

This is my hunch on it.

I'm just looking for scriptural backing. Yes I know The Council of Jerusalem "loosened the yoke" on gentiles.

Christians follow some OT laws and not others.

I don't know of any denomination that follows Deut. 25:5-10 for example. I think of that and my one brother… eh.. okay. But my other brother I beg not to die.

Most Christians will allow the eating of pork and cheeseburgers and cotton/polyester blends. :-D

I've not been to a good stoning in a week. Now we just verbally stone people, I think.

>>835873

>And yet, here is protestant Op Bro asking, because all those catechisms and pastors say different things.

How are you so sure that the OP is Protestant, or even Christian at all?

Frex, the OP wasn't even talking about Protestant teachings at all - the OP was talking about the Bible and the fundamental matter of how Christianity relates to OT law. And that's a problem that a Catholic can run into just as much as a Protestant or any other kind of Christian.

>>836076

> that's a problem that a Catholic can run into

Not really. Our Catechism tells us the "How to", we don't make it up for ourselves from the Bible.

If our catechism doesn't say that wearing a fabric blend is a sin, we can wear a fabric blend. If it says we can't each fish on some Fridays, we don't eat fish. No mention of cheese burgers so no sin to eat cheese burgers.

Protestants, however, pretty much means making whatever you want out of the Bible. That can bring out the "eww!" factor like that guy who read about Lot's daughters and Onan spilling his seed and came to the conclusion that he should have sex with his daughter. That's all kinds of wrong to a catholic

>>836101

>Not really. Our Catechism tells us the "How to", we don't make it up for ourselves from the Bible.

Again with that nonsense. You're pretending that Protestants wouldn't know what exegesis is, and that Catholics don't actually read or think about the Bible - both of which are false.

Besides, any person who blindly follows a catechism without actually reading the Bible for him- or herself is spiritually dead.

>>836070

The state church for quite some time used the force of the state to burn Bibles, starting with the papal Inquisition in 1231. They knew the Word of God was contrary to their cause, that's the only reason. And nowadays, the gymnastics that papists have to do are incredible. They have to argue that their traditions are actually superior to the Bible without openly admitting it.

It would be a lot easier for the enemies of truth if less people read Scripture, so we see their leaders promoting various false versions these days to try to make people think it has all kinds of contradictions. That way, they wouldn't pass it on to others, and in the long run fewer people would know the clear prophecies like 1 Timothy 4:1-3 which predicts that in the latter days some would depart from the faith, forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats. Of course we know who that's talking about.

>>836037

No, it is not. The Comforter is referred in a male pronoun while you claim it is the wife of the Father.

>>836112

I’ve explained this to you several times. You want another jab at it. Have it. But I don’t see why you don’t have this argument with Catholics as well, since they also believe the Holy Spirit is a female (they believe it’s Mary, I don’t). Let me make this clearer. I believe the Bible was originally inspired by God, men molested it through translations and interpretations. Therefore today, what we know as the Bible, is no longer inerrant. I’m not calling God’s original word false, but the way it exists today is falsified. God allowed this tampering because there is still enough truth in the Bible for a person to be able to build a connection with the Holy Spirit, then that connection takes the role of guiding a Christian. All who ignore that connection go around in circles and learn nothing for as long as they want to ignore that connection and it’s true purpose. Life experiences prove this when the words are applied. If you haven’t seen evidence of this in your own life, then you are not paying attention to your life.

We’ve had this discussion many times, and you’ve watched me have it with others many times. Yes, I know I can’t ‘prove’ this to anyone by what the definition of proof is now a days. This is something that sincere walkers in the faith have realized and will see the proof of it in many places of the Bible. Not everyone will except this truth about the Bible, but the meek will, and the arrogant will keep running around in circles. The arrogant will keep declaring that they understand things they really don’t because they’re too afraid to say they really don’t understand anything.

Do you still worship idols? Can you help me in correcting myself on that matter, at least, by giving me examples of images in the seven first century churches? Any scripture on the details of how to design a church fit for The Father in the NT would do. Did I not tell you this matter is much simpler to explain to you than the molesting of the Bible?

You are not mature enough yet for spiritual meats, you can’t even drink spiritual milk without spilling it everywhere. You haven’t even learned how to make spiritual dairies out of that spiritual milk. Your far from being able to consume spiritual steaks.

I will be done with this messaging board soon, I’ve been told that by The Spirit. You won’t have to tolerate me much longer, I wish I knew exactly how long, but I don’t see it going for more than a month. In that time you can ignore whatever it is I say. Yesterday I learned that my use of a name makes it very easy for people to filter me out, I didn’t know that. That’s another gift from the Holy Spirit you can take advantage of. When I began my very first post I debated to fill that out or not, the Holy Spirit told me to always fill it out. As we can see it has given everyone here power to ignore me completely. I have no problem with that, in fact I don’t think you are worthy of the new manna I’ve been sharing this past couple of days. I don’t know who it’s for in this board, but Jesus doesn’t waste His own time.

>>836117

>men molested it through translations and interpretations.

>interpretations

Forgive me but just going out on a limb to ask, could you it be you that is molesting it with your interpretation? I mean if everyone else is mostly agreeing on the essentials (Nicene Creed), and you are the only one with a very different interpretation, maybe it isn't just the board at fault.

>>836120

Even though I adhere to the Nicene Creed I feel I must call out your bandwagon fallacy.

>>836123

That's fine, I was debating with myself mentally after I posted that. Wasn't sure how best to word it. But there sure is a definite gap between the majority of the board and Ex-brother.

>>836120

I was given this information a while back. I sat on it afraid of the consequences because it was obvious to me the implications surrounding it. IF that is what I’m doing I’m going to have hell to pay for sure, I don’t expect to be forgiven. BUT, I ended up with a heavy sense of guilt and conviction. I realized if I don’t spread this information somewhere online soon, it was going to be more dangerous for me. Especially when the Lord has made it so easy nowadays to spread good news to people. I don’t even have to get out of my home and see people in the process, which is something I’ve always hated doing.

I’ve spoken one on one with you for a while now, I’ll let you know something personal I’m not too proud of about myself, and God is still working with me on. I hate mankind. I view many people as nothing more than cattle. 90% of the human race will stab a loved one in the back if they feel like their own back is cornered and it’s the only way out. They will throw away whatever holy perceptions they hold dear and strike down their own brother in order to survive whatever it is the devil has scared them with. Fear controls almost all people, and they will become animals fighting over whatever it is they believe they must possess. I have never been able to resist this fact about people since I was stabbed in the back by mine, it was an important lesson and I’m glad in many ways that they did it. I do not care about anyone on this board. When I was alone, hating the world, was it not all of you that I was hating? Yes, I didn’t know any of you but I knew the world is full of people like you, were you not those people? Are you not still part of the human race? The race of intelligent beasts fixed on misleading and destroying each other. Of coarse you are still those people. Some of you might not be, but most of you are and don’t know it yet. So you see I don’t want to give any of you what God has given me, I worked hard for it. It’s God who cares for you people, I care only for myself. God said share, so I share. God likes some of you, I’m ok with that. I’m doing what I have to, to pay God back for pulling me out of my tribulation, and saving me, and educating me, and giving me a hope for the resurrection of my childhood dreams.

I only commit these so called “heresies” because God told me to. I know how that sounds, satanic. In the eyes of God, it’s the condition of the body of christ today and there rejection of the Holy Spirit’s guidance that’s satanic. Your question was fitting, it had to be asked. I have to do as God tells me, it’s not like before where I didn’t know Him and wasn’t sure of this or that. No. I’m very sure I’de be in more peril if I kept my mouth shut about what He’s taught me. So pray on it, all of you.

>>836128

We will never see eye to eye but I don't hate you. Forgive my transgressions against you. God bless.

>>836106

>You're pretending that Protestants wouldn't know what exegesis is

Using the same premise, 100 different denominations came up with 100 different answers. Clearly, at least 99 of them used bad logic.

> and that Catholics don't actually read or think about the Bible - both of which are false

Catholic Bibles have foot notes explaining the Bible, and if there are any questions a Catholic has he must go to a Priest to explain.

>>836117

>Catholics as well, since they also believe the Holy Spirit is a female (they believe it’s Mary, I don’t).

They don't believe that. You're delusional.

>>836123

Because you're a midwit.

Fallacies themselves are rules to protect debate. Were we to open /christian/ to non-Nicenes it would not be the same and the content much different.

>>836131

Your forgiven without a second thought. Whatever transgressions you think you’ve done are not really transgressions, not even from where I’m standing. You never crossed the line more than necessary in debating. What can I say? My accusations toward the Bible and the body of Christ are not something one has to swallow up without debating in the first place. We all need to defend our belief in God with a health dose of aggression. You should know that you never crossed the line.

I on the other hand must apologize. There is a huge gap in my beliefs and everyone else’s on this board, that is true. It was only natural and to be expected. I could’ve said some things nicer, and should’ve. Your apology was unnecessary but greatly appreciated. Mine has to be said. Please forgive my aggression and sins toward you, I could’ve done things better. I chose many times, willingly, to spill my aggression into this board unnecessarily. Please forgive me for that. You were only protecting your spirituality from possible attack. That’s something to be encouraged, not ashamed of.

>>836137

>uses ad hominem fallacy

>>836120

I dont agree with any additions or creeds mandated by man-emperors and rulers past the Council of Jerusalem.

>>836147

The creeds are orthodox on their own merit and in spite of their sacralist contexts

If stalin said "Jesus saves" he would still be right and I would give him an amen

>>836150

Sure. As long as the "creed" is in line with Scripture and God's Words.

I guess we have to exercise discernment whether or not a "creed" is in alignment with the Holy Spirit.

But my point is, why would I need to listen to the creed of men, when the Word of God is accessible?

I can listen and evaluate opinions, sure. But seems like there's middlemen everywhere in the process of connecting with God. I can just connect with God Jesus and the Spirit through prayer and fasting.

>>836154

Creeds and confessions in no way hinder your ability to read the bible, pray and fast.

I'm skeptical of what you're saying about discerning or connecting with God via the spirit, since creeds are matters of doctrine. That's a charismatic thing to say and it implies a rejection of the sufficiency of scripture.

>>836156

What you're saying makes sense, however it is true that people have tried to reduce the truth of God into simple soundbites and then discard the original Scripture which was given for a reason, and this discarding is what goes against the precept "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" given in 2 Timothy 3:16. One must believe based on this that every single part of the inspired word of God is there for a reason. Even the supposed deleted verses that modern versions take out.

The person you responding to is right by asking what is the actual need for manmade creeds. Consider what 1 John 5:9 says, which says that if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.

It's all too easy for a manmade thing to be misinterpreted (as the Holy Spirit brings those things which the Lord said into remembrance, not random things other people said, see John 14:26) as manmade sayings are of private interpretation (contrasted with Scripture, as Peter said in 2 Peter 1:20) and are corruptible (contrasted with the word of the Lord, as Peter said in 1 Peter 1:23-25). So we have to guard against private interpretations of non-inspired and possibly corrupted manmade sayings that are also fallible to begin with. Whereas no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, being brought to our remembrance by the Holy Ghost, and being the incorruptible seed by which we are born again, not the corruptible seed.

As far as people claiming falsely to have the Holy Spirit, this is easily spotted if oneself may truly claim this fact, because through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father (Ephesians 2:18). Therefore if what Scripture says is true that He will give the Holy Spirit to whoever asks (Luke 11:9-13) and that he is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6, Ps. 145:18) then it is possible for the saved believer to discern the spirits (1 John 4:1) by the means of being saved and having the truth already within (1 John 2:27, 5:10) to see whether they are of God (1 John 4:1).

>>836173

>The person you responding to is right by asking what is the actual need for manmade creeds.

Because they are practical, even for a super-congregationalist, sola scripturist believer.

Let's say you move to a new town, and want to join a church.

You look over their sites/magazines/whatever, and see what their doctrine is.

It doesn't even have to be some grandiose or mechanical, "soundbitey" statement.

Simply reading any variation of:

>we believe in the Trinity;

>we believe in Scripture alone;

>we believe in Faith alone;

Saves you from having to figure out if you accidentally joined an Old Catholic church, a modalist congregation, a Kingdom Hall, or a Mormon temple that is light on the denominational "branding".

>>836138

I forgive you, and please hang around. You do liven up the place a bit I must say. :)

>>836249

Thank you brother.