/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Have you ever tried reading Leviticus? Deuteronomy?

It doesn't, it promises it eschatologically. We have no obligation for Christian jihad.

There is biblical teaching on criminal punishment which requires a theology of government.

>>841275

It does. I found the verses while I was waiting. I only made this thread hoping some Anons might contribute and make the search go by faster.

>>841277

It doesn't. Your perverted satanic catholic bible probably does though.

>>841283

The verses I found so far aren't in the Deuterocanon. I didn't find any verses in the Deuterocanon EXPLICITLY saying to kill the wicked but there are plenty warning against being good to the wicked.

>>841286

Here's one such verse that destroys any cucked interpretation of turn the other cheek just in case some of you might find it useful.

>“Give to the godly man, And help not the sinner. Do good to one that is lowly, And give not to an ungodly man: Keep back his bread, and give it not to him, Lest he overmaster thee thereby: For thou shalt receive twice as much evil For all the good thou shalt have done unto him. For the Most High also hateth sinners, And will repay vengeance unto the ungodly. Give to the good man, And help not the sinner.”

‭‭Sirach‬ ‭12:4-7‬ ‭

When Jesus saved the woman from stoning, it eliminated a dependency on the Torah or wisdom from Judaism (lol Sirach) for punishment. Those men were completely in the "right" according to the Torah to stone an adulteress. Yet the Son of God, of all people, demonstrated mercy - and expects his followers to do the same. He said that he who was without sin could cast the first stone - and he was the only there without sin. But he said, "Neither do I condemn you." The only who could have rightly stoned her decided not to.

Secondly, the punishment for not showing mercy is that we will not be shown mercy either. If that's what you want to risk, I can't do much to stop you, I guess. But I'll stay far away from such people.

I don't expect Catholics to ever understand. They're not even followers of Christ. They've given all of us a bad name. What's the first thing non-believers tend to hurl at Christians? Catholic crimes. The Crusades or the Inquisition. Or some burning of a woman. We're all guilty by association just because of their bloodlust and need for domination through history - and since they pretend to follow Christ, they make the rest of us guilty and prevent the actual Gospel from spreading. Even though Protestants were some of the biggest victims of Catholic torture themselves (Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer, etc), we still somehow are put into a corner and associate with these ghouls.

>>841292

>When Jesus saved the woman from stoning

Our oldest copy of John doesn't even have that part. That part was added by kikes.

>>841277

Post them

>>841293

It's ancient and attested by the earliest Church Fathers (Church Fathers you Catholics call saints, but don't actually care to listen to or read. You'd rather listen to modernists).

BTW, Augustine knew of some copies without it, and this is what he said:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

Basically, it was removed because some foolishly thought it sanctioned adultery, and missed the whole point.

>>841297

>Basically, it was removed because some foolishly thought it sanctioned adultery, and missed the whole point.

The irony is they weren't wrong. Whores always quote that passage first.

>>841299

They do? Talk to them much, do you? Either way, good luck on defending your jokes on Judgement Day. What if it turns out that this was a recording of the true word of the Lord? Are you going to get sassy when he brings it up?

"I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." - Matthew 12:36

The omissions of this text more than likely come from a time when false Christians (like Augustine points out) had all kinds of nasty thoughts about women (and eventually formed later heretical, rigorist groups like Islam). They were dismissive of mercy in general. The Novatianist (and Donatists before them) were one such group (and were eventually condemned in a Council). They expected everyone to be entirely blameless and wouldn't even allow repentant people to come back into church after expressing cowardice during Roman persecution. These penitents were cowards at one point, when persecution was high, and compromised their faith. When times improved, they came back apologetically, but were kicked out, or at best, forced to get "re-baptized" (hence, defying the oldest creed and scriptures about One Baptism). I could easily see this kind of mercilessness creeping it's way into the mind of some scribes and scowling at the idea of Jesus forgiving an adulteress.

Others like the Montanists were just as strict. Tertullian was one such person, who famously said that women were the "devil's gateway" and even condemned marriage itself, a sacrament. He said married women who were just whores themselves who had "fallen into wedlock".

THESE are the kind of ghouls who would alter the gospels. But there is no plausible excuse for why someone would ever include it. It was challenging and bucked every known custom at the time and many in the church, as I said, tried to downplay it. So kudos to Augustine for being brave enough to stand behind the Lord's words.

>>841303

>But there is no plausible excuse for why someone would ever include it.

What I mean is, there is no explanation for why someone would include it as a forgery. It was too odd and challenging. Only the Lord himself would have been so bold to put it there originally. Or at least had it in the earliest apostolic traditions. But there's many more plausible reasons why some manuscripts would purposely remove it.

I also should bring up Constantine himself. He's an interesting story of this morality at play. He killed his wife and son for adultery. His own mother (St. Helena) was grieved and abandoned him and made her famous pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as repentance for her wicked son. This is why we know of all of the famous holy places to this day, because of Helena. But it was originally done as an act of repentance.

It's just interesting me of these two streams of the church, existing within the mother and son. The mother is less well known, but represents the true mercy of the Gospel, and grieved at Constantine's vindictiveness and bloodlust. But it's Constantine who gets all the fame and gets called a Saint even. When he was anything but.

It also needs to be pointed out that Jesus was continuing what was already said to the Prophet Hosea:

"I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall." - Hosea 4:14

No longer was Israel ordered enough to even have justice and righteous judgement according to Torah. Sin had stacked sky high already by the time of the Prophets (at least 500 BC). Whores could not be righteously condemned, because as he says, their spouses were just as guilty themselves. Everyone was in sin. And the only people who would condemn a woman (much like the men who brought the adulteress to Jesus) were guilty themselves. All they cared about was punishing women and not sin itself. This was not Torah or justice. And it especially wasn't even in the incident with Jesus. They didn't bring the offending male who slept with the woman or even the "2 or 3" witnesses required by the Torah. It just a sick attempt to entrap Jesus and maybe see a woman get her head beat in.

>>841305

> But it's Constantine who gets all the fame and gets called a Saint even.

Empress Helen is also a saint, and gets a lot of stuff commemorating her.

In fact, the RCC didnt canonize him, but did canonise St. Helen.