>Calling all Christians
Text can be interpreted many different ways. Without resorting to "my interpretation of scripture is correct", explain why your denomination is the correct one.
If you can't explain why your denomination interprets scripture correctly, please tell us why we should believe your denomination is right when lines of text can be interpreted any which way.
I'm non-denominational, because I don't want to be part of the traditions of men like the whore of Babylon.
>Text can be interpreted many different ways
Interpretation comes from God.
God establishes christians.
An established christian will be approved and he'll be able to perform things such as healing the sick with lay on hands.
Can you do this?
Let me doubt your interpretation
IMO denominational quarrels can wait until all the kebabs, bagans and kikes are purged from Christendom. Deus vult.
>that red hair
>that minty garb
>those arm guards
Something looks familiar here... can't put my tongue on it.
Neat thread! But hold on a second.
Supposing a group were traveling around your state, led by a charismatic speaker who claims the world is ending soon and that to be saved from it you must sell your belongings, follow him and cut off family members who try to stop you.
What would you call that?
bop pidop op snippidy snop
new oc coming soon to a thread near you
Oh right. I want to know the answer to that as well. There are so many forms of Christianity it makes it hard to take it seriously. How is somebody supposed to choose between 40,000 denominations or whatever ridiculous number it is?
Lets start by eliminating obvious heresies. For example, any denomination that does not acknowledge the Creeds is heresy by default. This gets rid of most evangelical protestants and Mormons. Of the Protestants we've got left:
Who's next on the chopping block?
im from church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. i know my church is correct because of a few simple points:
1. we have the power/authority to perform ordinances necessary for salvation such as baptism, gift of Holy Ghost, eternal marriage, etc, etc
2. this authority/priesthood ccame directly from resurected beings who have this power including Jesus, mark, luke, john, etc
3. we continue to have direct communication with God. the only other church that was the last to make that claim was the catholics & the new pope, last year, said they do not receive revelation in modern days.
4. these communications are made directly to the modern day prophet. besides the prophet we have today, there are also 12 apostles & other leadership that have the priesthood/authority/keys to adminster on earth.
this church is the same as Jesus had in old days. the authority was removed from earth. it has been restored once again to the childdren of men.
being the only correct & true church really has nothing to do with interpretation of scriptures.
13h When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi* he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14i They replied, “Some say John the Baptist,* others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16* j Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood* has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20* m Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
Funny picture. I'm not an atheist, though. Did I blow your mind?
Name the political party which claims that the world is going to end and asks you to sell your belongings and cut off family members that disapprove in order to be saved
Refer to the picture.
>I'm not an atheist, though
Whatever you are, you're misguided for trying to proselytize here.
>Name the political party which claims that the world is going to end and asks you to sell your belongings and cut off family members that disapprove in order to be saved
I can see where you as a catholic do not trust the bible, at all, and do not study the bible, at all. Your church literally tells you not to.
What I do not understand, is why you would put up with that, and convert from catholicism into christianity.
>explain why your denomination is the correct one.
Because there is only one true Religion and church, Catholic Apostolic Christianism
>please tell us why we should believe your denomination is right when lines of text can be interpreted any which way.
Because heretics go to hell or purgatory
>So I chalk that up as an apocalypse. At least for Koreans.
Uh huh. So no, not really. Your example is invalid. A single parallel is insufficient. Even several are. It has to match them all.
You never answered.
Care to tell me what's a name for an entity dead set on stopping us from going to heaven as we intend?
You can find all the faults you want on the religion, but I can prove to you that it is a true one.
Anyone know what song this is? I've been listening to chants for a bit but I can't find this one.
I'm non-denominational but influenced by Orthodoxy more than anything else lately.
I'm a Methodist.
I know my denomination is right because it's in the name, for pete's sake. Methodism is the most efficient and methodical way to praise the Lord. How, you ask?
Well it wouldn't be methodical to do something that God didn't want, therefore only the true ways of doing things are methodical and Methodical.
This includes praising only the Holy Trinity, and not saints. However important a saint was, they were not the prophet and did not do what Jesus did. I praise Jesus, not a saint, because he inspired them to do what they did. This includes a more liberal freedom in worship. God's relationship with you is not meant to be dictated by a priest, it's your relationship. It is methodical that you choose how modern or what your church looks like, even if it pisses off bigoted Catholics.
It is truly superior because it allows for personal freedom. My interpretation may be different than my friends. In the Catholic church there is a who's wrong-who's right contest. Nonsense. Rubbish. Let everyone have religious freedom. Such is so in Methodism.
You'll find it's also the dominant denomination of the greatest country ever (Germany), so....
>any denomination that does not acknowledge the Creeds is heresy by default.
Yeah, anyone that would reject literal words by Christ can't be Christian! It's a good thing he's quoted giving those creeds in the Gospels, right?
I am free, then, to doubt you and declare you a farce.
Breaking a commandment ONCE means you are still a christian, one who sinned.
Breaking constantly the commandment means you are a hypocrite, an actor.
And I am free to tell you that your doubt is misplaced.
Your people? Christians are God's people lad.
>calling all catholics
How do you reconcile the notorious elements of the Vatican 2 documents that are prima facie heretical? Also, if you believe Vatican 2 is orthodox and can be explained away with the 'hermeneutic of continuity' how do you explain the event of Vatican 2, that is to say the mass desecration of churches, the abandonment of tradition, and the heresy that has seeped into every quarter of the laity and the magisterium, including even the popes?
>Supposing a group were traveling around your state, led by a charismatic speaker who claims the world is ending soon and that to be saved from it you must sell your belongings, follow him and cut off family members who try to stop you.
>What would you call that?
I'll bite, let's say that it is during current times, in our current timeline where we KNOW there was a jesus and there is a church. I would call that man a lunatic and his followers misguided fools.
Now let's pretend we're in the 21st century in a timeline where there was no Jesus and no Catholic Church, all we have are the jews and their tribes some pagans, and whatever other religions naturally developed in this time.
If I were to cross paths with that charismatic leader I would listen to his message and follow him if I were touched or convinced with his message.
So you came to this thread to pick fights with your brothers?
No, I came here to pick fights with people that claim to be my brothers but are wolves in sheep clothing.
How are you my brother?
I don't see in you the qualities the Father has established one should have. You also reek of satan.
In fact you don't even want to love others as Christ commanded, some of you excuse themselves from this love.
"He who has no love has no knowledge of God, because God is love."
Day after day people come and see you pretending to be christians
If you follow Christ then I am your brother. However, your haste to throw accusations makes me doubt your sincerity.
I don't think anyone in this thread has tried to do this, so let me make the case.
If God does exist, he would give us one united organization to represent Christianity. He wouldn't give us a book, because a book can be interpreted anyway whatsoever. (If that was the case, how do we know which books are correct? How do we know the gnostics and the marcionite weren't right?) . He would give us a series of elders who would guide people(the clergy and monastics) and give us outstanding examples of people to follow(saints). So the mother church tradition is the most logical.
The bishop of Rome was not the head of church historically. He was given primacy - a great deal of respect. But he was equal with all the bishops. Why else would St Gregroy the Great(a bishop of Rome before the schism) write "Whoever declares himself 'the bishop of bishops' is the precursor to the anti-christ."
so all children who have lied twice can never be christians?
That means there is not a single christian in the world and you aren't either
...except for maybe a retarded person who can't speak, but I'm sure they're capable of feeling jealousy...
Fuck, you're a dipshit
Protestant: Following positive based scripture and promoting the lighter side of the bible
Catholicism: Stict following of the book of Acts, usage of hierarchy and tradition
Orthodox: Strict following of ground base traditions and testaments to hard faith practice
I believe you are mistaking false testimony (perjury) with simple plain lying.
Arrogance and pride would mean I am arrogating privileges I do not have, and I don't see any of those.
>I believe you are mistaking false testimony (perjury) with simple plain lying.
pfffft get this kike out of here
I'm Lutheran so basically the most accurate interpretation possible.
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
"Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.
Saying that you are doing a thing, and then doing other is lying about what you are going to do.
Sounds like you're reading the retard's bible
I believe the common interpretation is that he was BORN without sin, meaning he had no original sin because he was the son of god
>mistaking false testimony (perjury) with simple plain lying.
That is the most Jewish bullshit I have heard all day. You, Brian Williams, and the rest of the outright deceptive kikes need to gas yourselves.
Jesus the Great High Priest
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
The bible insist Jesus has never sinned, and I see a lie from His mouth.
It is easier to commit sin by lying than to commit sin by perjury, therefore satan would be interested in having lies be a sin.
Whatcha doing, rabbis of the synagogue of satan?
Muslims don't understand Christianity. Leave the thread, Spain.
He didn't lie. He changed His mind, once His disciples had left. He didn't make a fuss and seek attention, He just went quietly on His way. He went to teach at the temple.
He couldn't keep away from the feast. This is the Lord Jesus Christ. How could He keep away? It was the people who were not ready to accept Him. Yet He taught openly anyway in the temple.
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
- Luke 19:27
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
- John 8:44
Anything that holds no meat or real tangible information has no meaning, you aren't acting very Christian like thus I come to the conclusion you are a shill here to create conflict probably an atheist or a muslim.
Still not banished.
Looks like you have no authority over me.
Mite b interesting to see why you don't have authority over a devil since according to you I am and Jesus gave this authority to you
This quote is about Jews who have to accept the Word of God, yet won't, and as such will be destroyed. It doesn't mean He is ordering you to kill anyone.
No, you're just argumentative.
Let's drown out this kike
Bad poll. It means not to lie about your neighbours, especially in legal matters. But it doesn't change the fact that lying is not something that God does or wants us to do. Lying is from the evil snake.
Worship God in the spirit of truth, always.
of all the fucking chinese cartoons that i watch ive never liked anything more like this like this & the nazi one! Oy vey!
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
It's stupid to see someone accuse Him of being a liar.
Let's change this thread to mock the false prophet and the religion of the beast.
Also, if the Lord knows the future, He cannot have changed His mind, as He would know that too, therefore He lied, and He lied only once, showing us that it is ok to lie.
He's a teacher and you aren't learning.
The quality of shitposter in these threads gets worse every day
He didn't. This guy is just cross-examining Jesus Christ, God's own testimony, and accusing Him of being a liar.
He said He would not go up to the feast. The next verse says that He stayed. After that, He decided to, and did not make a fuss. He went to teach in the temple. Even though His people were not ready to accept Him, He still went to teach. His hand is still stretched out.
This guy sounds like a stereotypical Muslim.
clearly the day of reckoning is upon us
I found a very tiny explanation for why you're an idiot
May God rebuke you.
Your serpent tongue cannot pervert the spirit of truth in Jesus Christ.
He did not lie. The Jews wanted to kill Him, so He sent His disciples instead. Then, after keeping His word and staying behind, risked His life to go and teach the Word of God to His people, in spite of the danger.
Your lies cannot corrupt my faith. Drink your own poison and be gone.
>MFW some Muslim fucked tagged me in this post.
>MFW it made me angry because it's retarded.
>That is not how omnipotence works retard.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
God the almighty does not need to fit in to a box of definition that you created for Him.
>"Hey guys, is this thread where I can roleplay as a crusader knight and pretend to like I am going to fight muslims?"
Fuck off with this counter-counter-culture meme. You are the worst kind of hipster.
>implying Jesus would give a fucking shit about what denomination you are
literally you shouldn't even have time to decide. instead you should be helping the poor, helping society, and hanging out w prostitutes and gamblers
That is what the bible implies yes. he performed miracles and knew the future, there was no limitation to his power as presented in the bible. That is what Satan's temptations were all about in the dessert.
"Thou wilt be born again". (412 732b, Pyramid Texts)
"For you have been born again". (1 Peter 1:23)
"Horus is risen." (388 681a, Pyramid Texts)
"now is Christ risen." (1 Corinthians 15:20)
"Osiris who comes again". (390 684b, Pyramid Text)
"Jesus comes again." (1 Thessalonians 3:13)
"take this thy bread which i am giving thee". (487 1047b, Pyramid Text)
"Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread". (John 6:34)
"Horus gives me this his bread which he has satisfied his subjects, and I eat it of them." (491 1058a/b, Pyramid Text)
"Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them" (Mark 14:22)
"My detestation is hunger, and I will never eat it. My detestation is thirst, and I will never drink it.It is indeed I who will give bread to those who exist (211, Pyramid Text)
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."(John 6:35)
"The hand of Unas is come upon you." (297 v400, Pyramid Text)
"the hand of the Lord is upon thee" (Acts 13:11)
"They give to Osiris the tree of life whereof they live." (519, Pyramid Text)
"take also from the tree of life" (Genesis, 3:22)
He was dependent on his father to do this. He did not even awaken to his purpose until he was about 30.
Also it was heresy in the early christian days to imply that he was omnipotent, so stop it.
>peter said it, so it must be true, he couldn't possibly be flattering him!
He has access to the knowledge of all things through his father, but most of the time he is just human.
He goes the same instant they depart
No matter how many times I post evidence of Jesus knowing everything you could claim this, why bother?
Where is your source?
his brothers had gone up, that means they already were at the feast and jesus did not go with them, he said he will go when his time comes and thus went after they have already went and went in as if in secret, this is common sense try harder wolf in sheeps clothing.
By their fruit you will recognize them.
>This equals lying.
Your limited 2Dimensional understanding is blinding you from the truth.
Are you blind? He entered the temple in the midst of the feast, but went to the feast instantly the moment they went.
>Then the jews sought Him
The jews were already looking for Him, it's reasonable to think that is His reason to go alone as in secret.
You are the blind one. In the land of the blind, the one eye'd man is king.
First of all, see this word. It is key, to debunking your lies.
Let's find it.
>I go not up yet unto this feast
That is, I WILL NOT GO YET.
He sent His disciples to the party before going Himself. Once His disciples were there, at the party, He went quietly Himself. He did not draw attention to His disciples, and put them in danger, in the land where He was so persecuted (His own land).
You know what that means? It means that He put His brothers before Himself, and their safety first.
He probably prayed for a while before setting out, and left when they had already got there.
Are you of poor intellect? he said he will go when his time comes, he went as if in secret to the feast for his time came, and he left the feast in the middle to teach, where is the lie?
>That is, I WILL NOT GO YET.
This is correct.
But when they were gone, he went also.
This means He instantly left.
He told them He was not going yet to have them go first as if He was going to go later, but He went the moment they were gone.
That's when the pope isn't praying with heretics or kissing korans too. They even have it in their Vatican 2 documents that they worship the same god as muslims (lumen gentium 16) i.e. catholics deny the triune god.
He said when his time comes, he did not go with them (First statement of not going with them fufilled) he then went as if in secret to not draw attention to the feast (fulfilling when his time as came and thus he went) all that he said has been fulfilled and left in the middle of the feast to go teach, all that he has said is truth.
Jesus Christ is Lord. Hallelujah.
He said He wouldn't go yet. Then His disciples got there (His chosen ones) and then He left to go to.
He did everything He said he did. And He put His brothers before Himself.
No, when they were gone up, i.e. when they were nearly there, or there already.
Even if He left 5 minutes later, it doesn't matter. Because in the previous verses, He already told His brothers that they would not be hated and that He was. He ensures that His chosen are taken care of.
He probably prayed for a while before leaving. He said YET, and He went. Nothing He said was wrong, or a lie. You are very foolish to accuse Him.
Devil translated means accuser.
>You are very foolish to accuse Him.
>Devil translated means accuser.
I am also accusing you of not being able to do the works you are supposed to be doing, like laying on hads to cure the sick.
I must be a devil, one that you don't have authority over, which is strange, since you are supposed to.
Yeah like if I said I'm not going to close the thread yet, because you got rekt and debunked, and then I left it open for a few more seconds until I didn't feel like looking at your foolish accusations any more and closed it.
It wouldn't make me a liar.
Just admit that you got rekt.
To all the Christbros in this thread, may God bless you and keep you until His coming.
The truth offends you. And you got rekt.
This is what happens (my interpretation):
Jesus lies about wanting to go later since He doesn't want them in trouble, and the moment they are gone, He leaves.
As expected He's being looked for, which is His reason to be separated.
When the proper time arrives, He teaches.
Is this a lie? Yes.
Does it make Jesus a sinner? No, and it teaches us that even Jesus may do it for good.
Average muslim 'we embrace Jesus but He is only a prophet, it's OK to lie' crap.
So it is not ok to lie?
-Do not think that I came to abolish the Law
-it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
-For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
-"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Is this a lie?
In this case however, Iam not accusing Jesus, but rather, the faithful christians, that may be not so faithful and are making new sins out of thin air changing scripture to their content
And certainly, I do not think Jesus lied in respect to the law, so somebody must have put that in there
And look, we have here christians on a nazi board that want to be charged with sin every time they lie
This is a big misconception
Im not saying we need to stone people who break the sabbath, but christianity is, in essence, completed judaism. Look that stuff up sometime.
He upheld the spirit of the law, read the passage about pulling your sheep out of a ditch on the sabbath, and healing the mans shriveled hand in the temple. A lot of people misunderstand something paul said and are all of a sudden like "yeah nah we dont need anything from the OT" when they completely forget the sermon on the mount.
i suppose saying the Law isn't relevant isn't strictly true. sin is still transgression of the Law. i mean that breaking the Law means you aren't hellbound, or needing to sacrifice a goat to absolve your sins anymore.
and if you truly believe, then you'll be naturally compelled to live righteously, so making no effort to live righteously means you probably don't believe
From what ive learned is that upholding the spirit of the law, basically doing good, is what matters.
The answers to "do we really need to do ______" is laid out in the text, you have to look for it. Quoting matthew 5:17-18 is a bit of a copout.
Last time I checked, this is POLITICALLY CORRECT. Not religiously incorrect or whose god is the bestest. Piss off Christfags. Go find your own forum where you can hugbox about Jeboo all day and all the fun you'll having lounging in eternity because you thought right n stuff.
This thread needs more of Christ's love.
As a muslim this really offends me.
Shitskin Islam should be satan tier while White supremacist Islam - whites practicing islam should be Ok tier. Also shitskin Christianity should be with alongside synagouge of satan. Theyre pretty much close friends with the shitskin muslims.
There is nothing European, and therefore nothing White, about Islam.
Whites who become Muslim are stabbing their ancestors in the back for allying themselves with the very people who sought to enslave and genocide them all throughout the first millennium A.D.
im not sure. Is strongly believe that the golden age of Islam is brought by the persians and the Assyrians of the time which is white. The Alhambra in guinea is made by the berbers so therefore theyre made by whites.
Shitskins have been proved for centuries for being incapable of civilization. Just look what happened to medina. Its so messed up with the big buildings created close to the Makkah and Dubai is no different either. It literally looks like an isolated chinese cityscape
>tfw Mormons are the only christians with a birthrate high enough to survive as the rest of us are out bred by the Muslims in the coming decades
I know it might be heresy but should I convert?
>search your feelings
You make an argument about what is theologically correct based on personal feelings?
She is too pure . . . I feel dirty and not in a fun way.
>Anno Domini MMXV
>using the Kabbalistic Tree of Life non-ironically
>Gnostic Internet Defense Force please go back to /x/
why would it be translated as "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Instead of "Thou art Peter, and upon Peter I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Petros and Petra are different.
I'm an atheist but I kinda wish religion was real.
The world would be a lot more interesting with spiritual stuff being real and everyday aspects of life.
Also heaven sounds like a great place, I hope its real.
Also I love Christ-tan!
>Instead of "Thou art Peter, and upon Peter I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
"Thou art Rock (Simon), and upon this Rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Denominations are inherently faulty, they only serve to divide us.
Ideally, a Christian is a Christian, and they should be led by the Word, not by human leaders who will misinterpret the Word and spread that misinterpretation among the people.
Look I read the catholic.org thing. The argument literally hinges on "stylistic reasons" and quotes from romans who have a vested interest in keeping this myth alive. I hope some day we can uncover an aramaic copy of matthew to put this to rest, but until then we've reached the end of the facts on the matter.
>By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)
So why did Jesus address Peter for?
What do you think about this?
>There are other Protestant scholars who also partially defend the historical Catholic position about "Rock." Taking a somewhat different approach from Cullman, they point out that the Gospel of Matthew was not written in the classical Attic form of Greek, but in the Hellenistic Koine dialect in which there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra. Moreover, even in Attic Greek, in which the regular meaning of petros was a smallish "stone," there are instances of its use to refer to larger rocks, as in Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus v. 1595, where petros refers to a boulder used as a landmark, obviously something more than a pebble. In any case, a petros/petra distinction is irrelevant considering the Aramaic language in which the phrase might well have been spoken. In Greek, of any period, the feminine noun petra could not be used as the given name of a male, which may explain the use of Petros as the Greek word with which to translate Aramaic Kepha.
>but in the Hellenistic Koine dialect in which there is no distinction in meaning between petros and petra.