/lit/ - Literature

>>22307092
Yes, but there are 73 books. Even Anglicans read them on Sundays.

>>22307092
Could you at least change the wording of your post, we've had the same exact thread yesterday. Jannies are going to start nuking bible threads on sight again because of retards like you. Or maybe that was your plan all along.

>>22307117
There was nothing wrong with the last thread, stupid angry atheists just can't debate so they cry to mods to have the thread deleted once overnight

>>22307092
>This has genuinely never been proven.
ftfy

>>22307133
>atheists just can't debate
So after 100+ posts in the last thread there still was no debate? I'm wondering who are the real retards here.

>>22307140
>I have an epic quip based in my inability to understand plain English, that means censorship is good because I have no arguments
How's that boot taste, slave?

>>22307156
I'm starting to understand why jannies used to kill these threads on sight. You don't actually want to debate, just bait.

>>22307092
St Paul refutes it himself. So no need.

>>22307092
>One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

The bible is no less refutable than any other work of fiction with talking snakes and alchemical transmutation

>>22307101
Only 66, Roman catholic cult fanfiction isn't inspired by God.
>Even Anglicans read them on Sundays.
I don't care what some harlot daughter church of mystery babylon, the great whore, does. The Bible proves the Roman catholic church is the beast of Daniel and the whore of Revelation. Which is why the Roman catholic church tells its followers that their traditions are salvation issues while denying the Word of God that you must be born again and that's not an infant baptism, not that infants can be baptized (Acts 8:37).

>>22307162
>everything I can't debate is just trolling
You're the troll and you're targeting this thread because you don't want anyone to be allowed to defend the Bible because you can't refute it. You're already crying to mods for censorship because OP is right, your beliefs die without censorship. You're a loser.

>>22307163
Where? Substantiate your claims.

>>22307212
Don't forget the talking donkey. Do you think any thing is too hard for God Almighty?

You should try sticking to something that you can refute. Your naturalistic religious beliefs don't disprove God's Word.

>>22307231
Who divined the scriptures, probable Calvinist?
The Church came before the Bible to organise what was true and what was Pseudoepigrapha or however you spell it.
Without Mary, you would be reading the Gospel of Thomas like a misguided but truth-seeking Muslim and might believe that women don't go to heaven and Jesus killed a boy when he was a child, which is patent nonsense.

>>22307247
>Who divined the scriptures, probable Calvinist?
You don't even care to pretend to be honest with me, you're like the atheists who won't listen to Christians but think they know what the Christians believe. Well you're no different.

That could explain why a thread defending the Word of God was deleted, this board is full of Roman catholics. The same reason the old Bible threads were deleted, real Christians showed up and started talking about the Bible rather than Roman catholic fanfiction and you couldn't handle it. You little Roman catholic jesuit cowards.

You know, the pope is not God nor is he Christ and your church does not have authority over God nor over God's Moral Law, right?

>Without Mary
Without Mary, God would've used someone else. Do you really think God's power relies on something he created? Just because God chose to use Mary to fulfill His prophecy, doesn't mean you should worship Mary or that she's a co-redeemer. The scripture says only Jesus saves, you want to manipulate Christ's judgment by going to his mother instead of obeying the God's Word in the Bible.

But you don't care, all that you care about is your tradition which is NOT found in the Bible so what does your Roman catholic nonsense have to do with the Bible?

>like a misguided but truth-seeking Muslim and might believe that women don't go to heaven and Jesus killed a boy when he was a child, which is patent nonsense.
Yeah, you muddy the waters as much as the atheist antichrists, because you are an antichrist. Your cult is full of them.

So-called christians willing to "debate" atheists on 4chan have a serious intellectual inferiority complex.

>>22307231
Lol. Christcuck don't know about St Paul. Everything he says goes against what Jesus said (which is to begin with disgustingly plebeian, the revolt of all that is lowly)

>>22307273
You have nothing.

>>22307284
You have nothing. Substantiate your claims.

>>22307231
>Only 66, Roman catholic cult fanfiction isn't inspired by God.
Hmm, I sure wonder why only those books are accepted!

“Why? Up until the 16th century, most Christians accepted the older Alexandrian canon (list of inspired books). When he translated the Bible into German, Martin Luther decided to follow the newer Palestinian canon, which includes only books originally composed in Hebrew or for which a Hebrew text was available in the late first century A.D. The King James version follows Luther on this matter.

After the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, rabbinic Judaism as we know it took shape; the rabbis accepted as inspired only books written in Hebrew. The Alexandrian canon contains seven books written in Greek and parts of two others.”

Hebrew-worship’s the reason.

Anyway, if you wanna see OP seethe, just mention evolution.

>>22307092
Abrahamists are wrong about god. They claim to see through a glass darkly and that they can only know god through his works and then go on to make shit up about god.

>>22307092
Christians and every religion-believers are literal brainlets, I'm so sorry

The Gospel literally refutes the Law and the Prophets, what are you talking about?

>>22307814
Evolution isn't science, it's a naturalist creation myth. They see adaptations and believe on faith that all life transformed through evolution from a common ancestor.

You will never evolve into a real woman, btw

>>22307850
People who use the term "abrahamic" don't know anything about the religions they discuss beyond pop culture references.

>>22307855
Atheism is a religion, they believe on faith that God doesn't exist outside of their knowledge.

>>22307866
Christ didn't come to destroy the law and prophets. Nobody who has made your such claims can back it up, ever.

OP is insanely based and Christpilled. God bless you, my brother in Christ.
>>22307231
>>22307265
>>22307888

>>22307888
>Evolution isn't science, it's a naturalist creation myth. They see adaptations and believe on faith that all life transformed through evolution from a common ancestor.
It’s a logical inference: Each generation is slightly different from its parent generation. Adaptations prove that life can change and that the changes that survive are the ones that help the organism survive. That isn’t really “faith” any more than believing that the world existed before I was conscious.

This has genuinely never been refuted.

Athiesm/Christianity/Abrahmaism/Judiasm, like leftism, dies without censorship.

>>22307921
Paganism is closer to OP’s actual beliefs so maybe he should embrace it instead of claiming to be Christian while denying God’s transcendence.

If the Bible is so real and true and god so powerful, why do people not believe in it? Couldn't God just have people believe in him?

>>22307092
See, OP? Your literalism and denial of God’s transcendence is making dumb questions valid:>>22307930

Jehovah is on the earth and speaking. The end times are here!

>>22307092
>time works differently for God
>the ancient Jews had no conception of evolution, nor did they have a need to understand the concept at the time
>we can only assume that God created the world in the way that we can understand it through science
>evolution and Christianity are therefore compatible
Come on, now. Being religious doesn't mean you have to be a retard.

>>22307092
La sangre de Jesucristo, muerto en cruz por nuestros pecados, hijo de Dios Padre, tiene el poder de la salvación para todos nosotros. ¡Oh Jesús!, hijo de María encinta milagrosa sin pecado original, destinada a llevar al hijo de Dios en su sagrado vientre, confío plenamente en ti y creo fielmente en tu resurrección al tercer día. Perdónanos nuestras ofensas hacia ti, Dios y el Espíritu Santo -La Santísima Trinidad- e intercede por favor en el bien humanitario. Despójanos de la miseria, la adicción y el egoísmo e ilumina a quien camina sin ánimos. En el nombre del Padre, del Hijo y del Espíritu Santo. Amén.

Ten misericordia de los no creyentes y dubitativos, de quiénes obran en tu contra e hieren al andar. Te pedimos de rodillas por la salud, el amor, la prosperidad y honestidad de todos los habitantes del mundo. Imploramos por la Iglesia Católica, para que la guíes a ser una institución de buena fe, respetuosa y temerosa de la ira de Dios, y bondadosa y ferviente al momento de practicar los principios de la fe cristiana. Nos oponemos al pecado y a las tentaciones, nos mantenemos lejos de la corrupción. Santo Padre, Divinidad Celestial, gracias por Todo, Amén.

>>22307133
You got BTFO’d about your lack of basic scientific knowledge by myself et al so you ran into another thread to restart your argument. Get a life.

>>22307092
If you do not love them, then you shouldn't preach to them. Everything else is an exercise in self-fellatio.

>>22307092
>implying Christians weren't the most censorious people in the world for centuries

>>22307888
>Atheism is a religion, they believe
Belief isn't religion, you stupid fuck. Religion is subscribing to an earthly spiritual authority, like a church. Belief is just what you happen to believe.
Fucking godtards, I swear ...

>>22307092
*refutes itself*

>>22307940
Well, at least you're going to die then.

>>22307231
You idi9ts would be saying "muh 65 books" if Luther had his way with James

>>22308952
Oh wrong one

>>22308966
66 is an important qabalistic number. There were always going to be 66 books, which goes some way to explain the inclusion of Revelation.

>>22307231
>Do you think any thing is too hard for God Almighty?

Can he duplicate himself?

>>22308968
Kabbalah is fundamentally antichristian

>>22308967

>>22308982
>for the number is that of a man; and his number is 666
That's a reference to gematria, dumbass. And 666 is an even more important qabalistic number, being the sum of one to six squared.
Six is a "perfect" number, being the sum of all its factors.
Even the Lord's Prayer contains qabalah:
>for thine is the Kindgom - i.e. Malkuth
>the Power and the Glory - i.e. Geburah and Tiphareth
If the church deprecates the study of qabalah, it's because they don't want you to know what they know. They banned translations of the Bible for the same reason.

>>22308938
>an exercise in self-fellatio
This doesn't work. Believe me, I've tried.

>>22309023
>they don't want you to know what they know.
why?

>dies without censorship
there is literally a concerted political effort to push this shit into schools in the US
they also feel the need to astroturt this shit on the meme anime website too for some reason

>>22309071
i'm talking about the bible btw

>>22307092
Why did Yahweh tell his chosen dude to pretend his sister was his wife three different times? Did he just really like incest?

>>22309060
>Catholic detected
Because they won't get to be gatekeepers anymore, and you won't need them.

>>22309074
Yahweh clearly isn't the god of the New Testament though.
Yahweh is a jealous god. He demands ritual sacrifices and forbids idolatry. Jesus doesn't give a fuck about any of that.

>>22307092
If you're going to start with the premise that the book is infallible no matter what and you're even willing to mould your very perception of reality to fit that narrative, then of course you're going to conclude that its never been refuted.

Pic related: the consistent Biblical literalist.

>>22307092
KJV isn’t even a good translation of the meaning of the original hebrew or koinic greek? how can you even say that

>>22307092
Where did Cain get his wife?

>>22307247
>Without Mary, you would be reading the Gospel of Thomas like a misguided but truth-seeking Muslim and might believe that women don't go to heaven and Jesus killed a boy when he was a child, which is patent nonsense.
no, God would just use someone else

literal idolater

>>22307092
Didn't we have this thread yesterday?

Is there any reason to read the bible if I'm not a christian?

>>22309211
It's interesting as a mythos and a work of quasi-history, if you like that kind of thing.
It's a bit like Herodotus on psychoactive drugs.

>>22309206
>Jan ASSman

>>22309234
anon please, this is a serious thread

>>22307913
>It’s a logical inference
No, it's a leap of faith. It's not even logical, it's not even possible. It's mathematically impossible and the number of changes and types of changes are not what we see today.

>>22307930
Free will, hardened hearts, impenitence, seared consciences, enjoying sin too much and enjoying their pleasures of the flesh and lusts of the eyes and pride of life. God didn't make robots, you choose to sin.

>>22308112
God is eternal and created time. God isn't restricted by something he created, he's not bound by time, God is Almighty.
>muh jews
You're ignorant.
>evolution
Your naturalist creation myth is taken on faith, it's not a fact of life. You see adaptations and think that proves all the diverse life on earth shares a common ancestor, that's a leap of blind faith. Your faith doesn't invalidate my faith, as they're both taken on faith. Mine is right though, and all observational science supports the Bible, notably that creatures only bring forth after their kind -- and that's all we ever see in the world. You take that and say "have faith" that "enough time" and you claim to account for all life from a common ancestor, that's faith, it doesn't disprove the Bible.

>>22308909
You have no arguments and you never have had any. You don't understand logic or science or the scientific method. You're a cry baby who can't handle differing opinions, get off the internet.

>>22308948
The roman catholic church burned bibles (along with people) to maintain their control over scripture. That's not Christian. Christians were copying manuscripts thousands of times over and spreading them, even during persecution under threat of torture and death.

>>22308950
I don't subscribe to an earthly authority, my Authority is God Almighty. God is not of this world. Atheists submit to "the experts" the "scientists" the "politicians" their priest class to do their thinking for them; and they take it on faith that God does not exist outside of their knowledge.

Quote the whole sentence next time instead of being such a coward.

>>22308966
Catholics act exactly like Atheists when they "debate". By their fruit ye shall know them, Christ said.

>>22309023
Papal titles are 666. Mystery babylon is the Roman catholic church, and she has many harlot daughters.

>>22309071
>>22309073
There really isn't, but you lunatics have mandated by law "LGBT history" in some states which is no doubt "woe is us, we're minority victims too, give us free stuff and preferential treatment now" as well as showing kids gay sodomite porn (you've been doing that for decades) or bringing in convicted child rapists for "drag queen story hour".

>>22309074
>>22309112
Why don't you read the Bible?

>>22309113
Your problem is that you treat it as guilty until proven innocent. I don't believe the Bible because the Bible, but you can't discern spiritual things because you're a natural man, you're carnally minded.

>>22309177
Not true.

>>22309234
>>22309237
that's right, he's the assmann

>>22309211

>>22309262
didn't read lol

>>22309268
Then why post? You treat this place like twitter, where you blurt out every inane thought that pops into your mind.

>>22309262
>Christians were copying manuscripts thousands of times over and spreading them
Yeah, they were copying THEIR manuscripts over and over and erasing others, ever hear of palimpsests? What they really deserve credit for is losing 90% of the literature of antiquity

>>22309262
>Why don't you read the Bible?
Why don't you burn the legs, fat and intestines of a bull upon the altar, for sweet savour unto the lord?

>>22307092
Of course it has been refuted since it has been proven that hate comes prior to love

>>22309262
>I don't subscribe to an earthly authority
Then you don't have a religion, and don't even know what religion is, according to your original post.

>>22309262
>God is eternal and created time
God cannot create time anymore than he can create himself. Time is another word for existence and it is the prerequisite to creating anything.

>>22309187
Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. The laws about not marrying close relatives wasn't given until later. Adam married his rib.

So if you're worried about genetics, we all come from Adam marrying his rib. "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;" (1 Corinthians 1:27)

>>22309278
If you take thousands of manuscripts and some of these haven't seen each other for centuries, it's easy to see what was added or removed if anything; and most of the time it was just different spellings for names and such.

The problem in more recent years is they found 'older' manuscripts and have the excuse to justify changing the Word of God, but their fallacy is "older = better" while ignoring the source of these manuscripts of Alexandria which was full of heretics who denied all manner of fundamental aspects to Christianity. Now then you get the "scholars" and Pharisees who will pick and choose from whatever makes them feel better. If you're living in an age without the printing press, and you're a Christian, you're going to be reading those manuscripts constantly and they'll wear out and you'll need to carefully copy it. What's more, if it's something being used by the church, it won't last long before being diligently copied and replaced. And it won't be lazily copied like worldly manuscripts for mundane things like politics or news or stupid bowl wins/losses that aren't considered the power of God unto salvation, as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. If you're a true believer and you had to copy the Bible by hand, how careful do you think you'd be about it? You'd be extremely careful, especially if you held Scripture in a high regard, which you would if you're Christian.

>>22309290
Jesus is the Lamb of God, the perfect spotless sacrifice. Jesus never sinned. Saying we need animal sacrifices would be rejecting the Son of God.

The laws to atone for sin in the OT were fulfilled by Christ being the ultimate sacrifice atonement for sin, but it's not an automatic atonement as many are taught, Christ didn't come to give a license to sin. You have to repent for the remission of sins and believe the gospel to be saved. Repentance is acknowledging the severity of your sins, your crimes against God by breaking his moral law, turning from lawlessness and sin to God and putting your faith in Christ. Repentance is founded in conviction of sin, feeling convicted in your conscience that you've sinned against a Holy God and feeling godly sorrow for it, recognizing how severe and evil it is.

>>22309291
Christianity is love. The Bible is God's love letter to mankind, and you reject it and Him.

>>22309293
Religion has a lot of definitions. Yours requires an earthly headquarters or presence. My definition of religion does not. And I find your definition foolish as you're ultimately arguing against your own rights.

>>22309211
You get to own Christcucks on their own turf

2 Samuel 24:24 “No!” the king replied to Araunah. “I will buy them from you at full price. I won’t offer to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for 50 silver shekels, built an altar to the Lord there, and presented burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the Lord answered David’s prayers for the land and the pestilence on Israel was averted."

1 Chronicles 21:25 "So David paid Ornan 600 shekels of gold by weight for the site."

>>22309308
Babies are born innocent. Sin is breaking God's laws. Being born isn't a sin. God never made an 11th commandment: "Thou shalt not be born".

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

>>22309318
Your faith-based belief doesn't invalidate my faith-based belief. Whether you realize yours is founded in faith or not is not my problem.

>>22309335
You should use the King James Bible. I'm too lazy to look up what version you're using, but if it's the NIV, the NIV says Lucifer is Jesus.

>>22309262
>Your problem is that you treat it as guilty until proven innocent. I don't believe the Bible because the Bible, but you can't discern spiritual things because you're a natural man, you're carnally minded.

Nigger, I guarantee I'm more spiritually minded than you. I can recognize that ancient sandniggers were as spiritually retarded as they were technologically and don't lean completely on a book, rife with errors and self-contradictions, written by iron-bronze age grugs for spiritual enlightenment. And your own book tells you to GTFO anyway, so what are you doing here?

>>22309348
Its literally incoherent to say time was created. Do you take your own existence on faith? If you do, the same measure of "faith" applies to the ontological necessity of time.

>>22307092
There are two problems with the Bible.
One is the many factual contradictions it contains, such as the two deaths of Judas. The other is the behavior of the Lord Sabaoth, which is sometimes wholly inconsistent with Christian teachings, such as the command to slaughter children in the kingdom of Amalek.
You can refute it, but only against Christians who have solid doctrines about the nature of Scripture. The rest (most at this point) are like fighting smoke or corpse lights.
t. Catholic who secretly escaped via this very line of reasoning.

>>22309348
It doesn't matterbwhich version you use. 2 Samuel says that David paid 50 silver schekels for the threshing floor and 1 Chronicles says he paid 600 shekels of gold. These are considerably different prices.

>>22309366
The deaths of Judas is one of the weakest contradictions and christards have an explanation at the ready. Its retarded but its nothing compared to Aziah being two completely different ages when he began to rule or Jesus appearing in Jerusalem in one gospel and Galilee in another.

>>22309318
>God cannot create time anymore than he can create himself
Sure he can. "time" is processing cycles, hence why it can speed up and slow down under high processing loads, such as high speeds (time dilation). "time" is not some substance, it's the implementing of a process of step wise/discrete instances. In before some appeal to a continuous function related math model used to make predictions of measurements to non-arbitrary precision. These are just math models and they are accurate only to a certain amount of decimal points, and no where near planck time refresh rate resolution. Nothing in the universe is continuous besides stateless abstract math. A physicality is discrete/digital. Anyways, the creator or the one who pushed the enter button to boot up the influx of information in the so called big bang would by definition have to be "outside" of or not subject to the virtual spacetime of the reality because if he were himself part of the virtual (physical) spacetime, then he could not have booted the universe up, as this would mean that he would have to have existed before his own beginning, which is illogical. So there certainly is some non- processual/virtual/computed sort of existence, though it is possible that the consciousnesses immersed in physicality (virtuality), ie us, can not conceive of non-virtual existence, or or "everlasting-ness or beginning and endlessness.

>>22309379
And when pray-tell did he do this?

>>22309375
I just mention it as the most well-known contradiction. It was so glaring to the ancient Church that they deliberately mistranslated Acts 1:18 in the Vulgate.

Et hic quidem possedit agrum de mercede iniquitatis, et SUSPENSUS crepuit medius : et diffusa sunt omnia viscera ejus.

>>22309411
Hmm, maybe I have underestimated it then. Any idea where the first instance of the "the branch snapped and his body exploded" apologetic was written down?

>>22309370
>It doesn't matterbwhich version you use.
Wrong.

>>22309423
I first encountered it in Peter Kreeft when I was myself looking for answers. No idea who first came up with it, but I think it's a pretty silly evasion.

For you KJV girls ITT, suspensus means "being hanged," whereas your version has the accurate "falling headlong." The authorized translators didn't have the same priorities as St. Jerome, being more interested in fighting Catholics than in crushing the Pagans. It's all so tiresome.

>>22307231
>Only 66, Roman catholic cult fanfiction isn't inspired by God.
Whether you believe it's inspired or not, Sirach is lowkey one of the greatest discursive/literary texts in the entirety of antiquity and it's a real shame you'd close it off just because of Luther's linguistic autism.

Every wayward young man who goes reading Marcus Aurelius should 100% read Sirach instead.

>>22309439
What does that have to do with the divergent price of the threshing floor between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles or, for that matter, the divergent sizes of armies which I am too lazy to cite?

>>22309360
It's not, you just have faith that time is eternal, can you prove it? You cannot.

But a naturalistic world view demands you consider it that way because we don't see any forces creating time as we already experience time, it was already created in the beginning by God.

>>22309366
Judas hanged himself, his body would've been bloated, and when the branch or rope breaks or he's cut down he'd make the mess.

Not every author is going to record every detail exactly the same.

>>22309408
In the beginning.

>>22309411
It's easier to spread something that discredits God's words than to study it and look for understanding. And it's always easy to find people that agree with your guilty-until-proven-innocent criticism and attack it no matter what. And what you mentioned only discredits it even more.

>>22309423
His body's not going to just hang there forever.

>>22309441
How is it silly? And why can't you be honest or even respectful? It's clear you're not of God.

The Roman catholic church is the whore of babylon, proven so by prophecy and history. If your church were of God, then it wouldn't have needed to burn Bibles and people for owning bibles to try maintaining their monopoly over scripture while they threaten you with "purgatory" if you don't buy indulgences.

>>22309470
What does that have to do with me refuting your stupid comment?

>>22309441
You know, it's funny how often it's Roman catholics (who claim to be Christian) that are the largest and loudest voices in attacking God and Christianity and the Scripture. As it's always been, I guess.

>>22309475
>they threaten you with "purgatory" if you don't buy indulgences.
Purgatory is scriptural, just in Maccabbees which Protestants don't accept. Sadducees in Jesus' time didn't accept Maccabbees because it taught that there was an afterlife and Luther went with it because he was autistic about Hebrew.

>>22309475
>guilty-until-proven-innocent
This is how Christianity gets treated, because this is how Christianity has always treated other religions. It simple, really.
>Roman catholic church is the whore, etc.
Without the Catholic Church, or some institution that claims the same authority, you have no way to establish a canon of the Bible, and therefore no Bible apart from whatever you say it is. Sola Scriptura isn't taught in Scripture.

>>22309489
The dead are resting in peace until the resurrection at the last day.

Last day:
>John 11:24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.
>John 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jesus refers to death as sleeping:
>John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.
>John 11:12-13 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep.
>John 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

>Matthew 9:24 He said unto them, Give place: for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn.
>Mark 5:39 And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

Resting in peace:
>Psalms 6:5 For in death [there is] no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?
>Psalms 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.
>Isaiah 38:18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can [not] celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.

You could argue pit as death as in Ezekiel 18, but that doesn't invalidate Jesus referred to death as sleeping, not purgatory where your family can pray you out or where you can buy your way out before you die.

Salvation is a free gift from God, not a purchase from Rome.

>>22309511
>Sola Scriptura isn't taught in Scripture.

What is the word of truth?
>2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

What is scripture's purpose?
>2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Does Rome have a private interpretation of scripture (i.e. the catechism)?
2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Why did Paul commend the men of Berea?
>Acts 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Does Rome tell you to search the scriptures daily? or do they tell you come to church, give us your money, perform these rituals with us? The Bible says salvation is only in Jesus Christ, Rome says it's only in their church, that's the hallmark of a cult, claiming only they have the way to life. God gave Jesus Christ as the way to life, God didn't give the Roman catholic church as the way to life. Only Jesus saves, not Papal rome.

Extremely random question:

What happened in the States that the Baptists (and not the Presbyterians) ended up being the "shock troops" of the doctrine of predestination?

>>22309475
Time is eternal by definition because for something to be eternal, it simply means it exists at all points in time. What I said was time was ontologically necessary. And I don't have a "naturalistic worldview", I believe in God, I just don't believe its possible for him to create the very precondition for existence. In fact I don't even think there is a Bible passage that supports this absurd notion and its simply part of the theological arms race to have a bigger God than everyone else. "My god exists at all points in time simultaneously!" "Oh yeah? Well my God exists outside of time and created it!!!!1!". Its literally a Batman vs. Spiderman jerkoff-fest.

>>22309530
>All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Saying that all Scripture (whatever that means) is profitable, is not the same as saying Scripture is all you need. Sorry, but no.
>Rome says it's only in their church, that's the hallmark of a cult
Yes, whereas you say it's only in your Bible. Same principle of exclusivity. The only difference here is that your cult is less coherent.

>>22309511
>>guilty-until-proven-innocent
>This is how Christianity gets treated, because this is how Christianity has always treated other religions. It simple, really.
Others are wrong. It's simple, really.

But you never treat any other religion in the same way (even if they claim the same belief that only they're right) or any other book the same way. Only the Christian Bible gets this treatment and that makes you a hypocrite since you don't maintain the same judgment and measures.

>Without the Catholic Church, or some institution that claims the same authority
It's funny how you can't imagine not living with some worldly authority, you can't imagine not following men or "the experts". I just tell you they're not Christian, that they're the greatest pretenders, and you insist on still talking about them to me as if they refute the Bible (they'd love to but they can't). What you're really doing is promoting humanism, raising man and himself, rather than promoting God.

>>22309475
You realize the word "beginning" has an inherent temporality to it, right? So called "logical moments" are just a huge cope. For something to exist in sequence it implies time.

>>22309518
>The dead are resting in peace until the resurrection at the last day.
They're still conscious before Jesus' second coming because Jesus tells the repentant thief that he will be in paradise that day (i.e. not in paradise only after the second coming)

Being held conscious in heaven for a time doesn't change the fact that the endgame of Christianity isn't heaven itself but being resurrected as physical beings on earth, just freed from the effects of Original Sin.

>>22309475
>What does that have to do with me refuting your stupid comment?
You didn't even say anything that was relevant in the first place, chum...

>>22309566
>But you never treat any other religion in the same way.
No other religion has treated me in the same way. I have to pretend to be a good Christian in front of Christians, because if they find out what my real beliefs are they will ostracize me. Buddhists and Druids aren't going to attack me, so I have no need to defend myself against them.
>It's funny how you can't imagine not living with some worldly authority
Oh, I can imagine it. It's just that Christianity turns into nonsense without it.

>>22309592
>Buddhists and Druids aren't going to attack me, so I have no need to defend myself against them.
Religions that have zero presence near you not influencing your day to day life isn't some profound truth bomb. I don't feel much pressure from Yarsanis either but that doesn't hypothetically make them magically nicer if they did.

>>22309535
I don't buy into predestination, Moses pleaded with God for God's sake in the eyes of men.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-32-9_32-14/

>>22309560
>Time is eternal by definition
Get a better definition.
>because for something to be eternal, it simply means it exists at all points in time.
Get a better definition of eternal too. You seem to have circular definitions.

>>22309561
Scripture means Bible.
>Yes, whereas you say it's only in your Bible. Same principle of exclusivity. The only difference here is that your cult is less coherent.
God's Word is not a cult. But your cult is based on man's words, you have a leader, you have a headquarters, you have a false gospel, you deny Christ saying you must be born again. Catholicism is of this world, not of God. Search the scriptures yourself and you'll see.
Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

>>22309571
You have given it one that discredits what I've said. But I see it as "the beginning", which is the beginning of time, which is what it is, the beginning of time, it doesn't explicitly say "of time", but what is it the beginning of if not of time? It's the beginning, the beginning of time. In the beginning. Would God be Almighty if time had power over him? That's why you have your definition.

>>22309574
Move the comma after today and the meaning slightly changes. Commas weren't in the original manuscripts, so you shouldn't rely on something like that for doctrine and you should have more verses to support doctrine.

We aren't born with sin. Sin is breaking God's law. Being born isn't against God's law, nobody is born with sin.
>1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

>>22309592
>No other religion has treated me in the same way.
Islam tells Muslims to kill infidels (i.e. you). Talmudists want to enslave you. Catholicism wants to torture you for being a "heretic" to the pope.

Christians just tell you to repent and believe the gospel. Christians are just a wet blanket on all your fun in sin.

>>22309328
>If you take thousands of manuscripts and some of these haven't seen each other for centuries, it's easy to see what was added or removed if anything
I am referring to the massive body of Greek and Roman literature which is now literally gone because Christians had no interest in it and could barely maintain copies of Plato while they were busy transcribing their derivative capeshit over and over, not discrepancies between versions of the desert diatribes. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, it's no wonder you've chosen this religion, which originated among the chandala of the Hellenistic world.

>>22309610
Many cults co-existed in antiquity. When Christianity arrived, all others were eventually forbidden. Christians are hated because they hate everyone else.

Now if you want a truth bomb, the truth is that Christianity ultimately derives from the cult of Dionysus. Sabaoth is Sabazios. Christ is the new Bacchus Iudaicus. Moses was a priest of Osiris. Catholics still use the ancient heathen symbol of this god in their iconography. (See picrel.) You think you have escaped from your heathen origins, but your ephemeral heresy is founded on the worst elements of the same cult.

>>22307092
>says the world has been made in six days
>never been refuted
Ok man

>>22309592
>I have to pretend to be a good Christian in front of Christians, because if they find out what my real beliefs are they will ostracize me.
If they found out your real beliefs, if they were Christians, they'd try to get you to stop playing games with God. You're like a child playing in the street, and a semi-truck is coming, but you don't want to listen to your friend telling you to get out of the street.

>>22309619
>I am referring to the massive body of Greek and Roman literature which is now literally gone because Christians had no interest in it and could barely maintain copies of Plato
Funny how everything is blamed on Christians. It's always just automatically the Christians' fault. Why did Rome fall? "uuuhhhh those heckin Christians, they offend me!"

If Plato's ideas were any good, maybe people would've put more effort into it. But Plato can't save you. If you were born again, if you experienced God, then you wouldn't care so much about a mere mortal's words. Not surprised you throw some petty personal insult at the end there either, pathetic.

>>22309618
>You have given it one that discredits what I've said. But I see it as "the beginning", which is the beginning of time, which is what it is, the beginning of time, it doesn't explicitly say "of time", but what is it the beginning of if not of time? It's the beginning, the beginning of time. In the beginning. Would God be Almighty if time had power over him? That's why you have your definition.
You're speaking gobbledygook.

>>22307092
>says that the Earth is flat, and that the sun is orbiting around it
>says that humans (along with all creation) were born 10000 years ago
>a guy saves every single creature on earth by putting two of them on a boat, which, by the way, he builds himself
Do you actually believe this? Like do you think that this is something that happened? I’m honestly curios

>>22309632
On behalf of that anon, thanks for proving his point.

>>22309637
>It's always just automatically the Christians' fault.
Oh right you only take credit for the consequences you like, the rest get "forgiven"

Time will exist even in the case of total nothingness. Its compatible with every metaphysical possibility.

>>22309642
You have a definition for beginning that requires time to exist before the beginning because you define time as eternal.

>>22309659
That's not ostracizing someone, that's warning them. Again, you're in the middle of the rail road tracks, a train is coming, and you don't want to hear someone warn you and you won't even turn behind and look for the train. You see an act of love as a reproach.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. (Revelation 3:19)

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. (John 3:19-20)

To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear [is] uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. (Jeremiah 6:10)

>>22309625
>>22309657
Not all accurate, but why not? "Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?" (Jeremiah 32:27) "Is any thing too hard for the LORD? ..." (Genesis 18:14a)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2sMJMXDiH4

It's closer to 6,000 and this is corroborated by observational science.

What they did to fool you was indoctrinate you with millions of years. They show you a book for kids about dinosaurs, and it starts out "millions of years ago" and the indoctrination starts. They never proved that to you. They came up with the millions of years before radiodating, but radiodating is unreliable and they just ignore soft tissue as a dating method. They also ignore that there is (still) no Oort cloud, you just have to take that on faith. Much like the big bang, nothing exploding into everything, has to be taken on faith (despite we don't see even dispersal of matter--so they invented inflation, and red shift anomalies can't be explained in big bang, and then we have "goofy galaxies" spinning "backwards").

And you need to realize that what they teach in schools, the big bang, abiogensis, all life coming from one common ancestor; that's all taken on faith, but it's presented as hard science but none of it is observable, testable, or repeatable. So your faith-based beliefs don't invalidate mine. You can read Scripture and see something that God did and try to understand it in a naturalistic world view but it will never make sense because you're removing the miracle-working Almighty God from the equation who made it happen. It's like going to the mechanic to fix your car and wondering how it fixed itself.

>>22309745
>Time will exist even in the case of total nothingness. Its compatible with every metaphysical possibility.
Can you prove that? What is "nothingness" even?

Nothing is already nothing, it's literally no-thing, it's no thing. Nothing (no thing) is not something (some thing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPlTsWFYBIM

>>22309622
>starts post saying Christianity is bad because different beliefs used to get along and Christians should share
>ends post saying Christianity is untrue because it shares aesthetic ephemera from other beliefs
bit of a contradiction innit, almost like you will say anything as long as it objects to Christianity.

>>22309787
>bit of a contradiction innit
No. The contradiction is that Christianity hates the gods, while their god own is secretly one of the gods it hates.

Was Luther a predestinatarian?

I have heard a lot of people saying that, but the only arguments in favor of that thesis always depend on a form of the "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck" way of thinking

Can someone enlighten me on this subject?

>>22309781
>That's not ostracizing someone, that's warning them. Again, you're in the middle of the rail road tracks, a train is coming, and you don't want to hear someone warn you and you won't even turn behind and look for the train. You see an act of love as a reproach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaJgLBoB_Pw

>>22309781
There is no "the beginning". There are beginnings and endings of things and events but there are no ultimate cases of either.

>This thread's theme song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-W2abxX8Hk

>>22309657
>>says that the Earth is flat, and that the sun is orbiting around it
The term circle doesn't specify it's flat, but round. The term "sphere" isn't in the Bible, the translators wanted as direct a translation as possible and they italicized words they added so you'd know where any changes were made. I'm sure you could find some versions that change it to "sphere", but elsewhere it's translated as compass in the Bible.
>Isaiah 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
The Bible does talk about the earth floating or hanging on nothing.
>Job 26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing.
There's also no Hebrew for "universe" so Gen 1:1 says "heavens and earth" rather than "universe".

>>22309809
Christianity teaches God is Almighty, above all gods and lords and kings.
>Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God [is] God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:
>Psalms 95:3 For the LORD [is] a great God, and a great King above all gods.
>Psalms 136:2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.

>>22309823
What would you think of someone who believed you were going to perish but they didn't tell you anything about it? They believe you're going to perish and not inherit the Kingdom of God and they just say nothing to you about it ever. And what if they're right? What would you think about them? You'd have to think they were massive hypocrites or they just hated you (which would also be hypocritical). Your problem isn't intellectual or social, but moral. You don't like the morals God presents and the moral law God asks his creation to follow.

That video is silly, ignorant, and blasphemous. God sends people to hell because He is a judge and you've committed a crime against God. The problem you have is you still think you're good, but you're not, nobody is, not even me. If everyone got what they deserved, nobody would be saved. It's only by God's mercy, the mercy of the judge, that anyone can be saved, and it's only through repentance for the remission of sins and believing the gospel of Jesus Christ that you can be saved. It's a free gift from God, not an automatic gift from God. Forgiveness is conditional. If you walk up to someone and kick them in the shin, then ask them for forgiveness, but you continue kicking them in the shin; why would they forgive you? There isn't any remorse for the action and no desire to stop the action.

But here's a silly video to respond to yours:
https://youtu.be/TCSUKIhjevo

>>22309833
That's just your definition and beliefs. You define time as eternal but you can't prove it, you take that on faith in naturalism. I believe God is eternal and almighty on faith.

>>22309863

>>22309863
I cannot think of anything more degrading than existing to do this. Also
>I don't want to be sad
>therefore God
I say this all as a theist.

>>22309866
>you take that on faith in naturalism.

For the last fucking time, Celeetus, I'm not an atheist! And this is all just the result of rational thought. You may as well be arguing against your own existence, like I said earlier

You're not as smart as you think you are. Just stop embarassing yourself.

>>22309866
>Christianity teaches God is Almighty
The supreme God is almighty, but this almighty God is not the god whose chosen people was Israel, and accordingly not the god of Christianity. The true God of all men is not so small as Christians wish to make him.

>>22309874
>For the last fucking time, Celeetus, I'm not an atheist!
I said naturalism, you illiterate antiwhite racist piece of trash.

>And this is all just the result of rational thought. You may as well be arguing against your own existence, like I said earlier
It's a result of the definitions and paradigms you work in. You are a fool. You can't even account for logic.

>You're not as smart as you think you are. Just stop embarassing yourself.
All you can do is insult me because you don't or can't understand.

>>22309877
>The true God of all men is not so small as Christians wish to make him.
I am literally calling him Almighty and that He is Eternal and even has power over time (which you guys can't even comprehend apparently) and you claim I make him small.

>>22309896
>I am literally calling him Almighty
Yes, you are claiming the Almighty as special deity of your miserable little creed, who commanded the Israelites to slaughter children, and who will cast anyone who denies your miserable little creed into the Lake of Fire. This claim is false.

>>22309262
You really haven’t explained your issue with evolution well.

Individual has offspring > some offspring mutate a little > offspring with bad mutations die and offspring with good mutations live and reproduce more > thus every species changes over time, and sometimes splits when two groups’ mutations’ being good or bad is judged by a different environment.

>>22309781
>radiodating is unreliable
Uh huh, sure bro.

>>22309866
>What would you think of someone who believed you were going to perish but they didn't tell you anything about it? They believe you're going to perish and not inherit the Kingdom of God and they just say nothing to you about it ever. And what if they're right? What would you think about them? You'd have to think they were massive hypocrites or they just hated you (which would also be hypocritical)
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame you and I am also proceeding from my own worldview and care about you and don't want you to let your entire life revolve around a bunch of cavekike shitposts. Wouldn't you consider ANYONE, other than a nihilist, to be a hypocrite for not sharing their worldview with others?
>Your problem isn't intellectual or social, but moral. You don't like the morals God presents and the moral law God asks his creation to follow.
My problem is indeed intellectual. I believed this shit for 5 years, just like you do, and when I really started getting into apologetics I found that the Christians were getting smoked by counter-apologists and also that people like Bart Ehrman managed to make a lot more sense of the Bible than the best Christian minds could, not because they were le epic smart atheists, but specifically because they did not presuppose it to be true by necessity, when it plainly just isn't.
>That video is silly, ignorant, and blasphemous. God sends people to hell because He is a judge and you've committed a crime against God.
The point in posting the video is that everyone thinks you're a clown talking about an imaginary threat. I wasn't so much posting it for the first half of the video about God's justice. But I don't think there is much justice in sending people to hell when you are causing them to exist in the first place and sin is a necessary contingency of existence. That's like putting someone in a Saw trap and when they don't grievously harm themselves in order to escape, blaming them for their own death, instead of the guy who put them in the trap.
>The problem you have is you still think you're good, but you're not, nobody is, not even me.
I do not believe I'm good actually. But I no longer believe I deserve to suffer eternal agony or indeed that anybody does. I'll even give you millions of years, but not eternity. That's simply never going to be God's ultimate purpose for man. And, looking back, I really believe you have to gaslight yourself with theological stockholm syndrome to excuse this bullshit. The only reason Christians defend the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is because they believe they have escaped this fate themselves and are scared to say anything against what the Bible says.
>But here's a silly video to respond to yours:
I used to watch Ray Comfort witnessing all the time. I am well aware of his schtick and even used to follow his script to a T when I would evangelize others.

>>22309866
>God sends people to hell because He is a judge and you've committed a crime against God.
You are basically a Muslim or Pagan at this point.

>>22309904
God created everything, everything belongs to him. Do you not know that it grieves God in his heart that men chose to do evil? That it repented God that he even made man? You and I are only here because Noah found grace in the eyes of God.

How many children and infants and babies and pregnant women and and widows and fatherless children and mothers and fathers and sons and daughters and "generally good" people do you think died in the flood? Do you think there were any "good" people killed by the flood? And "good" according to who?

Genesis 6
>5. And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.
>6. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
>7. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
>8. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Can you even imagine living where every man's thought is only evil continually? Do you still think there were any good destroyed by the flood or will you just remain willfully ignorant of the global evidence of the flood? It's literally all over the earth, the geology rock layers were laid down in the flood, there isn't millions of years of erosion between them, there are polystrate tree fossils through multiple layers, there's coal in different layers that are supposedly millions of years apart, but they have the same radio dating results (but radio dating also has its problems and blind faith assumptions in a lot of its modern use). They adopted the millions of years before any science proved it. Charles Lyell claimed a lot of time could account for the rock layers, but they can't. Darwin based his theory on Lyell but its foundation was flawed and wrong and we don't see transitional fossils (maybe one or two that might maybe be something, but the rule is all fossils have missing links to whatever and show no signs of changing through the fossil record).

What is my "miserable little creed"? All I'm promoting is the truth. God and Jesus Christ risen from the tomb. Repentance for the remission of sins and the gospel of Jesus Christ which is the power of God unto salvation.

>>22309908
I don't have an issue because evolution has never been proven. All observational science supports the Bible.

>>22309922
They make assumptions on starting amounts of each element and that the rate of decay has been consistent throughout all time and the change in rate of decay has been consistent throughout all time. We shouldn't even find C14 with its low half life.

We've found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. They found the cities of the plains, covered with ash and unique brimstone (sulfur).

>>22309928
>cavekike shitposts
But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:29)

>>22309896
>I said naturalism, you illiterate antiwhite racist piece of trash.
Naturalism is a subset of atheism, Jamal. If you are a naturalist you are an atheist. And don't bring up retarded Aristotleanism.
It's a result of the definitions and paradigms you work in. You are a fool. You can't even account for logic.
And there it is. Presup. Unfortunately, as a Neoplatonist, I ultimately account for logic via God, just like you, so you are completely fucked here.
>All you can do is insult me because you don't or can't understand.
You're the one who cannot figure out that something which exists (abides) needs time to do it in or that all these words you are using, however mundane, presuppose time to make any sense.

>>22309944
Have you never read the parable of the wheat and the tares? or the sheep and goats? Who's dividing the sheep and goats?

God is the Judge of all the earth.
Genesis 18:25b ... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
Psalms 96:13 Before the LORD: for he cometh, for he cometh to judge the earth: he shall judge the world with righteousness, and the people with his truth.
Revelation 16:7 And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous [are] thy judgments.

we had the same fucking exact thread yesterday right down to the vile dinocaust denier insisting that geology isn't real because god can make rocks out of nothing

>>22309961
You're bearing false witness. Don't you know it's wrong to lie?

>>22309964
>it's wrong to lie
>you are a sinner for not worshiping my volcano demon
ok

>>22309965
Oh, it's you again. I thought you'd get some new material instead of just crying and posting the same childish remarks again. I guess some people can't grow and mature.

>>22309968
I guess not. We have people who believe Sloths lumbered accross 4000 miles of ocean to get on a man's giant boat.

>>22309947
>But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? (Luke 10:29)
What in the name of bloodshitting fuck does tnat have to do with anything?

>>22309947
>God created everything, everything belongs to him.
Yes. I don't contest this. My problem is with the claim that first the Hebrews, and now KJV Christians, are God's sole proprietors.
>Cites the flood to justify commanding the Israelites to murder children.
Please don't.
>Accuses me of denying the Flood.
No. This stems from the delusion that all opponents of Christianity are neckbeards.
>What is my "miserable little creed"?
That we all must worship Bacchus the Savior or perish. This cult should be a choice: you have turned it into a bondage.

>>22307092
There’s nothing to refute in baby’s first fantasy

>>22309968
>I guess some people can't grow and mature.
Agreed. You learned nothing yesterday... why it's as if the debate never happened. I am sure somebody here knows a familiar quote about this from an Austrian painter who was describing your cousins in the faith.

>>22309979
You know profanity is the strongest language of a weak mind. It's about you hating your neighbor, not loving your enemies, and not forgiving those who wrong you. That will get in the way of your walk with God. And you cannot serve two masters.

>The point in posting the video is that everyone thinks you're a clown
Why would I care what a sin-loving God-hating world that uses my savior's name as a curse word thinks about me? I know what this world thinks about me and I expect it and I know I'm blessed for it. But I'm not afraid of men or being mocked or ridiculed or scorned or even beaten and killed if it ever comes to it. But you're afraid of it, you're afraid of being mocked by mere mortal men. If you fear mere mockery, then you must fear men a lot.

Matthew 5:44-46 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

John 15
>18. If the world hate you, ye know that [it hated] me before it hated you.
>19. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
>20. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
>21. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

Matthew 5
>11. Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you,] and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
>12. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great [is] your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

John 8
>42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
>43. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
>44. 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.
>45. And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.
>46. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
>47. He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

>>22310009
You literally thought I'm some kind of rabid antisemite who wants to round up all the Jews and put them in gas chambers without wooden doors because I used the word "kike"? Are you fucking retarded?

>>22310009
>y-you're just afraid of being retarded
yeah that does sound like a bad end... always wear your helmet when riding a bike

>>22310014
You are LITERALLY bearing false witness against me right now. Repent, you racist liar.

>>22309980
>Yes. I don't contest this. My problem is with the claim that first the Hebrews, and now KJV Christians, are God's sole proprietors.
You're not even replying to anything I've said.

>Please don't.
You refused to follow the line of questions because you don't want to admit God's righteous even when he kills all of the earth save those on the ark.

>That we all must worship Bacchus the Savior or perish. This cult should be a choice: you have turned it into a bondage.
You from /x/ or something?

>>Accuses me of denying the Flood.
>No. This stems from the delusion that all opponents of Christianity are neckbeards.
Who are you quoting and what are you even ranting about? Why don't you read my post before replying, then reply to what I wrote. That's how discussion works. Kids these days...

>>22310019
Who are you quoting?

Why do you guys have all these imaginary voices in your heads? You can't even reply to what I write.

Antichrists are insane.

>>22310022
We're just hopping from one non-sequitur to the next at this point. I don't see any point of continuing this conversation. I've said what I wanted to say.

>>22310028
Well, you never said anything other than expressing your fear of being mocked.

Oh and some false doctrine from Rome, but you don't even read the Bible, you just want to spam threads that upset your fee-fees.

>>22310033
I'm not the guy you were discussing catholicism with. You've lost the plot.

>>22309928
>>22310039
You don't even realize it was false doctrine, because you don't read the Bible. You've hardened your heart against God and His Laws and seared your conscience.

>>22310026
>Who are you quoting?
>>22310009
>you're afraid of it, you're afraid of being mocked by mere mortal men. If you fear mere mockery, then you must fear men a lot.
You aren't brave for affirming some dogmatic world salad from a vintage capeshit IP, you aren't pious for not having fangs and claws, and you aren't better than anyone else because of your belief that people who disagree with you are evil.

>>22310052
I'm better than you because I don't misquote you like a dishonest liar.

And you do fear being mocked by men and why else would you fear mockery of men if you didn't fear men? If you feared no man and only God, you wouldn't care about being viewed as a "clown" to a world that hates God.

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

>>22310026
>You're not even replying to anything I've said.
Everything you've said boils down to Christians being God's chosen people. They aren't.
>You refused to follow the line of questions because you don't want to admit God's righteous even when he kills all of the earth save those on the ark.
I refused to answer because you are using "acts of God" to justify divine commands to commit murder. This is a dangerous line of thought. Christians always seem to justify murder very easily, when it suits them.
>You from /x/ or something?
No, and it would change nothing of I were.
>Who are you quoting and what are you even ranting about?
I had to paraphrase because full quotes would probably exceed the character limit.
>Kids these days
See your childish remark belittling me by comparison with /x/.

>>22310045
I've surveyed the Bible more thoroughly than you have, which is how I know it isn't self-consistent.

>>22310063
>dishonest liar
I don't have to take that from a capeshitter chandala. You've not uttered a single factual statement this whole thread.

>>22310063
>he thinks he's arguing with 1 person
Adorable

>>22310064
>Everything you've said boils down to Christians being God's chosen people. They aren't.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.(Isaiah 7:14)
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Who do you say are "God's chosen" and what "God" do you serve? How does your "God" disprove the Bible?

>I refused to answer because you are using "acts of God" to justify divine commands to commit murder. This is a dangerous line of thought. Christians always seem to justify murder very easily, when it suits them.
You still refuse to respond to me or anything I say, you are fighting these imaginary strawmen and boogeymen in your mind. You're so brainwashed, I don't know if I can fix it.

>No, and it would change nothing of I were.
Yeah, they're more open minded to learning than you, even if they disagree, they're more capable of learning than you.

>I had to paraphrase because full quotes would probably exceed the character limit.
Nowhere did I say or imply that. You should actually read the post BEFORE replying.

>See your childish remark belittling me by comparison with /x/.
I use /x/, what's wrong with /x/? You act like a child so I call you a child. Don't want to be called a child? Stop acting like one.

>>22310066
Substantiate your claims.

>>22310068
Stop lying. You're not even reading what I post before you start misrepresenting it all.

>>22310071
>can't follow a reply chain
Newfag.

>>22310077
>Stop lying
Your first. Who rose from the dead? Nobody. What's the next claim you got based off that one that's "never been refuted"?

>>22310077
>Substantiate your claims.

I've posted several contradictions already. You want another one? Sure, let's go nuts! I've got 9 of these infographics alone along with a multitude of contradictions I know of which these don't cover.

>>22310086
>>22310084
>he deleted his post
Now who is the dishonest one?

>>22310077
>Who do you say are "God's chosen" and what "God" do you serve?
I'm going to talk about that in this thread. Inviting such debates about truly higher things is a desecration.
>How does your "God" disprove the Bible?
I never said he did. If you want to do that, we can start going over the dozens of internal contradictions. Maybe other anons ITT can help with this.
>You still refuse to respond to me or anything I say.
OK, you tell me, in brief please, why you brought up the Flood when I alluded to the slaughter of the Amalekite children. My assumption was that you were trying to use the Flood to justify said slaughter. Is that incorrect?

>>22310098
Edit: I'm NOT going to talk about that.
No casting pearls before swine for me. Let's stick to arguing about Christianity.

>>22310086
As somebody who posts these images all the time, I feel bad for the guy who made it, partciularly in the case of this one. This obviously took so much effort and when you post it, Christcucks just knock over the board and shit on the table.

>>22307092
>KJV
You've never read the Bible in your life

>>22310105
The usual Catholic argument is that one of the geneologies must belong to Mary. Protestants seem reluctant to resort to this subterfuge, probably due to their general policy about Mary, so they would rather just ignore the whole affair.

>>22310118
As for the rest of the image, none of them are going to engage with that. Those contradictions alone are enough to wreck their whole worldview. They can't let that happen, because the don't know where to turn.

>>22310118
>they would rather just ignore the whole affair.
As is often the case with Protestants, where the infallible Word of God exists exclusively to support [political views i support] and everything else can be safely ignored.

This has genuinely never been refuted

>>22310136
"No!"

>>22310064
>Everything you've said boils down to Christians being God's chosen people. They aren't.
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.(Isaiah 7:14)
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Matthew 1:23)
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Who do you say are "God's chosen" and what "God" do you serve? How does your "God" disprove the Bible?

>>22310098
>I'm going to talk about that in this thread. Inviting such debates about truly higher things is a desecration.
Well, that's fitting, you've said absolutely nothing so far.

>>22310101
>I'm NOT going to talk about that.
You never talk about anything. Must be a woman. lol

>>22310089
I had an error in the post. Didn't expect all of you nuts to be waiting on the edge of your seats for my reply. I write a lot and I don't proof read much.

>>22310105
I feel bad for them because they're stupid. And you're stupid as well, that would take like five minutes, not "so much effort" lol.

And why is cuckoldry still always on your mind? Seek help or NGMI.

>>22310128
I honestly don't even read those info graphs. Takes too little effort to post one when you expect me to refute every last aspect of it, then you'd just post another and not actually read anything I say, it'd just be a waste of my time. The /his/ fedoras do the same thing, they've been reposting the same old refuted "memes" for years thinking it's some epic gotcha, same thing here.

>>22310136
That doesn't have real world evidence supporting the history in it, that doesn't even have history in it nor is it written as historical. You, like all antichrists, are incapable of understanding the most fundamental concepts of things. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

>>22307777
Go back to your jew friends on /pol/.

>>22310136
Based

>>22310143
>I write a lot and I don't proof read much.

>>22310143
>I honestly don't even read those info graphs.
I'll sum it up for you: the geneologies of Jesus contain errors according to each other, and according to the Old Testament. The basis of your whole religion is a lie.
>Well, that's fitting, you've said absolutely nothing so far.
My main contention in this thread has been that the God of the Jews, whom you worship, is not God Almighty, but Sabazios. This is hardly "nothing."

According to Manetho, Moses was a rogue priest of Osiris.
The Lord Sabaoth is Sabazios. (On this, see Plutarch.)
Adonai is Adoneus.
Jehovah is Iod Evohe, the cry of the Bacchantes.
Milk and honey are symbols of Bacchus.
The god of the vine has become the True Vine.
Bread is the body of Osiris.
Wine is the blood of Dionysus.
"Do this in remembrance of me."
Christ is Bacchus the Savior.
All these gods are one in the same.
Learn to follow the divine analogies, and realize that your religion is not what it seems.

>>22309947
>evolution has never been proven
It can be observed in many places, like moths turning black when their environment becomes darker.
>They make assumptions on starting amounts of each element and that the rate of decay has been consistent throughout all time and the change in rate of decay has been consistent throughout all time.
So, is your argument that before humans had microscopes, the half-lives were different, or what? There are principles that determine half-lives, and we can observe things decaying to see the rate’s consistency.

Just look at what evolution-denial (a form of paganism) does to you: >>22309957
He’s not actually thinking about what it means. His version of God is LITERALLY the “sky-daddy” insult atheists use, since he denies God’s transcendence.

John 15:1-2:
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, hee taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring foorth more fruit.”

>>22310116
What’s wrong with the KJV?

>>22310185
While I'm obviously not going to deny that most Mediterranean religions draw heavily from each other's traditions (often purposefully), the connection between Osiris and Bacchus seems to be just a bit of a reach here. I'm also not so certain that's the etymology of "Jehovah".

>>22310206
As Plutarch says, "It is better to identify Osiris with Dionysus (Bacchus)".

Have you ever witnessed the elation that takes hold people at Christian revivals? Have you seen them prophesy and speak with the tongues of angels? They are told this is the Holy Spirit, when in truth it is the spirit that possessed the Maenads. There is a powerful magic here, but it is a mistake to think this is the only path to salvation. If Christians would stop insisting on this, our problem with Christianity would cease to exist.

>>22310205
The KJV is arguably the single most important work in Western literature, but it's also a terrible way to read the Bible if you're trying to actually gain religious knowledge or enlightenment from it. It's not only an extremely old and possibly incomplete (depending on your stance on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the various extracanonical books) translation, but one deliberately written with the intent of prioritizing linguistic beauty over accuracy. Style over substance, essentially. It IS important, but to cite it as your primary source in discussion of Christian morality/ideology is laughable and almost exclusively the act of someone who wants to use the Bible as a political cudgel.

>>22310229
The 1611 is more accurate than the revisions, which worded certain parts strangely and inaccurately.

>>22310086
>>22310105
Augustine explains this in detail but brainlets with no context want to treat it like a face-value historical account when that's never what the Gospel authors (or even any biblical author) wanted or intended the bible to be.
>https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vi.v.v.html
tl;dr it's a literary device about Jesus as the totality of Israelite lineage and his conquering of sin.

>>22310336
Good old Augustine. I just read the other day how he defended the suicide of St. Apollonia. The man seems to have been capable of any sort of distortion to defend the Catholic establishment. Quite an irritating and boring fellow.

>>22307092
Arguing with retards that actually believe that the things written in the Bible are true is a big waste of time. The Bible has been refuted countless time and in the past people have been killed for it. At this point in history it’s so evident that the Pope himself said that the Bible is basically a metaphor, but still there are people that deny even the most basic science in order to protect their beliefs. My question at this point is, why do you even bother arguing with these retards ? They cannot be convinced because they don’t want to, and their religion is dying anyway, so just ignore them

>>22307092
the bible specifically refutes itself. it is god that hasn't been refuted and that is by its nature you can't prove or disprove it

Can someone explain to me where all these insane Christians came from? I remember lit being a communist hug box back in the day, now it's full of most likely bloated trendy trad types larping as preachers

>>22310673

the tradlarpers want to appear cultured so they come here

This has never been refuted

>>22310673
believing in Christianity for culture war purposes is the final form of jeering fedora atheism

>>22310143
Okay... This has genuinely never been refuted.

>>22307092
Only countless times. But thankfully NDEs are real and prove that there is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And as one NDE researcher said that he does not know anyone who has read the literature on NDEs who has not been convinced by it.

And NDEs are more real than this world, in every way. For instance, NDErs report expanded intelligence. One NDEr said that the greatest supergenius who ever lived, with the help of the greatest supercomputer of all time, would be immeasurably dwarfed by the intelligence she had access to while in the light, so much so that it would be closer and fairer to compare the intelligence of Einstein to that of an ant. Literally and seriously. And as another NDEr described their cognition during their life review:

>"I looked up, and saw four translucent screens begin to appear - and form a kind of gigantic, cubed box all around me. It was through this method that I was shown my life review. Without ever having to turn my head, I panoramically saw my past, present, future - and there was even a screen behind me that displayed a tremendous amount of scientific data, numbers, symbols and universal codes. I was in complete amazement because (as all of this was occurring) I realized I understood absolutely everything I was seeing - even in the most microscopic detail! There seemed to be no limit to the thoughts I was able to think or the ideas I was able to absorb. In this space, what we tend to think of as a limited comprehension or single-mindedness here on Earth, becomes truly infinite and limitless here! I kept thinking over and over how true it is what they say: that when we go back home - we all really are of one mind!"

From here: https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

Another way NDEs are more real is how one NDEr said that he saw more than 80 new primary colors in the NDE world, compared to the 3 primary colors we have here.

From here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So heaven is undeniably real, and this argument has literally never been refuted and is airtight. I.e., literal proof of the divine, unlike the Bible.

>>22308967
You don't even know how badly filtered you really are

>>22308948
This post is confusing Christians with Catholicism.

>>22309375
>Jesus appearing in Jerusalem in one gospel and Galilee in another.
How is this a contradiction since Jesus did both?
>Aziah being two completely different ages when he began to rule
He began to rule in the northern kingdom at one age and in Jerusalem (the southern kingdom) at another time.
>The deaths of Judas is one of the weakest contradictions
You mean death, not deaths plural. It's not a contradiction to say that Judas hanged himself, and then his body fell from the tree, with his bowels bursting out when he hit the ground.

None of these are contradictions. So it seems like there's no problem here.

>>22310066
And yet you have nothing, anon. Not a single concrete example to support your statement.

>>22307092
>retarded beliefs die without censorship from stronger beliefs (ie. war)
People believing in what basically amounts to magical thinking is more powerful than reason. Why is this a surprise? We live in an era of transition where you can see the return of spirituality, "headcanons," and other beliefs just-because. Most of the time this is directed at fictional universes, so it might not have been noticeable right away.

>>22310185
>I'll sum it up for you: the geneologies of Jesus contain errors according to each other
Matthew is giving the line of descent for Joseph while Luke is giving the line of descent for Mary, with Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli.

>>22310229
>one deliberately written with the intent of prioritizing linguistic beauty over accuracy.
It was written "to be read in churches," and it is very accurate to the base text. That's why nobody had a problem with it for quite a long time, until scholars started messing with the base text in the late 19th century. That's where a lot of the problems of modern society started, as people started abandoning the Bible when they were given fake versions of it, and many didn't simply take the time to realize it had been corrupted by postmodern scholars who, whether deliberately or out of incompetence, used bad sources - and that the KJV is actually in fact accurate and is in fact based on the true received text.

>>22310635
>At this point in history it’s so evident that the Pope himself said that the Bible is basically a metaphor
Catholicism was never Christianity, and I think most people get this already.

>>22312637
>Matthew is giving the line of descent for Joseph while Luke is giving the line of descent for Mary, with Joseph being the son-in-law of Heli.
So some say who aren't satisfied with Augustine's nonsense. Yet that isn't what the texts themselves say. It also hardly accounts for the inconsistencies with the Old Testament geneologies.

>>22313235
>It also hardly accounts for the inconsistencies with the Old Testament geneologies.
Like what? The fact that Matthew 1 doesn't mention Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah but has a gap? That's not inconsistent with the Old Testament either. Compare for example Deuteronomy 11:6 with Numbers 26:5-9.

>>22313246
The first one that caught my eye was Arphaxad. According to Luke, he begat Cainan, and Cainan begat Shelah; whereas First Chronicles says that Arphaxad begat Shelah himself.

>>22313262
That's explained by Cainan being the son-in-law of Arphaxad. It's similar to how Joseph is son-in-law to Heli in the same passage.

>>22313275
OK, I'm looking at the texts now.
1 Chron 1:18 says, "Arpach′shad was the father of Shelah; and Shelah was the father of Eber."
Luke 3:35-6 says, "The son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Ca-i′nan, the son of Arphax′ad."
I'm really not seeing how you get that out of this. Luke has Arphaxad as the grandfather of Shelah, not the father-in-law. It is obviously presenting a line of descent, and not whatever you're trying to read into it.

>>22313313
If you compare Luke 3 to Matthew 1, you see that Joseph's line of descent stems from David through his son Solomon, through the royal line all the way to Joseph. The inheritance of the kingship falls to the firstborn of Joseph's wife according to Deuteronomy 25:5-6.

Meanwhile, Luke chapter 3 gives the descent of Mary, which is through David's son Nathan. This genealogy is somewhat different in structure from Matthew 1, because it goes in reverse order and lists who was the son of whom, instead of who begat whom. This enables Luke to list Joseph, who was the son-in-law of Heli, as according to the Biblical account his biological father was Jacob according to Matthew 1:16. At the same time, we see that Arphaxad would have had Cainan as a son-in-law, and his daughter's child could be said to be begotten by him, in the same way as other geneologies in the Old Testament list grandsons or great-grandsons as being begotten. See Ezra 8:18 for example (comp. 1 Chron. 6:47) or Deuteronomy 11:6 (comp. Numbers 26:5-9) for other examples of this same thing.

>It is obviously presenting a line of descent, and not whatever you're trying to read into it.
Matthew chapter 1 and Luke chapter 3 both give lines of descent, however one is talking about who begat whom, while Luke is talking about who was the son of whom. These are both lines of descent. Details can often be important and should not be overlooked. The person who seems to be reading inconsistencies into things is this poster >>22313235 here, who initially asserted that there were inconsistencies when there actually aren't. That was just that poster coming on here and reading things into the Bible, and we've now shown there is no real basis for the idea he presents, either that Scripture contradicts itself, or that the New Testament contradicts the Old Testament.

>>22313340
You've got me wondering now. Hypothetically, if I could prove to you that Scripture does contradict Scripture, would it cause you to "lose the Faith," as they say?

>>22310418
>the Catholic establishment.
Are you admitting that Catholics are the first branch of Christianity?

Also Apollonia's situation is literally
>citing Samson's murder-suicide of the Philistines to show that differences in God's will still have to be weighed even during impending death
>not allowing her rape before death = not allowing extra sin to enter the world

>>22313389
>You've got me wondering now. Hypothetically, if I could prove to you that Scripture does contradict Scripture, would it cause you to "lose the Faith," as they say?
That's of the same class of hypotheticals as an atheist asking us to answer questions under the assumption his claims are true, just for the sake of argument. Or of saying what if we should assume 2 and 2 is 5 for the sake of argument, and asking what else would follow from that. Nothing follows because everything else can only exist because of God, so there's really no point in talking about anything else.

Anyway, you can try to find contradictions, but there's an explanation for them. Even if by some chance you find something I've never heard of before and I can't explain, there will still be an explanation for it. I have faith in that.

>>22313411
Atheists approach the Bible like a frickin' chess game they want to "win"; it's absurd even on just a literary level.

>>22313394
>Are you admitting that Catholics are the first branch of Christianity?
Not exactly. Keep in mind here that I am not KJV-anon, whom we seem to have frightened off for the moment, but rather a former Traditional Catholic. In my opinion, Catholicism is the oldest EXTANT branch of Christianity. They stamped out the (possibly older) competition after Constantine.
>not allowing her rape before death = not allowing extra sin to enter the world
The problem with this is that Catholicism teaches that suicide is intrinsically evil and non-negotiable. Surely you know this. That said, the story is probably a myth anyway. The Christian persecutions are a seething mass of lies worse than the Holocaust.

>>22313411
I'm just trying to figure out if you hold the to the old doctrine that errors cannot exist in the Bible, as taught by Leo XIII and his successors, or if you would simply abandon the position if I were able to pin you down.
>>22313413
I am not an atheist. And I really don't want to win that badly, because I might turn my Christian opponents into atheists if I did. We're just having a discussion here.

>>22312582
Because the accounts in Matthew and Mark clearly indicate he went up to heaven immediately after speaking with the 11 and didn't go anywhere else. Aziah ruled 3 years total, 3+8 is 11, not 18, sorry chief.

>>22312600
I've posted several

>>22313420
>oldest EXTANT branch of Christianity
To be fair the common non-Christian tactic is to claim that the Orthodox and Catholic Churches didn't exist until they split from each other and that neither of them are "the original"; so at least you didn't fall for that trap.
>suicide is intrinsically evil and non-negotiable
An educated tradcath should understand the 3 criteria which are needed for something to be a mortal sin; if you got that you'd get it in the context of Apollonia.
>The Christian persecutions are a seething mass of lies worse than the Holocaust.
Why would Tacitus lie about them happening then?

>>22313435
>Because the accounts in Matthew and Mark clearly indicate he went up to heaven immediately after speaking with the 11 and didn't go anywhere else.
And the appearance in Galilee was before the Ascension. So again, what's the contradiction? They went to Galilee when they were told to and Jesus appeared to them there, then they went back to Jerusalem and Jesus appeared to the eleven once again. I'm not seeing where the contradiction is.

>Aziah ruled 3 years total, 3+8 is 11, not 18, sorry chief.
Ahaziah ruled for 1 year in Jerusalem according to Kings and Chronicles. The only king of Judah that is said to reign for 3 years is Abijah, not Ahaziah.

There is another Ahaziah, son of Ahab, who reigned in the northern kingdom for 2 years, but again, this doesn't match your number of 3 years either. So I actually have no idea who or what you're talking about here. Can you post the chapter and verse that mentions the king you are talking about?

>>22313455
You really have to stretch the content to shoehorn an entirely different appearance in Jerusalem. He gives them the great commission and then immediately ascends into heaven. No 40 days indicated

>>22313450
>An educated tradcath should understand the 3 criteria, etc.
Not really the sort of standard we usually hold saints to, but OK.
>Why would Tacitus lie about them happening then?
Oh, I didn't say there were no persecutions. I said that they have been heroically exaggerated and embellished. The result is the is the persecution complex imbedded in the Christian identity. Meanwhile, the real persecution was the suppression of paganism, which seems absurd in the face of the teaching that faith cannot be forced. What else is it but force, if you give the people no choice besides your god and atheism?

This has genuinely never been refuted.

The entire western thought, the advances of knowledge, political developments the study of history and insight in human psyche, like abrahamic tales, die without censorship.

>>22313464
Here is one way to explain relevant part of the Gospel timeline.

11) Jesus appears to the travelers on the Path to Emmaus
Mark 16:12-13, & Luke 24:13-32
12) The travelers return to Jerusalem and find the Eleven
Luke 24:33-35
13) Jesus appears to the apostles at evening assembly
Luke 24:36-43, & John 20:19-23

14) Jesus appears to the Eleven again after eight days
Mark 16:14-18, & John 20:24-29

15) The Eleven go to Galilee
Matthew 28:16
16) The Great Commission
Matthew 28:17-20

17) The Ascension
Mark 16:19, Luke 24:44-51, & Acts 1:4-11
18) Epilogue
Mark 16:20, & Luke 24:52-53

>>22313470
>a seething mass of lies
>Oh, I didn't say there were no persecutions.
It's not entirely relevant to the rest of the discussion but that's goalpost moving hard.

To play devil's advocate Apollonia is one of the weaker arguments against the early saints. You could bring up canonized saints like Ann and Joachim only existing in apocrypha and Veronica being a combination of a random association of an unnamed gospel episode, apocrypha, and a medieval legend that just straight up doesn't exist before the Middle Ages despite being on the modern Stations of the Cross.

>>22307092
>This has genuinely never been refuted.
Mark 13:30:
>Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

>>22313543
That's talking about the generation of God's people though.

"A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this."
- Psalm 22:30-31

>>22313537
>that's goalpost moving hard.
No, you just misunderstood me. To use the Holocaust comparison again, Holocaust-deniers don't deny that the Jews were persecuted or killed: what they deny is that there was a policy of total Hebrew annihilation. In the same way, there is no contemporary evidence that Romans sought to exterminate the Christians on the scale later feigned by Christian authors. Naturally, they didn't like the Christians, because the Christians were bent destroying the Roman peace with the gods and reducing us to our present state of debasement.... But that doesn't mean that Diocletian's masturbation machines ever really existed.

>>22313560
>That's talking about the generation of God's people though.
What? The generation (if you want to call it the generation of God's people or whatever) Jesus was talking to and about passed away. The apocalypse never came. Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

>>22313581
Anon, in John 1:12-13 it says:

"But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

This is referring to those who are saved, also known as being born again (see: John 3:3-7, 1 John 5:1). This is God's people, and they are still around today, not just in Biblical times.
Like it says in 1 Peter,

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
- 1 Peter 2:9-10

Hopefully that makes sense because that's what is going on with this prophecy.

>Atheism/naturalism/evolutionism, like leftism, dies without censorship.
and yet...when people have more access to information than ever before in human history, pic related is the result.

>>22313603
This apologetic is retarded. Do you know what generation means? The Greek word is very clear. Matthew even uses the same word in his genealogy to mark descent. Jesus is literally speaking about everyone who is alive at the time he spoke. But they are all dead and the apocalypse has never come as he promised.

>>22313478
You can't have him be seen in Jerusalem first because he instructs the apostles to remain in Jerusalem until the day of pentecost. Try again. Oh wait, you can't.

>>22313560
I thought it was talking about the transfiguration... no wait, the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, no wait, the ascension. :^)

The holy jewble
Story of a guy named jewsus and his exciting adventures
Get your own copy now starting at 69.99

>>22313605
The average person is dumber than ever tbqh; disaffiliation is just because technological individual has made people apathetic to religion like they are to almost everything.

>>22307092

This has genuinely never been refuted.

Fundamentally if you post on 4chan you don't have a soul, so trying to be a Christian is just larping. Like putting a little tie on a dog and saying he's a businessman.

>>22314010
t. lost his job to pic related

>>22313616
>Do you know what generation means? The Greek word is very clear.
Yes, see 1 Peter 2:9. In that verse it's referring to the church, essentially.

>>22313629
You are right about that, Jesus tells them to remain in Jerusalem in Luke 24:49, which is in point 17) above.

>>22315486
>Yes, see 1 Peter 2:9. In that verse it's referring to the church, essentially.
What? 1 Peter 2:9 has a completely different word. Again this is bizarre cope.Jesus was talking about his generation, not a genos.

>>22315556
>What? 1 Peter 2:9 has a completely different word.
Nope, it's not completely different. γενεά is feminine derivation from γένος.

>Again this is bizarre cope.
That is not a proper English sentence either. You should say either "This is a bizarre cope," or "This cope is bizarre." Saying "This is bizarre cope" is improper English as well.

>>22315631
>Nope, it's not completely different. γενεά is feminine derivation from γένος.
Yes, two different words. "Genus" and "generation". Thank you for agreeing with me.. Trying to interpret "generation" as "genus" just because they're similarly derived is indeed bizarre cope. Jesus thought the apocalypse would happen before his generation died. That is the plain meaning of his words.

>>22315707
Anon, I don't think you're being quite fair here. Have you considered the possibility that the first Christians had their own little Second Coming, and that all those who came afterward have been either deceivers or deceived? Think outside the box, and don't go back and forth like this with these people. They thrive on it.

>>22315631
>>22315707
If you think γενεά (generation) and γένος (genus) are the same word because one is derived from the other, then when in the genealogy of Jesus Matthew 1:17 says
>So all the generations [γενεαὶ] from Abraham to David are fourteen generations
He really means
>So all the [multi-generational] races from Abraham to David are fourteen [multi-generational] races
Which is completely nonsensical. Unless you want to completely ad hoc cope even more and say generation only means a different word when you want it to because it's to embarrassing otherwise.

>>22313676

>>22307092
>This has genuinely never been refuted.


Yes; only the Demiourgos' orders & directions were later refused.

>atheism is the denial of the belief of god
>to deny is to say that the idea is not real
>to deny an abstract idea requires you to believe its real
>atheists need to believe god is real to deny his existence
checkmate

>>22307092
There's nothing in it!

>>22315988
QUADS

>>22315988
>>22315999
>>22316009
all me lotto numbers

>>22315707
>Jesus thought the apocalypse would happen before his generation died.
Then it would say "my generation." If so then I would agree with you it would be contradictory. That's not what it says, however.

>>22315750
>If you think γενεά (generation) and γένος (genus) are the same word
Obviously the connection is that "this generation" is a subset of the entire thing, which is exactly the relationship that exists between these two words. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/γενεά . So you see I've transposed now into the other main explanation for this prophecy, because I believe they are both concurrently true. The antecedent for this generation in Matthew 24:34 comes from Matthew 24:33. Similar language to 1 Thess. 4:17 if one wants to make a comparison. I thought you would have known all this, anon.

>>22315736
>Have you considered the possibility that the first Christians had their own little Second Coming,
That's not possible according to the biblical account - consider for example 1 Cor. 15:23, Hebrews 11:40 and Rev. 20:4-6. And it's explicitly denied by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 (semi-explicitly denied again in 2 Thess. 2:2 as well). It's part of the same reason Preterism isn't biblical.

"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
- 2 Tim. 2:16-18

>>22316022
>That's not possible according to the biblical account
My idea assumed a certain mendacity on the part of the compilers of the New Testament. You assume they were infallible, while I assume they were not. No number of Bible verses can rule out my hypothesis.

>>22316022
>Then it would say "my generation." If so then I would agree with you it would be contradictory. That's not what it says, however.
What?
If I say "this generation loves sci fi" it's pretty obvious that I'm talking about the current, existing generation. Are you being retarded on purpose?
>Obviously the connection is that "this generation" is a subset of the entire thing, which is exactly the relationship that exists between these two words.
What does this gobbledygook mean?
You are trying to claim "generation" means a different word. I asked you how you can possibly sustain that reading without resorting to ridiculous ad-hocs. Apparently you can't answer my simple point.
> So you see I've transposed now into the other main explanation for this prophecy, because I believe they are both concurrently true.
What?
>The antecedent for this generation in Matthew 24:34 comes from Matthew 24:33.
What are you talking about? What language in any of these has to do with "generation" meaning "genus"?

>>22316074
>If I say "this generation loves sci fi" it's pretty obvious that I'm talking about the current, existing generation.
If you remove Matthew 24:34 from its context, perhaps that would be the only thing you can default to. It's similar to how if you remove Matthew 16:18 from its context and look at it in isolation, a person can imagine there is no antecedent in the previous verses for the term "this rock." In reality, the antecedent in Matthew chapter 16 verses 17-18 is from verse 16, the confession of Peter.

It seems to me you are confused because you are straw-manning me. I never said those words were identical, only that they are related in a specific way. If you'd like though, you may keep arguing with it from now on, as I've gotten my point across to the rest of us already.

>You are trying to claim "generation" means a different word.
Nope, you (or someone else) is saying that's what I'm claiming based on a misunderstanding, either based on intentionally misunderstanding it or just plain ignorance. The discussion has already moved to its conclusion without you.

>>22316098
>If you remove Matthew 24:34 from its context, perhaps that would be the only thing you can default to.
So you have no response to the plain meaning of Jesus' words, indeed agreeing with me about the plain meaning now, instead making a vague appeal to "context" when you didn't even attempt to explain what "context" allows you to read it differently to the plain meaning.
>I never said those words were identical, only that they are related in a specific way
What even is your point then? Lots of words are related. The question is why you have any justification for pointing to one word to reinterpret the plain meaning of a different word. Apparently you have no justification except "the plain meaning of Jesus' words are false, so I'm going to make up what they *really* must mean".

>>22316192
>So you have no response to the plain meaning of Jesus' words
No, it's you who don't have a response to the plain meaning of Jesus' words: You have nothing to say to Matthew 24:33.
>instead making a vague appeal to "context"
Yes, read the previous verse. Read the previous post as well if you don't understand that. >>22316022 >>22316074
>when you didn't even attempt to explain what "context"
I did mention the explanation here, just read Matthew 24:33; it is obvious. But since the poster I was responding to earlier only wanted to imagine up contradictions to the obvious meaning of the Bible - it can be explained by telling them to read it for just a minute - and take verses out of context by looking at them in isolation (by the way, a malicious person can do that to anyone's words) in order to imagine up contradictions, then they will do it and ignore the real meaning which is obvious. And it's so obvious here, I don't even have to explain it. And I'm sure that if someone did spell out the obvious connection to verse 33, that anyone can see, which is the context in which the sentence in verse 34 exists (and similar in intent to 1 Thess. 4:17 as already pointed out, but so far ignored), you or the other poster would then pretend that it's complicated merely because they did you the unwarranted favor of spoonfeeding you something that's obvious and spelling out the obvious for you. I've seen this runaround before. You and the other poster just want to say there's a contradiction, so you take things out of context by looking at them in isolation. The other poster doesn't care about the real context of anything, they literally only care about trying to create a false idea that they can portray as a contradiction, "wresting the scriptures" in other words as Peter puts it in 2 Peter 3:16.

>"the plain meaning of Jesus' words are false, so I'm going to make up what they *really* must mean".
Nope, in this case I didn't even need to explain it, in this case because it's so obvious how Matthew 24:33 explains verse 34, I'm not adding anything. If I did explain it though, I'm sure you or the other person would start to complain about this exact very thing, I'm sure of it. You wouldn't care about any effort to provide any kind of explanatory benefit to you. Even now, you're hallucinating that I did this, and then complaining about it before it's even happened. Anyways, if the whole point of this conversation from now on is just going to be me dealing with people who are clearly arguing in bad faith, who want nothing other than argument and confrontation and aren't even interested in ascertaining or finding out the truth, not wanting to see the obvious, and if there continues not to be any kind of intellectual honesty, but simply anti-Christian bias combined with radical skepticism (which for some reason, you guys never turn on yourselves) and sheer ungratefulness for the effort made to add context to things then I may not say anything further.

>>22315988
There's nothing in it.
I read the old testament. No word is transformative enough to change. This is the grand old knowledge of the descendants of people. I could never seize Jesus by myself as I tried to have. Nor could I had. When I was home and the medical doctors came, I refused to type the angel number fearing God to be evil and wrong. I am so ashamed of myself that I didn't even want to live, even during a stroke.

>>22307231
If you came into my practice saying this, you'd be getting Haldol and rightfully institutionalized.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

>>22308966
Meme forgot the Martin Loother quote about cum either goes into the shirt or a woman. Deprived onanist and fornicator. Lose all respect for anyone who doesn't see anything wrong with sex or masturbation. I like how the early church fathers even condemned martial sex.