If Jesus is the Messiah, why didn't he fulfill the Messianic prophecies?He wasn't born from the bloodline of David, Joseph is not his biological father. Mary is not from the line of David.He didn't bring about world peace, he created more wars.He only fulfilled fake prophecies, like being born from a virgin, not found in the original Hebrew, only some unknown Greek translation of the Old Testament.
All posts that have that photo can be immediately dismissed as not worth engaging.
>>16520094He was ressurected. Who else can be ressurected but someone chosen by God?To your point>bloodlinehttps://jewsforjesus.org/messianic-prophecies/the-messiah-would-be-a-descendant-of-davidIn none of the verses does it mention "bloodline", just that he is a branch from David. Give a verse which indicates bloodline.>world peaceSecond coming. And, things were more peaceful when the church was in power. All world wars were secular. Communism: athiest. World war II: atheist Mussolini.>Fake"Therefore the Lord Yahweh himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin will conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel"http://dssenglishbible.com/scroll1QIsaa.htmFrom Dead sea scroll translation
>>165201030 shekels, decades of preaching, cunt in shambles, more worship is recommended so you can have the privilege of being reborn a black child Who starves
>>16520105>He was ressurectedThat's a myth, never happened. No proof, just lies.>Bloodline2 Samuel 7:12-1612 When your days are finished and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your DESCENDANT after you, who will come from you, and I will establish his kingdom.>second coming2,000 more years, trust the plan! HahahahahaHitler and the Nazis were Christians.>FakeNice shit english translation you got there.Let's check the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls.Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah 7:14לכן יתן יהוה הוא לכם אות הנה העלמה הרה וילדת בן וקרא שמו עמנואל>העלמהalmah = young woman, not virginYou lose. Your Messiah is a fraud and you are an idiot.
>>16520151>DESCENDANTwhat is the original text and does descendant mean bloodline?> trust the plan! Yes.>Dead sea scrollshttps://www.ancient-hebrew.org/dss/great-isaiah-scroll-and-the-masoretic-text.htmSo the MT and DSS are the same, for the relavent parts, in this passage. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htmIn the book of psalms it uses concubines, then it says almah.Virgin being contrasted with concubine makes sense.Regarding the greek, I am sure youre talking about the Septuigant. Jewish scribes translated it.https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdfIf they translated it as virgin, then more likely than not, tradition interpreted it as virgin.I think of it like the Rosetta stone. Many ways we know the hebrew meaning is from the greek translation.
>>16520165Imagine fighting this hard for your fairy tales.Descendant means descending from the royal bloodline of King David.>trust the planYou will never see Jesus return. You'll die off like every boomer christcuck retard before you.>Dead Sea ScrollsWhat is this wall of cope you are posting?The DSS say "almah" which means young woman. "Betulah" means virgin. There is no virgin birth prophecy.We don't know who translated the Septuagint. The story is that Jewish scribes translated only the Torah, the 5 books of Moses. But Isaiah isn't part of the Torah. So who translated it? Unknown translators. We don't even have a copy of the manuscript to check. The earliest manuscript of a Greek Old Testament is from 300 CE.You're just a moron who doesn't know anything.
>>16520182I actually looked up the verse myself. Ironically, you showed a weaker version of what exists. Cant tell if youre LARPing now.Anyways the original text from Samuel:https://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/10-2reigns-nets.pdfhttps://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_samuel/7-12.htm"And it will be if your days are fulfilled andyou lie down with your fathers, that I will raise upyour offspring after you who shall be from yourbelly, and I will prepare his kingdom; "This is actually more damning. You shouldve used this first.>The DSS say "almah" which means young woman. "Betulah" means virgin. There is no virgin birth prophecy.There may be two words which mean the same thing depending on the context."of the father""from the father".of and from are not the same, but are the same in the context.> We don't even have a copy of the manuscript to checkUsing foreinsic science most scholars date the LXX to 200 years prior the time.The story goes that the LXX was conceived during the rule of the greeks.>we dont know who..educated jews... so probably jewish scribes.Scrolls were hard to make, and a person who translated the whole scroll was probbably well educated and probably a rabbi.
>>16520182>>16520224Also you can read the pdf website which says "greek profile". Tells you the personality of who wrote it.Many translators were pedantic and autistic. Took literal interpretations. Indicative of people who wished to preserve the original meaning...
>>16520103they're the only ones with real information
#NotMyMessiah
>>16520105>Second coming.Elaborate?>All world wars were secular. Communism: atheist. World War II: atheist Mussolini.What? Mussolini was an atheist? Source? And what about all the wars between Catholics and Protestants, plus violent Christian extremists?
>>16522379>And what about all the wars between Catholics and Protestants, plus violent Christian extremists? Less than 5% of actual wars."Thus, only 6.9 percent of the wars they considered are classified as religious wars"Most of the 6.9 is Islam.https://apholt.com/2023/01/03/the-myth-of-religion-as-the-cause-of-most-wars/Also Catholics and Protestants are both apostates.>Mussolinihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini#Religious_views
>>16520094>why didn't he fulfill the Messianic prophecies?He did and you're just a shithead in denial about it. Have fun in hell, child of the devil.
>>16522508What religion are you of? And what do you mean by that world peace will only be established in the second coming of Jesus?
>>16523408Eastern Orthodox Catecumen, >And what do you mean by that world peace will only be established in the second coming of Jesus?The world will never be fully at peace until the second coming. Before the second coming, the church fathers describe an antichrist decieving many. So there will be a time of problems and war. Indeed, the persecutions will be like no other. Even worse than when early christians were persecuted. Even worse than the persecution under the bolshevicks.
>>16523462What the antichrist sounds like to me is someone putting blame on someone for the reason they were being persecuted. This continues to apply into the future because you just shift the title of antichrist onto those you don't like whether or not it was warranted. Look at the apocalypse of John, this most definitely was written about Nero by apocalyptic Jews. Look up gematria and how the number of the beast spells out Nero's name. You even get different translations saying the number of the beast is 666 or 616 which both sum up to his name. On top of this you even have the myths that Nero didn't die and he would be coming back.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus_legend
>>16523521A lot of orthodox peers say this to me-typically left of the isle and are laymen.But antichrists are many.I found this list of videos on the subject recentlyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K0Wcold5UMThe interpretation of Revelation by the church fathers is that the antichrist will rule jerusalem, he is to come, and will build a 3rd temple. You find this ideas from the catholics also.Church fathers being people prior to the council of Nicea. To, maybe, 100AD to 325AD>this most definitely was written about Nero by apocalyptic JewsRegarding hermueneutics I would recommend "death of the author"You have to read in the text and out of the text. You can interpret the antichrist as Nero in some ways, but in something to come in others.In the gospels Jesus says "the temple will be destroyed". This has two meanings: the 2nd temple destruction and his own death. Revelation, being dense, has room for this. The mark of the beast is apart from the description of the antichrist. But they are related. Regarding myths of Nero:Reading the article, it is historically described what Christians believed. But many "Christians" believed in gnosticism, Judaizing Christianity, etc. These mean nothing, because many people at the time got radically different ideas from the 'same' source. The church fathers and the saints writings are of more interest and more importance. The saints in particular, as Tertullian and Origen are church fathers, but not saints. Their ideas were anathamaed in councils.
>>16520094>septuagint was unknown
>>16523579>You have to read in the text and out of the textThis sounds like an interpretation nightmare. Maybe the text says exactly what they want to say and nothing more. How do you know your own views are grounded? Down below in your post you threw other Christians under the bus because they believed in a myth. How do you know you don't believe in one? Those people who are deemed heretics now weren't before they were. You mentioned Origen who is foundational in the orthodoxy of Christianity yet even he found himself on the chopping block some 150 years after his death.
>>16523622>This sounds like an interpretation nightmare.The orthodox theology generally get their interpretations from tradition and scripture. Some textbooks on the faith say that all traditions were essentially written down by the church fathers by the 4th century AD.In debates, the orthodox use the church fathers, early church praxis, and scripture to typically settle matters.The Orthodox faith is generally consistent (historically). That is to say, it seems to function exactly how it did in the early days, and its teachings are relatively stable.I would say it would be an interpretation nightmare... prior to the 4th century AD. Prior, however, the church was the closest to the apostles and source. The holy spirit was filled in all of them and their zeal was known for their ability to withstand persecution.I will say, though, even today it is easy to interpret. All infallible Orthodox dogma are in ecumenical councils. Where all patriarchs gather, along with hundreds of bishops and priests, to decide dogma for the church. You can see the first 7 for examples. With such a large gathering of people, many pious, the Holy spirit will be present and assent these men to the truth- in a way as the apostles did in writing the scripture.Jay Dyer and Kyle, on youtube, have good videos on why Orthodoxy is the better denomination. I am currently writing a paper on why sola fide is invalid. I can say assuredly protestants are incorrect because their doctrine of justification is inconsistent with their catechisms and scripture. The Orthodox have better suppositions to deal with this. The Catholic, in particular, seem to have a mathematically, more consistent doctrine on justification by faith or works than the protestants. Luther said in Smalcald articles "This article we rest everything upon... our rejection of the pope, devil..." That is a paraphrasing.Origen was deemed a heretic in the 5th council 553, not to late I would say. He was never canonized as a saint.
>>16523622>>16523648For gnosticism and the other "christianities" of the time. Gnosticism is more outlandish than the synoptic testimonies. The Judaizing "christianity" is basically just Islam. Supposing God, it makes more sense that if a doctrine doesnt exist for thousands of years without correction, it wouldnt be true. This applies to gnosticism and protestantism.Islam I understand. I oppose Islam because Christianity has better philosophy. I see both Islam and Orthodoxy as the best contenders for the "best religion"
>>16523648>>16523654>I would say it would be an interpretation nightmare... prior to the 4th century ADI completely agree with this sentence from everything I have read. I completely understand why the dogmas had to be established because it was an absolute mess. "If you didn't like the new dogmas...well get out" is how I view that history. This does raise another question; why were their so many disagreements prior to 400 and how can you know if the resolutions were true to the core beliefs? The question of who Jesus was wasn't even ironed out until the Council of Nicaea and that was 300 years after Jesus' death. That is a lot of time. On top of that the state of Holy Spirit changed with the addition of the Filioque and this controversy started in the late fifth century and wouldn't be resolved until the east west schism.>For gnosticism and the other "christianities" of the timeJust to let you know gnostics is a very loaded term especially when referencing the proto-orthodox Christians because not all people who were labeled gnostics were gnostics. I agree the gnostics and these early groups have some pretty outlandish writings but I find it fascinating that these teachings were circulating at the times they were. The Gospel of Thomas (not the infancy gospel) is really interesting on that front due to its dating and it contents.>best religionWhy does their need to be a best especially if only one is true and is of even possible to determine truth?
>>16523728>This does raise another question; why were their so many disagreements prior to 400Because the gnostics were pieces of shit. It seems like Lucifer (or his demons) made no haste to pervert the gospel. In Ireaneus' books adress this. None of them had apostolic succession. Some of their ideas came from some Iranian unitarian hippie and eastern mysticism. The Judaizing christians basically just fell into the same trap the Pharisees did. It didnt seem consistent, to throw away the old law. They just couldn't understand the old law was being fufilled and didnt see the metaphysics and logic which explained it. I was like that and many Protestants and atheists are like that.The Holy Spirit never changes, just the church leaders. Men are falliable and make mistakes. The filioque issue wasn't resolved, well it was. The 8th ecumenical council reinstated photius and clarified issues. The councils are to resolve any issues when they get out of proportion and start globally ruining the faith. The east west schism was a result of Rome's pride and the Carolingians. The issue WAS settled, and Rome fell into apostasy. There are many councils, but they have to have ALL patriarchs present. Many robber councils which got overturned. Men are fallible. >Gospel of ThomasThere are touches of a beginning of gnosticism in the gospel, but 60+% of it is synoptic. Full blown gnosticism is where the issue lies.>Why does their need to be a best especially if only one is true and is of even possible to determine truth?By saying "best", this is a generous way to consider others. It means there are fewer issues with it than others. It fufills criteria more substantively well than the others. Similar to how QED is the "best" physics model. What I mean though is Orthodoxy is the fullness of the truth and the one truth. It is the best, but true.Islam is the best compared to others, not considering orthodoxy. It is best as a bruised apple is to a rotten one.
>>16520094>why didn't he fulfill the Messianic prophecies?He did.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT_RUdBTlp4
>>16520094Consider the followingI don't give a fuck about Hebrew prophecies and neither should you. >O messiah come free us from the Romans!WorldlyJesus came to free us from the demiurge which is actually important and why he is the MessiahThanks Jesus>Source?!?!?!?!I made it up
>>16523654>I see both Islam and Orthodoxy as the best contenders for the "best religion"Both religions that spread through murder and threatening people with hell for disobeying them which is in itself paradoxical since they both claim to have a just and forgiving deity.Probably the most evil and ridiculous religions
>>16523935>Both religionsYou have any instances where Eastern Orthodoxy was spread through murder and threatening people?Source?
>>16523964Orthodoxy as in mainstream Christianity since Catholics and Orthodox are the same, but eastern orthodoxy from the top of my head did the Byzantine persecution of Hellenic pagans and Russian persecution of the old believers and Jews.Abhorrent religions. Also neither answer the epicurian paradox which is a really big issue philosophically.
>>16523994>Catholics and Orthodox are the same,This is false. One has a pope, the other does not. Question to you, is persecuting Nazis or Communists- in the same way you said of persecution- acceptable to you?How doesnt Eastern Orthodoxy answer the epicurian paradox?
>>16523994>Byzantine persecution of Hellenic pagansOh yeah also, did they have edicts such that Hellenic pagans were to be put to death? Were they threatened?Same goes for the Russian persecution.
>>16523925Nice
>>16524002>This is false. One has a pope, the other does not.Political difference, the actual scripture is the same >Question to you, is persecuting Nazis or Communists- in the same way you said of persecution- acceptable to you?No, I believe in freedom of speech and expression regardless of whether or not I believe in what is being said. Murder is murder.>How doesnt Eastern Orthodoxy answer the epicurian paradox?They have an all powerful god who is very active in the world as per scripture but also allows for great suffering and evil against the innocent.
>>16524014>Murder is murder.Yeah, >>16524006Did they have any edicts ordering the murder of people?And are you using persecuting as murder or burning down temples?>Political difference, the actual scripture is the same No. Orthodox aren't protestants. The infalliable authority is tradition, and mainly the eccumenical councils. They have different epistemologies. Ex Cathedra is invalid. Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception for this reason.>but also allows for great suffering and evil against the innocent.See: >>16521817
>>16524006Hellenic pagans and Christian heresies were pogromed often.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-paganism_policies_of_the_early_Byzantine_Empire#:~:text=Anti%2Dpagan%20laws%20by%20Marcian%20(450%E2%80%93457),-The%20continued%20vitality&text=Marcian%20decreed%2C%20in%20the%20year,they%20were%20to%20remain%20closed.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicianismhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-companion-to-antisemitism/antisemitism-in-byzantium-4th7th-centuries/AA45C72E3CA4F5956141130035C49454https://www.oregonhistoryproject.org/articles/historical-records/russian-old-believers/#:~:text=They%20broke%20away%20from%20the,and%20others%20were%20burned%20alive.
>>16524021>No. Orthodox aren't protestants. The infalliable authority is tradition, and mainly the eccumenical councils.>They have different epistemologies. Ex Cathedra is invalid. Orthodox do not believe in the immaculate conception for this reason.Very small difference All the psycho shit in the OT and NT is still there>See: >>16521817 #I've seen this thread countless times and Christians always fail to answer it because their is no answer. Their religion is poorly thought out.
>>16524047The wiki article, I hit ctrl+F and put in "pogrom", no resultThe second wiki article on Paulicianism. Ctrl+f "pogrom", no results.Cambrigde, "A complex Christian program led and implemented a state policy to convert the Jews"Is the conversion of Nazis or Communists immoral?On the oregon article, it indeed says old believers were "burned alive". I found this article in searching for a wiki articlehttps://www.rbth.com/history/332188-how-russian-old-believers-burned-aliveQuite misleading. I thought atheists were honest and virtuous? I thought Christians were murderous and dishonest? What happened here?By the way on Russia, "In the case of anti-semitism and the anti-Jewish pogroms, no evidence is given of the direct participation of the church; many Russian Orthodox clerics, including senior hierarchs, openly defended persecuted Jews, at least starting in the second half of the 19th century" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church#RussiaI thought that we were talking about murdering people. not burning temples and converting people? I thought the Orthodox did it on a mass scale! You seemed so certain!
Christ is King
>>16524052>Their religion is poorly thought out.You got any concrete logical proofs on this, showing the logic of the discussion is invalid or are you going to keep stating something until it becomes true?>Very small difference Big difference. The eccumenical councils are the only final authority. The pope and the councils are the final authority in Catholics.>All the psychoPsychopathy is a term referring to humans. You were able to diagnose the people in the OT as psychopathic? You a medically trained professional? Got a peer reviewed study on that?
>>16524059You are arguing in bad faith and you know it.>>16524069>>Their religion is poorly thought out.>You got any concrete logical proofs on this, showing the logic of the discussion is invalid or are you going to keep stating something until it becomes true?The epicurian paradox and the problem of hell are both massive holes in the major Abrahamic religions. Ignore it all you want.>Big difference. The eccumenical councils are the only final authority. The pope and the councils are the final authority in Catholics.Really does that mean the scripture is different? No? Same religion different branch. And my original point was that they both came from the proto orthodox church which killed a lot of people as well. Eastern orthodoxy isn't special.>Psychopathy is a term referring to humans. You were able to diagnose the people in the OT as psychopathic? You a medically trained professional? Got a peer reviewed study on that?God orders the genocide of Canaanites in the Bible. Not only women and children but cattle too. It's an insane religion from start to finish with a few exceptions like Jesus.
>>16524090>You are arguing in bad faith and you know itIm not the one who is saying someone instituted pogroms and then cited sources for the claim... which say nothing about pogroms.>The epicurian paradox and problem of hell is a problemDo you have any sources on that? And not just sources that say nothing about the problem of hell and orthodoxy.Again, I refer you to >>16521817 Specifically, >>16522368>the proto orthodox church which killed a lot of people as well. You got proof there, as well?>God orders the genocide of Canaanites in the Bible.Psychopathy is an attribute which gives a typology to finite minds, and human minds. The term is ill defined here.Does God have the immutible characteristic of non empathy?Are all soldiers psychopaths when they murder people?Do you have actual evidence showing that God fits that typology? You got a diagnosis list? Also, do you have any justification for morality? The connotation is that what is described is bad? What is your proof that murder and pain is bad? Do you have a formal or scientific proof of the existence of morality apart from God?
>>16524059>Marcian decreed, in the year 451, that those who continued to perform the pagan rites would suffer the confiscation of their property and be condemned to death.>renewed Byzantine persecution in the mid 9th century prompted the Paulicians to establish a state centered on Tephrike in the Armenian borderlands under Arab protection.>After prolonged warfare, the state of Tephrike was destroyed by the Byzantines in the 870s.>he adopted the name Silvanus (after one of Paul's disciples), and about 660, he founded his first congregation at Kibossa, Armenia. Twenty-seven years later, he was arrested by the Imperial authorities, tried for heresy and stoned to death.[7][1] Simeon, the court official who executed the order, was himself converted, and adopting the name Titus, became Constantine's successor. He was burned to death, the punishment pronounced upon the Manichaeans, in 690.[1]>>16524059"A complex Christian program led and implemented a state policy to convert the Jews"Yeah by torturing and murdering those who refused. That's how they worked.>On the oregon article, it indeed says old believers were "burned alive". I found this article in searching for a wiki articleHoly shit lmao, and from a Russian site too, this has nanking massacre denial vibes>I thought that we were talking about murdering people. not burning temples and converting people? I thought the Orthodox did it on a mass scale! You seemed so certain!Lmao>Peacefully burning temples and converting people
>>16524106>Im not the one who is saying someone instituted pogroms and then cited sources for the claim... which say nothing about pogroms.They did you just didn't read them but don't worry I helped you out on this post.>>16524107>>16524106>Specifically, >>16522368 #Forgot natural evil... again...Also didn't address the problem of hellThis is an unanswered question much smarter men than you have tried and failed answering it>You got proof there, as well?St Augustine converted to orthodoxy the same year the penalty for being a manichaean became death>Psychopathy is an attribute which gives a typology to finite minds, and human minds. The term is ill defined here.I don't since the Bible was written by humans trying to justify their actions.>Are all soldiers psychopaths when they murder people?Yes? You don't think atrocities happen in war?>Also, do you have any justification for morality? The connotation is that what is described is bad? What is your proof that murder and pain is bad? Do you have a formal or scientific proof of the existence of morality apart from God?Why do you talk like this? Proof proof proof like Russians on int or pol lmaoI'll answer that question by asking my own.Is it morally incorrect or evil for me to torture and murder your entire family? Because I'd still be less evil that if God sent people to hell for eternity.
>>16524107>>Peacefully burning temples and converting peopleYeah, that is not a peaceful action. Who are you talking to? Someone else? I dont recall saying that.>massacre denial vibesSo far you sent a source, not in an academic journal, and the sources I found says Old believers burned themselves alive as opposed to forced conversion. The other sources you provided showed no evidence of:(1) murder(2) pogromsdespite what you claimed. Given your history of knee jerk reactions, this doesnt inspire confidenceAlso, I have never heard of this before. To your point on people condemned to death, you have finally given direct proof of edicts.I also ripped the cambridge book of libgen and found the claims " The hysteria and euphoriaof the sources ranging from chronicles to sermons to apocalypses and eschatological revelries were matched by massacres and forced baptisms of Jews both locally and among the western kingdoms of Dagobert’s France and Visigothic Spain, even apparently in southern Italy, instigated by Heraclius’s forced baptism of 632."This is not good, and against canon law.People may do things counter to the truth, but this doesn't involve condoning behavior. The western church in toledo adapted the filioque, a heresy. However, this went over the eastern churches eyes. Given my past posts, there is evidence to suggest the church should accept such a thing. St. Nickalous' sainthood was questioned for simply slapping a person. I doubt murder would be condoned.To the general point, is this unique to religion? Are all atheist societies peaceful, are you suggesting? Or do you suggest inconsistency.For inconsistency. All murder and war is a manifestation of the fallen state of man from Adam. The rebellion of God due to our free will and sin being generational. The pagans persecuted christians. Romans, Germans, Slavs. Many matryrs and saints. Murder is wrong, the manifestation may be different. All is due to the fallen nature.
>>16524124>the problem of hellIn the afterlife, a person is in the same "place", if you may call it that, but if you are "in" hell. This is the state of being separated from God. If you are in heaven, you experience the place as love.Indeed, you experience the energies of God. Depending on your state of being, the energies are pleasent or painful. The problem of evil and hell are equivalent in this case.What do you mean by natural evil?>Yes? You don't think atrocities happen in war?So every soldier which kills a person, even the one who experiences regret, guilt, or remorse, are psychopaths? Do you have a source showing all soldiers who have killed people are diagnose psychopaths?>Is it morally incorrect or evil for me to torture and murder your entire family? Because I'd still be less evil that if God sent people to hell for eternity.God doesnt send people to hell.
>>16524134Ok moving on since you're not accepting my sources>>16524141>>16524141>Indeed, you experience the energies of God. Depending on your state of being, the energies are pleasent or painful. The problem of evil and hell are equivalent in this case.So you're saying that you believe hell is allegorical? Because I agree with that but I'm pretty sure your church doesn't.>What do you mean by natural evil?Any suffering that doesn't have to do with free will. Child born with a horrific genetic birth defect for an example. And if your answer is the parents sinned then God is participating in collective punishment which is unjust.>So every soldier which kills a person, even the one who experiences regret, guilt, or remorse, are psychopaths? Do you have a source showing all soldiers who have killed people are diagnose psychopaths?No idea what this has to do with anything. I think that the people who wrote the Bible don't feel any remorse or pity for the people God orders genocides and it isn't implied there should be any. That's why I would call it psychopathic.>God doesnt send people to hell.>Proverbs 16:4 – The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.
>>16524156>moving on since you're not accepting my sourcesI actually did and acknowledged them. I reread. I looked for pogrom only and didnt find murder.>So you're saying that you believe hell is allegorical?No, I just described the metaphysics of how it works. Most people in the Eastern Orthodox church describe hell this way.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ikzEQXNOJtw>Child born with a horrific genetic birth defect for an example.You didnt' read the thread which I constantly referred you to. This is indirectly addressed here >>16522649Since the fall, our soul has been tainted by sin. Every baby born is born in a fallen world. The soul and metaphysical space is intertwined with the physical space. The world inherited the sin which began with Adam. >I think that the peopleDo you know any psychologists who would say the same? Typically psychologists do not diagnose personalities nor mental disorders to historical figures, even Hitler- although it has been done it has the clarification that it is not actually a valid method.>No idea what this has to do with anything.You literally just said "Yes?" to the question of whether or not soldiers who kill are psychopaths.>>Proverbs 16:4 – The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.See the video I had sent above.Scripture can only be properly interpreted through the church. Only the church has the infalliable source of authority to interpret scripture.This being said, "the day of trouble" may be temporal. Unless you have a church father on that. In general, it could be interpreted that "made" may be referring to foresight, or preparation. God indirectly prepares a person for the afterlife because he doesn't annihilate us. It is his plan, prepared ahead of time, to have our souls remain and not be annihilated, so that our state may properly ascend into afterstate
>>16524169The voice of the Almighty are the prophets, and only Hebrews can be prophets. God never asked for a church to be built, he allowed Solomon once to build his House which is a Temple, a Temple where the do the daily offerings and sacrifices for people's sins, which he said are supposed to be done until the last day of the world by a Levite descendant in the book of Jeremiah.If you believe that the book of Jeremiah is the word of God then you must accept that only a Levite can be priest, no church father is a Levite and has no authority to decide scripture, or do sacrifices, which they don't even do anyways, so they are not real priests. Their way of doing things are 100x closer to what a historical pagan priests does than what a traditional priest of the Almighty does thing. Their churches are full of statues and idols and pagan customs and superstitions. They don't even try to do things the way God demand things be done in the scriptures. Deuteronomy and Leviticus are nothing more than toilet paper to them. Are we supposed to believe God just woke up one day and decided to abandon all the covenants he made with his people and all the traditions he set for thousands of years and change his entire way of doing things? For thousands of years God called himself the God of Israel, he calls Zion his beloved wife, his favorite place on earth. So why would he now have his house built in Rome? Which is part of the nations he has always referred to as the pagan nations? Why would God ever abandon his land that he has done so much for?
>>16524263>So why would he now have his house built in Rome?That is indeed a heresy Catholics have committed. They think they are somehow special and in their pride, apostatized from the faith.To your general question, all of this has already been addressed in Christian circles. I feel Justin Martyr addressed this and so did the epistle of Hebrews, in particular.https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Priests-LevitesThis article seems to adress this specific issue.Anyways, I cannot respond to everything, I am tired and will go to bed.But, the idea is that Isreal was loved because he was preparing his covenant through them. If Isreal always was a jewish religion, then theres no point in paying attention to it. Waste of time. But this doesnt make sense. The idea that God spent so much time with Isreal was to prepare for the recommunion with God through Christ and his sacraments. This video has an idea of this concept and the meaning of the fall and the old law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbqcLpxbHl4I also believe this is why the Canaanite land was cleared. Not like what Dr. Craig would suggest, but similar to why there were purification laws, to prepare a perfect source for God's perfect covenant. For the Eucharist to be complete, there needed to be a source. He chose Isreal. The land needed to be untainted, needed to learn the lessons for the new covenant and rituals for the coming of the Son. The sacrifices were preparations for the Eucharist. The Eucharist, if immediately introduced, wouldnt make sense. God wanted to fix the problems from the fall, and he had to prepare oracles perfect for the coming of Man, his death and ressurection which allowed for the reunification of man and God. The Eastern Orthodox church is the true church and the practices are not pagan. All pagan books are banned, burned, and all idols are smashed. Only holy relics exist in the church, like the seraphim cherubim and holy altar.
>>16524263>>16524286Another reply, quick:The priesthood was all mirrored with Christ. Christ made a new priesthood. Instead of the 12 tribes, he had 12 disciples. the high priest became Christ. Christ was the Moses. But closer, being God. The whole point of the old covenant was like an image, forecast, or shadow of the fullness of what was to come. And, again, if pagan influence seeped into it, it would be imperfect, and the Christian religion would be ruined.Paganism seems seeped into the minds of humans. Only the Abrahamic religions and Atanism, some Egpytian one, were monolatric. Needed to worship one God. The difficulty of humans made it so the covenant had to be prepared, not forced. If it was forced at a moment, it would be the fall all over again. We see this with Isreal's rebellion Babylon. Even they needed to constantly be corrected. So all this needed to be prepared in a way, lest the sacrifice be nullified through the rebellion of man once again.
>>16524286Yahaweh gave another message to Jeremiah. He said, “Have you noticed what people are saying? ‘God chose Judah and Israel and then abandoned them!’ So they despise my people and no longer regard them as a nation. This is what Yahaweh says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’”-Jeremiah 33:23-26“This is what Yahaweh says: ‘If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars in the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore.’”-Jeremiah 33:19-22
>>16524293Unless someone found a way to break God's covenant with day and night so the day is no longer day and night no longer night, then there is no new priesthood. God covenant with Levites is forever, for as long as the day and the night come out at the appointed time, Levites will be the priests of God Almighty.
>>16520094You are a Jew.Matthew 10:33 >But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel, nor will the Levitical priests ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’” Jeremiah 33:17-18
>>16520094According to the early Christians he did.
>>16520105>He was ressurected. Who else can be ressurected but someone chosen by God?the spelling is 'resurrected', and your consistent misspelling shows you not to be a well-read person. plus, no, he wasn'tresurrected, that's just a claim from a superstitious and ignorant age.>things were more peaceful when the church was in power.yeah, the hundred years' war, the thirty years' war etc. also, how many posts before you backpedal to 'true christianity has never been tried'?>All world wars were secularthere were only two at most, and the first one was heavily christian, so much that the backlash of the churches supporting the bloodbath on both sides broke the back of european christianity. read 'The great and holy war' for grisly details.
>>16520103Indeed.
>>16520094Jesus pbuh was the messiah. He performed miracles by Allah's will. His birth was a miracle too and so was his death when he was lifted up to heavens. He would bring peace when he will rule for 40 years after slaying Dajjal(Antichrist) and the trials of God and magog.
>>16524850>yeah, the hundred years' war, the thirty years' war etc.Thirty years war was when the church wasn't power, Protestants.The hundred years war was when the church was split because of Rome.There was a relatively internally peaceful millennium from Constantine to the Schism.>and the first one was heavily christianRevisionist history. The causes most historians give for WWI is: militarism, nationalism, imperialism, racism. Two of these were condemned by the catholic church. See "Catholic Dogmas" by Denzinger, Pope Pius' letters.Also,"Thus, only 6.9 percent of the wars they considered are classified as religious wars."https://apholt.com/2023/01/03/the-myth-of-religion-as-the-cause-of-most-wars/
>>16520094>why didn't he fulfill the Messianic prophecies?He did. You're just a bitter jew. Now go report some more threads where jews get btfo since you never win any honest debates.
>>16526163protestants are christians, whether you like it or not.it does not matter if "the church" was or wasn't "in power". people were christians all that time and kept killing each other like there was no tomorrow. therefore christianity did not stop wars.>revisionist history>starts kvetching about a claim I never madestrawman or lack of reading comprehension? the church (meaning whichever christian conmen were in power at all that time) heavily endorsed war participation. condemnations and other farts in the wind don't matter when every local bishop was consecrating guns and stories of angelic visions telling X to exterminate Y were officially spread. religion was not the cause, it just jumped into the bandwagon instead of trying to stop shit.>relatively peaceful millenniumfirst of all, what is, in your mind, the exact mechanism of the schism enabling wars? "hey, the greeks split from rome, we can go to war now". second, "relatively" is a weasel word. for instance there are far less wars - meaning years with a war - since the enlightenment than before it. (in before the rest of the world - we are talking europe only).also, the thirty years' war was religious in nature. two sects of christians going at each other is religious.cease with your supremacist claims. christians are no better than anyone else.
>>16526946>protestants are christians,No they arent. About as Christian as gnostics or "Christian atheists">therefore christianity did not stop wars.If we use your version of christianity, then it follows. But Protestant christianity has nothing to do with church. They all, apart from Anglicans, reject the episcopacy.Protestants believe in sola fide, mostly believe in the priesthood of all believers, and sola scriptura. Their base epistemology and thinking do not align with Orthodoxy.If you want me to revise my statement I will say "Eastern Orthodoxy" instead of christianity.>>starts kvetching about a claim I never madeI literally was quoting what you said, "and the first one was heavily christian"Also, you, technically refuted a claim I never made. When did I ever use the world 'christian'? All i said was 'the church'.> the churchthe church isnt Roman Catholic nor is it Protestant. Both churches are heavily political. How did Protestant come to power? Luther using political ties and lords of the land. How did the Roman Catholics come to be? Carolingian Papacy Emperor split power paradigm. Both of them were built by political greed.https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=puhistorianeven so, with the above article. I might contest the claim the church supported the first world war. In the above article it says that the states were seemingly completley separated from the church prior to the first war.>the exact mechanism of the schism enabling wars? Rome being prideful and becoming the antichrist. They literally say they are the mouth of God. That is satanic. > second, "relatively" is a weasel word. As far as my knowledge goes, there has never been a time in peace in human history since the start of civilization. It is an apt word. Citing a war doesnt cut it, pal.
>>16526946>also, the thirty years' war was religious in nature. I never denied that>christians are no better than anyone else.If you mean Protestant and Catholic, then yes. Luther was manic and arrogant. And the Popes that caused the schism and crusades were manic and arrogant
>>16520094>If Jesus who was rejected by the ancient ancestors of Rabbinical Jews fit their interpretation of messianic prophecy, then why don’t Rabbinical Jews think Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecy?Gee idk maybe the Pharisees were wrong and the Rabbis are wrong.
>>16520151>no proof, just liesDid you think they had cameras or something in Roman Judea?
>xhe le did *refuses to elaborate*>muh meh but *changes the topic*Classics. Yeshua ben Pantera was not the Messiah.
