>>24831567
go fuck the goats achmed

http://www.google.com/search?q=pedophile+imams

File: francis-icon-dove.jpg (39 KB, 352x500)

39 KB JPG

I think the sheer, utter goodness of the saints, and the greatness of the Mass, are proof of the Truth of Christianity. These are men and women who followed Christ to the truest extent, and they're just incredible. Any religion that can produce people like this has got to have something going for it.

>>24831567
i like this painting

>>24832174
>the sheer, utter goodness of the saints
I don’t mean to be cynical, but a lot of the hagiographies are hard to trust - in their more superhuman aspects especially. That being said, certainly there have been astounding religious figures. But you see similar in other religious traditions

Religions inevitably die with their founders, the disciples having either to reject or formularise their master’s opinions

>the catholic church is corrupt
yes

>>24833124
Some of the most impressive saints in terms of superhuman aspects were relatively recent. Padre Pio, for example.

And consider that since the second half of the last century we don't even have tons of very pious figures anymore. Most religious orders declined in numbers and some like the Jesuits declined heavily in piety (but they are improving the last few decades).


You won't see many supernatural saints when you don't have many saints to begin with. And you won't have many saints in a modernist environment where there is no strong praying life and the feeling of abandoning everything for God.

>>24833169
>call no man father
>padre
so fucking stupid, it never ends.

>>24833169
>in a modernist environment where there is no strong praying life
NTA but one great mistake of Christianity was freezing its myths beyond the point where they can be unfrozen.

If the Christian God finally abdicates and is succeeded by some more immediately potent deity or deities, the reason will be that his myth no longer corresponds with recent developments in the Western social system. If the system refined by the Ancient Greeks (and perpetuated by present-day Africans) of keeping divine myths abreast of the times had been maintained in the western world for the last two millennia, all the major social and political changes that have meanwhile occurred would be wholesomely incorporated in christian dogma.

>>24833174
Paul called himself a father in the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.

>>24833185
is that supposed to convince me of anything other than his disobedience?

>>24832174
You need to read about more saints. Many of them were vicious, bloodthirsty bastards, canonised for political reasons.

>>24833188
If you can't trust Paul, who can you trust?
God called him to preach the Gospel and Mark and Luke who were Gospel writers were his disciples (Luke more so than Mark, who was mostly tied with Peter).

>>24833198
>who can you trust?
is this a trick question? Jesus Christ.

you can dismiss his words for the sake of listening to paul but don't pretend it is a wise choice.

>>24833204
We know of Jesus' words due to the Gospel writers (two of which were disciples of Paul) and the early Christian community (which held Paul as one of its most important leaders and who considered his letters to be scripture)

>>24832174
Who are these saints of goodness? Im curious

>>24833206
>Trust the man who dismisses Christ's words! It's tradition!
No.

>>24831567
where are all these atheists coming from?

File: bitch_please2.jpg (19 KB, 400x400)

19 KB JPG

>>24833198
>If you can't trust Paul, who can you trust?

I hate Catholicism, and find it so unbiblical that it's outright heresy, but I doubt the claims of sexual immorality are as rampant and widespread as reported. Don't make me defend these people.

>>24833241
>I doubt the claims of sexual immorality are as rampant and widespread as reported
Pedophiles actively seek out jobs where they can have authority over children. That's why so many are teachers, coaches, scout masters, etc. There probably are a disproportionate amount of pedos within the priesthood as well.

>>24833253
Agree, but not convinced they're more prone to it than say teachers

>>24833204
What is the source text produced by Jesus Christ? All I can find are second hand accounts of what he said, accounts that come from disciples of Peter or presumably worse sources, as Peter was the man chosen by Christ to spread his word. If that guy is untrustworthy when speaking about what Jesus said/did/believed then all sources we have for the word of Jesus Christ are suspect. So unless there is a hidden gospel written by and passed down directly from Jesus, then there is no Jesus Christ to trust. We are left only Christ as presented to us by untrustworthy sources.

>>24833241
You can't join the dots between public vows of celibacy, and private acts of sexual abuse?

>>24833265
Scripture is inerrant and divinely inspired. It is the only thing that can be trusted in this world.

>>24833265
Replace Peter with Paul lol. Some kind of slip could probably be read into that.

>>24833198
>If you can't trust Paul, who can you trust?
well considering you larpers are pretending to be into Christianity you would think Christ of all people....

> So unless there is a hidden gospel written by and passed down directly from Jesus, then there is no Jesus Christ to trust.
ah that didn't take long. you guys always out yourselves. its obvious what you are really up to.

>>24833265
The use of broken vessels is common, I'll warrant that, but one can easily omit every word attributed to paul and the message of Christ stands firm. It doesn't matter how you twist this. If there is any contradiction, I'm going to side with Jesus Christ. To defer to paul or anyone else when discrepancies arise, when there is no excuse for these individuals to directly undermine the word of Christ and yet they do it anyway, to not be suspicious of the connotations is to bury your head in the sand and hope things come out well in the end.
I'm going to follow Jesus because he is the son of god. You can follow paul all you like.

>>24833271
I generally agree, but there is this bit in scripture where Jesus puts Paul into the position of being trustworthy in passing on his teachings. So what do we make of that when we are calling Pauls ability to do so into question? Is that part of scripture wrong? Was Jesus wrong about Paul?

>>24833284
I submit to you that the entity which blinded him in the desert and met with him in the inner rooms was not Jesus at all.

File: Luther.jpg (545 KB, 998x1169)

545 KB JPG

>>24831567
That's what works salvation gets you
Take the Lutherpill

>>24833283
But what are we actually following when we only get these "words of Christ" from untrustworthy sources? What words can we actually attribute to him if we only have them from the mouthes of deceivers? Perhaps he never said anything we are told by these untrustworthy sources and they were only making those things up to further their own agendas.

>Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

huh, weird how that lines up perfectly with what paul went on to do.
huh, weird that the fruits of paul's doctrine have done nothing but corrupt the church.
huh. weird.
>does this mean scripture lied!?
No. The scripture depicts the devil deceiving people all the time to teach us.

>>24833295
M8 if Jesus is God and in control of history he preserved the words he intended to be heard. If he isn't God you have to figure out why you care about him more than Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Confucius, or any other number of secular teachers

>>24833295
I submit to you that Jesus knew what to say, and did so in a way that even those who wished to twist his words would be serving his will.

>Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.

this is to say, because Jesus was endowed with divine foresight, he said things which even the most crafty could not have dreamt to reveal them for what they are.
Being one of the children of god has the necessary aspect of recognizing the words of our Father in heaven.

>>24833297
I guess my question then is why stop at just preserving his words then? Why not preserve the church rather than let it fall into its corrupted state? I find the argument compelling but this bothers me.

>>24833265
What of Mary magdalene and Thomas?

>>24833311
It should bother you that "the church" is corrupted, and that the christian community has been led astray. What it should not do is surprise you that it isn't easy. Besides, the church isn't some building or network. The church is the united spirit of the followers of Jesus Christ, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

>>24833312
Are they more trustworthy than the guy Jesus trusted to pass on his teachings or the people he passed those teachings to? Maybe. If only Jesus said so somewhere.

In any case, by all means dismiss me too. The Holy Spirit should be your guide. I would much prefer to be wrong and just my soul condemned to hell than to have to believe these devout catholics and protestants and so on are misled. It would serve me well to know I was a schizo all along and the masses of people who pray to their idols and rape children and practice simony and worship mammon was just a febrile delusion of mine. So, in the end, you decide for yourself.

>>24833323
did anyone else see this "Jesus" when he appeared to paul?

yes, if only Jesus had mentioned something about this

>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

>Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.

>Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

it's almost as though he warned us in the only possible way, in spite of all of evil's conniving.

>>24833323
I agree with you, it is why I think its best to take things with a grain of salt and commune with the One.
I will not condemn others for approaching it differently

>>24833327
How would we know unless Jesus told us? Perhaps because Jesus never said "I appeared to Paul" that is enough to disregard the apparition as a bit of false propaganda.

>>24833336
Agreed. I don't want to belabor the point too much further, especially since we have gotten to the point that I generally end up in, don't listen to a Christian unless they are describing their own personal relationship with god, but how
does one become initiated into communion with the one when all
initiators are untrustworthy? The only answer I can come up with is through divine providence but then you have predetermination of who ends up in hell via gods will.

>>24833271
The letters of Paul are considered Scripture, Protestant idiot.
I thought you read the Bible?

>>24833343
Jesus was appearing to crowds of 500+ and you think he suddenly decided to appear to paul out in the desert (where he told people not to go if a false prophet came in his name) and BLIND him (the one who came to heal the sick and the maimed) then select him for the position of the twelfth apostle (remind me, who filled that spot last? oh, right. satan) then urge him to go on to undermine the law that HE JUST GOT DONE SPEAKING TO HIS PEOPLE IN FLESH AND BLOOD?

>>24831567
The church is the new world order. Subverting local authority in the name of a cannanite demon. Same happened with Mohammedism. Both religions created by Jews to destroy their neighbors.

>>24831567
A interesting question to think about, would Jesus be a Christian today? But you also need to play fair, every philosophy and religion is frequently abused by knaves and physycopaths to further their own agendas. Japenese radical militarists twisted the confucian idea of honor into a no surrender policy that resulted in the deaths of millions of their own people, I would not blame Confucius for that. Jesus himself warns there will be those who speak in his name that will call out to him to which he shall reply "I do not know you". Additionally places where the vulnerable gather (schools, hospitals, elderly homes) attract the caregiver personality but they also attract the megalomaniacs who wish to exploit that situation. So you should naturally expect the lowest manipulators and phsyco sexual manaics to hang out with the pious and pure of heart. Rather examine the whole of the fruits of the tree, which in the case of Christianity is the Renaissance and with Islam it's religious fundamentalism every single time (except perhaps Arabia which turned out OKish)

>Today I learned Protestants don't believe in Paul
If you don't believe in Paul, you shouldn't believe in Mark and Luke either, since they were his companions and learned at least some of their theology with him. Meaning you can't trust Matthew either, since it is very similar to those two.
But then, can you really believe in the Gospel of John, since many consider it to be the most Pauline Gospel?

So, we can't trust any of the 4 Gospels. Should Protestants believe only in the Apostolic letters not written by Paul?
Or maybe the Quran since they dislike Paul too and claim to have the true teachings of Jesus? Or maybe the Book of the Mormons?

>>24833348
I cannot attest to others but apophatic reasoning and theurgy have 'helped' me. There are things I do not know, mysteries so I shall speak no further on that however perhaps a genuine deep desire to know the One and nothing but the One, all texts and words may point but it is you who must choose and decide at the end of the day. :)

>>24833348
To add i have found genuine gratitude before and after such have made things..'easier' so to speak. Snippets and moments of clarity. I say this not to wow or create expectations which reminds me to give thanks to the One, best wishes anon.

>>24833214
>>24833232
>>24833281
Catholicism has a kind of belief that you should read the Bible in a way that is coherent. You don't suppose that Paul didn't understand Jesus' message and that his letters have theological errors.
But rather that if you think Paul is at odds with Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, you are the one that is wrong and you are not understanding what Jesus meant.

I know Protestants think humility is overrated and that they know better than everyone else, but surely the Pauline Epistles are inerrant too? Are you really believers you are better than the Bible?

File: Screen_Shot_2021-01-11_at(...).png (942 KB, 1344x706)

942 KB PNG

>>24833395
>you have to believe Paul because, well because you HAVE to OKAY?
>he was in the same room as Mark, therefore his words are equivalent to the most high

>>24833293
Lutheranism also does have an abuse crisis.
Do you know what is the difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism? We both had crappie, unbeliever clergies that committed crimes and who didn't take the faith seriously but wanted to make the Churches into branches of Soros' Open Society Foundation.

Except that our crappy ass Bishops couldn't change Catholic teaching, no matter how hard they tried to. Yours did. You now have Lesbian Bishops who say the morality of the Bible is wrong and we know better now.

The gates of hell did not destroy our Church. It destroyed yours.

>>24833408
If you think protestants don't fellate Paul at every opportunity, you've no familiarity with that denomination whatsoever.

>>24833396
>>24833407
Thanks for taking the time. God bless.

>>24833412
You can be free to not believe in Paul. But then you should also not believe in the Gospel of Luke, since Luke was his direct disciple.
Neither should you trust the Gospel of Mark since Mark was his subordinate for a while. Besides, Mark and Matthew are too close to Luke, so...
Also, don't forget to throw away the Acts of the Apostles since they portray Paul as one of the two pillars of the Church alongside Peter.

But then you also dislike the Epistle of James too, right? The "works" thing is just not up to it. As long as you have faith in non-Pauline Christianity you can goon all day that it is good. "Sin boldly"

>>24833423
>you can't be saved without paul
lmao
sure buddy.

>>24833418
Well, they are the ones complaining about the use of the terms "Father" and saying Paul is not legit and that they only follow the words of Jesus.

>>24833428
t. never set foot in a protestant church in his life
get thee hence.

>>24833426
How many books are there in your New Testament? We have already agreed that the 4 Gospels are too Paul influenced to be legit.
The two letters of Peter, the 3 letters of John, Jude and the Book of Revelations?

>>24833435
>we have already agreed
lie after lie drips from your tongue, serpent.

>>24833437
I mean, if you don't trust Paul who wrote like half of the New Testament why would you trust Luke who was his direct disciple and held him as a hero?

>>24833422
Thank you as well, wishing peace and clarity. May the One bless you

>>24833417
>Lutheranism also does have an abuse crisis.
I'm not referring to the ELCA bro I'm referring to the LCMS which formed explicitly because of abuses by a bishop and successfully weeded out their modernist clergy in the 1970s which was praised by conservative theologian Francis Schaeffer.

>crusades
All the badness here was usually caused by awol militants, the actual rational for the Crusades was solid; the Muslims were not treating Christians well.
>mass murder
When? Mass murder is quintessential modern thing. If you're talking about something like the Cathar massacres, the Catholic Church was not the one who started it. If your ambassador is murdered by the men you're trying to make peace with it is generally considered an act of war. War, time eternally, has a lot of terrible murder in it.
>torture
If you're talking of the Inquisition, would you have one man be killed because of his beliefs or let his beliefs cause a war of religion that kills 100000+ people?
>institutional corruption
Any institution on earth is subject to fault. Corrupt clergy is, sadly, a tale as old as mankind. Without proper authority to regulate the church(es) it is inevitable some abuse or excess will happen.
>child abuse etc
See above.

Nothing you have said is unique to the Catholic Church. For every rotten monk or bishop, there's a saint that defies them.

File: 1751435809591381.jpg (555 KB, 2048x1152)

555 KB JPG

>>24831567
Humans are the same all over: just stupid animals driven almost entirely visceral reaction.

>>24832115
Except jews, which are some form of parasite masquerading as human in order to feed.

>>24833530
Disgusting hypocrite. Shame on you

>>24833560
renounce Muhammad

>>24833442
>why would you trust Luke who was his direct disciple
You do realise that none of the gospels are written by who it is said they are? That does not invalidate their content but it does mean you cannot analyse them by examining the person who wrote them

>>24833562
I'm not a muslim retard. However (You) are no better than one in your sad attempts to justify murder, torture, violence, conquest and turning a blind eye to child rape. Depart, He never knew you

>>24833579
You are a deceiver, whether you know it or not. You seek to undermine good people's faith and lure them into the snares of Satan. Shame be upon you.

>>24833567
Now you are going by this Atheistic authorship theory?
The writer of the Acts of the Apostles portrays himself as a companion of Paul (who he sees as his hero and as one of the pillars of the Church). Would you say the writer of Acts is not the writer of Luke?

>>24833594
>undermine good people's faith
I seek to undermine the loyalty people have to the false institutions propagated by thieves. I proclaim to the world what Christ revealed. God is love and the Kingdom of God is within you

>>24833643
No the writer of Acts is most likely the same author as Luke. But writing from the perspective or under the name of someone well known was a common literary device at the time. The author wasn't trying to con anybody, it was just how people wrote at the time

>>24833644
you are a plaything of the Devil and don't even know it
I pray for you

>>24833653
>I pray for you
No you don't. You're just saying that to tick a box. You genuinely don't care if I live or die. Actually you'd probably think the world is better off without a heretic like me spouting 'disinformation' and leading souls 'wayward'. I see you and I know what you are

>>24833652
You probably didn't read the Bible because you are an atheist, but the writer of Acts did write in the first person when mentioning Paul's journeys.

>>24833672
I have read the Bible. I've probably read the Gospels 10 times and Acts at least three. I'm familiar with the material. And I'm not an atheist either.

>>24833688
Then you should know the writer of Acts portrays himself as someone who was involved in Paul's journeys.

>>24833693
I know, you halfwit. I said writing from the perspective/under the name of someone well known (i.e. Luke) was a common literary device at the time. Did you not read my post or are you just stupid?

>>24833702
Whoever wrote the Acts of the Apostles is either a liar or someone who accompanied Paul, regardless of it being Luke or someone else. Which one was it?

>>24833660
>No you don't.
I do, and I never called you a heretic. My issue is when you propagate anti-Church talking points, even if well-meaning. You are creating fuel for truly anti-Christian people to attack and capture others that have had their faith shaken by terrible events, causing them to venture into various falsehoods.
See the French revolution; the Church was absolutely suffering from corruption yet bad people used this not to try and repair the Church but rather to attack and attempt to destroy the entire Christian religion. Now I'm not saying you are trying this, but it is simply that what you say can very easily be used against all Christians. There have been many men who have been distraught at the debaucheries that can occur in places that one would think are bastions of holiness, such as a monastery. They didn't let these events destroy their faith, but persevered.

>>24833713
Mate gone just go back and read my post. I said that practice was not a con, it was how things were written in the ancient world which would have been known to the readers at the time. The author was trying to fool anybody. In fact it would have been seen as honouring the person, in this case Luke. It doesn't have to be either the truth or a lie. There are lots of shades of grey in the world. You have very low resolution thinking.

>>24833714
The problem lies not in the fact that what I say is dangerous and can lead Christians astray. The problem lies in the things I am speaking of myself. The irreconcilable contradictions of the Catholic Church and Christianity as a whole are the actual problem, not me pointing them out. I'm just a guy sat on his computer, I'm not the real threat here. The actual threat to Christianity is that it is a house founded on sand, like Christ warned of.

Profane here, I found a small copy of the new testaments in the street. It has a stamp for the International Gideon Association inside and was printed by The Gideons International. I assume it's some sort of Mormon, or something like that, version. Any chance that it has been modified and that I shouldn't read it ? It's very small so it's perfect to carry around

>>24833742
They're not Mormons or weird heretics or anything don't worry. It's just a bad translation that used to be widely proliferated

>>24833722
Before being a Christian I was a huge follower of Pagan Philosophy and Greco-Roman history. That was not only not common at all but that was also not how the early Christians viewed it either.

They unanimously believe Luke was the one who wrote. Also, Luke was not even that big of a deal in the Christian community to be the one to have the Gospel falsely attributed to.

>>24833830
>That was not only not common at all but that was also not how the early Christians viewed it either.
Thanks for the wisdom ebook aficionado but I was taught this by a theologian and New Testament scholar when I attended university and it is something that I have heard repeated many times. So I appreciate you may have read some airport non-fiction about antiquity but I think I'll trust my sources more. Thanks

>>24833722

The early Church rejected false attribution and you can see that by their reaction to the Gnostic Gospels. A large part of critical Bible academia has as an assumption that early Christians were stupid and naive.

You can also see in the case of the Gnostic Gospels the kind of names they used in forgeries. It was not "Paul's doctor" or "that dude who fled naked when Jesus was arrested and that at a point in time Paul considered unfit for missionary work but who later became Peter's secretary".
The kind of names they use are far bigger like Mary Magdalene, Philip and Thomas.

>>24833853
>but I was taught this by a theologian and New Testament scholar when I attended university

I take a shit in their mouth. "New Testament scholars" are full of shit. Show me any external evidence of the Q Gospel. Show me any external evidence of how the Gospel of John was written by committe trying to pacify the Pauline Community and the Matthean Community. They just create idiotic conspiracy theories without external evidence.

>>24833857
>A large part of critical Bible academia has as an assumption that early Christians were stupid and naive.
People can be stupid and naive sure. More important to the discussion of Christian orthodoxy and the Biblical canon is that people can also have agendas and confirmation bias. If you look into the history of early Christianity it is astonishingly complicated. For example, many of the great early theologians, some of whom were persecuted and even martyred for their faith, such as Origen and Clement of Alexandria, were retroactively revoked of their sainthood because they no longer fit the definition of Orthodoxy. Or for example how the heresy of Arianism was also considered Orthodoxy only to be written off as evil heresy centuries later in a Stalinist revision of history.

It's not straightforward. Unless you believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding it all and you don't have to think in which case it's saulgoodman

>>24833865
>People who devote their lives to a subject wholeheartedly know less than someone who watches yt videos about it and then argues with shitposters on 4chan
ok man

>>24833883
Yes.
Do you also think Paul is Simon Magus?

>>24833300
>>24833336
>>24833348
>>24833396
>>24833407
>I'm glad I am Christ and not a Christian.

>>24833890
I don't care

>>24833869
I'm not talking about theological questions, but about simple facts or the belief they didn't know their own language and we know more than they did.

For example, they believed the Pool of Bethesda didn't exist. Until archeology did found it. If there was no such a pool, don't you think early Christians wouldn't have noticed it?

>>24833904
Scholars are not a hivemind. There are lots of different people with a variety of views, like early Christian theologians and bishops for that matter. People agreeing with each other totally is almost impossible

>>24833912
But the most popular theories do have the assumption that early Christians were ignorant of basic facts of their region, language and history and 19th century Germans knew better.

>>24833936
Most people are ignorant of basic facts of their region, language and history