/ub/ - Überhengst

>>3796
Evidence of what?

>>3794
?
I'm not one of them. Signing with them up is a one trip to hell and ensuring the devil is the ruler of the world, where they empower malicious spirits. Fuck that.
>>Faith and Zero Doubt
>Faith is Truth AND Zero Doubt
Most have no doubt, and not the truth as it's whole.
Faith is having no doubt about the truth. Fine faith is a charged word with misconceptions.
Wumbo is having Zero Doubt about Truth. That means there may be some truths out there still clouded in doubt, but that can be cleared away.
That also means having only zero doubt means irregardless of the truth or not, it doesn't matter.
Having Wumbo means Truth is known completely and totally in such a way the existence of doubt is nil.
The only reason why Wumbo is important is so you can make decisions that are wise, powerful, exact, and meaningful.
>>3796
I'm saying you could perform a series of actions that you can prove.
It's like the kid in school telling classmates of a tall tale in a video game. They'll say that's bs because it's just some guy saying so. So they can go back and check it out on their own game to see if it's a fib.
>>3798
Guess it's just Wumbo for me.

>>3801
>I'm not one of them
I apologie for the mistake.
>Faith is Truth AND Zero Doubt
The point of my statement was to emphasize that absent evidence, it's simply asserting a pre-determined conviction. To wit, the statement should read:
Conviction is theory and conviction. That is a true statement, but it doesnt validate the theory at all, and posturing as though it does is putting the cart before the horse.

Why do the "I won't literally believe in God until he comes down to me specifically and tells me to get my act together!" guys take things literally only when it suits them?

If you're looking at things rationally you'll note the societal benefits of religion. You'll notice damn near everything bad about religion can be blamed on the corrupt heads of organized religious churches, corrupt priests reinterpreting their religion to say whatever they want, and jews subverting the faith.
Christianity's only bad when it isn't done properly.
Can any other religion say the same?
Can any other religion call itself helpful to society with a straight face and honest heart?
This is why so many atheists fall back on repeating the stanzas and verses of their annoying theme song "Hurr durr sky fairy, hurr durr Family Guy and Simpsons is right about christianity, imagine worshipping an invisible man in the sky when you have no proof he exists, I'm such an enlightened skeptic unlike you". They have to repeat something not worth saying and focus on what makes them feel correct and morally right, so they can ignore how stupid bullying a religion for lacking proof is. It's like mocking a car for not flying. They aren't fucking supposed to, smartass. If you want to view the world through a rationalist lens, look at the purpose of a tool to understand why it was crafted. If you believe Mormonism and Scientology and Christianity each come from some mortal faggots who wrote books once, ask yourself what the creators of these proto-ideologies wanted to accomplish. The muslims wanted to motivate fellow muslims to rape and murder for islam. The scientologists want money and power. But Christianity? Think carefully on why Christianity was invented and if your answer is "because straight white male wanted to control women and society's sexuality" you aren't thinking hard enough because jews eyefucked you so hard in high school you ended up with brain damage. Feminists aren't people. Christianity was right about women.
Understand the purpose of a religion before you mindlessly bash it for being a religion.
When Muslims bomb and when Jews lie they're doing their religion properly. When the Yogafags are stretching or fucking or starving themselves or meditating atop corpses they're doing their religion properly. When crystalfags worship their woo-woo hippy new-age boomer shit like hypnosis and """energy""" (that's literally just The Force from Star Wars) or purchase overpriced supposedly-magical chakra healing crystals they're doing their religion properly.
Christianity helped the West achieve such incredible heights. Everything good about western civilization needed to be destroyed through successive generations of brainwashing and jewish infiltration before our society became the shitshow it is today. The peaks western civilization reached are unmatched around the world. Indians can't into space. Muslims can't invent anything besides dynamite vests and lies. Blacks lack culture and IQ. If all whites decided all religions are gay and there is no reason not to toss Jesus statues off cliffs and act like niggers, what would that do to the world?
News flash: Whenever Star Trek or Family Guy or Doctor Who shows you a better world with flying cars and no religion, a diverse multicultural commie paradise without money where everything is great, it's jews lying to you. That Family Guy scene where they go to Quahog except years more advanced because religion never existed? Chinese children in sweatshops animated those scenes. Faggots voice-acted those scenes. If you base your worldview on Family Guy and Star Trek and Doctor Who and The Big Bang Theory I don't want to know you and I don't think God could save you even if you wanted to be saved.

>>3803
Now THAT is ad hominem and strawmanning

>>3803
Christianity is not reality-based belief, it sows confusion and sickness in Aryan minds. It was crafted by the Jews, for Jewish benefit, for goyim consumption. It harms my race and we don't need it to excel. Leave Jesus to the Jews.

Aryans will worship Aryan deity!

>>3803
>I don't think God could save you even if you wanted to be saved
Ok, now you stepped over the line of insult to heresy.

>>3805
Welcome to the Bible study thread. You are welcome to read along. We are currently going over Revelation part by part to better understand the Scripture. I will do my best to answer any questions along the way. I am no scholar, but I do enjoy studying.

Another passage soon. I am typing it up now.

>>3803
>"I won't literally believe in God until he comes down to me specifically and tells me to get my act together!"
I know you were making fun of some people's position, but this is more or less how monergistic sects of Christianity, like the Reformed Tradition, believe that Human faith works.

>Christianity's only bad when it isn't done properly.
Not to disagree, but the way this is worded sounds like No True Scotsman. That doesn't make it wrong, but it needs much more explaining

>how stupid bullying a religion for lacking proof is
I think asking what "proof" is desired and using arguments for the existence of God or the historicity of Jesus may be more fruitful.

>Blacks lack culture and IQ
Ethiopia is one of the oldest Christian nations and cultures on the planet, perhaps only Armenia has been Christian for longer. An Ethiopian Eunuch and his conversion is mentioned in Acts 8.

>Star Trek... shows you a better world with flying cars and no religion
At least the Original Series of Star Trek is not Atheistic. In the episode "Who Mourns for Adonias?" after a supposed "Greek god" demands that Kirk worship him and the other supposed greek gods, Kirk replies with "We're fine with just the one," implying Kirk believes in the Christian God, or something similar.

>I don't think God could save you even if you wanted to be saved.
To insinuate that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to save is pretty clearly heretical to the Christian faith.

Revelation 2:
18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass; 19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first. 20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. 21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not. 22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. 23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. 24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. 25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come. 26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: 27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

This one is a bit more involved than the others. I will attempt to break it down. It opens with Jesus describing Himself as eyes of flame and feet of brass. This appears to be symbolizing light, both that Jesus emits it and He guides with it. His feet in the previous chapter were a glowing bronze, which I think means that his path is always lit. He can see where to go, and if you follow him, you cannot be lost.

Verse 19 causes quite a bit of confusion, leading most other translations to alter the phrasing because people get tripped over it so much. The verse repeats works twice, which is likely to emphasize that they do lots of works, and the verse ends with "and the last to be more than the first". Some translations put this as saying that the works they do now are much more than when they started. Though this makes sense, as it shows that they have not grown complacent in using their time in service to God. I personally disagree with this translation. I believe it to mean that the last of the people are made more than the first, as in what Jesus taught in Matthew 20:
25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever* will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: 28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

In other words, I think the verse is trying to say they work so much that the first among them are serving the least among them. I might be incorrect, but I think it makes more sense in relation to all things listed, and the last typically isn't used to describe the present.

Continuing on, we learn this church is allowing a woman that proclaims to be a prophetess. She teaches fornication as well as seduces the church members, as well as takes part in idol worship. God put up with it for a time, but, as the verses indicates, no longer. He sends her and those that are led away into a bed and they will suffer tribulation. I am thinking this might be some sort of disease, but it is not stated precisely. Her children will die with, as the verse says, death, which likely means they will die with no real explanation, leaving people to realize it is God's punishment for leading so many astray, that likely brought these children into the world.

The passage moves on to what is to happen to the rest that don't fall into Satan's devices, which is no extra burden. God will keep them if they follow his word and live by his example, putting themselves last. Those that are last, God will make first in His kingdom, which is why they are given power over the nations. They will rule with a rod of iron and will break the nations as clay pots into shivers, or the modern word most likely is, slivers. We we will come to learn, the nations are by no means blameless during the end of days.

The passage ends on one final promise. God will give them the morning star. I have pondered what this means a great deal, but I think it refers to the beginning of the passage as well as the end of this book. Revelation 22:
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Jesus is the morning star and will provide light and guidance. You can't miss Him, as His light shines above the rest. Finally, he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Heed the words and follow the correction God gave to the churches and you will avoid destruction. Blessing may not come in this world, but they will be given in time. Our fight isn't to gain favor, but to bring glory to God in all that we do, as a witness to Him and all He has done for us.

Next time, we start chapter 3. More churches to go through and learn from. These next ones, at least in my opinion, hit harder as we come across a dead church, a faithful church, and a church that reflects us most closely, one that disgusts the Lord. And from there, things only get more interesting. I hope you will join this study and share your thoughts about the Scripture.

>>3411
>>3806
>>3808
Christians worship a jewish god.

>>3805
>Leave Jesus to the Jews.
Actually Jews hate Jesus because called them out on their wicked ways.
>>3810
It's not working. Try again shill.

>>3810
For practical purposes, Christ's magic works wonders over jewish's witchcraft. So any call to drop the Christian shield is nonsense.

>They Dont Want You to Know These 17 Church Facts!
>These are never mentioned! A country is dead when the one institution that was the back bone is now gone into the hands of the devil's children. Churches literally preach that Bankers, Murderers, rapists, thieves, Liars, cons, Preachers, politicians, Media moguls, Teachers, and all purveyors of evil can no longer be Incarcerated, or criticized for their Lies and evil behavior!
Churches operate like a business and the IRS has the last word on what's preached.

>>3814
>controlled Church
I just read the post >>>/mlpol/309063 → about an old school priest blasting degeneracy and going off script, then researching moar I found:

>Fr. Altman: You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period. (Part I)
>Father James Altman calls out the hypocrisies of Church hierarchy and their destructive leftist politicization of the Catholic Church that has slapped faithful Catholics in the face and led many others astray. Altman also explains the basis of human nature and our purpose in life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7eoTN2vNM
Mirror: https://www.bitchute.com/video/bj28dNkmaORD/

>Fr. Altman: Liberal Catholics are Wolves in Sheep's Clothing (Part II)
>Part II - Fr. James Altman doubles down in his widely anticipated follow up to the viral video "You Cannot Be Catholic & a Democrat" - which he maintains is the simple truth and a no-brainer statement. Altman discusses the "great tragedy" of the Church, and left-wing cancel culture - the bullying and socialist tactics used in opposition to him and other faithful Catholics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVt10eZMN1M

>Fr. Altman: Progressives = Socialists = Communists (Part III)
>Father James Altman discusses 167 years of warnings from the last TEN popes about the evils of socialism, and how the US is under relentless attack by socialists NOW who openly operate in our country under sweet-sounding names like liberty, justice, love, & equality - "nothing more than adjectives for human exaltation ... man-made 'rights.'"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTasrnpbMpg

>>3811
Jews hate Jesus because Christian creed is detrimental to the existence of Race, and jews value their race. I.e. the Jew hates the Christ to not swallow his own poison – Christianity.

>>3812
Christ sacrifice literally was Jewish blood sacrifice ritual. Jews sacrificed animals to purify from sins and jew again, which lasted for a year. But Jesus is the ultimate sacrifice, the blood of "divine being" was expected to bring eternal freedom from sin. Jesus was that goat upon which sins are ascribed, except he was fictional and had "divine blood". Also, he had royal Jewish blood from king David lineage, per his character sheet.

So, you're claiming that your deity Jesus is anathema of the Jews, yet he was of the Jews blood, soul and also benefited Jews. I hate you.

>>3820
>Christ sacrifice literally was Jewish blood sacrifice ritual.
Nope.
The sacrifice ritual is present way before jews and prevalent among ancient cultures. It is the magical mechanism of how this realm works. We material beings are part of the food chain.

>>3821
It's both.
>It is the magical mechanism of how this realm works.
No, that's how bribery and essentially how the magical mafia works.
>We material beings are part of the food chain.
Your point being?

>>3821
>>3822
I should have clarified. I'm disagreeing with your proposition and implications.
There is a commodity and resources in humanity that all sorts of beings desperately covet.
In honest, kind, and fair transactions I could (and I am) freely associate and reciprocate with generosity.
So flip the table over turn the unjust rulings and be the better man in every aspect as an Übermench in continual improvement. Do what needs and ought to be done. There is always a way.

>>3411
>>3810
>>3822

New memetic structure has been formed i suggest you check
if you wanna understand the whole "beast magic" and inner workings (mostly of ""sin"")

https://memeanalysis.com/myth
https://memeanalysis.com/conspiracy
>a lot there

>>3824
Meme Analysis dude is a lefty and an occultist. I watched some of his stuff it's not perfect, but it's good enough to be somewhat effective.
His apolitical analysis is for his background and experience not bad. It could be considered good except for the limited reality he's surrounded by.
So he's not quite wrong, but he's not quite right and that's the big problem.
The archetypes and myths he's pulling from are dangerous and is a very real threat. The issue is interpretation and it's a blend of truth and warped reality perceptions.
For a quick guide it's deadly much akin to (((hidden hand))) operations. It's good enough, truthful enough, and quick.
It makes perfect complete sense if you're on the (((right side of history))) assholes.
In that it's dangerous in real life that the world is shifting away from reality and perceptions. But it'll explain away 'the enemy'.

The biggest problem as I've said it's not complete and doesn't have a gestalt of the whole picture.
>pic of iceberg meme
That's the sad part is that it's not one must be in sound mind and spirit and body to use the work for its unintended value. A damned (as in will definitely fuck you over of it can) guide that for all intents and purposes is just temping enough. Because there is real value to be gained and learned.
It's incomplete. It offers no direct solutions. What it does do is make a map and checklist.
Then the devil is in the details, inbetween the lines.
As a point of self reflection it's still a poisoned withering double edged sword.

Good work on the website. Could be better, but frankly for its (creator's) intended purpose it's enough.
Be aware, be self reflective and ensure you keep track of what is going into your mind. And if anything is going on.
>New memetic structure has been formed i suggest you check
if you wanna understand the whole "beast magic" and inner workings (mostly of ""sin"")
That's a proto memetic structure. The ""sin"" are for all intents and purposes is better expressed in other means and waters down the goings on around the world, and nearby.
For non-copy right infringement 'myth' it's just not complete.
The fullness of the topics is lacking which lead to its detriment. It could be much more.
As it is it demands attention itself and energy.

>>3820
John 1
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 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.

Jesus' death did not benefit the Jews in the way you suggest, as it would be the end of their order, their control, as they would have to give it all over to Him and be co-owners of eternal life with all who believe. This is something they could never accept, which is part of the reason they could not allow His message proceed, as it would destroy their religious order of control of who rises in society and who is barred from religious services, making profit of the worship of God, something Christ drove them out for.

However, you claim this means that there can be no race and Christianity is a poison for giving allowance for all who believe to be saved. So I will assume that your own religion or lack there of my never be shared with anyone outside your race, or this would be a massive flaw in your logic, as the Bible has many verses for both cooperation of races and at the same time, division and identity, such as God commanding that man separate and not form a unified singular nation under Babel, not allowing people to infiltrate, to be in the world and not of the world, to serve and to not bring in more than two tongues in a single church.

Your misunderstanding of what Christianity is by media and manipulation of ages of corruption, which is certainly something that we must correct, for the standard representative of what a Christian is these days is nothing that stands apart from the globalist horde. Regardless, I think you likely know your argument is built on particularly little but the actions of the mindless masses that claim ownership of something they don't even understand.

I hope you join our journey through Revelation. I'm sure we will find all sorts of interesting things as we go. As for your hate, I hope by the end, you might turn that around to where it should be, the ones that wish us all dead and bound to the corrupting forces of this world.

A couple of clips from:
>Life is Struggle (Extended) - (HD)
https://odysee.com/@TheFascifist:c/Life-is-Struggle-(Extended):b

>>3829
>The Prophesy of Sajara
I believe that is related to the pagan Kali Yuga which is related to The Bible's Revelations.
Sorry the off topic OP.

>>3829
I have no idea what this Prophecy of Sajaha is or what it is referring to with Sargon. It looks to contain some wordings used in Revelation, but it is not part of the canon of the Bible. Though you may still gain some use from extra-biblical texts, they are not inspired and may contain anywhere from flaws to lies to heresy. Best be careful.

Already I can see one direct contradiction from the provided text. It states that the bodies of the dead will be piled into pyramids and burned, which is not what the Bible states.

Revelation 19
17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

The slain will be devoured by birds. Whatever this text is, it clearly is only inspired by reading end time prophecies and not the direct inspiration of God.
>>3830
Most likely this. I need to look into more pagan tradition and religion as often it has at least a touch of familiarity, having branched off of or assimilated biblical information.

Revelation 3
1 And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. 2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. 3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. 5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. 6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Here we begin with the church that is dead, but has a name that they are alive. This most likely refers to that they were known for being an upstanding church or at least had a reputation in the community, or even that they just claimed the name of a body of believers that they were never really modeled after, but now that name for themselves is all they have. Being dead here means to be apart from God, that they don't have anything really to do with God at all, being more of the world and the religions around them. God commands them to keep the few things about them that do remain around God before they are dead as well, for their works aren't perfect, complete and righteous unto God.

Jesus then reminds of the theme He continuously brings up. His return is as a thief in the night. You have no way of ever knowing today is the day you are robbed. It happens at night, when you are tired. It happens when it is most likely to surprise you, when you think everything is normal. Jesus makes this analogy many times, which reinforces that it is to be understood and emphasized.

Even with the church falling apart, Jesus mentions that there are still a few there that are not corrupted. They that overcome will be clothed in white, showing that they are made pure by the mercy of God, and their names will not be blotted out of the book of life, instead they are confessed to God that they are forgiven. And here comes the research on what this means.

Does having your name blotted out mean that someone can lose salvation through being dead in Christ? This will spoil a couple things we will get into later in Revelation, but it is important to understand this now rather than to be confused for months before I get around to covering it. I have a couple of references in Scripture to prove losing salvation is not the case, so let's begin. First order of business is what is this book of life? It is the book that contains all the names of everyone that may live, not to be cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 20
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

It says according to their works still, so could that mean that someone could be good and make it in the book or be bad and be left out? Let's explore more to find out. How does one not get in the book? Anyone that sins is removed from the book.

Exodus 32
31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. 32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin-; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. 33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

We learn from here that God will blot your name out if you sin. You also can't barter with God to trade a human life for a life. As we know, it takes the divine trade of Jesus to do that.

Romans 6
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21 What* fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

But how come doing good things isn't enough? What if you never sin?

Romans 3
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Isaiah 64
4 For since the beginning of the world men have not heard, nor perceived by the ear, neither hath the eye seen, O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. 5 Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved. 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. 7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

Following the law does no good, as it's purpose was to reveal your sin. For all the works that you may do in the name of righteousness, it is as filthy rags. No one can save themselves. All have sinned. But if all have sinned, how come there are names on the book that are blotted out?

James 2
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

John 3
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Romans 5
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

These verses reveal that the world might be saved, meaning that all the people in the world are written in the book. Those that sin will have their names blotted out, and the works of their life judged for they are recorded in the books around Jesus. Those works, as we learned, no matter how great, are still tainted by sin, and thus all who are not found in the book, as they are blotted out by sin, will be cast into the lake of fire. That means all of us are destined for that fate if it wasn't for Jesus, who died in our place and rose from the dead. He confesses our names to God to not be blot out, that we are spared from our fate.

I believe that sums up the book of life pretty well. The final note would be, how can a church be dead? It is filled with those in sin and unbelievers. We reach the verse that splits a lot of people up, but it is important to understand how a church is dead.

James 2
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

This verse clearly lines out that faith alone can't save you, which would render everything I posted null and void without understanding what the passage means. We already established that what we do is evil to God, but what God commands you to do is what makes your faith perfect, complete as it is meant to be. If Abraham told God, yep, I believe you, but I'm not going up that mountain to kill my kid, then what use is that faith? When you believe the Word of God, your life is changed. We go back to what is a work, which is your life, what you do, not just a specific kind of deed. Giving to charity does not save you, but a person that claims to be Christian that is never charitible is likely not saved at all, as is revealed to us through Scripture.

Galatians 5
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

The Holy Spirit compells you to do good works, to live right with God, and to hate the fruit of the world. You are dead if you have no works. You just know the name of God, and you aren't His own. You are as the false preachers, that know all about God, they likely even believe He exists, but they aren't saved.

Matthew 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot* bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. 21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them*, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This ties back to the devils, or demons, James mentions, that believe in Jesus, yet aren't saved. Salvation is something only you and God can know between yourselves. You know if you are saved if you believed in the Lord. Nothing you do can save you from your fate. After salvation, your heart is changed.

II Corinthians
4 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: 15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again. 16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. 17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Therefore, if you are saved, you will obey God. You will still sin in this body, as I can testify to. You will never be perfect as all you are is still flesh, still tied to the world, still tempted by the devil. But you will also now have the fruit of the spirit, you can pray to God for wisdom, understanding, and help to show yourself more fruitful, to make your works perfect in Him. In essence, your faith allows you to do works which makes your faith perfect. Again, there is no measure of what works to do, because that isn't what the verse is saying. You don't do x good things to please God, you simply believe and do what God commands, the good works are set out in the Bible, the fruit of the spirit. That is what keeps you and the body of Christ alive.

That was a longer one, but I feel like that was a great look at everything you can learn from just a short passage.

>>3843
Glad to have you back.

something I thought of from this discussion; God is very patient with us and holds off on punishment and judgement, in order to win us over to repentance and obedience.

Also it's super neat how God writes His ways into our hearts as we walk with Him more and more. It really is Jesus changing us when it's deeply rooted sins which He helps us overcome. Always keep fighting and know that it's ok to mess up a lot, as long as you're fighting to move forward. The righteous man falls seven times and rises again.

I am going through some struggles right now with a family member. If you keep him in your prayers, that would be very kind right now.

Revelation 3
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; 8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Here we find Jesus talking to the church in Philadelphia. The name comes from the root of love as one has for a brother, making it a fitting name for a church that is faithful unto God. He says what He opens, no man can shut, and what He shuts, no man can open. The immediate parallel most make is opportunity opening and closing, but it is much more than that. It is all events in the world. Nothing happens that catches God off guard because He opened the way and closes anything that may not be. Here we see that the works of the church are known and so God opens up something that can not be undone by any force of the world. For they had a little strength and had not denied God, He set up for them a great mission. The synagogue of Satan will come and worship before them, for they will understand that the love of God is with the church and not themselves.

The reward for keeping the faith is being kept from the hour of temptation, that tries them that dwell on the earth. This refers to what the rest of Revelation will cover, the rise of the antichrist, who tempts the world into worship of the dragon, Satan. They will have no part in the coming disaster. Just like the previous church, they are instructed to hold on to what they have. To those that overcome, they are made the pillar in the temple of God, meaning they are what hold it up, and they won't leave it. They will also have the name of God written on them, which is the counter to the antichrist, which will have his name or his number written on those that serve him. Jesus then reveals what will be covered in more detail at the end of the book, New Jerusalem. Finally, Jesus reveals that they will also bear His new name, which also will be covered towards the end of the book.

I must apologize for the quality of this post. I might return to it later with more references and Scripture to back up different lessons you can take from this passage, but I couldn't get it all worded just right this time, so I omitted it for now. Perhaps I will have a clear head and a better study for next time. Until then, thank you for sticking with me so far.

It's weird that Divorce makes a more permanent connection between two adults than Marriage.

What does The Bible have to say on marriage, divorce, and how adult relationships are supposed to function?

Hey what's with that Romans part of the bible where God says a government must be obeyed?

An obnoxious atheist I know mentioned it.

>>4399
Of course, a government and employees submitting to The People. Not the other way around.

>>4399
The Social Contract is broken and the legacy administration is reaching the end of its tenure.

>>4399
Are you referring to the 'render unto caesar' bit?

How do I BTFO the atheist cunt who won't shut up about the Bible's "Render unto caesar" stuff?

>>4399
>Hey what's with that Romans part of the bible where God says a government must be obeyed?
Check the following out cuck.

>Christian Theory of Resistance to Tyranny
>Biblical examples of resisting illegitimate demands of legitimate governments.
>Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Moses, Peter, Paul.
>Need a religious exemption to Covid? Watch this video.
>Christian culture provides built-in anti-bodies to tyranny.
https://tv.gab.com/channel/cybertext/view/resisting-tyranny-biblical-examples-6161ffe3f025a17fe73ecc31
Mirrors:
https://rumble.com/vnj2sj-christian-theory-of-resistance-to-covid-tyranny.html
https://www.brighteon.com/a1439966-880d-49f2-b06f-98d9a072693e

>>4412
Thanks bro!

What's the "Whore of Babylon/Daughter of Babylon" stuff about in the Bible?

>>4430
whose side are you on

>>4431
Yes.
>>4432
To be fair standing for what you believe is good advice. It's the how it's gone about, as a legal stand point that is a perfectly legal fine answer for illegal laws.
The side that wants a better future for good people despite the world being The Serpant's (according to The Bible, which is also subservient under God).
Passively accepting mass murder by turning around and laying down sounds like a terrible plan.
Granted if everyone was on the same page that wouldn't occur in the first place due to nobody committing to actions against the All Mighty Lord.
And granted they are technically easily intimidated.
But they also go into hiding as easily as they lie.
Further more doing the spiritual working through the physical for the spiritual is fine as a plan as that what the idealized Christianity is about.
Doing as Jesus has done, yet also the old testament and pic related has worked along side the soft all pervasive part for a time.
t. uneducated semi-Christian pagan cuck

>>4433
I think the best thing that can be done right now is to spread the truth.
I dream of a world where everyone knows jet fuel can't melt steel beams AND Hitler did nothing wrong.

A German cartoon: "If Adam and Even were East Asians 😉 and the snake said “Try this apple….”

>>4524
Based?

>>4525
God approves it.

You know, I've been thinking, with the rapture seemingly rapidly approaching...
the west (USA, general area) is not really mentioned in revelations at all, not even indirectly to my knowledge. There are still things said that apply globally, such as the various curses and such that affect all seas, land, and various other things.
One of those things mentioned early on in the book of revelations is famine, war, and death (1/4 of the global population specifically mentioned) from one of the 7 seals broken by Jesus.
I'm wondering if 'the west' isn't mentioned because it will be so far gone in recession that there is nothing it can do.

The other thing that I sometimes entertain the thought of is Texas pulls out of the USA union with some other states, and becomes one of the two countries that the antichrist obliterates early on in his reign. Though at the rate things are going, that's going to be poland and hungary... maybe. Unless those are still counted as one country under the EU, with the EU being defined as one of the 10 kings giving the antichrist power.

I don't know. Things are moving so fast its difficult to try to guess at whats going to happen in the near future should the rapture happen right now.

>>4545
>rapture
That's a false doctrine coming from the (((judeo-evangelic))) wing of Christianity.
Just saying.

>>4545
>rapture
You may want to do a further reading.
https://www.bible.ca/rapture.htm

>>4546
>>4547
Incorrect. This is a biblical position that is backed by direct Scriptural references. We can see references to this in 1 Thessalonians 4:13
13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

There is a literal going up into the air, what we understand with the terminology of rapture. This is further reinforced in Revelation 14:14-16, a reaping of the harvest of the earth, what Christ refers to in Matthew 13:37-43
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world*; the good seed are* the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil*; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. 41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

And again in Matthew 9:36-38
36 But when he saw the multitudes, he was moved with compassion on them, because they fainted*, and were scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd. 37 Then saith he unto his disciples,The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few; 38 Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth labourers into his harvest.

I've been thinking, in revelations and daniel, there are 10 "kings" that give power to the antichrist. What if those kings are actually CEOs? A CEO is probably closer to the kind of rule a king had back in the day anyway.

Any thoughts on this?

>>4558
Allow me to suggest that it more likely refers to bloodlines/families than CEOs, as that would include CEOs as well

>>4558
I would say so, and they are much more relevant than heads of state (at least most of them) who are puppets and switched out frequently. Bill Clinton is no longer relevant, but Bill Gates still is, even if he isn't technically the CEO of Microsoft.

>>4560
right... that's why I was thinking about it and said something "you know, this kinda makes more sense in today's climate". The uprooting of three kings could simply mean trade agreement levies against three large companies to the degree that they wither and die.

One of the things that is going to happen is God is going to utterly smite and destroy a central trading city used by the entire world. If USA is so far gone in recession like its shaping up to be, then what is left that can be considered a central trading hub for the world?
Dubai? It is already considered the richest city in the world. I don't know how much general trade goes on there though, or if things are moving in that direction for Dubai.
Right now I would still consider it to be new york simply because of the stonk exchange. However markets are getting ready to implode because of the impending collapse of the USD and government lockdowns over a fake virus.
Are there lots of people in Dubai doing crypto currency trading?

Remember, the tribulation only lasts 7 years. If USA collapses economically and puts the global trade focus on the middle east (or somewhere else), it would be much longer than 7 years to rebuild what was lost.

https://youtube.com/shorts/lJLX__XH6Mw?feature=share
Please appreciate that this is not intended to be contentious. Please also appreciate that I agree that one can/should readily dismiss the orator personally for,... well its literally written on his face.
If it helps, dont even look at him when he speaks, the point is what he says.

>>4772
I'm confused, and I watched it twice. Is he trying to say that satan is not in the bible and instead they "translated" it to satan because of some person with the same name the translators didn't like?
Regardless, this guy was using google translate to base everything he says off of. Google is pretty verifiably not trustworthy for anything, forming search results/words/news/translations in such a way that they can mold public opinion.

As a final note, that guy in the video has so many tattoos, and the way he talks, that it looks like he would rather talk with his body rather than mouth. Probably why its difficult to follow.

>>4773
No. What he is saying is that Lucifer is never correlated with Satan at all, except through a political ploy by the person who transliterated the bible into latin, to undermine his rival at the time. The word Lucifer means bringer of light. It was translated that way because at the time the translator was competing with an individual NAMED Lucifer. So to subtly malign him in the translation, he translated the term Son of Morning into Bringer of Light.

The distinction is this.
Prior to the translation, the name lucifer exclusively meant Bringer of Light, and in a historical context Lucifer was exclusively reserved for the 'pursuit of enlightenment' in a very eastern traditional sense.
AFTER the translation, there was that definition AND Lucofer was correlated with the concept of 'the adversary'. It wasnt a true and accurate translation, it was political expedience.

>>4774
Then he clearly does not know of the more accurately translated versions. New American Standard Bible is the most technically accurate English version available.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-American-Standard-Bible-NASB1995/#booklist
They started clean-slate with the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Its not as common probably because its too technically accurate for most people, so instead a fluffy "god" is invented and perpetrated using "translations" like the new living translation.

>>4776
To that point

>>4777
What Im getting at while checking my trip 7s is that Lucifer is/was NOT the name of the fallen angel archetype, and that it was applied to was of artifice.

>>4776
>>4777
>>4778
NAS Bible deletes biblical text and uses poor translations from time to time. For instance, it deletes mention of an angelic interaction in John 5:4. So no, just because another translation makes no mention of Lucifer, light bearer, morning star, the angel of light, that doesn't mean you have proof there was no connection in history to this name.

We furthermore can reference other passages to understand this is indeed the name being referred to beyond one verse you have picked out. For instance:
2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Directly calling Satan an angel of light, connecting to the morning star reference, Lucifer being the Hebrew naming convention translated into English for that title, just as Jesus is the naming convention of God saves us, translated into English. Yet there is more that directly connects:

Revelation 12:7-11
And there was a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

This directly connects to Isaiah 14:12-15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Now, Isaiah is telling this in a proverb against the king of Babylon. The NAS is trying to give the king the title of morning star and say it is divorced from any reverence to Lucifer and Satan as an entity, but rather, it makes no sense in that way, because it references things only Satan would do, weaken the nations, arise and be like the most High, the king is being talked to in a way that is referring to who possesses him and who he worships. It further connects to the fallen nature of Satan, the only one that would have been in heaven to cut down to the ground, as we know in Luke 10:18:
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

Finally, we get to the root of this. We see the true morning star referenced in Revelation 22:16
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Jesus is the true morning star, the one that overcomes the one cut from heaven, the one that claims the title, the one that weakens the nations, the one that wants all to worship him over the Creator, the one that cannot accept Christ.

1 John 4:1-5
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

This again connects to the one that is not in heaven, cast out, fallen, and is in the earth, who will not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and died to free us of all transgressions, who will claim the throne on earth as the spirit of the antichrist. This is what it means when we say Lucifer is Satan. He is the fallen angel, the once morning star, the star that will try to overcome the true morning star in our hearts, Jesus Christ.

>>4781
Sorry I missed this one. Lots to go through.
>NAS Bible deletes biblical text and uses poor translations from time to time.
I'll come back to this one, but for clarity you literally just cast dount on the 3ntire translation.
>So no, just because another translation makes no mention of Lucifer, light bearer, morning star, the angel of light, that doesn't mean you have proof there was no connection in history to this name
To the contrary, we're not talking about a casual ommission, we're talking about - as you stated - the most authentic translation available, that deliberately omits any reference to Lucifer. This 'suggests' that modern translators recognized the use of Lucifer was incorrect, and deliberatrly translated it otherwise.
>Directly calling Satan an angel of light, connecting to the morning star reference, Lucifer being the Hebrew naming convention translated into English for that title
Uhm, Lucifer is derived from latin, not hebrew. Specifically - as indicate in other thread(s) the word Lucifer is derived of a mistranslation for the greek/hebrew term(s) Son of Morning, bearing a resemblance to 'Lucifer' only to the political expedience of the translator, and not intellectual authenticity.
Moreover, it references 'Satan' transformed into an angel of light, as opposed to BEING one.
Unless thats suggesting that after 'the fall' Satan BECAME an angel, that doesnt help your argument.
Additionally, Ill throw out the fact that Christian scholars are shit at interpreting the old testament (for all their faults, thats something the jews have on lockdown), but thats more of an aside.
>revelations
Okay, we're gonna have fun with this one, but Ill start with the assertions.
>O Lucifer, son of the morning!
And yet, thats literally not what it says. This is what Im getting at in the first quotation, you're trying to have it both ways. Either the source is authoritative or it isnt. You dont get to pick and choose whether its accurate or not, nor insert what 'you're sure'was supposed to go there - in defiance of the authority (trade-wise) of the contemporary translators. One must assume that either A. the translators were not sufficiently competent, or those glaring ommissions were deliberate and with cause.
>The NAS is trying to give the king the title of morning star
Incorrect. As has also been referenced, Lucifer is a title of enlightenment not a name.
What this means is that Isaiah is rebuking the king (and company) for daring to attempt such a title in opposition to the word's meaning, for all the listed reasons.
Hes not calling him Lucifer, hes explaining why the term Lucifer is.not appropriate. Remember, they didnt write down the contemporaneous meanings because they were 'the only' meanings they were familiar with, and so to them doing so would be redundant. Ergo, you cant go into all this assuming the modern meaning of words, you have to read from the sources.
>I Jesus
Really? You really think thats what was said?
>Jesus is the true morning star,
You were so close! Jesus is the Lucifer! The light bearer! The resplendent amidst darkness and ignorance! The unstoppable force! (btw, the immovable object is entropy)
This is why Isaiah rebuked the king, because they were fixing to call him by a title only reserved (authentically) for the most high, which the king was not. To read this passage and try to assume that Lucifer as a concept is bad, and then read the term being -accurately! - applied to Jesus is ansurdly contradictory.
Why? Because, while Lucifer is a title rightly reserved for Jesus, it was (again that word) contemporaneously applied to advanced teachers, philosophers, builders, etc. Kind of like how theres a dime a dozen gurus out there who are described by their followers as enlightened. This is not the fault of the word, this is the fault of the people using it in ignorance.
Remember my rant about people being ignorant of the very words they use? Its noy just a modern problem
>antichrist
Now we're getting somewhere. Are you of the assumption that 'antichrist' refers to an individual? Not a great plan.
In that Christ - derived of Christos - refers to the state of enlightenment, what do you think the antithesis means?
Obviously it refers to a state of ignorance. That is why its 'spirit of antichrist', and not 'of THE antichrist'. Additionally, spirit had many connotations for the time, including 'willful'.
Long story short, that section refers to people being willfully ignorant, NOT following a particular entity called 'the antichrist'.
>This again connects to the one that is not in heaven, cast out, fallen, and is in the earth,
Uhm, where does it say that? It literally doesnt, not even implicitly.
>who will not confess Jesus Christ is come in the flesh and died to free us of all transgressions
Nor that. Thats a conclusion reached and purported by orthodoxy, and doesnt appear in the selected.section. Isaiah had plenty to say, no need to put words into his.mouth.
>who will claim the throne on earth as the spirit of the antichris
Incorrect, as I have indicated.
<who will attempt to falsely claim the throne on earth through willful ignorance
Ftfy
>This is what it means when we say Lucifer is Satan
>we
Slips aside, this is why Im going through lengths to.convey to you that Lucifer is a word/title/concept, not a name. Satan is wrong too (its Yyaldabaoth) but it will suffice, given the extraordinary amount of research it takes to unearth the name and meaning. So we'll go with Satan.
Notice I dont contest there being an adversary, a fallen angel, etc ad nauseum? Thats because its incontravertable. Sidenote reminder: I have told (you) specifically on countless occasions that there is no 'the' devil, that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal. But anyway.
My whole point has been and is to indicate that 'Lucifer' is not:
- Satan
- A specific entity
- A/the antichrist

It IS in fact
- An archetype
- A title
- A commonly used term given the timefram3

>>4832
>Really? You really think that's what was said?
I copied it directly from the text, so yes, Jesus is speaking in that line and is saying His name, Jesus, while using the pronoun "I". I don't understand this objection.
>Jesus is the Lucifer!
I thought Lucifer isn't a term that exists in the Bible though, with the true translation or something... I'm not sure which is the true translation if you both will agree that I have cast doubt on the translation you showed me and deny it was wrong. If it is correct, then we can't begin to use Lucifer as a term for Christ because that term was not used in the Bible, or we are affixing a term that is not used in the text...

Unless I am correct that Lucifer does mean "son of the dawn", followed up in that translation by star of the morning... which means that it is exchangeable in this text and is not inaccurate.

>Are you of the assumption that 'antichrist' refers to an individual?
No. If you bothered to read any of my other posts, I have expressly said that there are layers to the antichrist system, the primary revealed in Revelation as a sort of super nation, seven heads and ten horns, the ten horns referring to ten kings, three of which are usurped in the text, giving way to one, which is the typically understood figurehead of the antichrist system, the widely known as the antichrist, which is why there is confusion.

>we
>Slips aside
No slip is present either way. I meant in writing as a collective we for Christians that describe Lucifer. It also counts due to the fact that all Christians house the Holy Spirit within, which means regardless of the angle, that is the truth.

>there is no 'the' devil
The Bible points out several devils, also stated as being demons, but only attributes one the name Satan and says he is the devil. When you say you are reporting to the boss, you must be denying that your boss has a boss who has a boss, as the chain of command goes up.

No, rather there is a specified one being referred to, which is the fallen one that convinced all others to rebel.

>Uhm, where does it say that?
Did you read the text I provided? It is in the very text you brought up that you claim proves that Lucifer both doesn't exist in the text and is actually good and Christ at the same time. I will quote again.
"This directly connects to Isaiah 14:12-15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

How you are fallen. This is the fallen one, as Christ said, seen cast down like lightning, as I have already mentioned in the provided texts.

>Lucifer is a title of enlightenment, not a name
I already said that it was a title, which you quoted. However, you suggest that the title is incorrect, while also saying the title doesn't exist in the text. If the term Lucifer does exist, then your argument holds more weight because you can argue that the writer is saying he holds the title incorrectly.

But let's not forget "This 'suggests' that modern translators recognized the use of Lucifer was incorrect, and deliberately translated it otherwise." and >>4777
Which means you believe Lucifer was not in the text at all, meaning the argument the title was taken wrongly is abused, because the title is not present according to you. So, the argument must default to the content to determine what even is being talked about. We know he is talking to a king, which in not liked. So, if the text is referring only to him, and the title does not fit or exist, then why would the text give him the title while referring to the same falling as every other mention of Satan?

The most simple answer is that the author is calling the man one of the devils, possessed most likely, or at the very least claiming him to be. This would match the declaration against him, not giving him any worthy title, working as a parallel that the people understand, a fallen one like this son of the morning, morning star. Since when does the morning star fall? Would that not immediately break the metaphor? The mark of this insult is parallel.

>it references Satan transformed into an angel of light, as opposed to BEING one
Then it makes all the more sense for you to accept the adversary would take the title of enlightened one, which matched with a bright and morning star in this passage, if he is the great deceiver and enemy. Why would he not take to that immediately? He wants to be God and Jesus. Why would this title be sacred and cannot be in the hands of the biggest force against humanity? I am suggesting that this title was always his and his fall is what made that title ironic.

>that is why is it 'spirit of antichrist' and not 'of THE antichrist'
Correct, that is why when this head of the system I have already referred to in my various other posts comes, he will be the antichrist among antichrists, the boss among bosses. That is what "the" keeps referring to.
>NOT following a particular entity
2 Thessalonians 2:7-12
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with brightness of his coming. Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish: because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

>>4833
Yes, there will be an entity at the head, a spokesman for Satan.

>Obviously it refers to a state of ignorance.
As you can see, that is only part of the equation.

>I'll throw out the fact that Christian scholars are shit at interpreting the Old Testament
You are making it too easy. This refutes your whole claim that there can be a more accurate Bible translation, especially in the modern era, as they clearly just don't understand what words to put there. They left out Lucifer by accident by your own logic.

>This is what I'm getting at in the first quotation, you're trying to have it both ways.
As are you, as something can't not exist in the text but also be a proof that Lucifer means Jesus. You have helped me see though that son of dawn, which is what they replaced Lucifer with, helps tie down even more positively that it must be what Lucifer means, which makes double sense as the angel was named that as he has to do with the dawn light,
combined with what we know from your push that it is enlightenment, means that Lucifer is indeed the self given title to the one that I have connected as the main human antagonist. And since that title was attached right by "the star of the morning", we have a best title for Satan: morning star, fallen one.

>Uhm, Lucifer is derived from latin, not hebrew.
Greek as well it seems. Copied from a wiki, so not fully accurate, but there is quite a bit of evidence that seems to support each other:
"In the Book of Isaiah, chapter 14, the king of Babylon is condemned in a prophetic vision by the prophet Isaiah and is called [hebrew] (Helel ben Shachar, Hebrew for "shining one, son of the morning"), who is addressed as [hebrew] (Hêlêl ben Šāḥar), The title "Helel ben Shahar" refers to the planet Venus as the morning star, and that is how the Hebrew word is usually interpreted. The Hebrew word transliterated as Hêlêl or Heylel, occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint renders [hebrew] in Greek as Ἑωσφόρος (heōsphoros), "bringer of dawn", the Ancient Greek name for the morning star. Similarly the Vulgate renders [hebrew] in Latin as Lucifer, the name in that language for the morning star. According to the King James Bible-based Strong's Concordance, the original Hebrew word means "shining one, light-bearer", and the English translation given in the King James text is the Latin name for the planet Venus, "Lucifer", as it was already in the Wycliffe Bible.

However, the translation of [hebrew] as "Lucifer" has been abandoned in modern English translations of Isaiah 14:12. Present-day translations render [hebrew] as "morning star" (New International Version, New Century Version, New American Standard Bible, Good News Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, Contemporary English Version, Common English Bible, Complete Jewish Bible), "daystar" (New Jerusalem Bible, The Message), "Day Star" (New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version), "shining one" (New Life Version, New World Translation, JPS Tanakh), or "shining star" (New Living Translation).

Which fits the Greek/Latin translation that Lucifer was pulled from to make the early translations, which older Hebrew versions don't have because there was no title for son of dawn. Now we have even more assured proof that we are on track. There is a strong connection with Lucifer, the morning star, and Satan.

>Nor that. Thats a conclusion reached and purported by orthodoxy, and doesn't appear in the selected section. Isaiah had plenty to say, no need to put words into his mouth.
Correct, not in that text, but in the others I have shown, I have definitely made the case that Satan is connected to the spirit of antichrist, which will not confess Christ. So to say otherwise is disingenuous.

>Notice I don't contest there being an adversary, a fallen angel, etc. ad nauseum?
But he just can't have the title that he is known to possess?

>Satan is wrong too (its Yyaldabaoth) but it will suffice
Technically Jesus is wrong too, but it is the translated name. We use translated names to help us communicate. It is helpful when dealing with names of people from thousands of years ago in a dead tongue.

>Why? Because, while Lucifer is a title rightly reserved for Jesus it was (again that word) contemporaneously applied to advanced teachers, philosophers, builders, etc. Kind of like how there's a dime a dozen gurus out there who are described by their followers as enlightened. This is not the fault of the word, this is the fault of the people using it in ignorance.
And this is the major problem and why people hate that name tied to Jesus, as He is no mere philosopher, teacher, or builder. He is God incarnate. To say otherwise is to reject the foundations of the faith, for the death of a man, no matter how great, saves no one. If He does not atone, then there is no point to worship Him. If He did not raise from the dead, then neither will we. Then what are you left with? Utter uselessness. To deny the divinity and works of Christ is to deny the existence of the whole, because there is nothing to be gained from the words of a dead deity, for we serve the true and living God.

I suppose it is hard to understand, but you are suggesting that Jesus is simply wise is the foundational problem and why there is a massive battle we are having in the first place. If you are correct, then why do you fight for this title? What is the point of a Lucifer if there is no Christ? What is the point in knowledge if there is no life beyond this? What is the point in seeking the best when the worst is all that shall be rewarded in life?

>>4834
Apparently the hebrew I tried to reference is seen by the spam filter as me attempting Zaldo text

>>4834
>You were so close! Jesus is the Lucifer! The light bearer! The resplendent amidst darkness and ignorance! The unstoppable force! (btw, the immovable object is entropy)
There are diametrically opposing world views and are incompatible, which is perhaps why you care at all what this old book says about a title that you believe isn't even in it. Otherwise, if you truly believed it was all just different interpretations of the same truth, you would just accept it as one way of looking at it. But it is true, and you fight for the use and honor of a word that is meaningless to anyone other than the religiously studied.

Jesus isn't the light bearer. He is the light, the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come before the Father but through Him. He doesn't fight ignorance, though it is a product of those that refuse to follow the light, He has come to seek and to save that which is lost.

Isaiah 53:6-12
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgement: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death: because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief; when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail of His soul, and be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He hath poured out His soul unto death: and He was numbered with the transgressors; and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

This means that Christ deserved royalty, but took a lowly life, declared who He was, and was killed for it, all according to the plan. For He didn't die just to say something smart. He didn't die to have people reach enlightenment. He died so all can be guiltless before God and enter into His presence. This is the fundamental reason Luciferianism cannot be supported, as a smart man, a good man, and a charitable man will all go to the same place, the grave. After that is the judgement. If you believe in no afterlife, then enlightenment is of little value. If there is, then does that enlightenment grant you access? Is it a scale of arbitrary weight of good to access? Or is it the truth, that no one gets in without sending the innocent to die willingly to cover their sin, as the weight of one sin alone tips the scales, of which all are guilty? And since all are guilty, that means no one can die for another to get in, save there was someone that was sent that was innocent. This is Jesus, Son of God, the Word made flesh, the anointed one promised to take the sin of the world away.

And now all may enter heaven. They only need to believe.

I probably didn't reply to each point and I probably didn't make everything super clear, but it is late and I got more things to do. I'll tack on some more if I look back and facepalm at something obvious I missed.

>>4774
the correllation of "shining one, son of morning" is in the original text directly though. The guy in the video isn't using the right reference tools, picrel has the strong's entry for that word that he had google translated to "greatly praised".

on brief searching, the latin "lucifer" appears to refer to venus (the morning star) in the same way this passage seems to.

The interesting thing to me though is that Jesus says he is the bright morning star in revelation (greek picrel). It's not clear to me what the meaning is between the contrasting uses of the similar imagery.

Aside from the translation stuff, what exactly are you trying to say about that name and its connotations? You mentioned it's pursuit of enlightenment as in eastern traditions? I don't understand how that's related to the Word at all. Could you elaborate on what you mean by that stuff?

Can you explain Deuteronomy 25:11-12

>>4838
It is self-explanatory. It is one of the laws. Very specific, but nothing further to explain.

>>4837
What are you referring to as 'the original texts', and why arent translations being derived from that?
>the guy isnt using the right reference tools
Back at you
>Venus
Yea! So glad you mentioned it! Strange correlation, you might think. The Star of the Morning just happens to be the Greco-Roman deity of femininity.
Who was cast (down) from the divine trinity.
Ill avoid getting sidetracked with that tangent, but yes; Lucifer (as the son of morning and NOT 'the adversary') is literally referencing the otherwise wrongfully cadtigated and defamed divine feminine aspect.
>can you elaborate
Of course, Ive alreafy begun. It will take me some time however. I mean, its well enough for me to reference my findings, but thats little use to the observer.

But to simply summarize.

Long before Christianity, many of the practices and teachings of Christianity went by the term that was applicable at the time. This term (through translations from okder dialects and traditions) was Luciferianism, or the tradition that sought and exhalted Lucifer, the bearer of knowledge/wisdom, resplendent light, etc. Aside from specofic details, Christianity is the younger 'brother' of Luciferianism, and when the Bible is adequately decoded (its an occult text with encrypted text, like/recognize it or not) they work seamlessly and in harmony.
The problem is that evil and avaricious individuals have been given carte blanche over Christendom, and have done of/with it what they will.
The God-figure in thebgarden of Eden was/is not God.
THATS Yyaldabaofh, who commanded that humanity stagnate in ignorance (literally forbidden to partake in the fruit of knowledge).
Lucifer/Jesus WAS the serpent that emancipated them through Eve (funny how much creation the female is respknsible for, and yet omitted from Christian recognition).
Ill come back to/for the rest.

>>4840
I go by the Bible directly, and it says who the Creator is and who my Savior is quite clearly. luci aint it bro
Proverbs 1:7a
יראת יהוה ראשית דעת

>>4841
Thank you for openly admitting that your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book, a veritably new fan-fiction based on far older (and more pure) traditions. Congratulations, you have chosen willful ignorance (read: literally the spirit of the antichrist).

>>4842
>Thank you for openly admitting that your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book,
Yup. It is not about reason, but faith.

A quick addendum:
My point is and has been to emphasize that 'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia, however the fact remains that 'Jesus' is the name given to (the) Lucifer by Judeo-Christendom.

>>4843
>ignorance is faith
Textbook antichristian

>>4845
>ignorance
Well, you are proposing "illuminism" aka "enlightment which means you consider that christians are in the darkness. It is your opinion.
On the other hoof, the consequences of that moral relativism brought by the "renaissance" are in full display today. So I will pass.

>>4844
>My point is and has been to emphasize that 'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype
According to the Bible that won't fly.

>>4844
>Judeo-Christendom
Huh? Do you know that Judeo is the anti-thesis of Christendom.
Judeo is defined by the rejection of Christ, so it looks like you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>4846
Enlightenment is what Christos meant. The Christ is the person who had achieved Christos.
>which means you consider that christians are in the darkness
Do I? Whether a person is of the antichrist (willfully ignorant) is specific to the individual. I consider individuals who are Christian and willfully ignorant just as much of the antichrist as non Christians who do likewise. Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry, idgaf what flavor a person calls themselves.
>the rennaissance
Such as?
>>4847
As I said, willful ignorance, which is of the antichrost.

>>4848
Whered the Old Testament come from bucko?

>>4850
>>4844
>Bucko
>Judeo-Christian
Hello jordan peterson.

>>4849
>Enlightenment is what Christos meant.
Nope, it refers a historical period after the middle ages.

>the rennaissance
>Such as?
Get a book about general history. It has no point to engage with you if you are at k-12 level.

>>4851
No retort but Ad Hominem? Cant say the jews eh? Cant acknowledge that the old testament is the exact same book as the Torah? Cant acknowledge that Christendom is inexorably tied to Judaism?
>>4852
>Nope, it refers a historical period after the middle ages.
<Enlightenment as a concept has ONLY existed in the last 600 years. NO ONE EVER has had such a tradition in all of history. No civilizations, cultures, or groups EVER pursued enlightenment - nevermind all the etymological origins of words - outside the 16th century
o_o
>>4852
>resorts to insults
I see, you're so dogmatic that you'd rather engage in insults rather than validate one of the vaguest statements ITT. Very anti-Christian of you.

>>4853
You can do better. I'm confident in your eloquence.

>>4854
You're right I could but pearls before swine, after all.

>>4842
>your mind is closed except to the contents of a single book
precisely. otherwise, I would not be adhering to Christ, who is the revealed Word.

cryptic knowledge is a false idol. I'm not even sure what you're seeking by "enlightenment". in any case, you're advocating for the dissolution of what anchors Christianity, turning it instead into a formless and shifting eastern mysticism blob.
I've felt the pull of it before, and it's the junk food of spirituality. Much of the Bible feels "mundane" and "boring" rather than giving dopamine highs by reading it, but when you spend actual time reading it then it's powerful and active in and through you. This contrasts with mysticism of many kinds, which feel like a dopamine rush as you seek things, but despite spending lots of time and getting high off it, there's really no substance to it practically. Same difference between eating healthy meals vs eating junk food as your only food.

>>4860
Before we continue, what orthodoxy and/or denomination to you prescribe to?
>cryptic knowledge
Theres nothing cryptic about it, if one has done their homework
>you're advocating for the dissolution of what anchors Christianity
Wrong again, Im advocating for the dissolution of the authoritarian devotion to a fable that was intended to convey meaning before it was wrested and corrupted into a tyrrannical doctrine of 'believe and do what you're told', as has happened with Christianity (not exclusively).
>Much of the Bible feels "mundane" and "boring" rather than giving dopamine highs by reading it
Sorry, but thats simply not true, at least in my experience. Just because interpret the word differently than you doesnt mean I dont respect the work. What I DONT resprect is the blind and fanatical devotion that has developed generationally, which could only occurr once the masses have been so far removed from the meanings and concepts that what is false is readily purported as true.
I know all about the 'religious experience', its one of my favorite states to experience. The problem is, religious experiences can be induced and people can be conditioned to believe and feel gratified in the pursuit of ideas that are patently false, and the ignorance of history (or anything, if it contests the rather infantile level of due diligence applied in critical analysis) is observably and conclusively anti-Jesus.
>This contrasts with mysticism of many kinds, which feel like a dopamine rush as you seek things
Then you were doing it wrong, because metaphysics is anything BUT exciting and dopamine-inducing. Its like reading an encyclopedia. One doesnt do it because its fun, exciting, or dopamine-stimulating, one does it because it leads to a greater level of comprehension and understanding. Metaphysics is pretty boring tbh, but the ends are worth the effort.
>Healthy food vs. junk food
Good choice of metaphor, but not for the reasons you suggest.
Which is more 'junk food'?
In one practice, one does what they are told, 'eats' what they are told to 'eat', and spends their life a supplicant.
In another, one realizes that they are responsible for their own actions beyond the dictates of men or books (read: learns to self regulate, independently), and 'eats' progressively healthier as they come to comprehend better ingredients, different ways of preparing the food, etc, while also developing their skills of preparing said food.
One practice involves stagnation and arrested development (read: increasing entropy) and one involves emergence and self actualization (read: increasing affinity).

>>4861
sorry, I just don't see it that way. I do obey Jesus, who is in direct authority over me. I see no problem with that. It is precisely the arrogance written about for the shining star of morning passage which seeks to elevate the individual to an equal authority as God. It's a self-idolatry trap.

>>4864
And you're entitled to that position.
On the contrary, I exalt Jesus/Lucifer as the source of my emergence. However, I dont do what men tell me I 'must'.

>>4842
If not from the book, wtf is your source?

>>4870
Who said it wasnt from the book? Knowledge of Jesus comes and begins from the Bible. However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it

>>4871
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
>Tl;dr Not the whole Bible, just parts of it
That's where you are wrong bucko.

>>4873
>That's where you are wrong bucko.
According to which orthodoxy?

On the topic of orthodoxy, care to comment on these nuggets pulled from the flatty?
The insinuation being that scripture supports flat earth and by virtue anything anti-flat is anti-bible/christian

>>4894
does flatty provide a source for these claims

>>4895
If pressed he will claim to have, and then wave his hand vaguely at the pages upon pages of unsupportive nonsense he has posted and refuse to 'spoonfeed' when citations are asked for.
My point in presenting his,... 'content' is to illustrate that it is readily easy for an individual to maintain their convictions even when unsupported by evidence, especially when the evidence is subjective. Im sure you have felt that way about assertions I've made, and vice versa.
And for all my cheeky quips, thr only conviction I maintain is that:
There is literal truth to the Bible and its accounts, however much of it is plainly untrue, as evidenced by historical record. Yet, in spite of this, these many sections maintain that they are 100% accurate and valid.
The walls of Jericho, being an easy example.
My position is that as elegant and largely accurate as the Bible (as a whole) is, theres two problems: The first is the millenia(s) divide between the time things were written, coupled with the psychological failings of humanity - especially when dealing with authoritarian constructs, politics, power/hierarchy structures, etc; one must always be aware of the culture at the time and the degree of malfeasance people are want to employ to serve their own ends (whitewashing either during or in the aftermath).
The second is the inability/unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions.
We can agree that many currently-held positions wrt scripture are no different than those held say, in the inquisition (again, Im approaching this assuming there isnt a consistent catastrophe that resets humanity every few hundred to thousand years).
And while this isnt an argument, the idea that the Inquisition was 'doing Christianity proper-like' is... unsupportable.
I rather think Jesus would view the inquisition as an abomination.

Got away from my point.
My point is, the Jesus I know
which would likely be refuted because I equate him with Lucifer, which is contrary to the Jesus you know, even though historical evidence of religions supports my premise
is more offended by ignorance (both willful and negligent) than entertainment of ideas.
More directly, Jesus does not support being ignorant and superficially dismissive of unexplored ideas. The reason being, the only entity that can be said to authoritively speak of God is God and His charges. And yet, without entertaining otherwise antithetical ideas one cant rightly - with God's divine inspiration - discern between truth and fabrication.
At the same time, the Jesus I know is no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing. This is important because it adopts the stance of 'I have good ideas that Im confident in, but I cant rely on others to develop my own understanding, because that makes me dependable on others for my relationship with God, and who knows how much more there may be to learn?'.

>>4871
>However, when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them.
Those are other religions. How can you consider those to be valid sources for Christianity, and by what standards do you admit them?

>>4844
>>4861
>'Jesus' is the most recent iteration of the Luciferian archetype. Admitting, the name has changed innumerable times over the course of millenia
This is Muslim-tier prophet copy-pasting.
It's one thing to note that different religions and cultures have similar archetypes in their mythos, but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion, because that changes the religion entirely. It's without doubt that Christianity has similarities to other religons, like Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Roman paganism, or any of the mythologies based on the Vedas: he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity. Just because two things look the same (Christas the Son of God vs Greek/Roman demigods) doesn't mean they're necessrily related. Just because two things are related by common roots (Christianity vs what is known as modern Judaism) doesn't mean they're compatible. Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things. Different religious traditions are distint from one another, and te differences matter as much as the parallels do.
If you use sources other than those passed down by Christians, you're effectivey poisoning the well by applying pagan ideologies and inventing new literary parrallels where there were none, on no historical or theological basis other than you feel like they fit well together from your very subjetive viewpoint: that's not bible study, that's bible writing. At that point, you might as well start your own church.

>>4871
>when you research other traditions you find Jesus in different form, context, and name, in them. And then when history of religion is studied and factored in, one finds certain elements of the Bible depictions to be exaggerations or outright fabrications.
On what basis do you consider those "other traditions" to be relevant to Christianity?
Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
>>4849
Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse, as well as immortality and peace to those who put ther faith in christ. It hardly says anything about enlightenment, because enlightenment is hardly relevant to salvation by god.
>Enlightenment has nothing to do with religious practices or zealotry
This is correct.

>>4832
>there is no 'the' devil
Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
>that THAT term is effectively a sub-race of infernal.
No it fucking isn't. It has only ever been used to refer to a singular entity, it's name roughly meaing "Blasphemer", "Accuser" or "Arguer", referring to the one who defied god.
"Devil" has only ever beenused plurally in pop culture and anime and other retards who don't know wtf they're talking about.
>sub-race of infernal.
>sub-race
There are no "subraces" of infernal: the are demons, aka angels. Angels are spiritual entities who serve god referred to in the bible as daemons/daimons, a name that means "spirit" "intelligence" or "higher power". Daemon/daimon is in several places used plural,
Demons and angels are the same exact thing; we just wo words to distinguish the two. When Satan fell from heven, he took one third of his fellow angels with him, and we call those "demons" in english because we prefer to think of angels as good, when they are in fact all daemons, created as angels by god in service of god.

>>4832
>- Satan
>- A specific entity
>- A/the antichrist
You are confusing the devil with the antichrist. The devil is a specific entity, but the antichrist has room to be an archetype, because its role isn't in the past or present (the Devil has always existed) but in the future, and it could take any form. The antichrist serves the devil, but they are not the same thing, presemably as an entity, organization, institution or concept that serves to eclipse or subvert the concept of god in our society and distract people from salvation.

>>4903
Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural. However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text where the plural does appear, as it never attributes devils with the adversary role, but only those that harm through possession and supernatural attacks. In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion. Never can you find a demon other than Satan in the Bible that is on this level, nor can it fit any other person throughout time as we see direct interactions with Satan and God and Jesus throughout. It would not be possible for any "enemy of the enlightenment" to speak with God, as a real being or a construct to explain a process. This is why a pure metaphorical interpretation of the Bible will always fall through.
>>4904
I'm really going to have to get back to my study series so I can cover in full detail the nature of the antichrist as revealed in the Bible. It is an excellent study as it is revealed to be a supernational system, a leader that usurps three others within this system, and those that are riding along on the system, thinking they are in control.

>>4905
>Not entirely correct as you can find devil in the plural.
Citation needed.
>However, this is fully interchangeable with demons if you swap the term in the text
No. The Devil is a demon (aka daemon/daimon, aka angel), but not all demons are the Devil. It's only half interchangable. Demons are themselves not anything special or different from angels, aside from their defiance of god.
>devils with the adversary role
The word "Devil" itself translates to "the anversary". (although adittingly it can also man "the arguer", "the accuser" or "the blasphemer").
>In places where devil is in the singular, it can't be traded with demon because there is only one head of the demon order, which are fallen angels. The reason Satan is at the head is because he led the rebellion.
This is correct, but what other places are you referring to? I can't think f even a single instance where the term "devil" is plural.

So to throw my hat into the ring, the contexts used for 'morning star' is two fold. First is the enlightened, they radiate, they guide (such as the North Star), they are a point of reference, to be the way, the truth and the light.
Second, Angelic depictions of classification of specific types of angels is they are like multicolored fire (rings and wheels and eyes ect). Standing to reason an angel could also be akin to a 'morning star'. I'm probably wrong, but a star seen during the morning is one of the brightest among those stars.
I think there is references that Jesus is the Brightest 'morning star'.
Satan is the deciever, previously sung the glory of God, through the arts (music, song, words, science, the whole thing), and was also 'morning star' kind of angel. Putting it into more abstract terms there are two very luminescent stars, one is Jesus the other Satan, following Satan star will lead you astray. While one route with Jesus star will be the way to his father God.
The metaphorical Jesus star is Brighter.

>>4906
You misunderstand. I am calling all devils as demons, as it is how some translations mention demons from time to time.

Luke 11:14-16
And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered. But some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of the devils. And others, tempting him, sought of him a sign from heaven.

Here we see talk of a devil, which is the context for the later mention of the devil, the specific demon being cast out from among devils, or demons. This is typically also relegated to older translations and the newer ones don't include these because it confuses too many people that can't into context.

When you see the devil as referring to the boss, it is the top demon, Satan.

>>4899
Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
>>4901
>but it's anothe step to apply all of those separate distinct cultures to Christianity and claim that it's the same religion
Thats not what Im doing at all, and you're right with this:
>he concept of goliness spirituality and worship is a very human one, but those other religions aren't relevant to the study of Christanity
... and thats the point.
If 'a' tradition is ezclusively authoritative, it will show; as of now I have a wealth of experience that suggests that NO tradition is exclusively authoritative. Hence, the solution is to experience as many traditions, perspectives, philosophies, etc. as possible, from which,... less developed ideas can be ascertained and omitted from the equation.
The religions are observably different, and yet the same in theme. The amount of overlap is staggering, doubly so when you factor for the inversion of religious roles in the stories!
But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do. And, Im not so naive as to discount the effects of human failings on the conveyance of the stories, that these guys over here might have noticed something that those guys over there didnt notice.
And now for the big why.
Im of the mind that the avatar that is described in the bible with the 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close) is as much a cyclical part of the human experience and culture as the periodic cataclysms Im on about in History is a Lie.
To wit, Im of the mind that 'Jesus' shows up every few millenium or so to assist/correct/re-teach humanity a better way of doing/seeing/structuring things that is consistent with Natural Law and the framework that God intended versus the framework that it has devolved into.
'Jesus' is the adversary of humanity's cultural religious entropy which develops over time/influence to the benefit of the TRUE adversary (who is not a devil, he's something beyond a devil).
Having said, the 'name' Jesus is as accurate as Arjuna or Krishna, or Gautama Buddha, etc. ad nauseum.
Or Lucifer.
Everyone named was the adversary of the establishment who had languished in entropy.
>Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" o the same things
Thats a reasonable position. My position - which I feel is reasonable - is that
<Just because two religions share similar ideologies (Christian asceticism vs Buddhist aceticism) doesn't mean they're NOT the exact same thing, or even "manifestations" of the same things
The problem is, Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey; I dont expect anyone to agree immediately or at all.
>At that point, you might as well start your own church.
The problem here is that the 'church' which I would be starting would be a reiteration of a church/tradition far older than the church or Christianity, and yet far more historically venerated, and far more cohesive from an inter-traditional standpoint.
Meaning, just like how physics in a variety of ways are cohesive in depicting that flat earth is absurd, there are a variety of traditions that neatly discount some of the more spurious elements of the Bible, often providing perspective as to how one/many got that bit so very wrong.
Like, Exodus for example
No, Im not saying Exodus didnt happen, I AM saying it wasnt in -2k BC when its written that it happened. Historical analysis - including religious - bears that out.

>>4902
>Christianity has similarities to a lot of religions, but the teachings of Christianity are distinctly separate from the rest.
Agreed, and many of those separations are quite significant and applicable in attempting to comprehend divinity and an individual's relationship to. However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.

Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'; I assume the authors were PRECISELY as fallible as I am, and I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.

Continuing
>Enlightenment is not the same as Salvation, though both concepts are highly subjective if you apply non-christian sources.
And yet, from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable! What I mean is, thats not what contemporaneous writers have indicated by their writings.
Let me put it another way.
Prior to the murderous expansion of Christianity, enlightenment WAS synonymous with salvation, as damnation was construed with being functionally unable to progress in life through ignorance. You know the old phrase, 'insanity is foing the same thing over and ovrr, expecting a different result'?
Swap Insanity for Ignorance. Now swap Ignorance for Damnation.
>Chrstianity promises salvation from this existence andthe hellfire in its invitable collapse,
I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy. Much of the rest is embellishment from fanatics (my opinion).
>>4903
>Nowhere in the Christianity is the term "devil" or any derivative variation thereof, referred to as anything but singular.
One of many inaccuracies borne of being 'the new kid on the block'. Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
>There are no "subraces" of infernal
You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause

By the by, before praying do you do preprayer praying?
Open, O Lord, my mouth to bless thy holy Name; cleanse also my heart from all vain, evil, and wandering thoughts; enlighten my understanding and kindle my affections; that I may worthily, attentively, and devoutly say this Office, and so be meet to be heard before the presence of thy divine Majesty. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

>>4905
Quick question, and not intended as a cheeky quip. When you refer to Bible Study, what is the scope?
If you mean 'study/reading what it says in the Bible', thats totally agreeable.
But one would be hard pressed to find that definition in modern use. Experience shows to me at least that 'Bible Study' is more akin to being dictated to by word and by proxy, which defies the meaning of study.
Just like with Christian Scientists, if you begin from the assumption that the bible is correct, you're not studying, you're proselytizing.

>>4909
>Do you believe that Chistianity has exclusive claim to divine inspiration?
What said was that applying non-Christian concepts to Christian study isn't Christianity; it's something else. This thread is about Christianity, so these concepts are only relevant to the discussion in context of Christianity.
>The amount of overlap is staggering
There is also a lot of contradiction, sometimes scathingly, and the contradiction is just as important.
If you only go by the lowest common denominator, most religions just have a vague concept of being nice to other people and putting fath in a higher power, but that's not all there is to religion.
Chances are a lot of the eligions you've looked at are even more similar in ways you didn't even consider, or just aren't comfortable with, because with logic that broad you can use vague correllations to justify claim from the necessity of self-immolation to human sacrifice.
> 'given' name of Jesus Christ (not his actual name, not even close)
His actual name is that of god, which is something no mortal could pronounce, let alone put in writing (despite whatever the Jehova's Witnesses say). The man named Jesus Christ is the incarnation of god on earth.
>But additionally, each tradition has its own nuggets of truth, exclusive from other traditions, which more accurately describes the Jesus I know than Christian traditions do.
Correllation doesn't necessarily imply truth. And how do you define "the Jesus you know"?
>Im operating from a wealth of experience I cant summarize and convey
If you're claiming you had a spiritual revelation or other anecdotal experience with god, I wouldn't consider that to be a relevant citation in a bible study thread, or at least not one that anyone is going to believe or benefit from.
>Like, Exodus for example
Okay, you got me there. There's very little evidence that Egyptians kept Jews as slaves, but evidence of their ancestors having been expelled from Egypt after an incident of them sacrificing rams next to the ram god temple, and it's quite likely at least partly revisionism written to keep the religion from disintegrating when a lot of them just wanted to assimilate into Egypt, and to frame banishment as escape, or at least in my speculation.
Still, that is the old testament.

>>4911
Open-ended, so Ill bite.
No. I start by washing myself thoroughly, then thoroughly washing my clothes, and then when my nasty ass and rags are clean, I wash/clean the area I will be operating in. I dont typically speak, but I focus on my intent - to eliminate everything that is immaterial to whatever spiritual act I intend to perform - on the given task (cleaning in preparation). Everything unrelated has to go.
Imo, Jesus knows my heart and intent, and it would be an exercise in vanity to atrificially/ceremoniously state so in words.

>>4913
No, this thread is about Bible study

>>4909
If it wasn't written when it happened, then Jesus, your Lucifer, is pretty confused if everything wasn't wrote when it was supposed to be.

John 5:43-47
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present. So, if Exodus happened and wasn't wrote by the guy that was present for it, then we have a very unenlightened enlightener don't we?

Unless you wish to argue that the entire Bible is useless, even these words, which means you can't use it to argue the nature or existence of Jesus, because you can't even trust what is being said here. Therefore, you saying Jesus is Lucifer is just as valid as my own calling Lucifer as Satan, which cannot be proven through a text otherwise, it is just opinion by your own admission.

Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.

>>4912
The scope is just reading the Bible and breaking down what it means as literally as I can. If it is to be taken as analogy, the Bible makes good notions that it should, either by directly declaring it or by otherwise signaling such as the classic "Let them hear" line after a parable.

This will lead to moving through the Bible and connecting verses to each other that reinforce what is being said. You are correct I am coming from a place that assumes the Bible is correct, but typically one cannot explain something without full assurance that it is either correct or incorrect and be prepared to give reasons to those conclusions. Just as scientists can explain Newtonian physics because they believe in it and have studied it, they can break it down and give a study on it. Same with flat earthers that reject Newtonian physics and give their own studies on why they think it isn't correct.

Clearly you get different values of knowledge by listening to one group vs another, but this thread stated in the beginning to not be impartial or neutral, but a study of the Bible passages by breaking them down and explaining them.

>>4910
>However, it strikes me as quite foolish to conclude that ALL variance is gospel and evidence of Christianity's authority.
The varaiance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
How do you go about picking and choosing what elements from other religions you consider to be relevant, if you take theological sources from other religions? Surely you don't practice the rituals of every religion at once, so how do you choose?
>Ill take a moment to emphasize that 'Bible Study' should NOT be done from a position that 'everything I read is true and correct'
Nobody said that. Bible study jus means studying the bible, not necessarily believing it.
>I have FAITH (one of the rare instances I will voluntary usr that term) that God will not lead me astray in my pursuit of truth.
Look at the history of humanity, and all of it's horrific fake religions an all of the people who've been led astray in the tragedy that is this plane. Are you certain that your own opinion is the only thing you want to base that on?
I'm not here to question your faith or the legitimacy of your beliefs (except maybe for their relevance to Christianity), but the way you put it sounds painfully arrogant.

>>4910
>from a historical standpoint, they were viewed identically, to such degree that the words are interchangeable!
Citation needed.
Every culture has it's own concept of enlightenment, but that's not the same thing as being saved. Yo can be completely aware of the fire as you walk into it, with the same result. Christian concept of salvation is separate thereof, in that the only enlightenment it asks is that people be aware of and accept Jesus as their savior, not unravel the secrets ofthe universe. It doesn't discourage Christians from being enlighened, but it doesn't ask that much of them either.
>I disagree. Christianity offers A PERSPECTIVE of salvation (read: emancipation from ignorance) and the immovability of entropy.
The entire point of Christianity is to put faith in the messiah to save your soul from damnation (the default seting for humanity), and go to the eternal kngdom of heaven, to not be left behind on judgement day. That's what it says. To apply additional context is puttng words in other people's mouths without context.
>>4910
>Ive made several allusions to how more antiquated traditions had a more comprehensive understanding about facets of metaphysis than Christianity does.
Point to me where those traditions use the term "devil" in a pluralistic sence. Not demon, daemon, daimon, or daimonion, but devil.
>You are entitled to that opinion, however I disagree with cause
What cause?

>>4916
>Which really limits what you can call out as well, because you don't have a refutation based in this text. Your claims are worthless to contribute to a Bible study thread if you don't start using the Bible to make any canonical inferences.
Basically this.
In a bible study thread, you dicuss biblical canon, not headcannon based on other canons. All this out-of-canon stuff isn't relevant to peoplewho wanted to study the bible.

>>4917
>The variance is what makes it Christianity, and not some vague univeralist religion.
Which reminds me of
>The sacred prostitutes
Weird concept associated with the worship of Succubi, that was present in virtually all religions UNTIL Christianity arrived.

Not very well read, don't expect me to fire back

>>4920
Well, a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity.

>>4896
what about the walls of jericho?
what historical inaccuracies? I am legitimately interested in researching it

>unwillingness to redress previous convictions, theories, and assumptions
I am, which is how I came to the conclusion that the old testament commandments, while not required for salvation, are things God prefers and wants us to do. So now I keep sabbath and the dietary laws, etc. What I am not willing to entertain, however, is disposing of the primacy of the Bible. And my spiritual experience backs up what I know of God's character from the Bible.

>>4897
Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words (John 5:19). In the garden of eden, God tangentially commanded an ignorance, that being that they were not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent tempted them by the appeal of it making them wise. They ate, got that knowledge, and condemned themselves to death in the process. God requires obedience primarily, not personal inquisition.
I know that you said you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect. This is what the Bible says, and my arguments come from that, so that might not be satisfying to you I suppose.

Another thing that comes to mind is God's repeated commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic. He makes it very clear that it's an abomination to even dabble in those things. Some might argue that it's a control mechanism to stifle the masses. I see it as protection. Either way, He is my King and thus I do not let my heart seek those things.

>no fan of taking what others have said as gospel (pun intended) and not critically analyzing
indeed, the Bereans come to mind (Acts 17:11). Also 2 Timothy 2:15, Hosea 4:6, and 2 Timothy 4:3 come to mind. I regularly examine my beliefs, within the constraints of what the Bible says. I do not go outside the revealed word of God when doing this.

>>4916
>pretty confused
Not really, its pretty obvious and easy to comprehend when people changed the dates for political/societal expediancy.
Like when the Catholic Church arbitrarily added 400-700 years to the dateline so specific popes could claim to be potentate at the turn of the century.
>He really trusted that Moses was real and wrote about Him for everyone present.
Incorrect. He is written as on who did trust that Moses was real, etc. Not the same thing. To illustrate my skepticism, an anecdote.
<Years ago John Cleese did a screening of The Life of Brian at UCSB. This was the night before Easter Sunday. During the QandA this one faggot got up and tried to make it religious. He asked "What would you say if Jesus was standing before you, having made the all the prophecies and promises, aboutnsacrificing himself on the cross to settle the debt of sin with the Father, as well as all the warnings and prohibitions. You're just standing there, and he's just smiling at you. What do you say?
>I would ask him if that is what he actually said, or if it what he was quoted as saying 2000+ years later
Yes, several popes decided to manipulate the date calendar
For clout.
>not be impartial or neutral
Which is the definition of bias
So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.

>>4909
>the Jesus I know
you cannot know Him if you reject His revealed word. the figure you seem to be pursuing is a strange god

>>4910
enlightenment as salvation is not compatible with the revealed Word of God.

>>4912
I assume the Bible is correct, or else I would not be a Christian. Your argument applies if you're formally studying the religion from the outside, which you are doing here. There are axioms of faith in each religion which are wholly incompatible with other religions.

>>4923
>So to your lengthy point, no; this is not a Bible study thread, this is a Bible proselytizing thread. Thank you for clarifying.
Bro, this is a Bible study thread. It is necessary to gatekeep the discussion to keep it on topic of the Bible as accurate and applicable. Vague spirituality speculation should really go to a /vx/ thread or something

>>4923
>Bible study thread
In a bible study thread, you talk about biblical canon.
Do you cite Filly Fantasia in FiM discussions just because they have some similarities?

>>4917
Im gonna have to make my responses shorter, y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
>it makes it Christianity
But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative, outside assurances from the Bible that the Bible is authoritative
>>4918
The term Lucifer = the term Christos
>rituals
Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
>point to me
Ill get right on it.
>what cause
Personal experience. Ill go into detail when y'all calm down
>>4921
And would you believe him? Look at the appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays and grt back to me.
>>4922
I will have to go back and find my resources, bit the alleged time of the walls of Jericho coming down was about 800 years (iirc) after Jericho stopped being a major civilization hub, as described in the bible. Like, there WAS a time that Jericho was as described, but that stopped centuries before the Bible account. Great story, historically impossible.
>you consider that passage to be a figure that's not God, or something to that effect
And not just me, that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy (who were likewise genocided in the inquisition, for daring to perceive outside the dictates of the Catholic church).
Again I assert, Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His, and one should be very cautious of anything/one that does.
>Biblically, Jesus comes from the Father, and only does His Father's will and preaches His Father's words
And yet, all creation occurs from the masculine, WITHIN the feminine. Where's she at in all this?
>the serpent tempted
Thats one interpretation, but as I have posited, it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
>commands against mediums, spiritists, and magic
Golly, we cant have humans learning metaphysical and natural Law, then they might be less dependent.
Seriously, its the same script the Commies use, just more elegant.

>>4924
His revealed word [i]according to whom?
>revealed word according to God
Are you sure it wasnt a bunch of dudes who wrote what they thought? Kind of like the Exodus example I mentioned? Im not impugning their motives (at the moment), Im calling a spade a spade; the Bible is FULL of inaccuracies, are THEY the inspired word of God?
>I assume the Bible is correct
Bully for you (arguing from a preconception is arguing in bad faith, byw), a rationalist is not afforded such intellectual laziness.
>the axioms dont align
Oh but they do, if you apply a different interpretation to the texts.

Before I set out to provide all the materials requested, let me leave you with a Zen Koan.
>>4924
>else I would not be a Christian
By who's definition of Christian? I revert to the fact that the historical perception of the concept of Salvation/Enlightenment was about intellectual pursuit and liberation. This is a tradition that at best guess is over 16k years old.
Simply, 'Christ' meant one who was enlightened (or anointed by knowledge) right up until a huge murder-frenzy by the church, after which everyone who was LEFT proclaimed it to be about pure salvation, as dictated by the same church, with still dripping blood on their hands and spears.

>>4927
>But it DOESNT make it inherently authoritative
It does in a thread about bible study.
>The term Lucifer = the term Christos
Citation needed.
>Practice? No. Analyze? Absolutely.
To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals are. Religious practice isn't a joke.
>Personal experience.
That's not a source, or at least not relevant to bible study. You may as well tell me you met Jesus personally.
>appropriated pagan-now-Christian holidays
Continuing pagan celebrations doesn't necessarily mean everything in those holidays is sacremental, let alone relevant to biblical debate.
And yes, I would believe him. I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be.
>Jesus/God does not command nor desire ignorance in/from His
The bible doesn't say that. It only says that Adam and Eve gained knowledge that make them incapable of being innocent, and as the inheritors of that awareness humans are inherently sinful. Nowhere does it forbid humans from pursuing additional knowledge, only that that first taste Adam and Eve had screwed them to lives of human strife.
>it seems more consistent with the forms of nature that they were prevented from eating the fruit by a jealous and domineering tyrant who did NOT want humans to be anything more than docile sychophants who always did what they were told without question.
The concept of original sin is central to christianity, as it's the reason human beings require salvation; the emphasis on it is also part of also what distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and Islam.
The sin is the defiance of god, not enlightement. The point of the fruit is that once Adam and Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, they could no longer ever be innocent like their fellow beasts of Eden. The fruit is part of what makes humans uniquely enlightened among creatures in this world, but also dooms humans to damnation unless they find salvation in god, because as humans have the capacity to understand good and evil they are all innately sinful.
>that was at the core of Gnostic philosophy
Gnosticism is not Christianity.
>WITHIN the feminine.
Citation needed.
>then they might be less dependent
Dependent on what? Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife, and at that point all that matters is if you were a good Christian.
>learning metaphysical and natural Law
Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
>>4929
>'Christ'
For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.

>>4927
>y'all are doing that 'dogpiling' thing you do
You use this buzzword when you make outlandish, disruptive, uncited claims claims about things in ways that barely relate to the subject of the thread (the bible), and other posters respond with refutations accordingly.
Go to the same thing on 4chan /cg/, or 8kun /christian/ in a conversation that is explicitly about bible study, and see what kind of response you get. Maybe it's your behavior that's worth reconsidering.

>>4931
>To most of the religions you'd cite, the practice of the rituals is necessary for whatever their spiritual goals ar
To the uninitiated thats true, however metaphysics is something of a science, wherein one can grasp the intent/practice/meaning through analysis, once the comprehension of form is established.
>personal experience is not a source
I dony know if you realize this, but you just refuted the entire Bible, which is a collection of proclaimations based on personal experience.
>a Christian would tell you that what other religions practiced before or the way they worshipped their idols isn't relevant to Christianity
>I wouldn't take the opnion of non-christians on what Christianity is supposed to be
But you would take and appropriate their holidays? And, you claim theres no inconsistency in the influence previous traditions have on the worship of christian doctrine?
>original sin
Splendid! Yet another recent (less than 100 y/o) addition to Christian orthodoxy! Seriously, research the history of Original Sin as a religious concept, its amongst the newest of all (but it sure does coerce obedience!).
>Gnosticism is not Christianity
Oh? Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church? That their very faith and aesceticism is what led them to the conclusions which got them axed by their parent company? Awfully convenient,....
>citation needed
Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
>inb4 seahorses
The baby is born before being deposited in the male pouch, thats not the same thing
>Christian faith doesn't kick in until the afterlife
Oh, so how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant? How VERY convenient. Here, I thought we were to be conscientious and righteous to eachother. Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked? Thats EXCEEDINGLY anti-Christ imo.
>Christianity (or, every denomination I can think of) forbids practicing magic, not learning it.
As I said, promoting willful ignorance; of the anti-Christ
>For the purpose of biblical study, the only Christ anyone else in the thread has been referring to is the guy who was crucified two millenia ago and rose from the dead because he was the son of god: that Christ.
Reads as
<For the purpose of this thread, we're going to throw out all references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
Wow. Just, wow.

>>4932
No, I use that word when I take the time to write lengthy and thoughtful responses to posts, only to find after posting that I have twice as many demands for response than I started with, each displaying an increasing irreverence and effort, because it has become less about having a thorough discussion and more about vying for gotcha points

>>4933
>the entire Bible
The thread is about studying the bible, if you didn't realize. You can say the bible is based on personal experience, but your own personal experience is not a relevant source to the discussion.
>But you would take and appropriate their holidays?
Any excuse for a party is a good one. No reason to give up celebrations. The obsolete traditions are no-longer sacraments.
>(less than 100 y/o)
Citation needed.
>Are you trying to retcon the fact that they were devout priests and friars operating under the auspices of the church?
Plenty of retards have done that and made their own minicults.
>Show me a baby not born of a female. Ill wait.
Babies are born from famales. The rest of creation was created by god, not "born from" a female.
>how we conduct ourselves in life is irrelevant?
How you conduct yourself in life is relevant to how you will be judged in death. This existence is transitory.
>Apparently it just matters which political party box we ticked?
Reductionist nonsense.
>willful ignorance
That's the opposite of what I just said. You can be aware of something without practicing it.
>>4934
>It's everyone else's fault!
I'm astounded by your lack of self awareness.

>>4933
>references to Christos, Enlightenment, and anything predating and not DIRECTLY approved by the Bible (per recent sources, nevermind if they conflict with older ones) because it would be inconvenient to explain the inconsistencies of social perception surrounding the concept, as well as the observable changes in definition and perception due not least of which to bloody massacre by the same church that is the source of those inconsistencies.
That could be its own thread, several even.

Ugh, this thread is already basically derailed. Idk why I even tried.

>>4937
I'm sorry you feel that way anon, but I'm not going to give up hope on this thread. I am a bit tied up with work for a little bit, but I can set things back on track with more Bible study in the future.

>>4938
It's not that gnosticism and luciferiansm aren't worth their own conversations in other threads, but that tangent isn't really helpful for those of us who were trying to focus on the bible and its canon.

>>4939
Agreed. I will attempt to steer away from those topics and focus on the content within the Bible.

>>4937
I will relent and do another thread if you prefer, this thread seemed dormant and thought that at the least it might be livened up
(read: Im taking credit for having reinvigotated a return to subject matter Xp)

>>4941
>relent and do another thread
That would be preferable for both conversations.

Allow me to drop the following.

>Moral Relativism (the real heresy and apostasy)
https://odysee.com/@LitteralTruth:b/101500-1440x3200:1
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/v35IvIP05zOe/
From a Christian standpoint.

I have a question for Christians since i'm sure some will visit this thread. God knows the future, the bible says this. God also knows who we are before we are born and if we will be saved or not. Prayer really doesn't mean anything, we cannot change Gods will. With that being said, how are we anything more than puppets? The book has already been written.

>>4976
Not all Christians believe in determinism and not all who believe in determinism believe in anything resembling a deity. Many Christians believe in metaphysical free will, and quite a few atheists believe in a deterministic universe.

But to me, it’s kind of silly to think that determinism makes everything pointless. You don’t say “well what happens next doesn’t matter” in a book or a film just because the book is already written and the film has already been shot and edited. You keep watching. And just because all of an actor’s lines are written doesn’t make the actor any less important.

>>4976
Could it be that we do have actual, proper free will, but God already knows what we are going to do with it. It's not contradictory in and of itself.

>>4978
Knowing what we WILL do is contradictory to the idea of free will and brings it back to the idea of determinism.
Knowing what we MIGHT do isn't. If you assume that God is omnipotent, then it's within its powers to know all the infinite possibilities of the future at once.
>>4976
You'll pray, or not pray, regardless if determinism is in action.

>>4982
The concept of time is deterministic. For there to be a "future" where stuff has not yet happened but will happen our actions must be set in stone.
We have free will and we can make our own choices. People can guess at what we might do next. But God knows all and will make perfect guesses.

>>4982
Not if God is outside of time, if he is, then the distinction between what we will do and what we already did is irrelevant, I believe

>>4984
Omnipresence suggests not only being beyond time, but beyond all apparent distinction of possibility. Beyond-quantum, to attempt to wordsmith the idea.

Allow me to drop a little grenade.

>>4987
I wouldnt call that a hand grenade. The Apocrypha, the Pesdepigraphia, the dead sea scrolls, etc. has been established for decades.
Not to be catty, but I would assume the response to be along the lines of "not inspired by God", "Heretical", etc.
>pic related
Im not contesting your point however, and no bully to OP but historically speaking, the modern perception of Christianity and its role in society has only fluorished to the degree it has because groups desiring power come along and decide to engage in revisionist history, and religious history (specifically, the social concept of religious history) observably has little to nothing to do with actual evidence and record.
Christianity is by no means the worst or even an exclusive example, theyre just the most significant contemporary.

>>5177
The Guy Richie movie Revolver comes to mind, and directly references many of the inferences of this video analogously.
Quick question tho, how does this video which only posits a series of perspectives based (loosely) on the Bible (with no citations) on-topic for a bible-study thread, but somehow referencing the findings of the gnostics - a series of perspectives based on devout bible scholars - off topic?
Oh and yeah, quick reminder; the old testament god - Yyaldabaoth - is the entity that is contempraneously referred to as Satan

>>5183
I believe the anon simply wanted to bump the thread to get me to come back and post while trying to have something sort of related to the topic of the Bible. I haven't had a chance to watch it to see if it is related or accurate, but I don't doubt that the title is one its own is supported by the Bible. I will have a full answer to the implications and Biblical evidence or lack thereof for this claim when I have the time. The papers I have to finish writing are taking it out of me.

>>5183
It's David Pawson's perspective by taking the Bible literally all 66 books according to him.
Basically, the devil is an entity (being, 'person' angel), with a mind, and a personality. He has an agenda and a modus operandi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9A-v2_b10
>>5184
Wishing you well, and had a semi on topic/off-topic post for the thread on hand.

>>5185
Definitely will watch when I beat this deadline. Thanks for sharing.

>>5184
Thank you, but what you believe is irrelevant. Thats been among my salient points; Study does not mean 'assimilate without question, criticism, or analysis', it means to investigate, t3st, and observe with ideally as minimal bias/conviction as possible. That's far and away from what is going on ITT.
>>5185
>taking the bible literally
Well, good luck with that intended, still waiting to hear what denomination
>the devil has a mind, a personality
and ostensibly a body. I dont contest that, Im saying theres a tribe of Christians (who were murdered,... whats that Tyrion Lannister quote about cutting out a mans tongue?) who differentiate between the God of the old testament and the God of the new testament. Im further suggesting that there is more depth to christendom than what has been professed in either backward christian cults 'groups' OR 'established' churches and that all of THIS perspective is literally in/of the bible (spec new testament), depending on interpretation.
But apparently my interpretations of text - literally study of the bible - is irrelevant? Because another guy's interpretation of the same text 'said so'?

>>5187
Giving the quick rundown of the video. One is about ten minutes the other an hour.
My affiliation is what I posted before. I'm not sure what the denomination of Pawson, due to the cursory view.
>>3801
>>4433

>>4941
>>4942
Ah... My bad.

>>5189
Don't sweat it. Content in this thread isn't exactly strict. Just because some anons want to restrict it doesn't mean that no topics outside their preferred should be talked about. Bible study is rather broad, and I would wager that they would prefer a singular thread rather than a dozen Christian threads.

Especially since the devil and the identity of the entity is extremely important to the interpretation of the text as the above anon can attest to. The view of the existence of just this one entity has led to a massively different interpretation. It makes for a perfect study in the Bible.

>>5187
So reading my posts I didn't actually say what denomination I started from Lutheran or Presbyterian or something there was the book(s) and the events. So yeah, didn't know at the time nor do I want to dig too deeply sets off also sorts of warnings. I could be wrong about that, just assume it's lightly read alongside talking vegetables. Sorry about that.
Ah also here's this everyone.
>>5191 →

>>5192
>Lutheran and Presbyterian
Based, that will save me some time in discussion (and volunteer time in researching) of the nuance of the two.
Now if you'd said Methodist, Pentacostal, Episcopalian, or Jehova's Witness,...
And yeah, I previously relented on the Gnostics, but find that their positions are as relevant to bible study as any, in that their positions are derived from studying the bible.
The problem is, the term Christian has become so ubiquitous and universally applied that:
1. Countless people call themselves Christian, on an observably polarized scale of specific beliefs that often conflict and contrast. Ask an Espiscopalian about how permissible faggotry is, for example. Now ask a Baptist. Now ask... you get the point.
2. Religious history is a vastly and woefully neglected area of study for most people, who instead turn to the bible (spec. the Old Testament) for the 'historical record' protip: nothing fails like Bible history
3. Alongside Religious history (among the woefully neglected studies) is the history and etymology of language and meaning. Yes, there are scholars who have done the work translating the words, but that does nothing to aid the reader in comprehension of the words and meaning, and I hope I needn't present evidence of how dismal the average person's comprehension of their native tongue is.
To wit, a devout Catholic and a Luciferian can both honestly and unironically call themselves Christian while claiming the other is false, both citing historical evidence and material resulting with no consenaus.

>>>/vx/162878 →
For a quick summary/rundown for what I consider to be a quick version of the findings of the Gnostics.

>Banning The Bible
>It's Come To This!
>In a shocking experiment, random beachgoers in San Diego, California are asked if they’ll sign a petition to ban the Bible. Their reactions will shock you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XckcMeSueMA
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XckcMeSueMA/

>>5298
Well, I have been putting it off and putting it off, but it looks like I need to come back and make some proper posts and dissect these interpretations that fly in the face of the Biblical narrative as written and instead focus on books that run completely counter to the evidence written by the strongest supporters of Christ. Let's dive in as I work through the night to break it all down.

It will take some time, maybe even several days, but I will first address the Armored Skeptic video, then this one, then I will return to the book of Revelation that I have been neglecting for so long. Despite my breakdown, I doubt anyone will be satisfied, but I will finally be able to put to words my frustrations with this interpretation.

2000 years and kikery never changes

>>5301
Appreciated. Please note, the blond guy is presented purely for information purposesI do not endorse him as any degree of authority on interpretation of said information. Like most, he appears to have gotten caught up in the information as is, rather than using the information to extrapolate the underlying meaning of gnostic teachings.

>>5309
He clarified at the end that it was all supposed to be metaphorical of the conditions they were facing, but the structure still doesn’t make sense if it is metaphorical. I think I’ll actually change my approach to address that one first to rule it out as a legitimate form of a theology as a literal interpretation and an inadequate metaphor as well.

However, crucial information is shared between the two presenters, and both will be addressed in full. I now plan to take a bit longer and make visual aids to my points, otherwise I believe I will not have a focused response and others might gloss over what I am attempting to address.

>>5310
Thats actually not the bit I was referring to. In another video he makes an astonishing statement about how Socialism is 'government-instituted altruism', alongside a few other 'gems' that I would hate for everyone to miss out on.
Again, Im presenting him ONLY for his summaries of Gnosticism.

>>5310
Adittionally, in preparation for your rebuttal, I have to acknowladge an oversight to .uch of my premise.
While the teachings/interpretations of the Gnostics are based largely on the books of the - shall we say approved - Bible, it is also heavily wrighted by the banned/removed/omitted books of the bible.
As such (and Im sure we could debate until the end as to the validity/invalidity, admissibility/inadmissibility, or legitimacy/illegitimacy of either including or omitting such texts, and how that has shaped Christian history and the interpretations across generations without reaching a consensus), I acknowledge that presenting/arguing banned biblical texts is a bit derailing in a thread very conclusively intended to study the bible from an orthodox position. And, I apologize for any outbursts in which I may lose sight of that (not explicit, but close enough) fact in the pursuit of my attempts to illustrate a viewpoint (Gnosticism, not exclusively) that is often and otherwise maligned because its largely not been presented authentically.
I will continue to present counterpoint as is relevant, but I will temper my enthusiasm and keep it on topic to the books/ideas presented.

>>5318
Banned texts, works of Biblical criticism, and otherwise deemed heretical books are all work a look in the Bible study thread. Just know that the ultimate conclusion might not be completely satisfactory as it will ultimately be judged by not only merit, but if the Bible supports the narrative presented.

In the case of Gnosticism, it argues the Bible is completely wrong and the texts they provide are both secret information from the authors or the best guesses at what the authors would have wrote as I don’t think anyone believes that Adam, which they are arguing is a metaphorical entity anyway, wrote a book and it was preserved by people and yet the texts date to the same era as the other works of the Gnostics.

The denial of the Bible will ultimately lead to a stalemate in the texts where one cannot win over the other and the winner would be a combination of logic and trust in one or the other, and my bias will lean to the Bible being true. However, I will still attempt to the best of my ability to view the opposing viewpoint and discuss as many logical conclusions that can be drawn from the text and how it could be true. For an example of my notes so far, the concept that the book is a metaphor falls apart a bit when dealing with the characters from the Bible and then putting them in a completely different story than what is presented in the Bible, becoming a curated place for your own narrative… yet things still do not compute in such cases as the metaphorical implications of the divine mind beings that come down and save a portion of humanity from the Flood outside Noah’s ark.

This makes no literal sense in that should that be the case, why didn’t those beings save Noah and deny the evil god of the material world the leverage for an eternal servant. It also makes no metaphorical sense in that this is a form of inherited racial superiority of a hidden race as the mind beings chose to reject the descendants of the metaphorical Noah, meaning the people that the stories would promote Noah as having, which is larger than the Jewish population, including peoples all over the Middle East, Cyprus, many African lands, possibly Greece, and Russia. From there the Biblical text focuses on the Mediterranean area, but the conclusions of this is that many people could be descendants of Noah as Biblically acknowledged, and if the text is to be fully believe, all people are, then the response is that most people are disposable to the divine mind as only the chosen by divine mind grace are worthy to be kept from the evil god of the material world.

Metaphorically, this might just be an expression of how the world is typically not concerned with matters of the mind and instead worried about the physical, but it logically implies superiority of those that are one with Gnosis and the damnation of those that are not, equating them to a God that hates the world it made and the people therein. Somehow has the potential to be even worse than the most self-righteous of Christians, which is displayed in the presenter concluding not only are Christians wrong, but the founders worship death and suffering and promote it against the wishes of Christ, and those today that follow it are like them in service to this version of God proclaimed to be true.

In my breakdown I will go over as many implications I can possibly over the resulting theology that comes from a God that is actually Satan and how that would have effected a literal history, a Biblical narrative, the world today, and metaphorical considerations to cover my bases. Unfortunately I am a bit pressed for time with other commitments, but I will still work on this and finish it despite the length of time that elapses.

Hey what if "Noah made an ark to get his family and 2 of every animal away from the flood" is a metaphor for "Noah made a boat and left the civilization he knew was destined for societal collapse, and he brought enough animals to eat during the journey"?

>>5321
Shutup Nigel

>>5322
This.

>>5319
I agree with many of your points, and since this is a bit of a preamble I'll wait until your thorough analysis.
I will point out as a caveat though: there are portions of the Bible - mostly (not exclusively) Old Testament - that present historical 'records' that have since been proven impossibly inaccurate. Mostly these pertain to archeological finds and the times/dates of civilizations, but there are many events purported by the Bible that simply could not have occurred at the place, time, or involving the individuals claimed, historically.
What Im saying (and Im NOT one of the 'throw the damn thing out cuz its historically inaccurate) is that one should appreciate that in spite of the MANY truths it conveys, the book cannot be said to be 100% literal and accurate, though I appreciate that your bias leans in that direction.
My bias is toward the idea that Jesus (who/whenever he WAS [cuz he was]) was more akin to what was depicted in the Gospel of Thomas, and that what has become orthodox (at the expense of millennia of genocide of anyone who disagreed, by the church) was and is as political as it was for Constantine to adopt the Christian movement (at the time) to aid him in winning wars and amassing power.
The Gospel of Jesus (nevermind the historical accuracy issues) attempts to portray a scenario in which the individuals in question (mostly the apostles) are without agenda, desire, motivation, or basic human psychology, unless otherwise stated, and the only people ever claimed to be fallible (read: artifice) are the 'bad guys', who themselves are basically cartoonish caricatures.
Not trying to rewrite the story, but the interview with Pilate was especially bad, when at-the-time Roman law is considered (Jews had no supremacy, nor the authority to charge anyone with heresy, and they would have been thrown out of court for trying).
Rambling, Ill stop.
>>5321
Your question is as moronic as this image

>>5324
The reason the court happened was to quell rebellion. The Romans had found Jesus not a threat, but the threat was the Jewish population which had crowded and started chanting to kill Jesus. Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome. We know a Jewish rebellion did occur just a few decades later, meaning there was good cause to take the case and an attempt was made at appeasing them by releasing Christ and not a murderer, but the crowd decided the reverse.

The reason the Jews couldn't kill anyone was the loss of capital punishment. If they killed without government approval, they could be tried themselves for breaking chain of command with possible rebellious intent. Therefore, it makes sense that they would leverage the religious celebration of the Passover to squeeze by a heresy charge, while the most people were occupying Jerusalem as well, having the most explosive potential to start a rebellion.

There is no other way it could have played out except secret assassination, which was possible, but if ever traced back to them would be their undoing. It isn't like Jesus' entrance and presence in the city was a secret, and there was a religious celebration. Him turning up dead by the people that wanted Him dead would be public knowledge and rumors would reach the authorities.

>>5329
He's right though

>>5328
>Thus, throwing out the case was not possible or else the Jews would have started talk about how the government would not dispose of a heretic of both the Jewish order and the throne of Rome
Except thats false. Jews were not so numerous - even in jerusalem - that they threatened the Roman empire thats absurd. Additionally, Roman law permitted all manner of religious practice and did not view other forms of religion as heretical, so the idea that Romans wefe threatened by Jesus is equally absurd. Pilate, having no impetus to favor, coddle, or go easy on 'the mob' had Roman soldiers at his disposal, and could have had any uppity jews in cages or worse, with a gesture.
The authors of the new testament didnt know Roman law, and the portrayal we are give is - as I said - cartoonish and so absurd that Im surprised no one is seen twirling a mustache.
You may recall this post... I struggle to find it.
Anyway, Ill repost it in the bar.
>>>/sp/5332 →
The point of my posting the video is the citations of Roman law and how it was applied. Romans hardly cared for the jews, who were just one small (comparatively) group in a multi-continental empire. The jews didnt even have VOTING rights.

>>5333
Perhaps you misunderstood. I affirmed the Jews had no right, which is why they were not allowed to carry out an execution. This is why they pressured Romans to do it.

You are absolutely wrong about Jewish concentrations on Passover. We know this from the rebellion that occurred during the Jewish-Roman war of which a quick wiki search revealed:
"According to Josephus, 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem and 100,000 in Galilee; 97,000 enslaved."
Non-combatants being rebel peasants of course. Even accounting for exaggeration, we learn that "number exceeds the entire pre-siege population of Jerusalem. Many of the casualties were observant Jews from across the world such as Babylon and Egypt who had travelled to Jerusalem wanting to celebrate the yearly Passover but instead got trapped in the chaotic siege". Hmm... it's like a big celebration that brings in a big Jewish population of Jews that might start some shit during a rebellion. Even if we only look at the official combatants at 30,000, that is 30,000 more than nothing if you execute one man, as it is not in the best interests of Roman to have a rebellion when the alternative is just to kill the heretic on the religious celebration and appease the Jewish peasantry until they go back home. It would have been the head of the regional authorities that were put in charge to contain rebellions against the throne. Failing in that manner would cost Rome time, money, and lives. The Jews knew this and applied pressure to have this one trial occur. I know a wiki isn't a great source and the Jews like to boost their casualty count, but it does confirm the celebration brought in enough forces to overwhelm the local guard and more needed to be brought from mainland. This rules out being able to arrest the Jewish authority as that would be seen as a hostile takeover against the agreed terms allowing for their existence and would launch a rebellion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70_CE)

We know the Roman authorities tried to pass it off to Herod to deal with, but the Pharisees simply returned with a crowd that chanted for the death of the man. To ignore that request would to be sentenced for having to inconvenience Rome with putting down the rebellion in your place as well as divert attention and funds from homeland projects and defense from barbarian invasion. I don't have to know the intricacies of Roman law to know economic factors such as war was not exactly desired, else there would be no regional authority they could have even met with. We can thus conclude that the law had little power in the face of a looming rebellion and pressure was applied to both sides of the conflict which allowed the trial of Jesus to proceed as displayed in Scripture.

>>5335
Based.

>Very few people that are aware of who the GOD of this world really is - David Pawson
>Demon translate to "inferior deity".. Satan is the GOD of this world. He is not the true God.
>David Pawson talk.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/JzPgqeMDr2Cs/
I believe this was posted before.

>>5386
Duuuuuuuuuude
saw this exact image today, felt a compulsion to save/post it but decided, nah

>>5388
Not my meme but I'm glad it is spreading.

By posting this, I am not making an argument or positing an idea. This is being posted purely as food for thought.
https://youtu.be/KGNAOZTXkac