/ub/ - Überhengst

>>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

https://youtu.be/x6_ESSfyiYE
Jordan Peterson, talking about his transition from Atheism. Not literally a bible study matter, but it compliments bible study so well that it's being posted

>>5485
He sounds like Big The Cat only gayer and more retarded

https://youtu.be/ZMc8FVlOZZg
Here is a short video featuring Geneticall Modified Skeptic speaking with Dr. Bart Ehrman - among the world's foremost contemporary Biblical historians - about 4 common misconceptions pertaining to the New Testament.
I will be purchasing a pass to their 4-day conference, which afyer viewing I will.make available to the board (what, GMS openly invites people to share with their friends).
OP, I hope to have a good discussion about the content.

>>5615
I’m still working on my first project. I’ll see where I can add this into the series as this thing is going to take multiple parts at this rate to organize.

Have to rework an opening to the whole thing now that the damn atheist hate thread has so much traction that I need to define and defend my worldview and lay down the foundation of the faith as not Jewish subversion in order to not be immediately discounted and my work ignored outright. Plus the other interests I want to get into such as learning music and such, I will get to it in time.

>>5615
I can tell you though immediately that first point is completely wrong in John 21:24
This is the disciple which testified that of these things and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

Directly claiming to be the one in the same as the disciple that testified in the beginning in John 1:6-8
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that light.

You will find all were written in the third person to try to obfuscate praise directly to themselves, in which John replaces all mentions of John with “the disciple Jesus loved” to avoid taking credit from the parts of the story he was present in. The titles were added in post and not by the authors themselves, which makes doubly strange why the doctor here thinks Revelation was a proper title when it literally is another added in post title to a letter from a prison meaning revealing what happens. There are no titles in the Bible that were not added in post. Genesis means beginning. Exodus means leaving. This is a pattern throughout.

As for who wrote it, the books say they were written the same as was told to people as they mention in the letters from Paul and Peter, saying they are all to be used for doctrine, meaning that if they were written afterwards, they could not have ratified their legitimacy. Furthermore, if everything was written, including the letters, at a later date, then the Roman backed sources calling for the execution of Christians makes no sense, as that creation date would not explode in enough time to meet with the documented cases of Romans seeing Christian expansion as a problem.

Ultimately, it is up to you to decide which is more likely, a religion made on the fly far later than we know or something that built on the events that claimed to happen and would explain how it matches historical records. I know you already have your answer, but I will have more research and evidence to provide as I continue with my project. If my arguments don’t satisfy, then my project likely won’t either, but it will at least be the best I can give.

>>5618
I don’t know who this guy is, but that’s not correct. The word Gentile is not in Genesis 25:23, the word nation is. In this context, two nations will be born, yes, but Gentile means those that are not circumcised. The New Testament clarifies that there is no difference save that the circumcised were bound to the law and there is no binding law after Christ’s work, thus the practice is no longer justified as a separation between people.

Since only Jews practiced circumcision in Biblical context, it does indeed mean non-Jew, as no people other than Jews did it in the region. Plus, it doesn’t make sense otherwise when looking at the declaration that there is no difference in circumcision and no circumcision, between Jew and Greek, and the Jew and Gentile as referenced in Romans 9:24, as each would be subject to condemnation for sins and Christ removed all sins equally from all people, calling all to be the sons of God.
Romans 9:24
Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

>>5617
Just to clarify, you're contesting his historical analysis because it says in the bible that the person writing the book derived 'the author's' gospel from things that they said? Doesnt that kind of prove Ehrman's point? Wouldnt the author write in the first person?

>>5624
I will contest because otherwise the author is deceiving the audience, meaning there is no use for the entire text. It would be equivalent to Mien Kampf being written by some dude decades after Hitler. It would make the document useless as a study about the lives of the people it is written about because it would be either speculation by the author or it would be outright fiction.

We know each author claimed that the Holy Spirit gave inspiration for their writing style. Given their desire to not take credit as divine influences themselves, only giving testimony to the truthfulness of their witness, they wrote in the third person to keep themselves from being worshipped as equivalent to the one they wrote about.

Each of the four Gospels not only agree with each other, but connect directly with other writings from the Bible such as the letters by Paul and Peter to Old Testament prophecy and pattern. It isn’t just true because of necessity, but because it connects where other written works do not. It is clearly written by eye witnesses because each were written as a testimony to give either during trial or to prove their claims as legitimate. Luke’s Gospel was written to prove Paul’s claims were accurate to a man named Theophilus for example.
Luke 1:3
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

He claims to have perfect understanding of all things that took place from the beginning of the story. This means eye witness. We get further proof that the same author wrote Acts.
Acts 1:1
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

Direct claims that an author is writing that is involved with the life of Christ and is writing to an individual despite third person. It is indeed possible to argue against this doctor’s claims because they are a simplistic dismissal despite textual evidence to the contrary.

>>5625
Ill skip the appeals to authority for the time being. So you are alleging that Dr. Ehrman's findings are inaccurate cuz... the Bible says so?
Are you honestly suggesting that the Bible's position was not considered, or that the historical analysis is in some way insufficient? Aside from the Bible - the very document Ehrman is alleging is historically false (with evidence) - and your convictions to it, what evidence do you have that can refute his position?

>>5628
I literally gave you textual evidence that has the first person. Did you read what I posted at all? His claim is completely faulty because he said it was all third person and could not be written by an eye witness. That was his proof he gave. The author mentioned by name a recipient that was alive at the time that aligns with the historical narrative. This means that it is at least possible to have been written when it was claimed to by who it was. The dismissal has a lack of evidence. My evidence is pointing this out. If you want more, you are going to have to wait for me to research and compile a video lesson.

You are also appealing to the authority of a doctor who tried to dismiss something by giving factually incorrect analysis. This is why I am going to make a whole video series to explain this shit because you just skip over anything I write down. Maybe in video format I can make it these points stick.

>>5630
But see, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels ARE accurate; I find it highly implausible, but that's my bias for you.
Conversely, are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that the gospels are NOT infallible? And you'll note, I expressly DECLINED to appeal to authority. Having said, the doc has put himself and his research on the forefront. Moreover, that video is just a snippet; the actual discussion is a several day affair. Im not saying the doc is wrong, Im saying its premature to dismiss his position simply because the document in question can be said to assert its own viability in a few of a number of interpretations.

>>5631
I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof. Don’t be surprised when I default to it as my primary resource as the whole point of Christianity is that this book is correct.

Meanwhile, I respect that you believe you are not appealing to authority. I realize in this field of discussion you need to rely on sources outside ourselves as the evidence has been millennia in accumulation. However, you did say that my reference to the Bible when it was expressly brought up in context of what it did or did not contain was comparable to saying the Bible says so therefore it must be.

The reason this is not a worthy comparison is that I could say the same about the author, who said the Bible is not correct because the Bible is written in x style, therefore it is wrong. However, both him and my own referencing the Bible is fully acceptable given the debate of the contents. He said the Gospels contained no first person language which discounted it as written by any eye witness. This was countered by my observation.

This observation doesn’t prove the Bible as correct. It not proved the doctor as wrong. It does contain the language. His assumption in the first place was also faulty that the lack of first person language does not disprove anything. Let me give you an example from my previous employment. Someone had complained about their experience at the bank and claimed to want to take legal action against the bank. I had to write a report about the happening in the third person where I could relating to the person, leaving out my personal experience with the person to let the bank know exactly what the person was doing. Did I not write the report? It has third person language.

Even given the argument that third person language might suggest there might be another writer than an eye witness, not only is it not enough to dismiss the author as one, but there is first person language. The argument is rendered nonsensical.

So now your suggestion that I am relying on an appeal to authority while your claim that you are not makes little sense. We both have authorities we are appealing to. The difference is I have provided counter evidence to the claim and it is being dismissed because I used the text in question, poisoning the use of it as only assuming it is infallible when I have used it in proper context.

I assume he does indeed have many more proofs and ones I am not equipped to answer or counter. However, I do have the ability to research as well and come up with a better, more encompassing response in time. I cannot dismiss all he has claimed based on one point. I can dismiss his one particular point as it is faulty both in evidence and logic.

>>5632
>It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible
Then any gesture you might affect is a lie. Thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to (with intellectual honesty) acknowledge the possible fallibility. Next time a 'no' will suffice.
Curious, what is original sin according to Christians (specifically baptists, since you can't credibly represent other denominations, especially given the Baptist aversion to ecumenism)?
Cuz in 'Christianity' BEFORE Constantine and the church, it was Ignorance. Followed in close second by dishonesty.
Ill leave you to your ignorance then.
And yes, if you're relying on a source to validate its self in defiance of dissent, original sin.
Feel free to ignore me!

>>5633
I will quote my last post:

I will work with the possibility it is fallible for the research and debate of authenticity. It is counter to the faith the believe it is fallible but I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is without proof.

I will highlight my statements:

I will work with the possibility it is fallible.
I will still work within the necessary boundaries of not assuming it is [infallible] without proof.

You once again have ignored every statement I have made, including that I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary. You have zero respect for me and so I shall have none for you. Stay the hell away from my thread in the future if you are not going to argue in good faith without attacking my credibility as a debater.

>>5636
So, if I dont respond how you think I should, I'm all those things?

>I will consider the Bible as possibly fallible outside of my religious convictions to the contrary
And yet you said that after declaring that so assuming is anathema to faith. Therefore you can't genuinely entertain such a notion without being in conflict with your faith. As I know your faith is paramount, you therefore assign second fiddle to intellectual exploration, meaning any gesture you could/would.make is false.
So which is it? Are you wavering in your faith, or are you disingenuously trying to palcate? Feel free to ignore.

Tl;dr
>I can pretend to!
Have fun pretending, then

>>5637
You are free to respond however you want to. Also, what things? I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
>>5638
If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it? See >>5615
You said you wanted me specifically to have a discussion. If you believe I am incapable as a debater, then I suppose you only ask for validation? I would rather believe you actually care to hear what the opposing side has to say, but seeing as you have yet to respond to any of my statements besides those that offend you to some degree, I am beginning to have my doubts.

I have answered why I had issue with the doctor in the video, I gave logical answers to why I hold issue and you instead zero into my beliefs as proof that I am not going to argue in good faith. If you want to continue, your attacks will indeed make me ignore you as you are showing your intent isn’t the debate but discrediting me as a presenter. Take down my arguments and then I will respect you. Keep this up and I will heed your advice to simply ignore your contributions to my thread.
>>5639
>you must choose or you are a liar
Why? I guess you must genuinely believe in flat earth since you debate that autist in his thread. Wait… are you actually holding the position that you can both believe something is either fundamentally correct or incorrect and still hold a worthwhile debate over the logical and empirical evidence presented? No. It couldn’t be that.
>>5640
>pretending
Are you pretending to debate the flat earther? Maybe you are just wasting time in his thread to feel nice, but I had the impression you were actually trying to prove him incorrect.

And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”? You have ignored my rebuttal for several posts now. You don’t have to respond to them, but your outburst against me seems on the surface to be fueled by my refutation. I’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself. The frustration that I’m not in agreement with something that seems obvious to you. Otherwise your calls to ignore your statements seems ill fitting because I have in fact respond to you consistently and fully with each of our points. Had I missed a point, it was not my intention as I am trying to be care to do so.

Perhaps I’d you be straightforward with me about your problems with me, we can actually come to an understanding instead of this dance of accusations.

>>5641
Autocorrect fucked that last statement. Perhaps you should be straightforward with me is what I attempted to say.

>>5641
>I’m not calling you names, I’m stating what you are doing.
Okay, let's see then
>You once again have ignored every statement I have made
What are you, a tranny? Do I have to affirm everything for you to feel safe?
>why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Silly, its so you display to the audience.
>If that was an issue, why do you provide evidence of you wanting me to debate it?
Well, at the time I toom you as credibke. At the time, my request/prompt was sincere. As the exchange dragged on, it became for luls.
I do care what the opposing side has to say, so long as they are operating with intellectual integrity (read: feelings and preconceptions are irrelevant)
>I have answered the doc
And I thank you for it
>You dont seem to respond to them
Not in order, no
>you zero in on my beliefs
The preexisting bias IS the most onerous,....
>discrediting me as a presenter
Uh, Im not the one who presented you as a CREDIBLE prese ter, so,... ur bad
>take down my arguments
Isnt that what Ive been doing?
>you must believe in flat earth cuz u keep on
Is one to assume I believe in orthodoxy since I keep bothering (you)?
>And why do you keep saying “feel free to ignore”?
Because I know you will. Im granting you largesse to do as you will. I am a humble God. lol, that was just to twist ur knickers
>’m going to assume it isn’t because I was convincing, but rather perhaps it comes from the act of arguing against your position itself
You're welcome to whatever interpretation is favorable. Not that you needed my blessings, what with your,... you know.
>be straightforward
But that's simply no fun! I much prefer to dance cires around what my i terlocutor thinks I'm arguing, to better vrt them to candidly say things they wouldnt otherwise admit! Come on now, this isnt your first rodeo

>>5643
Theme of your post:
https://youtu.be/VlUnqTP4ltY
>do I need to affirm everything
You need to address arguments if you hope to impress the viewer as you admit
>it’s so you display your the audience
Perhaps I’m just too naive, but I recall avoiding critical arguments to be the mark of someone that can’t face the truth and has to play off of charisma to attempt to win. Consistently playing saying I’m not worth talking to doesnt so much in the charisma department for me. Maybe I’m just not seeing the grand strategy.

Meanwhile, I actually care for the debate. If anyone enjoys the argument in the meanwhile, that is a bonus. I’m not playing for the vindication of others.
>at the time I took you as credible
You say that often I have noticed. You tend to default on the same question as well of will you renounce the Bible to justify cutting me out whenever you feel like it. How about you confront me despite my values?
>intellectual integrity
I am fairly certain I have displayed my fair share of that by addressing each of your points without devolving to lambasting you for your own beliefs nor will I ignore you unless you are just giving me the go around and don’t have any intentions on discussing with me.
>not in order
Or at all apparently. I am still waiting on how the examples I gave are not first person or how third person exclusively proves there was no eye witness testimony written.
>I’m not presenting you as credible
Let’s take another quote.
“ Well, at the time I toom you as credibke.”
You took me as credible. You in fact did implicitly give me credibility in interacting with me and then you are attempting to say I am lying and deceiving in my debate.
>the preexisting bias
Isn’t that the point of me honestly addressing that from the opening of the OP?
>isn’t that what I’ve been doing
Dodgeball isn’t debate. My arguments stand as you have not questioned any of them, only my intent.
>I know you will
Only if you give up actually trying. I have to work on my project and hobbies. You playing games won’t make it get done any faster.
>I am granting you
Cool.
>whatever interpretation is favorable
I prefer the one that is true. I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
>simply no fun
>illegible text
>what they wouldn’t otherwise admit
I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that. It isn’t really a game to get me to say what is on my mind. I will state it plain. I believe the Bible to be infallible. Should that end your interest in serious discussion, then I’ll see you around. Otherwise, you are spinning your wheels trying to manipulate someone that you can simply ask and it will be done.

>>5644
Circles, Interlocutor, and get. Sorry. my mind can connect these things, so i dont bother to correct them.
> I don’t like taking whatever and making it whatever I want it to be.
Lol, keep ttwlling yourself that. Pack that in next to
>I admit freely to whatever is asked. You should know me well enough to know that.
Cuz goodie-boy Stix dont NEVER lie and deceive for his own (I kid, 'other anon's') benefit.
Liar.

Why can't we have a civil thread without these asinine morons arguing about obscure interpretations of things? Can't we just talk about what the Bible actually says in written words here?

>>5645
Well, at least you are being straightforward now with me. You are upset at me personally.

Well, I apologize for making you upset. Lying is wrong and I deserve what I get for it. If you are willing, I am open to make amends for previous actions.

>>5647
It appears there are obstacles that need to be overcome first. Civility is being worked towards I think. Patience and we will be back on topic soon. Not like much was happening before today anyway.

>>5648
Not the best time for a random clip. Thanks for having interest in the thread though anon.

>>5649
I just want to study the scripture and ask the occasional question about syntax and verbage. All of this extraneous schizo stuff isn't helpful.
The title of this thread is misleading. Is this the Bible study thread, or is it Christianity-and-all-adjacent-religious-dogma general.

>>5650
Have you ever asked such a question anon? I have tried a little exploration of Revelation and no such interaction has come for months. And yes, Christian doctrine is kind of included in Bible study as
II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It’s going to come up, especially when the Bible itself is questioned to be even worth study. If you want a specific topic, please do introduce it to get back on track to how you want the thread to go.

April 23, 2022
Debate Hosted by Killstream -
>Is Christianity a Hoax? "Is Christianity a Jewish Ploy?" - Adam Green Vs. Dr. E. Michael Jones
https://odysee.com/@KnowMoreNews:1/emj-debate-720:4
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/qG8VGY7S06mF/
I didn't watch it yet, but Michael Jones didn't re-post it in his channel. I wonder why.

>>5655
While waiting for OP's take, there was a snippet early on that Im sure plenty could take umbrage with, paraphrasing:
>"... unifying the jewish tradition of faith with the Greek tradition of reason, which forms the basis of Catholicism, and Catholicism is the onky true form of Christianity that exists in the world today." - E. Michael Jones @13:00-14:00

>>5655
>A Neo Pagan Larper Vs a Cathlocuck Who Denys Race and the JQ on a revenge pornographers dying internet show hosted on a gay mexican catboy lovers' federally backed website
I'll pass, catholics should be burned at the stake.

https://youtu.be/dKShBLRixR8
Bart Ehrman vs. Jimmy Akin (? catholic) on the reliability of the new testament as a historical document

I have a dilemma.
Should I post videos talking about freemasons and satanists subverting Christianity and The Bible in this bread, or should I create a new one?
Given the matter is broad and may require many videos and additional posts, I think is better to listen to the poners' opinion.

>>5687
I don’t mind them here. Maybe I’ll discuss what can be derived from the Bible out of it.

>>5687
Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious? Nothing like the flat earth thread, one hopes

>>5689
The earth is round

>>5690
Not according to The Bible.

>>5690
No contest but tell him>>5691 that. Not trying to troll here, just using this as an opportunity to indicate that bible interpretations vary.

>>5688
>Maybe I’ll discuss what can be derived from the Bible out of it.
I think there is plenty.

>>5689
>Honest question: is it actual evidence and veritas, or is it rhetoric, conjectural, and spurious?
Let's find out.

>An Inconvenient History - (1:53:46 long)
>The history and ideology of the occult societies that have been behind the events that have shaped our world and how they all stem from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I ask you to approach the information from a non-emotional point of view and understand that my goal is to share truth, not criticism.
https://odysee.com/@probablyalexandra:6/an-inconvenient-history:b
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C3f0DV9TmBxe/

>>5693
Good stuff.
I learned something.

>>5694
Uh...she can't possibly be serious, right?

>>5693
Not bad, she certainly did her homework and the overwhelming majority is agreeably consistent.
However, it's too early to give her a pass. She likes to build foundations of well-established concept, but sprinkle them with loose or unsubstantiated claims before returning to her foundation. Not saying she's wrong, just that one might find themselves saying "Wait, what? How do you go from here to there? No, go back, how did you... Oh ffs".
Not a formal critique, but an observation.
As a cursory criticism, its funny that she avoids naming "Neuro-linguistic programming" being that she employs it at interval (assumed she doesnt, only watched 1/2).
She is MOSTLY spot on, but does make a few mistakes that are common, such as not affiliating the old testament with Judaism,... not sure how one neglects that credibly.

>>5695
Elaborating a bit. I do not think constipated speech is anything else but an aesthetical addition for public speech. Certainly not a mind control technique.

>>5697
Technically speaking, it's both. NLP is a tool for both effective speakers addressing a crowd/audience as well as individuals engaged in artifice. The presence of NLP techniques doesnt immediately mean nefarious intent, but any time there are NLP techniques, there IS the possibility of nefarious intent.

>>5709
Oh rly? Throw a Christian parade

Remember prayer. Pray always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNAw5is5LXY

>>5712
Republics are gay.

>>5713
I agree. The meme is targeting the maga normies.

Check Sodom and Gomorrah out.
>WELCOME 2 THE END OF DAYS CHURCH OF ABOMINATIONS
>2 Thessalonians 2
>1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
>2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
>3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
>4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
>5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/RUGQUJERQhxZ/
Absolutely pure filth inside the churches.

>>5742
Quite literally the opposite, as He likes all the things so much that He wants to hold off total destruction as long as possible. This is a pattern throughout the Bible where even when people deserve destruction, you can turn it around by asking for forgiveness. Nineveh, for example, was going to be wiped out. They asked God to not do that and He said sure. All they had to do in return was not be so degenerate. This enraged the Jewish messenger, Jonah, to suicidal tendencies, telling God that he knew the plan was always to give them an out because He constantly loves everyone, even when they reject God.

God deliberately created a world full of things that do not like Him and now He pays the way at His own expense for them to be equal with Him on the throne in eternal forgiveness. How could this be happening to us?

>>5819
Who is Lilith?
I'd ask Google but Google would give me a homosexual response.

>>5820
A common name for women in the Philippines.

>>5820
A succubus, the first one according to the source material. Supposedly Adam's first Wife before Eve. Some feminists have unironically embraced her as the very first feminist. They see her as a proud women who rebelled to the patriarchy for the very first time.
Shit is particularly prevalent with Mexican feminists.

>>5822
>Lilith the succubus
Reeeeeeeee.

>>5822
And what source material are you referring to?

>>5825
Also, wheres the part where the priest is diddling the young boy?

>>5821
It's also the name of a Darkstalkers character.
>>5822
That sounds weird, where can I read more about this?

>>5826
Jewish folklore? I dunno, am not particularly well-read on the subject. I just stated the general overview that femmes have about it.
I mostly looked this up to borrow...I mean, take inspiration for my fic a while ago. (I was still writing down the timeline for when the Dazzlings show up.)
>>5829
>where can I read more about this?
Don't know tbh, sorry.
Although there's certainly more to it. There's a theory that suggests that Lilith is the so-called Queen Of Heaven from the bible. And that she's present in every major culture around the world.
The virgin Mary is one such example, as some people refer to it as Queen of Heaven. There's also another Saint in Russia which is also called that way, but I don't quite remember which one.
It's all related to the sacred prostitutes, words like "whore" actually had honorable, or positive meanings back then.
Even the word "puta", which is the Spanish word for whore, also had a positive meaning.

My memory is blurred and the video alongside its sources is gone. Am gonna try and find 'em when i have the time.

>>5830
So your source is "IDK, I read it once lol"?
*sigh*
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/lilith-in-the-bible-and-mythology/
There's a good start. Take with a grain of salt, I haven't vetted the site/source

>>5831
>So your source is "IDK, I read it once lol"?
I think it's more of...
>I've sat down and talk to a lot of feminists A.K.A: blue-haired wamen
>And this is what they believe in.

Anyways.
<In the post-Biblical period, some ancient Jewish scholars took the stance that Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:21–22 must describe two separate events, since it appears that woman is created differently in these accounts.... “Considering every word of the Bible to be accurate and sacred, commentators needed a midrash or story to explain the disparity in the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2. God creates woman twice—once with man, once from man’s rib—so there must have been two women. The Bible names the second woman Eve; Lilith was identified as the FIRST in order to complete the story.” Accordingly, Genesis 1:27 describes the creation of Adam and an unnamed woman (Lilith); Genesis 2:7 gives more details of Adam’s creation; and Genesis 2:21–22 describes the creation of Eve from Adam.

Yup, that's the stance these women have taken as well.

The succubus part comes from other Jewish sources, outside of the bible, as all Succubus are believed to be descendants of Lilith.

Anything about the sacred prostitutes bit?

>>5832
The name Lilith comes from mesopotamian folklore, referring to a Babylonian demon/vampire/fairy that locals spoke of in ballads and whatnot. The name was picked up through cultural diffusion, and attributed to the unnamed first woman.

>>5833
Kay...Still calling it Lilith as it changes little to nothing.

>>5832
>sacred prostitutes
Mary Magdalene comes to mind
>blue haired women
And what part of them made it seem like they had the faintest idea what they were talking about?

>>5836
>its filler, nevermind it predates the bible
Classic

To clarify, I'm not endorsing blue haired women or their interpretation of the Bible.
I AM asserting that the story(ies) of Lillith far predate "orthodoxy", with reason and cause, and that one does themselves a disservice to ignore (read: ignorance) such accounts. There is fruit there, if one has the nerve to look.

>>5835
>Mary Magdalene comes to mind
Bit more extensive than that, but it's pretty clear why you are here anyways.
>>5839
Agreed.
Going off of your record tho, I'd say being so comically cryptic won't help either.

>>5835
>>5836
I posted the meme as a joke. The point is that there's a certain type of person (blue haired teenaged girl) who fixates on that name because of pop culture during conversations about scripture, despite waning relevancy.
>>5839
Nobody is ignoring it.
A lot of things predate "orthodoxy"; that doesn't necessarily make them relevant to every discussion.

>>5841
Right, I don't find it particularly abhorrent either way. It just seems like anon rushed in without context.

>>5841
And yet, you also display that the blue haired girl might know more about religious history than you
>so what?
Is bible-history irrelevant to the bible study thread?

>>5844
Walk on back to the alt history thread. I would rather this thread not be filled with triggered ranting about a meme because your ideology wasn't painted in a positive light.

>>5845
Who's ideology are you referring to? Idgaf about Lilith or whatever, but blatant ignorance will be called out

>>5844
>you also display that the blue haired girl might know more about religious history than you
???
How?
>Bible history
I know the history. It was a meme, and I think you missed the joke.

>>5846
What ignorance?

A look into subversives piggy-backing on The Bible:

>King James Onlyism: A Front for Talmudic Judaism
>James W Knox is also a proponent of King James Onlyism, which very few know is a Satanic movement whose agenda is to introduce Christians to Jewish Kabbalism. James Knox is promoted by Gail Riplinger who is exposed as a Jewish Kabbalist on this website.
>The King James Version is not Inerrant and was Translated from Multiple Texts
>James Knox and King James Only advocates teach that the King James Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant. This false teaching ignores and suppresses much evidence to the contrary. (Though the King James Bible isn't inerrant, it is still (along with the NKJV) the best English bible translation).
https://www.zionismexposed.com/king-james-onlyism/

How do I defend Christ and Christianity?
I don't know how to do that. How to make convincing arguments in favor of this religion. Sure, it's clearly the best religion. I can see that but the Godless can't. I don't see any Indian or Muslim charities trying to help the people Christians want to help. But what do I say to the atheist talking points like "muh crusades" and "muh indulgences" and "we don't need gods any more"?

>>6051
The first thing you need to do is to study the Bible. If you don't know what the Bible says, contains, commands, or the primary message, you can't defend it. Simply asserting being correct will do no good. You need to internalize and memorize the core of the text to see through deception about what the Bible says and things that cannot align with the Bible. If you believe it to be true, you have to be able to understand what is false. Representing the Bible correctly is key as trying to make it say something it doesn't will make you fail every time.

Second, you can't gauge Christianity as the best of choices or the nicest of options. It is either truth, leaving all else as shortcoming at best, deception at worst, or it is yet another story. You can't defend Christianity by suggesting it is a better option. People judge better options by secular and personal standards and desire. Why be Christian when I could live for myself and determine all of my actions are justified by the eternal light of myself? The answer is the truth the Bible provides, that man is judged by God and not themselves, an impossible standard and not living nicely. We are already condemned and simultaneously justified freely by Christ. This is what makes Christianity unique and true. No one can earn heaven, which is the calling of all other religions. Hell does exist which is denied by those that refuse all religion, as the individual has no power to justify their own eternal soul. The corruption we contribute to must be paid for with blood and death. That payment was made by Christ. We are all judged by His own account freely. All that is needed is to turn to He who paid this cost and rose again, conquering death forever, and form our eternal relationship with Him.

Third, you need to study the logic of both the Bible and those that deny it. It will take time to figure out all the intricate arguments all sides have, but each will have a flaw if they are based on deception or fantasy. The truth becomes evident as you study the nature of God, of man, of other interpretations of gods and powers, and the history of the world. Studying the probability of organic formation of amino acids for example will aid your ability to understand the logic of evolution for example. They suggest with enough time, life is inevitable, but the cosmic scale makes it improbable to such a degree that it borders on the insane. Amino acids form in left- and right-hand variations, named after their chemical bond formations. The right-hand variation breaks down organic chains for protein, the needed ingredient for life as we know it. This creates a massive problem for the natural formation of life as it grows to numbers of 1 in 10^80 even as high as 1 in 10^140 with the lowest suggested being 1 in 10^30 with a little agreement with this number I can find. This is a massive number, combined with the limited chances of other planets and their limited life spans with stars collapsing and the accelerating expansion of the galaxy suggesting that there is a finite formation of new stars and planets, the logic of life forming by chance becomes impossibly improbable.

Finally, you need to be a good witness. Engaging in conversations will rarely convince anyone. Instead, focus on building a reputation that will be offering your beliefs with people knowing that you are not fighting for no reason, but doing so in love, trying to share something that means the world to you with others and become brothers in Christ, joining together in the wonderful revelation of Scripture. The goal isn't to be on top of a debate, but to reach out to people, show that the Bible does make sense, that God is real and desires a relationship with you, and you desire a relationship with them.

It is so easy to get caught up in the moment and argue pointlessly, making yourself look like a fool. I am guilty of that. I am also guilty of being a bad witness. But by returning to the Bible, you return to the correction that awaits in the pages, reminding you to let God do the work in convicting. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. This means that our own actions aren't the root of changing people's minds. It is God's job. Our job is simply to show it to people. You will find it much less stressful that way.

>>6082
What is with this influx of facebook atheists? Praise Epona or gtfo

>>6083
If you think about it just a bit, the meme is not wrong.
Evolution, sexuality, psychology, witchcraft, are satanic.

>>6084
True but the meme is weak because it assumes everyone who reads it will share the writer's views on these things.
For each thing, the sign should mention on negative example each. A bad person who believed in these things or a bad outcome caused by these things.
If you're going to let yourself be photographed with a sign why not try hard to make it better at redpilling?

>>6087
>If you're going to let yourself be photographed with a sign why not try hard to make it better at redpilling?
You are asking too much from a normie.

>>6088
That normie should have gotten his sign from a smarter man. Useful idiots aren't useful if they don't listen to people able to think for them.

>>6084
>psychology
The institutions that rule psychology are corrupt, but there's nothing inherently wrong with studying the mind.

>>6212
This is the Bible study thread.
Do you have any biblical context to back that up?

>>6084
Why is evolution satanic?

>>6302
Doesn't it seem satanic to think we are all just sacks of flesh designed to procreate or perish, intelligence is a maladaption that paralyzes us with indecision and existential dread, society is a tool for some humans to control others for the sake of improving their own lives, and Christ is just (as the atheists claim) a fairytale at best meant to teach kids morality just like the tooth fairy and Aesop's Fables?
That's what the satanists say when they want to sound like le mature intellectual ebine euphoric leddit atheists. And it's the mindset of a sociopath.

>>6303
That's not what evolution states. That's what scientific materialists state. Also any euphoric retard that claims intelligence is a disadvantage is a fucking moron. Evolution simply states that organisms can accumulate enough changes over time through mutation to be biologically incompatible with each other and become a new species. I don't believe that evolution is incompatible with religion, I believe God guided evolution to create us.

>>6309
>organisms
Populations.
Also that the changes are accumulated in a certain way, namely, by changes that are beneficial for given environment letting the individuals with them out-compete individuals without them.
>>6082
That's even funnier nonsense if you consider that in practice, devil isn't teaching children sexuality or psychology ("yes, your penis will occasionally go hard and your slit will occasionally go wet, you will be way better off in all regards if you carefully pick who you're going to put the one into the other with and stay with them for life, but since you're only human and make mistakes, here's how to avoid fucking your life up before you can find the perfect wife/husband"), devil is teaching children degeneracy and ignorance.

>>6152
>spoiler alert: Satan loses
In 1970 years, The Devil Himself(TM) hasn't read a book allegedly about him losing at his alleged goals? This is the kind of stupid surface level trash that leads people away from God to begin with. 1) Satan is a name that comes from Hassatan, 'the accuser,' and from the term's inception the word is used primarily to describe people and angels who question and doubt God or Jesus. 2) All portrayals of Satan as some red skinned caricature of a Jew with hooves have no basis in scripture. And 3) Anyone aware of even one of those points is going to see the majority of Judeo-Christians talking like this about bad things, and start asking what makes those things bad to begin with.

Bad apologetics and bad preachers only make sin and loss of faith worse by muddying the waters or adding daffy bullshit to what is otherwise evidently true. Stick to the basics and foundations, and leave the rest at the door.

>>6488
>would not of
NOT! HAVE! YOU NIGGER!

>>6517
>grammar mercenary
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

>They Refused to Love the Truth
https://odysee.com/@MrE:c/They-Refused-to-Love-the-Truth:c
Mirror:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IuUDJo3jjG6C/
Here's a clip that may help explain why there are so many delusional people living in the world today. Only 2:44 long.

Has anyone posted about the jewatheist myth of the christian dark age yet? https://strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

>>6550
>christian dark age
Well, according to the luciferians (masons), the blossom of Christianity is the called "darkness" and the time when their anti-Christian ideas came forward, "illuminism".
Given that history has been written by them, kinda tampered by them, an inversion of Christian values are expected.

>>6550
>link
A reminder that most, if not all, of the "great" names in history are portrayed by the same freemasons as members of their cult. If I remember well, Galileo Galilei was among them.
Also the heretical idea of heliocentrism was and is pushed by the Jesuits inside the Vatican, which makes me wonder the motive behind the Vatican supporting ideas contrary to the Bible. An obvious satanic inversion perhaps?

To do in your mind and or heart is the same as committing it in person.
To heal your heart pray for those who have hurt you the same as if you would yourself.
Made in God's image for the plan and design and you.
Put your whole faith, love, words, being, heart and self to be commanded by God. To do as the one who loves the most.
God loves you despite the lesser logical reasons why God shouldn't God does so anyways.

Why is doing in your heart and or mind the same as doing in physical? For in whoms' heart and mind and body do we live?
God's.
Your heart can either be alive or dead. The cover is a small part. What lies within is still there.
Forgiving is Forgiveness. Penance is Penance. Justice is Justice. Those are God's to determine. Be as God's grand design manifest in accordance with God.

>>6557
"The meek shall inherit the Earth."
Meek means to have the sword and to stay one's blade. To be capable of immense immediate violence, yet choosing not to use it carelessly.
Keep in mind what happens in your mind and in your heart and physically is the same.
For the most Holy has resolved them, the perfect solution. Just one needs to listen to choose to be the perfect servant, the son or daughter.
The Adversary always looses at the end. The only way to be an adversary is by turning away from God.
To turn to God you have to follow the way, the truth and the light. Surprise that's Jesus.
Guess what, the only way to get to God is by...
Turning to God. As in following the best way.
It seems to me that all sin is the act of turning away from God. Every act and definition follows that commonality of turning away.
God wins on every level and design, in every way and more.

God Hates Fags - (by Westboro Baptist Church)

Did you know God always gives perfect gifts suitable for the heart?
In Justice this is true as well.
The Evil One is made to be like God.
Recap of the Holy Trinity
Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ
The Holy Ghost

The Evil One has been given his desire of turning away from The One who is entirely Good and Loving, to be like God.
The Evil One's personality is split into three:
Beelzebub is the inversion of The Holy Ghost
Satan is the inversion of The Father
Lucifer is the inversion of Jesus Christ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls92Wiptv0w

>>6661
Nope. Satan is one entity. Those are the names for the same guy. Lucifer has no distinction from Satan or Beelzebub in the Bible. Where he is going to attempt to assemble a false trinity is in the manifestation of the beast and antichrist. The beast will be a nation, a physical presence of Satan's will on earth while also being the prevalent spirit of the world and led by someone that has the spirit of antichrist, who obeys the will of Satan directly by pretending to be Christ, who will be overwhelmed by the spiritual influence of Satan. A "father", a "son, and a "spirit", though just like Satan is not equivalent to God or Christ, the false trinity is linked to physical matter. The beast is the spirit of the land, but is a physical nation system. Antichrist will come out of this land and spirit instead of the Spirit being sent by Christ.

Satan is also bound to a form of limitation, even if it isn't physical matter. He is a fallen angel. He can't actually obtain anything that can match the Trinity, only be a cobbled copy through manipulation of what already exists on earth. It is like how African armies pretend they have better technology by making wood, cardboard, and plastic props.

All of that said, I haven't even watched what you linked yet. I doubt anyone on youtube that is easily found will say anything close to the truth, but I will review it to see what is going on in it.

>>6662
Impressive response time.
>Those are the names for the same guy.
Yes.
That's more or less the jist.
The details is that in an exorcism(s) the full identity is made readily known.

>>6662
>first thing the guy says is that Satan only lies, even if it goes better for him
No. Not at all. He is the father of lies, yes, but this doesn't mean he speaks only lies. This is shown in the interaction he had with Jesus.

Matthew 4:5-7
Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

This is because the purpose of his work is deception, not purely lying. He told the truth that angels would come for Christ if He were to throw Himself from that height and he even quoted Scripture to do so. However, this would be in defiance towards God because Christ said not to tempt Him. He used the truth to deceive, making it overall a lie, but one that needs to be understood. Satan will definitely tell the truth to aid his goals.

>>6663
I doubt he encountered Satan. I will continue through this video to determine of course, but a lot of the Catholic religion is just putting on a show.

>>6661
>different manifestations
What even is that? It is either the same guy or it isn't.
>Loki like
https://youtu.be/_5qgMVSDGek
>priest version of the book, not in the lay version of the book
Another one of the endless reasons I hate Catholics. What the fuck is this elitism and climbing the ladder to obtain information bullshit about? Paul preached the same info to everyone he came across. There is no hidden knowledge or fucking magic system. All are inhabited by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation and this means that all are equal in the faith through God's presence. The only limiting factor is personal understanding.
>Beelzebub tells me he is the inversion of the Holy Ghost, so naturally I take him at face value, despite him being the same person as Satan
Only the highest of IQ at the top of this priesthood I am certain.
>people before me insisted they were different demons
>I know that the Bible says that Satan is the same as Beelzebub
>I know, I will suggest that the demon did not lie about the name, but instead I will build a whole new theological doctrine around what the demon told me!
Damn it all. Every time with these people that get spotlights

>>6661
Now he is talking to the demon and says it is in shock at his wonderous revelation? Why the hell are you talking to a worker of shadow and iniquity? Why are Catholic priests all the worst people for any job? You are supposed to kick them out, not have tea and crumpets or whatever the hell you have decided is a better use of your time.
>was this doctrine I made up the punishment for defying God I asked
>he didn't respond
How convenient that you got a positive response from this legitimate encounter that happens to align with what you just came up with. Assuming the demon encounter was real, you just accepted what was told to you by the demon, you asked it if it was true, and it didn't say yes but you took it as yes. Great work for Christ buddy, making your Biblical doctrine based off of demonic influence.
>later he said yes
Again, assuming this is true, why would he be silent first and then agree openly?

>you have to dig for this knowledge
Then it isn't right. Everything in the Bible disagrees with this assessment.

I do not oppose Christiany and at some point I support it. But also there is something very wrong with it.

>>6666
>Now he is talking to the demon and says it is in shock at his wonderous revelation?
Checked those satan's numbers.

>>6667
I was raised as a Christian and would consider myself to be an apatheist, but pretending to be a pagan on the Internet is fun due to how much asshurt it can cause. It doesn't even seem to offend Christian anons that much. Ironically, it mostly seems to just upset reddit-type fags that'll crawl out of the woodwork to seethe and call you a larper. Only works if you attach it to White identitarianism, though.
It's like a weird form of meta trolling.

>>6669
Anyway, that is the end of that video. He doesn't go into any specifics for me to even determine the interaction was legitimate. Given how backwards his made up doctrine is, I am going to guess that there was no demon and he made the whole thing up like this doctrine.

Say... if a person who speaks in Tongues (in this use case a language only God understands) could one do so in their imagination (cognitive function)?

>>6677
To my knowledge, only possessed people speaks in tongues.

>>6678
The Holy Spirit speaks through a person.
Typically when a person is baptized in water, they then are baptized in the spirit (fire). (At any time He who is The Holy Spirit can/could dwell in anyone.)
When a person obeys the One who is Love He, The Holy Ghost, speaks through the mouth and the word and all.
By opening the mouth and letting sounds emerge and moving as if speaking.
There are multiple tongues (languages), one type is only known to God. What that means is that it didn't make sense to anyone except God.
You'll know them by their fruits.
Know that God never gives vipers (evil) when his children ask for something good.
Many times people ask for what they already have (such as to have The Holy Spirit), as that is already there is already given.

>>6678
Ensure knowing He who is The Comforter and The Helper, He that brings all words and teachings of God to mind. He teaches and reminds.
He like Jesus is of God.
The One who Is Good and Love and More never contradicts His own teaching, words and will.

The solution to Clown World is God. Jesus Christ! The Holy Spirit! Our Heavenly Father!
Nearly everywhere is infected with a Fragment of Clown World even some sources of His Waters. That's Wormwood, that's witchcraft. Loads of nonsense and crap and useless garbage.
Be warned and wary of mimicking evil even in mockery lest it infect and infest in you.
Be careful of those who's hands don't serve from a position of a kneeling servant. Be wary of those hands that would push you away and not raise you up.

>>6681
>second pic
That's a good explanation of the demoralization told by Yuri Bezmenov.

>>6677
Oh boy. This topic never seems to get old. This will take a hot minute to break down.

To begin, we don't all possess the same abilities in the Spirit.
1st Corinthians 12:7-12
But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:
But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

Right away we gain a lot of insight into the nature of what is occurring in spiritual gifts. First, tongues is not speaking in a way only God understands, as it says diverse tongues and the interpretation of them. This is for the translation of human speech across the world, the tongues of the people. There is a tongue mentioned in the Bible that is what angels can use, but this is not the entirety of the gift, nor is it given to all that have this gift as speaking tongues can as simple as someone that is inclined towards a singular other language on earth.

Next, we see that there are many gifts and not everyone is getting them, let alone all of them. The phrase "dividing to every man severally as he will" specifically calls to this aspect as it is God's will to divide who gets what and to what extent. God may not give you any listed spiritual gift, instead focusing on what Paul says is even greater than the gifts.

1st Corinthians 13:1-13
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

We can see here that despite having the best of the best gifts in the eyes of man, Paul states that each gift is absolutely worthless compared to what otherwise would be seen as common: faith, hope, and charity. Charity is stated as being the greatest, and it is easy to see why when you read the verse. This is not the modern charity of giving, as the phrasing "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." lets us know. This is not a monetary giving, but a love that is giving.

So, to come back around to your question. If a person who speaks in tongues, specifically a language of angels, could one do so in their imagination? We can learn what Paul has to say about this possibility.

1st Corinthians 14:1-6
Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

This means that the gift of tongues is supposed to be used to aid the church, particularly in communication and interpretation. If this is not present, Paul states that it is a worthless gift and instead you should be doing something that edifies. From this, I would conclude that it is not an available gift to communicate to God in a special language. All languages are already understood by God who formed all of them at Babel and has controlled how they have changed and altered over the centuries. Moreover, we have Christ as our High Priest and the Holy Spirit within us that communicate directly to God the Father on our behalf. There is no lack of communication possible that would warrant a special language to communicate with God.

>>6678
Tongue is misunderstood through modern interpretations and understanding. 1st Corinthians chapters 12 through 14 offer a great look into the original meaning of tongues, the communications between people. Languages basically. Though the same passage gives the possibility of a tongue spoken by angels, as in the reply I made above, this is for communication. There is no need to communicate with angels in present day and they seem capable of communicating within the language with whoever they come across in the Bible, so I would conclude that there is no equivalent to the modern understanding of tongues, a babbling that is understood only by God and is an outflowing of piety and devotion.

So here's a question to ponder.
Why does the story of Jonah map to Revelation? (Yes, The Holy Ghost and God has put forth both as they are.)

>>6686
I'm not certain I understand the question. What do you mean by map? Do you mean does it relate to Revelation? It more refers to Christ as He said that He was like Jonah and would be sealed in the earth for three days just like he was sealed in the fish. What part of Revelation do you have in mind? Is it the general theme or a particular occurrence?

>>6688
Did you know that the rapture is in fact in the Bible?

1st Thessalonians 4:13-18
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.
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
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.
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:
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.
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

The concept that rapture speaks about is from this passage. You might be wondering were the word rapture comes from. This is also directly in the Bible, from the Latin Vulgate translation.

1st Thessalonians 4:17
deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

The English-ification of the word rapiemur, which is directly translated into "shall be caught up together". Thus, we get rapture. We get other words along this, such as a raptor, which snatches things. It is a sudden taking up and typically carrying away to another destination. This matches the passage here.

We can further confirm this is the correct translation by matching the Greek manuscripts that have been found over the ages.

1st Thessalonians 4:17
ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

In this case ἁρπαγησόμεθα means to seize, specifically the future passive indicative nominative plural, meaning it is something that will happen to the group being talked about. More simply put, it reads "we will be seized" or in a common way of speaking, we are going to be taken away ἐν νεφέλαις, "in the clouds".

I don't really care if some faggot in history came up with some odd something or rather and he was a pagan. That is no excuse to deny a direct piece of the Bible directly saying something will in fact happen. It is the same as people saying Hitler thought something and therefore it is automatically wrong. Most everyone on this site got past that mental block. This article is heavily focused on the wrong subject. It directly states that he pushed that an imminent rapture was going to occur.

This is actually something that Paul spoke against in this very book. The people of Thessalonica were not doing anything for Christ because they believed the rapture was just a few days away from occurring. They were deteriorating as a people and as Christians because they were excusing their behavior on the end of the world. Paul said that you literally can't miss it because you will be raptured, so there is no point in waiting for it. You must work and be active to fight evil and promote good.

1st Thessalonians 4:10-12
And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;
And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;
That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

This indicates that they were getting into other people's business, telling them what to do, and refused to do work with their own hands. Paul was confident that the problem could be fixed and sent a letter... though he had to send a second letter which shows how difficult it is to get some people to do anything. So, the fact remains that the emphasis is on the wrong aspect. The work of the Jew is to keep Christians from the work using deception, though this is being recognized incorrectly. The deception is not in the rapture itself, but the timing of it and the response. It is not something that you wait to happen. It occurs without your input. Your task is to work knowing that this world has a finite expiration date and all of our tasks need to be done before the rapture does occur.

So being baptized in the name of Jesus (ie all Who God actually is) may be about not just being submerged by another into water (or death) but also in God's character.
God recognizes his children giving Himself The Holy Spirit.
God treats all His children with infinite love, goodness, mercy, forgiveness, power, and more.
Jesus came down (all the way and went back) to save us all and give gifts.
God's gift to be His own heir. His dear and precious child.
He will never give you up or let you down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuwLdSR6FgA

>Non-Jew method of how to be saved and have The Holy Ghost
Trust and believe in Jesus Christ for salvation.
That's it! Extremely simple and straight foward.
Why all the other stuff?
<Good stuff is found in The Living Word.
<Jesus gave us His Sword of Truth to see and divide what applies to who.
And
>J E W S
God choose to work through Jews and (((J E W S))). You and I know (((them))) and those that keep to themselves... sort of.