/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

My thought on this is that Christ would agree with this, obviously.

It begs the question of converted Jews, however. Paul lets them keep their rituals and practices, but makes sure that nobody else has to do this to become Christian.

What do we make make of this? It's almost as if Christianity was about a relationship with God and all else was procedural ritualistic legalism.

Jews today are the descendents of the Chosen People, since no Jew today is chosen because of his semicity (if that's a word).

Thing is, Jews have to be the most lapsed religion there is. The vast majority of them don't believe in their God at all, even when they go through the rituals. It's a cultural thing. I knew Jewish people who go to Jewish school, learn Hebrew and all, but they're all atheists. They do it because their parents don't want them to lose their heritage. I understand that, but it's hardly a faith in that context.

>>431

>What are your thoughts on this belief?

I agree with it.

The Jews had their chance for salvation through the old covenant. The old covenant is redundant now. You cannot be saved by following the law anymore.

Jesus tried until the end to give the jews the chance to fulfill the old covenant but they rejected him.

Now it is at us, the new Israel of god, to fulfill the new covenant and be saved by the grace and mercy of god.

If I jew accepts the truth and converts to the true faith his jewry will be forgiven but there is no salvation for the jews as there is no salvation for the others who reject the lord. The jews do not worship the same god as us, for those who do not worship the god of the new testament also do not worship the god of the old testament.

John 14,6

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

>>431

> since the Holocaust it has been rejected by some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations.

I take this as proof that there is no theological reason, so they have to bring up some profane pseudo reason

>>439

>It begs the question of converted Jews, however.

Do you mean if they are allowed to follow the old law or if they have to follow it?

>Thing is, Jews have to be the most lapsed religion there is.

This.

> I understand that, but it's hardly a faith in that context.

It is even worse than /pol/ s cultural Christians

>>440

>You cannot be saved by following the law anymore.

> there is no salvation for the jews as there is no salvation for the others who reject the lord.

If you just turned love for God into a new law, you've lost the game. I am not so sure that things are this cut and dry, but I am doing research on the subject and don't know enough just yet.

Even the Catholic Church, your Church (right?), believes that there is salvation outside of the official earthly Church. I guess they use the same trick Orthodox use: only God knows who is part of the Church, as in the saints that only God knows, the saints that the Church never discovered. Those exist, but aren't known to us. In the same way, there might be people in the Church of God that neither the Orthodox Church nor the Catholic Church know of.

In this sense, there is no salvation outside of the Church, but the "Church" isn't your earthly organisation, but the Church of God, run by Him. They probably crossover a lot.

Just a thought.

>>442

Yes I am Catholic and you are right.

> part of the Church, as in the saints that only God knows, the saints that the Church never discovered.

I have once heard of some Japanese Saint that got never baptized but is acknowledged by the CC, but I unfortunately forgot the name.

>In this sense, there is no salvation outside of the Church, but the "Church" isn't your earthly organisation, but the Church of God, run by Him. They probably crossover a lot.

This

I am suspicous though about people who know the gospel and still reject it. I don't really think that there is an excuse for them.

>>443

>I am suspicous though about people who know the gospel and still reject it. I don't really think that there is an excuse for them.

But do they? Some Christians don't know the gospel. Others, way more, know without knowing, don't understand the words used (the "Word" is literally a word in their minds, instead of the Logos, Christ, etc), etc.

I have a hard time judging religious Jews harshly. Their religion is old as can be, ours stems from theirs, and can only be true if theirs was also true. In a way, it's the same religion, a dynamic religion. They probably feel about us the way we feel about Mormons. Although Christ's case is more easily argued than Smith's.

Forgive them for they know not what they do. If God can ask this for them, then God can grant it too.

This invisible Church stuff is of supreme importance to me, on a personal note, because if I belong to the Church, it is only in that way. Reading about the Orthodox Church introduced me to the concept, though I knew of unknown saints, I hadn't thought the same could count for regular Christians.

>faith +1

>>442

>> there is no salvation for the jews

if they stay jews I meant here. If a jew converts he can be saved of course

>>444

>Some Christians don't know the gospel

Are they Christians then if they do not follow the gospel?

Matthew 7,21

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. "

>I have a hard time judging religious Jews harshly

I don't

> ours stems from theirs

That is a misconception

It would be better to say that jewry and Christianity have the same roots.

Modern rabbinical jewry is not the judaism we are told about in the bible and not the religion of Moses and the other Prophets

>Forgive them for they know not what they do. If God can ask this for them, then God can grant it too.

It is not about forgiving it is about justice

>because if I belong to the Church, it is only in that way.

Didn't you say you are baptised ?

>>445

That's how I understood it.

I'm just concerned that focus on salvation/doom leads to bad faith. God doesn't show up in His might and tells us how it is so that we don't all suddenly start acting Christian without being Christian, which would lead us all to Hell, being forced to mercenary love (even the best of us would behave totally different if guaranteed eternity in Hell short of good deeds and faith, provided you can even have true faith in someone holding a Hell to your head, ready to fire). So, He doesn't show up in such ways, only in ways that preserve faith, that leave room for faith and doubt, and therefore, trust.

Misplaced faith shouldn't condemn one, I believe, because Christ did not ask us to be ever so smart and educated, but to have faith. Sometimes we're not smart. Sometimes we're misled by those not so smart folks. It's not always your fault.

Christ asks for wrongdoers to be forgiven when they don't know what they're doing. Someone who's read the gospels and still rejects Christ still doesn't know what he's doing.

Obviously, if he knew, he'd no longer reject Christ. No Jew rejects Christ thinking Christ was exactly what He said He was. Jews who reject Christ see Him as a shitty tripfag trolling up the Torah. In that, they still don't know, and this saves them. They don't know what they're doing.

>>447

> they still don't know, and this saves them.

Let us hope that for the jews, in any case they had better stop being jews

——

For the rest: This is why there is purgatory, which is a part of heaven.

Not everyone who does not fit into heaven at death has to be sent to hell. That would not be a just judgement.

But a stranger cannot receive the same treatment as a son. That would also not be a just judgement

>>446

>Are they Christians then if they do not follow the gospel?

No, but they still weren't Christians when Christ asked God to forgive them. So if God Himself asks Himself to forgive the unchristian, I say there's a chance that God will save them somehow. I don't think that's a ludicrous thought to have.

>“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. "

This actually suggests that calling yourself a Christian matters nothing, while doing God's will does matter. If God's will is love, then a Jew doing God's will has more chances than a Christian being a douche. Again, this seems logical to me but you may have another angle.

>I don't

Why not? I'm somewhat familiar with Stamford Hill Jews, the most radical Jews I know of. It's literally a cult. They're like the Jewish Amish and have virtually no access to the modern world in terms of information and education. No news, no TV, no cinema, everyone around them is considered a devil, etc. I can hardly blame those for not thinking much of Christ.

As to regular Jews, they're probably more blasphemous to their own religion than to Christ. Are there Western Jews who actually believe? What's the ratio? 5%?

>It would be better to say that jewry and Christianity have the same roots.

OK. I'm not familiar with Judaism then and now.

>It is not about forgiving it is about justice

It wasn't justice to have God suffer for us. He was innocent, we were guilty. It's definitely about love and forgiving. There's nothing fair in this, just love. Very interesting point, however.

>Didn't you say you are baptised ?

Yes. Roman Catholic. My mother was with a bad man and accidentally became pregnant. He flipped his shit and asked her to abort, which she refused. He then left forever. She had me baptised very soon after my birth. I was not raised in any faith however. I just remember a book about Saint Bernadette of Lourdes, though I never knew it was a true story until I grew up.

By marriage (my mother's), I became Protestant, since my adoptive father was Protestant (which meant nothing: my grandfather had punched a priest in his very Catholic town, and had been made a Protestant by default; he was a communist in the first half of the 20th century, and until his death a decade ago), so I went to Protie Catechism, mostly because my mother really wanted me to, despite her being a Catholic. This turned out to be shit. I then decided to tackle God on my little own, age 11, with the ambitious plan to read the Bible, cover to cover, like a badass. I made it through the Pentateuch, which traumatised me as a child, and I then hated God for years. At 11, being a European boy, I couldn't believe the God of Love really wanted humans stoned and burned alive for offenses that made no sense to me as a kid. My whole desire for God got perverted, literally, into massive God hate. I hate "God" because He wasn't like the God I felt I could feel. It took years to reverse that process.

Sorry, that's way more than you asked for, but it's good context.

>first thing I learned at Sunday school was what a "bastard" was, and, not knowing it was an insult, I told the whole class that I was a bastard. I was 5. I didn't understand my teacher's reaction back then. My mother wasn't too happy either, but yeah, born out of wedlock.

The funny thing is, and I often forget it, is that I actually work for the Church and my salary comes straight from the Vatican. For all intents and purposes, I literally am in the Church!

>>448

>Let us hope that for the jews, in any case they had better stop being jews

Most I know have stopped. It seems the Jewish faith only survives if it shapes society and beliefs in everything. Devoid of that, stripped down to just faith, it tends to die. A bit like the Muslim faith, I'd say.

For modern Jews, it's more like a superstition that you can't just forget because it's a family habit. That's my impression but I could be wrong.

>For the rest: This is why there is purgatory, which is a part of heaven.

I had never heard of Purgatory being placed in Heaven, although I quite understand the sense of it.

>But a stranger cannot receive the same treatment as a son. That would also not be a just judgement

I understand, but what, then, of the parable of the workers? The ones who came early and those who begin work in the afternoon? The guy who pays them offers the same salary to everyone, regardless of when they start working. Wouldn't you say that this, too, is unfair?

In the parable, the guy says all workers agreed to their payment and have no right to complaint. Thus, if someone who has been Christian for longer than another, that person shouldn't complain to God based on this parable from Christ.

I don't see Purgatory as something based on justice, but something based on love: it purifies you so you can still get to God despite not being able to just yet.

Very interesting conversation between justice and love. Giving me new ideas and all.

>>449

>No, but they still weren't Christians when Christ asked God to forgive them. So if God Himself asks Himself to forgive the unchristian, I say there's a chance that God will save them somehow. I don't think that's a ludicrous thought to have.

Since when does forgiving include the lack of punishment?

> If God's will is love

God`s will is the law and the Church. That is why he gave us the law and founded the Church.

>Why not?

Because I know the Talmud and because nothing good comes from them since the killed Christ.

>As to regular Jews, they're probably more blasphemous to their own religion than to Christ.

They call Christ a sorcerer and state that he will boil in feces in the Talmud

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_43.html

'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy

http://www.come-and-hear.com/gittin/gittin_57.html

"What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, "

>It wasn't justice to have God suffer for us. He was innocent, we were guilty. It's definitely about love and forgiving. There's nothing fair in this, just love. Very interesting point, however.

That is a good point

>story

wow. It is astonishing that you still became a Christian somehow

>>first thing I learned at Sunday school was what a "bastard" was, and, not knowing it was an insult, I told the whole class that I was a bastard. I was 5. I didn't understand my teacher's reaction back then. My mother wasn't too happy either, but yeah, born out of wedlock.

Oh I understand this. I am a bastard too and know that children are cruel

>>450

As a layman I assume :^)

>>451

>For modern Jews, it's more like a superstition that you can't just forget because it's a family habit. That's my impression but I could be wrong.

the holocaust and SJWism/cultural Marxism is the new religion for secular jews

>I had never heard of Purgatory being placed in Heaven, although I quite understand the sense of it.

I want to make a post about it in your thread since some time. I also still want to make a post about the apostolic succession, the problem is I haven't felt like serious discussion for some days now.

> Wouldn't you say that this, too, is unfair?

Another good point. It is a parable that shall express that it is never too late to repent and join the church if I am aware.

Maybe I really think it is unfair. But if it is god´s will then this outweighs my feeling

this could as well be one of the points where I conflict with god :^)

>I don't see Purgatory as something based on justice, but something based on love: it purifies you so you can still get to God despite not being able to just yet.

I believe that justice and love go hand in hand

>Giving me new ideas and all.

Oh that should be the point of an imageboard, shouldn't it? :^)

>>453

>I want to make a post about it in your thread since some time. I also still want to make a post about the apostolic succession, the problem is I haven't felt like serious discussion for some days now.

No problem. The major advantage with this board is we have so much time. This thread is turning into ''Conversation between Discipulus and One of Little Faith". I enjoy it and I am sure that others will too.

Don't worry about it. Feeling good is a prime objective for me on this new board, and I want that to be a prime objective for everyone who comes here, though I'm not the board owner. I really hope that guy stays cool.

>>458

>God has more than one nature.

Yeah, but to suggest that His human will would want the exact opposite of every other human there seems far fetched.

>I wouldn't go as far as calling the jews the reason for salvation.

Nor would I, but they are definitely the mean means to an end.

>Oh I would be happy if everyone would feel welcome to join in.

They will, don't worry. I never underestimate the quiet lurker who takes his time before participating. If we maintain this board friendly, friendly as in we never try to be actual douchebags and don't assume ill-intent from everyone else, we can expect wonderful things. The way things were at the beginning on /christian/, when we still felt small and weak and cared for each other. Now they think they're crusaders and fighting the heretic is top priority. I only fight heretics when I'm a Space Marine.

>Yes desubong-kun is a fine guy. You don't have to fear anything like that, he is literally the nicest person on 8chan :^)

Am I glad to hear this. And this is yet another reason why trips are not a bad thing: I know I can trust you, and so I know we can trust this guy. None of it would be possible without trips.

On small boards, trips are a good thing. Gives more personality to the conversations and it gives more weight to what we say. One is more likely to turn into an unsufferable cunt without a name.

>desubong-kun

That's a hell of a name. Is he the guy who's getting baptised? Do you know anything about his backstory? I'm rather curious.

I'm going to work out in a bit and then do some work. I'll always keep track of this board, no worries. It's 99% of my chan activity.

>>442

>If you just turned love for God into a new law, you've lost the game. I am not so sure that things are this cut and dry, but I am doing research on the subject and don't know enough just yet.

Virtuous Pagans is something that shows that there is more nuance to this I think. Only God can really know.

>>459

>None of it would be possible without trips.

kek

for the record I am not using my trip all of the time myself

>I'm rather curious.

I think if he wanted other people to know he would have answered to the thread that was made about him

>>460

>Virtuous Pagans is something that shows that there is more nuance to this I think. Only God can really know.

Yup.

>I think if he wanted other people to know he would have answered to the thread that was made about him

Possibly. Maybe he's just away? I know nothing about this guy beyond what you told me and that thread.

>>466

>Maybe he's just away?

He is an avatarfriend at /int/ and very active

>>>/int/240085

>>466

>>471

I am here, I just do not post anything that would single me out as me. I started this thread last night for instance.

>>479

> I started this thread last night for instance.

Andyou haven't contributed yet :^)

What are your thoughts?

>>481

I agree with hard sessessionism, I just thought I would ask others.

>>484

>hard sessessionism

How does it differ from the other Supersessessionism (or is it just a different name) and why do you agree?

>>485

Soft seccessionism is the idea that the Jews are still protected and chosen, but that they need to convert to save their souls. I don't think the old covenant is in any way valid as far as I understand it.

>>486

> I don't think the old covenant is in any way valid as far as I understand it.

Now or has never been? Is Moses in hell?

>>479

Ahhhm sneaky. I like that.

I'm glad Discipulus thinks highly of you. I'll work hard on making this board a place where Christians and others feel stimulated, welcome, and at home.

>>488

>Now or has never been? Is Moses in hell?

If it had never been, our covenant wouldn't be "valid" either.

The newer version of something that was never true wouldn't be true either. Like homeopathy 2.0.

>>488

Now.

Reminder that modern Israel is not the biblical Israel.

The Church has replaced Israel and is the new chosen people of God.

>>3482

And that Church is not a physical church but the spiritual brotherhood of believers.

>>3490

And that brotherhood of believers is the Catholic Church that was founded by Jesus therefore.

>>3499

>following the religion of man rather than the religion of Jesus

>>3529

>implications

>>3529

>appeal to age fallacy

Insisting a certain way is true or correct simply because it's traditional or old is a problem and, in a logical argument, it is a fallacy.

>>3532

It's not about "working", it is about truth.

Yeah I've realized the missing Orthodox among others, I might make my own (better) version of the image ( where I'd also add the names of the respective founders)

>>3536

>Insisting a certain way is true or correct simply because it's traditional or old is a problem and, in a logical argument, it is a fallacy.

Not the case. I do not "apeal" to the age, I point out that it was founded by Jesus, who is part of the Godhead.

If there is but one Church that was founded by your God, and a multitude that was founded by men and false prophets it's obvious which you should belong to.

>>3537

>I point out that it was founded by Jesus

Too bad the Roman Catholic church wasn't founded by Jesus;

it is highly unlikely that it was founded by Peter (at the very least there is no evidence that it was).

>>3538

So you want to imply that the Church has no relation to Peter whatsoever? That's a new one, Peter being in the line of popes and everything.

It reminds me of atheists claiming Jesus never existed.

>>3542

I'm talking about the Church at Rome; there is no evidence that Peter founded it, in any case it is highly unlikely.

>>3543

So, do you want to say that the Catholic Church has no relation to the early Church in Rome, or that Peter was never the bishop of the early Church in Rome?

>>3544

>There is no biblical or historical evidence for the claims of the Roman Catholic church that Peter was the first pope. In fact there is no evidence that there even was a pope in the first century. Even Catholic historians recognize this as a historical fact….We honor Peter and in fact some of our churches are named after him, but he was not the first pope, nor was he Roman Catholic. If you read his first letter, you will see that he did not teach a Roman hierarchy, but that all Christians are royal priests. The same keys given to Peter in Matthew 16 are given to the whole church of believers in Matthew 18. [69] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_Simon_Peter

>>3545

> Even Catholic historians recognize this as a historical fact…

Is there a Church announcement regarding this?

If not it bears no relevance. It would be like claiming "even Catholics approve of gay marriage" Catholic judges ruling in the U.S.

>bolsheviki pedia

>a source

I can do that too< but it's silly.

>Saint Peter (Latin: Petrus, Greek: Πέτρος Petros, Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐ, Shemayon Keppa, Hebrew: שמעון בר יונה‎ Shim'on Bar Yona; died c. 64 AD[2]), also known as Simon Peter, Simeon, or Simōn, according to the New Testament, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Church. The Roman Catholic Church considers him to be the first Pope, ordained by Jesus in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18. The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and associate him with founding the Church of Antioch and later the Church in Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter

>>3545

> In fact there is no evidence that there even was a pope in the first century.

This however is just nonsense. Peter existed and founded the Church in Rome and was her Bishop. Being the Bishop of Rome makes you pope.

One can doubt about the relation of this too our Church, or about the authority of the Holy See, but taking it this far is just silly and agenda ridden.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

And here there is a list of all popes:

https://www.fisheaters.com/rock.html

>>3549

>>3549

>her

nobody on the first couple of centuries cared about popes, theres wasnt even the title of "pope"

And the only utility of bishops was as preachers. the bishop of rome wasnt not eve a an inch more important than any other bishops up until the 4th century.

>>3559

>nobody on the first couple of centuries cared about popes, theres wasnt even the title of "pope"

I am not aware of when the term "pope" came into existence but it does not matter. Peter was the first and most important apostle.

Also there are 7 quotes in the first link from before the 4th century, here one:

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

>And the only utility of bishops was as preachers. the bishop of rome wasnt not eve a an inch more important than any other bishops up until the 4th century.

This is just untrue.