/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

What are idols?

Exodus 20 makes it seem like any type of representational art is an idol, or at least, that it should not be made.

But is the "idol" part, on the representation itself, or how people react or feel about such representation?

>>5953

The best example of an idol in Christianity is St. Mary. Only half joking

>Why do some Christians ignore Leviticus 19:28 and get cross themed tattoos?

Leviticus is highly contextual. You should find a million critiques of it online.

>Why do most Christians hate tattoos and discourage individuality?

Christians do not discourage individuality. This should be obvious in the fact that the most individualistic cultures are all Christian (or were Christian).

Tatoos are associated with a certain kind of person and lifestyle, which is likely why most Christians view them with suspicion

>>5955

>Why do some Christians ignore Leviticus 19:28 and get cross themed tattoos?

most conservatives are against it.

>Why do most Christians hate tattoos and discourage individuality?

is all individuality good?

>>5955

Because most Christians believe this OT Law to fall under the Category of "For Jewish Eyes Only", and so they don't think there's anything sinful about slathering God's Gift with ink or whathaveyou.

If you follow His Prophet though, you'l know this practice is still very much sinful.

>>5956

I keke'd. I thought Anglicans were also into Mariology and stuff. Nice name by the way. He was an alright fellow.

>>5960

Thank you. What happens to the "soul" in the meantime? I mean, what do people do, go or what do they experience from now until the day when Christ returns?

>>5948

>What are idols?

See here:

>>5953

Many modern ideologies take the place of idols too, ie marxism.

>>5955

>Why do some Christians ignore Leviticus 19:28 and get cross themed tattoos?

Levitical law.

>Why do most Christians hate tattoos and discourage individuality?

Decency

>>5956

>The best example of an idol in Christianity is St. Mary. Only half joking

:^)

(^:

>>5961

>I keke'd. I thought Anglicans were also into Mariology and stuff. Nice name by the way. He was an alright fellow.

Low Church not, iirc

>>5961

>>>5960

What post was this?

>>5966

Orthodox fella answered my question, but then deleted the post.

>>5977

>but then deleted the post.

Pitty

>>5948

bump

why the pope matter?

?why is this board so slow and small

>>6070

It just is.

>>6071

bump

can somebody explain to me the whoe "priests can forgive sins" thing.

I heard the pope said that priests now can forgive abortions, how does that work

>>5947

What is your opinion on Francesco Carotta's idea of the origin of Christianity?

>>6114

>can somebody explain to me the whoe "priests can forgive sins" thing.

Priests do not forgive sins, it is God who does it. Confession is a sacrament bestowed upon the Church by God, in which the priest acts as intermediary between God and man.

Matthew 18,18

8 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 20,18

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 16,19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

>>6114

>I heard the pope said that priests now can forgive abortions, how does that work

Abortion is a sin like any other sin. Why should abortion be the unforgivable sin while all of our other uprisings against the divine order are not?

>>6115

>What is your opinion on Francesco Carotta's idea of the origin of Christianity?

Hearing the name for the first time.

>>6116

>Confession is a sacrament bestowed upon the Church by God

how? what the catholic defense of this, the history ect

>Why should abortion be the unforgivable sin while all of our other uprisings against the divine order are not?

why it wasnt forgiven in the first place?

>>6122

>how? what the catholic defense of this, the history ect

That's why I cited the 3 bible verses. You may read the whole chapters if you are further interested. It is about God becoming a human and founding the Church. On this Church he bestowes this sacrament verses I cited

>why it wasnt forgiven in the first place?

In order to be forgiven you have to regret a sin and repent. How would you forgive a man that thinks he has done no wrong?

So if you deliberately abort your child it is a sin murder tbh but it can be forgiven. There are however circumstances that have to be fulfilled, your honesty and regret being one of them.

>>6126

I meant why wasnt abortion forgiven boefore this pope

>>6127

>I meant why wasnt abortion forgiven boefore this pope

Is this the case? I have never heard of this before and find it hard to believe.

>>6129

It's been in the news lately.

>>6129

apparently.

thats why ive heard many people complain about it, because it will make the whole "babies matter" argument less valuable.

>>6116

>Hearing the name for the first time.

Here is something about him:

https://divusjulius.wordpress.com/wikipedia_org_wiki_francesco_carotta/

do you think its possible to prove the existence of God? and or christianity?

>>6197

Through the scientific method? Nah.

>>6197

>do you think its possible to prove the existence of God? and or christianity?

No. In order to prove something you have to enact something that is reproducable, doesn't matter if it is something in theory like math or an actual experiment.

So there would need to be a certain law that God would have to follow madatorily. But this is not the case, God does not follow any laws, all laws that applyin reality are according to his will.

So if we would ever be able to prove a God we could be certain that it is not the Christian almighty God.

>>6197

>>6199

>>6202

How do you conclude that God isn't Julius Caesar?

>>6204

Explain further. The possibility never crossed my mind, honestly.

>>6205

At the beginning of the Roman Empire there was an empire-wide cult of the deified Julius Caesar, who is also known as Divus Julius, which roughly means God Julius or Divine Julius, with specialized priests of the deified Julius Caesar known as flaminates or flamines (singular: flamen) Divi Julii. The Romans did indeed consider Julius Caesar a god, as they saw his policies and military victories as miracles. This cult existed even before Caesar's grandnephew Octavian became emperor Augustus, and the first main priest of this cult was Mark Antony. However, it is not well known how exactly this cult disappeared, and it is possible that some aspects of this cult influenced Christianity at least to a certain extent.

Citizendium has a page about the priest of the deified Julius Caesar:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Flamen_Divi_Iulii

Here's the introduction to that page:

>In the religio Romana the flamen Divi Iulii was the priest of Divus Iulius.[1] He was the fourth and most influential of the so-called flamines maiores, the archpriests of the Roman flaminates. After two years of unofficial worship of the divinized Julius Caesar, the new priestly office was introduced following the senatorial consecration (consecratio) of Divus Iulius in 42 BC, but remained unoccupied until 40 BC.

>>6208

Fascinating, I'll have to follow up on the link you provided. I can see how this would be a reasonable thing to conclude for the people of the time, especially coming from a tradition in which Gods had "human children" and interacted with them as such all the time. Not such a great mental leap.

As for myself, like I said before, its not really a possibility I ever considered, and I can imagine that it would not surprise you if I were to say that this information has not meaningfully altered my perception of God. Which is what I am saying.

>>6204

>How do you conclude that God isn't Julius Caesar?

There is no convincing indicator for that. Also J.C. kek never claimed to be a God, not even an emperor in the latter sense we know today, he was of course an actual imperator , this whole legend began with Octavian who used it for his propaganda.

Also there is a difference between this claimed apotheosis =becoming a deity and being a monotheistic God, older than time itself.

So the actual question would have to be: Why not polytheism? in the first place. Which is interesting and would certainly deserve its own thread, I think we have never talked about it.

>>6208

>At the beginning of the Roman Empire there was an empire-wide cult of the deified Julius Caesar, who is also known as Divus Julius, which roughly means God Julius or Divine Julius, with specialized priests of the deified Julius Caesar known as flaminates or flamines (singular: flamen) Divi Julii.

But do not forget that a roman deity is completely different from modern views on God. All emperors were worshipped as some sort of God kings, a practice that the Christians refused, which made them target of the famous persecution.

>>6209

>Fascinating, I'll have to follow up on the link you provided. I can see how this would be a reasonable thing to conclude for the people of the time, especially coming from a tradition in which Gods had "human children" and interacted with them as such all the time. Not such a great mental leap.

Apotheosis is different though, the claim is not that he is descendent of a deity beside the actual claim that the maison of july made like all patrician families in Rome, it was quite common to claim some divine heritage in the forgotten past, or at least back to the time of Romulus and Remus , but that his super human achievements made him a deity.

There is a nice story about his apotheosis were they see a comet flying in the sky after Caesars death, which they interpreted as him entering the heavens.

>>6210

>J.C.

It's not because of the initials that parralels between Julius Caesar and Jesus are claimed.

>never claimed to be a God,

That's not so relevant. What matters more is whether people thought he was a god or even God.

>this whole legend began with Octavian who used it for his propaganda.

The more relevant question isn't whether Julius Caesar was considered an emperor, but whether he was considered a god. As said before, the Divus Julius cult existed before Octavian became emperor.

>the claim is not that he is descendent of a deity

Julius Caesar was also thought to be son of Venus, the goddess of love.

>>6214

>That's not so relevant. What matters more is whether people thought he was a god or even God.

The concept of God was completely strange for Romans and in no way they thought that Caesar was the creator of the universe, just a possible addition to their pantheon.

>The more relevant question isn't whether Julius Caesar was considered an emperor, but whether he was considered a god. As said before, the Divus Julius cult existed before Octavian became emperor.

Of course, otherwise he couldn't have used it.

So why should anyone think that caesar is God? Some people thought he became some spirit force 2000 years ago, one among many, but beside that?

Did he ever perform a miracle? Did he rise from the dead?

Why didn't he protect his cult? Why did he tolerate other Gods beside him?

It is highly unlikely that Caesar was God, about as likely as any other random dude being God.

Why not Charlemagne? Or one of the ancient Roman emperors, who at least claimed to be Gods? It seems completely arbitrary, while believing that Jesus is God has inner coherence, makes sense and was prophesied…

>>6215

>The concept of God was completely strange for Romans

Divus as in Divus Julius means god.

>and in no way they thought that Caesar was the creator of the universe,

He was the creator or founder (Greek: ktistes) of Roman colonies where he was later worshipped by veterans and their descendants. To the veterans and their descendants the veteran colonies and the Roman Empire were their small universe.

>just a possible addition to their pantheon.

Not just possible, but factual. They did make him into a god, and the highest god. The night before he was killed he had a dream that he was elevated to the level of Jupiter.

>Of course, otherwise he couldn't have used it.

But the cult existed before Augustus, which is the point here. If there was anyone who first used the cult, it wasn't Augustus, but Mark Antony, because Mark Antony was the first main priest of the cult.

>So why should anyone think that caesar is God?

Same for Jesus and the Christian god though. How is Jesus or the Christian god more of a god than Julius Caesar?

>Some people thought he became some spirit force 2000 years ago, one among many, but beside that?

>Did he ever perform a miracle? Did he rise from the dead?

They said he rose as a spirit from his funeral pyre, which is a resurrection. In fact, the traditional date for his funeral is March 17, which means he rose on the third day when the first day is the day of his assassination, March 15, similar to how Easter Sunday is the third day and on which Jesus rises. What's more, March 17 is also the day of Liberalia, when Romans ate oyster-like bread and drank wine, a thing similar to the Christian eucharist.

Since Caesar was a politician and military strategist, it can be concluded that his cult followers thought his policies and battles were miracles. For example, he distributed wheat like Jesus multiplied bread. He had a policy of clemency where he forgave his enemies, like Jesus says to love your enemies. He won military battles like Jesus won spiritual battles. He besieged cities like Jesus spiritually besieged demonized people. One example of a battle is the battle of Pharsalia, which Caesar won against the odds and thus could be seen as miraculous.

>Why didn't he protect his cult? Why did he tolerate other Gods beside him?

Maybe because he wasn't as arrogant as he's made out to be. Besides, goddesses like Venus (goddess of love) and Clemency (goddess of mercy) were part of Julian theology. Other than that, it is not necessary for a god to be the only god in order to be the main god.

>It is highly unlikely that Caesar was God, about as likely as any other random dude being God.

Not less likely than Jesus, a random dude in Israel.

>Why not Charlemagne? Or one of the ancient Roman emperors, who at least claimed to be Gods?

I don't know. But at least Julius Caesar had his own cult. I'm not aware that there was a Charlemagne cult.

>It seems completely arbitrary, while believing that Jesus is God has inner coherence, makes sense and was prophesied…

If you hypothetically met a Caesarian, he would say the same sort of thing about Julius Caesar being God and about Julian theology being internally coherent. During Caesar's time there were also prophets or soothsayers who could have made predictions about Caesar's destiny, like "beware the Ides of March" and so forth.

>>6218

>Divus as in Divus Julius means god.

But not God. God is completely different to the concept of ancient pagan pantheons.

>He was the creator or founder (Greek: ktistes) of Roman colonies where he was later worshipped by veterans and their descendants. To the veterans and their descendants the veteran colonies and the Roman Empire were their small universe.

Yeees…uh… this still leaves out the question where the actual universe came from…

>Not just possible, but factual. They did make him into a god, and the highest god.

I am not aware of any mandatory worship of him, is highly unlikely for this kind of pagans anyway. And how was he the highest god? Was he more powerful than an actual god? Older? Did he have more influence or interest in humanity? Not even Jupiter was the highest god, as in their leader. He was at most a primus inter pares, rather not even that. Otherwise people would just have worshipped him and not his "servants".

>But the cult existed before Augustus, which is the point here. If there was anyone who first used the cult, it wasn't Augustus, but Mark Antony, because Mark Antony was the first main priest of the cult.

Yes, but he lost to Augustus in the end, which is we I didn't mention him. Regardless of Octavian or Marc Antony using him it were both of course, you are right the cult was simply a political tool from the start.

>Same for Jesus and the Christian god though. How is Jesus or the Christian god more of a god than Julius Caesar?

First of all he is not claimed to be another divinity but the single and only God that there is. Then his life and deeds were prophesied, he himself claimed his Godhood and performed actual miracles. He founded a Church for humankind and even predicted his own death, which he openly accepted for humanities sake. He became the most influential person of humanity until today in about 3 years of work, were he neither held any political office, or lead an army or had any other worldly power, just his Charisma and divinity.

Caesar on the other hand is a random General who was good at systematically killing and oppressing people. No different from Muhammad, or Alexander or Karl Gustav II.

>They said he rose as a spirit from his funeral pyre, which is a resurrection.

Christians believe in the actual resurrection of the body.

> In fact, the traditional date for his funeral is March 17, which means he rose on the third day when the first day is the day of his assassination, March 15, similar to how Easter Sunday is the third day and on which Jesus rises. What's more, March 17 is also the day of Liberalia, when Romans ate oyster-like bread and drank wine, a thing similar to the Christian eucharist.

If you look long enough you will always find some of this conspiracy stuff everywhere, just take a look at /pol/ and their Shemitah atm.

>Since Caesar was a politician and military strategist, it can be concluded that his cult followers thought his policies and battles were miracles.

The difference is that a miracle is an event that is actually impossible by laws of physics. So growing wheat is none while multiplying bread is.

>Caesar compared to Jesus

You see the difference, worldly deeds and glory which is dead vs spiritual one which will last forever.

>Not less likely than Jesus, a random dude in Israel.

Untrue, as I have explained before.

>If you hypothetically met a Caesarian, he would say the same sort of thing about Julius Caesar being God and about Julian theology being internally coherent.

No, he would call me a barbarian for being a monotheist and ridicule me probably. Maybe he would just think of this Jesus as a deity like he thinks Caesar to be one.

>During Caesar's time there were also prophets or soothsayers who could have made predictions about Caesar's destiny, like "beware the Ides of March" and so forth.

Yes, and if I was a polytheist this might be an argument for believing in a deity of Caesar. But I do not see how this implies that he is the one and only God of Abraham, or any other hypothetical monotheistic God or in any way creator of the actual universe.

>>6220

> Not even Jupiter was the highest god, as in their leader. He was at most a primus inter pares, rather not even that.

This sounds wrong. Maybe we could best describe him as sort of patriarch, or something similar to the roman patron client relationship.

>>6220

>Yeees…uh… this still leaves out the question where the actual universe came from…

Do you agree with this blog post?

http://contradictionsinthebible.com/genesis-god-creates-dry-habitable-land-planet-earth/

I want out of Islam. But before I convert I want to make sure I'm completely okay with all the teachings of Christianity instead of just blindly jumping in and potentially subjecting myself to danger.

Despite most people here saying that Islam is just like Christianity in many I find that completely hard to believe, thus I'm unsure as to how one would be a christian. What should I read to understand the teachings of Christ? What do you do in Churches? What's a mass? Do you think Salvation is possible for an Arab?

>>6265

God bless you man.

>James 1:5

>If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.

If you have an smartphone download "Got questions?"

If you don't, Google "Got questions?"

It has a lot of answers.

The go to book people will say is the Bible. Where to start? Read the gospel. What's that? The first four books of the new testament. Matthew, Marks, Luke, John.

To answer your question yes

>>6265

Out of curiosity, what about Islam specifically makes you want to leave it? Conversely, what about Christianity makes you want to join it?

>>6267

Much obliged anon.

>>6271

I feel like it's a hateful religion and that it breeds loyal blind warriors rather than good humans. Islam pretty much tells you that everyone who isn't a Muslim isn't even worth a life and that anyone who converts should be killed on the spot to "avoid controversy between other muslims" or how you should only kill if Allah says so. Or how alcohol is sometimes worse than rape, or how not having sheets over you as a woman is the highest form of degeneracy.

I do not agree with the amount of worship needed as it pretty much causes people to worship out of habit or force rather than out of will or need.

As for Christianity I happened to know a few Christians as a kid and they were actually really nice people not to mention aethism is not something I believe in.

Don't get me wrong I don't think if convert I'll magically turn into a better person but it's just a step. I'm not spiritually or emotionally happy being a muslim and I'd like to think believing in Christ would help me.

>>6265

>I want out of Islam. But before I convert I want to make sure I'm completely okay with all the teachings of Christianity instead of just blindly jumping in and potentially subjecting myself to danger.

The first thing before you convert should be making sure that Christianity is actually the truth.

As soon as you believe that it is the truth there is no need to make sure you agree with certain teachings or laws of it, Hint: You won't. But because Christianity is true and of God and therefore pure, while you are a fallen human full of sin and probably muslim falsehoodsand misconceptions of God, because of that you need to realise that it is you who will have to change himself, his life, his ideas.

> instead of just blindly jumping in and potentially subjecting myself to danger.

Are you a muslim from the middle east and will be persecuted for apostasy? Or are you from somewhere else?

>Despite most people here saying that Islam is just like Christianity in many I find that completely hard to believe

It is a lie. They are not alike. Islam is like a jewified version of Christianity, distorted.

> thus I'm unsure as to how one would be a christian.

Do you know the nicene creed?

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=495

citation:

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

Maker of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made, consubstantial

of one Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate

he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,

and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

———/citation end

If you believe this and get baptised in the Holy Spirit you are a Christian.

>What should I read to understand the teachings of Christ?

You may read the bible and the gospels, but it is like impossible for someone foreign to the faith to interpret it correctly. So you should start to attend mass where it is properly explained to you.

You may also read the Catechism for further details in daily life and morals:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

All of this can also be done in Arabic, if there is an approved translation. No need for it to be in English, I also don't read this in English, nor the Bible.

> What do you do in Churches?

In Church buildings? Worship the Lord.

But Church also refers to the community that God founded in 33AD. God became flesh and was born a human as Jesus Christ back then and revealed to us how humanity can be salvated.

Because of our sins against the divine order God himself has taken all the punishment of humanity on himself as Jesus Christ in the Crucification. That is why we can be saved although we are sinful.

The Church are the people of God that follow him and spread his message, the Gospel, the Good News that humanity is saved if it submitts to God.

> What's a mass?

Mass is a sacrifice commited to honour the Lord on Sundays. Sunday is the day of the Lord because it was Sunday when Jesus rose from the dead.

>Do you think Salvation is possible for an Arab?

Yes, everything is possible with God. But you need to become a Christian.

>>6273

>Don't get me wrong I don't think if convert I'll magically turn into a better person but it's just a step. I'm not spiritually or emotionally happy being a muslim and I'd like to think believing in Christ would help me.

This is good. If you have further questions just ask.

if mary is the theotokos, does that makes her the first mover instead of God?

>>6740

>if mary is the theotokos, does that makes her the first mover instead of God?

No. Jesus existence as logos predates his human form. See hypostatical union

>>6752

wouldnt that make mary only the Christotokos ?

>>5955

>Why do some Christians ignore Leviticus 19:28 and get cross themed tattoos?

different reasons.

1). ignorance of the law

2). replacement theology (that is, all OT law is invalid in lieu of NT law expounded by Christ, Paul, and the other apostles)

3). same reason Christians ignore any law: more care about their native culture than for the law.

>why do most Christians hate tattoos

because of that law you just mentioned, and because your body is a temple. you don't just go tagging up your local temple, so why do as much with your body?

>hate individuality

they don't? Christianity thrives on the uniqueness of its adherants. just look at all of the different types of ministry that have come to be due to the differing talents of Christians. look at the saints and church fathers, who used their own talents to serve as they could.

Christianity thrives on individuality…painting your body up like some bone nose spear chucker isn't individuality, its special snowflakism.

>>6279

That's not the original Nicene creed tho.

>>6752

Not "predates" because the nature of the Trinity is outside time, but is logically prior to.

"Through Him all things were made" - therefore the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is logically prior to any creation, including Mary.

But the incarnation really happened - God became man. If you say that Mary isn't the Mother of God, then you are forced into either the error that Christ is not God, or the error that Christ is not truly man.

Who resurrected Jesus?

God the Father? but if thats the case, then wouldnt then why do we say that Jesus saves since he couldnt even save himself?

>>6818

The problem that the title of "Mother of God" dictates that she gave birth to Jesus and predates him as a result, while the title of "Mother of Jesus" gives reference to the humanity of Jesus Christ. The only reason I bring this up is because "Mother of God" can be confusing in a semantic sense. It would be more accurate to say Mary "the lady who was lucky enough to give birth to the savior of mankind" because I just cant see how she was all that important, besides being a vehicle of transportation for Jesus to enter into the earth. Besides, if she were all that important, she would have been mentioned more than a handful of times throughout the NT.

>>7172

Bump

>>7172

>>7311

Saying that Jesus saves is in reference to the salvation provided by Christ when He was crucified for the sins of humanity so mankind would not suffer eternal damnation.

As to "who" resurrected Jesus, I feel that is a tricky question but I'll try to give my best explanation. When Jesus was born in the flesh to Mary, it was the manifestation of God in the form of man, the Son in shape of man.

There is debate among theological circles about whether or not it was innate within Jesus to perform miracles or whether He was able to perform miracles via the Holy Spirit. But this supposes that Jesus could not perform miracles without some divine approval from the Father, which would suggest that the Trinity works independent of itself, rather than working and acting as one.

Again, this is a very touchy subject, one that many debate to this day. However, it isn't debated whether or not Jesus is God.

Another interesting point to bring up though, is that upon Jesus' resurrection, it wasn't just a "zombie Jesus" as many like to mock. Nobody recognized Jesus after he was resurrected, because it wasn't an earthly rebirth. This is explained starting in 1 Corinthians 15:42

"[42] So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: [43] It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: [44] It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. [45] And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. [46] Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

I hope this helps a bit.

>>7316

>I hope this helps a bit.

it didnt

>Nobody recognized Jesus after he was resurrected

I think it was because of the shock, not because he looked different physically. Is it?

> tricky question

But who resurrected Him? The Father?

>>7317

He was, is and always will be God. He didn't need anyone to resurrect Him and he wasn't saving Himself, He was saving us. He resurrected Himself.

>>7318

But why the bible says he was resurrected by the Father?

>>7325

Upon revision, its either or tbh, I personally don't mind much. Sometimes the act is attributed to the Father by others, but sometimes Jesus talks about it as His own action with no specific mention of the Father like in John 2.

If you're trinitarian this is really a non-issue. If you're not its even less important.

>>7327

but that would mean that the Father was/is more powerful than Jesus

>>7328

If they are one and the same then no. In order to understand how The Father can resurrect the Son, you would have to understand the Trinity, and you know what they say about trying to understand, and I mean *really* understand the Trinity. You can't. Its physically impossible for a human being to grasp the magnitude and intricacies of God so stop, or try but accept you will never obtain full knowledge

If you're non-trinitarian, then yeah, that's what this means. God the Father is more powerful than Jesus.

>>7172

>Who resurrected Jesus?

That's an interesting question.

I have never thought about this, because while there is some ambiguity in English about this, it is rather clear that Jesus did it by himself by the phrasing in my language. So I just assume that this is true.

>>7317

>I think it was because of the shock, not because he looked different physically. Is it?

No. In eternal life people will have a cleared body, the same you have today on the one hand, but completely different on the other. That's why he was not recognised.

>>7329

>If they are one and the same then no. In order to understand how The Father can resurrect the Son, you would have to understand the Trinity, and you know what they say about trying to understand, and I mean *really* understand the Trinity. You can't. Its physically impossible for a human being to grasp the magnitude and intricacies of God so stop, or try but accept you will never obtain full knowledge

You are repeating the theory here, are you? Otherwise this would be a very unmormon way of thinking ;^)

>>7373

Lol yeah, I tried to just channel you lads and access my memory banks from my time on the other board to convey the futility of trying to understand the Trinity as genuinely as possible.

>>7372

what language is that

>>7395

German

>>7506

for me: keep busy.

the days my libido its at its lowest its when im doing anything else. It help to download movies/docu before hand so when the urges kick in you have something to watch instead of boobz

I saved that gif btw

>>6127

>I meant why wasnt abortion forgiven boefore this pope

Abortion was an automatic excommunication.

Excommunications can only be undone by a bishop. That is, your local parish priest's boss.

Before this, bishops often granted priests the ability to absolve excommunications, but it wasn't universal. This just makes it so.

Also, don't conflate excommunication with unforgivable. Excommunication is just a hard core punishment that's supposed to make you realise how badly you fucked up so that you'll repent…which is why it was harder to undo, but not so hard as to be impossible.

>>7172

>why do we say that Jesus saves since he couldnt even save himself?

But he did. He died…and then rose again, thus showing his power over death.

Jesus' message focuses on how if you follow him, he'll resurrect you and your loved ones to live forever. What better way to demonstrate that you have the absolute power to resurrect people than by resurrecting yourself for public display?

This is what people mean when they say "witness" – christ claimed that he'll resurrect his followers, and the gospel is the witnesses statements of those who saw him display that power.

>>7535

I know that Jesus resurrected, I'm asking is who resurrected him?

>>7542

>I know that Jesus resurrected, I'm asking is who resurrected him?

Jesus defeated death. He resurrected himself and will resurrect the chosen after the end of time for eternity.

>>7547

But the Bible talks like if God Father resurrected Him.

>>7556

>He resurrected himself

>But the Bible talks like if God Father resurrected Him.

At this point you're just repeating what he said. Its the same being dude.

>>7564

youre not getting my point: jesus died, he is resurrected by the the father according to the bible. if even jesus couldnt save himself that he needed the father to resurrect him, then why should us depend on jesus? it was he father who did all this.

now, you may say: 'its the same being', but since God is threeheaded, and jesus was killed, there were no God in those 3 days?, or then God was twoheaded for 3 days?

What do we do about hateful priests?

Not about priests we hate, but priests that hate. For example, about a year ago we got a new priest at our catholic church. He was very petty and unfriendly. He refused to baptize children born out of wedlock and berated new converts for their lack of knowledge of ritual (subsequently driving them away from the faith). He nearly convinced my cousin to join an opus dei sect, and was the leader of what I believe to be a pyramid scheme. Thankfully, the iterant preist has been sent elsewhere. How does one deal with such clergymen?

>>8405

Unfortunately, I do not believe Vatican "holy" orders are legit ever since they became an entirely political body in the 16th Century and have become even more short-sighted since.

>>7542

God did.

>>6740

My Greek isn't up to par, unfortunately.

>>6204

What miracles did Julius Caesar perform? Why pick him in the first place? The selection seems arbitrary.

>>6197

Of course. The latter affirms the former, to be quite frank.

>>6122

Christianity permits the addition of traditions, as long as they aren't held as critical for making it into heaven. The history is that there is a verse from Holy Scriptures that references it, and that the tradition has been successful, though if it doesn't work for you after you've honestly tried it many times, give it a break and put your efforts elsewhere.

>>6122

Forgiveness comes after restitution and who is making clear definition of the restitution for foetal abortion that has an opinion you would consider worthy of accepting? Authority and judgment on earth is normally administered by the church if the local municipal courts are not doing their job.

>>6115

He sounds Italian - are you sure he is a good Christian, worthy to be listened to?

>>6068

If you're talking about the Vatican pontiff, who used to be referred to as the pope, he doesn't matter anymore after the Council of Trent separated his traditional location, the Vatican, from Christendom.

>>6070

Why ask why, Anon.? Why aren't you inviting and bringing more in?

>>7593

bump

>>8455

>He sounds Italian - are you sure he is a good Christian

kek

As opposed to all those devout prottie countries.

>>8455

>unsolicited personal opinion about the Vatican´s politics noted

What then to do about priests who, for example, won´t baptize children born out of wedlock? Does this not go against the very teachings of the bible?

What are some of the different churches' beliefs on the source of sin and how man can recognize it, if at all?

>>8928

The disobedience of Adam and eve for the Abrahamics iirc; the exception is in Mormonism its just part of human nature. Invisible aliens in Scientology. That's about all off the top off my head.

>>8928

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_sin

This, or do you mean the different views on Atonement?

>>8929

>Abrahamic religions

That's heresy.

>>8938

It really isn't. There's nothing wrong with that term. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the main Abrahamic religions, call this event the origin of sin as far as I know.

>>8938

It's called that because of 'the god of abraham'.

>>8930

Sort of. I am curious about the process of learning the difference between good and bad.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Hebrew_Israelites_of_Jerusalem

Are backs that have migrated to Israel, and who call themselves hebrews, actually hebrews?