Christianity vs. Old Testament

Zachary Rodriguez
Zachary Rodriguez

Why is Christian theology so utterly different to Jewish theology if Christianity is Judaism+Christ?

For instance, why is there no teaching of Original Sin in Judaism but it is of central importance in Christianity? If Original Sin is based on the The Fall in Genesis then surely Jews should already have it in their doctrine?

tl;dr why is Christianity different to Judaism on OLD TESTAMENT matters

Attached: thenew.jpg (78.95 KB, 1400x991)

Other urls found in this thread:

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3347866/jewish/What-Is-the-Talmud.htm
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 53
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judaism-s-rejection-of-original-sin
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/st-john-paul-ii-had-vision-of-an-islamist-invasion-of-europe/

Gavin Moore
Gavin Moore

Judaism+Christ
What does that mean?

Asher Morales
Asher Morales

Contemporary "Judaism" (the Synagogue of Satan) is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament.

Oliver Richardson
Oliver Richardson

Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism through the long promised Messiah (Jesus).

It should follow that Christianity's view of Pre-Messiah theology would be the same as Judaism. But is isn't. Why?

Jacob Cooper
Jacob Cooper

For instance, why is there no teaching of Original Sin in Judaism but it is of central importance in Christianity? If Original Sin is based on the The Fall in Genesis then surely Jews should already have it in their doctrine?
What do you even mean by that?

Asher Green
Asher Green

They're different because the Jews don't even follow the Old Testament. Instead, they have the Talmud, which is filled with traditions and 'corrections' on the word of God, and it's emphasized that they learn that better then the actual word of God, and the Talmud comes against much of the Old Testament. See Matthew 21:33-39

chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3347866/jewish/What-Is-the-Talmud.htm

Noah Ross
Noah Ross

What don't you understand?

Christianity comes after Judaism. Christianity has Original Sin which comes from a story in Jewish scripture. The Jews don't have the concept of Original Sin in their theology despite having the scripture first.

Why do Christians differ on Old Testament theology given the fact that Jews have had the Old Testament far longer?

Brody Moore
Brody Moore

This picture explain well

Attached: 8f5727c96e4de13f4810b8b07d57cde7f8580fa72866d62657a633e1656dcf7d.png (89.18 KB, 547x434)

Thomas Price
Thomas Price

If a Jew says a Christian doesn't understand the Torah (Old Testament) and that only the Jews understand it, how do you reply?

Carter Nguyen
Carter Nguyen

Have they a monopoly over the Torah ? Are jews above all other humans being and given a right that only allow them to understand it ?
More importantly; which Torah are you talking about ?
Of course Jews will claim only them can understand it, it gives them credibility.

Leo Lopez
Leo Lopez

I wouldn't say they have a Monopoly over the Torah but it's like Protestants and Catholics. Protestants claim to understand the Catholics' book (The Bible) better than the Catholics.

How can Christians claim to understand the Old Testament better than Jews when Christians are relative newcomers?

Nathan Lopez
Nathan Lopez

Judaism, is in fact, younger than Christianity. Judaism was founded with the Talmud, hence exists approximately 1800 years now. Current Judaism has nothing to do with the Old Testament anymore because they consider the oral law of the Talmud, as important as the Torah. Did I forget to mention that the Pharisees denied the prophesized Christ, even when he was right in front of them? Stop believing Jewish fairytales and mysticism.

Isaiah Perry
Isaiah Perry

A member of the Synagogue of Satan does not mean "the Old Testament" when he says "Torah". He means "the Talmud and the Old Testament", and he means it in that order.

Aaron Bell
Aaron Bell

So did the Jews practice the religion correctly before the Pharisees then?

If the Pharisees taught the wrong teachings, how did the Christians come into the right teachings on things Jesus never spoke of? Did they just invent them or was it the Holy Spirit or what?

I'm not trying to provoke, I just want to understand things better. Thank you.

Jace Ward
Jace Ward

There was the scripture already, and not only the Pharisees had access to them. Do not think the Torah and every other prophetical scripture is not only holy, but very important scripture of Middle Eastern history. So, I assume not only did the Pharisees see the importance of the scrolls. Christians came to the right teachings because of Jesus' works and words as well - Jesus revolted against the corrupted practice of God's religion. After his death, the apostles were blessed by the Holy Spirit and spreaded the gospel and the rest of the new covenant rules. Hol' up, I'll create a thread and link it here. This board needs the black pill immediately because the majority of active anons seem to be tainted by Jewish mysticism.

Kayden Long
Kayden Long

So the fact that Jews don't seem to believe in Heaven and Hell but Christians do, is that and all the other things just due to Pharisees corrupting everything?

Justin Williams
Justin Williams

Was Jesus inert?

Daniel Peterson
Daniel Peterson

Pardon, my friend. I am not too well informed and a many views of the Christian doctrine are changing for me currently. The concept of demons fighting against kingdom, as well as eternal hellfire, are supposedly also a product of Jewish/Talmudic mysticism infecting Christianity in the past 300 years.

Wyatt Mitchell
Wyatt Mitchell

Disclamer: Not a theologian but that's what I gathered about this subject.
Heaven and Hell is a specific concept Jesus revealed in the Gospel.
Before, the Hebrews were told they would come after death into Paradise (=Bosom of Abraham). This is not contradictory to the teachings of Jesus, because Heaven and Hell come after the Tribulation, but Paradise and Hades before.

Lincoln Martinez
Lincoln Martinez

So explain to me how you see it please.

Jesus fixed the false teachings of the Pharisees? But couldn't a Jew say that Jesus corrupted the valid teachings of the Pharisees?

Jack Turner
Jack Turner

No, what do you mean by original sin? The guilt? if so, it is only part of Augustinian doctrin, not widely accepted in Christendom.

Zachary Jenkins
Zachary Jenkins

I mean the theology of Jesus coming to redeem us due to Original Sin.

Judaism doesn't teach the Messiah is coming to redeem us due to Original Sin.

Why the difference?

Jeremiah Collins
Jeremiah Collins

Jews follow the talmud, not the Bible.

Austin Phillips
Austin Phillips

In regards to my post can anyone help and tell me how to convert MP4 files to webm, please?

Gavin Roberts
Gavin Roberts

Jesus fixed the false teachings of the Pharisees?
Have you tried reading the bible? Matthew 23:3

Julian Foster
Julian Foster

Christianity isn’t modern Judaism+Christ. There was the religion of God which was called Judaism. It is the religion you read about in the OT. Eventually, it split into numerous groups. The largest one was the Pharisees, who had the advantage of having inherited all the leadership positions of the religion of God. A small minority group in the split were the Christians, who had the advantage of the Holy Spirit. Modern day Judaism comes from the same time as Judaism. For example, Gamaliel, the Sanhedrin leader Paul studied under (Acts 22:3), who gave Paul the teachings that Paul said were worthless and counted as dung (Philippians 3), is one of the rabbis in the Talmud. He’s a figure in the Hillel school, and Hillel schools of thought permeate the Talmud. Hillel himself is the main figure of Judaism, and he came only a little under a century before Jesus. Basically, Judaism is the religion of the Old Testament+Rabbinical traditions. Christianity is the religion of the Old Testament+The New Testament. And the Old Testament and New Testament come from the same source

Ryan Garcia
Ryan Garcia

if Christianity is Judaism+Christ
It isn't. This is why the term Judeo-Christian is so utterly stupid and annoying.

Jaxon Murphy
Jaxon Murphy

Where can I learn more about this idea that Christianity is restoring the true teachings that the Pharisees corrupted?

Sebastian Sullivan
Sebastian Sullivan

Watch embed related and all other videos on his channel before they get shoah'd.

Daniel Roberts
Daniel Roberts

I'd say a Jew doesn't understand the Old Testament because it can only be understood through Christ

Nathan King
Nathan King

Adam wasn't the first man, Adam was a very special man placed to insert knowledge into the world
What is this Gnostic trash?

Blake Hughes
Blake Hughes

Isn't the creation story of Adam just symbolism and not to be taken literally?

Asher Sullivan
Asher Sullivan

Read Genesis 1 and 2 again and tell me that he's wrong.

Parker Fisher
Parker Fisher

test

Liam Hill
Liam Hill

The New Testament is no mere restoration of true teachings. All of the original teachings are still present in the OT, despite what they tell you. Rather, the New Testament fulfills the Old, it reveals many of the mysteries that were left unexplained and answers the questions. It's only by knowing the New Testament that you can better understand what the Old Testament is talking about throughout.

Now while all this is happening, there are later jews running around, claiming to understand it better, trying to confuse as many people as possible. But all they are really doing is following the Talmud, which is a completely different text which only they follow based on pharisee traditions. Traditions which were made up by their own imagination. The connections to any Bible teachings are essentially none, other than taking random phrases completely out of context.

Attached: 03f026907.png (177.09 KB, 679x764)
Attached: 56e035b20.png (127.98 KB, 662x500)

Tyler Howard
Tyler Howard

Why is Christian theology so utterly different to Jewish theology if Christianity is Judaism+Christ?
Christianity is the direct continuation of the OT religion, since it fulfills all the prophecies. Talmudism was created by angry jews who weren't happy with the continuation so they made up a new religion. Judaism is talmudism, not OT religion.

Christopher Lee
Christopher Lee

A Jew could say that, but one must remember that the oral tradition (the Talmud) was a corruption of mosaic law. It was conveniently interpreted in ways that benefitted the elders at the base of the mountain in which Moses received God's law ten commandments.

Aiden James
Aiden James

Judaism+Christ
Would you like to interject for a moment?

Jordan Reed
Jordan Reed

<jews following the old testament
you mean the (((Talmud)))

Sebastian Bennett
Sebastian Bennett

The original Jews did not have the full revelation, so their understanding even of what had already been revealed to them was imperfect. Today’s Jews are considerably more ignorant, because they have been blinded by their Talmud, their rabbinic traditions and by their hatred of Christ.

Benjamin Flores
Benjamin Flores

What does that mean?

Lucas Ward
Lucas Ward

Isn't "Sacred Tradition" simply the Christian version of the Talmud? Something unscriptural but claims to have authority?

Jackson Cook
Jackson Cook

That's what Mark 7:6-13 covers.

Jose Baker
Jose Baker

He's wrong

Ethan Howard
Ethan Howard

Could you explain it?

John Cox
John Cox

It's basically Jesus rebuking the argument from worldly authority, where the rabbis claim to have higher knowledge and authority in Scriptural matters and everyone else is a peasant who can never understand, and must accept their interpretation, no matter how wild and preposterous it is. That's how you get people writing "authoritative" interpretations under the guise of "higher knowledge," "oral traditions" and argument from "personal authority."

If you look past that surface, you what's really happening is that they are placing themselves as the ultimate interpretor of the Scriptures, rather than God who sends the Holy Spirit to fulfill this very role (see John 14:16-17,26; John 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:12-13, 2 Cor. 1:21-22, 1 John 2:27). This is combined with usurping the role of mediator from Jesus Christ and placing it also in the hands of men.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

The second part, Mark 7:10-13 details an example of how the pharisees nullified a Scripture from the Old Testament, to make it say essentially nothing, based on their interpreting "authority," and insisting that only they are in understanding of this. You'll also find them discouraging anyone else from reading Scripture in addition to insisting on their extra doctrines.

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
Luke 11:52
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Attached: 9abf13dec.jpg (119.12 KB, 666x500)

Benjamin Foster
Benjamin Foster

So did the Jews practice the religion correctly before the Pharisees then?

Short answer: Likely yes. But that was a long time ago

Isaac Wilson
Isaac Wilson

Can a Catholic respond to this?

Hudson Allen
Hudson Allen

This is my main problem with Vatican II and other more recent teachings. They make it sound like modern Jews are godly people who haven't damned themselves by rejecting Christ.

Isaac Wood
Isaac Wood

The way the catechesis is today doesn't help either.

Attached: heresy.jpg (373.26 KB, 1000x1288)

Justin Fisher
Justin Fisher

I find that image so confusing.

If the Jews can be saved without Jesus, why have a Messiah at all?

Parker Gomez
Parker Gomez

"perfidis" means "faithless", not "perfidious"…

Carson Long
Carson Long

Vatican II was infiltrated by Masons and KGB. That's their footprint right there.

Levi Walker
Levi Walker

So what else have the Pharisees invented? Was there even a Jew/Gentile distinction in the Old Testament?

What are the major Pharisee corruptions?

Ayden Perry
Ayden Perry

Or major Talmudic corruptions?

Blake Cook
Blake Cook

refuse messiah
jews were and remain God's chosen people

even by Judaism and Talmudism standards this is confusing.

Dominic Gray
Dominic Gray

The best I can imagine, giving every benefit of the doubt, it refers only to Jews proper, actual judeans who worship properly (aka only people who no longer exist, and it's double speak). I don't like even that though. I mean, we have doctrinal clarity regarding the Jews, so everything modern must necessarily fit in that framework. It's just difficult.

Anthony Sanders
Anthony Sanders

So the general consensus is that Judaism is wrong because of the Pharisees/Talmud?

Xavier Nelson
Xavier Nelson

Judaism doesn't teach the Messiah is coming to redeem us due to Original Sin.
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 53
Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.

Where exactly are you getting your information from? Of course Judaism had a theology of sin and redemption by messiah. Otherwise, Christianity wouldn't exist. Apply logic. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled; people who call themselves followers of Judaism today have rejected prophecy.

Evan Mitchell
Evan Mitchell

They don't have the teaching of Original Sin due to Adam and The Fall.

Tyler Gonzalez
Tyler Gonzalez

Kinda. Or Messianic Jews maybe.

Andrew Butler
Andrew Butler

What are you talking about? Adam and Eve are literally in the OT, which was scripture to the Jews. Original sin refers to the first sin - the fall. That's what it means. Because Man sinned, he lives in a fallen world. That is original sin. Judaism had original sin.

Caleb Watson
Caleb Watson

I know it's in the OT, that's my point.

But Jews don't teach that.

I'm pointing out the discrepancy in theology between Judaism/Christianity despite the exact same source material (the OT).

Lincoln Brown
Lincoln Brown

Of course they taught that, it's literally in scripture. If they didn't teach that, it wouldn't be in scripture, nor would Christianity exist.

Ayden Ortiz
Ayden Ortiz

Refusal of Christ.
Name of religion is Christianity, of course those who refuse Christ are not going to be considered kosher.

Josiah Collins
Josiah Collins

I know it's in scripture but, no, Jews don't teach it as part of their theology.

Ayden King
Ayden King

Okay. What do Jews believe? Let's start there.

Jeremiah Green
Jeremiah Green

Depends on the branch. You can't claim Rabbinical Judaism and Messianic Judaism believe same thing.

We need to find a branch first.

But Jews as typically known believe the Messiah will arrive, even if it takes more 3000 years. In the meanwhile to waste time while waiting for the real Messiah they have their Talmud.

In a nutshell it's this.

Evan Diaz
Evan Diaz

The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judaism-s-rejection-of-original-sin

Can you please provide a source of Jews teaching Original Sin?

Caleb Gray
Caleb Gray

You're conflating modern Judaism, borne out of a rejection of Christ, with second temple Judaism. These are not the same religions. Modern Judaism is largely a response to Christianity. Christianity grew from Jews - Paul was a top Pharisee, and the apostles were all Jews. They weren't following some hip be religion, they were following prophecy in the same way that those who followed Moses were following prophecy. The people who abided by OT prophecies weren't following a new religion.

But let's pretend that modern day Jews are exactly the same as second temple Jews and their predecessors. Why did Jews need a Messiah?

Once again, the source is literally in the old testament. I don't understand how this is not sufficient - it's like saying that you need water to bathe while on an island.

Everything that news believe is derivative of original sin. Once again, original sin refers to Adam and Eve sinning in the Garden, and being kicked out of paradise. The entire belief system of the Jews relied on this.

Owen Collins
Owen Collins

the source is literally in the old testament.
There's literally no point in arguing with you because clearly you can't acknowledge the difference between what's contained in scripture and what's taught and believed in real life.

Forget it.

Aiden Martinez
Aiden Martinez

And you refuse to acknowledge facts because you just don't like them. You are a fool who onda himself. Everything that the Jews believe is derivative if original sin. Every single thing. If original sin was not part of Judaistic theology, then there wouldn't be Judaism, because we'd still be in the garden, and everything would be perfect. There would be no need for a holy land, nor messiah, nor anything else. Again, use logic, don't succumb to sophistry.

Mason Clark
Mason Clark

The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews
The doctrine of original sin is totally unacceptable to Jews

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/judaism-s-rejection-of-original-sin

Austin Hill
Austin Hill

And yet Jews have a holy land, the law, prophets, and messiah. All of these things are unecessary if original sin is null. How is this hard to grasp? You are a sophist.

Kayden Morales
Kayden Morales

The modern religion of Judaism came into being during the 5th century AD. A tiny minority of Jews who chose not to (re)convert to Christ fled into the deserts of Arabia. After killing Christians in the deserts of Yemen, the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia send an army across the Red Sea and expelled the Jews out of the land. The Jews then fled to Khazaria (southern Russia) and participated in trade along the Silk Road. The rabbinical religion that emerged from that was called "Judaism." It featured a variety of strange doctrines in its "Talmud," a collection of "rabbinical" writings: a female god (shekinah). They brought their perverse doctrines with them everywhere they went.

Malachi
1:11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.
2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.
3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

Blake Howard
Blake Howard

Modern day Jews are nothing like the jews in the OT

Josiah Reyes
Josiah Reyes

The Revolutionary Jewish Spirit and it's Impact on World History
Judaism's Strange Gods
Judaism Discovered - A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit
On the Jews and Their Lies

What the people who call themselves Jews today teach means nothing. They teach all sorts of things that go against the Old Testament by trying to use loopholes. Haven't you ever heard the phrase "what the Torah forbids the Talmud permits"? Modern Judaism is in no way shape or form representative of what actual followers of God in the Old Testament era believed or taught. You might as well be asking why the Italian and Spanish are two separate languages even though they're both descended from Latin.

Adrian Russell
Adrian Russell

You might as well be asking why the Italian and Spanish are two separate languages even though they're both descended from Latin.
Sorry, this was a bad metaphor but I think the rest of my post gets the idea across.

Brody Baker
Brody Baker

You are a special kind of dense.
The distinction needs to be made between second temple Judaism and Talmudism (aka rabbinic Judaism aka modern Judaism ) Did second temple Jews believe in original sin? Difficult to say. Iirc, there are some Jewish writings from before the destruction of the temple that supported such a reading, but there were also writers/rabbis/teachers who disagreed. If you are asking why post-second temple Jews reject original sin, it is because their theology was specifically formulated in rejection of Jesus and in light of the loss of the temple.

Wyatt Jenkins
Wyatt Jenkins

They reject all of that.

John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

post-second temple Jews
We just call them later jews.

Chase Clark
Chase Clark

Failing to use correct terminology won't win you any arguments.

Evan Campbell
Evan Campbell

You lost them already with "post-second." They stopped listening as soon as you started talking about temples without just getting to the point. It's not worth satisfying that autism. Also, Judaism isn't even a Biblical word anyway so why talk about "second temple Judaism." Their formal name is the synagogue of Satan: taken from Revelation 2:9, 3:9.

Attached: 7d7dac958.png (44.59 KB, 654x196)

Henry Lee
Henry Lee

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Begone gnostic.

Attached: 1402030062915.jpg (58.68 KB, 441x539)

Ryan Gray
Ryan Gray

We need a meme showing what the bible means by "you are a god" and the Gnostic witchcraft understand everyone seems to regurgitate from "you are a god" as "so go open your third eye, recklessly practice mysticism and contact demons".

Ryder Flores
Ryder Flores

The distinction needs to be made between second temple Judaism and Talmudism
Wait. I thought the second temple Jews were already corrupt due to the Pharisees. Do you mean FIRST temple Judaism is the real Judaism?

Isn't second temple Judaism = Pharisees = Talmud?

Nathaniel James
Nathaniel James

Wait.

If Jews have got it wrong due to the Talmud, how come Samaritans, Karaites and the original Sadducees were also wrong despite rejecting the Talmud?

Jayden Lopez
Jayden Lopez

No, this is why "second temple Judaism" isn't a good term. The second temple existed for about a thousand years and a lot changed during that time, as you can imagine. The Pharisees emerged during the Babylonian captivity, and were influenced by aspects of the Babylonian religion. They weren't the only ones. After the Bar Kochba rebellion of 135 A.D., the Romans forbid any Jews from entering Jerusalem so the Pharisees had to return to Babylon where they slowly began to develop the ideology of Talmud. They weren't the only group influenced by the Babylonians, there was also the Sadducees for example, but they were mostly wiped out by the Romans. Though, certain parts of their beliefs still exist in some sects of modern Judaism, such as the rejection of an afterlife.

Nathaniel Gray
Nathaniel Gray

The Pharisees emerged during the Babylonian captivity, and were influenced by aspects of the Babylonian religion.
But Jesus had already rebuked them. The Babylonian times were after the destruction of the second temple right?

Jeremiah Wright
Jeremiah Wright

Second temple Judaism was a large cultural and intellectual arena. Pharisees grew in the context of Second Temple Judaism, as did Christianity. I think you should do a quick readthrough of this
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism
It explains more of what we've been saying, and it's very unbiased
Because it's not a dichotomy of "New Testament vs. Talmud," those are large categories and in the history of late second temple Judaism/early Christianity those were the main choices, but you can be wrong without picking either of those. In the case of the groups you listed, here is why they are wrong
Samaritans
Samaritans split from the kingdom of Israel early on. They accept their own version of the Pentateuch (vastly different from the Pentateuch of Jews or Christians) and they reject the Old Testament. They are also deeply traditional and generally keep to themselves. However, many Samaritans did convert to Christianity under the Byzantine empire, and they are only a minor ethnic group today
Sadducees
Not much is known about them except from what their enemies spread, but they were apparently materialists who rejected many miraculous signs. Jesus also accused them of not knowing the scriptures they claimed to follow
Karaites
A much more modern group. Karaites appeared hundreds of years after Second Temple Judaism. They are similar to Protestants, in that they are trying to go back to "pure" Judaism by only following scripture. Despite claiming to reject the oral law of the rabbis, Karaites often come to the same conclusions as the rabbis and talmudists. I say it's largely because they are too influenced by the history of Judaism. Just like how many protestant denominations act Catholic despite claiming to be anti-tradition and to only follow scripture (see: Lutheranism, Anglicanism)

Nathan Davis
Nathan Davis

No, the Babylonian captivity happened hundreds of years before Christ.

Jacob Moore
Jacob Moore

The Samaritans had a deviant scripture that among other things claimed that they had the real Zion and Jerusalem in their country and the Israelites didn't

Luis Evans
Luis Evans

Sure
It's basically Jesus rebuking the argument from worldly authority, where the rabbis claim to have higher knowledge and authority in Scriptural matters and everyone else is a peasant who can never understand, and must accept their interpretation, no matter how wild and preposterous it is. That's how you get people writing "authoritative" interpretations under the guise of "higher knowledge," "oral traditions" and argument from "personal authority."
It is groundless to pretend from this text, that the precepts and traditions of the Church are not binding and obligatory, for Christ himself has commanded all to hear his Church, and obey their lawful pastors. These indeed may be called the precepts of men, but they are precepts of men invested with power and authority from God, and of whom Christ himself said, (Luke x. 16.) He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me.

We must not here suppose that Christ censures the commands of the Church, or the tradition of the apostles, because these are in nowise contrary to the divine law, but rather serve to enforce it, and reduce it to practice; nor are they so much the commands of men, as of God, delivered to us by his ambassadors. Christ censures such as are merely human, such as those mentioned here, which are vain and futile, as the superstitious washing of hands; or erroneous, as that the soul is defiled by meat; or openly contrary to natural and divine law, as the defrauding parents of their just support.

It is evidently erroneous to argue from this text against apostolic traditions. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word of mouth or by epistles. (2 Thessalonians ii. 14.)

The doctrines and commandments here reprehended, are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, &c. without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, &c. these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority, but from that which Christ has established in his Church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. (Luke x. 16.; Matthew xviii. 17)

Brody Fisher
Brody Fisher

This post is very telling. Not because it goes to Mark 7 and shows why it does not indeed contradict Romanism, but because it ignores the text in question entirely, leaps across the bible, separating various scriptures from their contexts and forcing them together, weaving a human tapestry, and then using this pernicious web to argue against the aforementioned scripture.

Hunter Cook
Hunter Cook

I'd say the main problems are that it assumes (argument from worldly authority) that they aren't the grievous wolves spoken of in Acts 20:28-32 who would arise after Paul left and create the whole successors idea, pretending the apostles died and perished and had to be "replaced" like Judas Iscariot. And secondly it also changes the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:14, which instructs that you believe the direct literal report of the apostles, whether in word or epistle, and since the apostles are currently with the Lord, that leaves the New Testament as their report. As is says also in Romans 10:16-17, "their report" is the word of God; and 1 Peter 1:23-25, the word of God endures forever (and the word of God is the gospel); and 2 Timothy 3:14, "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them"; and in Galatians 1:9, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

So from this we see that the word of God received directly from the apostles, which is their report, which I quoted, is indeed the final authority. And by 2 Timothy 3:14, it is the only report that qualifies in 2 Thess. 2:14, nobody knows where the oral stuff came from because it was all made up later including the part about successors.

Paul warned us about them in Acts 20:27-32 and 2 Timothy 3:13.

Nolan Moore
Nolan Moore

Judaism is the Old Testament + the Babylonian Talmud.

Nicholas Williams
Nicholas Williams

This post is very telling. Not because it goes to Mark 7 and shows why it does not indeed contradict Romanism
I did it. First line. "It's groundless". For it is. Christ is addressing Pharisees, not his disciples. And again, last paragraph:
The doctrines and commandments here reprehended, are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, &c. without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, &c. these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority, but from that which Christ has established in his Church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. (Luke x. 16.; Matthew xviii. 17)
Not my problem that you are forcing yourself to not see it.
but because it ignores the text in question entirely
Read again, especially last paragraph.
eaps across the bible, separating various scriptures from their contexts and forcing them together, weaving a human tapestry, and then using this pernicious web to argue against the aforementioned scripture.
Said judaisers when Paul did the same very thing in Romans 3. You are so quick to judge that you judge Apostle of Nations with me. Thanks you for that honor.
I'd say the main problems are that it assumes (argument from worldly authority) that they aren't the grievous wolves spoken of in Acts 20:28-32 who would arise after Paul left and create the whole successors idea, pretending the apostles died and perished and had to be "replaced" like Judas Iscariot.
28 Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
The ministers of the gospel must in the first place take care of the salvation of their own souls: and in the next place of the salvation of their flock, of the souls committed to their care, and to the Church; especially such ministers of God as are bishops, placed, by divine institution, to govern the Church, or the churches under them. The word bishops, by its derivation, signifies overseers, or superintendants
The very first verse that you quote is one of foundations of apostolic succession. So is last
32 And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, who is able to build up, and to give an inheritance among all the sanctified.
To the word of his grace, to the protection of God's grace, given to those that preach the gospel, and administer the sacraments instituted by Christ. — Who is able to build up, to finish that building, of which the foundation is laid by my preaching.
who would arise after Paul left and create the whole successors idea, pretending the apostles died and perished and had to be "replaced" like Judas Iscariot.
So Paul was wolf himself, for we have this idea from him: Acts 9:17-19; 2 Cor. 1:21-22; Col 1:25; Heb. 7:23; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1; 2 Tim. 4:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2 Tim. 2:2
And secondly it also changes the meaning of 2 Thessalonians 2:14, which instructs that you believe the direct literal report of the apostles, whether in word or epistle, and since the apostles are currently with the Lord, that leaves the New Testament as their report.
Ignoring the fact that you read "by mouth" as "by letter" and thus making it "traditions delivered by us by letter or by letter" it's still leaves you with traditions of apostles that are to be obeyed.

Attached: mojemałeoczkowidzi....jpg (17.1 KB, 353x497)

Wyatt Rodriguez
Wyatt Rodriguez

As is says also in Romans 10:16-17, "their report" is the word of God; and 1 Peter 1:23-25, the word of God endures forever (and the word of God is the gospel); and 2 Timothy 3:14, "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them"; and in Galatians 1:9, "If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how can they preach, unless they be sent?
So from this we see that the word of God received directly from the apostles, which is their report, which I quoted, is indeed the final authority.
There can be only one final authority by definition and this authority is God. And from God authority comes. And to whom God give authority of final interpretation of Scripture? To Church as evident from words "Whatever you bind &c" and "Feed my Sheep &c" and "If they do not listen to the Church &c" which teaching authority is in hands of apostles to whom they gave it as evident from "They [false teachers] took part in rebelion of Core" and "office of a bishop".
And by 2 Timothy 3:14, it is the only report that qualifies in 2 Thess. 2:14,
First, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii. 16.) that in St. Paul's epistles are some things….which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition?
As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.
nobody knows where the oral stuff came from because it was all made up later including the part about successors.
Oh but we know. The same Clement who is named Paul's fellow laborer in Philippians writes about it in his letter to Corinthians 42, 44 . The same Ignatius whom Christ took upon his knees when he was a child and whom Peter apointed as a bishop of Antioch writes about it To the Trallians, 2, 7 and Epistle to the Magnesians, 6 . Ireanus, disciple of Polycarp who was himself disciple of St. John writes about it in Against Heresies, 4:33:8 and I could go on and on about it through centuries.
Paul warned us about them in Acts 20:27-32 and 2 Timothy 3:13.
Paul warrned about Luther and those who teach without ordination in those very verses.

Attached: Macierewicz.jpg (161.7 KB, 550x400)

Nathaniel Flores
Nathaniel Flores

Why is he doing the 666 illumine naughty sign?

Aiden Sullivan
Aiden Sullivan

A true ecumenist embraces all faiths, even Satanism.

Attached: john-paul-ii-kisses-koran.jpg (71 KB, 620x340)

Anthony Walker
Anthony Walker

This is why the term Judeo-Christian is so utterly stupid and annoying.
It's actually just redundant in the original sense and contradictory in the modern.
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Christopher Lee
Christopher Lee

lol, based

Xavier Garcia
Xavier Garcia

he fell for the "sedevacantism" meme

Charles Sanchez
Charles Sanchez

If Christianity is J*daism + Christ
It's not.

Kayden Moore
Kayden Moore

Before I came in widder contact with nutjobs from America I never heard about this autistic theory. What he does is oculars from his fingers. Everyone here in Poland did this as a kid. And I don't think that this photo is even authentic really.
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/11/24/st-john-paul-ii-had-vision-of-an-islamist-invasion-of-europe/

Go and sin no more

Luis Morgan
Luis Morgan

test

Angel Barnes
Angel Barnes

no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority,
They certainly do.

The word bishops, by its derivation, signifies overseers, or superintendants
I would know, I have an ordained pastor.
To the word of his grace, to the protection of God's grace, given to those that preach the gospel,
Which is the word of God.
and administer the sacraments instituted by Christ.
The two ordinances.

Acts 9:17-19; Col 1:25; 1 Tim. 3:1; 1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1; 2 Tim. 4:1-6; 1 Tim. 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6; 2 Tim. 2:2
All of this is about ordaining pastors/bishops/overseers. None talking about creating new apostles. There are indeed two legitimate offices in every church as laid out in the New Testament, that of overseer and also of deacon. The apostles are those referred to specifically in John 17:18-19, as is evident from John 17:20. The idea of successor patriarchates is a later invention by sacerdotalism, not of God.
2 Cor. 1:21-22;
Talking about how all saved men receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:12-13; Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 John 2:27,3:24) and thereby the saved brethren are all priests. See Revelation 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9-10. Thus, this reference has no application to your point, because it applies to every saved individual. See also 2 Cor. 13:14.
Hebrews 7:23
See Hebrews 7:22.

therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman?
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

many adulterate and corrupt the word of God?
Yes, unsaved people, bringing a false gospel of works salvation have also tried to corrupt the word of God. Those are the two most forefront transgressions. Both by producing corrupt translations and also by clipping phrases out of scripture for deception purposes, deliberately acting heedless of any context, even if it was "well-meaning" according to their carnal understanding. Even by claiming authority to do this, thereby subverting whole households, seeking to glory themselves in another's flesh – I'm talking about catholic priests.
which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition?
Same individuals.
a priest, a bishop, a man of God,
One is a man of God by being saved: priesthood of the believer. 1 Peter 2:9-10.
the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it.
Well first of all, they delivered us the word of God, to be precise. Now since we are instructed to "continue in the things we have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom we have learned them", then, combined with Galatians 1:9, that excludes shenanigans as another random guy coming later and adding to it. If you followed such things, you would then not be following the instructions in 2 Timothy 3:14. We don't know who these people are.

1 Timothy 3:14 starts by saying "But continue," because 1 Timothy 3:13, the previous verse, is the opposite of continuing only in those things that we have received directly, (Galatians 1:8-9), directly from the New Testament which is the report of the apostles. Those other people are the voice of a stranger, rather than the word of God, and I am following 2 Timothy 3:14, Galatians 1:9 and especially 2 Thessalonians 2:14 by rebuking the entire successor doctrine and their invention. They may try their absolute best, but they could never justify this if put in the presence of Scripture, which is the Word of God. It's just impossible.

Attached: BibleKJV.jpg (27.2 KB, 320x240)

Samuel Parker
Samuel Parker

What he does is oculars from his fingers. Everyone here in Poland did this as a kid
I think everyone everywhere does this as a kid. I was being facetious.

Blake Evans
Blake Evans

The idea of successor patriarchates is a later invention by sacerdotalism, not of God.
And one more thing, before you even bring it up, as I said about Judas Iscariot being replaced (in Acts 1) this is the fulfillment of a prophecy in the Psalms: see Acts 1:20. If you want to say this happened to the others, you are also implying they are like what happened when "Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." It really is almost like, all of this was mentioned in Acts 1 just to further drive in our point that they are not and have never been replaced, because the existence of an exception proves the rule. Unless you want to say this applies to them also.

Ayden Gutierrez
Ayden Gutierrez

They certainly do.
No prove given, while contrary evidence from apostolic era is sufficient to prove otherwise.
I would know, I have an ordained pastor.
How could they preach unless they are sent? Who gave your pastor legitimacy? Luther himself said that he have right to teach because Pope gave it to him (which was revoked btw)
Which is the word of God.
You keep saying that yet nothing comes from it. Arian preached from Bible. So did Nestorius. And Gnostics. And Nicolai. Et omnes haeretici diaboli.
The two ordinances.
Seven. Christ instituded seven sacraments.
All of this is about ordaining pastors/bishops/overseers. None talking about creating new apostles. There are indeed two legitimate offices in every church as laid out in the New Testament, that of overseer and also of deacon. The apostles are those referred to specifically in John 17:18-19, as is evident from John 17:20. The idea of successor patriarchates is a later invention by sacerdotalism, not of God.
Each of it preaches that office of bishop, presbyter and deacon is office that means it does not end with death of current holder. And they also teach that there have to be line of succesion. And I alredy proved from erly chuch documents that your theory is bullshit.
Talking about how all saved men receive the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17; 1 Cor. 2:12-13; Ephesians 1:13-14; 1 John 2:27,3:24) and thereby the saved brethren are all priests. See Revelation 1:6, 1 Peter 2:9-10. Thus, this reference has no application to your point, because it applies to every saved individual. See also 2 Cor. 13:14.
Context proves otherwise, especially v.19 And do I have to really remind that baptismal priesthood is not ministerial priesthood, dear Core? Have you went way of Luther and casted out Jude from your Bible?
See Hebrews 7:22.
Proves my point, New Testament have no worse priesthood than Old one.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Thanks for proving my point.
Yes, unsaved people, bringing a false gospel of works salvation have also tried to corrupt the word of God. Those are the two most forefront transgressions. Both by producing corrupt translations and also by clipping phrases out of scripture for deception purposes, deliberately acting heedless of any context, even if it was "well-meaning" according to their carnal understanding. Even by claiming authority to do this, thereby subverting whole households, seeking to glory themselves in another's flesh – You are talking about protestants.
One is a man of God by being saved: priesthood of the believer. 1 Peter 2:9-10.
Not according to Paul, who equals it in both letters to Timothy to the office of Bishop in perfect harmony with Old testament usage of term. Also, again, read Jude, dear Core.
Well first of all, they delivered us the word of God, to be precise. Now since we are instructed to "continue in the things we have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom we have learned them", then, combined with Galatians 1:9, that excludes shenanigans as another random guy coming later and adding to it. If you followed such things, you would then not be following the instructions in 2 Timothy 3:14. We don't know who these people are.
Simon Magus, Arius, Nestorius, Luther, Calvin, your pastor etc etc.

Attached: sandrilaugh.png (181.54 KB, 350x386)

Connor Hill
Connor Hill

1 Timothy 3:14 starts by saying "But continue," because 1 Timothy 3:13, the previous verse, is the opposite of continuing only in those things that we have received directly, (Galatians 1:8-9), directly from the New Testament which is the report of the apostles.
New Testament is not all that Apostles had to say which is evident from 2 Thessalonians 2:14 and others passages within Scripture as well as fact that actual disciples of apostles like Clement or Polycarp tells us so.
Those other people are the voice of a stranger, rather than the word of God, and I am following 2 Timothy 3:14, Galatians 1:9 and especially 2 Thessalonians 2:14 by rebuking the entire successor doctrine and their invention.
Those other people are the voice of a stranger, rather than the word of God, and I am following 2 Timothy 3:14, Galatians 1:9 and especially 2 Thessalonians 2:14 by supporting the Godbreathed successor doctrine and apostolic traditions.
They may try their absolute best, but they could never justify this if put in the presence of Scripture, which is the Word of God. It's just impossible.
They may try their absolute best, but they could never justify not having apostolic succesion if put in the presence of Scripture, which is the Word of God. It's just impossible.
Also, like always, when hit with empirical facts about history you are silent Core. When will you try to rebuke man of God Ignatius? Saint bishop Clement? Venerable disciple of Polycarp Ireaneus?
I will anserw for you - never. Because you simply cannot for we have Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium while all you can do is Luke 4:10
And one more thing, before you even bring it up, as I said about Judas Iscariot being replaced (in Acts 1) this is the fulfillment of a prophecy in the Psalms: see Acts 1:20. If you want to say this happened to the others, you are also implying they are like what happened when "Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." It really is almost like, all of this was mentioned in Acts 1 just to further drive in our point that they are not and have never been replaced, because the existence of an exception proves the rule. Unless you want to say this applies to them also.
Quick review of Acts 1.
Do Judas was Apostle? He was.
Do Judas had bishopric? He had.
Was Judas appointed a bishop apart from being Apostle? He was not.
Was Judas appointed apostle apart from other apostles i.e. do thier aposolship difres in quality? He was not.
Neccesary from this fallows then, that office of apostle have in it office of bishop. Thefore, with apostles being source of bishops we can call bishopric succesion apostolic succesion as all called through centuries as prooven alredy.

Attached: stop.jpg (33.18 KB, 598x448)

Hudson Bell
Hudson Bell

Not my problem that you are forcing yourself to not see it
Oh I see it very clearly, I see that you have ceded the ground of Mark 7

Aaron Gutierrez
Aaron Gutierrez

You keep saying that yet nothing comes from it.
I'm saying Acts 20:32 is talking about Paul commending them to God, and the word of God, and not some tradition of man that some guy or another came up with, which is not from God. Via 2 Peter 1:21 the prophecy is NOT coming by the will of man. Any teaching outside of the word of God is by the will of man. And anyone who preaches for doctrines the commandments of men is being a classic Mark 7:7 pharisee.
And they also teach that there have to be line of succesion.
But not for apostles. It happened once due to Judas Iscariot, because he "by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Are you saying Peter by transgression fell and went to this place? It sounds like you are.
Thanks for proving my point.
The word of God is rightfully read and understood by every believing person. The word of God effectually works in them that believe, according to the final clause of 2 Thess. 2:13, which is why I bolded it. So therefore it is proper for every believer to read the word of God because since they believe, it effectually works in them. Refuting this whole point of yours. And so 2 Timothy 3:14 also is to be followed by every believer who reads it, and so 2 Timothy 3:14 instructs that you continue in those things, knowing of whom you have learned them.
again, read Jude, dear Core.
I'm not rising against the church leadership
which is evident from 2 Thessalonians 2:14
No it's not.
they could never justify not having apostolic succesion if put in the presence of Scripture, which is the Word of God.
I hope you're prepared to defend those words. Every idle word which men speak they will give an account for in the day of judgement.

Connor Phillips
Connor Phillips

Where is that form?

Isaiah Peterson
Isaiah Peterson

Oh I see it very clearly, I see that you have ceded the ground of Mark 7
To quote myself:
''I did it. First line. "It's groundless". For it is. Christ is addressing Pharisees, not his disciples. And again, last paragraph:
The doctrines and commandments here reprehended, are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, &c. without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the holy Church, touching fasts, festivals, &c. these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's holy word, and all Christian piety; neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men, because they proceed not from mere human authority, but from that which Christ has established in his Church; whose pastors he has commanded us to hear and obey, even as himself. (Luke x. 16.; Matthew xviii. 17)''
I'm saying Acts 20:32 is talking about Paul commending them to God, and the word of God, and not some tradition of man that some guy or another came up with, which is not from God.

We must not here suppose that Christ censures the commands of the Church, or the tradition of the apostles, because these are in nowise contrary to the divine law, but rather serve to enforce it, and reduce it to practice; nor are they so much the commands of men, as of God, delivered to us by his ambassadors. Christ censures such as are merely human, such as those mentioned here, which are vain and futile, as the superstitious washing of hands; or erroneous, as that the soul is defiled by meat; or openly contrary to natural and divine law, as the defrauding parents of their just support.
It is evidently erroneous to argue from this text against apostolic traditions. St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they had been taught, whether by word of mouth or by epistles. (2 Thessalonians ii. 14.)
Via 2 Peter 1:21 the prophecy is NOT coming by the will of man. Any teaching outside of the word of God is by the will of man. And anyone who preaches for doctrines the commandments of men is being a classic Mark 7:7 pharisee.
Such as Sola Scriptura nowhere to find in Scripture nor tradition or lacking the apostolic succession, clear validation of Jude 11
But not for apostles. It happened once due to Judas Iscariot, because he "by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." Are you saying Peter by transgression fell and went to this place? It sounds like you are.
Each apostle was a bishop. Each bishop have to be successor of apostle.
The word of God is rightfully read and understood by every believing person. The word of God effectually works in them that believe, according to the final clause of 2 Thess. 2:13, which is why I bolded it. So therefore it is proper for every believer to read the word of God because since they believe, it effectually works in them. Refuting this whole point of yours
First of all, ethipoian enuch belived and not understood. Not to mention countless other times when apostles had to explain Scripture.
Second of all nowhere in 1 Thessalonians Paul hinders any idea that word working in them means that they understand Scripture without magisterium. Which clear as fuck when considering text of 2 Thessalonians which is magisterial explanation of end times passages itself.
Third of all, word of God here is Verbum auditus Dei, logon akoes, which can only signify the word of God you heard from lawful teaching authority and not of themselves.

Attached: noszkurwamać.jpg (66 KB, 300x287)

Landon Anderson
Landon Anderson

And so 2 Timothy 3:14 also is to be followed by every believer who reads it, and so 2 Timothy 3:14 instructs that you continue in those things, knowing of whom you have learned them.
This is my point. How can the preach UNLESS THEY ARE SENT? There have to be legitimacy, there have to be continuity there HAVE TO be succession dear Core.
I'm not rising against the church leadership
You are. You are rising against notion that there is line of priesthood distinct from believers priesthood. Have you not read Numbers Core?
No it's not.
Right, mea culpa, I meant next verse. And let me use words of someone who actually speaks Greek, John Chrysostom, to prove it:
Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things also unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition, seek no farther. Here he shows that there were many who were shaken.
Or earlier one, Basil the Great:
In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be received. But if the greater number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with the many others, let us receive this one. For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.”2 One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.
I hope you're prepared to defend those words. Every idle word which men speak they will give an account for in the day of judgement.
I already did in my first or second post. I have no fear of judgment for holding onto heresies. In this one thing I am free of stain.

Attached: 1465987752106.jpg (46.28 KB, 299x309)

Dominic Sanders
Dominic Sanders

Christianity vs. Old Testament
Is this some new heresy or something?

Dominic Phillips
Dominic Phillips

Nah, Marcionism is an old heresy.

Owen Allen
Owen Allen

because these are in nowise contrary to the divine law, but rather serve to enforce it, and reduce it to practice; nor are they so much the commands of men, as of God, delivered to us by his ambassadors.
Just like what the Talmud claims.

First of all, ethipoian enuch belived and not understood.
He was not a believer yet. Philip was the soul-winner here. We know this because that eunuch wasn't baptized til several verses later.
Not to mention countless other times when apostles had to explain Scripture.
Acts 11:15-17. Please don't pretend that the Spirit indwelling an individual is the same as being chosen by God to preach and lead the church. The Spirit of truth is guiding each individual son whom the Lord receives, the word of God effectually works in every saved person that believes, and Scripture makes the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Those who don't understand this don't understand much at all and they're certainly not fit to be teaching, fully the contrary they have a need to learn.

without magisterium.
Keep bringing these words from your talmud.

Aiden Wilson
Aiden Wilson

Just like what the Talmud claims.
Therein lies the problem.

How are to know that our Oral Teachings (Sacred Tradition) in Christianity aren't as corrupt as the Oral Torah?

Can a Catholic respond?

Isaiah Powell
Isaiah Powell

bump for this

Carter Ross
Carter Ross

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail on His church, and heretical teachings can reasonably be assumed to result in just that; ergo, it is reasonable to assume that the Church cannot teach heresy.

Brody Williams
Brody Williams

But didn't the Church have heretical teachings, hence the reformation?

Samuel Brown
Samuel Brown

Corrupted clergy, yes. Corrupted teachings, only as a function of said clergy.

Jonathan Foster
Jonathan Foster

How do we know the Oral Teachings weren't corrupted by the Clergy?

Robert Cook
Robert Cook

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus is just an example of what you're looking for

Aiden Torres
Aiden Torres

Just like what the Talmud claims.
And Luther when he invented Sola Scriptura. And Calvin when he invented predestination of the damned. What those have in common is that they are indeed liers while Church tradition is true what can be easy confirmed by historical and biblical sources.
He was not a believer yet. Philip was the soul-winner here. We know this because that eunuch wasn't baptized til several verses later.
He had believed. He "had come to Jerusalem to adore". He was proselyte, believe in Messiah etc. He was of the same salvific faith that Old Testament Israelites were.
Acts 11:15-17.
And how does this have to do with any of this?
Please don't pretend that the Spirit indwelling an individual is the same as being chosen by God to preach and lead the church. The Spirit of truth is guiding each individual son whom the Lord receives, the word of God effectually works in every saved person that believes, and Scripture makes the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
I am not. Far from it. What you have to do is to don't pretend that the Spirit indwelling an individual is the same as being chosen by God to have gift of intrepainting Scripture. The Spirit of truth is guiding each individual son whom the Lord receives, the word of God works in every saved person that believes, and Scripture makes the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works IF and only IF hesubmits to his lawful pastors for "whoever disobey shall see not life"&"Who obeys you obeys me" Man of God of cores does not mean each beliver but as first letter to Timothy explains bishop (1 Timothy especailly 1:3,3:1, 4:14, 6:11)
Those who don't understand this don't understand much at all and they're certainly not fit to be teaching, fully the contrary they have a need to learn.
And those who understand and have gift of interpretation are either lawful teachers or have to shut up in spirit of obedience.
Keep bringing these words from your talmud.
<Magisterium
<Latin
<Talmudic
Magisterium is from magister+ium. It means more or less teaching authority. Thus magister is used in Vulgate like in 2 Timothy 1:11 magister gentium, teacher of gentiles
How are to know that our Oral Teachings (Sacred Tradition) in Christianity aren't as corrupt as the Oral Torah?
Because Christ made promise to his Church that power of Hell shall not prevail and that whoever obeys them obeys him. While all he said to Moses was that he will come in flesh someday, and for now here have Law and I will send you somtimes prophets and writtings until I come.
That being said Moses and after him Sanhedrin had teaching authority ("what they say do but not do what they say") and no one ever heard about oral Torah before Talmud was written after last Jewish revolt.

Brandon Walker
Brandon Walker

How are to know that our Oral Teachings (Sacred Tradition) in Christianity aren't as corrupt as the Oral Torah?
Not a Catholic, but there is a difference in that the letters in the New Testament make reference to some kind of oral teaching(all the times when one of the writer says something along the lines of "I'll tell you more when I get there" or "Come see me there's much I wish to tell you.") There are no such references to any kind of "Oral Torah" in the Pentateuch.

Isaiah Sanchez
Isaiah Sanchez

The Star of David is Jesus Christ, not that six-pointed occult symbol.

Joseph Davis
Joseph Davis

What the Pharisees follow is not the religion of Moses.

Elijah Williams
Elijah Williams

It's basically Jesus rebuking the argument from worldly authority, where the rabbis claim to have higher knowledge and authority in Scriptural matters and everyone else is a peasant who can never understand, and must accept their interpretation, no matter how wild and preposterous it is. That's how you get people writing "authoritative" interpretations under the guise of "higher knowledge," "oral traditions" and argument from "personal authority."

Matthew 23:2 “The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, burdensome loads and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

Yeah. When Jesus was explicitly saying their authority is correct and it comes from tradition but their personal actions are bad he was just joking.

Attached: 14c4182c54584e637ee739773f3594ad5c09744424d308ff7496f56fb781d9d8.png (308.68 KB, 696x860)

Cameron Morales
Cameron Morales

He's saying they're hypocrites who presume to take the place of Moses and rightly tell people to follow God's law.. Even when their own actions serve to abrogate and nullify that law and add new man-made restrictions (through the oral law Jesus referred to as 'the tradition of the elders', later written down in the Talmud). They are right when they say 'follow the Law and the Prophets' not because of some God-given authority of their own but because the scripture they refer to is God-breathed.

Charles Sanders
Charles Sanders

To sum all of this up without conspiracies, Christians of today are the spiritual successors of the Old and New Testament. The law of God from Moses to David to Jesus is one, and we Christians are the followers of that religion. Before Christ came, Christianity could not be called Christianity obviously, so it can be referred to as Torahism or Yahwehism. This name then became Christianity once Christ had come. What Judaism is, essentially, is just a rejection of Christianity and a creation of an oral-based religion. Judaism has its own set of theological, moral, and philosophical thoughts, which are largely affected by the jewish culture of being consumed by rabbinical tradition as well being a perpetual foreigner (this actually explains the massive cultural difference between an israeli and a western jew).

You also have to realize that the teachings of Christ are absent of the Torah. Therefore, they have an incomplete theology and only a set of ancient laws given to the old prophets.

Kayden Rogers
Kayden Rogers

Easy. If God is rational and real, the one who understands His words best are the ones with the best present relationship. It has nothing to do with what relationship your parents or their parents had. Genetic lineage is meaningless.

It's ludicrous to say "I'm right because God blessed my great-grandfather,"

Like, sure, but did he bless you? Or are you a failure that resulted from him, to be pruned off the vine by natural selection. If you are personally blessed, if you have a relationship that's an argument but then I'll believe them for the truth of the words they speak, not because of their lineage. Man cares about lineage, God cares about our present actions.

Gabriel Moore
Gabriel Moore

Christianity is Judaism+Christ

Christianity comes after Judaism

Christians are relative newcomers
Please stop repeating this jewish lie.

Judaism is younger than Christianity.

Attached: judaism.younger.than.Christianity.Webm (14.7 MB, 320x240)

Ian Rogers
Ian Rogers

thank you so much for sharing the videoo

Landon Morales
Landon Morales

100% this.

Remants of the Pharisees and some tribe of Khazars that the Pharisees mingled with after the Romans destroyed the Temple. When we refer to Jews these days, we're not referring to the same people as in the Bible really. Similar to how the current Egyptians are only distantly related to the Dynastic age Egyptians we hear about.

Justin Williams
Justin Williams

if christianity is judaism + christ
But it's not and that's why.

Attached: 19990131-498518840487896-2128938818191872359-n.jpg (32.44 KB, 345x749)