Christianity vs. Old Testament

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 (1400x991, 78.95K)

Other urls found in this thread: 53

What does that mean?

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

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?

What do you even mean by that?

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

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?

This picture explain well

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Was Jesus inert?

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.

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.

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?

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

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?

Jews follow the talmud, not the Bible.

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

Have you tried reading the bible? Matthew 23:3

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

It isn't. This is why the term Judeo-Christian is so utterly stupid and annoying.

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

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

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

What is this Gnostic trash?

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

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


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: 56e035b20.png (679x764 127.98 KB, 177.09K)

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.

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.

Would you like to interject for a moment?


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.

What does that mean?

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

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

He's wrong

Could you explain it?

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.

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
Luke 11:52

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

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

Can a Catholic respond to this?

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.

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

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

I find that image so confusing.

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

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

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

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

What are the major Pharisee corruptions?

Or major Talmudic corruptions?

even by Judaism and Talmudism standards this is confusing.

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.

So the general consensus is that Judaism is wrong because of the Pharisees/Talmud? 53

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.

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

Kinda. Or Messianic Jews maybe.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Modern day Jews are nothing like the jews in the OT

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.

Sorry, this was a bad metaphor but I think the rest of my post gets the idea across.

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.

They reject all of that.

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

We just call them later jews.

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

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 (654x196, 44.59K)

Begone gnostic.

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

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".

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?


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?

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.

But Jesus had already rebuked them. The Babylonian times were after the destruction of the second temple right?

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
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 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
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
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)

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

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

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)

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.

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.

Judaism is the Old Testament + the Babylonian Talmud.

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.
Read again, especially last paragraph.
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.

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.
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
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 (353x497, 17.1K)

And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how can they preach, unless they be sent?
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".
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.
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 warrned about Luther and those who teach without ordination in those very verses.

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

Why is he doing the 666 illumine naughty sign?

A true ecumenist embraces all faiths, even Satanism.

Attached: john_paul_ii_kisses_koran.jpg (620x340, 71K)

It's actually just redundant in the original sense and contradictory in the modern.