The Christianity general just died, and there are some questions I'd still like answered

The Christianity general just died, and there are some questions I'd still like answered
When it died I was dialoguing with a Hebrew Roots guy and a Jehovah's Witness. I'll start with the HR
With regards to the email thing, I think I'll be able to do that tomorrow, but I have some questions I'd appreciate if you could answer. My current questions are
Is faith sufficient to justify?
and
Is circumcision still a valid practice, and if so how can it be justified in light of Galatians?
Now for the JW
My response was you evaded almost all of my questions, but instead of reiterating them I will just ask another
What is meant by Romans 5:1? And please, actually exegete the verse instead of evading my request.

Other urls found in this thread:

thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
youtu.be/6n_xCI-peq0
youtube.com/watch?v=8FXlqFPHAaU
youtube.com/watch?v=FgCKXJPwSts
youtube.com/watch?v=33DC4UatExo&list=PLRNbzK2W6kSvhDg6ZGbSOPfh3gvQUmTDm
youtube.com/watch?v=oL6IU1cu17c
youtube.com/watch?v=acgVBSxV2i8
israelitewatchmen.com/archive/reference/
israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/diaspora_files/real_diaspora.html
israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/scriptural_marks.html
israelite-identity-archive.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-marks-of-israel-by-jack-mohr.html
christianidentityministries.com/witt.html
israelect.com/reference/JackMohr/jm025h.htm
fascovereign.blogspot.com/2013/11/adam-aryan.html
nordiskisrael.dk/artikler-articles.html
kinsmanredeemer.com/future-prophecy-part-8
christogenea.org/essays/immigration-problem-and-biblical-prophecy
melgibstein.wordpress.com/
emahiser.christogenea.org/
youtube.com/watch?v=NXSsp2vvHjE
youtube.com/watch?v=G2mFpiZV8jc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Circumcision : when Jesus resurrected, did he have his foreskin too?
If Jesus' body was like godly and incorruptible, what happened to his foreskin after he was circumcised? If we find it one day, should we like worship it or just chew it casually?

>when Jesus resurrected, did he have his foreskin too?
I seriously doubt it.
>what happened to his foreskin after he was circumcised?
Well it was human flesh. It's probably dust now.

Faith alone is that is given through God's is what saves.

Acts teaches the mosaic law and circumcision is not needed anymore. Jesus fulfilled the law, we do not live under it anymore.

So you're saying that the body of Christ partly turned to stinking rot?

Are you the HR guy from the other thread?

Not being a Jew, neither me nor my ancestors ever lived under the Torah...

Acts 15:1-13

Nope

I am not Jewish either.

>talking to jews about Christianity

Can you dumbasses stop falling for this completely one sided spiel?

Seriously, go try and talk to a jew and tell him, as a christian, what you think of his religion. He won't even talk to you or at worst will call you a le evil antisemite.

So why are you letting a jew tell you his thoughts on Christianity? stop being a dumbass

Whats up with the gang sign?

a lot of Jews don't realize Christians see Jesus as the fulfillment of tbe Torah and think Christianity is some sort of split from Judaism.

I know the answers to my questions.
Hebrew Roots =/= Jusaism.

You sure do love passive agression. You may need to check your T.

Google "is it low T?"

Jesus was aryan.

This letter was sent from Pilate to Tiberius Caesar. It's authenticity has been verified and it is currently stored in the Congressional Library in Washington, D.C.

>One day I observed in the midst of a group of people a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected so great was the difference between Him and those who were listening to Him. His golden colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about 30 years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between Him and His bearers with their black beards and tawny complexions! Unwilling to interrupt Him by my presence, I continued my walk but signified to my secretary to join the group and listen. Later, my secretary reported that never had he seen in the works of all the philosophers anything that compared to the teachings of Jesus.

Don't let any kike turn you away from Christ.

Are you retarded?
My questions were not for Rabbinic Jews, and I know the answers to my questions.

>Is circumcision still a valid practice, and if so how can it be justified in light of Galatians?
"I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" John 7 21-23

Jesus always railed against people who followed the laws of man and jewish lawmakers over the word and law of god. Here he is basically saying "God said to moses to have everybody circumcised. ONCE. But you guys still do it because some patriarch decided it should continue." Circumcision is unnecessary to continue in the eyes of god.

It's an empty tradition like a lot of jewish stuff is.

neat

do you ahve more info on this letter

Of course brother.

thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

Praise God.

...

Is that supposed to be a yes?

KEK'd

if faith alone is what that saves and faith is given by God and a reception of Christ's work wouldn't this leave Calvinism as the only logical view and the fact that there is no free will?

Jesus may have been a shapeshifter. From an ancient egyptian text written in coptic. It is at least 800AD when copied, perhaps an older original exists.

"Then the Jews said to Judas: How shall we arrest him [Jesus], for he does not have a single shape but his appearance changes. Sometimes he is ruddy, sometimes he is white, sometimes he is red, sometimes he is wheat colored, sometimes he is pallid like ascetics, sometimes he is a youth, sometimes an old man …” That is why judas identified him with a kiss because only he would recognize him and be able to confirm him. Also explains the exchange "Who are you looking for? 'Jesus
I am he. You saw me preaching daily in the temples yet you come with clubs as if I am a robber." If they saw him daily, why would they not recognize him? Because he shifted shape.

i mean
if jesus was like this then why does he call himself king of the jews and why do they bother including the old testament in the bible

fuck off /x/

Nice Cesar Borgia pic OP

Exactly, while Jesus taught us how to live and prosper to be saved from death is a gift we accept or deny.

>That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
—Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa)

>Qur'an 3:54—And they (the unbelievers) planned to deceive (Jesus), and Allah planned to deceive (the unbelievers), but Allah is truly the most sublime of deceivers

Islam is the green horse of the apocalypse. The death horse after whom hell follows wherever it goes. Google green horse islam and get out of that bad thing.

There is free will. My will is free, God's will is free, when my will runs into God's will I lose
>shapeshifter
Stopped there

the apocalypse itself is a meme dude

Oh. I see now.

do you really think the sky is going to light on fire and shit

Yes.

it will be in your life time

stop worshiping moloch you cuck

Does this then mean God mind controls people to make them believe in him. Doesn't this still entails Calvinism?

>Does this then mean God mind controls people
no
>Doesn't this still entails Calvinism?
That's unintelligible, user

If the will is free it can do whatever it wants or choose to within its capabilities. But we are told by the Reformers that faith is the passive reception of something. This naturally means whatever "faith" I have is not my assent but mental alteration by an external being

Ergo, for sola fide to be true, Calvinism is true

why do you say this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

>If the will is free it can do whatever it wants or choose to within its capabilities
It can
>is not my assent but mental alteration by an external being
It's spiritual and not mental, but why not both?

you accept it or deny if with your actions, not just with your words

Is it true Paul is the devil or atleast should not have been included in the bible?

Or are these just Protestant lies?

So it is a spiritual and mental alteration by God? That still proves my point

>Is it true Paul is the devil or atleast should not have been included in the bible?
No
>Or are these just Protestant lies?
Protestants affirm Pauline apostleship.
Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute sin
>and mental
no
>alteration
Restoration
>That still proves my point
What point?

>Protestants affirm Pauline apostleship.

They're also the only ones to not affirm it.

Probably not.

>Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute sin
that's not an argument. If you don't take a pro-active role in your salvation, you de facto refuse it. Faith + works

>They're also the only ones to not affirm it.
No, they're not. 'Judaizing Protestant' is oxymoronic. Protestantism is founded on Pauline theology.
>that's not an argument.
No, it's scripture.
If God does not impute sin, then sin doesn't sever grace.
>Faith + works
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

But when his heart was lifted up,
and his mind hardened in pride,
he was deposed from his thread,
and they took his glory from him

>If God does not impute sin, then sin doesn't sever grace.
So you can kill people and still go to heaven? Nice death cult you got there m8
>For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
the works of the law in that case refers to circumsision and other mosaic practices, not to "good works" in general.

There's many more Bible quotes that support faith + works than the opposite, reason why Luther had to add "faith only" to his Bible translation, because he knew his case was very weak to say the least.

Speak not in the ears of a fool:
for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.

/thread

also the use of the word faith in the Bible at the time automatically implied "belief + action". You interpret it through the eyes of 21st century English and therefore are brought into error.

Again. If faith is Something passive that something external does to me without my assent, it isn't free will. No matter how you put it, God is still mind controlling the individual to believe

The problem is even if "faith" is belief, it also entails a system of values which the indivisyal will strive to keep and be consistent with, naturally including works into the equation as being acts stemming from that faith

>The problem is even if "faith" is belief, it also entails a system of values which the indivisyal will strive to keep and be consistent with,
And that's faith + works.
Acting in a way that conforms to your beliefs is something that is independent from the belief itself, and requires a proactive role. In the end the problem with thinking that works stem from faith ends up showing the contradictory nature of lutheran theology anyway. In fact, if works stem from faith, then faith becomes dependent on those works, as otherwise "it's not real faith". Therefore you end up with the conclusion that "works are required to have faith" + "faith required for salvation" = "works required for salvation" which means "faith + works necessary for salvation".
In the end Catholic theology always ends up being true, despite the huge damage control from protestants trying to use words to pretend their theology isn't wrong.

*trying to twist words

youtu.be/6n_xCI-peq0

what about it

>So you can kill people and still go to heaven?
Why is your view so anthropocentric, as opposed to theocentric? You're not saved because you obey God, you obey God because you're saved.
>the works of the law in that case refers to circumsision and other mosaic practices
That's been refuted for centuries. Paul's argument is that it is by faith because if it is by works then it brings glory to man. You're undercutting his whole point.
>There's many more Bible quotes that support faith + works than the opposite
There isn't one.
>Luther had to add "faith only" to his Bible translation
He did that in ONE verse. If his intention was malicious, why didn't he do it every time, or atleast more than once. Besides, the reason he added 'alone' was because his translation was thought-for-thought meant to sound as though it was written in German by a German.
I don't think i even need to respond to this, it stands as it's own refutation.
>If faith is Something passive that something external does to me without my assent
I don't think you understand, God doesn't make you believe, He makes you want to believe. You choose to believe.
>God is still mind controlling
Again, it is in the soul, not the mind. Could Lazarus have chosen to stay in the grave? Can dry bones put themselves back together?
>And that's faith + works.
No it's not, it's literally an inherent aspect of Sola Fide
>Acting in a way that conforms to your beliefs is something that is independent from the belief itself
Again, do i even need to respond to the self-refutational?
>In the end the problem with thinking that works stem from faith
Read 1 John
>if works stem from faith, then faith becomes dependent on those works
Self-refutational, next
>"works are required to have faith"
Is something even Rome doesn't believe.
>despite the huge damage control from protestants trying to use words to pretend their theology isn't wrong.
What

What you said is incompatible with sola fide. Once we accept an individual who gives assent to God, he therefore also is active from start to finish hence naturally meaning works as a vital aspect of this equation as well. But sola fide says works don't save. In fact by its definition, your faith is just a passive reception of what Christ did on the cross, so it isn't really you giving assent.

Paul does not critique the act of works but works of the Mosaic Law which is not needed since Christ fulfilled it in his eyes. it does not concern moral works or acts of faith, which are inherently needed if you have faith

>Why is your view so anthropocentric, as opposed to theocentric? You're not saved because you obey God, you obey God because you're saved.
it's your view that is anthropocentric. Divine justice doesn't change just because "I declared with my lips..:". You are not special because you believe in Jesus, you are special because you follow his example and adhere to the Logos (which is Jesus) that mantains the order of the universe.
>you obey God because you're saved.
already answered this here >That's been refuted for centuries
lol no it hasn't, that's literally what it says in clear letters. "works" "of" "the" "LAW".
>There isn't one.
ok I'll post some in my next post
>He did that in ONE verse. If his intention was malicious,
Doing it once is already proof of malicious intent. If his intention wasn't malicious he wouldn't have done it even once!!! You can't even claim it was a mistake because it's too simple of an error for an expert linguist like him
>why didn't he do it every time, or atleast more than once
probably because he thought he could get away with it in that instance, in others it would have been way too blatant
> the reason he added 'alone' was because his translation was thought-for-thought meant to sound as though it was written in German by a German.
Shittiest damage control I've ever heard. Btw I can speak German, so I know that is absolutely wrong.
>I don't think i even need to respond to this, it stands as it's own refutation.
no it doesn't. You simply don't have a refutation.
>No it's not, it's literally an inherent aspect of Sola Fide
sola fide is a theological invention by protestants, you can't use it to refute an opposing theological argument. Do you even argumentation 101 bro?
>Again, do i even need to respond to the self-refutational?
Nothing is self-refutational, you simply have no rebuttal
>Self-refutational, next
lmao are you trying to convince others or yourself?

>Matthew 25:34-36
Are these not examples of good works? Why would Our Lord give them so much emphasis if only faith was of importance?
> Matt 19:16-21.
Are the above verses not filled with good works? How much more proof from Scripture do we need to show that Our Lord commanded us to do good works for our salvation?
>Matthew 16:27
Again here we have more proof that good works are required of us.
>1 Corinthians 3:8
Again this clearly does NOT refer to faith alone, but to labor, which is works.
>1 Corinthians 13:2 (St Paul)
What is charity other than helping the needy? Charity is clearly considered among good works. And in the same Chapter we also see the verse (1 Corinthians 13:13). This clearly puts charity BEFORE faith, so to say "faith alone" is all that is required of us is clearly contrary to Scripture.
>James 2:24.
How much more plain can it be said that faith alone is not enough for our salvation?
>What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?" James 2:14.
And we see several verses later that the answer to this question is NO.
>James 2:17.
No explanation is needed for this verse!
>James 2:18.
Another extremely obvious verse that proves the point on the subject.
>James 2:20-21
no explanation needed
>2 Peter 1:10
also no explanation needed

if one looks at verses that appear to speak negatively about works, they are clearly referring to works that glorify men and not God. Here we agree; works done to please men do not help with attaining our salvation. It would obviously be wrong though, to believe that good works in general are meant to glorify men.

>What you said is incompatible with sola fide. Once we accept an individual who gives assent to God, he therefore also is active from start to finish hence naturally meaning works as a vital aspect of this equation as well. But sola fide says works don't save. In fact by its definition, your faith is just a passive reception of what Christ did on the cross, so it isn't really you giving assent.
Blatant category errors. Justification isn't the only thing involved in salvation. Justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
>Paul does not critique the act of works but works of the Mosaic Law which is not needed since Christ fulfilled it in his eyes. it does not concern moral works or acts of faith, which are inherently needed if you have faith
Refuted in what you responded to.
>it's your view that is anthropocentric.
So the view that it is all the work of God is man-centered, but the view that says it is all dependent on man is God-centered.
>You are not special because you believe in Jesus
No you're "special" because you were chosen by God.
>already answered this here
Read 1 John
>lol no it hasn't, that's literally what it says in clear letters. "works" "of" "the" "LAW".
Well i suppose if you completely ignore my refutation of it.
>ok I'll post some in my next post
And i'll respond in my next post
>Doing it once is already proof of malicious intent.
Goodness you're right! He was clearly trying to push an agenda, which is why he didn't do it in any of the many parallel verses!
>probably because he thought he could get away with it in that instance, in others it would have been way too blatant
Why does all logic go out the window anytime you try to slander Luther?
>Btw I can speak German, so I know that is absolutely wrong.
Unless you're an expert in 16th century German culture i don't care if German is your first language
(1/?)

No there are fools who reject paul , but paul's letters complete christianity , without paul christians would not exist and jews had not fallen

>no it doesn't. You simply don't have a refutation.
I don't need a refutation, it was a lie. But it was so retarded of a lie it instantly collapses with any rational examination.
>sola fide is a theological invention by protestants
*tips mitre*
>Nothing is self-refutational, you simply have no rebuttal
You basically said "When you behave how your beliefs demand it has nothing to do with your beliefs"
>lmao are you trying to convince others or yourself?
What you said was "If something causes another thing then that thing causes the thing that causes it". Do you have brain damage?

to convince a jew just tell them that their talmuds were written at 200AD but couldn't be written down during Sinai and tell them that the original Ancient Israelites and Jews actually believed in a second person in the Godhead (thanks to Jews admitting it in their books).

Actually by Protestant soteriological standards, Justification is the only phase that truly saves, which sanctification as nothing more than God working inside you after he made you change your mind. That's it.

Again, Biblical scholarship is very clear that Paul is referring to works of the Mosaic Law. This is practically in every Bible dictionary you can find unless it is not academic stuff

>Justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
lmao, you appear to be very confused user
>>Paul does not critique the act of works but works of the Mosaic Law which is not needed since Christ fulfilled it in his eyes.
yes, that's what I said...and?
>which are inherently needed if you have faith
again you fall into what I have said here
You didn't refute it, you just fell into the contradiction I pointed out there again
>Refuted in what you responded to.
You literally didn't refute anything.

>So the view that it is all the work of God is man-centered, but the view that says it is all dependent on man is God-centered.
I have already explained why your view is the man-centered one. Your only rebuttal is "no u". This is not a good way to bring forward your opinion. Just because you want the opponent's view to be "man-centered" doesn't make it true.
>No you're "special" because you were chosen by God.
We're all chosen by God, that doesn't make you more special than other human beings who don't follow christian doctrine.
>Read 1 John
I've read it, so what? You are still wrong. You are simply incapable of pointing out why you are right, guess what? That's because you are wrong. Saying "r-read here" is not an argument.
>He was clearly trying to push an agenda, which is why he didn't do it in any of the many parallel verses!
So if a politician only takes bribes from one person it's not a corrupt politician? Do you even listen to yourself, trying to justify a man that lied so that people would follow him? Literally pharisees-tier
>Why does all logic go out the window anytime you try to slander Luther?
The only illogical one here is you. I've already explained why YOUR understanding is illogical. Again the only thing you do is say "no u". Literally not an argument.

>Unless you're an expert in 16th century German culture i don't care if German is your first language
hahahahaa so before it was about the language, now it's about the (((culture)))???? Do you even listen to yourself? Who do you want to fool? I haven't read the Bible in german, but for your information in that sentence he 100% likely used "sondern" to translate "but". Sondern in itself already implies an opposition and an exlusion, therefore no german person ever would have used more words unless they wanted to point out that the original had "only".
Not even Lutherans defend Luther for doing this, and yet here you are clinging to falsehood to justify your lies and deception.

>I don't need a refutation, it was a lie. But it was so retarded of a lie it instantly collapses with any rational examination.
lmao stop posting anytime m8., the lack of arguments is ridiculous at this point. You are wrong and you know it. I pray that you may see the truth and lift that veil from over your eyes.
>You basically said "When you behave how your beliefs demand it has nothing to do with your beliefs"
The fact that your beliefs demand something doesn't automatically means you will follow those beliefs. How oblivious can you get?
By your own standard no christian person ever has ever committed a sin, which clearly is not the case.
>"If something causes another thing then that thing causes the thing that causes it"
No I said that if something causes another thing, then the caused thing is dependant on what causes it. Man I pointed out something very easy to understand, and very clen logically, and yet here you are chimping out and trying again to twist my words while plugging your ears to easy and incontrovertible truths.
>Do you have brain damage?
truly a sentence spawned by huge amounts of projection

As usual, a Romanist strawmans Sola Fide. I'm going to ignore the ones simply about good works, because if works proceed from faith as John taught then those who truely believe will work.
>>James 2:24.
Yes, let's start at the end of the passage
I will now provide actual exegesis of James 2
>What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
Notice by saying "Can that faith save him" he implies there is a faith that saves
>If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
So, in other words, faith without works is empty.
>But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.
And here we see James' whole point. This is not about rightstanding with God, but of human recognition of that rightstanding in others.
>You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!
James is saying that mere understanding of facts is insufficient
>Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
Here, in stating Abraham was justified by works, he mentions only once relationship with God, and that it is made right by believing God.
>You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Because man cannot see into hearts, he can only know another believer by the fruit they produce.
(1/2)

>if one looks at verses that appear to speak negatively about works, they are clearly referring to works that glorify men and not God. Here we agree; works done to please men do not help with attaining our salvation. It would obviously be wrong though, to believe that good works in general are meant to glorify men.
Intention in works is never mentioned in Galatians. It's not specified that it is works done to please men, to the contrary, it is speaking of works done to please God.

fuck off jew

I see no arguments here, only lot's of shitposting
>hahahahaa so before it was about the language, now it's about the (((culture)))
No, it is about how Germans spoke and wrote in the 16th century
>The fact that your beliefs demand something doesn't automatically means you will follow those beliefs.
I didn't say it did, but you said "Acting in a way that conforms to your beliefs is something that is independent from the belief itself", or in other words, when you behave how your beliefs demand it has nothing to do with your beliefs
>No I said that if something causes another thing, then the caused thing is dependant on what causes it.
You said "if works stem from faith, then faith becomes dependent on those works". This is a statement that the causing thing is dependent on what it caused.
>trying again to twist my words while plugging your ears
So that's a yes to the brain damage?
Excellent argumentation, you have showed me the error of my ways

>if works proceed from faith as John taught then those who truely believe will work.
already refuted this here >"Can that faith save him" he implies there is a faith that saves
no he implies that faith does not save him unless he has works too. Therefore faith + works are necessary for salvation
>This is not about rightstanding with God, but of human recognition of that rightstanding in others.
so you are literally saying that men should have human recognition for their works to be valid. That is literally saying that you are justified by men and not from God. Funny thing is you don't even see the contradiction in your beliefs. Disgusting.
>James is saying that mere understanding of facts is insufficient
James is saying that having faith is not sufficient, he doesn't say "mere understanding of facts". The words of the Bible are simple user, tryint to twist them won't change the truth.
> in stating Abraham was justified by works, he mentions only once relationship with God, and that it is made right by believing God.
ahahahah literally refusing yourself. If he is justified by works, then he is not made right simply by believing God. Do you even read yourself?
>Because man cannot see into hearts, he can only know another believer by the fruit they produce.
But you just said in this same post that humans recognize rightstanding in others. I don't know if I should laugh or I should be angry that I'm wasting my time with someone clearly incapable of even being coherent in one single post
> It's not specified that it is works done to please men, to the contrary, it is speaking of works done to please God.
It doesn't matter if it pleases God or not, it is your intention to please him that makes a difference. It is your goal to please God that justifies you when it comes to works. You are literally saying all works are to please men. That's retarded: when you pray, is you prayer is a work that pleases men? user pls

...

>I see no arguments here, only lot's of shitposting
literally "no u" again. It's ok user, it's obvious you are wrong. I don't expect you to change your mind in a second. But I am sure with time truth will break the prejudiced indoctrinated wall of satanic lies.
>or in other words, when you behave how your beliefs demand it has nothing to do with your beliefs
You can choose to behave as your beliefs demand, but holding a certain belief does not mean you will act accordingly. Honestly this is so obvious that it's ridiculous I have to point this out to you. For example your ignorance about the german language demands that you don't try to claim to know what 16th century german was about. That's what an honest person would believe. And yet here you are spouting ignorant nonsense just because you cannot accept you are wrong about something.
>No, it is about how Germans spoke and wrote in the 16th century
t.person that doesn't even speak german and wants to lecture others about how germans spoke in the 16th century.
They didn't speak much different. In fact Luther's biblical translations have a huge influence on german grammar and lexicon, therefore it's the documents from the 16th century that best resemble modern german. Why do speak of things you know nothing about? user pls stop
>So that's a yes to the brain damage?
Why are you so full of hate and resentment? The truth won't disappear just because you hate to be wrong, you know

>This is a statement that the causing thing is dependent on what it caused.
Holy shit user you can't be this intellectually underdeveloped. I am trying to think of an easier way to make you understand, but it's really hard. Literally a 4-year-old would get it. TRUE faith is dependent on works because, since works COME from true faith, you cannot claim to have faith without those WORKS that are supposed to stem from faith. That creates a dipendent relationship between the two. You cannot have one without the other. Because works are needed to be able to claim TRUE faith as yours, and faith is necessary for salvation. Then it comes by itself that you cannot claim to have the faith needed for salvation without works. Therefore works are necessary for salvation just as much as faith. And this is simply by taking into account the theological interpretation of protestants.
How you can think this is illogical when it's literally the easiest most straightforward concept ever beats me.

>already refuted this here
As i demonstrated here Your """"""refutation"""""" is a non sequitur
>no he implies that faith does not save him unless he has works too
Begging the question
>so you are literally saying that men should have human recognition for their works to be valid. That is literally saying that you are justified by men and not from God. Funny thing is you don't even see the contradiction in your beliefs.
Do you have actual literal brain damage
>James is saying that having faith is not sufficient, he doesn't say "mere understanding of facts". The words of the Bible are simple user, tryint to twist them won't change the truth.
>ahahahah literally refusing yourself. If he is justified by works, then he is not made right simply by believing God. Do you even read yourself?
>But you just said in this same post that humans recognize rightstanding in others. I don't know if I should laugh or I should be angry that I'm wasting my time with someone clearly incapable of even being coherent in one single post
This is not counter-exegesis, this is nothing more than willful ignorance
>It doesn't matter if it pleases God or not, it is your intention to please him that makes a difference.
And where is that in the text of Galatians
If you presume to get another response, please read to understand why you will not recieve one.

>In the end Catholic theology always ends up being true

yes like indulgences , gief money so you can buy souls out of purgatory

The protestants existed because the church was the whore of babylon , if the church was not corrupt there was no need for the protestants to rise against it

>The truth won't disappear just because you hate to be wrong

Ah yes show me the verse in the bible where jesus tortured people

>Your """"""refutation"""""" is a non sequitur
it really isn't, as I highlighted further here >Begging the question
Not at all. You twist the words of the bible to fit your man-made doctrines, I simply point out what's in it. Like it or not that's the truth
>Do you have actual literal brain damage
Insulting me is not an argument
>This is not counter-exegesis, this is nothing more than willful ignorance
again you just insult me because you have been BTFO, good to know
>If you presume to get another response, please read to understand why you will not recieve one.
so literally "holy shit I am making a fool out of mysel by how wrong I am so I am going to claim I won and run away"
ok m8

>aquafresh shitposter
yeah not going to bother with you, you are literally mentally ill

nice facebook meme picture. Your point is?

>if 1950s america was good there was no reason for communists to go against it

wew

don't waste your breath on aquafresh, he's unironically mentally ill

Daily reminder

First, you have to understand who Israel of the bible actually is. Adam = to show blood in the face (i.e. blush). Only one people can do that. Jesus specifically stated he only came for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, who had been taken into captivity 700 years prior, were prophesied to lose their identity, and their language, but were to eventually be called "sons of the living god". There are other blessings given to Israel that are only fulfilled by the Western nations. All of this leftist craziness going on right now? Look at the curses for not following God, given in Deuteronomy. I could go on. The Jews are the Edomites who say they will rebuild the desolate places (modern state of Israel), which God will crush.

youtube.com/watch?v=8FXlqFPHAaU
youtube.com/watch?v=FgCKXJPwSts
youtube.com/watch?v=33DC4UatExo&list=PLRNbzK2W6kSvhDg6ZGbSOPfh3gvQUmTDm
youtube.com/watch?v=oL6IU1cu17c
youtube.com/watch?v=acgVBSxV2i8

israelitewatchmen.com/archive/reference/
israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/diaspora_files/real_diaspora.html
israelite.ca/research/specialstudiesfiles/scriptural_marks.html
israelite-identity-archive.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-marks-of-israel-by-jack-mohr.html
christianidentityministries.com/witt.html
israelect.com/reference/JackMohr/jm025h.htm
fascovereign.blogspot.com/2013/11/adam-aryan.html
nordiskisrael.dk/artikler-articles.html
kinsmanredeemer.com/future-prophecy-part-8
christogenea.org/essays/immigration-problem-and-biblical-prophecy
melgibstein.wordpress.com/

Series on the tribe of Judah. Starts with the first newsletter.
emahiser.christogenea.org/

This "Judeo-Christian" nonsense was the work of the Scofield Reference Bible. Written by a drunk willing to sell out to the Jew publishers.

youtube.com/watch?v=NXSsp2vvHjE

>yeah not going to bother with you, you are literally mentally ill

Maybe i am at least i am not blind

Please refer to the video "Was Jesus Christ A Jew?" It is very informative. Have your bible out.

youtube.com/watch?v=G2mFpiZV8jc

wtf I hate the Church now

Wtf is that jelly dong fish thing?

Worshipers of the Babylonian fish god.

in your fit of manic oppression you project your own image

>41 minutes
>guy isn't even a catholic he's some protestant nigger

The israelites were called hyksos in Egypt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos
Esoteric christianity really doesn't have enough proof to be practiced, too much will to power.

>couldn't be written down during Sinai

what does this mean

he is the king of Israel. Unfortunately the king james bible was absolutely kosher and used the term "jew" in the wrong way, thus creating protestant zionism

(you)

>mary worshipping

LE CATHOLICS WORSHIP MARY MAYMAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

We are talking middle ages here , the reformation started because the church was a cunt who had to lose his power , member how jesus said his kingdom is not from this world