What are some good Christian movies?

>he said while bowing to a gay jew

Jesus was a Jew, deal with it.
Wouldn't be surprised if he was a gay too, considering his lifestyle.

Jesus was a good jew and denounced heebs
>synagogue of Satan

You realize the cum you and your people have been drinking for 2000 years is of a Jew, right?

>Good
>Jew
Pick one.

Jews lost their covenant with God, Jesus gave it to the gentiles, read the parable of the fig tree.

the ones who hate jesus today are atheists, gays, and jews (talmudists).

Matrix

I'm not interested in Jewish literature.

>denounced heebs
he preached exclusively to heebs, hence the verse "don't throw pearls before swine", meaning he didn't waste his words on goym. Then after Jesus departed, Paul couldn't contain his Jewness anymore and decided to turn Jesus' word into a franchise.

genetic fallacy
the truth is true no matter which tribe speaks it.

tasty cope

I like how christfags do all sorts of mental gymnastics about Jesus not being cut from the same cloth as the rest of the Jews

>muh fig tree
>muh khazars

Jesus was a kike. Deal with it.

Jesus Camp

What makes you think that nonsense is the truth?

>Atheists hate Jesus
Wow, Christfags still don't know what Atheism and thinks it's solely based on showcasing opposition to them and their beliefs.

youtu.be/F55uFHs0d-o

G-GUYS..???

Christianity is the most low-key gay religion every assembled, and Jesus fucked other man standing up.

>he preached exclusively to heebs
Yet, according to both Matthew and Luke Jesus praised the roman centurian's faith as being the highest he had seen in Israel and performed a miracle for him....

"Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour. "

>Paul spread it to gentiles
Yet the instruction to spread the gospel to all was also in Gospel Matthew 28:19 | Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,|

>they don't believe in jew wizards
do you even magic?

>waving Israeli flag

based American evangelicals

Noah by Darren Aronofsky

Not that user but Matthew and Luke invented a lot of shit that wasn't OG canon, such as the virgin birth.

>It's the truth because I agree with it and it makes me comfortable
Your own subjective comfort isn't a valid source or reason of what makes perspectives 'true'.

End of days

>Christfags still don't know what Atheism
Just look at this thread, for every 1 well mannered atheist there are 9 obnoxious goofs seething with hatred of God and his religion.

That's a Jewish movie. Stop appropriating my culture.

you reap what you sow

Passion of Christ

you don't know what a genetic fallacy is?
if you have a problem with Christianity then make the argument, instead of using irrational fallacies.

Riddle me this, heathens. If the Church is not true, how can it be THIS KINO?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican's_list_of_films

You never made a rational argument for why you think Christianity is the Truth™ though

They never can or do.

it just is bro
just, like, have faith, dude

Attached: 1553190067526.jpg (550x471, 51K)

im not here to convince you, I asked for movie recommendations.
If you make fallacious arguments I'll point them out. That's all

It's true because the Bible tells me so. It's the Good Book. Read Ezekiel 23:20.

But you said the truth is true in without bothering to make any rational argument for it. If anyone is lacking in argumentation here it's you.

which ones are the ones played nationally in burgerland for easter?
I saw one that had some neat effects and for a moment thought it was laurence of arabia
Not OP, but Im interested in finding and watching epics like that
Im not sure if it it was the same one, but Moses parts the sea

>It's true because the Bible tells me so
Lmao

Knowledge of God is so ubiquitous and historically accepted that the burden of proof falls on the modernist deniers.

I said that to explain what a genetic fallacy is.
A persons tribe/origin doesn't negate their true statements. So saying Christianity wrong cause Jesus was a jew is a genetic fallacy. That argument doesn't follow.

>Knowledge of God is so ubiquitous and historically accepted
Pretty sure there's a Latin term for that sort of fallacy.
But I never said it's wrong because Jesus was Jew. I said I'm not interested in Jewish literature. If you have proof that what the bible says is anything more than mythology, such as historical/archeological evidence or a rational argument I'm all ears though.

Beckett, Man for All Seasons and Ben Hurr are all pretty great.

Attached: bible circular.jpg (691x600, 75K)

Jesus prophecied the destruction of the jewish temple and their expulsion from the empire. This happened after he died, in the 1st century, just as he predicted.

checkmate athiests

>You never made a rational argument for why you think Christianity is the Truth™ though
Best Kino, you can't refute this
This argument is fallacious since Jews decide what is universally accepted as true.

really enjoyed Silence

But the Gospel of Mark was written around the Siege of Jerusalem when the temple was actually destroyed. How can you know it was a prophecy and not the author retroactively inserting it in the past with knowledge of the present?

Predicting that Jews will one day piss off whatever country they are leeching off and get exiled/kill is not being a prophet, it's noticing trends.

It's circular reasoning, liberal scholars will presuppose prophecies aren't possible, and since Mark mentions the destruction of the temple therefore it would have been written around that time.

Anyway there are plenty of prophecies about Christ himself in the OT predicting his coming and his crucifixion, written far before the events themselves.

>you believe Christianity because it makes you comfortable
>Christianity is comfortable
>trying to live up to a perfect ideal is comfortable
wew

Attached: christian.jpg (590x600, 129K)

It's not even about presupposing prophecies aren't possible, it's the fact that we have no reason to believe he was some clairvoyant deity who actually predicted the future, when it's much more likely to be just a fictional story like many others.

And about OT prophecies, if you're going there then Jesus not only didn't fulfill many of them but also some that weren't even prophecies nor about the Messiah to being with, like the Suffering Servant from Isaiah which narrates the past history of Israel and not the coming of an agonizing savior.

The bible tells you to be perfect while simultaneously promising eternal life to anyone who simply believes. Your noble struggle is entirely imaginary.

>inb4 faith vs works
Don't bother.

There is nothing more that infuriates an atheist more then a white christian. A muslim raping children couldn't create a 10th of the fervered hatred that just seeing a white Christian family being happy. It sets him into a wild fire of rage and fury. He will fabricate lie after lie after lie about the white religion, create massive campaigns to abolish its power as best as he can and only be satiated when its humiliated and scorned. He doesnt even care if hes a hypocrite, if hes contradictive, or if he's manipulative, be will tell you today that you are the jews dog while yesterday you were anti-semitic. He doesn't care if he's as long as he doesnt get caught.

He never think about why only christianity makes him so angry, why he never criticizes jews for the torah, the despised old testement to the atheist, nor his blinding terror when forced to criticize islam. He never asks why this cognitive dissonance exists in him nor why most of his books on atheism have last names with burg in it.

Attached: maxresdefault (18).jpg (1280x720, 85K)

>It's not even about presupposing prophecies aren't possible, it's the fact that we have no reason to believe he was some clairvoyant deity who actually predicted the future, when it's much more likely to be just a fictional story like many others.

It's all about presumptions. If you believe prophecies are impossible then you're going to interpret all evidence in a way that negates prophecies....

>And about OT prophecies, if you're going there then Jesus not only didn't fulfill many of them but also some that weren't even prophecies nor about the Messiah to being with, like the Suffering Servant from Isaiah which narrates the past history of Israel and not the coming of an agonizing savior.
Nah, Christ is referenced plenty in the OT. Atheists and jews deny this because it challenges their worldview so much. There are tons of examples beyond the Suffering Servant too.

>The bible tells you to be perfect while simultaneously promising eternal life to anyone who simply believes. Your noble struggle is entirely imaginary.
The struggle is real for us. Maybe not so much for Baptists who believe "once saved always saved" and that you don't need to "repent" or really do much. But I'm orthodox and the even though we are saved by faith it's not "once and done" it's a continuous process, we can slip and slide and fall off the path.
And there's always the tension of offending God and besmirching yourself by committing sin and not living up to your potential. It's not easy.
I have a Christian friend who thinks he's "probably going to hell" because of how he mistreated his past wife...its tough.

Most Christians aren't white lol

Based

>If you believe prophecies are impossible then you're going to interpret all evidence in a way that negates prophecies....
As I said before, it's more a case of not having any evidence that prophecies are even a thing than not believing in them.

>Nah, Christ is referenced plenty in the OT
Hardly. The gospel authors went out of their way to shoehorn the character of Jesus in every part of the OT they could and it shows, such as the virgin birth polemic I mentioned earlier.

> The gospel authors went out of their way to shoehorn the character of Jesus in every part of the OT they could and it shows, such as the virgin birth polemic I mentioned earlier.

You're just assuming they lied. They lied about prophecy because prophecy is impossible. And the OT can't reference Jesus because prophecy is impossible, so it must all be something else. You're presumptions are your blind spots.

>apostles just lied a lot
Why would they shoehorn someone so unexpected and strange, like Christ, into the bible? He's the opposite of what jews were expecting...he came in riding on a donkey telling the pharisees to fuck off, performing miracles on gentiles, whipping money lenders in the temples, while also telling people to love their enemies, turn the cheek and give Caesar his dues...why would anyone force such a Messiah into the bible when there are so many more palatable and enticing lies they could've done?
A crucified messiah is something totally contrary to jewish expectations and even greek expectations, it's not something that would appeal to the masses....yet here we are.

>You're just assuming they lied. They lied about prophecy because prophecy is impossible. And the OT can't reference Jesus because prophecy is impossible, so it must all be something else. You're presumptions are your blind spots.
It's not an assumption to reject a magical explanation that has no evidence to support it when a natural explanation is available. The burden of proof rests on the one claiming that guy was an actual seer and magic is suddenly real.

>Why would they shoehorn someone so unexpected and strange, like Christ, into the bible? He's the opposite of what jews were expecting...
They were Jewish dissidents who broke ties with the Pharisaic leaders by following a religious reformer and you're asking why their version of Judaism turned out different?

>it's not something that would appeal to the masses
What? The NT does almost nothing but pander to the masses, what the fuck are you smoking?

This is why faggots and Jews are so hate filled, rather than repent they live in the now in decadence arrogantly ignoring that Hell is waiting for them

>The NT does almost nothing but pander to the masses, what the fuck are you smoking?
The jews were hoping for a messiah warrior-prophet who would break Rome's hold on them, lead a rebellion, establish Israel as a super-power, instead Christ said to give Caesar his dues, said their temple would be destroyed, told them to love their enemies and then he got crucified. That's not the messiah they were expecting, and not one you can just "shoehorn" into a text willy nilly.

deuteronomy 15:6 confirms that jews are the chosen people and never stopped being

They tell that to themselves but they were complicit in the execution of their God. They now worship evil

Yes, Jesus wasn't the Messiah.

Lilies of the field .

that is god's promise to them and it has been kept as anyone can attest
now all nations bow to israel and christians serve their interests
yhwh was the true god all along

No, point is no one would "shoehorn" Jesus into the Bible when most expectations of the messiah ran contrary to him.

Hahahahaha how do Christfags cope with that shit?

They had to, otherwise there would be no previous biblical basis for their version of the Messiah.

Israel is just Sodom 2.0

Attached: A-gay-parade-in-Tel-Aviv--006.jpg (1200x630, 93K)

like this

Attached: American Christians.webm (574x382, 1.24M)

those faggots don't invalidate a clearly kept promise from god himself
they rose from the ghettoes of europe to rule among nations now, as god's chosen people

>they had to do something so improbable and uncanny and unbelievable in order to...I dunno...they just had to!
kek
Whatever helps you cope.

>something so improbable and uncanny and unbelievable
Like resurrecting the dead and walking on water improbable/uncanny/unbelievable or just something that could, you know, ACTUALLY happen, like writing a new Jewish fanfic?

israel has money and power but they use it to defile and shame themselves and harm their neighbors, not a good long-term strategy.

they always had god's approval to do that
didn't you read the old testament?

>"He hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcasses, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood."

All atheists, pagan cucks and jews will be put to the cross and burn in hell for eternity. Praise the Lord.

Attached: lenny.jpg (529x565, 33K)

You're trapped in your materialist presuppositions, so you can't evaluate evidence fairly and objectively. That's all.

>they had approval to defile and shame themselves
No they had approval to make sacrifices and purify themselves until the messiah came. They rejected the messiah so their temple was destroyed (And remains destroyed), so they don't even have a religion anymore. And they were holocausted in WW2 (without the gas).
Now they operate a lunatic state that is in constant schism with itself, and the gay-capital of the middle east.

>Maybe not so much for Baptists who believe "once saved always saved" and that you don't need to "repent" or really do much.

i don't know where you've picked up these ideas of Baptists from, and whether your main interaction with people who profess to be baptist was on /christian/ or checking out Stephen Anderson videos, but 'Independent Fundamentalist Baptists' split from the Baptist Communion quite some time ago

so yeah, while some of the IFB churches do preach that repentance is an unnecessary 'work', historically orthodox Confessional Baptists who subscribe to the 1689 Confession adamantly oppose such heresy; recognising that when God regenerates the spiritually dead soul of an unbeliever He is enabling that former God-hater to turn to Him in repentance... and an ongoing daily repentance at that, as the sanctification God provides opens his eyes to more and more Sin that must be turned away from

that being said, if anyone thinks that Christ could ever possibly lose one of His own flock, even though Christ is the Living Eternal Creator God who promised that He would never lose one of the sheep the Father has given him; that same poor soul clings to an error nearly as blasphemous as anything the IFB have come up with

You people are just mentally incapable of realizing how ridiculous your position is, aren't you? The fact that you can shamelessly use the word unbelievable while holding the most absurd beliefs yourself will always amaze me.

nigger, yhwh even gave them instructions on how to rape women from their neighbors and how to enslave themselves correctly
read the fucking book and not just the parts you like

atheists seething lmao. Dilate. Enjoy hell

Embarrassing.

>christcucks get destroyed post after post
>"e-enjoy hell"
Classic

Attached: 1566777512300.jpg (284x350, 36K)

>i don't know where you've picked up these ideas of Baptists from
>so yeah, while some of the IFB churches do preach that repentance is an unnecessary 'work
Well you answered your own question here.

>historically orthodox Confessional Baptists who subscribe to the 1689 Confession adamantly oppose such heresy; recognising that when God regenerates
Glad you admit Protestants appeal to a tradition outside the bible as well...

>losing salvation question
your type can lose salvation too, just in a roundabout way, by realizing they "were never one of us" to begin with.

or maybe they never realize this, and just end up in hell, while their mouths and brains profess to follow Christ, but their nous is totally empty and calcified.

they have no temple, they can't make offerings, they have no religion, they invented shit in the talmud without having any prophets lmao
it's a dead religion
then they got holocausted
now they're all having gay sex in tel-aviv waiting for God to rain fire on them.
Repent.

nigger who cares if they have no temple? the promise was kept beyond doubt
fuck, the valley of bones shit also happened
if god wants them to have a third temple it will happen and christian goys like you will pay for it

Baruch HaShem

EO tend to be a little more civil and open-minded due to having experienced monumental schism themselves, so i'm thinking you aren't the orthobro i was addressing, but instead you're some disingenuous RC interloper

amirite ?

Attached: 1521325251633.gif (500x364, 2.58M)

I'm EO.
I'm not a western convert. So I might be more blunt than others.

>I'm EO
based

Attached: 1557660766141.webm (640x360, 2.71M)

Attached: the-gospel-according-to-st-matthew-md-web.jpg (960x658, 158K)

>Enjoy hell
We're already living in it seeing as we have to put up with retarded Christfags like you.

I swear I will never talk shit about evangelicals again

oh well in that case, i apologise for thinking your approach more common to the dogmatic Roman Catholics, it's not nice to be tarred with the same brush

i'm not particularly interested in arguing with you on traditions > scripture, because it's readily apparent that even those who hold to Sola Scriptura must in turn look to that Scripture and see it command them to hold to the traditions that have been handed down to them

we could discuss what those traditions actually are though, since we look to broader Scripture and see the models held up to us by Christ, the Prophets and Apostles as to which traditions are legitimate in the eyes of God -- but counting the 1689 Confession as one of those traditions, rather than the profession of faith or 'creed' that it actually is would be a category error

but really, my main motivation for engaging with you was to speak to someone who seems to be keenly aware that the struggle is real, and who deals with their faith sincerely -- with a small aside as to make distinction between 1689 Confessionals and the numerous loose canons in the IFB -- but primarily to ask why you think God the Son, and Good Shepherd could ever lose one of His flock ?

Relics of saints are fine. But if you don't understand theosis, latria or dulia then you will be confused.

This is good too:
youtube.com/watch?v=biU7TsfNoiQ

Attached: Relics.jpg (641x246, 65K)

Attached: vomit dog.jpg (720x960, 218K)

Agora

oh yeah bro literal african witchcraft really makes me confused you got that right at least

Hey Yea Forums what do you think of megachurches like elevation, hillsong, etc? Are they a meme?

>CTRL F "Calvary"
>no results

fuck each and every one of you

Attached: calvary.jpg (486x720, 24K)

It's a dead foot you fucking gullible retard.

Can anyone explain what is happening here?

Attached: worry.jpg (620x615, 65K)

Jesus Christ, and this is supposed to be the closest thing to early Christianity.

I'm glad my parents were vanilla Lutherans.

Attached: 304981501.png (1213x789, 1.57M)

the dark arts

Attached: 123125.png (1228x2088, 3.49M)

Attached: catholic kino.png (1308x1523, 3.54M)

>That moment when they jump in with the buckets
K I N O

Attached: 1566140804141.png (352x264, 67K)

>what those traditions actually are?
I would say the earliest traditions dating back to the 7 ecumenical councils and what the early Church practiced and continues to practice for thousands of years.

>1689
Certainly Christ created a visible Church and had teachers dating back further than that...
Come on now. Your religion is far older than that.

> but primarily to ask why you think God the Son, and Good Shepherd could ever lose one of His flock ?
It's not that he would lose one by lack of power or care, but that they were never one to begin with, they only deluded themselves and others, somehow. 1 John 2:19 [they were never one of us]
So there is a danger of being totally certain you are one of his sheep, thinking you are safe in his hand, when in fact you aren't. It's just pride. So we have to have some humility even towards our own destiny.

real life the movie

Double digit IQ animals think the mummified corpse has divine powers and they want some

>you will never walk away from a service with a 2l diet coke bottle filled with holy water

no wonder western Christianity can't compete.

In 1995, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of cinema, the Vatican compiled a list of 45 "great films". The 45 movies are divided into three categories: religion, values, and art.

> Religion
Andrei Rublev (1966)
Babette's Feast (1987)
Ben-Hur (1959)
The Flowers of St. Francis (1950)
Francesco (1989)
The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1966)
La Passion de Notre Seigneur Jesus-Christ (1905)
A Man for All Seasons (1966)
The Mission (1986)
Monsieur Vincent (1947)
Nazarin (1958)
Ordet (1955)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)
The Sacrifice (1986)
Therese (1986)

> Values
Au Revoir les Enfants (1988)
Bicycle Thieves (1949)
The Burmese Harp (1956)
Chariots of Fire (1981)
Dekalog (1988)
Dersu Uzala (1975)
Gandhi (1982)
Intolerance (1916)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Rome, Open City (1945)
Schindler's List (1993)
The Seventh Seal (1957)
The Tree of Wooden Clogs (1978)
Wild Strawberries (1957)

> Art
Citizen Kane (1941)
8½ (1963)
Fantasia (1940)
Grand Illusion (1937)
La Strada (1954)
The Lavender Hill Mob (1951)
The Leopard (1963)
Little Women (1933)
Metropolis (1927)
Modern Times (1936)
Napoleon (1927)
Nosferatu (1922)
Stagecoach (1939)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)

web.archive.org/web/20120422064928/http://old.usccb.org/movies/vaticanfilms.shtml

The choices are Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. If the Christian world was wrong for 1500+ years then you're doing mormon tier revisionism and should just pick another religion.

Attached: DHrqGxVUMAAOeMY.jpg (736x540, 63K)

I pick Jesus.

i wonder what kind of reaction jesus would had seeing his follower drinking water from dead leg

If you're a follower then you'd want to join his Church, not a heterodox "sect", an innovation created 1600 years after the fact.

Disgust, then heavenly wrath when he finds out they have been parading his crucified body like morons for 2000 years.

>I would say the earliest traditions dating back to the 7 ecumenical councils

well that's interesting, but bearing in mind the first council was in 325 i think we can do better than that and go back to the traditions laid out for us in Scripture which held the Church fast under immense persecution

>Come on now. Your religion is far older than that.

now user, if i said the Eastern Orhtodox faith only started in 1054 you would be somewhat offended, wouldn't you ?

so surely you understand that just as the EO had to define itself in contrast to the Papal See -- developing some creedal statements to that effect -- when the Protestant Reformation and similar split from Roman rule happened in the 16th Century, would you expect any less creedal development from people who were literally putting their lives at risk for being Baptist ?

i've been patient on this one a couple of times now, but i'm starting to get tired of it

> It's not that he would lose one by lack of power or care, but that they were never one to begin with, they only deluded themselves and others

so now we get to the meat of it, and you're the one wishing to make important distinctions between the sheep and the goats

i think it's commendable that you have chosen to argue Scripture in part, since it's really the only language my folk understand

i'll even agree with you on 'the danger of being totally certain one in His sheep' since we see many on the Last Day say 'Lord, Lord, did we not perform many miracles and wonders in your name' yet Christ says to them, 'I never knew you'

but i would counter that both Christ and the Apostles have shown clearly how one may escape such self-delusion and have full assurance of their being adopted into the family of God, for does not James say in one place that faith without works is dead -- and what greater good work is there than true repentance from evil ?

What are you on about?

The RCC is the Whore of Babylon. His Church is wherever two or more gather in His name.

Attached: The Whore of Babylon.jpg (1826x492, 331K)

christianity was hijacked by the romans, it was supposed to be just another death cult

>well that's interesting, but bearing in mind the first council was in 325 i think we can do better than that and go back to the traditions laid out for us in Scripture which held the Church fast under immense persecution
Since Christ started a visible church and had saints dating back to the time of the apostles, why do you need confessions and creeds made up in the year 1500/1600? Why not just look back at the early Church and see how it operated.

>look at scripture
Yes. But how was scripture complied and deemed sacred?
scripture has no divine table of contents for protestants to circularly appeal to. scripture was decided upon by the wisdom of the Catholic/Orthodox church and the Holy Spirit acting through its clerics and saints.
And for most of early Christianity churches only had a couple epistles here and there, people were illiterate and didn't have KJVs in their pockets to argue about. Tradition, oral and even iconographic tradition acted like a glue for early Christianity to transmit and preserve teachings.

> i would counter that both Christ and the Apostles have shown clearly how one may escape such self-delusion and have full assurance of their being adopted into the family of God, for does not James say in one place that faith without works is dead -- and what greater good work is there than true repentance from evil ?
Sure, but as long as one keeps sinning and lacks perfect obedience there is room for some doubt. We also have free-will, we can convert to another religion or become atheists in the future. Wanting perfect future assurance is a sign of pride imo. Perfect knowledge of the future and our destiny is for God alone. We are called to have faith, to hope for salvation, not to puff our chest out proclaiming we have irrevocable salvation, and turning around saying anyone who doubts their salvation or thinks they might "lose it" is committing a heresy.

The RCC is corrupt and does have some serious heresies, but it's still more legitimate, unified and authentic than anything the protestants have been able to come up with.

Dogma

Attached: Buddy Christ.jpg (300x300, 29K)

Someone who clings to denominations is without the Holy Spirit.

Christ started a holy and apostolic Church not a "denomination" or a "sect". I simply cling to his church and teachings.
The thousands of protestant sects (including the non-denominationals) are in error. Simple

Attached: Cyril_and_Methodius.jpg (471x800, 75K)

Attached: Hell.webm (852x480, 1.94M)

The "holy and apostolic Church" you cling to wasn't started by Christ but by men. Indeed, it is at odds with Christ. It is a false church, one that picked the sword that Christ commanded us to drop, that laid with all kings of the earth like a harlot, the mother of abominations.

>Jesu Christo
>the old testament

Attached: 1565784721756.png (853x959, 1.12M)

>Why not just look back at the early Church and see how it operated.

well that's precisely what Sola Scriptura is all about; looking directly at the earliest traditions of the Church

> Yes. But how was scripture complied and deemed sacred?

Peter wrote to his people declaring that Paul's writings were 'Scripture' and since Peter was an Apostle, having walked with Christ witnessing His life, death and Resurrection, he would know what Scripture was

same with James, John and Jude, and of course Luke went around interviewing everyone including the Apostles as what to write in his treatise

from there we have a collected body of work that the early believers held so highly that they reproduced it in such great numbers that even 2000 years later we have over 5000 manuscripts dating as early as the 1st Century

and we know how highly they regarded these Scriptures, since those who preserved them in hidden places safe from Roman destruction, went to their deaths never giving up their parchments... hence us finding so many now

but if you are seriously trying to argue that some ecumenical counsel gave us the Canon, you are in error -- due to 300 years of the Roman murder, loot and rapine of Christians, no such counsel happened until 325 AD in Nicea

and Nicea had absolutely nothing to do with determining Canon, since the question wasn't even in dispute at the time -- the evidence for that being the earliest writings from the Church Fathers dating to the beginnings of the 2nd Century all the way past 325 where these Fathers debated many issues; quoting their recognised Scriptures to each other so prolifically that even if we didn't have the 5K ancient manuscripts, we could reproduce the Canon seven times over, except for around 6 verses

tl;dr Church History and studies in the authenticity of the Scriptures might be useful to you

> We also have free-will

we have limited free will - God declaring that we are either a slave to Sin or a slave to Righteousness

>Talmud
>Old Testament
Are you American?

>authenticity of the Scriptures

preservation of the Scriptures

fxd

(told you i was getting tired)

you seem to be defensive of the Jewish holy book for some reason...

Attached: 1561795633378.jpg (583x583, 29K)

You could have just said yes.

This catholics need to wake the fuck up before its too late

Attached: 1520789147097.jpg (515x503, 93K)