Chaiske
Discord ID: 141879656520482817
365 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/4
| Next
You've come to the wrong place.
From what I've seen, this is still a right-twink circle jerk.
This is legitimately right-wing circlejerk.
Britbong?
Makes sense.
I don't really consider it morning until it's after sunrise, or at least dawn.
No, it's called centralism because it's talking about opposing the specific policy called 'democratic centralism'.
It's not talking about centrism or left-right spectrum.
I haven't seen much of this place, but it seems assblasted by redditors and refugees.
>rockefeller
>jewish
<:redThink:432645252596236298>
Consider looking at the origin of Christianity first.
Christianity originally arose as a messianic Jewish sect.
It wasn't until St. Paul, whose mission was to preach to the gentiles, became the mainstream interpretation that Christianity became more than just a Jewish sect.
We see in the first section that the Pharisee Christians believed in adherence to Mosaic ritual law, but Paul's faction opposed such and believed in the ease of converting gentiles.
Feel free to switch versions.
Have the Vulgate, for example.
5 surrexerunt autem quidam de heresi Pharisaeorum qui crediderant dicentes quia oportet circumcidi eos praecipere quoque servare legem Mosi
10 nunc ergo quid temptatis Deum inponere iugum super cervicem discipulorum quod neque patres nostri neque nos portare potuimus
11 sed per gratiam Domini Iesu credimus salvari quemadmodum et illi
Or the KJV
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
The Latin Vulgate is the official bible of the Catholic Church and also says as much.
You can doubt the translation if you want, so feel free to read the Vulgate yourself.
At this point, I understand you're attacking the validity of the specific translations I've singled out as biblical examples narrating the fact that early Christianity had a strong Jewish bent.
In that case, you're more than free to browse the many other translations, or even the original Koine, if you'd like to yourself.
Which is why I pointed out you're free to read the Latin Vulgate or the Koine New Testament.
Er... no, the Koine is the original and the Vulgate is the 4th Century Latin translation officially used by the Catholic Church.
You know that Koine is Greek, right?
I'm also fairly certain that the Bible was never claimed to be written by Jesus.
' I see nothing stating that the koine version of the bible even existed. '
The warrant here is that the Koine version is a Greek translation,
Which is false, because the original New Testament was written in Greek.
What?
The original New Testament was written in Koine Greek.
Do you have any citations?
Yes, you do.
Doubt must have reasonable evidence.
Otherwise it's doubt for doubt's sake.
Doubt is simply pointless without evidence to back it up.
And yes, they did. Palestine was a Roman province, and the lingua franca of Eastern Rome generally was Koine Greek.
Yes, they were Roman citizens under Roman rule.
And no, the Bible wasn't written in Palestine.
Where does it say it was written in Israel?
That first bible is the Hebrew Bible, part of the Old Testament and part of Jewish scripture.
The Old Testament is mostly a record of Jewish religious practice.
The first few books of the Bible, e.g. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, are part of the Tanakh, comprising the Torah.
That is to say, those first books are literally the Torah.
Not really?
You asked which part of the Old Testament is part of Jewish practice.
The answer was that, for example, the first few books are part of the Torah, a central text in Judaism.
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, for example, state specific laws on conduct with God.
By the fact that Jews still use the Torah today?
The bible isn't the New Testament, though.
The Torah is the central scripture of the Jews.
It states the history of the Jewish people, their covenant with God, and the law entailed in that covenant.
The Torah is a part of the Bible.
The first books of the Old Testament, Genesis through Deuteronomy, make up the Torah, which is the central Jewish scripture.
The Torah and the Bible
The Torah, Prophets (Neviโim) and the Writings (Ketuvim) collectively make up The Hebrew Bible (what Christians refer to as the Old Testament). The Bible is often referred to by the Hebrew acronym TaNaKh (usually spelled Tanakh, or Tanach )
It's a resource on Catholic learning, and the Catholic church is the largest Christian denomination in the world?
Do you have any proof of that?
You're constantly doubting me and all my proof without actually showing any evidence to weigh your arguments on your end.
I'm sorry, but at this point it seems to me like you're committed in your opinion.
Any further argument at this point is really just going to be a debacle in sophistry.
I'll be the first to throw my towel in and consider this conversation ended.
You may call yourself the winner if you'd like, if you have such petty sentiments, not that I am assuming you do.
Regardless, thank you for your time.
This is bait
Even if it's genuine bait
Just quit feeding it
Hillary is a liberal
Liberals are cancer
Hillary is cancer
'Vote for one of these rich old white people'
This server isn't really leftist from ehat I've seen.
It's pretty balanced.
It's leftist compared to /pol/, but /pol/ is mostly right wing only.
But right wing lite.
Nu/pol/ are cucks from r/the_d
People have this vague notion that leftists are into 'Equality'.
I'm a hardcore commie, and equality isn't why I support it.
Equality isn't the end goal of Communism, in my opinion.
From each according to their ability, to each according to ther need is a maxim that presumes a society sufficiently technologically advanced as to make scarcity irrelevant.
The idea behind the abolishment of Capitalism, from a Marxist perspective, is not because Capitalism results in inequality and Socialism results in less, and Communism in the least.
The idea is that Capitalism becomes unstable, untenable, and irrational.
Marxism doesn't have a traditional philosophy of 'Justice' as conceived in liberal politics.
It simply critically examines Capitalism and determines that it's untenable.
In the long run, anyhow.
I understand your sentiments regarding inherent instability of Capitalism driving companies to be better,
But the myth of the efficiency of the market is simply untrue.
It'll also be further untenable as the role of capital becomes larger than labour.
365 total messages. Viewing 100 per page.
Page 1/4
| Next