You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
Breadpilled on scored.co
5 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)2 children
Impressive. Very nice. Let's see Matthew 5:39:
> Do not resist an evil person.
Oof. 🤭
Do you realize that Christianity was *overwhelmingly* pacifist for the first 250 years of its existence? That didn't change until large scale state power through Constantine made that posture a little too inconvent. But before that, the original Christians followed the most straightforward reading of Christ's teachings, which is unambiguous nonviolence.
What did the church fathers have to say?
> A soldier in command must be told not to kill people; if he is ordered so to do, he shall not carry it out. Nor should he take the oath. If he will not agree, he should be rejected.
-Hippolytus
> Christ, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier thereafter.
-Tertullian
> We who once hated and destroyed one another, and on account of our different manners **would not live with men of a different tribe, now since the coming of Christ live familiarly with them,** pray for our enemies, and endeavour to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good teachings of Christ…
-Justin Martyr
> Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not now how to fight.
-Irenaeus
> It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.
-Marcellus
> I am a soldier of Christ; it is not permissible for me to fight.
-Martin of Tours
> Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins.
-Clement
There's more where that came from, but you get the picture.
Absolutely nutters how all you self-proclaimed "pattern recognizers" shut that part of your brains right back off when it comes to this one specific topic, despite the fact that Christianity has done (and continues to do) more for jewish interests than all of Hollywood combined.
4 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
>Do not resist an evil person.
>Oof. 🤭
Thanks for purposely misreading the line, ***precisely how every single jew does.*** Let’s look at what it actually says, Patrick Bateman.
>But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. **~ Matthew 5:39**
What did He mean by this? It’s better translated as “do not diametrically oppose an evildoer” and the reason you were supposed to turn the other cheek is:
1. In antiquity, you only hit someone with your right hand (the clean one).
2. Backhands were to insult, a frontal slap showed equality and challenge.
3. By turning your cheek, the aggressor was forced to stop hitting you or acknowledge you as an equal; that was quite a statement to a Roman by a conquered Judean.
Jesus was telling us to fight back smartly, using public shame as a weapon, not just attack head-on like a moron.
First of all, ἀντιστῆναι, translated as “do not resist”, has more to it than ‘resist’. Strong’s Concordance at 436 notes “to take a complete stand against” and it derived from a military term to diametrically oppose one’s foes. Thayer’s notes “to set oneself against.” ‘Resist’ here is passive, but the term ἀντιστῆναι clearly denotes an aggressive posture. Better might be “But I say unto you, do not square off against an evildoer.” Especially in the context of the examples all being examples of how to engage in intelligent resistance.
“Give him your cloak, too” is Christ referencing Exodus 22:26 to shame your opponent. Exodus 22:26 compels creditors to return the cloak at night so that the poor can sleep in it. By giving up your cloak, you shame the creditor who is willing to sue for your tunic–and God will hear the cries of the debtor. As for walking the extra mile, that’s a reference to the Roman law of impressment which allowed a Roman soldier to compel a person of a conquered state to carry his pack for one mile, but no further. By carrying it the second mile, the soldier would be forced to comically beg you to put it down lest his commanding officer see and he get in trouble. So it clearly does not mean “don’t fight back”–it means to fight back smartly.
This is what happens when people try to read scripture with no reference for the history or culture in which it was written. Remember, Christ taught us to fight smartly, not to not fight. Of course a Christian fights against evil! How could we not?
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
That's a lot of words to completely miss my point.
I'm not arguing that Christianity has *always* been overwhelmingly pacifist. I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist through rigorous exegesis (although your interpretation is still enforcing *nonviolence,* which is at least soft pacifism as far as I'm concerned.)
I'm arguing that this is not the default reading, and using the earliest large scale Christian movement—spanning over two centuries—as the evidence. Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion. They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
I'll ask you the same questions that the other user refused to answer: Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics? Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position. All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
>That's a lot of words to completely miss my point.
Your point is a proven lie. You were wrong.
>I'm not arguing that Christianity has always been overwhelmingly pacifist.
You are, yeah.
>I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist
There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
>Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion.
Funny how they all cleverly rebelled in those centuries, then, isn’t it.
>They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
Funny how they survived, then, isn’t it.
>Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics?
“WOW I LIED ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND THEREFORE EVERYONE YOU LIKE IS A HYPOCRITE HA HA”
>Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
Because there’s no mutual exclusivity there.
>It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position.
The crux that you completely ignored, on purpose, which you openly admitted to doing.
>All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
> Dismissal without engagement.
> Accusations instead of evidence.
> Reddit-tier condescension.
Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
> There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
Literal falsehood. I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times, was Christian for years, and got baptized as an adult in 2023. I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation, despite starting from a position of *wanting* it to be true.
> Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
4 days ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)1 child
>Dismissal without engagement.
Yes, you did that. You were proven incorrect. [You refused to engage.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ARdRBLUv6/love-your-enemies-never-included/c/4eZBKHfXT3Z) Your point was wrong. Your judaism was noticed.
>Accusations instead of evidence.
Evidence provided. You have no rebuttal to it.
>Reddit-tier condescension.
Precipitation. When you’re the lowest of the low, it’s difficult not to be intrinsically better than you, jew.
>Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
Cool; I don’t care about your fantasies. You lied about the verse on purpose to promote the same jewish propaganda spammed for over 60 years (and only in the last 60 years). Drink bleach.
>Literal falsehood.
Already disproven with direct sources.
>I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times
No one is going to believe you.
>I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation
Enjoy hell, jew. Maybe become literate before deliberating something you didn’t understand.
>Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
[You’re so shit at your job.](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-driving-of-the-merchants-from-the-temple-scarsellino.jpg)
Ah, the classic modern jewish antichrist interpretation of "turn the other cheek." Even Orthodox explain it never meant to be passive, but show them your other side. So if you were meek and they were evil, show them your powerful side. If you were powerful and they were evil, show them your meek side.
>Do you realize that Christianity was overwhelmingly pacifist for the first 250 years of its existence?
Then we got this guy:
>"*Should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them, and when the judge... calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels!*" - Saint John Chrysostom
Here, let me give you a couple more of him:
>“*The jews sacrifice their children to Satan… They are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition… The synagogue is a curse. Obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or hear; she has deliberately perverted her judgment; she has extinguished within herself the light of the Holy Spirit… [The jews] have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen… I hate the jews because they violate the Law. I hate the Synagogue because it hates the Law and the Prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the jews.*” - Saint John Chrysostom\
"*We must not mind insulting men if by respecting them we offend God.*" - Saint John Chrysostom
Kinda shuts down all the jewish "pacifist" nonsense, huh? I guess the Reconquista never happened.
5 days ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)2 children
> Ah, the classic modern jewish antichrist interpretation of "turn the other cheek."
Take your meds. I didn't quote "turn the other cheek." I quoted:
> Do not resist an evil person.
Gimme your shirt, bitch. And your cloak, while you're at it.
> Then we got this guy...
Chrysostom isn't representative of the prevailing views of the early church. That's why he's the only person you quoted, while I quoted **seven.** You're telling me nearly the entire early Christian movement was full of heretics who read the truth they got straight from God incorrectly?
Actually... you bought into the CI scam. You probably do believe this unironically.
> Kinda shuts down all the jewish "pacifist" nonsense, huh?
No, because one set of Chrysostom quotes does nothing to disprove what I said. I'll say it again for fun, because it's still true: Christianity was overwhelmingly pacifist for the first 250 years of its existence.
> the Reconquista
Missed the point award.
I'm specifically talking about the foundations Christianity was built on, and the implications of that. Not what they were doing a thousand years later.
The cherry on top is that John Chrysostom himself was born in the mid third century. He can't even be legitimately invoked alongside the others in this context. And even in his own day, he was an extreme outlier.
I was intentionally isolating part of the quote to force him to grapple with it without his preloaded NPC response. So no, that's not the thing I quoted.
Jesus doesn't say "Resist strategically. Here's how..."
He says "Do not resist at all. Let me emphasize the point..."
> Physically preventing jews from behaving the way they want to behave.
Actually it's based on letting evil people kill you.
Like Jesus did.
Like those seven early church fathers I quoted all rubber stamped.
>I was intentionally isolating part of the quote to force him to grapple with it without his preloaded NPC response. So no, that's not the thing I quoted.
Neat, you purposely misconstrued the verse to serve your message. I don’t care. You were wrong.
>Jesus doesn't say
He does. The translation was provided. Christ spoke in parable constantly. You were wrong.
>Actually it's based on letting evil people kill you.
>Take your meds. I didn't quote "turn the other cheek." I quoted:
This is what you quoted, retard:
>"*But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.*" - Matthew 5:39
You should learn to read the Bible before trying to quote it, faggot.
>Gimme your shirt, bitch. And your cloak, while you're at it.
Jesus says if I treat you with respect and you treat me with wrong, I should show you my angry side. So I'll just blow your brains out instead because that's the Christian thing to do. Assuming you're actually White, otherwise I'd just go straight to blowing your brains out regardless.
>Chrysostom isn't representative of the prevailing views of the early church.
You mean like how 90% of all Liturgies quote him because he created the Liturgical practice, right? Anyway here's another:
>"*Christianity did not come from Judaism rather, Judaism is a perversion of Christianity.*" - St. Ignatius of Antioch, 1st century AD
Well wouldja look at that...
>Actually... you bought into the CI scam.
How is it a scam when literally all evidence proves it and always has? Is [this](https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~royalancestors/genealogy/names/j/joseph_anna.html) a scam?
>No, because one set of Chrysostom quotes does nothing to disprove what I said.
Except it does, so you've proven you're incompetent with denial and thus lost the argument. I win. Now never speak again until I allow it, jew.
> Yeah? Well how about I shoot you in the face like Jesus totally said you fuckin' meanie?!
The moment where the Christcuck has a neurotic meltdown in the face of an uncomfortable historical mirror is as inevitable as it is pitiable. I'd find it funny if it wasn't so depressingly similar to the behavior of a nigger.
You've still absolutely failed to address the one narrow point my whole argument is dealing with btw. Why was nearly the entire early church a pacifist martyr cult, only "reinterpreting" that stance after they got massive state power?
4 days ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
And yet you're completely missing the 2000 years of militarized Christianity while throwing logical fallacies as if they mean anything. You lost like a nigger. It's why your jewish subversion is failing, Christ is King, and there is NOTHING you can do about it, jew.
> Do not resist an evil person.
Oof. 🤭
Do you realize that Christianity was *overwhelmingly* pacifist for the first 250 years of its existence? That didn't change until large scale state power through Constantine made that posture a little too inconvent. But before that, the original Christians followed the most straightforward reading of Christ's teachings, which is unambiguous nonviolence.
What did the church fathers have to say?
> A soldier in command must be told not to kill people; if he is ordered so to do, he shall not carry it out. Nor should he take the oath. If he will not agree, he should be rejected.
-Hippolytus
> Christ, in disarming Peter, disarmed every soldier thereafter.
-Tertullian
> We who once hated and destroyed one another, and on account of our different manners **would not live with men of a different tribe, now since the coming of Christ live familiarly with them,** pray for our enemies, and endeavour to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live conformably to the good teachings of Christ…
-Justin Martyr
> Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not now how to fight.
-Irenaeus
> It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.
-Marcellus
> I am a soldier of Christ; it is not permissible for me to fight.
-Martin of Tours
> Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins.
-Clement
There's more where that came from, but you get the picture.
Absolutely nutters how all you self-proclaimed "pattern recognizers" shut that part of your brains right back off when it comes to this one specific topic, despite the fact that Christianity has done (and continues to do) more for jewish interests than all of Hollywood combined.
>Oof. 🤭
Thanks for purposely misreading the line, ***precisely how every single jew does.*** Let’s look at what it actually says, Patrick Bateman.
>But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. **~ Matthew 5:39**
What did He mean by this? It’s better translated as “do not diametrically oppose an evildoer” and the reason you were supposed to turn the other cheek is:
1. In antiquity, you only hit someone with your right hand (the clean one).
2. Backhands were to insult, a frontal slap showed equality and challenge.
3. By turning your cheek, the aggressor was forced to stop hitting you or acknowledge you as an equal; that was quite a statement to a Roman by a conquered Judean.
Jesus was telling us to fight back smartly, using public shame as a weapon, not just attack head-on like a moron.
>ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ’ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
First of all, ἀντιστῆναι, translated as “do not resist”, has more to it than ‘resist’. Strong’s Concordance at 436 notes “to take a complete stand against” and it derived from a military term to diametrically oppose one’s foes. Thayer’s notes “to set oneself against.” ‘Resist’ here is passive, but the term ἀντιστῆναι clearly denotes an aggressive posture. Better might be “But I say unto you, do not square off against an evildoer.” Especially in the context of the examples all being examples of how to engage in intelligent resistance.
“Give him your cloak, too” is Christ referencing Exodus 22:26 to shame your opponent. Exodus 22:26 compels creditors to return the cloak at night so that the poor can sleep in it. By giving up your cloak, you shame the creditor who is willing to sue for your tunic–and God will hear the cries of the debtor. As for walking the extra mile, that’s a reference to the Roman law of impressment which allowed a Roman soldier to compel a person of a conquered state to carry his pack for one mile, but no further. By carrying it the second mile, the soldier would be forced to comically beg you to put it down lest his commanding officer see and he get in trouble. So it clearly does not mean “don’t fight back”–it means to fight back smartly.
This is what happens when people try to read scripture with no reference for the history or culture in which it was written. Remember, Christ taught us to fight smartly, not to not fight. Of course a Christian fights against evil! How could we not?
I'm not arguing that Christianity has *always* been overwhelmingly pacifist. I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist through rigorous exegesis (although your interpretation is still enforcing *nonviolence,* which is at least soft pacifism as far as I'm concerned.)
I'm arguing that this is not the default reading, and using the earliest large scale Christian movement—spanning over two centuries—as the evidence. Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion. They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
I'll ask you the same questions that the other user refused to answer: Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics? Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position. All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
Your point is a proven lie. You were wrong.
>I'm not arguing that Christianity has always been overwhelmingly pacifist.
You are, yeah.
>I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist
There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
>Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion.
Funny how they all cleverly rebelled in those centuries, then, isn’t it.
>They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
Funny how they survived, then, isn’t it.
>Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics?
“WOW I LIED ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND THEREFORE EVERYONE YOU LIKE IS A HYPOCRITE HA HA”
>Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
Because there’s no mutual exclusivity there.
>It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position.
The crux that you completely ignored, on purpose, which you openly admitted to doing.
>All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Run along, yid.
> Accusations instead of evidence.
> Reddit-tier condescension.
Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
> There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
Literal falsehood. I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times, was Christian for years, and got baptized as an adult in 2023. I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation, despite starting from a position of *wanting* it to be true.
> Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
Yes, you did that. You were proven incorrect. [You refused to engage.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ARdRBLUv6/love-your-enemies-never-included/c/4eZBKHfXT3Z) Your point was wrong. Your judaism was noticed.
>Accusations instead of evidence.
Evidence provided. You have no rebuttal to it.
>Reddit-tier condescension.
Precipitation. When you’re the lowest of the low, it’s difficult not to be intrinsically better than you, jew.
>Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
Cool; I don’t care about your fantasies. You lied about the verse on purpose to promote the same jewish propaganda spammed for over 60 years (and only in the last 60 years). Drink bleach.
>Literal falsehood.
Already disproven with direct sources.
>I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times
No one is going to believe you.
>I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation
Enjoy hell, jew. Maybe become literate before deliberating something you didn’t understand.
>Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
[You’re so shit at your job.](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-driving-of-the-merchants-from-the-temple-scarsellino.jpg)
Ah, the classic modern jewish antichrist interpretation of "turn the other cheek." Even Orthodox explain it never meant to be passive, but show them your other side. So if you were meek and they were evil, show them your powerful side. If you were powerful and they were evil, show them your meek side.
>Do you realize that Christianity was overwhelmingly pacifist for the first 250 years of its existence?
Then we got this guy:
>"*Should you hear any one in the public thoroughfare, or in the midst of the forum, blaspheming God; go up to him and rebuke him; and should it be necessary to inflict blows, spare not to do so. Smite him on the face; strike his mouth; sanctify your hand with the blow, and if any should accuse you, and drag you to the place of justice, follow them, and when the judge... calls you to account, say boldly that the man blasphemed the King of angels!*" - Saint John Chrysostom
Here, let me give you a couple more of him:
>“*The jews sacrifice their children to Satan… They are worse than wild beasts. The synagogue is a brothel, a den of scoundrels, the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults, a criminal assembly of jews, a place of meeting for the assassins of Christ, a house of ill fame, a dwelling of iniquity, a gulf and abyss of perdition… The synagogue is a curse. Obstinate in her error, she refuses to see or hear; she has deliberately perverted her judgment; she has extinguished within herself the light of the Holy Spirit… [The jews] have fallen into a condition lower than the vilest animals. Debauchery and drunkenness have brought them to the level of the lusty goat and the pig. They know only one thing: to satisfy their stomachs, to get drunk, to kill and beat each other up like stage villains and coachmen… I hate the jews because they violate the Law. I hate the Synagogue because it hates the Law and the Prophets. It is the duty of all Christians to hate the jews.*” - Saint John Chrysostom\
"*We must not mind insulting men if by respecting them we offend God.*" - Saint John Chrysostom
Kinda shuts down all the jewish "pacifist" nonsense, huh? I guess the Reconquista never happened.
Take your meds. I didn't quote "turn the other cheek." I quoted:
> Do not resist an evil person.
Gimme your shirt, bitch. And your cloak, while you're at it.
> Then we got this guy...
Chrysostom isn't representative of the prevailing views of the early church. That's why he's the only person you quoted, while I quoted **seven.** You're telling me nearly the entire early Christian movement was full of heretics who read the truth they got straight from God incorrectly?
Actually... you bought into the CI scam. You probably do believe this unironically.
> Kinda shuts down all the jewish "pacifist" nonsense, huh?
No, because one set of Chrysostom quotes does nothing to disprove what I said. I'll say it again for fun, because it's still true: Christianity was overwhelmingly pacifist for the first 250 years of its existence.
> the Reconquista
Missed the point award.
I'm specifically talking about the foundations Christianity was built on, and the implications of that. Not what they were doing a thousand years later.
The cherry on top is that John Chrysostom himself was born in the mid third century. He can't even be legitimately invoked alongside the others in this context. And even in his own day, he was an extreme outlier.
>I quoted [THE THING I QUOTED]
Good job. Fuck off, yid.
>the foundations Christianity was built on
# Physically preventing jews from behaving the way they want to behave.
Why can’t *you* even do that, agnostic?
I was intentionally isolating part of the quote to force him to grapple with it without his preloaded NPC response. So no, that's not the thing I quoted.
Jesus doesn't say "Resist strategically. Here's how..."
He says "Do not resist at all. Let me emphasize the point..."
> Physically preventing jews from behaving the way they want to behave.
Actually it's based on letting evil people kill you.
Like Jesus did.
Like those seven early church fathers I quoted all rubber stamped.
Neat, you purposely misconstrued the verse to serve your message. I don’t care. You were wrong.
>Jesus doesn't say
He does. The translation was provided. Christ spoke in parable constantly. You were wrong.
>Actually it's based on letting evil people kill you.
Wrong. Enjoy hell, jew.
This is what you quoted, retard:
>"*But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.*" - Matthew 5:39
You should learn to read the Bible before trying to quote it, faggot.
>Gimme your shirt, bitch. And your cloak, while you're at it.
Jesus says if I treat you with respect and you treat me with wrong, I should show you my angry side. So I'll just blow your brains out instead because that's the Christian thing to do. Assuming you're actually White, otherwise I'd just go straight to blowing your brains out regardless.
>Chrysostom isn't representative of the prevailing views of the early church.
You mean like how 90% of all Liturgies quote him because he created the Liturgical practice, right? Anyway here's another:
>"*Christianity did not come from Judaism rather, Judaism is a perversion of Christianity.*" - St. Ignatius of Antioch, 1st century AD
Well wouldja look at that...
>Actually... you bought into the CI scam.
How is it a scam when literally all evidence proves it and always has? Is [this](https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~royalancestors/genealogy/names/j/joseph_anna.html) a scam?
>No, because one set of Chrysostom quotes does nothing to disprove what I said.
Except it does, so you've proven you're incompetent with denial and thus lost the argument. I win. Now never speak again until I allow it, jew.
The moment where the Christcuck has a neurotic meltdown in the face of an uncomfortable historical mirror is as inevitable as it is pitiable. I'd find it funny if it wasn't so depressingly similar to the behavior of a nigger.
You've still absolutely failed to address the one narrow point my whole argument is dealing with btw. Why was nearly the entire early church a pacifist martyr cult, only "reinterpreting" that stance after they got massive state power?