Nick Fuentes says don't read your bible, just listen to "clergy"
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (64)
sorted by:
This is a typical Catholic view, sadly. And their Pope is a retarded Satanist.
Nick fuentes is a Jesuit 3rd faction Crypto-Jew shill who is worshipped by fake ass faggots who are brainwashed by the Cabal.
The Truth is always being supressed in this godless shithole!
My Orthodox colleagues could also learn something here
I disagree w Fuentes. I was coming here to ask diecifically about the so called secret teachings of Jesus, and the Paul conspiracy
Should I turn to these secret teachings now? I am tired of searching, and tired of conspiracy theory, tired of religious b.s., tired of Jews Jews Jews ...... I think Jesus teachings might show we nee wisdom and hope
Summary: It's basically a vegetarian Marcionite canon compiled 1898-1901 by Gideon Ouseley via visions and revelations from four named departed entities.
I was giving a general notice. I always want to talk about what you want to talk about with me. Did we agree there is one objective, absolute Truth by which we can decide all other questions?
A summary of your links.
Thank you
Trial transcription: I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Back in the day when I red the Bible I became a convinced atheist. Almost as if a person needs to read Scripture through a correct paradigm to come to a correct interpretation. I wonder what that paradigm is? Could it perhaps be the institution established by the One that speaks through the text? Nah, that's a man-made tradition. Just read it in your closet and you'll definitely get everything right on your own. Your interpretation will most likely align with what at least one of the 10000 different sects teaches out there.
Assuming any of them is the true Church (spoiler alert: it is not because history) 10000 to 1 for being correct is not that bad I guess.
There is no "true Church" other than the personal ministry of Jesus Christ himself; no other path. All men are fallible and so all the works of men are corrupt.
Yes, but the paradigm is simple: God is Good.
If you read the bible as though God is a fallible human who makes mistakes (or even that exists within space and time), and try to judge Him, you will find Him wanting because he doesn't do and say what you would do and say. You implicitely place yourself above God, hence atheism.
If you instead approach the matter as though everything God does is Good, and then try to understand why it's Good, you will come to the Truth.
Catholicism is great at "converting" Jews and Browns, but terrible at bringing people to God's Truth.
a) Men (plural) implies sum of one (singular) within all (singular).
b) All falls (inception towards death) so that each one within can rise (life).
God implies good implies everything doing...IS implies each thing trying to define everything to one another, which can't be good.
Aka con (together) vert (to turn)...a conflict. God delineates (inception towards death) apart (life)...a variance of opposing differences not in conflict with one another unless choosing to turn against one another.
No one believed this prior to Luther 15c. after Christ. Anyone who knows basic Church history can't be a Protestant.
Concentrate. The argument is that the Bible doesn't interpret itself - no text does. The question is what is the authority that holds the correct interpretation. The Pope, the Church - the group of "fallible men" that produced and compiled and kept unchanged the infallible Bible canon you appeal to - or individual faliable people (like you) who tend to disagree on what the text means because they come to it with their own theoretical baggage and assumptions. Only one of those will bring you to correct interpretation.
So? Appeal to (fallible) authority? I like to call this The Catholic Fallacy.
No earthly authority holds the correct interpretation. There is one Truth that none of us are privy to; all we can do is seek it. By seeking with the simple, and indisputable, assumption that God is Good, the bible can set you on the right path.
The Eastern Church would like a word...
Seriously, I don't think the bible is infallible either, being recorded and propagated by men. I'm not literalist by any means. The bible, to me, is a map that can set you in motion. It's still up to you to take the journey, and maybe go astray and find your way back, but the only infallible thing that we know of is God Himself and his creations. The only way to Truth is by putting yourself in alignment with God; no amount to interpretation will help you if you don't do that.
How about people who purposefully obfuscate the text so that they can claim the authority of God? Do they not have their own "baggage"? Do they not constantly make concessions to earthly powers to maintain their positions?
If I'm wrong (and, ultimately, I am) only I reap the consequences. I'm not misleading others for my own aggrandizement
So where was the Church hiding in the meantime?
Who of the millions of protestants reading the Bible is on the right path and holds the correct doctrines and how do you determine that if each person is their personal authority on interpretation.
So you're not even Sola Scripture guy? This is actually the muslim line of argumentation. What's the criteria that you use to discern which parts of the Bible are true? How do you know you're aligned with God and not in delusion? Based on feelz?
That's a tu quoque. Even if they do that doesn't help your case.
Not exactly. If you spread false teachings publicly and misleading others it's not just about you, regardless of your intentions which I believe are good.
Mennonites are Christians with a sound knowledge of the gospel, and a strong tradition of studying the Bible. They encourage everyone in their community to study scripture and pray.
If you look at their fruits, it's what you'd (well what I'd) expect. Strong communities with good family values. A proper understanding of the gospel is key, but you know what it comes down to more than anything? NOT ADDING TO IT. It's surprising how uncommon it is.
Look at all the cults that claim the name of Jesus (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc) and what do they all do? They add new traditions, books, practices, prophets, requirements to scripture. Mennonites (and other faithful protestants) come to the same conclusion of the gospel message using scripture. No extra-biblical "revelations" needed.
SPELL (as in go-spel) implies the articulation of natural sound. Spelling implies the distortion of sound knowledge.
A contradiction in terms...every implies all; one implies each.
Another contradiction in terms...com (together) uni (apart from one another).
And yet suggested words are added to perceivable sound...
Inviolate worship of jews, even when directly confronted. Unfortunately.
They don't fight in the Jew's wars (join the US military). They live outside the system and have their own schools and build their own houses.
I'd say that's good enough.
Ah, you’re talking about the Amish, not Mennonites (for the most part). We don’t really associate with them beyond economically. They’re a psychotic cult that rapes their own children.
They also don’t fight back when they’re attacked.
Ones perception...not the suggestion by another.
Script/skribh - "to cut, separate, sift"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/script
All perceivable separating each ones perception from one another implies the natural script...if one reads the written scripture by another, then one is tempted to ignore analysis (perceivable moving through perception) for synthesis (consent holding onto suggested).
Inspiration implies natural script; information implies artificial script...only oneself can discern this.
Correct vs incorrect aka a conflict of reason implies an artificial script run by others within oneself from outside.
God was before free will of choice was given to choose correct or incorrect from one another.
Implies the one within all who articulates natural sound into speech to distract one another.
The line (inception towards death) differentiates each interpreter (life) from one another...aligning with one another implies death to interpretation.
Differentiation implies analysis; alignment implies synthesis.
Sincere question: If the Orthodox were the true church because the Pope excommunicated Patriarch Michael I in
10661054, why wouldn't the Greek Melkites be the true church after the Patriarch excommunicated Patriarch Cyril IV in 1724? Or more generally how do we know one branch is favored over another or whether both are favored differently?Your question makes no sense. What has the post-schismatic Pope excomunicating the Patriarch Michael I has to do with EO being the true Church? The Melkites are uniates and went to Rome. What's confusing you there? We know what the true Church is because it keeps the apostolic faith unchanged in line with the dogmas of the ecumenical councils and the Church fathers. This is why Rome defected when they introduced the filioque and papal supremacy which contradicted the teaching and structure of the Church of the first millenium.
What about all the other churches who say they do the same and that the other churches left them? See, I don't see that credential for Orthodoxy among the 10,000. The credential I do see is that they had the upper hand in
10661054 and they've been well-reserved ever since. The question's logic is that if Rome is out because it excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity, well I find that Constantinople also excommunicated vibrant professing Christianity in 1724. If Rome "defected" by adding filioque (and/or supremacy), then why excommunicate the Uniats when they might be part of God's purpose to reveal the resolution of filioque or supremacy to the Orthodox? Why would the Orthodox take such a firm position on it when they reserve judgment about other matters because (I understand) they don't have critical mass to call ecumenical councils anymore, or they don't out of politeness? Does semper idem forbid new councils?Because I know the logic of excommunication or of reservation shouldn't be determinative, I don't see what logic would be useful, and I just see the root (Jesus) and the branches (body members). I'm glad this takes the discussion to meatier matters that we're both more interested in.
Let's go one by one if you wish. I already did Rome. The Protestant sects don't even have apostolic succession and are ahistorical (where was the Church before Luther came)?
Did you read my reply at all? Rome's falling away has nothing to do with what happened in 1066. The schism was 12 years before that and the reasons for it go back centuries before that.
Because the Church's foremost mission is to keep the true faith intact. The Body of Christ can't tolerate falsehoods and contradictions.
Ecumenical councils were called for a good reason, namely to resolve pressing issues dealing with Church dogma and doctrines. If such an issue presents itself such a council can be called.
Rome says they have apostolic succession, Protestants say they have it from Rome, Baptists say they have it from Irenaeus via the Waldensians, and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, and Assyrian Church of the East all say they got it from the catholic orthodox Church too. That's why I ask why EO is different. I don't see it. If Rome apostasized by excommunicating other professing vibrant churches, Constantinople did the same later, so that can't be it.
I apologize for the wrong date, I meant 1054. It was formally supremacy and blamed on the extant filioque. But how do I know that adding the word broke Ephesus I canon 7 or not, because the Orthodox say yes and Rome says no? Then (writing so I know what I'm learning) Patriarch Paul II said the Pope was wrong for adding filioque, and Pope Theodore I excommunicated Patriarch Paul II for being monothelite, so how could the catholic orthodox Church (which kept Theodore and not Paul) know that Paul was right about filioque? Then Pope Nicholas I excommunicated Patriarch Photios I (863) and Photios excommunicated Nicholas (867) over the issue, so how could the church know that Photios was right? The back-and-forth bickering with several other unmentioned plots looks like a secretly imposed color revolution to me. See, the council system broke down (and later councils started canceling each other), and filioque was maybe the first sign of it. If everyone agrees the original Nicea-Constantinople is true, then when was it authoritatively decided that filioque was a false addition? And I ask because this is actually deeply interesting to me and I'm learning the history of my Church.
Seems like in many schisms both sides claim that mantle and tear it in pieces like Jeroboam. Same for who accepts which councils as rightly called. Reformed Protestants claim the mantle, for instance, believing that all churches should pursue the nonessential distinctives that make them part of the same essential mission. So please pardon my ignorance in not seeing what you see.
Yes, Rome and other historical Churches like the Oriental and Armenian can reasonably lay claim to apostolic succession. The argument why they're not the Church is not about this.
How do Protestants got it though? They don't have bishops. They don't have laying of hands to pass the Holy Spirit to the next bishop. They literally believe the Church defected for 10-15c. in spite of what Jesus said in Matthew 16:18. They don't have shit apart from the delusion that the Spirit operates through each individual leading them to different confessions. This inevitably means that He leads some to falsehood - this is not only blasphemous, but a devastating contradiction at the fundamental level of the system.
The only out is to claim only some Protestants have the Spirit and the true faith while others are in delusion. What's the standard for that? "Well, those who agree with my take have the Spirit because I obviously have Him". Yeah, that's a circle. This is how idiotic Protestantism is truly. It ultimately appeals to pride, individualism, subjectivism and autonomy. It's an irrational cult of the self veiled as Christianity that delusional people fall for. I can understand being a cradle prot for lack of information, but there's no excuse for one who doubles down on their mistakes after hearing the truth. At this point you are a heretic and you'll be judged accordingly. Consider yourself - you have all the knowledge you need about Church history and Scripture but you still decide to do your own thing and come up with your own way to the faith. This is willful rejection of the Church but we always pray for God to bring back the schismatics and heretics to His Body, so hope is not lost.
I already answered that. Rome apostatizing has nothing to do with them excomunicating anybody. You hold wrong assumptions and applying an arbitrary made up standard.
I like poetry too. What it seems to you has nothing to do with the actual cases. When there's a contradiction it has to be resolved and that's done in councils where the correct teaching is affirmed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
No one taught this prior to Luther. This has nothing to do with how the early Church operated so again it's ahistoric. Furthermore this doctrine assumes a criteria for judging which parts of the faith are essential. Judging by how the Protestant sects killed each other for centuries, I'd say they didn't agree on such a standard. They can't even agree on baptism, let alone more nuanced issues.
Well, at least you answered my first sincere question by explaining what's not different. But the Orthodox have a slogan of majoring in what is .... and yet search doesn't turn up an Orthodox distinctive or uniqueness relating to being the "trunk" and everyone else being either branches or nothing. So it seems to me any theory today in which "trunk" and "branches" are to be distinguished is subject to arbitrary trunk reassignment.
For instance, it might disappoint you, but Michael I and Luther seemed to be in exactly the same status: Rome excommunicated them and they picked up the pieces with people who stuck with them and God blessed it as a professing church. A difference is that Michael had ready-made churches already aligned with him that were hard for Rome to reach, and Luther had to find churches the hard way under Rome's thumb, but that being considered I think what God did is amazing in both cases.
It seems the early church is a trunk because it had no schisms; it started with easily adjudicated dismissal of heretics, but by Novatian in 251 it got to schisms that did persist alongside the church for a long time before they withered. The first event I can find where we might attribute continuing schism is when the Roman bishop created a separate hierarchy structure for himself because he had been gifted the Lateran Palace in 312 and inherited the Roman staff. I selected that because before then the church had avoided property ownership but trusted individuals to do it. Joint ownership means new structure and that structure was the root of the uppitiness. We might argue that the other pentarchs were already excluded at that point, and it took more form during the Easter controversy when supremacy was first tested, and it led to the Great Schism. But I find no way to judge between Rome and Byzantium other than their actions being different, which you seem to exclude.
Ultimately the Protestants are the same except they're exploring the "minimum" of what they can do to still be a church, which is much riskier but still demonstrates that "what is a church" is a fluid judgment. That's why ultimately my question of what's the difference doesn't seem answered.
Yeah, they do, bishop and elder are synonyms. They mostly don't have "archbishops" because they're not in the Bible but bishops are. Many do lay on hands. The individual responsibility leads to some abuse but this is believed offset by its advantages, just as central authority leads to some abuse but is believed offset by advantages.
No, you're thinking of Mormons. That sentiment doesn't last long among Protestants; the whole "protest" is that excommunicating Luther was wrong and Rome "stood off" (apostasized) from the Lutherans like Melanchthon who protested as a group. There are probably people in the 16th who said Rome lost it in the 4th, but that wasn't the loss of the church to them but became called the "captivity" of the church (the righteous in the past Roman system). And Jesus says all seven types of churches have infiltrators among the righteous; and the wicked sometimes seize power.
...
No, it means that some who believe they have the Spirit are wrong, so belief must be continuously tested. Heretics from Orthodoxy also believed they had the Spirit and thought themselves continuing to be Orthodox after they were excommunicated. So failure is not a theological corollary, it's an endemic risk that attacks the Protestants more easily (just as the risk of tyranny attacks central hierarchies more easily).
Correct if held; but ultimately then the answer is I constantly test my experience against Word and Spirit, and have substantial (possibly fluctuant) assurance of salvation, not perfect assurance. And Spirit includes tradition speaking through the Church, albeit Protestants often lose sight of some of the tests.
A logical issue is that you're making charges against "Protestant theology" when it's a myriad, and I too am defending "theology" when it's still a myriad. We have many official practices that are "best", and "worst". It seems that we must both retreat a bit to "what Protestant theology should be" and when we do that we find it very harmonious with Orthodoxy. In that case I'd agree on most all your charges that Protestantism shouldn't be that, and I'd disown sects that do teach that (and you might agree with some of my statements what Protestants should be and occasionally are). We might then only disagree on why the two don't rejoin, which is good because then we could give steps for both sides to advance union in Christ that would address current concerns (as the Orthodox have lately done with other groups), without being "ecumenicalists".
The actual cases as they seem to whom? God, or someone else? Epistemology.
Protestants agree with Orthodox Councils entirely! Yet our contradictions have never been resolved in Council, have they? Let's get one going, you and me and whomever comes along, I can wear a bishop hat. :) Isn't that how Orthodox Councils are called? I mean, I'd love to have as much hierarchical support for one as possible, but if the hierarchy doesn't act then the contradiction waits patiently, doesn't it? (In a Protestant theory, the two of us have already begun convening a Council just by our collegial discussion, and it remains to be seen whether our august words will "take" in the larger church, just as Tradition decided which were Orthodox Councils and which were just friendly synods.)
Not many, but because there were several schisms and many extinct heresies by that point the theory was already established. Namely, Orthodox claimed the mantle, so did Catholics, so did OO and Nestorians and Armenians. (The early church had unity but each congregation was still recognized as distinctive, such as when Paul and Peter split their strategies, or when Paul and Barnabas (more roughly) did the same.) So the distinctiveness of individual congregations is still held even when there's also schism among them. The issue with distinctives isn't the distinctives, but whether they are false as shown by them withering and dying (Jesus removing the candle). That's the only final test of the heretic or cult (dying in sin); the excommunication is just a preparatory formal declaration that may or may not be healed.
When I first realized as a youth that all churches proclaim the same essential but all have a different way of framing that essential (starting with three creeds, e.g.), it showed that the essential is ineffable and all our statements of it are just instantiations. So it's still possible to hold to the ideal and then to make mistakes in implementing it. Killing another sect is usually a mistake. I've found ways to resolve most all Protestant distinctives, which is why I'm working on Orthodox and Catholic distinctives too. But I'm not finding many Orthodox distinctives that I don't already appreciate as a Protestant.
Now we could select a form of "infallibility" as a distinctive, the Orthodox Church Will Never Fail. Hmm, I dunno. I'm confident what God calls his Church will never fail; now how can I be certain of what God calls his Church? Because of the circular argument risk, I can only be sufficiently certain. That means it's theoretically possible that any Church organization could fail (stand lest ye fall), but while a Church stands strong it's sufficiently likely that it won't fail anytime soon. We extend the hand of fellowship (a token of our sufficient understanding). So I can't say that even infallibility pertains necessarily to the Orthodox and nobody else, because any definition of it applies to all, or none.
TLDR: (1) I'm so grateful you've given occasion for me to work through this, and hopeful it's helpful for you too. (2) I still see any schism as producing branches of equal character unless one dies. (3) Therefore the trunk is only the primitive church for the first ~300 years, which only has the character of being a branch like the others but without other extant branches at the same time. (4) Query: I'm still looking for something that makes Orthodoxy "truer" than anyone else. (5) If I could, I'd join the Catholics and the Orthodox Church at the same time and also retain my Protest until it is resolved, to get permission from all three to continue being identified among them. (6) That is, I believe any dispute can be resolved by cautious definition: I like to say Luther and Leo just talked past each other and missed their chance. (7) So comparing what Protestants and Orthodox should think we will ultimately find the same thing on any point, unity of knowledge of the Son, Eph. 4:13.
A sane person who actually reads the bible and thought about it will turn their heads away because they understand the fear of death.
"Fear of death" says nothing about whether the Bible is true or not.
Thanks for sharing Nick's position from standard Catholicism. I note that tradition is essential, and yet every man judges both Scripture and tradition. The Catholic position has been characterized as suspending all judgment into the hands of capable leaders, except those leaders do not lift a finger to help you with the one decision that you can only make by yourself, to suspend your judgment to them in the first place. And you're just as responsible for it if that one decision is wrong as if you make the thousand small decisions yourself right or wrong. To meme it, something similar is called the "presumptive close" in sales and the "revelation of the method" in satanism.
Fuentes vs Christcucks...is there a way both sides lose?
Hah, nice alter ego there Goebbels.
JG5 is vermin.
You're all part of the same operation. It's cute.