The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Disciples of YHWH]

Cussing is a sin so I would never cuss at someone.

Cussing is a sin in Christianity? Where in the Bible is that said?

Colossians 3:8; Ephesians 4:29,31; James 3; James 1:26; Matt 12:33-34; Luke 6:44-45; Ephesians 5:4

This is also by the command that we will be judged by every idle word at Christ's coming(Matt 12:36-37) so we should abstain from all forms of speech that do not edify to Godliness.

[Minachia]

Cussing is a sin so I would never cuss at someone.

Cussing is a sin in Christianity? Where in the Bible is that said?

Not directly, I don't think, though it might fall under the sin of not loving your neighbor as yourself.
Cursing, i.e. "God damn you to Hell!" definitely is, though, "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Exodus 20:7

[Disciples of YHWH]

Cussing is a sin in Christianity? Where in the Bible is that said?

Not directly, I don't think, though it might fall under the sin of not loving your neighbor as yourself.
Cursing, i.e. "God damn you to Hell!" definitely is, though, "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Exodus 20:7

It falls under filthy communication.

[Minachia]

Not directly, I don't think, though it might fall under the sin of not loving your neighbor as yourself.
Cursing, i.e. "God damn you to Hell!" definitely is, though, "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Exodus 20:7

It falls under filthy communication.

Ah. I figured it'd fall under wrath or something like that.

[Auristania]

I didn't make an assertion, I asked a question based what I knew of the subject. You can't just say "you're wrong" and then refuse to prove it.

That's like saying the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" doesn't assert that the person being asked has beaten their wife in the past.

I assume this is Hitchens' expose of Mother Theresa.
You want evidence? Google is your friend. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mother_Teresa_in_Theory_and_Practice

[Disciples of YHWH]

It falls under filthy communication.

Ah. I figured it'd fall under wrath or something like that.

Well cursing would fall under both wrath and evil communication(though not necessary filthy communication) and is spoken against in several places(I could show them if you'd like). Cussing on the other hand falls under filthy communication since it is saying things like the s word or f word or speaking in a manner that is not with grace/Godliness(Colossians 4:6; Eph 4:29)

[Auristania]

Not directly, I don't think, though it might fall under the sin of not loving your neighbor as yourself.
Cursing, i.e. "God damn you to Hell!" definitely is, though, "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name." Exodus 20:7

It falls under filthy communication.

Bible says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Witches are famous for curses all hail Macbeth that shall be king hereafter.

Some translate the mitzwah thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live. I would prefer a Witch cursing me than a Poisoner cursing me.

30 years ago, a Witch cast a broken leg curse at me. So I cast a Mirror curse and by the time the curse had gone all the way from his to mine and back again he only broke the big toe on his right foot.

[Disciples of YHWH]

It falls under filthy communication.

Bible says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Witches are famous for curses all hail Macbeth that shall be king hereafter.

Some translate the mitzwah thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live. I would prefer a Witch cursing me than a Poisoner cursing me.

OT had a lot rules that we are no longer under. The curses of men cannot harm us if we do not believe in them.

[Salus Maior]

It falls under filthy communication.

Bible says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Witches are famous for curses all hail Macbeth that shall be king hereafter.

Some translate the mitzwah thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live. I would prefer a Witch cursing me than a Poisoner cursing me.

Where?

[Disciples of YHWH]

Bible says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Witches are famous for curses all hail Macbeth that shall be king hereafter.

Some translate the mitzwah thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live. I would prefer a Witch cursing me than a Poisoner cursing me.

Where?

Exodus 22:18
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

[Salus Maior]

Where?

Exodus 22:18
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Alright, but as far as I'm aware there aren't any legitimate witches in the modern day.

I mean, you have larpers like Wicca but that's about it.

[Tarsonis]

....what?

Correction *The important part is that it was the Lord's will that it be constructed after the pattern that was in heaven and would serve as the type on earth for the place of Sacrifice for sin. For which Christ would come(and already has) to be the Anti-typical fulfillment of sacrificefor sin within the Heavenly Sanctuary.

That is why it had to be constructed in a very specific pattern/manner.

You’re still not explaining what the underlines means

[Tarsonis]

And the Apology is wrong. The Confutation accepted that the Holy Spirit aids free will, but rejects the severity to with which the lutherans profess. Lutheran severity runs afoul of double predestination. If no man cannot come to God of his own free will, but requires intercession of the Holy Spirit in order to believe in God, then that means God chooses who will be saved and who will not be by virtue of granting or not granting the intercession of the Holy Spirit. In this paradigm, God then becomes the architect of mans sin, not by forcing them to sin, but by withholding the antidote to their poison. Therefore those who live in iniquity and reject the name of Christ, are innocent in their rebellion for their creator actively withheld the necessary requirement for them to be obedient. The fault of their iniquity would then rest on God, not the creature.

This is why it's contradictory with Article 19, because it in fact does make God into the architect of Sin.

Where as the orthodox Christian teaching is that humans must come to God in their own free will. The Holy Spirit aids the faith, but proceeds universally. Ultimately it is up to the individual to turn to God, not an overriding of the free will by God.

The Apology says that we do have free will to not sin outwardly, however, without the Holy Spirit we can never truly trust and believe in God, accept His gifts, and reject our sinful desires (1 Cor. 2:14). This is because our sinful minds are naturally against God (Rom. 8:7).

(Ignoring the complete misinterpretation of scripture here) Yes. So humans cannot come to know God without direct intervention by God. Which means those who do not know God are innocent because they inherited an poisoned existence from their ancestors, and God is witholding from them the antidote. You’re not refuting my point, you’re confirming it

And, of course, Article 19 states that the cause of sin is the wicked, i.e. the devil and the ungodly.

okay just because it states that, doesn’t mean it’s logically consistent with itself.

Therefore, it is not God's fault that not everyone will choose Him through the Holy Spirit.

But they can’t because unless the Holy Spirit lets them. Catch 22.

However, since the Holy Spirit is imparted by faith,
and faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17),

But the Confession states in 18 that a human cannot have faith without the Holy Spirit. So now you’re saying faith comes from hearing, presumably with the aide of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit will not be imparted except through faith.

A zen riddle if I ever heard one, much like you need experience to get the job, but you need the job to get experience.

and it is our duty as Christians to preach the word of Christ, it is, at least partially, our fault.
Might I add, as well, that Lutherans do not believe in predestination to Hell, in compliance with 1 Timothy 2.

Again, just because you state it, doesn’t make it logically consistent within itself. Calvinists claim they don’t believe in predestination to hell either, but in praxis that is exactly what they believe.

[Disciples of YHWH]

Correction *The important part is that it was the Lord's will that it be constructed after the pattern that was in heaven and would serve as the type on earth for the place of Sacrifice for sin. For which Christ would come(and already has) to be the Anti-typical fulfillment of sacrificefor sin within the Heavenly Sanctuary.

That is why it had to be constructed in a very specific pattern/manner.

You’re still not explaining what the underlines means

Ah okay, there are types and anti-types. Bro Don Adair Explains it a little better than I can.
"There are words in the Bible which are actual, literal events concerning real people; and they must be taken from the "Bible as it reads." They are known as "types;" and their purpose is to illustrate certain truths regarding other peoples and events at another time under similar circumstances, which are known as antitypes. Paul spoke about these types when he wrote:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples {margin says types}: and...are written for our admonition {true Christians}, upon whom the ends of the world {latter days} are come."--1 Corinthians 10:11 (bold emphasis, braces added).

A good example to consider about types and antitypes is the "tower" (Gen. 11:5) of "Babel" (Gen. 11:9), as recorded in the book of Genesis. This type--the tower "called Babel" (that is, confusion--see margin), applies specifically in antitype to the Christian churches today, who are confused about certain Bible doctrines, and who spread confusion everywhere. The only exception is God's true church--"Laodicea" (Rev. 3:14); they do not "constitute Babylon, or any part of Babylon" (T.M. 36,37).

"And the term 'Babylon'--confusion--may be appropriately applied to these bodies {Protestant Churches in their confusion}, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories."--Great Controversy, pg. 383:1 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"Today private interpretations have harmed and confused the world more than at any other time. Look at the shattered sectarian world of today. It {confusion in the Protestant churches of Babylon} has split Christendom into hundreds of sects, chips of all sizes, one disagreeing with the other. Who can say that their diverse private interpretations of the Scriptures are inspired, dependable, or profitable for anything but to cause {these Babylonian} Christians to quarrel and bicker among themselves over {false} theories and doctrines?"--2 Timely Greetings, No. 24, pg. 17 (bold emphasis, braces added).

And besides this example, there are other types of literal people and events, such as Enoch, Noah, Elijah, Esau and Jacob, Moses, and many others, which are taken from the "Bible as it reads," and applied in antitype to similar events of peoples living in "ends of the world"--the latter days today. There are also other words which are t o be taken in the "Bible as it reads" (1 S.M. 18:1) in regard to symbolic meanings."

http://www.davidian.org/study43.htm

Christ was the Anti-type of the Sacrificial Lamb, and the High Priest.

[A m e n r i a]

Exodus 22:18
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Alright, but as far as I'm aware there aren't any legitimate witches in the modern day.

I mean, you have larpers like Wicca but that's about it.

Mate, have you been staying indoors all this time? Witchcraft is as active as ever!

Anyways, another question for Christians: I know you believe humans are made in God's image, but is there a particular reason why?

[Tarsonis]

You’re still not explaining what the underlines means

Ah okay, there are types and anti-types. Bro Don Adair Explains it a little better than I can.
"There are words in the Bible which are actual, literal events concerning real people; and they must be taken from the "Bible as it reads." They are known as "types;" and their purpose is to illustrate certain truths regarding other peoples and events at another time under similar circumstances, which are known as antitypes. Paul spoke about these types when he wrote:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples {margin says types}: and...are written for our admonition {true Christians}, upon whom the ends of the world {latter days} are come."--1 Corinthians 10:11 (bold emphasis, braces added).

A good example to consider about types and antitypes is the "tower" (Gen. 11:5) of "Babel" (Gen. 11:9), as recorded in the book of Genesis. This type--the tower "called Babel" (that is, confusion--see margin), applies specifically in antitype to the Christian churches today, who are confused about certain Bible doctrines, and who spread confusion everywhere. The only exception is God's true church--"Laodicea" (Rev. 3:14); they do not "constitute Babylon, or any part of Babylon" (T.M. 36,37).

"And the term 'Babylon'--confusion--may be appropriately applied to these bodies {Protestant Churches in their confusion}, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories."--Great Controversy, pg. 383:1 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"Today private interpretations have harmed and confused the world more than at any other time. Look at the shattered sectarian world of today. It {confusion in the Protestant churches of Babylon} has split Christendom into hundreds of sects, chips of all sizes, one disagreeing with the other. Who can say that their diverse private interpretations of the Scriptures are inspired, dependable, or profitable for anything but to cause {these Babylonian} Christians to quarrel and bicker among themselves over {false} theories and doctrines?"--2 Timely Greetings, No. 24, pg. 17 (bold emphasis, braces added).

And besides this example, there are other types of literal people and events, such as Enoch, Noah, Elijah, Esau and Jacob, Moses, and many others, which are taken from the "Bible as it reads," and applied in antitype to similar events of peoples living in "ends of the world"--the latter days today. There are also other words which are t o be taken in the "Bible as it reads" (1 S.M. 18:1) in regard to symbolic meanings."

http://www.davidian.org/study43.htm

Christ was the Anti-type of the Sacrificial Lamb, and the High Priest.

Alrighf, I’m not sure I agree in the terminology, I think there’s a better analogy to be found rather than matter/ anti-matter. But regardless, I’d argue that Christ’s sacrifice is a type not an anti-type. Like the temple sacrifices, Christ was without blemish, (I.e without sin), his blood was shed as a sin/guilt offering and we the priests partake of his flesh. The only difference is Christ being incarnate of a man rather than an animal, and that we also consume the blood which in the temple was offered to God alone.

Slight differences but not enough that it would constitute a literal v representative dichotomy, but rather both literal with slight variations.

[Disciples of YHWH]

Ah okay, there are types and anti-types. Bro Don Adair Explains it a little better than I can.
"There are words in the Bible which are actual, literal events concerning real people; and they must be taken from the "Bible as it reads." They are known as "types;" and their purpose is to illustrate certain truths regarding other peoples and events at another time under similar circumstances, which are known as antitypes. Paul spoke about these types when he wrote:

"Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples {margin says types}: and...are written for our admonition {true Christians}, upon whom the ends of the world {latter days} are come."--1 Corinthians 10:11 (bold emphasis, braces added).

A good example to consider about types and antitypes is the "tower" (Gen. 11:5) of "Babel" (Gen. 11:9), as recorded in the book of Genesis. This type--the tower "called Babel" (that is, confusion--see margin), applies specifically in antitype to the Christian churches today, who are confused about certain Bible doctrines, and who spread confusion everywhere. The only exception is God's true church--"Laodicea" (Rev. 3:14); they do not "constitute Babylon, or any part of Babylon" (T.M. 36,37).

"And the term 'Babylon'--confusion--may be appropriately applied to these bodies {Protestant Churches in their confusion}, all professing to derive their doctrines from the Bible, yet divided into almost innumerable sects, with widely conflicting creeds and theories."--Great Controversy, pg. 383:1 (bold emphasis, braces added).

"Today private interpretations have harmed and confused the world more than at any other time. Look at the shattered sectarian world of today. It {confusion in the Protestant churches of Babylon} has split Christendom into hundreds of sects, chips of all sizes, one disagreeing with the other. Who can say that their diverse private interpretations of the Scriptures are inspired, dependable, or profitable for anything but to cause {these Babylonian} Christians to quarrel and bicker among themselves over {false} theories and doctrines?"--2 Timely Greetings, No. 24, pg. 17 (bold emphasis, braces added).

And besides this example, there are other types of literal people and events, such as Enoch, Noah, Elijah, Esau and Jacob, Moses, and many others, which are taken from the "Bible as it reads," and applied in antitype to similar events of peoples living in "ends of the world"--the latter days today. There are also other words which are t o be taken in the "Bible as it reads" (1 S.M. 18:1) in regard to symbolic meanings."

http://www.davidian.org/study43.htm

Christ was the Anti-type of the Sacrificial Lamb, and the High Priest.

Alrighf, I’m not sure I agree in the terminology, I think there’s a better analogy to be found rather than matter/ anti-matter. But regardless, I’d argue that Christ’s sacrifice is a type not an anti-type. Like the temple sacrifices, Christ was without blemish, (I.e without sin), his blood was shed as a sin/guilt offering and we the priests partake of his flesh. The only difference is Christ being incarnate of a man rather than an animal, and that we also consume the blood which in the temple was offered to God alone.

Slight differences but not enough that it would constitute a literal v representative dichotomy, but rather both literal with slight variations.

There are enough differences though to separate it from the type given on earth.
Type given to Moses:
1. Sacrifice was to be without any physical blemish
2. Animal Sacrifice to be taken to the high priest to be killed(Lev 16)
3.. The High priest was after the Order of Aaron(Lev 16)
4.. Blood Offering to be sprinkled on the Altar on earth(Lev 16; Hebrews 9)

Anti-type:
1. Christ was without any spiritual blemish being without sin(1 Pet 2:22; Heb 4:15; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 John 3:5; Rom 8:3)
2. God became a man in the flesh, let himself be taken into the hands of sinners to be killed(Matt 26:45; Mark 14:41)
3. Christ was High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:1-10; Hebrews 6:17-20; Hebrews 3:1-2; Hebrews 7:1-17, 20-28)
4. Blood offering was Sprinkled on the Altar in heaven
Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:11-28
Hebrews 10:1-21
1 Corinthians 11:24-25
1 Peter 1:2, 19
Hebrews 13:11-13,20
Hebrews 12:24
1 John 1:7
Collossians 2:14-15

So we see that there are enough differences to say that what was given to mose was a type and what was fulfilled in Christ was an Anti-type. Now there might be more that could be added but I have to leave for work here soon. If I do think of other differences I will list them when I come back home.

[Korhal IVV]

Alright, but as far as I'm aware there aren't any legitimate witches in the modern day.

I mean, you have larpers like Wicca but that's about it.

Mate, have you been staying indoors all this time? Witchcraft is as active as ever!

Anyways, another question for Christians: I know you believe humans are made in God's image, but is there a particular reason why?

For one, Genesis 1:27 says it quite explicitly: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This short verse set the foundation for human rights in Western civilization for the past 2,000 years. It’s why the United States’ Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

The Imago Dei does not mean that God carbon copied His traits and imprinted them of humans; rather, it more likely refers to God giving humans so much value that Jesus said this: “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:7) It denotes the symbolical relationship between God and man.

Martin Luther (and to some degree, Calvin) emphasized man’s original righteousness as embodying the image of God. Thus, the fall significantly damaged and perverted the image, without destroying it entirely (see especially Genesis 9:6-7 and James 3:9 which indicate that whatever of the image was lost in the fall it in some sense still remains). The image, for Luther, was a special relation man had to God which Adam lost but Christ restores (see Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10).

[Tarsonis]

Alrighf, I’m not sure I agree in the terminology, I think there’s a better analogy to be found rather than matter/ anti-matter. But regardless, I’d argue that Christ’s sacrifice is a type not an anti-type. Like the temple sacrifices, Christ was without blemish, (I.e without sin), his blood was shed as a sin/guilt offering and we the priests partake of his flesh. The only difference is Christ being incarnate of a man rather than an animal, and that we also consume the blood which in the temple was offered to God alone.

Slight differences but not enough that it would constitute a literal v representative dichotomy, but rather both literal with slight variations.

There are enough differences though to separate it from the type given on earth.
Type given to Moses:
1. Sacrifice was to be without any physical blemish
2. Animal Sacrifice to be taken to the high priest to be killed(Lev 16)
3.. The High priest was after the Order of Aaron(Lev 16)
4.. Blood Offering to be sprinkled on the Altar on earth(Lev 16; Hebrews 9)

Anti-type:
1. Christ was without any spiritual blemish being without sin(1 Pet 2:22; Heb 4:15; 2 Cor 5:21; 1 John 3:5; Rom 8:3)
2. God became a man in the flesh, let himself be taken into the hands of sinners to be killed(Matt 26:45; Mark 14:41)
3. Christ was High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 5:1-10; Hebrews 6:17-20; Hebrews 3:1-2; Hebrews 7:1-17, 20-28)
4. Blood offering was Sprinkled on the Altar in heaven
Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 8:2; Hebrews 9:11-28
Hebrews 10:1-21
1 Corinthians 11:24-25
1 Peter 1:2, 19
Hebrews 13:11-13,20
Hebrews 12:24
1 John 1:7
Collossians 2:14-15

So we see that there are enough differences to say that what was given to mose was a type and what was fulfilled in Christ was an Anti-type. Now there might be more that could be added but I have to leave for work here soon. If I do think of other differences I will list them when I come back home.

1. Yes but what constitutes a blemish is based off of the value of the value of said animal. An animal with physical deformities are less useful in a pastoral society, thus they’re less valuable, and offering them is not really a sacrifice. In the case of Christ (and humans somewhat) his value was not in his physical properties, but his spirtual properties: being both fully God and fully Man. His soul was without blemish thus his death was unwarranted. This satisfies the levitical criteria of being without blemish.

2. And 3. Ignoring the potential humans are animals complication, you’re making a distinction without a truly meaningful difference. In both instances an offering of flesh is offered up, and in both cases the high priest offers up the sacrifice.

Christ went willingly to the cross. Though human hands wielded the swords, Christ threw himself upon them. Those who killed Christ did not offer him up as a sacrifice, he offered himself up. So like under the OT, the high priest has offered up the sacrifice, and the priests eat of it (Leverites in the OT, Christians in the NT)

4. I think you’re reading too much into those verses. Yes Christ lives the abode of God, and yes the tabernacle was a reflection of God’s abode, but these verses don’t mention the shedding of his blood in heaven. his blood was offered on the earthly Cross, and daily at the alter of every Liturgy that consecrates the Eucharist.


I get the type / anti-type argument but this really reads to me like a needless complication of what has already been understood for 2000 years, the New Covenant is a reflection of the Old. All aspects of the Old Covenent foreshadowed the New Covenant.

[A m e n r i a]

Mate, have you been staying indoors all this time? Witchcraft is as active as ever!

Anyways, another question for Christians: I know you believe humans are made in God's image, but is there a particular reason why?

For one, Genesis 1:27 says it quite explicitly: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This short verse set the foundation for human rights in Western civilization for the past 2,000 years. It’s why the United States’ Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

The Imago Dei does not mean that God carbon copied His traits and imprinted them of humans; rather, it more likely refers to God giving humans so much value that Jesus said this: “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:7) It denotes the symbolical relationship between God and man.

Martin Luther (and to some degree, Calvin) emphasized man’s original righteousness as embodying the image of God. Thus, the fall significantly damaged and perverted the image, without destroying it entirely (see especially Genesis 9:6-7 and James 3:9 which indicate that whatever of the image was lost in the fall it in some sense still remains). The image, for Luther, was a special relation man had to God which Adam lost but Christ restores (see Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10).

Wow, that's an interesting perspective! Thanks for sharing!

[Tarsonis]

For one, Genesis 1:27 says it quite explicitly: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” This short verse set the foundation for human rights in Western civilization for the past 2,000 years. It’s why the United States’ Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

The Imago Dei does not mean that God carbon copied His traits and imprinted them of humans; rather, it more likely refers to God giving humans so much value that Jesus said this: “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.” (Luke 15:7) It denotes the symbolical relationship between God and man.

Martin Luther (and to some degree, Calvin) emphasized man’s original righteousness as embodying the image of God. Thus, the fall significantly damaged and perverted the image, without destroying it entirely (see especially Genesis 9:6-7 and James 3:9 which indicate that whatever of the image was lost in the fall it in some sense still remains). The image, for Luther, was a special relation man had to God which Adam lost but Christ restores (see Eph. 4:24 and Col. 3:10).

Wow, that's an interesting perspective! Thanks for sharing!

Alternative perspective: the imago dei prefigures the Incarnation.

[A m e n r i a]

Come again?

[Tarsonis]

Come again?

Basically when the Scriptures say we were made in the image of God, it’s referring to Christ.

[Genivaria]

Exodus 22:18
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Alright, but as far as I'm aware there aren't any legitimate witches in the modern day.

I mean, you have larpers like Wicca but that's about it.

What in the world is a 'legitimate witch' ?

[Lord Dominator]

Alright, but as far as I'm aware there aren't any legitimate witches in the modern day.

I mean, you have larpers like Wicca but that's about it.

What in the world is a 'legitimate witch' ?

Presumably someone who actually has legitimate magic powers