/lit/ - Literature

First for Vulgata.

First for the Holy Bible in the Bible thread.

What I read.

For me it's John.

>none are the originals in aramaic and greek

cope

>>19893259
>not specifying Apostle, Baptist, or gospel

>1 Corinthians 15:6 (RSV/RSVCE)
>Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
The word Paul uses for "brethren" here is the same word (adelphoi) used in the Gospels to describe the "brothers of Jesus." How do the people who claim Jesus actually had biological brothers square with the idea that the term obviously has to have some kind of interpretive connotation here seeing as Mary obviously didn't have 500 kids?

This passage kinda undoes the "Jesus had brothers" conspiracy imo

>>19893482
Cousins, because Mary and Joseph had siblings who had kids, so in the gospels Jesus’ extended family, according to the flesh, were called his brethren. Patristics tell us this.

>>19893482
>>19893492
From memory, the passage that describes Jesus's brothers also describes his sister's, indicating a different and additional word.

>>19893482
Wrong, picrel pagan, 1 Cor 15:6 uses ἀδελφοῖς while Mat 12:46 uses ἀδελφοὶ.

>>19893492
I'm not saying that the word doesn't also have some kind of familial context, but unless Jesus have 500 cousins in that case it would still require at least a partially symbolic reading.

>>19893538
>ἀδελφοῖς / ἀδελφοὶ.
Looks like basically the same word in a different grammatical/tense context.

>>19893603
>these two different words are the same word
Yeah, no, and speaking of context, the 500 brethren are not specified as Jesus' brethren, it doesn't say "he appeared to more than 500 of His brethren". You've fallen for Satan's lies and Mary had more children, it's just that simple.

>>19893619
Why is it so important to Papists that Mary remain a virgin even decades after Jesus' birth?

This whole debate sounds like how Asians will call every distant relative their cousin.

>>19893661
I think it's mainly just important to Satan that attention get diverted from Christ, and that someone other than Christ be considered sinless and pure, and that people pray to them rather than Christ. I suppose he rolls with cackling laughter at having succeeded in that maneuver with countless millions upon millions.

>>19893703
Ah yeah I forgot that Catholics invented the notion that Mary herself was a virgin birth. Now it makes sense.

>>19893661
>Why is it so important to Papists that Mary remain a virgin even decades after Jesus' birth?
>Orthodox are also Papists
You do realize you're trying to contradict something that wasn't controversial to anyone in the early church, right?

>>19893726
Actually it probably wasn't the Catholics but rather the Gnostics. It comes from the Gospel of James 2nd century fan fiction, then Jerome argued it into the church in the 4th century based on heavenly hierarchy schemes they'd been fabricating which would have resulted in other women who were lifelong virgins being higher than Mary. It's interesting that that was the argument and not "but this is what we've always known straight from the Apostles". The documented evidences are very telling.

>>19893731
It wasn't part of the church at all until the 4th century.

Everytime I enter one of these Christian threads it feels like I just stepped into a cat fight

>>19893777
I'm not a cat that fights. I'm one that purrs.

>>19893787
Im a cat that prays

I will start reading now. Anything i need to know?

>>19893619
>two letters at the end of the same root word with the same contextual meaning = two entirely different words (that happen to sound exactly alike and have the same exact meaning outside of my interpretation)
Why is the idea of Joseph ramming Mary so attractive to you that you go to such lengths as downplaying Paul to argue for it?

>>19893760
>It wasn't written down until the 4th century because nobody questioned it.
ftfy

>>19893857
>words aren't spelled different specific ways for different specific meanings
>>19893866
Wrong, until the 4th century it had been relegated to meaningless Gnostic fan fiction. It wasn't until they were sitting around dreaming up heavenly reward hierarchy schemes that Jerome, who was an actual homosexual, got all emotional about when he thought of Mary not being the highest woman. All just a bunch of mental fantasies being made into dogma.

>>19893967
>Source: Goyim, trust me.

>>19894007
Look into it yourself, I've done my homework. Even Catholic Answers admits to Gospel of James being the original source material but they put a disingenuous spin on it. If their claims were true then it would be canon, but it was rejected as Gnostic bunk until Jerome needed to cherry pick from it.

>>19894024
>Look into it yourself, I've done my homework.
The JW site is not a source, you autist.

>>19894051
Interestingly enough they may well qualify as being at least slightly more Christian than Catholicism (notice I did not say Catholics, there are some legitimate members of Christ's ekklesia even in Catholicism). But yeah, I've never been to their site, even from the poster here's countless links.

>>19893967
Paul was obviously paying attention to what wording he was using, and he would not have used the obvious same root word for something that has outlandish implications (Mary having 500 kids) when applied as Matthew's mention of "brothers" (who also have no mention in the stories of Jesus childhood/presentation at the Temple). He could have used "disciples" or "followers" for the same effect and preserved a more familial connotation for adelphoi if that were the case, but he deliberately chose not to.

This isn't even a specific argument for the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of even anything theological about Mary; just stating out linguistic issues with the literal interpretation needed for believing that Jesus had biological brothers.

I finished reading the 1549 Book of Common Prayer

>>19894097
Surely you realize that Paul was referring to those witnesses being brethren of both himself and the people he was writing the letter to.

>>19894114
It would require a really narrow interpretation of Matthew AND a different, also narrow interpretation of Paul. It doesn't pass Occam's Razor.

>>19894125
I'm not entirely sure what exactly your "it" is referring to, but it's plainly obvious without any need for twisting or even squinting just right that Paul was referring brethren of himself and the people he was writing to, as in "our fellow believers", and Matthew was referring to Jesus' siblings, and 2 different Greek words were even used on top of the obvious contextual distinctions.

>>19894140
>2 different Greek words
It's two different endings on the same word dude, stop coping.
>https://biblicaltext.com/dictionary/%E1%BC%80%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BB%CF%86%CF%8C%CF%82

>>19894107
I skimmed it recently for references to the Devil. What'd you think? Did you read the 39 Articles first?

Reminder to support /cg/ so that there is a home for extra-textual Christian discussion.
>>>/his/12836654

I was thinking of JWs today: if they believe that Jesus didn't die on a cross but tied to a wooden pole instead, did they change the whole bit about breaking the legs as well, and the rag soaked with vinegar, and all the other things that would make no sense?

>>19894164
They have to make a lot of guesses because Koine was largely forgotten, but the authors could have used one word with one spelling if they wanted, yet they opted for 2. But like I said, the context tells the meat of the meaning there, and it's perfectly clear. And He most certainly wasn't saying that any in the crowd who did the Father's will are His cousins.

>>19894189
I read the prayers that were said in the book. I went through them with the biblical references. It's not the 1665 version, it's the earlier version.

>>19894189
I thought the book was interesting. I read the 39 articles later on.

>>19889979
For a "mere Christian" starter list I would go

>Holy Bible
Of course. Take your pick, NKJV, ESV and NASB are all good translations. Whichever Bible you get make sure to get a copy of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals along with it regardless of whether you believe they're inspired scripture or not, they're extremely important books.

>Apostolic Fathers by Holmes
A good selection of early Christian texts, only has the Apostolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, The Didache & Shepherd of Hermas) but provides a window into the earliest Christian communites after the NT was written.

>Confessions, St Augustine
The highly personal account of St Augustines conversion to the Christian faith. Still relevant today since many come to Christ in the very same way.

>How then Should we Live by Francis Schaeffer
Excellent book contrasting the Christian life with the modern life and explaining why being Christian is the only rational position.

>Evidence in Search of a Verdict
Bestselling book that consolidates all the evidence that supports Biblical revelation in one spot.

>C.S Lewis Collection (Mere Christianity, Screwtape Letters, Abolition of Man)
One of the best apologists in the 20th Century, well worth reading his stuff for an insightful and intellectual defense of the Christian faiths place in the modern world.

>>19893431
>Bible thread
>John
By the context you know I mean the apostle and writer called John.

I continued reading Exodus last night. Got thru the plagues and whatnot. The whole bit with God hardening the Pharoah's heart was a little tiresome. It reminded of the Iliad. I like the bit when God is prepping the Israelites for the slaughter of the Egyptians and God suddenly goes into a diatribe about how they can't eat anything with yeast in it for a certain duration. Also, after the killer angels had done their work, God reminds the Israelites that they can steal the gold and trinkets of the Egyptians. The parting of the sea of course was KINO. But then after all that's happened the Israelites are still like "awww this blows, I wish we were back in Egypt".

Also, what's the deal with the manna.

>>19894206
Whatever you want to claim about the scriptural witness regarding Mary, you can't interpret the term "brothers" of Jesus as simply meaning "biological brothers." Luke notes Jesus is not Joseph's son:
>Lk. 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph ...
so if Mary had children with Joseph they would have come from a different father and would thus be half-brothers.

I got through the first 6 chapters of Mark and it was just Matthew but without Jesus' childhood. Why did I bother?

Is it worth creating an account on Bible Gateway?

>>19895163
The gold is for a specific purpose.
>>19895165
God was providing for all of their needs during this time.

>>19895203
>Jesus wasn't Joseph's biological child
>no way Joseph and Mary could have had biological children together *after* Jesus

>>19895925
Reread what I said. The term cannot simply mean "brother." The absolute most it can mean is "half-brother." So saying you are just taking the literal world of the text is false.

>>19895311
Bible Gateway is owned by Zondervan which is owned by HarperCollins (who publishes the Satanic Bible and endless other filth) which is owned by NewsCorp. It has no original languages nor many other great features of Bible Hub. The better features it claims to have are behind a paywall. Use and spread Bible Hub, shun Satan's Bible Gateway.

>>19895930
Yes, obviously they were half siblings (he also had half sisters). I do not know that they had terms for such distinctions in Koine but brothers/sisters served fine for what was intended, the other kids that Mary and Joseph had after Jesus.

>>19895938
>the other kids that Mary and Joseph had after Jesus.
Nothing in the text says that this occurred.

>>19895953
Brother and sister are words designated to relatives further than the first degree, such as cousins. Some languages don't have the word cousin and refer to far relatives and fellow countrymen as brothers or sisters. This is why it is dangerous to read the Bible through modern eyes. This also why Protestantism is a mental illness and furthest removed from man's nature.

>>19895933
>It has no original languages
>https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/The-Westminster-Leningrad-Codex-WLC/
>https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Tyndale-House-Greek-New-Testament/

>>19895999
Those are books you can buy, not word by word breakdowns of verses in parallel with clickable Strong's indices.

What is the most trustworth spanish translation of the bible?

>>19896076
There is none, the King James is the only legitimate Bible in any language and anything else is a "bible" at best.

>>19896131
Go away

>>19896137
Repent

>>19896165
You don't contribute anything, you just spew this idiotic heretical filth constantly. Begone.

>>19896169
Imagine praying to demons and calling others heretical. The absolute state.

>>19896181
>Demons can be prayed to but the saints alive in heaven can't
This is what Protestants believe

>>19896198
Have you ever given common sense a go? Demons were created as spirit beings to begin with, not humans. They are entirely differing classes of being.

>>19896216
Demons cannot read our thoughts. God can allow the saints to hear our prayers, though. They are not disconnected from us, as we are part of the same mystical body of Christ.

(Luke 15:7) Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

(Hebrews 12:1) Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us

Redpill me on Bart Ehrman

>>19896251
Very soulful

>>19896299
An example of a useful atheist, in the sense that while he doesn't subscribe to Christianity anymore, he vouches for the historicity of Christ, the historicity of the New Testament, etc., against pop atheists. As such, he's an easy source for Christians to cite against atheists who won't take a Christian's word for it on these kinds of issues.

>>19896299
He glows in the dark

>>19896240
>Demons cannot read our thoughts
>Demon possession is real and only our "Church™" is equipped to handle it

>>19896410
A demon can understand thoughts we direct to them but they cannot access our thoughts otherwise. If we direct thoughts to Mary or to a saint, they cannot be "intercepted" by a demon. God may empower those outside the Catholic Church such that they can successfully exorcise a demon, but it is not advisable to do more than pray for one that is possessed. To do more than this involves communicating with a demon (ordering them to depart, etc.) which is dangerous and should be undertaken by those who have been trained and approved by the Church.

>>19896410
Also you are posting an image of an upstanding priest and a disabled child (I was able to find the original source of your image). It is clear what you are implying with it and you are bearing false witness by doing so. As a fellow Christian I ask you delete it if the timer for doing so has not yet expired.

>>19896468
Christ face to face taught us to pray to the Father. If you direct your prayers to anyone or anything but God then it is a demon in disguise. The very method by which the "Church™" took on the "Mary" worship was by slow creeping subterfuge spanning centuries. The thief does not enter through the door. One of Ishtar's primary functions was overtaking the dominions of other deities. Satan rolls with laughter at having fooled so many into praying to anyone or anything other than God.

Demon possession should only be handled by legitimately holy men and requires no approval from any Satanic Babylonian pagan mafia organization.

>>19896500
>As a fellow Christian I ask you delete it if the timer for doing so has not yet expired
Respected with charity, pray only to God.

>>19896512
>Christ face to face taught us to pray to the Father.
And we do prayer to the Father.
>If you direct your prayers to anyone or anything but God then it is a demon in disguise.
If the target of our prayer cannot hear it, then it would remain in our mind, where it is yet heard by God who would honor our good intention. He would not allow his children's prayers, which are undertaken in good faith and directed to members of the body of Christ, to be delivered to demons.
>Demon possession should only be handled by legitimately holy men and requires no approval from ...
The regulation is given for your safety, not to lord something over you. As I said, God can empower exorcisms outside the bounds of the Church. This is not the ideal way, however.
>>19896521
Thank you for deleting the image, brother.

>>19896603
>then it would remain in our mind, where it is yet heard by God who would honor our good intention. He would not allow his children's prayers, which are undertaken in good faith and directed to members of the body of Christ, to be delivered to demons
This I can essentially more or less "buy".

>>19896336
Thanks anon. Interesting take. Is there any book from him that you would recommend?

>>19896719
Not that anon. A lot of his work is based on undermining the biblical text, so even if he affirms the historicity of Jesus (which is the mainstream position) I don't see why that would matter. He's going to give you the normal liberal take that Jesus existed as a normal person and the scriptures were created and modified by various communities of Jesus followers (not a church). I don't really get what the anon's point is. If you want a scholarly source on the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection then read N.T. Wright.

I want to read the Bible as an atheist, for cultural, literary and historical value, in this order. I'm looking for a KJV edition (no other choice here, right?) with rich scholarship that isn't theological, but focuses on textual criticism and cultural background. For example: in John 8:7 I would like to see a footnote saying that this story is a later addition that doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts, but I don't want a theological explanation as to why it's inspired by God anyway. Currently leaning towards Norton Critical, but I'm only just beginning to look.

>>19896719
Am that anon, and no. I didn't say he was worth reading. My point was simply that he's useful for citing against that specific fringe of internet r/atheist that is so anti-Christian that they ignore even the scholarly consensus and repeat Zeitgeist talking points about Jesus being based on Horus, etc., just to satisfy themselves, all while acting like they're the mainstream. If you're not debating atheists, there's no reason to read Ehrman.

>>19896768
Your quest to separate the text from the community that created it and venerates it is vacuous but I'm sure you can find something to accommodate it.

>>19896753
>N.T. Wright
Thanks anon. I'll check him out.

>>19896768
>I want
>I would like
>but I don't want
Just like the Jews who couldn't simply be grateful to God for His provision of manna.

>>19896768
Sounds like a boring way to do it. Just read it as literature, as a novel.

>>19892760
New Oxford Annotated NRSV with Apocryoha is the gold standard. Any other answer is a cope.

>>19896768
also if you're reading it in a boring critical, analytical way, why go for the KJV and not something less archaic

>>19896807
>Your quest to separate the text from the community that created it and venerates it is vacuous but I'm sure you can find something to accommodate it.
I haven't even started and I'm already well aware that it wasn't a single monolithic community. Sounds like you could use some historical and cultural context yourself.
>>19896823
And you could use some literary context, so you don't extend metaphors and parables well beyond their original intention.

>>19896768
Asimov's guide to the bible is pretty good for this sort of thing.8v0jx

>>19896858
>New Oxford Annotated RSV with Apocrypha is the gold standard.
ftfy

>>19896853
>>19896861
Footnotes to the Bible can be pretty fascinating, check out this lecture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfheSAcCsrE
>>19896878
I'll check it out.

pic rec is a non-christian take on the bible i enjoyed, it's basically a paraphrase of the entire book, at least the bits that interest the writer with philosophical commentary. even though he's atheist and anti-christian, he's very fond of the Bible and his enthusiasm for it is infectious

>>19896872
>I have not studied the history but I will you that you need to learn it.
>I have not read the text but I will tell you how to read it.
One day you'll realize you aren't half as smart as you think you are.

>>19896872
You will never have double x chromosomes.

>>19896900
I haven't claimed any of that, you're the one who makes ignorant statements and talks like a pseud. I will claim that I'm smarter than you, even though it doesn't really say much.
>>19896902
You will never go to heaven lmao

>>19892760
La ilaha illa ALLAH wa muhammadu rasulullah.

With logic you will find that islam is the genuine ibrahamitic faith.

Jesus was not the son of god. Declaring otherwise its idolatry, and idolatry its paganism. Paganism its the origin of all sins.

The church is an artificial religion created for pleasing the paganist romans and the jews. They even adopted latin, an artificial lenguage created by pagans, as liturgical, instead of the semitic, the lenguage of god.

Islam is the purest, and everything Muhammad pbuh teached to us it was for remaining as pure as possible. Like for exemple iconoclasty

>>19896937
weak b8
not even trying

>>19896942
Im not baiting you imbecil

>>19896950
>not merely pretending to be retarded

>>19892760
watch this gospel video if you are not yet 100% sure of going to heaven /lit/ anons. it's very, very easy to be saved from hell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOv_kvk4M8&t=1s&ab_channel=BaptistBiblePreaching

sermon for /lit/ anons who are doubting their salvation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5RmgazPTaY&t=921s&ab_channel=zacthebaptist

documentary for people who think Christianity is related to judaism. Christ rejecters that say they're jews are not God's chosen people. the Bible teaches replacement theology. talmudic judaism which is satanic has nothing to do with Christianity. don't fall for satanic shills that try to associate Christianity with evil judaism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxWdKAUsPVI&t=3s&ab_channel=TruthMirror

also, roman catholic work salvation, orthodox work salvation, and protestant work salvation such as 5 point calvinism or lutheran baptismal regeneration will lead you straight into hellfire. you need to repent from those false gospels and general unbelief and believe the gospel to be saved. the first video linked in this post is the correct gospel that can get you into heaven.

>>19895933
I use Bible Gateway's Android app, is Bible Hub's any good?

>>19897800
This is off-topic and belongs on /cg/
>>>/his/12836654

>>19897848
you realize this is a Bible thread and the post i made contains crucial biblical teachings?

>>19897834
Bible Hub's is just a website interface, I just use the mobile website.

Bible bumparino

Everyone read Amos or you are a faggot.

>>19894206
>The Koine can't be trusted
This is the level you need to sink to now?

>>19896299
Has some interesting ideas but sees the Bible too much as just an arbitrary collection of shit to be defended/deboonked as opposed to a curated document compiled via theology and tradition. He misses the forest for the trees and his work is reduced to just being argument fodder for fedoras because of it.

>There is among the passions an anger of the intellect, and this anger is in accordance with nature. Without anger
a man cannot attain purity: he has to feel angry with all that is sown in him by the enemy. When Job felt this
anger he reviled his enemies, calling them ‘dishonorable men of no repute, lacking everything good, whom I
would not consider fit to live with the dogs that guard my flocks’
Opinions? Some people advocate for no anger. period. usually reasoned because we are too fallible to trust ourselves with such a powerful emotion

>>19899267
It's important to remember that the only person in the Bible that is perfect is Jesus. There are many people that have qualities in them that God likes, but every one of them is also flawed and none a perfect example. This is one of the things that shows the Bible is genuine and not just fabricated fiction.

What do you think of Humble Lamb bibles?

>>19899946
I've never had one but have looked at them pretty closely before and they seem quite excellent. I like that they notate archaic words in the King James for modern readers and the art is known good stuff.

What does the Catholic Church say about purgatory?
I can't say I've read the good book or even gone to church outside of weddings for over a decade.
But boy would I feel stupid since I've been praying for their souls to be united with God quickly if purgatory isn't a thing.

>>19900116
They invented it, so your question is off-topic because it's not in the Bible.

>>19900116
“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire”
- Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]

“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment”
-St Augustine, The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire”
- St Augustine, Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]

>>19900362
Interesting.
I really ought to give this thing a read, huh?
>>19900358
So what do you discuss all day? I see this thread is a constant on this board. Isn't the Bible faith? I know most Christian threads can devolve into shit because they're prime targets for shills since faith is the most important thing a man can find to guide him...

>>19900594
>So what do you discuss all day?
The Holy Bible, not stuff Catholics have made up with no biblical basis.

>>19900604
I see you're one of the ones who doesn't want to mend yet, but perhaps one of the ones I described. Well you keep your presence here, I'll be back once I order out my faith some year. Fighting brothers is useless when there are enemies of all Christians.

>>19900116
Anyone who goes to purgatory will go to heaven. It is for those who die in a state of grace but still have sinfulness within them; their soul is purged so that it may enter heaven in holiness and free of sin. For an analogy, think of someone who has an infected wound. By making due use of the available treatments, he can cure it, but if he lets it linger the infection will eventually need to be burned out of him.

1 Cor. 3:15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

>>19900358
Purgatory is necessary because a person cannot enter heaven without being holy. I understand the Protestant belief that we are declared holy by God, but in this care we are still sinners in our being. So how can we who are sinners enter heaven? Is there sin in heaven? You too must believe that we are purged of our sin in some fashion, but from what I gather Protestants think God just snaps his fingers and it's done, as if our human will is irrelevant.

>>19901026
It's pretty straightforward: Jesus died to pay the penalty for all of our sins. Purgatory implies that Jesus made some sort of partial payment. .

>>19901044
You're dodging the issue of how a person can enter into heaven while being sinful. Are you going to lust in heaven? Are you going to feel pride? Why not?

>>19901054
>You're dodging the issue of how a person can enter into heaven while being sinful
No more than you're dodging the issue of how purgatory would make this acceptable, nor why purgatory is the only means through which this could be accomplished.

>even bibble threads are full of larpers tearing each other apart instead of actually discussing what they claim to believe in
comedy gold

>>19901088
>No more than you're dodging the issue of how purgatory would make this acceptable,
That's what purgatory is. It's where those who are saved go so that their remaining sinfulness can be purged and they can enter heaven.
>nor why purgatory is the only means through which this could be accomplished.
So how is it accomplished? I know that you don't believe there is sin in heaven -- no one does. But for me to get from here to there, something has to change. Most people aren't perfectly holy when they die.

>>19901151
Is God not powerful enough to remove sin completely and instantly?

>>19901163
This requires overriding our will. I think this is the Calvinist position, that once we die God removes our ability to will evil (this also raises an issue of why he simply didn't do this earlier). Sanctification seems kind of seems pointless in this light since God will do it immediately after death with no input from us. Purgatory is forceful, but it does not negate our will.

>>19895093
No, it could have been the Baptist or the gospel you were referring to. They are both in the Bible.

bump

Guys in trying to create a thread but when i choose a file it happens nothing. Im on mobile. Some good samaritan can help me?

>>19902708
Phoneposter begone

>>19902730
You are telling me that from mobile we cant post? What a garbage site

>>19902782
It is possible but that does not mean it should be done.

>>19902788
based

>>19902788
explain me why it happens nothing when i choose an image in the files app. I remember months ago i could post in this site

>>19902800
You're being providentially hindered so that you will sit down at a computer and post properly.

>>19896131
But what about for spanish speakers? My wife is from Spain and I want to get something to help my fluency

>>19902807
Why this much hate on phoneposting? Not gonna lie you sound a faggot

>>19902834
Phoneposters are major contributors to the death of all discussion on this site. They never read the longer posts that you can read comfortably on a desktop because they don't want to scroll 200 times on a phone screen. They post pictures upside down because they don't know their own software and are generally lower quality users.

>>19902832
They are stuck with "bibles".

>>19894060
unrelated anon here: hard to say you argue with good faith to begin with
your post is malicious against catholicism but you also make sure your position is "neutral" by posting not all catholics
your pic does not help you case at all
But I think the worst part is here with "slightly more Christian than Catholicism". JW directly deny The Son and commit the heresy of nestorianism. To call them more christian is clearly a mockery.

>>19895956
>This also why Protestantism is a mental illness and furthest removed from man's nature.
Absolutely

>>19903126
At least JW pray to the Father alone like Christ taught, and have never slaughtered countless Christians and tried to keep the Bible secret to themselves.

>>19896768
>with rich scholarship that isn't theological, but focuses on textual criticism and cultural background. For example: in John 8:7 I would like to see a footnote saying that this story is a later addition that doesn't appear in the earliest manuscripts, but I don't want a theological explanation as to why it's inspired by God anyway
Post nose.

>>19903249
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also

They deny The Son and by doing that they deny The Father

>>19903273
Jesus was a longnose himself you stupid christer. As were all the prophets you rely upon to confirm him as messiah. As were the writers of your scriptures.

>>19903273
Based

>>19903289
Why did Matthew, Mark, and Luke not bother to call Jesus God? Why did only John claim this?

>>19903289
Well, like I said, slightly more Christian.

>>19903457
>slightly more Christian.
>denying Christ/God is more christian
This 100 % heresy

>>19903467
You must not know math yet, son. Lets say 1 is the baseline of qualifying as Christian. A -3 is "more Christian" than a -5.

>>19903511
Anon, what you speak are heresies and you are not afraid of speaking blasphemies to defend your position.
Speaking with you has no purpose and you will continue to blaspheme if that means you also offend those you hate (in this case catholicism).

>>19903528
Well, here (You) are talking about "being malicious toward Catholicism", yet for the better part of 2000 years Catholicism went around slaughtering countless Christians in an attempt to maintain a mafia hold on it as if it were trademarked and they themselves could do whatever they wanted with it, no matter how heretical. Then once all of that was more or less stopped by force it became famous for child sex abuse It's a blatantly Satanic institution that goes around pridefully claiming to be Christ's "One True Church™" and that everyone else is merely a McChurch, so yeah, not going to have great things to say about it.

I’m looking to buy a standalone New Testament and saw this with accompanying good reviews…have any of you read this and could share your views on it?

>>19903306
Because it's implied. John just went "better safe than sorry"

>>19903511
>trying to say believing in the divinity of God is le epic +1
Turn from your ways asap. also
>JW
those guys just went wild and made up theology. It's a cult.

>>19892780
Meds

>>19903692
Not even implied actually. Jesus says in all of them that "whosoever accepts Me accepts the Father."

>>19903692
Kind of a big thing to leave up to implication. Caused centuries of debate iirc

>>19903741
The reply above

>>19903864
>>19903741
>whosoever accepts Me accepts the Father
That doesn't mean he is his Father, unless he was speaking in riddles.

>>19903879
Totally not a thing He did repeatedly.

>>19903883
Would it have been too cringe for him to proclaim himself God to everyone he met?

>>19896216
>>19896240
>>19896468
>>19896512
>Grown up men literally believing in demons in 2022

>>19903933
>not believing in demons in 2022
If you can't see their fruits then you are under their influence.

>>19903911
The whole point was that they did and should not know He was the Christ. He explains so.
Also, i read your reply again, and something had escaped me. Jesus is not the Father. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God, but their own persons. Same essence, different functions, so to say.
typoed.

>>19903953
oooooooh oooooohhhhhh demons scary ooooooh
Watch out, they might get ya!!

>>19903962
Yep, definitely. Scoff and mock now, but your day of reckoning will come.

>>19903972
k, take your meds

>>19903954
>thou shall not have strange gods before me, except for the three persons who are also me and should be worshipped as if they were me
This was indeed a tricky passage in the Torah but Christians solved it well

>>19903987
Oh, a troll. How fun.

>>19904034
If you can't defend your fanfiction you can't claim to be the inheritors of the original material

>>19904042
I don't know nearly enough theology to explain it well, and you'll just keep nitpicking and trying to gotcha me anyways. It would be a fruitless endeavour.

>>19904052
I accept your surrender

>>19903306
>Well the Bible does say he's God
>But uh uh it says it in this book but it doesn't say it in that book so uh
>I mean it says it but it doesn't say it enough for my personally so therefore I can ignore it and its wrong
>So there

>>19903306
>John saying it isn't good enough

Here are all of the rather extensive footnotes for Matthew in the NABRE (the official modern Catholic "bible"). Isn't it interesting that there are *none* for only chapter 23 (which contains the rant against religious leaders and "call no man Father"):

https://biblehub.com/nabre/matthew/footnotes.htm

>>19903638
It could've been great, but his universalism colored his translation, so it was ruined.

>>19899946
They are new. Personally I’d rather have an RL Allan or Schuyler...Just don’t get the paste down version get the stitched cover goat skin ones. But they seem to be sold out

>>19898073
I tried both apps and the mobile site but neither has a dark version. I guess Bible Hub's not for me.

>>19905136
I use the fewest apps possible and use a browser for anything that has a mobile website instead of an "app". Suit yourself though, the functionality of Bible Hub is vastly superior. One either craves in depth Bible exploration and knowledge or not.

Do you guys pray? Like specifically bow your head and fold your hands when you speak to God? Or do you just have faith that your thoughts reach him no matter what?

>>19905294
both, I also do the Jesus prayer and sometimes do offices at home
I suggest a prayer rule, no matter how simple or short, and sticking to it

>>19905294
I just got done doing an extended session of prayer for people almost as if a train running through a tunnel of people to ask blessings for them. There's really no way to describe this but this is the best attempt I can think of. It's like one person brings to mind others after other after others and then suddenly some seemingly unrelated ones come to mind and I just ask for mercy for their faults and blessings for them through all trials of life. Some of them are my "debtors" and I ask not to hold anything against them on my account and to please bring them into the Kingdom. I did all of this just now laying down with my eyes closed but I often do it while walking around in the yard or washing dishes, etc. I also say things like I realize I am probably contriving some kind of approach to God intentionally hoping He will like my crap but I am sure He knows all of this so whatever, please have mercy on me, I'm trying to try to try I think, or hope, but I'm a corrupted sinner and everything I do is tainted with selfishness and bulls___ but I can't do any better without His help.

Hopefully that is useful to (You) in some way, everyone does it differently.

Oh, I think about Cain and Able's offerings sometimes to, and figure mine is probably tainted with some of what got Cain in trouble so I ask to please have mercy because it's the best I can figure to do, even though I know good and well I could do better if I wasn't such a piece of crap sinner but I am so this is what I've got.

>>19905423
Oh, I should add that for those people I do the same thing and say that I am sure they are doing their best with what they know and considering their weights of sin they must battle and how difficult and confusing everything is for most people in this realm, so please have mercy. It might be helpful to say that I consider it to be lawyering for them, everyone I can think of, people I know, people I haven't seen in many years, people that work at places I picked up food, people I saw on the side of the road, people I saw in the arrest reports, all manner.

Last night I read the bit in Exodus with Moses and God on the mountain. MAJOR KINO. The rules after the Ten Commandments were very interesting. God is still very insistent on getting sacrifices, I guess this'll change at one point during the book, was Jesus the final sacrifice? ...I'm trying not to read the book from a Christian-backward-looking-perspective, in the sense of reading what comes later into everything. Anyway as for the rules it was mostly agreeable common sense,
Some thoughts:
>And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death
Doesn't this imply enslaving? Yet slavery itself is considered a simple fact of life.
>If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine
the unborn baby isn't yet a person otherwise it'd be murder and subject to "an eye for an eye"
>If a thief be found... and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him
it's kinda libtarded that you're not allowed to kill burglars during day time
>Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause
the KJV here is a bit obscure. The Ancient Commentary series for this verse has the heading "No Partiality to a Poor Person", the Douay-Rheims has "Neither shalt thou favour a poor man in judgment"
if so Marxists BTFO, the ever-sensible Chrysostom writes
>Do not be overcome by pity or unduly influenced if the wrongdoer happens to be a poor man... And if we must not show favor to the poor man, much more must we not do so for the rich. Moreover, I address these words not only to judges but also to all men, so that justice may nowhere be corrupted but everywhere kept inviolate
Good stuff!

>>19905699
Sell all your riches and give it to the widows and orphans of Palestine and Syria, it'll make you feel better. Like a real hero.

>>19905715
How about no.

>>19905728
>Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
You were commanded! You're not just another book Christian are you?

>>19905746
I'm not a Christian, you tranny freak. I'm just reading a book. It's been real good so far.

>>19905752
Has it been false anywhere? Can you prove it? I mean if a single word of the Bible can ever be proven false, it wouldn't be the Bible anymore.

>>19905294
>Like specifically bow your head and fold your hands when you speak to God? Or do you just have faith that your thoughts reach him no matter what?
I do both. I always try to speak with God during the course of the day, and before I sleep I pray again to God (my usual prayer is the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria and a prayer for Saint Joan of Arc).

>>19905843
What are the words of these? I have recently begun praying before bed for the first time in almost 20 years, but I usually just say "dear god' and wing it from there.

>>19905865
Pater Noster
Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done
on earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
Amen.

The Hail Mary
Hail, Mary, full of grace,
the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

St. Joan of Arc
In the face of your enemies,
in the face of harassment,
ridicule, and doubt,
you held firm in your faith.
Even in your abandonment,
alone and without friends,
you held firm in your faith.

I pray that I may be as bold
in my beliefs as you, St. Joan.
I ask that you ride alongside me
in my own battles.
Help me be mindful that
what is worthwhile can be won
when I persist.
Help me hold firm in my faith.
Help me believe in my ability
to act well and wisely.
Amen.

Those are my three daily prayers before bed. After that I talk with God for a while and ask for forgiveness of my sins, and finally I also thank Him for all the good things He has given me.

>>19903638
David Bentley Hart is a brilliant man who towers over any modern atheist apologist. Unfortunately he is also unashamedly heterodox. Get his NT translation if you want but his best works are Atheist Delusion and the Beauty of the Infinite.

>>19905027
I bought a Humble Lamb NKJV recently I'll report back on the quality. Schyler are impossible to get in Australia without exorbitant shipping costs.

>>19905885
>calling The Lord's Prayer "pater noster"

>>19905904
>"pater noster"
Yeah, Our Father, Pater Noster.
And now is time for me to sleep but before that I will pray the Pater Noster, the Ave Maria and my prayer for Saint Joan of Arc.

>>19905904
>Orthodox vs Catholic debate
>Whether "through the Son" implies an ontological origin or merely one of mission

>Protestant vs Catholic debate
>Reeeeee you called the Lords Prayer the "Our Father"!!!!

It's all so tiresome.

>>19905911
>>19905924
I thought the big daddy pedo in Rome let you guys read the Bible now, so why the Latin stuff?

>>19905938

Not sure if anyone else is seeing this coupon, but the normally $80 Alter Hebrew Bible boxset currently has an Amazon coupon to knock over $25 off the price. I've got my eyes on other things right now, but I hear this set being mentioned often in these threads, like >>19892764. If anyone wants it, this might be your best chance.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393292495

>>19906176
wew

>>19906195
>free shipping chad

What's a good book in the bible that advocates conditional immortality and which book is good good for the Katechon?

>>19906176
>masoretic
into the trash

>>19906214
>not learning exactly what the Jews' objections are so you can counter them more effectively
Become a better Christian.

>>19906217
>implying we don't know
>saying you should read a Bible where they removed references to Jesus wherever they could get away with

Does the day of the Lord go past the tribulation or is it only the tribilation?
Post scripture references if you answer the question please

>>19906195
Decided to throw another in while the discounts are being handed out like candy.
>>19906200
Always. No reason not to, and no reason to get Prime either, because there's a 90% chance these two will be rescheduled into two-day shipping anyway. It's happened with basically every order over the last year.

>>19906217
How to counter falsehood more effectively if you’re already using truth?

>>19906231
>saying you should read a Bible where they removed references to Jesus wherever they could get away with
Yes, you should have an English translation of the MT handy so you can see exactly where they removed them, and read their commentary trying to justify the removals, so you can toss them back in their faces, showing the corruption of the MT. The same reason the Quran with Christian Commentary is a good book to have and someplace like the Mises Institute should publish an annotated copy of the Communist Manifesto.
>>19906236
You can counter falsehood more effectively if you have the falsehood right in front of you, and the justifications of those preaching the falsehoods in the form of notes/commentary, which you can directly and clinically contrast with the truth. The same reason the most effective way to criticize Islam, for example, is simply to quote the Quran back to a Muslim, contrasting it with the Bible.

>>19906233
My understanding is that mortality, ignorance, disease, corruption, and the cursed earth IS the tribulation. Ever since the fall because Adam sinned. Scrip ref: Gen 3.

Because judgement comes after death. Or in other words, fulfillment of the curse, the end of the tribulation.

>>19893482
Mark 6:3

>>19895165
>Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
>Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.
>Jesus is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.
the deal with the manna is to show God providing worldy needs to His chosen then to show how He provides eternal life with the flesh and blood of Christ to all who believe in Him

>>19906211
I hate not getting answers

>>19906285
>conditional immorality
None.
>katechon
Thessalonians, where it's mentioned maybe?

>>19893482
If Mary didnt have further children with Joseph at that time historically, they would have been completely brain dead. You had to have multiple children to survive in such a place and time. Regular people didnt just have one kid like we somehow do today.

Now if the bible ever said that Jesus had no siblings outright then you may have an argument but this is a foolish otherwise.

>>19906293
>Now if the bible ever said that Jesus had no siblings outright then you may have an argument but this is a foolish otherwise.
It never says he did, though.

>>19906299
If every healthy family at the time of Christ Jesus on earth had many children and His family was also perfectly fine, why would they not have many children also? It makes no sense for them not to.
>But Mary was pure, without sin and never successfully copulated with a male ever
Super unlikely historically

>>19906299
Mark 6:3

>>19906211
>Katechon
Please explain? Sounds interesting

>>19906214
Literally every bible uses the Masoretic Texts.

>>19906357
hold on

https://criticallegalthinking.com/2018/07/03/carl-schmitt-katechon/

Why do Americans engage in such blatant revisionism.
Can they not suffer footnotes?
is this similar to their intolerance for subtitles?

if you find a verse difficult to understand, you ask your pastor or you read the footnotes.
Revising the content of the bible to be "easier to understand" is cancer, total cancer.
Simply from a literary point of view it's cancer.

>>19906349
>Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon
(1) You're reading one definition into a Greek word that would mean anything from biological siblings to relatives to friends. (2) Are you really suggesting that Peter and Judas are biological siblings of Jesus's? If so, he certainly doesn't act like he grew up with Peter when he calls him in Mark 1:16-18.

>>19906419
John 2:12

>>19906419
Acts 1:13–14

>>19906442
Same answer, since you've already conceded the point by your lack of defense of your previous argument. Good in peace and sin no more.

>>19906442
>>19906450
Footnote:
>brethren: The Greek word or its Semitic equivalent was used for varying degrees of blood relationship; cf. Gen 14.14; 29.12; Lev 10.4

>>19906451
I will continue to go in peace with my belief that the Lord had brothers and sisters in the flesh. Exactly what sin have I committed in doing so? What doctrine have a broken? Of what creed have I denied?
Galatians 1:18-19 btw
James (or Jacob) was Jesus' half brother. Get over it.

Here is my rendition of Luke 1:26-38. It's from my upcoming translation titled The Good News Message for Protestants Today:


In June an angel named Gabriel went to Nazareth, a little town in Galilee. He was sent with an important message to a virgin named Mary who was about to get married to her boyfriend Joseph. When the angel found her he said, "Hello special lady! God is here!"

Seeing an angel really surprised her. So the angel said, "Don't worry, Mary! God needs you to do something really important! You're going to get pregnant and will have a son named Jesus! He'll be a very important person! He's going to be a king and rule the world forever!"

Mary was confused and said, "How can I have a son if I haven't had sex with my boyfriend yet?"

And the angel said, "God is going to send his spirit in you and make you his lady tonight. Don't worry, you can have sex with Joseph as much as you want afterwards, okay? Remember how Elizabeth got pregnant too, and she was an old lady! God can do anything!"

So Mary said, "As long I can still have sex I guess it's okay. Then the angel went back to heaven.

>>19906496
By the way this was paraphrased from the King James Bible (not "version"!) so you can know it's reliable.

>>19902832
I recommend Biblia de Jerusalén from Desclee de Brouwer Editions.

>>19906465
There's no point, he's just insane

>>19906413
Rent free

>>19906465
You've broken with the universal belief of Christians prior to the Reformation.

>>19906290
Thanks. I dunno I just find the idea of universal reconciliation revolting. If you spent your whole life wearing a fedora going around telling little kids that god isn't real while reeking of immense BO I would rather you not be in the afterlife with me, thanks.

>>19902832
What the other anon said, find La Biblia of Jerusalén.
I discovered La Palabra is also quite good has a Spain version.

>>19907500
But returned to the belief of the church prior to Jerome.

>>19907522
You don't actually have a way to know that this doctrine was not believed. The evidence of the early church, like all ancient history, is fragmentary. It's why the church is not something to be reconstructed like an archaelogical excavation, but a continuous tradition guided by the Holy Spirit.

>>19907564
Funny how there were 4 gospels of opportunity to mention it in. Funny how in Acts Mary was barely mentioned and not in any way "venerated". Funny how Paul failed to mention such an (claimed to be) important aspect of the church in any of his letters. Funny how we know for a fact that Jerome argued it into the church not because it was always known, but because he didn't want Mary to be less than other women in heaven.

>>19907705
>Funny how we know for a fact that Jerome argued it into the church not because it was always known, but because he didn't want Mary to be less than other women in heaven.
Just from looking at the Wikipedia page we can come to a few conclusions. The perpetual virginity is attested in the 2nd century from Clement of Alexandria and Origen (Jerome is from the 4th century, by comparison). Outside of that it is found in the Protoevangelium of James. Now, this is not a scriptural text and it is not authoritative, but that does not mean that everything in it is wrong. The writing was in circulation by 150 AD, and may be evidence that this was a known tradition at the time, regardless of whatever else is going on in the text that necessitated that it be condemned. Again, it's hard to say because we don't have comprehensive evidence. There is evidence of some objections to the idea. Tertullian (who apostatized) states otherwise. There are some objectors to its western supporters Jerome and Epiphanius, and in 390 the Synod of Milan condemns those who reject perpetual virginity. The doctrine was apparently not controversial in the East and was readily accepted by Athanasius and others. After this it is the universal Christian understanding for over 1,100 years until the schisms brought about at the Reformation. Now, the presence of some objectors early on does not demonstrate that the idea is wrong or a novelty. There are objectors to every orthodox Trinitarian formula. There is some confusion of the canon early on. So its possible for someone to simply not know something. Again, the evidence if fragmentary. But I don't see how it can be concluded that, going by the historical data, there is an open-and-shut case that this is a fabricated doctrine.

>Funny how there were 4 gospels of opportunity to mention it in. Funny how in Acts Mary was barely mentioned and not in any way "venerated". Funny how Paul failed to mention such an (claimed to be) important aspect of the church in any of his letters.
Whether it's mentioned in writing is neither here nor there. We're to obey the things that they Apostles taught both in letter and in word:

>So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15)

The standard objection to this is that the Catholic idea of tradition unjustifiably presupposes that there is a distinction between what is taught in written and oral tradition, but I don't see how that could not be the case. The Gospels do not recount every act of Jesus:

>But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)

So it seems strange to assume that the Scriptures contain all the teachings of the Apostles. They spent too many years teaching and guiding the Church for this to be possible.

>>19906389
Except the LXX, the Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, and all other variants that are based on MSS traditions that predate 1000 AD.

>>19907783
He's saying that every modern translation of the entire Bible (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) uses the Masoretic Text as its base for the Old Testament. They'll then compare with other ancient witnesses and incorporate them as needed.

>>19907763
Origen and Clement both quoted the Gospel of James and whenever you see the quotes cherry picked they do not provide you the rest where they are saying so. As for the rest of your
>may be
wild speculations I refer you back to the simple facts that are absolutely undisputed >>19907705. If Mary being a perpetual virgin who should be prayed to then it would have been in a Gospel, Acts, or Epistle.
>if you squint just right this one word could be seen as meaning a whole other thing and on this twist we build our "Church™"

Why did lot let his daughters get raped in place of the angels?
Why didn't God just make angels unrapeable?

>>19907938
I have made no "wild speculation", I have simply taken into account that we do not have comprehensive evidence of the period. Your assertion about what the text "should" do, in your opinion, are neither here nor there. It is begging the question by assuming certain understandings of the role of the text, that if it does not teach something then that teaching cannot be present elsewhere, that the text is to be understood on its own without external authority, etc.

>>19907983
>really important teaching that is blatantly overwhelmingly present all over the "Church™" and a dogma one is required to accept despite being obvious nonsense
>no one thinks to give the slightest mention to it in Holy Scripture
Read the debates with Jerome. Not once is the argument anything resembling "but this is what we've always know straight from the apostles through "Holy Tradition™". It's heretical bulls___ brought into the church by mislead at best, corrupted at worst "leaders". Jerome was not above disingenuous selectivity and was homosexual, BTW.

>>19907820
He’s saying that, but the one’s I mentioned don’t use the Masoretic. Ortho and Catho are rooted in patristics who only ever quoted the LXX and the Vulgate. The Masorites compiled their text in the middle ages, an entire millenium after the Gospel was first preached, sure its a fine scholarly tool, but it is not God’s Word the Gentiles were first initiated with.

>>19908005
>Read the debates with Jerome.
The belief does not originate with Jerome but existed at minimum 150 years before his birth.
>Jerome was not above disingenuous selectivity and was homosexual, BTW.
He was not.

>>19907944
>Why did lot let his daughters get raped in place of the angels?
I thought the angels intervened before the Sodomites got to Lot's daughters. But why did he will it to happen? I guess he's a dick. Anyway, they raped him afterwards.
>Why didn't God just make angels unrapeable?
He made them extra rapeable to tempt the Sodomites into raping them, so he could kill them all in response.

>>19908005
>"Holy Tradition™"
Great, is the anti-catholic guy is here.

>>19908056
Am I going to suffer God's wrath if I think of my angel as a beautiful lady?

>>19908044
The belief was not part of the church until Jerome argued it in. Prior to that it was just a folk tale that scattered people who bought Gospel of James believed but the ones who wrote it did not and were simply crafting a piece of fan fiction propaganda.
>>19908063
Anti Catholicism isn't anti Catholic.

>>19908073
>The belief was not part of the church until Jerome argued it in.
It was. If it was not then it would not have become the universal belief of all Christians. You basically deny the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church, as He allowed it to become corrupted at a universal level.

John 16:13a "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth"

>>19908165
Based

>>19908165
>it would not have become the universal belief of all Christians
It didn't, so there's that.
>You basically deny the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church
No, the church is just fine, it's the "Church™" that's corrupted. I guess the Holy Spirit guided the "Church™" to genocide countless Christians too.

>>19908185
>It didn't, so there's that.
It did. This was the universal belief of all Christians in the west and the east until Protestantism began in the 1500s. Every See of the Church held (and still holds) Mary to be ever-virgin.
>I guess the Holy Spirit guided the "Church™" to genocide countless Christians too.
If you allege this then you are advocating the heresy of Donatism, which taught that clergy become illegitimate through moral failings. I am speaking of the Church's universal belief.

>>19908208
Enjoy simping for Babylon then.

>>19908218
Come home to the Church of the apostles, anon. Persecution is coming in the west and we need to be in unity once again.

The Jerusalem Bible is the best version.

>>19908306
Indeed. The french speaking and spanish speaking people are quite lucky.
And for the catholic english speaking people, it's one of the best versions of The Bible.

>>19908306
I don't like the Tetragrammaton being rendered as Yahweh.

>>19908342
>Yahweh
No way!

>>19908306
>>19908342
>On 29 June 2008, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, wrote to the presidents of all conferences of bishops at the behest of Pope Benedict XVI, stating that the use of the name Yahweh was to be dropped from Catholic Bibles in liturgical use ... as well as from songs and prayers, since pronunciation of this name violates long-standing Jewish and Christian tradition.

What's a good church for literal Anglo-descended (family is from Southern England) flyover trash like me that isn't technically Protestantism? Pic not related.

>>19908233
The true church, the Body of Christ, is always in unity under Christ. Only the atheistic mind refuses the validity of the eternal invisible over the temporary visible.

>>19908411
The Church has both visible unity and invisible unity. As you accuse me of negating invisible unity, you negate the visible. But the Catholic Church possesses both. We are visibly united on Earth and we are invisibly united with those in heaven. This is the true mystical body.

>>19908411
Also we do share an invisible unity of sorts with all who are baptized. A Protestant is part of the church, albeit in an imperfect way, as he is deprived of the other sacraments and of the fullness of truth. But in a sense he is united to us.

>>19908233
if persecution is coming, it's coming at the hands of the vatican, the whore of babylon
as it did before

>>19908822
I'm not "/pol/" but figure it's much more likely to come from the Jews. They are in control of Hollywood and NY liberalism and the NT could be labeled "anti-Semitic" and use that it (Christianity/Bible) goes against liberal values of pro-homo and pro everyone just have all the sex you want with whomever you want and chase whatever makes you feel good, etc. to build mass consensus against it.

>>19908342
How do you prefer it? YHWH?

>>19908342
How do Jews pronounce it?

>I see trees walking as men
what's up with this? Seems really out of place, I vaguely remember seeing an occult theory for this where Jesus accidentally gave the guy the ability to see higher dimensions

>>19907522
Protestants have this weird quirk where they'll decide the Church Fathers were in error because they didn't hold to the teachings of the "early church" and when you question them on what the early Christian church believed inevitably they say they believed what current Protestants do because obviously they would have interpreted scripture in the same way.

They say "That's not biblical, the early Christian communities were biblical because the New Testament tells us they were based on my personal interpretation of the New Testament" which is obviously circular logic. There is no evidence of any early christian communities who held to the doctrines of the Protestants and a LOT of evidence against it, to the point even Ignatius who wrote at the very beginning of the 2nd Century needs to be written off as heterodox because he affirms Catholic teachings the Protestants disagree with.

They never seem to understand that the point of looking to the early Christian extra-biblical writings is to show that their idea of what a "biblical church" looked like never even existed in the first 1000 years of the faith.

How long is the yapp on a standard CBP KJB?

>>19909094
have you ever thought that the yapp is like the book's foreskin? really makes you think

>>19909090
There are no "Church Fathers" other than the one, the LORD God Almighty.
>>19909094
It's just normal and not recent hipster trend sized.

>>19904939
Can you imagine the conversation behind this decision?
>This chapter really incriminates us, what should we say in the footnotes?
>Just don't put any footnotes for this chapter.
>But we have them in literally every other chapter.
>Well if we could get away with it we would just delete it but everyone would notice. No one reads the footnotes, no one will notice.
>But anyone who does notice will realize how deafening the silence is on this specific chapter.
>Who cares, our simps will defend us no matter what.
>But what if the Holy Spirit reveals to them that Protestantism is right?
>They won't listen, praying to Ishtar and other demons has warped their spirit receptors.
>True true, ok, no footnotes for only that one chapter then, run it!

>>19904939
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/catena1/catena1.ii.xxiii.html

There you go bro.

>>19909426
>this has squat to do with the footnotes on the present official Bible of the Catholics

>>19909663
The official Bible translation of the Catholic Church is the Latin Vulgate.

>>19909677
Strange how that could be the case but what's approved to be read in services is the NAB.

>>19909702
Only in America. We use the Jerusalem Bible here.

>>19909813
The JB doesn't have very informative footnotes to begin with. The NAB has relatively in depth ones throughout, but zero for the entirety of chapter 23. Mighty curious. We all know that they could only say
>muh Paul
>muh biological fathers
>Jesus' opinion discarded

>>19909933
The NAB footnotes weren't put there by the Catholic Church. They were written, ironically enough, by Protestant biblical scholars, not Catholics.

>>19909144
>It's just normal and not recent hipster trend sized.
So, 1/4" like any other hardcover yapp and most other Bible publishers? I see a lot of "Biblebros" with 1/2" to 7/8" yapps and they honestly look unappealing and unwieldy to me.

>>19909933
The thing is, regular Bibles shouldn't have in-depth notes. That's what Study Bibles and separate volumes are for. For example, the RSV-CE/2CE has very few notes that aren't translation notes, but the Ignatius Study Bible practically has more notes than actual Bible text sometimes. For what it is, the JB is pretty good and the NAB's notes should be burned.

>>19909977
So they probably wrote them but the Catholics didn't have the guts to publish them.
>>19910017
Yet that one does and yet it leaves only those completely out.

>>19910008
1/4 looks about what mine (Cameo Compact) is.

>>19910037
I just checked both my regular NAB and my "Catholic" Study Bible NABRE and both have the standard NAB footnotes for Matthew 23. You can even see them right here on the USCCB website

https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/23

>>19909018
>>19909055
In every language it is customary to replace the Tetragrammaton with a word meaning "Lord" or similar. So when the Jews read the text aloud they read it as Adonai. In translation it is normally replaced: in Greek with Kyrios, in Latin Dominus, in English Lord, etc. It has been a universal tradition between both Jews and Christians to not pronounce the Name.

>>19909933
The people who argue about this meaning you can't say Father are like the people who say you can't swear oaths.

>>19910057
Interesting, I wonder why they did not supply them to Bible Hub? The notes seem atheistic, saying that Matthew included that because it must have been something that was happening at his church, rather than Jesus said and Matthew recorded it. I saw some other note somewhere in the NAB that said Jesus probably didn't really say a certain thing because that would have been prophecy so it was likely written after the fact.

>>19910109
Take it up with Jesus, he said not to do it, yet here's the Catholics, calling their priests and the Pope "Father". Surely the Creator of all existence had good reasons for His command.

>>19910133
>The notes seem atheistic
They are. The notes in the NAB are notoriously terrible and written from a secular perspective, they outright reject the authenticity of several epistles, say Daniel was written around 180BC and numerous other egregious attacks on messianic prophecies referring to Christ.

>>19910156
Good gracious, why would the Catholics allow for that in their official "bible"?

>>19910147
Acts 7:2 Who said: Ye men, brethren, and fathers, hear. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charan.

Is St. Stephen sinning here?

>>19910175
Those aren't titles of office.

>>19910181
Where do you derive that Matt. 23 is referring only to an office?

>>19910162
USCCB is cucked. No other english speaking Catholic country uses that translation because it's bad. Other countries use the RSV

>>19910162
The NAB is only specific to America, because so many of our bishops are failures.

>>19910090
IIRC the LSV uses YHWH.

>>19910193
>>19910197
https://www.quora.com/What-Bible-version-does-the-Catholic-Church-use-in-Mass-and-readings

In the U.S., the readings at mass come from the New American Bible (Revised Ed.)
In Canada and New Zealand they come from the New Revised Standard Version.
In India, England, and Wales, they come from the English Standard Version.
In Australia, they use the Jerusalem Bible.
In Ireland, the Revised New Jerusalem Bible.

No surprise that the birthplace of globohomo uses the globohomo approved translation.

>>19910189
It's plainly obvious in the context, He names several titles of religious office in a rant specifically against religious leaders, not generalities.

>>19910210
Technically the NABRE is not used in the liturgy, but a different version of the NAB that has been revised to be in conformity to the Vatican's liturgical guidelines. The only things that were corrected in this way were portions of the text used in the liturgy, though, so it isn't something you can buy in a store.

>>19910210
>muh unified One True Church

>>19910231
He also says not to call someone καθηγητής (guide, master, teacher). What do you consider this to mean?

>>19910238
This is going to blow your mind but non-english speaking countries use different translations in their own language as well. This compromises the unity of the church in your eyes does it?

>>19910231
>He names several titles of religious office in a rant specifically against religious leaders
He says to obey the leaders specifically because they have their office, they "sit on Moses seat", but not to emulate their actions. This is a clear teaching that you need to obey people who hold office but also recognize that they're fallible people who shouldn't necessarily be put on a pedestal or used as an example of proper Christian living.

>>19910241
Obviously those were titles of religious leaders of the time. He plainly said right there that we are all brethren, so no titles among us when it comes to religious matters. He obviously wasn't concerned with worldly craftsman having titles so that one knows they are hiring someone who knows what they are doing. As brethren under Christ we do not know what we are doing, we are bumbling idiots, but we have Scripture to guide us and we can all help each other figure it out, but none of us are offices of authority over the rest who can demand that it means what they think it means.

>>19910255
Obviously people will use their own languages, but what kind of unity can you claim when people of a shared language all have differing versions among them?

>>19910259
>they "sit on Moses seat"
This was while the temple sacrifices were still a thing, He'd not yet made the final, ultimate sacrifice.

>>19910269
>He plainly said right there that we are all brethren, so no titles among us when it comes to religious matters.
So what is the presbyter, deacon, etc.?

>As brethren under Christ we do not know what we are doing, we are bumbling idiots, but we have Scripture to guide us and we can all help each other figure it out, but none of us are offices of authority over the rest who can demand that it means what they think it means.

Acts 8:30-31 So Philip ran up to [the chariot] and heard [the Ethiopian eunuch] reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him.

>>19910274
Contrary to common belief the Catholic Church is not a dictatorship with the Pope at the top (a position called Ultramontanism). Bishops have pretty much absolute authority within their own jurisdictions. The Pope has universal appellate authority, meaning if two Bishops come into conflict it is the Pope who has the authority to resolve the dispute. With this in mind the Bishops in each country are the ones who decide which translation to use for their area, there is no reason the Pope should authoritatively declare a universal English translation for all English speaking dioceses around the world.

Catholics should, and mostly do, focus on their own local community rather than worrying about what Francis is doing in Rome.

>>19910279
>Jesus teaches something that is only relevant for 3 days
Why would he do this? Furthermore why would this ostensibly obsolete teaching be recorded in the gospel that's supposed to be passed down to teach the Christian faith for all time?

>>19910293
Those are functions but not titles, and the Ethiopian only had Isaiah so he had no idea the rest of the context.

>>19910315
>Those are functions but not titles,
Father is a function not a title. I can play this semantic game too.
>and the Ethiopian only had Isaiah so he had no idea the rest of the context.
It says he is reading Isaiah, not that the only text he possesses is Isaiah. He had come to Jerusalem to worship so he was a Jew and not some random person.

>>19910315
Are church leaders not ordained in whatever post-Reformation tradition it is that you follow?

>>19910334
The gospels hadn't been written yet, if they had then he wouldn't need to be told he could just read it for himself.
>>19910350
They are anointed by the LORD.

Just got these in the mail.

The Gospels are full of exorcisms. Why aren't exorcisms performed today?

>>19910565
They are.

https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/sacraments-and-sacramentals/sacramentals-blessings/exorcism

>>19910446
>Ignatius Bible
Good choice, best Catholic Bible you can get imo. Excellent selection of books there too.

>>19910193
>>19910210
I should add before the thread dies, the USCCB actually tried to lobby the Vatican to use the NAB in the Catechism, and the Vatican told them to fuck off and used the RSVCE instead. Funny enough, the New African Bible is the NAB text but lacks the terrible notes, if I recall, and thus it's actually better.

>>19910717
>the USCCB actually tried to lobby the Vatican to use the NAB in the Catechism
The fuck is wrong with American Bishops. That translation directly undermines the Christian faith and the awful notes they force you to use with it are the shit cherry on top.

The issue with the NABRE notes is not really that they are wrong (though some are), but they are more like a scholarly apparatus to the translation, rather than being notes to help the reader spiritually. So they're more of a textual commentary than a theological one. If you approach it like the latter then you'll think it's leading you somewhere it isn't trying to go.

>>19910771
And I don't say this to excuse it. There's no reason that a translation with these sorts of footnotes should be pushed on the laity. But that's what the footnotes actually are.

>>19910745
>The fuck is wrong with American Bishops.
They own the copyright to the NAB text, and they'd love nothing more than to get royalties forever, globally, from the CCC. The Vatican actually let them down gently by just saying that the NAB wasn't literal enough a translation to be used in the CCC.

>>19910799
>Forcing a shitty atheist minded translation onto the worldwide English speaking Catholic laity for money
American Catholicism was a mistake

A translation people don't seem to know very well is the New Catholic Bible that was released a few years ago. Has a substantial set of notes like the NABRE but they're devotional in nature.

>>19910717
>>19910745
>>19910771
Here at Brother Jimbo's Sanctified Sanctuary we don't have these kinds of problems. It's been the King James Bible unchanged for over 400 years other than spelling updates. More eyes have read those words than any other single text ever in this history of man. It was translated by believers and there are no atheist corruptions anywhere in it. It tells us that Eve's seed will crush the serpent and not her. It tells us that Mary was a virgin until after Jesus was born. It tells us Jesus said to pray to the Father. It doesn't tell us one word about there being a Papa over the church and in fact tells us not to call any church figures "Father" because THE Father is He. We don't have branches in one place doing/saying one thing while branches in another do/say other things. Everyone who follows that same text is our brother and there is no need for any of us to ask each other permission for anything nor any of us to tell the others what to do. There's no need for "synods" or "councils" because all you need to do to know what is and is not the truth is to read the Holy Bible and that's that. If anyone gets caught messing with kids it gets taking care of right then and there. The only scandals we have was that one time a squirrel got loose and went berserk.

>>19910803
>Catholicism was a mistake
FTFY

>>19910803
The problem is, the notes were produced during the 60s/70s when that form of historical-critical approach was all the rage, hence why it actually appeared in the notes of several Bibles, like the Oxford Annotated, Jerusalem, etc. The problem is, the USCCB can't be assed to get new notes written by actual Catholics, even though they're actually finishing up another revision of the NABRE due out in 2025, so the NAB notes are actually a time-capsule of critical secular thought from like 50 years ago that really has no place being given to modern Christians. Especially since literally nobody would read the NABRE if they want a critical/secular take on the Bible; they'd read the NRSV.

>>19910806
>Has a substantial set of notes like the NABRE but they're devotional in nature.
Are you sure? If I recall, these notes were copy-pasted into the RNJB, and they're not that great from seeing them there.

>>19910808
Forgot muh image.

>>19910565
Exorcists are still a thing, anon. Which also means demons and possessions are also quite real.

NABRE note on John 1:1

>Was God: lack of a definite article with “God” in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.

What is this supposed to mean to the average layperson? I can't understand it myself.

>>19910832
That is to say, I understand what it is referring to regarding the lack of the article in Greek, but I don't understand the distinction between predication/identification that it is making in reference to the predicate nominative here. Any ideas?

>>19910832
>>19910850
It means that in the Greek it's structured such that it reads
"And the Word was God"

rather than

"And God was the Word"

That is the passage says that the Word is God, not identifying God as being the Word (and hence disrupting the doctrine of the Trinity by identifying God and the Logos being one and the same thing)

Basically what is explained here:
https://youtu.be/iXDt8WHSPhU?t=174

>>19910857
Ah, I see. I think the terseness of the note renders the point incomprehensible to anyone who would not already understand it.

>>19910866
Yeah I think the distinction between predicating something is God and identifying something as God would be lost on the vast majority of people, it's not a very helpful note.

>>19910866
I think >>19910812 highlights it that the NAB is in a weird position where it tries to appear like an academic's Bible as much as a believer's Bible, not realizing that it largely fails to do either. In the case of that note, it's acting like it's talking to people in the weeds of textual debate, but since none of those people read the NAB, it's instead being read by people without that background, thus rendering it really obtuse.

John 21 NABRE
Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me. And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, ‘The master has need of them.’ ... They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.

Footnote:
The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).
Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew’s misunderstanding of the prophecy.

>>19910808
It's easy to trust Pastor Billy Bob and his diploma from KJB Bible College when you don't have to engage with anyone outside your walled-in compound.

I can't find anything anywhere indicating "Protestants" had any hand in the NABRE footnotes. I suspect the poster above was simply attempting to divert knowledge of guilt for these evils from those they simp for.

>>19910906
It doesn't matter who wrote them anyway. The people responsible are the American bishops. They're the ones who are in charge of the matter.

>>19910906
>I can't find anything anywhere indicating "Protestants" had any hand in the NABRE footnotes.
He probably meant atheists. Easy to confuse the two.

>>19910907
Oh it matters, Catholics wrote them and Catholics did that terrible translation, and Catholics run the USCCB. Catholics just can't Bible. It's almost as if the Holy Spirit blocks them from it.

>anons shitting on footnotes based on history/culture rather than faith
>in a thread with the based NOA NRSV as the OP

>>19910935
We have faithful versions that are available. The existence of this one shitty version from the Great Satan does not negate that.
>>19910937
>NOA NRSV
*spits*

>>19910937
It's the RSV but I wouldn't have anything to do with either and as usual OP is an abomination to the LORD.

>>19910943
Nothing tainted by Jerome qualifies, the Knox is a paraphrase like The Message, and the RSV wasn't done by Catholics.

>>19910943
>>19910945
Just because NRSV has shitty gender stuff doesn't mean that the NOA doesn't provide the best footnotes around. KJV for reading, NOA for learning.

This is the best Catholic of the version of the Bible, by the way. Includes the RSVCE, the Nova Vulgata, and extensive orthodox commentary from the church fathers, doctors, etc. It's expensive, unfortunately.

>>19910956
>and the RSV wasn't done by Catholics.
It wasn't done by evangelicals either, but that didn't stop evangelicals from making the ESV with it. Evangelicals actually declined an offer by the NCC to produce an RSV-EE in the 60s, but then got really pissy when the NCC then went to the Catholics with an offer to produce an RSV-CE. Then in the late 90s, those same evangelicals asked for permission to make that RSV-EE nearly 40 years later, renaming it the ESV so they could copyright it themselves. Catholics have the RSV-2CE, but for all intents and purposes, the current 2016 text of the ESV is the RSV-4EE.

>>19910963
The full 10 volume set is currently $475.

>>19910977
Eh, I've paid more for both Bibles and commentaries.

>>19910981
Well here's the link to this one if you're interested. It's by Opus Dei.

https://scepterpublishers.org/collections/navarre-bibles

>>19910963
The lack of a good quality academic level Catholic commentary really hurts. I've tried the Catholic Commentary of Sacred Scripture and unfortunately it's aimed at the lay audience.

The commentaries I own are:
>Expositors Bible Commentary - Old Testament
>New Interpreters Bible Commentary - 10 Volume Set
>Various volumes of The Pillar New Testament Commentary, New American Commentary and the Baker Exegetical Commentary for most of the NT books
>Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture - Romans, Colossians, Hebrews
>Ancient Christian Commentary on Sacred Scripture - Full Set
>Thomas Aquinas - Commentaries on Matthew, John and the Pauline Epistles
>Catena Aurea

>>19910974
All of that is fake and gay though so who cares? There's only one Holy Bible, the Authorized King James.

>>19910988
Do you have any comprehension of how stupid you sound? This is the most retarded of all Protestant beliefs.

>>19910984
Are they hardcover?

>>19910984
>Shipping $296AUD

>>19910992
He's right though. They have yet to improve on it despite the discovery of better source texts and improved biblical and linguistic scholarship.

>>19911001
new

>>19910993
The 7-volume OT and 3-volume NT is hardcover. They also have paperback versions of the individual NT books.
>>19911007
You should see if there is any Opus Dei location in Australia where you can buy them.

>>19911012
>The 7-volume OT and 3-volume NT is hardcover.
Music to my ears. I just got the good deal on Alter's Hebrew Bible thanks to the anon in this thread, but I'll bookmark those. Maybe Christmas.

>>19910992
I'd rather "sound stupid" knowing I'm reading an incredibly accurate word for word translation than think I am smart while reading terrible translations unwittingly. I check them in parallel against the Hebrew and Greek and see the variances on a daily basis. I will give it to the Douay-Rheims, it's maybe the 6th best out of all of them (KJB, YLT, LSV, ASV, NASB ahead of it).

>>19911025
What is stupid is not using the King James, it is the assertion that it constitutes the "only one Holy Bible."

>>19911029
Until someone gets legitimately better together then yes, everything else has far too many errors of cruciality in them to qualify.