/lit/ - Literature

Do any of you bros have reading plan recommendations? I've been doing Prof. Grant Horner's, but it's too disjointed and I feel like I can't keep track of the various story arcs.

First for the Holy Bible (which means KJB) and not "bible" (which means anything else).

>>19973259
I consider reading plans to be homosexual. Just read it.

>>19973259
Ascension Press' Bible in a Year. mixes up the content a lot

>talking snakes

>>19973259
Bible Project has a plan that shows their corresponding videos:

https://d1bsmz3sdihplr.cloudfront.net/media/Quarterlies_Other%20Downloads/2021_Reading%20Plan.pdf

>>19973261
I have Wycliffe's edition in modern English, is that just as good?

>>19973359
>Do Methodists even believe in Apostolic Succession though? Episcopalians do.

>>19973361
No, but it's at least better than the ESV, NIV, DRB, NAB, NABRE, Knox, Jerusalem, RSV, RSV-CE, NRSV, NRSV-CE, NRSVue, Message, Passion, ASV, NWT, Good News, NLT, WEB, NET, or CSB.

How do I find a church that's a good fit for me? There's dozens of churches near me. I don't think the best way to evaluate them would be to go to every single one, it'd take me a year if I went on every Sunday

>>19973383
It's a sorta odd take, but with the power of the LORD God Almighty perhaps it worked in ways that transcend the demands of more strict human oversight. All I know is that thanks to John Wesley and George Whitefield this entire region is covered up with churches in even the most rural of spots.

https://milewis.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/united-methodism-and-apostolic-succession/

>>19973417
Ask God to lead you. Try where you feel called, perhaps in a chain until you find where you think God wants you to spend more time. Let God lead you but do not put too many suppositions on how that process should work.

>>19973261
>>19973361
king jimbo is shite.

>>19973434

>>19973427
Good article. I wouldn't mind being Methodist but where I live the churches are deserted.

Good evening, gentlemen.
Moses wrote at least the base text for the Torah which was then completed by Joshua (such as writing Moses' death), Peter wrote 1 Peter and 2 Peter, and Paul wrote Hebrews.
Thank you for your time and good night.

>>19973571
for you, anon

>>19973554
I have never considered myself to be Methodist, but rather a Christian who was a member of a Methodist church. Our preachers always preached the Bible, and that's all that was taught in Sunday School. I never once heard any specifically "Methodist" teachings there. The only way I knew it was Methodist is because that's what the sign outside said. Of course, we did have our Methodist style lighting and extinguishing of candles for each service, so it had little enhancements to the feeling of sanctification, etc.

>>19973756
I like the idea of being non-denominational and continuing to attend my usual church but I'm just not sure it's that easy.

>>19973571
lol

>>19974704
In the past there were no "denominations", there was one singular Church, and breaking off to form your own separatist group was something that condemned you.

>>19975216
The image is from a baptistry constructed by the Arian king Theodoric the Great at Ravenna, Italy sometime around the year 500. In the center is Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist. The depiction of Jesus without a beard is of course interesting. To his left is a personification of the river Jordan (the water of the river is flowing from a jug as his hip).

Circling this are the twelve apostles. Most are not unique except for Peter and Paul (pic related). Paul is holding scrolls representing his epistles, and Peter his holding the Keys. Between them is the Etimasia, or the prepared throne, empty and waiting for Christ's second coming.

The area was reconquered by the Byzantine Empire in 540 and was thus incorporated into the Catholic Church.

>>19973571
Based. Paul wrote both Timothies too and John wrote 1, 2, 3.

>>19973571
Uh no sorry, bro. Every traditional belief is wrong because history said so. All the Gospels were written at least 50 years later okay? Jesus says the temple would be destroyed and he couldn't have known about that so that means they were written after the temple was destroyed (in 70 AD). Historical criticism is not atheistic, no way no how.

>>19974704
Sure it is. I can walk into just about any church and and be Christian, and consider them Christian despite variances in outward practices and minor details of understanding (assuming they are indeed minor, as I said, "just about"). Over the decades I have indeed visited many churches, with friends, girlfriends, etc. and never once felt like I wasn't at church under God with a room full of people doing their best to come to Him within their understandings.

>>19975472
I don't dispute anything you said, but there is something wrong with everyone being separated from each other and everyone all grasping and trying to figure it out. Christianity was not like this until after the Reformation.

>>19975509
Well yeah, there's "something wrong" with it, this world is broken and nothing, nothing in it is ideal. But even still it's better than being forced into the illusion of unity under false teachings by a single severely corrupted institution that murders to maintain itself and exploits the masses for its own luxuries.

>>19975612
I'll add to this that there were reasons they murdered in the attempt to keep the Holy Bible out of the common people's hands...once people could read it for themselves it was like turning on the light in a room full of roaches.

>>19975612
The Church is the Church because Christ founded it and has promised to uphold it. Moral failings cannot invalidate it. And it can never succumb to false dogmas. For Protestantism to be correct, the Holy Spirit had to cease guiding the Church. All the Churches in the world, in Europe, in the East, in Africa, all of them followed these "corrupted" teachings.
>>19975623
It's unfortunate that this happened, but this was something specific to the west. In the east for example, plenty of people spoke Greek natively and anyone literate could read the New Testament. They still followed the same doctrines as Rome. Protestant arguments like this don't work once you take in the broader context of non-western Christianity.

>>19975643
Yeah, no, Christ's church that He founded, His ekklesia, is doing just fine without any concern for specific earthly institutions. God works in the invisible as much as if not more than in the visible. You are exhibiting crypto atheistic thinking, giving far too much credit to the works of men.

>>19975747
This thing you are talking about is something that was made up in the 1500s. Your understanding is frankly gnostic. You think the church must be invisible and immaterial, that the Eucharist can't be anything but bread, that baptism can't be anything but water, that the spiritual is divorced from the physical and nothing can work through matter. But God works through the material world. Christ's body, the Church, is both mystical and invisible as well as physical and visibly present on Earth. Christ is fully God and fully man. He did not become a being of pure spirit but took upon himself a fleshly body born of a human woman. All these things correspond and work together.

>>19975776
>be God
>invent something before the foundation of the world
>be Catholic
>think it was invented in the 1500s by men
Someone hasn't read their Bible anywhere near enough. Also the bread and wine are bread and wine, but if you properly understand them they take you into the very real invisible Body of Christ. And yes, all who are in the Body of Christ and still living on earth do have physical bodies, and those bodies are in many buildings and institutions around the globe. Each one is indeed perfectly visible.

It's just BS about denominations and bible versions every time. I don't think anyone in these threads regularly reads a good Bible otherwise you wouldn't waste your time with such nonsense.

>>19975826
>Someone hasn't read their Bible anywhere near enough.
What I'm telling you is that this opinion you have of the Church, that it exists in various schismatic bodies, all believing fundamentally different things, all trying to figure out the Bible for themselves and breaking apart when they disagree, this is made up. No Christians believed this prior to the Reformation. It's really just a cope because you to explain the utter disunity that Protestantism has in some way.
>Also the bread and wine are bread and wine, but if you properly understand them they take you into the very real invisible Body of Christ.
Indeed, it's just something that's happening subjectively within you, not objectively outside you. It's a fully spiritual occurrence and no change occurs in matter. Again, gnostic.
>And yes, all who are in the Body of Christ and still living on earth do have physical bodies, and those bodies are in many buildings and institutions around the globe. Each one is indeed perfectly visible.
I addressed this in the first part of my post. This is a made-up ideology to justify schism post hoc. Christ prays that his flock would be one (John 17:20-21). The Protestant churches are many.

>>19975643
Then why did the schism happen? And why exactly do you think you are right?
Hard mode: don't twist the meaning of Scripture to justify yourself

>>19975897
>Then why did the schism happen?
Anyone can go into schism by rejecting the unity of the Church for his own understanding. God does not prevent people from doing this. Many schisms have occurred in history, though many of them were either reconciled or ceased to exist in the course of time. The Reformation occurred due to a number of historical circumstances, some of which were the faults of the Catholic Church (such as the sale of indulgences), though these were corrected in the Counter-Reformation.
>And why exactly do you think you are right?
Because Christ created a real teaching authority on the earth through the Apostles, giving the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, their chief. The Holy Spirit continually guides the Church into all truth (John 16:13), and we are not abandoned to grasp about by ourselves to figure it out. We are guided through this Apostolic teaching authority, which resides in the successors of the Apostles, those whom they ordained as teachers after themselves. And the Church that they lead cannot fail (Matt. 16:18).
>Hard mode: don't twist the meaning of Scripture to justify yourself
What this truly amounts to is that I am asked not to contradict your own understanding of Scripture.

>>19975947
>such as the sale of indulgences
What was it about infallibility and stuff? There's numerous points that are still wrong. Ever see how people bow to the pope, but, contrary to how the Apostles acted, he doesn't tell them to get up?

>Protestant Reformation
I prefer the more accurate "Neo-Gnostic Revolt."

>>19975978
>What was it about infallibility and stuff?
This is something which acts as a guarantee of truth for the Church. It means that should the Pope officially define a matter of faith for us, it cannot be wrong. This is not something that occurs often and exists under specific criteria. If it helps you can perceive it negatively, which is that God will not allow the Church to formalize false dogma.
>There's numerous points that are still wrong. Ever see how people bow to the pope, but, contrary to how the Apostles acted, he doesn't tell them to get up?
Perhaps this seems alien in a democratic world, but it has been normal throughout history for one to bow or kneel to earthly kings. This is a sign of veneration and not of worship. But should one do it out of worship, it would be wrong. Scripture indicates that Cornelius was showing worship to Peter, prostrating himself before him and elevating him above the status of man, which is what Peter corrects, telling Cornelius that he is a man just like him. Peter is not negating all human forms of veneration. We stand for a judge, for example. If no respect or honor can be shown to one of higher office, this would be wrong.

>>19976058
gee, i wonder what laypeople would bow to the pope for...
And, on the topic of talking to people in positions, Paul doesn't do anything different when talking to Agrippa

>>19975947
>Because Christ created a real teaching authority on the earth through the Apostles
Yes, and Rome killed them all but John and hijacked the movement with mafia like warpings. Through the wisdom and power of God, everything needed was completed into Scripture which forms a seed that can be replanted over and over. So, despite them all being killed by Rome, along with countless others for centuries to come, Hades, which is death, could not stamp out His true church, which has continued to grow outside of Rome just like the seeds that fall all around any other bush or tree.

>>19976074
>gee, i wonder what laypeople would bow to the pope for...
He is due honor and respect, and to an extent our obedience, but he is not due worship. He can fail morally, he can fail theologically in his private capacity, he can make poor decisions, he can institute bad policies. He is human.
>And, on the topic of talking to people in positions, Paul doesn't do anything different when talking to Agrippa
This cannot institute that all human signs of respect an honor are abolished. There is nothing in the text to indicate that. Paul also does speak to him respectfully, for example in his introductory remarks (Acts 26:2-3). Read the preface to the King James translation and see how they address James. They use language that if you saw it used of Mary, you would claim it is worship. But it is not worship, it is human veneration.

>>19976097
This is the "Trail of Blood," which is historical bunk. The people you must appeal to in order to constitute the remnant church are all manner of heretics, such as the Montanists, who believed in new revelation given through special prophets, or the gnostic Cathars. None of them are remotely equivalent to a modern Protestant.

>>19973244
Which high end KJV Bible to get?
Cambridge Turquoise
Cambridge Concord
Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha
Schuyler Canterbury
Allen 53 Longprimer

Really need a separate thread for catholic culitsts

>>19976139
CBP Midsize Wide Margin Cameo - Corporate Series, Black.

>>19976182
>CBP Midsize Wide Margin Cameo - Corporate Series, Black
That shit better not be printed in china. I want an Authorized KJV which is why I like Cambridge text

>>19976194
>CBP
>printing in China
They're not Crossway. CBP's KJB text is the Pure Cambridge before Cambridge started making bullshit edits.

>>19976141
Based

>>19976128
>The people you must appeal to
Over and over and over you Catholics and "Orthodox™" can't break free of the mindset of people worship. I do not appeal to "people", I appeal to Scripture. If anyone makes any claim that is counter to Scripture then their opinion is discarded. If they make a claim that I do not yet understand, then I appeal to Scripture to investigate it, just like the Bereans. If Scripture indicates it being valid, then I consider myself to have grown in knowledge but I do not start kissing photos of the person who gave it to me, nor praying to them, nor going to a church built on their claims. I am simply grateful for the edifying fellowship from a brother. And yet again, by far most of Protestantism is in agreement on by far the essentials. If one group has enough of a disagreement on an issue to want to church according to it, that is fine, depending on the issue they are still my brethren. The Body is made up of many members with varying gifts and functions. There are churches there to serve many types and many levels of understanding. They are, by far, mostly all my brethren. They all pray to God and God alone. They all put their faith in God and God alone. They all sing praises of worship to God and God alone. They all trust in the sacrifice by Christ and Christ alone for the atonement of their sins.

>>19976139
>>19976182
>>19976194
>>19976255
Agreed, though I prefer the CBP Cameo Compact. All CBP are printed and hand bound in the USA. Up until recently they were done in Michigan but now a church in Texas owns them and the equipment. The long time owner is down there now teaching them how everything is done. It will be church members doing it all henceforth.

>>19976285
Keep track of what we're talking about. I'm referring to your historical claim and the people you have to refer to in history for it to line up. This isn't the first time you've done this where you say one thing, then when I respond to it, you wrench what I said out of context. What are the the essentials? They're whatever you think they are of course. Is baptism of believers alone essential? Is an infant baptism baptism? If it isn't then perhaps the majority of Christians in history were never baptized, amazingly. But it's not essential I guess. Who knew? Going to bed.

>>19976139
Seconding >>19976299
Here you go: https://churchbiblepublishers.com/shop/bible-by-cover-color/black/compact-cameo-bible-corporate-series-black/

>>19976301
I don't have to "refer to people in history", I refer to God's power. God has always kept a remnant no matter what, and individuals within that remnant have always done accordingly to the voice of God to at least whatever degree was necessary to preserve God's seed, vine, branches, etc. Exactly how the Holy Bible was written, compiled, and preserved. I need not even know their worldly names. Many were likely completely Anonymous, as far as recorded history is concerned. No one knows specifically who wrote any given manuscript, nor who put them in the specific places they stayed until discovered, etc. Yet, here they are, by the power of the LORD God Almighty, AMEN.

What none you prots can get around is this:

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH DECIDED AND WROTE WHAT WOULD BE IN THE BIBLE INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.


THEN YOU HERETICS THINK, "HEY MAYBE THIS GUY !! HIS EXTREME NEUORITISCM AND OCD AND HIS FAITH WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR EVEFYONR, WE CAN JUST WORK FOR THE POWERS THAT BE, HEY WOW WE ARE FREE FOR WORK NOW BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING RELIGOUS AT ALL

Prots ruined EVERYTHING, destroyed system prior to it and then brought about capitalis,


LITERALY satanists, satan was at luthers ear whisppering obscenities'

Who /Dooyeweerd/ here?

>>19976141
honestly, it's not surprising they do everything they can to prevent discussion of the Bible in a Bible thread

same as it ever was, at least they're not killing us anymore for preaching the bible (well, if you exclude the martyrs in latin america)

>>19976421
Mad enough to kill

>>19976421
Weird how the Christian church didn't exist until Christ yet somehow managed to write the 39 books of the Holy Bible that existed complete by 400 years before Him. Always taking credit for everything.

So what did you faggots read in the Bible today?

>>19976141
What was the forged document?

>>19976447
>39 books of the Holy Bible
*46

>>19976469
Psalm 42 and also some bits of Genesis in the Bible Project app. It's a really buggy first release but I see where they are going with it and when the bugs are worked out it's going to be an excellent resource, especially in showing the patterns throughout the Holy Bible. I wake up late so have barely gotten started on my daily studies.

https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxkqBG6G4lXJ8xGKwi0ZaJ1TRRehOaizKM
It's happening.

>>19976506
Interesting, I wondered about the fellow behind Humble Lamb. I never had one, can't afford one, but I saw them in a Facebook ad a few years ago and recommended someone here to look into them when they asked about Bibles with Dore illustrations. I'll definitely check out an interview with the guy just out of curiosity. It was evident to me back then that he'd put together a pretty special project with those.

why are catholics in these threads being disobedient to the pope who has condemned prosyletism and affirmed universalism

>>19976638
Papal Encyclical citation needed.

>>19976666
So says Satan. The best use of Papal Encyclicals is toilet paper.

>>19976666
the vatican has signed a statement condemning its own prosyletism in Ukraine for instance
and we have Franky's recent quotes about how unrepentant individuals who violate the commandments are saved

>>19976674
>>19976723
>no Papal Encyclical citation
So, it's not Church teaching. Thanks.

>>19976780
>I only obey the pope the absolute bare minimum and am not at all involved in the life of the church
the absolute state of romanists

>>19976798
This. Imagine criticizing Protestants for picking and choosing, and then picking and choosing within your own Chrich.

>>19976798
>>19976808
>an opinion on the weather is an infallible and binding church teaching
Yep, no more iconic duo than protestants and ignorance of Christianity.

>>19976848
>an opinion on the mission of the church and salvation by the supreme fucking pontiff is equivalent to his opinion on the weather
Did Newman invent the romanist art of copium or does it go further back?

>>19976848
also, for such statements there are very specific ways to express disagreement within the church
you're not doing that though, you're just going lalalalalala the pope is not changing fundamental church teaching

>>19976848
>Yep, no more iconic duo than protestants and ignorance of Christianity.
Protestants and Bibles printed in atheistic countries with slave labor.

Why do catholics even post in or make a bible thread? They never read it and if they do they defer to their church pedos to interpret it for them.
>My Church is the OneTrueChurch™ because My Church told me so
>My Church wrote the Bible because My Church told me so
>My Church leaders are the only people allowed to interpret the Bible because My Church told me so
>My Church is infallible because My Church told me so
>My Church leader is infallible because My Church told me so
>My Church changed the laws of God but this is fine because My Church told me so

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:20&version=KJV

>>19976892
I have 5 Holy Bibles within reach, all printed in the USA.

>>19976638
This is a good question. He's even recognised some of the sacraments of other denominations.

>>19976899
>this verse btfos the Scripture twister

Can't find the question again, but it had to do with wine in the Bible. Just got a nice lesson on it.
it wasn't what we think as wine (fermented), because they did not ferment things (or use leaven for that matter, as it was a symbol of sin).
So "grape juice" wouldn't be too far.
I think we should abstain from the consumption of alcohol and other substances.

>>19977192
Along with that, although it existed, fermented wine was seen negatively.

So is the parable of the vineyard supposed to imply that the Jews fucked up hard and lost gods grace or something along those lines? I was finding it a little difficult to believe God/Jesus cares about me when Jesus literally refered to gentiles as dogs and seemed almost offended by the idea of helping the daughter of a gentile woman, but the more I read the more it seems like Jews were "chosen" to be made an example of for gentiles to witness and learn from, that Jesus was sent to the jews and God offered them everything through him, and they rejected him and killed Jesus, and they are now a damned people like the tenant farmers in the parable who killed the owners son. There was also another similar parable about a party that seemed to follow the same theme. So maybe Jesus doesn't actually hate my people and think they are dogs?

>>19977447
I figure He had to talk that way to the Jews for it all to hit their understandings in the right places/ways. That was their views but they had taken lots of pride in it rather than being humbled by being chosen, so He played to that pride in teachings that were being told directly to them. It's obvious with the centurion that Jesus doesn't care about earthly divisions of people, but admires those of humble faith regardless of any such externalities.

>>19977447
Are you Protestant? Pick your own interpretation to resolve the issue.

Are you Catholic? Stop reading the Bible, it'll only confuse and upset you.

1 Timothy 2:5
"Priests" and "Mary" BTFO

Presbyteros literally means "old man", hence "elder". Elders tend to be more experienced, wise, discerning. They more tend to be suitable community leaders. There is no Biblical notion of making them a singular office over a congregation, and there is nothing whatsoever to do with the word that indicates being a sacrificial mediator. All of that came into being when Constantine made a state counterfeit of the church. There is no way that young men can go to some school for sacrificial office and be considered "presbyteros". Eldership requires a lifetime of experience and knowledge walking authentically in the faith, short of some direct, authentic, powerful experience of God's hand and work.

>>19977862
So why are there women and young elders then?

ITT: Protestants unable to explain why they use the New Testament (eg. excluding Hermas and Barnabas) that was formally canonized by bishops, in communion with Rome, gathered in council, under Pope Damasus I in 382

>>19976327
>They were just there because they were, and there's no proof, so there.
You've lost the argument. You want to apply strict historical speculation to anything regarding Catholicism but when it comes to your own supposed history (which doesn't exist) you're fine just saying, "God did it and I don't have to prove anything." Pathetic.

>>19976440
Refuted your retarded meme here >>19975643

>>19977192
Your opinion about what we "should" do is meaningless. You do not have the authority to bind anyone's conscience.

>finally read Acts
>in book 8, the Deacon Philip performs a baptism
I thought only ordained priests and bishops could perform baptisms?

>>19978015
>didn't read what was said
>>19978087
Wrong, I am well aware that Scripture and some essentials of the faith were preserved through historical ages through and despite Catholicism, by the hand of God moving through certain individuals of His true Body. Romans 8:28.
(You) see everything through an atheistic lens.

>>19978130
Catholics and "Orthodox™" have polluted the wells. Like Yoda said, we must unlearn what we have learned, from their Satanic Babylonian pagan counterfeit "churches".

>>19978130
If he was given permission (eg. by the apostles), there is no problem with a deacon baptizing.

>>19978167
>all of the ancient churches which trace their founding to Jesus Christ are wrong
>my church made by some anglo 1500 years after Jesus is right

>>19978172
There doesn't seem to have been anything so formal about it. Philip was made a Deacon, then later fled Jerusalem and encountered the Ethiopian on the road and baptised him at his request. No Apostle involved after he was made a Deacon.

>>19978161
>(You) see everything through an atheistic lens.
It's actually the opposite. I believe that God was guiding the Church through all of history. You reject this and believe in some invisible remnant because the actual historical Church contradicts your personal opinions.

Brehs, how good does it feel to be Eastern Orthodox right now as Putin revives the Russian Orthodox Empire?

>>19978207
Feels like being a phyletist crypto-Protestant.

>>19978220
I googled it, it seems that deacons can perform baptisms in Catholicism anyway. The only thing they can't do is the Eucharist.

>>19978194
It's important to recognize that a deacon's office is to function as one "running errands" (kicking up dust) on behalf of a bishop. It does not seem to me strange at all that after Jesus Christ's great commission to baptize all nations, the apostles (bishops) would have appointed deacons with the mission to baptize those who believe. In fact, that would probably be the first thing they'd have done, I imagine.

>>19978223
As far as I know, it is usually only done with permission.

>>19978219
BEGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

>>19978182
>which *claim to trace
FTFY
My church was founded by Christ, He is the Rock and all of us members are lively stones. We go by His word and not those of a bunch of Satanic Babylonian gangsters.

>>19978197
>God guided His church to slaughter countless millions and diddle kids

Non KJB readers, what does your fake and gay "bible" say for Psalm 84:5?

>love your enemies
>being good can't save you
these two are actually the same thing

>>19978247
When was your "church" founded? Do you believe the same things that every single ancient church has since the time of the apostles (eg. the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, confession to a priest leads to forgiveness of sins, Peter is the rock upon which the Church was built and he holds primacy among the bishops by virtue of divine promise)?

>>19978275
>every single
There is only *one* ekklesia, and all members believe in God and God alone, and put our faith onto Christ and His sacrificial atonement in our place. We are living sacrifices unto Him, our bodies are temples unto Him. We, like Peter, confess that He is our Lord, that before Abraham was, He AM.

>it's denomination wars time again

>>19978294
>There is only *one* ekklesia,
Agreed, the Church built upon the rock of St. Peter, which is the Catholic Church.

>>19978295
will reporting le ebic denom posts for being off-topic work?

TAKE IT TO /HIS/, NIGGERS, THIS IS A DISCUSSION THREAD FOR SCRIPTURE

>>19978312
>>19978322
All Protestantism is 100% Bible based. Only the Catholics and "Orthodox™" are off topic.
>muh "Tradition™"

>>19978329
>So then, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word, or by letter from us.

>>19978340
>ie, stand firm to the tradition of scripture

>>19973244
>Carolingian
Based

>>19978344
>whether by word
>or by letter

so anyways bros, I've kinda been getting into Tantric Buddhism

>>19978355
Enjoy being Satanic.

Imagine being such a massive fucking faggot that you complain about the posts you see instead of posting the posts you want to see.
>>19978312
Go mod a subreddit, tranny.

>>19978340
They did, and wrote them down after that in the form of the 4 gospels and Acts.

Why do very many people believe that people can be "sinning against you" undeservedly? How would God be almighty if anything can happen to you which you don't deserve? That doesn't make any sense. Lots of people have this idea that you can be a totally innocent person and then "stupid people" suddenly start attacking you. If God is almighty then only sinners are sinned against, as punishment for their sins. So, it follows that there is no such thing as an enemy which you didn't deserve. Maybe this is the actual meaning of polytheism and monotheism. Monotheism you believe all that happens to you is intended by God. Polytheism you believe people are little gods who can do something which God didn't allow to happen.

>>19978392
Where does it say in the Bible that all of the oral tradition of the apostles was written down in the gospels and Acts? Sola Scriptura only please.

>>19978402
Why does God being all mighty rest entirely on the criteria you have put forward without explanation? What a blizzard post

>>19978429
>rest entirely on the criteria you have put forward
I didn't say that

>>19978411
John 21:25
Jesus, Peter, James and John came to the future right after the transfiguration and told certain elect special secrets to be fully revealed when the time is right.

>>19978402
Book of Job

>>19978352
As in the Gospel and the Epistles?...

>>19978355
I was baptised in some wacko church which was basically Catholic but they believed in Buddhist shit too like earthly reincarnation.

>>19978455
Rev 18:4

>>19978452
>Epistles
1 Clement?

>>19978444
?

>>19973417
Go to whichever Catholic church is closest to your home

>>19978402
God allows certain things to happen so you grow spiritually. If you were right, Jesus wouldn't have been killed.

>>19973417
Well you obviously don't want to go to a church that looks like a demountable. Look for nice stone or bricks, sort by attendance, and then try the top few on a Sunday to see which priest you like best.

>>19978531
a) Jesus is a metaphor
b) Jesus was a Jew/a sinner, that's the whole point of the story

People always think that an enemy is someone who is sinning against you. It never occurs to them that maybe YOU are the sinner and your enemy is "righteously punishing" you.

Jonah is an analogy of Jesus. Jonah was running away from God, i.e. sinning, and the sailors who threw him into the sea were doing so righteously. Many people agree that Jonah is an analogy of Jesus, yet nobody ever thinks Jesus was sinning.
>Jesus was punished for our sins
Literally the same thing, doesn't matter

>finally get my KJB
>flip through all the pages to unstick
>80% of the print is so light I can barely read it
Fug, looks like I got one from the tail end of an ink cartridge. Shame, as I was looking forward to starting tonight, but now I have to start the return and replace process.

Praying for the situation in Ukraine.

>>19978264
???

>>19978207
I hope he kills as many fucking ukrainians as possible
really make them suffer
everyone is freezing to death because these dumbfucks refuse to recognise that russian populations hate them for being the most pretentious fucks in eastern europe despite living in and creating the greatest shithole by far

If Catholics ITT respect Orthodox even though they broke off 1000 years ago because they maintain apostolic succession and most of the same traditions, why don't Catholics ITT respect Anglicans even though they broke off less than 500 years ago and maintained apostolic succession (until the recent and not universal ordainment of women) and most of the same traditions?

>>19979335
why was Williams so gay
he clearly understands the texts if one judges from his writings so was he such a fag as an archbishop?

>>19979335
>If Catholics ITT respect Orthodox . . . why don't Catholics ITT respect Anglicans
Because the Orthodox affirm the deuterocanon, have a shared history of the Apostles, Church Fathers, etc., and typically have more interesting things to say about the Scriptures and the Church. Anglicans, on the other hand, I typically don't think about at all other than to recall that Anglican bishops are typically atheists who pretend to be believers for political and social clout due to official state religion.

Bros... I don't feel so good ...

>>19979311
>muh Orthodox Theosis

If there were 12 apostles, and they only ordained exactly 1 to replace Judas to bring the number back up to exactly 12, why do Catholics care about apostolic succession beyond 12? Isn't the whole logic that by replacing Judas, the correct number of ordained priests is 12?

>>19979335
Because Anglicans do not maintain the tradition of the Church. You don't mean any specific thing by baptism, you don't mean any specific thing by the Eucharist, you don't have any specific theology. There are people who believe something close to Catholicism, so-called Anglo-Catholics, but this is just one position among many, and you are allowed to believe basically whatever you want. In this sense Anglicans have ceased to "do what the Church does" and have cut themselves off from the Apostolic Tradition. Thus the Catholic Church has ruled that Anglican ordinations are null and void.

>>19979791
The Catholic Church has not always done that, so Anglican ordinations aren't necessarily always null and void. And does that mean you'd repsect Anglo-Catholics?

>>19979806
>The Catholic Church has not always done that, so Anglican ordinations aren't necessarily always null and void.
They were ruled to be null and void by Leo XIII in 1896 and his ruling is still in effect. The situation has only become worse since then with your introduction of female priests and bishops, as a woman can never be ordained a priest and never ordain other priests. So any line of ordination going through a female bishop is ipso facto invalid. When an Anglican "priest" becomes a Catholic priest he must be ordained as his previous ordination is not recognized.
>And does that mean you'd repsect Anglo-Catholics?
It is a step in the right direction, but simply believing that you have the sacraments does not mean that you do. Only a validly ordained priest can confect the Eucharist, absolve sins, etc. If you believe these things you need to become Catholic. The Anglican Ordinariate was established to make this process easier and to allow Anglicans to carry over the positive traditions from their church.

>>19979830
>When an Anglican "priest" becomes a Catholic priest
I meant to remove the scare quotes around priest there, as it made what I was saying sound unnecessarily combative, but neglected to do so. Pretend they are not there, please.

>>19979830
>>19979835
So it doesn't matter to you even if someone is a Anglo-Catholic and lives in a diocese which doesn't ordain women and his priest has no women in his ordainment ancestry and follows the order of apostolic succession, solely because the Pope says not to?

>>19979847
What I personally think about it doesn't really matter. I do not disrespect you or hold ill will towards you -- you are a fellow Christian -- but I want you to return to the Catholic Church. I am glad that there are Anglicans who have moved closer to Catholic theology, but the ordination of priests, the sacraments, these are objective matters. They don't exist just by changing our theology. And how can you be in communion with people who, by any objective standard, are breaking any Apostolic succession that may be there, by ordaining women? How can you be "one" with them? The Pope is where the buck stops, so to speak. So if he has officially ruled that it is invalid, then that's what they are. The ruling seems reasonable to me. The Orthodox Church, comparatively, does not have these problems.

To the most holy and pure Virgin Mary,

Great and manifold were the blessings, most benevolent Queen, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us his people, when he selected thee to give birth to his Son. The appearance of thy blessed personage, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled all doubts of God's loving-kindness, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort.

The Lord of heaven and earth bless you, holy virgin, in eternal glory with thy Son, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched thee with many singular and extraordinary graces, so you may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity.

>>19979971
By the way, what I posted here is from the preface to the King James translation, I just changed a few words to make it addressed to Mary instead of James. So how is saying it to Mary idolatry when saying it to James isn't? Or was the King James translated by idolaters?

>To the Most High and Mighty Prince James...
>Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. ... the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort ...
>The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so you may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity ...

>>19980015
I'm pretty sure the "caths/orths worship Mary" stuff is much later than the KJV
none of the big names in the reformation made a peep in this direction
Political Anglicanism is very much anglo worship though yes
that's not to say anglicanism is bad per se
they are the reason patristic study was able to make the advances that it did while they have been consistently producing theologians and exegetes that can be enjoyed by all imo at least

>>19980064
Are you honestly claiming that the translators are worshiping James as if he were God?

>>19980092
no and sorry if it seemed like I did
I am claiming however that anglincanism of the time in general and the translators here in particular
elevated the earthly monarch moreso than any political theology did before or after
while the standard two bodies formula that dated to the middle ages was still the legal model used, Anglican political theology (of the time at least) really elevated the monarch
now, this was the era of absolutism and the english monarch never had anything approaching the powers of his French, Spanish and Russian contemporaries
He was however considered to be second only to Christ
how he would rank in comparison to say the apostles is not a topic that was ever really explored though and that's probably for the better all things considered

>>19980114
You're kind of missing my point. I am a Catholic and am using this an example to show that veneration is not the same thing as worship.

>>19980121
I'm orthohog, I understand the difference dw
if we want to get overbearingly serious and historical though, I'd say you're choosing a bad example because anglican political theology from Henry VIII to George III and arguably later elevated the king much higher than did either you or we in our traditions Mary or the Saints

>>19980143
Doesn't matter, because these people admit no distinction between worship and veneration at all. I've discussed it with them in this thread before.

>>19977447
Gentiles in that context didn't mean "non-jew Christians", it meant "Godless idolaters" more or less.

>If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.
These enemies that are sent "because you are chosen" might simultaneously be due to sin/karma, there is nothing that says it can't be both at the same time. Jesus was a Jew, Jesus was punished/tortured/on the cross, Jonah was thrown into the sea by sailors punishing him righteously and many believe Jonah is an analogy of Jesus, yet nobody ever believes Jesus sinned. They believe Jesus was sinless but "was punished for our sins", I don't think it matters, it's the same thing, Jonah is an analogy of Jesus and he was punished for his sins.

So my point being, maybe when God choses you as in that quote, it's not just random enemies for no apparent reason, rather he gives you a sinful desire (original sin) and this is the same as being chosen, because that desire leads to sin, which leads to having enemies, which are the enemies spoken of. It's not like most Christians think "they hate me because I'm Christian".

>>19979335
Orthocucks are Schismatics. Any Catholic that 'respects' an Orthocuck is a faggot imo.

>>19980253
>The sum of man’s desires is referred to as his heart. Since the nature with which we are born is absolute egoism, man does not feel the spiritual point in his heart. However, at some point in one of his reincarnations, man begins to gradually strive towards attainment of the causes of life, its evaluation; he yearns to attain himself, his source, just as you do right now. Man’s aspiration to the Creator is precisely this aspiration to attain his origin. Man’s discontent in life often helps him in this search, when there’s nothing that appeals to him in his surroundings. Such circumstances are sent from Above in order for man to start feeling an empty point in his heart, and to stimulate in him the desire to fulfill it.
Nothing says these circumstances which are sent from above aren't punishment of your sins.

Also another thing, if there is original sin does that mean there is no free will? Original sin sounds like lack of free will to me. Original sin sounds like it's the same as having a sinful desire. Your actions are determined by your desire. You can't choose your desire, i.e. original sin, hence you can't choose your actions either. You're going to sin, because Adam sinned, you can't choose not to.

>>19980253
It literally is. Jesus got the rage of the pharisees by pointing out their errors and lies.
If you do not compromise with sin, or partake in it, those who do will either feel shame, and come to Truth with you, or turn it into rage, and attack you.
Light of the world, remember? Those in the dark are either looking for light, or hate it.
The apparent reason is sainthood.
I hope you're not just here to criticize Christianity for no reason.
>>19980266
There is no reincarnation. If there was no free will, you could not choose to leave sin, nor to accept God.
You can resist your desires. "Crucifying the flesh" as it is said in many passages.
When you don't, then there's none. If you give in to desires, you're a slave to them.

>>19973571
Hebrews was written by a student of Paul's

>>19980279
>You can resist your desires.
No you can't. The desire to resist desire is in itself a desire.
Jews are said to be God's chosen, yet at the same time the synagogue of Satan, and hated by a lot of people (pogroms etc). I'd say Jews are more hated than Christians. You didn't address what I said about Jonah.

>>19980297
Jonah tries to flee, gets swollen, repents, gets vomited back, and makes the city repent. everyone's okay and forgiven. Where's the punishment?
What's wrong with the desire for Truth and pleasing God?

It appears you are an idolater obsessed with the idea of "desire". Isn't wishing to be free from them a desire in itself? Your logic contradicts itself, and what you call a "religion" is a joke.
Jews were the chosen, but they rejected the Son when he came down in the flesh. Jesus already preached from the start we are all children of God through Him, and the jews were too stuck into their own sin and man-made laws to actually follow God made flesh.

>>19980330
*gets swallowed, rather. ESL hours.

I did it! I finished Leviticus. All those horrible rules, all those poor animals being sacrificed. It's done! Now onto Numbers and Deuteronomy both which I assume return to the kino storytelling of Genesis and early Exodus.

Cna any bible bros help me out. Something I've always wondered
When you go to heaven, are you waiting around for everyone else in your life to join you, or is there no concept of time?

>>19979681
Christ ordained the original 12. The remaining 11 tried to get God to show them a replacement to ordain and used divinatory lots. Christ showed them, only He ordained Apostles, and Paul was His replacement.

>>19979835
There should be "scare quotes" around any earthly office of "priest" after Christ.
>1 Cor 4:1 "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God."
>1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
>1 Peter 2:4-5 "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
>1 Peter 2:9 "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
>Rev 1:5-6 "Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father"
and more.

>>19980015
They were writing that to kiss his arse while he was still living and not praying it to him, retard.

>>19980535
Why does it being prayer or not matter? So someone could venerate Mary in this way while she was on earth and it would be fine?

>>19980536
>what difference does it make if it's Jimbo we see in the street and telepathic communications that we can only assume whom we are actually contacting
They weren't "venerating" him, just honoring with an arse kissing.

Is nobody in here gonna talk about hermeneutics?
I feel that with these back and forth convos with MUH DENOMINATION BETTER, we severly undermine the latter's position and inevitably create a strawman
Plus, with the main topic being the BIBLE and not the church itself, discussing about hermeneutics would be a better way of knowing what the other party is thinking and to correct a brother so he could grow spiritually.
The Catholic view of Protestant hermeneutics is very crude and far from truth. Of course there are others that do self-interpretation on Scripture, and this method is a disservice to the Word of God. What the Protestant offers in terms of hermeneutics is the lens outside the Magisterium. Not in the sense that the believer can simply conjure up meanings from imagination, but to determining the truth of Scripture via critical thinking. Context is still key, but instead of the context set by Catholic dogma, context is obtained through the surrounding pages of Scripture. Historical context is also significant. With these tools, the Protestant can learn more about what Christ, the saints, and prophets said and conveyed to the intended audience. Catholics are also contextual in their hermeneutics, but my main issue is that the dogma established takes precedence on matters of interpretation, even when said dogma are years or centuries older than the text and it's contextual background.

>>19980284
Which means, in ancient tradition, it was written by Paul. No different from how various rabbinical commentaries written by "Rabbi Shlomo" actually means written by "the school of Rabbi Shlomo."

>>19980630
Why are you so averse to this term? This is a tradition you have created, that "veneration" (whatever that is) is always wrong, except when someone on your side does it then it's "ass-kissing" and okay.

>>19980634
The issue is that you have decided that you yourself are the authority on what Scripture means. No interpretation can be correct unless it is personally approved by you. This is what all Protestantism reduces to, no matter how you dress it up.

>>19980655
>you yourself are the authority on what Scripture means
Not them but no, God is the authority on what Scripture means and we do our humble best at determining that because we know we cannot trust a deeply corrupted institution that makes obviously false claims in the serving of its own material interests.

I am in my first readthrough of the NT and I have to admit and can not lie, that I would want to have more reasoning for certain commandments. For example in Matt 5:30 Jesus is basically telling us not to masturbate, to cast our right hand into the fire, if we do not want our whole self to burn in hell. And I am thinking... come on man. Who do you harm with masturbating? How is some lonely 26 year old virgin who never even hugged or kissed a girl, who never had a girlfriend, let alone sex, who is sitting at home and masturbating harming anyone, let alone risking his soul? Of course you can say, that I just must have faith and His words are above mine, but surely masturbating will not be a deciding factor, when (or if) my character and actions shall be judged. And while I am in Matthew 5, 38-48. Loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, praying for those that wronged you, giving EVEN MORE than what is asked of you. What the fuck!? So if someone is mugging me for my wallet, I should give him my car keys as well? I should pray to God for the wellbeing of some low-life scum who harms others? Of course you could say that I just don't know better and yes, I only finished Matthew recently, nothing else. And I do understand to strive for being a good human, but letting bad people get away or even rewarding them for their misdeeds is something I can not do. I have not reached that part yet myself but I know there is a passage in Romans that says vengeance belongs to the Lord only, but surely the Bible mentions righteous fury somewhere else, like are you not obliged to fight off evil by yourself, unless you just want them to multiply and be successful? I know I am just rambling at this point, but still. I know my faith is wavering a lot lately and in times like this, I like to think back to the scene where Jesus saved Peter from drowning after he already walked on water, but fell due to his lack of faith. If the apostles have doubts, surely it is acceptable that I do too, although I should see that it does not become a habit.

>>19980761
You're playing semantics.
>We do our humble best
In other words it's up to you. You're the final determiner. There is no authority on earth higher than yourself. God doesn't tell you whether you're right or wrong.

>>19980818
>no authority on earth higher than yourself
If the choice is between a "Holy Father" who allows people to bow before him, a massive army of "Fathers" filled with homosexual predators and homosexual predator protectors, investors in Hollywood movies including the Elton John one with graphic homosexual sex, an institution that has themselves slaughtered countless Christians, not to mention ran a get out of Purgatory shakedown scheme, crypto worships Ishtar and prays to demons in disguise, and myself in determining the meaning of Scripture, I think the choice should be clear. I'll take a bit of minor peripheral detail confusion over that, because it seems clear that what matters most to God is loving Him with all thine heart, soul and being, loving thine neighbor as thineself, trusting in God and God alone, and believing on Christ's sacrificial atonement in our places for our sins. It's really not that difficult to understand and doesn't require your magic "Fathers", whom are themselves counter to Scripture.

>>19980960
The entire first part of your post is Donatism as well as claims that have been refuted over and over (praying to demons, etc.)
>and believing on Christ's sacrificial atonement in our places for our sins. It's really not that difficult to understand
You think it's easy because it is the traditional understanding you have assumed, but there are multiple ways the atonement can be understood and justified from Scripture, and multiple ways of understanding how any of this functions afterwards in relation to sin, etc. You just read it through a certain lens and think that it's obvious.

>>19981002
Oh no, not muh thing that's been named and refuted before by a bunch of Satanic Babylonian pagans, say it ain't so.

>>19981010
If someone is baptized as an infant, are they actually baptized?

>>19981016
Yes. The sign of Gods covenants have always been administered to children

Advice on how to fill out this presentation page for a book I'm going to gift, since it doesn't have the usual headings?

>>19981016
I don't know, but I think it's probably best to baptize infants, and then later in life make the conscious decision to baptize. I doubt God would get angry and curse at such a notion. It's clear that Biblical baptism involves a conscious choice and repentance.

>>19981124
To
By
Date

or

To
Date
By

>>19981133
To
By
Date
Occasion

Like this?

>>19981133
>>19981141
>By
From

>>19981133
>>19981141
>>19981160
Presented to
Presented from
On the Xth day of
the Xth month, AD 2022

>>19980421
sure they do!

>>19980789
Jesus fulfills the law by making it way stricer
he also never threatens anyone with hellfire
that's just bad translation, we don't know what final judgement will look like
refer to the Pauline epistles for what actually applying this way of life looks like as Paul tries to help the various churches resolve their problems among other things
masturbation is actually never mentioned in the Bible though it's obviously not encouraged for the reasons outlined in your passage

>>19981124
To (name)
(Well thought out message)
From (you) with (something) depending on who it is

Does anyone actually fill out the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Family Records sections of their Bible?

>>19981198
and if you want to get more extreme
there is the agraphon from First Clement where Jesus shows himself to be something of a gender studies Godman
I feel like this is blasphemy but he does kinda say that "judgement day will come when man sees a woman and sees not a woman and a woman sees a man and sees not man" but you can just say that Clement is pulling that from his rear and whatever
going off on a tangent I find it kind of entertaining that even after all of Paul's attempts, the events that led to the writing of First Clement still happened

>>19981204
My grandfather did, my father didn't, I do.

>>19980789
Also, when Jesus and later Paul and the other epistolary writers tell you to not do anything, they are mean exactly what they say
the most consistent theme across every single book of scripture from Genesis to the Apocalypse is the Faithfulness of God
Actually trusting God with his often times questionable for us grand design is the number 1 theme of Scripture
also, on the matter of being a hugless, kissless virgin, wait until you see what Paul has to say on the matter
In all honesty, I've come to believe that the spread of Christianity really was a miracle
considering how highly virginity is valued in the gospels, Paul and texts like Hermas, one has to wonder how these people didn't go extinct in a generation or two

>>19981178
If you say "presented to", you would then say "presented by", but if you only said "to" then you would only say "from".

>>19981214
Good. I'm looking at my Bible that has them and I'm wondering exactly where to start. Should the births, marriages, and deaths be reserved for within my immediate family? I should include my parents' deaths but not their births? Include my brother's and sister's marriages? I feel like I'm overthinking this.

>>19981238
I have only my son's birth. On the deaths page I list the birth to death dates for each entry and only have immediate family starting with grandparents. Were I to have siblings I would include their marriages, etc.

>>19980461
Yeah so why are there tens of thousands now?

>>19980461
No, they used the lots to choose Matthias and he was ordained an Apostle. Usage of lots is an established pratice in the OT. Paul was apostle #13.

>>19980789
>Who do you harm with masturbating? How is some lonely 26 year old virgin who never even hugged or kissed a girl, who never had a girlfriend, let alone sex, who is sitting at home and masturbating harming anyone, let alone risking his soul?

Begin by looking upon reality as an organic/systemic whole instead of isolated individuates. From there, understand that the everyone's sins cause rippling effects throughout this whole, often in ways unseen. Masturbation is an addictive behavior without any actual rewards beyond a rush of chemicals to the brain, much akin to the use of drugs. Marriages are commonly negatively impacted by masturbation and pornography, if they ever even occur, this is a grievous matter; It engenders laziness, cheapens sexual intimacy, erodes one's motivation and will to pursue an actual woman to have a mutually beneficial relationship, marry, have a family with, and support each other on the road to heaven.
It is the giving in to the body/flesh and its desires over that of the soul as requested of us by God.

'An animal is one stooped over with his head towards the earth, the stomach, and the genitals. A human is one standing upright with his head towards the heavens and God.'

>>19981238
>>19981248
I must add, in mine (CBP KJB) has a primary "Family Record of" page that has blanks for me and my parents including their birth dates, plus my wife and her parents and their birth dates.

>>19980461
>>19981266
God himself commands the use of lots in Lev. 16:7-10 by the way

>>19981258
I do not believe there to be any now. There are lots of people who claim the title but they are LARPers.

>>19980461
Is this the famed Protestant exegesis? It literally says in the text that Matthias was numbered with the apostles. There's nothing ever about him being rejected.

>>19981288
It says the Apostles numbered him with them, and then never mentions him again, then suddenly God chose Paul which none of them saw coming. Over and over and over man seeks to do things our way, leaning unto our own understanding, and then God displays his providence despite our pitiful bumblings.

Reminder that if your Bible doesn't say "The Epistle/Letter of St. Paul to the Hebrews", then it's not the Bible.

>>19981295
You're reading this into the text. As I said, lots are already established, cf. Lev. 16:7-10. There is nothing limiting the apostles to twelve, those were simply the initial apostles selected by Christ during his ministry. Matthias replaced Judas, which made it twelve again. Paul was then number thirteen. Others are mentioned, such as Barnabas:
>Acts 14:14 The apostles Barnabas and Paul tore their garments when they heard this ...

>>19981295
Prov. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but the decision is wholly from the Lord.

>>19981304
If Christ wanted more than 12 then why were there only 12 the entire time at least while He walked among us? There were reasons for the number, it wasn't arbitrary.

>>19981320
It's irrelevant to the point because Matthias was added, then Paul, then Barnabas. It says "the apostles Barnabas and Paul," they are both in the same office titled apostle. So there are at least fourteen just from this. Your interpretation is baseless and so is your understanding of lots, which is contrary to scripture.

>>19981320
That is to say, your understanding of lots is contrary to scripture. As Proverbs says (>>19981317) the decision of the lot comes from God. So your assertion that they tried to do it "their own way" is nonsense. God chose Matthias.

Basically there is a subset of the Apostles, the Twelve, who were those who were taught by Christ during his earthly ministry. But there are more Apostles than this, who were added afterwards. Matthias is one of the Twelve, as he accompanied Christ. This is one of the qualifications given in Acts 1:21-23. Since Paul does not fit this he is not one of the Twelve. He does not include himself in their number (1 Cor. 15:5). He is still a true Apostle, though.

>>19981328
>the apostles Barnabas
That might have just been Luke getting swept up in the moment and overly enthusiastic.
>Matthias
#notmyapostle

>>19981379
You've rejected the text then. Typical Protestant nonsense.

>>19981369
Matthias took the spot of Judas. Maybe he is responsible for the Mary worship.

Can anyone suggest saints for someone who struggled with sex and left the faith but returned with a focus on ecumenicalism?

>>19981475
... Augustine?
Hermas?! Is Hermas a saint actually?
Not sure what you mean by ecunemnicalism in this context

>>19981479
I've read Confessions and I like Augustine but he became a heretic, I'd prefer someone who became an agnostic or atheist. Ecumenicalism would presuppose a post-Reformation time I guess, because I intend it to mean a willingness to work with non-Catholics in pursuit of common goals.

>>19981511
wait... Do you want to do evangelism to coomers by appealing to such a saint?
That's certainly an interesting idea if so but I'm not sure honestly
I am not that knowledgeable in later saints

>>19976058
>It means that should the Pope officially define a matter of faith for us, it cannot be wrong

Where in scripture is a pope mentioned? In fact - pope is latin for father, and what does scripture explicitly say about the word father and whom may have that title.

>>19982379
>Where in scripture is a pope mentioned?
The same place in Scripture where it states that works without faith are dead.

>>19982379
>Where in scripture is a pope mentioned?
Matt. 16:19, confer Isa. 22:22
>In fact - pope is latin for father, and what does scripture explicitly say about the word father and whom may have that title.
It does not say we cannot call someone "father" anymore than it says we cannot make oaths.

>>19980421
Just wait till you get to Joshua

>>19982379
>and what does scripture explicitly say about the word father and whom may have that title.

1 Cor. 4:15
For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
Philemon 1:10
I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment.
1 Pet. 5:13
She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.
1 Tim. 1:2
To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

>>19982660
Not a title of office.

Bump for the King James Bible.

Why does the ESV lack sovl?

>>19983581
The RSV is the one that uses gender neutral terminology.

>>19983590
>The RSV is the one that uses gender neutral terminology.
Nope, the ESV has taken RSV uses of "men" and turned it into "others" or "other people." You're thinking the NRSV.

>>19983600
I didn't realise the NRSV was that different to the RSV. I've read the NOA NRSV.

>>19983606
Technically, the RSV, ESV, and the NRSV are each 70%+ the same as each other, as both the ESV and the NRSV are revisions of the RSV71. "Gender-inclusive" translation philosophy really didn't exist in Bibles yet when the RSV was done, and the English style police hadn't banned semicolons or rich vocabulary from Bibles yet. Stuff like this is exactly why I've never liked the ESV; it's too dry, ripped all the rich words from the Tyndale-King James tradition of English, and also screwed up some word tenses for no reason. It's just not as smooth a read. As for the NRSV, if it weren't for the gender-inclusive shit that was actually added in behind the backs of the translators after the fact, it would be much less maligned, and probably wouldn't have spawned the ESV and RSV-2CE as reactionary translations, though the ESV is currently falling into some of the same traps, such as removing the classically gender-neutral "man/men" in favor of "people" or "others."

>>19983649
I like the ESV for two reasons
>it's the best easy to read bible
>it has a decent study Bible
The RSV has no place because as a beautiful Bible it still loses to the KJV. The NRSV has a place due to the NOA edition.

A few threads ago, people were talking about typos in Knox. I found one at the start of Numbers, in the footnotes: it says "duvision"

>>19983660
>it's the best easy to read bible
I disagree. I think it's clunky and rough in comparison.
>it has a decent study Bible
Agreed.

>>19983667
Just checked mine and I can confirm, pg. 141. Keep up the good work and hopefully we can get a running tally, and I can get some use out of my Micron pen.

Anyone here read the Scivias?

>You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
James 2:24

What did he mean by this? Every Protestant study bible seems to have pure cope in it's commentary over this verse but it seems plain and simple to me.

>>19983746
>What did he mean by this?
He meant that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

>>19983749
That's what I thought I'm just confused over why so many Protestant commentaries say "uuhhhh he meant we're saved by faith alone, he just didn't phrase it well"

>>19983753
>>19983749
Why do Catholics think that Protestants don't value works?

>>19983753
Because they don't read the Bible. They select random verses and separate them from the rest of the paragraph, chapter, and book they're part of to read their man-made theology into the text. Hope that helps.

>>19983771
I know they value works but it doesn't mesh with their theology, it creates tension. Protestant theology has this weird quirk where they'll create strong delineations between various things and claim that it's absolutely necessary to draw a strong line between X and Y but then realize that scripture says X and Y are inseparable and have to sheepishly walk back their position. It's a theological motte and bailey game.

We are saved by faith ALONE and NOT by works! Except that all of scripture says that good works are necessary, not least of which are the words of Jesus Christ himself so we need to say "Ok, yeah we're saved by faith but REAL faith always produces works". Ok? So true saving faith and works come as a package deal then. Why create the stupid binary in the first place if you need to immediately qualify it with the fact that saving faith cannot by definition ever exist without works?

The absolute worst part is that James himself provides the key to interpreting that verse and seemingly no Protestant has ever realized it.

>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Here's the key.
Spirit is to body as works are to faith. The body without the spirit is dead, faith without works are dead. The spirit is the animating force that makes dead matter alive, works are the animating force that makes dead faith alive. Saying that faith PRODUCES works completely misreads James here because he's saying the exact opposite. Saying that faith produces works is like saying a living body produces spirit which is obviously backwards. The spirit must pre-exist and animate the body to make it alive and works must precede faith to make faith a living faith that saves.

>>19983799
Amen.

>>19983799
>Saying that faith produces works is like saying a living body produces spirit which is obviously backwards
Absurd and ironic because backwards.

>>19983712
I've skimmed through it once. You can find a part of the book here
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/english/f2003/client_edit/documents/scivias.html
Some interesting comments:
>16. Blood relatives may not be united in marriage

>I also do not wish the blood of relatives to be mingled in marriage, where the ardor of family love is not yet weakened, lest there arise shameless love in the relation of consanguinity; but let the blood of different families flow together, which feels no blood relationship burning within it, so that human custom may work there.

>17. Example of milk

>Milk that is cooked once or twice has not yet lost its flavor, but by the time it is coagulated and cooked the seventh or eighth time, it loses its qualities and does not have a pleasant taste except in case of necessity. And as one must not have sexual relations with a relative who is one's own spouse, so also one must abhor a sexual relationship with a relative related not to one but to one's spouse; let no human being join in such a coupling, which the Church by its Doctors, who established it in great responsibility and honor, has forbidden.
In other words, "for the embraces of a man and woman related by blood would be wickedly enkindled into shameless fornication and ceaseless lust much more than those of unrelated people."
I found this passage endearing:
>A man should be adult to marry and take only a wife of marriageable age
>When a male is at the age of strength, so that his veins are full of blood, then he is fertile in his semen; then let him take in lawfully instituted marriage a woman who is also at the age of heat, that she may modestly receive his seed and bear him children in the path of rectitude.
Here the book justifies Catholic practice that did not exist in the early church:
First it interprets 1 Timothy 3:2 ("A bishop therefore should be blameless, the husband of one wife") like this: "What does this mean? A priest should not [...] be at the same time the husband of a physical wife and of a spiritual spouse; but he should be the husband of one wife, namely the holy Church".
>It is true that certain people who had previously subjected themselves to the world were at one time allowed to minister. But these were people who had received the carnal yoke before and not after entering My service; and afterward they cast off this yoke, and then the Holy Spirit by His miracles brought about in them praise and celebration. This was granted as an unusual measure at the beginning of the Church's rise, because there were so few priests; but now the Church is adult and strong, and her ministers are many. This is like Church opinion on another prohibition of the same sort: At the beginning of the world it was granted to men to marry women most closely related to them, because there were so few people, whereas now that people are so multiplied it is forbidden.

>>19982745
Nothing in what Christ says restricts it to a "title of office."

>>19983660
I haven't read the RSV but is there an english bible that gets the style right?
the authors of the bible obviously didn't write the churchy english that Tyndale used which can be very beautiful but is simply not true to text
Elijah speaks far too coherently in the KJV and Mark doesn't read like a surrealist novel
For the record, I consider contemporary translations to be absolute abominations
I know it's very hard for one man to sit down and translate the OT because no one man speaks Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Greek, Ethiopian and Syriac well enough to put all the manuscripts side by side but it can't be that these soulless, braindead fucking modern translations, with the latest NSRV dethroning the NIV as the worst attrocity committed against Holy Scripture, can't be the only way to do it

>>19982745
A priest or bishop's office is not "father," their office is priest or bishop.

>>19983934
>not reading it in clearly obvious context

>>19983967
"Father" is not an office.

>>19983955
Title *of* office, not the office's title.

>>19983978
This is a distinction without a difference. Your interpretation of the verse is absurd because you have to read your objections to Catholicism into it.

>>19983987
Wrong, it says what it says and Catholicism is blatantly disregarding Christ and formulating dismissive excuses, essentially "sure, he said it, but didn't mean it in the most obvious way, so what we're doing is perfectly fine." Paul spoke of being a spiritual father figure to specific individuals one on one, personally. Not as a title of his office over entire congregations and not in reference to liturgical rituals.

>>19984735
>Wrong, it says what it says and Catholicism is blatantly disregarding Christ and formulating dismissive excuses, essentially "sure, he said it, but didn't mean it in the most obvious way, so what we're doing is perfectly fine."
The same thing applies to oaths. He says not to swear "not at all," but he is speaking in hyperbole. The meaning is to behave in way that oaths are not necessary. You can still take oaths in serious situations, and the Epistles demonstrate the Apostles taking oaths.
>Paul spoke of being a spiritual father figure to specific individuals one on one, personally. Not as a title of his office over entire congregations and not in reference to liturgical rituals.
If you admit that then it's over. The priest is a spiritual father, not an ultimate father, as that is God. He acts in submission to God and by the power of God. He does not have anything that derives from himself. Christ tells to place these things: teaching, fatherhood, etc., in their proper context as being derived from God.

>>19984743
No ma'am, Paul didn't use it as a title over many, just a metaphorical description of specific relationships with particular individuals, which excluded everyone else. Also putting oneself in the place of Christ is blasphemous outside of those who truly follow Him and do the Father's will as part of His Body, it's not an earthly institutional office.

Enjoy simping for a Satanic Babylonian whore that warps you with Scripture twisting like the serpent.

>>19983952
Alter for the OT, and DBH also did it for the NT but his universalism and other clunkers fucked it up.

>>19984860
No, you've conceded the point, that one can be a spiritual father and that there is a legitimate use of the term in religious context applied to someone other than God.
>only a specific relationship with particular individuals
This qualifier of Christ's words, that the prohibition is absolute except for this, cannot be derived from the text. Your silly interpreation also requires that you call no one "teacher" in a religious context, in which case I would be curious to know what an elder is.
>Matt. 23:18 As for you, do not be called ‘Rabbi.’ You have but one teacher, and you are all brothers.
>1 Tim. 5:17 Presbyters who preside well deserve double honor, especially those who toil in preaching and teaching.
Or do you want to say "teacher" is fine as long as you don't say the specific word "Rabbi"? Give it up.

>>19976899
Prots literally listen to Phil from duck dynasty for holy matters lmao

>>19984981
>cannot be derived from the text
which is a rant against religious leaders and is in a list against titles. Only being blinded by Satan would keep anyone from seeing it with perfect clarity.

>>19984988
Beats faggots in dresses.

https://www.youtube.com/post/Ugkx8FmTBQ0LZSMx5orrnsNqu_dO4MyLWv2h
You guys keeping up with all the polls?

>>19984996
And, BTW, only being blinded by Satan would keep someone from clearly seeing the results of having an institutional office that is directly counter to Scripture. Jesus didn't say not to use such titles just for the sake of not using them, those titles lead to psychological mechanisms. He said we were all to be brethren, and not hierarchical. Having elders and such is not so much a matter of hierarchy as it is just needing experienced, knowledgeable people to help teach to new converts. It's also obvious that the essentials of the faith were not vastly complex bodies of knowledge that would take extended periods to convey. NT churches were bringing people in with simple presentations of the Gospel and they were put immediately into Communion, no 1-2 year waits before being welcomed to the Eucharist, which was not a little wafer.

>>19984996
>>19985082
Just like what he said about oaths, it is a rant against using those titles wrongly, not the title existing. As the misuse on oaths implies a dishonest nature, the misuse of these titles implies a disregard for God. These titles only have their proper meaning in relation to God. Your biological father is only a father through God, as fatherhood is part of the Godhead, and we are made in God's image and thus we have fathers and relations with each other. That's what it means. It's not some legalistic prohibition on using a term.

>>19985143
The dismissal of His word
>implies a disregard for God
Funny how one needn't make excuses or fabricate explanations for simply obeying His word.

>>19985224
Then obey his word and never take an oath, since that's what it "clearly" says and doesn't need to be interpreted in any way to accord with all other scriptural evidence.

>>19985234
No problem actually, I don't take oaths with the exception of marriage vows.

>>19985290
At least you're consistent in being wrong.

is it worth reading the bible if I'm not really religious?

also which version would be good for a beginner/brainlet?

>>19985511
Yes, the King James is the only Bible regardless of "level" but you can use the NASB "bible" with great caution or ESV "bible" with greater caution as training wheels.

>>19985588
Oh, I should have specified NASB 1977 edition.

>>19985511
I'd say you lose nothing by reading the gospels and the 80 most influential pages in western intellectual history also known as the Pauline epistles
if we're being honest, in the current day, the OT is an acquired taste that us bible thumpers get
Wright's translation of the NT is a good starting point, he tries to do some things with certain passages that won't concern you.
If you enjoy that and want to know what it's the fulfillment of, I think you should watch some sort of OT Bible study because it can be very difficult and jarring for a beginner without explanations since this was a book written and redacted over and over and over again across at least 700 years but I'd say 1000 is as plausible

>>19985607
>OT
I would say for OT (and NT really) it's hard to beat the Bible Project videos for efficient and effective quick start expository explanations of "what's going on" for anyone, but especially "beginners".

>>19985668
oh yeah, I absolutely agree
I'll be honest, Tim Mackey's voice is really frustrating for me but his stuff is wonderful

>>19985680
Yes, it takes a bit of cope but he's legit hetero and definitely has the best generally accessable information out there with the patterns and "big picture" tie ins. It's not without imperfections from time to time but overall an incredible blessing.

>>19985705
Another addendum post, the BP podcasts are not to be neglected.

why do liturgical abuses keep happening in the catholic church but are for the most part absent by order of magnitude in Orthodoxy?

>>19983874
Are you saying that living matter generates a soul rather than soul being that which makes matter alive?

>>19986188
The Orthodox Church is order of magnitude smaller in the west and the abuses as such are not as published

>>19986378
No, faith *does* produce works like *the* Spirit produced matter. But there are also circumstances of an individual not being able to carry out substantial, if essentially any at all, "works". The man on the cross next to Jesus could have nothing but faith. There are some people who are under wide varieties of circumstances like serious psychological issues who may continue to exhibit sinful behaviors beyond their control, but if they have faith on Christ then they are saved. It's all far more complex than "either side" tends to understand.

>>19986427
>No, faith *does* produce works like *the* Spirit produced matter.
That's not what James is saying in the verse. Read it again.

>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
He's talking about the spirit that animates the body, not the Holy Spirit. The body without the spirit is dead, it's inanimate matter. He's saying that faith and works have the same relationship so you can't say that faith produces works because this is tantamount to saying the living body "produces" the spirit which is completely false, bodies of matter only live through the spirit they are imbued with the material processes of the body do not generate spirit. Spirit precedes matter.

Both faith and works are the result of grace. Protestants err when they claim that faith is the sole conduit of grace, faith and works are on the same level and they both come from the same source and it is works which energize faith from being a "dead" faith to an "alive" faith. There is no such thing as a "non-saving faith", only a faith which is dead because it finds no expression in the actions of the person who has it.

>>19973261
KJV Onlyism:
>notices modern translations differ
>notices they eliminate verses that favor some doctrines
>rejects this entirely
>seeks the definitive anti-modern version
>KJV has the weight of a king's providence behind it, so it must be good
>reads it
>has a hard time understanding the more eye-opening of Jesus and Paul's sublime teaching
>is brainwashed into a state of neo-judaism which is not Christianity
>becomes as the scribes and the pharisees
>believes in a man-made document (translation) as the literal word of god
By coincidence this document was created exactly 1000 years after the Quran.

Jesus taught to let doctrines that don't work out anymore pass away. KJV onlyism isn't going to bring Americans back to the church. Hate the modern world, sure, but don't simp for some random king of England, unless it's Arthur. or Cromwell.

Alleluia Praise The Lord for guiding me to burn my KJV.

>>19986477
>He's talking about the spirit that animates the body, not the Holy Spirit
Where do you think the spirit that animates the body comes from? God's Ruach.
>this is tantamount to saying the living body "produces" the spirit
No it isn't because faith is directly related to spirit.
Dead faith is not ffaith.

>>19986501
>notices modern translations differ
Yes, differ from the original languages. Even if you completely removed the "muh missing verses" aspect, modern versions are mind bogglingly problematic in their renderings to the point where it's difficult to believe there's not far more "stink" raised about it.

>>19986580
>Where do you think the spirit that animates the body comes from? God's Ruach.
This is heresy. The human soul/spirit is not synonymous with the Holy Spirit. If Paul talks about chairs you can't say he's really talking about God because chairs have their being from God.

I don't get why people still believe in god when you've never been able to observe him

>>19986665
>This is heresy
Imagine being so retarded with the heresy trigger and so Biblically illiterate that you didn't know God blew life into the humans formed from the clay of the earth. Imagine calling others heretics while praying to "Mary" and "saints" instead of who Jesus said to pray to.

>>19986674
Seeing His hand at work.

>>19986681
>Biblically illiterate that you didn't know God blew life into the humans formed from the clay of the earth
That's not the Holy Spirit.

>Imagine calling others heretics while praying to "Mary" and "saints"
Universal practice of the Church since apostolic times I feel quite secure in accepting those practices as legitimate over the spergings of 16th Century theologians who were poorly versed in theology and history.

>>19973244
This is a secular Christmas story. Too many goobers don't seem to understand that the Abrahamic faith didn't arise magically from the dust.

>If you didn't read the prequel to the Bible, then you're not going to understand books one and two, let alone be able to put current events into context. We're on book 4 right now... all the goobers do is masturbate their egos to the promises of a certain self-admitted snake-tongued child of the devil.

>>19986674
https://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE

>>19986691
>since apostolic times
Claimed but evidence does not support and is absolutely not in the NT.
>not the Holy Spirit
Says (You). Perhaps you aren't aware that the tongues of fire on each believer were individualized types of the pillar over the Tabernacle. It's all tied into the Ruach aspect of God.

>>19986691
Martin Luther had a Doctor of theology and oversaw the church in the provinces of Saxony and Thuringia. Thomas Cranmer was literally a Catholic Archbishop with a Doctor of Divinity.

>>19986734
>Martin Luther had a Doctor of theology
And? The man said the only scholastic he respected was fucking Occam, he was a pseud through and through. Having a degree doesn't make you knowledgeable.

>>19986760
That's literally what having a degree does.

>>19986594
Do you have a specific example you’d say is especially bad

>>19986806
There are so very many, I do not even attempt to remember them all because I study it daily, many verses with many translations in parallel with each other and the original languages. Proverbs 3:8 always bothers me, where moderns say "body" or "flesh" when the original Hebrew is "umbilical", which the King James and even Douay-Rheims render as the more appropriate (than moderns) "navel". There are many, many such instances throughout.

Then there is the issue of "supplied words", which all translations rely on in order to render "readable sentences", but only the King James and NASB that I am aware of put supplied words into italics so you are aware that's what they are and can take your own shot at reading without them to see if you can tease out something actually more accurate (which does happen occasionally). Sometimes those supplied words are *crucially* wrong, like how most moderns say that the serpent of Genesis was more "crafty/cunning/subtle/etc." than any *other* "beast of the field". This "other" renders the serpent as being a beast of the field, when the Hebrew says that the serpent was more ____ than any beast of the field. Obviously the serpent was *not* a beast of the field, but merely seemed to resemble one in some way. But any RSV based translation has that word "other" in there, which is completely lacking in the Hebrew, and it's not even italicized to let you know that.

>>19986838
Oh, and NKJV italicizes supplied words (not that I in any way recommend NKJV, I used NASB 77 for a physical modern).

Any suggestions for a prayer to guard against lust?

>>19987106
>please Lord guard me against lust

If Revelation 12:17 doesn't say "remnant of her seed" then you are dealing with a "bible" and not the Holy Bible.

>>19987235
Prayers need to be longer IMO, to let your mind focus on the commitment. I think I'll go with Psalm 91.

>>19987252
Yes, but you just more or less state what you're wanting to cover and free form discuss it and explore it. I adapt "I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes" and other parts of 101 too.

Do we have a copy of the NT in Aramaic? Or is Greek the earliest?

>>19986501
>anti-KJV shills: create strawman, call it onlyism
God hates you Edomite

Does anyone know the verse about how your soul improves from doing good so being good is just gains for the afterlife?

>>19987275
Is it okay to change the wording of Psalms from "we" and "us" to "I" and "me"?

>>19987807
>not reading with someone else

>>19986706
>Adam and Eve were kicked out because know that they knew sin they wouldn't fully love God and instead fear Him
Wow.
Quite a great video, although you have to disregard the images he used. Bad taste to use mythological imagery.

>>19987853
>know
*now
oops

>>19987853
His channel was exceptional until a few years ago. Some would say it still is. Others would say he's too Protestant.

>>19973261
How do KJV onlyists explain the fact that Jude references Enoch I, and that Jesus Christ Himself quotes Enoch 1 as scripture in Matthew 22?

>>19986188
>>19986384
There's no such thing as Novus Ordo in Orthodoxy, that's why.

New thread, brothers;

>>19988184

>>19988173
Not one, but many greek books are also quoted by Paul. Should those be considered Scripture?
What about that sheperd story that ancient Christians thought was nice?
Just books mate.

>>19988193
And most importantly, it wasn't written by Enoch.

>>19987712
>being good is just gains for the afterlife
implying accountability? Like sowing seeds? Plenty of that..

>eph 3
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.