Bible Thread

[Anonymous No.19751466]

Dali edition

previous >>19747901

[Anonymous No.19751476]

"In the beginning was the Logos. And the Logos was TOWARDS God [trinitarian creative eros] and the Logos was God."

[Anonymous No.19751494]

>>19751466
I've heard that this painting was intentionally blasphemous because it puts the observer as if he were watching Jesus Christ from above, one way of saying that man is above God.

[Anonymous No.19751506]

>sexual intercourse in marriage is actually a sin since the beginning of in-vitro fertilization
since there is no need to copulate to create children you should not use this flawed method >If sexual intercourse in a marriage were totally fine the conception of jesus would not have been called "immaculate"
>also aquinas and augustine of hippo told us that only virgins will gain 100% of the reward in heaven

Talk to me about what that anon said
What if it was Intrauterine Insemination instead?

[Anonymous No.19751515]

>>19751506
Humanae Vitae says their are two purposes to sex.

1. Unitive
2. Procreative.

It is gravely sinful to separate either from the act. Intrauterine insemination violates the unitive purpose of sexual union. Therefore it is gravely immoral and illicit.

[Anonymous No.19751519]

>>19751494
The point of the painting is to show that nothing is holding Jesus to the cross but his own love for mankind. There are no nails.

[Anonymous No.19751527]

Christianity is a desert relig-
>In the New Testament, much of the ministry of Jesus occurs on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. In those days, there was a continuous ribbon development of settlements and villages around the lake and plenty of trade and ferrying by boat. The Synoptic Gospels of Mark (1:14–20), Matthew (4:18–22), and Luke (5:1–11) describe how Jesus recruited four of his apostles from the shores of the Kinneret: the fishermen Simon and his brother Andrew and the brothers John and James. One of Jesus' famous teaching episodes, the Sermon on the Mount, is supposed to have been given on a hill overlooking the Kinneret. Many of his miracles are also said to have occurred here including his walking on water, calming the storm, the disciples and the miraculous catch of fish, and his feeding five thousand people (in Tabgha).

[Anonymous No.19751528]

>>19751515
Marriage does not always lead to child-bearing, although there is the word of God which says, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth." We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the whole world is filled with our kind. At the beginning, the procreation of children was desirable, so that each person might leave a memorial of his life.... But now that resurrection is at our gates, and we do not speak of death, but advance toward another life better than the present, the desire for posterity is superfluous. If you desire children, you can get much better children now, a nobler childbirth and a better help in your old age, if you give birth by spiritual labor.
So there remains only one reason for marriage, to avoid fornication, and the remedy is offered for this purpose.
--St. John Chrysostom

[Anonymous No.19751535]

>>19751527
>Lower Galilee, where Jesus lived most of His life, was Israel’s lushest region, known for its sunny, temperate climate and its spring-watered lands. Each spring, the valleys and slopes became an ocean of wildflowers and blossoming trees. Beginning in March, the area was covered by a vast blanket of green. The fertile land was a texture of vineyards and fruit orchards. Grapes, figs, olives, pomegranates, oranges, and other fruits flourished in its pleasant, subtropical climate.

>The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who knew the area well, wrote this about it:

>Its nature is wonderful as well as its beauty; its soil is so fruitful that all sorts of trees can grow upon it, and the inhabitants accordingly plant all sorts of trees there; for the temper of the air is so well mixed, that it agrees very well with those several sorts, particularly walnuts, which require the coldest air, flourish there in vast plenty; there are palm trees also, which grow best in hot air; fig trees also and olives grow near them, which yet require an air that is more temperate. One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together; it is a happy contention of the seasons, as if every one of them laid claim to this country; for it not only nourishes different sorts of autumnal fruit beyond men’s expectation, but preserves them a great while; it supplies men with the principal fruits, with grapes and figs continually, during ten months of the year and the rest of the fruits as they become ripe together through the whole year (The Jewish War, Book 3, Chapter 10:8).

[Anonymous No.19751537]

>>19751494
What a retarded take

[Anonymous No.19751544]

>>19751535
>The Mount of Beatitudes is a hill in northern Israel, in the Korazim Plateau. It is where Jesus is believed to have delivered the Sermon on the Mount.

[Anonymous No.19751551]

>>19751544
>In Christian tradition, Mount Tabor is the site of the transfiguration of Jesus.[1]

[Anonymous No.19751553]

>>19751494
Look at the bottom of the painting. The perspective is from the ground beneath the cross, which looming overhead.

[Anonymous No.19751558]

>>19751528
Natural infertility (part of God's will) is different than purposefully separating the unitive and procreative aspects.
I highly recommend you read Humanae Vitae, unironically. It addresses in detail all the points you're asking about.

Read this commentary too.

[Anonymous No.19751560]

>>19751551

[Anonymous No.19751561]

>>19751558
wrong pic

[Anonymous No.19751568]

>>19751558
>>19751561
I think I'm gonna take the words of the church fathers over some guy 1600 years later.

[Anonymous No.19751569]

>>19751568
Humanae Vitae cites extensively from both the Eastern and Western father. I highly recommend you really read it. It addresses your points and it's quite short. It's a very prophetic encyclical.

[Anonymous No.19751582]

>>19751569
>Humanae Vitae cites extensively from both the Eastern and Western father.
S do the Reformers

[Anonymous No.19751587]

>>19751551

[Anonymous No.19751599]

>>19751582
The encyclical actually addresses the questions you're raising in depth.
Reminder that the Catholic Church is the last Christian church to fully (and rightfully) prohibit birth control, and thus the only church maintaining a belief in line with 2,000 years of Christian doctrine before the Lambeth Declaration.

So much for the Reformers and the "true church".

[Anonymous No.19751616]

>>19751599
I'm not advocating for the Reformation, I'm saying you listening to the Pope define things contrary to the fathers is the same as listening to the Reformers do the same thing.
>Reminder that the Catholic Church is the last Christian church to fully (and rightfully) prohibit birth control, and thus the only church maintaining a belief in line with 2,000 years of Christian doctrine before the Lambeth Declaration.
The Holy Scriptures say that marrying to avoid fornication is acceptable and so do the Fathers. That is the Christian teaching.

[Anonymous No.19751621]

>>19751616
Birth control is gravely illicit both inside AND outside of marriage. That has always been the Christian teaching.

[Anonymous No.19751627]

>>19751621
Nope. See >>19751528

[Anonymous No.19751647]

>>19751627
Natural infertility =/= purposeful birth control. Where does St. John in that quote mention chemical birth control and condoms? Read what you post.

Again, if you PURPOSEFULLY violate the

1. unitive
2. procreative

aspects of sexuality, you are gravely sinning. What do you think purposefully birth control is?

You sound like a Protestant.

[Anonymous No.19751651]

>>19751627
The fact that Orthodoxy supports condom and birth control use tells you all you need to know about how it has strayed from the faith.

[Anonymous No.19751653]

>>19751647
He only used infertility as an example. He clearly extends what he is saying to all Christians in the rest of the passage if you took the time to actually read it. He states clearly the purpose of marriage is to avoid fornication. You deny the teachings of the fathers. I don't care what your heretic superbishop said about it.

[Anonymous No.19751654]

David vs Goliath in art

[Anonymous No.19751658]

>>19751651
What faith is that? You aren't referring to the one taught by St. John Chrysostom.
>So there remains only one reason for marriage, to avoid fornication, and the remedy is offered for this purpose.

[Anonymous No.19751662]

>>19751654
Where David vs Goliath actually took place

[Anonymous No.19751686]

>>19751658
>>19751653
It's called natural family planning. guess what, orthodox schismatic who supports unnatural illicit birth control? God built in a natural cycle of infertility for women! When you track a woman's cycle, you can have natural sex without getting her pregnant and without using gravely sinful and illicit birth control. You obviously understand NOTHING about why acts are sinful. If the matter of the act is sinful, it's sinful. Doesn't matter if there's a good intent.

Learn about systemic theology.

[Anonymous No.19751702]

>>19751686
I follow the faith of the fathers, not your post-schism rationalist concoction.
>So there remains only one reason for marriage, to avoid fornication, and the remedy is offered for this purpose.
One purpose means that having children isn't a purpose of marriage. You can have them but what you do regarding that is irrelevant to what marriage is about.

[Anonymous No.19751703]

Are we in the NIV/NLT era of Bible reading? People around me have a KJV in their house but they seem to prefer something closer to thought-for-thought over word-for-word.

Is anyone else waiting on the NIV Thompson Chain Reference Bible?

[Anonymous No.19751719]

>>19751494
They're retarded. This painting touched me so much that it was one of the reasons I revisited religion.

[Anonymous No.19751752]

>>19751654
It's possible that it looked like that depending on the season and how long the war parties were there and their effect on the local environment

[Anonymous No.19751765]

>>19751702
Birth control is gravely sinful. I'm sorry that offends you personally, but you need to discontinue condom use. It violates the unitive aspect of sexuality, even in marriage.
If you can't see there is a difference in substance between natural, God-ordained infertility, and active stopping of the fertile act, you are beyond hope, and so is your schismatic "church". Children are the obvious purpose of marriage.

St. Paul
>she will be saved through childbearing.

seem your quibble, once again, is with 2,000 years of Church theology AND what the Bible says. Sick and sad.

[Anonymous No.19751769]

>>19751703
No one ever talks about REB. It's an academic, readable thought-for-thought.

[Anonymous No.19751776]

I just listened to Jay Dyer's lecture on Genesis 1 with my dad. We both thought it was very good.

[Anonymous No.19751791]

>>19751651
Since when???? All of the Orthodox people I have listened if that topic comes up say it is a terrible sin.

[Anonymous No.19751796]

>>19751765
Again your infertility appeal is meaningless as St. John Chrysostom only uses that as an example of his point which is applicable to all people. You refuse to actually read what he said, so you cannot understand it. More from the holy father:
>As all men died through one, because that one sinned, so the whole female race transgressed, because the woman was in the transgression. Let her not however grieve. God has given her no small consolation, that of childbearing. And if it be said that this is of nature, so is that also of nature; for not only that which is of nature has been granted, but also the bringing up of children. "If they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety"; that is, if after childbearing, they keep them in charity and purity. By these means they will have no small reward on their account, because they have trained up wrestlers for the service of Christ.
Women have this reward through childbearing but it is not a duty of theirs to pursue it within marriage, as the purpose of marriage now is the avoidance of fornication.

[Anonymous No.19751800]

>>19751791
Even within marriage it is illicit.

[Anonymous No.19751805]

>>19751800
Yes. That is what they all said, the Orthodox I know

[Anonymous No.19751820]

Evolution is not compatible with Genesis. I have heard the theistic evolution arguments, and they are quite simply wrong.

[Anonymous No.19751825]

>>19751820
Correct.

[Anonymous No.19751831]

>>19751825
Jay Dyer did a great job demolishing all the theistic evolution arguments.

[Anonymous No.19751833]

>>19751702
I follow the faith of Christ, not your post His ascension 2nd gen convert earnest but imperfect men's concocted understandings.

[Anonymous No.19751837]

>>19751831
Orthodox bishops commonly accept theistic evolution.

[Anonymous No.19751844]

>>19751833
>No argument against the direct words of the church fathers, just the appeal to a document written 1,600 years later
Begone heretic

[Anonymous No.19751845]

>>19751796
Birth control violates both the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality, both inside and outside of marriage. Read Humanae Vitae. Read Thomas Aquinas. The Church has always taught that there are two purposes to marriage.

1. Unitive
2. Procreative

And they are inseparable. To violate either is a mortal sin. St. John was correct, but not in the way you misinterpret him and twist his words. Natural infertility is ordained by God. Active stopping of fertility is a violation of the purpose of sexuality, in marriage as well. An act is sinful when you use sinful matter, and it doesn't matter if your intent is to "avoid fornication". That's the Spirit of Deception speaking through you.

God has given us a way to avoid grace illicit birth control in marriage. Woman has a natural cycle of infertility. When the woman's cycle is tracked, you can have sex during her infertile periods and retain the unitive aspect of sexuality without violating mechanically the procreative aspect of sexuality.

If you are actively using birth control in marriage, your soul is in grave danger. Repent immediately and seek the true Church that is not in demonic schism.

[Anonymous No.19751847]

>>19751776
Jay Dyer is retarded at best, but (You) and your father doing such things together is blessed.

[Anonymous No.19751851]

>>19751831
Avatarfagging is against site rules.
>>19751820
Why do you think this?

[Anonymous No.19751854]

>>19751845
>Read Humanae Vitae.
Not written by the church fathers.
>Read Thomas Aquinas.
Not a church father.
>The Church has always taught that there are two purposes to marriage.
Wrong. See >>19751528
Also you continue to misread him and think he is arguing from infertility. He gives his clear reasons afterwards that childbearing is no longer a purpose. Do the words of the fathers offend you? Does it burn your conscience to read them? If you will not deal with the fathers honestly then nothing you say on this matters.

[Anonymous No.19751860]

>>19751831
>>19751776
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlMKoNw4OcM

[Anonymous No.19751863]

>>19751837
In the Orthodox church, bishops are not considered imfallible like how you think of your gay pope.

[Anonymous No.19751865]

>>19751851
>Why do you think this?
Not him but scripture treats Adam as a literal man who by his sin brought death into the world. He is never treated as a metaphor. That also means that prior to his sin there was no death. But theistic evolution requires countless millions of years of death and suffering throughout the world prior to the creation of the "Adam" figure, assuming you even grant that there is one. To the evolutionist death and suffering is a natural and good part of the world that God created.

[Anonymous No.19751877]

>>19751865
Right!!!

[Anonymous No.19751878]

>>19751854
You have a sick, Gnostic, satanic view of human sexuality as corrupt and evil. No wonder the orthodox "church" was in bed with the USSR.

>But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good.
Casti Connubii

>No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit. Certain negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action always and in each instance, without exception. It is prohibited — to everyone and in every case — to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost.
Veritatis Splendor

You will NEVER be able to justify your satanic use of birth control, schismatic. Sorry if you want to persist in mortal sin.

[Anonymous No.19751882]

>>19751878
>the USSR.
You mean the Jewish communists who had millions of Russian Orthodox Christians tortured and killed?

[Anonymous No.19751884]

>>19751878
>Casti Connubii
Written in 1930, not by the church fathers
>Veritatis Splendor
Written in 1993, not by the church fathers
You'll make a good Protestant yet!

[Anonymous No.19751889]

>>19751863
Because an unbaptized, ADHD Asperger's NEET in his 20s who is fundamentalist prottie addicted to youtueb knows better than his own "bishops"?

Lol.

[Anonymous No.19751890]

>>19751878
I have never heard an Orthodox say that birth control is ok. Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous No.19751896]

>>19751884
I hope using condoms and birth control so you can get off, you disgusting pervert, is worth the fires of hell.

[Anonymous No.19751898]

>>19751884
Submit to Rome, schismatic.

[Anonymous No.19751903]

>>19751896
>>19751898
>No argument
Haha

[Anonymous No.19751908]

>>19751884
orthodox are literally the original protestants though lmao

[Anonymous No.19751911]

>>19751908
That's funny since only one side has made any attempt to appeal to the church fathers

[Anonymous No.19751913]

>>19751898
>>19751908
Origen was condenmed as a heretic.

[Anonymous No.19751915]

>The Bible is the foundation. You need to do a clear eyes reading of what it is saying. If it seems to be saying something explicitly, that's what it means. You can't try to read things you want to be there into it.
>No! You can't say that the most obvious reading is that passages contradict each other, or that different NT authors had different beliefs about core concepts. It's a coherent whole.

On a related note, I don't think there is anything I find more common or more annoying than "doctrine and religion is bad, you need to have Biblical teachings," as if those people aren't just espousing doctrine. Do they think all other Christians don't read the Bible? God obviously didn't want us to have a systematic theology book, that's why the Bible is a collection of different viewpoints and different beliefs.

Not to mention, the Bible IS a doctrine. It's contents are the product of voting and later using force to enforce a set Canon. And even this didn't work because obviously you have Mormon, Ethiopian, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant Bibles that are not exactly the same. Not to mention various versions that aren't written the same.

[Anonymous No.19751916]

>>19751903
Read Aquinas. The sorry state of the orthodox "tradition" today is directly connected to their rejection of philosophy and theology. That's why they had to seek temporal power by getting in bed with despotic governments in Eastern Europe.

[Anonymous No.19751918]

>>19751889
Imagine belittling someone who already goes to church but is also seeking deeper knowledge of Christ in the way most accessible to them. Imagine doing this and thinking yourself to be superior to them. Whatever your "church" is doing a very poor job at teaching (You) sainthood.

[Anonymous No.19751921]

>>19751911
Nothing a schismatic says has any legitimacy whatsoever. They are in heresy and thus is grave mortal sin.

[Anonymous No.19751926]

>>19751915
>It's contents are the product of voting and later using force to enforce a set Canon.
When was that? There was no ecumenical council in the west to determine the canon until the 1500s and in the east there never was one.

[Anonymous No.19751928]

>>19751916
>Read Aquinas
No!
Thomism leads to monism and atheism and Darwin.
Your pope is a satanist who prays with Muslims and Jews and has clown puppet mass.

[Anonymous No.19751930]

>>19751918
>n-no you!
Shouldn't you be schisming from Constantinople again? or wait, is it Antioch this time? or wait, it is OCA this time?

funny how orthodox claim to have The Truth yet they constantly schism from each other. Guess that's what happens when you reject legitimate authority.

[Anonymous No.19751935]

>>19751928
>Your pope is a satanist who prays with Muslims and Jews and has clown puppet mass.
and see, his fundie prottie side finally came out again. guess the orthoLARP mask can only stay on for so long.

[Anonymous No.19751939]

That bishop Robert Barron is the biggest gaylord I have ever seen.
Why are Roman Catholic priests such gaylords

[Anonymous No.19751944]

[Anonymous No.19751945]

>>19751935
But it is true. How is it protestant to say that?

[Anonymous No.19751950]

>>19751945
>the pope is a satanist
stop using words you don't know the definition of. are you off your meds again?

[Anonymous No.19751959]

>>19751930
>being this confident in one's own assumptions while being this wrong
I'm not "Orthodox™", I pray only to God. Praying to demons has really warped your mind.
10 "Hail Mary"s per 1 "Our Father".

[Anonymous No.19751960]

>>19751515
>says their are two purposes to sex.

but what if the aim is to avoid sex?

[Anonymous No.19751968]

Oh holy Mary, have mercy on your servant. Grant me the faith to serve you always. Lead me from temptation by your divine hand and deliver me from sin. Save me, holy Mary, Queen of Heaven and mother of salvation. Command your son Jesus, who does your bidding, to heed my prayers. Give him a spanking if he disobeys. Oh most holy jewel of God's grace, please but look upon me for a moment that my soul may be redeemed.

[Anonymous No.19751991]

>>19751968
Nice capture of a slice of their retardation.

[Anonymous No.19752004]

>>19751991
Here's a real one for comparison. From "The Glories of Mary" by Alphonsus Ligouri.

[Anonymous No.19752011]

Bishop Robert Barron really grosses me out. There is something really sickening about that type who present themselves as a "reasonable, measured form of conservatism" who would "never be so brazen as to be anti-science or anti-vaccine or to question evolution".
He is like the Jordan Peterson of Roman Catholics.

[Anonymous No.19752035]

>>19752004
inb4
>yeah das rite u don't like it prottie enjoy hell

[Anonymous No.19752043]

>>19752004
It really boggles the mind how anyone since the printing press still buys into their demonism. The only explanation is the severity of the fallen nature of creation and the creature. May God have mercy on their retardations, my own, and those of us all.

[Anonymous No.19752070]

>>19751959
so you're a Reformed Calvinist Evangelical Fundamentalist heretic. typical.
>>19751968
>>19751991
>>19752004
>>19752035
>>19752043
>disrespecting the Mother of God
Preacher Bobby needs more donations! If you believe the Gospel, Preacher Bobby will get you rich!
Now it's time for another Hillsong session! Don't forget to tithe 50%!

[Anonymous No.19752076]

>>19751960
Then don't get married

[Anonymous No.19752091]

>>19752070
Why do Catholics think that appealing to things that their opponent has nothing to do with in any fashion whatsoever is supposed to mean anything?

[Anonymous No.19752094]

[Anonymous No.19752097]

>>19752070
Ironically, Catholic megachurches look exactly the same.
https://youtu.be/DltDyVdbMWM

[Anonymous No.19752098]

[Anonymous No.19752101]

[Anonymous No.19752107]

>>19752097
>a youth conference is a church
you really are stupider than I thought

[Anonymous No.19752110]

>>19752094
Presbyterians are Calvinists, so this is not surprising. They follow the teachings of a pro-usury philosemitic Frenchman who basically believed in physical determinism. Of course they like gay buttsex too.

[Anonymous No.19752112]

[Anonymous No.19752114]

[Anonymous No.19752118]

[Anonymous No.19752120]

>>19752094
>>19752110
I'm a Presbyterian and have no communion with any such people. Why do you think that I would care about this? Do you think you are going to fool me in some way?

[Anonymous No.19752126]

[Anonymous No.19752134]

[Anonymous No.19752137]

[Anonymous No.19752143]

[Anonymous No.19752144]

>>19752076
what if I want to be a smart-ass about it?

[Anonymous No.19752155]

[Anonymous No.19752156]

[Anonymous No.19752171]

>>19751926
Council of Carthage certified a list of scriptures that was later ratified by two Popes and remained unchanged. Council of Rome set out the same scriptures, less two books. Before it's fairly clear there isn't a Canon since letters reference X area considering Y Canon.

And then there is the Council of Trent for Catholics, the development of the Westminster Canon, Synod of Jerusalem for Orthodox.

This is ostentatiously true. There are myriad sources in the early church referring to different Canons and different churches Canonized different books (Ethiopians have Enoch for example). The Bible is obviously a product of doctrine. The Canon exists nowhere in the Bible. Meanwhile, the fact that the early church had no Canon or even a short list early on belies the idea that the Apostles passed down a Canon.

[Anonymous No.19752238]

>>19752120
Good evening brother. Ignore papists ramblings. Cast not your pearls before swine.

[Anonymous No.19752328]

>>19752171
The Bible came about without determination through the power of the Holy Spirit or something. Somehow it messed up and included the wrong books for 1500 years and then 16 verses in the Gospels that the Holy Spirit later helped identify as being added later, through archeological work.

It guided people to reject the Septuagint and its mistranslations and use the books the Jews had kept, except then old Hebrew copies of the books began to get dug up that had the Septuagint version of verses... which I suppose isn't that surprising because the Septuagint was made from Hebrew copies in antiquity, whereas the Masoretic texts Jews use was copied about a millenia later in the 7th-8th century AD. So now maybe those changes will be reversed. Except probably not because the Spirit is guiding us to do that. So Medieval Jews had the spirit to guide them, but the Apostles were mislead, using the Septuagint... or something like that.

Now old bits of deutrocanoncial texts removed from the Bible for not being in the Masoretic text have been found written in Hebrew, which would suggest putting them back in? Or were Medieval rabbis the ones guided by the Holy Spirit but not the Church?

Who knows. The logic for continuing to remove lines from the synoptic Gospels based on older versions showing up also suggests maybe looking twice at the Masoretic as the key Canon, especially since evidence of a closed Jewish Canon by 30 AD is shoddy at best. But really, the whole point was that Maccabees had to go because it had support for Purgatory and indulgences had become a travesty, so basically the Holy Spirit guided us to the correct Bible by letting the church get ridiculously corrupt so that people would find a reason to scrap the uninspired parts the Holy Spirit somehow let slip in.

[Anonymous No.19752351]

>>19752328
There are parts of this that are correct and parts you are simplifying to the point of dishonesty, such as the idea that the deuterocanonical books were always considered canon by Christians.

[Anonymous No.19752404]

>>19752351
Imagine not including the deuterocanonical books like the early Church did (and the LXX) did, and instead relying on Talmudic Rabbinical corruptions of the text like the MT to form your "canon".

Another unforced error by the "reformers"

[Anonymous No.19752411]

>>19752120
>w-well I'm not like that!
Your denomination is hopelessly corrupted (even more so than it was from the start, which is a feat in itself)

[Anonymous No.19752417]

>>19751466
currently doing taylor marshall’s (papist) bible in a year

[Anonymous No.19752426]

>>19752328
Luther was the definition of cafeteria Catholic. He wanted to get rid of all of the Pastoral Letters because James refuted his sola fide heresy. Don't expect any consistency at all from Protestants on this issue when their "return to the primitive church" (which was Catholic) actually means getting rid of books which threaten their emotion-based dogmas.

[Anonymous No.19752427]

>>19752417

[Anonymous No.19752428]

>>19752404
Again this is simply false. Take for example the Festal Letter of Athanasius written in 367 in which he lists the canon. It specifically excludes multiple deuterocanonical texts from the canon. Other books such as Maccabees are not mentioned at all.

>But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm

[Anonymous No.19752432]

>>19752097
>posts a conference
>calls it a megachurch
I'm sure you think Bernie Sanders speaking at Liberty University was him saying mass in a church.

[Anonymous No.19752436]

>>19751466
Have you guys seen that Seinfeld episode where George converts to Latvian Orthodoxy? It reminded me of some of you.

[Anonymous No.19752458]

>>19752417
Check out the Ascension Press reading plan, it's more chronological

[Anonymous No.19752486]

>>19752428
The earliest fathers quoted from the deuterocanonical texts.

The Didache
>You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]" (Didache 4:5 [A.D. 70]).

Pope Clement I
>"By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. `Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?' [Wis. 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Polycarp of Smyrna
>"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because `alms delivers from death' [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. (Letter to the Philadelphians 10 [A.D. 135]).

Hippolytus
>"What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah" (Commentary on Daniel [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant "Bible").

Council of Rome
>"Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books" (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).

[Anonymous No.19752496]

>>19752428
Council of Hippo
>"[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ." (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Carthage
>"[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ." (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).

Augustine
>"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).

Innocent I
>"A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . ." (Letters 7 [A.D. 408]).

[Anonymous No.19752505]

>>19752428
At the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was ratified by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Martin Luther included them in his first German translation, published the Council of Trent. They can also be found in the first King James Version (1611) and in the first Bible ever printed, the Gutenberg Bible. In fact, these books were included in almost every Bible until the Edinburgh Committee of the British Foreign Bible Society excised them in 1825. Until then, they had been included at least in an appendix of Protestant Bibles. It is historically demonstrable that Catholics did not add the books, Protestants took them out.

Early Christians read the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It included the seven deuterocanonical books. For this reason, the Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly writes, “It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books.” The authors of the New Testament quoted freely from the Septuagint—over 300 times.

[Anonymous No.19752512]

>>19752428
Do you disagree with your prophet Luther?

Martin Luther
>"We are obliged to yield many things to the papists —that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it.”

[Anonymous No.19752522]

>>19752486
And? Athanasius says that those texts are "appointed by the Fathers to be read" but denies they are canon. Why would he not know they are canon if this was a universal belief? He was the bishop of Alexandria and the bulwark of orthodoxy during the Arian crisis.
>>19752496
>>19752505
You do not need to go into this whole apologetics routine with me. I am not interested. The fact is that this is not universal. Hippo, Carthage, Augustine -- Augustine was bishop of Hippo and Carthage is likewise in North Africa so it's unsurprising that there is agreement here. What was going on in Egypt then? What do you think was the problem?
>>19752512
I'm not speaking about Luther at all and don't care about what he says on the matter.

[Anonymous No.19752527]

>>19752428
St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came — and the Scripture cannot be broken — what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) — as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.19752536]

>>19752527
Can you actually address the subject under discussion like a normal human instead of going into a copy-paste rampage?

[Anonymous No.19752543]

>>19752522
>quotes a SINGLE Church Father
>gets mad and throws a hissy fit when I quote dozens back, as well as all the Ecumenical Councils, as well as Luther and all the early Reformers to prove he's wrong, as usual
>uhhhh actually I don't care what the founder of my own belief believes!

you're a joke. when you're actually confronted with facts to disprove your "arguments", you slip back into your typical protestant ad hominem attacks. never respond to me again, you once again were BTFO by history and 2,000 years of tradition.

[Anonymous No.19752548]

>>19752543
You are ruining these threads dude. Please stop.

[Anonymous No.19752554]

>>19752536
read
>>19752486
>>19752496
>>19752505
>>19752527

and tell me how you know better than
1. the majority of the Early Church Fathers
>b-buh what about Jerome!
I said the MAJORITY - please read.
2. all the ecumenical councils
3. the original reformers themselves.
4. the words of Jesus and Paul themselves (!)

once again, you pick and choose what you want to believe based not on history or facts, but on your fee-fees. building your house on sand.

[Anonymous No.19752555]

>>19752536
I accept your defeat

[Anonymous No.19752556]

>>19752548
>gets called out on bullshit
>y-you're ruining my thread
>I'm supposed to spew my ahistorical bullshit unchallenged!!

nah, come back when you stop spewing bullshit as dogma and demeaning anyone who points out the flaws in your spurious reasoning, then you'll gladly be welcome.

[Anonymous No.19752558]

>>19752554
Why do you think the correct canon was not known to Athanasius, and by extension Egypt, after the Council of Nicaea? Do you have an opinion?

[Anonymous No.19752559]

>>19752555
address ANY of those points in my posts.
you're such a crybaby pussy it's fucking unreal

[Anonymous No.19752563]

>>19752556
"Ahistorical bullshit" is quoting the writings of a doctor of the church. Okay.
>>19752559
Your posts are besides the point. If such an illustrious saint as Athanasius does not know this then how is it universal? Why did he not know it? Was the Arian controversy fought by this man who didn't even know what the canon was?

[Anonymous No.19752572]

>>19752558
Why do YOU think the the councils at Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Innocent, Augustine, Hippolytus, Polycarp and Clement are wrong and YOU are right?

You cited 1 church father with a differing opinion. ONE. That's the typical prottie mindset - "I need something else to justify *my* belief, never mind deferring to history and the Concillar tradition!"

Guess what chief? One church father can have a differing opinion. It's called "Consensus of the Bishops" and "Sensus Fidelium" for a reason.

[Anonymous No.19752582]

>>19752558
You love the Alexandrians so much? why do you, as a prottie then, rely on the MT and not the Alexandrian and LXX scriptural tradition?

you can't even get your own flailing right. embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.19752587]

>>19752563
Why do YOU think the the councils at Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Innocent, Augustine, Hippolytus, Polycarp and Clement are wrong and YOU are right?

You cited 1 church father with a differing opinion. ONE. That's the typical prottie mindset - "I need something else to justify *my* belief, never mind deferring to history and the Concillar tradition!"

Guess what chief? One church father can have a differing opinion. It's called "Consensus of the Bishops" and "Sensus Fidelium" for a reason.

[Anonymous No.19752590]

>>19752559
You're still defeated
Stop posting, it is embarrassing at this point

[Anonymous No.19752591]

>>19752572
>>19752587
I'm not claiming anyone is right or wrong. I am simply observing the data. Athanasius denies multiple of these books are canon and several others he does not mention in any sense. He states however that some are appointed by the fathers to be read. If he is correct then early quotations of these texts do not necessarily mean that the writer viewed them as canonical. But perhaps he is wrong. The question is, given that this is supposedly universal, how did he not know? If you were a Christian at that time in Egypt your authority would be Athanasius, and he would have told you that Sirach was not canon. There was no council binding on the area that would say otherwise.
>>19752582
Stop changing the subject and address what we are discussing.

[Anonymous No.19752607]

>>19752591
>I'm not claiming anyone is right or wrong
I love to watch you squirm and backpedal. Typically how once you actually get challenged my history you say
>uhhh well actually I wasn't making an argument, I was just uhhh saying!
The reason I mock you is because you zero good faith in the way you argue. None. You've been shitting up thread after thread with your ahistorical, adoctrinal bullshit and when you get called out and refuted you cry foul. Sounds like you have some soul searching to do.

>Guess what chief? One church father can have a differing opinion. It's called "Consensus of the Bishops" and "Sensus Fidelium" for a reason.
Also
>There was no council binding on the area that would say otherwise.
What are Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419)? Church fathers had differing opinions, yes, but to blatantly lie and say the deuterocanonical weren't established as canon by then? Can't be anything other than misleading, intentionally.

[Anonymous No.19752616]

>>19752607
also
>well actually those Councils weren't binding in that area!!

There was one apostolic church at that time. One. And guess what? It was (and is) the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Councils were binding for the universal Church (and they still are).

[Anonymous No.19752617]

>>19752607
>I love to watch you squirm and backpedal.
The only claim I have made is that the canon is not universal.
>The reason I mock you is because you zero good faith in the way you argue. None. You've been shitting up thread after thread with your ahistorical, adoctrinal bullshit and when you get called out and refuted you cry foul. Sounds like you have some soul searching to do.
Not an argument.
>>Guess what chief? One church father can have a differing opinion. It's called "Consensus of the Bishops" and "Sensus Fidelium" for a reason.
So how did he not know? Surely he would be corrected since he was speaking contrary to the universal belief of all Christians? I don't believe there's any evidence of this.
>What are Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419)?
These are all local councils that would not have been binding on Egypt at that time.

[Anonymous No.19752625]

>>19752616
>There was one apostolic church at that time. One. And guess what? It was (and is) the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Councils were binding for the universal Church (and they still are).
This is false. A local council is not binding on the entire church. You are effectively saying a local council has the same authority as an ecumenical council, which is nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19752642]

>>19751527
>>19751535
>>19751544
>>19751551
>>19751560
>>19751587
>>19751662
Desert nigger cope

[Anonymous No.19752669]

>>19752351
Never claimed that. Christians didn't have a Canon for a long period.

But Protestants breaking away from the Catholic Church were breaking away from that held those books Canonical, so yes, that is their argument.

And anyhow, the "Apocrypha" were part of the Bible in the vast majority of traditions that survived to the Middle Ages. The idea of them somehow being in the Bible but not Canon didn't even make sense until the Reformation.

>Inb4 Jerome had them in an Apocrypha section

Jeromeism wasn't ever a sect. The council sided with Augustine and the Apocrypha was part of the Bible on par with other parts in Catholicism and Orthodoxy for the next millenia plus. I am less familiar with this history of the other main churches, Coptic, Coptic Ethiopian, the Asian churches, etc., but most of those included them to.

So yeah, not all Christians accepted them, and the early church didn't even had a Canon (a point I made), but saying it's disingenuous to say they were part of the Bible is like saying it's disingenuous to say the Prophets are part of the Hebrew Bible because Samaritans still exist (for now). Especially since the people claiming this come from a tradition that began from Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19752677]

>>19752617
>Surely he would be corrected since he was speaking contrary to the universal belief of all Christians?
You are obviously not Catholic because you understand nothing about Collegiality or how the Episcopacy functions.

Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.

Why did one bishop not agree? Am I that bishop? Do I know? Frankly I couldn't care less - the opinions of a minority do not make dogma.

The majority, as I cited, in councils, in the writing of the MAJORITY of fathers, and in papal pronouncements, affirm the deuterocanonical books. It doesn't matter what the minority opinion is, at all, theologically or temporally. Your position is untenable. And yes, councils in the time of the universal Church were binding. Protestants scream about that fact because they like to pretend the Church was disharmonious at the beginning, but, once again, history of primary of sees proves otherwise.

If you were arguing in good faith, you would be open to admitting you're wrong and change your mind when you're confronted with facts. Instead you double down and cry foul and say shit like "I accept your concession". You have no serious points to make, you're an uneducated Sophist, and you have ill-will.

[Anonymous No.19752706]

Reminder that Mussolini is in heaven.

[Anonymous No.19752707]

>>19752677
>Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.
We have the data from certain geographic areas that there was a consensus and that from another there was a contrary viewpoint. I don't know how you extrapolate a majority here. For the Christian living in Egypt at the time he would have no way to know the canon apparently.
>Why did one bishop not agree? Am I that bishop? Do I know? Frankly I couldn't care less - the opinions of a minority do not make dogma.
You have no way to assimilate the data into your historical presumptions. Athanasius is not some random backwater bishop. The fact that you keep downplaying him is amusing.
>And yes, councils in the time of the universal Church were binding. Protestants scream about that fact because they like to pretend the Church was disharmonious at the beginning, but, once again, history of primary of sees proves otherwise.
Utter nonsense that collapses all councils into the same thing with no meaningful distinction between an ecumenical council from other councils.
>If you were arguing in good faith, you would be open to admitting you're wrong and change your mind when you're confronted with facts. Instead you double down and cry foul and say shit like "I accept your concession".
Like you did here? >>19752555
Or will that conveniently not be you who posted that?
>You have no serious points to make, you're an uneducated Sophist, and you have ill-will.
Not an argument. Also I am going to bed. Good night anon.

[Anonymous No.19752725]

>>19752707
You refuse to acknowledge the main point I said, again (for the third time) because as I said, you're a clown, instead you pretend to be superior
>I'm going to le bed! hmmph!
like a pathetic passive aggressive pussy instead of addressing the points I said.

Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.

Jerome and Athanasius can disagree. Guess what? READ WHAT I SAID. They're a minority. I provided AMPLE citation from the Bible, the councils, quotes from the Fathers, and the history of the Bible itself to back up my claim.

You're right, one bishop, one, disagreed with the rest. Read my post again. Actually argue in good faith. I know it's hard for you, but you can do it!

>Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.

>Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.

>Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.

Until you acknowledge this point you will continue to remain a fucking joke, as you are in every thread unlike you cry uncle and leave instead of engaging in good faith.

[Anonymous No.19752730]

>>19752706
Even there he's probably joining wars he can't possibly hope to win

[Anonymous No.19752731]

>>19752707
Also
>quoting yourself and making it look like me
You know what, you might actually be a female Evangelical "pastor" or something like that. It would make a lot of sense honestly.

[Anonymous No.19752740]

>>19752707
Rome, Carthage and Hippo weren't some random backwater sees. See how you can apply that criteria exactly against your own argument?

[Anonymous No.19752765]

Anyone have experience with this here? How is it? Thinking of buying it.

[Anonymous No.19752768]

>>19752458

[Anonymous No.19752804]

>>19752725
>The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.
this is how catholicism ended up being pagan by the way, very sad

[Anonymous No.19752814]

>>19752804
?

[Anonymous No.19752829]

>>19752804
what's the alternative way to decide dogma? individual interpretation? every man a pope? that's how you end up with the 100s of orthodox sects and 10,000+ protestant sects today. Consensus exists for a reason, it's not to stifle debate, it's to promote unity.

[Anonymous No.19752842]

>>19752428
This is perhaps a bad faith post or perhaps genuine confusion. Evangelical study Bibles are extremely inaccurate about the Canon. The ESV Study Bible for instance could not possibly have been made in good faith.

You're quoting from around the time the Canon was decided. There was debate over the Canon for centuries, the early church had none. When it was decided for Western Christendom, it included those books. The fact that there were other proposed Canons before that is sort of irrelevant, no one is saying we should use the Marion Gospel or replace Genesis with the Apocryphon of John and Hypostasis of the Archons despite those being older than the Council of Carthage.

The Masoretic Canon was only relevant because it helpfully got rid of verses used in doctrine relevant to the main Protestant grievances with Church policy. The choice was explicitly political. On the theological end, it was about removing books that had passages that disagreed with the new theology, as was made explicit in the recommendations for their removal. The problem was that this put the whole Bible up for grabs, so they punted and defaulted to using a Jewish Canon from the Middle Ages since it got rid of the most problematic sections.

[Anonymous No.19752854]

>>19752522
Because he was writing before the Canon was made official. This is obvious. The Canon wasn't immediately a thing after Carthage, it had to be reiterated by two Popes subsequent to the Council and then enforced.

This is also how the Jewish Canon worked too. We have texts from the first century BC of people bitching about Ecclesiastes being in the Bible and the Roman histories of the Jews list a Canon with fewer books than the Masoretic text they use today.

[Anonymous No.19752989]

>>19751527
>>19751535
>>19751544
>>19751551
It would be awesome to visit Palestine someday. For the Catholicism film series they filmed extensively at Christian sites in the Holy Land and it looked amazing.

[Anonymous No.19753083]

>>19752989
I've got plans to go in 2033, as I hold the belief that the crucifixion happened on April 3, 33, and would like to visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on that date and later celebrate masses throughout Holy Week 2033 and on Easter 2033 in Jerusalem. However, since April 7, 30, remains a possible date, though one I no longer believe can be supported by evidence, I'm tempted to go for Holy Week/Easter 2030 as well, just in case.

[Anonymous No.19753186]

>>19752854
We even have Hebrew Jewish Canons ranging from 22 to 99 books, with 24 and 70 also suggested. In the DSS, Tobit, Baruch, and Sirach were written in the same form and on the same type of paper reserved for Scripture. The Essenes (John the Baptist) had a different canon. The Sadducees only recognized the Law and basically thought the prophets were all full of shit. And those who suggest that the Pharisees represented the mainstream popular canon omit the fact that it wasn't mainstream or popular in the time of Christ and only was formally codified in the 2nd century, long after Christians stopped giving a shit about what the Pharisees had to say because they'd lost their authority.

[Anonymous No.19753212]

[Anonymous No.19753264]

What if God inspired the NRSVue and thinks it is the closest thing we have to what He intends for us to have as His word? What if He is personally responsible for correcting us with "complete chaos"?

[Anonymous No.19753271]

Are theology schools accredited?

I'm genuinely confused about how so many pastors I've heard have such inaccurate conceptions of the history of Christianity and Judaism. Or is a sort of doctrine approved version of history taught there?

Just for example, an incredibly common one is, when looking at allusions to Hebrew scripture: "if you were the original audience, you'd know such and such about this because you would have been reading it over and over since you were born. Jews in the first century were universally literate and pious (and literate in Hebrew at that)."

I don't know where the compulsion for this comes to. You can explain the allusions without making claims about average Jews in the first century being extremely pious scholars, when most of the population wouldn't be able to read at all. And the allusions appear to be referring to the Septuagint anyhow, which is in Greek, probably what people in non-religious roles would tend to learn as a script anyhow.

It's not even totally clear if most of that group would still have know spoken Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.19753279]

>>19753264
Still laughing that they made such a typo as to not put "in" before "complete."

[Anonymous No.19753308]

>>19753279
What was the wind from God sweeping over the face of the waters doing? God was just speaking things into happening by command so it doesn't seem like there would have been any functional need for His wind. Maybe He just enjoyed it?

[Anonymous No.19753321]

Best version of the Bible to get bros? What's the best reader version and the best study version?

[Anonymous No.19753325]

>>19753321
King James Bible

[Anonymous No.19753382]

>>19753321

[Anonymous No.19753388]

>>19753382
Where do you get this? Is it expensive?

[Anonymous No.19753413]

>>19753388
>Where do you get this?
https://www.amazon.com/Hebrew-Old-Testament-Readers/dp/1433571013
https://www.amazon.com/Testament-Produced-Tyndale-Cambridge-Readers/dp/1433564157
>Is it expensive?
The Hebrew OT is.

[Anonymous No.19753417]

Which Vulgate is the best?

[Anonymous No.19753430]

>>19753382
>>19753413
wtf is this
My GNT from them was printed in Italy

[Anonymous No.19753435]

>>19753417

[Anonymous No.19753436]

>>19753435
Editio quinta?

[Anonymous No.19753453]

>>19753436
Latin for "fifth edition" from 2007. It's a critical edition meant for academic study, so the glosses and appendices were constantly updated since the first edition in 1969. The text itself has remained static.

[Anonymous No.19753510]

>>19753453
Thanks! I knew what editio quinta means, I was just wondering whether that specific edition is the best. I guess it seems a little less of an important choice if the text has remained static.

[Anonymous No.19753533]

>>19753510
It's really the only choice for the Vulgate, sans the dubious "Nova Vulgata". You'd probably have to dig deep into used bookstores or church basements to find pre-fifth editions of the WG Vulgata. Pictured is the fourth edition. Anything prior to that is probably long gone unless your Vulgate-loving parents or grandparents bought it in 1969.

[Anonymous No.19753678]

>>19751466
What does the bull represent?

[Anonymous No.19753706]

>>19753382
I'll get these to avoid buying the BHS or NA28 from DBG. I'll still probably get the Vulgata and Septuaginta from DBG though. Maybe the NA29/UBS6 when that comes out in 2024.

[Anonymous No.19753815]

dont worry anons! your faith will be rewarded! keep believing and when you get to heaven, all your misery on this earth won't matter any more!
is what i would say to a bunch of slaves to keep them happy enough so that they spend their lives toiling away for my benefit

keep up the good work!

[Anonymous No.19753847]

This is going to be a bit of a sperg-tier post so I apologize in advance.

Translations I Currently Own and Use
>Oxford REB Study Edition
>NABRE
>Ann Nyland NT
>Sarah Ruden NT

Translations I Previously Owned and Donated
>Oxford RSV Study Edition
>HarperCollins NRSV Study Edition
>Knox

Translations I Want to Own in the Future
>NRSVue (print edition)
>Alter (Hebrew Bible only)
>Knox NT in paperback form
>NETS
>Wuest NT

I'm happy to answered questions about the translations I've used.

[Anonymous No.19753850]

>>19753264
NRSVue Only Movement when?

[Anonymous No.19753854]

>>19753815
>thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
>wtf bro... you are THE MAN trying to control me... it's CAPITALISM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lyrBtcZCes

[Anonymous No.19753858]

>>19753847
I use and own a JB
Pretty nice.
What's the consensus on it?

[Anonymous No.19753860]

>>19751494
>>19751553
this. Jesus is looking down like the belly of a cloud.

[Anonymous No.19753868]

>>19753271
Basically there are "theology schools" and there are Bible colleges.

Within theology schools, you can divide them into seminaries, secular academic theology departments, and religious theology departments. You can also divide by denomination. Theology schools tend to teach at the graduate level, and usually include historical, linguistic, theological, and cultural training. Secular depts. tend to come at it from a comparative religion standpoint. Usually you have to write a thesis to graduate.

Then there's Bible colleges. There are not really seminaries not theology schools, but more "pastoral" schools (usually) for Protestant ministers. The line is thin because some Bible colleges are also seminaries or have graduated to more respectable universities (Wheaton, Moody, Fuller, etc.). Bible colleges may cover things like Biblical exegesis and preaching and ministry primarily, but a few also engage in higher-level scholarship.

Many of your average Protestant pastors come from Bible colleges, especially in the South and Midwest USA. There are not truly schooled in theology per se, more in "Bible-ing" (if that makes sense). Not to say all Bible colleges are bad - they're not. But this might be able to answer a bit of your question.

[Anonymous No.19753877]

>>19753858
The reason I don't like the JB is because, one, it uses the word Yahweh for Adonai (some people like it for that thought), and, two, it's a translation into English for a preexisteing translation into French. Additionally, it was done by multiple different translators working independently, and it has a completely different Psalter (Grail).

However, it's a very poetic translation. I like it a lot, but it's not super textually accurate. Sometimes I've used it for Divine Office readings.

The RNJB has great speculative footnotes but is a bit of an "out-there" translation for different reasons.

[Anonymous No.19753881]

>>19753877
*NJB

The RNJB is a recent update of the NJB.

[Anonymous No.19753887]

>>19753847
No questions, but I'll use this to layout my own similar post.

Translations I Currently Own and Use
>RSV-2CE, both the standard and the Didache Study Bible
>RSV-2CE Pocket NT
>Douay-Rheims (Challoner)
>Knox
>Word on Fire Bible Vol. 1, The Gospels (NRSV-CE)

Translations I Currently Own but Don't Use
>Pre-2011 NAB, which I got for Confirmation

Translations I Previously Owned and Donated
>Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT, in anticipation of getting the full ICSB this fall, or at least replacing the bonded leather version with the hardback if the complete is still two volumes

Translations I Want to Own in the Future
>Alter Hebrew Bible
>Word on Fire Bible Vol. 2-?
>Vulgata and Septuaginta, both from Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft
>Illuminated Septuagint from Newrome Press, currently in development as a light edit of the Lexham English Septuagint

[Anonymous No.19753907]

>>19753854
wouldn't want the slaves fighting among each other when they could be working

[Anonymous No.19753914]

>>19753887
Nice stuff. Forgot that I used to own the Didache too.
Are you going to rebuy the Word on Fire editions when they update to the NRSVue? It's pretty crazy they agreed to use that as the new text base, I feel bad for the people who bought the really expensive leather versions.

I'm not sure how you feel about the REB, I'm basically the only person who shills it here. In my opinion it's one of the best English translations ever and it's critically unknown.

Cambridge publishes an absolutely gorgeous green leather reader's edition of the REB in pocket form, it's truly awesome for devotional reading in church especially. Maybe check it out if you want.

[Anonymous No.19753916]

>>19753858
It's better than the RNJB and roughly equal to the NJB. However, the JB is really just a product of Anglo-Catholics and Irish-Catholics, as until very recently it'd been used in those countries without substitute for more than 50 years.

[Anonymous No.19753933]

>>19753881
The RNJB also really botches the notes, both because they're severely trimmed down from the JB/NJB and because there's constant misalignment in the printed edition, with the notes either commenting on old things from the JB/NJB that are no longer in the text, thus making those notes incoherent, or the notes being attached to the wrong verses. This is on top of the notes just being poor imo. At this time, I can't recommend the RNJB over its predecessors because it's simply a mess and, in a modern context, there's literally no reason to use it over the ESV-CE or RSV-2CE, and in a reading context, no reason to use it over the JB or NJB. At least the JB, despite its flaws, has a feel of culture and history behind it, and the NJB is basically just the JB again.

[Anonymous No.19753940]

The cross is the nerve induction technology from Dune, on steroids.

[Anonymous No.19753946]

>>19753877
>>19753916
Kinda don't enjoy the overuse of a name instead of a title, but i reckon it isn't wrong per se.
It's the regular JB, have heard the others are a bit "out there".
Got it on a nice package deal with other books.
It doesn't have any glaring mistranslation, so i guess i'm quite safe there aswell.

[Anonymous No.19753951]

>>19753946
Also mine ends up being a translation into another romance language, so i think it comes out better.

[Anonymous No.19753972]

>>19753914
>Are you going to rebuy the Word on Fire editions when they update to the NRSVue?
Nope. The second and final NT volume is confirmed NRSV-CE again, so I couldn't care less if the OT volumes use the UE. Again, I have them for the commentary, so technically I can read any other translation alongside them and the commentary will still be valid.
>I feel bad for the people who bought the really expensive leather versions.
Y-yeah...y-you too, m8...
>I'm not sure how you feel about the REB
All my knowledge of the REB and the NEB come from R. Grant Jones's videos on them and the write-ups on CatholicBibleTalk.com about the REB, on its own and comparing it against the NABRE. They have an interesting history, I'll say that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfvcEuNljeI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRNKNA3_Esc

[Anonymous No.19754086]

>>19753321
I have a KJV, NIV, the Stone Edition Tanakh, Catholic Edition NRSV, and ESV. The NIV and ESV are study Bibles.

I find myself using the NRSV most often, but this is largely due to it being a large type version. The ESV, NIV, and NRSV all read similarly, but I find myself not very keen on the study Bibles after finding some misleading notes that essentially lay out doctrine without telling the reader they are reading doctrine. The ESV study Bible is far worse about this though, on the one hand simply stating that only one position on a controversial passage is at all consistent using very forceful terms, and also misrepresenting the history of the Bible badly in the end notes.

The ESV translation is fine though. I have an ESV audio version narrated by Max McClean which is my favorite audio version. He helpfully has done many different translations. None contain the OT books not included in the Masoretic texts though, even though the KJV has these books and he does a KJV. I did not like the full cast Word of Promise recording (NKJV) as much.

KJV is nice too, but I don't always want the antiquated English. One thing to note, many KJV, even ones saying "Authorized," still cut the books from the Septuagint 3rd century BC translation of the OT that aren't in the Masoretic text forming the Jewish Canon (made about 1,000 years later, but the Canon predates it, although it is unclear by how much because books left out show up in the Talmud). Anyhow, I'd just check first. It's not even a Reformation, the Apocrypha not being in English language translations is a 19th century thing, but American Evangelicals have become downright hostile to them.

The Stone Edition has Jewish commentary, but it's light on notes. It's a very literal translation that doesn't read fluidly. It does all of The Song of Songs as allegorical commentary, which is interesting. Not my first choice, but useful.

Another thing to check is the source of the translation. Most will be Masoretic in the US, but the are Septuagint ones too or mixes. Septuagint based means using a translation of a translation, but it is the version the NT quotes and that Paul used for those quote heavy epistles. Masoretic is right from Hebrew to English but much older and has notable edits. Honestly, the differences aren't huge though and some Bibles show where they differ and where the Dead Sea Scrolls differ and other copies. They don't tend to be too substantial.

[Anonymous No.19754131]

>>19754086
>but I find myself not very keen on the study Bibles after finding some misleading notes that essentially lay out doctrine without telling the reader they are reading doctrine.
To be fair, being surprised that the explicitly Calvinist ESV Study Bible unflinchingly affirms Calvinist views in its notes is like reading the Catholic Didache Study Bible and being surprised it affirms Catholic teachings.

That said, if you can track down a copy, you might want to look into the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible.

[Anonymous No.19754133]

>>19754086
Isn't the LXX older than MT? It appears you're saying the opposite

[Anonymous No.19754140]

>>19751466
watch this gospel video if you want to be 100% sure of going to heaven /lit/ anons. contrary to what popular false prophets have told you, it's really easy to get to heaven because salvation is not of your works. God does not need a sinner's work (that's your works) to save you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpOv_kvk4M8

you can be completely sure that you'd go to heaven within 11 minutes. don't miss out on heaven /lit/

[Anonymous No.19754144]

If anyone is at all interested, here is the 1635 edition of the Douay-Rheims with the 1582 NT and the 1610 OT. It's available as a free pdf and epub.

https://archive.org/details/DouayRheimsBibleOriginal/TheHolyBible/mode/2up

The 1635 edition was the first single volume Catholic translation into English. It's from the Vulgate but his Greek/Hebrew reading notes.

This is, if you can get-passed the old style text, the BEST Catholic bible. The notes are awesome, it has detailed explanations which are not included in modern DR printings, and it is before the Challoner 1700s revisions which brought the DR more in line with the KJV (even though the DR is the older translation).

I highly recommend reading this. I would love if there was a physical copy of the 1635 full text available but currently there is not.

[Anonymous No.19754154]

>>19754133
Yeah, typo.

[Anonymous No.19754176]

>>19754144
the 1500s translators even address the vulgate vs. MT vs. LXX controversy in the translators' introduction. some arguments never change.

[Anonymous No.19754188]

Translations I Currently Own and Use
>KJB

Translations I Previously Owned and Burned to Prevent Them From Spreading Satan's Lies to Anyone
>NIV 1984
>NASB 1977
>NKJV
>NRSV
>ESV

Translations I Want to Own in the Future
>The direct words of the LORD God Almighty while in His presence for eternity

[Anonymous No.19754204]

>>19754144
An anon either here or on /his/ said he was in the slow process of retyping and transliterating into modern spelling the annotations from that very PDF. I think he said he was going to try to pitch it to Ignatius Press and get a theologian or Catholic historian to add contextual commentary alongside the annotations.

[Anonymous No.19754217]

>>19754204
There's actually verse-by-verse theological commentary after every chapter in every book. It unironically blows modern study bibles out of the water. Each verse gets like a paragraph with citations from the Church Fathers, the text has numerous cross-references and alternate readings, and there's even marginal and chapter summaries for both the text and the theological commentary, for 17th century smoothbrains.

There has, to this day, not been a better one volume text and study Bible with theological commentary published.

[Anonymous No.19754223]

>>19754217
>There's actually verse-by-verse theological commentary after every chapter in every book.
*Almost every book. I checked and some of the shorter books have no post-chapter annotations and some have them only for a few chapters. But you're right that most do.

[Anonymous No.19754268]

>>19754204
That anon would be me. And yes, I'm still plugging away at it.
>>19754144
>>19754217
As has been said, I'm currently retyping the annotations after the chapters. I'm skipping the marginal notes for now, but I might go back to those later if I choose to include them. Maybe even the introductory material. Basically, at the very least, I'll retype the annotations and pitch those to a publisher; at most, I might end up doing everything except for the actual Biblical text. Who knows?
>>19754223
Correct.

[Anonymous No.19754275]

I've heard that there's a tradition (I think it might be Eastern but I don't know) that Jesus never laughed, because laughing is losing control of oneself and that loss of control would undermine his omnipotence. Does anyone know what I'm talking about and can point towards sources for it in the Church Fathers/elsewhere?

[Anonymous No.19754387]

>>19753083
You should really, really go as soon as things get freed up a bit from this new wave. Things will be really bad by 2033 and you might never get to go.

[Anonymous No.19754407]

>>19753321
>What's the best reader version and the best study version?
Get the app "Bible Study App" by AndBible. I get it from f-droid but it's on the play store as well. It's completely free and open source and it's pretty amazing. The only downside is that it doesn't have the copyrighted versions (ESV, NKJV, etc)

[Anonymous No.19754415]

>>19754275
Laughter isn't necessarily frivolous, though. Jesus wept when he learned about the death of Lazarus. Did he lose control of himself then?

[Anonymous No.19754514]

>>19751466
What do my hispanicbros think of the biblia latinoamericana?

[Anonymous No.19754549]

>>19751519
It looks like the pretentious product of a narcissistic personality rather than a sincere expression of faith.

[Anonymous No.19754574]

>>19754275
if jesus was fully human he must have laughed

[Anonymous No.19754699]

>>19754275
Jesus was into deadpan comedy. He was surely "laughing" internally when the Apostles were freaking out in the boat during the storm while He was "sleeping".

[Anonymous No.19754705]

>>19754275
I think St. Basil said something like that once but I don't think anyone ever actually took it seriously

[Anonymous No.19755018]

>>19752496
>>19752505
>>19752572
>>19752587
>>19752607
>>19752740
The councils of Hippo and Carthage are not evidence of the current Catholic canon as they include 1 Esdras as canon. They both list that they include "2 books of Esdras". The first is 1 Esdras (also called 3 Esdras) which is a Greek version of Ezra. The second is Ezra-Nehemiah. This is how the books are separated in the Septuagint, as Esdras A and Esdras B, the latter being Ezra-Nehemiah as one book. Trent later defines that Ezra and Nemehiah are canon and not 1 Esdras. The Orthodox hold 1 Esdras as canon but not Catholics.

[Anonymous No.19755419]

>>19754275
I recall Umberto Eco talking about this in the Name of The Rose. The plot hinges on a lost second book of Aristotle's Poetics that deals with comedy. There are theologians who deny this can exist because laughter is the providence of Satan and the "Philosopher" wouldn't write on such things. I seem to recall Christ's laughter coming up. Unlike someone likeBorges, Eco's references are normally real, since that's kind of the point of the book.

Anyhow, reminds me of the theological problem of shit. Unfortunately, I can't find the whole section from Kundera about Stalin's son, and the theological denial of Jesus being able to shit, just the first part.

>Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, a child, grasped the incompatibility of God and shit and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely that man was created in God's image. Either/or: either man was created in God's image - and has intestines! - or God lacks intestines and man is not like him.

>The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the Great Gnostic master Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus "ate and drank, but did not defecate."

>Shit is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The responsibility for shit, however, rests entirely with Him, the creator of man.

[Anonymous No.19755433]

>>19755419
Being so concerned with excrement seems immature to me. Jesus Christ embraced all the aspects of being a man. He bled when he was cut, and his nose produced mucus, and so did his body produce every unpleasant substance that a man's body normally produces. That he had the humility to stoop down to mankind's nature for the sake of saving humanity's souls only adds up to, rather than debase his divinity.

[Anonymous No.19755471]

The fecal discussion above gave me this quandary:
1. The matter can be resolved by acknowledging that Adam, in his pre-fall state, was not subject to suffering or death. What that pertains to in regard to his bodily functions is not precisely known, but given that his body was not corrupted by sin it would seem to imply that on a physical level there were some differences. You can see this likewise in Eve who after the fall is cursed with pain in childbearing. However ...
2. As Christ is not subject to the sin of Adam would he not also have a similarly incorrupt body? This would not compromise his humanity, as the original, true state of humanity is that of the pre-fall Adam.

[Anonymous No.19755505]

>>19755471
>Adam, in his pre-fall state, was not subject to suffering or death
Isn't this about the conditions of his life rather than the conditions of his body?

[Anonymous No.19755510]

>>19755505
If his body would not naturally die then that means it is not functioning on the same physical laws as our bodies today.

[Anonymous No.19755522]

>>19755018
This isn't really good evidence against the Canon existing. On the one hand you have records of two councils voting on a Canon and the earlier Council of Rome taking it up too, and two Popes declaring the Canon in writing, on the other you have that a Septuagint book was replaced by the version Jerome used in the Vulgate.

The Canon didn't spread immediately after being adopted, the Church had relatively loose control over its members in late antiquity. Communication was poor, tradition of centralization less established, heresies like Arianism extremely popular.

Second, the change has a fairly logical explanation. Jerome used the now Canonical (for Protestants and Catholics) Ezra and the Vulgate became the defacto text. Early Church Greek is the language of international exchange. Later it becomes Latin, Greek knowledge drops of a cliff, and the Vulgate becomes standard for all copying.

The evidence is pretty strong in that early church writing is full of references to proposed Canons. Councils keep taking it up. Popes keep declaring it. And by the "Dark Ages" the topic is dropped. It isn't a serious point of discussion any more and Bibles include a similar list (although adding non-canonical works to the end of Bibles wasn't uncommon through the Reformation, but also not standard). Obviously it seemed settled.

Anyhow, I attend a Protestant non-denominational church so we don't discuss the Septuagint books. I do own a copy of the Bible that has them and have read most. Based on current scholarship, references in the NT, Paul quoting the Septuagint extensively, them showing up in the Talmud and Dead Sea Scrolls, I think they probably were considered biblical by at least some Jews. The basis for using the Masoretic only seems flawed on the grounds it was decided on, but I'm also aware it was a political decision and doctrinal one first. I don't think it makes a huge difference. Yeah, there are appeals to salvation by works in them, but those are peppered in the Gospels, James, Revelations. People will read them how they will anyhow.
Same with predestination.Removingg them entirely and being hostile to them is a 19th century thing, apparently partly based on saving printing costs. KJV and all English Bibles had them until the 1820s.

Are other language Protestants so hostile to them? Like, they aren't even good for edification or history. Was this a movement or just Americans got used to not seeing them and then grew suspicious of them? Other Protestants seem to still include them.

I don't get being hostile. It's the false history maybe. I was told Catholics added them and we use the original Hebrew not their additions and edits, but this is really a quite dishonest portrayal of the Septuagint, the way the Canon came to be, and the Masoretic texts, which are hardly "original."

[Anonymous No.19755553]

>>19755522
I'm not arguing about the canon as a whole, simply the dogmatic Catholic view that the anon I responded to has been hammering away with. 1 Esdras and Ezra have always been considered separate things even when both are in Greek. Your assertion of the change being "logical" is neither here nor there because the position I am actually responding to would not admit such a thing. The council rulings would have to be aligned for them. Again I'm not trying to argue with your relativistic viewpoint but with the one that is holding a strict dogmatic interpretation of the matter in which history must line up in a specific way.

[Anonymous No.19755560]

>>19751653
Read "Arcanum Divinae Sapientae" from Leo XIII and "Casti Conubii" from Pius XI.
Marriage is both union and procreation while ALSO being a remedy for lust and fornication. But you can't have sex with your spouse if your goal is only pleasure and your spouse's body, that is a lustful act and a sin, because you reduce the person to the body and pleasurable traits. Your wife is not your personal prostitute, anon. That is the pagan view.
Remember, the remedy for lust and fornication is a consequence of marriage, not a direct objective.

[Anonymous No.19755755]

List of anti-biblical concepts (not exhaustive):
Any ecclesiastical office other than elder and deacon
Sacraments other than the eucharist and baptism
Denial of baptism to infant children of Christians
Dispensationalism, Molinism, and Arminianism
Purgatory and aerial toll-houses
Justification as an infusion of righteousness
Prayer to anyone other than God
The perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, and bodily assumption of Mary
The creation of any images of God, including Christ
Refusing to condemn both homosexual actions and homosexual desire
Denial of a literal Adam and of a literal six day creation

[Anonymous No.19755825]

>>19751860
What a schizo video from a no name conspiracy channel.
Former sinners converting ≠ introducing these ideas to the church.
Imagine calling a former fornicator who converts and repents a subversive influence or whatever, mental illness.
I don't know if you're Catholic, but Seraphim Rose is a saint and will be recognized as such, and any Catholic designs about unification would include him.
>>19755755
Im Orthodox but anyone from an apostolic church can call you out. You wouldn't even have a bible if it wasn't compiled by the apostolic Church. Educate yourself.

[Anonymous No.19755840]

>>19755825
>You wouldn't even have a bible if it wasn't compiled by the apostolic Church.
Scripture can only be recognized through faith as it exists in its own ontological category, that of being the product of divine inspiration, which is not subject to the determination of man.

[Anonymous No.19755999]

>>19751968

Many such cases.

[Anonymous No.19756036]

>>19755999
Just another day in Rome

[Anonymous No.19756046]

>>19756036

[Anonymous No.19756061]

Makes sense that Catholics would worship this thing. I imagine it will be incorporated into the Marian dogmas at some point in the future.

[Anonymous No.19756093]

>>19756061
>Pachamama is a goddess revered by the indigenous peoples of the Andes. In Inca mythology she is an "Earth Mother" type goddess,[1] and a fertility goddess who presides over planting and harvesting, embodies the mountains, and causes earthquakes. She is also an ever-present and independent deity who has her own creative power to sustain life on this earth.

See, here's how you can do it very easily through existing Catholic dogma. You can say that Mary is also the Earth Mother, because as Christ redeems all creation and will bring us the new earth, he is able to do that through Mary. So therefore Mary is not only the Mother of God but the Mother of the New Earth which is brought into being through her holiness and obedience. So the Pachamama is a representation of Mary's role as Earth Mother and her sustaining and redeeming all creation.

[Anonymous No.19756100]

>>19755755
infant baptism is anti biblical, john the baptist wasn't baptising infants

[Anonymous No.19756135]

>>19756093
Also once this is done all Catholics will defend it and state that this is what Christians have always believed. And it is implicitly taught in scripture somewhere. Perhaps here
>Luke 1:38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”
See when Mary says "let it be to me" she is referring to what will occur in the future, which is the new creation, and is saying thus "let the the new creation be to me" because she is recognizing her role as Earth Mother of the new earth. In the future this will be known as the Pachamama verse.

[Anonymous No.19756155]

>>19756093
>>19756135
kek

[Anonymous No.19756176]

>>19756100
John's baptism isn't the same as the Christian baptism.

Acts 19:3-5 And [Paul] said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 18:25-26 [Apollos] had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.

[Anonymous No.19756381]

>>19756093
It's good to integrate Christianity into cultures natively, and to take the good things from those cultures, but whatever is going on in the amazon synod is not orthodox (small o). That depiction of Mary you're replying to is basically blasphemous.
Look at how us Orthodox converted the Alaskan Natives, watch videos about them as well maybe. You have to unveil and baptize the elements of Christianity that are already present there as well as associated and metaphysical ideas.
You don't compromise the faith, you compromise/remove the evil/pagan elements of their culture, not take them in.

[Anonymous No.19756386]

Best commentaries on the individual books of the Bible? Currently making my way through the Bible again and I'm not getting much out of it from a second readthrough so I think scholarly analyses would be beneficial.

[Anonymous No.19756412]

>>19756381
You understood I was mocking Catholics right? Catholic dogma is whatever El Papa says it is. Whether it is actually taught in the Bible is irrelevant as they have their doctrine of things being taught implicitly, basically that the text only needs to be "fitting" to the idea rather than actually teaching it. If the Pope wants Pachamama to be part of Catholicism then it will be and that will be what Christianity has always taught.

[Anonymous No.19756477]

>>19752076
What if I want a family, but find sex disgusting?

[Anonymous No.19756548]

>>19756381
WRONG
You inform them of the Gospel giving Satan no quarter and they take it or leave it.

[Anonymous No.19756564]

>>19756412
What's truly sad about it is how much Catholicism twisted the word of God into it's own will. I would agree with you that before the English translation was adapted into the church, this could have happened quite smoothly. The main issue with patching something in during the modern era is communication and information. Protestant Christianity was born from the freedom of information given by the printing press. By which people could understand and interpret the word by their own volition, and not by the churches. 500 years later, information travels instantly, and knowledge can be obtained by billions. If the Pope said Pachamama is now cannon in the modern world, devote Catholics would believe, however the rest of the world would be able to research on their own and come to a separate conclusion. That is the power knowledge holds, if you have a strange hold on it (like the church did back in the day) you could pull whatever you wanted off.

[Anonymous No.19756576]

>>19756477
1 Cor. 7:3-5 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

[Anonymous No.19756629]

>>19755999
>>19756036
>>19756046
>>19756061
Can’t wait until they bring back Baal and Moloch for old times’ sake

[Anonymous No.19756632]

>>19756564
People can already research the Immaculate Conception and see that the early church did not believe this and that the idea began as a controversy in the medieval era. It doesn't stop Catholics from telling you the Bible teaches it (implicitly of course) and that Christians have always believed it.

[Anonymous No.19756693]

>>19756632
After all, if it wasn't a universal belief and the scriptures didn't teach it, the Pope couldn't define it. But the Pope defined it, and he's infallible, so that means Christians have always believed it. Q E D.

[Anonymous No.19756715]

>>19756632
Repent, Jovinian.

[Anonymous No.19756755]

>>19756715
It's an objective historical fact. The idea started in England in the medieval era and after that was a controversy for centuries with no consensus either way until the Pope defined it in 1854.

[Anonymous No.19756775]

>>19756564
Yet we still have people defending praying to "Mary".

[Anonymous No.19756802]

>>19756755
Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas both rejected the immaculate conception as well.

[Anonymous No.19756833]

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.

[Anonymous No.19756840]

>>19756833
Mary is praying for you along with everyone else who is with Christ, but not because you ask them to and not because they hear you.

[Anonymous No.19756849]

Theotokos Virgin, rejoice, O Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women.
Blessed is the fruit of thy womb,
for thou hast brought forth the Savior of our souls.

[Anonymous No.19756878]

>>19756833
>>19756849
To Thee we do cry, O Queen of Mercy, return, that we may behold thee dispensing favours, bestowing remedies, giving strength. Show us thy compassionate looks, and we shall be saved.

O sovereign Lady of all things, Saint of saints, splendour of the world, glory of heaven, acknowledge those who love thee; hear us, for thy Son honours thee by denying thee nothing.

Run, hasten, O Lady, and in thy mercy help thy sinful servant, who calls upon thee, and deliver him from the hands of the enemy.

Who will not sigh to thee? We sigh with love and grief, for we are oppressed on every side. How can we do otherwise than sigh to thee, O solace of the miserable, refuge of outcasts, ransom of captives? We are certain that when thou seest our miseries, thy compassion will hasten to relieve us.

[Anonymous No.19756912]

>>19756840
This. If God wants the saints in Heaven to pray for us or whatever else, He can inform/command them.

[Anonymous No.19756937]

>>19756878
Anyone who would affirm this is an idolator by the way. I wanted to post it to show where this nonsense actually leads. It doesn't stop at "You are blessed among women, please pray for me."

[Anonymous No.19757025]

>>19756878
source: >>19752004

[Anonymous No.19757302]

>>19756937
>Anyone who would affirm this is an idolator by the way
Obviously. Blatantly obviously.
From the "Orthodox™" Study Bible:
>The burning bush beheld by Moses in the wilderness (Ex 3:1–6) is one of the most often mentioned types of Mary.
>St. John of Damascus observes, “The burning bush is an image of God’s Mother
>Mary is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. She is the perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah, beginning with the promise given to Abraham
These corruptions were first brought into the pre-schism institutional church no later than 4th century, largely from arguments by Jerome. Isn't it strange how they took the essentials from the gnostic fan fiction Gospel of James, but know that enough of that work in too far over the line to have been deemed canonical itself. Yet, as has been said, in those days of a mostly illiterate laity wholly dependent on "priests" for information on the faith, it was much easier to slip whatever claims they wished into the mix. The only excuse for it to remain today is the warpings of fallen Creation.

[Anonymous No.19757329]

cambridge turquoise goatskin is really very nice if you are in need of a physical copy

[Anonymous No.19757336]

>>19757302
>Mary is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. She is the perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah, beginning with the promise given to Abraham
I don't know how they write this stuff with a straight face. Jesus is those things, not his mother. "The perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah is someone other than the Messiah." It's absurd.

[Anonymous No.19757383]

>>19757336
It's difficult to understand how there are not hordes of "Orthodox™" and Catholics demanding that their "Church™" repent and jettison these Satanic corruptions. I can only surmise that praying to demons has corrupted their own minds and spirits. I do not think the laity themselves are, on the whole, "evil people" (though they certainly seem to have some evil representatives on the Internet), and most are probably essentially ignorant third worlders humbly doing their best to follow what they believe to be the true church of Christ, but post printing press there should be movements against it within themselves.

[Anonymous No.19757601]

>>19757383
My thoughts on this are the following, as someone who has felt the temptation to convert into these communions. I think that it is about giving up. If you just give up and submit and do whatever they tell you, then you don't have to struggle anymore in pursuit of the truth. Things that you know have no evidence for them, or have strong evidence against them, you just stop worrying about it and believe it anyway. Things you knew to be true, you just let them go and forget them. You surrender your intellect and reason to whichever church it is that seems right to you (ignore you're deciding this on your own power) and let go. I think it's helpful to think about the concrete meaning of converting. I think, for example, "I will have to go confess to a priest every sin I have committed since my baptism so that they will be forgiven," then I remember. I remember this system I will be locking myself into in which Christ's sacrifice alone cannot save me.

[Anonymous No.19757647]

>>19757329
For an RSV with the (expanded) Apocrypha, Schuyler is pretty much the last publisher around. Their stuff isn't cheap by any means, but from reviews i've seen, they're built to last.
FWIW I use a used Collins Common Bible that I got from the UK because that was the only RSV with the expanded Deuterocanon i could find at the time at a reasonable price lol.
>>19757383
The problem with most people is that it's simply easier to listen to what their preist/pastor says rather than doing research/reading the scriptures themselves. I will agree (based on first hand experience) that the "Apostolic" churches are making a concerted effort to find converts on the internet, probably because even in the third world people are either joining megachurches or just straight up apostatizing, so they need replacements to fill the pews lmao.

[Anonymous No.19757665]

>>19757647
Right, their main approach is to inculcate doubt and anxiety about certain issues, for example the canon, and then present themselves as the relief since you can just obey them and not worry about it.

[Anonymous No.19757679]

>>19757665
(cont.)
Also I think they use these wedge issues to avoid other things. If they can convince you you don't have grounds for the canon and that you have to get it from them, then they'll know they don't really have to worry about proving their beliefs about Mary or Saints or any such thing, as you'll just have to accept whatever they tell you regardless of what the evidence is. Because otherwise you can't have the canon, or certainty about any doctrine, or whatever it is they trapped you with.

[Anonymous No.19757694]

>>19754268
Awesome, you're doing God's work anon. That's a massive task to undertake.
>>19754275
>jesus never lost control of himself
what is jesus weeping at Lazarus' tomb?
>>19754387
what "things" will be bad by 2033?
>>19754514
got that 1980s post V-II catholic vibe
>>19755433
exactly. watch Pasolini's adaptation of Matthew's gospel
>>19755471
why wouldn't they shit and pee in the pre-fall state? that's some Manichean nonsense
>>19755553
There are actually some modern catholic bibles which include 1/2 esdras and psalm 151
>>19755560
spot on
>>19755755
>only what's explicitly laid out word for word in the bible is real!
guess we can't use cars or fly as Christians then too right?
>>19755840
>the canon just magically appeared!!
don't you get tired of being BTFO?
>>19756093
>>19756135
This is unironically the correct interpretation and there is nothing at all wrong with it. Mary is the new Eve, Christ is the new Adam. From eve sin came into the world - from mary, the vanquishing of all sin came into the world. glad you agree with the catholic church once again

[Anonymous No.19757718]

>>19757694
>There are actually some modern catholic bibles which include 1/2 esdras and psalm 151
Are you claiming that 1 Esdras is canon? It is not in the canon defined at Trent.
>only what's explicitly laid out word for word in the bible is real!
Only the teachings of scripture are an infallible authority in matters of faith.
>the canon just magically appeared!!
The canon is the ontological category of texts inspired by God.
>This is unironically the correct interpretation and there is nothing at all wrong with it.
Well here you have it, the defense of Pachamama from the horse's mouth.

[Anonymous No.19757725]

>>19756386
Yale Anchor series. but they ain't cheap. buy a 1 volume basic commentary from oxford.
>>19756381
>you can't culturally adapt!!! nononon, that's why we never translate the Bible! oh wait...
I bet you get mad about black depicitons of Jesus and mary too
>>19756412
>Catholic dogma is whatever El Papa says it is
just because you quiver and repeat this over and over to yourself, doesn't mean it's true
>Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.
>>19756477
see a psychologist.
>>19756564
>u-us protestants have uniformity in interpretation and all get the truth from the text!!! whaddya mean 10,000+ sects? nononon this can't be happening!!
>>19756632
am I going to have to BTFO again like I did the last 3 threads? you're really a spunky little one, aren't you?
>>19756775
>y-you can't ask for intercession from holy people!
you're right, I can't ask my friend for help either. that means I'm worshipping him. right?
>>19756802
LMAO. you're a clown as usual. read the Summa

[Anonymous No.19757747]

>>19756912
>god just overrides le free will!
tell me you're a calvinist heretic without saying you're a calvinist heretic
>>19757601
>>19757383
>>19757302
>>19756878
watching protties "logically reason" is like watching children play with blocks.
>uhhhh u ask for help! dat mean you worship!
>>19757665
>>19757679
>inculcate doubt
you mean what the protties did when they yanked books out of the bible cause they hurt their fee-fees and "dogma" in the 1500s?

[Anonymous No.19757751]

2 Timothy 2:14
>Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

[Anonymous No.19757756]

>>19757725
>Bishops can have differing opinions. The Sensus Fidelium, and the MAJORITY of the bishops, and the head of the Church (that is, the Pope) - what they agree on, that is truth.
A majority agreement of the bishops is not required for the Pope to rule infallibly on a matter of faith.
>LMAO. you're a clown as usual. read the Summa
You likely did not understand the distinction that was made by some medieval theologians, including Thomas, by whether Mary was sanctified at or after her conception. The immaculate conception holds that this took place at her conception, whereas Thomas and Bernard held that it took place afterwards in order that the might exist momentarily in a sinful state so that she could be saved by Christ.

[Anonymous No.19757765]

>>19757718
I'll be like you
>ackshully im not making le argument, im just saying!!
>>19757718
you're right, start reading the greek and hebrew texts which were assembled and preserved by the catholic church. otherwise you're Relying On A Translation For Authority, You Heretic Ishtar Worshipper
>>19757718
>the canon magically assembled itself because ... it just did ok!!
i recommend you take a deep breath and calm down.
>you worship le statue!
take down all the pictures of your family in your house. you're worshipping them.

[Anonymous No.19757769]

>>19757751
>I am allowed to call you a papist and heretic and demonic but you're not allowed to disagree with me! That means you're sowing discord by pushing back against my bullshit! No you can't call out my bullshit, nononono!

[Anonymous No.19757777]

>>19757747
>you mean what the protties did when they yanked books out of the bible

Cardinal Cajetan, the interlocutor of Martin Luther during the Reformation, from his "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament":

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage."

[Anonymous No.19757780]

>>19757765
Why type all those words and not a single argument?

[Anonymous No.19757787]

>>19755755
List of further anti-Biblical concepts

>Saved by faith alone. Nope. See Jesus' parable about the rich man who wouldn't beg the suffering beggar Lazarus in Luke being punished according to his acts. See also Jesus in Matthew telling people who called him Lord and who made prophecy and cast out demons in his name "I knew you not." See also in Matthew Jesus referring to people who act out his commands as having built a house of stone that will endure the storm, but those that did not act will be washed away as though they had built on sand. See also Jesus' most explicit words on the Judgement, where he gathers to him the sheep, who are those who gave aid to the least among us, while those who didn't act will be the goats consigned to death. See also Revelations 20 on the Judgement, which explicitly says ALL shall be resurrected and all shall then be judged based on their deeds.

> Being saved by works. Nope, this is refuted. See basically the entire body of the Pauline epistles. People are not justified by their actions.

>Life is your one chance to hear the Gospel. Peter explicitly says the Gospel was preached to the dead in Peter I and the context is that this is to those already dead.

>Peter I means you can repent in Hell. Nope, Jesus' story of Lazarus in Luke had Abraham telling the rich man that there is a chasm put up so that none may cross from his place of torment to the place of comfort.

>You must honor your mother and father and love others. Again, nope, Jesus says explicitly in multiple Gospels that you should despise/hate your father, mother, and children for his sake.

>You shouldn't honor your mother and father. Nope, this is explicit in the Ten Commandments, but also on Jesus' teaching that to love others as yourself is, along with loving God and being obedient to God, the highest fulfillment of the law.

>Doctrine comes from the Bible alone and the Bible is X books. Nope, nowhere is the Bible's role in revelation exclusive. Indeed, the entire Bible is stories of people receiving messages in visions, dreams, through prayer, etc., they aren't reading in anything. Jesus wrote nothing and commanded nothing to be written. The canonicity of any books is not mentioned in the Bible.

>One saved, always saved. Again a nope, Paul explicitly talks about back sliding as does John.

>The Bible has a set message that should be made into a coherent system by decoding passages and reading them in light of principals from others, even if this means some passages need to be read as not meaning what they seem to.

Another nope. Systematic theology appears nowhere in the Bible, nor do claims that one should create it. The Bible is in contradiction with itself at times and does not command to rectify these contradictions through reason and "rereading" what is written in one part to mean what is in another

>Transmission of the Bible has no errors.

This is also not claimed and we see different versions and errors pop up through history.

[Anonymous No.19757804]

>>19756548
Yes, this was the position of American protestants who eradicated the natives, as well as the Mexican missions which essentially enslaved the natives (with even Catholics remarking on the cruelty of these missions)
>>19757725
>I bet you get mad about black depicitons of Jesus and mary too
I didn't say that. I was saying that it is other cultures who adopt, integrate, and submit to Christianity in a way that makes use of the good things in their cultures. What you Catholics are going to the opposite extreme of your usual dogmatism and submitting Church doctrine to the whims of a culture.
>>19757336
Mary is seen as the second and superior Ark of the Covenant due to her holding of God.
You can make fun of apostolic Christianity, but it will always have more historical roots than a religion which was made up by opinionated (and sometimes perverted, Martin Luther rejected the monastic vows and married an ex-nun who he called his whore) scholars ~500 years ago, who many times were just as dogmatic as the Catholics were.
>>19757647
>>19757679
No one's making a conspiratorial effort to do anything, it could be that we're just more correct and that you occupy an incorrect position. The veneration of Mary and the Saints are consistent with the faithful being alive and petitionable after a physical death, and the Canon WAS decided by the Church whether you like it or not. Did you know that Martin Luther wanted to remove Revelation since he thought it was unrealistic?
The Early Church was not protestant.

I didn't convert to Orthodoxy because I didn't want to think. I converted because I was a non-denominational tired with organized(and many times, liberal) Protestantism and the Catholic Church, as well as the corruption present in both.
I wanted to be more devout(don't we all), but most of all I wanted to get back to the fundamental and original teachings and practices of the Church, and Orthodoxy possesses those teachings.

[Anonymous No.19757805]

>>19757756
>A majority agreement of the bishops is not required for the Pope to rule infallibly on a matter of faith.
depends on the circumstance. ex cathedra functions in a very limited fashion. read Pastor aeternus
>>19757756
this is going to turn into another 50+ post argument about the meaning of the word κεχαριτωμένη. suffice to say my position on this is what the dogma says
>We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.
There is a bit of latitude in how this can be interpreted to have happened, and the faithful are allowed to have their own opinions within the confines of the dogma.

[Anonymous No.19757816]

>>19757787
do not argue with protties who believe the KJV descended on a cloud into a 17th century translation committee room. not worth the time, trust me.
>>19757780
>y-you said nothing!
cry more

[Anonymous No.19757832]

>>19757777

>>19752486
>>19752496
>>19752505
>>19752669
>>19752842
>>19753186
>>19755522

respond to everyone of these points in detail. then i'll take you seriously. of course you won't, because you're a prottie who unironically thinks the Church got it by including the deutro books for 1600 years (and in fact Jesus and Paul were wrong for quoting from them) but somehow you are now correct.

do you need anymore clown makeup?

[Anonymous No.19757845]

>>19757805
Here is an actual quote from Thomas since you told me to "read the Summa" (have you?)

IIIa, q.27, a,2, ad.2
If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: "The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God." But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb.

As you can see, he states that she contracted original sin but was cleansed before birth, whereas the definition of the immaculate conception states that she was preserved from "all stain of original sin."

[Anonymous No.19757851]

>>19757804
inculturation is not a "new thing".
look up the jesuits in china or the holy ghost fathers in west africa.

[Anonymous No.19757867]

>>19756629
>Can’t wait until they bring back Baal and Moloch for old times’ sake
I think this happened already but, It's too sad I don't want to research it. I wonder if God let this happen so there may be more people who is aware and want to take their faith seriously.

[Anonymous No.19757872]

>>19757832
Cardinal Cajetan explains it clearly enough in the quote I gave you, and makes reference to Augustine, Carthage, etc. Do you care to respond to it? Wouldn't he know what the canon was as a Cardinal of the Church?

[Anonymous No.19757873]

>>19757845
the dogma does not define what "preserve" means or in what function it fashions. as I said, the faithful are allowed to believe in their own exact mechanisms as to how that happened, there's no "exact answer" and there never will be.

if she was cleansed before her birth (not saying I agree of disagree with that by the way), that very well could mean she was preserved from the stain (i.e., effects) of original sin.

[Anonymous No.19757881]

Guys I think it's time for me to stop visiting these threads (and this means I've no reason to be on 4chan any longer).
I wish the best to everyone here, from fellow Orthobros to everyone else including Ishtar guy and other cantankerous elements. God bless.

[Anonymous No.19757884]

>>19757851
Enculturation is good. Syncretism is not, which is what is seen on the ground floor of Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19757903]

>>19757769
I'm none of you bickering clowns. I just saw all of this.
>>19757756
>pope to rule infallibly
When did they forget it is primacy, not superiority? The pope is no better than the other bishops. "First among equals" and all that jazz.
>>19757881
Bye anon. Have a good one.

[Anonymous No.19757904]

>>19757867
>baal and moloch are being worshipped by catholics
when is Q coming? any day now right? is this before or after the rapture? you forgot your kippah.

>>19757872
funny how last time you quoted one 4th century church father, and after you got blown the fuck out on that, now you're going to quote a 16th century cardinal. I don't give a fuck what any cardinal says, the doctrine was established, numerous anons here have provided scriptural, dogmatic, and church father citations to back that up, and last time you got so upset you "went to bed".

if you can't read and respond to the 100+ points in the posts I quoted refuting your positions (ironic since you're a jehovah's witness or pentecostal nontrinitarian or something), then you are, and you will remain a clown at best, and the Spirit of Deception at worst.

[Anonymous No.19757909]

>>19757873
That is not what it means. Let me break it down for you:

Immaculate conception:
>in the instance of her conception ... was preserved free from all stain of original sin

Thomas:
>Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception
>But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin

He makes the distinction between Jesus who did not contract original sin in his conception, and Mary who did contract original sin in her conception. The definition of the immaculate conception states she was preserved in the instance of her conception. These are saying two different things no matter how you want to spin it. You know that Catholic theologians know this, right? You can read Catholic works on this matter. It's not some disputed hill you need to die on.

[Anonymous No.19757916]

>>19757881
good, take your toys and go home. it's easier than having to admit youre wrong, ill give you that.

you're ironically extraordinarily prideful and passive aggressive when confronted, but unconfronted you attack catholics with quite a lot of ease. curious isnt it?

[Anonymous No.19757919]

>>19757804
For what it’s worth, I lean more towards Anglo-Catholic myself, and I agree with many of the theological and Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church. But while I can have a respect for Church History and Tradition, I don’t think it can be denied that there is a huge missionary push for people to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy that’s really only exploded in the last 10 years. While I don’t doubt there is a sincere attempt on your part to teach people what you believe to be true, the more pragmatic side of it is that the Church needs more people to keep itself running in the face of secularization. I’m not trying to be sensationalistic, but you should ask yourself why TradCath/Orthodox Christianity has blown up in the under 50 demographic online, and what the logistical reasons behind that explosion may be.

[Anonymous No.19757931]

>>19757904
You have not established anything. St. Jerome disagrees with your position, St. Gregory the Great disagrees with your position, St. Athanasius disagrees with your position, the councils of Carthage and Hippo do not have the same canon as Trent since they include 1 Esdras, and even cardinals at the time of the Reformation denied that the deuterocanonical texts were scripture. The idea that it was a universal belief is simply false. They have always been disputed.

[Anonymous No.19757933]

>>19757601
>>19757647
I agree with the essences of these views on the matter, yet within the more recent times in non-"Orthodox™" regions I think material "aesthetics" has become a major driver. While "image" consciousness has always been a strong force within humanity, it has become an incredibly overwhelming since the 1960s. Overwhelming is not a casual word here, as image has become far more important than substance, and fashion is a large portion of image. While most of the 60s "influencers" were importing "exotic" Eastern religions/aesthetics (the Beatles did a lot towards bringing it fully mainstream), "Father Seraphim Rose" was the first to show that even Christianity held great memeability. Then building on his example, and from the same "monastery", in the 90s another fellow blended it with the "Punk" movement, complete with hip "zines" showing how "cool" the priests and monks looked.
>>19757665
This is true as well, it certainly caused me to take a closer/harder look into being sure it was "ok" to be Protestant, canon and all. But another primary "weapon" they use in this doubt inculcation are the tiny minority of "churches" that have the flamboyantly defiant "pastors", which triggers deep instincts to take immediate shelter from such movements in whatever seems to be the most opposite direction. This essentially lays a trap of overcorrection, because praying to demons is most definitely not the solution.

[Anonymous No.19757938]

>>19757903
>primacy, not superiority
what do you thinking speaking ex cathedra means? it's a function of being the vicar of christ on earth.
>>19757909
i am not disagreeing with your quote, i am saying there is not contradiction between the dogma and the summa quote. "preserved", as I said, is subject to many broad interpretations. there is no correct answer. there's no "dispute" to speak of. btw, dogma pronounced ex cathedra takes precedence over anything else anyway.

there will theologians who disagreed with Humanae Vitae too, including some prominent ones? guess what, doesn't matter what they think. Augustine had some kooky ideas about sex - doesn't matter what he thinks personally, church dogma overrules personal opinion.

[Anonymous No.19757941]

>>19757787
>Inb4 salvation is based on faith plus works

Also a nope. The convict crucified next to Jesus is told he is saved after a profession of faith. Meanwhile people who call Christ Lord are told explicitly they are not saved by Jesus as well.

It's frustrating, but it is what it is. Just do what he wants. Your child might act irrational or demanding, and you might not know how to soothe them but you'll walk through a blizzard to get them food if they're hungry and you have nothing. You'll empty your bank account to find a cure for them if they have cancer. You'll wake up early to be ready to get them dressed, grind a job you don't want all day to give them opportunity, give up your freedom and youth. You'll give to exhaustion without knowing if they'll grow up to hate you, or get themselves locked up in prison for abominable acts, or die in an accident tomorrow. This is what you do for love, and that's what is asked.

I think all the conflicting signals are to get you frustrated, so that you stop thinking about what it means for you and realize love is doing things for someone when you don't expect to gain by it, and you do it for God, but you also do it for everyone else. The goal is to be an inaction of God's love in the world.

As Peter says, "to live by God's will, not human desires."

Human will is slavery. As Paul says, we desire what we hate. We don't choose our desires. We're constrained on every side by enviornment, instinct, false belief. Only the Logos can move us forward in a path of freedom, because only the Logos, Christ, can apprehend what actually causes our desires.

I find theology only useful to the extent that it shows you how flimsy theology is.

[Anonymous No.19757948]

>>19751662
>In december

[Anonymous No.19757952]

>>19757938
>infallibility
For starters i'm not cath because i dislike the papacy and prayer to saints. Not ortho because i dislike "icons", and can only call myself a prot, although that clumps me with some undesirables aswell.

[Anonymous No.19757955]

>>19757904
>>baal and moloch are being worshipped by catholics
>when is Q coming? any day now right? is this before or after the rapture? you forgot your kippah.
Oh really. Seems like you are not aware of what is happening in vatican in the last decades.

[Anonymous No.19757958]

>>19757938
>i am not disagreeing with your quote, i am saying there is not contradiction between the dogma and the summa quote. "preserved", as I said, is subject to many broad interpretations. there is no correct answer.
If she is preserved from original sin it means she did not contract it. That is what it means. If you are preserved from an illness then you do not get sick. Thomas says that she got sick. You're playing too loose with the language here.
>there's no "dispute" to speak of. btw, dogma pronounced ex cathedra takes precedence over anything else anyway.
Indeed there is no longer a dispute, but there was from the 11th century, when this idea was created, until the 19th century when it was resolved.
>there will theologians who disagreed with Humanae Vitae too, including some prominent ones? guess what, doesn't matter what they think. Augustine had some kooky ideas about sex - doesn't matter what he thinks personally, church dogma overrules personal opinion.
Why bother arguing with me about it if it doesn't matter?

[Anonymous No.19757959]

>>19757931
you can't even get your own argument straight.
>actually it was the church fathers who disagreed!
>well no the councils which pronounced the canon weren't binding!
>well no that canon actually has to include esdras!
thought there was no normative interpretation of the canon, right prottie?
>the cardinals disagreed!
>w-what do you mean church dogma takes precedence over individual opinion? that's not what my pastor billy bob said!
>i-it's always been in dispute, nevermind that manuscripts included the deutero until 1600 and Paul quotes from it and Jesus quotes from it!
>I accept these books that Church that assembled the bible accepts, but not these books the Church that assembled the bible accepts!

honk honk!

[Anonymous No.19757961]

>>19757955
TWO
MORE
WEEKS

[Anonymous No.19757963]

>>19757952
>if I dislike it that means it's wrong
Cafeteria christians everyone! submission? nah, never heard of it! i'm a *modern dude*, I know best! why? because I just do!

[Anonymous No.19757970]

>>19757919
I also want to add my 2 cents in terms of the Canon: there’s no reason to reject the Deuterocanon other than “the Jews were here first, so what they believe must be closer to the original Bible” (which is false, as the Hebrew canon was really only solidified after the church had been using the Septuagint which includes the DC). I’ve seen Catholic websites that list several possible allusions to ideas found in Sirach and Wisdom in the New Testament that are compelling.

[Anonymous No.19757975]

>>19757958
trust me, I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to educate you. it's a corporal work of mercy

[Anonymous No.19757983]

>>19757963
Because the infallible has failed.
Because prayer should only be directed to God, and you can do as many mental gymnastics as you want. The saints would be praying for you, regardless of asking or even being able to hear you. And don't even get into the Marian stuff.
And icons are images, which are explicitly forbidden.

Furthermore, you could atleast be polite if you want to do anything other than get into a meaningless argument.

[Anonymous No.19757986]

>>19757919
I think it's a grassroots thing, for the "trad cath" or "ortho bro" movement.

btw, I'm not a traditionalist catholic, if that means I support the extraordinary form or something, or im a sede.

i think it's more disillusioned young men are attracted to radicalness - they take the most extreme dogmatic position possible, whether in religion, or politics, etc.

in fact, if you know anything abt the Church, you'd know the hierarchy is quite hostile to the young "trads".

[Anonymous No.19757989]

>>19757959
>you can't even get your own argument straight.
>>actually it was the church fathers who disagreed!
They did.
>>well no the councils which pronounced the canon weren't binding!
They were only binding locally.
>>well no that canon actually has to include esdras!
1 Esdras is not canon. But Carthage and Hippo state that it is. If you are going to use Carthage and Hippo as examples of a universal belief in the modern Catholic canon, you must account for the fact that they declare canon a book that Trent does not.
>thought there was no normative interpretation of the canon, right prottie?
There are a set of books that have not been historically disputed in this way.
>>the cardinals disagreed!
They did.
>>w-what do you mean church dogma takes precedence over individual opinion? that's not what my pastor billy bob said!
That is not my point. My point is that the ruling of Trent is not representative of any sort of universal belief. The Reformation could not "remove" something that was never definitely included.
>>i-it's always been in dispute, nevermind that manuscripts included the deutero until 1600
Why wouldn't they? Read the Cajetan quote again, as he addresses this.
>and Paul quotes from it and Jesus quotes from it!
Paul also quotes from Menander and Epimenides. The deuterocanonical texts were in use at the time but are not canon. "Being read" is not the same as canon. Again see Cajetan.
>>I accept these books that Church that assembled the bible accepts, but not these books the Church that assembled the bible accepts!
The Old Testament canon is the set of books inspired by God prior to Christ. It existed of itself, ontologically, prior to Christ.
>honk honk!
Haha!

[Anonymous No.19757992]

>>19757975
You've failed to tell me anything of use.

[Anonymous No.19757995]

>>19757983
>asking someone for help means you are praying to them!
>n-no I can call you an idolator but you have to be nice!
>if you have a picture, that means your worship it!

how is this hard for you to understand? do you ask your friends for help? do you have pictures of your family?

>dat means u worship dat!

[Anonymous No.19758004]

>>19757995
>>asking someone for help means you are praying to them!
Why persist in this lie that all you are doing is asking for prayer? Here is what prayer to Mary truly is >>19752004

[Anonymous No.19758007]

>>19757983
>Furthermore, you could atleast be polite if you want to do anything other than get into a meaningless argument.
I think he is just a shitposter. He unironically defended the Pachamama idol earlier.

[Anonymous No.19758008]

>>19757989
feel free to respond to any of the posts I posted, anytime.

keep grasping at straws. maybe that passes for an argument in your megachurch coffee groups but here, your personal opinion has no authority. what the church and the magisterium and fathers, says is true, is true. your obstinacy is only to your discredit

[Anonymous No.19758010]

>>19758007
>a statue is an idol!
please take down all graven images in your house, including of your family, right now.

[Anonymous No.19758012]

>>19757916
Not him but
>calls someone passive aggressive and prideful
>post is extremely passive aggressive and prideful

>>19757919
The online conversion to Orthodoxy was not sponsored from the top-down. Clergy didn't even know about it until recently with subsequent online outreach.
Your same argument could be used as a cynical attack on about proselytizing and conversion against any Christian denomination. Maybe this is how you think about proselytism?
I don't know, unless they're like, a megachurch with monetary interests in the game, I assume people are being sincere when talking about their faith.

>>19757933
>I agree with the essences of these views on the matter...
Are you Ishtar guy in disguise or something? If you're not, have you ever seen an Orthodox parish? It's definitely not punk, and even if it's a foreign language it's really not that exotic. I don't think anybody really converted because of aesthetics, but the anti-world message of Seraphim Rose (who didn't have those aesthetics, nor does his monastery!) appeals to people like me who are tired with the world.

If anybody has been bowing down to cultural aesthetics and worldliness, it's the Protestants (hymns to bands, churches to cultural communities, subsequent embracing of modernism/liberalism or tracking ~30 years behind it), and to a lesser extent, the Catholics. Protestantism is dying.
I would have converted to a 'non-exotic' western-rite Orthodox parish as well, if there was one around me.

[Anonymous No.19758018]

>>19758008
I've responded to all of it and you've failed to refute my point.

[Anonymous No.19758019]

>>19758007
>o queen of heaven rejoice
>for he whom you did merit to bear
>has risen as he said
>pray for us to god

pray for us TO GOD
TO GOD
she -> asking god to help is
you're right, that means we think shes god! oh wait...

[Anonymous No.19758020]

>>19758007
Yeah, i was thinking of calling him out earlier.
I posted the Timothy verse and didn't follow it. Ironic.

[Anonymous No.19758021]

>>19757995
>that's all we're doing bro
>look at how unreasonable our detractors are
>this is all we're doing bro
>nothing more
When I ask my friends for help I do not use telepathy, much less across the threshold between realms. I see them, I know that they are whom they claim to be.

[Anonymous No.19758023]

>>19758010
Pachamama is an Incan fertility goddess. It is literally an idol. Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.19758026]

>>19758012
>Seraphim Rose (who didn't have those aesthetics

[Anonymous No.19758031]

>>19758021
Don't be deceived. Look into what their actual texts show that these prayers are. It's far beyond just asking for prayer >>19752004

[Anonymous No.19758032]

>>19758026
LARPer
no wonder chudcels worship him

[Anonymous No.19758035]

>>19758021
>saying prayers out loud is telepathy
you really let the clown mask slip, didn't you?

[Anonymous No.19758037]

>shitposter uses reductio ad absurdum argument incessantly
>threadgoers actually bite and get into meaningless bickering
Do not feed the troll

[Anonymous No.19758044]

>>19758026
He looks like... a priest? Are you pointing out that he's wearing different clothing than a bishop?
Nothing in your image looks punk or like any sort of aesthetic, unless you see beards as an aesthetic, what are you even trying to say?

[Anonymous No.19758047]

new thread

>>19758043
>>19758043
>>19758043

[Anonymous No.19758051]

>>19758031
Oh, I'm not, I've posted "Orthodox™" prayers to "Theotokos" begging "her" to "save us", and proclaiming to take refuge in "her". It's outright worship, but they use all manner of word warps to claim otherwise.

[Anonymous No.19758068]

>>19758051
>a mother can't ask her son to do something

Wedding at cana.

>nononono not like that!

honk honk!

[Anonymous No.19758077]

>>19758023
>a wooden statue is a god
who's retarded now?
read isias and paul

[Anonymous No.19758079]

>>19757881
Based fellow Orthobro. If you're still here I want to say that I should probably get off to, I think I'm sinning by posting in these threads.

[Anonymous No.19758091]

>>19758068
>Wedding at cana.
You mean this?

John 2:3-4 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”

Haha.

>>19758077
The statue is representative of a pagan goddess. This is getting pathetic on your part.

[Anonymous No.19758099]

>>19758068
>serpent like twists of "logic"
Surprise surprise, praying to demons in disguise results in attempt to corrupt others with demonic slants. The father of lies uses just enough truth to lure one into his traps of untruth.

[Anonymous No.19758100]

>>19758012
Like I said, I don’t doubt there is a sincere motive behind the proselytizing push. And I’m willing to retract my statement partly based on your response and that of >>19757986. It doesn’t seem like all of this is a completely fabricated push by the Churches to get more people. But it’s undeniable that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do benefit from the influx of converts (which are small, but often more devout and zealous than Cradle members). Even if the clergy is against the hyper-traditionalist strains, it’s better for them to have someone overly zealous that they can then work on settling into a more moderate and conforming position than to try to get random apathetic people to believe. But, I’m willing to be corrected if what I’m saying is too cynical or not in line with the facts.

[Anonymous No.19758109]

>a mother can't ask her son to do something

Seems like the ultimate prayer is asking to Saint Joseph to ask Mary to ask Jesus to ask God

[Anonymous No.19758117]

>>19757881
Go forth and pray only to God.

[Anonymous No.19758133]

>>19758100
Not the guy you're responding to. I made these posts >>19757665 >>19757679. When I say these things I don't really think that they're acting out of ill motives. But I think their methodology is harmful as it is based on creating anxiety and undermining someone's faith. I actually do like the principle behind the Death to the World zine they created. That seems in line with Paul:
>1 Cor. 9:22b ... I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

[Anonymous No.19758143]

>>19758117
Now seriously this. God always hears and he sees everything.

[Anonymous No.19758211]

>>19758091
>i-it is a representation!!
it's a piece of wood, cletus.

[Anonymous No.19758216]

>>19758211
Is that what you do to pieces of wood? >>19756036

[Anonymous No.19758231]

>>19758216
>some random pagans are doing something!
not my problem if peabrains like you worship a piece of word.

>>19758117
don't forget to ask the saints for intercession

[Anonymous No.19758236]

>>19758143
Indeed. If He wants the actual Mary or anyone else no longer with us in earth to pray for us He will let them know.

[Anonymous No.19758245]

>>19758231
>not my problem if peabrains like you worship a piece of word.
As far as I can tell it is Catholics lying prostrate before the wood plank.

[Anonymous No.19758248]

>>19758100
Protestants are literally known for their extreme, radical "born again" converts.

[Anonymous No.19758249]

>>19758133
Your faith should be undermined. Protestantism is essentially bankrupt and dying. So many of us Orthodox guys are former hardcore protestants, you don't think our faith was undermined by literally everything that was going on in that world? Maybe you're in like, the 5% of Protestants who are still traditional and can face the world, but in the end Protestantism isn't really working.

[Anonymous No.19758256]

>>19758245
>as far as I can tell
it was literal amazonian pagan refugees. not even kidding. listen cletus, if youre gonna strawman, at least pic a believable topic.

[Anonymous No.19758274]

>>19758256
So if pagans are worshiping it how is it not an idol?

[Anonymous No.19758275]

>>19758109
yes. in fact last year was the year of St. Joseph.

>>19758091
BTFO by the bible itself
go ahead, finish the rest of the story cletus. does jesus do as mary wished? cmon, I know reading's hard for you but you can do it!
>>19758099
>you are le serpent!
i accept your flailing concession once again

[Anonymous No.19758281]

>>19758274
>if the pagans do something, that means catholics believe dat too!
are you really this stupid?

[Anonymous No.19758283]

>>19758275
>go ahead, finish the rest of the story cletus. does jesus do as mary wished?
Who said he didn't? You miss the point entirely as usual.

[Anonymous No.19758284]

new thread

>>19758043
>>19758043
>>19758043

[Anonymous No.19758289]

>>19758283
so jesus did what his mother asked...
hmmm....
asking mary to ask jesus to help us....
hmmm....

>no, no connection at all!
cope.

[Anonymous No.19758291]

>>19758281
You are the one who stated that my sarcastic equation of Pachamama and Mary was correct. Not too late to retract that you know.

[Anonymous No.19758309]

>>19758281
They should worship Mary who is the replacement of Pachamama, not a Mary that looks like/is merged with Pachamama

[Anonymous No.19758317]

>>19758274
Catholics let that go down at a Catholic function.

[Anonymous No.19758322]

>>19758309
we ask mary to ask jesus to help us, yes, just like he did with mary at the wedding at cana. glad you agree. don't worship anyone but God btw, just so you know.
>>19758291
>representation = literal worshipping of wooden statue
i know it's hard for you to grasp nuance, but c'mon.

[Anonymous No.19758323]

>>19758249
>Your faith should be undermined.
This issue is this. If you convince a person that Protestantism is false, but he is also truly unconvinced by the claims of Rome, Orthodoxy, etc. then what is left to him? He may very well abandon Christ. That is why I say that the way you are going about it is wrong. Often the primary emphasis is on creating doubt and anxiety, rather than on making a positive claim for your own Church. You think that if you can trip them out enough that they don't trust their previous beliefs they will give up and agree with you, but they may very well not.
>Protestantism is essentially bankrupt and dying. So many of us Orthodox guys are former hardcore protestants, you don't think our faith was undermined by literally everything that was going on in that world? Maybe you're in like, the 5% of Protestants who are still traditional and can face the world, but in the end Protestantism isn't really working.
My concern is what is true. If others are unfaithful to that truth, it does not negate the truth. Rome would have appeared to be the most stable thing imaginable only 60 years ago, you know? Who knows what the future will bring to us in this regard.

[Anonymous No.19758334]

>>19758323
Orthodoxy has persisted in the original teaching of the Church and has not succumbed to the times. The gates of hell have not prevailed against the Orthodox Church, while I only see the gates of hell prevailing against every single other church.

[Anonymous No.19758345]

>>19758334
I reject that you follow the original teachings of the church. You are begging the question.

[Anonymous No.19758346]

>>19758323
>My concern is what is true.
Return to the non heretic and non schismatic Church then.
>but he is also truly unconvinced
facts don't care about your feelings. where the priestly apostolic succession is, there the Church is. it's that simple whether you like it or not.
>Rome is not stable
dude, the turmoil after vatican ii and the council of trent was WAY more than it is right now. stop believing stupid shit you hear larping protties regurgitate.

[Anonymous No.19758367]

>>19758345
You're factually wrong if you reject that the Orthodox follow the original teaching of the Church. The apostles founded a Church, the bible in greek will use words like Bishop and Priest and the such, they consecrated Bishops and Priests, which is where apostolic Christianity comes from
They continued to worship in the ritualistic form of the second temple which was held in houses and modified according to the apostolic wisdom.

[Anonymous No.19758368]

>>19758346
>Return to the non heretic and non schismatic Church then.
All "apostolic" churches are in schism from each other depending on whose viewpoint you take.
>facts don't care about your feelings. where the priestly apostolic succession is, there the Church is. it's that simple whether you like it or not.
All Reformed, Lutheran, etc. presbyters have apostolic succession in a direct line to the Apostles. So does Rome, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc. This is not a criteria that proves anything.
>dude, the turmoil after vatican ii and the council of trent was WAY more than it is right now. stop believing stupid shit you hear larping protties regurgitate.
You won't gaslight me on this.

[Anonymous No.19758390]

>>19758323
This is the one thing that worries me with pointing out Cath/Orth Satanic Babylonian paganism. I would rather some Anon be in one of those "churches" with those issues than not dedicate to any form of Christianity at all. One of the primary reasons I engage on these issues despite that is because so many of that ilk here are coming from a place of believing themselves to be superior for joining in those "churches" and shitting all over people who are Protestant as if all of Protestantism is some sort of McFaith. Anyone who is earnest and humble about any of it I'd just assume bless and pray God's mercy for what they get wrong, same as I hope for myself.

[Anonymous No.19758392]

>>19758367
>You're factually wrong if you reject that the Orthodox follow the original teaching of the Church.
I am not.
>The apostles founded a Church, the bible in greek will use words like Bishop and Priest and the such, they consecrated Bishops and Priests, which is where apostolic Christianity comes from
Scripture only acknowledges two offices, the presbyter and the deacon. Different terms are used for the presbyter, such as elder, overseer, etc. But there is no distinction made between these to indicate a separate office. History also shows that the office of bishop was a development, an early one, but not something original to the church.
>They continued to worship in the ritualistic form of the second temple which was held in houses and modified according to the apostolic wisdom.
Your worship is corrupted as well by the inclusion of false sacraments which have no warrant.

[Anonymous No.19758397]

>>19758334
>Orthodoxy has persisted in the original teaching of the Church
A mere *claim*.

[Anonymous No.19758403]

>>19758368
imagine thinking as a megachurch prottie that you know more about the Curia and Rome than someone who has been catholic his whole life and reads multiple catholic news sites consistently. just lol.

btw, if they don't have a priesthood that's licitly ordained, they're not in apostolic success. only licit priesthoods are in the ortho and catholic churchs. of course the ortho church is sadly in schism and rejections traditional christian teachings like the primacy of rome, so all that is left, truly, is the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.19758409]

>>19758392
> Different terms are used for the presbyter, such as elder, overseer, etc
These are english translations, you know?
The word used for overseer in the bible in the greek is epískopos, which literally means bishop and has been used as such in greek. The original church did not just disappear after the apostles and continued to exist.

[Anonymous No.19758412]

>>19758390
>Protestantism is some sort of McFaith
it is. it was literally founded by a mentally ill monk who had a schizo hissy fit and ripped books out of the bible that hurt his feelings. that's not even an exaggeration.

[Anonymous No.19758419]

>>19758403
Who gives af about "Curia" and "Rome"? The LORD God Almighty is what is important to know more about.

[Anonymous No.19758420]

>>19758412
He was reacting to a corrupt and unorthodox Church though.

[Anonymous No.19758426]

>>19758409
>These are english translations, you know?
We are conversing in English.
>The word used for overseer in the bible in the greek is epískopos, which literally means bishop and has been used as such in greek. The original church did not just disappear after the apostles and continued to exist.
I am telling you that ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος are two words for the same office, as the New Testament uses them.

[Anonymous No.19758439]

>>19758403
>btw, if they don't have a priesthood that's licitly ordained, they're not in apostolic success. only licit priesthoods are in the ortho and catholic churchs. of course the ortho church is sadly in schism and rejections traditional christian teachings like the primacy of rome, so all that is left, truly, is the Catholic Church.
You're not interacting with my point about the relativity of the issue. The simple lineage, even accounting for the claim of what is "licit" still leaves multiple claimants. There must be another standard by which this is evaluated.

[Anonymous No.19758440]

>>19758419
>gets called out for saying unfounded shit about Church "turmoil"
>well ackshully who gives le fuck about the curia!
just admit you know nothing about the Church or catholicism, as most protties such as the ishtar spaz or the prosperity gospel pentecostals. if you approached the topic in good faith, that'd be a different story
>>19758420
just because you don't like something
>Maccabees shouldn't be in the bible because it refutes my headcanon!
doesn't mean that's a valid reason to call something wrong.
>unorthodox
LMAO. because abolishing 1500 years of sacraments, church tradition, bibilical tradition and apostolic sanction is "orthodox"?

[Anonymous No.19758447]

>>19758440
You're talking to multiple people, just letting you know.

[Anonymous No.19758458]

>>19758412
>it is. it was literally founded by a mentally ill monk who had a schizo hissy fit and ripped books out of the bible that hurt his feelings. that's not even an exaggeration.
It is quite an exaggeration. I know the history of the matter and you will not trick me about it. Maybe this will work on the megachurch attendee you so like to deride, but I am not that.

[Anonymous No.19758462]

>>19758426
Why are you even Christian? You're thinking magically. You really think that the original Church just disappeared after like, 40 years? You follow a religion with no basis in that original Church and that was invented 500 years ago. You honestly don't know what you're talking about.
>>19758440
> sacraments, church tradition, bibilical tradition
Those are fine, I love those, that's why I converted to Orthodoxy. The filioque, caving in to secular power, general worldliness, the supreme and absolutist power of the pope, and indulgences weren't and aren't orthodox or Orthodox.

[Anonymous No.19758464]

>>19758439
yes, you're right. however, protestantism is ruled out by this simple qualification from the get go.

anyone who is a serious seeker cannot be a post-luther protestant.

[Anonymous No.19758465]

>>19758440
1500 years of fabricated bolt on demonic bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19758474]

>>19758462
>caving in to secular power
good thing orthodoxy doesn't have state churches! oh wait...
>general worldliness
like Moscow consecrating a russian military cathedral? oh wait...
>the supreme and absolutist power of the pope
you're right, constant schisming is better. enjoy Moscow and Constantinople and Kyiv fighting!
>indulgences weren't and aren't orthodox
yep, youre a crypto prottie

[Anonymous No.19758482]

>>19758465
>what I don't like is demonic
go back to your playpen

[Anonymous No.19758493]

>>19758462
>Why are you even Christian? You're thinking magically. You really think that the original Church just disappeared after like, 40 years?
I do not, I believe it gradually accumulated corruptions that we were able to fix. The previous tradition is valuable but needs to be examined in order to determine what is true and what is an accretion.
>You follow a religion with no basis in that original Church and that was invented 500 years ago. You honestly don't know what you're talking about.
The basis of what I know is true regarding my faith are the scripture, which are breathed out by God himself. They are an infallible source of knowledge on this matter, and the only one we possess. It is the only place that we have any words of Jesus, it is the only place that we have any words of the Apostles. If something is contrary to this, it is not true. There can be no greater grounding in the original church than to follow the only words of the apostles that we possess in this world.

[Anonymous No.19758518]

>>19758474
You're a crypto prottie using mudslinging small things. The Catholic's were the first protestants for schisming from the Church. Orthodoxy never had a reformation happen because there wasn't anything to reform, they persisted in the original teaching.
>>19758493
> breathed out by God himself
It was written down by men who were inspired by the holy spirit, written down by men who actually established a church and who left behind an even larger amount of oral teaching, which itself came from the oral teaching of Christ. You are thinking this way because Catholicism is corrupt and you want to reject it, but Orthodoxy was never corrupted.

[Anonymous No.19758520]

>>19758493
>the scripture
The scripture that the original Church preserved, complied, and assembled, and established as canon?

[Anonymous No.19758529]

>>19758518
>nononono y-you schismed from us!
this is some delicious cope, keep going.
>no controversies
what is iconoclasty? what is the Palamism controversy? what are the church of the east schisms? what is the Moscow/Constantinople schism?

real church, good one. you're not even in communion with each other.

[Anonymous No.19758539]

>>19758520
All of that was done even before the "Mary" worship was established. The "church" of the 4th century is not the same church of the 1st, as far as earthly institutions go.

[Anonymous No.19758549]

>>19758529
>oh no you schismed from us!!
Yes, you did. One thousand years later who is more traditional? Out of who sprung the renaissance, enlightenment, and the modern world?
>>no controversies
Lol. Right back at you, you tradcath zoomer larper.

[Anonymous No.19758558]

>>19758539
you really are a dullard. asking for intercession =/= "worship". how many times do different people have to explain that to you?

NO catholic OR orthodox church teaches ANYTHING about worshipping mary. if you left your reformed evangelical megachurch fundamentalist bubble, you'd see that. every other denomination thinks you guys are clowns.

[Anonymous No.19758563]

>>19758518
>It was written down by men who were inspired by the holy spirit, written down by men who actually established a church and who left behind an even larger amount of oral teaching, which itself came from the oral teaching of Christ. You are thinking this way because Catholicism is corrupt and you want to reject it, but Orthodoxy was never corrupted.
I used the term breathed out by God because that is what "inspired" is. That is a translation of the term θεόπνευστος (2 Tim. 3:16), which means literally "God-breathed." You are assuming that they left behind an oral teaching that contains matters that are different to what is contained in their writings. I have no way to know that these supposed oral teachings are legitimate except by comparison to the actual words of the Apostles. History shows that many are not, such as the Marian doctrines. We can trace how they developed and why.
>>19758520
The canon is the ontological category of works which are θεόπνευστος. There are works in this world that are God-breathed and works that are not God-breathed. The ones that are God-breathed are the canon. As such they are not determined by humans but something that is self-existent. We know of them through faith, which is given to us by God.

[Anonymous No.19758565]

>>19758549
You're right, establishing state churches with shithole eastern government support who persecute political and religious dissidents is what Jesus would've wanted. why didn't I guess?

[Anonymous No.19758575]

>>19758558
>prays to demons
>thinks I care that those who pray to demons think we are "clowns"
Try praying *only* to God for one year and see if your issues start to clear up.

[Anonymous No.19758576]

>>19758563
>the Church did assemble that canon but well, that doesn't count as the Church having authority because ... it just can't!
Your contortions are impressive, become a gymnast.

[Anonymous No.19758581]

>>19758539
What about the 2nd century, or the 3rd? Who passed down their oral and written teaching to the 4th?
>>19758563
> You are assuming that they left behind an oral teaching that contains matters that are different to what is contained in their writings.
I am assuming that their oral teaching came first, and that the written teaching worked together with a wider oral teaching and that they bolstered and existed together. There are things in the oral teaching that are not in the written teaching, you can call this context.
You don't possess the oral teaching because you don't belong in a church with apostolic succession, you're assuming what the oral teaching says when you've never been exposed to it, or have been through the corrupted and schismatic Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19758582]

>>19758575
>the mother of God is a demon
keep tithing 50% to preacher billy boy! im glad your blasphemous mask slipped so everyone can see you're speaking with the voice of the Accuser.

[Anonymous No.19758618]

>>19758576
I am arguing straightforwardly with you so I would appreciate if you did so with me. That being said, the church can recognize the canon, it cannot assemble it. It is already existent ontologically. If you believe the apostle Paul, that all scripture is breathed out by God, this necessarily follows for the reason I gave.
>>19758581
>I am assuming that their oral teaching came first
It did, yes.
>and that the written teaching worked together with a wider oral teaching and that they bolstered and existed together. There are things in the oral teaching that are not in the written teaching, you can call this context.
That is where the claim goes off the rails. There is no way to prove such a thing and you possess not a single word that they said outside of Scripture. I must simply take your word for it, to have my conscience bound by things that may be false. I will examine your claims against the teachings of the Apostles that we truly possess and see if they are true. Some are and some are not.
>You don't possess the oral teaching because you don't belong in a church with apostolic succession, you're assuming what the oral teaching says when you've never been exposed to it, or have been through the corrupted and schismatic Catholicism.
I can give you the simple example of perpetual virginity of Mary. There is no scriptural warrant for this and it is contrary to the plain sense of the text. We can also observe its development arising from Gnosticism, which is the earliest source we have for this idea. We can see how it later entered orthodox Christianity through the arguments used to support it, such as the idea that virgins have greater honor in heaven, thus Mary must be a virgin lest she receive less honor.

[Anonymous No.19758669]

>>19758618
>It is already existent ontologically.
this is a circular argument and thus non-refutable. please argue in good faith.

[Anonymous No.19758686]

>>19758669
How is it circular? As I stated there are writings that are God-breathed (θεόπνευστος) and there are writings that are not God-breathed. Scripture is the category of writings that are God-breathed. The church does not make something God-breathed, God does, because he is the one that is breathing it out. Therefore its existence as scripture is independent from its recognition by the church.

[Anonymous No.19758692]

>>19758686
>The canon was established by the Church, yes
>But the canon would've been established that way anyway because ... it already was existent in that form that it was established, before it was established, yet it wasn't yet physically existent, but the actual establishment of it as physical doesn't matter because....

[Anonymous No.19758697]

>>19758692
>How can I prove that the canon that was established by the Church was existent before being established by the Church, even though the Church established the exact canon I use to prove my point? uh....

[Anonymous No.19758698]

>>19758692
Put forth an argument normally rather than putting words in my mouth that I did not say.

[Anonymous No.19758710]

>>19758698
>>19758697

[Anonymous No.19758719]

>>19758710
The argument does not work because it does not refute the argument from ontology. If what scripture says about itself is true, then it cannot be established by man, it can only be recognized through faith.

[Anonymous No.19758730]

>>19758719
who established and collected and preserved the scriptures you're using to discredit that organization that established and collected and preserved them?

[Anonymous No.19758734]

>>19758710
Also what I said is not even dependent upon me using the scripture myself; it can function as a reductio on the Catholic position. If you affirm that 2 Timothy is scripture then men cannot establish scripture.

[Anonymous No.19758742]

>>19758730
See >>19758734
Also I do not recognize a discontinuity with the early church. We are the proper heirs of it, having purged it of its errors, not you.

[Anonymous No.19758758]

>>19758734
>>19758742
>we are the proper heirs of it
>we purged it of errors
>whaddya mean we adopted the talmudic masoretic text as our base because the founder of my religion thought certain books in the LXX (the traditional bible for all of Christian history) offended his schizo opinions?
>that just means we purged it of errors!
lol. [citation needed]

[Anonymous No.19758792]

>>19758758
I see you are not able to address my argument from ontology.
>>whaddya mean we adopted the talmudic masoretic text as our base because the founder of my religion thought certain books in the LXX (the traditional bible for all of Christian history) offended his schizo opinions?
I believe this argument was had earlier in the thread, in which it was demonstrated that the deuterocanonical texts have always been under dispute. The Protestant canon is the canon of texts that are recognized by all Christians universally. This coincides with the canon recognized by God's previous covenant people, as is fitting.

[Anonymous No.19758820]

>>19758792
you're the same fundie that got blown the fuck out by multiple people for that past couple threads? alright, i've heard enough.

seems we struck a nerve on this topic though since you post about it in every thread. must feel your belief is threatened. guess what, it is.

[Anonymous No.19758838]

>>19758820
I'm failing to find an argument in your post. Your shtick in which you claim that you won arguments that you lost is funny as usual.

[Anonymous No.19758894]

>>19758792
As I said in a previous post, the fact that Jews reject the Deuterocanon shouldn't be seen as somehow validating their removal from the Bible. Many jewish practices and doctrines postdate and even were created in reaction to Christianity, and the move towards a more restrictive "hebrew only" canon was part of that. Also, before the Protestants were founded, the Canon that was accepted universally DID contain all the books that are present in the Catholic Bible, with others (like 3-4 Maccabees and Psalm 151) clearly marked as separate from the rest of the canon (Psalm 151 for instance called "Genuine but outside the number of the 150").
Granted, the very idea of a "Deuterocanon" seemed to reach notoriety through Jerome, who took the Jews at their word, although he nevertheless placed the works in their commonly accepted place in the order of the Vulgate. Luther seemed to be the first to actually put the "apocrypha" in a separate section of the Bible away from the protocanon, and from what I've heard, the only reason most protestant bibles don't include them was because they were little read in Prot circles anyways and it was cheaper for printers to exclude them.

[Anonymous No.19758922]

>>19758894
This is false. We have numerous examples throughout the history of the church of these books being deemed non-canonical. There if Jerome as mentioned, as well as Gregory the Great and Athanasius. History shows us that they always in some doubt, at least in the west. Earlier in the thread you can read a quote from Cardinal Cajetan, writing at the time of the Reformation, that the deuterocanon was not canonical. In these instances we have esteemed learned clergy who reject the texts and apparently have no knowledge that they are universally accepted, which refutes the concept. The most we can say is that there were two streams of thought that were present, one following the Hebrew canon and one arguing for an expanded canon, of which there are several variations once we look to the east.

[Anonymous No.19759261]

>>19753907
>der CAPITALISTS invented evolution so that the SHEEPLE would have limbs to operate the modes of production... anarchistbros how deep does this go...

[Anonymous No.19759347]

>>19752238
t. heretic