Bible Thread

[Anonymous No.19800938]

Previous: >>19785650

[Anonymous No.19800964]

Why even bother reading the Bible when sages like Bart Ehrman have ripped it apart? For the story-telling?

[Anonymous No.19801022]

>>19800964
>If you assume the text is a contradictory mess and refuse to admit any possible reconciliation or interpretation that is contrary to atheism then that's what it is, so there
Epic

[Anonymous No.19801035]

>>19800964
Among the tiresome genealogies and claims of the supernatural, there is some actual sage advice, philosophy, and beautiful literature.

[Anonymous No.19801050]

>>19800964
>sages
Kek.

[Anonymous No.19801096]

Why can't Catholics make a decent translation themselves instead of making revisions to Protestant translations?

[Anonymous No.19801143]

Is the Bible worth reading in the original Hebrew and Greek?

[Anonymous No.19801153]

>>19801143
You'll gain the most benefit from learning Greek. Only pursue Hebrew if you are truly dedicated.

[Anonymous No.19801162]

>>19801143
I mean, sure, but I don't think this is a question you'd have to ask if you were capable of doing it.

Like if you're interested in the Bible whether for theological or literary significance I'm sure reading it in the original languages (including Aramaic!) would be illuminating for you.

>>19801153
I think this is a needless categorization. Greek is at least an Indo-European language and while translations are sometimes fraught they are more easily made from the Hebrew. If anything, Hebrew is more beneficial with this being the case.

[Anonymous No.19801172]

what's the deal with circumcision? why was it this procedure exactly that was chosen as a covenant between Yahweh and his people? that has always struck me as odd

hygiene? reduced pleasure from intercourse?

[Anonymous No.19801177]

>>19801162
>I think this is a needless categorization. Greek is at least an Indo-European language and while translations are sometimes fraught they are more easily made from the Hebrew. If anything, Hebrew is more beneficial with this being the case.
Well it depends what exactly you are undertaking this for. If it's to do exegetical work, you will undoubtedly gain more benefit from Greek. If it's in some banal literary quest then I don't even care to give an answer.

[Anonymous No.19801201]

>>19801172
>hygiene? reduced pleasure from intercourse?
These can be useful post-hoc, secular explanations, but it is pretty clearly shown through the text that circumcision as a practice is a sign of one's obedience to God.

>>19801177
There's plenty of Christian exegesis one can do in the OT, e.g. finding and expounding upon evidence of Jesus' divinity and messianic status in the prophets. I'm just saying that if you regard the entirety of the Bible as cannon and that if one is interested in reading it in its original languages there is no particular reason to privilege the Greek over the Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.19801237]

>>19801172
It was already a practice known to Near Eastern peoples, and because it's quite painful it shows dedication to God.

[Anonymous No.19801405]

Reminder that monasticism as well as spiritual practices derived from monasticism are wrong.

[Anonymous No.19801422]

>>19801405
To what practices are you even referring?

[Anonymous No.19801434]

>>19801422
Hesychasm for example

[Anonymous No.19801527]

>>19801434
Pick a Catholic example.

[Anonymous No.19801584]

When discussing the issue of Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy, many people make a mistake and conflate Orthodoxy with Eastern Orthodoxy. But that is not the real dichotomy. It is Catholicism vs. the multiple variations of Orthodoxy. There is not only Eastern Orthodoxy but Oriental Orthodoxy as well as the Church of the East. The only communion of any of these that has any meaningful principle of unity is Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.19801620]

>>19801527
Can't think of one specifically off the top of my head. Monasticism per se suffices.

[Anonymous No.19801665]

>>19801143
In Greek yes.

[Anonymous No.19801669]

>>19801172
According to Maimonides it was to quell sexual desire in males so that they wouldn't become slaves to lust.

[Anonymous No.19801676]

>>19801172
Because the Hebrews were chosen specifically by God to be a priestly nation, because it was cut off from the rest of the world and given a unique mission, much of the Law is about symbolically cutting something off or on the contrary not cutting something off that would normally be cut. They had to not cut off the sides of their hair and beard for instance.
In fact, the Hebrew who was not cut off from the nations through circumcision, would be himself cut off though excommunication (whether that meant banishment or capital punishment).
As to why it was the foreskin in particular that established the covenant, it is because the man's penis is what connects him, his wife and his children, and therefore connects the family together as a unit. When the male is circumcised, the "cutting off", the consecration to God, therefore extends to his wife and children.
There is also the interpretation that circumcision is an emasculation of Israel before God, therefore establishing Israel as the female and God as the male, as in the Song of Songs for instance.

[Anonymous No.19801695]

>>19801405
>>19801434
How are they wrong? Mind you I am Protestant and not coming from a place of defending Cath/Orth but still very interested.

[Anonymous No.19801705]

>>19801695
You need to establish a positive case from scripture that it is acceptable for the Christian to entirely abandon the world and his family in order to live in seclusion.

[Anonymous No.19801724]

>>19801676
That explanation makes sense, thanks

[Anonymous No.19801730]

>>19801705
Not loving the world nor the things in the world, and abandoning family are Scripturally supported.

[Anonymous No.19801752]

>>19801730
You're equivocating on all of these. Not loving the world does not equate to withdrawing from it entirely on a physical and social level. Division within the family is on the basis of one's duty to God, that one must serve and love God first. Therefore you would need to establish that one is under some positive command by God to withdraw into a monastery for this to be relevant.

[Anonymous No.19801821]

>>19801752
Who am I to assume what God has or hasn't called any other human to do or not do?

[Anonymous No.19801826]

>>19801821
This is a concession that you have no way of positively establishing the practice. For example it leads to this, the abdication of duties that one does actually have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgentius_of_Ruspe
>He soon grew tired of the material life, and this combined with his religious studies, particularly a sermon of Augustine of Hippo on Psalm 36, which dealt with the transitory nature of physical life, convinced him to become a monk.
>Upon learning of her son's decision, Mariana, who evidently had never been told of Fulgentius's wish, was very upset. She rushed to the gates of the monastery, demanding to know how a church that was supposed to protect widows could deprive her of her only son. Her protestations were ineffective, and Fulgentius was ultimately confirmed in his vocation.

[Anonymous No.19801863]

>Pic related published in 2017
>Three years later Francis defines the death penalty to be always wrong
oops

[Anonymous No.19801872]

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-church-and-capital-punishment

>I pointed out to John what too many Catholics simply do not know: The death penalty has always been, and always will be, upheld as a legitimate and potentially just punishment in Catholic Tradition as well as in Scripture.
>This teaching cannot change.
>This teaching cannot change.
>This teaching cannot change.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2020 revision:

>Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

[Anonymous No.19801879]

>>19801872
meant 2018 revision
the Catholic Answers article is from 2015, such a short time for an unchangeable teaching to change

[Anonymous No.19801915]

>>19801665
Finally a good explanation. Also wow.

[Anonymous No.19801917]

>>19800938
More like another thread just like the last about anything but the Bible.

[Anonymous No.19801920]

>>19801872
Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti (2020)

>263. There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries but at individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice. There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that “the death penalty is inadmissible” and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide.

>268. ... All Christians and people of good will are today called to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms

[Anonymous No.19801938]

>>19801096
Because decent translation is too prideful.

[Anonymous No.19801948]

>>19801915
It's accurate but it is leaving some things out. It was the practice even in the ancient world to translate from the Hebrew when the translator was capable of doing so, which was rare. For example Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta are translated from the Hebrew, though these are from Hebrew sources earlier than the Masoretic Text. Also modern translations are not solely based on the Masoretic Text. They utilize the Masoretic as a base, because this is the language in which the texts were actually written, and then comparison is made to the Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Vulgate, etc. as needed. So the Masoretic is not followed uncritically. This is the practice behind virtually all modern translations, Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.

[Anonymous No.19801975]

>>19801948
Pretty sure the Psehitta is based on the Septuagint.

[Anonymous No.19802003]

>>19801975
No, it's from Hebrew. See pic, source is The Bible in the Syriac Tradition by Sebastian Brock, pg. 13

[Anonymous No.19802033]

>>19801665
>According to the legend, seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Greek Pharaoh of Egypt, to translate the Torah from Biblical Hebrew to Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria. This narrative is found in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, and is repeated by Philo of Alexandria, Josephus (in Antiquities of the Jews), and by later sources (including Augustine of Hippo). It is also found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud:

>King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

[Anonymous No.19802046]

>>19801915
Also the image implies that the Dead Sea Scrolls are in accord with the Septuagint in all cases, which is false, for example the Great Isaiah Scroll reads "young woman" at Isa. 7:14, though the verse is not exactly the same in other instances.
>>19802033
This is mythological and not true.

[Anonymous No.19802067]

>>19802046
The apostles themselves used the Septuagint when quoting from the Old Testament.

[Anonymous No.19802081]

>>19801035
>and beautiful literature
Are you referring to the Book of Judith which is said to have been a novel or to the bible as a whole?

[Anonymous No.19802083]

>>19802067
And? How does that validate some legendary account such as this? We are not Muslims who believe the scriptures can only exist in their original language.

[Anonymous No.19802085]

starting numbers today, the second half of exodus and all of leviticus were dry as fuck. does this shit ever get good again?

[Anonymous No.19802088]

>>19802083
When did I ever say otherwise? There's plenty of English translations of the Septuagint out there.

[Anonymous No.19802098]

>>19802085
iirc Leviticus was written specifically for the priest class (tribe of Levi)

[Anonymous No.19802105]

>>19802088
I mean that there isn't anything particularly strange about them using the Septuagint. It doesn't confer upon the text a special power. It does mean that their interpretation of it is correct, though. The meaning of Isa. 7:14 is that of a virgin, that is how "almah" (young woman) is to be understood theologically, in the Hebrew.

[Anonymous No.19802113]

>>19802105
Are you Jewish?

[Anonymous No.19802118]

>>19802113
Why would you assume that I am Jewish after I tell you that Isa. 7:14 means virgin? Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.19802135]

>>19802105
The point is that because the apostles used the Septuagint, it means it is a (dare i say "the") correct and good translation.

[Anonymous No.19802177]

>>19802135
It is still a translation. If you are going to translate the OT it should be from the original language. This allows you to access what is going on linguistically beneath the Septuagint. The Septuagint (and other translations) need to be factored in, though, which is what modern translators do. Like I said the apostolic use of Isa. 7:14 clarifies that "virgin" is the correct way to understand the Hebrew "almah" in that verse. You can normally spot whether a translation is operating on Christian principles by seeing how much weight it gives to these matters. For example the RSV and NRSV still use "young woman" and relegate "virgin" to a footnote.

[Anonymous No.19802181]

>>19802067
And yet a few of those quotes disagree with it. Some parts are translated better than others, some are garbage. The proper thing is to corroborate both with each other. Relying on just one to the exclusion of the other just hinders your ability to examine and appreciate the works fully.

[Anonymous No.19802204]

>>19802177
>it should be from the original language
Right, but we don't have the full text in the original language anymore. Show me the complete Pentateuch in proto-Hebrew. We have fragments in the DSS. We know the story of Genesis is late Bronze Age, and possibly mid-Bronze Age, at least in oral form, which predates the "original languages."

[Anonymous No.19802209]

>>19802181
You would disagree with the apostles?!

[Anonymous No.19802223]

>>19802209
That's not what he said at all.
>>19802204
The written text is inspired, this is confirmed by Paul in 2 Tim. 3:16.

[Anonymous No.19802235]

>>19802223
>The written text is inspired
Right, the written text is inspired. The LXX is a written translation that aligns significantly, though not completely, with the DSS text we have, both of which are older than the MT text edited between the 7th and 10th centuries AD.

[Anonymous No.19802249]

>>19802235
>b-b-but the Pope disagrees!

[Anonymous No.19802260]

>>19802249
Not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.19802264]

>>19802235
And who is telling you that the MT must be slavishly followed uncritically without meaningful comparison to other textual sources? Not I.

[Anonymous No.19802291]

>>19802264
So then why not hold the inverse position? You're advocating for using the MT and comparing it to the LXX, the DSS, the Samaritan, etc. I'm advocating for using the LXX and comparing it to the MT, the DSS, the Samaritan, etc. The first big change we'll see is to the Genesis genealogies, where the MT is at odds with both the LXX and the Samaritan.

[Anonymous No.19802384]

>>19802204
>>19802223
>>19802235
>>19802249
>>19802264
>>19802291
God is the author of scripture. God is the Author of Life. If God desired there to be an original copy of scripture, it would exist. It does not exist. If it does not exist, it is because God does not want it to exist. If God does not want it to exist, it is because it is to our good that it does not exist. For our good, God has allowed all original texts to pass from man's knowledge and possession. God would not allow anything that prevents our salvation. Clearly, our salvation rests in a divinely appointed authority, rather than in some particular text. The very fact that there are those who would debate scripture proves that there must be some Divinely established authority to determine what is and what is not scripture.

[Anonymous No.19802399]

>>19802384
In 2 Tim. 3:16 Paul states that all scripture is breathed out by God. This is stated to Timothy, in reference to the scriptures that Timothy knows ("from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings"). The original text of the OT did not exist then either. Therefore its inspiration and authority is not dependent upon having a copy of the original.

[Anonymous No.19802413]

>>19802384
>claimed appointed authority starts worshiping "Mary"
I'll take the minor textual variances, thx.

[Anonymous No.19802416]

>>19802291
Which chronology do the Peshitta and Vulgate follow? This would be relevant as they are translated from earlier Hebrew sources.

[Anonymous No.19802489]

>>19802413
Luke 1:46-55
>And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
>And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
>Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
>Because he that is mighty, hath done great things to me; and holy is his name.
>And his mercy is from generation unto generations, to them that fear him.
>He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.
>He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.
>He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
>He hath received Israel his servant, being mindful of his mercy:
>As he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.

Luke 2:51
>And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart.

Luke 11:27-28
>And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck.
>But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

John 2:1-5;11
>And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.
>And Jesus also was invited, and his disciples, to the marriage.
>And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
>And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
>His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.
>This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee; and manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.

Luke 1:41-45
>And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
>And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
>And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
>For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.
>And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.

Luke 1:28-30
>And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
>Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
>And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

Luke 1:37-38
>Because no word shall be impossible with God.
>And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.

[Anonymous No.19802516]

>>19802399
But it is not written in scripture which scriptures Timothy would have known to be scripture. Moreover Paul exhorts the Corinthians to hold fast after the manner Paul has preached to them.

[Anonymous No.19802520]

>>19802489
None of these teach prayer to Mary, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, that Mary's virginity remained physically intact during birth, that she never knew her husband after giving birth to Christ, that she was born preserved from original sin, that she was assumed bodily into heaven, etc.

[Anonymous No.19802538]

>>19802516
It isn't, but it notes that Timothy did know, and that he knew from childhood. This would actually mean that an infallible ruling on the issue was not necessary for Timothy to know.

[Anonymous No.19802611]

>>19802384

[Anonymous No.19802618]

>>19802520
>none of these teach
You are correct. To teach is a human act, and the Bible is not a man. Christ has sent teachers. Why do you reject them?

[Anonymous No.19802619]

>>19802399
Timothy read from the Spetuagint as well.

[Anonymous No.19802637]

>>19802618
The teachers he sent were the apostles, who no longer exist. There is no indication that they taught any of these doctrines either. Your word that they did does not suffice.

[Anonymous No.19802645]

>>19802619
This comes back to the fact that we do not make the Islamic distinction regarding only the original language being legitimate. We allow the act of translation. So it is neither here nor there. How could Timothy know the scriptures?

[Anonymous No.19802664]

>>19802538
On the contrary, it suggests that Timothy has already known the infallible teaching. For if someone came with some false scripture, are we to believe that Timothy would have accepted it? Of course not.

Moreover, Timothy did not know Paul only by letter, but spoke with him face to face. If Timothy was unsure about some text, would he have decided for himself, or would he have asked Paul? Notably, we are given no list in scripture of what texts are scripture; clearly, though, the early Church was familiar with what was and wasn't scripture. And yet, from the beginning, many tried to introduce false scriptures. It is clear then that the canon of scripture was known by tradition until that time where it was necessary to designate it by written law. But if it is to be designated, then there must be some authority which all would respect, or else such a declaration would create discord. God desires our salvation. Why would he allow necessary truths to become hidden? He would not. The Church exists so that the necessary truths of the faith may be preserved with clarity, even as the malice of satan increases and the clouds of his deception spread. While of course God could have established His truth in another manner according to his might, it is clear that God has not done so by any other way than the Church, for there is but one faith, and yet the teachings of all others are at odds with each other.

[Anonymous No.19802681]

>>19802637
Apostle means one who is sent. The Apostles sent others after them. There is plenty of evidence that the Apostles raised new priests and Bishops and deacons. Why do you blaspheme God and suggest that he has allowed his Truth to be lost?

[Anonymous No.19802683]

When is the Sabbath? God rested on the seventh day since the beginning and blessed it. But we don't know how many days have passed since the beginning. So how can we know which day is the Sabbath?

[Anonymous No.19802685]

>>19802645
Translations of the Septuagint into English already exist, I don't get your point.

[Anonymous No.19802717]

>>19802681
There are no more Apostles. The Apostles were appointed directly by God. Christ personally selected the original group as well as Paul, and Matthias was chosen by the casting of a lot as this allows God to decide the outcome. The Apostles were also able to confirm their office by the working miracles.
>2 Cor. 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.
The Apostles also individually spoke with the authority of Christ.
>1 Cor. 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
Your "apostolic successors" can neither confirm their office by the working of miracles nor do they individually speak with the authority of the Lord as you only allow them this authority when they gather in council. There are no more Apostles.

[Anonymous No.19802738]

>>19802645
>This comes back to the fact that we do not make the Islamic distinction regarding only the original language being legitimate
Muslims bruned all the manuscripts of the quram they could find, you think they care about the autographs?

[Anonymous No.19802741]

>>19802717
I figure Mathias was illegitimate and that Paul was God's chosen replacement. The Mathias episode just displays the Apostles trying to figure out own their own how to get God to choose the replacement, but God chose Paul and had nothing to do with the pagan dice rolling.

[Anonymous No.19802752]

>>19802738
They care about the original language and do not admit the text to be translated. Of course they do in practice, though, but they call all translations "interpretations" and not translations, for this reason.

[Anonymous No.19802754]

>>19802741
This makes a lot of sense.

[Anonymous No.19802770]

>>19802717
Peter says they must appoint another Apostle in order to fulfill scripture, which says:
>et episcopatum ejus accipiat alter.
Or, let another take his bishopric.
Moreover, Paul is an Apostle.
God rules hearts, and yet you think he can only decide things by lot? Why do you doubt the power of God?

[Anonymous No.19802778]

>>19802741
>>19802754
>>19802770
Your understanding of this matter is false. The casting of lots was used to determine God's will in some situations and was commanded by God himself. Read the Old Testament at some pint.

Lev. 16:8-10 [God speaking:] "And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the Lord and the other lot for Azazel. And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the Lord and use it as a sin offering, but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel."

Prov. 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.

[Anonymous No.19802784]

>>19802741
>>19802754
It is blasphemous and heretical. They prayed to God to decide between two holy men. Listend to Proverbs 18:18:
>The lot suppresseth contentions, and determineth even between the mighty.
Do you doubt that God answered the prayers of the Church? Why do you contemn scripture?

[Anonymous No.19802794]

>>19802778
Where have I (>>19802770) spoken falsely?

[Anonymous No.19802796]

>>19802784
They don't read it to begin with so they have no knowledge of these matters. The Pope told them it is such and such a way and they accept it.

[Anonymous No.19802801]

>>19802794
You have made a false claim that I stated that God can only decide by lot. This is however a means instituted by God and it was used by the Apostles to discern that it was God's will to appoint Matthias as the replacement of Judas.

[Anonymous No.19802818]

>>19802801
Where did I say that?

[Anonymous No.19802829]

>>19802818
>God rules hearts, and yet you think he can only decide things by lot?
There you go. Now would you like to address my other points that a true apostle can work miracles and speak with the authority of Christ?

[Anonymous No.19802908]

>>19801096
Knox version

[Anonymous No.19802949]

>>19802908
1 The Lord is my shepherd; how can I lack anything?
2 He gives me a resting-place where there is green pasture, leads me out to the cool water’s brink, refreshed and content.
3 As in honour pledged, by sure paths he leads me;
4 dark be the valley about my path, hurt I fear none while he is with me; thy rod, thy crook are my comfort.
5 Envious my foes watch, while thou dost spread a banquet for me; richly thou dost anoint my head with oil, well filled my cup. All my life thy loving favour pursues me; through the long years the Lord’s house shall be my dwelling-place.

I don't like it

[Anonymous No.19802980]

>>19802949
That's how you know it's good.

[Anonymous No.19802989]

>>19802980
It's funny seeing how much he has to contort Romans 4 to make it look like Paul is saying you are justified by works

[Anonymous No.19803004]

>>19802908
It's more of a paraphrase than translation, the Catholic version of The Message. I give it a rating of fake and certainly gay.

[Anonymous No.19803007]

>>19800938
Which should be my first Bible to read? There are a lot to choose from and I see a lot of arguments about translations…
I just want to read the word of God

[Anonymous No.19803013]

>>19803007
>word of God
King James, that's it.

[Anonymous No.19803039]

>>19803007
The ESV is the best modern translation. It doesn't distort the text for political or feminist reasons, it's translated from Christian principles, and doesn't try to break with the traditional wording of things. It's literal but does not sacrifice literary value. It's a Protestant translation but there is now a Catholic version available if you need it.

[Anonymous No.19803051]

>>19800938
Whats the nicest bible modern production that one can buy? The Allen 63 Longprimer?

[Anonymous No.19803062]

>>19803007
KJV Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha. ESV if you can't understand the text of the KJV

[Anonymous No.19803119]

>>19803007
see the 33 dubs here >>19802033

[Anonymous No.19803206]

>>19800938
Yesterday I was reading the book of Sirach and I was amazed at how Catholic it was. It supports the vision of punishment after life according to your works and the existence of free will.
>11 (A)Don't blame the Lord for your sin; the Lord does not cause what he hates.[a] 12 Don't claim that he has misled you; he doesn't need the help of sinners to accomplish his purposes. 13 The Lord hates evil in all its forms, and those who fear the Lord find nothing attractive in evil. 14 When, in the beginning, the Lord created human beings, he left them free to do as they wished. 15 If you want to, you can keep the Lord's commands. You can decide whether you will be loyal to him or not.
This is an explicit refutation of Calvinism, no wonder why they considered this book apocryphal.

[Anonymous No.19803230]

>>19803062
>KJV Cambridge Cameo with Apocrypha
Why the hell would they not print a version without red text for the words of Christ? Anymore at least

[Anonymous No.19803293]

>>19801665
source?

[Anonymous No.19803312]

>>19803230
Its more of a smaller travel Bible but you are right, it should still have the red text. (8pt font) Great Bible though otherwise. Bright Paper, No ghosting, Calfskin leatherbound,

[Anonymous No.19803326]

>>19803206
>book of Sirach
This is a Bible thread.

[Anonymous No.19803329]

>>19803206
>no wonder why they considered this book apocryphal.
So did St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, and many Catholics throughout history even to the time of the Reformation, for example:

Cardinal Cajetan, the interlocutor of Martin Luther, 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.19803355]

>>19803312
after rereading my post, I seem to have worded it oddly. What I meant was, why don't they make a version without red text? Red lettering strains my eyes and I prefer plain black text throughout the book.

[Anonymous No.19803362]

>>19803206
>>19803329
St. Athansius, Festal Letter of 367:

"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."

[Anonymous No.19803365]

>>19803355
I was going to say I have the Cameo and it has the red text. Thought you had some updated newer one without or something idk

[Anonymous No.19803439]

>>19803206
There's not really anything objectionable to Calvinism here. The only thing that should be qualified is this:
>Sirach 15:15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of your own choice.
This is only true of a regenerate person. A person cannot keep God's commandments by their own power.

[Anonymous No.19803456]

>>19803206
>the vision of punishment after life according to your works
This is really something that should terrify you. I truly hope it is not the case.

[Anonymous No.19803602]

>>19803456
Me too brother but all scripture points towards that being the case. Our consolation should be that God is merciful after all.

[Anonymous No.19803738]

>>19802989
Faith without works is dead.

[Anonymous No.19803751]

>>19803326
Yes, which is why he cited the Bible. Go back to reading your apocryphal Book of Enoch or Gospel of Judas.

[Anonymous No.19803838]

>>19803751
The book of Enoch is accepted by the Ethiopian church.

[Anonymous No.19804022]

Debate time! Who is the "prophet" that is spoken of in Deuteronomy 18:

>15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet[d] like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet.
>19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet[h] shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. 20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.” 21 You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken?” 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.

I've heard fellow Christians claim that the above prophet is Jesus (Yeshua). But when I read this in context of Numbers-Deuteronomy-Joshua, it sure seems like Deut 18 is a reference to Joshua (i.e. the "other Yeshua")

What really strikes me about these passages is that God is telling the Jews how to identify false prophets: You are supposed to ask them for a sign, and if that sign comes true then they are from God.

Why, then, does Jesus REFUSE to give the Jews such a sign whenever they ask for one? Except for the few times Jesus mentions the "sign of Jonah." (Jonah was a reluctant prophet who started out being in open rebellion against God, so...). Anyway, why does Jesus insult any Jew who asks for a sign? They are supposed to be wary of false prophets; they are literally just doing what God instructed them to do. What gives?

[Anonymous No.19804027]

One of my biggest copes about the historicity of the Bible was that the Exodus seemed like a more or less mythological Israelite origin story cobbled together from the narratives of the Hyksos, but I just learned that there's a literal Egyptian writer who extensively writes on the Hyksos as the founders of Jerusalem and writes of a recorded uprising involving the Hyksos by a literal Moses

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osarseph

Why is this not more widely known and why does this not come up more in discussions on the historicity of the Exodus narrative?

[Anonymous No.19804075]

>>19804027
It is my headcanon that the blonde/red haired mummies are actually the descendants of Joseph who ruled over parts of Egypt in the 400 years they Israelites spent there. Herodotus also speaks of a certain dynasty which banned the worship of idols and shut down all pagan temples for 100+ years.

[Anonymous No.19804170]

Why does Mark say Jesus didn't let demons speak, but Jesus let the demons who possessed the hobo in the graveyard speak?

[Anonymous No.19804206]

So the "gender-inclusive" NRSV reflects the original Hebrew and Greek? Or are they lying?

[Anonymous No.19804335]

>>19804206
They're lying. "Brethren" becomes "brothers and sisters", "brothers" also becomes "brothers and sisters", and basically all "he"s except for those referring to God become "they". "Men" becomes "humans" or "people", "mankind" becomes "humankind." The NRSV did a particular number of 1 Timothy 3:2, too.
The RSV:
>Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher,
The NRSV:
>Now a bishop[a] must be above reproach, married only once,[b] temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an apt teacher,
>[a] Or an overseer
>[b] Gk: the husband of one wife
The footnote admits they didn't actually render the Greek.

[Anonymous No.19804390]

what exactly is the non-literal interpretation of adam being the first man and all human stemming from him and eve, and then again after the flood with all humans coming from noahs family and there being entire kingdoms and shit across the middle east within a few generations

the entire genesis story makes no sense at all unless adam and noah went on to have like thousands of kids each who each had thousands of kids, so on and so fourth, all of which are for some reason left out of the genealogy in the bible

this is really bothering me bros and im wondering how other people approached interpreting these aspects of genesis, because its giving me a bit of a crisis of faith that I never realized I had. I should have just skipped to the NT instead of reading the OT lol..

[Anonymous No.19804424]

>>19804390
There are no vowels in Hebrew, Cain is actually Q(i)n and he is the progenitor of the Asian race.

[Anonymous No.19804433]

>>19804424
So the Devil is behind the development of anime... I see, it all makes sense now...

[Anonymous No.19804442]

>>19804390
I see the genealogies of the Bible as having more to do with the lineage of Israel and their cosmic placement as the covenant of God. People already complain about the "boring" genealogies in the OT when it's clear that the authors weren't intending it to be exhaustive in any way.

I also see Adam and Eve as having a lot to do not with just the origin of humans as a species but more to do with the origin or recorded history (Genesis family lines) and eventually technology (clothing, the Tower of Babel, the cities of Cain and Noah's Ark). It's hard to project a strict modern interpretation onto an ancient document rife with Jewish literary and rhetorical mannerisms.

[Anonymous No.19804484]

>>19804390
A good non-literal interpretation I've heard of the entire web of Genesis genealogies and 900-year-old people, etc., is that those ages are not referring to the ages of individual people but rather to their clans before being succeeded by a new clan. Being "son of Abraham" didn't mean Abraham's sperm impregnated your mother who immediately gave birth to you, but rather that you are the next historically significant figure in the long line of the clan of Abraham, and so you have the honorary title of "son of Abraham" now. So, in the case of Adam and Eve, they're representations of the first patriarch and matriarch of the human family, but their "children" are actually just human clans that God created after them, linked to Adam and Eve as fellow humans but nevertheless created anew as the first clans of humanity. I might've butchered that explanation, but it was from Dr. Falk in his latest Q&A livestream.

[Anonymous No.19804541]

>>19804484
Okay, here's the actual video:
https://youtu.be/E6eCS3n2Gtk?t=3218
Start time at 53:38. And the relevant book is Bedouin Culture in the Bible by Clinton Bailey.

[Anonymous No.19804580]

>I just take it to mean this """reasonable""" sounding stuff
>here's what some """Dr""" says
Nice try Satanic faggots but I'll just go with what the Holy Bible states without stuttering.

[Anonymous No.19804587]

>>19804580
based prottie

[Anonymous No.19804594]

>19804580
The Earth is billions of years old and orbits the Sun.

[Anonymous No.19804603]

>>19804541
>>19804484
well that would certainly straighten out all the little bits of confusion I have if it is the case

[Anonymous No.19804654]

>>19804335
This isn't good. So would you recommend Oxford RSV instead?

[Anonymous No.19804705]

>>19803602
It does not point toward that, not for those who have faith.
>>19803738
Faith produces works, but God justifies us without works.

[Anonymous No.19804707]

>>19804705
Is Judas in hell?

[Anonymous No.19804715]

>>19804707
That seems to be the implication of scripture.

[Anonymous No.19804722]

>>19804715
So how do Protestants explain this? He had faith but not works.

[Anonymous No.19804725]

>>19804390
I know Jung doesn't exactly have orthodox beliefs but here is his take about Genesis:

>This phenomenon, which results from the extension of consciousness, is in no sense specific to analytical treatment. It occurs whenever people are overpowered by knowledge or by some new realization. "Knowledge puffeth up," Paul writes to the Corinthians, for the new knowledge had turned the heads of many, as indeed constantly happens. The inflation has nothing to do with the kind of knowledge, but simply and solely with the fact that any new knowledge can so seize hold of a weak head that he no longer sees and hears anything else. He is hypnotized by it, and instantly believes he has solved the riddle of the universe. But that is equivalent to almighty self-conceit. This process is such a general reaction that, in Genesis 2:17, eating of the tree of knowledge is represented as a deadly sin.

>It may not be immediately apparent why greater consciousness followed by self-conceit should be such a dangerous thing. Genesis represents the act of becoming conscious as a taboo infringement, as though knowledge meant that a sacrosanct barrier had been impiously overstepped. I think that Genesis is right in so far as every step towards greater consciousness is a kind of Promethean guilt: through knowledge, the gods are as it were robbed of their fire, that is, something that was the property of the unconscious powers is torn out of its natural context and subordinated to the whims of the conscious mind. The man who has usurped the new knowledge suffers, however, a transformation or enlargement of consciousness, which no longer resembles that of his fellow men. He has raised himself above the human level of his age ("ye shall become like unto God"), but in so doing has alienated himself from humanity. The pain of this loneliness is the vengeance of the gods, for never can he return to mankind. He is, as the myth says, chained to the lonely cliffs of the Caucasus, forsaken of God and man.

[Anonymous No.19804729]

>>19804722
He did not have faith.

[Anonymous No.19804731]

>>19804729
Why did he commit suicide then?

[Anonymous No.19804769]

>>19804731
What a strange argument. If he had saving faith in Christ, then he would have understood that his sin was forgiven.

[Anonymous No.19804772]

>>19804654
The Oxford Annotated RSV is still probably the gold standard for a Bible with historical-critical notes but still a beautiful text. There's a reason why the NRSV spawned the NASB, the ESV, and the RSV2CE in reaction.

[Anonymous No.19804779]

>>19804769
Matthew 26:24

[Anonymous No.19804789]

>>19804779
Why do you think that disproves what I said?

[Anonymous No.19804813]

>>19804772
Thanks for the suggestions. Ordered the RSV

[Anonymous No.19804815]

>>19802717
>Your "apostolic successors" can neither confirm their office by the working of miracles
The Catholic and Orthodox churches perform miracles all the time, just look it up online and you'll find endless lists of miracles performed over the last 20 centuries by priests

[Anonymous No.19804831]

>>19801172
I think it was just a covenantal reminder, whenever you were naked or about to engage in sex you would be reminded of the standard you're supposed to live up too. Circumcision is not a significant loss of sensation anyways, but it is a unique visual distinction.

[Anonymous No.19804837]

>>19804815
What the text indicates, anon, is that every bishop (and priest in Orthodoxy since they include them in succession), if they are an apostle, should be able to show the "signs of a true apostle". It is not that some of them can do it here and there, but if that they hold the office of apostle they should each and every one be able to demonstrate it through miracles. Likewise they should each and every one be able to speak with the authority of Christ. This is because apostle is a special office created by God, it is not something that passes down in perpetuity. You know just as well as I that your clergy fail this test.

[Anonymous No.19804844]

>>19804815
I've smelt roses at an Orthodox church when they brought a myrhh producing icon. I'm in RCIA right now, and I've also smelt roses during the feast day of the Immaculate Conception, and it was a normal novus ordo parish.

[Anonymous No.19804852]

>>19804433
Modern anime is often gross, there's always been good stuff but Japans oversexualized culture is sad

[Anonymous No.19804853]

>>19804844
This is the gullibility required to convert to one of these churches.

[Anonymous No.19804856]

>>19804772
>the NRSV spawned the NASB
Strange how my NASB is from 1979 but copyrighted 1977 and the NRSV didn't come out (very fitting because it is gay) until 1989. However, neither are Bibles, nor the others being mentioned.

[Anonymous No.19804857]

>>19804853
My faith isn't dependent upon miracles, but they're nice affirmations. There really is nothing else out there that makes sense or works, and the fruits of Christianity are primarily found in the people it produces.

[Anonymous No.19804863]

>>19804857
>I smelled a smell, it was a miracle

[Anonymous No.19804878]

>>19804022
I think those verses are just referencing prophets in general;
i.e. when someone claims to be a prophet you should test him.
Jesus didn't claim to be a prophet; the prophets of Israel (like Jonah) prophesied His coming. So when Jesus says things like "sign of Jonah" He's criticizing them for not believing the prophets that a messiah (Him) was coming

Also John records Jesus performing many miracles in front of the pharisees and they still didn't believe
>And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him:
>John 12:37

[Anonymous No.19804880]

>>19804863
This, the "priest" probably squirted perfume. They are mostly crypto atheists.

[Anonymous No.19804986]

>>19804390
The Traditionalist interpretation of creation myths is that they don't take place at a point in the distant past, but that they happen metaphysically at all points in time during the eternal Now.
So I am not literally the descendant of Adam whose sin I've inherited by virtue of him being my ancestor, I am metaphysically descended from Adam because I was Adam and the "Fall of Man" describes why my soul is living in the physical world right now instead of the spiritual.
Adam falls every moment a baby is born.
The seven day creation of the world is really describing the super-material forces that the material world (like my body) depends on

"the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" represents the two aspects of the All or the Absolute (pure consciousness), those aspects being Order and Chaos, Sun and Moon, Fire and Water, Day and Night, etc. The former being the individualized, "freezing" aspect of conscious being and the latter being the infinite possibilities that consciousness can be aware of (the eye of Medusa petrifies men). The interactions between these two aspects of God is creation.

>pic not really related but kind of

[Anonymous No.19805037]

>>19804837
Truthfully I'm not even Catholic or anything (yet), mostly playing devil's advocate.
>You know just as well as I that your clergy fail this test.
If I'm being fair, I've never gone up to a priest and asked him to perform a miracle for me so I don't whether they're genuine or not, and I doubt you have either.
Of course if you did do that and they couldn't perform a miracle I'd probably claim that's because it's a Novus Ordo church so it doesn't count and we'd go back and forth and I wouldn't be satisfied until I personally traveled to Eastern Europe to challenge an Orthodox ascetic monk living in the mountains to perform a miracle for me so idk

[Anonymous No.19805527]

after reading everyone's responses to my query, and going on to start the gospels and reading up to the end of the sermon on the mount I can happily say that I feel better now, even better than ever before, thank you all for the advice and information!

on the /lit/ side of things things, man that was a good read, exactly what i needed, and pretty dense. I cant believe its already 10 pm.

[Anonymous No.19805708]

I've been wondering this for a bit and I don't really know why: Why would someone not born into Anglicanism convert to Anglicanism? I can understand why someone would become Catholic or Orthodox or Evangelical Protestant and so forth, but I can't actually think of a reason why someone would become Anglican over all the others unless they just wanted to larp as a British monarchistic to the nth degree.

[Anonymous No.19805736]

>>19803013
>King James, that's it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiz7NwuW7Y

[Anonymous No.19805780]

>>19805736
The errors of the KJV are inconsequential minor descriptive details. The errors of others are doctrine altering.

[Anonymous No.19805800]

>>19805780
>The errors of others are doctrine altering.
This looks pretty doctrine altering to me, senpai.

[Anonymous No.19805857]

>>19805800
>a single run with a misprint has anything to do with the translation itself

[Anonymous No.19805877]

>>19805857
>>19805780
you think that's it? there's more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGg4toVSOOI
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/20952/in-isaiah-1412-did-the-king-james-translator-make-a-mistake-using-the-term-luci

[Anonymous No.19805924]

>>19805857
>i-it was just an error, unlike all those other errors because...JUST BECAUSE
Sounds a bit like cope to me, senpai.

[Anonymous No.19805931]

>>19805800
Is this why anglos are the way they are?

[Anonymous No.19805949]

>>19805877
>Mark Ward

[Anonymous No.19806109]

>>19803007
I use The Bible of Jerusalem, but then again I am catholic.

[Anonymous No.19806112]

>>19803206
Fascinating

[Anonymous No.19806147]

>>19805877
The discussion about the use of the word Lucifer shows that the error was already contained in both the Septuagint and the Vulgate. I don't think you can blame the KJV translators for that.

Personally I like the KJV translation very much, many of its verses hit you right in the feels. An inspiring Bible is to me more important than a strictly accurate one.

[Anonymous No.19806222]

>you can get baptized a second before dying and go to heaven with sanctifying grace
>meanwhile an otherwise pious person who commits thoughtcrime and gets hit by a car goes to purgatory or deeper
why would God be such a troll?

[Anonymous No.19806265]

>>19806222
>you can get baptized a second before dying and go to heaven with sanctifying grace
It doesn't work like that, anon. This is on the same level as the people that assume you can trick God by repenting at the last second.
He will judge you according to your faith and works and if there's no real sincerity in your heart, or real repentance, you will suffer His infinite retribution.

[Anonymous No.19806302]

>>19806265
This I don't understand. Baptism cleanses one from all sins, not just the original sin. For me it follows that if you're clean at the instance of death, there is no obstacle between you and God.

[Anonymous No.19806554]

Why aren’t the epistles of Clement included in the New Testament? He knew both Peter and Paul personally.

[Anonymous No.19806596]

>>19806222
Why indeed

[Anonymous No.19806612]

I read Genesis and I liked it.

Some thoughts (on the first few chapters)
re: Adam and Eve and their fruit eating
>they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
This was a chilling scene... what does God look like? I pictured Jesus. Adam and Eve are terrified of what he'll do. He's not omniscient, you can hide behind things and he won't see you.
re: punished snake
>upon thy belly shalt thou go
Did the snake have legs before? Was he some kind of lizard man? He spoke after all... English I presume.
re: Cain and Abel's offerings
>Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.
why does God, who I assume is still walking and in man-form, value animal sacrifice over fruit? Les dieux ont soif!
>There were giants in the earth in those days
BASED
>it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
The flood scene was kino af, and I very much enjoy the passionate God with human characteristics, who can get mad and even regret decisions
then, after the flood
>Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake
See... God loves the sweet aroma of fried chicken. Veganfags BTFO.
>Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father
Little details like this are what really make me appreciate the book. You're dealing with real people with their feet in the soil, doing dumb human shit like getting drunk buttnaked. And you can imagine just how sweltering the heat was and how nice it must've felt to get buzzed in a cool tent with your buttcheeks out.

[Anonymous No.19806654]

>>19804390
Genesis 1 is temple inauguration and about man's relationship to the world
Genesis 2 is about edenic reality
If you didn't realize because you seem to have missed this, there are two creations back to back in genesis
If you just take some sort of gap evolutionism where everyone evolved and then you had the two in the garden who after being kicked out went on to interbreed with the rest of the mankind and passing on them the knowledge-of-good-and-evil-gene
This is of course just me reading scripture through modern science which may change or it may not
If you're struggling here, what the fuck are you going to do when the talking donkey shows up?

[Anonymous No.19806655]

>>19806612
You may want to read it chronologically
https://biblehub.com/timeline/

[Anonymous No.19806662]

Do you consider the Book of Enoch to be canonical?

[Anonymous No.19806671]

>>19806662
I view it as a corrupted text which contains a lot of truth in it.

[Anonymous No.19806672]

>>19806612
>What does God look like
To the writers of genesis 1, presumably like that one picture you might see shitposted around.
Second Temple Jews had all sorts of things to say about the physically present god
Modern Jews just pretend these passages don't exist
>Lizard man
No, the word in Hebrew implies that this is no ordinary snake
The most plausible identification for this snake is actually the Ugaritic storm god.
He is given lordship over death.
>Giants
This means tyrant more closely and is a reference to temple prostitution sexual practices. Basically, according to the ot, the giants are caused by demon sex.
>See someone's nakedness
This is a euphemism for sex

[Anonymous No.19806701]

>>19806612
continued...
>And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
There's a few lines in the book that are quite nauseating. It's very rich and earthy in its imagery.
>And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day
I love these parts with Man God, and in this instance, two Man Angels too. Abraham washes his feet and fetches him some food. Then God tells him he's sending the angels to find out what's happening in Sodom and to punish them if they've misbehaved. Once again, none of that boring omniscience! Then after this there's a really comedic scene where Abraham asks God, "if there's like 50 good people in Sodom will you spare them?" and God says "Yeah, sure". And then Abraham asks, "What about 40?" God says yes. Then Abraham keeps going... what about 30, 20... and then he's like "God, please be patient... what about... ten?" I LOL'd. I think this scene best shows God's patience.
Then the angels go to Sodom and hang out in Abraham's friend Lot's hut. Then the faggots of Sodom want to assrape the Angels so Lot offers his virgin daughters instead. They're not interested LOL.
>Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven
Lot and his family flee, while God BTFOs the homos. But,
>his wife looked back... and she became a pillar of salt.
the angels told her not to do that!
then once they're safe, hiding out in a cave, his daughters get revenge on their father by raping him.
>Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him

[Anonymous No.19806721]

>>19806662
yes

[Anonymous No.19806750]

>>19805037
I think this argument could be disposed of by noting that if every priest/bishop (again it needs to be every individual one) is actually an apostle in the same sense that Paul was, that they can work miracles and speak with the same authority as Christ, then all of these disputed matters should have been cleared up long ago. Otherwise what is the point of them being apostles? The doctrine collapses into nonsense.

The other way of looking at the matter is to claim that rather than priests/bishops being "true apostles" (as Paul names it), they simply have a linear descent of ordination from an Apostle at some point in the distant past. This is of course admissible, and I think this is what was actually meant in the earliest writers who appeal to apostolic succession. However, looking at it this way, almost everyone has apostolic succession. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, even most Protestants have it. All Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans at minimum have apostolic succession in this manner. So the linear descent of ordination is not meaningful and cannot solve the problem. A different authority must be appealed to.

[Anonymous No.19806774]

>>19806750
A few more thoughts on this. I think that most would agree that a linear descent of ordination from the apostles is what *should* be the case. As a Reformed Christian I would agree with that. But I think beyond that, the noting of apostolic succession, even in the early church, is primarily just a rhetoric device. Simply being ordained by Paul, or Peter, or whoever, does not mean that you are correct. Look at how many throughout history, who have this succession, have fallen to heresy. Look in the New Testament in which Paul writes of his direct disciples falling into false teachings. It is not something that can confer ipso facto authority.

[Anonymous No.19806860]

>>19801096
There are no decent translations. Every time I read a new chapter of the Bible I find myself having to spend 10x as long researching different translations and interpretations.

[Anonymous No.19806893]

>>19806701
continued...
>And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:
Another evocative and nauseating scene. I can imagine how bony his leg must've been. Often when reading I could almost smell the stench of the desert, the smelly sweaty bodies and hear the buzzing flies and the gibbering of sand people.
>And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau
A hairy ginger baby. Very disturbing. Was Esau sposed to be a villain btw? He seemed nicer than Jacob.
The following chapters chronicle Abraham's descendents and all their dishonesty and endless begetting of children. What was notable to me is there's no clear cut pious goodie vs sinful baddie thing going on there, the individuals chosen by God use tricks and deceit just like their rivals.
>re: the pastoral setting
it made me think that all the way up until the industrial revolution, life wasn't all THAT different from the Biblical setting, like the same things had the same resonance to people, some of these things have become so much more incidental if not outright alien to our lives.
>Chapter 34, the Rape of Dinah
Absolute KINO. A classic revenge story with Jacob's sons literally getting their enemies to cut their own foreskins off. Just as the Jews managed to get their enemies to castrate their own sons in revenge for the Holocaust. When their enemies are laid up with sore dicks, his sons slaughter them and take their wives and daughters as slaves. Classic closing line to the chapter too, when Jacob's like "no no no, our enemies are gonna be real mad with us now", his sons are like "what you think we're gonna let 'em treat our sister like a common whore"
Damn, there's still so much to go, the next chapters include Joseph's brother throwing him down a well ...His later adventures in Egypt were my fave part of the whole book.
Another comfy scene in this section is where Juda starts hitting on his veiled daughter-in-law, thinking she's a prostie.
>I pray thee, let me come in unto thee
Great stuff!

[Anonymous No.19806924]

>>19801096
Because they want to convert Protestants back to Catholicism.

>>19806893
Joseph forgiving his brothers genuinely made me cry the first time I read it.

[Anonymous No.19806930]

>>19806924
Yeah, and the death of his father after finally reuniting him I found really touching too.

[Anonymous No.19806935]

Thoughts on the notion that Paul corrupted Christ's message and corrupted Christianity? Leo Tolstoy, Thomas Jefferson, and the Muslims all believed this, and I have to say that there are some contradictions between Paul's epistles and the Gospels, not to mention new additions.

[Anonymous No.19806949]

>>19803838
The Ethiopian church uses many books which have never been translated into English.

[Anonymous No.19806953]

>>19806935
I don't know about Jefferson but the other Tolstoy denied Christ's divinity and thought the apostles got it wrong and he was just le great moral teacher, and muslims are just being dishonest. I'm yet to see a single contradiction between Paul's teaching and Christ's or any other apostles'.

[Anonymous No.19806959]

>>19804390
Other people than Adam's descendants appear in Genesis. In my view, they are Neanderthals and possibly Erectus, Denisovans, or other early hominids.

[Anonymous No.19806967]

>>19805708
Anglicanism has a number of things that make it appealing, but foremost is that it follows an essentially Catholic doctrinal approach, but without the worst parts of non-Scriptural doctrine (eg, Purgatory, rankings of sins) and without the need to follow the decrees of an ageing Hispanic pedophile accomplice. It is also the most ecumenical major branch of Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19806976]

>>19806953
Christ
>accept and love everyone
Paul
>homos and slaves are shit

[Anonymous No.19806987]

>>19806935
Like what?

[Anonymous No.19806988]

>>19806976
it's not love if you just let them stay in sin

[Anonymous No.19806995]

>>19806988
Obviously, but Jesus never said homos were sinners, and Jesus freed a slave.

[Anonymous No.19807015]

>>19806995
Christians follow Paul, then the Old Testament, then Christ, in this order.

[Anonymous No.19807036]

>>19806995
Jesus said masturbation is a sin equal to adultery, how can homosexuality not be a sin?

[Anonymous No.19807041]

>>19807036
Can you quote the verse, or at least the chapter, where Christ says this?

[Anonymous No.19807042]

>>19807036
He said no such thing.

[Anonymous No.19807044]

>>19806935
>Thoughts on the notion that Paul corrupted Christ's message and corrupted Christianity?
It is false. Paul was an apostle chosen by Christ. The so-called evidence that he was false is vague and conspiratorial. Also there is no non-Pauline Christianity. You would have to construct it yourself from your own suppositions. You likely value the gospels, but you would have to redact them for Pauline influence.
>I have to say that there are some contradictions between Paul's epistles and the Gospels, not to mention new additions.
There are not.

[Anonymous No.19807049]

>>19806976
You cannot understand what is being said because you suffer from the modern mind virus in which you equate a person with their desires.

[Anonymous No.19807056]

>>19807049
I love homosexuals except when they commit acts of homosexual sex, the issue is that Paul says to hate them in general which seems to go against the grain of your post.

[Anonymous No.19807057]

>>19807041
Matthew 5:27 - 5:32

[Anonymous No.19807058]

>>19806935
It's true, but as Christians follow Paul, they'll insist the pharisee who said he had a dream, fought the disciples of Christ over doctrine and preached a rather standard pharisee doctrine overwriting what Jesus said was indeed the true follow of Jesus Christ.

There are non-Pauline Christianity, they used to be called Ebionites, but since the 7th century most if not all of them became Muslims.

[Anonymous No.19807066]

>>19807057
That just says not to commit adultery, either in act or thought.

[Anonymous No.19807071]

Do you think they make replica Gutenberg bibles? I'd love to have one in my house as a decoration.

[Anonymous No.19807079]

>>19807056
>the issue is that Paul says to hate them in general
What are you referring to specifically?

[Anonymous No.19807080]

>>19807071
You mean like this?
https://www.amazon.com.au/Gutenberg-Bible-Stephan-Fussel/dp/3836562219/ref=asc_df_3836562219

[Anonymous No.19807085]

>>19807079
The two references to arsenokoites. Even if you understand it to mean pederasts rather than homos, it's still something which Jesus never spoke about.

[Anonymous No.19807093]

>>19807085
No I am asking you where he says to hate them. Whether Christ spoke about it is irrelevant as Christ appointed Paul as an Apostle and gave him authority to teach.

[Anonymous No.19807095]

>>19807066
Your “right hand scandalising you” in Matthew 5:30 is obviously referring to you fapping to a pretty woman you just saw in this context. We’re all guilty of doing this at some point in our lives, the least we can do is accept it’s a sin so that others won’t follow in our footsteps.

[Anonymous No.19807100]

>>19807066
Lustless masturbation, eh?

[Anonymous No.19807107]

>>19807093
You forgot "according to Paul" in your last sentence. And you're right, my wording was a bit loose. What I meant was that Paul says that having homosex is a sin, while Jesus says nothing of the sort.

[Anonymous No.19807110]

>>19807100
In my interpretation, lust is only a sin in the context of adultery. Single men can list all they want.

>>19807095
Again referring to adulterous list rather than the act of masturbation in other contexts.

[Anonymous No.19807118]

>>19807080
I was hoping for one that looked just like the ones you see in museums rather than just a reprinting. I can't read german anyway, so it would really to be more as a conversation piece on display rather than on the shelf for reading/reference.

[Anonymous No.19807125]

>>19807110
>single men can lust all they want
If they’re lusting after women single or not they are committing adultery. Masturbation is adultery, therefore mutual masturbation (homosexuality) is just as bad.

You are supposed to marry a woman while you’re both still young, and have sex only with her every time you get a boner.

[Anonymous No.19807135]

>>19807107
>You forgot "according to Paul" in your last sentence.
Do you pretend that you have any knowledge of Christ that is not mediated to you by his appointed teachers? You deny his teaching because you do not want to obey God. Any argument you make otherwise is a post hoc justification.
>And you're right, my wording was a bit loose. What I meant was that Paul says that having homosex is a sin, while Jesus says nothing of the sort.
There it is in full view. A person is not the equivalent of what they desire. A person's desires may be properly or improperly ordered. Understanding this does not compromise the person themselves. The manner in which you think of this is what is wrong and the root of your problem. That being said, Christ confirms God's moral law, which declare such acts abominable. He does not need to address it specifically for God's law to bind you. You simply want a way to weasel out of it and this is the excuse you think will work. But God is not mocked, and he knows your heart.

[Anonymous No.19807142]

>>19801096
You obviously don't read italian or spanish, dickhead.

[Anonymous No.19807469]

>>19807107
Did you skip the Sermon on the Mount or something?

[Anonymous No.19807477]

Fellow catholics, tomorrow's the Muslim day. Are you celebrating? My church organizes joined prayer and lessons about venerated catholics that lived close with our muslim bretheren in faith

[Anonymous No.19807533]

>>19806935
It's obvious that Paul changed some parts of doctrine, or understood them in a different way. This is what the confrontation at Antioch and the council of Jerusalem are about. Traditionally we say that Paul proves that the Judaizing faction led by James is wrong. If you think that this is corrupting Christ's message, I don't know what to tell you. In my opinion Jewish Christianity has nothing to offer and that's why it faded away.

Another interesting difference in doctrine is between the Pauline epistles and the epistle of James. Paul famously rejects works and says that salvation follows from faith alone. James disagrees and says that faith without works is dead. I think both of them would be quite horrified to know that this shit would divide the churches even 2000 years later and that countries would go to war over minute differences in the letters they composed.

[Anonymous No.19807545]

>>19807477
Heretic

[Anonymous No.19807555]

>>19807533
James is not contradicting Paul. Faith is necessarily followed by works, but we are justified by faith and not by works. So works are part of our salvation, broadly conceived, but they are not what makes us right with God.

[Anonymous No.19807604]

>>19807533
Some of the Oriental Orthodox churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean) still require circumcision. That's not to say that they are the same as the Judaizers, but aspects of this nonsense live on.

[Anonymous No.19807616]

>>19807545
Everything we (they) do is approved by the magisterium. Read Unitatis Redintegratio.

[Anonymous No.19807623]

>>19807616
Indeed, you'll accept anything no matter what it is. The Pope could say that homosexual marriages are now approved and you would agree and say that is what the church has always taught. You claim to esteem reason but the only that matters is submission.

[Anonymous No.19807627]

>>19807545
Muslims are closer to Christ than protestants are, tho.

Would rather pray with Sunni than with a Baptist... this is, if Baptists prayed.

[Anonymous No.19807634]

>>19807627
Why does Catholicism draw retarded people such as this?

[Anonymous No.19807646]

>>19807634
Catholicism is in the middle of the road, too serious and Christian to those who never read the books, treat every versicle as an article in a code of law and follow youtube pastors saying bullshit; but at the same time not serious and Christian enough to those who seek God.

It's one of the two exit ways for protestants who decide to read the bible.

[Anonymous No.19807656]

>>19807623
This is why we have the hierarchy, to interpret the message of the Gospel for us. Great saints whom teachings past councils approved have been wrong on issues like immaculate conception, delayed ensoulment, iconoclasm, etc. We wouldn't know they were wrong if it wasn't for the clergy who spend their whole lives on exegetical and theological works.
>Look on the smallest disobedience to the orders or even the desires of your superiors as if it were addressed to God.
Card. Mercier, Practice of Christian mortification

[Anonymous No.19807658]

>>19807656
If you asked any bishop in 1500, including the Pope, if the death penalty was acceptable what would he tell you?

[Anonymous No.19807668]

>>19807656
By saying this are you confirming that you would accept a hypothetical approval of gay marriage?

[Anonymous No.19807671]

>>19807646
>It's one of the two exit ways for protestants who decide to read the bible.
Laughable. The only people who actually derive their theology from biblical exegesis are Protestants.

[Anonymous No.19807681]

>>19807671
>The only people who actually derive their theology from biblical exegesis are Protestants.
This is the sort of lie that people keep repeating and repeating until they assume its truth, despite all evidence against it.

Protestant theology (with the notable exception of Mennonites) consist of 6 - 10 verses cherry-picked and used to explain pastor Andrew or Bob doctrine; sometimes tampered verses like Luther's "alone" or KJV "only" that have been "magically" added. It's wrong to call what protestants do theology, much less pretend it has exegesis.

[Anonymous No.19807694]

>>19807681
You don't have any knowledge of this subject whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.19807703]

>>19807658
This is flawed reasoning. Saint Peter would say slavery is morally acceptable. It took the Church 1500 years to fully denounce and condemnt it.
>>19807668
If the pope pronounced it so, yes.

[Anonymous No.19807715]

>>19807703
Haha

[Anonymous No.19807720]

>>19807694
Here's the thing anon, I was born in Methodist church, my father was a pastor and I got a pretty deep religious education;

I know quite a lot about protestant theology (specially Methodist, but a lot about Baptists and Lutherans) and this knowledge was the reason why I quit. For some reason, it's always people who never read the bible; nor studied what the church stands for that keep saying "you know nothing, our theology is solid and deep".

But you don't need to trust me, pick your bible and go read it, if possible the Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ, and see by yourself what is written there.

[Anonymous No.19807726]

>>19807720
Demonstrate through exegesis the doctrine of Mary's in partu virginity.

[Anonymous No.19807738]

>>19807720
>Methodist
>pretty deep religious education
I doubt it. The type of shallow anti-intellectual practice you're referring to is exactly what is produced by Arminianism.

[Anonymous No.19807740]

>>19807726
How about we talk about the very core of Christianity, the teachings of Jesus Christ, instead of the token "theme to argue with Catholics"?

After all, the Mount Sermon was the only time in history where God sat down and directly taught us. He taught us about the Law that was not to be abolished, about how one must not worry about what to eat or drink, but seek the kingdom of God, about how we should fast, and how we should pray, about how we must do God's will and those who say "Lord, Lord" will not enter heaven... so much was taught there.

[Anonymous No.19807745]

>>19807738
You are right, but I'm also right.

I got an exceptionally deep education for an American protestant, I dare to say better than 99% of all churchgoers have. But it was still anti-intellectual, shallow, and I never got to read the whole NT during it.

[Anonymous No.19807761]

>>19807740
>instead of the token "theme to argue with Catholics"?
You are not a Catholic, correct? That is how I read your post. Are you Orthodox? Let's lay our cars on the table to make things clear. I am Reformed. Beyond that if you would like to make a point, go ahead.
>>19807745
I am sorry that is your experience, but it is not universal. Reformed theology holds a strong reverence for scripture and we perceive our preaching specifically to be the proclamation of the word of God. As such it is normal for sermons to be exegetically based and for the preacher to spend months of sermons working through each book verse by verse.

[Anonymous No.19807768]

>>19807761
>You are not a Catholic, correct?
No, currently I'm a Mennonite. I must say that despite their mistakes Catholics (and Orthodox) are closer to truth than mainstream protestants.

[Anonymous No.19807778]

>>19807768
I have a passing familiarity with Anabaptists but not with Mennonites specifically. Do you hold that good works are something that merits our salvation before God?

[Anonymous No.19807780]

>>19806924
>Because they want to convert Protestants back to Catholicism
They would stand a greater chance by having the single most excellent translation ever instead of not having a single one that isn't pretty terrible and bereft of the fingerprints of the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19807783]

>>19806924
You should follow the example of His Holiness the Vicar of Christ Pope Francis and get your local parish a statue of Martin Luther, that might help.

[Anonymous No.19807891]

You all DO own a copy, don't you?

[Anonymous No.19807894]

>>19807891

[Anonymous No.19807938]

>>19807891
>>19807894
Most of the OT seems to be finished as well now. I hope they also release that in an affordable version eventually.

[Anonymous No.19808044]

>>19807891
>>19807894
Give me a qrd on this and I might.

[Anonymous No.19808047]

>>19807778
>Do you hold that good works are something that merits our salvation before God?
Christ is very clear on Matthew 7:21 and many other passages, to not talk about the understanding of the whole

I'm sorry... the word game with Paul letters talking about the Pharisee law to deny works is just a word game.

[Anonymous No.19808110]

>>19808047
Paul cannot be referring specifically to the Mosaic Law because he makes application of the faith/works dichotomy to Abraham in Romans 4. If you are interpreting Matt. 7:21 to simply indicate a judgment according to works then you are likely in great trouble as Christ is condemning people who are able to cast out demons and perform miracles as workers of lawlessness (v. 22-23). The passage is best understood as referring to false prophets and teachers (2 Cor. 11:13-15).

[Anonymous No.19808115]

>>19808044
>Post in the Bible thread
>No interest in a new scholarly edition and translation of the entire Peshitta
Shame

[Anonymous No.19808132]

shroud of turin is a hoax right? you can't just "find" a valuable artifact after 1300 years right?

[Anonymous No.19808136]

>>19806147
>An inspiring Bible is to me more important than a strictly accurate one.
That says all that needs to be known about you.

[Anonymous No.19808137]

>>19808044
>I might be interested in something other than the Bible (King James)
Shame

[Anonymous No.19808143]

>>19808115
Oh, so it's a scholarly edition and not some dude's Lulu self-publish? What does the text look like? Which of the two versions posted would be preferable? How big is the volume? Is there any word on the OT?

Maybe you can actually answer questions for the Bible thread instead of being snarky, m8.

[Anonymous No.19808152]

>>19808132
>shroud of turin is a hoax right?
Of course it's not a hoax. Every attack against the Shroud has been debunked over decades by this Jew who has no reason to defend its authenticity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ8KRXDtCgI

[Anonymous No.19808163]

>>19807142
They all suck compared to the best Protestant ones. The iconic Protestant translations of predominantly Catholic cultures can be more accurate in some parts than iconic Protestant translations of predominantly Protestant cultures even.

[Anonymous No.19808183]

>>19808143
It's published by Gorgias Press which is an academic publisher for Syriac studies, Near Eastern Christianity, etc.
https://www.gorgiaspress.com/
One of the versions contains only the English translation and the other contains the English translation as well as the Syriac original, which would be useless if you don't know or plan to learn Syriac. The version with only the translation is 700 pages. The OT has been in progress and being released in parts; most seem to be finished now and the next release is 1 Maccabees. Each of the volumes is $150 currently and this was the case for the NT as well until they released the one volume version. If you search for gorgias syriac new testament on youtube there are one or two videos that show the physical copy.

[Anonymous No.19808197]

>>19808110
Please, avoid to trying to use Paul to overwrite Christ.

Jesus Christ is God, His word always comes first.

[Anonymous No.19808213]

>>19808197
I note you did actually address the substance of what I said about Matt. 7:21. Paul, as an apostle sent by Christ, had the authority to teach with Christ's authority.

1 Cor. 14:37 If anyone thinks that he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

[Anonymous No.19808217]

>>19808110
Admitting that Christ is God is not enough to save someone, as James made clear. Only a living faith in God can save someone; one that is more righteous than that of the pharisees (Matthew 5 and 7).

And how can one get a living faith that is sufficient to save?

[Anonymous No.19808232]

>>19808213
In the end of the day, protestantism boils down to picking Paul, overwriting Jesus Christ with him, and for some reason pretending this Paulinism is someone Christian.

[Anonymous No.19808238]

>>19808217
We are saved because 1.) our sins were imputed to Christ upon the cross and he bore the punishment therefore, and 2.) through faith in Christ, Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, so that we are counted righteous in God's sight.

2 Cor. 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Having been clothed in Christ's righteousness, by the indwelling work of the Spirit we are guided into greater obedience and conformity to God's will, which is evidenced by good works and an increasing holiness. This is also part of our salvation, understood broadly. But these things do not justify us. The righteousness that justifies us must be perfect (Matt. 5:48), and that righteousness is Christ's counted to us.

[Anonymous No.19808248]

>>19808238
So instead of a living faith as written in the bible, we are saved by some man made theory?

I'm sorry, you can copy paste the same Paul versicles over and over, every single time misunderstanding it in purpose; but only by having a living faith in Jesus one can be saved. Just saying his name as protestants usually do will lead to Matthew 7:21 and James.

[Anonymous No.19808263]

>>19808248
I quite clearly told you that the performance of good works are part of our salvation and you ignored it. I do not think that you are arguing with me in good faith, and I do not think that we have common ground to discuss these matters as you do not hold faith in the entire scriptures, but only those which you choose. I had previously not interacted with Anabaptists but having had this discussion I do now have a better understanding of the fervor with which the Reformers opposed your predecessors.

[Anonymous No.19808269]

>>19808238
>1.) our sins were imputed to Christ upon the cross

Protestants have such a lacking view of the atonement. I’m guessing you believe God punished God on the cross too?

Chapter and verse where it says Jesus was imputed our sins.


The only way a Protestant can ever support faith alone is through a misunderstanding of Paul’s letters. You CANNOT find it anywhere else, especially not in the gospels.

The Bible teaches we can lose our salvation. Having christs righteousness “imputed” to you doesn’t mean you can’t sin and shed yourself of that righteousness.

[Anonymous No.19808270]

>>19808183
>One of the versions contains only the English translation and the other contains the English translation as well as the Syriac original, which would be useless if you don't know or plan to learn Syriac.
I disagree. If you ever have a chance to get a side-by-side of a text with a historic language, you should always take it, especially if it seems to only cost $4 more. You don't think it'll be useful now? Well, what about a year from now? What if one day comes when you want to interact with the NT text in a way closer to how Jesus spoke? Or you want to word-match? If you're already paying one price for the English text, I don't see how $4 more for 300 more pages of the source text isn't a good deal.

[Anonymous No.19808273]

>>19808263
The reformers were obsessed with enforcing Calvin's doctrines at any and all costs; predestination is only a solution to problems invented by Calvin himself.

[Anonymous No.19808279]

>>19808263
Works are not directly the means to salvation, tho. They are the necessary means to obtain a living faith that can save.

Indirectly, works are necessary, without them faith is death and only leads to death.

[Anonymous No.19808289]

>>19808270
If you feel that way then go for it. I think many people buy bilingual editions because they think they can get some minor benefit out of the original, but Syriac is, well, pic related.

[Anonymous No.19808299]

>>19808269
>>19808279
What is the point of discussing this with you when you will dismiss any use of the New Testament outside of the Gospels? You do not acknowledge the authority of Christ's appointed teachers. It's pointless.

[Anonymous No.19808306]

>>19808299
We do not dismiss the rightful authority of Paul, apostle of Jesus Christ, we do dismiss your authority when you try to twist his letters to deny Christ.

Why do you think going against your faulty theology mean going against Paul?

[Anonymous No.19808313]

>>19808306
Do you agree with the teaching of Paul that all scripture is inspired by God? Do hold that Paul's letters are scripture?

[Anonymous No.19808317]

>>19808313
>Do you agree with the teaching of Paul that all scripture is inspired by God?
Of course, I just don't agree with your misguided interpretation of his letters.

And remember... if you're the kind of guy who thinks a single cherry-picked verse without context is valid... Matthew 15:24 exists.

[Anonymous No.19808327]

>>19808299
I have never said I rejected Paul’s authority. He preaches the true gospel. What I am saying is that if Paul’s letters are the only place you can find your theology, then you are probably interpreting his letters wrong. Which you are. The Bible says over and over you can lose your salvation. Even in Paul’s letters.

Also you said I reject the New Testament outside the gospels. The other letters of the other apostles exist and so does revelation. They all teach you can lose your salvation. Every New Testament book does.

[Anonymous No.19808333]

>>19808327
So do all Old Testament books. Only on the books of some protestant pastors and theologians, we find "salvation is a gift that cannot be lost".

[Anonymous No.19808344]

>>19808333
What are you saying?
I don’t understand

[Anonymous No.19808346]

Interesting.

[Anonymous No.19808357]

>>19808344
I'm saying that Old Testament books also make it clear forgiveness; won by means other of Christ, as it's before Christ; can be lost by sinning and disobeying God too.

Only in some protestant books, one can find evidence of "salvation is a gift that cannot be lost".

[Anonymous No.19808364]

>>19808333
No, salvation cannot be lost. A person can be in external covenant relation to Christ and fail to uphold his covenantal duties to faith, likewise a person can have a false or carnal profession of faith, but the elect cannot lose their salvation.

Rom. 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

The chain extends through this clearly, the ones who are foreknown are glorified. Our salvation is predestined. The ones that are given to Christ to save, he saves. He does not fail.

[Anonymous No.19808385]

>>19808364
>No, salvation cannot be lost.
This is a really nice catchphrase, but the scriptures speak against this many and many times.

>Rom. 8:29-30 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
Do you notice that in no part of this cherry-picked Paul versicle without context it's said a thing about salvation, but only about glory.

God indeed pick a few to do His work on earth, but why do you pretend being choose to prophesied in God's name or in to cast devils out in His name, or to do any miracle for His glory mean one is saved?

[Anonymous No.19808386]

>>19808346
It would appear to me that the Syriac-Eng version is using back to front pagination since Syriac is read right to left. This would get on my nerves lol, so I think I'd rather have the Eng only version

[Anonymous No.19808392]

>>19808385
>Do you notice that in no part of this cherry-picked Paul versicle without context it's said a thing about salvation, but only about glory.
Being conformed to the image of Christ, justified, and glorified do not equal salvation, huh? Okay I'm done.
>why do you pretend being choose to prophesied in God's name or in to cast devils out in His name, or to do any miracle for His glory mean one is saved?
I don't. Salvation is through faith. Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.19808404]

>>19808392
>I don't. Salvation is through faith. Have a good day.
In the end, protestantism boils down to this... trying to force-push a couple of Paul's versicles, and then saying a dogma and quitting.

I'll pray that before judgement, you read the bible, only one cherry-pick verses, understand what is written and convert from protestant to Christian.

[Anonymous No.19808406]

>>19808346
So pretty much the King James.

[Anonymous No.19808414]

>>19808406
Maybe, I don't know if this version has the forged KJ verses or not.

[Anonymous No.19808420]

>>19808414
Well the "prayer and fasting" right there on the page you've shown is one of the alleged "forgeries".

[Anonymous No.19808427]

>>19808364
commenataries on Romans 8:30
St Augustine : Are all those who are called justified? “Many are called, but few are chosen.” But since the elect have certainly been called, it is obvious that they have not been justified without being called. But not everyone is called to justification; only those “who are called according to his purpose.”

St Cyril of Alexandria :
“ Jesus said: “Come to me all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” He calls everyone to himself, and no one is lacking in the grace of his calling, for when he says everyone he excludes nobody. But those whom he long ago foresaw would come into being he predestined to participate in the future blessings and called them to receive justification by faith in him and not to sin again. .”

St chrysostom:
“ God justified them by the regeneration of baptism and glorified them by their adoption as sons..”

Where does this passage say that everyone who is once justified will remain justified until the end?


Ambrosiaster :
“ Those whom God foreknew would believe in him he chose to receive the promises. But those who appear to believe yet do not persevere in the faith are not chosen by God, because whoever God chooses will persevere. ”

Why do you have confidence that you’re of the elect?

[Anonymous No.19808441]

>>19808420
No, by forgery, I mean the words that were invented and added by the KJV authors. Stuff like adding a malicious comma in 1 John 5:7.

[Anonymous No.19808475]

>>19808441
That came from the Latin, not the "KJV authors". You should consider not speaking so certainly about things you do not really know.

[Anonymous No.19808478]

>>19808475
That come from the "latin version that totally exist and we used to produce KJ, but was lost and you cannot see it", not from the proper Latin translations.

[Anonymous No.19808496]

>>19808478
It was in the Old Latin and is rooted back to the 4th century so not at all as you are portraying. Apparently you have a demon.

[Anonymous No.19808497]

>>19808427
>Where does this passage say that everyone who is once justified will remain justified until the end?

> and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

[Anonymous No.19808506]

>>19808496
>It was in the Old Latin and is rooted back to the 4th century so not at all as you are portraying.
This is just a cope and you know it, if any other anon can understand Latin, please feel free to also tell how much of an empty bullshit cope this is.

>Apparently you have a demon.
Knowing Latin and not playing pretend with KJ forgery is being a demon now? kek.

[Anonymous No.19808510]

>>19808497
> God justified them by the regeneration of baptism and glorified them by their adoption as sons


Again, where does it say they achieved final salvation?
It doesn’t specify glorify means entrance into heaven. Provide another verse, please.

[Anonymous No.19808515]

>>19808506
OK Legion.

[Anonymous No.19808521]

>>19808515
>Q.: What is a demon to a protestant?
>A.: A guy who can understand Latin and point out our special translation is filled with forgery
Yeah, peak protestantism.

[Anonymous No.19808541]

>>19808510
That's what glorified means
Romans 8:16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

[Anonymous No.19808548]

>>19808541
>That's what glorified means
No, glorified doesn't mean saved. This sort of "let's pretend this word mean something else" trick is why protestant theology is a joke that leads people to hell.

[Anonymous No.19808556]

>>19808548
How is a person "glorified with christ" in hell?

[Anonymous No.19808557]

>>19808521
Wrong, I do not deny that it is a "forgery" (it's actually just a margin note that wound up getting copied into the primary of a manuscript), but it dates back at least to the Old Latin and was quoted into Liber Apologeticus in the 4th century.

[Anonymous No.19808561]

>>19801676
Great answer. May the spirit of god in you all the days of your life.

[Anonymous No.19808573]

>>19808556
Matthew 7:21 is extremely clear:
>(. . .) but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 7:21
Only by doing God's will one can be saved... a man can recieve God's favor and glory in this life, choose to not do His will and still end up damned.

[Anonymous No.19808578]

>>19808557
The problem with the "it was in the old Latin texts" story is that it's just false.

Why do you keep insisting so hard, to the point of lying, over some topic of minor importance?

[Anonymous No.19808581]

>>19808573
It says we are "glorified with Christ" not that we are "glorified by Christ". We are not with Christ being glorified with him in this life. It is referring to the glory we will enter in heaven. Your interpretation of this is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.19808595]

>>19808581
>We are not with Christ being glorified with him in this life. It is referring to the glory we will enter in heaven
Now this is some bullshit that came from nowhere... just amazing.

Really where did you took so many lies and mistakes from?

Glorified means glorified... does your "theology" need to pretend glorified means something else to work?

[Anonymous No.19808596]

>>19808573
Also what is this glory that is received during life that you refer to? Can you illuminate this from scripture? Favor is not the same as glory.

[Anonymous No.19808597]

>>19808581
Can you give another verse instead of repeating the same thing?
That verse is talking about people god predestines. You don’t know if you’re predestined or not. Give me a verse that talks about EVERYONE, not just the predestined

[Anonymous No.19808605]

>>19808595
This is laughable man.
>>19808597
The only people who are saved are those who are predestined.

[Anonymous No.19808609]

>>19808596
>Favor is not the same as glory.
>But glorified MUST mean salvation so my protestant religion can exist
I'm tempted to joke and say, because of reasons two words mean the same... but I'm no protestant.

Glorified mean receiving glory as extensively show in the Old Testament, in the many times and ways God glorified his kinds and prophets.

[Anonymous No.19808611]

>>19802085
Read the Old Testament in conjunction with the New Testament. Paul said the history of the children of Israel would be an example, literally types, for us as the spiritual children of god. Christ is implied or expressed through every part of the Old Testament. So, read 1 Corinthians 10, and focus on verses 5-13. I hope and pray the spirit will come to dwell in you so you may live again by the grace and peace of Christ. Take all pleasure in the Word of God, for the Word is God.

[Anonymous No.19808622]

>>19808605
>This is laughable man.
Sure anon... you demanding others to accept glorified mean saved because your whole religion depends on this is good and sound, but someone calling your bullshit is laughable.

No surprise the fruits of protestantism are atheism, materialism, wealth worship and ultimatelly hell.

[Anonymous No.19808633]

>>19808605
> The only people who are saved are those who are predestined

This is true. Saved means you persevere until the end. Where does the Bible say everyone who is “once saved” will remain saved until the end?

[Anonymous No.19808636]

>>19808578
>doesn't actually know shit at all about biblical textual history
>buys expensive niche Syriac volume
Legion has inspired the spirit of hipsterism.

[Anonymous No.19808644]

>>19808386
If you can read a Hebrew interlinear or manga, you can read that version.

[Anonymous No.19808662]

>>19808636
What are you talking about, I only know Greek and Latin, and never found a version including KJ forgeries... certain words and verses have been added and only exist in a post 1600s English translation... this is clearly corruption.

[Anonymous No.19808683]

Arguing with this Anabaptist is going to convince me to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Words don't mean anything that they normally mean, they can just mean whatever. There's no possible way to discuss anything because our theological language becomes based in nothing.

[Anonymous No.19808698]

>>19808683
>arguing with Anabaptist is going to convince me to crypto worship "Mary"

[Anonymous No.19808705]

>>19808683
Words mean what they mean, pretending glorified = saved, or glorified = favored are both copes that can only misguide and lead man to hell.

>>19808698
What is worse, to worship Mary as a Catholic or to worship Mammon as a protestant?

[Anonymous No.19808724]

>>19808683
If you're used to pretending "glorified" equals "saved", it may feel normal, but it's still wrong.

Just like, pagans are used to worship many deities, and the word "God" will normally mean something far different from what it should mean to them.

[Anonymous No.19808726]

>>19808705
All Caths/Orths worship "Mary" but only many Protestants worship Mammon. Narrow is the Way.

[Anonymous No.19808737]

>>19808726
I'd say the opposite, most Caths worship Mary while every single protestant worship Mammon.

Broad is the way that leads to hell, and many prefer to use false theologies that lead to Mammon on purpose.

[Anonymous No.19808750]

>>19808737
>while every single protestant worship Mammon.
bearing false witness is apparently part of the narrow way

[Anonymous No.19808752]

>>19808726
>but only many Protestants worship Mammon.
Here is where you're wrong, protestantism is by design the worship of Mammon. The only protestant that can escape this is he who ignore all dogma, doctrine and teaching of protestant denominations

[Anonymous No.19808760]

>>19808750
It's not false witness to say that Calvin doctrines lead Mammon worship. Maybe if you follow some ancient form of Lutheranism, you can still be a protestant and not worship Mammon... but still.

[Anonymous No.19808772]

>>19808760
"Every single Protestant" is what you said. You said you grew up a Methodist so I imagine some negative experience of that has burned your psyche and caused you to be filled with hate like this. I will pray for you.

[Anonymous No.19808773]

>>19803007
NASB for literal meaning.

[Anonymous No.19808783]

>>19808772
Tell me anon, have you stopped worrying about what you'll eat, wear or drink, and only cared about seeking the Kingdom of Heaven?

Or have your doctrine or church lead you to not do what Christ tell his followers to do? The doctrine of "saved by faith alone" can only lead to a purposefully death faith that cannot save.

[Anonymous No.19808788]

>>19808726
Give me a verse please. I’m waiting ….

[Anonymous No.19808817]

>>19808772
He's not wrong, tho. One of the unforeseen consequences of Calvin's theology is to push people into worshiping Mammon, and very few denominations that come after managed to get rid of this unfortunate consequence.

[Anonymous No.19808820]

>>19808788
Exactly, most of Cath/Orth isn't Scriptural.

[Anonymous No.19808829]

>>19808820
A verse about not losing salvation. I’ve literally waited an hour at this point lol

[Anonymous No.19808839]

>>19808820
He's asking about a verse about not losing salvation... the very corner stone of protestantism.

If anything, it's protestantism as a whole who is based on wishful think thinking instead of scriptures.

[Anonymous No.19808861]

>>19808829
Here is it, salvation cannot be lost:
> For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
2 Peter 2:20-22

[Anonymous No.19808878]

>>19808861
Lmaoo
I’m still waiting to hear from him. I think I’m going to go shower…

[Anonymous No.19808936]

>>19808726
the catholic church literally had people give them money for tickets to heaven and declared they are infallible, meaning they were in the right to do so

[Anonymous No.19808942]

>>19808829
Do you realize that you are speaking with multiple people and that there are various strands of conversation occurring simultaneously? I've not been involved in that particular aspect.

[Anonymous No.19808946]

>>19808936
And they fixed those practices... still waiting for protestants to stop worshiping Mammon.

[Anonymous No.19808949]

>>19808942
Yes. Im still waiting for him to reply

[Anonymous No.19808956]

>>19808949
>Hebrews 6:4-6 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

[Anonymous No.19808990]

>>19808946
>And they fixed those practices
what is there to fix though? by declaring themselves infallible they made it clear that they dont make mistakes and they were doing gods will.

[Anonymous No.19808998]

>>19808990
>what is there to fix though?
I mean being humble, recognizing you are wrong and banning indulgence... something protestants could never do.

[Anonymous No.19809062]

>>19808956
Crucifying again is talking about re baptism.
“Theodoret of Cyr: It is out of the question, he is saying, for those who have approached all-holy baptism, shared in the grace of the divine Spirit and received the type of the eternal goods to make their approach again and be granted another baptism”

“Ephrem the Syrian: “It is impossible to restore again to repentance” through a second baptism “those who have once been baptized,6573 who have tasted the heavenly gift” through the medicine which they received, “have become partakers of the Holy Spirit” through the gifts received from the Spirit, “have tasted the goodness of the Word of God” in the new gospel and were armed with the power of the age to come in the promises prepared for the pious ones, but now “have fallen away” again. Those who propose two baptisms ask for the crucifixion again of the Son of God and for his dishonor. But crucifixion was performed once and will not be performed once more, and baptism was conceded as an “absolver” and is not conceded a second time to the sinner.”

“Severian of Gabala: The apostles raised the dead. And this was the power of the resurrection. He said, “hold him up to contempt,” because if baptism is a mystery, it suffices once and for all. And if the matter happens a second time, it is an act of despising and ridicule.”

[Anonymous No.19809069]

>>19808998
....but they literally declared that it was gods will and not a mistake because they are infallible, thats not being humble, thats sweeping it under the rug

[Anonymous No.19809089]

>>19809069
This is what I never understood, in protestant talk Catholics do one thing, in real life they do another.

The Catholic Church admit being mistaken and went back on doctrines and laws many times. The "muh infallible" is only about current Church rules and doctrines standing until they are changed or removed.

[Anonymous No.19809150]

>>19809089
Indulgences aren’t banned lol.
Selling indulgences was banned. That was never officially approved by the church, obviously…

[Anonymous No.19809181]

>>19809150
>Indulgences aren’t banned lol.
Giving indulgences of any kind was banned in late 1600s.

What still exist are indulgences promised for deeds like studying the bible daily or doing charity whenever you can.

[Anonymous No.19809207]

>>19809181
It’s not banned and it was never banned. What was banned was their sale

[Anonymous No.19809223]

>>19809207
Selling was banned in mid 1600s, giving indulgences (bishops could to this) was banned in late 1600s... do you really need to insist on a convenient lie to feel right?

[Anonymous No.19809245]

>>19809223
Proof ?
I don’t see anything online about that.

“ While reasserting the place of indulgences in the salvific process, the Council of Trent condemned “all base gain for securing indulgences” in 1563, and Pope Pius V abolished the sale of indulgences in 1567.”

[Anonymous No.19809251]

>>19809245
Not him but:
>Reforms in the 20th century largely abolished the quantification of indulgences, which had been expressed in terms of days or years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

Don't pretend to not find when you have ill will.

[Anonymous No.19809285]

>>19809251
What Ill will?
You said indulgences were banned and they aren’t.
I don’t even know what qualifications of indulgences is. You mean when it said it remits x amount of years?
Obviously no one does that anymore.

In my opinion, it was scholastic eccentricity

[Anonymous No.19809314]

>>19809285
I'm was saying given indulgences were banned, like a bishop saying "do this for me, and you'll be spared 10 days in purgatory".

Indulgences for things like reading the bible daily, helping the sick, win over and addiction were still a thing.

[Anonymous No.19809333]

>>19809314
Ok whatever. Doesn’t really change what I said. I think we misunderstood each other

[Anonymous No.19809338]

>>19809333
Yeah, I guess so.

[Anonymous No.19809369]

>>19809338
God bless

[Anonymous No.19809428]

>>19809223
Yet the current Pope gave "indulgences" for "retweets" or something like that.

[Anonymous No.19809435]

I never got the verse about not losing salvation.

Huh…
Seems like it doesn’t exist?

[Anonymous No.19809438]

>>19809428
There have been indulgences for sharing prayers since the start of Christendom; the pope solved a question if sharing a prayer by digital means is included or not on this.

It's like you guys get mocked versions of what is happening as news.

[Anonymous No.19809443]

>>19809435
Here is it:
>>19808956
>>19808861
Two verses about losing salvation. You should read the bible.

[Anonymous No.19809520]

What's a good full protestant commentary on all of the bible? Not looking for anything too deep like Calvin, just something to read alongside the Oxford Study Bible and Orthodox Study Bible footnotes

[Anonymous No.19809552]

>>19809438
Weird how "indulgences" aren't mentioned in Scripture.

[Anonymous No.19809561]

>>19809520
Moody is pretty good overall. The ESV Study Bible notes and articles are generally excellent. Read what your OSB says about Mary types. Absolutely Satanic.

[Anonymous No.19809571]

>>19809561
Mary types, like what?

[Anonymous No.19809573]

>>19809552
The same goes with computers... not a single mention of a computer in the bible, better stop using these non-Christians things, right?

[Anonymous No.19809582]

>>19809520
Best interpretation of the Book of Revelations I've come across so far. Yes, I know it's not Protstant but still.

[Anonymous No.19809588]

>>19809571
It says even the burning bush of Moses was a "type of Mary", and that Mary was the culmination of all of Israel's historical hope. It's all right there in your "Orthodox™" Study "Bible".

[Anonymous No.19809590]

>>19809520
Not protestant, but try St. John Chrysostom comments on Romans, and the two letters to the Corinthians.

[Anonymous No.19809604]

>>19809588
>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

[Anonymous No.19809610]

>>19809588
Well is that what Orthodox Christians believe or not? It's not like I have a horse in this race.. I am only reading it because the Oxford notes are too academic and Jewish. The notes in OSB at least give some Christian insight into the old testament books.

[Anonymous No.19809616]

>>19809610
This is what always bother me, why do protestant notes have to always be so Jewish?

[Anonymous No.19809618]

>>19809604
I'll give you the burning bush part but that last line isn't wrong. Mary was asked if she wanted to give birth to the Messiah and she said yes. Things could have been much different had she declined.

[Anonymous No.19809640]

>>19809618
Well then you are working under absolutely severe lacks of understanding. CHRIST and CHRIST ALONE is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. CHRIST and CHRIST ALONE 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.

[Anonymous No.19809670]

>>19809640
And who was it that gave birth to Christ?

[Anonymous No.19809672]

>>19809640
And here you are, using some verses of Paul in a word game to overwrite CHRIST.

[Anonymous No.19809673]

>>19809573
Computers aren't being claimed as church doctrine by the "One True Church™".

[Anonymous No.19809692]

>>19809673
>Computers aren't being claimed as church doctrine by the "One True Church™".
They are, my ill willed friend. The Church doctrine is vast and deep, and it does include the digital means. But it's ok... you can separate religion from anything invented since Christ and live like a pagan if the bible explicitly don't talk about certain thing...

>"One True Church™"
Also, Catholics are not baptists to make this claim... it's funny, every single tiny baptist church founded 40 years ago is the "only and first".

[Anonymous No.19809701]

>>19809673
Catholic doctrine do talk about the usage of computers... it's only that as a protie you're used to religion being skin deep and only talking about limited topic on Sunday.

[Anonymous No.19810009]

>>19810007
New