[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

Search:


View post   

>> No.19479439 [View]
File: 195 KB, 800x1060, 1C3455C4-66DF-4C27-BC5E-B9935FA9DD6C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19479439

What can I expect from the Church around Christmas time?

>> No.19445923 [View]
File: 195 KB, 800x1060, CB0D081F-DAB9-417F-9745-AF756FBA97FD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19445923

>>19445603
>Whether it's the perpetual virginity
This one is so easy to understand. People point to Matthew 1:25, which reads “but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.” as proof against the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity, but the preposition ἕως translated as ‘until’ here doesn’t mean that Joseph had sex with her after Jesus was born at all. Read it as ‘up to the point’ instead of ‘until’ and it will make sense. We can just look at similar verses that will demonstrate the point better, such as 2 Samuel 6:23:
>And Melchol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.
Septuagint reads:
>καὶ τῇ Μελχὸλ θυγατρὶ Σαοὺλ οὐκ ἐγένετο παιδίον ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας τοῦ ἀποθανεῖν αὐτήν.
There’s that ἕως again. Did Michal (Melchol) have a child after the day she died? No.

Matthew 28:20 provides another example:
>And behold, I am with you always, to (ἕως) the end of the age.”
Will Christ not be with us after the end of the age? Of course He will. Again, it means essentially ‘up to the point’

Mary was clearly a virgin, and perpetually so.

t. not even Roman Catholic

>> No.19427322 [View]
File: 195 KB, 800x1060, 286E873C-7742-4500-99D7-BEFCE9E5F495.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19427322

>>19427312
Seething Buddhoid. Jesus Christ told His disciples to baptize ALL nations in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

>> No.19410875 [View]
File: 195 KB, 800x1060, CBC67C54-FC33-4BC9-9A26-EC2E8A993CA7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19410875

>Notice that nothing is said of the divinity of Jesus
“Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God” — ‘come in the flesh’ is clearly a reference to the incarnation and is similar in nature to John 1:14 which says “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us”. Clearly teaching a pre-existent Christ. 1 John also has language that Islam would find unacceptable. 1 John 1:7 says that “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 4:9 says that “God sent His one and only Son into the world, so that we may live through Him.” 1 John 4:10 mentions Jesus’ death as an atonement for sins again. This again is more proof that the Jesus referred to by John, the same John who wrote the Gospel of John affirming the divinity of Christ, is not compatible with any Islamic narrative. 1 John 5:20 completely BTFOs you too:
>And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we have know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true–in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Repent. Actually read the Bible, please, and stop quote-mining

>> No.19393525 [View]
File: 195 KB, 800x1060, 03EF112C-608A-4BE1-82A2-6C89F98B74AE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19393525

>less than 24 hours until Divine Liturgy
You are going, aren’t you, anons?

>> No.19280231 [View]
File: 195 KB, 800x1060, 1A60528C-1002-43D0-9C78-AB21E3258B28.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19280231

>>19280117
Ignorance is bliss

Navigation
View posts[+24][+48][+96]