/lit/ - Literature

>reading the bible
Not very /lit/
This is a Guenon (pbuh) board
Catholics are hylics though, no question

>>15331505
...and Hylics are based. Also it's a much cooler name than their opposite, i.e. Psychics. Lol go fetch your crystal ball and read my palm psychic. That's the level of inquiry you and your french weirdo belong to.

And yet you haven't posted a single quote from the Bible supporting your claim.

Cousins were called brothers. End of thread. Sage

>>15331175
The Bible literally says that some of Jesus's "brothers" are children of a different woman, not Mary. Also, Eusebius records one of Jesus's "brothers" giving talks in various early churches about what it was like to have God for a COUSIN

>>15331175
Read ur kjv, son.

>>15331175
Cringe hylic.

>>15331505
>Guenon
literally who

>>15331505
nice falseflag, Guenon often quotes the bible

>>15331980
This.

>>15331980
How do you know this?

>>15331175
Why are people replying to this thread? The poster is clearly a muslims, his use of mental faculties are long gone.

>>15332574
>The poster is clearly a muslims
Not necessarily. Protestants almost universally accept that Jesus had biological siblings.

Christianity is incoherent, just like Islam and Judaism

>>15332582
Good cause reality is incoherent too

>>15332583
Actually Hinduism makes more sense out of God than Abrahamic religions do, most likely because it's not based on a book or institution claiming a monopoly on the one true God but instead is based on direct experience and wisdom

>>15332591
OK pajeet, take your meds

>>15332583
Think about how many people chose damnation over the last few centuries because some toy physics model seemed "more coherent" to them.

>>15331983
How about you cite something not made up hundreds of years later?

>>15331962
>>15331980
>>15331983
>>15332013
>>15332033
Catholic cope
Ancient Greek is not ambiguous on cousin vs brother like Aramaic
Corinthians:
>Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

COPE HARDER

>>15331842
Hylic makes me think of zelda
Based?

>>15331175
>Thomas Aquinas said that although reason could not prove Mary's perpetual virginity it must be accepted because it was "fitting", for as Jesus was the only-begotten son of God, so he should also be the only-begotten son of Mary.
kek. imagine how easy it was to be an “””intellectual””” back then, you could just say whatever dumb shit came to mind and everyone else would shrug their shoulders and agree

>>15331175
>implying only Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accept the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary
You realize its a traditional Protestant view as well right?

>trying to argue with abrahamists
You should know by now that it's impossible. Most of the "christians" on this board have never read the bible, they follow it because they think it's the fundation of "western values", which they have no idea what they even are (because they don't exist). They are the internet atheists of our time, taking the contrarian position to epicly trigger the libs and dems (instead of their republican parents like the atheists). Give them a few years and they will cringe at the memories of their time as internet crusaders.

>>15335980
I agreed until you said that "western values" don't exist.

Mary has been confirmed as a virgin by her numerous apparitions.

>>15336006
What are they? What even is the west? By most definitions it seems to be liberal values, but thats hardly the values that most 4channers mean and is itself a very recent invention, which is why I say they don't exist.

>>15335619
>Incest is to be forbidden because it would complicate family life. Against brother-sister incest there is a very curious argument: that if the love of husband and wife were combined with that of brother and sister, mutual attraction would be so strong as to cause unduly frequent intercourse

Reminder that these are the sort of genius musings Aquinas came up with that have embedded him in the Catholic canon

>>15335980
I'd say western values vaguely exist in the writings of greek and roman pagans
It's pretty telling that christcucks inevitably fall back to defending arguments for the existence of a pagan prime mover as opposed to the god of jesus the redeemer
Christians inevitably educate themselves into paganism LOL

no larper rebuttals?
figures desu

>>15331175
Oh no some retard on 4chan made a bunch of dumb assertions about my religion what ever will I do?!?

>>15338085
I couldn't help but notice you lack an argument

>>15338085
If they’re dumb it would seem they’d be easy to refute

>>15338093
>>15338094
Oh noooo!

>>15338142

>prots use shitty translation and get theology wrong

LMAO. proves Sola scriptura is fucking retarded.

>>15338208
>Every translation, from NRSV and NASB, to ESV and NIV, to The Message... is wrong!

How many layers of cope is this?

>>15338303
Yeah you mistranslated and now you have errors. Have you never read the differences in the translations? It could be pretty obvious you could make some errors concerning things like brother and brethren. Also not to mention prots are probably confused over the multiple different Mary's in the Gospels. You need the Church through the Holy Spirit to explain it to you. Otherwise you'll have 40k different denominations telling their own version of the bible.

>>15338363
>It could be pretty obvious you could make some errors concerning things like brother and brethren. Also not to mention prots are probably confused over the multiple different Mary's in the Gospels. You need the Church through the Holy Spirit to explain it to you

You're appealing to the Church to explain the gospels, and bringing up "different Mary's"
Are you literally too retarded to even read the OP?

>>15338436
338436
Prots continue ignore the early church. You don't have apostolic succession and you don't have sacraments. You don't even eat and drink Our Lord, because you can't. Lol. No eternal life without doing this... You did get that translation right?

>>15334152
I did, I cited the Gospels. Eusebius is not scripture, but its worth considering

>>15338490
At least you admit you don't follow the bible, but a cult

>>15338506
>I did, I cited the Gospels
You didn't, what do you hope to gain out of such a pointlessly obvious lie. You realize you are sinning, right?

>>15331175
>(1.) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2.) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3.) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4.) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphæus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

Protestants BTFO by Papias, one of the earliest extant Church Fathers

>>15338580
>citing a fragment of a work produced 100 years after Corinthians
What a weak argument, you may as well cite Luke or one of the fraudulent Paulines if you're this desperate.

>>15338627
The Gospel itself says what Papias is saying. You're just being willfilly ignorant.

Ignorant, illiterate, stupid and easily manipulated shitbags. Christians are on a whole other level of subhumane and should be culled with the appropriate means. Given that they'd all go to heaven according to their jewish god we could genocide them without any issue.

>>15338639
I'm being willfully ignorant by honestly reading the Bible?
Why is it that you are so committed to twisting the words of the Bible to fit the narrative of later heretics?

>>15338627
I can't imagine you're talkin bout the Luke of the Bible, or you're denying the word of God
>>15338639
Matt 13:55 explicitly states that Jesus had brothers with the names James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, 13:56 stating he has sisters without naming them, which isnt an uncommon trend. Read an interlinear before you try to argue against this, Matt 12:46 reaffirms his having brothers

>>15338822
>I can't imagine you're talkin bout the Luke of the Bible, or you're denying the word of God
There is no rational reason to deny Marcan priority or that half the Pauline epistles are pseudepigrapha

>>15331980
This is some high level coping.
Makes sense, you've had a good couple thousand years of practice at it!

>>15338653

You literary kind of sound like a spastic retard.

>>15338687
Because if Apostlic tradition is wrong, the Holy Spirit is a liar. Tradition says Jesus was an only child. The scriptures are not abundantly clearon the point, but it can be strongly argued both ways. I side with tradition rather than endlessly proliferating sola scriptura Bapticostal church splits

>>15331980
/thread.

>>15338892
So you don't believe in multiple chunks of the Bible, for what reason? They were given by God, and you're telling me that what God had made to be written down for future Christians is not true?
Please explain- this is high caliber mental gymnastics if what I'm saying isn't misrepresenting what you said

>>15338523
Cult is a word normies use which really means a religion people actually take seriously.

>>15338303
>>15338363
All (literal) translations have small problems.
The original greek exists, and we can use an Interlinear to surpass those problems.

>The Message... is wrong!
Very- the less literal a translation gets, 99% of the time it is straying from truth. The Message is a good example of that, especially with how paraphrased it is.

>You need the Church through the Holy Spirit to explain it to you. Otherwise you'll have 40k different denominations telling their own version of the bible
Read the bible, and it is pretty easy to see why the denominations are wrong, you don't choose a church to explain the Bible to you, you choose the Bible to explain the church to you, and compare the churches you see to what it says.

>>15339032
I have the strong impression you are being disingenuous, so please alleviate me of that impression
Are you saying that that any textual understanding of the Bible means there is no message behind it? That acknowledging the J and E sources which lead to various contradictions invalidates the entire Bible to you?
What is it exactly you are implying by resisting the textual priority Mark possesses?

>>15338523
>>15339043
By most definitions of Cult, if you follow the Bible and are apart of the Church, then you are apart of a cult-
>In modern English, a cult is a social group that is defined by its unusual religious, spiritual, or philosophical beliefs, or by its common interest in a particular personality, object or goal.
1.)There is quite a bit of the Bible that needs to be followed that most would consider "unusual" 2.)Obviously there is a common goal- obey God

>Literal and original sense of the word remains in use in the English language, a derived sense of "excessive devotion"
Excessive devotion is necessary when following what God has made known.

Calling a Christian a cultist is a complement in disguise, and it shows what you truly believe

>>15339103
Can you explain how Mark has textual priority? I can't say I understand why the concept of Marcan priority has arised, nor it's true implications without misconstruing it negatively. And- what do you mean by "the J and E sources which lead to various contradictions.."- are those biblical contradictions?
Before I give an honest thought to it, I'd need some actual understanding of this concept, 'cause the only thing I think I understand so far is that the gospel of Mark is somehow more important

>>15331175
If Mary had sons why would Jesus have his beloved disciple take her as his mother in John 19:26-27?

>>15332591
>he hasn't heard of the Vedas
Oh nonono

>>15334223
No you retard. Jesus' brothers were by the same father but different mothers

>>15339157
>Can you explain how Mark has textual priority? I can't say I understand why the concept of Marcan priority has arised, nor it's true implications without misconstruing it negatively
Because current (and growing) consensus for a long time now places Mark before Matt and Luke chronologically in composition, but more importantly, that Matt and Luke are derivative of Mark. This does not mean Luke (or Matt) posses nothing unique or valuable, but it is extremely important to understand who and when this writings are originating. Which helps lead into...

>And- what do you mean by "the J and E sources which lead to various contradictions.."- are those biblical contradictions?
For the same reason above, it is important to understand the history of the text. Otherwise you may as well believe any scrap of paper claiming to be the word of Jesus. There are many obvious contradictions in the Bible, this is an obvious result of anything written down by and copied, transmitted by human hands. A leading theory for the Old Testament is that multiple traditions merged, resulting in some of the reappearing and often contradicting pairs of claims. The easiest example might be the contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2:4. Rather than engage in pointless apologetic pilpul, it seems to me to be more fruitful to understand the fact that in this instance, these two traditions merged (J and E). This is only a problem if you are some sort of inerrantist or literalist. Which is an obvious pitfall, as Paul pointed out in Galatians by showing Isaac and Ishmael as allegorical figures for Christianity and Judaism.

>>15339188
Joseph, Jesus' father, was described as a "Just" man, explain how it would have been different mothers if his is true. Not to mention, there are no verses supporting that claim anyways.

>>15339225
>explain how it would have been different mothers if his is true
He was a widower, says Jerome

>>15339225
Poligamy was allowed in Judaism.

>>15339249
It was also discouraged, it is unlikely a Just man would take more than 1 wife. Also, nothing is mentioned of Joseph having another wife anywhere in the Bible anyways

>>15339236
I don't know who Jerome is, but there is literally no evidence of this being true in the Bible, and how could he have been a widower while Mary was still alive?

>>15339341
>I don't know who Jerome is
Pathetic
>how could he have been a widower while Mary was still alive
Mary was his second wife, according to Jerome

I don't even accept Jerome's position, but it attests to the consensus of the Fathers that Mary had no other children herself. May I remind you that there is no where in the Bible that says it is materially sufficient and requiring no elaboration by subsequent tradition

>>15339214
Consensus of people who don't follow the Bible on how the Bible should be followed seems a little fishy
>Matt and Luke are derivative of Mark
They are different accounts of the same event, I don't see how that is a problem. And I don't see how the chronological appearance is relevant.
>Otherwise you may as well believe any scrap of paper claiming to be the word of Jesus
Almost all of the new testament was written by apostles, and they had inspiration by god to write what they wrote. If the writings were not inspired, then you could throw the whole thing away.
> Genesis 1 and 2:4
Is not a contradiction, Genesis 1 stated the order of what happened, 2:4 just states what happened. ex: "I walked my dog then i walked Jakes dog" and "I walked jakes dog and my dog yesterday" are not conflicting.

>>15339369
>no where in the Bible that says it is materially sufficient

1.) Matt 12:46
>, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him.
2.) Matt 13:55-56
>"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? and His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?
3.) John 2:12
>,He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples

>>15331175
>The oldest, most legitimate Gospel (Mark)
How is one Gospel more legitimate to another?

>>15339447
If its so obvious, why has tradition gone against it?

>>15339479
>tradition
explain please? If something is going against the word of God, it doesn't matter whether or not it's tradition. Tradition was warned against due to the judaising israelites who wanted to keep the old ways and have the new gospels they have heard even though they are incompatible

>>15339400
And now we stop. You clearly do not care to study the texts, so there is no point in discussing them with you.

>>15339501
Jesus also prayed for unity, which is manifestly incompatible with sola scriptura

>>15339547
How so? You do things by the word of God and not the word of Man, Unity is inherently within the word of God. Jesus didn't pray for their to be an uncountable amount of denominations that discard the Bible in exchange for self-fulfillment. Denominationalism is evil

>>15339575
>Denominationalism is evil
How can we end denominationalism without apostolic authority?

>>15339581
Authority belongs to God, and God has lain out how the church is to conduct itself in the Bible. Denominationalism can't be ended because most people will refuse to follow God's word, but the Church true to the word of God still exists, even amongst all the denominations around it. denominations just make it harder to find and easier to avoid.

>>15331175
Notice how OP left out pr*testants

>>15331175
>Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox all worship Jesus, accept his sacrifice, accept his divinity, accept him as Lord and Savior, and agree that he performed miracles, rose from the dead, and was crucified.
> continue to argue about trivial aspects of Jesus's life and the people surrounding him.
> Accuse each other of heresy
> Accuse each other of not really being Christians
> telling each other to "cope," "seethe," and "dilate" over the internet.

I pray that God comes down from heaven right now and sorts all this out. You think Christians would be more united in agreement seeing as they all have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Christians literally all understand and agree that the entire universe was created so that Jesus Christ could redeem the sins of the humanity. They all understand and agree that Atheists, Pantheists, Panentheists, Deists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Ba'hais, Sikhs, Jains, Shintos, Unitarian Universalists and the countless flavors of indigenous tribal belief systems have it wrong.

So why do they continue to infight? Why are their schisms? There is nothing to discuss. They have accepted Jesus Christ. Their souls are saved. The enemies of Christ will burn in hell when he returns and judges them. What is there to argue about? The details literally shouldn't matter by the very logic of the religion.

Surely there aren't any internal contradictions in the doctrine leading to mass confusion among the adherents. Surely this isn't all just some kind of socio-hierarchical structure meant to comfort people in the face of death and moderate their behavior.

5/5 Christians agree: Christ is Lord, was crucified, resurrected, saved humanity.

>>15339828
Despite 5/5 Christians agreeing on that, most will refuse to follow the Bible. And as far as threads like this go, there can be quite a bit of fruitful discussion, even if it is over less important aspects. That being said, too many people do sling insults at one another, and it is sad

>>15339864
>Despite 5/5 Christians agreeing on that, most will refuse to follow the Bible.

Well, for most of Christian history, the laity were, on average, not educated or literate enough to read the bible. They relied on the priesthood for the interpretation of scripture, the reading of scripture, the confession and forgiveness of sins, and the prescription of penitent acts. Only after King James translated the bible into common middle English, only after the printing press allowed faster and wider dissemination of bibles, only after early modernity increased literacy, did you see commoners reading the bible themselves. This coincided with the protestant reformation, and the protestant reformation resulted in a huge increase in the number and variety of Christian sects. Interpretation of scripture was suddenly up to the laity reading the bible in their own homes, and divorced from the central church, and the direct interpretation of ordained clergy, who were subservient to the Roman Pope, or the Greek Patriarch, or whatever other church hierarchy. once the interpretation of Christianity became decentralized the number of interpretations of Christianity increased drastically. The holy bible, containing the old and the new testaments, and which is the unerring, complete, and eternal word of God, went through countless translations, and is interpreted differently by different individuals. Some people consider modern translations poor, and prescribe, for instance, the King James version. And yet, most people are not educated to read or understand Middle English, even though it was the informal and common English of the era in which it was written. You might see this as an indictment of the education system, or a testament to the stupidity of individuals, but Christ is supposed to be accessible to the most remote hunter-gatherer, or someone with down syndrome. Should it really matter which translation they read? The bible is the Word of God. It was the word of God in Hebrew, it was the word of God in Aramaic, it was the word of God in Greek. It was the word of God before the clergy at the council of Nicea decided which parts were canon and which were not. It was the word of God in Latin. It was the word of God in Middle English. Now it is the word of God in Modern English, and all its various translations, be they Chinese, Japanese, etc.

God guides the translation of the bible so there can be no inconsistency or disagreement. If there were, then that would mean that the bible is man-made, and therefore fallible. This cannot be the case because Jesus Christ died for our sins.

>>15339973
>God guides the translation of the bible so there can be no inconsistency or disagreement. If there were, then that would mean that the bible is man-made, and therefore fallible.
Anon...

>>15339332
Salomon had 700 wives and God didn't give a damn.

>>15339973
>God guides the translation of the Bible
Yeah that's why there are so many different translations.

>>15339992
Yes, Anon?

>>15331175
It's not Aquinas fault. The First Council of Nicaea at the behest of Constantine created a political document called the Bible. Any writing they felt disagreed with the State Authorized Bible was buried or locked away. Heck they left the Gospel of Thomas out which has the Sayings of Jesus in it.

>>15339973
That closing sentence is almost true. That doesn't change that most people refuse to follow the Bible. They refuse to follow it because it doesn't "fit" their life. Man loves sin, and will go to a denomination that doesn't follow the bible so that he doesnt have to stop sinning.
Also, see >>15340032
Although we have the resources to know what God wants through the Bible, you can not say all translations are guided. especially when things such as the "gay bible" exist.

>>15340032
Well, people speak many different languages. After the tower of babel, God knew he would need a way to reveal the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to people of all the different tongues, so he guided the translation of the Holy Bible into all the languages. Except the ones it hasn't been translated into. Jesus Christ has saved everyone who believes in him, so if God hasn't translated the bible into certain languages, then that means those people weren't worth saving, for reasons which can only be understood by God.

>>15336061
This. I think at one of her apparitions Mary herself confirms her virginity. It might be Lourdes or Fatima.

>>15339973
>Christ is supposed to be accessible to the most remote hunter-gatherer, or someone with down syndrome

Yes, Christ, not the Bible, but Christ. Stop with the Bibliolatry. The Bible is the word of God, not the Word of God. The two are different. The Bible and God are not the same thing. The divine Logos is not the Bible. Jesus is, and Jesus is not the Bible. Augustine, the adopted grandfather of Protestantism, understood this (if my Rev. Pusey translation does not fail me). You have made the classic Evangelical mistake, you have taken the Word made Flesh, and made it word again.

>>15340056
>It's not Aquinas fault. The First Council of Nicaea at the behest of Constantine created a political document called the Bible. Any writing they felt disagreed with the State Authorized Bible was buried or locked away.

Oh no. That's terrible. Jesus probably warned his followers this was going to happen, but his enemies censored it by infiltrating the early church. I pray Jesus comes back and sorts out what he actually said. It's not fair to the people born after the Council of Nicea. Good thing all we need to be saved is to believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. If it were contingent on anything else, that would be really rough, since, as you say, the information might be unreliable.

>>15340111
Huh? I was just saying that everyone can be saved by believing in Jesus Christ. I don't understand what you mean. We all need the bible, obviously, but God knew some people would die believing in Jesus Christ without actually being able to read the bible or having a copy of the bible. That's all I'm getting at.

>>15340151
I certainly hope so. It seemed to me that you were saying the anarchy of post-reformation every-man-and-his-bible Christianity was a good thing.

>>15340195
>Christianity was so much better before people were educated
lol this religion

>>15340195
Absolutely not. I was merely saying that, since the bible is the word of God, that God has guided the creation and the translation of the bible. Otherwise, there would be anarchy, and some Christians would be receiving the wrong information. I know God is omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He would never allow that to happen. I hope you believe the same, Anon. God bless you.

>>15340209
It's not education that's the problem but the 'every man is his own authority' attitude. Keep in mind that the University was basically invented by Christianity before you claim we're anti-education.

>>15340344
why am I not surprised a christcuck is trying to take credit for the accomplishment of greek pagans and not expect anyone to notice

>>15340382
Yeah Greek pagans founded Oxford and Bolonia.

>>15340382
there's a reason why every university started as a theological college

>>15336191
And he was right (not about the frequency of intercourse, but about identity). Incest isn't bad only because it can cause deformities.
Some familial roles are by nature exclusive, it's stupid to ignore this and to present it to children as normal.