/lit/ - Literature

>>19361436
For what? ESV is probably the most accurate 1:1 translation so it's good for studying, but it's ugly according to most.

>>19361509
Isn't NRSV loved by academics the most? How is ESV more accurate if scholars don't like it?

>>19361524
It's probably a liberal vs. conservative thing going on here

>>19361583
Academics don't let politics get in the way of their research. They're professionals for a reason. We also need to give them a degree of trust in society.

>>19361592
>Academics don't let politics get in the way of their research.

>>19361592
Yeah totally

>>19361524
>loved by academics the most?
That’s how you know you shouldn’t read it

>>19361618
>get in the way
My THRUST can’t get in the way of my cock.

>>19361592
Your first sentence is absolutely retarded, but everything after that is agreeable.

>>19361436
The advice I've seen on here is to get whatever is most easily available since you'll most likely read the Bible multiple times in your life, you can pick up a new edition every reread.

>>19362123
In what fucking world?

>>19361436
NRSV you get the Oxford Annotated Bible. Otherwise just go KJV.

>>19361592
Haven’t been to college, at least in a while eh?

>>19362173
You can get the Oxford in RSV

>>19362228
Yeah with notes from the fucking 80s. Nothing better than 40 year old scholarship

>>19361436
In some ways I used to think NRSV was really great but they neutered the genders in parts where the original was gendered, for the sake of inclusiveness. I found this infuriating.

>>19362239
How do they justify this? Why would this be accepted as unbiased scholarship when it's clearly theological?

>>19362232
>Nothing better than 40 year old scholarship
In Christianity's case this is a boon. You're not researching astrophysics, religious studies are purely deconstructive now. Case in point,
>>19362280
>Why would this be accepted as unbiased scholarship
Because they don't care if it's unbiased.

>>19362280
Historian here. Theology is *meant* to be biased. They’re meant to tell you their confession and purpose. But it is impossible for “man” to have an unbiased relationship to “God.”

>>19361436
They are both garbage. There are many, many, many examples why, but just *one* is Genesis 3:1. They both say "than any *other* beast of the field" rather than just "than any beast of the field". This was before the serpent was cursed into being a snake, and obviously the serpent was far beyond "beast of the field". Yet, the NRSV and ESV make him out to be another beast of the field, and the original Hebrew does not have any word or indication whatsoever for the inclusion of the word "other".

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" King James Bible

>>19362239
I mean that isn't that big of a deal if it's discussing groups and such: a lot of languages use the masculine plural to indicate a general group. Adelphoi, or brothers, could mean a group of fellow Christians. You might argue that Koine Greek had a neuter, gender, but Adelphoi was a masculine noun, plus the neuter gender follows the masculine endings (except for nominative/accusative cases) so even if they WANTED to use the neuter endings for a masculine word (which isn't how it works), for the dative/genitive cases it would do nothing, whereas with the nominative/accusative cases it wouldn't change anything semantically (since, as I said, the masculine plural would and could be used for mixed groups).
If they change the gender of individuals, I'd get your complaint, but trying to make the translation more accessible to a culture that's moving away from masculine plural meaning mixed group (see: "hey, you guys"), not to mention that our culture doesn't really do "masculine plural as general" for other words (thus "brothers" is gendered, whereas we will use "siblings" or "brothers and sisters" for mixed groups). Compare this to Spanish which can do "hermanos" (lit. brothers) to mean siblings. In this case, you could go straight from Greek to Spanish, as the cultures both do the same thing there, but in other areas you'd definitely have to change it up.
This idea that we need a word-for-word translation is laughable since no language can be 1:1 and even if you could you'd miss a lot of the context/idioms/etc. You might as well learn the original languages if you're that worried about Scriptural purity. You're just used to the idea of word-for-word translation because English can get pretty close, and so we like to brag about it, but a lot of language cannot get close to how close we do.

gem

>>19363186
Honestly, Genesis 1:1 is enough.

> "In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Absolutely hideous.

>>19363196
>trying to make the translation more accessible to a culture that's moving away from masculine plural meaning mixed group
the same culture also hates religion with a passion, this is like saying one should change God to Allah because Muslims are getting popular.
This gender neutral garbage is political, it has nothing to do with proper language and it's not organic

>>19361436
NRSV. It's the most accurate and ESV is not as aesthetic imo.

I do wish Cambridge red-letter lay flat bibles came in NRSV or Catholic-preferred translations though.

>>19364161
Any translation fails so spectacularly in beauty and lyricism compared to the KJV that I can't possibly judge it on the grounds of aesthetics, I just try to evaluate if it will be good material for study, so accuracy, ease of understanding, etc.

>>19364161
The first verse is more accurate in nrsv. It literally could mean When God began creating

>>19364175
Why do catholic trannies need to come into threads like this and advertise that they're a part of their shitty pedo religion? No one cares you narcissistic faggot fuck off to another thread to shill your homo kid rapers. Oh wait your thread got deleted :)

Fuck you

>>19364175
>Catholic-preferred
Covered in male children? Hey your religion is false and there were no popes before 200 at the earliest. Verifiably false garbage religion. For larpers and the retarded. Latin America will be protestant in another couple decades too. Dial 8

>>19364175
Its amazing that you put effort into larping as a catholic thinking anyone will be impressed by it when in the real world it makes you seem creepier than you already are. People see your faggy leather bound books and assume you have sex with them. How lonely do you have to be to pretend to be catholic in 2021 lmao?

>>19361436
NRSV is a great translation. Readable and well noted and thorough. The language is often very pretty. However, it does delve into gender neutral language, even at expense of intent, which bothers me.
The ESV is pretty much perfect for reading an exact translation. However, this leaves it somewhat destitute of poerty, something I think is fundamental to the Bible.
Anyways, i don't understand why people don't translate adelphoi as siblings....

>>19364249
I've been hearing more and more that the ESV doesn't read well, but where does this come from? It can't sound that much worse than the kjv or rsv or nkjv, so why exactly does it read poorly?

I've heard part of the reason was that it was rushed to completion in a matter of a few years whereas the nrsv took like 20 years in editing.

>>19364277
So enormous parts of both original texts in scripture focused heavily on poetry and pretty, attractive language. Obviously the psalms but also huge portions of just prose, and then in the NT, mostly in the gospels.
The ESV, by virtue of being focused on direct translation, was sort of boxed in when it came to what they could say, and how maliable they treated the text in terms of molding it into something purposefully poetic.
Compare:
All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the spirit.fn
3Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
4The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.
To
All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
3Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established.
4The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
This was just the passage that I fell asleep to reading last night. The ESV is very dry, while the originals actively attempted attractive language.
I don't believe the KJV is a good translation, but I will never deny of all translations they come closest to the actual power of the language of the originals.
The real redpill is own like 6 bibles and study them all.

>>19364295
>The real redpill is own like 6 bibles and study them all.
I think anyone who's vaguely interested in studying will end up doing this.

>>19364353
with study bibles, especially. I have several study bibles that run the spectrum from liberal to conservative. I prefer the Oxford/NRSV because I appreciate the academic perspective. I have the Reformation Study Bible in NKJV because I attend a reformed church. My everyday Bible that I carry around to church and Bible studies and for regular reading is an ESV with creeds and confessions because its what my church uses and having the westminster etc is convenient. Although its not a study bible I refer to it a lot because were such a confessional church.

>>19364196
>>19364220
>>19364248
seething proddy samefag

>>19364468
Thanks for your really great contribution to the thread, man.

>>19364353
I think at its most basic, everyone should read the ESV Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated. This solves the ESV vs NRSV debacle, because you read both. They're also the strongest and most comprehensive bibles from the inerrant and academic perspectives. Even if you firmly take one side or the other, there's a ton of info to be gained from reading them.

The ESV bibles are nicer, reflecting how they view it. If you want a leather heirloom that will last, you won't find an Oxford like that unless you have someone bind it for you.

>>19364508
>you won't find an Oxford like that
the RSV Oxford comes in leather and no gender pozzery

>>19364517
I've seen it, looks nice. What is the perspective of the notes? Academic? I would be surprised if it were inerrant. Also does it refer to the OT as the OT or the Hebrew Bible?

>>19364530
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Smi6d-rPcY

>>19364536
Thanks for this. Watching now. This guy is great because he's autistic in detail, which is great if you wanna buy something more expensive.

Does anyone else notice he makes "mouth sounds" though? It drives me crazy.

>>19362710
This.

>>19364536
I suspect this would be an excellent all in one bible. It has the academic stuff, but not so progressive and faggy on the gender stuff, and with the rsv translation. I could see this being the only one you need. The outdated scholarship could be an issue though

>>19364676
There's no real point thinking you should need only one Bible, just don't get the fancy leather ones.

>>19364691
Most of my bibles are either in faux leather or hardcover. I hope to one day find a bible I like enough to get in a nicer leather version, but thus far there are pros and cons to all that I have to the degree I can't get too attached to any one. Maybe thats for the best, but I'd still like one I could theoretically use forever and give to my kids.

>>19362710
Orthodox and catholics have the wrong Bible. Protestants were correct to make the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament synonymous, because that's what Jesus did. He never disputed the contents of inspired scripture with the jews in Jerusalem. Therefore, whatever jews in jersualem at the time of Christ considered scripture is what the OT is. Period. They shared a definition on this point, and that is not in dispute. Further, Paul says that the jews were the keepers of the oracles of God, a phrase indicating inspired scripture, solidifying the notion that jews had that authority until Christ's death.

There is no use muddying the waters here. The jews only put inspired scripture in the temple, and there is a universal consensus among all historians of all stripes that the OT/Hebrew Bible was the books that occupied that place. Jews never considered the other Greek literature to be scripture.

No use speaking of later possibly nonexistent councils. They have no bearing on the jewish concept of canon nor the reality of what was considered canon at that point in time.

>>19364181
>beauty and lyricism
It's not about that, there are substantial changes in *meaning*, and there should be *no* changes in meaning, anywhere.

>>19364870
I went for a fancy KJV and everything else in faux leather or hardcover. The faux leathers used for Bibles are amazing. I have a Crossway and a Holman in faux leather, truetone, leathertouch, whatever, not sure where the difference is. They're better than cheap bonded leather for sure and they give the impression they'll stand a lot of use although I've read that direct sunlight (think forgetting them on your car dashboard in the summer) can do a lot of damage.

>>19365043
Also they can get amazing designs on them, mine has this one and it looks really great.

>>19365043
>>19365053
This is honestly a good point. Faux leather is oftentimes better and more durable than leather, especially bonded shit or paper thin leather you get a lot.

Really its not having glued binding that achieves longevity.

If you really care about quality leather, no publisher outside of Cambridge is worth your time. You have to just get it professionally rebound.

My ESV with creeds and confessions in black trutone is literally better than its leather counterpart. I've used it for over a year and it still looks like new. It has Smyth sewn binding and floppy feel in your hand. I wouldn't trade it for anything in leather and it will probably last forever.

My daughter has run her baby fingernails across the cover at church in ways that would have fucked up leather for good. The trutone isn't fazed by it.

>>19364988

>>19365076
>Really its not having glued binding that achieves longevity.
It's difficult to get glued bound Bibles to be fair. Most of them above throwaway paperback prices will be probably smyth-sewn because of the inherent need to open flat. The cover does matter but I think people think leather = good while leather comes in a variety of qualities and is generally kind of bad compared to synthetic.

>>19365209
Seething catholic pedoshit

>>19361436
Biscuit Tin Bible
https://www.wdl.org/en/item/18411/view/1/2158/

>>19365209
Tpusherspiri

>>19365725
stuffuel

>>19364163
>doesn't know that Allah is what Christians in the Middle East use
You've refuted yourself.
>>19364181
>>19364161
>using the KJV when it prefers Byzantine over Alexandrian texts
I can understand picking KJV for aesthetics but it won't be using the best resources.

>>19361436
Don't even consider the NRSV. It's the one thing Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox agree on.

>>19367091
*The fact that it's shit, I should clarify.

>>19361436
We had an anon post all the relevant Bible translations by type of Christianity in a recent thread. I'll try to summarize by memory:
>Protestant
KJV, ESV, CSB, NASB77
>Catholic
Douay-Rheims-Challoner, Knox, RSV-2CE, [New] Jerusalem Bible (avoid Revised New)
>Orthodox
EOB, maybe OSB, the original Greek Patriarchal Text of 1904, Brenton's LXX
>Atheist/Secular
NRSV, Oxford Annotated RSV

We use NRSV at my church, I read the KJV personally. The NRSV still keeps a lot of the poetic flow of the KJV but is significantly more understandable. I prefer KJV mostly though.

>>19361436
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjzl-YjImrk
Watch. It's nearly an hour long but you can skip around if you want.

>>19367196
>We use NRSV at my church
Hi leaf

>>19367091
I've never thought of that, but that is quite the badge of dishonor.

>>19367228
NTA but my small rural church here in the deep southern US uses it too. When it first came out someone figured it would be the best for everyone to understand, and since then there's just not been any call to change it. Many people bring their own and I have no idea what all translations they are. I use King James. It mostly just wound up being what's there for whomever just uses the pew Bibles. I despise it but not to the point of wanting to raise a stink at church about it and there are other matters that I would stir ahead of it.

>>19367282
It really is quite extraordinary. Protestants created the ESV solely in response to the NRSV, the Vatican fought for 18 years before finally allowing a modified version to be used in the Canadian lectionary while everyone else in the English-speaking world avoided it like the plague, and the Orthodox Church in America straight up told the NRSV to go fuck itself.
https://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/tikhon.nrsv.html

>>19367444
Technically the ESV was created in response to the TNIV, which is already discontinued, but yes, the ESV was meant to be the conservative equivalent of the NRSV in the sense of it being a scholarly, accurate, literal, academic translation based off the RSV and using the most current scholarship and critical texts.

IMO it definitely succeeded. Not only does it outsell the NRSV by orders of magnitude (nrsv doesn't even chart on lists of bible translation sales), but it is the only bible in the top 5 that isn't a 2nd grade reading level mega retardo version.

It also simultaneously is used in every conservative denomination preferentially outside of some Baptists, while being the main translation of seminary and graduate scholarship in any school even slightly right of center. Apparently there are catholic versions too?

Just a very solid translation overall. I have a few issues with overt conservative bias. Not in terms of gender, but other stuff.

>>19367547
>very solid translation overall

>>19367597
Ok yeah so no argument therefore I will now tell you to dilate. Hope that's what you were looking for.

>>19367547
>Apparently there are catholic versions too?
Yes, there is an ESV-CE. It was recently adopted as the lectionary translation for England, Scotland, and Wales (Ireland chose to go from the JB to the RNJB instead). However, after the first few months, its marketing in America basically stopped; conservative Catholics have found it lacking compared to the RSV-2CE (i.e., they looked at Luke 1:28 and said nope) and nobody else is really the market audience for the ESV-CE. There's also apparently some issues regarding Crossway wanting influence over how the Catholic churches get to use the ESV-CE text in bulletins and other materials, which has led to some not even bothering--see pic related comment to this promotional article: https://www.acsociety.org/news/why-adopting-the-esv-ce-lectionary-could-greatly-advance-the-ordinariate-mission

>>19367636
Oh OK so then the serpent is more subtle than any other beast of the field rather than just more subtle than any beast of the field, therefore the serpent is a beast of the field rather than something far, far beyond. The ESV is *filled* with such *subtle* error but only those who pay very close attention realize this. Casual readers think "oh wow, this is great". Closely study the Psalms and Proverbs...*closely*. Words matter, words have meaning.

>>19361436
>11 EPIC DIFFERENCES TO KNOW....

>>19367444
>the Vatican fought for 18 years before finally allowing a modified version to be used in the Canadian lectionary while everyone else in the English-speaking world avoided it like the plague
The Vatican only allowed Canada to officially use it with a stamp of approval because Canada just ignored the Vatican for those 18 years, using it anyway, until the Vatican told the Canadian bishops "Fine. If you're going to do it anyway, then whatever, use your garbage version."

>>19367131
>Atheist/Secular
>NRSV, Oxford Annotated RSV
kek
>>19367300
>>19367228
>there are other matters that I would stir ahead of it
So let me get this straight... The translation a church uses can be used as an indicator of its quality or at least to assess the general attendance?

>>19362123
Honestly mate, academics *don't* let politics get in the way of their research. But if their research is fundamentally political, then their research is fundamentally political. Some political practices of research tend to be less objectionable (theology, historiography) where everyone looks askance at the deployment of politics in anything other than discipline specifying disciplinary self-criticism (what *is* theology?), or, in setting research questions (were the men written up as Jesus and reinterpreted by Saul as Christ leading a literal terrorist campaign against the Sadducee?).

I know you might not like it but we've been like that since the 1850s where we agreed that outside politics were boring and/or too important to be left to academics.

You're used to sick disciplines like literary criticism, sociology, political science or anthropology. Maybe you've not been to research seminars for a while?

>>19367742
This is just false. Politically biased research on just about evertything is released all the time, an example of this is neuroscience where a ademics bend themselves backwards to justify establishment politics, or get unpersoned when they post uncomfortable papers.

>>19367693
That article makes it seem like a great bible and it makes good points. The rsv2ce is an insane niche relic and that esv bible looks slick as hell. I would expect Ignatius press to be salty about it.

They're not wrong that failing to adopt the ESV will ultimately end poorly and ghettoize a dying religion further.

>>19367758
>Neuroscience
As I said, healthy disciplines like history and theology.

Your reading comprehension and subject identification are fucking poor, was your major sociology?

>>19367741
>The translation a church uses can be used as an indicator of its quality or at least to assess the general attendance?
Yes, at least in the American Protestant churches. All the Catholic ones use the NABRE whether the parishioners care for it or not because of the USCCB stranglehold on it, so they can't be measured the same. However, you can judge a Protestant church and its parishioners largely on whether they use the NRSV, the KJV, the ESV, the CSB, or whatever with fairly solid accuracy on a liberal-conservative spectrum.

>>19364196
>>19364220
>>19364248
Seethe.

lmao at all these protestant retards talking about the OUTSIDE of the book.

>>19367777
Correlation is not causality. Quads ignored.

>>19367784
>multiquoting day old posts
No, you're the one seething pedoshit

>>19367777
if you use the esv you're looking at intelligent, well read, middle to upper class evangelicals. CSB/KJV is for people with missing teeth.

>>19367777
Wild card
>church uses the nkjv

>>19367799
The (H)CSB was literally created because the SBC didn't want to pay royalties to Thomas Nelson for the NKJV anymore, if I'm not mistaken.

Isn't it kind of shitty that these translations are all copyrighted? Are there any that are not?

>>19367830
Douay Rheims but heretics don't know about that

>>19367836
I meant apart from KJV/DR and such.

>>19367791
If a Protestant church uses the NRSV, the likelihood of women as priests and marrying faggots increases. This is data, as shown by the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church both using the NRSV and endorsing the above.

>>19367842
Not really, except for similarly old Bibles. The reasoning behind the copyrights is to recoup the costs of actually doing the years of translation.

>>19367843
Again: Correlation is not causation. And besides I don't care about how heretics organize themselves. Only Anglicans are near enough to the Church to matter.

>>19367842
World English Bible.

>>19367741
Being a dedicated Bible reader/studier is an at least relative rarity within most churches altogether. At my own church, which my great grandfather was a founding member of in 1906, it's mainly rural people who grew up in it and primarily "get their Bible" from the preacher, Sunday School, and classes, rather than sitting around constantly reading on their own out of personal fanaticism like myself. Once you have enough decades under your belt you learn that there are other factors that make up the quality of a body of believers and sitting around nitpicking everything puts you more outside it rather than earning you smiles of approval from God. I'm far more pleased at the summer lunches packed and provided to poor children in the area than I am displeased with the crappy translation used there, for instance.

>>19367842
Online stuff like the WEB, the Byzantine ASV, and the LXX2012.

>>19367858
It's perfectly understandable to do this for a while but the NKJV is from the 70s...

>>19367901
Thomas Nelson are Jews, what do you expect? It's why they botched the OSB by not actually translating the LXX.

>>19367912
They didn't botch it, it is a massive success, making them tons of sheckles. Maximum profit from minimum work.

>>19367912
I have always avoided Nelson because the KJV they use is changed from the Cambridge version in a number of places. Not sure if it's a legitimate concern.

>>19367865
>trust me guys my dying, aging cult that can't even hold onto Latin America is totally relevant
Only 17 percent of all catholics are under the age of 30. When the boomers die you're gone for good. Tick tock. This as you are losing members at a rate of 6.5 to 1 convert/infant baptism. Worse stats than the mainlines hahahaha

>>19368012
Of course it is a legitimate concern. They are owned by NewsCorp and are essence a subsidiary of HarperCollins who publishes all manner of absolute filth including the Satanic Bible. Everything they do is tainted with subtle evils.

>>19368028
>implying numbers matter
>implying my faith will disappear because someone else doesn't believe
>conflating the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with the requirements of a democracy
/lit/ has always been midwits but WOW

>>19368043
Glad to know, I had a gut feeling about it.

>>19368055
Cope, also you don't actually go to church

>>19361436
KJV

>>19368386
KJB, there are no "versions" of the Holy Bible.

>>19369012
You're right, which is why there's only the DRB.

>>19369196
Would you fuck off out of my thread already catholitranny

>>19369680
New Jerusalem
p.s.: It is translated from French.

>>19364988
Are you retarded? Not only do Jesus and the Apostles quote the deuterocanon, but the Israelites don't canonize their scriptures until after the destruction of the second temple. And Christians don't canonize their Scriptures until several centuries after that

>>19369012
do you realize that "version" means "translation", right?

>Paul says
>Saul, a Sadducee operative and secret policemen for the Romans, by his own admission, conducting basic social engineering on an anti-state zealot essene movement, says

>>19369758
congrats you anachronistically and inaccurately imputed ideas about "canon" onto a religion different from catholicism in a time and place unrelated to those ideas. you've done the exact dishonest horseshit catholics need to do to lie about history and make themselves seem coherent to retards like you.

protip, read even ONE source on this topic that isn't from your cult. any peer reviewed source will tell you that the jews had specific ideas about scripture and that the canon was well defined in jesus' time in jerusalem. this isn't up for debate. every source concurs. josephus attests to it too.

don't respond if you want to pretend judaism works the same as catholicism about canon. that just shows your sub 90 iq at work in forming "arguments" and it shows you can't be bothered to read a single text about what you're claiming to be an expert about.

>>19369891
Is this really the best Protestants have to offer? Lmao

>>19369907
When Paul talks about Scripture, what does he mean? According to you, he means nothing, because there wasn't a "canon" yet. Right?

By the way that Jewish council you're referencing probably didn't even exist. Historians dispute it.

Now: How did Paul know what Scripture was? Answer that question.

Come discuss the Bible and translations in our occult/spiritual shitposting server
discord gg YUQscaYnkm

>>19369919
>Now: How did Paul know what Scripture was? Answer that question.
Not that anon but I'd like to hear your take.

>When Paul talks about Scripture, what does he mean?
He means the Tanakh.

Let's ask the real questions here:
RSV or NRSV?

>>19370206
Scripture was distinguished from nonscripture by its place in the temple and by whether it involved ritualistic cleanness. The broad historical consensus among literally all scholars based on every available primary source from the period and adjacent timeframes indicate that the contents of the Hebrew bible and nothing else were treated in this way. This is what jews referred to as scripture, and there wasn't any ambiguity about it. I believe there may have been one sect in some far flung place, like the Essenes, that had some variation, but obviously that doesn't matter for the question at hand, which is: what did Jesus and the Jews in Jerusalem circa 30 AD mutually agree the Scriptures were?

There would need to be some historical evidence to support the verifiable fact that they believed it to be the Hebrew bible. And no, quoting the apocrypha in the Bible doesn't count. Calling the apocrypha scripture in the Bible would count, but that doesn't happen. No one attributes the apocrypha to God's breath or inspiration. But books quoting books isn't the issue. Historical evidence is what determines the OT canon.

>>19361436
Either one is fine. You aren't going to "ruin" your reading of the Bible by picking one translation over another. Personally my first reading was with the KVJ, which I think is rather typical, and while it is a beautiful book and its praises are deservedly sung, it is lamentably not true to the original, so in subsequent readings, I used the ESV, which I think very highly of, though it be dry in some ways. The beauty of the prose does matter, I think, in matters of religious text, especially with the Bible, which is long and arduous and can catch you in snarls, so try looking at translations online and deciding what strikes you well. This post makes me think you've never read the Bible before and are looking to start, in which case: best of luck. It is a beautiful work of art and an incredible historical document.

>>19370366
Ok now what study bible?

>>19361592
Thanks for the kek anon

>>19361436
Id reccomed Douhey rheims. It reads in that old english we all know in love and has that books that KJV removed

>>19370402
ESV study bible

>>19370411
Fucking kill yourself idiot shill what is with you freaks. It wouldn't be so bad if DR wasn't like the actual shittiest most incomprehensible translation out there, but lol. Even the catholic church threw it in the dust bin. Its only cath larpers who don't actually go to church and don't care what their supposedly infallible pedo hierarchy says who "like it". By which I mean haven't read it, but shill it as an identity.

>>19370427
>if DR wasn't like the actual shittiest most incomprehensible translation out there
It would seem that you have not read the NAB.

>>19370412
>>19370402
The ESV Study Bible is an exceptionally excellent study Bible despite the translation itself being garbage.

>>19370451
The NAB is really bad, and possibly made worse by the fact that catholic bishops mandate its use. Its almost ugly and dumbed down on purpose.

>>19370427
>butthurt prod
Not even catholoc lol. Its just clearly the superior translation and theres nothing you can do about it

>>19370494
It's pretty shocking. I thought:
>man, I bet the Bible that is the absolute official one of the Catholics is pretty solid, with every single word carefully considered from both a scholarly and holy perspective to make the most perfect Bible that can be made today
and then started actually reading it. It's difficult to believe yet there it is, being what it is.

>>19369680
>>19370427
Any English Bible produced after 1610 is shit.

>>19370503
Yes that's why literally no one reads it or gives a shit about it. That's why not even catholics read it. That's why it has zero cultural imprint at all outside of zoomer larpers.

Its not even a debate. Not even its own religion likes it, and exactly zero non catholics read it, so you're being a contrarian midwit at the very best.

>I'm butthurt that the translations I read are popular and critically acclaimed
Yeah makes sense retard.

>>19370589
>That's why it has zero cultural imprint at all outside of zoomer larpers.
Yes, clearly zero impact, because nobody reads the King James NT (i.e., the Douay NT with splashes of the Geneva).

>>19370589
>There a lot of retardarded protestants like (you) cant understand higher superior literature
Lol sorry its too complicated to read at your free lance non denominatiomal church. Perhaps pic rel is more your IQ level

>>19370625
>>19370681
Hey the DR has only been around for 400 years. Lets give people some more time to come around to it! Trust the plan! Maybe as catholicism declines worldwide, suddenly more people will develop an interest in it, right guys??

>>19370705
>"this is about why catholcism is le bad"
Holy fuck not only are you retarded but youre dense as fuck. No wonder you cant comprehend/appreciate higher literature. Domt you have to go pray to St.floyd with your egaliteran homo priest or something?

>>19370756
>schizo poltard post
I think I'll let you sit with your post and think about what you've done. If you aren't catholic please become one and stay away from my children. Also, dilate.

>>19370788
>faggot no u
Lol typical prot much like DR and kjv you couldnt come up with anything byself and you just copy and pasted my post

>>19370825
>with anything byself
Haha whatever stroketard, go ahead reply to me again, that will make your life better I'm sure. If you sperg out more you're bound to get a gf.

>>19370287
Yeah same anon you replied to. That's a big "no shit." I said the Tanakh.

The gospels weren't written before Jesus' arrival. They were written about him after his resurrection. Nobody in that world would have called them scripture in the way that we mean the word. So: what are you whining about again?

Can you please stop behaving so viciously? This isn't in the Christian spirit.

>>19370840
>minor spelling error
You just exposed yourself faggot. Go back to plebbit with the other special ed kids where you belong

>>19370857
I knew you would reply again because you're a weak, mentally ill person. Do it again.

>>19370842
next time I won't waste my energy replying to a catholic if you're that incapable of following a thought through internet posts. I'll just tell you dilate or something. Thanks for making it clear that catholics don't debate or even have discussions in remotely good faith. Saved me time in the future

>>19370888
>cant win argument
>muh (you)s
Retard your the faggot who started it with your smooth brain boomer evengalical low iq nigger church smolian BBC loving indoctrination. Now go back to plebbit and find your wife & daughter a nice christian nigger to fuck so you can raise her ugly mutt children. Youre so mentally weak that you started it and such a coward you cant finish it

>>19370922
>starts talking about black cock unprovoked
Francis would be proud. Guess you are a good catholic after all. Post some more psycho shit.

>>19370922
t. actual insane person, like not ironically, you are insane

>>19370935
>lets nigger into their country bc their jewish god commanded it
Kay faggot let more into your country to rape your family. Your god is about as real as your brain i.e. it doesnt exist

>>19370968
>why yes I'm a catholic because my primary mental preoccupation is black men and their members, how could you tell

>>19361436
Whichever has 73 books.

>>19370978
>yes im protestant bc i let niggers into my country how could you tell?
Youre jewish god is cucking you. Reply again it wont make up for youre mental retardation. Enjoy your mixed race family niggerfaggot

>>19370989
>youre mental retardation
AHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>19370998
>bros look its a minor spelling error
He keeps outing himself as a faggot redditor kek

>>19370589
>>19370705
I've just developed a fairly strong interest in it because as best I can tell it's the closest one can get to an English version of the Holy Bible that was used by at least the entire West for ~1200+ years and I'd like to spend some time with that and see what it "does". I'm especially interested in what should essentially be the LV OT in English. No matter what we as Protestants think with regard to the fullness of its legitimacy as an institution of God, that was *the* church that kept and spread the flame of Christ through all of that time so that we can sit here today and come to learn about/know God through His word.

"And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints." Romans 8:28 DRB

>>19371030
Didn't read your post, fuck you faggot. Don't reply to me ever again.

>>19371030
>"And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints." Romans 8:28 DRB
yup that IS a stilted, shitty translation, I guess the other guy was right.

>>19371091
>>19371101

>>19371126
Wow making fun of the retarded, not very Christian. If this is how catholics behave in becoming protestant. Disgusted by this behavior... Jesus would be ashamed.

>>19371091
It may come as a shock, but when someone replies to anyone here, it's not entirely only to that person, but rather for the sake of everyone who reads/participates in the thread. Hopefully some of them will pray for (You).
>>19371126
Hopefully for their sake they are merely pretending.

>>19371161
as an unbiased reader who was thinking of becoming catholic, your horrible behavior has made me realize I should be evangelical instead. Christians don't act like you do, period.

>>19371143
Not catholic lol

>>19371177
Well that's good, because I think the Catholic "Church™" is Satanic Babylonian. Apparently your ideas of who is whom here is rather mixed.

why is everyone fighting all the time in these threads
pls no
jesus wouldn't have wanted this

>>19371225
It's because 18+ is not enforceable.

>>19368028
>When the boomers die you're gone for good. Tick tock

>>19371225
Apparently its because catholics are allowed to post without being censored, which is wrong. Catholics believe in censorship so turnabout is fair play. This thread wasn't about catholic translations at all, but it became about them all the same. Like every time. My favorite poster is the one who obsessively stumps for catholics in every thread and then says but he's not a catholic and is actually a committed protestant. He shits up every single religious thread ever and loves talking about himself. I don't even post here that often but I still see this incel in every religion thread. Please just IP ban him please.

>>19371252
>catholic version of Trust The Plan
I laff everytime

>>19371255
>anachronistically applying a modern political slogan to a valiant defender of orthodoxy
Basically the same as women comparing Trump to Voldemort. Are you unable to think outside of the context of what has happened within the last five years?
Of course, because "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".

>>19371275
>"to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".
then why don't any history textbooks on Christianity agree with you? why don't secular sources confirm catholic propaganda?

>>19371291
>then why don't any history textbooks on Christianity agree with you?
Agree with what particular claim?
>why don't secular sources confirm catholic propaganda?
What particular claims are your referencing? Because I think it is quite clear (even just by looking at the image in the post you are responding to) that the early church clearly taught baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, baptism of infants, confession to priests, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome, successor of Peter.

>>19371307
So your idea of a deep dive into history is an info graphic, ok that makes sense then. Tell you what, can you even name a Christian origi s historian or textbook from the field? Come on don't Google. Name just one. That you've read.

You ARE deep in history right?

>>19371252
Didn't "Orthodox" and "Catholic" use to mean the same thing? I think what these early Christians were addressing as "Catholic" has nothing to do with today's Catholic church.
>>19371253
It's better to ignore these people than entertain them. As long as they get attention they'll keep spamming.
This board is way too filled with spammers though. I think there are false flaggers who target every Chrsitian thread and try to shit it up.

>>19371323
>I think there are false flaggers who target every Chrsitian thread and try to shit it up
This definitely.

>>19371319
>So your idea of a deep dive into history is an info graphic, ok that makes sense then
No, I am only posting that infographic for its density of information, and shareability.
>Tell you what, can you even name a Christian origi s historian or textbook from the field?
Yesterday, I was reading Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, which is pretty much the defining text on the topic. The best source is the primary sources themselves, though, which is why I really enjoy reading the earliest fathers of the church, especially the ante-Nicene fathers.
>You ARE deep in history right?
Yes, which is why I had to abandon my non-denominational Protestant heresy, and become Catholic.
>>19371323
>I think what these early Christians were addressing as "Catholic" has nothing to do with today's Catholic church.
Yes, the Orthodox church today also calls themselves the Catholic church. I believe the claims for the Catholic church today as being that original church mentioned in the ecumenical councils is most convincing. It would be much easier for me to be a member of one of the many "Orthodox" churches, but so far, the evidence I have seen put forward by their best apologists and thinkers are not as convincing to me as the claims of the Catholic church. Thus, I believe that the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (including the Catholic church mentioned by Athanasius and Ignatius of Antioch) is the Catholic church, not one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

>"LOOK AT THE TIME, WE HAVE TO IMPORT MORE BROWN PEOPLE TO FUCK IS IN THE ASS AT OUR FIRDT BAPTIST FREE CHURCH OF EVANGELICAL LUTHERISM

>>19371344
So you can't name a single scholar of Christian origins and you didn't even try to. Everyone, this is the thing about catholic shitposters. They actually don't know anything about Christian history and don't even pretend to. By Christian history they mean their cults propaganda and nothing else. Catholic propaganda has no relationship to reality. Open any textbook of Christianity and this is apparent. The pride in being unwilling to even engage with a single academic historian living today is telling when it comes to what they really believe. They know their cult doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but they don't care because they derive emotional pleasure from larping.

Always challenge catholics to produce current historical sources supporting the assertion that history agrees with catholic propaganda. The truth is not even catholic scholars agree with the official line, and the church hierarchy is fine with that because of how ludicrous it is.

>>19371455
>So you can't name a single scholar of Christian origins and you didn't even try to.
Eusebius is the foremost scholar of Early Christian history.
>They actually don't know anything about Christian history and don't even pretend to.
I believe I know quite a lot about it, from the apostolic era, to the councils, to the post-Nicene fathers and their teachings, to the Christological and soteriological controversies. Are you sure you aren't projecting?
>By Christian history they mean their cults propaganda and nothing else
All Christian historians today will use Eusebius as a source, so I'm not sure what you are implying, here.
>Catholic propaganda has no relationship to reality.
What claim are you referencing?
>Open any textbook of Christianity and this is apparent.
Care to reference one single point of Catholic teaching that you believe is rebutted by consensus scholarship?
>The pride in being unwilling to even engage with a single academic historian living today is telling when it comes to what they really believe.
I'm willing to engage with any point you put forward, but so far, it is mostly just a diatribe of your personal feelings (which, no offence, are not really interesting to me).
>They know their cult doesn't hold up to scrutiny
Again, care to name a single point that you believe is debunked by consensus scholarship?
>produce current historical sources supporting the assertion that history agrees with catholic propaganda
There are many Catholic claims, and without making a single point, how can I rebut you? You have to make an argument before I can rebut it.
>The truth is not even catholic scholars agree with the official line
Again, make your point, or just write this in your diary - I am only interesting in your argument, not your feelings and opinions.

>>19361592
Congrats on the successful bait, anon.

>>19371344
But dynasties can be broken, can't they?
It doesn't seem to me that Jesus explicitly told everyone to follow a specific line of legacy. He does instead say things like:
>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
>Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
>Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
>Mat 17:15-18
or
>Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
>For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
>Behold, I have told you before.
>Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
>Mat 24:23-27
Why does he warn about this if following the right path is as easy as following the Church built on Peter's grave no matter how corrupt it seems?

>>19371486
>>19371499
Maybe I was confusing. The fact that you can't name a single historian working today means I don't have any interest in talking to you. You've proven yourself to be a very stupid person and that's evident to everyone in the thread. I won't be reading anymore uninformed opinions. You can scream into the void looking for religious comfort. I won't be your entertainment, freak.

>>19361524
>Isn't NRSV loved by academics the most?
Probably, it uses gender-neutral pronouns for 'inclusiveness' which is one of the stupidest reasons imaginable to mistranslate scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version#Gender_language

>>19371526
>still hasn't provided an argument
As I thought, you are simply yet another Protestant who is not deep in history, nor intellectually prepared enough to engage in an actual discussion. Hope you have a great day, my separated brother in Christ.
>>19371499
>But dynasties can be broken, can't they?
We believe that the Matthew 16:18 testimony of "the gates of Hell" never prevailing against the church built on the rock of Peter is a powerful and compelling reason to believe that the church built on St. Peter will always be the true church of Jesus Christ.
>Why does he warn about this if following the right path is as easy as following the Church built on Peter's grave no matter how corrupt it seems?
Because there are always going to be false teachers and points of contention within that church built on St. Peter - see the proto-gnostic controversy of Cerinthus and John the Apostle within the first century - but that does not indicate that the church itself will fall. Think about it this way - of the first twelve bishops of the Catholic church, one betrayed Jesus Christ to be tortured and killed for 30 pieces of silver. There will always be false prophets and dangerous teachers, and we are to always stand on guard from them, even if they are high in the hierarchy, as the Arian bishops, or corrupt Popes - but even so, we can trust that that Church built by Jesus Christ will, as He promised, never be prevailed against, and to have faith in His promise until the end.

If I had more space, I would keep going and post the writings of the church fathers and council fathers on the indefectibility of the Roman see in teachings of faith and morals through the guidance of the Holy Spirit - suffice it to say that if you want to hear more, I will write more, because nothing is more important to me than helping you join the Ark of Salvation, and thus removing any blockades for you to get to heaven.

>>19371575
weren't you the one who couldn't name a single history or book or living historian? how can you possibly be this arrogant while failing such a simple challenge and claiming no one else understands history better than you? I mean that is really fucked up. Words actually fail me.

Does everyone else see this? What the fuck.

>>19371593
He's just a trolling larper spamming walls of text. This kind of shit is unironcally why the catholic church is on its last legs. Everyone is leaving to be evangelical and this chode saying that the only way to understand history is to not read it is their best defense.

There are already fewer catholics on 4chan than there were a year ago. And way fewer than before that. Let them keep talking. They hang themselves with their own words. This crap only drives people away.

>>19371593
>>19371603
You didn't ask for a living historian, you asked me to "name a Christian origi s [sic] historian or textbook from the field?", to which I answered that I was just yesterday reading the foundational document of the field, the Ecclesiastical History, from the father of early church history, Eusebius. If you weren't happy with this answer, you should have made a more specific query.
>claiming no one else understands history better than you?
I never said that - I just repeated the claim of St. John Henry Newman, a famous ex-Protestant, who said that "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant".
>Words actually fail me. Does everyone else see this? What the fuck.
If you are so easily able to debunk me with modern consensus scholarship, I welcome you to please provide at least one argument against any Catholic position. I am happily willing and able to contend with any argument you put forward, so I am hopeful you will meet my challenge, instead of expressing feminine feelings and emotions.
>>19371603
I offer the same to you - please provide a single argument supporting your claim that history debunks Catholicism, and surely we can have a fruitful conversation. After all, if your case is so rock-solid and obvious, you should have no problem making me look like a fool publicly by making a powerful argument against my position! Right?

>>19371617
>surely we can have a fruitful conversation
How is that possible when you haven't read a single piece of scholarship in the field and don't care to? How do you see that going? What would you bring to the table?

>>19371628
If you don't find the foundational text of Early Church History to be a useful thing to read in conversations about Early Church History, I question your judgment. Nonetheless, if I am such an uneducated and unlearned fool, please do the needful and make a single argument against the Catholic position, so that everybody else can see how foolish I am. It might save many souls, if you are right! I am just patiently waiting to be BTFO'd by any argument you have.

>>19371643
Sure.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43250245

This is a catholic historian on the pontifical historical commission who says there was no such thing as popes or papacy or even bishops in rome in the first and early second century. Therefore the entire basis of your cult is a verifiable lie per your own people. Nothing else matters given that this is the case. There is no Petrine succession in ANY sense of the word.

I will only accept a secular historian in an academic journal as refutation of this article. No blogs, no opinions from you, nothing written before the year 1999. So you may refute this article only with a more current article. I generously gave you a catholic scholar making my case, now do so with a non catholic scholar for yours.

>>19371668
>implying that article is the end of discussion
it's just a historian's premise, anon

>>19371575
>or corrupt Popes
But those corrupt Popes are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, and they are to be taken as authority. Are you telling me that I should follow a corrupt Pope?

>>19371668
>https://www.jstor.org/stable/43250245
So, your argument is:
1) One (1) Catholic historian thinks there is not enough evidence to support the existence of a bishop of Rome in the first and second century
2) Therefore, there was no bishop of Rome in the first or second century
3) Therefore, the fundamental claim of the Papacy is false
4) Therefore, Catholicism is false

First of all, your conception of academic dialogue - that your opponent must meet condition X, Y, and Z for their refutation to be valid - is obviously special pleading, as you are necessitating that I not include a large body of unfavorable evidence to your case in my refutation. So, I categorically dismiss your condition that any refutation must use a later article than the one you posited.

Besides that, obviously a single historian's opinion does not make a consensus.

Because of that, my rebuttal is to the second point, and is as follows:
Phillip Schaff, a non-Catholic (Lutheran) doctor, celebrated Church Historian and author of the extensive and authoritative work "History of the Christian Church", says the following:
Among the apostolic fathers Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch clearly take the front rank, from their position as bishops of the largest apostolic churches in capital cities of the Roman empire, and from the importance of their writings.
"Among the apostolic fathers Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch clearly take the front rank, from their position as bishops of the largest apostolic churches in capital cities of the Roman empire, and from the importance of their writings.
[...]
What we know with certainty is only this, that he stood at the head of the Roman congregation at the close of the first centurv. Yet tradition is divided against itself as to the time of his administration ; now making him the first successor of Peter, now, with more probability, the third. According to Eusebius he was bishop from the twelfth year of Domitian to the third of Trajan (A.D. 92 to 101)." (History of the Christian Church, p.634-636)

As you can see, a non-Catholic and highly respected source clearly describes Clement as the bishop of Rome, who was either the first successor of Peter, or the third. I am inclined to agree with the characterization of Clement as the third successor, based on the following passage from St. Irenaeus:

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes." (Against Heresies 3)

Clement, therefore, was allotted the bishopric of Rome in the first century.

>>19371759
Why didn't you post an article meeting my criteria? Is that a concession?

>>19371668
Maybe you should loosen up, anon.

>>19371756
Yes, when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, an event which has occurred less than 5 times, and is always associated with an ecumenical polling of the beliefs of the bishops of the world, as was done before the dogmatization of the Immaculate Conception. Things are not just poofed into existence with ex cathedra declarations, either - they are simply magisterial proclamations of theological matters which are already taught within the universal and ordinary magisterium. I can go deeper into this, if you want.
>Are you telling me that I should follow a corrupt Pope?
I'm saying that we offer the due respect of the office itself, but that one of the duties of a Catholic Christian is to provide due respect to the office itself, even if one disagrees with the (non-magisterial) personal opinions of the man. I am not a huge fan of Pope Francis, as he is liberal, but I show him the respect and charity that is due a man who succeeds the apostles. More information, please look up works on what the "Universal and Ordinary Magisterium" is, and how it relates to teachings of the Papal office.

>>19371763
>Why didn't you post an article meeting my criteria?
I answered that in my second paragraph:
"First of all, your conception of academic dialogue - that your opponent must meet condition X, Y, and Z for their refutation to be valid - is obviously special pleading, as you are necessitating that I not include a large body of unfavorable evidence to your case in my refutation. So, I categorically dismiss your condition that any refutation must use a later article than the one you posited."
>Is that a concession?
Unless you rebut my argument, it appears that you are the one conceding - if you don't respond to it, wouldn't that mean you aren't able to defend your point? I posted a sound argument, and you can feel free to disregard it, but luckily this is a public forum, and other people can see how you will either run away from refuting it, or man up and try using your own mind, instead of outsourcing it. Please, BTFO me, and show the lurkers how utterly foolish and unlearned I am. Save their souls!

>>19371807
What does it mean to offer "due respect". If a Pope says that it's okay to be a homosexual, how do I offer "due respect" to his office? If I do not recognize the authority of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome I do not belong to the true Church, then I am supposed to posture that I agree with him?

>>19371575
>Because there are always going to be false teachers and points of contention within that church built on St. Peter - see the proto-gnostic controversy of Cerinthus and John the Apostle within the first century - but that does not indicate that the church itself will fall.
What if I wanted to be in that church based on this principle and others mentioned, but am convinced that significant aspects of the Marian dogmas are corrupt teachings?

>>19371850
>What does it mean to offer "due respect".
It means to maintain as much of a charitable disposition as possible.
>f a Pope says that it's okay to be a homosexual
There is no way that a Pope can teach these things (eg. also female ordination) authoritatively, even hypothetically - as I said, although by the respect of the promise of Christ in which, regarding Peter (and his successors) "what he binds on earth shall have been bound in heaven" the bishop of Rome has the privilege to make infallible proclamations, these can ONLY be regarding things that are already existing in the universal and ordinary magisterium. So, even hypothetically, the Pope can never make an ex cathedra proclamation teaching something contrary to the universal and ordinary magisterium, like the licitness of homosexual acts. It is a very good question, though!
>how do I offer "due respect" to his office?
Like I said, charity. For example, when Pope Francis does something like the Pachamama scandal, I believe it is my duty to hold as charitable an interpretation possible (eg. that he did not fully understand how this would scandalize the faithful, or that he was led to believe it was a statue of the Blessed Virgin, etc), until evidence definitively shows it to be the case that he were to have commit some wrong. I hope that makes sense.
>If I do not recognize the authority of the Pope as the Bishop of Rome I do not belong to the true Church, then I am supposed to posture that I agree with him?
No, as even St. Paul rebuked St. Peter when he refused to sit with the gentiles - it is a matter of simply being as humble and respectful as possible within reasonable bounds, and knowing that even if the person himself is flawed in many ways, it is the chair/office itself which deserves the respect, as the principle of unity of the Church of Jesus Christ. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with the Pope, if it is on a matter that is either not solemnly proclaimed ex cathedra, or that is unheard of in the universal and ordinary magisterium (eg. if he were to express a private opinion that, say, doing LSD is licit, it is perfectly fine to say "I disagree"). The only issue would be saying things like "Pope X is a heretic/apostate/homosexual/communist/satanist/freemason". Even if any one of those happen to be true, the respect due to the office should make us refrain from harsh judgments and condemnations without firm evidence. If hard evidence came out that he was a pedophile, for example, all Catholics would be licit in condemning and denouncing him, and demanding his resignation/incarceration.

>>19371958
Well, first and foremost, I would say that it would be your responsibility to seek out the best arguments supporting those positions from the affirmative side - whether it be scholars, or the promulgates documents themselves - and see if you still are unable to say "credo" to those proclamations. It would be worth noting that many Catholic and Orthodox fathers, apologists, and scholars have written great works about both the perpetual virginity, preservation from sin, and assumption (or dormition) into heaven. I am happy to provide you with resources to do so, but at the end of the day, I think the epistemological thought process should be something like:
If the evidence, honestly weighed, points me towards the fact that the Catholic church is the true church that Jesus Christ created, then it is my duty and prerogative to join that church, because it is taught within that church that:
“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it” (Lumen Gentium, 14)
And that if that church is the true church, it is my duty and responsibility to accept that which it teaches, which itself is based on a combination of scripture, apostolic and magisterial tradition, and guidance from the Holy Spirit itself.

Put another way, if I joined a church in the third century, and did not see how the scriptures taught that Christ had two natures, or how it could be true that the Holy Spirit was of the same essence of the Father, it would still be my duty and responsibility to assent to that teaching, and later come to learn why it is true.

>>19371967
>I believe it is my duty to hold as charitable an interpretation possible (eg. that he did not fully understand how this would scandalize the faithful, or that he was led to believe it was a statue of the Blessed Virgin, etc), until evidence definitively shows it to be the case that he were to have commit some wrong. I hope that makes sense.
Are you seriously telling me that I should believe that the Pope, whom I am to believe is a successor to the line of Peter and indirectly mandated by Christ to preside over the true Church on Earth, "does not fully understand" what he is doing?

>>19372022
I am saying that it is our duty to offer as charitable interpretation as possible. Many Catholics in good standing, like Timothy Gordon, say things like that the Pope is a "wicked man", and say that they believe he knows what he is doing. I think one is perfectly within their rights to say that. I am just saying that I personally hold to the maxim of trying to be as charitable as possible when there is not 100% confirmatory evidence to support my condemnations. You are free to do what you want, and take an attitude similar to Timothy Gordon, as long as you maintain that the seat of Peter itself is the principle of unity, and thus deserves the utmost respect, even if you have doubts and misgivings about the fallible man currently occupying it.

>>19372022
>Vatican spokesmen have said that they represent “life,” and are not religious symbols, but some journalists and commentators have raised questions about the origins of the symbols, and whether they were religious symbols of Amazonian indigenous groups.
>Paolo Ruffini, head of the Vatican’s communications office, said last week that “fundamentally, it represents life. And enough. I believe to try and see pagan symbols or to see… evil, it is not,” he said, adding that “it represents life through a woman.”
>He equated the image to that of a tree, saying “a tree is a sacred symbol.”
Am I really to be charitable and not bat an eyelash when this sort of mental gymnastics happen in order to justify the actions of this Pope?

>>19372043
I suggest that it is a good thing to be as charitable as possible. If you believe that it is 100% certain that he did know, and that it was a diabolical act, I can see how you would be well within your right to make public and private statements against him. Many cardinals and bishops do the same, like Vigana and Burke. I will not condemm you for doing so, either. I am just saying my own personal opinion, and philosophy, when it comes to these matters. My sin is enough for me to worry about for the rest of my life, and thus I try to focus on it rather than others as much as possible, but as long as you are speaking with your priest and are remaining in good standing with the Church, I cannot and will not condemn you for speaking out against the Pope, though I will not unless hard evidence surfaces. Hope that helps.

>>19364988
Is this bait? The Apostles' exclusively quote the Greek Septuagint.

>>19372000
> It would be worth noting that many Catholic and Orthodox fathers, apologists, and scholars have written great works about both the perpetual virginity, preservation from sin, and assumption (or dormition) into heaven

I think perpetual virginity is nonsense but I have no real quarrel with it. The Dormition is fine. But the Immaculate Conception and preservation from sin tends to make her a Christ, and that is a bridge too far for me, as it was for Augustine and Aquinas before me.

And that's not even getting into Co Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces and the rest of it. Respect to Ratzinger for swatting those down, honestly. But they're still widely believed and not actively taught against. I'll never feel comfortable receiving the eucharist with RCs because of those and the IC.

>>19372528
>Respect to Ratzinger for swatting those down
citations?

So that post went unanswered. There isn't a single historian working today who would make the claim that popes or bishops existed in Rome for almost 200 years? So then it is historical fact that Petrine succession is a lie?

Wow catholics defeated eternally.

>>19372628
NVM. I was mis remembering! It's even worse than I thought: https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17049

Heresy upon heresy!

>>19372528
>But the Immaculate Conception and preservation from sin tends to make her a Christ
No, we still fundamentally claim that the only reason she was preserved from sin was through God's grace.
>too far for me, as it was for Augustine
Maybe I am missing a citation, but it seems that Augustine prefers to make no judgment, and even supposes she might have been preserved from all sin:
"Having excepted the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins—for how do we know what abundance of grace for the total overcoming of sin was conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear him in whom there was no sin?—so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered together all those holy men and women, when they were living here, and had asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been their answer?" (Nature and Grace, 36:42)
>and Aquinas
"I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: ‘(Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament.’ Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): ‘Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive,’ etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: ‘The glory of children are their fathers’: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Secondly, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor. 6:15): ‘What concord hath Christ with Belial?’ Thirdly, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the ‘Divine Wisdom’ (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4): ‘Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.’

“We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: ‘Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee,’ etc. “ (Summa Theologiae III:27:4)

>Co Redemptrix
Co Redemptrix is an ancient orthodox and patristic doctrine, which is obvious due to the fact of typology of Mary as the New Eve (see St. Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching). If through her Fiat God brought the redeemer into the world, then just as Eve's disobedience was the co-conspirator to Adam's corruption, so too was the New Eve's obedience the co-redemptrix to the New Adam's redemption.

>>19372645
Yeah noticing that too. Hilarious these retarded larpers can't understand the implications of that.

>>19372645
>>19372700
If you are talking about your post here >>19371763, I answered it quite clearly here >>19371759, and clarified here >>19371807. You then decided to run away from the discussion instead of answering my rebuttal, which everybody can see by a simple observation of the thread. Please feel free to offer your rebuttal now instead of running away again.

>>19372528
>Mediatrix of all graces
Though I see why this could scandalize you, I believe this to be perfectly orthodox. The title "Mediatrix of all Graces" is appropriate simply by the fact that she gave Jesus his human nature; and that in accepting the invitation to be his Mother, she becomes the "God-bearer" and thereby mediates to us Jesus Christ, author of all graces.

>>19372678
>New Eve
This also makes no sense when Christ is the New Adam.

>>19372707
Who do you think you're talking to? This is why redditors are so annoying. Anyway very carefully explain to me, because I'm slow, why I should take catholicism seriously when there is not a SINGLE historian living today, including apparently catholic ones, who affirm the historicity of petrine succession.

I mean you can't find one? Not one? And you're asserting you know better than every historian alive on this point? Because you read church father sources that they also read and know more about than you?

Without your pathetic walls of text just explain why I should say catholicism is obviously bullshit in that case. Don't quote some church father faggot just tell it to me straight. And no I'm not your imaginary nemesis.

>>19372707
I'm the one who posed the question. You never provided a rebuttal, you just said silly stuff that didn't warrant a response after promising you could deal with peer review and living historians. Further, I left because I have a fucking family and spend time with them in the evening. You're the typical catholic larper incel who sits in his moms basement 24/7 and shitposts about a religion you don't actually practice. So dilate you waste of life.

>>19372678
Your quotes demonstrate that both saints believed in the preservation of Mary from sin (which I will think about) but not the IC (which I remain opposed to). And you won't find any quotes of them defending the IC because they don't exist.

I re-looked into the case for Augustine being against the IC and it's pretty indirect, so I'll drop it. With Aquinas, however, it's clear:

>Reply to Objection 3. The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject, so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ.

> Reply to Objection 4. Original sin is transmitted through the origin, inasmuch as through the origin the human nature is transmitted, and original sin, properly speaking, affects the nature. And this takes place when the off-spring conceived is animated. Wherefore nothing hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation: for after this it remains in the mother's womb not for the purpose of receiving human nature, but for a certain perfecting of that which it has already received.

He opposes IC while saying she was nevertheless sanctified in the womb.

>Co Redemptrix
>Co Redemptrix is an ancient orthodox and patristic doctrine, which is obvious due to the fact of typology of Mary as the New Eve (see St. Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching). If through her Fiat God brought the redeemer into the world, then just as Eve's disobedience was the co-conspirator to Adam's corruption, so too was the New Eve's obedience the co-redemptrix to the New Adam's redemption.

Throwing around orthodox titles like New Eve and Theotokos won't distract from the fact that there is one redeemer and one mediator between God and men. It is not Mary. And these titles obfuscate that.

>>19372912
>>19372933
>Anyway very carefully explain to me, because I'm slow, why I should take catholicism seriously when there is not a SINGLE historian living today, including apparently catholic ones, who affirm the historicity of petrine succession.
There are many historians who affirm that Clement was a bishop of Rome, and that he spoke for the Roman church. The contention is on whether or not there was an explicitly monarchical episcopate clearly defined in the first or second century, or whether the initial stage of ecclesiastical governance was collegial. I would argue that with the only evidence that we have, namely the writings of the early church fathers and historians like Eusebius, it is undeniable that all of Christendom, by the second century at latest, understood the bishopric of Rome to have been an apostolically descended see, which had authority over the rest of the church:

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3)

"Let them exhibit the origins of their churches, let them unroll the list of their bishops, coming down from the beginning by succession in such a way that their first bishop had for his originator and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men; one, I mean, who continued with the apostles. For this is how the apostolic churches record their origins. [...] the church of Rome [reports] that Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other churches produced men who were appointed to the office of bishop by the apostles and so transmitted the apostolic seed to them." (Tertullian, Prescriptions against Heretics, 32)

"Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies [in Philippians 4:3], his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History)

And, of course, there is Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, where he says:
"Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; [...]"

Which means that when there was schism within the Corinthian church, they appealed all the way to Rome for assistance and consultation, proving Roman jurisdiction outside of the Roman see. So we have an apostolically descended see of Rome, beginning with Peter, which has jurisdiction over other sees - exactly the Catholic claim.

>>19373141
So you don't have a source for your claim, just your opinion. Cool. Let me know when anyone who actually understands the primary sources agrees with you. Do you even read Greek or Latin?

Don't answer I know the answer is no.

>>19372908
>This also makes no sense when Christ is the New Adam.
It was the authentic understanding of the matter since the very earliest days of Christianity, at least in the apostolic Johannine school of theology as transmitted through St. Polycarp to St. Irenaeus:
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.iv.html (see p.31-33)

>>19373048
I would argue; it is pretty clear that being preserved from original sin and personal sin is the very definition of the immaculate conception:
"The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic church that states that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception."
And so a passage from Aquinas like:
>The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin, as to the personal stain;
To me, clearly provides patristic support for the IC in Aquinas, though I see how it could be misconstrued as otherwise. We don't disagree that Mary still needed a saviour in the sacrifice of Christ - just that God gave her the grace to be sanctified and preserved from sin to be the holy ark in which the Word of God dwelled.
>Throwing around orthodox titles like New Eve and Theotokos won't distract from the fact that there is one redeemer and one mediator between God and men.
Through her cooperation, the redeemer came into the world - thus she is co-redeemer. She bore God and gave birth and mediated to us the author of all graces, and thus can be called the mediatrix of all graces. I see why these both could be used in an unorthodox way, but they are by no means unorthodox per se. I don't think that disagreeing with their unorthodox usage makes a valid reason to not be in the true church of Christ.

>>19373154
>can't contend with the actual argument, has to use appeal to authority fallacy instead of making a logical point
Thanks for trying, at least.

>>19373048
>distract
This strikes me as exactly what all of the Mariology does. Why sit around even thinking about all kinds of complex things regarding Mary instead of God? It reeks of Satan's wiles. "Praying the rosary" is 10 "Hail Mary"s to every 1 "Our Father". Think about that ratio.

>>19373207
The plan of salvation wouldn'tt have come to fruition if Pharaoh hadn't oppressed the Hebrew slaves. Excuse me if I don't hail Pharaoh as Co Redeemer.

Christ's ministry opened with John baptizing him in the Jordan. Is John a Co Redeemer?

We know about Christ through the Apostles and Evangelists. Are they Co Redeemers?

I can pray "Lord hear the prayers of your faithful." Am I then mediator if all graces?

These Marian titles only make sense if your intent is to exaggerate. They are either trivially true or monstrously false. There is no in between level of veracity. Either a doctrine of straw or damnable heresy.

>>19373280
The plan of salvation wouldn't have come to fruition without Satan tempting us into the fall either, should we "venerate", I wonder? One thing that bothers me with the whole "Church Fathers" bit, just because they sat around thinking stuff like all that up doesn't make any of it correct in the least. Even the 12 were regularly being rebuked by Christ for getting things wrong.

>>19373207
bad faith faggot. I told you from the beginning and you proved me correct. You have no depth in history. You haven't engaged with scholarship at all. You have never read any history. You've read some cherry picked sources and interpreted them with extreme bias and in a way no historian does, and you can't even question why. There is no historical method, no critical thinking, nothing. You're just spamming walls of text already addressed by even the one source I provided. And I have plenty more.

But what's the point. You take ignoring history in favor of your propaganda as a point of pride. You don't even know any historians nor a single article or text about Christian history. You implied you would engage on that way, but you just schizo'd out with your faggy proof texting from sources you've never actually read. Bad faith piece of shit human. Fortunately no one on earth will ever read your posts, including me. All we know for sure is that you have conceded that every single historian on earth agrees that there were no popes or bishops or Petrine succession and that catholicism is a lie.

You've conceded that in your sinful pride and your mental illness.

>>19373345
>Bad faith piece of shit human
>bad faith faggot
>schizo'd out
>faggy proof texting
>your sinful pride and your mental illness
This is quite a long way of saying "I cannot contend with your actual argument, so I will just make ad hominem attacks". Listen, I know that you are having a hard time articulating your own thoughts, and have based your whole worldview on an appeal to authority, but in case you have a change of heart and want to use your brain for what it was intended for, my argument is right here >>19373141.
What did Paul say about the fruits of the Spirit, again?
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."
It doesn't surprise me that somebody outside of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. For the sake of the lurkers, I hope you even attempt to rebut a single argument I've presented - although knowing how utterly devoid of the Holy Spirit you are, I don't doubt that your next response will just be more vitriol and hatred.

>>19373280
>Excuse me if I don't hail Pharaoh as Co Redeemer.
>Is John a Co Redeemer?
>Are they Co Redeemers?
You seem to be missing the point that the Blessed Virgin was literally the instrument whereby the Incarnate God Himself came into the universe. It is on a whole other league, which church father upon church father noticed and commented on. It is quite fitting and just to call her our co-redeemer - you don't have to call her that, obviously, but it is a fair and reasonable title.
>I can pray "Lord hear the prayers of your faithful." Am I then mediator if all graces?
I don't even think that you believe that this is an adequate rebuttal. Obviously, her giving flesh to God Himself, who is the author of all graces, makes it apt, if somewhat misleading without a proper theological understanding, to call her the mediatrix of all graces. You don't need to call her that, but you should at least recognize that it makes sense.
>They are either trivially true or monstrously false.
St. Irenaeus and the other fathers definitely didn't think Mary's intimate role in salvation history was trivial. I get that coming from Protestantism, one has a bit of a scornful attitude to the traditions of Marian veneration, but at least admitting that they are true, and can be explained easily in an orthodox way - even if you find it to be "trivially" true - should make less of a barrier to entering the true church of Jesus Christ.

Anyways, I'm glad that we are able to have such an amicable discussion, at least. I hope you continue to look more into the ancient faith, and let the Holy Spirit guide you to where He wants you to be. Be open to letting your preconceived biases down, and surrender to divine providence, trusting that God will lead the way. All love to you, brother, and I'm happy to discuss anything else you want to talk about.

>>19373404
you were incapable of addressing a single article from 1999 lmao. no one is reading your posts. what historical critical criteria did you apply to the texts you cited in your argument? what did you cross reference them with to provide context? Nothing? Oh OK.

There is no argument from authority here you are misapplying that. The issue isn't that credentialed historians are better than you. The issue is that you don't even know what they say. That's the problem and its not a fallacy to point that out

>>19373423
>Anyways, I'm glad that we are able to have such an amicable discussion, at least. I hope you continue to look more into the ancient faith, and let the Holy Spirit guide you to where He wants you to be. Be open to letting your preconceived biases down, and surrender to divine providence, trusting that God will lead the way. All love to you, brother, and I'm happy to discuss anything else you want to talk about.

Yes it was fun. But if I were going to look into an 'ancient faith', I'd be looking at the Monophysite churches for something. Most of the piety and theology you see in Catholic churches is late or post medieval.

>>19373456
I can't help but notice that you still haven't responded to the actual argument itself, instead continuing to talk about authorities. My argument is still waiting for you to rebut it: >>19373141
But for some reason, I imagine you won't, although it would be so easy for you. At least other people will be able to see that you haven't rebutted it, although you keep making appeals to authority.

>>19373553
>But if I were going to look into an 'ancient faith', I'd be looking at the Monophysite churches for something
Just be open to the Holy Spirit! Really surrender yourself to God's will, and trust that he will lead you to the true church which was founded by Christ in Matthew 16:18. I wholeheartedly believe that if you do this, and pray for clarity from the Spirit, you will be where you are meant to be. But never let preconceived notions and biases block the light and soft quiet voice of the spirit! All the best, my friend.