/lit/ - Literature

>>19739151
what's a good collection of prayers?

>>19739159
Blessed Be God is a good traditional prayer book
Universalis has an app where you can pray the Liturgy of the Hours, the Angelus, and the Rosary, as well as prompts for Lectio Divina
You might wanna check out Hallow (the app) if you're completely new to prayer and never done it before

The Orthodox will say start with a prayer rule but sometimes that is too much even for beginners. Prayer doesn't have to be complex.

I'm desperate for a good explanation of liturgy. Comparative, historical, biblical, and traditional aspects. I feel like there's so much depth in it, but I want to know the fullness of ideas behind it. I'm not opposed to reading about any denomination, although I'm Lutheran myself.

>>19739231
The Lamb's Supper: The Mass of Heaven on Earth - Scott Hahn

>>19739248
Thank you, brother!

I also just want to add to the thread, I have been going through the Gospels recently and remembered something from somewhere, that the Gospels each have a target audience. Matthew for the Jews: deals most with Mosaic laws
Mark for the Romans
Luke for the Gentiles I think, it mentions universals such as money and non-Jews a lot
John for Christians for in-depth study
Do you think this classification is still at all relevant, and can it be reapplied to categories of people today?

I have never read Merton but I always got the sense that he was bored with Christianity. That's why I preferred reading Spurgeon and Tozer.

Anyone waiting for the print edition NRSVue later this year?

Should I read it?

>>19739358
he was deeply engaged with the faith. new seeds of contemplation and no man is an island are profound books.

even his later works like conjectures of a guilty bystander are great

>>19739151
>literal who as the OP pic

>>19739414
No. Drivel.

>>19739427
Merton

>>19739420

I appreciate that in his later years he was critical of Seven Story Mountain and his original stance on monasticism. I think these revelations came from reading Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship.

>>19739231
Margaret Barker has several books precisely on this topic.
For something less academical and more theological, there's St Nicolas Cabasilas's "Commentary on the Divine Liturgy".

>>19739332
I like Fr Thomas Hopko and Fr Lawrence Farley's more precise observation that Matthew follows the style of the books of the Torah, Mark follows the style of the books of prophecy, Luke-Acts follow the style of the books of history, and John follows the style of the books of wisdom.
In this schema, then, the 4 gospels are nothing more than the fulfillment, the completion, the Christian understanding of the entirety of the Old Testament. It makes this classification very relevant, obviously.
As for the exact audiences, Matthew reveals the new Law and therefore is of interest for the more practically-minded, especially converts from commandment-based faiths like Judaism and Islam. Mark is very dynamic and apocalyptic, and reminds us to remain without attachment to the world as we are in the end times and in a swift movement toward the last judgment, something we especially need to be reminded of when our faith is under attack or, worse, we become negligent and lazy.
Luke and Acts still function well as a general introduction to Christianity - they contain all the basics of the faith, both as taught by Christ and exemplifies by the apostles, without the daunting legalism of Matthew, the daunting apocalypticism of Mark or the daunting theological weight of John. They also help the believer find their place in the story of salvation, as the Israel of the Old Testament becomes the Church of the New Testament, and the faith is shown to spread from Jerusalem to Rome, thereby affecting the whole world (Orthodox and Catholics in particular can recognize the very locations their churches still exist in).
And John is interesting for a crowd that seeks the true gnosis and esotericism. No conspiracies are necessary, only a deeper dive into the mystery of the Father, the Son and the Church that the other three gospels had revealed, a dive that ends up being uncomfortably deep and terrifyingly beautiful for anyone who reads this text.

I think Luke-Acts is a good catechesis on its own. Matthew is good for the practically-minded, Jews and Muslims. Mark's urgency remains a message of comfort for persecuted Christians, but it also becomes a warning for lenient Christians that the Master is returning soon and is already actively purifying the world. John is attractive for both Christians (who, when they read it, feel as if they are falling into an endless pit where Christ is the beginning and the end) and non-Christians (who, when they read it, can realize that Christianity is far deeper and more serious than they might have thought).

>>19739414
What does that subtitle even mean? Do Mormons believe in a "new new covenant" or something?
In my language it is called "Another Testimony of Jesus Christ". Is it some weird English thing where "testament" and "testimony" used to be synonymous?

>the healing of ten lepers
why is there a repeated theme of Samaritans and other foreigners being more grateful to receive blessings from God than the Galileans? same with the woman who was talking about 'even the little dogs might eat the crumbs under the children's table' and being healed for her faith. why were God and Jesus so fixated on bringing the galileans/jerusalemites to salvation when it seems like the repeated theme is they scorn him and are ingrates? where is the god of the other peoples/why does god not equally favor them?

>>19739159
1662 Book of Common Prayer

>>19739623
Because the jews are ungrateful due to being chosen. There are no other gods, only mere mockeries and statues.

>>19739413
No. I already downloaded the epub from libgen. They changed Gen 1:1 and I'm not interested.

>When God began to create[a] the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God[b] swept over the face of the waters.
>[a] Or "In the beginning God created"
>[b] Or "while the spirit of God" or "while a mighty wind"

As the other fiction fellow seems to have left, i'll end up asking again.
What fiction do you fellows read? And what do you think of Joyce's Wake? Quite torn on getting it. (Have the rest of him, enjoyed so far.)

>>19739798
Why are they so fixated on making bad translations?

>>19739623
From unity to multiplicity: outside of Paradise, the descendants of Adam and Eve lived in a world of corruptions and degradation, where we labor a hostile earth for our sustenance and ultimately die, rotting and returning to earth. With Lamech, war and polygamy were also introduced. Ultimately the Flood came and put everything back in order, with only a holy remnant being saved, that is, Noah and his family.

Same narrative schema, from unity to multiplicity: Noah's descendants try to build a tower to contain God, and as a result they are scattered geographically and linguistically (Japhet is the patriarch of the Europeans, Shem of the Asians and Ham of the Africans - the center of unity is implicitly Jerusalem).

And again, same narrative schema: God chooses Abraham through whom all of humanity will be reconciled and united again, but his descendants, through disobedience, lose the holy land as Assyria invades the northern kingdom and Babylon invades the southern kingdom.

This is when the plan of salvation evidently enters its next phase, that is, from multiplicity to unity. Of the 12 Hebrew tribes, 10 are deported by the Assyrians and spread throughout the world, ending up mixed with the Gentile nations (the Samaritans in particular are the descendants of those who remained in the northern kingdom but mixed with the Gentiles who then settled there). The other 2 end up in Babylon; they are the Jews, from the name of the main tribe, Judah. They are the holy remnant. From them comes the Messiah, Jesus, Who reunites the Hebrews and all of mankind again. Most of the Jews reject Him, but a holy remnant remains faithful: the early Christian community, centered in Jerusalem. And then Jesus sends the apostles to join the Gentiles to His people, the Church, thereby reuniting all of Israel again and all of mankind again.
Pentecost is depicted as an inversion of Babel - in the latter the languages were scattered, but in the former they are reunited. Likewise, the Acts of the Apostles depict Christianity spreading from Jerusalem (the capital of the Jews, the "holy city") to Rome (the capital of the Gentiles, the "evil city") to show this universal reuniting of extremes that were divided but, in Christ, are reconciled against all odds.

The way in which a majority of Jews reject Jesus and a majority of Gentiles accept Him, prefigured in the gospels but shown explicitly in Acts and the epistles, shows how God brings about His plan of universal reconciliation through unexpected means, turning the narrative schema against itself so that, although unity fell into multiplicity because of man's disobedience, the obedience of the one man Jesus gathers multiplicity back into unity.

>>19739623
Jesus is so fixated on bringing the Jews to salvation because, first of all, they are His beloved people and the mission of revealing God to the world is theirs; they have the privilege of having all the means necessary to understand who Jesus is and what He is there for, so He comes to them first as their king. Secondly, their rejection of Him leads to the sanctification of the whole world: they bring Him outside the holy city, as unclean things were to be, but instead it leads to their uncleanness and the purification of the world outside the city. Thirdly, not all Jews reject Him - there were not even any Gentiles among the disciples of Jesus until the conversion of Cornelius years later.
God gives equal favor to all people, but it is a matter of hierarchy. First the Jews, then the Gentiles. First those closest to the center of unity, then those who are the most scattered, until reaching everyone, until everyone is reunited and reconciled.

You should read Romans and Hebrews, they are meditations on precisely this question of the Jews' rejection of Jesus. You should also read Acts, it shines some light on why the writers of the gospels wanted to emphasize how Jews rejected Jesus while Romans and Samaritans generally accepted Him.

>>19739773
why did God choose such ingrates? serious question

>>19739907
No idea. Still a bit basic on my studies.

>>19739890
>>19739876
Thank you anon

>>19739907
Because of the faith of Abraham, that they may learn that it is not based on their own merits that they are chosen, but because of the faith of Abraham, and that they only do good insofar as they imitate him. (See Deuteronomy)
Because we often are stubborn and lawless too, and their bad example is a lesson for us. (See 1 Corinthians)
Because God always does things in a way we do not expect. He chooses the unremarkable, the weak... He did this with the prophets, the apostles, the patriarchs, the Church, and the Hebrews.

>>19739966
>He chooses the unremarkable, the weak...
Indeed and those that are weak and suffer will be rewarded. "and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

>>19739151
what is the best Bible to read and study. Most Bibles are cucked, Or omit verses, or subvert the text. The KJV is heavily subverted especially the ones made in china. They even have emojis in the text.

My king James Bible is subverted in many verses. Uses words like "Couch, Matrix, Wolves instead of lions, emojis at the end of Jesus verses, also bottles instead of wine skins, Easter instead of Passover, etc."

>>19739890
didn't a Gentile Help Jesus carry the cross? Also didn't a Gentile receive Christ on the cross as they were crucified next to eachother? Also the man in the wilderness who was converted?

>>19740210
if you are using words like "cucked" or "subvert the text" to speak about different translations with differing sources and different translation philosophies, you really don't understand biblical exegesis.

it sounds like you bought some sort of "kid's bible". every bible says what translation it is, did you check to see what kind of translation you bought?

>>19739876
>God brings about His plan of universal reconciliation through unexpected means, turning the narrative schema against itself so that, although unity fell into multiplicity because of man's disobedience, the obedience of the one man Jesus gathers multiplicity back into unity.

You mind explaining this some more? Weren't many of the Jewish people disobedient to God since the time of King David? Just read the book of Kings and just about every Israel/Judah king was an abomination in the sight of God starting from Solomons worshiping Baal and Moloch

>>19740235
Yes I bought the King James version off of amazon. Not sure of the publisher but it is printed in china.

Uses words like "Couch, Matrix, Wolves instead of lions, emojis at the end of Jesus verses, also bottles instead of wine skins, Easter instead of Passover, etc."

>>19740235
Watch this video. The guy explains the EXACT same thing I am experiencing when reading the KJV. The more modern prints of the 2000's and 1900's are changing words and omitting verses.

https://youtu.be/HujIJ70dA3I

>>19739413
I'm waiting for it to be released in a study bible. Actually they did significant re-translation from newfound sources for the deuterocanonical books (greek esther especially) so that alone is worth the buy, imo.

>>19739414
only read it to see how joseph smith wrote in the style of the KJV, it's pretty funny

>>19739462
Merton really shouldn't be judged on seven storey mountain, it's not representative of his mature later thought. check out stuff like "raids on the unspeakable" or "ishi means man" or "seeds of destruction" or "bread in the wilderness".

>>19739566
from what I understand, yes. the "angel moroni" gave new revelation to joseph smith, sort of like muhammad supposedly got.

>>19739623
seconding the other guy on reading Romans and Hebrews, they're good meditations on your question

>>19739802
>Finnegans Wake
is not worth the buy, and I say that as someone who loves joyce. fiction i've enjoyed? unger's the maimed, the collector by fowles.

>>19739816
it's not a "bad translation", the hebrew quite literally means "when God began to create". only reason that "in the beginning" "sounds" correct is b/c the KJV translated it that way and it's an influential translation.

>>19740269
The KJV uses those terms but it does not have emojis lol

>>19740269
>>19740288
the KJV was continually revised multiple times since the original publication, some editions have differing words than others, even before eventually it was fully revised into the AV, the ASV, the RSV, the NRSV, the ESV, and now the NRSVUE.
it's a common misconception that the KJV has not been revised until a "new translation" like the ASV came about. that's false, it was continually quietly revised for 300 years.

>>19740301
I found my (handwritten) notes about the Bible emojis. They are still in there; at least they are in my KJV.

Ex: II Corinthians 5:7
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

See the emoji? That well-loved verse was NOT enclosed in parentheses before; nor was there a colon at the end of the line. Why would there need to be? It’s nonsensical. Whatever is doing this is f’g with us.

Here’s the verse again from Bible Gateway: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205%3A7&version=KJV

Another one:

II Corinthians 9:9-10
9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. 10 Now he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness;)

And BG’s version, showing the emoji: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%209%3A9-10&version=KJV

Again, these two verses were formerly not enclosed in parentheses (again, why? no need). The close parenthesis is just a vehicle for showing the emoji.

Here’s another one:

II Corinthians 10:4
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

BG: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010%3A4&version=KJV

That winking emoji is supposed to inspire dread, I think. Or maybe it’s just another example of mocking.

>>19740307
>and now the NRSVUE.
Stop shilling this antichristian filth.

>>19740313
hahahahahahahahaha

>>19740313
That's not an emoji, just punctuation editing.

>>19740307
so then you just admitted that the modern versions of the KJV (After 1880) are mostly subverted from original form. For fuck sake the KJV and NKJV uses the word "Unicorn" 6 times to replace the word Oxen. They are fucking with us

>>19740325
Its a fucking Emoji. These were printed in China. And those verses were NEVER printed with parentheses around them before these newer versions

>>19740230
>>19740260

so the idea is this, at least according to Paul's thought. the point of the old law is to be unfulfillable. it is meant to be burdensome and tedious in order to show that humanity can never justify itself through its own effort.
the disobedience of the jews isn't really the point per se, it's more that the law "instilled a desire" for a "new law" which would be based less on legalism.
the story of jesus isn't really about jews or their rejection of him, it's more about showing how legalism is not God's plan. thus the Jew/Gentile distinction really becomes irrelevant.

>>19740330
more proof we are being fucked with. And Gods word is being actively subverted

>>19740330
i'm not really a KJV guy but i'm assumed what you called "subverted" is literally just updating the translation using more common modern vocab, and translating using new sources. I don't really think it's a nefarious thing. really the original translators' preface in the KJV 1st edition, they basically say how the KJV will need to be updated in the future and they give alternate readings in the textual margins.

>>19740313
>>19740334
what you're calling emojis is just punctuation, no offense.

>>19740291
>not worth the buy
Why not Joycebro?

>>19740334
Here you go, a scan from a copy of John Brown of Haddington's Self-Interpeting Bible (one of the first study bibles) printed in 1831. It uses the colon within the parentheses at 2 Cor. 5:7. Check for yourself here
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Self_interpreting_Bible/rGZAAAAAcAAJ

>>19740349
>>19740330
The King James Version is not "God's word", it is a translation. That's why it's called a version.

>>19739151
>fag who killed himself
yup, it's the Jewish mind virus

I hate Christianity so much it's unreal

>>19740358
Finnegans Wake is just hard to read honestly, it's more an experiment in shades of textual meaning by joyce. yeah it's a fascinating experiment but if you really want to "understand" it you need stuff like the skeleton key to the wake, etc.
if you want to read it go ahead ofc but it just didn't seem worth the time to study in depth

>>19740374
>Finnegans Wake is just hard to read honestly
biggest understatement since
>King of the Hill is pretty good

>>19740374
I'm very inclined to go read, especially for the challenge.
Searched your likings, pretty good. I've heard of the collector somewhere before.

How easy is it to get lost or misinterpret even? I've seen a "key" style book that drives into kaballah of all things.

>>19740368
>>19740366

Explain to me this, in older texts Isaiah 11:6 should say “Then the Lion shall lay down with the Lamb and the bear shall eat grass like the ox, and the child shall play on the hole of the asp and nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy Mountain.” (Isaiah 11:6)

BUT in modern versions it is now

" The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them." (Isaiah 11:6)

>>19740387
Here's the original 1611 KJV and it has wolf, etc.

>>19740291
Esther isn't deuterocanon.

>>19740387
Lmao did you get 'The Message'?

>>19740405
I agree but greek esther is classified as that usually

>>19740406
I don't know what he's referring to. Apparently "lion" is a reading in the Septuagint but I can't find any English translation that follows it there other than mentioning it in a footnote.

How do I actually love people? Technically I want to, very hard, but in practice as soon as I get in contact with reality I would carpet nuke the entire planet. I have a true boiling hatred for human beings I cannot concile with my will to imitate Christ. Is this why monks go no contact with the world and only deal with other monks? Isn't it cheating?

>>19740402
>“Then the Lion shall lay down with the Lamb and the bear shall eat grass like the ox, and the child shall play on the hole of the asp and nothing shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy Mountain.” (Isaiah 11:6)

So what happened to this verse? Erased? Since when had Wolf ever been used in conjunction with Lamb. It had always been Lion as lion is used multiple times. Mandela effect?

>>19740386
Joyce basically tried to make the Wake *the* book of human knowledge and history. pretty ambitious. so yes, the kabbalah is in there, dirty jokes are in there, eskimo languages are in there, creation myths are in there, etc.

personally i enjoyed spending my time watching films like Bad Lieutenant or Cop with James Woods more. more amusing. yes i am proudly small brained.

>Greeks and Romans still unread
>obsesses over Jewish fanfic
shamefur dispray, white man

>>19740230
Simon of Cyrene was a Jew.
The demoniac in the graveyard did not become a disciple of Jesus at the time but was told to go back to his city. Besides, some Church Fathers interpret that the Gadarenes were (heavily Hellenized) Jews, and that's why Jesus allows the demise of the pigs, since they weren't supposed to raise them to begin with.

>>19740260
Indeed, and even before that, the Hebrews became pagans while under Egyptian slavery and kept whining in the wilderness because the comforts of paganism were much better.
For the early Jewish Christians, they were living the same situation all over again - most of the Jews became unfaithful, this time by denying the Messiah when He had come, both crucifying Him and persecuting His disciples.
But while the sins of men had broken unity apart and caused their dispersion (Adam banished from Eden, mankind drowned by the Flood, Ham's son Canaan cursed, the exile to Babylon...), this greatest sin of crucifying Jesus and rejecting Him and His followers leads instead to the reconciliation of mankind to one another and to God. See for instance the parable of the wicked vinedressers, who, after killing the servants of the King (the prophets of God) and ultimately His Son, lose the vineyard, which is then opened up to another people (the Gentiles). Or the parable of the wedding banquet: because those who were specifically called to the wedding refused to come, they were banished from it and the rest of the world was invited, even the villains.

>>19740291
But... Who is this "third Testament" for? The Old Testament was for the Jews. The New Testament is for the Jews and Gentiles. What is the "Another Testament" for?

Anyone else here not part of a denomination but love the Bible as literature?

>>19740423
>>19740402
Even Martin Luther King Jr. refers to the "Lion shall lay down with the Lamb" in his Nobel prize speech. Watch at from the 8:05 time mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r98tT0j1a0

>>19740461
yeah, tastelets lmao

>>19740406
My Cambridge says wolf.

>>19740387
what do you mean "should say"? according to what translation? the KJV has been continually updated, I told you that, even before it was translated fully into the ASV

let's look at some modern translations:
NABRE
>Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat; The calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them.

NRSV
>The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together, and a little child shall lead them.

NASB
>And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fattened steer will be together; And a little boy will lead them.

CSB
>The wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat. The calf, the young lion, and the fattened calf will be together, and a child will lead them.

>>19740486
Im saying that originally there was no wolf. It was Lion. The lion is used throughout the bible they changed this verse to wolf. See>>19740464

>>19740434
>>19740464
I think this may be one of those instances like where people think there's a Bible verse that says "God works in mysterious ways" where there isn't. Lion/lamb has alliteration, and thus sounds good, and lion is present in the Septuagint, so perhaps it was used in some popular sermons or works and just made its way into the public consciousness.

>>19740486
only the NIV mentions lion

>The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together; and a little child will lead them.

>Footnotes
>Isaiah 11:6 Hebrew; Septuagint "lion will feed"

>>19740493
Did you watch this? You cannot even defend the things he points out about the changes to older versions of the KJV

https://youtu.be/HujIJ70dA3I [Embed]

>>19740434
"Lion" is a LXX reading. Modern OT translations use the MT as copy text. Your "conspiracy" is literally just using different textual sources.

The original KJV translators preferred the MT too, if you have any problem, take it up with them. It's not about "corruption". I usually don't say this but you actually are a bit schizo on this point.

>>19740313
Actually pretty interesting. Most likely a coincidence, but their value depends on what you think of coincidences. Could be some demonic influence on you to take notice of something like this, on the printing being like this, or both. Anyways probably best not to think too much about it. Christ has already won. Why surrender your attention from His holy word to typos?

>>19740443
I don't know if i should not read it because of some of that. What do you think?
>>19740483
Wolf on my JB too. Huh. Exactly >>19740387 post basically.

>>19740460
LDS think it's for everyone, same with Muslims think the Qur'an is for everyone.

>>19740433
Whenever you face that issue just replace it with repentance, awareness that you are failing that ideal. Also realize that from a God's eye view the people that you judge could be doing better in some key way than you are doing. When in doubt just default to awareness that you are falling short and in need of mercy, and those you despise are falling short and in need of mercy. Ask God to give those people mercy, and to give you mercy. Realizing that you are just as broken and bad as those you despise is a step towards discovering genuine love for all.

>>19740522
Learn about textual and manuscript traditions.

>>19740534
I just point it out because someone else pointed it out to me. Also it is odd that some of the parentheses in new versions have been inserted. Just an observation also circulating on Reddit. Im not possessed lol. WE all need to stay vigilant to any and all (((Changes))) to the word of God

https://www.reddit.com/r/Retconned/comments/qbg53a/unicorn_in_the_kjv_bible/

>>19739248
Seconding this. Just read it over the break. Wonderful.

>>19740554
It needs to be taken seriously. These bibles are being sold by the thousands with misinterpretations

>>19740522
Modern fundamentalist "bible conspiracies" are just people who don't understand that some translations use LXX readings, and some translations use Masoretic readings.

>>19740571
Its not a conspiracy when the bibles are printed in China and have blatant misuse of words

>>19739890
>>19740460
Indeed. I would add the mention of God deciding the way He will show salvation and He is the one that has that power to bring salvation. The parable of the vineyard workers is clear about God being the one that decides with who He will share His rewards, not His workers.
“Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?”

>>19740570
>>19740559
It's not "misinterpretations", it's different translations from different textual traditions.
There is no "right" reading. There are arguments in favor of the LXX, and arguments in favor of the MT. Modern translators use both.
This is the problem with fundamentalism, it quite literally doesn't understand what it is talking about.

>>19740433
Let go of what weighs you down.
Do you love God more? Then pray more; follow a prayer rule, one that suits your attention span and your time.
Do you love yourself more? Then fast once or twice a week, to the degree that suits you where you are; it can be as simple as avoiding meat.
Also, the Fathers categorize Christians according to three levels. First are slaves of God, who obey Him out of fear of punishment. Second are mercenaries of God, who obey Him out of desire for reward. Third are sons of God, who obey Him solely out of love for Him and everything He made.
It is fine to start out as a slave or a mercenary, but we must all end up as sons.

An example: three monks were unjustly insulted by someone. (Needless to say, an infidel would cry or answer back, because of their ego being hurt.) The first monk kept his mouth shut, fearing God more than his opponent. The second monk became glad that he was persecuted unjustly, because this will become a reward. The third monk wept bitterly, not because his pride was hurt but out of compassion for this man who was killing his own soul. They demonstrate the three levels of being a Christian.
If you can't find it in yourself to love your neighbor out of love for God, at least love your neighbor to amass a great reward, or love your neighbor because the eternal fire is prepared for those who do not.
Also, love is not an emotion but an action. If you feel complete disgust at another person and yet you look after their well-being, you are not far from the Kingdom of God and you will even learn to let go of this disgust once you see Christ in this person. The Law of Moses commanded to help out one's enemy if their mean of sustenance is in danger, it's the least we can do.

>>19740543
But so is the New Testament.
Or is the claim that the "Another Testament" is really just the New Testament restored? Why the title "Another" if so?

>>19740587
it is a misinterpretation.

How does "Wineskins become Bottle"
How does "Ox become Unicorn
How does "Passover become Easter"
How does "Heavens become Heaven"
why does the word couch suddenly appear in the KJV

BUT MY BIGGEST issue is how the FUCK is the Lords Prayer being subverted from "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us"

TO

Forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors.

BULLSHIT. Bible is being subverted.

>>19740608
I'm not LDS, I can't really answer that.

>>19740541
up to you man. personally I'm just not a fan

>>19740611
the KJV is a translation. there are multiple ways to translate words in hebrew and greek. certain manuscripts have different readings. what you call subversion is literally just using alternative translations from different manuscripts.

for example what you call "trespasses", in the koine:

ὀφειλήματα

Strong's
>that which is owed, a debt
>Original Word: ὀφείλημα, ατος, τό
>Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
>Transliteration: opheiléma
>Definition: that which is owed, a debt
>Usage: a debt, offense, sin.

aka: "forgive us our debts".

stop watching videos from pastor bob

>>19740612
Not a fan of what composes it, or of the way it was written?

>>19740639
See you are part of the problem. If ox becomes unicorn and Wineskin becomes bottle and the Lords Prayer is blatantly changed....in another 50 years the Prophets will be trannys who drive Lamborghinis instead of traveling by foot....And YOU will still be sitting there saying "Oh don't worry goys, its just an alternative translation" YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. The KJB Bible should not have new changes every 10 years

Tyndale mistranslated it as "trespasses" and that's what made it into the Book of Common Prayer so it gets recited as such in many churches to this day (it did in my Methodist one). The proper word is debts.

>>19740665
Makes you wonder about how much else has been misinterpreted. Very disheartening

>>19740658
I'm pretty sure you're a troll but in case you aren't

Seems your problem is with the KJV translators too then, since they agree with the need to update translations in the 1611 Translator's Preface.

questions:
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?
2 What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible?
3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
4. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
5.Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates.
6. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
7. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
8. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
9. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?

>>19740658
10. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
11. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
12. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate?
13. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
14. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
15. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
16. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
17. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

>>19740658
18. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
19. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
20. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
21. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
22. Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
23. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
24. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged."
25. Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?

>>19740658
26. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8?
27. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"?
28. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"?
29. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611?
30. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? Does this mean if the Reformation is illegitimate, if they didn't have the KJV? what is the KJV is a product of the Reformation?

>>19740673
Things like that are negligible/niggling and make no essential differences.

>>19740612
>>19740657
Making it clearer because i disliked my wording, not a fan of those concepts being a part of it, or of the book itself(and it's difficulty)?
Other threadgoers, please chip in.

>>19740831
it's just a hard book to read, it wasn't enjoyable for me. you can of course read it if you want.

>>19740842
I'm more taken aback by the concepts, wanted to know if that was your issue aswell. Thanks for the little chat about it!
Would you enjoy chatting some other topic for your troubles?

>>19740762
>>19740743
>>19740724
>>19740706

You would think with all of the Tech and AI we have now we couldn't go line for line in the old greek translations of the Codex and make a verbatim translation and compare it to a KJV printed in 2020

>>19740608
>>19740612
Mormons see the Bible and Book of Mormon as two parts of a collective work of scripture, which loses its pure doctrine if either part is used without the other. The specific metaphor is "the stick of Ephraim and the stick of Judah," iirc.
They consider the BoM to be a work which "clarifies" doctrines that were already present in the Bible but which were misinterpreted after the deaths of the Apostles (whose deaths also led to the loss of priesthood authority on Earth), and whose misinterpretation necessitated the discovery and translation of the BoM to recitfy.
t. Fence sitter guy from the last couple threads

>>19740434
I am >>19740483
Clementine Vulgata says
>Habitábit lupus cum agno
Lupus means wolf as you can imagine.
As well as "unicórnis".
Synodal says вoлк (wolf) and eдинopoгa (unicorn).
My BJ says the word for "ox" in Psalms 29 and 92.
ESV and RSV go with "wild ox".
Just giving some info.

>>19741454
And my old (XIX century) Bible says, guess what, "rhinoceros". Now that's a unicorn all right.

>>19741170
How are you on the fence between Christianity and whatever mormonism is

>>19741693
I'm on the fence between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. I grew up in the LDS church but I can't agree with its metaphysics or theology any more, no matter how nice the people who believe in it are.

>>19741716
>leaving one Satanic cult for another
Why not just become Christian instead?

>>19741726

>>19741716
Hey anon, we chatted in last thread. Have you tried actually going to those churches? You can't take decisions like that on paper alone.

>>19741734
I've been to Liturgy a couple times and have spoken with a priest. I haven't really investigated the Catholic church in person so far.

>>19741726
>doesn't understand that the oldest Christian churches all agree that Protestants are the ones that are in error
Does it not feel strange that every Church which has a legitimate claim to being founded by Jesus Christ all think that your Anglicized sola-scriptura monstrosity is essentially a philosophically incoherent laughing-stock?

>>19741716
I'd go to a Reformed Protestant one. Chsrismatics maybe.
Don't go Catholic, and i don't know orthos, but dislike them.

>>19741758
I say prot because it envelops everything outside those two. There are numerous pitfalls and bad pritestsnt doctrines. Judt gotta find a good one.

>>19741752
Why would I care what people who were fooled into praying to Ishtar think?

>>19741763
**protestant
>t. forgot how to type properly

>>19741767
So, when do you think the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and stopped leading the apostles and their successors into all truth? In your estimation, what is the true Church that has been guided by the Holy Spirit this whole time?

>>19741118
Machine translation is notoriously bad
It can't even perfectly translate from modern Spanish to modern English, which are immeasurably closer to each other than Koine Greek to modern English

>>19741767
>fooled into praying to Ishtar
Imagine basing your theology and church history off of secondhand Jack Chick comic conclusions. Pretty sad desu.

>>19741758
Also scrap the Charismatics suggestion
>they think speaking in tongues isn't a sign of baptism in the Holy Spirit

>>19741772
The Church is not a specific earthly institution, the Church is the Body of legitimate believers regardless of what earthly institutions they are/aren't members of.

>>19739414
Every time I pull up the Project Gutenberg link I read a little bit and then get instantly filtered by how fucking dry and boring it is. Even the most boring Bible books like Numbers or Deuteronomy are more readable than the Book of Mormon.

>>19741797
The best thing about it might be that it is boring. So you stay far away from reading it.

>>19741782
I never heard this as a theology. I know who Ishtar is, and I have read the Holy Bible and know how Jesus taught us to pray, what He said about Mary, and what the epistles teach. I also know the origin of "ever virgin Mary" (2nd century fan fiction Gospel of James filled with wacko stuff) and how Jerome argued it into the church based on fabricated heavenly hierarchies. I just put it all together and see it for what it is. Imagine thinking everyone has to get their understandings handed to them by others like (You) do.

>>19741816
oh great is this retard again

>>19741823
>gets fooled by Satan into praying to demons
>calls others retard

>>19741787
St. Paul quite clearly instructs the believers to excommunicate somebody from the church - and that doing so is tantamount to letting them be destroyed by Satan. "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is intolerable even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been stricken with grief and have removed from your fellowship the man who did this?
Although I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit, and I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of the Lord Jesus, 5hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the Day of the Lord." (1 Cor. 5:1-5)
Let's perform a bit of a thought experiment. Say that the Corinthian church listened to Paul, and kicked out this individual from their communion (as he also recommends to the Thessalonians in 2 Thes. 3:14). Then, let's say that that individual says to himself that he was going to start his own church - and that because they would be gathered in the name of Jesus Christ, it would be an official church, constituted of legitimate believers. Would this church be valid?

If not, that means that there are a series of churches on earth that, altogether considered, are the "true church", and that being excommunicated from that communion of churches is tantamount to being left to be destroyed by Satan. If it is, then your idea of ecclesiology runs contrary to the apostles themselves, not to mention their successors, who said such things as "we do put to confusion [...] those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings [...]" (St. Irenaeus, AH 3:3), or "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." (St. Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8)

>>19741830
>the Mother of God is a demon
okay rabbi

>>19741816
>I also know the origin of "ever virgin Mary" (2nd century fan fiction Gospel of James filled with wacko stuff)
Just because a belief is present in an early text, does not mean that text is the source of that belief. The proto-evangelium of James actually stands as an independent witness that there was a belief present in the early Christian church that the blessed Virgin remained a virgin all her life - and that this belief was not condemned at all by the successors of the apostles, despite being present and clearly known of in Christian communities, is extremely strong evidence that the same was taught in their own communities (eg. it was taught by the apostles, and passed down as apostolic tradition).
> I just put it all together and see it for what it is.
eg. You follow your own heart, and lean on your own understanding. Don't you know that "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool", and that you are not to "lean on your own understanding"?

>>19741839
>the demon you are praying to is actually Mary who gave birth to Jesus' human form but had nothing to do with birthing Him in the beginning

>>19741861
>calling Jesus' mother a demon
>doesn't understand what Theotokos means
>denies the title Theotokos
>thinks ancient Christians believe that the blessed Virgin conceived God the Son's divine nature, and not just His human nature
Total ignorance.

>Mary is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. She is the perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah, beginning with the promise given to Abraham
Source, "Orthodox™" Study Bible

>>19741896
remember when you posted this in the last thread and everyone laughed at you for being retarded

>>19741823
pretty sure he's actually trolling

>The burning bush beheld by Moses in the wilderness (Ex 3:1–6) is one of the most often mentioned types of Mary.
>St. John of Damascus observes, “The burning bush is an image of God’s Mother
Source, "Orthodox™" Study Bible
>>19741900
Why would I care what people who were fooled by Satan into Ishtar worship think?

>>19741908
Why is my icon of "Ishtar' depicted as holding the child Jesus Christ? Are you going to say that representations of Jesus are demonic as well?

What denomination is "ishtar" spammer?

>>19741939
tiktok

>>19741939
Christian.

>>19741758
>I don't know Catholics or Orthodox but I dislike them
lol. "reformed", everyone!

>>19741716
what is your familial background? all LDS?

Anyone here actually read the bible daily? what's your reading plan? do you just read, do you meditate, what do you do?

>>19741927
One of Ishtar's mythological behaviors is taking over the dominion of other deities. It seems that "she" is just rubbing in your faces that she has overtaken Christ.

>>19741952
I don't know orthodox. Learn to read.

>>19741958
https://www.goarch.org/chapel/calendar

>>19741958
Yes, I just read whatever I am led to, and meditate on it, and pray, etc. I often read from both the OT and NT each day.

Has anyone else here read through entire gospels in one sitting? I recently decided to do this myself... and it was a very interesting experience.

Anyway, I had heard that if one were to read the entire Gospel of Mark out loud (i.e. at pew speed), it would only take ~1.5 hours to do so. Learning this was a total surprise to me (1.5 hours is nothing). Then there's the fact that reading silently -- and even doing so carefully -- should take LESS time, still. Well that sure proved true for me. I was able to absolutely fly through all the gospels. To make things even simpler, I decided to approach the texts like I would a novel. In other words, my goal was to understand the overall plot and characters to the best of my ability, without letting myself get bogged down by confusing paragraphs or passages (I marked them and came back later).

Another change I made is that I didn't read the gospels in the usual order, because I knew (going in) that Luke-Acts was written by the same author (compare Luke 1:1 to Acts 1:1). So I thought that it would be appropriate to read them continuously, as they were originally arranged. In the end this is the order that I chose: John, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts.

Honestly... the synoptic gospels made way more sense to me in that order.

How do presuppositionalists distinguish the noumenon of the Bible from the phenomenon of the Bible?

>>19741960
God destroyed the statue of Dagon the moment the Ark WAS placed near the demon.
Your claim has no value and instead you dare to speak blasphemies of the Holy mother of God.

>>19741939
Probably a protestant or evangelical. But most likely he does not believe in anything and he is looking for a reason to discuss with others.

>>19741952
LDS going back to the 1850s.

>>19742094
That's also my own order for the gospels and Acts.

>>19742101
You're an absolute retard. I do not speak in any way negatively against Mary. What you are worshiping/praying to is not Mary. Christ rebuked the woman who cried out "blessed is the womb which bore you". Christ taught to pray to the Father. Christ taught not to call religious figures by the title of "Father". The LORD God Almighty taught not to bow before idols. Enjoy your "church" teaching blatant disregard for Scripture and to pray to demons in disguise.

>>19742186
You speak blasphemies and pretend otherwise. At best you are a joke and at worst you a complete heretic, not different from a Nestorian trying to apply Iconoclasm rules.

>>19741716
I am Orthodox but have been looking into Catholicism lately.
I really appreciate our shared understanding that the saints establish the rule of the faith. I also really like the Mass, it's very primitive (in a good way) compared to the Divine Liturgy. Going off the principle that the Sunday liturgy contains the plenitude of Christian dogma, it is evident that Catholicism is far less exigent than Orthodoxy on theological precision, leading to a much shorter and simpler liturgy with far less theological baggage behind the Trinity, the Incarnation, Mary, the Church... Catholicism seems to me to be more streamlined and accessible than Orthodoxy.
In fact, as an Orthodox, I could become Catholic immediately by receiving communion. No need to go through baptism, confirmation or catechesis. No need to recant any doctrine I currently hold; it is sufficient that I am baptized, I agree with the teaching of the Mass and I come toward communion in good conscience.
I do not think I will become Catholic (it would be a brash decision right now) but this is to provide my perspective on the matter.

The issue is that an Orthodox could reasonably disagree with some parts of the Mass (the filioque obviously, and also the fact the Roman canon has no epiklesis, also that unleavened bread is consecrated), and a Catholic likewise could reasonably disagree with the Divine Liturgy (no mention of the Pope, the consecration happens at the epiklesis rather than at the words of institution). For Catholicism this can still be covered by the "don't ask, don't tell" politicy, which is why the Divine Liturgy of John Chrysostom is used in Catholicism too. But as an Orthodox I cannot accept this; major disagreements need to be ironed out, not swept under the rug until everyone forgets. While I do not agree with traditionalist Orthodox that the Mass contains heretical things, I do find the Catholic approach to communion and to plurality questionable (and now I understand better why Catholics come off as "the first Protestants" to some Orthodox; it feels like a middle ground between the two, although a healthy one).

>>19742211
The words you speak sound as if coming directly from a demon. This could be a result of possession from praying to them. Paul warned daily with tears that the church would be corrupted after his departure. Peter gave a similar word. Surprise surprise, they meant what they said.

>>19742226
>The words you speak sound as if coming directly from a demon
The only demonic words in this conversation are those from your mouth, trying to revive the old heresy of nestorianism and trying to destroy images claiming they are idols, as if you were the new leader of iconoclasts.
You hide behind the Apostles but you deny the disciples that were appointed by them and were heirs of their doctrine.

PERMABAN ME TRANNY JANNIES

I HATE THIS SITE

>>19742169
Interesting. What things did you notice when reading the gospels in that order?

>>19742245
I don't "hide behind" anything, nor do I deny the actual Apostles. I do not accept the claims of a "church" which are blatantly at odds with what was permanently, clearly recorded in Scripture so that we would always have access to the actual truth. If some "church" says that the Apostles taught something that is at odds with Scripture, I am not buying their bullshit. The actual Apostles wouldn't have written one thing into Scripture and then taught contrary things outside of it.

>>19742281
>I don't "hide behind" anything
Yes you do. And you do this to attack the Church. Be either Orthodox or Catholic. There's no sincerity in your words, only poison and the intention to destroy at all costs if that means you are right according to you and only you.

>>19742276
It just has a more natural flow to it. I mean, right off the bat, beginning the NT with "In the beginning" just like the OT makes the most sense, and as you say Luke into Acts makes the most sense. It's difficult to quantify Mark before Matthew, but I prefer the simpler urgency of Mark being between the high concepts of John and the intricacies of Matthew. In essence, it just feels like the proper flow for them.

>>19742295
No, according to *Holy Scripture*, and not interested in being right, but avoiding being so incredibly mislead by Satan from what Scripture has recorded for us.

>>19742310
>and not interested in being right
Yes you are. Once again you hide but this time behind The Bible.
You believe you are not being misleaded by Satan; would the unrepented sinner admit he is a sinner?
You are commited to your heresy and you will not admit otherwise.

>>19742326
For your own sake I hope you're just baiting/trolling and not truly this demonic. Either way, seek help from God, *directly*.

>>19742335
And now you pretend to care about me? The same person that called me "absolute retard" a few posts back?
There's no sincerity in your words and contrary to you there's no hatred or irony in my words. You are arrogant and in your arrogance you will never concede, because no one can't be right, except you.

>>19742225
Thanks for the insight, anon.
Personally, I get turned off from the Catholic church but I can't really put my finger on an exact reason why.
They seem to have a more legalistic and scholastic view of most theological subjects than the Orthodox do, or maybe they just get so tied up in defining things in the most exact terms possible that they lose focus a little.
I'm trying to think of some specific examples but I'm a little retarded, give me a minute.

>>19739151
i have never read the bible what would be a good place to start? I dont really like old english

>>19742094
I've been reading through every book in one sitting. A bit of a marathon, especially for the Psalms, but really helpful to take in a book as a whole without forgetting the beginning by the time you get to the end.
I like how Matthew, Mark and Luke structure their gospel differently. Matthew has a clear agenda of portraying Jesus's ministry as the giving of the new covenant - the parallel between the 5 discourses and the Pentateuch is blatant. It also makes me wonder why scholars say that wordy discourses are a trait unique to John; the Jesus of Matthew is very much an orator who speaks mysteriously.
Mark feels rather epic, and very obviously presents the gospel as the final eschatological battle between good and evil. Jesus immediately shows up, faces Satan in the wilderness, exorcises people throughout Galilee, then finally faces all the powers of evil in Jerusalem and wins through the cross.
Luke is very scholarly in its account of the gospel. It simply categorizes the deeds and teachings of Jesus according to chronological order - His childhood, then His ministry in Galilee, then in Samaria/Judea, then in Jerusalem. In Acts this ministry will be continued by the apostles, from Jerusalem to Rome. The author of both books forfeits narrative devices, theologically-minded structures, etc. in favor of a simple presentation of every reliable tradition he could get his hands on, with seemingly little knowledge of the precise order of events, only knowing when they generally happened according to location (he even seems to have more information by the time he writes Acts, as, for all intents and purposes, Luke appears to depict the ascension as happening immediately after the resurrection, but Acts precises that it was actually 40 days later).
I have yet to read John in one sitting.

>>19742371
EOB New Testament

>>19742379
Is it alright if a catholic reads it? My parents are catholic

>>19742390
It should be perfectly fine but if you want something Catholic specifically something here might be better

>>19742344
>The same person that called me "absolute retard" a few posts back?
What but an absolute retard would read Jesus saying not to call religious figures by the title of "Father", yet call their religious figures by the title of "Father", or Jesus rebuking "blessed is the womb" yet having their entire liturgical calendar both begin and end with "celebrations of Mary" rather than Christ who is the Alpha and Omega, or Jesus teaching us to pray to God the Father but instead praying to an earthly woman, or being part of a "church" that conforms to worldly political powers, or fills up bottles full of dead foot water?

>>19742396
Thank you anon!

>>19739151
Has anyone cried when reading the part of the crucification of Jesus? I was sobbing when i read that part.

>>19740665
I wouldn't necessarily call it a mistranslation since trespass, sin, debt, etc. are all merely metaphors used to describe the concept. Sin itself in English comes from the archery term for missing the mark. The languages we use come from pagans who didn't have these concepts so we must use metaphors.

>>19742412
The "it is finished" in John gets me badly every time.

>>19742450
Well, it means specifically "owed debt" rather than "infringed upon" or such, but that it gets the same essential practical point across is why I said >>19740779.

>>19742398
>or Jesus rebuking "blessed is the womb"
Jesus doesn’t deny that his Mother is blessed by his response. He affirms that those who hear the word of God and keep it are blessed and that is because that is His mission, the salvation of souls.

27 As He spoke these things, a woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the woman who gave You birth and nursed You.”

28 But He said, “Indeed, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
Luke 11:27-28

>>19742509
Yet despite having the perfect opportunity right there, His reply was counter to any notion of "yes, and you should pray to her and build your entire worship calendar with her as its beginning and end". Interestingly, Christ being the Alpha and Omega is from Revelation, which is the *one* and *only* book of the NT that the "Orthodox™" do not read in services. It also specifically states that those who read it aloud and those who hear it read are blessed, yet they do not. Enjoy being easily provably heretical.

>>19742529
yeah the other guy was right
theres no way you aren't a troll

>>19742301
I agree with everything you just said. The gospels seem to build in intricacy from Mark, to Matthew, to Luke-Acts. John is also intricate, but the focus seems so different from the synoptics -- John is heavier on personal discussions, public debates, and miraculous deeds. (That was my first impression; maybe my follow-up impressions will be different).

>>19742377
I agree that Matthew contains plenty of wordy discussions. They seem to have a different quality to the ones in John, though (it's hard to verbalize).

>>19742412
>>19742453
Same. Also the detail about not breaking Jesus' legs gets me. The "merciful" thing to do in a crucifixion was to give the condemned heavy drink (which Jesus refuses)... and then break their legs from the start (which hasten death considerably). Makes me so sick to think about it all.

>>19741939
Do you think he's the same as that Reformed Protestant from a few months ago who schizophrenically posted the same two contextless graphs on church attendance?

>>19742225
basically if you accept the authority of Rome could become catholic immediately. look at the eastern rite catholic churches. other than the primacy of Rome they are obviously orthodox.

in fact catholicism allows for pretty much all orthodox theological postions, including Palamism, the differing understanding of original sin, and the differing understanding of the "transubstantiation" issue.

>>19742346
the "legalism" is a direct lineage from Thomistic philosophy. Thomism really went berserk in late 19th century and peaked with Vatican I. the Church now recognizes there is a breath of Catholic philosophical tradition that is not limited to Aristotelian Thomism. btw, some of the "nitpicking" legalism people harp on like venial vs. mortal sins are actually pretty blurry when you look into it.

btw, a lot of Orthodox churches aren't really friendly to seekers. contrary to the memes, the attendance is usually old immigrant ladies, the liturgy is often in Church Slavonic, Greek, Russian, or Coptic, and it's usually rare to find a "thriving" orthodox parish. even stuff like OCA is associated with ROCOR, and the intercommunion between ortho churches is really nonexistent. if you want a young community with families, often the Catholic church is the way to go honestly.

>>19742532
So you're denying that the entire "Orthodox™" liturgical calendar is bookended with "Mary" instead of Christ, and that you do not read Revelation, which states that Christ is the beginning and end, and that it should be read and heard aloud, in services despite reading the entire *rest* of the NT each year?

From "Orthodox™" prayers, BTW:

To the Theotokos (which is "Mary"), let us run now most fervently,
As sinners and lowly ones,
Let us fall down in repentance,
Crying from the depths of our soul:
Lady, come and help us,
Have compassion upon us;
Hasten now for we are lost
In the host of our errors;
Do not turn your servants away,
For you alone are a hope to us.

O Theotokos, we shall never be silent.
Of your mighty acts, all we the unworthy;
Had you not stood to intercede for us
Who would have delivered us,
From the numerous perils?
Who would have preserved us all
Until now with our freedom?
O Lady, we shall not depart from you;
For you always save your servants,
From all tribulation.

I ask you, O Virgin,
From the dangers deliver me;
For now I run to you for refuge,
With both my soul and my reasoning.

Now and forever, and to the ages of ages. Amen

Most Holy Theotokos save us.

A protection and shelter,
I have with you in my life,
You, the Theotokos and the Virgin,
Pilot me towards your port;
For you are the cause,
The cause of that which is good,
Support of the faithful,
The only all-praised One.

Most Holy Theotokos save us.

>>19742676
Luckily in my area there's a very welcoming Antiochian parish.

>>19742669
Well, I'm not a "Reformed Protestant", I'm a Christian, and have never posted any such graphs. Imagine trying to connect all of these anons like some sort of conspiracy theory bulletin board full of pins, and calling others a schizo.

>>19742398
Marian theology points directly to Christ
Priests are not "religious figures", they act in persona christi - meaning, when they administer the sacraments, it is Jesus himself acting in their essence.

>>19742682
what a nice prayer :)

>>19742699
>t. Ishtar

>>19742688
>Antiochian
they are the only orthos who use the Western Rite, which is a start. what turns me off is the lack of intercommunion - they were originally part of ROCOR, then schismed with half associating with ROCOR and half with the Greeks, then they united, but the Western Rite Antiochians aren't communion with the Western Rite OCA.

>>19742669
I've found the most radically fundamentalist and literalist posters are, without fail, reformed.

>>19742692
"non-denominational Christan" = reformed calvinist independent baptist evangelicals

>>19742749
Well, I'm not independent Baptist either, nor Calvinist, nor "Evangelical". Perhaps actual Christianity is foreign to (You). Many such cases. Sad!

>>19742764
beliefs don't exist in a vacuum.
if you believe in sola scriptura, you're a protestant
if you believe in predestination, you're calvinist
if you believe in biblical textual liberalism, you're likely evangelical
if you're not part of a larger church communion, you're a congregationalist, which comes from radical american puritanism.

non-denominational christians like to pretend they don't have a philosophic or dogmatic heritage - they do.

It is so interesting to note that these Protestants misconceptions on Church history, veneration of the saints, the role of Mary in salvation, etc. could be cured by a single day of serious research into the beliefs of the early Church. Truly, Newman was right when he said that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. I have yet to see a single one who can actually show that they have a solid grasp of Church history, or early Christian beliefs. If the Nicene council fathers would hear these guys, they would be kicked out of the church and left to Satan. The only problem is that these guys are not even in the Church at all - they are outside of the ark of salvation, having been psyopped by Satan to remain "kicked out" of their own free will.

>>19742781
>I love labels
>labels are very important
>I need things to be neatly compartmentalized
>label all the things
Back in the 90s I saw an evangelist, now passed, who said that a kid asked him would he be a Baptist when he got saved, and he told the kid that once he learned what it truly meant to be saved into God's church he would see that Baptist and the like are nothing but labels that either blow off on the way up or burn off on the way down.

>>19742792
Yeah, just misconceptions, if only I did a little research.
>Mary is the culmination of the whole history of the ancient Hebrews. She is the perfection to which all of faithful Israel aspired through the long centuries of preparation for the coming of the Messiah, beginning with the promise given to Abraham
>The burning bush beheld by Moses in the wilderness (Ex 3:1–6) is one of the most often mentioned types of Mary.
>St. John of Damascus observes, “The burning bush is an image of God’s Mother

>>19742817
Mary is the only person in the entire history of humanity that had a perfect union with the Trinity - she is daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit. The fact that you find it so strange that there came to be deep theological understandings of her role in salvation history (as the symbolic representation of that which makes the Logos manifest into the world) shows your own ignorance on the topic.

So, yes - if only you did a little research.

>>19742829
Weird how Christ nor Paul nor anyone else in Scripture advised the church to think about Mary a lot and pray to her and ask her to save us. Weird how Christ and Paul and everyone else in Scripture commanded to focus on the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, yet the "Church™" bookends the entire ritual cycle with "Mary" and has obviously spent countless hours thinking up elaborate ways for "Mary" to be essentially deified and worthy of being prayed to. Yep, pretty weird. It sure seems like Jesus or Paul or anyone else in Scripture would have let us know that we needed to think that God coming to Moses in the burning bush was really "Mary" and that we needed to pray to her. So weird.

>>19742852
What makes you think that scripture is the only authority that one ought to consider, when that was not the opinion of the successors of the apostles? St. Paul clearly says to "stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by word, or by letter from us". The fact that the veneration of the Theotokos is found in the earliest days, in every single ancient Church, should give you reason to suspect that this is one of those ancient traditions which were handed down in word by the apostles - which, of course, is exactly what the churches claim.

Why do you even trust the New Testament, instead of, say, the Gospel of Thomas? You do realize that the only reason you consider these gospels to be an authoritative source on the life of Christ is because the Catholic church stamped them with their seal of approval at the Council of Rome 382, right? Once again, your lack of historical knowledge is really obvious here. You are basically eating the crumbs that fell off of the table of the Catholic church, while not understanding how you even got them in the first place.

>>19742879
>The fact that the veneration of the Theotokos is found in the earliest days
The earliest days is book of Acts and letters of Paul, and it's in none of those. Otherwise there is no sign of it until starting in the 4th century.

>>19742888
>Mary was not venerated in the earliest Church
How do you explain authors like St. Irenaeus, who was the disciple of St. Polycarp, himself a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, who writes the following - showing a cosmic understanding of the blessed Virgin, and talks about how her conceiving Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Testament:
"So the Word was made flesh, that, through that very flesh which sin had ruled and dominated, it should lose its force and be no longer in us. And therefore our Lord took that same original formation as (His) entry into flesh, so that He might draw near and contend on behalf of the fathers, and conquer by Adam that which by Adam had stricken us down.

Whence then is the substance of the first formed (man)? From the Will and the Wisdom of God, and from the virgin earth. For God had not sent rain, the Scripture says, upon the earth, before man was made; and there was no man to till the earth. From this, then, whilst it was still virgin, God took dust of the earth and formed the man, the beginning of mankind. So then the Lord, summing up afresh this man, took the same dispensation of entry into flesh, being born from the Virgin by the Will and the Wisdom of God; that He also should show forth the likeness of Adam’s entry into flesh and there should be that which was written in the beginning, man after the image and likeness of God.

And just as through a disobedient virgin man was stricken down and fell into death, so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of God man was reanimated and received life. For the Lord came to seek again the sheep that was lost; and man it was that was lost: and for this cause there was not made some other formation, but in that same which had its descent from Adam He preserved the likeness of the (first) formation. For it was necessary that Adam should be summed up in Christ, that mortality might be swallowed up and overwhelmed by immortality; and Eve summed up in Mary, that a virgin should be a virgin’s intercessor, and by a virgin’s obedience undo and put away the disobedience of a virgin."

Can you say, "Amen", to this earliest teaching of the Johannine school of theology? I have the early Church fathers on my side, I have the writings of the saints on my side, and you have your own personal interpretation of a Catholic canon based on Protestant interpretations from 1500+ years after Jesus Christ.

I know on which side I stand - on the firm rock of the Church. You stand on sand, your own "wisdom" and conspiracy theories.

>>19742908
>all of these words to say that Christ entered the world as a human via a virgin birth to Mary which the Bible already told us
OK, wow, yes, she got mentioned. Not one word about deifying or praying to her.

>>19742908
btfo

>>19742929
you literally have no answer to any of that guy's. you're an embarrassment. stop posting, you are not welcome here. stop shitting up the thread and being publicly retarded

>>19739159
Piercing Heaven and The Valley of Vision

Sorry guys which is the most reliable way to read the ol Bible in terms of olden languages?

Should I learn latin or Ancient Greek? And would either help me learn Hebrew? haha.

>>19742929
>so through the Virgin who was obedient to the Word of God man was reanimated and received life.
I agree that Mary played such a huge role in our salvation that we can confidently say that through her, the New Eve, mankind was reanimated and received eternal life. I'm glad we're all in agreement with the early Church here. I love our blessed Mother, and I'm glad you're starting to recognize her importance, and give her the respect she deserves.

>>19742801
non denom's refuse to nail down their beliefs or their philosophical heritage because then they can be refuted dogmatically. instead they prefer to hide behind "generic" christianity so that they can attack others but not be subject to criticism themselves.

>>19742934
>t. demon
Go jump into a herd of swine, Legion.

>>19742947
Wrong, my beliefs is what the Holy Bible says, simple as.

>>19742964
We have a lot in common - you see, I also accept the authority of the Catholic church to create the canon of the New Testament, and accept that decree of Catholic bishops of the Council of Rome as authoritative and binding. I am glad we in agreement on so many issues - there is no canon of the New Testament besides that canon which was codified by the Catholic church! Thank God for the Catholic Church!

>>19742964
So you agree with Jesus that unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood, you cannot be saved.

what church do you go to eat the consecrated flesh and blood of Jesus?

>>19742940
You could learn koine greek but it's better off to use a translation. Maybe look into buying a greek concordance like Strong's if you want to really get a feel for the nuance of vocabulary of the greek in comparison to english.

the old testament was written in hebrew (generally), just so you know. the new in greek. the vulgate was a early translation in the 400s of both testaments into latin.

>>19739159
Anthologion by St Ignatius Orthodox Press

>>19743014
do you know much about learning the languages in terms of reading?

Look, I don't have much of a stake in the whole Catholic vs. Orthodox fight. As an "outsider," though, I often think: Isn't it absurd that Latin is taught in so many Christian schools across the world... instead of Greek (the language of the Old Testament)? In fact, why not teach Greek and Hebrew and just ditch Latin altogether (except for scholars).

I can't help but think that Rome's excessive pride helped lead to this current (non-ideal) situation. In fact, Rome could start promoting Greek *starting right now* if they so chose to. This would be a great boon for Christianity overall.

t. raised Protestant

>>19743271
Latin is the common liturgical language of the West, same way Greek is the common liturgical language of the East.

I truly think a Orthodox/Catholic reunion is very close, at least in terms of belief. The core issue is papal authority. the rest of the points are not really dogmatic but cultural.

>>19743319
What evidence do you have for a reunion? That would be awesome. Praise God.

>>19743230
I know Koine is widely considered the easiest of the "ancient languages" to learn. For example the New Testament is simple enough in greek that it is used often as the introductory text for beginning classes in koine greek.

there's actually a few anons who post in Christian threads who can read koine, they might be better to ask.

>>19743349
Since Vatican II there has been tremendous advances in ecumenism between Rome and Constantinople, and even Rome and Moscow. There is a recognition of shared heritage and beliefs. In fact, it is the Catholic position that any Catholic can licitly receive communion at an Orthodox church because there is no separation in terms of validity of the priesthood or sacraments. There has also been much more engagement in Rome since Vatican II with the Eastern Rites. A good example of ecumenism Ortho/Catholic wise is how successful the Pope's recent visit to Iraq was.

There is also a strong move towards ecumenism with traditional Anglicans and Lutherans. For example, see the establishment and growth of Personal Ordinates for the Anglican Rite in the Catholic church; recently too there was a agreement signed between the largest Lutheran communion and Rome in Scandinavia establishing a common framework of belief, the first major agreement since the Reformation.

There is also a lot of quiet ecumenism happening between communities like the Quakers and the Bruderhof and Rome, at least culturally. Ecumenism is harder with Radical Reformation groups because they don't have a hierarchy to engage with.

I know despair is a sin, but how do I stop falling into it?
I can't seem to find the balance between recognizing my sins and feeling worthless and burdensome, or between recognizing my actions as wrong and being constantly crushed by guilt.
I'm very tired of being like this. I've thought about an heroing quite a bit over the past 5 years or so and tried doing it once but got cold feet.

This okay for a beginner?

>>19743480
>day 1
>random chapters in random books
wut

>>19743498
idk man it was on the wiki

>>19743505
traps r gay

>>19743385
wow this is all very exciting, thanks for sharing this with me.

>>19743458
Heroing.. like suicide? Well doing fucking do that..

>>19743480
this is a lot to read in a month. maybe go with a yearly plan. yes it is hard but it's worth sticking with the smaller bits. you'll get bogged down in numbers especially

>>19743458
sounds like you have scruples. scruples is a psychological condition and it needs to be treated by a psychologist. remember that God loves you, he died for you, sins and all, not because you deserve it or could ever deserve it, but because you are his son, and he wants you to dwell with him. Christianity is a religion not of condemnation but of salvation.

if you are seriously depressed, look into secular treatment for depression. lots of natural supplements, healthy living, natural ssri's like st. john's wort, etc.

look into Orthodox psychotherapy as well

>>19743350
This is encouraging to here, thank you so much.

How do I keep myself interested through the OT?
There are some really great parts so far, I just got to the Golden Calf for example, but in between these points are long explanations on who is who’s sons/daughters, or carpenterkino on how the Ark of the Covenant is built etc that drag on for a while between points of interest.
Not saying I’m getting discouraged from reading it, or that I’m lacking the concentration; but I don’t find either of the last parts very spiritually or literarily stimulating. Do the books following Exodus get anymore story focused?

>>19742676
The issue with Rome's current position is that it is utterly confusing to the Orthodox. Constantinople IV (869) was annulled by another Constantinopolitan council in 879 which the Eastern Orthodox regard as a de facto 8th Ecumenical Council. The Council of Florence was very much understood and very much rejected by the Orthodox. The First Vatican Council's dogmatic definitions are extremely hard to reconcile with the Orthodox understanding of primacy. These councils come with anathemas for those who reject their dogmatic definitions, so how come I, as an Orthodox, wouldn't need to mentally and verbally assent to them and reject my "heresies"?
It would be an easier pill to swallow if the Catholic Church declared its Ecumenical Councils #8-21 to be local councils, or released some kind of document to demonstrate how, if you squint hard, these councils do indeed say nothing different than what the Orthodox believe. As it is now though, it seems rather that the authority of Ecumenical Councils is simply understood differently in Catholicism. The priests I've spoken to said that the documents of councils have a hierarchy of authority, so anathemas do not really have weight. A Nestorian, if he agrees with the contents of the Mass, holds the Catholic faith - no need to stop venerating Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, or to deny their strange doctrines with Babai the Great made the dogma of the Church of the East (Adam created mortal, Jesus's divinity and humanity being united as one like a husband and his wife are one, Jesus being two persons in one character, God not suffering on the cross even through His assumed humanity but rather solely a man suffering...), or to agree with or even know of the later Ecumenical Councils (#3-21). It's this "don't ask don't tell" policy that I find strange, although those priests insist it is the patristic and historical doctrine.

What will happen to Muslims in the afterlife?

>>19743639
Numbers and Deuteronomy and Leviticus are extremely legalistic, and, frankly, mostly dull. That's the problem with the "reading straight through" plan - people quit after exodus.

Look into the bible in a year podcast w/ fr. mike schmitz. he gives great commentary on the relevance of each chapter in the bible, including the dull ones in the books of moses.

here's a basic video on reading the bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Eh6W7m42oo

The esv.org original language tools are breddy gud.

We should compile a list of basic information and links/resources to put in the OPs

>>19743656
Essentially the issue is the primacy of Rome
Infallibility itself is much more narrow than people think
Lumen gentium
>This Sacred Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father; and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful.

The pope only speaks ex cathedra when he speaks in union with the magisterium and the sensus fidelium - aka, he never makes pronouncements without the consensus of the faithful.

btw, the 2007 Ravenna Document established that the Orthodox church widely recognizes the historical primacy of Rome, that much is not up for the debate. the question is how exactly is this implemented, and I think the reality is much less harsh than it is portrayed.

>>19743680
I usually had a simple array in the Holy Bible Generals.

>>19743684
>Essentially the issue is the primacy of Rome
Basically all Orthodox recognize and are okay with Papal primacy however we take it to mean purely that the Bishop of Rome is held to a higher honor than other bishops as a sort of "first among equals" deal, where he doesn't hold any additional power or authority than other Bishops, rather than him being the supreme authority of the Church like Catholics take it to mean

>>19743656
To clarify - in contrast with EO-OO-CotE dialogue, it is well agreed upon by the OO that the Assyrians would need to stop venerating Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia or accepting their doctrine as being within the fold of orthodoxy, before communion can even be on the table; the doctrinal (not canonical) contents of the Eucumenical Council #3 would also need to be agreed to, and the anathema against Cyril to be lifted. Likewise, the Oriental Orthodox would need for the EO to agree essentially with the doctrines of councils #4-7, and to stop venerating Dioscorus, Severus, Evagrius and Didymus, although after a re-appraisal of how truly Monophysite/Origenist they are the anathemas could be lifted and so there would be no further issues on that matter (and of course the anathema against Leo needs to be lifted).
So there isn't this policy of sweeping these doctrinal differences under the rug. First we iron things out and evaluate how much we agree upon, then we enter into communion if we both anathematize the same doctrines. This is inseparable from agreeing with the contents of the liturgy, which is replete with theology from the Ecumenical Councils.
Not that we are unwilling to look back on our past and correct our mistakes, but priority is naturally given to figuring out whether the persons we have anathematized really were irredeemably heterodox, not to restoring communion on barebones principles and letting the rest be a matter of personal taste. The Catholic (and Assyrian) practice just seems like open communion as far as we are concerned.

>>19742934

An answer to what? The excerpt merely affirms what was already explicit in Scripture, and does not affirm the Catholic fabrication of Marian worship.

christians be like
>hol up im gonna disintegrate european states and let them succumb to asian and north african hordes lmao

This thread is a fitting opportunity to remind everyone that Jesus never calls Mary "mother".

>>19743594
Not him but occasionally I have terrible thoughts such as that I only felt called to Christianity as a soft form of suicide, because I hate this life so much. It's obvious that if I liked this life and were successful at it as a consequence of loving the world's inherent nature I wouldn't have paid any attention to Christ. Does it only work if you are at odds with life? Why would God call only people who are doomed to fail in the world? When I pray I have 30 minutes free of this consciousness but it comes back when I am back in the crowd. When I am entangled in the world again I am haunted by this idea that this is all really just a cope for one's terrible inadequacy to life. I see all these people who are in such a harmony with the godless world, well-dressed, attractive. I should imagine that they're all corrupt but I'm the one who looks like neurotic filth. But on the other hand I definitely could have had it. I don't hate life because I can't, I hate it because I don't want to. I've had a taste and I disliked it. But it all makes no sense to me. I can't imagine each and every of these people a fool who'll go to Hell. They probably have so little worry and attrition going on in their heads that they barely think of anything sinful, while I detest every thing I see.

>>19744201
Try talking with those "harmonious" people about Christian points and values, earnestly. You'll only come short of being lynched by the crowd, and just maybe, find a few who listen and agree.
What do you mean with "at odds with life"? A lot of us aren't. You just have to see past the material.
>why would he call doomed people
To save them. Maybe it was even easier for you to see the way.

Also you're supposing. No point in imagining how things could've been. You've come to Christianity now, you would've come for it then.

>>19744001
I don't see how Jesus can be human given the perpetual virginity doctrine. It holds that Mary's virginity remained intact on a physical level when Christ was born, meaning that rather than being born normally, Jesus phased out of her like a spirit. The concept is first found in gnostic literature and it makes sense there, but within orthodoxy Christianity which is committed to Christ being fully human it's nonsense.

>>19743458
Stop taking your errors so heavily. You're human, therefore fallible. Repent, ask for forgiveness, and keep trying to do better. We've all given in to error and sin at some point. God is merciful.

>>19742412
I cry when Jesus asks Peter if he loves him several times

"The Christian Martyrs' Last Prayer" by Jean-Leon Gerome

>>19744266
Ironically I made a parallel between these people and the exalted Roman busts of yore. Seeing this >>19744507 was a reminder of how far removed I am from a reality that isn't Christian. I wouldn't be one of the spectators. But still sometimes I wonder if it's possible to believe and also exist. How did the martyrs face something like that? If I can't tolerate simple indifference, how could I handle persecution?

>Be one of the greatest teachers of the early church
>Write hundreds of books and be highly regarded by all
>Be imprisoned during a persecution, authorities have you tortured under the orders that you cannot be killed unless you renounce Christ
>Endure torture for years without renouncing your faith until the politics change and you are released
>Succumb to your injuries a few months later and die a martyr
>Be condemned by the emperor hundreds of years after your death for things you may or may not have actually taught
>Everyone now hates you and spits on your memory and stops copying your books so that many of them are lost forever
>Primarily known today for a false slander that you castrated yourself

>>19744714
Faith. What has one to fear from men?

It's only indifference because of inaction. Everything that's currently being pushed is not Christian. Talking against it, you might not get executed, but cancelled and sued and persecuted in other ways instead.

>>19744756
Origen was excommunicated by his own Church of Alexandria during his lifetime for castrating himself, and he never came back into the fold. He therefore was no martyr, however tragic the circumstances of his death might have been.
He was a great orator but also a heretic due to his overly speculative approach that led to him merging Christianity and Platonism. Everything good from him was expounded upon and more appropriately expressed by the Cappadocians. Everything bad from him led to the heresies of Evagrius Ponticus and Didymus the Blind, and their followers.

>>19744270
Yes, the Catholics and "Orthodox™" need to admit that they were fooled and repent. Their "churches" need to reject those gnostic infiltrations and become the Church again.

>>19739151
Questions on Bible Translations:
How does the ESV really stack up when it comes to modern Bible translations? I’ve been using the RSV with Apocrypha for a while simply because it’s less gender-corrected than the NRSV, and I also wanted the Deuterocanon. Looking at the ESV, it seems to be even more traditional than the RSV, and an Anglican publisher is putting out an edition with the Deuterocanon.
>>19739159
One I would add to those already listed is Henry Vaughn’s “Mount of Olives”. He wrote it during Cromwell’s Republic, when the more liturgical side of Anglicanism and the Book of Common Prayer was suppressed. Vaughn basically gives you prayers that replicate the rhythm of the BOCP but in a more free form way:
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A64745.0001.001/1:14.7?rgn=div2;view=toc

>>19745471
If it's not the King James it's not the Bible. Simple as. Does it tell you that the serpent was more crafty than *any other* beast of the field, or does it tell you that the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field? Pay attention, stop being fooled.

>>19744777
>Everything that's currently being pushed is not Christian.
Yeah. It's a bit overwhelming sometimes and I feel like I can't really concile living any kind of life with being a Christian. I see other Christians who sort of compartmentalize their religion and I don't know how they do it. I don't want to judge them but I feel strange about the idea. Every time I get in contact with the world I'm overwhelmed, it's like every move I make is immoral. This must be what got the monastics to leave society, but I don't think I can be a monastic. I'm too filled with passions. If anything I need a spiritual father.

>>19744270
>>19745192

Childbirth pain is a consequence of original sin. Mary was preserved without sin, therefore she experienced none of the pain of childbirth physically.

I BTFO you in the last thread about this, provided Bible citations to support those doctrines, and you just stopped responding. pathetic as usual

>>19745031
>>19744756
Orthodoxy's blanket condemnation of Origen is ridiculous, he developed some of the foundational understandings of the Gospel in the Church today.
His method of reading scripture was extremely innovative and influential. His soteriology is sound and not unorthodox.

>>19745477
please answer these questions, KJV-worshipping idolator

>>19740706
>>19740724
>>19740743
>>19740762

>>19745603
Enjoy being a folk religion Gnostic heretic.

>>19745471
ESV was heavily influenced by Reformed theology in its translation. R. Grant Jones does a really good video on this.

The ESV is not denomination neutral like the RSV/NRSV/REB - it is expressly a Reformed bible and the publishers fought for 20 years to prevent licensing publishing rights to Catholics or Orthodox who wanted to produce an ESV-CE.

I would avoid the ESV in general - I've used the NRSV extensively and the gender neutral language isn't really bad, it's only used when it's appropriate in the Greek and Hebrew.

If you're looking for the best modern translation, there really is none, they all have major flaws.
The NRSV has the *least* amount of flaws, therefore it's the best choice. You may not want to buy one now though because the NRSVUE is coming in print this year.

>>19745637
Seems like your quibble is with the Bible, not with me, you pagan.

>>19745623
Those "questions" are rooted in the worldly understandings of the natural man.(1 Cor 2:14) and so "he" cannot receive the answers. Rest assured that all of that is simply BTFO. Should you ever overcome the flesh and genuinely seek the Truth and the Way, humble yourself and read the KJB in parallel with others and check key words against the original languages, see for yourself directly, and stop taking the words of "scholars" as gospel.

>>19745697
Do you really believe God preserved his word only in a 1611 translation into early modern english? what about the people who lived for 17 centuries before that? did God hate them and not want to give his word until then?

>>19745697
btw, if the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA)?

Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?

Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? Does this mean if the Reformation is illegitimate, if they didn't have the KJV? what if the KJV is a product of the Reformation? is the KJV an illegitimate translation?

>>19745697
Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? If so, why do you know better than the "scholars" who translated the actual KJV?

What is the justification by which people who are absolutely faithful to God in every possible way might still end up in Hell due to believing the wrong denomination? Imagine some peasant in pre-industrial Siberia, or a guy in a Muslim country, or some other isolated case. He learns about Christ, he gets in touch with a group of faithfuls in his area, because he cannot choose, and he abides by all the teachings, and his mind is completely free of secret agenndas, he never puts a word in God's mouth but obeys Scripture and when he does not understand, he asks the wisest person he knows. And yet, he still goes to Hell because as it turns out, his denomination wasn't the right one and he was signing himself the wrong way, or he was saying the wrong word in the prayer he repeated every day, or some other thing that people debate endlessly about. This poor, ignorant person is just sent to perish. How can that be? There must be an explanation other than "God decides that this person shouldn't be saved".

>>19745824
you can't be condemned out of invincible ignorance. in your example those people wouldn't be condemned. no salvation outside the Church means ALL salvation happens though Jesus, not that you have to be a specific denomination to be saved.

btw the idea of eternal infinite punishment for finite sins is rejected by many ancient christian theologians.

>>19745031
>Origen was excommunicated by his own Church of Alexandria during his lifetime for castrating himself
He denied that he did it and you have no proof that it happened.
>and he never came back into the fold. He therefore was no martyr,
Irrelevant because he was received by the bishops in Palestine. Your denial of him being a martyr is disgusting and evil.

>>19745844
>btw the idea of eternal infinite punishment for finite sins is rejected by many ancient christian theologians
Also known as "heretics."

>>19745603
This has nothing to do with childbirth pain, I'm talking about Jesus exiting her body nonphysically like a spirit. Orthodox do not believe this idea that she was without original sin (they don't even have your concept of original sin to begin with), so the argument does not hold there.

>>19745603
Also there is no biblical support of this. χαριτόω does not mean anything about sin, it means to show favor or grace or to honor. It's also used in Eph. 1:6, translated here as "blessed"
>to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

>>19739876
>Japhet is the patriarch of the Europeans, Shem of the Asians and Ham of the Africans
This is the stupidest fake anthropology that haunts our modern age. Shem is the father of the SEMITES (Israelites, Aramaics, Arabs etc.), Japhet is the father of the INDO-EUROPEANS (Northern Indians, Persians, Romans, Greeks, Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Gauls, Teutonics etc.) and Ham is the father of HAMITES (Egyptians, Canaanites, Midianites, Ethiopians etc.).

No chance in hell Noah had a pure white son, a pure nigger son and a pure zipperhead son. Are you out of your mind?

>>19745603
Here's the definition from the LSJ Greek-English Lexicon, by the way. As you can see they even cite Luke 1:28 to note the passive meaning, which they give as "to have grace shown one, to be highly favoured." Nothing about having grace shown to you, whether it occurred and ended in the past or started in the past and is still occurring or however it is grammatically structured, nothing about that would convey the idea of someone being preserved from original sin. That concept is not in the text in any sense.

>>19745603
I decided to go ahead and check on your previous argument to make sure of what you claimed specifically, and here is what you said (actually what you copy-pasted from somewhere else) about the grammar:
>This word literally means “she who has been graced” in a completed sense. This verbal adjective, “graced,” is not just describing a simple past action. Greek has the aorist tense for that. The perfect tense is used to indicate that an action has been completed in the past, resulting in a present state of being.
You are being tricked if you believe this. The perfect tense is another name for the past tense. The action is "perfect" in the sense that it occurred in the past. "I went to the store" is in perfect tense because I went to the store in the past. It means simply that Mary was shown grace by God. In what sense? The context of the passage is her being chosen to be the mother of Christ. There's nothing else there, nothing about sinlessness, nothing at all.

>>19745603
Also no theologian actually believes that verse, or any verse, teaches this concept directly. Pic related is from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (published in 1954 prior to VII, a standard dogmatics reference work). As you can see, he states that the doctrine is not explicitly taught in scripture but is present implicitly. What this means is that there are places where the idea can be "fitting" to what is said in the text, even though it is not actually present in the text. Of course this logic can be used to prove anything and allows you to make up whatever theology you choose. Anyone telling you the text actually teaches the immaculate conception is playing you for a fool.

>>19745603
Also here is Ott's reference to Luke 1:28. He notes that the actual meaning of κεχαριτωμένη is in reference to Mary being chosen as the mother of God. Everything he says after that is what is meant by "implicit." None of it is present in the text at all. It is a concept that is derived from somewhere else and then fed back into this verse because it seems like it will fit there. But the verse is saying nothing of the sort and making no reference to any such things. Mary is hailed as highly favored of God because God has chosen her to be the mother of his son. Even the Catholic dogmatician states that this is what the text is actually saying. Furthermore his argument is specious. He says that because Mary has been given a unique blessing, that the blessing must therefore be "perfect" (where does this come from? is there something deficient in being blessed with being Christ's mother?) and therefore must extend over her entire life beginning in conception. This is laughable as none of these facts necessitate the other.

>>19745854
yes, childbirth pain (which is physical) involves the vagina being stretched. genesis indicates this pain is part of the fallen human condition. if Mary is without sin, the dichotomy of "virgin vs. nonvirgin" literally doesn't apply to her because there is nothing to "corrupt".

>>19745869
>>19746094
>>19746129
>>19746200
In Luke 1:28, the word that the angel uses is kecharitomene. So it’s not literally “full of grace,” but its root word is the Greek verb “to give grace” (charitoo). The word is the past tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred. It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished. The word was also used as a title. The angel did not say, “Hail Mary, you are kecharitomene” but rather, “Hail kecharitomene.” Therefore the word is not simply an action but an identity.

As I cited in Biblical examples from my previous posts how, in Semitic cultures, titles like these are not descriptors but new names bestowed by the divine.

You refuse to address the fact that the new name is a title, in the style of other bestowed Biblical titles. If you had to address this, you'd have to concede that the angel is not using a mere descriptor but a recognition of her metaphysical identity as Theotokos.

You cite Ott, but then you pivot to a fundamentalist prot. view "if it's not explicit in the text, it can't exist!". You're all over the place.

>>19746242
κεχαριτωμένη has no implication in the word itself as "referring to Jesus". It's a title, it's not "God bearer" or "Divine mother" - it's a descriptor of MARY.

>>19746265
don't even bother replying to him honestly
it's not worth it

Which audiobook bible is the best?

>>19746265
>yes, childbirth pain (which is physical) involves...
Is it Catholic doctrine that a literal Eve who had not fallen into sin would have given birth by her children phasing out of her like a spirit? Do you even believe in a literal pre-fall state of man who was not subject to death and suffering?
>The word is the past tense, meaning that the action of giving grace has already occurred. It was not something that was about to happen to her but something that has already been accomplished. ...
Absolutely nothing here would invoke sinlessness. He is addressing here as the one who has been given the honor of being Christ's mother. That is what the text says. It does not say anything else here. It is not present.
>You refuse to address the fact that the new name is a title, in the style of other bestowed Biblical titles. If you had to address this, you'd have to concede that the angel is not using a mere descriptor but a recognition of her metaphysical identity as Theotokos.
How does the use of this as a name mean she is sinless? The concept does not follow. Mary is the mother of God, I affirm. Being the mother of God does not require here to have been preserved from original sin. It requires her to have given birth to Christ.
>You cite Ott, but then you pivot to a fundamentalist prot. view "if it's not explicit in the text, it can't exist!". You're all over the place.
I am citing Ott to show you that your own theologians do not claim that the verse actually teaches this concept. Are you not capable of following such an argument?
>>19746278
It has the meaning of one who has been highly favored or shown grace by God. The sense, in the context of the verse, of which Mary has been favored by God is the blessing of being chosen to be Christ's mother. That is the meaning of the text. You're failing to address any of my arguments. And of course you can't address them because they are correct. The dogma is not scriptural.
>>19746301
Oh do you need to run away when someone pushes back against your nonsense? Are you going to cry?

>>19746265
>copied/pasted from Catholic Answers
Why can't cultists like (You) and JW just write your own words?

>>19746317
There's a famous reading of the KJV done by Alexander Scourby. That may not be the sort of thing you are looking for, though.

>>19746489
I imagine the hope is that his opponent will be intimidated by the use of Greek, but the Catholic also does not know Greek so he needs to copy-paste something and hope it works.

>>19746506
I imagine this is also the hope of the apologist who wrote the article. That the reader will be intimidated by Greek and not try to examine the argument to see how faulty it is.

>>19746543
After all, in Catholicism it does not actually matter what the Scriptures say on the matter. The only thing that matters is the ruling of the Church. Once you have formulated the idea that you can have entire dogmas that are not explicitly taught in Scripture, you can create whatever theology you want and you only need to find a verse or two where you can squeeze it in. Their apologetics appeal to Scripture is thus a sleight-of-hand.

>>19746570
Very subtle serpent like behavior.

>>19746325
>>19746325
>phasing her out
just because you *personally* aren't able to understand it, doesn't mean it's automatically false. you're quite self-centered.
>a literal pre-fall state of man who was not subject to death and suffering
yes. have you read Genesis? humanity was not always subject to sin. this is basic Christian doctrine
>How does the use of this as a name mean she is sinless?
κεχαριτωμένη appears nowhere else in Greek literature or the NT. it is a unique word. it does not just mean "favored", or "graced" - the words for those are used multiple other times. it is a unique title, a title of a PAST STATE - a UNIQUE past state that is in completion - preserved in the fullness of grace aka, not subject to the post-fall human nature.

>What the Angel Gabriel wants to communicate to Mary and to us is in the word kecharitomene is that Mary has a unique name, a unique title, a unique role in sacred history, and so--though human--is a unique being in the economy of salvation.

>Mary is she whose very name, whose very title, whose very office, whose very person is to have been endowed with grace in anticipation of her role as Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
That's one reason why using "full of grace" does not go far enough. It is remarkable--in fact it is of utmost importance--that kecharitomene is clearly used by the angel Gabriel--the messenger of the most High God--as a proper noun, as Mary's heavenly name.

>God gave Abram the name Abraham, the "Father of Nations." (Gen. 17:5) Jesus called Simon by the name Peter, meaning "Rock." (Matt. 16:18) God-given names are important in Scripture. Similarly, through the Angel Gabriel, God named Mary Kecharitomene. (Luke 1:28)

>Since the word kecharitomene is tied with the expression "Hail" (Greek Chaire, sometimes translated "Rejoice"), it also seems to indicate a title or an office when tied to a person, as in "Hail Caesar." We actually see this usage in Scripture, such as when Judas greets Jesus as "Hail Rabbi" (Matt. 26:49), and the mocking Roman soldiers refer to Christ with the words "Hail, King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:29, Mark 15:18; John 19:3).

>>19746489
>>19746506
>>19746543
>>19746570
>>19746604

>y-you're citing sources and tradition,t-that means it's false!!
>y-you can't justify your dogma with scripture AND tradition! t-that's impossible! you just can't!
are you sure you're not protestant, you sure sound like it.

you're a pathetic freak who uses words like "papist". keep arguing in bad faith, everyone here is laughing and pointing at you. btw, isn't it time for another schism? it's been a few minutes

>>19746570
>>19746543
>>19746506
>>19746489
>>19746325

>grace doesn't mean sinless!! nononono it makes me mad!

cope and cry.

>The Greek verb charitóō is itself a little scarce in Scripture. Other than its unusual form in Luke 1:28, it is used by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. Here we read St. Paul use it for the redeemed sinner: "for the praise of the glory of his grace that he granted (ἐχαρίτωσεν, echaristōsen) us in the beloved."

>Here, the word charitóō is in what is known as its aorist active indicative form, obviously an entirely different form from Luke 1:28. So though the root verb (charitóō) is the same in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6, the words are used in entirely different tenses, voices, and senses. The only commonality, it seems, is sanctifying grace.

>Thus, sanctifying grace, perfect sanctifying grace (the state of being preserved from sin) is the meaning of the title κεχαριτωμένη.

>>19746624
>just because you *personally* aren't able to understand it, doesn't mean it's automatically false. you're quite self-centered.
That's the only way it can happen, he had to pass through a physical obstruction.
>yes. have you read Genesis? humanity was not always subject to sin. this is basic Christian doctrine
So do you affirm that there was a literal Adam and Eve that all humanity descends from? If you do that is good, but I do not believe Catholicism teaches this anymore.
>κεχαριτωμένη appears nowhere else in Greek literature or the NT. it is a unique word. it does not just mean "favored", or "graced" - the words for those are used multiple other times. it is a unique title, a title of a PAST STATE - a UNIQUE past state that is in completion - preserved in the fullness of grace aka, not subject to the post-fall human nature.
No, that isn't what it means. It means that she is highly favored and has been shown grace. This being the only example of this inflection of the verb does not give you license to read whatever you want into it that is beyond what the word actually means. And again, her being shown grace in the past is simply that, that she was chosen by God to be the mother of Christ. There's nothing else beyond that present in the text and you will never be able to prove otherwise because it isn't there.
>>What the Angel Gabriel wants to communicate to Mary and to us is in the word kecharitomene is that Mary has a unique name, a unique title, a unique role in sacred history, and so--though human--is a unique being in the economy of salvation.
Having a unique role does not require that she be a unique creature, this is not a logical consequence.
>>Mary is she whose very name, whose very title, whose very office, whose very person is to have been endowed with grace in anticipation of her role as Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
The grace you keep referring to is her being honored by God to be Christ's mother. That's the context of what is said, that is what it means. Again you are simply reading something into it from outside.
>That's one reason why using "full of grace" does not go far enough. It is remarkable--in fact it is of utmost importance--that kecharitomene is clearly used by the angel Gabriel--the messenger of the most High God--as a proper noun, as Mary's heavenly name. ...
Again the argument that this is a name means that she is without sin. It does not follow. Mary is the mother of God and has been bestowed a unique blessing and role, this I have never denied. That is what the term refers to. Anything else is not present and you cannot demonstrate that it is, hence all this hemming and hawing trying to force the concept in. You have to do that because it isn't there.

>it's another round of different denominations bickering back and forth

>>19746647
A better view of grace is "gift given, not earned/owed/deserved".

>>19746655

see >>19746647

time for you to cry some more and say how only *your* interpretation of the greek meaning is somehow the magically correct one. sola scriptura eh?

>>19746662
see when you're actually faced with the intextual meaning of the word, and the nature of it as a title, you have no recourse but to state your opinion. I on the other hand, am not citing my opinions, I am citing the truth.

>>19746647
>So though the root verb (charitóō) is the same in Luke 1:28 and Ephesians 1:6, the words are used in entirely different tenses, voices, and senses. ...
Yes, Greek verbs inflect. You need to demonstrate that the inflection changes the meaning of the term to denote that she is free from original sin, which you cannot do.
>Thus, sanctifying grace, perfect sanctifying grace (the state of being preserved from sin) is the meaning of the title κεχαριτωμένη.
False. That is not the meaning of the word. I gave you a lexical source that states the meaning, even specifically in reference to this verse, here >>19746094 which you have ignored. Again the showing of grace having been a completed action in the past does not denote the preservation from original sin, that is not a concept in the text. It means that she was shown grace in the past. In what sense? The context is her being chosen as Christ's mother. That is the only thing that is present in the text. The argument from grammar is utterly specious.
>>19746635
>>19746667
I will accept this as your concession of defeat as you feel the need to save face by insulting me in terms such as "pathetic freak". I imagine you think that I have a duty to continue replying to you in the face of such insults and childish behavior, but I do not. I have fully refuted everything that you have said and will not respond to you again.

>>19746693
>I am not citing my opinion but am citing the opinion of some random Catholic priest from Rhode Island so it's absolute reality
I hope your short bus doesn't get caught in the Winter storms.

>>19746696
>I'm taking my toys and going home!
>I can call you a serpent and papist, but you can't call me what I am!

The measure by which you measure will be measured out to you.

You cited ONE lexicon, which didn't even define κεχαριτωμένη. If you're forced to cite inter textually you'll have to admit the only commonality is in fact, the underlying core of sanctifying grace. I in face cited the greek itself to show you how there is a DIRECT inter textual connection between grace and sanctification in Mary's title.
>you can't argue from grammar! that's cheating!
lol. who's the dogmatic now?

>>19746711
I hope you enjoy your local megachurch service.

>>19746723
>cityboi projecting
As far as I know the nearest megachurch is probably about 100 miles from here.

>>19746737
>cities are le bad!
I know it's difficult not having a cathedral, or a unified, non-schismatic Church to call home, but you don't have to lash out randomly.

Ironic you call cities le bad when you shop at Walmart.
>Paul in Athens! uhhhh well he should've just hid out in the wilderness and never evangelized! why? because he had to be based like me, that's why ok!!

>>19746772
We have a little gay Catholic "church" here. The "priest" during the 80s was caught in bed with another man. We have an independent locally owned grocery store, actually. I am long time personal friends with the family that owns it. I am sure that God has His reasons for having cursed you to the pozzed life.

I have become interested in Orthodoxy for the last couple of years. I showed some Jay Dyer videos to my dad. My dad is a Baptist.
My dad liked the videos and he says they are very informative and interesting and he appreciates how intelligent and well read Jay is. But he also says that Jay is immature, arrogant, and too aggressive and biased against Protestants.
What do you think anons

>>19747114
Don't base your decisions about faith on YouTube personalities. Go talk to your local parish priest, attend Liturgy a couple times, and see how the Orthodox Christians actually live their faith.

>>19747141
There are no Orthodox churches near me and I can't go anywhere without my parents.

>>19747114
Jay Dyer is a retarded pseud, no wonder he was fooled into praying to "Mary".

>>19747184
>I can't go anywhere without my parents
Underage or NEET?

>>19747194
>NEET
This one and my parents don't want me to go to places by myself becauase I have mental illness

>>19745956
Where did I say this? Jews are Asians. Berbers are Africans. You're the one who for some reason thought I meant a piss yellow Shem and a pitch black Ham. The point isn't their race anyway, but that mankind spread according to the three known divisions of the ancient world with Jerusalem in the middle.

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

>>19745617
Catholicism also anathematizes him. Only the Oriental Orthodox and the Protestants see him as not necessarily heterodox, and even then the Oriental Orthodox don't accept him in particular as a saint due to his excommunication by his home church (but they venerate Origenist heretics like Evagrius, so Origenism isn't condemned as a whole).

Origen did not develop anything fundamental. Much of the good he teaches was already taught by St Clement of Alexandria, and the rest of what is good is taken up by the Cappadocians. He was a heretic, even if not everything he taught was heretical. Same reason Evagrius the heretic finds some room in the Philokalia. And Nestorius the heretic is also the one who introduced the Creed into the liturgy, and Dioscorus the heretic is the one who invented the formula of the union of two natures in Christ without separation nor confusion... Not everything a heretic teaches is worthy of condemnation.

>>19746265
>>19746647
>>19746662
>>19746693
>>19746696
>>19746717
The EOB Orthodox translation backs up the traditional Catholic rendering of Luke 1:28 as "full of grace." That's good enough for me.

Can Christians recommend their preferred English translations and say why they recommend them? For English translations, I mainly have experiences reading from KJV, NKJV, and NASB.

>>19747512
The Knox. I like its use of acrostics.

>>19747512
Take all of it with a truckload of salt.
I've liked the KJV for the style and delivery. Been getting NIV pages when searching for verses, and they seem quite clear.

>>19747512
>KJ"""V"""
It's KJB because it's not a "version", it's the only legitimate Bible.

>>19747552
Address any of these questions

>>19740706
>>19740724
>>19740743
>>19740762

>>19747567
I shalt not cast mine pearls before thee, swine.

>>19747644
so your opinions are indefensible, got it

>>19747648
Wrong, God confirmed me with dubs.

>>19747552
This scum bag is in every thread trying to wrench good souls from the hands of Christ, he should be shamed. Demon.

>>19747728
>promoting Satan's counterfeit "bibles"
>calling others a demon
rich

>>19747771
You aren't able to prove it, fucking warlock piece of shit.

>>19747835
It doesn't need me to prove it, it proves itself to those who earnestly seek *directly*. The tools are there for everyone. Read in parallel with other "translations" against the original languages.

>>19743385
>traditional Anglicans and Lutherans
With a minority of Anglo-Catholics, but not to the larger GAFCON traditional Anglicans, and the Lutherans cozying up to Rome are the gay liberal ones from the World Council of Churches with artificially inflated numbers of "members" from their state churches, not confessional traditional Lutherans.

I love all of you: Orthodox, Protestant and Catholic. Since typing in these threads, I've felt more alive than ever. I have been to Church for the first time in 15 years, and managed to stay off of 4chan for 2 weeks (something I haven't managed since first posting here 10 years ago).
All of you go with God. I pray for you and hope you will pray for me at this crucial stage.

new thread

>>19747901
>>19747901
>>19747901

>>19747885
Based

>>19747552
You're fooling no one with this schizo bullshit, LARPer. The most evangelical member of my parish, who is a KJV only person still refers to it as the KJV. Learn to be humble.

>>19747885
Blessed

>>19747916
>evangelical
>doesn't know something crucial
No surprise there but at least they do use *the* Bible.

>>19747963
We all use *the* Bible. We are Anglicans.

>>19747972
Oh, good, so the KJB then, cheerio.

Some folks are people with Bibles, others are Bibles with people.

>>19747984
I have no objection to referring it as such btw.