/lit/ - Literature

Go back to >>>/his/

Let me tell you what is really ironic here. Earlier some Catholic said that Jay Dyer is "JBP tier" even though Jay has refuted Peterson many times.
And now these Catholics are saying that Genesis isn't literal history, it's a myth, it's a "powerful psychological truth about the human condition" blah blah blah. Now who does that sound like to you? Those are LITERALLY Jordan Peterson arguments.

>>19763603
>Jay Dyer
I don't care what protestants have to say.
t. EO

>>19763603
Stop fucking shitting up the thread, both Catholic and Orthodox. The thread is supposed to be about fucking translation discussion and Bible editions. No one gives a fuck about Jay Dyer or Robert Barron or Peterstein or whoever. Take that shit to another thread.

>>19763613
But he is EO!

>>19763603

>>19763625
LITERALLY not an argument to the topic at hand!!!

What translation are you reading?

Evolution is a myth with faulty metaphysical assumptions behind it. It is not compatible with Genesis, which is both a literal account of history and symbolic truth.

>>19763636
I read the English Standard Version of the Bible. I want to read the Deuterocanonical books at some point.

What other Christian Literature would you guys recommend?

>>19763645
Amen.

>>19763645
>>19763656
Science and the Bible cannot contradict. God created both. Genesis contains all the truths necessary for salvation.

>>19763645
Don't say that or the Catholic anon will have another mental breakdown and spam the thread endlessly.

>>19763672
Evolution is not real science. It is fraudulent.

>>19763636
Lately? NETS for the OT
Sarah Ruden for the Gospels

>>19763617
Citation needed.
Dyer is not a source.

>>19763678
LMAO too late. The Catholic bot is here.

>>19763680
Genesis contains the truths necessary for salvation. The Eastern Fathers believed in multiple senses of scripture interpretation, they were wise. Why don't you? By what authority do you dismiss your tradition?

Where in the Bible does the Bible say sola scriptura is the only way you can read the Bible? It should be in the Bible right, since it's your belief? Right?

Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake, then I'll admit you were right. Pro-tip: it's a myth. God gave us logical rationality for a reason. You are blasphemous to him by not using it.

Go ahead. Prove it. I'm wrong, so it should be easy to prove! Prove the Earth is 6000 years old, humanity descended from two people, a literal ark exists, and there was a talking snake.

Where's the ruins of the ark? How come we can carbon date rocks to millions of years old? How come we can see the paradox shifts of cosmic light lightyears away? Did God create this as an illusion? Why is God trying to trick us then? Is God a deceiver?

If you follow your logic, you must call God a deceiver, as scripture and history conflict. You are a blasphemer. Very sick stuff.

God created by setting in motion the quantum fluctuations which led to the Big Bang.

God created science and religion both. They are not in conflict. You're dangerously close to blaspheming.

>>19763688

>>19763636
Doing a reading of the NT in OSB and a reading of the Wisdom literature in the TOB (French) translation.
Thinking of doing my next NT reading in the EOB translation, curious as to what people think of the study notes in it.

>>19763653
Didache

>>19763603
>jay diaper
>>19763645
>genesis is literal
LMAO. Go back to shilling for the Ark Encounter, billy bob.
>>19763672
this
>>19763688
the spergs who spam Dyer all day truly annihilated the threads. The funny part is he's basically the worst possible youtuber to pick to support. he's the kind of ad homs and strawmen, no wonder spergs like him.

>>19763693

>>19763690
I kept replying to it with scripture last thread and it could not comprehend it lol.

>>19763702
Standing next to a Greek guy holding a book surrounded by Orthodox icons doesn't make you EO either. Still not a source.

>>19763725
>Greek guy
Actually he is Russian.
This is him. Jay helped him write this book.
https://youtu.be/ZtlaqnLsVoU

>>19763717
What do you think the keywords are that trigger it's responses?

>>19763713
>>19763717
Did God or did God not create the universe and its laws? Yes or no?

Do you or do you not deny that God created the scientific laws of the universe? Yes or no?

You can't fucking answer this because you don't actually believe God created the physical universe. You'd have to admit God created the universe that isn't 6000 years old.

You're a pagan. You don't believe in God's creation. I'm waiting for you actually address the question instead of insulting me and squirming. Orthodox are the most passive aggressive, dishonest, lying pussies on the site. It's truly a sight to behold.

>>19763729
dude, why are you defending jay so hard? he's a fucking youtuber. read some actual biblical commentary or sources, everyone is making fun of him for a reason. he's the patron saint of neets and shut ins.

Nice to see you guys still larping.

>>19763736
>gets proven wrong
>YEAH WELL WHY ARE YOU DEFENDING HIM
Just stop!

>>19763708
OSB is not a real Orthodox Bible, it has the Protestant NKJV NT. It's published by Thomas Nelson.

I'm happy these threads lasted as long as they did while being interesting and worthwhile. Learned a bit and had some fun. Shame about the last 3 or so threads. Good things do eventually come to an end, I guess.

>>19763738
it's the ortholarpie way!
>>19763742
jay pls go.

>>19763731
I'm the one who was arguing with you the most and I am Reformed, not Orthodox. I will restate one final time and that is it. God created the "laws" by which the universe functions. These are not part of God but aspects of the created world. They are temporal as the world will eventually end. They can also be changed, as part of creation God can do whatever he wants with them. By Adam's sin death and corruption entered the world, and thus the physical "laws" changed. Again these are an aspect of creation. They are not the eternal moral law that is part of God's nature. Since the physical laws have changed, we cannot extrapolate their current functioning thousands of years into the past. I think that clarifies it if you actually take the time read and understand what I said. That is all.

Catholics behave like slimy slittle worms.
Always moving the goalposts and pretending you didn't just refute them.

>>19763747
>wahh wahh people won't tolerate my bullshit! that means the thread is dead!

>>19763750
>I'm Reformed

>>19763736
Why are you defending evolution so hard?
Are you actually an atheist? Are you a satanist?

>>19763759
I accept your defeat.

>>19763753
>noooooooooooooooooooo why won't you let me keep spamming e-celebs!
>stop talking about the Bible or important works and read Jay Dyer instead!
Go in peace and think about what you did.

Can the autistic Jay Dyer posting and petty denomination console wars go somewhere else

>>19763745
It's not "official" but it's still a great translation that's been endorsed by a few Metropolitans. There is no official English translation of the OT anyways and the OSB is based on the Septuagint and has all the deuterocanon. The priest and subdeacon at my parish recommend it to everyone.

I will read the EOB eventually though, did you read it? I'm hoping the study notes are good.

It's obvious they owe allegiance to the new science cult that prescribes their universe origin myth (big bang), origin of man myth (evolution), and apocalypse myth (climate change, heat death of universe, there are many scientific false prophecies).

>>19763750
How does sin change the God-created eternal physical laws of the universe but not the moral laws? You can't answer this besides saying "well, they just did!".
>God's moral laws are part of his nature but his physical laws aren't.
Citation needed. You're dividing the Absolute Physical Simplicity into modalities or aspects and picking and choosing which are eternal and which aren't. That's the only way you can contort yourself enough to support a 6,000 year old creation narrative.

All aspects of God are immutable and unchanging. The physical universe, and the moral universe, are an unchanging eternal expression of God's expressed essence. Thus, when we observe the universe is billions of years old, we know God created the universe billions of years ago. When we observe genetic evidence of a common ancestor, and biologically unity between species, we know God created via teleologically guided evolution.

Genesis literalism is not the hill to die on. Genesis is obviously not literal. We have direct textual evidence it was derived from the Enuma Elish. Genesis can be true without being literal, as the Fathers rightly understood.

>>19763767
wasn't me
see >>19763790

>>19763760
why are you denying science and history so hard? are you saying God is a liar when he created the physical world we have today along with it's evidence?

>>19763645

>>19763801
Science is here are the steps I did in this experiment and the results I got feel free to reproduce it. The new scientific cult is here is a story we made up that happened before any of us were around to witness that you must accept as true or else you are a 'denier'. Wake up.

>>19763780
I am not a fan of the EOB generally, I find it doesn't provide enough textual notes. Then again I appreciate alternate readings and textual commentary more than the theological stuff. Seems like a good translation from a theological perspective though.

Generally I use the HarperCollins NRSV as my go-to, in conjunction with multiple other translations as cross-references.

>>19763816
see
>>19763790

>>19763827
Has nothing to do with what I said.

Anyone have any advice on reading the Bible? Should I try to read it cover to cover, or switch to and from the NT while reading the OT? Right now I've just started Exodus.

>>19763861
I recommend you start with the Gospels.

>>19763861
My advice would be to start with the NT, in order, then the OT, in order, then the NT again.
Starting with the OT isn't bad but it's confusing when you don't know what the whole point of it is, and it's pretty long before you get to it.
Don't flip randomly between books though, they were ordered in a certain way for good reasons.

>>19763827
I am in disbelief you think you can "disprove" carbon dating, paradox shifts of cosmic light which are observable, and observation of differing frequency cosmic radio waves and say "it's all bullshit". You think that's just made up stuff? You think carbon dating of plants and rocks and fossils to billions of years old is some vast, 300 year old conspiracy? Dude. How is it hard to believe God created the physical world we see today as well as the scientific method we use to learn more about it? You think scientists are making shit up when they observe all the physical evidence which YOU YOURSELF can go and verify that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old? Seriously? You really need to examine why your belief system is built on sand.

>>19763899
Bible > gay jewish scientists
Unrefutable

>>19763861
Ascension Press Bible reading plan

>>19763873
>>19763883
Alright, thank you. I'll finish Exodus and move to the NT.

Do not get the vaccine. Many disciples of Saint Paisios have said this: Stay away from the vaccine! It is a demonic gene therapy shot designed to pervert the image of God in man. Do not get the vaccine.

>>19763904
kys.

https://youtu.be/M6CcjMWkX5Y
https://youtu.be/M6CcjMWkX5Y
https://youtu.be/M6CcjMWkX5Y

>>19763908
I second this. I got the vaccine and I regret it and feel like I sinned against God. Better to lose your job than get the vaccine.

>>19763908
>disciples of Saint Paisios
I'm a disciple of Jesus, thanks.

>>19763908
>>19763930
How is medicine demonic?

>>19763930
>>19763931
I read an account of one Orthodox Christian monk in Greece who received the first covid "vaccine". This is what he said. After he received it, he was overcome with a terrible feeling of shame and he could no longer wear his priest hat. At night he saw Satan's face right in front of him, inches away from his own face, saying to him "Now you are mine". He stayed this way for forty days. He has refused to get the second dose and he warns everyone not to get the jab.

>>19763958
Disturbing... I had a troubling vision during BLM riots but not after the vaccine.

>>19763943
Satanic vaccine: you take it and you get sick (sometimes disabled or death) with terrible side-effects. then, you catch covid anyways and potentially get even more sick than if you hadn't taken it.

Natural immunity: you catch the virus and then your immune system handles it.

Seems pretty obvious to me and a lot of other people who got the shot at this point...

>>19763958
I got both vaccine shots and never had such happen to me. I prayed to God beforehand to prevent me from getting it if anything bad would come of it as I was nervous about it and did not feel I needed it, but my family wanted me to get it because they trusted it and because of government regulations.

>>19763672
>>19763656
>>19763672
>>19763645

Question the first verse in Genesis says God created the HeavenS (Plural) (KJV)...Other Bibles start "God created the Heaven (singlular)... So which is correct?

>>19764027
I think the people who regulated it will be punished. They are killing little kids.

>>19764039
I have a KJV bible and it says 'heaven'

Toasting in a cursed bread

>>19764042
How are they killing little kids?

>>19764071
>"chrome_screenshot..."
that better be ungoogled-chromium

>>19763603
Origen and Augustine write extensively on the Genesis creation myth having multiple symbolic dimensions (I don't like the word "allegorical," it sounds too much like a cope). Not believing in shit to be literal 24 hour days is not a "retreat" but understanding the text in its literal original meaning and not through a narrow Anglicized translation.

>>19763780
The EOB is pretty good imo. The study notes/essays are great, but don't expect extensive textual-critical notes, as the EOB is obviously an EO version with an EO perspective and its not going to suddenly start siding with Catholics or Protestants against EO on issues. It's also from one manuscript, the official Greek Orthodox Church's PT, so don't expect the EOB to be stitched together from multiple sources like other translations. There's a PDF on the EOB Wikipedia page, so you can give it a glance before buying a copy.

>>19764078

>>19763616
>translation discussion and Bible editions
KJB
/thread

>>19764192
I did not know it was available as a PDF, thank you

>>19763958
>I heard this
>I heard that
>Someone said that someone felt
>I heard that this happened to someone who heard

Come back when you have some evidence besides scrupulosity and alarmism.

>>19763984
>your immune system handles it
except when you die. whoops!
God wants us to preserve our health.
The vaccine is not perfect but everyone I know who has taken it has been completely fine. Meanwhile I know multiple people who got very sick with covid and were either hospitalized or had lingering symptoms for months
>you are lying!
>they were fat!
no and no.

>>19764275
The vaccine kills people.

>>19764202
>may
>may
>may
this is the Bible thead, not /pol/.

Fence sitter anon here.
From an outside perspective, I think the "catholic" guy from the last thread arguing that not agreeing with science makes you a heretic or whatever is some kind of false-flagger or troll. If he is an actual Catholic, he's doing a very poor job of representing the positions of his church.
I Googled the CCC and found this: "1008 Death is a consequence of sin. The Church's Magisterium, as authentic interpreter of the affirmations of Scripture and Tradition, teaches that death entered the world on account of man's sin. Even though man's nature is mortal God had destined him not to die. Death was therefore contrary to the plans of God the Creator and entered the world as a consequence of sin. "Bodily death, from which man would have been immune had he not sinned" is thus "the last enemy" of man left to be conquered."
It seems very difficult to argue that death has *always* been a feature of existence on Earth for anyone who belongs to an Apostolic church (EO, RC), and the argument that the physical laws which govern earthly existence are eternal seems to be bunk, especially since Revelation speaks of Heaven and Earth passing away and being renewed in a more glorious mode of existence - the most obvious reading, to me, would be that all creation will change following the Second Coming of Christ, and that its physical laws will as well, since death will no longer be part of the world. How evolution and science fit into this picture is another matter. Personally, I think viewing "science" and "religion" as two sides of a coin is a little disingenuous, since the investigative scope of science is limited to that which can be empirically, physically observed and reproducibly tested.

>>19764165
You keep presenting this false dichotomy. It was always understood to be both literal AND symbolic, like I already said.
Origen was condemned as a heretic.

>>19764257
No version is perfect.
>>19764283
And? Covid kills people too. They both kill people. If you're an old person who is more likely to be killed from covid, get the vaccine. If you're a young person more likely to be killed from the vaccine, don't get it.
>y-you support mandates!
No I don't. Black-and-white side-ism is cancerous and unChristian. But be aware, when you get covid, even as a young person, you can get lingering long covid symptoms for months.
>long covid is a fake jewish psyop!
you're right, people with elevated cyotkine and inflammation levels in their blood from post-viral covid are just pretending, or jewish agents! that sounds like a sane Christian view!

>>19764315
>"""version"""

>>19764259
The PDF is of the paperback (CreateSpace) version. The various Legacy Icons and Newrome Press hardcover/pocket leather releases omit material in favor of a more streamlined text. Some of the texts in the back appendices are missing pages in the PDF, but the entire NT text should be there.

CCC on evolution

>159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1)

>283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.

>284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin.

Benedict XVI
>Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.

>We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.

>>19764315
The vaccine kills people, so it shouldn't be taken. That is the point since it seems like you missed it.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition)

>The universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

>In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence.

Sorry I just don't have faith in science! Sorry!!! I only have faith in Jesus! So Sorry.

How do you read the Bible? Just pick a book, read, and note what inspires you?

St. John Paul II

>In his encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Venerable Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points. Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

>>19764344
Covid kills people. Protect yourself against it. You seem to be unable to read.

>>19763702
This is the healthiest Jay Dyer I have seen. He changed his religion five times and he definitely got stuck with the occult despite his (final?) conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy. He doesn't act like a Christian, he is well-read only and can tell you about the occult, his theology is meme-tier.

>>19764341
>>19764351
>>19764360
How does affirming evolution work when the official position of the CC is that death entered the world as a consequence of man's sin?

>>19764354
Jesus created science and evolution.

>All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

>>19764368
Yeah sure. Protecting yourself doesn't include injecting yourself with something that will disable or kill you though.

Catholics keep insisting that you can either see Genesis as symbolic, or you can see it as literal, but not both.
IT IS A FALSE DIALECTIC!!!

>>19764039
Mine reads the plural. There are multiple layers of heaven, the heaven below the dome and above the dome.

>>19764374
>Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s physical body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. Bodily death is not equivalent to spiritual death.

Physical "death" of non-soul-infused humans is not equivalent to the death that is separation from God sin as a consequence of sin.

>>19763861
If you already started with the OT, stick to it. Your spiritual benefit will be greater when you read the OT first and then the NT. You have the complete history, law, prophecies and wisdom to connect with the NT. I did that, while in the beginning the OT didn't seem to bear many spiritual fruits, it gave me an understanding how ancient man thought and acted and worshiped God. The writing style is simple and archaic and the NT will feel like a breeze in comparison, like a gift for the hard work you've done.

>>19764374
St John Paul II
>There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings who were not human (i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity).

Death of non-humans =/= the same kind of death from sin.

>>19764451
total gnosticism

>>19764359
Start with the NT in order then the OT in order, then the NT again. Then you can read whatever you want. Pick any version that isn't NLT or NIV and you'll probably be fine. KJV might be hard for a first read though.

>>19764359
Get a reading plan. Do not try to read straight through, it's not organized linearly or chronologically. Start with the Gospels, specifically Luke. Get a modern translation.

What if I am afraid of going to hell

>>19764671
Who stars with Luke though.
I find Matthew a better start. Mark second, John last, and read Luke along with Acts.

>>19764703
Repent, avoid sin, get closer to God.
Kinda simple

>>19764703
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom

>the thread crystallized for a moment into actual fruitful conversation
Feels good.

>>19764710
What about baptism, Lord's supper, etc.? I am not sure anymore which church I think is correct so I don't know where to go

>>19764725
Are you a Christian? What do you know about the faith? Are you in a denomination?

>>19764746
I believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible but I'm not a member of any church.

>>19764747
Oh and also I think a lot of the Church Fathers and so on make a lot of great points.

>>19764747
I recommend you attend a few local churches in your area to get a feel for it (from varying denominations). Do you lean towards any denomination right now? Do you have a specific style of prayer you regularly do?

>>19764759
I do the Jesus Prayer and the cross hand movement.

>>19764763
You should become Orthodox

>>19764725
I can't really recommend something. Orthos have icons, which i consider the forbidden images mentioned. Caths have saint prayer and papacy. Prots have numerous wrong doctrines flying around.

>>19764763
Definitely attend a few local service. If you lean traditional, attend a Catholic weekend Mass at your local parish; you could also attend a Divine Liturgy at one of your local orthodox churches but make sure you note the exact "branch" as there can be significant differences between orthodox branches. Maybe also attend a LCMS service if there's on in your area, or a high church Anglican service (do not attend any by the "Episcopalian" branch).

>>19764781
That being said, i'd recommend getting some theology down and putting that against the practices of churches you're interested in.

>>19764725
the Foursquare church is a good example.

>>19764805
>the Foursquare church
Pentecostalism is not a good example of a traditional Christian church.

One thing that inclines me towards Orthodoxy is how they talk about the whole cosmic scope of creation, redemption, etc. It is an all encompassing worldview.
In Protestantism from what I have seen raised in Baptist churches, they don't really talk about that.
But I don't know anons. It is all so much information and it can be very confusing and you see all sides making good points. It is all so much to take in.

>>19764832
What's so bad? Its beliefs don't seem wrong.

Also another thing is Protestants to have a modern and rationalistic outlook. For example they say that the Lord's supper is only symbolic and not a literal mystical transformation and things like that. I am inclined to think that there is much more to the truth than this rationalistic or empiricist view of reality.
I have seen some people say that Protestants basically have a secular atheist worldview, except with God added on to it. That might sound like a contradiction but in a way I see what they mean and I think that makes sense.

>>19764837
Those are the pitfalls i mention. Protestantism needs some theology to find a good and correct church.

>>19764853
Some do believe correctly, but as said, hard to find.

>>19764841
It's not "bad" per se, but it's not a traditional church, just so you know. They believe in things like 2nd "spirit" baptisms, etc. Generally they're nice people though.

>>19764837
>>19764853
Here's what I would do. I would go to some churches in person. Do more research on Orthodoxy and Catholicism. See what you think about it. Write down what you're looking for so far and build from there. Continue to read the Bible, make get a simple prayer routine like the Anglican morning/evening prayer. Go from there. Good luck anon.

>>19764883
Oh, i get that. Did a small skim and reckon it's based around Acts 2:4 and 19:6, Mark 16:17, 1 Corinthians 12:8.
Speaking in tongues as a sign of it, and receiving the gifts of the Spirit.
We are nice fellows from what i experience, yeah.

>>19763702
How old is Jay Dyer? He says he studied patristics for 20 years and he said he didn't start reading early Christian works until he was like 21.

>>19764940
He is in his 40s I think

>>19764883
Ok anon.
I am listening to Father Peter Heers right now.
https://youtu.be/hPhoLrcBh1Q

>>19763790
There are no "eternal physical laws". The world is temporal. It will cease existing. It is not an eternal. It is a created thing that God can change. It is not even like man. Our souls will continue existing forever, but the world will not. You are claiming that something like gravity is an eternal part of God. It is not. As long as you cannot understand this you will not understand the subject. Our observation of the universe is not neutral but is based upon the presuppositions through which we interpret what we see. If you approach science with false assumptions about reality it will give you false results. It is a methodology which we can use or misuse.
>>19763899
I've told you why it isn't reliable but you won't listen. That is the trouble with talking to you, as someone will answer your question and then you will just ask it again and pretend they didn't.

>there is no eternal physical law

Thomas Woods
>Drawing on Christian theology, natural philosophers conceived of the universe as imbued with order and permeated with rationality. Nature operates not randomly or arbitrarily but according to immutable and consistent physical patterns that are discernible to rational inquiry and amenable to observation. God is a good and rational creator and as such He has endowed His handiwork with lawfulness, harmony, purpose, and design according to his eternal laws. He is the primary or ultimate cause of all that occurs in nature but there are secondary causes (the laws of nature) that operate autonomously and without any divine intervention. Nature, in other words, is a self-operating and self-sufficient machine, and objects are endowed with the ability to operate according to their eternal nature, to act upon one another, and to cause effects. God's intervention was confined to the initial act of creation, and since then the universe has operated according to the fixed and regular natural laws the creator had decreed. God works through natural powers and refrains from actively intruding upon the world.

The physical laws of the universe emanate from God. Things like "math", laws of nature like the properties of light, of atoms, etc - the qualities of these things, not the substances, are an expression of the Divine Rationality. This has always been Catholic teaching - the physical order of the universe is an expression of the Divine Logos. It cannot be changed because it itself is a modality of the Divine Mind. This is why God is perfect rationality, and perfect order, and perfect math. These are not "created" by God in that they are changeable - they are a result of God's immanence. The laws of the universe are not "things" - that is where you keep tripping up. They an expression of the Divine Mind. "In the beginning was the λόγος [...] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

λόγος is per-exsistent, and λόγος is, in Greek, "reason", "principle", "expressed word". Thus the reason of God - expressed immanently in the universe through eternal laws - are a PART of and an EXPRESSION of λόγος.

Thus, the laws of the universe *are* eternal physical laws because they are not "things" in the same way the laws of math are not "things". Once God has decreed these expressions of λόγος be ordered in the divine-mind-universe, they cannot change. It is pre-exsistent. It is outside of time. I don't care if you disagree, because this is what it is, and this is what the Church has always taught. Hence why, inherently, science and religion *cannot* conflict - quite simply it is physically impossible.

>>19765552
meant for >>19765329

What does /biblegen/ consider to be the "core" books of the Bible? Here is what I have so far:

Old Testament/Tanakh:
>Genesis - Deuteronomy (the entire Torah)
>Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, Micah, Zechariah, Malachi (from the Prophets)
>Psalms, Job, Daniel, Ezra & Nehemiah, Chronicles* (from the Writings)

*will skip/skim over most the genealogy parts (more interested in the stories)

New Testament:
>John, Mark, Matthew, Luke-Acts
>1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, Romans (Paul's uncontested letters, in chronological order)
>Hebrews, Revelation

Any suggestions?

>>19765866
OT
>Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
>Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, 1-2 Kings, 1-2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 1-2 Maccabees
>Pslams, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, Wisdom, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, Daniel

NT
>Everything

>>19765866
I don't know about "core" but Ecclesiastes is one of my favorites. Amos too.

For the NT, I would add I Peter and James.

If Chronicles is part of a core I guess Maccabees too to get to round out the histories.

Have not been hugely inspired by the wisdom literature outside Job and Ecclesiastes, but those two I've read more than almost any other books.

>>19765941
>>19765957
>1-2 Maccabees
Oh yeah! That's a glaring omission. (Probably good to know about the context of Hanukkah, the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus, and the foundation of the Hasmonean Kingdom prior to the Roman invasion).

>Ecclesiastes
Another glaring omission from my list for sure. I hear Ecclesiastes has inspired lots of poetry and other literature.

>>19765866
The full 66 of God breathed Scripture, which your dubs confirm.

>>19766256
>The full 73 of God breathed Scripture
FTFY, brother.

>>19766262
Not backed up by God with dubs, opinion discarded.

>>19766277
>disregarded the Christian Scriptures
cringe

>>19763780
Im reading through the NT in it currently, it's pretty good.
I do also recommend pic related.

>>19765866
>>19766277

>>19766289
>not respecting a direct sign from God
>>>/r/gaytheists

Frens, I have a list of books but I'm not sure what to get now and what to defer until later.
>The Baker Illustrated Bible Background Commentary
>Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Editio quinta)
>Septuaginta (Editio altera)
>Tyndale House's The Hebrew Old Testament, Reader's Edition
>The Kalām Cosmological Argument
>The Final Days of Jesus: The Most Important Week of the Most Important Person Who Ever Lived
>Five Proofs of the Existence of God
>The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem
>The Jewish Annotated New Testament
>The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (Alter)
>Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism
>The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran
>Challenge to Islam for Reformation: The Rediscovery and reliable Reconstruction of a comprehensive pre-Islamic Christian Hymnal hidden in the Koran under earliest Islamic Reinterpretations
This is currently the list, but I'm not sure where to start.

>>19766327
I would recommend the ones that are the Bible and not recommend the ones that are not.

>>19766327
This >>19766340, just get a KJB.

>>19766340
Biblia Sacra Vulgata it is, then.

>>19766256
>>19766277
>>19766316
>he uses the Talmudic canon because Martin Schizo told him to
oh nonononono! try being Christian and not Talmudic.
>>19766355
You know the original KJV uses the traditional 73 book Catholic canon right? good luck squaring that circle, I wonder what contortions you'll think up to "justify" that.
>>19766327
Those are a ton of books. Can you read Latin and ancient Hebrew and Koine? Some of your books are really advanced-tier (the textual criticism books) and some are intro tier (the Feiser book, the WLC book, etc.) It seems you're new to Christianity so I recommended not dumping hundreds of bucks into advanced books yet. Btw, you can safely disregard the Qu'ran, Islam is a joke and I mean that nicely. It's really not even worth the in-depth research, at least initially. Stay away from Feiser btw, he's an extreme reductionist Thomist and is not a good representative of Catholic philosophy today. The Jewish annotated NT is also a joke, it has a very-anti Christian, pro-modern-Jewish-talmudic commentary.

It seems you don't even believe in God yet so I'll say this: start with C.S. Lewis. He gets maligned as "babby tier" but he's worth the read for new seekers. Check out Mere Christianity, Miracles, and the Problem of Pain. He's a great start.

Pick up a neutral translation of just the Gospels. I recommend Lattimore. Read those through, read Lewis, and come back. Those are a great neutral starting point and you won't dump literally close to 1000 dollars on books that are way too advanced at the moment. If you're really interested for deeper commentary, pick up an Oxford or HarperCollins NRSV study Bible. That's more than enough to get started if you don't believe in God yet, let alone Christianity.

>>19766666
>Those are a ton of books.
Yes, they are, Satan.
>Can you read Latin and ancient Hebrew and Koine?
Yes to Latin, yes to Koine Greek, working on Hebrew.
>Some of your books are really advanced-tier (the textual criticism books) and some are intro tier
Yep, textual criticism has been an interest of mine recently, mainly in pointing out the flaws in the entire field. The intro-tier ones, as you call them, are really just to serve as quick-reference books on stuff that I have a general understanding of already, but I lack the physical texts for easy reference.
>It seems you're new to Christianity
Your assumption would be quite wrong, unless you consider 30 years of Christianity to be "new to Christianity."
>Btw, you can safely disregard the Qu'ran, Islam is a joke and I mean that nicely.
Those books agree with you, so I'm not sure why you're turning me away from books critical of Islam. Unless you're actually trying to defend Islam from criticism by pretending to be critical yourself while turning me away from critical texts.
>The Jewish annotated NT is also a joke, it has a very-anti Christian, pro-modern-Jewish-talmudic commentary.
Correct, which is why it's useful to pick apart the arguments in said commentary.
>It seems you don't even believe in God yet
lol sounds like projection, m8

Begone, Satan.

>>19766666
> Stay away from Feser
Can you recommend a better introduction to Thomism/Scholastic thought, or even traditional Catholic teaching on anthropology and natural theology? (Preferably from a non-American author, I have a slight distrust of American catholics...)

Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, any decent expositions on St. Anselm's ontological proof?

>>19766710
first time I ever got quints, nice.
my bad I thought you were a noob from the intro books on islam and the Feiser/WLC books. by all means pick up the vulgate and LXX then. maybe get a nestle aland if youre inclined. re Islam, i'm just saying I don't even bother with qu'ranic critical studies, it's of no interest at all to me, like the book of mormon. maybe it's useful for apologetics purposes but you do you of course. maybe get some books by raymond e brown. his series on the passion is from the yale anchor series and is quite in-depth. the alter translation is awesome, I like it a lot. the textual notes are tremendously interesting

>>19766714
>Can you recommend a better introduction to Thomism/Scholastic thought, or even traditional Catholic teaching on anthropology and natural theology? (Preferably from a non-American author, I have a slight distrust of American catholics...)
josef pieper's intro to aquinas is *the* standard in modern thomism and is not from an american "radical thomist" stance.

>Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, any decent expositions on St. Anselm's ontological proof?
Étienne Gilson is a modern neo-thomist who wrote a great intro to medieval catholic philosophy, that would probably deal in-depth with both anselm and aquinas. cambridge publishes a companion to anselm. there's also a specific philosophy book on him in the oxford UP great medievals series. I don't know any specific books on his proof however.

>>19765552
It isn't what you've always taught. For example this, from the Synod of Carthage 418:

>Canon CIX.
>That Adam was not created by God subject to death.

>That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

>Ancient Epitome of Canon CIX.
>Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

How do you figure that the physical laws currently binding man are immutable if Adam would not have naturally died?

>>19765552
Also the synod I quoted has ecumenical authority because it was ratified at Nicaea II.

>Ancient Epitome of Canon I
>We gladly embrace the Divine Canons, viz.: those of the Holy Apostles, of the Six Ecumenical Synods, as also of the local synods and of our Holy Fathers, as inspired by one and the same Holy Spirit. Whom they anathematize we also anathematize; whom they depose, we depose; whom they cut off, we cut off; and whom they subject to penalties, we also so subject.

>>19767054
In other words the Official™ Teaching™ of the Church™ is that there is a literal Adam who would not have naturally died unless he committed sin. Or it was until it was changed later, which is Impossible™. It's almost like this Supreme™ Magisterium™ is false. Weird huh?

>>19765552
Anyway, what I have given is sufficient to refute this, but I will respond to the ideas themselves as it is helpful for me to work through such things. I have no issue with the idea that the universe is rationally ordered and that the principles which govern it derive from God. So the distinctions I would note would be

1. The universe is temporary. It had a beginning and it will have an end. Man in comparison has a beginning but he does not have an end.

2. So there will come a point at which the principles that govern the universe will expire. But there will never come a point at which the laws which govern man's moral actions expire. However the logos which orders the universe remains, just as God's goodness remains. In whatever exists for us in heaven, that will also be ordered by the logos.

3. I think one problem is that you are really saying that the universe can exist in one way. For the universe to be ordered and reasonable, I don't see why it must necessarily follow the laws the we observe now. It could have been created in another fully ordered and reasonable configuration.

4. And that is what occurred. The original creation was under a different rational configuration in which death did not exist. Into this was created Adam, who entered into covenant with God under this condition: that if he obey God he will never die, but if he disobey God he will die. Adam has been delegated a manner of authority over creation, bot h the world and his descendants:
>Gen. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

5. Adam disobeys God and thus invokes the curse of death. This a catastrophic event which changes the configuration of the universe. But it is from one order to another order. Rather than the fully good order which God originally purposed the world, we now have the world which has been corrupted under the dominion and headship of Adam. We are still functioning under a rational system that is being upheld by God, but it is not quite the same one as before.

6. This not circles back to my comments about science. If the order we observe currently is not the same as the order that existed previously, we cannot extrapolate backwards and end up with a true result. The methodology of science must be correctly applied. The fact that we have applied it and come up with *something* does not mean that *something* is correct. If we ignore the information God has given us about the creation, if we make assumptions contrary to that information and then undertake scientific inquiry, we will come to a false conclusion.

>>19767165
The objection I foresee to this is
>If the universe could be ordered under a different set of principles, could man not be placed under a different moral law?
To which I would answer, negative. Order and reason would apply to a given system. Rationality, reason must order the system, but the system could be this or it could be that. We have the original system without death and then the second system with death, but both are ordered. So regarding man, he must follow the law derived from God's goodness. Now I could also say that this is something that orders a system, which in this case is man. If man had been created as a different sort of creature, the law governing him would not be quite the same. It would be equally derived from God's goodness but different in how it pertains to this different creature's attributes. So I would imagine that the law governing angels is not quite the same as the law governing man, as men and angels do not have the same attributes. There are things that apply to man but not to an angel and vice versa. But since man is always man, he is governed by the same law immutably.

>>19767193
>But since man is always man, he is governed by the same law immutably.
Also I think this could perhaps be extrapolated into the realm of theosis, but that is above my paygrade and I would prefer not to speculate on such a thing.

What is the Logos? I do not remember seeing it mentioned in the Bible. I read ESV. Does it appear in the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books?

On a side note, is it better to call them the Deuterocanonical books or the Apocrypha? Which title is preferred for them?

Is there any proper project in the works for a Bible with all texts that are traditionally considered canonical?
The RSV and NRSV "with apocrypha" have on top of the Protestant canon the Prayer of Manasseh, 1-2 Esdras, Greek Esther, Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, and Greek Daniel.
But is there a project for a Bible that also contains the texts specific to the Ethiopian canon (Jubilees, Enoch, 1-3 Meqabyan, 4 Baruch) and those specific to the Syriac canon (Psalms 152-155, 2 Baruch)? And also those texts that were once commonly part of the canon but didn't stick (Didache, Apostolic Constitutions, 1-2 Clement, 3 Corinthians, Laoedocians, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Joseph and Aseneth...)?
A fresh and consistent translation of these texts would be nice.

>>19767221
Logos (λόγος) is a Greek with various meanings, such as "word", "speech", "reason", etc. that became a technical philosophical term referring to the rational or ordering principle of the universe. It is used most famously in scripture here:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (λόγος), and the Word (λόγος) was with God, and the Word (λόγος) was God.

Greek: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

>>19767239
>Logos (λόγος) is a Greek term*
forgot a word

>>19767221
Also I think any decent study bible would make note of this and explain what it means, so you might find one of those to be helpful.

>>19767221
>On a side note, is it better to call them the Deuterocanonical books or the Apocrypha? Which title is preferred for them?
Technically, apocrypha refers to texts that were present in the Greek translation of the Old Testament but were not considered part of the Hebrew canon. Deuterocanon ("second canon") refers to these same books in the sense that they are considered canonical (to varying extents) by Catholics and Orthodox. There is also a historical sense in which these books were received as being of use for the Christian but not being authoritative in doctrine. So the terms overlap and people should know what you mean regardless.

>>19767221
>>19767278
Apocrypha is easier to type

Trent Horn said that the Trinity is not in the Old Testament and he also seems to support evolution and the vaccine.
I don't trust him!

Repent

>>19767560
>support evolution and the vaccine.
So does your Pope

>>19767586
>your Pope
I am not Roman Catholic!!

Why are there contradictions in the Bible?

>>19767637
Because you want them to be.

>>19767644
What?

>>19767669
You refuse to let the text be harmonized so therefore contradictions must exist.

>>19767637
Such as?

>>19763861
If you start cover to cover, you'll blast through genesis and the first half of exodus
Then you'll give up
Trust me, this is the experience of 90% of people who try to do this
Either do this in the context of a Bible study with someone who knows his stuff or start with the gospels
Actually, start with the gospels with someone who knows his stuff
Depends on your denomination or not who that might be
I have a few in mind but you'll have to give me context

>>19767637
Could you please post some?

>>19767637
>>19767682
>>19767697
... it begins ...

>>19767682
>>19767697
For example, Jesus says that one must be ready to leave or hate one's father or mother in order to follow Christ, but in the Old Testament, it's ordered that one love and obey one's parents.

>>19767703
This could mean any one of like five passages all of which mean different things
Do you know exactly where?
Also, Jesus also tells them to love their parents
If you're thinking about the sword passage, that's about the explosive consequences the declaration of the gospel can have which is something you ought to be ready for

I am firmly convinced at this point
God has littered the orthodox church with virulent retards to test my faith
But when God tests someone, that means he probably wants to do something big with them
Should I be getting my hopes up or am I just as schizo as the rest of them
>>19767703
Also, I was hoping for something better like the different Judas suicides or the date of the last supper which receive the very candid answer of
Literary effect

>>19767703
It means that your duty to God comes first. You are obligated to honor your parents but God is more important.

>>19763592
For me it’s the 1650 Scottish metrical Psalter

>>19767768
Forgot pic

>>19767768

>>19767037
>>19767054
>That Adam was not created by God subject to death.
>Whoso shall assert that the protoplast would have died without sin and through natural necessity, let him be anathema.

see >>19764451 and >>19764421

St John Paul II
>There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings who were not human (i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity).

Death of non-humans =/= the same kind of death from sin.

>Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s physical body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are. Bodily death is not equivalent to spiritual death.

Physical "death" of non-soul-infused humans is not equivalent to the soul death that is separation from God sin as a consequence of sin. There is a clear distinction between soul death and physical death. In fact, physical death also does not happen post-fall. Look at Enoch.

You're creating a contradiction where there is none. There has always been an understand of physical death =/= death from sin. In fact, as demonstrated above, we see physical death is *not* conditional upon sin inherently - otherwise Enoch would've *by necessity* died (not that I subscribe to Biblical literal-ism but you can disprove your claim even by your own narrow standard of evidence). Obviously physical death is connected to death as a result from sin, but in fact it's clear they're quite different.

The rock upon which Christ built His church refers to the confession and faith in Christ, NOT Peter himself as a person! This is one reason why the Roman Catholic church is wrong!

>>19767165
Once again you are unable to grasp the nuance and depth of the argument.
>So there will come a point at which the principles that govern the universe will expire
The "order" of the universe is not a "physical thing". You fail to be able to comprehend this. Math, laws of nature - they are not "physical thing". They are immanence of the λόγος. In fact, I think one problem is that you are really saying that the universe can exist in one way., reason, as we are told in John, *is* God - it's clear it is not God's creation. They *cannot* expire because they are the "uncreated light" expressed by immanence. It is a qualia of God.
>I think one problem is that you are really saying that the universe can exist in one way.
λόγος is not the universe. It is not "in" the universe". It is the principles by which the universe is creatively expressed. You are once again conflating matter with order. The key is in John. Jesus *is* the uncreated, incarnated order. Obviously you know that Jesus is preexistent. Thus, λόγος *cannot* be mutable. And the incarnation aspect of Jesus, by virtue of his divine nature, is also preexistent. So even if we wanted to say that "order" is a "created thing' (which it's not), as it is λόγος, it *cannot* change. This is obviously in the Bible.

>The original creation was under a different rational configuration in which death did not exist.
Once again, death =/= the λόγος laws of the universe. You are conflating the issues here. You say the Earth must be 6,000 years old because of the qualities in the universe to observe that are false (as it has been shown, this cannot be tenable however), yet now you pivot and say the Earth must be 6,000 years old because death for soul-infused humans cannot have been created? You are unable to get your own reasoning in order.

>Rather than the fully good order which God originally purposed the world [...] rational system
Again, your distinction between human conditions and uncreated, eternal λόγος gets muddied because you fail to deny and clearly delineate your terms. Everything else you draw as a conclusion about the falseness of the observable universe thus is also incorrect because you are unable to recognize the nature of λόγος as explained above. Your "proof" of the 6,000 year old Earth is once again untenable even by your own standards which disqualify all physical evidence because it is refuted in the Bible itself.

>>19768034
*can exist in more than one way

>>19767963
Carthage says this
>That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

It says he would not have died IN BODY. It is not referring to spiritual death. It says the his BODY WOULD NOT DIE unless he sinned. You cannot account for this.

>>19767193
>If the universe could be ordered under a different set of principles
it cannot be. see my previous post. the principles are not "things" and are not "created". the rest of your argument thus cannot hold.

Would someone else like to confirm that the official Catholic doctrine is that God is gravity and math?

>>19768013
I'd think the fact that nobody read the passage this way for centuries is more important
The rock is obviously a pun on Peter
Πέτρος (Petros Peter)
Πέτρα (Petra Rock)
Even if you can't read Greek characters
The similarity
That Christ might have meant his confession of faith is certainly plausible but much more importantly
>καὶ δώσω σοι τὰς κλεῖς τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν
This is the next verse, the keys of heaven one
That σοι is you
Just, it's plural
So far Jesus was using the singular you to talk to Peter
Now he shifts to the plural
Presumably, referring to all the apostles

>>19768040
>fact, as demonstrated above, we see physical death is *not* conditional upon sin inherently - otherwise Enoch would've *by necessity* died (not that I subscribe to Biblical literal-ism but you can disprove your claim even by your own narrow standard of evidence). Obviously physical death is connected to death as a result from sin, but in fact it's clear they're quite different.

Enoch did not sin, yet he sinned. It is clear that physical death is *related* to sin, but there is another kind of death that produces physical death as a result of sin. This is, by the way, why the Assumption of Mary is sound doctrine. Because physical death is conditional upon death from sin, yet they are obviously distinct and even in the bible we see a broken chain of casualty. Of course sin merited Adam's death - but there are times when men who are sinners (Enoch) did not die. Thus we see it's God's prerogative whether death is connected with sin. This is obviously a mutable condition because it is not a λόγος immanation.

>>19768049
I accept your concession, lmao. read john 1 again slowly. >>19768061

>>19768061
*Enoch did not die

>>19768061
Do you affirm this?
>If Adam did not sin he would not die in body

fuck

>>19767239
>Logos (λόγος) is a Greek [word] [..] referring to the rational or ordering principle of the universe.

>John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (λόγος), and the Word (λόγος) was with God, and the Word (λόγος) was God.

thank you for proving my point.

>>19768071
read the post again slowly and actually address my arguments. you're better than repeating things over and over, c'mon.

>>19768055
Saint John Chrysostom and others said that the rock is the faith in Christ, not Peter.

>>19768034
What you are saying here, at root, is that the manner in which the universe is ordered equals the ordering principle itself. This would meant that gravity is God, for example. It would in effect mean that anything that God does is God. So the creation is God. That's what this reduces to. You are an atheist.

>>19767560
sounds like a sane man.
>>19767586
preservation of health is a moral obligation, yes. read more about the implications of the imago dei understanding.
>>19767637
the bible may have textual contradictions but there are not contradictions in truth necessary for salvation.
>>19767703
interestingly, the hebrew in the OT for "honor" is better translated as "support in old age". it does not mean "obey" - jesus commands us to trust him (i.e. obey). no contradiction.
>>19767727
you're right, I'm sure you're smarter than everyone else!
>>19768013
>>19768055
you're right, there was no apostolic primacy of rome for the first 1000 years and no succession of popes....oh wait....
I won't even address counter"arguments" here because both of you start from the point of historical illiteracy. btw, you're correct in how you read that passage - peter gets primacy, and the apostles, by virtue of priestly apostolic succession (ie the current bishops of the Catholic church) have final authority in teaching matters.

>>19768120
Yes! Roman Catholic theology reduces to pantheism.

>>19768090
You haven't clearly addressed that issue. It's a yes or no question. It doesn't even need to be qualified. If Adam had not sinned, would he have died in body?

>>19767221
The Logos is referred to as Wisdom (Sophia) in the Deuterocanon. The Wisdom of Solomon 7:24-27 gives one good example:

>For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness. For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her. For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.

In the wisdom books, Proverbs 8:22-31 is another obvious example:
>The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth: even before he made the depths; before the fountains of water came forth: before the mountains were settled, and before all hills, he begets me. The Lord made countries and uninhabited tracts, and the highest inhabited parts of the world. When he prepared the heaven, I was present with him; and when he prepared his throne upon the winds: and when he strengthened the clouds above; and when he secured the fountains of the earth: and when he strengthened the foundations of the earth: I was by him, suiting myself to him, I was that wherein he took delight; and daily I rejoiced in his presence continually. For he rejoiced when he had completed the world, and rejoiced among the children of men.

Proverbs 9:1-5
>Wisdom has built a house for herself, and set up seven pillars. She has killed her beasts; she has mingled her wine in a bowl, and prepared her table. She has sent forth her servants, calling with a loud proclamation to the feast, saying, Whoso is foolish, let him turn aside to me: and to them that want understanding she says, Come, eat of my bread, and drink wine which I have mingled for you.

>>19768128
This is not the teaching of the fathers. I imagine this is derived in some way from pursuing divine simplicity as far as you can possibly take it. This is the danger of creating doctrine from philosophical speculation.

>>19764165
Origen believed everybody made it to heaven, hes a bit of a heretic dude

ITT: Christians tearing each other down over ancillary doctrines.

>>19768164
Yes precisely!!
https://youtu.be/agnKY6bSI7A

>>19768120
You clearly are unable to grasp either John 1 or Thomism. This is problem with Protestantism, it's intellectually reductionist to the point of self-contradicting absurdity (as I showed how your own argument is even refuted within the Bible itself).

Immanence of λόγος and qualia of λόγος are *not* God's essence (no one has ever seen God), yet, because we know due to Jesus' eternal incarnational nature, λόγος itself is *from pre existence* a qualia of substance. i.e. it is a affectional modality, it is a "quality" of the divine λόγος. is God's love God? of course not. yet, because of absolute divine simplicity, it cannot be separated from God's co-eternal energia, to use an orthodox term. it's quite simple really.

you're conflating essentialist protestant pantheism with thomistic nuance, big difference.

>>19768164
>not the teaching of the fathers
Who cares, what does the Bible say?

>>19768164
philosophy and theology cannot contradict as they both point towards Truth.

same reason valid scientific inquiry and theology cannot contradict.

Catholicism is elegant it is majestic scope, yet its fundamental simplicity, soundness of doctrine, and catholic (small c) mind. It is truly obviously the radiant truth.

>>19768128
>>19768164
btw, read Maximos the Confessor's vision of divine unity, and issac the syrian's commentary of the immanance and unity of love. the Fathers are clear that λόγος is all-in-all.

>>19768193
Yeah but you're wrong. see >>19768186
>>19768186
>>19768186

>>19768176
Our dear Catholic friend is stating that gravity and mathematics literally are God. Is that ancillary?

>>19768121
I could see an argument for apostolic primacy of Rome after Constantine but anything before is a massive stretch
For one, the Roman church was not even Episcopal, it was Presbyterian (not the modern terms), which were both seen as perfectly valid ways of administering the church. There were Episcopal churches, nothing like later Catholic structure though, but they were all in the east
Go ahead though, post the maximus quote that I'm sure you have
>>19768188
>Co-eternal energia
Wow, Catholics are actually fucking retarded
I find it dubious that God built the world on Aristotelian foundations considering they are nowhere in nature and science leaves no space for them
By the way, Aquinas believed in double predestination and thought that people in "heaven" would get to watch people suffer in "hell" to feel better about themselves
All of which was predestined as per Aquinas
Truly an angelic doctor

>>19768188
God's love is God* but his loving is not. So is the order (logos) God but the ordering is not God.

*1 Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

>>19768189
>Who cares, what does the Bible say?
NOOO YOU HAVE TO SLAVISHLY FOLLOW THE CHURCH FATHERS BECAUSE...YOU JUST DO, OKAY??

>>19768140
>Enoch did not sin, yet he sinned. It is clear that physical death is *related* to sin, but there is another kind of death that produces physical death as a result of sin. This is, by the way, why the Assumption of Mary is sound doctrine. Because physical death is conditional upon death from sin, yet they are obviously distinct and even in the bible we see a broken chain of casualty. Of course sin merited Adam's death - but there are times when men who are sinners (Enoch) did not die. Thus we see it's God's prerogative whether death is connected with sin. This is obviously a mutable condition because it is not a λόγος immanation.

Adam's death physically does not have, by necessity, a causal link with soul-death from sin. Hence we see Enoch etc. Also why Mary and Jesus were able to overcome death - death itself is not inherently conditional on sin, it is mutable. The bible shows us this. Of course Adam died because he sinned - and this happened, by God's will, to include physical death.

>b-but you're saying God willed physical death!!

This is why universalism is correct - it's the only possible course of action, by definition. Of course God will save everyone for whom he willed physical death. This is also why hell, as understood, cannot be related to death. All the Fathers deep in spiritual insight saw this, and Jesus is clear about this.

>>19768200
>jay diaper
please stop having a gay hardon for him, it's actually disgusting.

>>19768225
The Bible has divine simplicity?
I'm pretty sure the Bible insists on the exact opposite which would make sense because divine simplicity is entirely Hellenistic and simply incomprehensible in a Semitic context which doesn't understand truth that way

>>19768225
you're right, start reading the original greek and hebrew texts. you're not using others to intrepret for you right, in terms of translating? that means you hate God and don't trust him to teach you ancient languages instantly. your faith is weak.

>>19768244
This is not what is known as an argument.

>>19768252
It's in the Bible to an extent which would be but a small sliver of the contrived Catholic philosophical construct. God is "I am who I am", he's not composed or derived from other things, he is one thing in himself. That's about where it stops.

>>19768271
God is three Persons who share one Essence!

Things I learned from Catholic anon:

Pachamama is not an idol and is consistent with Catholic teaching
God is equal to the universe
Universalism is true
Protestants however are very bad and dumb

>>19768206
>>19768209
your strawmanning and viscous swearing is once again amusing. how the tables have turned! I addressed your points but once again your lack of good faith comes through.

>I find it dubious that
and the core of protestantism comes out! "I can't believe it, therefore it isn't true". Ahhh, I hear the echoes of Martin Luther in every prottie post.

I've provided my arguments, you are unable to refute them besides swearing, expressing disbelief, and saying "nonono it can't be right! it can't!".

Let this be an introduction into the true strangeness of God's truth. Eye hath no seen. Your God is quite simply, too small - literally.

I will pray for your conversion of heart.

>>19768285
But those persons aren't things that can be split apart.

>>19768289
The Vatican is an antichrist system.
https://youtu.be/9dJk4DrKBlA
https://youtu.be/9dJk4DrKBlA
https://youtu.be/9dJk4DrKBlA

>>19768297
Correct. They are always in perfect communion. I am not the Roman Catholic by the way anon.

>>19768303
I understand. My point is simply that there's a limit to where you can take this idea of simplicity. You need to stay grounded in what scripture reveals about God and not get lost in speculations.

>>19768233
Adam was in covenant with God, expressed here
>Gen. 2:17 "... but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
Adam's death was conditional upon him eating from the tree. If he did not eat he would never die. That is the teaching of scripture and the fathers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XySlFWNmDEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG5aB9eI8I8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=facdb5A9LG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqejcICADDc

>>19768337
Anyone who in the 21st century is still convinced by Catholicism has a brain that is not salvageable.

>>19768271
Ah it's one of those seeds Newman was talking about!
Just like purgatory, treasury of merits and cr church polity

>>19768320
Irrelevant. God has choice over whether Adam's soul death lead to physical death - see Enoch. You continually refuse to engage with this Biblical citation as it shows your position is refuted by the Bible itself.

This is why "death does not exist" btw; God allowed death in order to bring about Jesus' incarnation. It was necessary. This is also why Jesus descended into hell - this means hell, gehenna, is unlocked. This had to be done of course as it has been shown that God allowed "death", as you call it. Therefore death is a non-state, in essence. This is also why Calvinism is completely incoherent and nonsensical, in addition.

>>19768343
Imagine looking at what prottie-ism led in the USA and thinking it has *any* legitimacy. Lmao.

>>19768343
not an argument.

>>19768309
>>19768346
>>19768299
>>19768289
>>19768271
>if I can't believe it, it can't be true!
>why? because I am right!
>why?
>because....I think I am!

>>19768343
>Anyone who in the 21st century is still convinced by Catholicism has read the Bible
True.

>>19768206
>Immanence of λόγος and qualia of λόγος are *not* God's essence (no one has ever seen God), yet, because we know due to Jesus' eternal incarnational nature, λόγος itself is *from pre existence* a qualia of substance. i.e. it is a affectional modality, it is a "quality" of the divine λόγος. is God's love God? of course not. yet, because of absolute divine simplicity, it cannot be separated from God's co-eternal energia, to use an orthodox term. it's quite simple really.
>you're conflating essentialist protestant pantheism with thomistic nuance, big difference.

>>19768299
>one set of crypto Ishtar worshipers smugly criticize the other set of crypto Ishtar worshipers
Rich, it's the Retard Olympics.

Reminder that this happened

>>19768233
>This is why universalism is correct
Glad to hear it. That means I don't have to worry about obeying God since I will be saved eventually. Thanks bro it's a real load off my shoulders.

https://youtu.be/a1t2FliydiA

>>19768233
>This is why universalism is correct
Got it bro, now I can watch hentai and smoke weed as much as I want since I know I'm safe. Thanks RCC!

>>19768186
I've never understood why all this philosophical crap matters.

>>19768416
>>19768452
Not him but wasn't that kind of why sola fide was so popular originally?
Faith alone means that you no longer have to partake in the charade of the treasury of merits nonsense of the Catholic church

>>19768473
The Reformed doctrine of "faith alone" is that faith is the sole instrument of justification, by which we are made right by God. God gives us faith (it is not something we work ourselves) and through this faith in Christ, our sins are forgiven and Christ's perfect righteousness is imputed to us (as our sinfulness was imputed to him on the cross) such that we are therefore justified before God. Now having been justified, we are a new man who loves God and desires to follow his commandments, and we will necessarily produce good works. But those works are a fruit and evidence of our justification and do not merit it in any sense.

>>19768462
Your own lack of understanding does not make it wrong!
The Bible is full of philosophy. Pontius Pilate asks "What is truth?" to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Logos, LITERALLY Truth incarnate, and Pilate does not understand because he is blinded by secular statist, relativistic ideology.

>>19768498
Yes I understand the doctrine
My point is that part of the reason it had such success is that it didn't involve the previously mentioned stuff
It was through faith alone that you were justified, no more treasury of merits, not more purgatory, no more doing one hundred hail maries because you coughed during mass
Remember that Calvin believed and apparently a lot of reformed people still do, that double predestination is a very comforting doctrine

>>19768537
I am Reformed myself and do find the doctrine to be a help. Regarding the supererogatory merits of the saints, you can find it in Orthodoxy as well, for example here, regarding the aerial toll houses in which the demons are paid off by "treasure" given by a saint:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/theodora.aspx

>>19768510
The Bible actually stands out among religious texts in how unphilosophical it is
One of the things that demarcates YHWH among other alternatives is that he is actually a very practical God
The Torah is not some abstract, coeternal morality
It is a sin containment plan
This is why it kept getting more severe as the story of the Torah progressed
This is even more exemplified in the new testament when Jesus tells the Jews the reasons why certain laws were given
All of which were intimately practical
Truth as the Jews would have understood it is faithfulness fulfilled
This is what Christ means when he says he is the truth. He is the fulfillment of YHWH's covenant faithfulness
This is how the Semitic understanding of truth works
>>19768565
I resist abandoning the church on grounds of nonsense like this because I like our temple larp too much
If it helps my grandma, it helps her
We imported this during the dark ages of Ottoman and Romanov domination
(If you look at saint's lives from before the religious renaissance of the late nineteenth century, you'll see stuff like substitutionary Atonement which we're not supposed to believe in technically. Truth of the matter is that the sane part of the orthodox church came about with Lossky and Florovsky in Paris in the middle of the last century with Florensky and Bulgakov playing the John the Baptist part despite being called heretics by Lossky and Florovsky to a certain, limited extent)
And now we're ready to be done with it
Or at least some of us
I dunno

>>19768601
>The Bible actually stands out among religious texts in how unphilosophical it is
>One of the things that demarcates YHWH among other alternatives is that he is actually a very practical God
PRACTICALITY VS PHILOSOPHICAL IS A FALSE DIALECTIC. THE BIBLE IS BOTH.
NOMINALISM IS A HERESY. I HATE MODERNISM SO MUCH IT'S UNREAL.

>>19768601
>I resist abandoning the church on grounds of nonsense like this because I like our temple larp too much
What is your opinion on "absolution certificates"?

Col. 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

derp derp

>>19768601
>Bible
>unphilosophical
This only shows your own shallow view of it and no I am NOT a R*man Catholic

>>19768622
Worldly philosophy =/= Christian philosophy

>>19768628
>muh qualia

One of the reasons we can know that Christianity is the true religion is precisely because of the revealed doctrine of the Trinity and how it answers the age old philosophical question of unity vs multiplicity which no other religion or secular wordly philosophy can answer.

>>19768629
I am not interested in your modernist and nominalist takes. You don't realize it but that IS a philosophy (a false one) in itself.

>>19768623
There is spirituality, there is emotion
But metaphysics, epistemology and ontology are all absent
>>19768618
I kind of want to make a post about how fucking deranged the orthodox church was between 1453~1890 (really ~1940s)
To make the retarded larpers shut up about muh ancient faith (more like fossilised faith)
But then the Catholics might see it and latch onto it so I hesitate
But yes, you're not even beginning to scratch the surface
An orthodox seminary played a in producing Stalin also
There is a reason our best patriarch in this period was a crypto-calvinist

>>19768647
>But metaphysics, epistemology and ontology are all absent
ALL OF THESE FALL UNDER SPIRITUALITY. ONE CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING WITHOUT GOD (THE TRINITY). WE HAVE KNOWLEDGE PRECISELY BECAUSE OF GOD. METAPHYSICS EXIST BECAUSE OF GOD.

>>19768665
WHY ARE YOU YELLING

>>19768647
Calvin was a pro-usury, philosemitic sodomite who basically believed in physical determinism. In some ways he almost makes even the R*man church look not as bad.

>>19768671
I am tired of ignorant and crypto-atheist takes!

>>19768674
Calvinism is the only system that makes any sense.

>>19768695
It is basically physical deterministic atheism! I'm not listening to that freaking pervert!!!!!!!

>>19768699
>It is basically physical deterministic atheism!
Calvinism maintains a strong distinction between God and his creatures. The idea that it is atheistic is absurd. God does foreordain all things that come to pass, however.
>I'm not listening to that freaking pervert!!!!!!!
It is beneath Christian dignity to engage in slander such as this.

>>19768709
C*lvinism denies man's will. You are implying that God made man sin. You are sort of like the R*man Catholics who say that there was death before the fall so that they can have their evolution.

>>19768718
We believe that man has a will that acts in accordance with his own nature. Adam has a will that was equally capable of good or evil. Do you believe that God foreknew whether Adam would fall? If he foreknew it and created Adam anyway, how he did he not foreordain it? He could have made a different Adam or not made Adam, but he created the Adam that would fall.

>>19768735
>Adam had* a will

>>19768735
God knew because He knows everything. However, He did not make Adam and Eve sin. That was their own choice.

>>19763592
Why are you reading a Jewish text?

>>19768756
He created the Adam that he knew would sin. Therefore it was set in stone before Adam was created that Adam would fall.

>>19768758
You are blaming sin (and by extension, the consequences of sin) on God now.

>>19768695
>leaning unto thine own understanding
imagine doing that

>>19768767
Adam committed the sin by his own will and was thus at fault. Can you make a distinction from what I said? If God foreknew that Adam would fall, that means that Adam would fall.
>>19768776
Acts 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

>>19768803
>doubling down on leaning unto thine own understanding
your mere mortal mind is no match for the grand truths of God

>>19769315
I follow what God has revealed to us in scripture, which is that he foreordains all things and predestines his elect to salvation. If he did not want us to know this he would not tell us about it.

Why is the Vulgate so comfy bros?

>>19769479
Latin is comfy.

>>19768695
Imagine thinking God predetermines people to eternal suffering. No wonder anglos are fucked in the head.

>>19768040
Immortality is not an inherent condition of Adam pre-fall. It was always a gift from God. It was not a part of humanity's essence. Thus it can be freely given and taken away by God at will.

>>19769546
>anglos
C*lvinism is mostly French and Scottish (because Scots have the Presbyterian church which is C*lvinist).
Anglo Saxons are more Baptist or Methodist.

I would like to get a lot of free physical bibles but I want as many different translations as I can get.

Will churches just send me copies if I ask? I just don't want pay out for a Catholic, Othorodox, Lutheran, or other denominations bibles if I don't have to.

>>19768209
>Wow, Catholics are actually fucking retarded
nice argument.
>I find it dubious that God built the world on Aristotelian foundations considering they are nowhere in nature
expressions of God's logos aren't "nature".
>Aquinas believed in double predestination
Prophet Calvin cope.
>The answer here rests in the distinction between God’s ordaining or active will and his permissive will. It is within his permissive will that those who are damned are allowed to sin, what is called reprobation. Predestination belongs to his active will; reprobation to His permissive will.
God does not "will" anyone out of grace - he wills to allow.
Aquinas
>Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to *permit* a person to fall into sin, and to allow the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
cope your way out of that one.

>>19768221
>In the beginning was the λόγος, and the λόγος was with God, and the λόγος was God.
λόγος = divine ordering and reason = God

read the bible and stop coping.

>>19768289
>Pachamama is not an idol and is consistent with Catholic teaching
it's a piece of wood. not my problem if protestants worship wood and stone every time they see a statue. seems like they have idolatrous tendencies.
>God is equal to the universe
stop being pantheistic. see >>19768391
>Universalism is true
and? universalism is the only biblical option. see https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/
>Protestants however are very bad and dumb
bad? not bad, just sadly, sadly ignorant and misled. it's very tragic stuff.
>>19768343
0/10 bait
>>19768406
>he screencapped himself getting BTFO
oh nonononono!
>>19768416
>>19768452
>he only obeys God out of fear
are you pagan, perchance? when's the next rain dance?
>>19768462
mens sana, bro.
>>19768473
keys of the kingdom. the vicar of christ has the right to dispense grace on earth.
>>19768498
it's not either other, that's classic prottie reductionist. "covering up theory" is modernist bullshit btw. same with total depravity.
>>19768537
>Remember that Calvin believed and apparently a lot of reformed people still do, that double predestination is a very comforting doctrine
Calvinists are comfortable with a demon God who tortures people for eternity and there's nothing they can do about it. Sounds about right for them. Such a god is not god btw, he's a demon. Jesus will not let one sheep stray
>le hitler and judas will be in heaven! nononono!
and?

Universalism is heresy.

>>19768647
>To make the retarded larpers shut up about muh ancient faith
glad there is one orthodox here able to call out his own inconsistent tradition.
>>19768695
>>19768735
>>19768758
>>19768803
>>19769350
>To restate predestination in more personal terms: this doctrine means that God has a plan for each one of us who is open to such a possibility and willing to accept it. This means that each of us who intends on following the will of God has a destiny laid out before us. This divine plan was not something God made up as he went along. It isn’t something he drafted and amended as we grew into adulthood. Rather, as Ephesians tells us, this destiny was set before the foundations of the world.

>Here’s where predestination and free will meet: God has a plan for us, but we must cooperate in that plan. We must choose to accept a destiny that God has set out for us. The fact that we retain freedom in the face of such destiny is one marked difference between the Christian worldview and that of the ancient Romans and Greeks, who grimly resigned themselves to what they saw as the crushing inevitability of an impersonal fate.

St. John Paul II
>To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s completely free response to his grace: “In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place” [Acts 4:27-28]. For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness. God also affirms the freedom of the will, yet sin is permitted, not predestined, by God.

>>19768709
>It is beneath Christian dignity to engage in slander such as this.
oh nononono!

>>19768757
salvation comes from the jews

>>19769786
You'd have to ask in person.

From the Gideons I think you can get an NKJV or ESV. Doesn't include the full canon though. Just go to your local churches in the area, usually they have a "give and take" library if you ask around.

>>19769786
Catholic and Orthodox don't have Bibles. Most others don't have Bibles anymore these days because Satan also got to them. Call around and ask until you find someone with the King James.

>>19763693
I feel sorry for you anon. I hope you see the light one day and repent for your blasphemy.

>>19770562
some readings to cure your ignorance.

Sebastian Brock, “St Isaac the Syrian and his Understanding of Universal Salvation”

Sergius Bulgakov, “On the Question of the Apocatastasis of the Fallen Spirits”

Tom Belt, “St Maximus the Confessor, Hell, and the Final Consummation”

Mark Chenoweth, “St Maximus the Universalist”

John Wesley Hanson, "Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Year"

Wacław Hryniewicz, “Universal Salvation: Questions on Soteriological Universalism and St Isaac the Syrian"

Alvin Kimel, “Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?”

Andrew Klager, “Orthodox Eschatology, Universalism, and St Gregory of Nyssa’s De vita Moysis”

Gregory MacDonald, The Evangelical Universalist

Jedidiah Paschall, “The Reformed Case for Universalism”

John R. Sachs, “Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology”

Kallistos Ware, “Dare We Hope for the Salvation of All”

>>19770609
>le 6000 year old earth
shouldn't you be shilling the Ark Encounter rn? you got blown out historically, ontologically, and theologically.

>>19763731
There is no scientific law that saws the entire earth can't flood. Science has proven that it can actually.
There is no scientific law to say that snakes can't talk.
There is no scientific law to say we came from monkeys.
What exactly are you trying to argue for? Do you think scientific theory proposed by atheists is the same as the laws of the universe as created by God?

>>19763592
the image u posted basically recommends avoiding 4channel

>>19770623
Nowhere does God say in the Bible is the earth only 6000 years old.
Try again :^)
And keep clinging to your "scientific method" as if it were God, complete and utter blasphemy and you will burn in hell.

>>19770625
see
>>19765552
>>19768034
>>19768188
>>19768355

the "laws" of the universe are pre-existent, immanent qualia of λόγος, and expressions of the divine mind by definition and biblically. read what I posted prior. God cannot change the laws of the universe because they are not created nor are they things. the observable laws we see are thus affectional qualia of λόγος. science seeks the truth, and religion seeks the truth, and the revealed incarnational truth is God, therefore they cannot contradict. read Lumen Gentium.

>>19770642
science and religion cannot contradict, by definition. you are dangerously close to blasphemy.

why do evangelical reformed baptist protprots choose retarded genesis and flood literalism as the hill to die on? I didn't previously understand the memes of evangelical reformed baptist protprot low IQ but now I think I do

Talk me out of the NET Bible Full Notes Edition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfyMN4_lcUs

>>19770751
thomas nelson

>>19770751
In theory it would be great, but it's not good scholarship nor even good presentation despite that. Take Psalm 2 for example, they do not even notate that "nations" is "goyim", which the King James properly translates as "heathen", meaning the non Israelite peoples, the worldly nations.

>>19770652
>reformed baptist
Reformed means C*lvinism. Baptists are not C*lvinist.

>>19770646
Laws of the universe ARE NOT scientific theory or consensus.
Math is a law of the universe.
Evolution is not.

>>19770652
I'm not evangelical reformed baptist lol. I'm a Christian, not a science obsessed materialist :^)

>>19770751
if you arent illiterate just read king james version. you dont need hellnotes or commentaries.

>>19770826
The materialist evolution believer does not even know what those words mean. He conflates the Reformed church (C*lvinism) with Baptists. They are two different churches.

>>19770847
>"""version"""

>>19770906
Yes.

>>19770906
i have a kjv bible and it says version in there what do you want me to say?

>>19771131
It was printed by a company that doesn't know any better. The KJB is the only legitimate Bible so it is not a "version".

>>19770611
Not listed: the Bible.

new (bald edition)
>>19771510
>>19771510
>>19771510

>>19771177
it's cambridge press...

>>19771879
Yeah, they don't know. Get one from Church Bible Publishers. It will say "Authorized King James" on the spine.