/lit/ - Literature

First for Ortholarping
Gotta catch ‘em all!

>>20001365
Holy Gospel, Holy Apostle, and Apostolic Fathers are are pretty good.

>>20001365
Get wrecked, Cathocuck!

>>20001365
What am I looking at

>>20001466
https://youtu.be/xVzLEcrcHUo

>>20001493
Timestamp 51:07
>You need to learn your Greek. It's not excuse. Every Christian needs to learn Greek and every Christian needs to learn Hebrew. I don't want any excuses. And Latin as well.
He'll look back at this in a few years and feel embarrassment.

>>20001493
>an unboxing
I admire the man wanting to know more about the church he is in, but wow

Oi do you Christians believe literally in the Bible like Adam and Eve and all or is there some other way of seeing it and what makes your religion the right one and the others not. I am very new

>>20001523
>He'll look back at this in a few years and feel embarrassment.
Why?

>>20001529
Because in a few years, he definitely won't know Hebrew, and at most might know a few Greek and Latin phrases. Also, the mention of Latin means he might change his larp to Eastern Catholicism eventually.

>>20001529
Does he know all of these languages? No. Will he know them in a few years? Doubtful. This a juvenile exercise in pride. I'm learning these things so all those other people need to learn it too so they can be pious like me. Being part of a church should temper this. Or since it's American Orthodoxy it may just make it worse and he'll add Church Slavonic to the list.

Even most of the church fathers didn't know Hebrew.

>>20001541
Zealous convert-proselytizers are all ultimately embarassed by the bare fideism of the Bible. Of course he thinks you need to master three languages, if it weren't that it would be mastering neoplatonic theology, or anything intellectual that could possibly misdirect from relying on sorcery and appeals to authority to arrive at truth

>>20001525
>do you Christians believe literally in the Bible like Adam and Eve and all or is there some other way of seeing it and what makes your religion the right one and the others not. I am very new
the Bible can be viewed literally and metaphorically. theres debate over various stuff as a result
>is the world really only x thousand years old based off of years noted in Genesis or is it older like scientists say
>is creation really 6 twenty four hour days or is something else meant
its why theres young earth creationists and those that interpret genesis differently than literal.

>>20001556
>bare fideism of the Bible
BASED

>>20001525
I do not concern myself with literal historicity and that sort of thing. What's important to be is that the Holy Bible provides the information needed for proper orientation with regard to ultimate actual reality regardless of any other information type. It sets up the proper parameters to enable one to *see* into the invisible realms of existence, including the inner realities/mechanics/dynamics of humanity. Regardless of any particular "scientific facts" that we discover or think we have figured out, the proper orientation to God is *more essentially and ultimately true*.

>>20001466
pic-related

>>20001697
Which parts? I've read a lot of it and I found it to be mythological stories. Do you believe in spirits and hell and all that?

>>20001697
>provides the information needed for proper orientation with regard to ultimate actual reality
This sounds more like extra-biblical borrowing from platonic-pythagorean-egyptian theology than anything else. What ultimate actual reality is there in the particularism of an elect people or of their lists of kings?

>>20001711
I believe that any of that is either real as stated, or our proper orientation is only achieved when we assume it to be regardless.
>>20001752
I have no interest in what it "sounds more like".

The septuagint
Is it worth reading? Is it canon?

>>20002238
>Is it worth reading?
Yes.
>Is it canon?
The parts that are the equivalent of the 39 OT books are, the rest is just a weird mix of history and neopseudoprophecy written in desperation during the 400 years of God having gone quiet. Uneducated third worlders still consider those parts to be canon.

>>20001406
>thinks people being killed in war is fun and games
The famous "Orthodox™" theosis, everyone.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/nootherfoundation/what-in-the-world-can-be-done-with-magda/
Thoughts? Is this view backed by scripture?

>>20002553
I think it's absurd to make any assumptions whatsoever regarding God's judgement decisions for any individual no matter what we think we know of that person. The focus should be on ourselves outside of simply spreading the Gospel like sowing seeds and casting nets.

>>20002553
What did you understand from it? Put simply, explain that "view".

>>20002813
The idea that you put yourself in Hell and lock yourself inside, that it's not so much a place of punishment for the wicked as the natural consequence for those who reject God in this life.

>>20002844
It is the same thing. Are the wicked not rejecting God by being how they are? Are the rejecters not being wicked by knowingly turning away from God? If they stand to reject perfect and absolute good, they've chosen the other option, for some wicked reason or another.

>>20002844
The "rich man" didn't seem to be locking himself in and wished for water and to warn his brothers.

Ash Wednesday tomorrow, I hope you boys are gonna be good during Lent.

>>20001360
Literally the worst bible. Kill yourself

>>20003413
Literally the only Bible and not "bible", may God bless and keep (You).

>>20003408
Anon... The service finished 8 hours ago

>>20003408
Lent isn't in the bible. Christ said to fast and pray in secret. Stop being disobedient. Also, if you want to emulate Christ's fast, he ate nothing for 40 days. Christ also never ate pork.

>>20003704
>Also, if you want to emulate Christ's fast, he ate nothing for 40 days
It just says he fasted for 40 days, it doesn't say how. Most likely he gave up chocolate.

>>20001365
I thought this fella had downs at first glance

>>20003739
I'm sure people sometimes think (You) are heterosexual at first glance.

>>20001360
I've never understood the king James argument. Not everyone is super smart and able to follow with it. If it helps someone to better understand and put into practice religion does it matter if they read an easier version?

>>20001360
Why is the only "holy" English Bible named after a homosexual?

>>20001406
Partriach Primus is an unironic nigger. Please pray for him.

>>20001556
Refuted by Van Til and Jay Dyer,

I felt completely cleansed by the service today. Peace be with you, brothers.

>>20002238
>actual OT used by Jesus and the Apostles
>1000 years older than the Masoretic
>Vulgate based on it
>used by the patristics exclusively
Read the LXX is you wanna read the real OT.

>>20003730
Luke 4:2

>>20004076
You don't have to be "super smart" to read it, you just have to be literate.

Look into the deliberate dumbing down of schools. Just reading the KJB will improve your literacy over time

>>20004306
The infographic is KJV specific, other translations often have him fasting in both or eating nothing in both.

>>20004304
This is not entirely accurate. Not every OT quotation in the NT follows the Septuagint. Also the Vulgate OT was translated primarily from a pre-Masoretic Hebrew text. So was the Syriac Peshitta by the way.

>>20004076
>reading English above grade 9 level makes you smart

>>20004459
The problem with the KJV is obscurity caused by antiquated language. That you would dismiss that shows you do not actually care whether people understand scripture.

In 200 years KJV cultists won't be able to read it anymore, but it will still be the ONLY TRUE BIBLE so they'll buy their historical KJV replica and sit on a stand somewhere and worship it, but they'll never read it.

>>20004469
You can't read Scripture just from the words anyway, it's complex and has considerable depth for which you need a guide.

>>20004487
And that guide is Pastor Bubba from your local Indeependent Fundeementalist Baptist Church

>>20004453
Yes both the Vulgate and the Peshitta employ Hebrew as well as Greek MSS that are no longer extent. But we do not have an older OT than the LXX by a whole 1000 years.

>>20004495
1. You are wording this in a way that makes it sound like the Vulgate made an equal use of Greek, which is not true. The entire Hebrew canon is translated from Hebrew. Greek is only used for the deuterocanon.

2. The antiquity of the Septuagint, Vulgate, Peshitta, etc. do not merit an exclusion of the Hebrew text. The fact is that the Church fathers simply did not know Hebrew in most cases. Those who did, e.g. Jerome, valued it and made use of it.

3. Hebrew still remains the original language of the text, thus allowing a greater linguistic insight, and should form the basis of any modern translation effort. The Masoretic text does indeed suffer corruption, and must be compared to more ancient sources such as the Septuagint, and that is what is done by translators. This methodology is followed by all modern translators in every church, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. I am unaware of any Christian translations of the entire Bible which completely follow the Masoretic Text in the OT.

>>20004490
No it's a life of dedication to reading scholarly interpretations, the writings of the early church fathers, and discussions with your priest.

>>20004532
I was being sarcastic as I thought you were a KJV Onlyist.

>>20004519
I don’t disagree, the original Hebrew becomes essential when studying the OT. For example in order to distinguish between “rod and staff” in Psalm 23(22 LXX), only in the Heb is it clear that staff means shepherd staff and rod means a club type weapon that shepherds used to defend their flocks with from wolves and other predators. So the context of the verse, and the psalm as a whole opens up in a new light now, because neither the Greek nor the English translate do the word any justice. But doctrinally obviously the LXX and the Vulgate will carry more weight, I mean its the NT that matters in Church during service. I would definitely recommend to study everything, because since God is infinite so is theology,

>>20001525
Adam and Eve are historical people and Genesis is historically accurate. Focus on Jesus though, don’t get sucked into things like this though that don’t have as big of an effect on your relationship with God

If Christ knew he was going to be resurrected and enjoy everlasting paradise after his ordeal, then how was his sacrifice genuine? Seems to me that willingly submitting yourself to torture is only a sacrifice if you don't know you're going to enjoy paradisiacal eternity after the ordeal, otherwise it's just a painful inconvenience.

>>20004948
Hi same guy here so do you not believe in evolution even though there seems to be good evidence for it? And also were you brought up in the Christian faith?

>>20004981
>do you not believe in evolution even though there seems to be good evidence for it?
Such as?

>>20004981
Christians believe that death entered into the world as a consequence of the fall of Adam. It did not exist before. How that fits into a worldview that includes evolution is a question that is more or less left to the individual believer to decide - some are vehement opposers of the idea of natural selection and some accept it, but there is not an "official" position on the matter from any of the mainline churches (RC, EO).

>>20004948
>Adam and Eve are historical people
source?

>>20005003
Moses

>>20004965
>If the atheist knows there is going to be nothing after his death, then why does his death or how he dies matter? If he dies through torturous agony it will all be nothing afterwards so it's really just a minor inconvenience.

>>20004995
Genetics

>>20004196
BLESSED

>>20004981
I was not raised Christian, and I rejected evolution before becoming a Christian after research intelligent design and seeing problems in evolutionary theories. Science itself is reliant on all sorts of philosophical assumptions that can be questioned. Historical science is different from observational science that is repeatable and testable.

Is this a good start for my journey into accepting the Catholic faith as the true faith?
I think I may need a study Bible to talk me through scripture because I’m not smart enough to decipher things alone.

>>20004981
Evolution dogmatics were specifically designed in direct opposition to creation. In the end dogma is all there is, all real evidence points to creation.

>>20005221
get the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. Scott Hahn is an incredible exegete.

>>20005221
The best complete Catholic study Bible is the Didache Bible. The Ignatius Study Bible is great but it currently only has the New Testament completed. Regarding the Catechism, it is a good reference but don't feel obligated to sit down and read the entire thing immediately. There's a good summary of the catechism by Peter Kreeft, titled "Catholic Christianity", which is about half the length.

https://ignatius.com/the-didache-bible-with-commentaries-based-on-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-dbibh/

https://ignatius.com/new-testament-2nth/

https://ignatius.com/catholic-christianity-cachp/

>>20001360
The ONLY good modern English translation of the Bible that exists today is the Orthodox Study Bible. Why? Because it is based on the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text, unlike all other English Bible translations. Why is this important? Well, let me explain:
>The LXX is far older than the MT and therefore the readings are more reliable. This is confirmed by comparisons of the writings of Jerome, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scroll texts that we have with the MT and the LXX, which agree with the readings in the LXX over the MT.
>The LXX is what the Apostles and Church Fathers used, so it is part of Christian Tradition, whereas the MT was unknown to them (and anyone else) at the time.
>Not only is it less reliable, but the MT contains quite a few intentional corruptions of the text by Jews for the sake of supporting views that are promoted in Rabbinic Judaism but which are not traditional.
Not to mention the OSB has footnotes and references which explain the teachings of the Saints and the Fathers in order to shed light on the text. So use the Orthodox Study Bible.

But if you insist on using another translation, my recommendations are:
>New American Bible (Revised Edition)
>New Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version is also acceptable.
>use the Good News Translation if you'd prefer a more dynamic translation that's easier to read.

>>20005249
Even most Orthodox admit it's not that great of a study bible and more like a cash-in by the publisher (which makes Protestant books).

>>20005249
>Jerome
I meant Josephus, wrong person. Sage for double post.

>>20005249
>>The LXX is far older than the MT and therefore the readings are more reliable.
Depends, some of it is translated loosely like a paraphrase.
>>The LXX is what the Apostles and Church Fathers used
Not every quotation of the OT used in the NT matches up with the Septuagint. The Church Fathers simply did not know Hebrew in most cases. The ones who did valued the Hebrew text. Jerome translated from the Hebrew for a reason.
>>Not only is it less reliable, but the MT contains quite a few intentional corruptions of the text by Jews for the sake of supporting views that are promoted in Rabbinic Judaism but which are not traditional.
Indeed, the MT is a corrupted text. But Hebrew is the original language of the OT. This provides valuable linguistic insight that cannot be gleaned from a translation, and thus it is used as the basis for any modern translation. But since it is corrupted, reference is made to other ancient sources, such as the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac Peshitta (also translated from Hebrew). This methodology is used by all modern Christians: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

>>20005249
I’m Orthodox and I like the notes in the OSB and everything, great especially for newcomers. But since Thomas Nelson released it, they had to use the NKJV for the NT, not the end of the world but.. NKJV! And the OT I guess deserves praise because the St Athanasius Academy Septuagint is a brand new LXX translation into Eng based of the Brenton’s without the use of Elizabethan Eng. The Orthodox NT by the Holy Apostles Covenant, and the EOB (Eastern Orthodox Bible) translations are more Ortho and true to the original Greek than anything else. Greek is kind of our thing after all.

>>20005249
>Not to mention the OSB has footnotes and references which explain the teachings of the Saints and the Fathers in order to shed light on the text.
The best Bible like this is Catholic. Neener neener.

>>20004076
You don't have to be "super smart". When I was a kid, most above literal boomer age people in this entire region were not educated beyond the 8th grade in non standardized country school houses, and they all read the KJB and knew at least most of the essentials of the Pentateuch, 4 Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. A lot of knowledge was filled in by hearing it preached regularly.

I got my first KJB NT, Psalms, and Proverbs from the Gideons in 3rd grade and started reading it regularly. I didn't have any issues *that I knew of* other than wondering what scuba divers had to do with anything, not realizing that "divers" was "diverse", but there were certainly many issues I did not know of.

Despite any issues, realized or not, I was still able to clearly understand the essentials to certain levels, and the challenge helped to stimulate concentration and desire for learning it and, over time, that very mechanic lead to growth in capacity and ability. I went into it with the instinctive assumption that *this* was *the Bible* (no one told me that, in fact my church Sunday School class for 2 year olds gave us Living Bibles and many adults there used them) and if there were any issues in my understanding then that was on me to work through. Reading the KJB unironically "makes you smarter", it helps to heal our stupidity.
>>20004469
"Serious issues" in that regard are not too frequent, and whenever you run up on something obvious you can simply look it up. This process helps...*make you smarter*. It also leads to deeper understanding of Scripture because you are having to concentrate on it and not just breeze through the text like any random modern novel. This is also important because very often a short phrase will pack galaxies of information that is easy to pass right on over with the casual mind. The most significant legitimate issue is when a word meaning has since "changed" (or considerably evolved), but the word still seems to "make sense", for instance "conversation" which should now be read as "conduct" or "behavior". These cases are not very frequent but when they do you likely won't even realize it and *that* is the issue. Still, on the whole, the sum total of legitimate issues with the KJB is dwarfed by the legitimate issues of modern fake and gay "bibles".

>>20005249
The OSB literally outright states that *Mary* was the fulfilment of the hope of all Israel, and that *Mary* was the "type" of the burning bush in front of Moses. Satanic pile of dung, is what the OSB is.

>>20005285
>>20005285
>But since it is corrupted, reference is made to other ancient sources, such as the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac Peshitta (also translated from Hebrew)
In all translations I've seen, the MT reading is always preferred and used, and readings from those other texts are occasionally relegated to a footnote, if mentioned at all.

>>20005323
Love the aesthetic of those

>>20005350
Church Fathers have taught that for millennia. Mary was the bush, and the Angel of the Lord (God) dwelt within without consuming the bus

>>20005350
>The OSB literally outright states that *Mary* was the fulfilment of the hope of all Israel
She gave birth to the Messiah and thus fulfilled the promises of God. I don't think they would say that their statement excludes Christ.
>and that *Mary* was the "type" of the burning bush in front of Moses.
"For our God is a consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29). The bush was on fire and yet did not burn. Mary bore God within her womb and was not consumed.

>>20005426
something something ishtar something something mystery babylon

>>20005410
Absurd, and the church has *one* Father, God.
>>20005426
Christ and Christ alone was the fulfillment of the hope of Israel. If your house is on fire it's the firemen who are the heroes, not the trucks they drove to get there.

>>20005462
Trucks are tools not people. Mary acquiesced to the will of God and assented to giving birth to our Lord (Luke 1:38) and is thus justly venerated by all Christians (except Protestants).

>>20005473
Calling her rather than Christ the fulfillment of the hope of Israel is far, far beyond "giving respect", and what you're saying essentially proves that "veneration" is synonymous with worship. Christ and Christ alone was the fulfillment of the hope of Israel. Christ and Christ alone was the one they'd been waiting for.

>>20005487
And Christ was born because Mary assented to him being conceived in her womb.

>>20005487
If they were waiting for him why does that matter to you? Are you one of them? Were you led out of Egypt?

>>20005493
God can raise up children of Abraham from stone. God made Mary. If Mary wouldn't have "said yes" then God would have found another way. There is *no substitute whatsoever* for Christ, *no one else* can take His place, *no one else* is Lord. Mary was blessed, not the granter and giver of blessing.

>>20005410
>>20005426
>>20005473
>>20005493
>>20005504
Enjoy being simps for Satan.

>>20005507
You sound like a Calvinist. People are just puppets playing out an act. The things that they do, what they will, none of that really matters.
>God can raise up children of Abraham from stone.
Indeed he can. And this is a warning against pride, not a license for you to disparage the vessel that God chose for the delivery of salvation to mankind. Do you think that Christ is pleased when you slander his mother in this way?

>>20005520
>If Mary wouldn't have "said yes" then God would have found another way.
>sounds Calvinist
retardedperson.jpg

>>20005530
You've used this assertion to negate any value to her assent to God's will, so yes that is quite what you sound like.

>>20005514
I don't believe in your religion so that's unconvincing

>>20005514
I pray to Holy Triune God nonstop in order not to.

How do I into not sin at all and truly dedicate my life to God’s will?

>>20005514
>Mary is Satan
>defending the Mother of God is simping
I reckon Christ is rather displeased with you if your views are sincere but you're probably just trolling.

>>20005544
>reduce from utterly indispensable pagan Goddess status to mere human created by God and given an opportunity to participate in His plan to which she willfully complied
>negating any value

>>20005473
>(except Protestants)
So all Christians, then?

>>20005605
Protestants are baptized and are thus Christians.

>>20005601
How is she dispensable? Christ was born through her. Your salvation was born from Mary's womb.

>>20005624
>if she wouldn't have "said yes" God would have just thrown up His hands and said "well there went the entire plan, no Salvation now

Why do “Christians” hate the mother of God so much? Some extraordinary heresies ITT even for 4chan “Christians”

>>20005651
Mary was prepared for the task through the immaculate conception and was preserved free from sin. There was only one fitting tabernacle for the Lord to reside in.

>>20005663
>not elevating Jesus' human mother to Goddess status and worshiping her
>hating her

>>20005670
>not in Scripture
>source: gnostic "Gospel of James"

>>20005663
Tell me anon, how to be Christian? And not “Christian”?

>>20005674
The belief is attested from the first century onward. You cannot prove that it came from such a source, only that it exists there. You literally accuse Christ's mother of uncleanness and sin. The fact that this does not sting your sense of piety shows how much it is damaged.

>>20005681
>The belief is attested from the first century
Nope

>>20005624
>righteous woman who follows the Commandments and is pure
>God picks her because she's faithful and keeps God's laws
>somehow she has power because she was chosen for literally being what we all should
>>20005681
>not claiming Mary has personal power is slander
This keeps getting worse.

>>20005683
Yes it is. There are sources from the first century stating Mary did not experience pain in childbirth, which is the curse of original sin. If she did not experience pain she did not have original sin.
>>20005688
>>20005688
Who said anything about power? Your God was born from her. Show her the honor that she is due.

>>20005678
remove the quotes. duh.
Praying exclusively to God basically fixes it all in one step. Not having images and statues tops it off.

>>20005706
>Your God
not yours, then?
>show her the honor
yes, i hold her in high regard. A woman that was approved by God. That doesn't mean i'll pray to her.
That's basically what your "intercession" deal is about. Giving men that were guided by the Holy Spirit "domains" for asking for help is literal paganism. As is holding Mary on the same level as God.

There is literally nothing wrong with praying to the mother of God.

>>20005706
>claims there are "sources"
>doesn't name them
>>20005670
This is a Bible thread, not a fan fictional sequel to the Talmud thread.
>>20005735
>speaking as one with authority and not as the scribes
When specifically asked to be taught how to pray, Christ said to pray to the Father. (You) sound like the serpent in the garden.
>there is literally nothing wrong with eating from that tree
Enjoy simping for Satan.

>>20005767
I pray to the Father and also to Mary. What’s the problem? You’re awfully quick to call others serpents…

>>20005734
>not yours, then?
Stop playing silly semantic games.
>That's basically what your "intercession" deal is about.
The prayer of the righteous is powerful. We ask those righteous in heaven, who are part of the same body as we, to pray for us.

>>20005802
And you do that on your knees, basically how you pray. hm.

>>20005821
Is it Protestant doctrine that people have to take particular body postures in prayer?

>>20005767
>>doesn't name them
The Odes of Solomon
>So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.

>>20005852
Definitely without a doubt a pseudepigrapha, a work of pure fan fiction, likely gnostic, and far from provable as being earlier than late 3rd century. If Mary bore Jesus without pain then it would have been mentioned in the gospels.

>>20005942
>Definitely without a doubt a pseudepigrapha
No one said it was Scripture. I said the belief is attested among Christians. It is also found in the Ascension of Isaiah.
>If Mary bore Jesus without pain then it would have been mentioned in the gospels.
If she could bear Christ within her womb without being consumed by the fire of God then there is no reason to think she felt pain in his birth, frankly. Thinking God existed in a sinful vessel is absurd in itself.

>>20005959
This "consumed by the fire of God" bit is absurd. He was human. People could sit next to Him, recline on His bosom at table, etc. You're "church" builds entire grand elaborate doctrines that rest on the sandy foundations of fabricated fictions. He was fully human, there was no danger to Mary, it didn't require any retcons for her womb to be made fireproof.

>>20005976
They did not bear him and have God grow within their body. He took his flesh from Mary, as he was truly her son. You are claiming that the flesh that clothed God was corrupted by sin.
>it didn't require any retcons for her womb to be made fireproof.
This continual impiety is going to make me ill so I am going to stop speaking to you now.

>>20005982
>You are claiming that the flesh that clothed God was corrupted by sin
No I'm not, whatever was needed for His protection was obviously perfectly handled by His Holy Spirit half of the conception.
> I am going to stop speaking to you now
Good, no more of your spreading of Satanic fan fictional heresies.

>>20004329
https://biblehub.com/luke/4-2.htm

>>20006009
Https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-2.htm

>>20005834
It's Christian doctrine that you bow before God and *only* God. Many Saints were martyred because they wouldn't bow before the papacy.

>>20006009
>>20006013
The sword of truth slices through yet more falsity.

>>20006013
>picking and choosing which part of the Bible to pay attention to to justify your babylonian rituals

>>20005735
>>20005798
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

>>20001711
We dont believe it, sweetheart, we know it. You’re the one who believes it isn’t real.

>>20005735
God doesn't have a mother. God is. God is the great I AM (Exodus 3:14). God is self-existent, His existence is not contingent upon anyone or anything else. God did not have to be born nor was God born. You have created a god to worship above and before God Almighty. John 1:1 too

>>20006054
Christ is God, and came down in the flesh to save us.
He needed to be born as we were. Fully God, and fully human.
Don't mix things up too much. Mary was the vessel, and was faithful to God (hence being chosen), but it does not make her powerful or whatever Catholics think.

>>20006040
Doubtlessly. We are left with the Holy Gospel, laid bare before us, and whom now are going to thank for it?

>>20006095
In the beginning (Genesis 1:1) was the Word...

If God so wanted, Christ could've been raised from a rock Mt 3:9, but that would not have satisfied prophecy.

>>20006128
Yes. i don't understand why we haven't agreed yet.

>>20006119
>and whom now are going to thank for it?
God.

>>20006151
For everything and always, especially the good news.. about the incarnation and the resurrection and all the wonder these glorious truths entail. And we’ve to thank the Son of God, first of all, Jesus Christ, for revealing these great mysteries about His father, our benefactor, our only means of anything worthwhile, our only way out, our salvation. Now in comparison to these great truths, that the heavens did not dread to spare our worldly mortal intellect from hearing about, the very real, the surreal, the incoming, the inevitable, what? Death. And then what? What do I mean by death? Bodily death? Oftentimes we die everyday, and then we are born again. But only because God is fighting for us.

And God’s loyal servants, are they not on God’s side?

>>20006288
Catholic cult didn't write the Bible.

>>20006312
The vat-of-sin should be burned to the ground.

>>20006312
I know, and as we are demanded to die to the world and be born again into the spirit, the Spirit, and renounce satan and all his lies and trickery, in the glorious name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, why baptism is emphasized, why there is only ever one, for the remission of sins, coz scripture said so, why not follow the scripture to the end and truly die for it?

>sermon on the mount
“Love your own, hate the enemy, just like the enemy, so how are you any better, or even distinct?”

>>20006322
The way prots slander the Mother of God, our Christ Lord and savior, and the way they willfully misconstrue what Christians say about her shows you everything you need to know about their wretched warped hearts. They hate God.

>>20006449
Ok Legion.

>>20006462
Funny, your kind also constantly uses that kind of slur against Christians as well, "you are possessed! you are the devil!" I mean wouldnt it be more likely that the people slandering the MOTHER OF GOD, as being a demon or false goddess would be the evil one. I will pray for your release.

>>20006462
Didn't Roman legions destroy the Temple, an act that gives Christianity a nominally more legitimate claim to be the heirs of Yahweh's covenant than those who maintain the original religion despite the Temple's destruction? What do you have against Caesar?

There's a lot of discussion about the Septuagint and the DSS, but does anyone have any thoughts on the Masada Fragments?

>>20006522
>What do you have against Caesar?
He is not God.

>>20005249
It is literally NKJV--which is based on the Masoretic Text--with LXX additions. There are no common English translations actually based on the LXX from the outset. If you're really so anti-MT, you should be using a Brenton English Septuagint and Eastern Orthodox Bible NT.

>>20006570
Well if you are using "legion" as a synonym for "evil" it says a lot about the genealogy of Christianity and what sort of people's speech patterns you've imbibed

>>20006657
Suppose we’re a legion of basket-stringing ferrymen and the like and them. According to you though.

I am not your judge anon. You got the wrong one

>>20006657
Legion is a cluster of demons in the Bible.

Why do people come here to larp as schizophrenic independent baptists?

>>20006449
>Mother of God
>They hate God.
>>20006504
>MOTHER OF GOD
You worship Mary above God. Mary is blessed, but she had other children with Joseph after the virgin birth. She rejoiced in her savior. She is not a coredeemer. Christ never said to pray to her. God never said to pray to her. She is never given the title "mother of god" in the scriptures.

>>20006834
Legions are also a symbol of Roman authority. So the writer or translator or whoever considers the Romans evil. You know, because they conquered his people

>>20006870
You need to learn what veneration is and what not, done with you scum. We all are. Nobody likes a protestant.

>>20007045
>the author just made it up instead of writing what the demons said

>>20007057
These are people who refused to burn incense for the emperor and insisted all the Roman, Greek, Egyptian gods were evil demons.

>>20007060
So they knew their shit, and?

>>20007069
Yes I suppose racial hatred qualifies as "knowing their shit"

>>20007046
Imagine following a religion whose name is about being against another religion lmao

>>20007172
it must be exhausting, constantly walking around slurring the Sacred and attacking everyone.

>>20007205
This is rich coming from a community which considered everyone else unclean and their gods to be evil demons

>>20007205
You’re telling me about what’s sacred when you go to a church that looks like this? LOL

>>20007235
This isnt really an argument for anything, I will pray for you.
>>20007213
Yap yap. More nothings from your kind.

>>20007288
>your kind
Yes I suppose I must be one of 'the nations.' Who did you borrow that dichotomy from I wonder

>>20007314
You know exactly what you are, I will pray for you.

>>20007235
That's an attack on Americanism, not any particular sect of Christianity. Almost all American Christians belong to churches which began and are often still popular in Europe.

It is clear from the Bible and history that women can prophesy. The Didache says that prophets are chief priests who perform the Eucharist. Therefore, women can be priests and perform the Eucharist.

>>20007705
The Didache isn't Scripture.
Opinion discarded and off topic.

A heretic was spewing blasphemy at the gym sauna today and I realized how powerless I was to stop him.
How do I become an intellectual Soldier of Christ? I know nothing of my faith as my parents taunt me nothing but to simply obey and go to church like a good NPC.

>reading through the gospels
>tear up every time I read the line "he is risen; he is not here"
I can't be the only one, right?

>>20007735
The Didache is the earliest version of a prayer book/catechism in existence. It was compiled in the first century and most of its texts were well-established by that time, making them of a similar age to the Gospel. The Didache was also discussed by the early church fathers before it was lost (and then found in the late 1800s). Obviously it's not Scripture, but from them the Didache can discern the practices of the first churches during the time of the Apostles and their immediate successors.

Another thing worth mentioning from it is 15-1 ("On the Election of Bishops and Deacons") of the Didache.
>"Select, then, for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, mild-tempered men who are not greedy, who are honest and proven, for they too perform the services of prophets and teachers for you."
>The procedure for making the choice is not prescribed.
XELpOTOVELV here means "choose" or "elect," not "appoint. " 4 Those who are chosen bear the titles E1fLaK01fOL Kal. {iLaKovot; this is most probably to be understood to mean that a number of E1fLaK01roL and / or oui:KOJIOL are to work in each community. 5
>Further, (3) the E1fLaK01fOL KCXL OLaKOVOL are not itinerant charismatics but ecclesiastical officials "on the local scene." (4) One becomes a bishop or deacon not by being called to follow the Kyrios in the same pointed sense that still marks Did. 11.4-12, but by being elected
by a local congregation.
>The last statements probably indicate that the local officials, together with the prophets and teachers (or, to the extent that the last two groups are absent, they alone) lead the worship service that formerly was in the hands of the prophets and teachers alone. 23

This is consistent with 11-1
>Accordingly, receive anyone who comes and teaches you all that has been said above [the Baptism and Eucharist immediately precede this section]

Some translate "teachers" as "Apostles". It seems pretty clear here that Apostolic Succession isn't necessary to perform the two sacraments the Didache describes, those being the Eucharist and baptism.

Without saying "the Pope says so", explain how Apostolic Succession is correct when people who coexisted with Jesus Christ didn't practise it?

>>20007802
>gym sauna
There are always blasphemers at gay gathering spots. Work out with logs, rocks, axes, and hay bales like men.
>>20007821
Blessed
>>20007881
Being "early" doesn't in any way automatically equate to "correct". If it's not Scripture, it's not gospel. If it's essential, it's in Scripture.

>>20005221
That guy Barron actually writes books!?
I thought he was just an epic youtuber...

>>20007989
>Being "early" doesn't in any way automatically equate to "correct". If it's not Scripture, it's not gospel. If it's essential, it's in Scripture.
This is a good argument against Roman Catholicism.

>>20005221
>Revised Version
Wow, don't see that one around often.

>>20008024
And "Orthodoxy™". I know the Catholics in particular rely on some aspects of the Didache. I've read it a few times and do not hear the voice of the Shepherd so it is rubbish to me, beyond being an interesting historical artifact of men trying to figure out how to go about "churching".

I do not think it was ever intended on being any sort of "institution". Christ told us to always be ready for His return. The legitimate early church as described in Acts and Paul's epistles was oriented in that manner, with a sense of ad hoc urgency and not "lets get settled in and build a massive hierarchical business for the long haul". They were daily devoted entirely to seeking and doing God's will and assuming Christ could return at any random moment.

I wonder what Paul would have told anyone whom might have suggested the church go to war against some group of people like would later happen with the Crusades? I wonder what Paul would have told someone who came up and suggested they start telling people that they could buy less time in some Hell Lite before finally being allowed into Heaven after death? I wonder what Paul would have said if someone came up and informed him that some of the church leaders were diddling kids? I wonder what Paul would have said if someone came up and suggested they start wearing really gaudy, expensive costumes and should begin constructing incredibly expensive buildings? Really imagine it.

>>20005249
>Because it is based on the Septuagint and not the Masoretic Text, unlike all other English Bible translations.
I wish that was the case. Too bad it's largely still an MT OT.
https://www.geocities[DOT]ws/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm

>>20006870
They just play mental gymnastics when you point it out. They're all just a bunch of idol-worshipping LARPers who worship God in vain and teach for doctrine the commandments of men. Can't even discuss the Bible in these threads because they don't read it.

King Solomon was the wisest man
Of all that have been kings.
He built a House unto the Lord;
And he sang of creeping things.

Of creeping things, of things that fly,
Or swim within the seas;
Of the little weed along the wall,
And of the cedar-trees.

And happier he, without mistake,
Than all men since alive.
God's House he built; and he did make
A thousand songs and five.

>>20001556
>neoplatonic theology,
Secularists can't be stupider

>>20008363
And yet for being so wise he hardly exhibited any wisdom. Solomon is one of the most poorly written characters in the Bible.

>>20007881
This is really what you're left with. You have to examine the fragmentary historical evidence and the sparse details scripture provides on the matter and try to piece together whatever you think it was that was going on at the time. And your theory will be different from someone else's theory and you'll both have your separate projects trying to reconstruct your archeological interpretation of what the early church probably looked like. As with all Protestant systems, there can be no earthly authority on any of these matters other than yourself.

>>20007881
(cont.) Regarding the Didache specifically, you are really left with speculation. This probably means that, that probably means this. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. Maybe you are not reading their words in the correct context, or maybe they are simply wrong. And unsurprisingly this practice leads you to endorse practices which have been universally rejected by all orthodox Christians until the modern era (>>20007705). The church universally can be wrong about anything, right? So you end up with a wholesale reconstruction of Christianity based on your personal opinion. As for how bishops are chosen specifically, this is a matter that is determined by the Church, who has authority to order such affairs. It does not necessarily have to occur in this or that way, but is a mutable practice. The ordination however must be performed by a bishop or bishops. It cannot be performed by laymen.

>>20008053
>men trying to figure out how to go about "churching".
Like you?
>I do not think it was ever intended on being any sort of "institution".
Thanks for sharing.
>with a sense of ad hoc urgency and not "lets get settled in and build a massive hierarchical business for the long haul".
Well we are in the long haul, in case you did not notice. As the church grows its needs grow. When you cut yourself off from the majority of Christians in the world and go hide in a little Baptist hole somewhere I guess it doesn't matter much to you, though.
>I wonder what Paul would have told anyone whom might have suggested the church go to war against some group of people like would later happen with the Crusades?
I imagine he would not be fond of seeing the gains of the Church erased by the Islamic horde.
>I wonder what Paul would have told someone who came up and suggested they start telling people that they could buy less time in [purgatory] before finally being allowed into Heaven after death?
He would tell you it is wrong, as the Catholic Church has stated it is wrong.
>I wonder what Paul would have said if someone came up and informed him that some of the church leaders were diddling kids?
That they deserve the severest punishment but their sacramental office is not invalidated by the fact.
>I wonder what Paul would have said if someone came up and suggested they start wearing really gaudy, expensive costumes
Like in the temple?
>and should begin constructing incredibly expensive buildings? Really imagine it.
Imagine Christianity growing to civilizational strength and people not wanting to find ways to show their love of God through art. Really imagine it.

>>20008927
>I imagine he would not be fond of seeing the gains of the Church erased by the Islamic horde
It was erased by the Romans and no rebellion was advocated. Persecutions were foretold with no rebellion advocated.

>>20009170
>It was erased by the Romans and no rebellion was advocated.
Then stop rebelling, you retarded heretic.

>>20008927
>but their sacramental office is not invalidated by the fact.
You just project what you want into Paul's mouth to validate an institution. From the available evidence of Scripture he would probably blast any group claiming to have a "sacrificial office" as Jews running a counterfeit operation.

>>20009234
>Um from my personal interpretation of what Paul says I think that he would probably have a completely different theology from his successors and agree with me
Thanks for sharing (again)

>The Reformation vs. Christianity

>>20009388
The Catholic "Church™" is the steam roller attempting to squash the true church of Christ under its own business interests but Hades could not overtake it and it miraculously survived despite the best efforts of the "Church™" because its seed is protected by God.

>>20009535
>There was a hidden True Church for all of history that I can't prove existed but it was there trust me guys.

Matt. 5:14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid."

>>20009651
>I'm too retarded to grasp that there were/are some legitimate Christians in the Catholic "Church™" but the institution itself is a fraud
Lrn2despite

>>20009711
If the true church subsists in the Catholic Church then you have no justification for schism.

>>20009719
Not "the true church", just some of its members. There were other members not in it. Imagine being such a crypto atheist that you cannot see that the Body of Christ is a real thing, is the true church, and is not limited to any institution.

What are your favorite homilies or sermons, anons?
I'm a big fan of John Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew.

>>20009730
No one denies that the church is a mystical body. The Church on earth is a mystical union composed of all who are baptized, and a singular institution. It's not either/or but both/and. Anyone who is baptized becomes part of the Catholic Church, though those in disunity are united imperfectly and do not have access to many of the sacraments and the fullness of the truth.

>>20009759
>filled with fan fictional lies
>fullness of the truth
OK Satan simper. Maybe the Pope will sell you some bathwater or a jarred fart.

>>20009766
Do you actually think that every single thing that was taught by the Apostles over the decades of their ministry is contained in the Epistles?

>>20009780
Do you actually think that the Apostles taught the "Church™" things behind the Bible's back that no one wrote down for centuries and then suddenly started writing them down in bits and scraps spanning the next 1600 years instead of just writing it all down at once or just, you know, writing it into Scripture since "the Catholic 'Church™' wrote the Bible (but we left out all of this really important stuff including Mary's assumption and let's start worshiping her too)"? I mean, if they really wrote it then why do such a half assed job and not include all of this super important information?

The answer is that the Catholic "Church™" did not exist until Constantine made a government religion with Christian underpinnings and from then on it was whatever suited business interests, including catering to pagans to get the income up. The first mega"church".

>>20009822
>Do you actually think that the Apostles taught the "Church™" things behind the Bible's back...
The problem here is your assumption that the New Testament is a complete manual on all relevant matters. It simply isn't. The Gospels tell us the life and teachings of Christ, Acts gives us some history of the early church, and the Epistles are letters written to various churches and people on various matters. There are many things regarding the Apostles that are not recorded here. There is no material on the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul for example. I am not trying to deny its importance, but I think you are trying to make it something it isn't.
>and then suddenly started writing them down in bits and scraps
Many things from the early church have been lost due to persecution. Did none of the other Apostles ever write a letter? Was nothing they said ever recorded? And from their immediate followers, the Apostolic Fathers, we don't have very much either. The historical evidence we currently possess is fragmentary, so I do think labeling it the way you have is accurate.
>but we left out all of this really important stuff including Mary's assumption
These later definitions need to be understood as rulings to clarify the truth of things that have been disputed. For example it has always been believed that Mary was sinless, but the precise manner this occurred was not agreed upon until a definitive ruling was issued. For example some said she was preserved from original sin at her conception, others that it occurred immediately after her conception. It's not something emerging out of nowhere.
>I mean, if they really wrote it then why do such a half assed job and not include all of this super important information?
They left behind successors to teach after them. The Church is supposed to have a living and authoritative teaching office. We aren't just left to figure things out and piece it all together.
>The answer is that the Catholic "Church™" did not exist until Constantine made a government religion with Christian underpinnings and from then on it was whatever suited business interests, including catering to pagans to get the income up. The first mega"church".
Not all the goings-on between the Church and the state throughout history have been good things, and often the Church has been harmed by it. Take for example Pope Martin I (died 655), who, for defending orthodoxy was imprisoned, tortured, and exiled by the Byzantine Emperor.

>>20009866
>so I don't* think labeling it the way you have is accurate.
typo

>>20009866
I want to clarify one thing: Catholicism teaches that Scripture is the inspired word of God. Since this is the case, we hold that all the dogmas of our faith are either taught in Scripture of present in it implicitly. You could understand this as meaning that something is the underlying context behind something else that is said, for example. The reason some things may only be implicit is due to the reasons I gave in my other post. When read in the context of the Church and apostolic Tradition it is properly understood.

>>20009866
>I do think labeling it the way you have is accurate.
Out of the mouths of babes.

>>20010093
Why are Protestants like this?

>>20010185
>>I do think labeling it the way you have is accurate.
was not a "typo", it was your subconscious squeaking out what it knows to be truth beneath the massive thickness of all the demon chatter your head is filled with thanks to praying to them instead of God.

>>20010318
This is pathetic, anon. If you can't address my arguments just say so.

>>20001360
what's up with king james? why does everyone like it so much?
t. non-native speaker

>>20010375
It's a very beautiful translation was was used by all English speaking Protestants for a long time. There was a strong overreaction in fundamentalist groups when modern textual criticism started to be utilized in the creation of new translations. They generally advocate against any modern translations being used. Some of these groups have become extremely unhinged and even claim that the King James was inspired by God and has replaced the Greek and Hebrew to now be the sole Bible on Earth. It's a good translation, but ignore the people who harp on it too much.

>>20010346
I've addressed your arguments, they are piles of dung that rest on a foundation of "just trust Us™" bro, never mind what the Bible says, We™" wrote it so We™" are the ones with Knowledge of Good™ and Evil™ because we are stuffed with the fruits of that forbidden tree".

>>20010396
fair enough, modern translations are always sus
what about catholics tho, do they use it too?

>>20010419
No, the Catholics can't make a decent Bible translation to save their souls. Their Douay-Rheims even says that the woman will defeat the serpent rather than her seed, which is Christ. This is because they are crypo Ishtar worshipers.

>>20010419
No. When the King James was in heavy use Catholics had the Douay-Rheims. It's still used by some traditionalists but most have moved to modern translations.
>>20010429
It says that because it's a translation of the Vulgate, and that is how Jerome translated it.

>>20009822
typical retarded protestant shit. all spirituality is based on traditions, not fucking books.

>>20010413
Look Mom he posted the snake picture again

>>20001360
>kjv
King james is based on the Erasmus translations, Erasmus couldn't find a clear reference in the mansucripts he had access to to the trinity, so he asked for a manuscript that contains such verses. So what the retards did is they wrote an entirely new translation in greek and added the trinity verse and presented it to Erasmus.
google "Johannine Comma"

>>20010433
>Jerome
Yes, the heretic responsible for bringing the "ever virgin Mary" fable into the "Church™" and laying the foundations for "Mary" worship.

>>20010461
Holy Mary, have mercy on this poor anon who slanders you day in and day out. He knows not what he does.

>>20010464
Dear God, please blast the demons from this faggot who simps for the Satanic Babylonian "Church™" and their obvious lies.

What do we think about this, brothers?

>>20011076
the amount of mental gymnastics needed to believe this are worse than believing in miracles as evidence that someone is literally god

I've checked a few other versions and study Bibles, thus far only the CPB King James has Isaiah 60:3 as a cross reference from Matthew 2:2.

>>20011076
>Edomites (people who were forcibly converted to Judaism) are the real Jews
Made me kek

>>20010413
This image is the most paranoid amerimutt schizo shit I've ever seen.

>>20011168
>sssssssssssss

>>20011203
>DON'T SAY IT, HISS IT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDJFcXFYJBo

>>20008849
Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are full of wisdom.

>>20011076
A bunch of Protestant horseshit. The strong differences between the religion of Judaism practiced in the ancient world and the way it is practiced now are actually a sign that Christianity is true, because once the Old Testament sacrifices expired, God took their Temple away and they have never been able to make their sacrifices again. Certain aspects of the Mosaic Covenant are still binding on them, in the sense that there will remain a distinct Jewish people (Rom. 11:25-32), ergo the Jews of today are Jews. Stuff like what you posted is racist and in violation of Rom. 11:15-24.

>>20011104
>CPB
*CBP

Anyone else find the story of Judas' betrayal very tragic?
The way Christ called him his friend even at the moment of betrayal, the fact that Christ's mission likely would have been accomplished in fulfillment of prophecy even if Judas had not betrayed him, and the bitter circumstances of his suicide - alone, tormented by guilt, and carried out before he could have seen the risen Christ, who may have even forgiven him - are not immediately tragic in their depictions in the Gospels, but taken all at once paint a very heartbreaking picture of a man who was at once so close to God the Word as to be called as one of His Apostles, and yet so far as to deliver his Master into the hands of sinners to his death, though he would come to regret his actions bitterly.

>>20010413
what am i looking at here

>>20012132
The Pope's "Audience Hall" where he speaks from the mouth of the serpent. It's difficult to believe this being real, yet there it is, being real. It's almost as if all of the stuff about false prophets and antichrists is legitimate. It's almost as if Paul and Peter directly warned that there would be people misleading the church as soon as they were gone, and were not just saying it to hear themselves talk.

>>20012130
How odd to see this post. Just about an hour ago I was meditating on Judas, and imagining myself in his place at the table, what it would be like to betray Christ like that. I felt such incredible depths of regret and imagined begging Him to help me put things right and forgive me. I imagined at least for a bit Him not showing signs of willingness and me having to face that. It was terrifying. The exercise is causing me to take a deeper look at my own actual sin and how seriously I should take it.

Time for episode 2.
https://youtu.be/sfV5HhM1Ksc

>>20012532
I tried the first episode but all the repetitive beating of a protestant strawman made it all pretty tiresome.

>>20012550
Remember, not all Protestants agree with all Protestant teachings, but only Protestants agree with Protestant teachings. In fact, many of them actually believe in a lot of Christianity, which is a good thing.

What do you think of "biblically accurate angels"? I think they are retarded because if angels look are incomprehensible then it's retarded to say that they look a certain way and all other interpretations are inaccurate

>>20004981
>so do you not believe in evolution even though there seems to be good evidence for it?
Read "The Crisis of the Modern World" and you may realize that scientism is fake and gay.

>>20005514
Enjoy having Asperger's.

>>20010413
>>20012412
>aaaahhh!! a snaaaake!!! all snakes are satan!!! ooga booga a bloo bloo!!
Numbers 21:8-9

>>20012427
Take a look at Sergei Bulgakov's essay "Judas Iscariot: Apostle-Betrayer" sometime, you might like it.

>Be Matthias
>Follow Jesus throughout this earthly ministry, from his baptism until resurrection (Acts 1:21-22), but aren't chosen as an Apostle
>Judas dies and a replacement is needed
>The other Apostles utilize the divinely instituted method of lots (Lev. 16:8) to discern God's will for whom will replace him
>God chooses you to replace Judas
>Become an Apostle and preach the Gospel throughout the world, eventually being martyred (maybe)
>2,000 years later Proteshits say that lots are satanic and that you were never an Apostle and instead Judas was replaced by Paul despite Paul not numbering himself among the Twelve (1 Cor. 15:5) and there being more than twelve Apostles (Acts 14:14)

What was Judas' ultimate fate? Did he see Christ again during the Harrowing of Hell?

>>20013614
Matt. 26:24 "The Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

Outlook not so good.

>>20013040
There are different types, some look some ways, others look other ways. Some look like normal humans..

>>20013596
The protestant ITT with his hatred for catholicism is truly an arrogant man.
For he who will not return to the truth must follow error to its end

Anyone go to a Russian Orthodox church here? What's the climate in ROCOR communities? I would like to go again this week or the next but I don't know what to expect.

>>20013954
>there's only one anti Catholicism Protestant
Protestantism *is* a return to truth, relatively to Catholicism's piles of lies, and Satanic behaviors, retard.

>>20014111
>The Holy Spirit stopped guiding the church and let it fall into total heresy
False

holy shit christcucks are delusional

>>20014127
>the Holy Spirit guided the "Chrich" to slaughter countless Christians over minor theological details and trying to make the Scriptures available to everyone, and to rake in massive tons of money from peasants using get out of Hell Lite sooner schemes, and to start crypto worshiping Ishtar and pagan gods of this and that

>>20014163
If you are so committed to monotheism without pagan trappings like demigods and heroes and sorcerors then you can convert to Islam

>>20014163
The Holy Spirit guides the Church into the truth. What we believe is the truth.
> trying to make the Scriptures available to everyone, and to rake in massive tons of money from peasants using get out of Hell Lite sooner schemes
This is a Eurocentric view. The Church exists outside of the West, you know? And those Churches believe and have always believed the things you condemn as Satanic: veneration of Mary, prayer to saints, etc. This is the form of Christianity that was spread across the nations. The Reformers simply did not know the state of the world in this regard.

>>20014198
>heresy spread like wildfire through a bunch of pagan 3rd worlders who didn't read the Scriptures directly
The Reformers were literate so easily spotted the lies and abominations of the "Chrich". The "state of the world" and what a bunch of illiterate 3rd worlders believed was not their concern, their concern was God's word and truth.

>>20014221
>The Reformers were literate
Indeed, but they were also scarcely removed from the medieval era.
>The "state of the world"
I know it's something you aren't concerned with, because you have no way to justify your beliefs in comparison to worldwide Christian practices. Your theology necessitates that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church.
>and what a bunch of illiterate 3rd worlders believed
I am aware that Protestants do not like poor people but thank you for making it clear for everyone else.

>new bible
>wrapped tightly in plastic wrap
>gingerly making a cut to the plastic trying not to damage it

>>20014284
>Your theology necessitates that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church
WRONG
My theology is that the Holy Spirit has and will never abandon the ekklesia, which is the Body of Christ, which is all who are true believers and followers of Christ with legitimate faith, regardless of what earthly institutions they are/aren't a part of.
>Protestants do not like poor people
WRONG
There is a vast difference between caring for the welfare of the poor and taking on their ignorant beliefs. Incidentally, "Protestant work ethic" has done more towards reducing poverty than any other cultural shift in all of history.

>>20014352
>My theology is that the Holy Spirit has and will never abandon the ekklesia
You can say that all you want, but if your other beliefs are correct, then he did abandon it. Protestantism cannot account for history no matter how hard it tries.
>WRONG
You aren't going to fool me. I used to be one of you.

Eccl. 9:14-16 There was a little city with few men in it; and a great king came against it and besieged it, building great siegeworks against it. But there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city. Yet no one remembered that poor man. But I say that wisdom is better than might, though the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heeded.

>>20014364
>Catholicism cannot account for history no matter how hard it tries
FTFY
Enjoy resting on a foundation of lies that even Catholic historians refute.
>the poor man's wisdom
Only if the poor man was wise enough to reject your "Chrich"'s Satanic Babylonian bullshit and does not himself starve from giving a bunch of wealthy Popes and other lavishly living "Chrich" gangsters his food money in order to get a dead relative out of Hell Lite sooner. Imagine insulting the Holy Spirit by associated Him with that.

>>20014402
>FTFY
Hard-hitting arguments from anon here.
>>20014402
>Only if the poor man was wise enough to...
Apparently all the poor and rich all throughout the world believed the things that you condemn. Weird.

>>20014439
During times when the "Chrich" kept the Scriptures under lock and key for all but the few "approved" and didn't do services in vernacular languages. Those people believed what they were told by these gangsters.

>>20014459
Again you are suffering a Eurocentric bias. In Greece for example the people spoke Greek natively. The NT was in Greek, the liturgy was in Greek. It was fully comprehensible and they believed the same things. In other Eastern areas the Scriptures were translated to their langues: Armenian, Syriac, Ge'ez, Georgian, Old Church Slavonic, etc. They believed the same things. Your analysis fails when the context is appropriately broadened.

>>20014487
No, in Greece they just had prayer books and did whatever their "priests" told them. Also they didn't read the book of Revelation in services so were generally ignorant of a great many things.

>>20014516
The scriptures are quoted continually in the liturgy. Stop talking about things you don't know anything about.

>>20014520
Not Revelation.

>>20014520
Also there's a vast difference between just hearing something in passing and studying it right in front of your eyes for endless hours, being able to contemplate down to the finely granular word by word mechanics.

>>20014526
And? Is there some silver bullet prooftext in Revelation that disproves all of their beliefs that you don't like? Anyone who was literate could read it themselves you know?

>>20014533
Revelation contains so much information there's no way to come even close to conveying here what one lacks from not hearing it read. Speaking of which, it opens with informing you that those who read it aloud and those who hear it read are blessed, so the "Orthodox™" are not getting that blessing.

>>20014533
>>20014540
Just one aspect is that Christ is the Alpha and Omega but "Orthodox™" bookend their worship calendar both beginning and ending with celebrations of Mary instead of Christ. This is exactly what one would expect from people who spent so much time thinking about Mary instead of Christ that they see her as the burning bush of Moses and they see her as the fulfillment of Israel's long awaited hope. Mary Mary Mary, they see her everywhere because they are looking for her instead of keeping focused on Christ. It's a holdover from pagans and Ishtar, Isis, Athena, etc.

>>20014540
>>20014571
Your objection does not make sense. You said that people commonly did not have access to the Bible in the West due to the use of Latin. Originally of course they did, as Latin was the vernacular. That the liturgy was not translated later is unfortunate but it has been fixed now as I am sure you know. My point is that in the broader world, Scripture was available in people's native languages. They did have access to it. Revelation not being read in the Orthodox liturgy does not invalidate this point. Anyone literate could read the entire Bible in their own language. It was also normal in the ancient world for people to read books aloud rather than reading it silently to themselves. Anyone could also have things read to them or hear others read it. So they had access to Scripture and they still followed these practices. It was not caused by having the Bible restricted from the laity.

>>20014601
>You said that people commonly did not have access to the Bible in the West due to the use of Latin
No I didn't, I included that as being yet another factor. The main factor I mentioned was it intentionally being kept from the direct hands of the people other than a carefully "vetted" few. It would seem that you might be effectively illiterate yourself, to a certain degree.
>all of that other crap you say
Again, there's a vast difference between hearing things read aloud in passing, and having them in your hands as a total whole. There are many connections that are very difficult to put together when not able to be studied as an entire whole, at will. Cross referencing and essentially "endless hours" of leisurely direct study and contemplation leads to discoveries and realizations that are nearly impossible through any other approach. Not to mention the benefit of 2000 years of compiled insight and how significant portions of that can often be found distilled into concise commentary volumes. Yes, we can generally "know things now" that "they did not know".

>>20014643
>The main factor I mentioned was it intentionally being kept from the direct hands of the people other than a carefully "vetted" few.
You mean the people that could afford to have an entire Bible produced by being copied by hand?
>Again, there's a vast difference between hearing things read aloud in passing, and having them in your hands as a total whole.
Then your basis of Christianity is something that was only attainable after the invention of the printing press. This proves you wrong, frankly. Christianity had to be able to function *in truth* in an age when people could not easily acquire books or literacy. The Holy Spirit was guiding the Church. It did not depend on the printing press.
>Yes, we can generally "know things now" that "they did not know".
Not in any sense that would aid in your salvation.

>>20014662
>people that could afford to have an entire Bible produced by being copied by hand?
No, by a certain point it became locked down as completely as possible and before even a given priest was allowed access they were vetted to see if they could "handle" direct access without it causing them to "lose faith". This, of course, was impossible to completely achieve, but they sure tried there for a while.
>your basis of Christianity is something that was only attainable after the invention of the printing press
No, it is achievable via 2 distinct methods...
1) correct oral teaching
2) direct Scriptural study
Unfortunately, soon after the Apostles were gone, correct oral teaching began to not only decay, but also get hijacked and twisted, exactly as Paul and Peter each explicitly warned would occur. But hey, what did they know, obviously the "Chrich Fathers" and a bunch of officially, institutionally declared "saints" are more trustworthy than either of them or God's word in Scripture.
>This proves you wrong, frankly.
No, see above, and learn what the word "proves" means.
>Christianity had to be able to function *in truth* in an age when people could not easily acquire books or literacy.
To a certain degree it absolutely did, but as the seed and vine that God had planted and was growing which passed through the hearts and minds of certain individuals, *despite* the corrupted institutions, and despite those individuals not having their heads full of every detail of every doctrine in perfect correct understanding. All that was required was the crucial essential seed.

But here's the thing, now that we *do* have the printing press and essentially ubiquitous access to Scripture, many great minds, in complete freedom from gatekeepers, have been able to pour over every word very carefully, study to great depths, and share/compare findings, effectively crowdsourced mining the Scriptures for every possible nugget and theological mechanic. Some things have immediately jumped out as *clearly refuting* certain "Chrich" claims and practices, while others remain a bit less clearly, absolutely declarable. But those which do reveal the falsities and outright corruptions only rarely result in the Chrich repenting. The very institution that claims to represent God, whose entire teaching and command revolves around repentance, refuses to exemplify that very command themselves. Refuses to just come out and admit that the Marian dogmas are at least *possibly* complete fabrications and should not be required for acceptance in order to enter the Chrich, and should not be the most prominently displayed visual of many Chriches, and should not be part of services, but perhaps can be somewhat tolerated as a traditional folk practice among individuals without roasting them at the stake.

Or to admit that perhaps the office of priesthood was a later invention, and was not an obviously, clearly identifiable aspect of the original New Testament church in Scripture. ETC.

>>20001360
What is the best edition of the KJV?

>>20015019
Pure Cambridge Edition which is what Church Bible Publishers uses.

>>20005249
Post Proverbs 15:28 from your Ordodox Study Bible and I rest assure you it is not the same as in my Russian Synodal Translation.

Faggot.

>>20015062
Looks like (You) are a pourer and not a weigher.

>>20014349
The only good post here. I know this feel too well.

>>20015038
ty fren

>>20014349
What did you get?

>>20013596
>be anon
>post strawman on 4chan
>feel smug

>>20015019
CBP Cameo is good, though their paper quality is lacking. Still, with an ironed calfskin Bible for ~$50-70, it's the best value for a genuine leather Bible I've seen. Cambridge University Press are better made, but double the price.

>>20015453
>>20015038
What about a nice big hardcover copy for my lectern?

>>20015457
Sorry, I know nothing about LARP equipment. A lectern is a functional tool in specific types of circumstance and any Bible is suitable for use on them to hold it up so that one can read from it before groups of people.

>>20001360
Wasnt king james a homosexual or something

>>20015729
No, that was all just fabricated character assassination by Catholics whometh he BTFO.

>>20015452
I've had a Protestant tell me those things in this very thread.

>>20015920
I've had Roman Catholics tell me they don't believe in the Trinity.

>>20014932
>But hey, what did they know, obviously the "Chrich Fathers" and a bunch of officially, institutionally declared "saints" are more trustworthy than either of them or God's word in Scripture.
You are making a common error by equating your personal interpretation of Scripture which with Scripture actually says. Scripture must be read within the context of the Catholic Church for it to be understood properly.
>but as the seed and vine that God had planted and was growing which passed through the hearts and minds of certain individuals, *despite* the corrupted institutions, and despite those individuals not having their heads full of every detail of every doctrine in perfect correct understanding. All that was required was the crucial essential seed.
This is really your admission of my point. You've had to construct this little bit of theology here in order to justify your dependency on modern printing technology. You think this is just some obvious thing to believe, but it's something you have made up post hoc to support your system. Since God did not leave any authoritative teachers for Christians and we have to grope around and figure it out for ourselves, everyone has to have access to Scripture, which only became possible in the modern era, so God was just planting a seed until Gutenberg could finally make true Christianity possible.
>But here's the thing, now that we *do* have the printing press and essentially ubiquitous access to Scripture, many great minds, in complete freedom from gatekeepers, have been able to pour over every word very carefully, study to great depths, and share/compare findings, effectively crowdsourced mining the Scriptures for every possible nugget and theological mechanic.
And this has led to a complete theological chaos in which is there is no agreement on anything. The more you "learn" the less possibility there is for any unity, because frankly, anyone can find justification for anything they want. It's like worldly philosophy, over two thousand years of argument and no one will ever agree on any single philosophical fact. You have simply turned theology into a mirror for whatever men want to believe. Rather than being an objective truth that we bow our assent to, it's something we just make up from our personal study. All theology is determined by oneself and nothing is true unless we agree to it ourselves.

>>20013596
>1 Cor 15:5
>And that he was seen by Cephas; and after that by the eleven.

>>20015937
Very sad. Was Matthias an Apostle? Were there more than twelve Apostles? Do you affirm these? If there are legitimate Apostles outside of the Twelve then it means that Apostolic succession is true.

>>20015959
I have spoken about apostolic succession in depth in recent threads and I think it's time for a change of topic. Perhaps in the new thread we could just talk about our favourite bible passages or church designs or whatever instead of persisting with internecine warfare.

>>20015978
Figures.

>>20015959
Nah, the Apostles were just doing their best to figure things leaning unto their own understanding and "cast lots" to replace Judas as the 12th Apostle. Numbers are important and 12 was not arbitrary. The lot fell on Matthias so they thought "Oh, this is who God chooses", but little did they know God was about to choose Paul. God and only God chose Apostles. Once they got everything established by sowing the seeds of the church (ekklesia) all around the region, their jobs were done and the seed would grow on its own from there. The most vital part of that seed for it's assured longevity and survival of the gates of Hades was the completion of Scripture, which contains everything needed.

>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, THOROUGLY FURNISHED unto all good works.

The one thing that church hijackers fabricated "Tradition™" can't withstand is the CODIFIED word of God that predates and refutes it. Their house of lies was built on a sandy foundation that time revealed. All things done in darkness are brought to light (Matthew 10:26).

>>20016013
>Nah, the Apostles were just doing their best to figure things leaning unto their own understanding and "cast lots" to replace Judas as the 12th Apostle.
You are wrong. Lots are a divinely instituted method of discerning God's will, cf. Lev. 16:7-10, Joshua 18:8-10, Jonah 1:7-8, Prov. 16:33.
>Numbers are important and 12 was not arbitrary.
Indeed, the Twelve were the the Apostles who followed Christ's earthly ministry and were personal witnesses to his resurrection, this is the qualification required to replace Judas in Acts 1:21-23.
>The lot fell on Matthias so they thought "Oh, this is who God chooses", but little did they know God was about to choose Paul. God and only God chose Apostles.
Only God could choose the Twelve, which is why they cast lots. Paul was not of the Twelve since he did not follow Christ in his earthly ministry, and he does not count himself as one of them:

1 Cor. 15:4-5 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

"The twelve" here is including Matthias as Judas was not alive at this point. Further there are more than twelve. Paul makes thirteen and Barnabas makes fourteen:

Acts 14:4 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying

Barnabas is an apostle just as Paul is and there is no qualification given that he is in some other or inferior sort of class. So the Apostles were ordaining others as Apostles who were not part of the Twelve. This is Apostolic Succession in action.
>Once they got everything established by sowing the seeds of the church (ekklesia) all around the region, their jobs were done and the seed would grow on its own from there. The most vital part of that seed for it's assured longevity and survival of the gates of Hades was the completion of Scripture, which contains everything needed.
This theory is made up by Protestants to justify your rejection of the continuance of the Apostolic teaching authority. You can no more demonstrate this from Scripture than you can your erroneous understanding of the Apostles.

>>20016050
>this is the qualification required to replace
That was what *they* decided was *their* required qualification. Over and over and over you and your "Chrich" build arguments on false foundations and parade them about as if they are...*petra, not petros, solid*.
Barnabas being named was probably just a confused slip by Luke.

>>20016050
I'm looking more into the Barnabas thing, I've never really given that much consideration and concede the potential that you've btfo me on that. But it's also possible that there's two distinct meanings of the word "Apostle", one being direct students of (which Paul was, having been taught directly by God) and "missionary", or "messenger", "one who is sent out". Either way I'm grateful to have that spotlighted so I can dig into it.

I finished the first 9 chapters of St Augustine's Confessions, do I need to keep reading? I'm not a huge fan of trying to digest difficult theological issues written in translated archaic languages.

>>20016165
>do I need to keep reading
No, just read the Holy Bible, that man Augustine didn't write Scripture and is merely a Christianity oriented philosopher.

>>20016191
Any answers that aren't nonsense?

>>20016208
How is that answer nonsense?

>>20015790
ah so its true

>>20016293
It's true that the Vatican mafia fabricated all of that after his death once he could do nothing about it, just like it's true that they literally tried to blow him up with bombs while he was still living.

>>20016287
Because it's an obvious false dichotomy delivered with dishonesty.

>>20016351
Fact: Augustine did not write any Scripture.
Fact: Augustine was merely a Christianity oriented philosopher.
Fact: There is no need to read *any* Augustine, much less "keep reading" if one does not wish to.
Fact: Augustine did not have the authority to speak for God, his words are nothing more than his own opinions.

>>20016388
Fact: you are posting on 4chan

>>20016398
Wrong, I am posting on 4channel.

>>20016401
It's a bit like your "fact" that if you read anything else you can't read the Bible.

>>20016410
I didn't say anything of the sort. Apparently praying to demons disguised as Mary and "saints" has warped your perception. His question was "do I need to keep reading" and the answer is as I stated.

>>20016416
I'm not Roman Catholic. I just wanted to know if the later chapters had as much value as the earlier ones since I was more interested in the autobiographical component. You told me that it's not Scripture and I should read the Bible, which is irrelevant.

>>20016430
>I just wanted to know if the later chapters had as much value as the earlier ones
Oh, I see, had I understood that I wouldn't have answered at all as I have no idea. I was merely coming from a perspective of generalities, as the way your question was worded it seemed as if you were wondering if there was some dutiful reason you must read more despite not personally wishing to.

>>20016440
Peace be with you, anon.

New thread
>>20016442

>>20016304
...

>>20016576
Yes, he was a very devout Christian and knew his Bible. He was well aware that faggotry was an abomination to God. I guess (You) don't know.