/lit/ - Literature

I feel as if this belongs in /his/.

>>20290322
>favourite bible

>>20290322
Matthew because it contains the Sermon on the Mount, which in the KJV rendering may be the most beautiful sequence of words ever written in the English language.

>>20290325
Why do you think a discussion about multiple books belongs on /his/?
If you don’t like the Bible you can just hide the thread.

>>20290322
What is that book to the immediate right of the 2 Bibles?

>>20290325
Currently religious discussions are split between /lit/, /his/ and /x/. What we actually need is a dedicated religious board, /rel/.
>>20287241
>"gospel" of Thomas where they copied the Gospels to give it weight and filled the rest with gnosticism
The Gospel of Thomas is almost certainly as old as the other gospels. It simply is a record of sayings of Jesus that are (mostly) independent of the bible. While it did seem to be popular with gnostics, there is not exactly anything in Thomas that is anymore explicitly Gnostic then what can be found in some of the Pauline letters.
I honestly think it is rather bizarre that the OT (texts used exclusively by those who rejected and murdered Jesus) was included in the canon, yet Thomas was not.
>your own Bible with works that aren't in the canon
The bible as it currently stands is simply not suitable for my church. Much of it is just incompatible with what was revealed to me. Besides, Christianity has a long history of people making textual harmonies; I am simply making three of them and including material from a number of works considered apocryphal.
>sounds like a LDS/JW-esque cult
Well actually in action, my denomination would probably most resemble of a mixture of Orthodoxy and Catholicism (pre-reformation), with elements of the Salvation Army.
But lets not start calling denominations 'cults'. As Christians, how about we all come together and focus on the real enemy; The evangelicals and Unitarians.

>>20290845
>my denomination would probably most resemble of a mixture of Orthodoxy and Catholicism (pre-reformation), with elements of the Salvation Army.
Anglo-Catholic?

>>20290845
>used exclusively by etc
because it isn't literally full of prophecy and prefiguration, and how most of them converted, after being taught proper Scripture.

>>20290845
Also, respond to my next post in the other thread as well.

>>20290845
>The Gospel of Thomas is almost certainly as old as the other gospels.
It is not. The Gospel of Thomas is way younger than any of the canonical gospels, dating from around 135-200 AD, while the youngest gospel is estimated to be from circa 90 AD, if memory serves. It's very likely that the Gospel of Thomas was based on sayings from a very early date, but it was naturally added on to as time passed.
>I honestly think it is rather bizarre that the OT (texts used exclusively by those who rejected and murdered Jesus) was included in the canon, yet Thomas was not.
Now THIS is bizarre! What, do you follow Marcion in saying the God of Abraham is not the God of Jesus? You don't sound like it. I don't understand why this would confuse you. Jesus and Paul and so on make constant refrences to the OT all over the NT. This new covenant the Christ brought forth only exist as a continuation, expansion and culmination of the old one. None of it would make sense without it. It is certainly not only the Jews who use it. Who was the Word who spoke through the tongues of the Prophets?
>Much of it is just incompatible with what was revealed to me.
What is incompatible with what you have received? Anon, the way we have of testing alledged prophecy, that either we hear about through someone else or ourselves are gifted, is through comparison with what has already been recieved. Anything that stretches beyond that cannot be trusted. Consider that your revelation may have been demoniacal.
>Well actually in action, my denomination would probably most resemble of a mixture of Orthodoxy and Catholicism (pre-reformation), with elements of the Salvation Army.
The way you speak about it too. "My" denomination.

What is legitimate baptism?
Anon in the last thread said protestants don't do it right.

>>20291186
IMO as long as it's performed by a validly ordained priest or bishop then it's legitimate. Some Protestants are called Baptists and believe you must be an adult and fully immersed though.

>>20291216
What's wrong with Baptists

>>20291216
Priest is not necessary. Laypeople can baptize. Reading Basil right now and he emphasizes that invoking all three persons of the Trinity is imperative. Corresponding with this you see three applications of water. Orthodox insist on three full immersions so it’s not just Baptists. This is rooted in baptism mirroring death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

>>20290337
+1 for Matthew for the exact same reason. My son is being a holy terror these days and I keep telling him the blessed are the merciful beatitude, I really hope he makes it.
Honorable mention to Psalms. Great poetry and Jesus’ footprints are all over the place.
Missed last thread, first was Good News Bible, mainly read KJV because it’s public domain so epub is free. NKJV is my favorite because it’s in the hotel drawer when you really need it.
Captcha G0YSW, too funny.

>>20290979
>Anglo-Catholic?
Obviously I'm talking about aesthetics here and how things would look 'on the ground'. Theology is its own, complicated topic and frankly I lack any close comparisons I can use to give you a quick idea of the theology.
As far as aesthetics go. Imagine a church building whose exterior architectural style combines elements of French Gothic, Byzantine, Carolingian, Stripped Classicism and Futurism. The interior of the Church is decorated in a style reminiscent of how Catholic churches used to look before the reformation and feature a number of mosaics depicting events from the bible. The church officials present all wear formal military styled uniforms complete with ranks and badges displaying what 'corps' of the church they are apart of.
>>20291067
>because it isn't literally full of prophecy and prefiguration
That its only if you accept that those prophecies refer to Jesus. The modern Jews certainly do not and even the Jews who first wrote those books would not have, given that Jesus does not fit the requirements of the Jewish messiah.
>most of them converted
I'm sure you know this is not true. Prior to Paul, Christianity was a very small sect and after Paul, gentiles quickly overtook Jews in terms of the Christian convert population.
>>20291118
>The Gospel of Thomas is way younger than any of the canonical gospels
I'm sure that you know there is a lot of debate over when not only Thomas, but also the canonical gospels were first written. While we cannot know the exact dates or order, they were all written within a few decades of each other.
>It's very likely that the Gospel of Thomas was based on sayings from a very early date, but it was naturally added on to as time passed
I fully agree. Just like the canonical gospels.
>do you follow Marcion in saying the God of Abraham is not the God of Jesus?
Correct.
>Who was the Word who spoke through the tongues of the Prophets?
Yahweh. We may disagree on the nature and disposition of Yahweh. But we can be in agreement on this. But, the prophets of Yahweh are not relevant to me.
>What is incompatible with what you have received?
That is getting into theology. Given the nature of that topic, I would only be able to respond to specific questions.
>Consider that your revelation may have been demoniacal
Please do believe me here when I say that I have. That is a suggestion that I have taken very seriously.
>The way you speak about it too. "My" denomination.
Well it does not yet have a name. It just seems easier at this point to call it 'my denomination' rather then attaching a name to it that could both confuse and come across as rather pretentious.
>>20291186
I personally only consider a baptism legitimate if it is performed by a priest, on an adult that is fully educated on the nature of Christianity and the meaning of the sacrament. Some groups consider it important that baptism features full immersion, but that really seems superfluous to me.

>>20291252
everyone agrees on immersion, i'd say.

>>20291302
>calls it a Christian denomination
>denies Christ and literally everything else related to Christianity
you won't fool anyone.

>a suggestion i've taken very seriously
and then smothered it with pride.

Why do some churches do sprinkling instead of baptism???

Why do these hip, trendy, new age "Christians" place more value in what modern Jews believe than what Christians have always believed???

>>20291302
Psalm 22:16
tell me you don't see one of the clearest prophecies of the OT.
>the writers didn't know
there's a reason it's called prophecy. and God might've shown them. Isaiah is another book with very clear prophecy of Jesus Christ.
>most of them
as in, most of the ones who did convert.

>>20291346
might not have a baptismal pool. they should do immersion though.
>>20291358
Very good question. bumping.

I read an interesting theory anons.
One reason that the Jews rejected Jesus was because He was not the political savior that they wanted. He was much more than that.
Modern state of Israel wants a political savior too. What if their "savior" comes, and they worsjip him as their "messiah" and this is in fact the Antichrist? And many of the Zionist evangelical and liberal Christian types might be fooled as well!
What do you think anons?

>>20291302
I'm an Anglican.
What military uniforms are you talking about?

>>20291377
depending on your meaning of political, precisely.
they expected a David type of king who'd rule them and whatnot.
atleast some saw Christ and believed in the truth.

it might've also been pride; with the pharisees thinking themselves superior, and all the rest of the "for show" ""holiness"", like the modern day extremely legalistic books through which they fool themselves they can take loopholes out of sin.

>>20291377
I think their antichrist is Zelenski.

>>20291377
>>20291401
also with that ""holiness"" thinking themselves free of sin, which is where most of their hate for the Messiah comes from, because Jesus Christ exposed their sins.
A few did listen to Him, humbled themselves and repented. blessed brothers they are.

>>20291377
I thought in romans it says the jews will come around to Christ. I'm paraphrasing of course but pretty sure it says that

>>20290330
It's unreasonable for a human female to expect to orgasm every time she copulates.

>>20291377
That's exactly what's going to happen

>>20291419
Luke 4:25-27 is one of many epic trolls. There is a mentality that being chosen is the end of the story. They were chosen to be the nation that the Messiah came from but He was for everybody. Jews got right of first refusal and many chose to exercise it. Sad!

>>20291302
>I'm sure that you know there is a lot of debate over when not only Thomas, but also the canonical gospels were first written. While we cannot know the exact dates or order, they were all written within a few decades of each other.
Right. That's why I gave you a range of 135-200. That's not narrow, there's plenty of room in there. Even if you go with the lowest number, that's still about half a century after the youngest gospel. There's no skirting around this by saying "we just don't know", that's not an argument. You can justify any claim with that. The matter of the fact is that we have no reason to trust the Gospel of Thomas considering its age and its exclusion from most Christian communities.
>Yahweh. We may disagree on the nature and disposition of Yahweh. But we can be in agreement on this. But, the prophets of Yahweh are not relevant to me.
It was the pre-incarnated Christ, actually.
>Please do believe me here when I say that I have. That is a suggestion that I have taken very seriously.
And how have you determined that this prophesy was not demonic then? By what standard except the written teachings of the Christ, which this prophecy contradicts, do you have to try what you have experienced by?

>>20291345
>denies Christ
I absolutely do not. I deny that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, but I do not deny his divinity, nor the role of Christ as saviour.
>literally everything else related to Christianity
Rejecting the trinity and biblical canon is hardly 'everything else related to Christianity'. Heck, early Christians had no concept of either and yet were still Christians.
>>20291346
>Why do some churches do sprinkling instead of baptism???
Sprinkling is generally easier to manage if you only have access to a traditional baptismal font and lack anywhere for the water to drain if you attempting a pouring baptism; Water on a polished floor is a pretty big slipping hazard. Regardless, sprinkling is just as valid.
>>20291361
>tell me you don't see one of the clearest prophecies of the OT
I think it is worth keeping in mind here that the authors of the gospels did have particular motivations in mind when writing them. Matthew for instance was written with a Jewish audience in mind and a desire to 'sell' Jesus to the Jews as their messiah. Putting words into the mouth of Jesus in order to link him back to Jewish texts is to be expected. The new testament is filled with such examples, just look at the textual variants.
>there's a reason it's called prophecy
A prophecy is only worth anything if it is fulfilled. By putting words in the mouth of a dead man, such prophecies can be retroactively 'fulfilled'.
>Isaiah is another book with very clear prophecy of Jesus Christ
Isaiah is talking about the Jewish messiah. Jesus did not meet the criteria of the Jewish messiah.
>>20291398
I was talking about the Salvation Army. pic related. Obviously the uniforms I'm talking about would look different, but this gives you the general idea of what a uniformed clergy would look like.
>>20291513
>That's why I gave you a range
That puts it within a few decades of the assumed later dates of composition of the canonical gospels. I do not deny that Thomas was written after them, however it is not a next that just appeared many decades or centuries latter like some tend to claim. If you were a kid when the canonicals were written, you could have still been alive when Thomas was.
>It was the pre-incarnated Christ, actually.
Had you told the Jewish prophets that is who they were actually talking about, you probably would have been stoned to death. Every single one of them certainly considered themselves to be prophets of Yahweh.
Regardless, as I reject the trinity this is not relevant.
>By what standard except the written teachings of the Christ
You do remember that I am composing a denominational bible with several harmonies in it right? What do you think they are harmonies of? There are plenty of texts out there that agree with what has been revealed to me, they just happen to be apocryphal (broadly, I still do accept most of the NT).

>>20291592
Oh.

>>20290325
Sorry that the Bible thread got in the way of all the quality posts from JIDF making unfunny joke after unfunny joke about Hermann Melville.

>>20291592
>putting words in
it's literally what happened to Christ. did you even read the verse?

Just one look at the catalogue and you'll see the reprobate Jewish mind trying to turn this place into r/funny.

Finally found a Cambridge Cameo with apocrypha for cheaper than retail price but I don’t get paid from my wagie job until next week :(
Anyone got this edition? Can you confirm it looks as good as I think it is?

Listened to a sermon that said nebuchadnezzars dream in Daniel has already come to pass because Jesus has established the Church and Rome was crushed by it. Would anyone consider that an accurate interpretation or inaccurate?
He also interpreted the first seal and the white horse as Jesus (as Christianity conquered the Roman empire) and the red horse as referring to the Civil wars in the later Roman empire where they went through a dozen or so emperors in a short time
Not sure how much I agree with but it's interesting to hear someone say seals have already been opened when typically people point to the future or current events

>>20293179
haven't read Daniel yet, but on Revelation, that's inaccurate. it's much more widespread than a mere empire.

>>20290322
>which book of the Bible is your favourite and why?
Probably Genesis since it has all the famous “in the beginning shit” but really I haven’t read through much yet.
Currently reading John at another anons suggestion, which, if you’re reading this, thank you. John is a really good place to start. Where shall I go next brothers?

>>20293254
any of the other three, but read Luke along with Acts (he wrote both), then the Epistles, Revelation, and OT in order.

>>20293248
Yeah it's world wide which is why I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
I can see where he gets the interpretation for the dream and Daniel
Revelations ones seemed a little hazier

>>20293254
>>20293260
I'd personally recommend Matthew, Mark, then Luke and Acts.

Translation review for the Global NT.
Summary: you cannot not find one book more divergent in translations from a plethora of languages from the very same source material. Perhaps if the ‘Literal’ version of each tongue was compiled for comparison, then it would be possible, but most take incredible liberties in ‘parsing’.
I know enough common vocabulary to understand the four in Latin Script. Cyrillic, I can read its letters and sounds, but I’m yet to learn Russian itself. Arabic, I solely know the numerical system which I learnt from this book at the present moment.

>>20293461
Here, I noticed the verse number 22. It’s most likely the dividing of the last verse into two, since that happens throughout this Sexalingual Bible, and also the merging which is the exact opposite. However, since I do not know the Arabic Script, there remains the possibility that a doxology not present in the source material is there, but that is the upper limit of what might and might not be.

>>20293478
Here is that which warrants ridicule.
The first half of Revelations 13:1 in French and German is removed and added as verse 12:18 from to the anterior chapter! It’s even worse than the times where verse X:32 is written as X:23 out of some sort of dyslexia, which is not uncommon.

>>20290337
> 3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Lol weak christcuck

>>20293493
Sloth is among the Seven Deadly Sins. Is it not?
Despite all this, I would still recommend this purchase as linguistic novelty.
Post Scriptum: to those that speak only English, I noticed that last verse 12:18’s error by the word for Sea, being ‘Mar’ en Español, ‘Mer’ en Français, ‘Meer’ (conjugated in the genitive case as ‘Meeres’) auf Deutsch, & ‘Mopя’ пo-pyccки.

I've got a Bible with white page edges that I'm planning to rebind myself. Gold gilding isn't an option, but either red or gold inking is for the edges. Do you guys think gold inking would look good, or would non-gilt gold edges look like shit?

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Deuteronomy 4:29 KJVAAE
https://bible.com/bible/546/deu.4.29.KJVAAE

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Matthew 7:7 KJVAAE
https://bible.com/bible/546/mat.7.7.KJVAAE

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13 KJVAAE
https://bible.com/bible/546/jer.29.13.KJVAAE

When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
Deuteronomy 4:30 KJVAAE
https://bible.com/bible/546/deu.4.30.KJVAAE

>20293500
Why do we have to put up with such lazy and obvious shitposting trolls like this every single thread?

>>20293710
You can report for trolling outside of /b/ or for being extremely low quality.

>>20292400
I have that exact edition.
It's nice, though the one downside is that the type isn't as well-printed as others, and the antique typeface might take a little to get used to.
Also, the names of places and certain people are printed with pronunciation symbols, which you might find a little annoying.

>>20293747
Mods never do anything about antichrist trolling/spam on this site.

>>20291922
I did. What I'm saying is that it is easy to retroactively change or add details to an event, should the author have motivations beyond a simple recall of events. The drawing of lots for instance is something that would have been a trivial addition, motivated by the conscious desire to seem to fulfil prophesies in Jewish texts; A pretty good idea if your main motivation is converting Jews, huh?

Look, I have a great deal of respect for all of my fellow Christians in these threads (excluding Evangelicals and Unitarians obviously) and the last thing I want to do is seem as if I'm attacking your theological positions. How about we just agree that we have different interpretations of the Jewish texts and their connection to the NT?

>>20293887
There is no denomination that even remotely accepts Marcionism. Your persona and theology are just wacky D&C to infiltrate yet another Christian group. You whine about Christian posts on /pol/, then you follow Christian when they go elsewhere. 109.

Are there any good books on the history of the canonicity of the bible?

>>20293887
you're a heretic. no agreements.

are you saying Christ was not crucified?
because nothing there could've been "changed" or "added".

>>20291358
>>20291374
Quick answer: Christianity subverted by jews to replace devotion with emotion

Long theory: Men are being weakened through poison in their environments and their spiritual pillars have been slowly chewed by termites (jews again but more than a few traitor Whites/Christians) since Scofield released his plague to "Protestants" (playing loose with terms here sorry) and Vatican II released it's plague to Catholics, combined with the concentration of jewish power through corporate oligarchy (which in turn owns the government) and the destabilization of nations and the racial homogeneity of people (not just whites, look what they did/do to the Arabs).

The modern 25 year old man has:
-less testosterone than his 65 year old grandpa
-no edifying religious spaces to help uplift him
-fewer careers prospects and practically a ~3% chance of home ownership (this is more weimerica than elsewhere I think)
-disintegrating national laws and borders
-the worst economy in history to work in, no chance of retirement
-the modern female and all that entails
-a global conflict and tyrannical feudal state puppeteering events
And so much more. The original question was
>Why do these hip, trendy, new age "Christians" place more value in what modern Jews believe than what Christians have always believed???
Because they *are* spiritual, modern jews who are ensorcelled in a Satanic thrall and are intent on being the precipitation that douses the flame of humanity into darkness

"Biblical energy bars: Made of locusts, just like John the Baptist ate"

https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/article-705334

>>20290322
fucking larpers

What happens if you're a muslim and you don't adhere to the prayer schedule?

>>20294212
If you're a muslim then you are retarded and everything else stems from that.

To the anon who said And/Or was significant in 1 Corinthians 11:27. The Eucharist is symbolic. It is not about flour or a physical cup.

>>20290322
Judges for its violence

Book Of John for the fact my roommate is named John (he was named after John The Baptist and King David) and the fact its pretty damn antisemitic

>>20291225
They're spiteful creatures in my experience

>>20293897
I used to be one of those (not same anon)

>>20291323
In my old Lutheran church they had infant baptism only. Is adult baptism an evangelical only thing?

https://www.amazon.com/NRSVCE-Illustrated-Catholic-Leathersoft-Comfort/dp/0785239634
Convince me not to buy this

>>20294629
It’s not in colour

>>20290322
Hebrews for me. Amazing book. I love how it contrasts the pre- and post-Christ systems.

>>20294629
It's NRSV and Catholic so double Satanic and double gay. You are probably even more convinced to get it now.

>>20294561
Catholics will baptize at any age, the sooner the better. Some Evangelicals don't believe in baptism without informed consent (is adulthood).

>>20294716
Unironically my least favourite book of the NT.

I’m reading the KJV, New Testament, currently on Matthew and there seems to be a lot of scripture that Jesus says that seemsto go against what the Catholic/Orthodox churches stand for (excess, corruption inside but beautiful outside, false teachings by sinful men, to name a few)
Im new to Christianity but how do Catholics and Orthodox reconcile this? I don’t have a denomination yet but it seems the Lord didn’t call for one for what I’m reading so far. I could be wrong and most likely am…I should get a study Bible

>>20294797
I was thinking of choosing Catholicism and even though I'm practically Gen X (for all intents and purposes) I have the intense disdain for modernism that zoomers have. what choices do I have?

also kind of weird schizo question I asked in another thread, this is probably more appropriate to ask here, is there any way to determine numerological significance from the passage numbers in biblical books?

>>20290322
I own 52 bibles can anyone beat my high score?

>>20295203
There are 3-4 Catholic churches
>Roman Catholicism
They have a whole bunch of extra rules you have to follow and you have an Argentine pedophile apologist as your leader.
>Orthodoxy
Usually an ethnic affair but the most traditionalist church, eg their music is only chants because that's what it was in the early church.
>Anglicanism
Basically Roman Catholicism without the extra rules or Pope, but the massively increased autonomy of each church means some lean Calvinist, some are too progressive, etc.
>Lutheranism
We don't have this here so I can't say much about it.

>>20295214
I'd rather Calvinist leaning Anglican, if I had a choice

>>20295203
Catholicism is a fine choice with a rich liturgy and theological pedigree. As for numerology, not really, verse numbers were only added in the middle ages.

>>20295214
Same anon as >>20295203

Cool fact: I was baptised Lutheran

>>20295196
they brush it under the carpet. guess why there is so much discussion about it here.
do you a bit offset by saint prayer also?

>>20295212
Have you read them all?

>>20295467
Some of them. I own multiple copies of my favorite Bibles just in case they go out of print one day.

>>20295490
Why not just buy them if that happens?

>>20295490
Give me a number.

>>20290325
lol

>>20290322
Kings.
This part spoke to me the most when reading the Bible.

5That night the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream, and God said, “What do you want? Ask, and I will give it to you!”
6Solomon replied, “You showed great and faithful love to your servant my father, David, because he was honest and true and faithful to you. And you have continued to show this great and faithful love to him today by giving him a son to sit on his throne.
7“Now, O Lord my God, you have made me king instead of my father, David, but I am like a little child who doesn’t know his way around. 8And here I am in the midst of your own chosen people, a nation so great and numerous they cannot be counted! 9Give me an understanding heart so that I can govern your people well and know the difference between right and wrong. For who by himself is able to govern this great people of yours?”
10The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for wisdom. 11So God replied, “Because you have asked for wisdom in governing my people with justice and have not asked for a long life or wealth or the death of your enemies— 12I will give you what you asked for! I will give you a wise and understanding heart such as no one else has had or ever will have! 13And I will also give you what you did not ask for—riches and fame! No other king in all the world will be compared to you for the rest of your life! 14And if you follow me and obey my decrees and my commands as your father, David, did, I will give you a long life.”

I think the reasons God is pleased with Solomon here are threefold. One, he did not wish for a result but for the power necessary to achieve a result. He didn't expect God to just make his kingdom prosperous, instead he was willing to shoulder the burden and ask for the ability to guide God's kingdom.
Secondly, and more importantly, he asked for something which does not directly benefit him, but others.
Lastly, he asked God for something that the Lord already had an interest in, as Solomon knew that God enjoys seeing Israel prosper.

For this Solomon was greatly rewarded, and I think it holds a lesson on how to pray today.
Pray for assist and abilities, not for results.
Pray for others, not for yourself.
Pray for the goals of God, if you know what they are.

>>20290322
best. mythology. ever.

>>20292400
I love mine, but like >>20293787 said the pronunciation marks/breakdowns of names can be kinda irksome to some people. It bothered me at first but I got used to them.

>>20294629
If you already want the gay NRSV, you might as well wait four more months for the NRSVUE to come out so you're not immediately 30 years behind the times.
Also
>leathersoft
Wait 2-3 months for Cambridge to put out their calfskin ESV-CE.

plot is gay

>>20290325
>feel
Try thinking instead.

>>20295789
Nietzsche is dead

>Too smart to read The Message
>Too midwit to read the KJV
>Too dumb to read the NASB

What is the Bible for me?

>>20296158
Probably the RSV or ESV. Maybe even a wildcard like the CSB or EHV.

>>20295196
This is a tough question to answer, and to preface it I will have certain biases and anecdotal experiences that influence what I say so take everything with a grain of salt.

I'm nondenominational, I think every institution of Christianity is being eaten from the inside out but the Catholic church, historically, is the largest and most centralized institution of Christianity out there. As a consequence, the will of men, as it always is, was corrupted and power flowed into the hands of mortal sinners instead of towards God.

Men built great structures and towering cathedrals because they believed it would please God. Men thought they could reform sinners through internal affairs. Men thought ritual and practice could enrich what the divine had already established. It is the nature of man to believe he can reconcile God's will with his own, rather than reconciling his will to God's.

As a result, the CC, which once was supposed to act as the noble heart of Christendom, was slowly and carefully subverted by evil and corrupt means over many lifetimes.
Does good still exist in the people of Catholicism? Yes absolutely.
Are there practices prevalent in Catholicism that are worth keeping? Yep!
Is the historical powerhouse worth remembering and honoring for the much good that it most definitely did? I think so.
However, I think as the institutions of man begin to fall around us, there is no doubt in my mind that Catholicism, which was as I said, once the physical throne of Christian power on earth, will be yet another tool for Satan to help slide the world into darkness.

>>20296158
Contemporary English Version is an easy read.

When I want to read something more complex I read KJV with Apocrypha or Douay Rheims.

>>20290845
I'm not even sure where I fit because I'm into a theology where God works through only those who seek him and believe in soul sleep and conditionalism (I'm absolutely refuse to share heaven with atheists after the end times) and follow an almost postmillenial eschatology.

>>20293897
>There is no denomination that even remotely accepts Marcionism
I'm very much aware of that. I did say that I was founding my own.
>>20293956
>you're a heretic
I think it would be best to avoid calling each other that. If we start pulling out the heretic card, this thread will go down the no-true-Scotsman drainpipe pretty quick. What if we just agreed to disagree?
>>20294117
It would only be LARPing if we were actually really atheists. Sincere religious practise and discussion is by definition not LARPing.
>some are too progressive
The second biggest denomination in my area is Anglicanism. Every single one of those churches is covered in pride/trans flags, marries gays and has female priests. From what I understand, basically everyone opposed to this was forced out of the congregations and either now does not attend a church or goes to the big local orthodox church.
While it may be different elsewhere, Anglicanism here is basically just progressivism and nothing else; Let alone anything Christian.
>>20296158
The NKJV is very readable while still having actual value as a bible. I have read a number of translations and it remains my favourite 'jack of all trades', general use bible.
If you are really having that much trouble with the bible, there are plenty of reading and study guides out there to basically hold your hand through the entire thing.
>>20296414
Sounds almost like southern baptism with a head injury. Have you been apart of any denominations before, even just as a kid?

>>20296158
NLT but unironically.

>>20295214
>>20295216

I'm from the Roman Catholic Curch who joined the Reformed Episcopal Church.

The REC is the more Calvinist side of the Anglican Church in North America.

My personal views might be more Anglo Catholic high church, but I'm fine with the liturgy.

The folks from the Assyrian Church of The East seem cool too.

>>20296158
Assuming protestant from the translations you've mentioned, try out these:
>Oxford Revised English Bible
Dynamic equivalence, easy to read but has some poetics to it still, plenty of study notes included and also Apocrypha if you want.
>RSV, ESV
Both are fine, formal equivalence translations. The RSV traces back through a number of revisions to the KJV, and the ESV is a revision of the RSV made by people who didn't like the direction the NRSV was going in.
I personally like the New Oxford Annotated Bible in RSV with Expanded Apocrypha since it contains the Orthodox Apocryphal texts as well as the Catholic ones, and plenty of study notes
>World English Bible
Public domain digital Bible, you can get it for free in a variety of formats and slight variations from ebible.org. Variations include British English, Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal texts including the Orthodox ones, a Catholic edition, and a Messianic edition with Hebrew names for God being used.
Interesting to note is that its source text for the New Testament is the Byzantine Majority Text (mostly used by Orthodox) rather than the Textus Receptus (lines up pretty close with Majority Text for the most part, is the source for the KJV NT) or a newer scholastically used manuscript.

Lastly, if you're alright with a Catholic translation, the NABRE is a pretty easy read and you can get a decent hardback copy for very cheap if you get the St Joseph's Student Edition NABRE hardback (about $13), and there's an even cheaper paperback version (about $7).
It's a mixed formal and dynamic equivalence translation. The student editions include a whole bunch of historically/textually critical notes that lean mostly into a secular stance on a lot of things, so the notes are more academic than religious, but on the plus side it includes a bunch of pictures/diagrams/maps that are nice and is probably the cheapest bang-for-your-buck as far as money to reading content goes with the notes and deuterocanonicals.

>>20296414
I think that sounds Calvinist.

>>20295203
If you're going to go Catholic, read up on Vatican II. I was a passionate convert looking to become a priest until I found out about that stuff.

>>20296443
I'm just worried that some asshole is gonna press globohomo on me full stop. I'd like to avoid that

>>20296500
Sheesh
>>20296502
I'm aware

>>20296429
Lutheran. I tend to not be fond of Southern Baptists due to their idea that if you consume weird art, you're going to hell. My ex became one shortly before we broke up and that was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

>>20296508
No, ACNA is a conservative church.
Formed by people who were tired of liberalism from the Episcopal Church (not to be confused with the Reformed Episcopal Church).


If you're ok with having our representatives to the communion being the Nigerian Church.

It's a roundabout way we had to do things to be connected to most of the other Anglican churches.

>>20296513
You may say sheesh but they do have a certain idea about predestination and salvation.

>>20296549
Their website has hipster priests with tattoos and beards. Do they let women be priests too?

I need to get a study Bible, is picrel a good one with no denomination, or is it strictly Protestant?
I believe most denominations are right in there own way…I was also thinking the ESV study Bible from Crossway.

>>20296430
This. The NLT is probably the best "second" translation someone can get.

>>20296584
Sproul was a Presbyterian and very strong in the Reformed tradition, so you're likely going to get some denominational baggage with that.

>>20296584
The ESV Study Bible is probably the most mainstream "general study Bible" you can get.

>>20296584
I might also recommend the International Inductive Study Bible. I own one but I'll admit I haven't worked with it much. It's a NASB though, which is a solid translation.

>>20296576
>Do they let women be priests too?

That's a controversial issue in the church.
Some dioceses allow it, others don't.

My pastor is a guy in his 60s, not a hipster.

>>20296584
Roman Catholic bibles have books that if Protestants include them, these are called the Apocrypha.

The issue being is something to the effect of that they aren't as literal or canon so that they're more supplemental.

So you may have to do some more searching around if you want Apocrypha.

>>20296584
Just get a Holy Bible (meaning KJB) and separate commentaries. Then you have the holy Scriptures as their own thing, and can have anywhere from a single volume to many expanding volumes of the verse by verse notations from diverse contributors.

>>20296562
Well I don't believe in determinism if that's what you're asking

it may be me but I suspect that not everyone has the same fair shot at salvation

>>20296987
I trust God for that.

>>20295938
>Wait 2-3 months for Cambridge to put out their calfskin ESV-CE.
But will that have illustrations?

>>20297474
no

>>20294629
I won't convince you one way or another, but here's this video so you can get a good look at it, first:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXPkaNTrq0g

Is it a sin to write a novel with a messiah figure whose dialogue is in red text?

I have some doubts about the Imprimatur. Catholics shouldn't read bibles that don't have it, right? Or can they read it but not take any conclusions from it?

>>20297958
Of course not. Red letters are some dogmatic thing. In the modern sense, they didn't exist until 1899. They were based on medieval practices that, if taken to the logical extent of your question, would mean that creating illuminated manuscripts today outside of Biblical use would be a sin. No, it's decoration.
>>20298056
An imprimatur simply means the Church reviewed the text and found nothing contrary to the doctrine and morals of the Church. This doesn't mean they even agree with the conclusions or, in the case of a Bible, all the translation choices. As for Bibles, while ones with the nihil obstat and imprimatur are obviously preferred for Catholics, they've stated that reading a Bible available is better than not reading one, and thus have no problem with you reading one without such stamps, such as the King James or (prior to the ESV-CE) the ESV. There is no explicit prohibition in canon law against reading Bible translations without the approvals, though they suggest you use critical thinking if something in the translation seems off. But, officially, no translation of the Bible is officially banned from use.

>>20297958
Of course not. Red letters aren't some dogmatic thing. In the modern sense, they didn't exist until 1899. They were based on medieval practices that, if taken to the logical extent of your question, would mean that creating illuminated manuscripts today outside of Biblical use would be a sin. No, it's just decoration.
>>20298056
An imprimatur simply means the Church reviewed the text and found nothing contrary to the doctrine and morals of the Church. This doesn't mean they even agree with the conclusions or, in the case of a Bible, all the translation choices. As for Bibles, while ones with the nihil obstat and imprimatur are obviously preferred for Catholics, they've stated that reading a Bible available is better than not reading one, and thus have no problem with you reading one without such stamps, such as the King James or (prior to the ESV-CE) the ESV. There is no explicit prohibition in canon law against reading Bible translations without the approvals, though they suggest you use critical thinking if something in the translation seems off. But, officially, no translation of the Bible is officially banned from use.

>>20296584
It's ok but Reformed Christians tend to be some of the most aggressively dismissive towards other denominations so unless you want a specifically Calvinistic point of view it might be better to go with a general Evangelical study bible like the NKJV Study Bible or the Grace and Truth Study Bible.

>>20298170
Imagine someone approving any of the Catholic "bibles". Catholics just cannot do a proper Holy Bible. Something seems to prevent them, starting with Jerome and still to this day.

>>20298056
You can read any Bible you want for personal or devotional use. Obviously it's recommended you have one with the Apocrypha but you don't have to. For what its worth the official translation of the USCCB is absolute dogshit (New American Bible) so if you're American you won't want to use that anyway.

The standard Bible translations for Catholics are RSV-2CE (Ignatius Bible) for traditionalists and NRSV for Novus Ordo Catholics.

>>20298192
>Catholics just cannot do a proper Holy Bible.
You're reading it.

>>20296526
>He gave up Christ for anime

>>20298340
>Baptists
>Christ
What part of "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" do you not understand?

>>20298340
Why not have both?

>>20298348
Not a Baptist, but I can see that relationship breakdown was about more than viewpoints in doctrine.

Is it possible to have married sex without lust at all? Not only without ‘kink’, but completely de-emphasised on all pleasure.
Also, is it wrong to go to Mass more than once a day?

>>20298371
Why would you want to? Marriage is specifically there to encourage the blossoming of healthy sexual feelings between a man and a woman. You're supposed to enjoy the sanctity of a marriage bed as often as you can.
No idea about Mass, probably isn't a problem if I had to guess but if you're going just to punch a guilty ticket be careful of that.

>>20298371
Don't confuse lust with eros. Sex is good, normal and healthy, and so is the desire for it within the normal parameters. Go read Song of Songs, it's not about the Church it's just a good old Biblical story on great sex.

>>20298250
Wrong, all Scripture was complete before there was any such thing as a Roman Catholic Church. Paul didn't mention Peter in Romans either. RCC BTFO.

this thread = third worlders and americans who live in trailers

>>20296576
There's no reason they shouldn't be, Jesus constantly espouses equality and he gifts female disciples the power to exorcise demons which they excel at.

>>20298386
Just my family saying, “You can’t go to Mass thrice daily in every language that the local church has!” Thought it had something to do with the Eucharist.
>>20298387
Yes, I know that Lust =/= Love, but I’d want to remove the carnal desire and replace it with more so of a pure spiritual union perhaps even beyond an emotional level.
I’m not sure if ‘Tantric Sex’ is right as it derives from Dharmic paganism, but I speak with certainty.

>>20298717
BUT I DON’T SPEAK WITH CERTAINTY*
Who else thinks 4chan is editing our posts? There’s no way I could have missed a 5-character word so essential for the meaning of sentence while typing always as slowly as a snail.

>>20298405
>Wrong, all Scripture was complete before there was any such thing as a Roman Catholic Church
The NT wasn't written yet in AD 33, when the Church was founded, m8. Your conspiracy theories aren't historical.

>>20298946
>m8
Opinion retarded.

>>20299027
Sad to know you abandoned Christ. I pray for you.

I normally try to reserve Bible thread discussion to specifics on the Bible itself rather than broader theology/Christianity but I have a sort of conundrum/thought experiment for Orthodox/Catholic bros:

Is it a better idea to immediately confess your sins to a priest at the earliest possible opportunity, or is it better to wait insofar as the extra time allows you to make a better examination of conscience? On one hand, getting absolution as quickly as possible will protect the soul from the damage of sin, but on the other I feel that there can be a potential benefit to waiting for the best possible results, as a sort of sacramental counterpart to the premodern standard that Eucharist used to only be consumed on the highest solemnities of the year. Thoughts?

>>20291302
>and Futurism
Give an example of what a "futurist" church looks like

>>20299197

>>20299207
>regular church with a neon cross but viewed in the rain

>>20299212
It's Neo-Gothic

>>20290845
Schizo alert
Schizo alert
Schizo alert

>>20290845
What we need is a pretext to have threads on /tg/ where the quality of poster is pretty decent comparatively. We just need to think of some sort of "game" to justify our general thread.

>>20299207
Okay, now give one from real life

>>20299219
Isn't this that Russian church that has a literal hammer and sickle in one of the windows

How do you guys unironically believe in Dragons and talking donkeys? I can understanding believing in God but God caring that you wear two different fabrics?? You gotta be delusional. Deism is the way

>>20299294
God doesn't care what fabrics we wear though. And there are no literal biological dragons in the Bible.

>>20299258
>We just need to think of some sort of "game" to justify our general thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_(card_game)

>>20299303
What is thing that shoots flames out of his mouth then? Also talking donkey?

>>20299196
Confess as early as possible imo.
There is no guarantee that you will be able to confess at a later time, you could potentially drop dead at any time so best to do it as soon as possible.

>>20299293
No, it's St Peters Basilica lit up with red and blue lighting

https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2021/10/aishy-red-light-vatican/

Pic related is what you're thinking of, the Russian Cathedral of the Armed Forces

>>20299320
The inside is absolutely stunning too.

>>20299294
I went my whole life thinking faggots were just fictional characters on the news
but all the sudden out of nowhere here (You) are being real

>>20299197
I honestly do not have a good example of a futurist church, let alone what I'm describing. Pic related is the closest I have been able to find to a futurist church, but even then I only have a picture of the interior.
>>20299258
/tg/ likes collection card games right? What if we attempted to present buying and discussing bibles as part of a collection game?
>>20299331
Beautiful.

Favorite book was originally Proverbs, because I was and still am interested in acquiring wisdom.

I actually like Sirach more (Catholic here), because it's much more extensive, and chapter two has resonated a lot for me in my walk with God, especially with everything I've been going through in my life.

Right now, Psalms is my go-to because I can listen via audiobook and listen to David talk about his very-serious near-death experiences and pleadings for help, then enumerate all his promises if he gets help, then encourage others in a similar plight, and praise and exhort pretty much all in one passage. It's helped me a lot lately.

>>20299304
I think this is it. Think of a good OP and set it up.

>>20299219
Is it bad if I think this looks better than the actual St Peters?

>>20299339
Here ya go

>>20299406
>You WILL hate Catholics
>You WILL eat the cockroach-meal Eucharist
>And you WILL be happy!

>>20299406
That is less futurist and more 70s dystopia. Specifically Logan's Run.
What I had in mind was more pic related, combined with the stripped classicism of Arnaldo Dell'Ira. If you can imagine such a thing.
>>20299874
Interestingly, they are attempting to push bug eating on Christians now, using the diet of John the Baptist as justification. Can you guess what country is behind it?
https://www.jpost.com/christianworld/article-705334

Remember that it is not paranoia or conspiracy if it is actually happening.

>>20299967
>Interestingly,
Not incorrect, but I presume you are German by your sentence morphology.

>>20299874
>cockroach-meal Eucharist
More organic than prefab Catholic styrofoam wafers with tiny injections of wheat fiber in order to barely qualify as "bread".

>I can't pick a church because I'm afraid that I'll go to hell if I choose the wrong one
What do I do bros?

>>20300739
Choose the right church.

>>20300739
Wait until I found my church.
If you cannot wait until then, a catholic church with an old style mass is fine as long as you pair it with a large amount of self study. A conservative Anglican or Greek Orthodox church is also acceptable.

>>20300739
Easy pick, Catholicism

>>20300739
You won’t go to hell if you choose the wrong Church, silly.
Abide by the commandments and try to imitate our Lord as much as you can, that’s the key.
Church is primarily useful in keeping your faith strong, however.

>>20300739
Avoid obvious heresies like >>20300756
JWs and LDS as well.
listen to both sides of a theological argument, and judge it according to Scripture always.

>>20300930
Are you honestly suggesting that churches founded in the modern day have no value? Look at what has become of the catholic church alone and reflect on that.
I'm not saying that my church will not hold positions that are generally considered heretical. But given what has become of the non-heretical churches, I would argue that a fundamental reassessment of what is actually heretical is long overdue.

If Christianity is going to survive the 21st century. It needs to find itself again and be prepared to stand up for itself. I mean come on, 'non-heretical' churches are having drag shows performed in them now.

>>20301120
i'm saying that a "church" based on a personal canon has no value. i'd even call it a cult. literally the same with JWs and the others; changing Scripture, adding onto it, the whole clownfest.
>not saying your church wont espouse heretical views
end of discussion.
even if we go down that road, the Catholics are wrong by their own traditional standards aswell.

>assessment of what's heretical
I'd argue that actually following the word of God is better than making your own version of it.
>non-heretical churches having bad thing
quite contradictory calling them "non-heretical".

>>20296158
Just stick with the KJV, it's an English lesson too for most people since modern education and public schools are such a waste of tax payer money

>>20290322
what are the best german, french, and italian translations of the Holy Bible?

>>20290322
bump

If anyone remembers that autistic Orthodox consoomer who couldn't stop buying books he wasn't reading, it looks like he also built a Qur'an collection. So he went from buying books he wasn't reading to buying books he can't read.
https://youtu.be/FDWLg9WoNDQ

>>20302328
>German
Einheitsübersetzung
>French
La Bible de Jérusalem
>Italian
La Sacra Bibbia CEI

The common translation of Genesis 1:2 in English says something like "... and the Spirit of God was hovering over/ hovered over/moved over/moved upon the waters

Why are translation that suggest bird like behaviour so rare? like "fluttered" instead of hover or move
I think it's just as acceptable as move or hover, and it's a common translation in other languages

And it also may be linked with the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove when Jesus was baptized

>>20303447

I googled and it sent me to a reddit about etymology

"I found the same root ר-ח-פ in two verses other than Genesis 1:2 which is what I assume you're referring to. In Deuteronomy 32:11, where it is in reference to an eagle, and is also translated as "hover" in all the translations I checked, which makes sense in the context. And in Jeremiah 23:9 in reference to Jeremiah's bones, where it is translated as "shake" in the NRSV and KJV, and "tremble" in the NASB.

"Deuteronomy 32:11; word רחף raḥaf is a bird that flutters or flaps over her young. In Jeremiah 23:9 it is the shuddering or shivering (of bones). The Genesis 1:2 meaning of “moved upon” or ‘vivified’ seems to be borrowed from Syriac (according to Gesenius) where it has the similar meaning of a mother bird brooding her young."

>>20290322
If you're such a fan of the bible it's honestly embarrassing that you haven't learn Greek to read it in its original form. Reading translations is midwit tier.

>>20303447
>>20303465
Interesting question, interesting findings. Always check a verse at Bible Hub, click Hebrew or scroll to the bottom and find the word, click it and see all uses with that root and its variances:

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_7363.htm

What's the Christian version of this collection?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPmnhXu60pY

>>20303850
KJB > Hebrew/Greek

>>20303879
1 John 5:7-8 isn't real, you dumb papist.

>>20303447
>>20303465
I also checked 3 of my commentaries and the only one that went into this particular matter was the Moody.

>>20303907
>KJB
>papist
retardedperson.jpg

>>20303918
>the KJB only has the Comma in 1 John 5:7-8 because it came from one Greek manuscript that the Vatican forced Erasmus to include it to validate the Latin despite it not existing in any other Greek manuscripts
Yes, papist. Now fuck off.

>>20303912
I checked my New American Commentary and it touches on this matter, but it doesn't make any direct parallels between the spirit "hovering" over the water and the Holy Spirit descending in the form of a Dove at the Baptism of Jesus. It only mentions that hovering has the implication of movement and mentions the verse in Deuteronomy, but says it is used as an Eagle "hovering" over it's young.

>>20303949
>NAC
And here I am being commanded not to covet. That's a lot of reading, I'm surprised it doesn't cover something like this a bit deeper, but then perhaps there's only so much to say on it.

>>20303876
Is there anyway to get real wood bookcases like this, particularly those corner shelves, without them being shitty particleboard? Or would I have to shell out big bucks for custom?

>>20304038
I haven't watched but surely you can cut some boards and wood screw them together, stain them.

>>20290325
You can't dicuss anything in /his/.

>>20291377
They were expecting a Judge the style of the Old Testament but they got someone greater?

>>20290322
Is God made up of different aspects, that are combined? Or is he totally unitary?
Can God undergo change, in any sense or is God totally immutable?
Is God comprehensible? partially comprehensible? or totally incomprehensible?
Does God exist in the past, present and future simultaneously (or alternatively does he simultaneously contain these three times?)

>>20304997
God is trinitarian. Same essence(the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God) difference in persons (they're not eachother), although not different "aspects" as you put it; they're not different things combined, but parts of the same. not the best way to explain it.

God is immutable. (Malachi 3:6 for the simplest verse)

what do you mean with "comprehensible"? you can understand what He shows you, but not what He does (Isaiah 55:9)

omnipresent, and we can't really understand it. (Exodus 3:14)
also links with the last question. God's nature cannot be put into words or understood by us, so God explains that He IS.

>>20305259
>difference in persons (they're not eachother
So there are 3 separate separate persons you can call God?
>God is immutable
So God did not create the universe insofar as the word create suggests achange from uncreated to created, and from having not created to having created?
>God's nature cannot be put into words or understood by us
So everything you've said hasnt been about God?

>>20304997
This should explain everything.

>>20305323
Cringe

>>20305421
He is right though

I personally believe that Eve was God's last and greatest creation, thus women are the superior gender. I am not alone is this interpretation of the scriptures. The following is from “Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex” by Henricus Cornelius Agrippa, written in 1529;

>We know that, among all that was created by the best and greatest God, the essential difference consists in the fact that certain things live forever, while others are subject to corruption and change, and that, in the course of this creation, God advanced following an order that consisted in beginning with the more noble of the first group and ending with the most noble of the second. Thus, he created first the incorruptible angels, then the souls (for Augustine affirms that the soul of our first parents was created at the same time as the angles, before the body was fashioned). Then he created the incorruptible bodies, such as the heavens and the stars, and elements that, although incorruptible, are nonetheless subject to various changes. And from them he formed all other things that are subject to corruption, proceeding again by ascent, from the more insignificant through all degrees of humor to the perfection of the universe. Thus were created first minerals, then vegetables, plants and trees, followed by animated beings, and finally brute beasts, in order: reptiles, fish, birds, quadrupeds.

>Again after all this he created two human beings in his image, man first, then woman, in whom the heavens and the earth, and every embellishment of both, are brought to perfection. For when the Creator came to the creation of woman, he rested himself in this creation, thinking that he had nothing more honorable to create; in her were completed and consummated all the wisdom and power of the Creator; after her no creation could be found or imagined. Since, therefore, woman is the ultimate end of creation, the most perfect accomplishment of all the works of God and the perfection of the universe itself, who will deny that she possesses honor surpassing every other creature?

>>20305323
Why do people who don't know the difference between homoousia and homoiousia try to talk about the Trinity?

>>20305557
Both alternatives are not tenable:
>>20304997

>>20305566
What does any of that have to do with the Trinity? Don't embarrass yourself

>>20305591
The trinity suggests some variation of you being able to multiple things as God. If multiple things are God then you're a polytheist with a problem.
3 all powerful immutable gods who are all simultaneously the source of everything.

>>20305598
Multiple “things” are not God.
Christ and The Holy Spirit are of one essence. Polytheism implies they are separate, but they are one eternal Godhead.
If you choose to misinterpret or misunderstand what Christians believe that’s on you. This isn’t a new conundrum

>>20305614
So this essence inheres in different persons, then it cant be the same.

One is the essence that inheres in jesus. The other is the essence that inhered in God no?

>>20305619
Jesus is God made flesh, and the Holy Spirit (being that which we can feel God’s presence) is also part of God.

>>20305619
>>20305614
>God
Sorry i meabt the father/holy spirit

You have at least 3 essences, that must be split and differentiated by inhering in different persons.

>>20305645
So are the persons like legs of a stool? Ie without the legs you have no stool? So god is comprised of these persons?

Or is the essence like a meal on a plate that 3 persons have picked from? So god inheres in these persons?

>>20305660
>So are the persons like legs of a stool?
Kind of, yeah. If Jesus isn’t divine and God made man, and if the Holy Spirit doesn’t come from these two, Christianity falls apart. The stool doesn’t work as intended.

>>20305809
So God is divisible so god is not an essence but a conditionally dependent thing that only arises when certain conditions are met.

This is anti most theology.

>>20305496
>frog
Didn’t read

How do we evangelise Protestants?

Thinking about becoming a Catholic, lads.
Too many gays and not enough structure/authority in the Anglican Church
Orthodox churches are mostly ethnic where I live.
Ive been an agnostic all my life, I’ve accepted Christ as my Lord and saviour, but I feel I need to go to Church to solidify my faith.
I don’t like the current pope but other than that I don’t have any objections and he objects that I did have about the CC I’ve found sufficient answers to.

>>20306055
By reminding them that none of their traditions of men existed in the first 200 years of the Church.

>>20306117
But they won’t listen.

>>20306107
Good for you anon, I'm nondenominational but be careful in your place of worship. I think a terrible war is coming and the fallen churches of all denominations will be used to subvert and destroy Christians and help make way for evil.
Christ and your Bible will keep you safe, always be vigilant and wary of subversives.

>>20306117
What if the men present during the first 200 years of the Church were wrong about some things?
I’m non-denomination, just curious. I like tradition but, for example, on the buying and selling of indulgences Martin Luther was 100% right on being against that.

can any of you guys answer:
>>20304997

I've gotten radically different answers from Christians.

Some have said that God is indeed comprised of aspectsm but some are unchanging and others can change.

Some have said that God is a singularity, and that our small snippets of perceptions of God are our descriptions of him having parts are based on errors that result from having glimpses thereof.

Further still some have said that God is indeed made up of parts, namely the three persons of the trinity.

>>20306163
There isn't a single Biblical verse that definitively answers these questions in emotionless scientific terms, so be aware that a great deal is interpretation and can vary depending on how much someone knows about etc etc

God is a singular entity with "arms" if that analogy suffices.
God wouldn't need to change (assuming change meant philosophically, as in his approach to problem solving) though a deeper argument could be made about reality and existence in this way
God is comprehensible in that the physical world is comprehensible. This world was made for us, reality was born so we could inhabit it, so reality being tangible is God being tangible. Many parts of God remain impossible to fathom, but we are creatures of this world so anything outside this world is by definition beyond total comprehension.
I posit God exists outside time, like a man looking at a Snowglobe. They exist to us but God is just waiting for certain conditions to be met, because time is bound. Again, part of a huge thesis regarding the shape of reality and matter that I'm slowly forming, but I'm probably just copying some dude who figured it out in a hut 1500 years ago

>>20306242
>There isn't a single Biblical verse
understood and actually its quite interesitng that the bible doesn't really arm its readers to deal with these sorts of questions, even though i think they are quite elementary. So thank you for taking up my challenge.

>God is a singular entity with "arms" if that analogy suffices.
Ok but that describes an entity with pieces/parts, which is not quite singular in that it is divisible.
>God wouldn't need to change (assuming change meant philosophically, as in his approach to problem solving) though a deeper argument could be made about reality and existence in this way
to do some of the things we describe of God, he would need to change no? For example going from having not created to having created, is a change.
>so reality being tangible is God being tangible.
the conflation of God with reality is interesting, because you said God doesn't need to change,yet reality is constantly changing.
>Many parts of God remain impossible to fathom, but we are creatures of this world so anything outside this world is by definition beyond total comprehension.
again this is God being made up of parts. some of which are comprehensible and we can describe and even debate; and others which are beyond us (like how you can't see the back of a house from the street).
>I posit God exists outside time
but clearly some parts of God must exist in time for you to be able to describe something about God at a moment in time no?

not in your response but:
I found the statement that God exists simultaneously in the past, present and future to be weird - it seems like an absurd statement like 'god can make a 3 sided square' - since the past and future are by definition a different time to the present.

>>20306266
God is above time, it doesn’t affect him.
Or at the very least, he’s above our concept of time.

>>20306297
so there are two alternatives: one is that God exists completely separately to time, and so there is no time at which he could create, or be described.

the other is that God encapsulates all times, but the problem is that by our definitions of time, he cannot simultaneously encapsulate the present and the future as the present and future are by definition distinct and not simultaneous.

obviously the third solution is 'just ignore the meanings of words, don't think about it too hard' - but that's a trivial solution right?

>>20306107
>anglicans are gay
>humble small protestant churches aren't impressive enough
>mary worshiping orthodox are to ethnic
>might as well worship mary at the catholic one

>>20306330
I wouldn’t necessarily be against a humble Protestant Church, but then which one?
I think all Churches should be humble, not flaunting wealth in any way, but what I do want in a church are priests (men) that actually care about tradition, the faith, worshipping God, being good, and not the church being just a social club or gay propaganda hub.

>>20306140
>What if the men present during the first 200 years of the Church were wrong about some things?
Extremely unlikely. People don't seem to realize how little time 200 years is for heresy or error to "creep in." For it to be true, you'd have to say that either St. John the Evangelist, his disciple St. Polycarp whom he taught everything, or Polycarp's disciple St. Irenaeus whom he taught everything John had taught him, the latter two who spent their lives hunting down any traces of heterodoxy trying to form in a Church that, itself, was so conservative in its orthodoxy that even the smell of "innovation" or ideas that weren't directly sourced from the Apostles was rejected, had introduced the heresies and that literally nobody in that hyper-paranoid time of orthodoxy noticed. Unless you believe that St. John, St. Polycarp, or St. Irenaeus (the man who literally wrote the book "Against Heresies" against all the actual heresies) somehow got away with the biggest crime in all of history, then we know that before AD 200, the unanimous Christian belief, sourced from the apostles, was in favor of things like baptismal regeneration, real presence in the Eucharist, bishops actually having authority, etc. Later RCC doctrines can and should be scrutinized to see where they have their roots, but it's simply a fact that certain Protestant denominations who reject things such as baptismal regeneration are literally at odds with what the apostles passed down just one generation later.

>>20306266
It is divisible in the classical sense that arms may be removed from a person, but metaphorically speaking you could not separate the Holy Spirit from God.
>For example going from having not created to having created, is a change.
Potentially, though it is difficult to fathom how "long" God may have waited to begin creation. How many units of what counts for existence outside of time passed by before God said "hey how about some people that'd be cool"
I suppose that is a state of attitudinal change, which may or may not fit your own definitions
>the conflation of God with reality is interesting, because you said God doesn't need to change, yet reality is constantly changing.
Reality is operating within established parameters, again definitions here are a bitch because the cycle of ground water to evaporation to rain is a change of form but not of essence. If the rain turned into legal documents then a change of essence occurs, but even that asinine example is lacking in metaphorical weight.
>some of which are comprehensible and we can describe and even debate
It is difficult, like seeing the face of a clock and "knowing" what "time" it is, even as there are many moving parts to bring you the "time". We know the parts exist, and that they are working to form a complete clock, but then the debate on what constitutes a clock begins. Is a clock a clock if it is missing a piece? Is a clock only a clock if it can tell time? What if the clock tells time but does not tell the "right" time? What if a clock tells the time in Australia but not the time in America? What if you cannot read a clock, does it stop telling the correct time? Is a clock a good clock because it tells the time you want (you're not running late at all!) or the time you need? (you're 20 minutes late!)

I would say reality as it exists depends on God being intact, that is, not missing parts or pieces. If God could lose the Holy Spirit, then God would never have needed the Holy Spirit to exist at all, which meant God could not have ever lost the Holy Spirit.

It is recursive and acausal, but I ascribe such features to God inherently. I am aware it can seem an awful convenience to have my cake and eat it too, that is:
A. God is good because
B. God is good because
C. God is....

>>20306140
A better question is where is there any evidence of their bs in the first 200 to 450 years. You can't find their liturgies or an office of mediating priesthood or many other things.

I'd stick around for the lovely discussing but I need to go tend my garden and get some more raised beds put in.
Another round of storms coming in and if I don't do it now it'll be a week before it's dry again.
Hopefully the thread is still around afterwards but if not thanks for the conversation and God bless

>>20306488
I've got my raised beds ready for planting. Protestant work ethic.

>>20290322
Ecclesiaates, I find it does well to paint a picture conveying the temporary reality of life, comparing it to what's really important

What do you guys think about the years in Genesis?
Is the bible an alchemical book?

>>20306565
yes, read the Zohar to understand the Torah

>>20306565
If you mean the dates, then I can't comment. I do now subscribe to the theory that the extremely old ages (le 900 year old man) are clan lifespans, which matches the cultural context of the time.

Why is Catholicism the only denomination that sees the KJV as merely a “Protestant” Bible?

>>20296987
>"In pre-modern times half of all children died."
>that genius universal salvation plan I thought up.. yeah, it's not for them!

>>20307396
Because it was created by the Anglican Protestants and thus is, by definition, a "Protestant" Bible, or at least an "Anglican" Bible. By your logic, the Douay-Rheims isn't a "Catholic" Bible because, due to its pre-schism source, Eastern Orthodox have no issue with it besides it being a translation of a translation and as such some use it. KJV users dunking on the Rheims of course is silly considering the Rheims NT was a source for the KJV NT, as their own translators admit in their journals and minutes.

>>20305646
Christian theology doesn't say you need to divide the essence to distinguish the persons

>>20306350
>People don't seem to realize how little time 200 years is for heresy or error to "creep in."
Funny how the Papist uses arguments that would be easily refused if he actually read the book he purports to espouse. Revelations and Paul's letters refer to wayward Christian sects, including at least one from memory which John considered to be heretical.

>>20307396
Like most cults, including the Jehovah's Witnesses, it's important for Papists to control what information its members receive by providing mutilated "approved" translations. Remember, they kept the Bible in a dead language for a millennia and literally burned hundreds of people alive for trying to make a readable copy.

>>20308232
>Revelations and Paul's letters refer to wayward Christian sects, including at least one from memory which John considered to be heretical.
Those sects were (You), btw.
>Remember, they kept the Bible in a dead language for a millennia
TIL the official language of the country was dead when everyone spoke it.
>literally burned hundreds of people alive for trying to make a readable copy.
Nope. Your fake history is just as real as your NWT Bible.

>>20308241
>removes 7 books from the Bible

Can this be trusted?

>>20308433
It's a fine translation but the publisher fucked up on the notes and on the layout, so I wouldn't use it. eg. it still contains some notes talking about the text from the JB/NJB that was replaced in the RNJB, but because the RNJB editor just copy-pasted, they didn't notice and as such the note makes no sense. The RNJB was a rush-job created to compete with the ESV-CE for the British lectionary, and it lost out, so it basically faded away instantly until the Irish decided to pick it up for their new lectionary instead of the ESV-CE, thus reviving it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54kxnLeRVpk
Take a look at 33:57 in the above video for an example of the note mismatch problem. A commenter from 10 months ago apparently forwarded this information to the published and it was received, but whether the issues have been corrected or not, I can't say. The notes are secular and text-critical, so if by trusted you mean is the RNJB "faithful," then no. It's basically a British/Irish NRSV.

>>20308433
Only if you love Satan because that's Catholic.

What about this?

>>20308621
Only if you love Satan because that's Jews.

>>20308621
The scholarship is worthwhile, and I've heard it praised in previous Bible threads here, though obviously not as your main Bible NT. There are similar "Jewish annotated" editions of the OT, but if you want the best "Jewish annotated" OT in English, that's gonna be Alter.

No idea which Bible to get.

Every translation has problems, added verses, missing books, translated by who knows with whatever agenda, and no agreement on which manuscripts should be used as the foundational text.

How is this the work of a God?

>>20308433
>study boble
Lol no

>>20308665
>translations of works aren't perfect and are influenced by the translator
Congratulations, you just discovered the problem with translations of every document and book ever written that was translated into a new language.

>>20308701
And? I thought this was supposed to be the inspired voice of God and he is not the author of confusion. Yet no one can agree on what the words should actually say.

>>20308708
>Yet no one can agree on what the words should actually say.
But they do. There are no significant differences between Greek NTs. Any differences that do exist can be traced to marginal notes that scribes later inserted but, since they're not in earlier manuscripts, can be marginalized, or scribal typos (such as writing "Jesus Christ" where the text actually said "Christ Jesus") that are easily identified like any other kind of typo in a text.

>>20308708
Learn Greek, Hebrew, & Aramaic retard

>>20308730
Is Aramaic retard harder to learn than Aramaic autist?

>>20290330
>thinking it's all about physical movements and positions
NGMI. You have a long way to go.

>>20308734
Both equally easy since you're a retard and an autist

>>20308725
Wrong

Because of newly found manuscripts, modern translations are putting "Jesus" in place of "Lord", which is actually referring to Yahweh/Jehovah.

>ESV, Jude 1:5
>Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

Really, Jesus saved them out of Egypt? Jesus didn't exist yet in the Old Testament.

>LSB, Exodus 12:41
>And it happened at the end of 430 years, to the very day, that all the hosts of Yahweh went out from the land of Egypt.

So who saved them? Jesus or Yahweh? No, they're not the same.

>>20305302
you should read the Bible

>>20308267
>Those sects were (You), btw.
Where does Paul refer to an infallible Pope ruling as an autocrat?
>TIL
gb2r

>>20308307
They were added incorrectly in the first place, they weren't part of the Hebrew Bible.

>>20308770
>No, they're not the same.
Yes, they are, because Yahweh had become flesh in the form of Jesus. The variant makes no change to the text, and is supported by the Latin tradition. These "new manuscripts" are clearly not that new because Jerome had them, hence why the Rheims NT of 1582 reads
>I will therefore admonish you, though ye once knew all things, that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, did afterwards destroy them that believed not:
Last I checked, something used in 1582 and widely disseminated clearly can't be "new" to us.

>>20308860
>They were added incorrectly in the first place, they weren't part of the Hebrew Bible.
Stop sucking off the Pharisees. The books were in the Apostolic OT and were compiled into the Holy Bible of Christianity. Go become an Orthodox Jew if you care so much about what Christ-killers decided was suddenly "canonical" at the same "council" where they rejected the Gospels.

>>20308866
>Yes, they are, because Yahweh had become flesh in the form of Jesus.

>>20308877
At the time Christ was alive, the Apocrypha were not in the Hebrew Bible. They are fan fic added by Greeks and never intended to be canon.

>>20308994
>At the time Christ was alive, the Apocrypha were not in the Hebrew Bible.
At the time Christ was alive, there was no closed canon to the Hebrew Bible. The Sadducees only had 5 books, others had many more books. The Apostles read the Greek and the Hebrew and viewed both as valid.
>They are fan fic added by Greeks
*They are Scriptures added by Greek-speaking Jews centuries before Christ, accepted by the Apostles and Jesus, and therefore God.
>never intended to be canon
Tell that to the Apostolic Church, which disagrees with you. The Jews didn't settle their "canon" until after Christ's Church was established, and after that point nobody cares what they have to say because they were no longer the keepers of God's word.

>>20309031
>Tell that to the Apostolic Church, which disagrees with you
Jerome didn't disagree.

>>20308878
>confusing ousia and hypostasis

Presbyterians represent.

>>20309150
They certainly do a good job of representing degeneracy in their churches these days.
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/06/18/ohio-church-holds-drag-queen-storytime-during-service/1487171001/

Just like the Anglicans, they are a dead denomination at this point.

>>20291440
Why?

>>20309031
>They are Scriptures added by Greek-speaking Jews centuries before Christ, accepted by the Apostles and Jesus, and therefore God.
Peter probably pissed in the street, do you think God wants everyone to piss in the street? The Apostles were human, and couldn't have known that the actual Hebrew Bible (which they couldn't read) had been added to in the Greek translation. And besides, most of the books aren't that old, only 1-2 centuries BC. The Book of Daniel was added even later

>>20309247
Weird thing to say, in my country Presbyterianism is the most conservative version of Christianity by far.

>>20309247
>dude just be a tradcath lmao
No

I got CS Lewis' Surprised By Joy. I hope it will cure me.

>>20309755
What country is that? I have only ever seen bad things come out of the presbyterians.
>>20309773
I'm not a trad-cath. Rejecting the satanic influences of modernity does not make one a trad-cath. But I do think that most denominations these days should learn from them.

Are you honestly defending drag queen story time as part of a church service?

>>20309807
Australia. The progressives joined the Uniting Church (primarily Methodist) and ran it into the ground so hard that it's smaller than Islam now. Meanwhile Presbyterianism is growing.

>>20309821
Why are you X denomination and why aren’t you catholic?
Answer in point form.

>>20310087
I'm Anglican because I love catholicism and apostolism but I don't love Papism and I'm still not completely sold on Mary's perpetual virginity.

>>20310108
I want to say why without me needing to ask why again.
Socratic Dialogue could be a lot more efficient.

1 Timothy 2:12
>But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
This destroys the Anglican.

>And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This annihilates the Papist.

John 14:6
>Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
This pwns the new ager.

>>20310172
I don't agree with the alleged Biblical justifications of the Pope and I certainly don't agree with the fairly recent decision to make his actions infallible. I prefer the Orthodox and Anglican general alignment to overwhelming personal authority.

>>20310202
Paul circumcised Timothy. Why don't Papists circumcised their kids?

>>20310087
>why aren’t you catholic?
Hello I am different anon but I would like to provide my own answer.
>because Papism is wrong (see >>20310214 )
>because Thomism is wrong, has sloppy metaphysics and epistemology, and contradicts other and better writers such as Saint Maximus the Confessor
>because RCs believe in heresies such as death before the fall and evolution
>because the Vatican is full of Satanic pedos, Jesuits, Freemasons, Illuminati, and so on
>because the pope is a liberal globalist and prays with Jews and Muslims
>because RC church have become homo enablers
>because I do not worship Mary

>>20310255
I am that anon and I disagree with every point except the first and 3rd.

>>20310264
Explain.
Also I just thought of another reason.
>because RC church is telling everyone to get the covid "vaccine" which is part of the Satanic globalist agenda

>>20310270
Thomism is pretty solid. Adam and Eve didn't live in heaven as the first humans but in the Persian Gulf as the first Christians. The fallibility of the humans in a human organisation does not undermine the purpose of the organisation. And they don't worship Mary.

>>20310277
Thomas Aquinas's ideas were already proven wrong by better philosophers who lived before Thomas Aquinas was even born. Such as Saint Maximus the Confessor for example.
Also Aquinas was fat.

>>20310277
You are saying that God created death. That is wrong! Death is a result of sin. When Adam and Eve fell it corrupted all of creation. There was no sickness or death prior to the fall. The animals would have lived forever. This also is one reason why we know that evolution is wrong.

>>20310287
Maximus the Confessor is in full agreement with Aquinas and defended the Pope against the heretical Bishop of Constantinople, and was martyred for it. Try again Orthocuck.

>>20310304
I am not in the Orthodox Church and also Maximus showed that a human soul did not exist eternally since the beginning of creation; it is created at the same moment that the body is created in the womb, and he also showed that there was no death before the fall. This is all in the book On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. Also Maximus was against some aspects of Aristotelianism that Aquinas liked, and in some ways was closer to Platonism (but he certainly was not strictly Platonic either and he criticized some aspects of Platonism as well).

>>20291650
the 3d animation is horrible - nice infographic though

>>20310295
This is nonsense.

Putting aside theology and emphasising sociology, does Mary in Catholicism act as realpolitik to attract more women to the church as opposed to Protestantism?

God must have a sense of humor to only show himself to 0.0001% of people and demand everyone to believe in him or else

>>20309774
had Mere Christianity yet? quite good.

>>20310858
>how dare God not show Himself unless i search for Him with all my heart (Jeremiah 29:13)?

>>20310858
> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

> Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God.

> Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

>>20310858
That percentage is too high, paynim.

>>20310887
me and you know this, but the millions of people who never got to hear the gospel don't, neither does everyone who died as a fetus or before the age of reason

>>20310858
If he made his presence certain, there would be no room for faith.

>>20311019
why should we be expected to take a leap of faith in such a basic matter? many will honestly
look at the world and decide it doesn't make sense for God to arrange things like this and will live immoral lives as a result. if everyone got to experience the road to Damasus incident themselves, there still would be room for testing our loyalty to God in this world, see: first humans, the pharisees, angels

>>20311007
Luke 12:48 for the ones who didn't; they will be judged based on what they had; as Romans 2:15 says, they already have the Law in their hearts (which is what we call morality).
As for the little ones, it stands to reason they'd be free from sin, and therefore saved, yes?

>>20310087
Because Presbyterians rule and Papists drool.

>>20311179
Aren't Presbyterians Calvinist or something? That sounds retarded.

>>20311265

New thread, mates.

>>20311195
Yes they are. Does it sound retarded? Read Calvin.

>>20290845
>cults
What does this word mean to most people? We never should have stopped using heiroglyphics.

>>20296068
Intuition is a valid form of thought