Bible Thread

[Anonymous No.19926140]

Previous: >>19911001

[Anonymous No.19926141]

First for fun.

[Anonymous No.19926150]

Go to >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.19926282]

First for heterosexual adult male Christian.

[Anonymous No.19926875]

My Humble Lamb Bible arrived today. It's incredibly nice. I got the edge lined NKJV.

[Anonymous No.19926906]

>>19926875
Nice. My copy of Alter's Hebrew Bible arrived today, and it's massive.

[Anonymous No.19927008]

my Exodus reading continued...
To really underline just how tldr God's Tabernacle instructions were, it turns out that Moses was up the mountain listening for so long that those peabrained Israelites had begun to worship a golden calf instead of God. Everything he's done, the parting of the sea, the saving them from Egypt, all of it forgotten. So God is on the verge of a major chimpout, he tells Moses he's just kill 'em all this time, but Moses intercedes and saves their skins... but then has several thousand of them slaughtered as punishment.
also, while Moses was still up the mountain, God said
>Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you
>Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
>Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
I used to HATE working Sundays, I knew I was right.

[Anonymous No.19927158]

Zelda is Christian. The Triforce was supposed to be representative of the Holy Trinity.

[Anonymous No.19928179]

I need teach myself to fast so the only thing I ever eat is communion.

[Anonymous No.19928707]

>>19928179
>Nestle-Aland
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19928721]

accidentally posted in old thread last night but I finished the OT and the prophetic books filtered me hard bros… i think it was the combination of schizo ramblings and all the allusions to places and people and them being all over the place chronologically and the disjointed nature of many of the books

[Anonymous No.19928748]

>>19928721
>and them being all over the place chronologically and the disjointed nature of many of the books
This is why you should've been reading either using a BIAY guide or chronological guide. Don't tell me you read all 150 Pslams in one go, did you?

[Anonymous No.19928764]

>>19928748
i read the psalms along with the NT, i did a few a day

[Anonymous No.19928847]

>>19928721
>schizo ramblings

[Anonymous No.19928900]

>>19928707
I will not apologize for my faith.

[Anonymous No.19928993]

>>19928847
that’s right

[Anonymous No.19929039]

>>19928993
Enjoy being among the scoffers who didn't listen because of your worldly normie orientation.
>>19928900
Faith in what, textual critical science?

[Anonymous No.19929076]

>>19929039
if a man came up to you on the street and started telling you about his apocalyptic visions you’d call it schizo ramblings

[Anonymous No.19929081]

>>19929076
Wrong, I'd say right on brother it's coming.

[Anonymous No.19929093]

>>19929081
Based

[Anonymous No.19929457]

>>19927008
The sabbath is Saturday, Sunday is the Lord's day

[Anonymous No.19930127]

>>19928900
Apologize for not getting the Tyndale House GNT instead.

[Anonymous No.19930274]

>>19930127
>any Greek is superior to the celestial angelic of the KJB

[Anonymous No.19930323]

>>19929039
>Faith in what, textual critical science?
Yes

>>19930127
No

[Anonymous No.19930482]

>>19929457
Where do you see sunday being called the lord's day in the bible?

[Anonymous No.19931331]

>>19928179
Get more.

[Anonymous No.19931346]

>>19928179
That's called suicide by starvation.

[Anonymous No.19931605]

Prospective Catholic here: why am I supposed to read the Bible if I'm not allowed to interpret or think about the Bible?

[Anonymous No.19931630]

>>19931605
To learn about your own religion?

[Anonymous No.19931671]

>>19931630
But reading the Bible is learning about Protestant religion.

[Anonymous No.19931685]

>>19931605
If you really are a prospective Catholic, you should stop letting your beliefs be dictated to you from people who aren't Catholic and dislike it.
Like, what even is this question? Why should you read the Bible if you're not allowed to interpret or think about it? There is no rule against either, that's a Protestant meme.
It would be like saying "I'm a prospective Christian. Why should I follow Jesus if He isn't the Messiah?"
Or, "I'm a prospective religious person. Why should I worship God if He doesn't exist?"
There is no way to really properly answer your question

[Anonymous No.19931691]

>>19931671
The Bible existed and was read for 1200 years before the "Protestant religion" existed.

[Anonymous No.19931693]

>>19931691
Longer than that.
Genesis was written around 1000 BC
Luther didn't shit out his new religion until 1500 AD

[Anonymous No.19931694]

>>19931685
>>19931691
The point is that reading the Bible provides me with a different rule to live by than asking a Catholic priest.

[Anonymous No.19931704]

>>19931685
>dictated
Catholics are the ones who try to *dictate*, we just inform people of how Scripture btfos Catholics.

[Anonymous No.19931719]

>>19931704
>Catholicism btfos Catholics
What did he mean by this?

[Anonymous No.19931732]

I just read Luke 18:19 and Jesus basically said He wasn't God. What am I to make of this? Arent they one and the same?

[Anonymous No.19931743]

>buy a resource from a Protestant publisher
>Printed in China
>buy a resource from a Catholic publisher
>Printed in the USA/Italy/Netherlands/Philippines
What am I to make of this?

[Anonymous No.19931746]

>>19931694
You cant discuss the Bible with your priest?

[Anonymous No.19931750]

>>19931743
Protestant work ethic is all about profit.

[Anonymous No.19931761]

>>19931750
>Protestant work ethic is all about using slave labor from atheists.
Based?

[Anonymous No.19931764]

>>19931743
>buy a resource from a Protestant publisher
>is Christian
buy a resource from a Catholic publisher
>is Satanic

[Anonymous No.19931769]

>>19931764
>printed by Chinese communists
>Christian
okay mao

[Anonymous No.19931789]

>>19931769
Not one of mine are printed anywhere but the USA. Freedom fries for me thanks.

[Anonymous No.19931913]

>>19931671
>>19931694
One day catholics claim authorship over the bible because they """compiled""" it, next day they refuse to read it because it's "too protestant"...

Crazy how far you can get from God when you read the Roman Talmud (Catechism) and let silly men in robes interpret the Word of God for you

[Anonymous No.19931946]

>>19928179
fasting before eucharist is not obligatory
>>19928900
faith =/= textual source worship
>>19929457
>>19930482
sabbath obligation is abolished. new obligation is on sunday and is only obligatory by decree of the Church.
>>19931605
catholicism allows extensive leeway in personal biblical interpretation in everything but regard to core doctrine
>>19931694
there is no way to interpret the bible in a vacuum aka by oneself. at least doctrinially.
>>19931732
ἀγαθός refers to the power that comes from God the father, the power to have authority (this is the authority the son co-eternally "submits" to). the question has a subtext of "what must i do to have the ἀγαθός of god" - jesus rebukes him and says that is alone proper to god (ie there is a clear divide between what god can do and what man can do)
>>19931743
who cares

[Anonymous No.19931955]

>>19931913
the Church strongly encourages personal biblical devotion

[Anonymous No.19931962]

>>19931913
>Crazy how far you can get from God when you
Pray to demons disguised as Mary and saints.

[Anonymous No.19931991]

>>19931946
>catholicism allows extensive leeway in personal biblical interpretation in everything but regard to core doctrine
What precisely is core doctrine? Obviously I believe in the Trinity and the crucifixion and so on, but if I thought the Bible doesn't say anything specifically against gays and permits non-procreative sex acts between spouses, does that mean I can't be Catholic?

[Anonymous No.19932027]

>>19931946
>who cares about giving money to those who persecute Christians

[Anonymous No.19932033]

>>19931946
This is a minor point, but fasting before Communion is obligatory. The fast, however, is only required to be an hour before receiving, so unless you are in the habit of eating your pop-tarts on the way to Mass, the rule is comically negligible.

[Anonymous No.19932080]

>>19932033
>The fast, however, is only required to be an hour before receiving, so unless you are in the habit of eating your pop-tarts on the way to Mass, the rule is comically negligible.
Also, since it is usually given about 40 minutes into mass, unless you live next door to the church and just had breakfast or ate within 20 minutes of walking in the church, it's also negligible, because a 10-15 minute drive is enough of a buffer.

[Anonymous No.19932085]

>>19932033
I believe under the 1964 CCC addendum the obligation can be waived by bishops in their own diocese, if youre in the usa there's a high chance you live in a diocese with a waived obligation. it's still a good devotional practice however
>>19932027
you support 100s of oppressive companies and countries everyday through the supply chain. for example, if you consume coffee or chocolate or use any rubber products today there's a high chance it was produced with slave labor. we're not obligated to avoid such things as they are far too complex to be taken as an individual responsibility.
>>19931991
there are two sources of core doctrine: sacred scripture and sacred tradition.

btw the bible does condemn homosexuality (see paul) and permits non procreative sex (see paul, marry lest lust overtake you, etc). ofc sola scriptura is false so catholics dont need to rely on the bible alone for doctrine.

[Anonymous No.19932092]

>>19932085
>ofc sola scriptura is false so catholics dont need to rely on the bible alone for doctrine.
This is literally what I'm talking about. Catholics don't believe in non-procreative sex, but the Bible does.

[Anonymous No.19932141]

>>19932092
>Catholics don't believe in non-procreative sex
incorrect. catechism says sex has 2 purposes: procreation and bonding. what do you think natural family planning is? it is licit to have sex for pleasure so long as the telos of the act is not violated and if you do it in the infertile period the telos is intact even though there's no possibility of pregnancy.

also there's other "licit" sex with does not violate the telos of the act and can be done purely for bonding. cunnilingus and nipple play are two example. the line between objectifying lust and licit bonding sex is left to the determination of the couple.

[Anonymous No.19932169]

>>19932141
I want to have sex with my wife in the fertile period using contraception, and have sex with her non-vaginally. These are all ways my wife and I have bonded in the decade prior to our discovery of Christianity. I'm pretty sure Catholics don't permit that even though Proverbs 5 and 1 Corinthians 7 say to take joy in your wife's sexuality.

[Anonymous No.19932180]

>>19932085
>you support 100s of oppressive companies and countries everyday through the supply chain. for example, if you consume coffee or chocolate or use any rubber products today there's a high chance it was produced with slave labor. we're not obligated to avoid such things as they are far too complex to be taken as an individual responsibility.
And yet you're comparing that to Bible production when there exist publishers, both Catholic and Protestant, who still print in non-communist countries without slave labor. All someone has to do is avoid Crossway, Zondervan, and Thomas Nelson, and they're in the clear. That's not hard.

[Anonymous No.19932218]

>>19932169
>I want to have sex with my wife in the fertile period using contraception
desiring something =/= it is licit
contraception violates the telos of the act, both materially and spiritually. human beings are both physical and spiritual, read fides et ratio and more on theology of the body.
>and have sex with her non-vaginally
this is licit, depends exactly what you're doing and your motivation behind the act, it would be case by case. same with things like sex toys, there's no universally applicably binding law because the act itself remains intact.
>these are all ways my wife and I have bonded
if you are using contraception you are actually limiting your bonding. couples who practice NFP have a 0.03% divorce rate (sorce georgetown study of married catholics). this is very statistically significant wrt the normal divorce rate for catholics. nfp promotes communication, self-control, and boding bt the couple. limitation is inherent to human desire, to deny otherwise is to equate the kingdom of heaven with "that which has been given to satanas" (see the temptation in the desert)

>>19932180
you're free to buy what you wish, but there's no moral obligation to boycott certain things/countries etc. in the traditionally sense of obligation. whats more important, cheap mass production of bibles? or sourcing of labor? no correct answer there.

[Anonymous No.19932255]

Catholics and "Orthodox™"
>muh fast before Eucharist
Paul
>eat at home before you do the Lord Supper so you don't come and eat too much
Implying also not just a wafer or cube and sip.
>muh we are the original church
BTFO

[Anonymous No.19932265]

>>19932255
>muh fast before Eucharist
yes
>eat at home before you do the Lord Supper so you don't come and eat too much
yes
>correct

Glad you've stopped being historically ignorant.

[Anonymous No.19932268]

>>19932255
agape love feast of believers =/= sacramental priestly eucharist instituted by Christ

[Anonymous No.19932278]

>>19932218
So literally what I said: Catholics have made it illicit to do what is encouraged in the Bible.

[Anonymous No.19932286]

>>19932278
where does it say in the bible does it "encourage" contraception and having anal sex? if it's not the bible, it's not allowed, right? you realize contraceptive and anal sex was not legally considered "sexual activity between a man and woman" under roman law right (and paul was a roman)? why do you think that is?

[Anonymous No.19932302]

>>19932286
>Proverbs 5:18–19: Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
>1 Corinthians 7:5: Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. 1 >Corinthians 7:3-4: Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
Sure contraception is neither explicitly permitted nor denied in the Bible, but sexual pleasure through the full use of spouses' bodies is encouraged.

[Anonymous No.19932309]

>>19932268
>this is how we retconned

[Anonymous No.19932319]

>>19932309
cope

>>19932302
answer the question: why was it that both contraceptive and anal sex were not legally considered "sexual activity between a man and woman"? could it be perhaps because ancient moral systems recognized such sexual activity was not in fact "rejoicing in the wife of thy youth" (see quiver full of arrows in psalms aka referring to progeny as "blessing" wrt marriage)?

>Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence
this means do not use your wife or husbands body in a manner of sex which is not fitting to the marital state you are in aka sex that was really frotting or sodomy ie non reproductive sex which, teleologically ,*cannot* be proper to that sacramental state

[Anonymous No.19932325]

>>19932319
I have no need to cope, I'm not in a Satanic Babylonian counterfeit "Church™".

[Anonymous No.19932335]

r8 my Bible

[Anonymous No.19932357]

>>19932319
>why was it that both contraceptive and anal sex were not legally considered "sexual activity between a man and woman"?
It could be that contraceptives weren't easily available or there was an incentive to have a lot of children, and I never mentioned anal sex. This, like your other quote regarding the meaning of "benevolence", is a context which is open to interpretation. Rubbing yourself off on your wife's breasts wasn't considered "sexual activity between a man and a woman" but Proverbs 5:19 encourages it in the most obvious interpretation.

[Anonymous No.19932385]

>>19932335
Show cover and spine.

[Anonymous No.19932387]

>>19932335
girl bedspread/10

>>19932357
you have a rudimentary understanding of catholic sexual ethics. it's significantly more "pleasure oriented" than you realize, however it is based in scholastic understanding of the nature of action. it's difficult to explain or justify here as it is essentially based in an aristotelian/thomistic philosophy which was abandoned by the protestants and never adopted by the orthodox. suffice to say catholics don't rely on the bible alone for doctrine so the points you're raising are frankly irrelevant, im just pointing out how by your own logic sola scriptura itself is not clear on what is and is not acceptable wrt to sex. search catholic.com for "sola scriptura" if you want more info.

i highly recommend you read humanae vitae and the execellent commentary "why humanae vitae is still right" if youre interesting in understanding the logic behind what is and isnt christian wrt to sex.

[Anonymous No.19932536]

>>19932387
>you have a rudimentary understanding of catholic sexual ethics.
I don't disagree, in fact Catholic ethics in general is something I'm attempting to look into at the moment. I'm not normally a strict Protestant but my initial points here >>19931605 >>19931694 isn't just that the Bible is still important despite not believing in sola scriptura myself, but that rules determined from external teachings shouldn't conflict with it. In my view, the prohibition on matrimonial sexual pleasures conflicts with the passages I mentioned here >>19932302 and I'm not sure what logic could justify such a prohibition.

>i highly recommend you read humanae vitae and the execellent commentary "why humanae vitae is still right"
Before or after I read the Catechism? Right now I'm reading Augustine, my backlog is immense.

[Anonymous No.19932539]

>>19932387
>catholics don't rely on the bible alone for doctrine
that's right. what does pachamama say about sexuality?

[Anonymous No.19932661]

>>19931946
>sabbath obligation is abolished. new obligation is on sunday and is only obligatory by decree of the Church.
You value the word of your church's leaders over the Word of God.

You did not answer my question either. >>19930482

[Anonymous No.19932663]

>>19932661

[Anonymous No.19932667]

>>19932663

[Anonymous No.19932671]

>>19932667

[Anonymous No.19932676]

>>19932671

[Anonymous No.19932786]

>>19932255
This is actually a problem for Protestants and not Catholics/Orthodox. There are not explicit directions given in Scripture on how these things are meant to occur, so the Protestant has to basically make it up based on the sparse details that Scripture provides. Catholics/Orthodox have a Church that can make rulings on how these things are to ordered and can actually exercise the power of binding/loosing.

[Anonymous No.19932796]

>>19932536
Anon, sodomy is evil. It is not good or acceptable for anyone to engage in. If you do this to your wife you are defiling and abusing her body. If this is your reason for not becoming Catholic then you are a child of Satan.

[Anonymous No.19932799]

>>19932796
See
>>19932357
>I never mentioned anal sex
It doesn't bring us closer so we don't do it. That said, I don't think that's necessarily true of all couples, but it's not relevant to my personal situation.

[Anonymous No.19932807]

>>19932799
It is objectively evil and is always wrong no matter who is doing it or for what purpose. This is one of the primary reasons that you should not be interpreting Scripture for yourself. You ultimately will just use it as a mirror to justify the things that you want to do. The authority isn't actually Scripture but yourself.

[Anonymous No.19932823]

>>19932255
kek get a load of these words of timeless wisdom from virtuous holy man™

[Anonymous No.19932829]

Simeon the Holy Fool was like a Christian Diogenes the Cynic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simeon_the_Holy_Fool

[Anonymous No.19932846]

>>19931331
I do got the Rahlfs and a different version of the W&H. They are holy books.

[Anonymous No.19932882]

>>19932807
Okay anon, so what is your authority that tittyfucking your wife is wrong, and how does it refute Proverbs 5:19?

[Anonymous No.19932912]

>>19932882
>Okay anon, so what is your authority that tittyfucking your wife is wrong
The Church, by whose apostolic authority it is taught that any sexual act which does not terminate in a manner open to procreation is sin.
>and how does it refute Proverbs 5:19?
There's nothing to refute. Your interpretation of the verse is simply wrong. Firstly, taking the literal meaning of "breast", you have read your preferred sex act into the verse, which does not state such a thing. Secondly, the Hebrew may be read as indicating love or affection, as the breast was perceived as the seat of such emotions. You are engaging in a common act of ignorance in which you equate your interpretation of the verse with the supposed "plain meaning" of the verse.

[Anonymous No.19932933]

>>19932912
>by whose apostolic authority
But the Apostles didn't say anything about tittyfucking.

[Anonymous No.19932963]

>>19932933
Given your vulgar language and how vacuous this objection is, I am doubting the sincerity of your concern over this topic.

[Anonymous No.19933006]

>>19932933
The Apostles were perfectly adamant when stating that all adulterers and fornicators get the rope.

[Anonymous No.19933045]

>>19933006
Fornication is pre-marital sex, not non-procreative sex.

>>19932963
The thing is that we're talking at side angles. I don't see where Scripture prohibits non-procreative marital sex, but the Catholic Church teaches that it's bad because it's unnatural and therefore an affront to God, a line of argument I can't really understand.

[Anonymous No.19933098]

>>19933045
Marriage is something known as a "type". It is a foreshadowing or prefiguration which is fulfilled by something which comes later. This concept is used explicitly in scripture, for instance here:
>Rom. 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Now, as Adam was a "type" of Christ, marriage is a "type" of the Church:
>Eph. 5:31-32 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church.
This means that marriage is not a thing itself, but something that exists in reference to the Church. As in marriage the husband and wife become one flesh, so in the Church the faithful and Christ become one body (1 Cor. 12:12-13). So this union has a "telos" or an ultimate end. It a purpose within itself, and functions properly in accord with this purpose. So the purpose of marriage is the life-giving union of husband and wife in prefiguration of the life-giving union of Christ and the Church. And sex is something that properly functions only within marriage. Sex also is not something that exists unto itself, but has an end, which is to be the means by which life is created in marriage. So sexual acts that do not function according to this end are disordered. They exist unto themselves.

[Anonymous No.19933116]

>>19933045
Even holding hands, inappropriate conversation, and certain types of eye contact is fornication. We crucify the flesh and earthly desires for luxury and comfort along with it, in order to rise with the Spirit. How can you be born again if you haven’t first died to the world?

Go ahead reap what you sew anon

[Anonymous No.19933125]

>>19933098
Where can I read about this?

>>19933116
I agree, according to the logic of the post above yours.

[Anonymous No.19933155]

>>19933125
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P55.HTM

[Anonymous No.19933215]

>>19933155
The Catechism? I'll bump it up my reading list and stop asking questions then... though isn't it longer than the New Testament?

[Anonymous No.19933303]

>>19933215
I don't know of a specific resource about the typology of marriage, it's something that I've learned about from various things. I was just pointing you to those two sections, not really telling you to read the entire thing (which is indeed long).

[Anonymous No.19933355]

>>19933303
Can I keep listening to Burzum if I become Catholic? What about reading Harry Potter? Some kids I once knew got in trouble at their Catholic school for reading it.

[Anonymous No.19933358]

What does this mean, Protestant bros?

1 John 5:16-17
If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

[Anonymous No.19933387]

>>19933355
Where is your heart at? Where is your head at? Are you for real? Do you want to be part of a Catholic community? A pagan black metal community? Or the sci-fi death cult mainstream community?
Or are you in it in order to get closer to God?
In which case listen to what he tells you in the gospel about being “wise as serpents and harmless like doves”. You are required to know how enemy moves, in order to guard yourself against him.

[Anonymous No.19933393]

>>19933355
This is a hard question. The two things you mention are rather different, as the former is directly opposed to Christianity. Will anyone actually bother you about this? I doubt it, honestly, but you never know. Should you do those things? I don't think there is anything particular to Catholicism that would bear upon this. But I can tell you that you should not be finding enjoyment in things that are clearly evil and opposed to Christ. This would apply to black metal. Harry Potter I will leave to your own conscience.

[Anonymous No.19933482]

>>19933387
>>19933393
I want to continue to enjoy the music I like, even if it's creator expresses ideas contrary to my own, or even if the music itself does through unintelligible lyrics in a dead foreign language.

[Anonymous No.19933493]

>>19933482
>I want to
>I like
>my own
Your problem

[Anonymous No.19934258]

>>19931605
Do you suppose that your flawed reasoning is superior to what Saints and the Church Fathers have to say?

[Anonymous No.19934289]

>>19931671
>>19931694
Oh I see, so when you called yourself a "prospective Catholic" you were just lying. Got it

[Anonymous No.19934405]

Not really Bible related but is reading other holy books from other religions a sin? I'm Catholic if that makes a difference

[Anonymous No.19934414]

>>19934405
Depends on why you're doing it.

[Anonymous No.19934616]

So sick of worrying about theology and institutions. But I know if I get rid of that then I'm just making shit up on my own. Oh yeah, follow the Bible, but how do I know what books are in it huh? I think I'm going to lose my faith.

[Anonymous No.19934711]

Anon, why are you so adamant about making M-F anal sex and thrusting your penis through a women's breasts unsinful?

[Anonymous No.19934736]

>>19934405
>Not really Bible related but is reading other holy books from other religions a sin?
No. The apostles were familiar with what we now consider the Greek classics--which, though not stated in their surviving writings, no doubt included stuff like the Iliad and the Odyssey--which depict and speak of the Greek gods. We also know various saints read and critiqued the Quran, most notably St. John of Damascus, and nobody would claim that action to be sinful.

[Anonymous No.19934768]

>>19934258
Christ
>call no man "Father" you have *one* Father in heaven
Catholics
>Father
>Father
>Father
>"Church Fathers"
>"Church Fathers"
>"Church Fathers"
>Pope (Papa)
>Pope (Papa)
>Pope (Papa)
He said what He did for good reason, and He meant it. If your "Tradition™" is to disregard Christ then it is a pile of dung. Your pile of dung is so high and ornate it has become as a tower of Babel.

[Anonymous No.19934792]

>>19934616
If you lose faith in such a manner then it's not much faith to begin with. The institutions are corrupted to varying degrees, the old ones severely, but they did preserve the seed through the ages, able to be replanted and grow again in the fertilizer of their dung heaps. God loves planting, sowing, growing, trees, vines, etc. It's kind of His thing. Also: Romans 8:28.

[Anonymous No.19934801]

>>19934768
Matt. 5:34-37
But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

Rom. 1:9-10
For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I mention you always in my prayers, asking that somehow by God’s will I may now at last succeed in coming to you.

Rom. 9:1-2
I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart.

2 Cor. 1:23
But I call God to witness against me—it was to spare you that I refrained from coming to Corinth.

2 Cor. 11:31
The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie.

Gal. 1:20
(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

Phil. 1:8
For God is my witness, how I yearn for you all with the affection of Christ Jesus.

Hmm...

[Anonymous No.19935106]

Just curious as to who makes up these threads
What denomination (if any) are you?
t. Baptist

[Anonymous No.19935167]

>>19935106
I've made all of them save for two since Jan. 21, the two I didn't make being Jan. 24 and Jan. 31. So, I've made all of them since Feb. 2 at this point. Catholic.

[Anonymous No.19935392]

For me, it's the Aquinas Institute.

[Anonymous No.19935396]

>>19935167

[Anonymous No.19935407]

>>19935396
My Confirmation Saint was actually Constantine, a Saint of the Eastern Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.19935426]

>>19935407
Pro tip there is no such thing as confirmation saints.

[Anonymous No.19935455]

>>19935426
Pro tip the Bible has 73 books.

[Anonymous No.19935478]

What Catholic Bibles should I start with?

[Anonymous No.19935486]

>>19935455
lol

[Anonymous No.19935500]

>>19935478
Douay and Ignatius. Then the Knox as an interpretative companion, but not as a literal translation, if you want.

[Anonymous No.19935528]

>>19935478
If you're in the USA then the Church has the following allowances:

https://www.usccb.org/offices/new-american-bible/approved-translations-bible

If you're not going to submit to the rulings of the Church then you aren't truly part of it.

[Anonymous No.19935542]

not bible direct, but commentary question
how different are the Navarre single NT version vs the single book versions?

[Anonymous No.19935576]

>>19935542
From the preface to the "The Navarre Bible: New Testament Expanded Edition."

[Anonymous No.19936017]

Catholics
>I'm Catholic
Orthodox
>I'm Orthodox
Protestant no matter what type
>I'm Christian
Neat how Christians are such a unified body in core spirit regardless of differences in minor technical opinions. I guess a lot of that unity comes from reading the Bible and believing it.

[Anonymous No.19936063]

>>19935478
the Authorized Version

[Anonymous No.19936114]

>>19936017
>JWs and Mormons are in "a unified body in core spirit regardless of differences in minor technical opinions"
Sorry, but non-trinitarians aren't Christian even if they claim to be.

[Anonymous No.19936531]

>>19936114
Neither of those are Protestant so ok.

[Anonymous No.19936612]

>>19936531
They are. And they call themselves Christian, like Protestant Christians, Orthodox Christians, and Catholic Christians do.

[Anonymous No.19936709]

>>19936612
No they aren't, Google it.

[Anonymous No.19936718]

>>19926140
Finally. Something I can wrap my head around.

[Anonymous No.19936726]

Where can I purchase old Collins Authorised KJV Bibles? My current bible is incomplete, as my brother ripped out seventy pages out of the OT.

[Anonymous No.19936731]

>>19936709
You said Protestants are Christians because they called themselves Christians.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/christians?lang=eng
>Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unequivocally affirm themselves to be Christians.
https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/are-jehovahs-witnesses-christians/
>Yes. We are Christians for the following reasons:
So by your claim, they're both Christians because they will call themselves Christians when asked. Hope you found that helpful!

[Anonymous No.19936786]

>>19935478
The Jerusalem Bible

[Anonymous No.19936787]

>>19936731
>You said Protestants are Christians because they called themselves Christians
Wrong, I said Protestants just call ourselves Christian, without a word about us being Christians simple because we call ourselves that. We're Christian because we're Christian, simple as. But Catholics and "Orthodox™" see yourselves as Catholics and "Orthodox™", so when you state your religion that's what you call it. Us, we just say Christian is our religion and then people might ask about "denominations" and such from there. Catholics and "Orthodox™" make idols of even what you call yourselves.

[Anonymous No.19936836]

>>19936787
>I said Protestants just call ourselves Christian
Right, and so do other Protestants like Mormons and JWs.

[Anonymous No.19936882]

>>19936836
No, in everyday interaction they call themselves JW and Mormon. If you walk up to one in the street and ask what their religion is that's what they respond with, just like "Catholic" and "Orthodox™". Walk up to a Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. and ask their religion and Christian is the answer you get.

[Anonymous No.19936943]

>>19936882
>No, in everyday interaction they call themselves JW and Mormon.
Mormons will call themselves Christians or Latter-day Saints/LDS, not "Mormon," so that's wrong.
>If you walk up to one in the street and ask what their religion is that's what they respond with, just like "Catholic" and "Orthodox™".
Right, Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians, like many Protestants you've listed will call themselves Evangelical Christians.
>Walk up to a Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc. and ask their religion and Christian is the answer you get.
Right, Evangelical Christian or Protestant Christian.

[Anonymous No.19936972]

>>19936943
Wrong
r
o
n
g

[Anonymous No.19937011]

>>19936972
Actually, right. Sorry about your fringe, incorrect views.

[Anonymous No.19937168]

>>19937011
>Sorry about your fringe, incorrect views
Exactly what they should have said to "saint" Jerome when he came in pushing the Mary worship mess.

[Anonymous No.19937178]

They will have it, that some five or fix thousand years ago, all that is since come to pass, was then unchangeably decreed. They lay down the way in which the Heavens and the Earth were Created ; and tell you, that Man was made of the Dust of the Earth, and the Woman out of one of his Ribs, as if God had not made her of the same Stuff ; that a Serpent tempted this Man in a Garden of Fruit- Trees to eat of an Apple, which was the occasion that the Great Spirit put his own Son to Death, on purpose to save all men. If I would say that these advances have a greater appearance of fabulousness than of truth, you would close upon me with Reasons fetch'd from your Bible : But according to your own words, this Scripture of yours had not always a Being ; the invention of it bears the date of some three thousand years ago ; and 'twas not Printed till within these four or five Centuries. Now, considering the divers events that come round in the course of several Ages, one must certainly be very credulous in giving credit to so many idle Stories as are huddled up in that great Book that the Christians would have us to believe. I have seen some of the Books that the Jesuits Writ of our Country ; and those who knew how to read 'em, explain'd to me the sense of 'em in the Language that I speak ; but I found they contain'd an infinity of Lyes and Fictions heap'd up one above another. Now, if we see with our eyes that Lyes are in Print, and that things are not represented in Paper as they really are ; how can you press me to believe the Sincerity of your Bible that was Writ so many Ages ago, and Translated out of several Languages by ignorant Men that could not reach the just Sense, or by Lyars who have alter'd, interpolated, or pared the Words you now read. I could mention several other Objections, which in the end will perhaps influence thee in some measure, to own that I have some reason to confine my Belief to such things as are visible and probable.

[Anonymous No.19937312]

>>19932536
humanae vitae is short, can be read in an hour. same with some intro books on theology of the body.
>>19932539
>pachamama
you seem obsessed with pagan deities. is this a protestant trait?
>>19932661
>>19932663
>>19932667
>>19932671
>>19932676
sola scriptura is false anyway so it doesnt matter how many schizo infographics you spam
>>19932786
exactly
>>19932807
>anal sex is objectively evil
false. this is not the orthodox catholic understanding. anal non climatic male-female sex in marriage is licit.
>Certainly there isn’t any ‘Church teaching’ about heterosexual anal intercourse at a magisterial level, but few seem to know that there is a tradition of approval of such behavior as foreplay to intercourse (not to be confused with the biblical condemnation of sodomy which replaces intercourse) by orthodox Catholic ethicists. The principle generally invoked is that consensual actions that culminate in intercourse are morally permissible as part of bonding during foreplay.
Janet E Smith
>>19932912
>>19932933
>>19932963
>The Church, by whose apostolic authority it is taught that any sexual act which does not terminate in a manner open to procreation is sin.
key word: terminate. breast play is valid as it does not have the climax as the inherent telos of the act.
>>19933006
>>19933045
>>19933116
sex within marriage cannot, by definition, be fornication. stop being a protestant puritan heretic prude.
>>19933215
the cathechism is a good "intro" but for in-depth moral answers on certain topics youll need secondary literature
>>19933355
yes.
>>19933393
music, by itself, cannot be "evil" by merit of the melody and methods of composition. lyrics can, yes. but a christian "death metal" style concerto is perfectly licit.
>>19934405
no.
>>19934616
trust the authority that compiled the canon. ie the catholic and orthodox church. doctrine precedes scripture by definition.
>>19934711
neither are sinful per se

[Anonymous No.19937332]

>>19935396
lol. there is a certain type of catholic who looks like this.
>>19935455
got em
>>19935478
the abbey psalter. nabre.
>>19935528
any translation is approved for personal study. the church allows the faithful to use their judgement.
>>19935542
the separate volumes have *way* more content.
>>19936531
both are new religious movements that are protestant in origin. the bible student movement is distinctly american protestant.
>>19937168
the catholic church assembled the bible. keep coping.

[Anonymous No.19937467]

>>19937312
So Catholics can do whatever sex acts they want in marriage as long as the husband never ejaculates except procreatively? Catholics have to practice orgasm denial? That makes it sound incredibly kinky.and honestly less good at bringing couples together.

[Anonymous No.19937488]

>>19937312
>music, by itself, cannot be "evil" by merit of the melody and methods of composition
I wont bother with the rest of your points but this is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.19937504]

>>19937312
>false. this is not the orthodox catholic understanding. anal non climatic male-female sex in marriage is licit.
There is a difference between normal foreplay and sodomy. This definition would mean that sodomy is only sodomy if it terminates as sodomy, which is nonsense. Sodomy is wrong because you're using the body in an unnatural and abusive manner.

[Anonymous No.19937540]

>>19937312
>>19937467
>>19937504
This stuff?
https://catholicism.io/2018/07/26/contra-janet-smith-on-marital-foreplay/

[Anonymous No.19937589]

>>19937540
Shouldn't be hard to figure out that sodomy is wrong, IMO. Homosexuals who engage in it frequently end up with a colostomy bag eventually.

[Anonymous No.19937595]

>>19937332
>the catholic church
loves to take credit for God's work.

[Anonymous No.19937625]

>>19931605
>I'm not allowed to interpret or think about the Bible?
Who the fuck says Catholics don't think about the Bible you sound like a shitposter

[Anonymous No.19937645]

>>19936531
Mormons absolutely latch on to being identified as "Christians" for cultural respectability even though their beliefs are pretty patently non-Christian.

[Anonymous No.19937655]

>>19937540
>What makes sexual sins intrinsically evil is any of the following: the deprivation of the procreative, unitive, and/or marital meanings, or lack of consent (rape), or the breaking of marital vows (adultery), or any combination. Anal sex used as a type of foreplay is inherently non-unitive
Seems like this article relies entirely on a non sequitor.

[Anonymous No.19937669]

>>19937467
so long as the husband finishes in the vagina most thinks are either permitted or morally neutral. a good example would be using a dildo - it is part of foreplay, or is it purely for like "size queen" please? marital sexual acts cannot violate the telos of procreation or bonding within the act itself. ie: a dildo does not have the ability to get a woman pregnant, thus is it a morally neutral object. but in what manner is it being used? to what end? this determines licity.
>>19937488
name an "evil note". is a guitar evil? what about a synthesizer? at what point does using a synthesizer become evil? name an evil tempo. what about an evil pitch of voice?
>>19937504
>this definition would mean that sodomy is only sodomy if it terminates as sodomy
partially correct. sodomy is sodomy because happens between a man and a man. anal sex between a man and a woman, by definition, cannot be sodomy
>which is nonsense
read more Thomistic philosophy.
>"unnatural"
no such concept exists in catholicism - the "natural vs unnatural" false dichotomy is a protestant import. so long as the act's telos is not evil, the component parts of the act are neutral (use of a penis is neutral, use of the anus for please is neutral in and of itself), and the circumstances of the act are not evil (ie within the proper sexual ordering ie in this case within marriage), the act cannot, by definition, be immoral. it doesn't matter whether it "feels" right or wrong.
>>19937540
>>19937589
see the above explanation. the act itself is neither good nor bad with orthodox theology

[Anonymous No.19937690]

>>19937645
Yes, but if you stop them in the street and ask their religion the answer will be Mormon or LDS, not Christian.

[Anonymous No.19937836]

>>19937669
Pretty sure the article posted above refutes literally everything you say.

[Anonymous No.19937850]

>>19926140
Hey so what bible is the most accurate translation. My boomer mother flipped out and ranted to me because she found her two king james bibles use different words in Genesis 15:4. One uses "body" the other uses "bowels".

[Anonymous No.19937877]

>>19937850
>Hey so what bible is the most accurate translation.
Depending on the definition of "literal" (as in, the source GNT), it could be the King James, the ASV/RV, or the NASB.
>My boomer mother flipped out and ranted to me because she found her two king james bibles use different words in Genesis 15:4. One uses "body" the other uses "bowels".
Are either from Thomas Nelson? Because the 1611 version and the primary updated version should both say bowels.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Genesis-15-4/
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-15-4/

[Anonymous No.19937880]

>>19937850
KJV is, and it says bowels.

[Anonymous No.19937892]

>>19937850
The NKJV says "body" so maybe she's mistaken? Otherwise, it's probably Thomas Nelson's shit; they've been known to quietly edit the KJV and the NKJV without telling people, though that's usually to add a comma or something.

[Anonymous No.19937914]

>>19937877
>>19937880
>>19937892
Alright I looked at the two bibles in question. One is king James and the other is New king james and it does have Thomas Nelsons name in it.
However according to her and some other yt boomer its supposed to say "body" because ((they)) are changing it

[Anonymous No.19937945]

>>19937914
If they were "changing it", wouldn't 'body' be found in the earlier translation? As in.... in the KJV?

[Anonymous No.19937950]

>>19937914
>However according to her and some other yt boomer its supposed to say "body" because ((they)) are changing it
The KJV, ASV, Douay-Rheims, YLT, and many other old translations from Greek and Latin say bowels; the RSV, NASB, and others say body; and others like the NAB, ESV, and NRSV range from "flesh and blood" to "son" to "issue."

[Anonymous No.19937996]

>>19937945
Ive been trying to tell her that and even point out the one with body says "New King James" on it. But "bowels" makes her think of shit so therefore body is correct. Then she brought up Joshua 9:4 one says bottles but the newer one says wineskin.

[Anonymous No.19938032]

>>19937945
>>19937950
Alright I found the yt channel that told her and sparked this whole dumb conversation.
https://youtu.be/qRw6teu7sts

[Anonymous No.19938049]

>>19937996
The trouble is that no translation is perfect. The KJV has errors which other translations don't make. The reason it's still the foremost translation is that it is the translation with the least errors and the lowest magnitude of error.

>>19938032
I just looked at the embed title and cringed hard, I'm not sure you can reason with someone who takes such a YouTube video as Gospel.

[Anonymous No.19938055]

Is it possible to memorize the entire Greek New Testament?

[Anonymous No.19938068]

>>19938055
Of course, back in Jesus's day Jews usually memorised the entire Hebrew Bible by 14, and Greeks the Iliad or Odyssey. They were trained from infancy for this though, it will be harder for you.

[Anonymous No.19938070]

>>19938032
Introduce her to R. Grant Jones. He's an old guy who compares Bibles and his favorites are the KJV and ASV. He's got multiple videos comparing translations and analyzing textual sources. I'd also recommend introducing her to biblehub.com, particularly: https://biblehub.com/interlinear

Here's that Genesis 15:4 passage: https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/15-4.htm
And Joshua 9:4: https://biblehub.com/text/joshua/9-4.htm

[Anonymous No.19938111]

>>19938049
>lowest magnitude of error
This especially.

[Anonymous No.19938266]

>>19937836
ive read the article, it's literally from a schizo rambling blog. he shows a limited understanding of thomistic philosophy: the "each act" of humanae vitae refers to acts that have their proper telos in the completion of sex. foreplay can't be condemned as "nonprocreative" if the act itself is morally neutral and lacks the telos of creative ability. JPII covers this extensively in his 1983 lectures, basically the guy you "cited" is a radtrad who is not in agreement with either the magisterium or the vast majority of neo thomists today (of which janet smith is a notable one).
>>19937850
use multiple bibles and compare translations. "accuracy" depends on the source texts.
>>19938070
I 2nd this rec.
>>19938111
erasmusian MT is not accurate. it was made from 6 manuscripts, the latest of which came from the 12th century. also it uses the OT MT which is all you need to know.

[Anonymous No.19938296]

>>19938266
>erasmusian MT is not accurate. it was made from 6 manuscripts, the latest of which came from the 12th century. also it uses the OT MT which is all you need to know.
What always fascinated me was that this same issue exists in Catholicism, and the Douay-Rheims, but was largely dealt with with minimal issue. The original Rheims NT was completed before the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, and thus was translated from a medieval Latin edition of the Vulgate from a few sketchy manuscripts. I'm not sure if the completed DRB NT was edited in accordance with the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate in 1610 or whether it wasn't until Challoner in the 1750s that that happened, but it does make the handful of traditionalist larpers seem stupid if they want to revert to the original 1582 Rheims and worship the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, unaware that the two are not the same.

[Anonymous No.19938364]

If there's a typo in my Bible, should I correct it with a pen, write the correction on a tiny slip of paper and glue it over the typo, or burn the Bible?

[Anonymous No.19938374]

>>19938266
What is a good site or book or similar for an overview of generally agreed Catholic doctrine?

[Anonymous No.19938382]

>>19926140
I've posted this once before, but I actually own a manga Bible.

[Anonymous No.19938391]

>>19938374
Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[Anonymous No.19938399]

>>19938374
>What is a good site or book or similar for an overview of generally agreed Catholic doctrine?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is all the teaching of the Church in one volume.

[Anonymous No.19938407]

>>19938382
There are three "Manga Bibles" I know about but OP's is the only one I know that's "authentic" in the sense that it's published by the Japan Bible Society and was done by actual manga artists. Not sure about the one you posted, but the third was done by some black dude trying to mimic the manga "style" so it's a joke.

[Anonymous No.19938440]

>>19938407
The one I posted is published by Tyndale and isn't even fully manga. It has a handful of manga sections, but is really just a NLT Bible.

[Anonymous No.19938446]

>>19938440
I see. Does it have the name of the artist(s)?

[Anonymous No.19938459]

>>19938440
Oh, it's also worth noting that the one in OP obviously isn't the full Bible text. It's literally a manga covering the major stories of the Bible. The one by the black dude is pic related.

[Anonymous No.19938466]

>>19938446
I can't find an illustrator credit but now I'm curious myself. I did notice, as I was just looking through it, that it was printed in Japan. I'll take a couple pictures and post them in a few minutes.

[Anonymous No.19938524]

>>19938407
Why isn't it on Mangadex? I want to read.

[Anonymous No.19938530]

>>19938391
>>19938399
The other anon said it was too surface level, and I saw that it was longer than the entire NT. I would prefer something more like a series of articles or an encyclopaedia page as a preliminary structural guide.

[Anonymous No.19938535]

[Anonymous No.19938539]

>>19938530
The Catechism is really easy to read since it's broken up into specific sections covering different areas of doctrine and theology. I'm not Catholic and I flat-out reject much of Catholicism, but if you want a handy reference guide, the Catechism is hard to beat.

[Anonymous No.19938546]

[Anonymous No.19938556]

So, as you can see, the art leaves a lot to be desired. I've seen worse from legit mangaka, but this looks like someone learned from one of those How to Draw Manga books I used to find in my high school library.

[Anonymous No.19938607]

I found this, which discusses Tyndale House publishing both the OP series and >>19938382.
https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2007-08-24/christian-manga-bible-with-japanese-artists-announced
>Tyndale House Publishers announced that it is launching a yearly series of Christian manga drawn by Japanese artists in September, as well as a Manga Bible with three manga sections in November. Amazon lists Hidenori Kumai as the author, with Kozumi Shinozawa and Atsuko Ogawa as the illustrators, of the first manga book, Manga Messiah. The Manga Bible will include the entire New Living Translation of the text with three 32-page manga tip-in sections that summarize the narrative.
So, we know the two illustrators for the OP series but nothing on the single-volume with the NLT.

[Anonymous No.19938702]

>>19935392
Based. I got the 5 vol Christian Classics version because it was cheaper and I don't really need the Latin. I do have the commentaries though and they're really good.

[Anonymous No.19938722]

>>19938546
>>19938556
>Right to left

[Anonymous No.19938738]

>>19938296
The Vulgate textual tradition is just as messy as the Hebrew and Greek traditions (see the old latin controversy) but for whatever reason Catholics have cared a lot less.
>>19938364
correcting it is fine. it's just paper.
>>19938374
the CCC but it provides a very high-level overview. it's also quite dense. id recommend ratzinger's book "introduction to Christianity" if you're a complete beginner to catholicism. it's also worth reading some orthodox perspectives on catholicism as they provide interesting critiques and 98% of what the EO church believes is true of the catholic church in the east as well.
>>19938530
you might be interested in the baltimore catechisms. they're simple pre VII catechisms written for children. also ott's book on dogma, schall's books. perhaps this: https://www.amazon.com/What-Catholics-Believe-Pocket-Catechism/dp/0879735740.. catholic answers (catholic.com) has great articles on individual topics.

[Anonymous No.19938750]

>>19938702
I'm mixed. On one hand, the Christian Classics version of the Summa is cheaper and perfectly fine, plus commentaries. Same, I'd assume, the Catena Aurea from Preserving Christian Publications. On the other, the Aquinas Institute has clearly put an unspeakable amount of time and effort into their ongoing series, which isn't due to be finished until Vol. 60 in 2026 and will include texts that lack any existing English translation. Though while their editions have the Latin text, they also lack any footnotes or commentary; the aim being that you only get Aquinas's writing.

One Amazon reviewer commented on getting the 5-volume Christian Classics version and complained about blurry type, whereas the Aquinas Institute versions seem to have universal acclaim. Quite tempting.

[Anonymous No.19938788]

>>19938750
If you have the money to spend the Aquinas Institute versions are obviously better. I'm waiting on their translation of his commentary on the Divine Names

[Anonymous No.19938821]

>>19938788
If I could pick and choose, for the time being, I'd prioritize the Summa, various OT and NT commentaries, and the Catena Aurea when those come out from the Aquinas Institute. Setting aside costs, a 60-volume series sounds absolutely insane to try to keep shelved and would likely look like an eyesore in a bookcase. You'd probably have to build and measure a completely separate bookcase just for them. Reminds me of those 30+ volume books of the Church Fathers, with the same aesthetic problem.

[Anonymous No.19939035]

>>19931962
lol

>>19937312
>studying the bible is ... LE SCHIZO
Why do catholics hate the bible so much? Pretend to love it but really hate it. They can't even debate theology, all they do is insult people or claim they're not TrueChristians™ because they don't pay indulgences or tithe to ROME (or because they read the bible themselves and learned so many catholic doctrines are completely unbiblical).

>>19936114
Trinity isn't in the bible
https://www.trinitytruth.org/paganoriginsofthetrinity.html

Neither are indulgences, infant baptism, purgatory, pope, Peter being a pope, calling men your Father, bowing to men, making idols and bowing to them or kissing them, etc but studying the bible is apparently "schizo" to roman catholic cultists. They won't even read that article because it exposes one of their cult's heresies, so it's easier to just shut off their brain and vomit buzzwords.

Catholics are just Pharisees at the end of the day, complete with their own roman talmud (catechism) and zohar (summa). Sadly, the average catholic churchgoer knows even less about their own church cult than its critics (not like they read any bible or history book that wasn't corrupted by ROME), but they'll never listen to any "heretics" for trying to correct them or save them from the plagues Revelation 18:4. No, they'll just insult you or claim you're not a TrueChristian™ for not agreeing with their cult full of pedophile wolves which are protected by their church (but you're supposed to believe Peter the rock established the catholic cult and the gates of hell didn't prevail against it, despite all its heresies and scandals and abominations).

The catholic cult is the WHORE OF BABYLON.
https://www.end-times-prophecy.org/the-whore-of-babylon.html
But that's just another bible study that they'll scoff at and vomit buzzwords to disregard. After all, they worship their church and their church "fathers" instead of God. And they even view murdering heretics to their cult as defending God as evidenced by their crusades and even modern rhetoric, despite that explicitly going against what Christ taught (but you better believe they have an excuse for that too).
>...but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven...

>>19936017
Cathodox don't read the bible, if they did they'd recognize their chuch's heresies (or maybe their perception is too distorted by their talmuds and church "father" teachings). Just look at their posts ITT, they don't even discuss the bible in a bible thread. It'd be funny if it wasn't so serious. And even after all that I've written, they won't even consider the possibility that their church isn't god. No, they "know" they're right, just like the atheists who "know" they're right too. The pope ought to wear a fedora, it'd be more fitting than a dagon priest mitre.

[Anonymous No.19939054]

>>19939035
>anti-Trinitarian
I'll pray for your sinfulness. It's sad to hear you and the rest of the Pharisees reject Christ as God.

[Anonymous No.19939067]

>>19939035
Explain how Christs sacrifice can save if the doctrine of the Trinity is false.

[Anonymous No.19939106]

>>19938266
>fucking your wife's ass is no longer a sin so long as it's foreplay
cool

[Anonymous No.19939264]

>>19939106
Not really that useful, how many wives have asses these days, and what wife would want to fuck you after you've fucked a donkey.

[Anonymous No.19939341]

>>19938266
If Catholicism teaches that sodomizing your wife is licit then Catholicism is evil. You might as well say it's okay to slap her around or beat her with a belt. There's no difference. Hell, you probably agree with that too.

[Anonymous No.19939353]

>>19939341
>anti-Trinitarian calling others evil

[Anonymous No.19939362]

>>19939353
I am not the anti-Trinitarian anon. I do not believe that Catholicism actually teaches this thing, but that its teachings are being distorted. Anal sex is fundamentally abusive and disordered. It cannot be good. I would ask you to demonstrate to me what the difference is between performing anal sex on your wife and choking or slapping her around as a (consensual) sexual practice. You cannot.

[Anonymous No.19939374]

For me, it's the Syriac.

[Anonymous No.19939399]

>>19937669
>sodomy is sodomy because happens between a man and a man. anal sex between a man and a woman, by definition, cannot be sodomy
The traditional definition of sodomy is anal or oral sex between any people.

[Anonymous No.19939423]

>>19938266
>if the act itself is morally neutral
Sticking things in your asshole to pleasure yourself is "morally neutral."

[Anonymous No.19939432]

>>19939362
Choking and slapping can only provide mental and not physical pleasure.

[Anonymous No.19939437]

>>19939432
Anal sex does not provide physical pleasure unless a person has been abused to the point that their anus is no longer functioning naturally.

[Anonymous No.19939460]

If you want to perform anal sex on your wife, it means one of two things 1.) you have been a consumer of pornography and it has caused your desires to be disordered, or 2.) you want to have sex with your wife in the manner in which you would have sex with a man.

[Anonymous No.19939468]

>>19939460
Not everyone was raised Christian. We all have different backgrounds and experiences.

[Anonymous No.19939477]

>>19939468
Indeed, and part of being a Christian is the healing of the things which are wrong with you, such as the desire to perform sodomy.

[Anonymous No.19939478]

>>19939477

[Anonymous No.19939485]

everyone in this thread is in dire need of clozapine, you guys do know that this stuff is not real right?

[Anonymous No.19939490]

>>19939478
I don't care how you want to justify it, the act itself is evil. That is not what the anus was designed for. To perform this act upon it is intrinsically harmful on a physical level and constitutes an abuse of the body. You either have homosexual tendencies or you are aroused by abusing women. Or perhaps you are aroused by fecal matter? It is not and will never be neutral. Repent.

[Anonymous No.19939499]

>>19939490
>you are aroused by fecal matter... Repent!
This low IQ strawman arguing is just pathetic. The anon earlier in the thread already said it's fine for Catholics and it's clearly fine for Evangelicals too, try arguing against your own scholars instead of the boogeyman.

[Anonymous No.19939505]

>>19939499
It is not fine for either one. You cannot address the fact that is intrinsically abusive, which is why you keep ignoring it. God is not fooled by your excuses.

[Anonymous No.19939584]

>>19939478
>Got Questions
Always knew this site was trash.

[Anonymous No.19939678]

>>19934801
Why did the anti-Catholic anon ignore this post?

[Anonymous No.19939732]

>>19939035
>https://www.trinitytruth.org/paganoriginsofthetrinity.html
I dug around in this site a little bit and it's pretty funny. Apparently it advocates that the Seventh Day Adventists are the "remnant church" because they fit various criteria, primarily rejecting the Trinity and holding Saturday as the Sabbath, but Seventh Day Adventists today accept the Trinity, so now there's some invisible remnant of a remnant or something. This is where non-Trinitarianism gets you, lol.

[Anonymous No.19939861]

Is this true bros?

[Anonymous No.19940280]

>>19939861
Yes, and it was intentional.

[Anonymous No.19940530]

>>19939732
Reversion to the Mosaic Law is common with people like that. It happened with my dad. It's idiotic and just comes from poor hermeneutics.

[Anonymous No.19940563]

>>19940530
It seems like once you get rid of certain markers of orthodoxy, you inevitably end up going off into crazy places.

[Anonymous No.19940591]

What is the best Catholic bible in English? Is the NRSV acceptable? I'm having difficulty finding copies of Wycliffes or Douay-Rheims in physical.

[Anonymous No.19940625]

>>19940591
King James is the only Bible so keep that in mind.

[Anonymous No.19940658]

>>19940591
>Wycliffe
What are you referring to? I don't believe there any Catholic Bibles by that name as Wycliffe was a proto-Protestant. That being said, the RSVCE, NRSVCE, and NABRE are good modern translations.

[Anonymous No.19940859]

>>19940563
I've seen it happen so many times, and it's at the heart of so many denominations, even ones we wouldn't normally consider very aberrant. Like this guy >>19940625 with his KJO thing. It doesn't seem like much of a problem, but when you turn it into almost an item of the faith, it's really easy to get lost in division and end up breaking the church. I'm always reminded of Luke 17:1-2. We know stumbling blocks will come, but for the people through whom they come, it's going to be a bad deal.

[Anonymous No.19940957]

>>19938607
I wonder if the NLT sections are just pulled from the other version OP posted. If it's all Tyndale, I could see them doing that as a cost saving measure. Strange that there aren't any artist credits in the actual book, though, at least that I could find.

[Anonymous No.19940976]

>>19940859
Indeed, woe unto them that lead people into Satan's counterfeit "bibles" instead of the Holy Bible (Authorized Version).

[Anonymous No.19941069]

>trinity is evil
>institutional church is evil
>calvinism is evil
>bible translated by state church trinitarian calvinists is the only bible

[Anonymous No.19941138]

>>19940591
>What is the best Catholic bible in English?
RSV2CE from Ignatius Press and Douay-Rheims-Challoner from Baronius Press for formal equivalence. The NRSVCE is acceptable, sure, but it is not recommended for non-scholarly use. The NABRE is eh, better if you ignore the notes which are filled with outdated secular theories the USCCB outsourced them to.

[Anonymous No.19941177]

>>19941138
>outsourced
Citation needed.

[Anonymous No.19941229]

>>19940976
NGMI

[Anonymous No.19941353]

>>19940591
Douay-Rheims Challoner, Knox, or RSV-2CE
>>19941069
Anglicans aren't Calvinists

[Anonymous No.19941389]

>>19941353
>Anglicans aren't Calvinists
We are speaking of the Reformation era. The Puritans were part of the Church of England. The Westminster Assembly was a function of the Church of England. It was quite literally full of Calvinists. Of course modern Anglicanism has no particular theological beliefs at all.

[Anonymous No.19941545]

>>19941138
>RSV2CE from Ignatius Press and Douay-Rheims-Challoner from Baronius Press for formal equivalence. The NRSVCE is acceptable, sure, but it is not recommended for non-scholarly use.
what specifically is the difference between them?

[Anonymous No.19941934]

>>19940591
That translation isn't the best but the illustrations are great.

[Anonymous No.19942083]

>>19941934
What's wrong with it exactly?

[Anonymous No.19942106]

>>19942083
Modernist. Fails the Isaiah 7 litmus test. If Saint Matthew says that Isaiah 7:14 says virgin then it says virgin, any translation created by secular scholars who assert it's "young woman", completely ignoring the inspiration of scripture is automatically tainted

[Anonymous No.19942502]

>>19942106
Oof, okay, that's a hard pass then.
So what's the difference between RSV 2nd edition and Douay Rheims Challoner aside from the price tag? I'm not afraid to spend a few extra bucks on a good bible if it's worth getting.

[Anonymous No.19943831]

>>19942502
They are both pozzed. The DR says the woman will crush the serpent instead of her seed in Genesis 3 because Catholics worship Mary instead of Christ and they can't make an honest Bible to save their shriveled souls. The RSV was the first to start putting young woman instead of virgin.

[Anonymous No.19943861]

>>19943831
Here is Gen 3:15 in parallel so you can see for yourself. Pro tip, the Holy Bible is the Authorized King James, accept no Satanic counterfeits.

https://biblehub.com/genesis/3-15.htm

[Anonymous No.19943904]

This is the version of the bible I read.

[Anonymous No.19943967]

>>19939054
>doesn't quote scripture
>>19939067
>doesn't quote scripture
>>19939732
>doesn't quote scripture

[Anonymous No.19943999]

>>19942502
The RSV-2CE is a correction of the RSV, which is a 20th-century translation based directly on Greek and Hebrew sources. The current Douay-Rheims you can buy is a translation of the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate, revised in the 1750s, a Latin translation of older, more accurate Greek and Hebrew manuscripts than survive today. Both the Douay and the RSV-2CE preserve correct renderings of passages like Isaiah 7:14, Luke 1:28, etc. Feel free to skim these videos for information:
https://youtu.be/CflSS_KYkjM
https://youtu.be/Rk6FE_sw5tM
https://youtu.be/xhjpMT3-8FQ
>>19943831
>>19943861
These are schizos. Be wary of their efforts to lead you astray from the path of God and his Church.

[Anonymous No.19944012]

>>19943967
Matthew 28:19
Now stop being a JW and become saved.

[Anonymous No.19944023]

>>19943999
>gaslighting and character attacks to defend a cult
>can't quote scriptures
Not that anon, but you cultists are such hypocrites.

>>19944012
I'm not JW and that doesn't prove your cult is right.

[Anonymous No.19944025]

Doesn't the fact that there are female Apostles in the Bible supersede the notion that women shouldn't teach when it comes to determining if women should be able to become priests? Surely if it was good enough for Jesus and Paul...

[Anonymous No.19944029]

These threads in a nutshell.

[Anonymous No.19944056]

>>19944023
>I'm not JW and that doesn't prove your cult is right.
>all Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians are cultists because they don't subscribe to your fringe, anti-Trinitarian beliefs
If you're not a JW, then you're the Judaizers St. Paul warned about.

[Anonymous No.19944059]

>>19944056
Christ never said "believe in the trinity or perish"

You are in a cult.

[Anonymous No.19944088]

>>19944059
>Christ never said "believe in the trinity or perish"
Are you sure?
>"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25

[Anonymous No.19944129]

>>19939035
>>19944023
>>19944059
Jesus said he was building a Church, said the Holy Spirit would guide it into all the truth, and said that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Why do you call Jesus a liar?
>"The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church, except for how they will prevail and my Church will be corrupted for over a thousand years until some disgruntled guys dissolve my Church and built their own churches, which will also be corrupted until some dudes in America circumvent all my teachings and make their own." -Jesus, apparently

[Anonymous No.19944155]

>>19944088
If it was important, it would have been recorded. But I guess that's why you have your own talmud to "interpret" the scripture for you.

>>19944129
>The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church
Oh nonono...

[Anonymous No.19944158]

Why should I not join the orthodox church

[Anonymous No.19944172]

>>19944158
While the Catholics have all that history/retarded gossip orthodox have the KGB, so pick your poison.

[Anonymous No.19944199]

>>19944155
>Oh nonono...
Yes, you are a Donatist heretic, we all know.

[Anonymous No.19944209]

>>19944158
Because to convert to Orthodoxy you have to use the same methodology as you would convert to Protestantism, which is to investigate everything and decide for yourself who has the most accurate claim. You have to justify that Orthodoxy is in the correct side of the schism which requires this personal theological/historical investigation. Whereas in Catholicism you can eschew this and simply enter into communion with the Pope. Orthodoxy doesn't have any principle of unity that allows a person to bypass this problem. Also there are multiple "Orthodox" churches, so you'll need to distinguish why the Eastern Orthodox are correct over the monophysite Oriental Orthodox. Again, same problem.

[Anonymous No.19944224]

>>19926150
no one wants them, even pol hates them

[Anonymous No.19944227]

>>19944199
>no arguments

[Anonymous No.19944242]

>>19944227
The argument with Donatism was had 1,600 years ago, and St. Augustine demonstrated conclusively that your understanding of the Church is wrong. Your idiotic opinion today is meaningless. The Church and its sacraments depend on the promises of God not men's personal morality.

[Anonymous No.19944271]

>>19944242
You aren't even engaging in my arguments, you're just bringing up off topic nonsense to discredit and disregard what I say. First you call me JW now you call me Donatist, you just character attack and strawman

[Anonymous No.19944280]

>>19944029
Couldn't be more true.

[Anonymous No.19944289]

>>19944209
>Because to convert to Orthodoxy you have to use the same methodology as you would convert to Protestantism, which is to investigate everything and decide for yourself who has the most accurate claim. You have to justify that Orthodoxy is in the correct side of the schism which requires this personal theological/historical investigation. Whereas in Catholicism you can eschew this and simply enter into communion with the Pope. Orthodoxy doesn't have any principle of unity that allows a person to bypass this problem. Also there are multiple "Orthodox" churches, so you'll need to distinguish why the Eastern Orthodox are correct over the monophysite Oriental Orthodox. Again, same problem.
ok but theological convenience isn't a justification of truth

[Anonymous No.19944371]

>>19944158
Which Orthodox Church? Because all of them except for the Russians support contraception.

[Anonymous No.19944377]

>>19944158
If you just want to appear godly like all the LARPers in this thread who hate the bible and call studying it "schizo"

[Anonymous No.19944379]

>>19944271
>You aren't even engaging in my arguments
You don't have arguments.

[Anonymous No.19944391]

>>19944379
Now you lie and bear false witness.

[Anonymous No.19944444]

>>19926140
I have young’s literal and a douay rheims that got kinda dirty. should I invest in a leather nice douay rheims or wait a few years until I can easily read the vulgate

[Anonymous No.19944460]

>>19943861
When you use the word "Authorized" with that capital A, you are effectively putting words in God's mouth, implicating that He specifically authorized the KJV. You need to knock that shit off.

[Anonymous No.19944462]

>>19944377
"studying it" is schizo if it leads you to schizo conclusions undoubtedly like the ones displayed in this image

[Anonymous No.19944491]

>>19944462
Infant baptism is not in the bible.

[Anonymous No.19944599]

[Anonymous No.19944607]

Are Catholics allowed to take into account historical research in their interpretations of the Bible? I've just watched InspiringPhilopsophy's Genesis series and I'm pretty sure it's not exactly what Catholics teach. If you think IP makes some good points based on historical context, does that mean you're basically ineligible to be a Catholic?

[Anonymous No.19944618]

>>19944460
Counterfeit "bible" enthusiast detected.

[Anonymous No.19944639]

>>19944460
>>19944618

[Anonymous No.19944730]

[Anonymous No.19944888]

>>19926140
>The Manga Bible
EW. Yeeech. Yuck. Ugh. It does exist.
But so does this.

[Anonymous No.19944917]

>>19927158
Yeah, I do agree with you, but then Catholics all go into /v/ and post "Zelda is Catholic!"

Like, yeah, Nintendo did put christian imagery very subtly and trying to be kinda quiet about it in a universal way. But it doesn't explicitly do so. And over the years, which I think is the point of your post, is to point out, gotten further away from resembling that.

The Catholics also have a whole buncha pictures of crosses hidden in various places you wouldn't even expect. Like Yarn Kirby holding a cross. Captain Falcon supposedly getting his powers from Jesus Christ. Things like that.

We don't worship the cross like an idol, though. Pointing to the cross of Jesus means the death for our sins. He also resurrected from the tomb, which means the resurrection and the eternal life and ascension into Heaven.

Just represents what He did for us and our sins, not meant to be a statue we kneel to and pray.

[Anonymous No.19944919]

>>19944888
>EW. Yeeech. Yuck. Ugh. It does exist.
Its basically just a childrens bible with anime style drawings instead of the typical western style.
Nice get btw.

[Anonymous No.19944929]

>>19932661
Amen, I don't have time to read that whole thing, but Jesus did not break the Sabbath! Amen!

[Anonymous No.19944990]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/vvaeyb/the-surprisingly-cutthroat-business-of-communion-crackers

[Anonymous No.19945041]

>>19944990
This only applies to 56 million people, there are 2.6 billion Christians. Yawn.

[Anonymous No.19945059]

>>19945041
>am I my brother's keeper?

[Anonymous No.19945190]

>>19944491
and?

[Anonymous No.19945192]

>>19944599
doubt

[Anonymous No.19945196]

>>19944607
what exactly is the question?

[Anonymous No.19945245]

>>19945196
I'd like to use an example but I don't know enough about Catholic theology. However, IP says that the "serpent" was actually likely a seraphim, which are described as (and portrayed in ancient art as) winged snakes, and as Eve would have trusted seraphim that's why she was led astray. If the Catholics insist it was a literal snake, and/or that Eve was stupid to trust a strange talking snake in the woods, is it problematic to hold the former interpretation?

[Anonymous No.19945294]

>>19945245
No Catholics don't believe its a snake, the word thats used is serpent.
Also there are no references to snakes with wings so it sounds like he's just making things up

[Anonymous No.19945299]

>>19945294
>Also there are no references to snakes with wings so it sounds like he's just making things up
I thought they let you read the Bible now

[Anonymous No.19945339]

>>19945299
We know, catholic theology makes you seethe

[Anonymous No.19945594]

For me, it's the American Standard Version. Can't wait for the Refreshed ASV to be finished.

[Anonymous No.19945700]

For me it's the KJV. Can't wait for it to destroy yet another translation from the subsequent 400 years.

[Anonymous No.19945723]

>>19945700
>For me it's the KJV.
Too dynamic. Not literal enough.

[Anonymous No.19945726]

>>19945723
It's one of the most literal translations in existence.

[Anonymous No.19945730]

>>19945726
It's less literal than the ASV, so it might as well be the Jerusalem Bible or the Message. If you're not the most literal, then you're among the least.

[Anonymous No.19945737]

I'd like to read the bible but focus only on herod

[Anonymous No.19945752]

>>19945730
Why don't you read the Literal Standard Version then?

[Anonymous No.19945798]

>>19945752
Because that is also less literal than the ASV.

[Anonymous No.19945829]

>>19945798
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.19945839]

>>19945829
Yes, it is.
>modern English
Hard pass. If it doesn't use thee, thou, thy, etc., then it's obscuring meaning, and therefore is less literal by using an all-purpose "you".

[Anonymous No.19945847]

>>19945190
>yeah we're a heretical cult that displeases God, so what

[Anonymous No.19945855]

>>19945839
What meaning does "thou" have that "you" doesn't?

[Anonymous No.19945869]

>>19945855
Thou is to indicate singular, while you indicates plural. Using you for everything can obscure whether a single person or multiple people are being referred to.

[Anonymous No.19945889]

>>19945869
Thee and thy are also singular so there's no additional diversity of language.

[Anonymous No.19945923]

>>19945869
So you'd rather build a cult around one old translation instead of studying and exercising good hermeneutics? You know Gail Riplinger is insane, right?

[Anonymous No.19945957]

>>19945923
>So you'd rather build a cult around one old translation instead of studying and exercising good hermeneutics?
I haven't built a cult around the KJV, that's the other spammer.

[Anonymous No.19945962]

>>19943967
>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
John 5:7

[Anonymous No.19945975]

>>19944917
I do enjoy these little references to the Christian faith from other cultures. These days it feels even the asians are far more repectful of the Christian faith than westerners.

[Anonymous No.19945979]

>>19945962
https://www.biblehub.com/romans/12-5.htm

[Anonymous No.19945983]

>>19944990
>It might strike some as odd that intimate, holy objects like sacramental wafers would be mass-produced in a secular facility.
Why? Until it's consecrated then it's nothing but bread. You could take a shit on it for all it matters. Only when the Priest recites the words of consecration and it transubstantiates into the blood and flesh of Christ then it deserves absolute respect as it is the manifestation of God Himself in the presence of his people, the same as the cloud that was with the Israelites within the tabernacle.

[Anonymous No.19945984]

>>19944730
*crickets*

[Anonymous No.19945991]

I got this today, looking forward to digging in.

[Anonymous No.19946001]

>>19945991
Got it when it came out last year. Better than I expected, but the binding is crap and the commentary isn't Navarre-tier.

[Anonymous No.19946073]

>>19946001
Yeah I had a few volumes before this. Definitely aimed at the lay audience. I can't afford the Navarre Bible where I live so it's pretty much the best Catholic Commentary available

[Anonymous No.19946493]

>>19944289
It's not an issue of convenience. It's an issue of who your authority is.

[Anonymous No.19946861]

All right, I have a very real, serious objection to Catholicism that I would like to have an answer for. So read this article:

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/08/24/detroit-priest-invalid-baptism-canonical-consequences

It concerns a priest, who found out after 30 years that his baptism was not valid. The baptism was done with the formula "We baptize..." rather than "I baptize..." which the Catholic Church has ruled as invalid, so that anyone baptized this way is not baptized. So, only baptized men may be ordained to the priesthood, so since he was not baptized, he was never a priest. So any sacraments he performed as a priest (Eucharist, confession, etc.) were not valid. So the church is trying to reach anyone who partook of the sacraments from him in order to redo them such that they will be valid.

Now the question I have should be obvious: if everything hinges on the use of correct grammar like this, how can you actually know you are receiving the sacraments? What if your priest was baptized as an infant with the wrong formula and no one knows? He was never a priest. When he absolved you of your sins they were not absolved. There is apparently no kind of economical allowance for these matters as it is all having to be handled as if none of it ever occurred. How can you actually have any certainty?

[Anonymous No.19946866]

>>19946861
I ask this as a prospective convert to Catholicism, by the way.

[Anonymous No.19946894]

>>19946861
>>19946866
Also this is not the only occurrence of this. A priest resigned in Arizona recently because he has been using the formula "We baptize..." for over a decade, meaning that thousands of people he baptized are not baptized and must be sought out and rebaptized:

https://apnews.com/article/arizona-priest-baptism-catholic-church-208c6795fbf2dea911cf4488e8a5925e

And for myself, as a convert, I was baptized in a Baptist church some years ago. I don't remember the specific wording that was used. It was in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but as for the pronoun, I have no idea.

[Anonymous No.19946926]

>>19946861
Here's an answer given by a different article from the same source:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2020/08/26/explainer-what-is-an-invalid-baptism

What I take from this is, "The church can only guarantee the sacraments are valid when they are performed correctly, so if they are performed incorrectly just have faith God did his end anyway." So why do they need to reperform them? To be sure and guarantee they're valid, correct? So basically you can't actually be sure that they're valid.

[Anonymous No.19946930]

Someone start a new thread before jannoids wipe this one.

[Anonymous No.19947025]

New thread the retarded OP didn't post a link to
>>19946821