[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/lit/ - Literature

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


What books from The Bible are you reading, /lit/?
What are you favourite books/ passages?
Also, general discussion about The Bible
>>
>>18157681
I'm taking my time on the Book of John
>>
>>18157712
i kinda flew through Matthews and Mark's and now im too burnt out to read Luke's
I'm taking my time too.
>>
Does religion help with mental health?
Is it enough to go to church, read the bible, and take part in the community to feel the effects, or do you actually have to submit and believe everything?

I'm really struggling with 99% of the shit I'm told at church, I just can't believe it and it seems like my church is very tithe-oriented, but I love the idea of a community of friendly people.
>>
>>18158207
>Does religion help with mental health?
depends on what you mean by that
proving the earth is flat and the great flood happened would do wonders for the mental health of the world
>>
>>18158207
its not a social club bro.
>>
File: AllReligionsAreStupid.jpg (96 KB, 470x960)
96 KB
96 KB JPG
>>18158207
What exactly is it you're struggling with? Is it the miracles? Those aren't even important (except only one miracle, the resurrection of Christ). Christ's words are what's important, and those are above and beyond /lit/ standards even if all the miracles were bogus. Meditate upon Christ's sayings and wait patiently for God to open your eyes so that you can accept the miraculous stuff (for there is no other way to accept that stuff but through God's guidance)

P.S. This >>18159284
is true. You might make friends at church but don't treat that as its primary purpose. Its primary purpose is spiritual
>>
after being wishy washy for so many years, I've finally decided to read the entire old testament. I'd touched Genesis The Writings and The Prophets before, but all of the historical stuff seemed so dry.
I'm in 1 Samuel, and man Saul was a tool. Wasn't willing to accept the correction from the Lord and became bitter at the prospect of David. Cool to see how these things work out though.

>>18158207
Yes and no.
Religion itself isn't some "Give this, take that" or social club like the other anon's are saying, it's an entire lifestyle that is being asked of you.
It's a much healthier lifestyle, one that can come with improved mental and spiritual health, and good friends, but even though "the yoke is easy and burden is light" (Mat. 11:30) that doesn't mean that it's without sacrifices.
The important thing is relationship with the Father. I hope you figure things out anon.
>>
File: 1565827363617.jpg (111 KB, 960x720)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>18159393
>the historical stuff seemed so dry
Really helps to have more life experience. The Bible works on many levels. As you get older you start to be able to appreciate the histories more and more as you start to recognize the same recurring patterns in your own society. When you get older still, you'll even start to have appreciation for things like the endless genealogies. If you make it to being really old, you might even be able to enjoy the book of Job!
>>
Going through Hebrews, Luke, and Exodus presently. Last night the opening of Hebrews 5 was really hitting deep on what truly makes a human priest. It's interesting to see the parallel translations of 5:2, particularly the last word "infirmity/weakness", with the Greek meaning "From asthenes; feebleness; by implication, malady; morally, frailty". I like "infirmity" the best of the two, but seeing the rest helps me to see even deeper into what is being expressed there.
>>
>>18158207
based social church visitor
>>
>>18157681
Any anons here go through RCIA, and have any takes on their experience? Been debating it back and forth. I've began reading a New Testament Ignatius study bible and watching virtual masses from my local Cathedral.

I come from soft culturally Protestant irreligious family and have been feeling deeply spiritually discontent. I have come to terms with theism but I need to engage with an actual religious tradition.
>>
>>18159324
>What exactly is it you're struggling with?
All of it really.
I'm coming up to 30, and other than when I was a kid, I haven't ever been religious, and even then it was more of a 'forced-at-school' type thing.

I think a major problem I have is how everyone at church hangs onto every word as though it's gospel. Yet whenever I do an bible research, all that is coming back is how most of the bible is forgeries, mistranslations and Nero propaganda.
I've had 29 years of agnosticism, but now I'm being asked to believe absolutely everything written down, despite glaring contradictions and facts.

I want to believe. I want to have the same faith that my peers have. I just don't know how.
I don't know where I fit in.
>>
>>18159881
Check this out, it has some *very* interesting aspects that will at least touch on some of what you're dealing with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inTU69aeb-E
>>
What is the biblical justification for the papacy? Tradition relies on several texts, but one most especially. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus asked his apostles what sorts of things people were saying about him. They gave him a summary of the current rumors. Then Jesus asked them, collectively, who they thought he was. And Simon answered for the group:

Simon Peter replied, "you are the Christ, the son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but for My Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note first that Simon served as a spokesman for the group, and he uttered a profound doctrine: the dogma of the incarnation (see Jn 6:68-69). Jesus explained to Simon that such truth could not be gained by natural means; Simon had received a special revelation from god. And Simon, with god's help, had spoken infallibly. Jesus then gave Simon a new name, Peter--literally, "Rock"-- a name that appears nowhere in the historical record before that moment. Jesus promised to build a divine edifice upon that rock foundation. He called the edifice "My Church"; for it would be not merely a human institution. It would be, in some sense, incorrupt, too: "the powers of death [or 'gates of hell'] shall not prevail against it." So we see that god himself gave a guarantee to preserve Peter's authority.

1/3
>>
>>18160076
Now, some critics argue that Jesus referred to himself when he spoke of the "rock" on which he would build his church. They point out that the word used for "rock" is the Greek 'petra'--meaning a large rock--whereas the name he gave to Simon was the Greek 'petros', meaning a small rock. The critics say that Jesus meant, essentially, that Peter was a little pebble, and Jesus was the boulder from which the church would rise up.

There are several problems with that interpretation. First of all, Jesus probably did not speak Greek in this exchange. It is very likely that he spoke Aramaic, and his words were later translated into Greek when the gospels were written. In Aramaic there is only one word that could be used for "rock": 'kephas'. In Aramaic, there would have been no distinction between Peter's name and the church's foundation.

Still, critics might press the point, noting that the holy spirit inspired Matthew to employ two different Greek words in his written gospel. But Matthew did not have much choice. Jesus was speaking of a foundation stone, so 'petra' would certainly be the right choice; but 'petra' is a feminine noun, and so it could not have served as Simon's new name. A male could not adopt a feminine name; the name would have to be adapted, be given a masculine form. Thus Matthew, guided by the holy spirit, did something that was obvious and practically necessary: he used the masculine form, 'petros', to render Peter's name, 'Kephas.'

Was Jesus giving Peter a unique role in the church? The answer seems obvious from the remaining pages of the New Testament. Peter is everywhere, shown to be the chief spokesman, preacher, teacher, healer, judge, and administrator in the newborn church.

2/3
>>
>>18160085
Did Peter exhibit any signs of infallibility when he taught doctrine? Critics might point out that, almost immediately after Jesus commissioned him, Peter fell; he contradicted Jesus, telling him he must not suffer. Jesus then reproved Peter in the strongest terms, calling him "Satan"! Critics note too, that much later in Peter's life, he found himself in conflict with Paul over the treatment of gentiles in the church. And Paul publicly corrected Peter! Now, how could a man graced with the charism of infallibility endure public correction by both Jesus and Paul?

We should note right away that both Jesus and Paul were reproving Peter not for his doctrine, but for his failure of will. Indeed, they were faulting him for not living up to his own doctrine. In Matthew's passage, Peter had moved from confessing the lord's divinity to rejecting the lord's will. In the conflict with Paul, Peter had moved from eating with gentiles himself to forbidding other Jewish-Christians to practice such fellowship. Both Jesus and Paul were exhorting Peter merely to practice what he infallibly preached.

Is there biblical justification for our calling Peter the "vicar of Christ"? Doesn't that put Peter in a place occupied by god alone? No, because Jesus himself had said to the apostles: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Lk 10:16). Jesus is clearly assigning the twelve as his vicars. He is telling them that he will act vicariously through them. And what Jesus said of all apostles is pre-eminently true of the prince of apostles.

3/3
>>
The bible is for bitch niggas.
>>
>>18159848
RCIA completely depends on who is running it. At best you will have a well-read priest giving you a thorough education on the faith, at worst you will have some involved people from the parish who don’t really know much about their own religion giving you feel-good platitudes. If you get the second then you’ll either have to do your own homework or find a different class. There are also traditionalist parishes that will give you more of an old-school catechesis, but I’m not familiar with that, although I imagine the quality is more consistent.
>>
>>18160101
Agreed, that's why I use the Holy Bible instead, son.
>>
>>18159393
>Isn't some give this, take that or social club
Except i guarantee it is for 99% of the people that go to your church and every other church
>>
>>18160416
99% is pushing it.
I concur that there are a lot of half baked, only in it for the politics and
>hmm people I dont like are going to Hell.... yes
But that is primarily in Freedomland and their prominence of "Prosperity Gospel" and the Red vs. Blue sociopolitical norms.
Go to a church in any other country, be it Germany, Canada, Mexico, Poland or even just smaller towns in the US, and you'll find a community, who are serving the same, true, purpose (I will admit I don't have any info on places outside of the countries I'd mentioned, as those are the only places I've been). The people who aren't into the actual relationship part of it leave, as many of the comrades of my youth have. What you have left are people who have had some relationship with God and want companionship with like minded people, or people who are still trying to figure it all out.
Of the whole world population, I'd say 30-40% are in it solely for the bantz, with an admittedly higher percentage in the US.
>>
i wanna get into reading the bible but i don't know where to start i tried a reading plan for the bible but it boring and confusing so where does a retard like me start?
>>
>>18162039
For faith/if youre religious
> Gospels->Epistles->OT Bible plan (take it slow as the Pentateuch can be terribly dry) ->Revelation
For the literature
>Genesis-> The Writings->the Historical Books->the whole new testament->the prophets->septuagent & deuterocannonical books (optional)
If it's boring and confusing then that's okay, just trudge through, a reread after, with more context of the bigger picture isnt a bad thing
>>
>>18157681
just started Exodus
>>
>>18162390
Did you read Genesis first? I'm assuming so but just wondering. I'm still in Exodus myself.
>>
File: king-james.jpg (17 KB, 306x499)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
Should I go with the king james version, or something like the NASB?
>>
>>18162528
>there's any other legitimate Bible than the KJV
>>
>Reading through it in order and having a good time (even though Leviticus gets boring as fuck with the whole tabernacle shit)
>mfw numbers
Can I skip it or is there something of value there?
>>
>>18162592
>not loving every single word from God
>>
>>18158207
Most churches you go to will not help with mental health, and will likely make it worse in certain ways. This is a natural consequence of having an incorrect metaphysics of humanity and the soul, which necessarily produces an incorrect view of psychology.

It is essential to recognize that the intellect is the highest part of the human experience, and ought to direct all of man's acts. As a consequence of original sin, men have become disordered; what this literally means is that our bodies no longer operate according to the natural heirarchy of mind and body, such that our lower faculties--particular those of sensitive delight--over direct our will, rather than our reason. We eat food we know we ought to. We refrain from work we know we ought to do. We act toward smother people according to our pleasure, rather than according to what is good for them and morally right. We lie instead of tell the truth, because shame is a painful and uncomfortable experience. So on and so forth.

What's important to recognize is that everytime we do something wrong, every time we listen to our lower faculties instead of our reason, we corrupt our bodies even more. We introduce greater disorder, and become more enslaved to our passions. This is what's truly called a vice--because it sizes us and reduces the freedom of our intellect.

The problem is, we cannot undo this corruption by ourselves. It is a property of justice that when we err, we receive the proportionate consequences of our error. And, once we have fallen, we no longer have that right order of mind and body to correct ourselves. So, we require the activity of God in us to help free us from our vices and aid us in established good habits of mind--the virtues.

These graces only come through the activity of the Catholic Church. All other religions, having set themselves up in opposition to the Catholic Church, have opposed themselves to the activity of grace in the world. Though it is still possible for people outside the Church to receive actual grace, most people are in situations where they are relatively unable to use this grace.

An even greater problem is that many priests have forgotten this teaching, and many bishops too. While they might be doctinally correct in what they say, the manner in which they conduct themselves, and the manner in which they organize worship are not conducive to making use of grace.

If you want stronger mental health, find a good priest who understands virtue, vice, and grace, go to confession, avoid sentimentalism, and avoid conspiracy theories. You will quickly discover a level of happiness and community you did not think possible.
>>
>>18162592
Leviticus is good for understanding sin, but it is difficult. Generally speaking, if God smites someone in the Old Testament, it is mortal sin.
>>
>>18162710
It's so dull I'm not even following the names of the jewish tribes or their enemies, all I read is large numbers of people fought with other large numbers of people.
I've read bits from Ecclesiastes and it reads like my kinda shit.
>>
>>18159848
Find an FSSP, ICKSP, or SSPX priest who can help you through Catechism. A good place to begin on your own is The Catechism of Saint Pius the X. My Catholic Faith is another greta book. Many RCIA programs are very weak.
>>
>>18162713
>find a good priest who understands virtue, vice, and grace, go to confession, avoid sentimentalism, and avoid conspiracy theories. You will quickly discover a level of happiness and community you did not think possible.
Not him, but one of the people I train judo with is an orthodox priest and a third degree black belt that's able to kick my ass consistently in training, how do you personally "field" religious leaders?
>>
>>18162747
You need to pray for the Holy Spirit to help you to love the tedium as pure manna from the LORD.
>>
>>18162806
I am skeptical of priests who spend too much time in the gym. What purpose does it serve? How does he have the time?
>>
>>18162902
>What purpose does it serve?
Here's the direct word from its founder, Jigoro Kano:
>Since the very beginning, I had been categorizing Judo into three parts, rentai-ho, shobu-ho, and shushin-ho. Rentai-ho refers to Judo as a physical exercise, while shobu-ho is Judo as a martial art. Shushin-ho is the cultivation of wisdom and virtue as well as the study and application of the principles of Judo in our daily lives. I therefore anticipated that practitioners would develop their bodies in an ideal manner, to be outstanding in matches, and also to improve their wisdom and virtue and make the spirit of Judo live in their daily lives. If we consider Judo first as a physical exercise, we should remember that our bodies should not be stiff, but free, quick and strong. We should be able to move properly in response to our opponent's unexpected attacks. We should also not forget to make full use of every opportunity during our practice to improve our wisdom and virtue. These are the ideal principles of my Judo.
One of the most important concepts in judo is "mutual welfare and benefit" (自他共栄 jita kyōei) and although a lot of people are in it purely to win medals and things like that, the philosophy behind the art is important to a lot of practitioners.
>How does he have the time?
Even 9 hours a week isn't really that much if you think about it.
>>
>>18162951
The purpose of this life is to prepare for the next. 9 hours is a lot of time in a week. That's more than an hour a day. More time than he spends saying mass.
>>
>>18163077
Yes and clearly the time you spend here on 4chan is OH so valuable in preparing you for the next, rather than some foolish old priest who is practicing discipline through cultivation of body and mind.
>>
>>18163327
>there aren't people here practicing discipline through cultivation of body and mind that mutually edify each other
>>
>>18157681
Just finished matthew, now on mark. My plan is to finish the gospels and then genesis, but I don't know where to go after or what the other books contain. I've been suggested acts and romans, and would like to read revelations but think it'd go over my head. Where to after the gospels and genesis bros?
>>
>>18163327
I'm not a priest. My responsibilities are different.
>>
>>18163394
Oh I would *definitely* suggest Acts and Revelation as immediately as possible. I personally think you might should even consider going ahead right now skipping on to John, Luke, Acts, Revelation, *then* Genesis, maybe. I don't know, it's really tough to say what's "best", and a serious shame that one cannot read 5 books simultaneously (literally simultaneously, as in superawareness). Anyway, *definitely* make Acts and Revelation very high priorities, IMO.
>>
>>18163394
Acts and the epistles are a good place after yeah. Romans is sick.
The writings are some of my favorites, even if the Psalms are massive.
>>
>>18163394
The Revelation is awesome. Just dive into it.
>>
>>18162713
Why avoid sentimentalism?
>>
Just picked up a Bible (KJV because I fucked up apparently).
Do I just read from Genesis to Revelation?
Or do I bounce around depending on what my new church is teaching?
>>
>>18165440
Ask the Lord and He'll respond.
>>
>>18165638
I tried, but he wasn't picking up and left all my messages on 'read'.
Do you think I did something to upset him?
>>
>>18165644
He's too busy clearing his DMs. Bitches be Hoes...
>>
>>18165440
Why would getting a KJV be an apparent mistake?
>>
>>18165440
Depends on how you want to experience it.
If you just want a quick bare-essentials primer in (roughly) chronological order then try this:
>Genesis and Exodus
>1 and 2 Samuel
>Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes
>Matthew
>Luke and Acts
>John
>Romans
>Revelation
A note on the gospels... Matthew, Mark, and Luke are quite similar and John quite different. All 4 are worth reading IMO, but most of Mark is already in Matthew and Luke (which both add their own unique and important elements), so I'd say for a primer it's ok to jump over Mark. Acts is a sequel to Luke written by the same author, which is why I put them together.
KJV is fine, if you get confused by the older English then just look up the verse and see what other translations say. Usually you'll be able to figure out the meaning just fine though, and remember this: unicorn just means horned animal in KJV.
>>
so Revelations is basically revelation of satan's horrors up until and excluding (last) 22th chapter?
>>
>>18168115
>this incredibly poor understanding
You're going to have to read it over and over and continue reading the rest of the Bible in between before you start gaining any legitimate understanding. There are incredible depths and layers that cannot be simply "explained" nor anywhere near easily "understood" from any sort of casual reading.
>>
what is the significance of christs resurrection? is it the proof of spiritual life overcoming the flesh? Jesus keeps saying that his death is to be his glorification- what does he mean by this? I can understand it in the sense that he showed that he knew eternal life waited by allowing himself to be caught. I can somewhat understand it as referring to the resurrection as proof of eternal life. But I'd very much like to hear from a christian what the canon interpretation is
>>
post good youtube clips for someone who read through the Gospels and wants to learn more, but is still not very knowledgeable. Like learning but not too advanced, but not too basic.
>>
>>18168741
>>18168115
Check out the Bible Project channel, start with these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJLan-pJzfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgmAkM39Zt4
>>
how was it agreed that the old testament would be relevant in the new covenant?
>>
>>18168762
I like it.
>>
>>18168764
I don't know if this is the classical argument, but Jesus refers to it a lot
>>
>>18158207
>>
Saving bump from page 11
>>
>>18157681
Where can I find a good bible? I know that the mormons give them out for free but I don't want to be harassed by mormons for ages after I get one.
>>
>>18171062
Check out the Christian Art Publishers KJVs on Walmart's website and Amazon if you can come up with around $12-17, they are quite excellent for the price. Some "dollar stores" have paperback KJVs. Incidentally, I got one of the free Mormon ones back in the 90s and didn't get bothered, but I think I had to let them know ahead (that was via phone) I had no interest in visits. Just about any local church would likely provide you one were you to ask and let them know you couldn't afford to buy one (assuming). If you can indeed come up with the $12-17 or so, I consider those CAP KJVs to be the best bang for Bible buck I know of. There are various paperback editions available for cheaper in various places.
>>
>>18171104
The mormons use the KJV, right?
>>
>>18171112
As far as I recall their official Bible, the one they give away and use in their "church" or whatever, is indeed a KJV. I do not know if it is authentic or altered, however.
>>
>>18169290
This is literally Jordan Peterson tier horseshit
>>
>>18158207
Religion 100% helps with mental health (source: I have thought about this before and decided that it makes sense that it would). But you shouldn't join for that reason. It's not self-help. You have to actually believe in it.
>>
So, how do we know which apocrypha are the word of God and which aren't? Is it possible some truth got thrown out with the falsities (the same way that bad things happen all the time in daily life)?
>>
>>18160092
Why is it that the Catholic Church can be lead by evil people in the cases of bad popes, but it was never the case that a bad theologian or church doctor, gifted by the Devil with rhetoric and talent, taught people convincing lies that have remained in the church for centuries?
Or turned early debates in Christianity one way or the other so that a gnostic gospel was labeled heresy when it was actually Truth? How is Catholic theology the one and only place on Earth where evil has __literally__ never held lasting victory?
>>
>>18163327
people really underrate what 4chan is, this "time wasted on 4chan" teaches people more about faith than 20 times the hours with a normie could have
>>
>>18171709
We dont, hypothetically, however you can put faith in God that when he sent people to determine the Canon, that he set all of the right books in place.
If youre really interested on old jewish folklore that may or may not be Divine, then read it yourself and ask for wisdom from God.
>>
>>18157681
I bought the apochriphal book of enoch, but i still have to finish my book on masonic symbols first
>>
same thread all the time. shill behind it.
>>
Joseph Smith restored the real Christian Church
>>
I’m doing the orthodox study bible reading plan, currently finishing up Deuteronomy, halfway into mark, and I’ve read a good bit of the psalms and proverbs. Can anyone give me a QRD on why we don’t have to follow the Old Covenant laws anymore. I’m aware of Jesus saying ‘it is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him’ and Peter’s vision in Acts. I ask because I’m nominally part of an Oriental Orthodox Church, and some members still circumcise/abstain from pork because of Jewish influence on my culture. Also someone had mentioned to me a prophecy of Jesus coming back to punish those who eat pork, somewhere in the 60s of the book of Isaiah.
>>
>>18173060
>somewhere in the 60s
Isaiah 66:17 more specifically
>>
>>18173088
it doesn't get a lot more direct than what Jesus himself says. You just have to hammer that point harder than your interlocutor; there's no such thing as forbidden food anymore
>>
>>18173060
All the daily life particulars like food rules helped ancient Israelites to distinct identity and culture as a people even when being ruled by foreign kings or residing in foreign lands with all the influences around them, since they were the chosen. They needed to stay intact as the 'egg'. After Jesus gave the first Christians the gospel and his teachings, that kind of practice wasn't necessary, because the point is the expansion to the furthest ends of the earth
>>
>>18162528
ESV/RSV/NKJV if you want something easy to read, updated with text sources, and modern
KJV if you're fine with spending a few hours getting used to it (if you find it awkward at first) and care about the literary value of the most influential translation for the English language and literature, and seeing what it did with the poetry like the psalms
>>
>>18173322
>All the daily life particulars like food rules helped ancient Israelites to distinct identity
Hmm are there other reasons why pork specifically was considered unclean in the Old Covenant and not in the New? Some Muslims have said this is God ‘changing his mind’. Also how would you exegete Is 66:17?
>>
>>18173379
I don't really know why pigs would be singled out other than reading somewhere that pigs can live on some pretty disgusting food. Like they will happily eat other animals' poop if they're given it. That kind of thing is obviously not allowed in modern agriculture (hopefully)
>>
Pigs are very human like in ways that aren't readily apparent. It's the reason why we can even share organs sometimes. Pigs consciousness is among the closest to humans of any animal. It's also why Jesus was able to transfer Legion into a group of them, there is a certain degree of psychic compatibility. There are still many, many mysteries remaining to be revealed.
>>
What was Jesus doing for those missing 31 years?
>>
>>18174486
You tell me
>>
>>18171790
>Or turned early debates in Christianity one way or the other so that a gnostic gospel was labeled heresy when it was actually Truth?
What a reasonable question to ask a Catholic.
>>
>>18174486
Carpentry
>>
any english commentaries from eastern catholic or oriental orthodox perspective?
>>
>>18174486
Leaving that out of Scripture, including *only* the 12 year old trip to the Temple, was an incredibly interesting and wise choice. I find meditations upon this matter to be profoundly rewarding. I try to be as realistic as I am capable of, and envision various ages and scenarios. It leads me to inner experiences/insights/etc. that are astounding beyond any attempt at expression.

Some imaginative exercises: imagine yourself being a child of Jesus' age, there in his village, and going over to play with him. Or perhaps he comes to your house. But then also imagine the possibility that Joseph and Mary tried to keep him away from others as much as possible. They didn't really know how to cope with what bits they understood about who their son was. Imagine what it was like to be them, knowing full well that this child had been conceived directly by God and both had been visited by angels. Do any of the others in the village have any notion of something being weird about that family? Perhaps no one knows anything about it, Elizabeth kept what she knew to her own.

Anyway, just some examples of things to try envisioning.
>>
>>18175258
There is the Orthodox Study Bible, and a few Catholic study bibles (I know one is the Ignatius). The best commentary on them is Matthew 23:9 and Book of Revelation though.
>>
>>18175471
Doesn’t imaginative prayer lead to prelest and spiritual delusion? According to the Eastern Orthodox at least
>>
>>18175579
Yeah, the Orthodox have the highly questionable practice of claiming to know what is and isn't legitimate spiritual insight. There is no telling how many legitimate visions they have quashed out of people over the centuries. Meanwhile they pray to beings that aren't God and call spiritual leaders Father, and essentially worship (muh venerate) Mary almost like the Catholics. Satan misled the church very early, just as Paul warned would happen.
>>
>>18157681
Anyone else find the Bible after reading it as an adult kind of bad? Like it doesn't really seem to understand how the world works or have solutions. It just feels superfluous to a real understanding of life ???
>>
I want to hear your opinions on whether or not christ meant christianity to have an element of judgement in this world, a law beyond love thy neighbor that was to be maintained by some form of juridical system. My impression is that he probably did not, but he does list a number of things as sins. It would seem, for instance, that adultery is problematic. I don't know, I really don't, I would just love to hear opinions on this or related/similar things. Sorry if this is incoherent I just ate a huge stack of pancakes and i'm a little out of it.
>>
>>18159881
There is a channel called Inspiring philosophy. He is a good guy. if you can, please check out.
>>
it is odd if it took Jesus for the jews to realize that spiritual life exceeds the flesh. I feel like a bunch of easterners had known this for some time.
>>
>>18175678
I personally think that Christians (of which I am) should stay out of politics altogether, and should only let the words of the Holy Bible convict *themselves*. For others, we should only *inform* the curious as to what we believe when asked or otherwise willingly opened to hearing, and we should pray that God have mercy on them no matter what their sin is.
>>
>>18158207
yes. please give a try anon.
>>
>>18175904
do you think an approach like this could lead the religion to fizzle out? in my country it has fizzled out, but not really for this reason. still I take it as an indication that it can happen
>>
>>18175974
The Holy Bible predicts that in the last days there will be a falling away, so the "fizzling out" is right there in Scripture.
>>
Genesis and the gospels are definitely the pinnacle of the Bible. Ecclesiastes is one other favorite though. Job is the most beautiful poetically but it presents a very puzzling picture of God.

The epistles are an interesting read, but I think they are a perversion of Jesus's message.
>>
>>18176187
Genesis is bad. The peak are the books of Samuel and Ecclesiastes.
>>
>>18176187
Genesis/Gospels/Revelation
>>
>>18175678
I think that was an implication, remember Christ did drive the merchants from the temple with a whip.
>>
>>18176202
whatintardation.jpg
>>
>>18157681
Who /dailymassreadings/ here?
>>
>>18176211
but that's the only time I can think of, and it pertains to the temple, which could make it a pretty special case
>>
>>18175014
I'm legitimately curious and never got an answer to this when i asked people at RCIA, they end up saying something that sounds like "God gave might to the Correct team in early Church power struggles".
That makes me ask why the formation of the Bible or of Catholic doctrine is unique; why didn't God give the crusaders the might to keep and hold the Holy Lands, why didn't He strike Pope Alexander VI down instantly, why do bad events with lasting consequences happen anywhere and everywhere except for debates in church doctrine?
>>
>>18176279
I think it can be interpreted a variety of ways, you're right in that these merchants defiled a temple of God and that was the source of Christ's anger. But I also think that Christ driving the merchants from the temple can be applied to other moments in life and this world.
>>
>>18175678
I don't think in terms of imprisonment or torture or the death penalty. Punishment or ultimate reward is in God's hands, not in earthly religious institutions. He kicked the merchants out of the temple, but that's more like stopping a crime from occurring, he didn't kill the merchants.

I don't think you can read the gospels and think Jesus advocated a rigid system of rules with strict punishment. He was all about forgiveness and urging sinners to change course.
>>
>>18176379
That's true, a system of rehabilitation not punishment. Sort of like the prison systems that the nordic countries have.
>>
>>18176379
>I don't think you can read the gospels and think Jesus advocated a rigid system of rules with strict punishment.
the mystery then, it seems to me, is why did God advocate it?
>>
>>18176392
Are you talking about the kings? God actually was against implementing kings to rule over Israel.
>>
>>18176404
more like I'm of the understanding- possibly the incorrect understanding- that Judaism is legalistic and punitive
>>
>>18176304
Not him, but my thoughts are that the canon was decided over the course of centuries, really giving it time to be mulled over. I havent looked into the process they used to decide the canon, but from I know it was a pretty foolproof process, between taking the common books of the major churches, then whittling out books that contradicted the guaranteed books, even slightly.
I think to say that evil has _literally_ never touched the canon is overlooking the period of time before it was set, and why they set it in the first place.
Plus as time goes on and more historical evidence is found, through archaeology and such, there hasnt been much to suggest that it was the wrong descision.
>>
>>18176407
Youre not misunderstanding the legalistic ways of Judaism, but I think you are misunderstanding it's place in where we are now, new covenant and all.
An anon elsewhere in the thread said it more succinctly, but the old laws were to shape the Israelites into the proper vessel for the coming of the New Covenant, just the jumping through hoops to get the Jews to understand that they are supposed to be HOLY (that is, set apart for God), it doesnt mean its the be all and end all.
>>
>>18176487
but.. for us non-jews, clearly the proselytising christians would be our first contact with the One God. Why can we receive the new covenant without the baggage of the old? Why wasn't it good enough to set the jews apart by telling them to love?
>>
>>18176512
I think the answer lies in the book itself, to put it succinctly, the Jews would keep on disobeying God. Even with everything, all the legalism and all the laws, they could hardly follow God without betraying His trust.
>>
>>18176525
then the theory is that God did not know this was going to happen? How can they be judged for this- they if anyone should be exempted from judgement if they alone have actually had instruction from God and this instruction was impossible to follow. How is it their failure, and how could their failure surprise God?
>>
>>18176512
>why wasnt it good enough to set the jews apart by telling them to love?
Load of good that does, eh? People are having a hard enough time with that in [CURRENT YEAR], and you think that uppity Jews, worshiping Baals, creating Idols, fetishising a return to Egypt would stay holy if they were told to "Just love"?
It's different now because it literally put in motion to be different.
This anon >>18176525 has the right idea.

Besides, the real red-pill is to know that we still carry the baggage of the old law where it matters spiritually (after all, whether or not you have a foreskin isn't really a spiritual matter), but it can only be carried with help from Jesus Christ and the New Law.
>>
>>18176392
>the mystery then, it seems to me, is why did God advocate it?
Yes it contradicts with Exodus and Leviticus. Why that is, is maybe the biggest question you get out of the Bible. But I'm a Christian, not a Mosesian.
>>
I need help bros. I feel like I’ve fallen into a deep crevasse spiritually; I look at the world today and wonder where it went wrong. Why is the world so Godless?
All around me are atheists, and online I see people adopting esoteric or arcane spiritualities. I’m not talking about trendy new-wave astrology either, I’m talking full on adopting the religions of their ancestors who roamed the steppe and put old Europeans to the sword. And I can’t help but ask myself why shouldn’t I do the same? We’ve fallen into such a morally bankrupt and decadent place societally, why shouldn’t I take on the spirituality of my forefathers who put similar civilizations to the sword?
Christianity has become too weak, which I will never say is God’s fault, but instead the fault of men. We’ve done nothing to stop abortions or gay marriage, no protests, no riots, nothing.
I received, in the past, a vision I was sure it was from God, but I find myself doubting the validity of it. I prayed to Him for the first time that night and He appeared to me like a flash of lightning; clad in white with a face like that of the sun. But was it Him? Was I imagining things? Is this a ploy by Satan to make me doubt, or was the vision of a different god?
I don’t know. I don’t know what to think or do about it. I’m trying to read the Bible cover to cover but my will to do so is lacking.
>>
>>18176603
Understood, this is why I put a lot of focus into deepening my daily awareness of being an exile in Babylon awaiting return to the Kingdom of Heaven. Parts of the Book of Daniel are very helpful in this regard, plus Revelation. I read the Gospels a lot too just to feel more familiarity and closeness with Jesus. The whole thing, IMO, is to seek proper understanding of one's *context* both in this world and contrasted with Eternity.
>>
>>18176594
so you don't think that christianity implies any political system or order? am I then to infer that the church was always corrupt, at least since constantine? I think the pragmatic real-world question would be: would christians stay holy without someone imposing order on them?
>>
>>18176304
You could try reading the series of posts your replying to. I'm not bothering with you because I think you're a disingenuous cunt.
>>
>>18176603
the whole thing is that God really is one and is supremely loving. the pagans didn't know that, so they were not upon guidance. They were deceived and their "gods" and even their "faith" could affect nothing, had no power and were not supremely loving either for that matter.

Did your vision make you come to any conclusion about God? If your conclusions were in line with teaching then I would lean toward believing that this was what you took it to be
>>
>>18176631
>political system
No
>order
In a sense, yes, but not some worldly "you do this because XYZ" nonsense. Ot's more relational, while keeping the knowledge that God is above all things, though I'm not a theologian, so dont take my word as gospel.
>would christians stay holy without someone imposing order on them?
No, but thats the cinch of it all, we're not holy, we're fallen, and the only way to get back to that state is through Christ.

On another note anon, Im not sure if youre intending it this way, but how youre formatting your questions comes off as rhetorical and disingenuous.
I may be a fool, but if you have a question, ask it. Making assumptions about where that follows though (when it may not be the case) just makes it harder to answer in an appropriate manner.
If thats not the intention its fine but it feels like youre trying to just pick apart potential arguements than actually inquiring about the one on hand or my autism is being pedantic, which is possible
>>
>>18176781
nah you're right, I was being an ass. it came over me. not at first, but then it did. but I think I am genuine if I say that this bothers me to my core.
>No, but thats the cinch of it all, we're not holy, we're fallen, and the only way to get back to that state is through Christ.
the way I understand this, this would make you more closely related to hindus than to jews. I make the assumption that spirituality in all traditions is more or less comparable, with Jesus being what the hindus would call "Manu", ie the God-given ideal, the way that is not in any way in conflict with Gods will. So this is agape, I believe this 100%. I can not understand- and God forgive me if this is out of my not wanting to understand- how God could instruct a people for millenia in a method for approaching Him, only then to abandon entirely this method. I can understand if the timeless spirit of love is what truly permeates the Torah, correctly read and at least if understood in its context, but even that would imply that this timeless spirit of love, translated into our age, should necessitate a new book, unless life so drastically changed around the time of christ that the whole project would now have been misguided. I know of no such socio-economic changes. Yes, you can argue that Jesus is the factor that changes everything, but that still doesn't explain why all the millenia of judaism were good, which they must have been. Were they even spiritual? Did the jews know anything about atman and brahman, about manu? And if they didn't then what is God? If they did not know, in any way at all, that God is love before Jesus then what was happening.. at all?

Well there I go again, but I assure you that somewhere at the heart of this is a genuine concern about how I should live.
>>
>>18176512
>new covenant
kinda tangent but am I wrong in understanding it's a "renewed" covenant instead of a "new" covenant
>>
>>18176859
I believe that Jesus essentially teaches an enlightenment-method, and that he is the goal of enlightenment personified. I believe these are recurring features in many religions. but the interesting point is that judaism and christianity are clearly related, and clearly different. It becomes a logical problem if one is entirely right and the other entirely wrong
>>
>>18162039
Start with “In the beginning...” you ignorant fucking cocksucker does your mommy still tie your shoes, too? Fucking KYS
>>
>>18162551
Of course not. All other heretical interpretations deserve to be burned.
>>
>>18176859
or it's like the question is "what is it to be loving?" where one interpretation is that it is loving to allow people to flourish how they wish, and another that it is loving to keep people from harming themselves. I think the fact that Jesus tells the adultress to cease her sinning is telling that he intends us to keep eachother to a higher standard. Modern people would understand nothing if they were told to cease their sinning. Is this a state of affairs that I am supposed to just leave as fine, as "their truth"? Is this love?
>>
thank God I'm not in the only cult making an idol of a version
>>
>>18176859
I'm >>18176781, and I appreciate the thought you put into this post, so I'm gonna try my best to have a meaningful response.
Now I preface all of this by saying a) I'm not a theologian, so take what I say with a grain of salt, and b) I am not God, and so I don't know why he does what he does. It sounds rediculous and wishy washy, but ultimately if there was a God that did indeed create everything, then how He conducts Himself would be much more than any man could understand. That's the TL;DR to all questions of "Why did God...?", he knows better, so c'est la vie.
But that doesn't make for good bants, so here's how I understand it.
>how could he call the Jews to this legalistic way of approaching him, just to abandon it?
In the very beginning, God created mankind for relationship with him. The introduction of sin to the world during The Fall meant that he fundamentally couldn't have a meaningful and true relationship with him, as sin can't come near Him.
Why do I bring this up? Because it showcases how the old law comes up short in reconciling this relationship.
Following rules is great and all, but because of mankind's sinful nature, these fixes, which created "ceremonial cleanliness" didn't allow for a personal relationship between Man and God. So in this regard, the millennia of Judaism wasn't good at all, it was just a comb over, a way to get close to God, but not quite what He desired.
What was needed was true reconciliation, one that couldn't be attained by a temporary cleanliness. So enter Jesus, who though perfect, and completely clean from all sin, died, and took on the world's sin, so that people can come close to God once again. In this, Jesus isn't just a "Manu" or an Ideal, he is a scapegoat of sorts. He is a punching bag so that people dont have to suffer the consequence of sin, which is death.
This is where it is literally impossible to explain why or how this works, and I'm not gonna pretend that I have the answers, but if Christianity is true, then this kind of reconciliation is what all of Judaism was building up to. It was a means to an end, to a TRUE end.
In this way it wasn't misguided, it's just what needed to happen for real reconciliation.
>>
>>18176859
>>18177501
So to try and answer the questions
>were the Jews spiritual?
Certainly some were, especially those who were allegedly filled with the Holy Spirit, but most were probably in it just for the cultural norm and the promise of a nation for themselves (not unlike some Christians who are just in it for heaven, and not for relationship with God)
>Did Jews know about atman brahman and manu
I don't know, if Christianity is true, then probably not, as their spirituality would have been because of God. if not, then it doesn't really matter.
>If not what is God?
That's another thing that can't really be said, but I doubt He's anything that we could fully grasp. That sounds like a cop out, but there's a reason that people weren't supposed to make a likeness of Him, as it would diminish aspects of him.
>If they didn't know God is love...
They probably did, but even if they didn't then they knew at least that he was worthy of respect, and that he promised some good things.
>then what was happening at all?
Gods grand plan I suppose. Whether it was done by Love or through respect (which there is evidence of both in the crazy history of Israel), it. would all be according to what was needed for reconciliation.

I hope that that was a reasonable response, I feel as though I didn't explain terribly well, but if there's anything I can do to clarify, then don't hesitate to ask.
>>
>>18157681
The gospel of judas.
>>
>>18157681
Is the Bible a good read?
>>
File: Saul.jpg (446 KB, 800x450)
446 KB
446 KB JPG
>>18159393
>man Saul was a tool
That's the best summary of 1 Samuel I've ever heard. Wait until you see what David's children get up to.
>>
>>18176641
Please explain to me how Peter being given the keys to the gates of heaven made him and everybody that followed him infallible such that every council or debate resolved within the Church is unambiguously True and Correct, not just logically consistent but metaphysically binding? These are mere humans discussing these things at councils, man. Humans are squishy and subjective, there were probably people at these councils with IQs a few standard deviations beyond the rest who were more convincing than their peers and had a disproportionate influence on the outcome of the council as a result. Where is the line drawn between a human's influence on the outcome of some theological debate, and God's?

I am somebody who wanted to convert and got mostly through RCIA before getting cold feet because I didn't know if I could throw myself headfirst into something I still had nagging doubts like this, about. And your response is to get angry and insult me, that's just shameful man. Treat me with dignity or go fuck yourself.

>>18176457
I don't doubt the legitimacy of Biblical manuscripts or even the historicity of events within the canon. I used to be somebody who liked to point out Biblical contradictions or things like Matthew 16:28, and thought hurrrr I btfo'd Christianity but as I matured I realized that generations of scribes and scholars who knew what they were copying saw the same things that I did and didn't see them as irrational or contradictory, and that the answers are waiting for me to find them.

This is something I don't have the answers to, though. I think of this painting of Augustine where he's treading on "Pelagius" and think-- Augustine defeated his nemesis Pelagius because of rhetoric, didn't he? He was a more talented thinker than him, and pushed in his shit. If Pelagius were more intelligent this could easily have gone the other way, and we'd have paintings of him treading on Augustine, and all of our theology would be radically different. What am I supposed to believe makes Augustinian theology more True than Pelagianism, besides the fact that Augustine put up a better fight when their ideas clashed?
>>
File: IMG_8334-dsqz.jpg (2.39 MB, 1350x1800)
2.39 MB
2.39 MB JPG
>>18157681
grabbed this on a whim at the bookstore because it looked so gorgeous, haven't read the Bible in over 20 years
do you just start from the beginning or is there some kind of recommended order?
also got this ad randomly served to me an hour after buying it so I took it as a good sign
https://www.instagram.com/p/CNnlKnHDPN-/
>>
>>18158207
There is nothing missing and nothing superfluous in the perfect message of Christ. If Christ does not say it, it is not part of the message. Don’t bother with the OT, it’s irrelevant. As for the gospels, think of them as sayings with context.
>>
>>18157681
None right now.
The Books of Samuel; the second half of Genesis; Acts/Job 1:15-19; Micah 6:18; Proverbs 8:22; Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 13:2; Luke 2:8–14
>>
>>18177875
>/r/OpenChristian
>>
>>18177736
>Brian cox reading the Bible
Holy shit
>>
File: gnjb.jpg (52 KB, 650x576)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
Bedtime Bumpage
>>18177736
Man, that looks mighty nice.
>>
How much of the OT do I need to read in order to understand the NT? Are threre references to anything besides the Pentateuch?
>>
>>18157681
LUKE
>>
>>18176267
it's funny how they always take the verses in psalms that praise God's goodness or justice, ask for his help etc. and omit the ones where the jews get boners to Him literally burning their enemies
>>
any audio bibles on youtube that
>aren't archaic language
>don't have distracting or loud music/sound effects/changes in audio
>have some effort in them and aren't dry reads
>>
>>18166420
He's implying that he got a (((modern version))) first and then people told him to get the KJV instead.
>>
>>18178953
>aren't archaic language
Gay but here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqJ0aw0FpAVaOhTbF0cr6wbFE7v4a014V

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqJ0aw0FpAVac3wOsnN7rAuM-lIl-FCK1
>>
>>18173060
Look up new covenant theology
>>
>>18168695
Death was the ultimate punishment and curse for man's original sin in Eden, so by overcoming death through the resurrection and bringing back people from the dead during his earthly ministry (Lazarus) while promising that all who believed in him would also partake in the resurrection is the conclusion of this eternal death principle, since Christ dying on the cross paid for this original sin the same way that a sacrificed animal would remove sin in the OT. Christ was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world and being the only sinless man who ever lived is the only one worthy of paying off our spiritual debt through His voluntary sacrifice.

The curse of man is lifted, death as a biological principle is removed and we once more dwell in the garden paradise with God. If you compare the earliest chapters of Genesis and latest chapters in Revelation, you'll notice that they overlap. We can enter the garden once more but only after the Blood of Jesus washes our sins and makes us perfect like Him.
>>
>>18175775
>being this retarded
>>
>>18178885
don't bother ur lazy
>>
>>18177501
if the judaic practice of sacrificing animals as scape goats didn't work, why would letting christ carry my sins work? I only learned about this logic of atonement yesterday, I really believed for a long time that christ died for our sins by knowingly walking into his own death.. How does this play out in a christian life? Does a christian assume the moment he sins that this is already paid for? What is the point, if you will? And if possible, how does this relationship equate to greater closeness with God? One thing the hindus do talk about a lot is turning your active life into a conscious sacrifice- desu I've understood christianity as a a kind of prisitne sacrifice for a long time, pristine because the action is the simplest form of sacrifice while stil being humane ("I give up what I have for you"). Other traditions will also have other forms of sacrifice (burnt offerings and fasting for instance), that are both, as far as I gather, meant as methods of giving up agency to God, a matter of realizing that agency belongs to the flesh and so is a matter of cornering the flesh. Concern with agency is concern with flesh. Islam is similar to christianity in that the fundamental sacrifice is giving to other people. The regular form of atonement in Islam is feeding the poor or freeing a slave, so producing a human good. The greatest act a muslim can undertake is said to be lightening someones worldly load. I say this because.. because it shows that this form of ethic can exist even in a formalistic system. The question is which way produces the most output, and that's really why I ask. I understand the task of life to be maintaining a relationship to Gods love, and then actualizing that love in ones life (loving God and ones neighbor). I understand Jesus as having criticized a legalistic system, I am convinced he did so fairly and justly. But now we have nothing. I live in Babylon. Like in this post >>18177355. The state church in my country is openly pro-homosexuality, which as I understand it goes against even the Gospel, it doesn't need any Old Testament law to be problematic. And the difference with Jesus' time is that if he told one of the jews they were in sin, they would listen. My people would not listen, they would flaunt their transgression. Is it love for me to let them tear down morality? Because surely chastity is a virtue, when Jesus lists sins, I believe in Mark, he lists several things to do with chastity. If looking upon a woman with desire is sin, then what is Grindr? A legalistic method would have recourse here, my experience tells me christianity does not.
>>
>>18179355
But one thing at a time: what does it mean in a lived christian life that Christ took upon himself your sins? How does this affect you? I understand a lot of what christ said and did as testimony to... like, ok, two things: 1. I read the Gospel of Thomas; 2. I'm clearly biased by my history. The Gospel of Thomas makes it a lot clearer that what John is pointing to is similar to what easterners would call enlightenment (eg understanding the body "is dead"; the struggle for the lost sheep re-imagined). Realizing you are a Son of God is probably the same as realizing "You" are atman. I've understood the resurrection as being a concrete testimony to this *fact* that the soul does not die. If God is indeed spirit- so that something can be said of what He is- and we have spirit, then the search for spirit should be related to the search for God. And this method equates, somehwat as you said, to not fighting sin on its terms. The soul is and always will be perfectly pristine, but it is brought into some form of relationship with creation that occludes this knowledge. Sin belongs to the created, and fighting the created on its terms is precisely what religion ought not be about, as far as I gather. Nothing created has any power of its own, so using it as a means without God is by definition a hopeless endeavour. Not involving the incomprehensible element, the relationship with God, the heart, can not be succesful, I think. So in this perspective (of mine) love is both the means and the end-in-this-world of spiritual striving (because it is the spirit that is unceasingly and incomprehensibly loving, the loving element in creation). In this way I understand the christian method to be applying oneself in a way that creates no conflict with Gods will, that creates no reverberations of feeling good or bad about oneself ("births" in hindu terminology), which frees oneself for spirituality. The only problem is that... I don't see how it could ever save the world, be a mass-phenomenon, without being legalistic, as I believe the church has proved. When we have no catholicism it took a while but now the church is dead, christianity is something a small group of people do as a club for being nice (in which there is nothing wrong, but which is not going to save mankind). Legalistic traditions have proven far sturdier, at least so far, in the face of modernity, to the great perplexity of the modern westerner. The ideals of, for instance, Islam, are, as far as I gather, the same. The mode of sacrifice, of immobilizing the flesh, freeing one for spiritual life, is not. I am in a long process of figuring out which of these I should believe in as credibly being useful in the modern world.
>>
>>18177704
>Please explain to me how Peter being given the keys to the gates of heaven made him and everybody that followed him infallible such that every council or debate resolved within the Church is unambiguously True and Correct,
Why would I argue that since it's not the Catholic position?
>>
>>18179549
okay, then point out what I'm getting wrong please
>>
File: 1619957218017.png (779 KB, 568x1024)
779 KB
779 KB PNG
the average christian
>>
>>18179581
I kind of already did highlight the part where you were wrong. I responded directly to it. I didn't read the rest of the post because I don't respect you.
>>
>>18157681
>They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust.

it was my bible study time today and i read this one and i wonder a lot, what he wrote? did any body read it? i wonder? or maybe it was a drawing, like do you think he did candid nudes or? like imagine the kikes are all like hey jesus this bitch is adulting and he just starts drawing softcore in the ground lmao
>>
bemp
>>
>>18180120
Obviously no one actually knows, though I'm sure the Catholics and Orthodox have some story that they claim was given to them extrabiblically directly by someone who was there because all of that stuff was important enough to relay but not write in Scripture. Such may or may not be the source of something I heard decades ago, which I assume to simply be profoundly interesting speculation, that Jesus was writing their names and sins right in front of them.
>>
>>18180851
That'd be pretty based if true. But I like how you prefaced that it's speculation.
>>
>>18171142
pretty sure its kjv with some mormon books added at the back of the book
>>
>>18171796
it's certainly useful in teachings about depravity.
>>
>>18181401
Yes, there is a lot of Catholic and Orthodox "Tradition™" stories (which again, I do not know if this is or is not, I think I saw it on some Christian TV show decades ago, but it has the taste of one) that are, at the least, excellent fan fiction, and often outright fabrication with a specific agenda (the Mary worship, for example) but obviously have no documented trace to the Apostles or Christ being the legitimate sources, and in fact generally show up only centuries after them. Something like this one is more or less completely harmless and just adds an interesting bit of contemplation to the story so it ultimately doesn't matter one way or another whether or not it is actually historically true. But then too, this entire story is considered by "scholars" to not have been in the original manuscripts (which cannot be truly proven nor disproved, but probably wasn't). Still then, even not having been in the original manuscript doesn't automatically disprove the story not having been historical and edited in. No one actually knows any of this.
>>
>>18181553
As far as I know they keep their Bible and the Book of Mormon completely separate.
>>
>>18179355
Haha, goodness, with every response it gets longer and longer, please bear with me as I try to address everything.
>Why does Christs sacrifice work if animals didn’t?
I don’t claim to know the nitty gritty of it, but I believe it’s because animals can’t take on the true punishment of sin and death, which is absolute separation from God. When it’s said that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) , yes that’s meaning a literal death (i.e. you will die some day), but it’s more referring to the fact that if you die, with the stain of sin on you, then you will be completely cut off from God, not because He wants to, but because there’s no other way.
Animals don’t have souls, so they can’t suffer the REAL punishment of sin, and so they can’t remove sin: at best they could cover it up, and show that the Israelites respected God (but that’s only if they do the Sacrifices correctly, if they’re lazy with it, as people like King Saul were then it’s as good as nothing).
Then Jesus comes, lives a sinless life, and dies, even though he didn’t need to. As a man, he had a soul, and therefore could take on the actual punishment that came with death. It get’s fuzzy here, because there’s no way to tell exactly how or why it works, but the tl;dr (and the thing we put our faith in) is that at the cross, Jesus decides to take on the sin of the entire world (literally everyone’s even those who don’t believe), and as a man, this meant he experienced complete separation from God. Being God, however, he wasn’t shackled by death, and rose again 3 days later.
*note, this is admittedly very difficult to grasp as humans bound by the laws of our universe (like yeah, how can God experience separation from… God? That’s kinda funky), but that’s where faith comes in, as it’s simply something we don’t know. One day though. Hopefully.*

>How does this play out in a Christian life?
So, Jesus has voluntarily taken sin out of the equation, what does that mean? That means that if we decide to ask for forgiveness, then God looks to Jesus and what he’d done. He looks at The Cross, and essentially says “yes, I can forgive you because I love you, and My Son took on the punishment for your sin and shame”. So things are good.
This is where people have issues though, because like, could I murder, rape, steal, pillage, destroy peoples lives, and then just say sorry and everything’s good? …Well yes and no, there is more to it than that. God knows what’s in a man’s heart, so if someone is truly sorry for what they’ve done, then yes there can be that forgiveness… but at the same time, if you’re just playing lip service, and you don’t actually make an effort to repent (that is, to actively say “No” to sin and turn away from these horrible actions) then it’s unlikely that a fake “sorry God” is gonna cut it. [1/4]
>>
>>18179355
>Does a Christian assume the moment he sins that it’s payed for?
I personally don’t think this way though I’m sure some do (whether it’s good or not, I’m not sure). Like I know that everything is okay in the end, but I still make a point to take time out of the day and apologize for the things that I know I did wrong, and then ask for insight on the other things that I’m not conscious of. When you’re in the heat of something that’s not right you rarely rationalize it. It’s usually an “Aha! I screwed up!” and then I make a point to think about it, ask for forgiveness, and if I have time, think how I can make steps to stop it.

>What’s the point if you will?
I presume (and correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re asking about what the point of being a Christian if you’re assuming everything’s forgiven. Well like I said before, I make a point of asking for forgiveness and trying to repent, but there’s the bigger part of that acceptance of His Grace, that acknowledgement that I deserved death, but Jesus died so I could be made right with God. After all, God is willing to forgive anyone who asks, but it’s only in that asking that you are actually set right with God.
This is the thing that sets Christians apart from atheists and others who don’t believe in what Jesus did for us: we ask God to to look at what Jesus did, and forgive us. This is something he’s more than willing to do, but it all relies on us taking that step to humble ourselves and say “I can’t do this alone, I need God to help me”. Without this respect and understanding, and desire for relationship, nothing can be done.
If you (not (you), but just some general, hypothetical atheist/ non-believer) don’t want a relationship with God or think that you know better than him, or think that there’s another spiritual way to cope with the brokenness of the world, that’s fine. God will let you do that, because he loves you and respects your decision. In doing that though, you miss out on the benefits of a relationship with God, and ultimately will have to pay the price for your sin, as you didn’t ask for forgiveness. [2/4]
>>
>>18179355
>How does this equate to a greater closeness with God?
In two main ways.
One: if one does work to fight against the sin within themselves, and follow his will as described in the Bible - out of respect for God, and/or desire to draw closer to him, and/or the knowledge that it is the right thing to do - then there is a difference in how close you are to God on this Earth.
This is something I understand personally as well. Last year I was in one of the worst times of my life, a relative I was close to died, someone in my family was put in jail for something so heinous that I actually have a hard time looking at them the same way, even now, and all of the mess with COVID and lack of work and finance stress and oi vey. It was a lot. It didn’t shake my faith (as I have a very autistic, logic based faith), but it was all still a mess. I started to read more of the Bible and the other old thinkers of Christian theology and spirituality, and tried to actually put into practice the things I was reading. What I found was that the more that I leaned into God and His plan and will, the more at peace I was with the situation around me. It didn’t become easier, but I knew things would work out. And they did. In some areas, ends barely met, but they did.
I know that this is definitely a personal experience, and probably not very useful, but the tl;dr is that by trusting the Lord and adhering to his will, accepting the grace given to us and active repentance really has tangible results, even in this mortal life.
And Two (almost forgot there was a second): when we die, we spend the rest of eternity with God, rather than having to suffer separation. In this way, we are literally brought closer to God, as when we die, we are at peace with God, so when the end times come, we will be with Him in New Jerusalem. This one is arguably more important than the first, but it’s one that we can’t really grasp, after all, 70-100 years already seems long, so eternity seems crazy. This is shorter because I’m not dead yet, and desu, I can’t fully grasp it. But in the end if one chooses to have a relationship with God, then we will be with him, rather than having to be separated from him. [3/4]
>>
>>18179355
Now, to how other, spiritual paths have a “similar” result to Christianity, all while being more “formal”.
I don’t claim to know much about Hinduism or Islam, however the way you’re describing them (and reducing them to “which ‘sacrifice to Godliness’ function will get me the most output”) leads me to believe you haven’t taken as deep a look into it as would be required to make a decision as drastic as choosing what to believe spiritually. If you were, then you’d take each religion based solely on it’s merits alone before comparing it to a) it’s followers, and b) how it stacks up to other religions.
If I am wrong, I completely own that, and apologize, perhaps you’ve looked into this for years, and are only bringing up the parts pertinent to our conversation.

Christianity at face value, is a very formal tradition – even more formal than Islam I’d argue (dunno about Hinduism). But there is a difference between being “formalistic” and being “legalistic”, the former is that everything is set up and intricate and important, and the latter is that you must follow every rule. Christianity is formal, but not legal, because like you said, it's about relationship between Man and God.
And yes, it’s true that if you have a real, and true relationship with God then that should be reflected in how you approach His Word but just because some people bastardize that, doesn’t meant that the religion has flunked (that’s an over simplification, but I’ve been at this for 3 hours, so I apologize). By doing that, you’re looking at broken, sinful people as though THEY are the God that they represent.
Yes the modern, western church arguably allows for more than they should, but that’s just an institution made up of broken, sinful people.
I personally do not support the LGBT+ community, and many people at my church share the same sentiment. However, I do TRY to love them as I’ve been called to, because I know that I have issues too, like a porn addiction, and cussing when with my secular friends among others. I’m not perfect, and unfortunately, because of this, I find it easy to cut some slack when others in my church talk about being overly promiscuous, or other, worse things (even when there SHOULD be discourse and reproval.) But ultimately, it’s something that I have to work on, before my groups and then church can work on it.
So it’s hard, man. It sounds like cope to openly admit to struggling with some bad stuff then say “oh but I’m working on it, that doesn’t mean church is bad”, but it’s true. I don’t represent the fullness and greatness of God, and neither does His church. It’s only in a personal, one-on-one relationship that that can be seen at all.
Now I apologize, I know there’s a whole other post, and I’ll respond to it if the thread is still up after I finish work. If not then God bless you anon, I know you’ll find your place in this world. [4/4]
>>
>>18181795
oh boy, this became really long again, but know that in this wall of text are mostly my thoughts and not really any... this is more like just a blog I guess.
>“which ‘sacrifice to Godliness’ function will get me the most output”
to clarify: "output" here is meant to mean "love acted upon". Specifically why I mention it this way is because this is a claim from the Quran, that on judgement day Islam will have proven to be most efficient in inspiring good deeds (or, a little bit more goes into it, but I think that is a fair representation, God knows best). I think their case is that the legalism inspires a kind of living remembrance (indeed it has been said that the heart of shariah is remembrance), which is then intended to inspire deeds. But on the other hand, and why I haven't taken the leap in that direction yet, I'm of the understanding that it can be put to reasonable doubt whether or not much of what is recoginzed as islamic law is really from God, even if one believes in the Quran. I'm under the impression- though it is readily plausible that I am essentially wrong- that much of it really is made by men, and medieval men at that, so that it is doubtful how applicable it is now. Enter chrisitanity on the stage with another view on the concept. It has been a long journey, 10 years I think since I started believing in God, and I learned it from the Gospel. For me personally that never flowered into a religious life though, even though I have carried God with me since then. Then a loooot of things happened, in a lot of ways, and then... a lot of things happened. I have been practicing some form of Islam now for a couple of years, but this realization about religious law in Islam only really dawned on me a couple of months ago. And regarding Islam I really think much if not all that Jesus pointed out about how the jewish legalism had become... lets say "not ideal" could reasonably apply to Islam, or at least should be taken seriously by muslims. Islam still recognizes as entirely valid both judaism and christianity, but I'm not sure all muslims realize that there... well there seems to be significant difference between the two. I have maintained for a long time that muslims should read the Gospel for this reason. My faith in God is very strong (interesting sidenote: in Islam the character of God, which I think christians would call "agape" is usually termed "rahma". "Rahma" is actually the exact same word that Jesus used in aramaic that was translated to "agape" (aramaic being a semitic language)), the question is the method. For me the first time around I was not of the good earth the first time around, that's the simple fact though I did keep belief. I maintained the assumption that the Islamic method would unfold itself through the practice, but some knots have not been untied. I strongly believe in the duty to pray 5 times per day in Islam- that much of the method I am sure of... That and that Jesus is very dear to me.
>>
>>18182001
>>18181795
Other than that I think you're a real sweetheart and I look forward to it, although I ask that you not take upon yourself stress on my behalf.
>>
>>18179859
so you're both mean-spirited and a sophist
nice
>>
>>18182001
>My faith in God is very strong
and may God be praised for this, as it hinges upon what I believe He has given and really nothing else.
>>
>>18182010
Am I trying to use fallacious reasoning or something? You say sophist but you don't know what it means. As if I needed any more evidence of your idiocy. I don't argue with people like you and I'm not interested in convincing you of anything so I couldn't even be a sophist in principle, using any sense of the word.
>>
File: isaiah.jpg (15 KB, 480x360)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
Has anyone explored the thing about Book of Isaiah corresponding to the Protestant canon of 66 books? There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, and the 40th, which would correspond numerically with the beginning of the NT, opens with exactly what John the Baptist came preaching. Then the final chapter, 66, is about Heaven being God's throne and His final judgement.
>>
>>18182284
The books of the bible weren't divided into chapters until around 1200. It's actually kind of arbitrary so trying to find meaning in them is ridiculous.
>>
>>18182275
>argue
I was not interested in arguing, I wanted somebody to teach me

I'm wondering how lines are drawn between heresy and doctrine, and how we know that these battles were won by the side that is metaphysically correct instead of a false side gifted with rhetoric. If you do indeed know what you're talking about, can we please come to common ground so that I can understand this?
>>
Where in the Bible can I learn more about the seraphim, please?
>>
>>18182318
Do yourself a favor and look up what an argument is.
>>
>>18182306
>God didn't lead the chapter divider man
>>
File: 12122.jpg (229 KB, 850x1200)
229 KB
229 KB JPG
>>18182510
If you look at some of the older manuscripts it's not even always clear when individual words begin and end.
>>
>>18162713
based speak more i like you
>>
File: -.jpg (32 KB, 300x200)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>18182306
>>18182552
Makes no difference, your deboonks failed. When the chapters were put in the canon included the Apocrypha. The correlation of canon with Isaiah chapters wasn't unlocked until those books were removed, and then there it was, all in perfect place. God knows exactly what he is doing. This proves that God backs Protestantism.
>>
>>18162713
>the intellect is the highest part of the human experience
Wrong, the spirit is. Talk less, you have no idea what you're saying.
>>
>>18182693
>implying the spirit is human
>>
>>18182328
Isaiah 6.
>>
>>18182712
>the spirit isn't part of the human experience regardless
>>
>>18157681
Can you recommend me some motivating/inspring stories?
Doesn't matter if they're from the new or old testament.
>>
>>18157681
Gospel of John
>>
>>18183160
Book of Revelation
>>
File: office.jpg (47 KB, 890x480)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>18182318
Can somebody else help me?
>>
>>18183275
What exactly are you needing help with? As best I can tell all you need to do is stop giving Catholicism any credence and just read the Holy Bible.
>>
>>18183320
I'm explicitly trying to understand the Catholic POV so I'd like to hear a Catholic's answer
not even memeing, are all Catholics going to get turbo butthurt if I bring it up?
>>
>>18183328
not to mention there are a lot of things the Bible doesn't have an explicit answer for, like which books belong in the Bible
>>
>>18183328
I don't know, I just don't see any reason to be concerned with them, they are full of Satanic lies and dung.
>>
>>18183340
they literally decided what was in the Bible though, you have to respect them for that reason alone
>>
>>18183334
That's been definitively solved just a little while ago.
>>18182284
>>18182677
>>
File: download (2).jpg (33 KB, 460x550)
33 KB
33 KB JPG
holy spook thread
>>
File: yikes.png (564 KB, 860x616)
564 KB
564 KB PNG
>>18183367
>stirner
>>
>>18183367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZumb3Xqryc
>>
>>18178481
Thisness
>>
>>18178885
1 and 2 Samuel are important for it too
>>
>>18183160
Story of Onan
>>
I don't get one thing lads, Jesus is God incarnate, the Spirit is with us, miracles happen.
So this part of the narrative is 100% vindicated.

But there are problems with OT, the Church Fathers read it literally, we had a guy who did excessive interpretative allegory - Origen - but his name and works were condemned at the 5th council then the 6th and 7th repeated it, alongside all the wealth of writers after that.
So that aspect is over, you have to follow the simple sense of Old Testament and maybe talk about types, some mild allegory and so on.

Now if we grant that OT is heavily edited, you stumble upon borrowings in Gen 1-11, some of the narrative which is to be taken literally never actually happened in real life how would parse all this if he truly believed in Christ and reality of God?

I've been confused on this issue for years.
I just play ping-pong with my positions on this issue, looking for yours.
>>
>>18177109
Amen. Currently reading through 2 Chronicles
>>
>>18158207
Your church is probably vexxed by the mythology. These days a lot of churches spend so much time trying to prove that they are rationally correct that they never touch upon things that matter and then they don't matter. Value the values and the community as you say and pray.
>>
>>18187017
This is why Protestantism is great, I don't give any care for what anyone else decides or especially insists. I wrestle with what I read directly while linked to Spirit and work out my own salvation in fear and trembling.
>>
File: 1593081058281.jpg (80 KB, 392x299)
80 KB
80 KB JPG
>>18179585
sorry, wrong picture. meant to post this
>>
>>18187017
Augustine's exegetical writings are highly allegorical
>>
>>18188280
>while linked to Spirit
You sure it's the right kind of 'spirit' you're linking to, hombre?
>>
>>18159848
is /lit/ a catholic board?
>>
>>18189389
is that why all the orthos are on /his/?
>>
>>18189375
Definitely more so than Catholics and Orthodox thinking they are praying to "Mary" and "saints".
>>18189645
There are always lots of memes on 4c.
>>
God bless this thread and everyone in it. Christ has risen! All glory to God!
>>
>>18188280
By rejecting the pope, Luther has made every man his own pope
>>
>>18189710
God is my pope.
>>
>>18189748
>peter has a vision that all food is ok now
>takes it to mean that converting heathens is fine
how far does it go?
>>
>>18189748
if everyone can claim to be guided by God and discern the truth, how is it possible to determine what the truth is? What happens when people disagree on fundamental doctrine?
>>18189776
what this anon said, how far do you go?
>>
>>18189710
>>18189802
but I don't think Luther was saying there should be no leaders of the Church and no way to derive consensus on the truth. in fact he was corresponding with the Eastern bishops, who of course don't accept the Western claims about the Pope.

I am about to be confirmed into the RCC but truthfully I can understand why people don't "get" the Pope. Perhaps it is true that the Bishop of Rome received special respect from the other bishops, and this became a tradition. but I understand why claims like "Papal Infallibility" are fuckin crazy to people, because you have to do some extensive explanation of the Catechism and the doctrine for them to even remotely get why it might not be crazy
>>
Why is Mark considered more authoritative if The Fourth Gospel ('John') is our only primary source about Jesus; no other Bible sources even claims to be primary.

The Fourth Gospel (Chapters 1-20) makes it clear that it was written soon after Jesus's ascension - when such events were fresh in the author's mind. Except where otherwise indicated, the Fourth Gospel is either an eye-witness account or came directly from Jesus. Clearly should be given primacy.
>>
>>18190438
papal infallibility merely states that the pope cannot proclaim a non-heterodox teaching with regards to dogma. As in he is literally prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing so. This is not a huge stretch given that Christ promises that the gates of Hell will not prevail. So either He is a liar, or the pope literally cannot preach heresy.
>>
do you know of any church that recognizes Thomas?
>>
>>18190480
>Mark considered more authoritative
???
Among no one I have ever known.
>>
>>18190485
yeah I know what it is. taught it all by a priest in the FSSP. but you have to understand that claiming the Pope can't say something fallible will appear to any non-Catholic as CRAZY. yes, I understand it's with regards to dogma and not random shit. I know, I'm Catholic. but they have reason to think it SOUNDS insane

also, I don't take the Lord's words to have meant that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Peter, but the Church
>>
>>18190510
gnostics are heretics all across the board
>>
>>18190809
afaik there isnt really anything gnostic about thomas
>>
>>18190766
I simply tried to give the most basic explanation possible, since when most non-Catholics hear "Papal Infallibility" they almost always respond with something like, "Wow you think the Pope can never say anything that isn't true??? WhAt If He SaId ThE WrOnG TeAm WoUlD WiN tHe WoRlD cUp????? HUH???" I believe it is quite possible to explain the concept to non-Catholics without delving too much into scripture.

>also, I don't take the Lord's words to have meant that the gates of Hell would not prevail against Peter, but the Church
oh I agree. But since he establishes Peter as the foundation of the Church, he (the pope) must be the steward of the Kingdom. Thus, the gates shall not prevail against even he.
>>
>>18190832
The gospel of Thomas is a gnostic text, if you're referring to something else he wrote I'd love to hear it.
>>
>>18190855
by what standards?
>>
>>18187017
The final fact for me is that the Bible is just a book, written by a priest class. Now it is valuable because it tells about Jesus and it can give divine inspiration.

But the real Holy Book is written in your heart. When you feel love for the creator, and your fellow beings, that is the real truth.
>>
>>18190857
gnostic's
>>
>>18190950
I gotta be honest with you, it is the only text I've read from the nag hammadi find. what I've heard about gnosticism, almost exclusively from here, is not like what is in Thomas
>>
File: 1609627524833.jpg (7 KB, 240x197)
7 KB
7 KB JPG
Can I just skip Leviticus? I read the first 10 chapters and I don't remember any of it except for Aaron's sons messing up and being punished for not following instructions properly.
>>
>>18160101
Tru dat homie
>>
>>18162592
You can skip it's boring. Just go to Samuel.
>>
>>18191043
WRONG
>>
>>18162736
What about circumcision?
>>
>>18190965
Well both gnostics and orhtodox Christians alike both agree that it's a gnostic text so it's your word against theirs.
>>
>>18190987
Just speed read throughout it. It's supposed to give you a sense of overwhelming monotony so you can really feel what it's like to be a Levitical jew. Also, don't chicken out on Numbers and Deuteronomy. You'll get used to it and things get instantly more interesting after that.
>>
I love Yeshua so much bros
>>
>>18190480
I think the gospel of mark is the oldest? So thats why scholars consider it the most reliable.
>>
>>18192202
Strange logic. There have been people in modern times that had multiple biographies published on them, with earlier ones being far inferior to others done later, some even decades.
>>
File: 1620366179850.jpg (31 KB, 1024x768)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
How to you remain religious amongst so much atheistic text and philosophy? Do you just ignore it? Do you skip over it? That would require you to miss out on the majority of our greatest books on philosophy and literature as a whole
>>
>>18192805
>missing out
>greatest
Also, "philosophy" is pointless at best. It's just intellectual wanking that leads nowhere. "Missing out" on a bunch of worldly things and ways is part of Christian life and I have yet to feel any regret for such.
>>
>>18192838
>Also, "philosophy" is pointless at best
Of course, but so is everything that isn't directly attributing to ensure your survival as a living being. Perhaps this is were I differ from your view, but doesn't it seem extreme to reject critical thinking, even if it is just armchair thinking?
>"Missing out" on a bunch of worldly things and ways is part of Christian life
I understand that, but is there a limit when it comes to literature? Books like The Stranger, Nausea, Blood Meridian, most things by philosophers, and such would be exempt from your catalogue (although to note, these books are not necessarily atheistic or promote atheism, more so critical of religion.). Literature that would move you or even inspire your in one way or another. But even aside from literature, there are many forms of differences from the secular and non-secular. Do you just not participate in those as well?
>>
>>18192444
I'm not a biblical scholar, so I don't know. Personally I would like to read about their reasonings.
>>
>>18157681
Am I the only one that gets annoyed by the repetitious prose in genesis. "God told x to do y, and then he did so. And then he did so Again x10")

It's my first reading but I find it a bit tedious, even though some passages can be very enjoyable. Looking forward to the new testament tho
>>
>>18194129
I think those are mostly due to translating into English and reading it as a modern person. If I remember correctly, things like repetition were very symbolic and came up a lot in ancient Hebrew poetry, so a reader back then wouldn't see it as annoying.
>>
>>18194129
I get what you're saying, but sometimes you just have to slip into a certain mode when reading the Bible where you understand it solely in the "ancient text" perspective. like I read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recently and it has the same "problem" at times but then you just understand like "oh, I'm sitting hear trying to make greater sense of an ancient text. of course I'll encounter this"
>>
>>18194129
It's meditation literature, it sets rhythms, helping to condition your consciousness for interacting with the LORD.
>>
>>18195342
This
>>
I like the Book of Joshua because the heroes roll around exterminating demonic giant clans.
>>
>>18195602
Book of Joshua is awesome

>ywn triumphantly cheer with your bros for the victory God has already given you before the walls of the city even fall down

Faith and obedience to God is the key to it all lads
>>
>>18196390
Blessed share bump
>>
File: bonnat02.jpg (40 KB, 450x571)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
Why did God hate Job so fucking much?
>>
>>18197244
he didnt hate him obviously.
he did it to prove a point to us and him, and Job has eternity to completely understand why God did so and so, so its aight
>>
>>18197377
All's well that ends well
>>
>>18158207
>I'm really struggling with 99% of the shit I'm told at church
>the idea of a community of friendly people.
That's just a test/
How a community trust you will be there when shit hit the fan if you can't even listen to some boring shit for an hour or so and spare some coin in good times?
>>
>>18177875
The OT isn't irrelevant, it and the NT flow together perfectly.
>>
>>18197437
>and spare some coin in good times
I'm fine with 'sparing some coin' if they are honest with me about it. If were to tell me that the money is used to pay for the church upkeep, staff wages, and any excess goes to helping charities.
But the church I go to doesn't mention any of that, they just say that giving more money means I love God more that people who don't give as much. It almost feels like they are trying to guilt people into poverty.
It doesn't help that they recently just bought a fucking huge 4k TV for hymns.
>>
>>18197589
Sounds like you're going to a shitty church. Consider finding a better one, maybe.
>>
brenton or nets septuagint?
already have lexham but want another to compare it to
>>
is there an orthodox catechesis?
>>
What are the main divergences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text? Other than the absence of the deuterocanonical books of course.
>>
Light dont mix with darkness
>>
>>18197589
It's really none of your business. You aren't giving it to the Church, you are sacrificing it to God. Once you give it up, they could burn it for all it has to do with you.
>>
>>18198058
Here
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbDsxw-e0m3mIkapUEZ_-5BEOr19F4t73
>>
This too
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAs4WHgiFOlPapjv70aWUW9YTyHYNYbJU
>>
>>18198058
You should look for a eastern orthodox parish near you and talk to the priest for guidance first and foremost, you don't catechise yourself.
>>
>>18198929
This, just go ahead and start kissing man hands.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.