>>23327626
That's why Jesus needed to spoon-feed the explanation of the parables to the apostles.

>>23327626
Most people have trouble even understanding what a metaphor or parable is. That's why you get people thinking God literally exists.

>>23327681
>God is le metaphor xD
Feeling euphoric today?

>>23327689
I know it sounds ridiculous but I know plenty of people irl who think God is a real man in the sky telling us what to do

>>23327681
>>23327724

you might be surprised, faggot

>>23327626

The Bible isn't an instruction manual, it's a compilation of telestic texts from across wide stretches of time and space of a variety of genres. It's not meant to be studied in a vacuum, but in the context of a larger community with a sacred tradition. The Early Christians didn't just hand out literature, they taught the meaning behind their preaching and most importantly they embodied more than just the text but also the spirit.

>>23327626
>The average person is unironically too low IQ to read the Bible
it always been the case

>>23327626
that's hwat the Church is for

File: ML95.jpg (82 KB, 750x750)

82 KB JPG

>>23328036
The church may have been right that the average non-theologian is not capable of properly engaging with holy scripture, but Martin Luther was right that the church as an institution was a rotten swamp of bureaucrats more concerned with fleecing believers and meddling with the materialistic affairs of kings than it was doing the one job everyone needed it to do.

>>23327626
This is why Jesus didn't leave you a Bible before He ascended. He left you His Catholic Church

>>23328127
Germans, Anon. You're referring to Germans

>>23328231
*Orthodox

>And then Moshe laid with his daughter and then she gave birth and he cut the foreskin of the baby and then his daughter married the pharaoh and had a son but his foreskin was not removed so God killed Moshe and his daughter was raped by a wild pack of Egyptians and the he turned them into sugar and the first baby ate the sugar on the Sabbath and died.
A riveting metaphorical read.

File: main-qimg-73af09a7cd6c10c(...).jpg (84 KB, 602x417)

84 KB JPG

>>23328269
The One Holy Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church.

sorry, I'm just not gonna do it
I'm not worshiping jews is all
HAHAHAAHAHAHA!

>>23327626
>the Bible: god demands that you cut off your foreskin
>soijak christian larpers: uhm it's just a metaphor bro

>>23328412
>tard who doesn't know about Acts of the Apostles

>Everything that doesn't make sense in my myopic, modernist worldview is just a metaphor
This is the most midwitted statement of all.

What's weird is that with TV you'd think televangelists would have, like, brought the oral tradition back to scripture.

But no, we get Black guys screaming HUMMINA HUMMINA BEJEEZUS while multiple Joel Osteen clones squint at the camera with suspiciously toothy grins.

>>23328491
everything is a metaphor
you are a metaphor
i am a metaphor
what isnt a metaphor

>>23327626
That's the point of theologists and priests, explain and make it digestible for the regular masses

File: IMG_1163.jpg (153 KB, 1000x707)

153 KB JPG

>>23328031
narrow is the gate

>>23328269
based

>>23328412
I started reading the Bible and the foreskin parts were disturbing. And then I think there was incest soon after? What does it mean? Didn’t the girls get the dad drunk and let home rape them or did I misunderstand.

>>23328580
>let home rape them
Firstly, Anon, I hope you mean 'him.'
Second: Think about what you just said
>let him rape them
>let him
>rape
>let
Anon, he was raped by his daughters.
Not everything in the Bible is considered a good thing. The Bible records history. That's like saying history textbooks condone Nazis

>>23327626
>All the amount of parables, allegories, metaphors, and allusions are literally too high-brow for most Christians to comprehend the actual meanings within the scripture.


Not really; rather, you are intelectually imploded.

>>23328317
>>23328412
Old Testament is more literal, especially in early parts. The later bits and especially the New Testament is way more metaphorical i.e. Jesus Christ using them quite commonly and showing metaphors of the Old.

>>23328732
Yeah let him rape them. They got him drunk and seduced him in order to get pregnant. That’s how I interpreted it maybe my translation is weird. It’s the ESV version.

>>23329251
Anon, allowing someone to have sex with you isn't rape.
Drugging or getting someone drunk to have sex with them is rape. The women raped their father

>>23327626
>>23327681
Source?

>>23329269
God told them to do it, it wasn’t their will, so technically it was rape.

>>23329274
No, He did not. You needn't lie and cast coals on your own head.
And the first-born said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father. - Genesis 19:31-36
Premeditated rape

File: 1705340891042606.png (972 B, 209x215)

972 B PNG

I just want to read the exciting parts. You know, god's vengeance and all that stuff.

>>23329350
You'll miss the many important truths

>>23329328
Thanks for pasting that, but women cannot rape a man, the dynamic always shifts to the man controlling the situation. Perhaps if they had actual roofies to give to the father and not just wine, then I would see it more your way.

>>23327626
Jesus makes fun of the disciples for this multiple times.

Kind of amusing but curious behavior also. We’re so used to just assuming he’s right about everything and perfect but he talks very critically and then laughs at the plebs for not getting him. Even calls one then ‘Peter’. Aka Rock. Aka stupid

>>23329421
Well, there is that theory that the gospel of Mark was made to validate Paul. It was the first one written; Paul's opponents are all made fun of, as in, the actual apostles are all dumb; Jesus rebukes his family who think he is crazy; Jesus says it's ok for outsiders to do stuff in his name; it's the only gospel talking about a gospel in the first place when Paul was the one who went around talking about a gospel; the original ending was that the tomb was empty and the women told no one which means there was no special post resurrection appearances for the apostles compared to Paul's vision...

>>23329421
>>23329469
I forgot about the big one: calling Peter "Satan" for being dumb

>>23327626
That's what the Church Fathers are for.

As well as whatever God the Holy Spirit allows you to understand directly.

>Churches, sunday schools, bible study groups, outreach, missionaries, bible faq websites, street preachers, christian music, study bibles, youtube videos, pamphlets: *exist*

>/lit/: I'll pretend I didn't see that..

File: kjv_10.jpg (541 KB, 1600x1200)

541 KB JPG

>>23329469
>Well, there is that theory that the gospel of Mark was made to validate Paul.
Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18.

>it's the only gospel talking about a gospel in the first place
Mark is not the only gospel that talks about it.

"And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where."
(Luke 9:6)

>the original ending was that the tomb was empty and the women told no one which means there was no special post resurrection appearances for the apostles compared to Paul's vision...
That's just the Alexandrian version of Mark. The completed ending of Mark is mentioned and quoted by people who wrote about it in the 100s which is before any known manuscript (of that place).

Also Paul himself mentions Jesus appearing to the twelve in 1 Corinthians 15. You knew that, right?

"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

>>23329635
>Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18.
>he actually thinks Paul wrote 1 Timothy

>Mark is not the only gospel that talks about it.
You're right, I misremembered the argument, which is that generally the other evangelists take away references to a gospel when reinterpreting Mark.

>That's just the Alexandrian version of Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending
>The earliest extant Greek manuscripts of Mark, codices Vaticanus (which contains a large blank space in the column after 16:8) and Sinaiticus, end at Mark 16:8, with the women fleeing in fear from the empty tomb. The majority of recent scholars believe this to be the original ending,[40] and that this is supported by statements from the early Church Fathers Eusebius and Jerome.[41]

>Also Paul himself mentions Jesus appearing to the twelve in 1 Corinthians 15. You knew that, right?
Yes. But Paul has this whole inferiority complex about the "super apostles". Because they include people like Peter, who was close to Jesus, and James, Jesus' actual brother. And they preach different things like having to keep Jewish law for example. Meanwhile Paul just saw Jesus in a vision, allegedly, which probably made James and Peter mad that this random guy who never met Jesus was just making shit up about his teaching. Now if it turns out that Jesus appeared in the flesh and went fishing and had lunch with the apostles, they have an even better claim than Paul, who just had a vision. Luckily Mark doesn't say that, so the apostles just had a vision like Paul, since the women didn't even tell the apostles like the angel told them to. At least that is how I remember the theory, I saw it a while ago. Later books like Acts try to make it sound like the apostles had minor disagreements and made up their differences afterwards.

File: Irenaeus_Mark_16_19_box.png (392 KB, 579x539)

392 KB PNG

>>23329665
The modern scholars are hoodwinking you.

>he actually thinks Paul wrote 1 Timothy
That's what it says, so yes. Read 1 Timothy 1:1. I don't see why someone who thinks the Bible outright lies would even care.
>Meanwhile Paul just saw Jesus in a vision, allegedly, which probably made James and Peter mad
Ok, but the book of Acts which was written by Luke says that Paul was accepted by the apostles. I'd say that is a higher priority source on what happened.
>Luckily Mark doesn't say that,
In Mark 16:14 it says, "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen."

Also the other Gospels mention this, and Luke was written before 1 Timothy. So there are some significant problems with that theory, it relies on basically assuming the Bible is wrong as a starting point to try to disprove it, but that is begging the question. If a person starts by assuming something is false, it is then possible to reach that as a conclusion and make it look like they've proven something, but that's only if they assume it's false to begin with. Everything they've said requires them to first assume it's false. But this is something they haven't yet established as being a given or a valid assumption.

>>23329726
>The modern scholars are hoodwinking you
>That's what it says, so yes
>book of Acts which was written by Luke
I understand, I'm talking to an inerrantist apologist. Discussion can't continue because there is no common ground between our views. But this brings up OP's point:
>>23327626
You need historical context about what was going on during when each book was being written, when we don't even know for sure for most of them and lots of them got edited a lot. You need to be aware of the differences in translations, where for example the NIV just makes shit up to make the text agree with dogma when it says something the translators don't like. You need to be aware of the possible theological motivations for each passage. You need to know church tradition. You need to know what 2nd temple Judaism was like during Jesus' lifetime, how Jews slowly abandoned polytheism, how they adapted Mesopotamian myths to suit their theology and more. It's basically impossible for a normal person to just read the bible without completely misunderstanding what is going on. Or you can just listen to your favorite priest/pastor/scholar/whatever.

>>23329745
>You need historical context about what was going on during when each book was being written,
Which I believe we have.
>You need to be aware of the differences in translations, where for example the NIV
This is indeed very important. I don't use inaccurate translations and I wouldn't recommend anyone else to either. That would be irresponsible. The NIV is inaccurate, for example its editors tried to eliminate what they saw as a difficult passage by removing the rooster crowing in Mark 14:68 because it seems to be different from what Matthew and Luke were saying.
>You need to know church tradition. You need to know what 2nd temple Judaism was like during Jesus' lifetime, how Jews slowly abandoned polytheism, how they adapted Mesopotamian myths to suit their theology and more. It's basically impossible for a normal person to just read the bible without completely misunderstanding what is going on.
It would be completely impossible if it wasn't for God seeing fit to grant understanding to grasp the inspired words. Without that, it simply wouldn't happen.

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
(1 Corinthians 2:12-14)

The Holy Spirit has to be real, otherwise nothing in Scripture will ever have the right context, even for someone who was completely literate in Greek in the 1st century. However, on the other hand-- God being real makes everything possible. If God inspired prophecies which no one could have possibly foreseen, if that actually happened– then it is also possible for any person who is open even now to know those inspired truths. The verifiably true understanding, the true interpretation which is spoken of in 2 Peter 1:20, would only be possible to have through same Spirit through which it was inspired. Otherwise it would simply be impossible, even for someone who was alive back then and who was in all the right groups to give them the context for things. They would be hopelessly lost. This is since God's intervention makes all the difference.

>and lots of them got edited a lot.
This is true, but the unedited form has persisted despite these later versions being made. And of course that was an act of providence as well.

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35)

I just want the Q text bros

>>23327626
Most of the Bible is written atrociously and is boring as fuck
The Gospels are written way more straightforwardly than anything in the OT. The OT is a snoozefest, not necessarily in terms of content, but the form sucks.

I like the Sermon on the Mount a lot.

>>23327626
>>23327662
Has Jesus explained why he used parables?

>>23330194
Because it's an effective vehicle for delivering profound ideas to people who aren't accustomed to deep contemplation. And even to those people too.
Idk if he ever said it explicitly.

>>23328580
show cunny

>>23329665
>James, Jesus' actual brother
Can't-reads showing why the average person should not have Scripture again
>>23329726
Yes, many do not know that Acts was split from Luke's Gospel so the "Gospel events" could all be presented together before the early Church would be elaborated on.
>>23329787
>unedited text persists
Which is how we know with modern texts that we are reading Scripture as it was made, with perhaps the minutest difference being choice of articles and similar words

>>23330194
One way of looking at it: In Mark 4:10-12, Jesus says he uses parables to hide his teaching from the public. He teaches in secret and talks in parables so that people won't understand. Matthew's author probably didn't like it, because in Matthew 13:13 he changed Mark's phrasing to make it say that Jesus teaches in parables because people don't understand. Or you could say that this is what Mark meant, and Matthew only clarified it because Mark wrote in a weird way, but I like the messianic secret reading of Mark that implies the former.

>>23330539
>Can't-reads showing why the average person should not have Scripture again
James was most likely Jesus' brother. It's not 100% certain, but the way you're talking about it, it's as if him not being Jesus' brother is more likely for some reason.

File: FB_IMG_1702924524377.jpg (40 KB, 720x526)

40 KB JPG

>>23330771
>Can't reads strike again

It's unclear to me whether theologians really understand the Bible much better.

>>23330799
Apologists, as you can see in this thread, often completely ignore academical biblical studies due to dogma and "tradition". They refuse to take the text at face value because some church father or another who never met the people in the bible made a decision over 1000 years ago about things like book authorship and meaning of passages. Theologians are often also apologists, but there are good theologians.

>>23327626
I'd wager I'm quite a bit smarter than a stereotypical retard but I can not make any sense of at least half of Jesus' parables. That's why I'm not a Christian.

>>23331150
Even if they are difficult to understand, they should eventually be intuitive. Purposefully speaking in riddles does not come across as speaking in good faith.

>>23331150
Can you speak of any that don't make sense to you?
Some people have ideas as ro what they mean, so if you post the parables you struggle with, someone can help you
>That's why I'm not a Christian
Doubt

>>23331188
Sure, here are a few for example that just "do not compute" for me:

Mark 2

18 John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting; and they came and said to Him, "Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?"
19 And Jesus said to them, "While the bridegroom is with them, the attendants of the bridegroom cannot fast, can they? So long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
20 "But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day.
21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.
22 "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."

Mark 3

22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.

Mark 4

21 And He was saying to them, "A lamp is not brought to be put under a basket, is it, or under a bed? Is it not brought to be put on the lampstand?
22 "For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light.
23 "If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear."
24 And He was saying to them, "Take care what you listen to. By your standard of measure it will be measured to you; and more will be given you besides.
25 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given; and whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him."
26 And He was saying, "The kingdom of God is like a man who casts seed upon the soil;
27 and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows--how, he himself does not know.
28 "The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then the head, then the mature grain in the head.
29 "But when the crop permits, he immediately puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come."

>>23327724
>he doesn't know

>>23331340
1. Christ is the bridegroom. The Church (visible and invisble, made up of His followers) have no need to fast in His presence, as these are good times.
2. The wine here is God's transforming grace. Wineskins expand with fermentation, but only once. So, an old wineskin represents our old, fallen natures. A new wineskin represents our new lives in following God, allowing Him to transform us. The new life is not compatible with the old.
3. This is just those grouchy Jews trying to discredit Christ initially. Christ responds by saying that Satan wouldn't act against himself by healing people. Read Mark 3:24-25 as "Mark 3:24-25, ergo Mark 3:26."
4.If you don't subdue a strong guy when you raid his house, he's going to pummel you. This can be applied across a variety of things, but a fair one is that the strong man is Satan, and he must be controlled or beaten before his house (the world, as Satan is the ruler of the wordly Earth) can be raided for treasure [you and I, us sinners.
5. Hiding a lit lamp is redundant. You can't hide your sin from God. He knows and you will be judged someday.
6. We see here an unskilled or unknowledgable planter. He could be representative of any that spreads the faith. The seeds [faith] still grow regardless of what this planter does or doesn't do. It's not us that grow our faith, but rather God who initiates and we who respond.
These are more common ideas of what these Scriptures mean. They may not be all-encompassing of every meaning to be gleaned.

>>23327626
First, you don't sound like a Christian.
Second, Christians will get what they need from their Sacred Scripture.
Third, atheists will not be able to graps anything in it.

>>23330797
Mary literally had sex with Joseph and consummated marriage and had children, Matthew 1:25 proves it, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus". Stop trying to find excuses to worship Mary

>>23330828
Wrong bud. (((Apologists))) know that God is the author and teacher of the Bible and that only saved people are qualified to even comment or speculate, 1 John 2:27. Only catholicucks obsess over church (((fathers)))

>>23331444
>4.If you don't subdue a strong guy when you raid his house, he's going to pummel you. This can be applied across a variety of things, but a fair one is that the strong man is Satan, and he must be controlled or beaten before his house (the world, as Satan is the ruler of the wordly Earth) can be raided for treasure [you and I, us sinners.

Thanks, I will think about them all, but that verse I had long wondered about, and probably never thought of such an interpretation. I like it, it makes sense. And it seems to be connected to the previous verses to paint a broader picture.
Also, checked.

File: FB_IMG_1714250879323.jpg (62 KB, 943x467)

62 KB JPG

>>23331485
Nope. That you applying the more modern idea of "til/until" incorrectly.
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? No. Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
If Mary had other children, that would also make Christ's words on the Cross fully nonsense culturally when He gave Mary to John's care. In that time, if a Jew had siblings, they would be the next in line to care for one's mother, not a friend.
Stop being ignorant of history and Sacred Scripture. Even big heretics of old agree with the Church Fathers
>>23331493
Should apply ((())) for yourself.
>>23331527
You said this is why you weren't Christian. Now that this is resolved, go to your local Catholic Church and join the RCIA and learn and become baptized.

>>23331543
Those were just examples from the beginning of the Gospel of Mark which I had recently read. It's still way to go until I could feel like I understand most of the message. But I appreciate someone taking the time to tell their interpretations. Maybe, it is after all not just gibberish as a result of being riddles whose main ideas got lost in translation...

>>23331605
The "translation has ruined everything" is an evil propaganda meme, Anon. We know exactly what Scripture has always said with about 99% certainty, and that approximate 1% is the difference between words like 'a, an, the," etc.
If you want more help, look up your local Catholic Church's website and get the priest/pastor's email. He will almost certainly love to help you understand pieces of Scripture and answer other questions.

>>23331543
>Now that this is resolved, go to your local Catholic Church
Ew

>>23331622
Christ didn't hand out Bibles before He ascended. He established His Catholic Church. He whoever rejects it rejects Christ

>>23331485
Matthew doesn't "prove" shit, since both it's nativity and Luke's contradict each other anyway. It's clear that both authors each tried in their own way to find an excuse for why Jesus of Nazareth was actually born in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy, when Mark and John's authors didn't give a crap. In fact, Mark can be interpreted as having Jesus' family think he is crazy at one point, and it definitely has Jesus rebuking his family by saying his disciples are his real brothers and mother, because the whole idea of a virgin Mary who had an angelic visit hadn't been invented yet.

>>23331630
And that Catholic church is the Orthodox church btw.

>>23331651
He did not rebuke His family. That affirms His family, as Mary followed God's will perfectly.
>can't reads strike again
>the necessity of a Magisterium shown once again
>>23331665
The Orthodox shouldn't have affirmed the first several councils with the primacy of Rome before changing their minds then if they want to say that

>>23331680
>as Mary followed God's will perfectly.
Not in Mark's gospel. Unless you think the gospels are all one single narrative for some weird reason, despite being written decades apart by people who never met and who never met the people depicted in the stories, all with different agendas.

>>23331695
Show where she deviated and sinned, Anon?

>>23327662
Saul aka Paul says he never met Jesus and only saw him in dreams

>>23331713
No

>>23331700
Show where it says she is following God's will perfectly? She is just a normal woman in Mark's gospel, and you'd assume everyone sins. In fact she is a pretty minor character. And if you assume that it's not Jesus' family calling him crazy, you still have Jesus rebuking his family. Dunno how you can read Mark 3 as Jesus affirming his family, when they come to restrain him and he said that the people there were more like his family than his actual family.

>>23331729
You made the assertion, Anon. Prove it. Show "his family" calling him crazy.

>>23331749
I said "can be interpreted" because it depends on how you translate Mark 3:21. It's usually translated as if the crowd is calling him crazy. But it also can be read as his family calling him crazy in the original Greek. I believe this is how Bart Ehrman reads it, but I can't find a quote now. Even if that is not the case, they still came to restrain him, and Jesus says his disciples are more of a family than his actual family. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Mary, Joseph or Jesus' siblings are of any importance, and this story seems to be made to explicitly indicate exactly that, that the people doing God's will are more important than his family.

>>23331783
Anons not doing the legwork

>>23327626
To be fair we're just too far removed from the context in which the Bible was written, most people don't possess the historical understanding to understand the underlying meanings. Not to mention our society is so different now that a lot of these stories are worthless.
And when you go as far back as Old Testament texts and issues to do with translation even the best scholarly efforts can't figure it all out.

File: 1661488424687854.jpg (5 KB, 168x250)

5 KB JPG

>>23331898
>Not to mention our society is so different now that a lot of these stories are worthless.
That would probably be true if it weren't for the fact that the whole thing is inspired by God and therefore actually timeless. It only appears otherwise to those who haven't been given insight into it by God as mentioned here >>23329787

>most people don't possess the historical understanding to understand the underlying meanings.
That would be true if it weren't for the fact that God inspired the meaning and God also helps people today understand it. The common factor here is God. Otherwise of course it wouldn't be possible, and it wouldn't really matter that much what they wrote anyway, like any other manmade book. The only reason it matters and is relevant is because it is nothing other than God's word to all of us. And because of that, it's not impossible to understand as long as you are praying to God for help.

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
(Luke 11:9-13)

Notice what Jesus says at the end there. He will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask. The Bible also says this:

"But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
(Hebrews 11:6)

"I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me."
(Proverbs 8:17)

"The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth."
(Psalm 145:18).

Amen.

>>23327626
bros i wanna learn history of christianity wat to read or listen or whatever?

>>23327626
The Bible is for everyone. It is the perfect text for teaching those things, as within the pages of Scripture is everything from the simplest of metaphors, "Joseph is a fruitful bough," to Revelation or the chiastic structures of Joshua, Jeremiah, and so on. You have everything from a play-like structure in Job, to the aphoristic structure of Proverbs, or the poetry of Psalms, Song of Songs, and Lamentations. You have simplified translations with notes, and you have original text and Bible codes. The Bible has everything and everyone can benefit.

>>23331898
>our society is so different now that a lot of these stories are worthless.

I mean the OT shit about a neighbor's goat eating the grass in your front yard is dated, sure, but how could that apply to the lessons of the NT? Forgiveness, love, and integrity don't become dated. To the contrary, societies that fail to prioritize them become dated.

>>23332698
How does one know that the bible was inspired by god?

>>23330797
>FB_IMG
Why don't you go co-opt school shootings into being about how great Jesus is or something instead.

>>23327626
Depends on the Bible, really.

>>23329469
Mark was close to Paul, but it is well known his main source for the Gospel was Peter.

>>23329665
>Meanwhile Paul just saw Jesus in a vision, allegedly, which probably made James and Peter mad that this random guy who never met Jesus was just making shit up about his teaching.
Source: you learned that in a dream

>>23333761
I'll pray for you, Anon

>>23332816
You should ask here:
reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical
only place on the internet I know where answers have to be from academical sources or they get deleted. So you can avoid charlatans and retards making up answers from whatever their pastor said. Inb4
>reddit
but I never found an alternative.

>>23332856
>but how could that apply to the lessons of the NT?
Well, the lessons on marriage and divorce clearly depend on things like Paul's views on celibacy, Roman and Jewish marriage customs and more. For example, I truly think Jesus' lessons on divorce were made to protect the wife in an age where a divorced woman would be treated as a defective product more than as a person, and would probably be shunned by society and lose her means of living just because a man was mad at his wife. This is because some interpretations of Jewish law at the time basically allowed a man to divorce his wife for any reason. This understanding makes me appreciate what Jesus was doing even more. On the other hand, one thing that sneaks by here is the fact that Jewish customs allow polygamy, and Jesus said nothing against it, at least not when speaking against divorce.

>>23333866
>Mark was close to Paul, but it is well known his main source for the Gospel was Peter.
This is disputed. More of a guess than "it is well known". Especially since the main source is Papias, who not only was describing the Gospel of Mark in a way that doesn't match our version, he is also known to be unreliable.

>Source:
About seeing Jesus in a vision? Paul himself. About probably making James and Peter mad? That is just my interpretation from their theological disputes, where James was more in the camp of Jewish law being important while Paul is more about the law not being that important.

>>23327626
The Bible works on different levels - there is Sky Daddy level for the plebs, more literary readings for the Greeks, and even a non religious level which requires a subtle negative capacity to appreciate, but which infuses modern secular thought completely. There's also parts of it that are boring and pointless for everyone.

It's breddy gud.

>>23334221
There is more evidence that Mark was close to Peter than there is evidence that "James and Peter mad that this random guy who never met Jesus was just making shit up about his teaching."

>>23332816
Biblical Academia is of very low quality. Don't listen to the other Anon. It is basically Shakespearean authorship theories. Just guess work (and sometimes fanfics) without any kind of evidence.

>>23334281
Sure.

>>23334313
>Biblical Academia is of very low quality.
As opposed to no scholarship at all and just blindly trusting supposed authority? That is just anti-intellectual, which coming from people who allegedly worship the incarnated Logos sounds close to heresy. Or even worse, thinking that the bible is the word of God instead of thinking that it contains words of God, which sounds close to idolatry since the Word of God is Jesus and not a book.

>>23327626
Yeah you need to be really high IQ to understand classic YHWH moments like making his prophets cook their food over human shit and when they protest switch it to "fine you can use cow shit lmao" before killing their wives but telling them they're not allowed to lament before launching into a diatribe about dicks

>>23334322
>For 1,800 years no one mentioned a Q source, there is no manuscript of a Q source, but there is a Q source
>Simon Magus was actually Paul (was a mainstream belief in German Biblical Academia, but at least it has been abandoned)
>Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple. It is impossible that someone could predict this. So, the Gospels were written after 70 AD.
>The Assyrians didn't exist because the Bible is the only place where they were mentioned (until of course, they were proven wrong)

And so on. As of now it is just a silly area where atheists try to create fanfics without any kind of evidence and where "nothing supernatural could ever happen" is taken as a starting point.

>>23334347
>Assyrians
Meant Hittites

>>23334347
>For 1,800 years no one mentioned a Q source, there is no manuscript of a Q source, but there is a Q source
I don't agree with a Q source either, I think there are better solutions. But fact of the matter is that there are many different possible solutions to the synoptic problem, and a Q source is just the most popular one nowadays for a variety of reasons. Yet the fact that there is a synoptic problem in the first place is not disputed, which is the important thing, and which comes from biblical scholarship. The other things you mention are just how history is done. People come up with theories, then evidence appears which contradicts or affirms the theory, then people adapt their views. If you don't believe this is how you search for truth, you don't believe in history as a discipline. And the anon I was replying to asked about history.

File: 1694296434355198.jpg (126 KB, 430x637)

126 KB JPG

>>23333673
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."
(John 10:1-5)

"Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
(John 18:37b)

>>23334474
So the bible says the bible was inspired by god?

That is complete bullshit.

I will write a check for 1 billion for myself stating on it that Warren Buffet said to me that he was okay with me withdrawing from his account. How could that logic fail?

>>23334646
I don't even think the verses that he quoted talk about a "bible", let alone that it was inspired by anything. Unrelated, but as an ESL this King James English just sounds like Jesus has a lisp.

>>23334651
The KJV isn't a good translation anyway. But protestants treat it as if Christ bequeathed it Himself, even if there were colloquial English Bibles already available as well as Latin colloquial Bibles.

File: 1712735623499425.webm (2.16 MB, 480x266)

2.16 MB WEBM

>>23334646
The Bible is very prophetic. Certain elements within the narrative are helpful ways to interpret the world around us.

The flood story has never been disproven, and there are abandoned cities off the coast of India.

>>23331340
>>23331444

I'm not sure how much more clear those parables can be without being parables. Obviously a lamp does not belong under a bed because it hides the light; so, to, should one's faith be not concealed, so that the path to salvation may be illuminated to others.

>>23327626
I've been reading the first several books and it's very interesting how important the notion of child sacrifice is.

Yhwh distinguishes himself from other gods, not by completely doing away with child sacrifice, but by defanging it: you have to give your firstborn child to him, but rather than killing them, you "redeem" them by killing an animal in their place. This begins with Abraham and Isaac, but continues later with laws about redemptive animal sacrifice.

You can trace this thinking all the way forward to Jesus, who is the "Son of Man", sacrificed to God to appease him and to redeem Man.

File: Nomen_Sacrum_in_Revelatio(...).jpg (28 KB, 662x176)

28 KB JPG

>>23335868
Anon, I've noticed that the modern versions (not Received text, but instead translated from the modern Critical text) sometimes make the parables and other statements of Jesus harder to understand. Sometimes it's because they're deliberately missing things due to their choice of source, and other times because of translation choice.

I'm going to post a few examples of what I mean. Most of these have no parallel passage in the other Gospels except where mentioned.

"But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
- Matthew 9:13 KJV

"But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
- Matthew 9:13 NIV
("to repentance" is omitted or removed in modern versions, as you can see in the above example. The same phrase is also removed in the parallel passage Mark 2:17 as well. The third parallel passage in Luke 5:32 still has these words, except for the newest 2020 edition of the NASB which omits all three instances)

"Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
- Matthew 18:10-11 (verse 11 is entirely removed in modern versions)

"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
- Matthew 20:16 ("for many be called, but few chosen" removed in modern versions)

"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."
- Matthew 23:8 ("even Christ" is removed in modern versions here)

"And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him."
- Matthew 25:6 ("cometh" removed)

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh."
- Matthew 25:13 ("wherein the Son of man cometh" removed)

"But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!"
- Mark 10:24 ("for them that trust in riches" removed)

"Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them."
- Mark 11:24
("receive" present tense changed to "have received" past tense - the verb "λαμβάνετέ" is changed to "ἐλάβετε" in the modern critical text)

"In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife."
- Mark 12:23 ("when they shall rise" is removed)

"Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is."
- Mark 13:33 ("and pray" is removed)

"And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."
- Mark 14:27 ("because of me this night" is removed)

>>23336935
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
- Luke 4:4 ("but by every word of God" is removed, but still found in the parallel passage Matthew 4:4)

"And he preached in the synagogues of Galilee."
- Luke 4:44 ("Galilee" changed to "Judea")

"He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock."
- Luke 6:48
("founded upon a rock" changed to "well-built"; the phrase "τεθεμελίωτο γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν πέτραν" was replaced in the critical text with the phrase "διὰ τὸ καλῶς οἰκοδομῆσθαι αὐτήν")

"And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great."
- Luke 9:48 ("shall be great" changed to "is great" by a change in the verb conjugation)

"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?"
- Luke 9:54 ("even as Elias did" removed)

"But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."
- Luke 9:55-56 (everything here is omitted/removed except the phrase, "But he turned, and rebuked them, and they went to another village")

"And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."
- Luke 11:2-4 ("Our" removed, "which art in heaven" removed, "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth" removed, "but deliver us from evil" removed in modern versions)

"Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."
- Luke 17:9-10 ("I trow not" removed)

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
- John 3:13 ("which is in heaven" removed)

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
- John 3:15 ("should not perish" removed)

"And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
- John 5:16 ("and sought to slay him" removed in modern versions)

File: 1643243210062.jpg (58 KB, 505x505)

58 KB JPG

>>23336939
"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
- John 5:30 ("Father" removed)

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
- John 6:47 ("on me" removed)

"And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God."
- John 6:69 ("Christ, the Son of the living God" changed to "the Holy One of God")

"Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come."
- John 7:8 (the first word "yet" = "οὔπω" is removed in modern versions, but Jesus later goes to the feast on His own, creating a contradiction in modern versions)

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you."
- John 10:26 ("as I said unto you" removed)

"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."
- John 14:30
("this world" changed to "the world"; the demonstrative pronoun "τούτου" is omitted in the modern critical text in this verse)

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."
- John 15:7 ("ye shall ask" future indicative verb is changed to "ask" aorist imperative verb)

"A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father."
- John 16:16 ("because I go to the Father" is removed in modern versions)

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;"
- John 17:20 ("which shall believe" future tense verb is changed to present tense verb)

"So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee."
- John 21:15 ("son of Jonas" is changed to "son of John" in this verse and the next two verses, which contradicts what it says in Matthew 16:17 where he is called "Simon Barjona")

Because of all this, I find it hard to believe that people who know about this are going around saying that the differences with modern versions and translations are minor or can be ignored, but apparently that's what they are telling people. Maybe because these differences don't mean anything to them since they're not believers in the first place, idk.

File: 1696708938092646.jpg (81 KB, 400x300)

81 KB JPG

>>23336942
Also, some of the modern corruptions from the Gospels which I hate the most are the following:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"
(Matthew 5:22 - the modern versions remove the words "without a cause" - and I've heard many people quote the corrupted version of Matthew 5:22 seemingly unaware of doing so)

"And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given."
(Mark 4:24 - the modern versions remove the words "that hear," which makes the statement nonsensical)

"And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom."
(Luke 23:42 - the modern versions remove the word "Lord," and this is the only time the thief on the cross speaks)

"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."
(John 9:4 - the modern versions change "I must work" to "we must work")

There are so many more examples like this throughout the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. I would say these changes are why people don't understand the Bible or struggle to understand it and it's why I always use the King James Version. It's also unbelievable that people would simply pretend these differences don't matter.

>>23330199
it's also a helpful device for oral tradition.

>>23331651
there's no contradiction at all, bart. the trip to egypt could also have happened after mary's purification; as well as the census and joseph having two homes to stay in.

File: cyrenius.png (578 KB, 1020x1616)

578 KB PNG

>>23337724
Two accounts giving different details does not have to constitute a contradiction. Even one account that happens to contain more details than another does not need to be a contradiction. These people are applying different standards to something they don't like, because they have a pre-existing desire for there to be contradictions in the Bible for whatever reason.

The interesting thing is, I've heard so many different attempts to say there are contradictions, whether about the two non-contradictory creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2, the parallel passages in Kings and Chronicles or in other places, and here in comparing Matthew and Luke. None of these is actually a contradiction, but these people hope that, by simply saying that it is anyway - usually by presenting things in a confusing way or leaving out details or even adding details - that some percentage of people will somehow be duped into thinking it is.

On Matthew and Luke's opening chapters, it's pretty obvious that you can have the magi visit right before they leave for Egypt in the order of events, and the events that Luke mentions happening before this. Luke never says they didn't go to Egypt because of Herod. And Matthew's Gospel never says that the things Luke's Gospel records did not happen either, so it's simply not a contradiction for both to be true.

Regarding the census, the Romans could have realistically ordered it for Judea as it was slated to be annexed as a province soon (in AD 6). That is a possible explanation for why there were extra impositions on the Jews, who were new additions to the empire. The fact Quirinius oversees this (around 4 BC) isn't a contradiction either, since it's entirely possible Quirinius served two separate terms as governor (see pic), the latter being the more well-known term. We know he ordered the actual taxing, which we know took place one decade later when he returned as governor. This would have occurred having overseen the census there a decade earlier in preparation for that. Ordering everyone in Judea to go to their hometown for a census, as part of the preparation for a general taxing of all provinces, is an unusual imposition. But it was certainly not beyond the Romans' capabilities, especially for a province they were preparing to annex that was under their force.

Also, the genealogies of Matthew and Luke don't contradict either, as Matthew gives the descent of Joseph, while Luke's Gospel in chapter 3 gives Jesus' descent by Mary's line, mentioning father-in-law relationships along the way. This would explain Joseph being the father-in-law of Jesus, Heli being the father-in-law of Joseph - and also the presence of Cainan later in this genealogy as well (he could have married a daughter of Arphaxad and had a son named Selah). This is all explained by allowing Luke to include fathers-in-law in the list, and we know for a fact that Joseph was one to Jesus. So none of these, as far as I can tell, are contradictions.

>>23331543
interesting on the usage of til/until. i've never considered that. what is the proper way to interpret matthew 1:25 then?

>>23338179
That Jesus is the firstborn of Mary. The fact that James and Jude said they were Jesus' brothers means that they were younger brothers of our Lord since they were born afterward.

>>23329369
Stfu, braindead zoom.

>>23327626
I want to know why Christians claim israel is the native land of Jews when the Bible starts out with them conquering the land for themselves, screwing over the pagan? natives. And that one whore Rahab helping Joshua against her own people

>>23338179
It's just this older usage. As I demonstrated, til/until doesn't mean it will require something to happen, otherwise you'll be saying Christ's reign would end, among other illogical examples I referenced.
It means that St. Joseph never "knew" or consummated the marriage.
If you'll believe the traditions and teaching handed down by the Church and/or apocryphal documents like the Protoevangelium of James, Mary was a consecrated temple virgin and she was married to Joseph so that he could provide and protect her.
As you can see here,
>>23330797
Jesus had no biological siblings through his mother. If you take every mention of Jesus having "brothers" or "brothers and sisters" as "biological," you'd be asserting that Mary had nearly 70 children in her life, which is simply foolish.
The Gospel writers intended "brothers" in the way we use "brethren." Or, "my Brother in Christ," as it get thrown about.
Other close relatives to Jesus could be called His "brothers," as the Jews lacked words for "cousin" and "nephew" at the time.
While it is typical course for the consummation of marriage, as we know from the Law, husbands have the authority to uphold or revoke vows made by their wives on finding out of them. Joseph clearly would have known of Mary's virginity and vow, and did not revoke it, meaning it stays with no harm or foul

How true to the KJV is the NKJV?

File: 1626761843391.jpg (220 KB, 1400x1056)

220 KB JPG

what's /lit/ opinion on the apocrypha?

>>23338710
Even if not divinely inspired, there still somewhat useful for understanding culture at the time and how that influences people.
Of course, the deuterocanonicals aren't in the apocrypha list

>>23338659
Here are some major translation differences between the KJV and the NKJV (1982) to consider:
—
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
- Matthew 7:14 KJV

>"Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
- Matthew 7:14 NKJV ("narrow" in KJV changed to "difficult")
—
"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."
- John 3:7 KJV

>"Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’"
- NKJV
(The words thee/thou are singular while ye/you are plural, but NKJV doesn't make this distinction. This also affects the meaning or understanding of Luke 9:41, Luke 17:21 and Luke 22:31-32, because plural "ye" or "you" means something different than singular "thee" or "thou")
—
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
- John 5:39
>"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me."
- NKJV
("Search the Scriptures" in the imperative mood is changed to "You search..." indicative mood, as if they are already doing it)
—
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:"
- 1 Corinthians 1:22 KJV
"For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom;"
- NKJV ("require" changed to "request")
—
"These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
- Jude 1:19 KJV
>"These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit."
- NKJV ("they who separate themselves" changed to "who cause divisions"; but see Luke 12:51; also, a similar change is in Titus 3:10 of the NKJV)
—
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
– Genesis 2:18
>"And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”"
– NKJV ("meet" changed to "comparable")
—
"...and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
– Genesis 22:17 KJV
>"...and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies."
– NKJV ("seed" singular and "his enemies" singular, is changed to "descendants" and "their enemies" plural; but see what Paul says in Galatians 3:16 about the "seed" singular, also mentioned in Gen. 3:15)
—
"For the LORD hath turned away the excellency of Jacob,"
– Nahum 2:2 KJV
>"For the LORD will restore the excellence of Jacob"
– NKJV
—
"Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand."
– Psalm 109:6
>"Set a wicked man over him, And let an accuser stand at his right hand."
– NKJV

There are many other questionable translation choices in the NKJV. For instance where the NKJV reverses the meaning of 2 Kings 23:29 and causes it to directly contradict 2 Chronicles 35:20. Or where it reverses the meaning of Hebrews 3:16. Also, NKJV follows the Critical text in some places. Such as Acts 19:2, 2 Cor. 4:14, 2 John v. 7, Jude 1:3, Revelation 6:11.

>>23327626
https://t.me/intelslava/58555

Russian White cockroach kill them all

>>23327626
Yep, but it's still beneficial. St. Paul is very simple at times and so is Christ. Also, almost everyone relies on translations and you see why the Church has always held that the Sacraments are the most essential.

>>23338649
yes, i understand, but how would you read that in today's lense? for he knew her not for as much to, or up to, the time she had jesus? i have a lot of scripture nit pickers in my life and i'd like a fresh way for them to look at this line.

Even a child can understand the scripture with true faith

>>23327626
This Is why Sunday School, and Church exist Anon.

>>23339214
Why would I read something with "today's lense?" "Today's lense" is just reading a false perception into something.
As I said, it means Joespeh never "knew" her. This line just specifies there so people can understand Christ's birth to a virgin. It does not mean they consummated the marriage later. That's reading a false perception into the text.
One should understand Scripture by reading it with a lense that reflects the time and culture it was written in, not with modern misunderstandings.

>>23339426
yes, i understand that but people i frequently deal with do not and i have to break things down in a simpler way for them. contextualizing "slave" in most translations as employee or paying off debts for instance. the atheists in my life are incredibly stubborn so i like to find the most reasonable, simplistic explanations of things. the until part in the matthew verse is what i'm trying to find an easier way explaining or finding another way to say it, other than contextualizing with the verses you already listed which are quite helpful because i know they will certainly get hung up on that because they want to find inconsistencies and contradictions.

>>23339561
This simply proves OP's point, Anon. Those looking for contradictions and gotcha aren't acting in good faith.
Sometimes you must kick the dust from your feet and leave as the Apostles did

>>23339766
i manage with what i've been given, family, friend and otherwise. i realize they aren't acting in good faith but i still like to have responses and i also try to live in such a way where they will eventually question their disbelief.

>>23339874
As you should. You should be ready to defend your faith at anytime. But, there is a point where your evangelism to some people must end.
Jesus came not to bring peace, but a sword that would divide friend and family.
If these people can't act in good faith with you here, their friendship and kinship may not be worth preserving.
There's an expression about how people are influenced by those whose company they keep.

>>23340023
i stopped trying to evangelize a long time ago. i passively dismantle ideas that come up now and i have 2 former atheist sam harris, bart ehrman fanatics now gnostic so i feel like i'm doing good work. it's just fascinating how people can toss out or inject anti bible stuff into completely unrelated discussions sometimes. i used to get bothered by it but now i just kind of smile and ask them about what they think and then question that and reinforce it with what i know. i think it helps that i am doing well and the happiest i've ever been in my life too.

>>23340039
>gnostic
You mean "agnostic," right Anon? Say 'psyke,' please

>>23340045
yes, typo. agnostic. my mistake.

File: 1706304914128098.jpg (356 KB, 1024x1024)

356 KB JPG

>>23329350
Read the Old Testament book of JUDGES.

I wonder if most christians ever wondered if an eternity would be a bad thing.I can't possibly imagine how existing for one million years wouldn't lead you to insanity nevermind a billion or a trillion, hell it will continue to quadrillion, quintillion etc imagine living for a billion years just to realize you will exist over than one billion times that

>>23329473
>3 days late
the reason jesus called peter satan was because he was saying he was going to be killed so peter said something like "surely not lord this will not happen" and he calls him satan for getting in the way of the will of god

What is the Jewish view on this topic?
I'd assume that the fact that they spend so much time studying the Bible and also commentaries and records of arguments in the form of the Talmud, that they don't think that God necessarily has inspired each and every believer to understand the correct interpretation of the Bible

What options are there if I want a nice leather RSV bible?
I prefer the thous and thees in the poetry over the NRSV

>>23341206
Scepter Publishing has a nice pocket New Testament. I can attest to that, if that indicative of their quality

File: Raised_Nun_in_Judges_18.30.jpg (21 KB, 323x169)

21 KB JPG

>>23341172
Yes, also the Gospels clearly show that it is possible for a person to be possessed by devils or Satan. It happened to Judas after Jesus gave him the sop.

"When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor."
- John 13:21-29