File: 1732393732249979.jpg (10 KB, 236x220)

10 KB JPG

>>18111892
Amrican protestants are still stuck in the 1600's

>>18111923
The original Christians were like the Baptists. They were against idolatry

>>18111925
They found images of Jesus as far back as 235 AD

>>18111892
>yet another thread of Proties treating the Bible the way Moslems treat the Quran
It is a historical fact that the Bible is just a compendium of texts that early Christians agreed to mutually accept as true.

Outside of the passages that directly quote Jesus, none of it is the literal word of God, and it was not intended to be read by anyone but the priests themselves.

>>18111935
Nope. It was wholely intended to be read by everyone
Jesus himself read the Septuagint inside a synagogue

Interpreting it, on the other hand, is something reserved solely for the theologians (aka magisterium)

>>18111892
based

>>18111923
An excellent century, much better than this clownworld.

>>18111929
1. I really doubt they could date it that precisely 2. If there were images of Jesus at that time it was probably made by Gnostics as per the testimony of Irenaeus 3. When images began to appear in orthodox churches in the late 4th century it was met with open hostility by church authorities

File: 1743723775822361.png (1.83 MB, 1200x600)

1.83 MB PNG

>>18111963
Dura-Europos church
It has areas for baptism and Eucharist, so it is not gnostic

It also has images of Jesus and many things in the Bible, like Adam and Eve, and David and Goliath

The dating is easy, as the place was buried under a wall after Rome hastily built a ramp above it, in preparation for the incoming Persian invaders, which happened precisely at 256 AD

>>18111935
All of the Bible is the word of God or else the Bible is useless. God speaks through the Bible

>>18111982
>Dura-Europos church
Yeah that's Gnostic.
>It has areas for baptism and Eucharist, so it is not gnostic
I don't know how you determine the area is for the Eucharist but the only people we have evidence of using religious images at this time are Gnostics. From Against Heresies:
>They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles.
The reason Irenaeus notes this is because it was distinct from Christian practice, and he condemns it as the same as paganism. Over two centuries later Epiphanius relates that he found an image on a curtain in a church in Judea, and became so enraged he immediately destroyed it. The early Church did not tolerate second commandment violations.
I also note Gnostics are no longer the only ones claiming Pilate made an image of Jesus...

>>18111935
>papist says the quiet part out loud and shamelessly denies the inspiration of scripture

File: 1746551403029059.png (96 KB, 650x451)

96 KB PNG

>>18112007
Nope

The command was *graven images
Not images itself

Text is an image.
The bible scriptures are texts representing God

>>18112004
The fact that a lot of you have different interpretations says otherwise

>>18112060
>Nope
Yes, this image is meaningless. It is wrong.
1. "but I want it to be orthodox" is not evidence it was orthodox, there is precisely 0 evidence the church was orthodox
2. The fact they depicted biblical scenes proves nothing. The Gnostics obviously ripped off major elements of Christianity, and changed the meaning (most famous example being the fall of man)
3. The fact they are images *is* evidence they are Gnostic in light of what I posted from Irenaeus. This is putting your fingers in your ears and burying your head in the sand
3. The assertion they must have been orthodox because Christianity was not yet legalized merits no reply
4. Is an unsubstantiated, meritless claim. The style of the art is not typical of historical Christian artworks, nor do contemporary Christian artworks tend to exist let alone within churches, and the only tradition we can definitively connect this to is Gnosticism.
Not a single valid argument and no explanation for the historical evidence.
>The command was *graven images
Which includes all religious imagery, especially ones which depict God or are worshipped.
>Text is an image.
This "argument" merits no reply but speaks the the abject desperation of the idolaters to come up with any excuse.

>>18112083
How?

>>18112096
God will not contradict himself

>>18112098
People who interpret the bible are not God.

>>18111892
Hmm pray to Mary of pray to Israel such a hars choice.

File: 1755971970371782.png (92 KB, 270x261)

92 KB PNG

>>18112092
You seem to be under the impression that the Early Church all agrees that images are banned and that Irenaeus represents the entirety of early Christianity.

They aren't, and he wasn't

All that matters is that the dogmas remain exactly the same
It becomes gnostic if they *added* pagan and heretical contents

>>18112117
Ok, show me the early Christians who said images are good.

>>18112117
>It becomes gnostic if they *added* pagan and heretical contents
Like by making images of Jesus (God) and putting them in a church.

File: cute-cartoon-drawing-jesu(...).jpg (99 KB, 626x626)

99 KB JPG

Repent, pray, repent and pray

You're held back by the demonic, pray a Rosary
Meditate on the mysteries of the Gospels while you pray the Holy Rosary

Don't run from Christ, His Word, His Church, or His life

>>18112128
The rosary is demonic. Mechanical repetitious prayer and worship of a creature, complete paganism.

File: 1760687454502969.jpg (6 KB, 144x180)

6 KB JPG

>>18112119
St. Gregory, St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril are all fine with icons

St. Augustine spent much of his life reminding people not to worship the image itself, but he had no qualms with the use of it

File: church fathers on idolatry.jpg (1.2 MB, 1866x1780)

1.2 MB JPG

>>18112138
Which is why you quoted so many examples of them approving images.
Meanwhile in reality:
>We had started to deal with the apparently better educated pagans — because the less educated are the ones who do the things about which these do not wish to be taken to task — so with the better educated ones, since they say to us, “You people also have your adorers of columns, and sometimes even of pictures.” And would to God that we didn’t have them, and may the Lord grant that we don’t go on having them! But all the same, this is not what the Church teaches you.
-Augustine, Sermon 198
He was in fact among the church leaders pushing back against the nascent rise of iconography

>>18112163
Mate, we still have the Churches that those saints served
All of which have icons to this day

Maybe don't misrepresent their quotes?

>>18112083
You have to read with the spirit and take the literal interpretation. God makes things simple.

>>18112214
What makes you think that they aren't doing the same thing that you are doing?

>>18112202
This argument was specifically made by John Damascene and his successors in particular to impugn the incident of Epiphanius and the curtain because they had no excuse for it and needed to dismiss it as fraudulent. That a church which was served by a man over one thousand five hundred years ago now has images in it, therefore that man must have approved images, is such a strange, desperate, self-evidently irrational argument I am astonished that anyone would accept it, and speaks to the madness of worshipping a god who has eyes, yet cannot see. They very clearly opposed images. This is undeniable from their writings. We keep having this debate (we've really been having it for 500 years), and every time the same thing happens. The Protestant provides a mountain of evidence of patristic rejection of iconography, the papist fails to give a single word from a father in favor of images and has no answer for his opponent's evidence. The simplest most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that the Protestants are right, and the early Church was unanimously opposed to religious images. There is a real consistency between the fathers, the medieval iconoclasts, and the Protestant reformers. So those churches may have icons in them, and that would simply incense any one of these men if they rose from the dead. What you get in Rome and Constantinople is not the faith of the fathers as they claim but only a medieval counterfeit.

>>18112230
Nope.
You are just cherry picking qoutes over an issue that they never really paid much attention to
They tolerated icons and used icons in their churches. Most saints really had no qualms over it and the instances where they made a fuss over it are few and far between

>>18112245
>They tolerated icons and used icons in their churches
Ok, show me where they said this.

>>18112247
Ok
“The physical face of the Lord is pictured with infinite variety, by countless imaginations.”

File: 1738387290997280.png (670 KB, 850x1202)

670 KB PNG

>>18112247
"The physical face of the Lord is pictured with infinite variety by countless imaginations, though whatever it was like He certainly had only one. Nor as regards the faith we have in the Lord Jesus Christ it is in the least relevant to salvation what our imaginations picture Him like...What does matter is that we think of Him as man."

(Augustine, On the Trinity 8.7; E. Hill trans., The Trinity,

>>18111923
they are fully convinced that anyone in the christian world takes them seriously. nobody likes them. especially if they are huw*te.
my church openly tells people that if they are caught even talking to any baptist they will not be getting a proper christian burial and they will be prohibited from congregating. same with mormons.

>>18112252
>>18112258
This is the full context of this quote
>But it must needs be, that, when by reading or hearing of them we believe in any corporeal things which we have not seen, the mind frames for itself something under bodily features and forms, just as it may occur to our thoughts; which either is not true, or even if it be true, which can most rarely happen, yet this is of no benefit to us to believe in by faith, but it is useful for some other purpose, which is intimated by means of it. For who is there that reads or hears what the Apostle Paul has written, or what has been written of him, that does not imagine to himself the countenance both of the apostle himself, and of all those whose names are there mentioned? And whereas, among such a multitude of men to whom these books are known, each imagines in a different way those bodily features and forms, it is assuredly uncertain which it is that imagines them more nearly and more like the reality. Nor, indeed, is our faith busied therein with the bodily countenance of those men; but only that by the grace of God they so lived and so acted as that Scripture witnesses: this it is which it is both useful to believe, and which must not be despaired of, and must be sought. For even the countenance of our Lord Himself in the flesh is variously fancied by the diversity of countless imaginations, which yet was one, whatever it was. Nor in our faith which we have of our Lord Jesus Christ, is that wholesome which the mind imagines for itself, perhaps far other than the reality, but that which we think of man according to his kind: for we have a notion of human nature implanted in us, as it were by rule, according to which we know immediately, that whatever such thing we see is a man or the form of a man.
It is abundantly clear from the context he speaks of *mental*images alone. Nor is he here giving approval of mentally picturing the Lord, since he elsewhere cautions against doing so.And that's the best you could do

>>18112272
>mental images
lul

He never had qualms over icons, lad
He's completely fine with representing the Lord however we want, so long as it is treated as merely an instrument of worship rather than idolatry

>>18111954
>Everyone is allowed to hear it, but most forbidden from listening to it.
Ah

>>18112004
Then the bible paints god as incredibly foolish for destroying the efficacy of words because big building bad, but still depending solely on words to spread his message throughout all of time and space.

>>18112382
*interpreting
Everyone is allowed to read manuals on electricity
But don't go out of your way thinking that you can manipulate the pylons just because you read a textbook on electricity.

The branch of the government that creates laws and interprets the laws is separated for a reason

>>18111925
The original Christians were like the various Gnostic groups, since there was no canon scripture and orthodox doctrine wasn't calcified by various ecumenical councils.

>>18112406
So only god's chosen magical jews can actually understand the text, god is just ironically messing with the goys by showing them the jews' inner workings just like you would be if you showed pigs the inner workings of an iPhone?

Also, you premise is not entirely true, not everyone is allowed to read a company's pylon schematics, that is closely guarded proprietary company secrets since it could be used to exploit or sabotage the pylons.

On the other hand, were you to read enough technical information on electricity and service manuals for electrical components, you could build your own pylons and power your own devices, there are highschoolers who have taken it a step further and even built mini nuclear power plants instead of just transmission towers.

>>18112092
>there is precisely 0 evidence the church was orthodox
Sure, if every time someone presents evidence/iconography to the contrary and you just say no and call it meaningless, of course there will always be 0 evidence by your standards.

File: 1745902421181847.png (65 KB, 276x295)

65 KB PNG

>>18112446
Of course not!
Obedience to the Church is not blind obedience

You are 100% encouraged to ask questions and try to challenge the judgments made by the Church.
In fact, we consider it a virtue to seek the Truth and discover for yourself that the Church is right.

It takes years of study and on-field experience to become a priest.
We don't just pick up a random person to preach on the podium

>>18112465
So >>18111954 was wrong on purpose, you are just being contrarian to waste other people's time.

>>18111929
Pathetic. It actually thinks it’s making a point.

>>18112465
Enjoy Hell.

File: 1738999626312507.png (17 KB, 573x394)

17 KB PNG

>>18112060
>The command was *graven images
>Not images itself
Except that's wrong... the command is against any likeness

>>18112261
>my church openly tells people that if they are caught even talking to any baptist they will not be getting a proper christian burial and they will be prohibited from congregating
Definitely not a cult.

>>18112629
It's a Baptist church, dude
nothing to explain

>>18111892
Yep.

>>18111892
Protestants aren't white

>>18111892
I think out of all their crimes, their pushover stance with other religions is their biggest. You don't have to go Spanish Inquisition, but they don't even ATTEMPT to have a dialogue with other people of different faiths. Instead, they'll just bend over and spread their cheeks for them and say "Aren't I being nice to you?". Vatican 2 was the beginning of the end.

>>18111935
>well spake the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David…
Umm, zoinks, scoob
The Apostles would have a word with you.

>>18111892
>1. They pray to saints
Based
>2. They pray to Mary
Based
>3. They are idol worshippers
Based
>4. They believe you are saved by works and not faith
EXTREMELY Based
>5. They see the pope as a demi god
Chicagoans can be demigods? Based
>6. They don't follow the Bible
Based beyond belief, imagine following Jewscribbles 100%
>7. They believe all religions can go to heaven
Lovably based.

>>18111892
1, 2: Yeah, for intercession. They're part of god now.
3: iconoclasts get out.
4: No, faith is needed too. Genuine faith.
5, 6, 7: No, no, depends on the person's views on universal reconciliation.

>>18112627
First off, no one knows what Jesus looked like
Secondly, notice how it doesn't forbid the use of images of beings that walk the Earth

>>18113630
>in the earth beneath
covers this
heaven is highest, earth is in the middle, and the seas are the lowest. it's not referring to things that are like, inside the earth.

>>18112258
That weebshit character is the faggiest thing the church ever did and they used to castrate little boys for their choirs.

>>18113630
>First off, no one knows what Jesus looked like
This is a good reason to make no image of Jesus, because are you not afraid of misrepresenting the Lord of Glory?

File: 1748112910052591.jpg (76 KB, 850x703)

76 KB JPG

>>18113669
First off, the Church never castrated anyone. They hired boys who were already castrated due to war and medical reasons, but never advocated for it

Secondly, Protees spent 2 decades calling video games evil.

>>18113685
It doesn't "misrepresent", it is not meant to be seen as accurate at all. It is merely a visual and symbolic instrument

>>18113706
>It doesn't "misrepresent", it is not meant to be seen as accurate at all
That's even worse, "I don't care if I misrepresent God Himself, I'm not trying to represent Him accurately". If someone portrays Julius Caesar as a deep black sub-saharan African you object, but do this to God in the flesh and it's no big deal. The one who makes an image has no fear of God.

>>18113706
From 1400 to 1952, the Vatican castrated thousands of 8 year old boys for their choirs. Hundreds of years before anesthesia the pope was running a troon factory.

>Eight was the average age for choirboys to be castrated in the 17th century, though officially it was against canon and civil law. Pope Clement VIII admitted castrati into the papal choir in 1599, quoting as justification St Paul's directive: "Let women be silent in the churches." Presumably St Paul would have been satisfied with boys, but Clement VIII had been captivated by the castrati's "angel voices". The Vatican was complicit in recruiting singers not just for the church but, after Pope Innocent XI banned women from appearing on stage in 1686, for opera houses.
>The orchidectomies (as they are technically known) were shrouded in secrecy. Only the dodgiest surgeons would attempt them, and they were often a lucrative sideline for village barbers. In the absence of anaesthetic, boys were doped with opium and bathed in milk before having their testicles removed.

File: Orders_of_magnitude_(engl(...).png (2.42 MB, 640x2520)

2.42 MB PNG

Ah, another wonderful day soap box preaching to the digital community in some strange and ineffective attempt to invoke disunity, eh OP?

Limit all church related yearly income to 50K and heavily tax all large donations to them so these wannabe messiah welfare parasites can finally shut the fuck up.

No, career-priests, you don't get to have 3 houses and a yacht for hosting a 2000 year old book club, and you're bound for hell. :)

>>18113723
>there are people to this day who deny Luther was the good guy

>>18113711
Bruh, the image of Jesus that we use today is clearly not Middle Eastern

And yes, there are negro Jesuses all throughout the Ethiopian churches, as well as Asian Jesuses in South Korea.

You are making a big deal out of something that no one cares about

>>18113723
None of them were castrated by Churches, lad
They were already castrated when the Church hired them

Also, majority of castratiis were castrated by their own parents for the hope of them being hired at the Opera, where they could become superstars and elevate them out of poverty

>>18113734
Crazy, right?

File: Iconoclasm.jpg (94 KB, 450x293)

94 KB JPG

>>18113741
>the image of Jesus that we use today is clearly not Middle Eastern
I believe images of Jesus should be destroyed
>And yes, there are negro Jesuses all throughout the Ethiopian churches, as well as Asian Jesuses in South Korea.
Just proving the point
>You are making a big deal out of something that no one cares about
There are lots of saints who care about this

>>18113741
>None of them were castrated by Churches, lad
>They were already castrated when the Church hired them
What did they do when they couldn't find parents to bribe and castrate their boy?

File: Melanie-Vaughn-West-Laure(...).jpg (105 KB, 640x960)

105 KB JPG

>>18112629
it isn't. im glad you noticed that. baptists use predatory tactics and materialism to bring pious nations astray. this is a good way to filter out undesirables among my nation.
now do everyone a favor and go die for israel.

File: 1756600123792491.png (206 KB, 850x400)

206 KB PNG

>>18113734
Luther started as a priest who rained praises to the Pope
When the Pope offered him a public debate, he lost so badly he started calling the Pope the anti Christ

Luther condemned Priests who marry. Then he married a woman herself

Luther advocated for free interpretations of the scriptures. Then forbid others from making their own interpretations

By the end of his life, he started calling himself The New Noah, and his once allies started calling him out for being just another Pope

He also rained Praises on the Turks, and made an entire book showing love to the Muslims.

>>18113760
Why do you simply ignore the fact that young baptists/evangelicals are no longer zionist?
Is it possibly because you never go outside?

File: 1736391856350379.png (159 KB, 250x286)

159 KB PNG

>>18113749
A lot, sure, but a lot more couldn't care any less
Icons have always been part of the Church

In fact, it's been there since the Temple of Jerusalem.
The Temple has no image of God, but it has statues of angels.
And they use Mezuzas and Phylacteries the same way we use Christ's images today

>>18113774
>And they use Mezuzas and Phylacteries the same way we use Christ's images today
he said, with no self-awareness whatsoever

>>18113764
all american cults are zionists to varying degree so i do not care what they claim themselves to be. pentecostal, baptist, evangelical, i do not care. you have been dying for israel and sending your kids to die for israel for a little oto long.
it's at a point where, if a person from my nation is a halfbreed with an amerimutt (really rare), they are no longer part of my congregation. you have a latent, genetic subservience to jews to the point that i would rather fight under the shahada than alongside you.
and i go outside a lot how else do you think i can afford to post here you chunky little retard

>>18113774
It also had a bronze serpent but Hezekiah had to destroy it because the Israelites were burning incense and bowing to it like Catholics do with Mary statues today.

>>18113788
>i would rather fight under the shahada than alongside you.
>actual schizophrenia
CatholiX aren't sending their best.

>>18113797
my people beheaded yours under salah ad din but ill let you pretend im latinx just so you don't start your baptisms on me

>>18113774
>Icons have always been part of the Church
That's been disproven so many times in this thread alone it's not even funny, this is alternate universe stuff

>>18113811
>Arab is an inbred bloodthirsty retard
many such cases

>>18113796
They were treating the serpent as a god rather than an instrument of god. Hence why it was destroyed

And he merely destroyed the serpent. Not the angels, not the ark, not the temple. Just one thing that was idolized

You're basically saying, "This thing was abused once, therefore we shouldn't use it anymore."


>>18113818
lul

>>18113836
>You're basically saying, "This thing was abused once, therefore we shouldn't use it anymore."
that makes sense to me.
Are you implying you dont bow down to, pray to, and burn incense to statues and images?

>>18113844
Out of respect, not worship

>>18113849
So, what's the difference between respect and worship?
And why doesn't the Bible make a distinction?

>>18113836
God himself told them Moses to make the serpent and it still had to be destroyed when it degenerated into idolatry. Imagine Mary statues that he never asked anyone to make.

>>18113751
utter silence wow

File: 1747162708187547.png (490 KB, 524x640)

490 KB PNG

>>18113856
>So, what's the difference between respect and worship?
Who's in charge

We recognize that the Saints are above us, are closer to God, and therefore must be emulated. But they are not God - they lead to God

>>18113857
Mary is not idolatry.
Luther himself advocated for her veneration

>>18113867
>Who's in charge
Okay, since God is always in charge, is it even possible to commit idolatry?

>>18111892
Not catholic, but if catholics can't be trusted why can their bible be trusted?

>>18113871
Yeah

>>18113875
>Im not catholic but...
>*uses catholic apologetics*
secular scholarship (to say the least) does not support the concept that the Roman Catholic Church (let alone the Roman State Church of Late Antiquity) authored the Bible, nor authorized scripture reading in Christian churches for the first 400 years after Christ.

>>18113876
Okay, so explain the difference between "respect/veneration" and worship.
To be honest with you, I BELIEVE in venerating the saints, by commemorating their lives and looking to them as an example. Not by praying to them instead of Christ nor bowing down to statues of them etc.

>>18113880
Orthodox and catholic apologetics have some overlap, especially on 1st millennium topics. Nor did I ever make the claim that the Rome is the sole source of the Biblical canon. And I don't even think Rome makes that claim either.

File: 1732932004354568.jpg (7 KB, 168x180)

7 KB JPG

>>18113884
We ask them to pray for us

The point of veneration is to ask someone who's closer to God to pray for you

It is exactly what happened at the Wedding at Cana
Jesus said it himself that it was not yet the time to do miracles. But because it was she who asked, the plans were accelerated

>>18113891
>Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
if you think this is Jesus answering in the affirmative to Mary's request you are schizophrenic.
But that's beside the point.
You don't just pray to saints for them to pray to you (which is just a cynical action meant to "game" God into helping you), you bow to statues, burn incense to them, kiss them, carry them on your shoulders, etc.

Much like how English is the only real language and all other tongued are NPC programming languages for mindless automatons, only Anglicans in fully communion with Canterbury are Christian. If you disagree with me you are simply wrong because Anglicanism is the official religion of the English language and by speaking English you agree with me. If you post in a different language you are simply spewing gibberish. If you don't reply you are admitting I am correct.

File: 1743019887041208.jpg (265 KB, 700x500)

265 KB JPG

>>18113898
Jesus granted her wishes, you fool!
Therefore, what she did is not a sin

File: Mary.jpg (1.37 MB, 2000x4995)

1.37 MB JPG

>>18113867
>Luther himself advocated for her veneration
But did Christ?

>While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Matthew 12:46-50

>As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Luke 11:27:28

>>18113899
>the church founded to get Henry VIII a divorce is the one true church

bold

>>18113904
Who said she sinned here???
Huh??

>>18113923
Her wish was granted therefore everyone is encouraged to do the same and ask her to pray for us

>>18113898
>"mine hour is not yet come"
>does it anyway because Mary asked Him

isn't that the point?

>>18113928
Mary didn't ask him anything. She told him something.
Something which he already knew.
>mine hour
Is his Passion.

>>18113922
Thank you for agreeing. Henry VIII was a great church father. Mostly as he wasn't a cuck incel.

>>18113904
>>18113924
Maybe we should also pray to the Syriophoenician woman who asked Jesus to heal her daughter because he granted her wish.

File: 1737844894642500.jpg (113 KB, 850x1431)

113 KB JPG

>>18113919
Why not look at it in context?

>Matthew 12:46-50
Jesus offered no exemptions, no cutting in line

>Luke 11:27:28
Mary agreed, she recognizes that she is not in charge

>pic
Funny how your picture does not mention Old Testament prophecies about the one who would crush the head of the serpent - it was not Jesus

>>18113919
>Perpetually virgin

At the bare minimum, she had no other kids otherwise John wouldn't have been put in charge of taking care of her after Jesus' death.

>>18113934
What's your favorite Henry VIII writing? For me, it's Defense of the Seven Sacraments.

File: 1752759756612897.png (225 KB, 659x725)

225 KB PNG

>>18113941
Unironically, yes!
Acts tells everyone to ask everyone to pray for everyone
And it also says that the prayers of the Righteous are more powerful

Saints are the most righteous of all
And Mary is the most righteous of all the saints

Therefore, ask them to pray for you
>Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working”

>>18113941
I mean that's Catholick logic yeah. If they think they know the name of the woman I'm sure they already do pray to her.
>>18113942
>it was not Jesus
>And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The seed of the woman is Jesus.
>And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly
The God of Peace (Jesus) shall bruise Satan under OUR feet because we are IN Christ (and Christ is the "seed of the woman" who bruises Satan's head)

>>18113942
The context is that Mary isn't actually worthy of hyperdulia like Catholics claim
>the one who would crush the head of the serpent - it was not Jesus
Marry is the God of Peace?
Romans 16:20

>>18113953
>pray for one another
>for
Not "to" one another for "intercession."

broke:
praying to saints
woke:
praying to God that saints in heaven will pray for you

File: 1746471942207553.jpg (60 KB, 850x531)

60 KB JPG

>>18113955
>The seed of the woman is Jesus
Oh, lad, you were misled

The original Hebrew uses feminine pronouns
It's a she who would crush his head

Also, big emphasis on
>put enmity between thee and the woman
To commit a sin is to form an allience with the devil. No matter how small, it is an act of revolt against God
God placing enmity between the woman and the serpent implies a full rejection of sin and a protection against it

He
ה֚וּא (hū)
Pronoun - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1931: He, self, the same, this, that, as, are

{will} crush
יְשׁוּפְךָ֣ (yə·šū·p̄ə·ḵā)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - third person masculine singular | second person masculine singular
Strong's 7779: To gape, snap at, to overwhelm

your head,
רֹ֔אשׁ (rōš)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 7218: The head

and you
וְאַתָּ֖ה (wə·’at·tāh)
Conjunctive waw | Pronoun - second person masculine singular
Strong's 859: Thou and thee, ye and you

{will} strike
תְּשׁוּפֶ֥נּוּ (tə·šū·p̄en·nū)
Verb - Qal - Imperfect - second person masculine singular | third person masculine singular
Strong's 7779: To gape, snap at, to overwhelm

his heel.”
עָקֵֽב׃ (‘ā·qêḇ)
Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 6119: Heel, footprint, hind part


Must be a very masculine woman.

>>18113836
>"lul"
>this person thereby becalms his cognitive dissonance and restores his satisfaction with mythology
Why is adamantly refusing to live in the real world and living in your own fantasy alternate universe so popular on this accursed board?

>>18113727
Meds.
>>18113942
Have fun burning, freak.

>>18113947
What is sad is we never had a Henry VIII translation of the Bible.

File: 1742955825158894.jpg (6 KB, 133x180)

6 KB JPG

>>18113976
You are referring to the Masoretic text which was written by Jews, in the 10th century. In it, it is masculine

The most accurate translation is actually "it" but some Eartly church fathers had no qualms with either feminine or masculine

The Catholic Church uses a feminine word to emphasize Mary's role as the conduit that led to the salvation of Man
Yes, Jesus was the one who crushed the serpent but he is also God.
Mary is unique because she is just a woman and yet, she was able to completely reject the devil

>>18114119
Didn't Jerome use the Masoretic text instead of the Septuagint as the basis of the Vulgate?

>>18114119
>t. speaks no foreign languages
"It" is never a correct translation when the referent is a person no matter what the original language is, the correct translation is "he" because it is a masculine pronoun in reference to a male person and the reason the church of Rome puts it in feminine is because it is a counterfeit whose author is the serpent himself.

File: 1761565164962.gif (566 KB, 200x200)

566 KB GIF

>it's another "retarded tranime posting latinx deus vult larper talking out of his ass" thread

>>18114166
>>18114155
The Catholic Church acknowledges that it started with an error in translation.

However, they started using feminine pronouns anyway because the original Hebrew was "hu", which can be interpreted as a he, she, or it. It is very ambiguous.

The Catholic Church uses "she" to refer to the fact that, while Jesus was the heel that crushed the serpent, it was also Mary who allowed it to happen.

And, unlike Jesus who was God, Mary is just a woman

>>18114272
>it was also Mary who allowed it to happen
Heresy

>>18114273
Mary said yes.

>>18114276
God didn't need her, she didn't crush the head of the serpent, and if you go to Mary for salvation you will certainly be damned

File: Protevangelium_Vulg_Underlined.png (276 KB, 1252x646)

276 KB PNG

>>18114119
>Jews, in the 10th century.
Those who claim to be Jews at that time (and today) have nothing to do with the ancient or biblical Jews.

>The most accurate translation is actually "it"
The original Hebrew clearly indicates the seed as being masculine, including the Hebrew verb "bruise" (both times: first time, the verb itself is masculine third person, since the "seed" is taking the action, second time, the suffix is masculine third person, since the seed is whose heel is being bruised). And the word for "seed" and "heel" are both masculine as well in the original Hebrew. While the word "seed" itself is masculine, the suffix on the word "seed" is 3rd person feminine since that refers to whose seed it is. Instead of adding a pronoun "her seed," the Hebrew adds a suffix to the word indicating the gender of who the seed belongs to. However, the seed itself is masculine. (This is different from the serpent's seed, which is masculine itself but also has a masculine suffix to designate a masculine owner, i.e. the serpent.)

>>18114303
>Those who claim to be Jews at that time (and today) have nothing to do with the ancient or biblical Jews.
What happened to biblical Jews?

>>18114308
they moved to ulster

>>18114308
Those who were saved among them will be back after the resurrection, along with all Christians, according to the book of Revelation. This happens after Christ's second coming.

>>18114319
So they were all destroyed?

So basically the TL;DR of this thread is OP is right

>>18111892
You are just envious we got a cute anime mascot.

File: a9492ab06.jpg (186 KB, 621x1024)

186 KB JPG

>>18114326
A small number of the original 1st century Jews such as the apostles converted to Christianity. After A.D. 70 and especially the Bar Kokhba revolt around A.D. 136, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and the occupation and displacement was more extensive from then on. The only remnants are/were the small number of Jews who became Christian.

Later, in the 3rd to 5th centuries, some Babylonian gnostics decided to make another gnostic cult. But this time, they would start misidentifying themselves as "Jews." Since they were the only ones calling themselves that by the 5th century AD (when the Babylonian Talmud was first written), that's how the misconception spread. These formerly pagan people, who have nothing to do with Jews or Israel proper, began to follow a book called the Talmud, which plagiarized some parts of the Bible but was mainly based on gnostic literature. This is why they had a similar worldview to the other gnostics of the time, and that still influences them today. This separate phenomenon has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews and Israel mentioned in the Bible, as mentioned before, but it may be related to the "synagogue of Satan" that readers are warned about twice in the book of Revelation. These people are impersonators and liars. As we are told, they say they are "Jews" and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

>>18111892
You literally worship a random German guy from the 15th century and let woman be pastors

>>18114378
I'm pretty sure Baptists aren't part of the wider Lutheran church, chepito

File: 1650945382669.jpg (76 KB, 658x1024)

76 KB JPG

>>18114354
Forsaken by their own God...

>>18114388
They literally are you retarded hillbilly

>>18114378
I don't follow Luther but he did a good thing to rebel. I'm independent fundamental Baptist.

File: 1757478562986128.jpg (69 KB, 820x645)

69 KB JPG

>>18114303
Read the commentary from the 1770's then

Ver. 15. We know that all the power of the mother of God is derived from the merits of her Son. We are no otherwise concerned about the retaining of ipsa, she, in this place, that in as much as we have yet no certain reason to suspect its being genuine. As some words have been corrected in the Vulgate since the Council of Trent by Sixtus V. and others, by Clement VIII. so, if, upon stricter search, it be found that it, and not she, is the true reading, we shall not hesitate to admit the correction: but we must wait in the mean time respectfully, till our superiors determine. H. Kemnitzius certainly advanced a step too far, when he said that all the ancient fathers read ipsum. Victor, Avitus, S. Aug. S. Greg. &c. mentioned in the Douay Bible, will convict him of falsehood. Christ crushed the serpent's head by his death, suffering himself to be wounded in the heel. His blessed mother crushed him likewise, by her co-operation in the mystery of the Incarnation; and by rejecting, with horror, the very first suggestions of the enemy, to commit even the smallest sin. S. Bern. ser. 2, on Missus est. "We crush," says S. Greg. Mor. 1. 38, "the serpent's head, when we extirpate from our heart the beginnings of temptation, and then he lays snares for our heel, because he opposes the end of a good action with greater craft and power." The serpent may hiss and threaten; he cannot hurt, if we resist him. H.

It was not an error or tampering
The word "הוּא" can, and were used to refer to a female.
In fact, it was used right in Gen 3:12
>The Human said, “The woman You put at my side—she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”
Is written as
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה עִמָּדִי **הִוא* נָתְנָה־לִּי מִן־הָעֵץ וָאֹכֵל׃

File: Malachi 3.jpg (132 KB, 674x262)

132 KB JPG

>>18114395
Their God debunked too

File: eusebius-james_b.png (3.17 MB, 1844x1409)

3.17 MB PNG

>>18114395
God gave them 40 years (since the Resurrection) before allowing them to destroy the second temple. Those who would listen accepted the truth, while those who did not were destroyed.

As it says in the book of Acts, chapter 3: "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."

Amen and Amen.

>>18114411
euphoric

>>18114408
>The word "הוּא" can, and were used to refer to a female.
*if* this has merit, and if the pronoun specifically in and of itself cannot distinguish male or female, then that's all irrelevant anyways because every other word in reference to Him is masculine. He and only He is the correct translation. Rome uses a gross mistranslation because it has another savior.

File: 1761165900546.png (272 KB, 722x1921)

272 KB PNG

>>18114412
>>18114413
I mean

>>18114446
The only logical conclusion is that their God isn't real and their religion was fake and gay. Which means Christianity is also fake and gay.

>>18114396
No they're not you dumb spic.

>>18114446
>Jerusalem
>never again uprooted or demolished
Kek, don't even need to read the rest of the book.

>>18114408
>The word "הוּא" can, and were used to refer to a female.
I guess you didn't read the post you're responding to then. The post refers to the masculine gender of the seed itself, and the masculine gender of the second object being bruised (according to the third person masculine suffix attached to the second verb "bruise"), and to the masculine gender of the heel. Maybe you haven't studied how the rules of grammar apply to the original Hebrew, because based on how you chose to repond, you seem to not even be aware of what is being talked about here.

The phrase תְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ עָקֵב corresponds to "shall bruise his heel," where the suffix נּוּ indicates the gender of the object being bruised (specifically a pronominal third person masculine singular suffix), and the word "heel" immediately after is also masculine. And of course, the seed itself is masculine, as is the gender of the first verb "bruise" – since in the first verb "bruise," the third person masculine is the actor, while the object being bruised in the first verb is instead "second person" masculine, referring to the serpent's seed.

>>18114446
See Galatians 6:16. When it says "Israel" there, that's referring to us, the people of God.

>>18114472
How can it be referring to Christians if it says it's the nation that won't be rejected "because of all they have done"?

File: a42520a01.jpg (31 KB, 600x541)

31 KB JPG

>>18114489
See Romans 9:22-29 and Galatians chapter 3 and 4. Especially where it says in Galatians 4, "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise."

And in Romans 9:6-7, it says, "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called."

So from the beginning all the prophecies ultimately referred to Christ (see Paul in Galatians 3:16), who is the seed, and to those who are in Christ.

This is one of the reasons why it's important to get an accurate translation of the Bible like the KJV. You might miss this if you read inaccurate or poorly-made translations of passages like Genesis 22:17. In the KJV, which accurately translates the Hebrew to English, the Bible makes it clear that the promises were always made to Christ (as the singular "seed"), as He is the one originally in view when the prophecies and unconditional covenant were all made. According to Paul in Galatians and Romans (and the rest of the Bible together), those promises belong to us as the joint-heirs of Jesus Christ. This was predicted in passages like Psalm 22:30-31 and Psalm 102:16-18, Hosea 1:10 and Hosea 2:23, as well as Deuteronomy 18:18-19.

>>18114526
Why did you skip Romans 9:1-5 and the entirety of Romans 11?

>>18114526
>the promises were always made to Christ (as the singular "seed")
But he interpreted it as plural "seeds" in Romans 4:16?

File: 741B.jpg (13 KB, 424x561)

13 KB JPG

>>18114541
>Why did you skip Romans 9:1-5 and the entirety of Romans 11?
In Romans 11:26 it says, "And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:"

The action of turning away ungodliness from Jacob is the same as what is described in Acts 3.

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people."
(Acts 3:22-23)

In other words, the way all Israel shall be saved (see Romans 11:26) is precisely because the ungodly will be removed from it.

>Why did you skip Romans 9:1-5 and the entirety of Romans 11?
I could just as easily ask why you skipped Romans 10. Especially where it says, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Zionist and hyper-dispensationalist teaching has its logical conclusion in the glorification of a people group as an object of worship instead of God, and results in a false gospel called "dual covenant theology." While I don't think you intentionally skipped over Romans 10, I know that some people who teach that theology would gloss over it on purpose.

>>18114557
The same kind of plural as in Psalm 22:30-31.

File: 1733957618928922.jpg (329 KB, 1200x1200)

329 KB JPG

>>18114541
By the way, how do you think either of these passages contradicts anything that has been said?

>>18114570
But I'm not talking about salvation, I'm asking you how can he turn ungodliness away from Jacob in the future if there's no more Jacob?

>>18114580
>But I'm not talking about salvation, I'm asking you how can he turn ungodliness away from Jacob in the future if there's no more Jacob?
Paul wrote Romans before A.D. 70 so to him this was in the future. Context is key to understanding Scripture always.

>>18114579
Considering you avoided giving a straight answer to >>18114489 I think you probably already realized how.

>>18114580
Jacob is the Church, see Galatians 3

>>18114581
But Jacob i.e. the Jews need to exist to fulfill that prophecy in >>18114446.

>>18114588
So the Church won't be rejected for all they have done? What have they done? I thought they were saved because they accepted Jesus unlike the Jews?

File: 9fa5825bf.jpg (127 KB, 720x720)

127 KB JPG

>>18114584
See Romans 9:22-29 and the other passages that I mentioned in the response to that post. Specifically at the end of that first passage it says the following:

"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."
(Romans 9:27-29)

Hopefully that makes sense, anon. The "remnant" being referred to in Romans 9:27 (i.e. a remnant shall be saved) are the remnant I mentioned here (>>18114354). Hopefully that makes sense now that I've stated it explicitly here for you, although I think anyone who reads Romans without any preconceptions will come to the same conclusion.

>>18114596
>are/were
I know the mental gymnastics can be exhausting but make up your mind. Are there even any Jews left to be redeemed as God promised? Per Romans 11 there should be since the Jews are the cultivated olive tree into which the goyim are grafted.

>>18114593
>What have they done?
Innumerable sins in thought, word and deed
>I thought they were saved because they accepted Jesus
In other words
>the Church won't be rejected for all they have done

>>18114602
No, the Jews are not the tree. The Jews are the natural branch that was broken off. The tree is the covenant of grace. Again, see Galatians 3.

File: 4tn3o.png (559 KB, 640x502)

559 KB PNG

>>18114590
You mean Israel, right? The "seed of Israel" mentioned in Jeremiah 31:36 refers to those who are saved, i.e. the people of God. It has always referred to the elect. Paul explains this at length in Galatians chapters 3 and 4.

>>18114602
>Per Romans 11 there should be since the Jews are the cultivated olive tree into which the goyim are grafted.
What verse of Romans 11? I don't see the word "redeemed" in the chapter, although I have to assume you refer again to Romans 11:26, where it says, "And so all Israel shall be saved:"

The answer is yes, there are still people who will be saved and need to be saved who God has not yet brought in.

As it says in 2 Peter, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9).

So there are still some of God's elect who haven't been saved yet, which explains why God has withheld judgement on the world so far. And you can prove that God has foreordained their salvation from Scripture, see for example the following two Bible passages:

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,"
(2 Timothy 1:9)

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed."
(Acts 13:48)

Amen.

File: Romans-11-24.jpg (33 KB, 554x554)

33 KB JPG

>>18114613
>>18114618
>>18114619
>their own olive tree

>>18114623
>these, the natural branches

>>18114649
aka the broken branches aka unbelieving Jews

File: 0002b.jpg (57 KB, 590x332)

57 KB JPG

>>18114623
See Romans 9:22-29 and the following:

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."
- 1 Peter 2:9-10

Peter refers in verse 9 to a prophecy in Exodus 19:6 ("And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.") and in verse 10 to another prophecy in Hosea. Thus we see that Israel now encompasses Christianity, essentially speaking. Those who were grafted into their own "natural" olive tree refers to ancient Jews who were saved before it was too late, such as some of the Jews we read about in the book of Acts and presumably many others. Meanwhile, "All Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26) is a statement that refers both to these people as well as to God's elect in every time period, and it refers to the Israel of God mentioned in Galatians chapter 6. God removing ungodliness from Israel or Jacob implies that whoever will not hear Christ (see Deuteronomy 18:18-19 and Acts 3:22-23) will be removed from among the people. This refers to unbelievers being removed in the 1st century AD (with many of them being visibly removed or destroyed when the second temple was destroyed), as well as later unbelievers being removed from God's people in later times, up to and including today. This all seems coherent and self-explanatory, but I'm glad to explain it in my own words as well when given the chance to.

>>18114649
Some of those branches were later restored, but of course the tree has never been destroyed or replaced. The point is, God's people has always been the saved or elect, with the only difference of note being that before Christ, they were looking for the coming Savior. Today, we have the whole Bible, which is our heritage. It records what our Lord and Savior has done.

File: 1761166528375.jpg (47 KB, 640x480)

47 KB JPG

>>18114664
>God's people has always been the saved or elect
How can they be enemies then?

File: Romans 11_25.jpg (30 KB, 554x554)

30 KB JPG

>>18114664
>refers to ancient Jews who were saved before it was too late
So the fullness of the goyim is complete?

>>18114676
He's talking about the Jews there

>>18114694
Yes, it's all about the Jews.

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

21 KB JPG

>>18114676
>How can they be enemies then?
You mean the ones who were yet to be removed from Israel when the book of Romans was written?

The point of verses 28-32 of Romans 11 is that the physical descendants of the Israelites (also referred to in Romans 9:1-5, etc.) also were given certain temporal blessings. But that did not include salvation if they continued to reject Christ. You notice how Paul emphasizes that they are unbelievers and will not be saved, and that they will be concluded in unbelief. Their conclusion in unbelief refers to when they (i.e. the majority of them) will be removed from the people, as it says in Acts 3. "And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." (Acts 3:23).

>>18114686
That blindness continues until the following is fulfilled:

"Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen."
(Revelation 1:7)

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
(Zechariah 12:10)

>>18114716
>temporal blessings
Might want to read Jeremiah 31 again

File: 1689312387238299.jpg (196 KB, 640x685)

196 KB JPG

>>18114734
"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise."
(Galatians 4:21-23)

>>18114741
No, really, go read it.

File: 1656533929435.jpg (16 KB, 600x337)

16 KB JPG

>>18114750
Already responded to that at the beginning of this post, anon: >>18114619 (By the way, your image in the previous post >>18114446 doesn't even give the passage reference, and it isn't the KJV or another accurate translation.)

>>18114757
>Already responded to that at the beginning of this post
That's why I'm telling you to read it again (giving you the benefit of doubt here because you obviously haven't read it).

Where in the BCP does it say to pray to Mary? Also why is the Nicene creed in the liturgy. Checkmate heretics. Remember: by speaking English you are consenting to Anglicanism.

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

541 KB JPG

>>18114766
Have you read the KJV translation where it says "seed of Israel" in Jeremiah 31:36 and not just "Israel"? Are you dismissing everything Paul says in Galatians as well? It seems so.

I am assuming you are just trying to waste all of our time now. That's too bad because I thought you weren't being disingenuous until now. I see now that you are intellectually dishonest and not willing to have a good faith conversation. But at least I had a chance to post the truth for others to see here.

I don't care what the bible says, catholics are aesthetically superior and that's all that counts.

you will never convince of your shitty ass mall burger religion of NPCs dressed in suits, the catholic and orthodox church are the only legitimate heirs of christianity because they look cool and have actual historical importance.

>>18114697
No, the part where he talks about the Jews being cut off doesn't mean "the Jews were cut off from the Jews".

>>18114780
>have actual historical importance.
If you care about having an accurate and original version of the Holy Bible, you'll realize their form of Scripture is incredibly corrupt.

>I don't care what the bible says, catholics are aesthetically superior and that's all that counts.
You must have a really bad sense of aesthetics then, regardless of which type of catholicism you're referring to.

>>18114780
Whited sepulcher.

>>18114778
>"seed of Israel" and not just "Israel"
Ah yes so God will bring the """seed of Israel""" from the land of the enemy to their promised land, gathering them from the ends of the earth, whose ancestors were brought from Egypt and for whose descendants there will be hope, because that's totally the Church since the Jews went extinct the Bar Kokhba revolt. Makes sense.
And I'm the intellectually dishonest one lol

File: 1750298600916.jpg (49 KB, 554x554)

49 KB JPG

>>18114790
It does.

File: 1467599879509-2.jpg (167 KB, 1600x680)

167 KB JPG

>>18114802
Does that doctrine really compel you to mock the final redemption of God's people, anon?

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever."
(Daniel 12:1-3)

>so God will bring the """seed of Israel""" from the land of the enemy to their promised land, gathering them from the ends of the earth, whose ancestors were brought from Egypt and for whose descendants there will be hope,
Yes, those who are in Christ, both before the New Testament and after.

"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God."
(Hebrews 11:8-10)

"For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,"
(Romans 4:13-16)

>>18114827

1At the same time, saith the LORD, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.

2Thus saith the LORD, The people which were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest.

3The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

4Again I will build thee, and thou shalt be built, O virgin of Israel: thou shalt again be adorned with thy tabrets, and shalt go forth in the dances of them that make merry.

5Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.

6For there shall be a day, that the watchmen upon the mount Ephraim shall cry, Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion unto the LORD our God.

7For thus saith the LORD; Sing with gladness for Jacob, and shout among the chief of the nations: publish ye, praise ye, and say, O LORD, save thy people, the remnant of Israel.

8Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the coasts of the earth, and with them the blind and the lame, the woman with child and her that travaileth with child together: a great company shall return thither.

9They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.

10Hear the word of the LORD, O ye nations, and declare it in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock.

11For the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he.

>>18114827
>>18114833

12Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.

13Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, both young men and old together: for I will turn their mourning into joy, and will comfort them, and make them rejoice from their sorrow.

14And I will satiate the soul of the priests with fatness, and my people shall be satisfied with my goodness, saith the LORD.

15Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.

16Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy.

17And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.

18I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.

19Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

20Is Ephraim my dear son? is he a pleasant child? for since I spake against him, I do earnestly remember him still: therefore my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have mercy upon him, saith the LORD.

21Set thee up waymarks, make thee high heaps: set thine heart toward the highway, even the way which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.

>>18114827
>>18114833
>>18114834

22How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

23Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again their captivity; The LORD bless thee, O habitation of justice, and mountain of holiness.

24And there shall dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks. 25For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul. 26Upon this I awaked, and beheld; and my sleep was sweet unto me.

27Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast. 28And it shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy, and to afflict; so will I watch over them, to build, and to plant, saith the LORD.

29In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge.

30But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.

>>18114827
>>18114833
>>18114834
>>18114840

31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

36If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.

37Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.

38Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. 39And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. 40And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever.

File: 1753737937515403.jpg (856 KB, 2456x1996)

856 KB JPG

>>18114844
>Jeremiah 31:31-34
The New Testament is the fulfillment of this, see Hebrews 8:6-13.

>>18114833
>>18114834
>>18114840
>>18114844
>ctrl+f 'those who are in Christ'
>0 results found

>>18114846
>34And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
So fulfilled

>>18114847
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
(Galatians 3:16)

>>18114833
>5Thou shalt yet plant vines upon the mountains of Samaria: the planters shall plant, and shall eat them as common things.
I hope the Church is fulfilling this right now because those planters gotta eat.

>>18114856
Thanks Paul but that won't get the Jews to dwell in Judah itself, and in all the cities thereof together, husbandmen, and they that go forth with flocks. It won't sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.

Must suck having to read these Old Testament books and being absolutely incapable of shoving Jesus and the Church into them in a manner that's convincing to people with triple digit IQs.

>Everything has to be hyperliteral
You must be a fun person.
But fyi Christians interpret:
"Israel" = God's people, which is people who believe on Jesus Christ (this is something also found in all these prophecies, the Messiah)
"Zion/Jerusalem" = The Congregation of God's people
"The promised land" = Heaven; The New Earth and New Heaven
The Epistle to the Hebrews generally sets the standard for Christian hermeneutics. You should read it.

File: 1583853328429.jpg (549 KB, 1920x1200)

549 KB JPG

>>18114858
"Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it."
(Psalm 37:34)

"But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
(Revelation 11:2)

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."
(Luke 21:24)

We will return to the land when the wicked are cut off and the Lord returns. See what the New Testament says:

"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
(Revelation 20:6)

"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:"
(2 Thessalonians 1:4-11)

I'm looking forward to it.

>>18114872
>Isaiah 53 is about uhh umm uhh

>>18114858
>>18114866
>>18114872
Don't respond to this clown, it's pearls before swine

>i-i-it's metaphor
Took you long enough lol

>12Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the goodness of the LORD, for wheat, and for wine, and for oil, and for the young of the flock and of the herd: and their soul shall be as a watered garden; and they shall not sorrow any more at all.
Look at all this metaphorical singing and dancing in Zion with metaphorical wheat and metaphorical wine and metaphorical oil.
There's exactly one metaphor in there (their soul shall be as a watered garden) but you pretend no one can tell when it's a metaphor and when it isn't.

>>18114874
>We will return to the land we've never been to
*We wuzzing intensifies*

>>18114877
No need to guess, Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1, 44:21, and 49:3 make it clear.
>>18114879
>no argument

>>18114882
>Look at all this metaphorical singing and dancing in Zion with metaphorical wheat and metaphorical wine and metaphorical oil.
See >>18114874

I'm not sure why you're being this intransigent and not wanting to listen despite how generous I'm trying to be. Is it because you feel like mocking and belittling the prophecies of God's word? I guess that's what zionism does to people. It makes them disingenuous and acting in bad faith. All that listening to people preaching things they shouldn't.

>>18114892
Your generosity is useless if you're retarded and can't read.

>>18112007
Dura-Europos wasnt Gnostic

>>18114890
>we carried our own sorrows and we laid our own iniquities on ourselves
>when we shall see ourselves(???) there is no beauty that we should desire ourselves(???)
>we hid our faces from ourselves(???)

No... I would say it's not clear at all that Israel will esteem (Israel) poorly and whose soul will be a sacrifice for (Israel's) sin

But anyways, here's a better one. Let's see if you have a script for this.
>Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.
>For thus saith the Lord of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye.
>For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me.
>Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord.
>And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
>And the Lord shall inherit Judah his portion in the holy land, and shall choose Jerusalem again.
>Be silent, O all flesh, before the Lord: for he is raised up out of his holy habitation.

>Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion: for, lo, I come, and I will dwell in the midst of thee, saith the Lord
>And many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me unto thee.
..
>The LORD sends the LORD unto thee

File: Israel the Suffering Servant.jpg (359 KB, 1524x1046)

359 KB JPG

>>18114905
>No... I would say it's not clear at all that Israel will esteem (Israel) poorly and whose soul will be a sacrifice for (Israel's) sin
But it is, if you bother reading the rest of the servant songs.
>here's a better one
The Book of Zechariah has the single best verse in support of a prophetic statement about Jesus in OT, but it's not Zechariah 2:11 with Yahweh talking about himself in the third person (which he does many times in the OT) it's Zechariah 12:10 (cf. John 19:31-37) posted by >>18114716.
Anyone who reads that will immediately think it's about Jesus, it boggles my mind that Christians keep posting shit like Isaiah 53 when that one is so much better. I'll even join your side of the argument and steelman it here just so you can think about the rebuttal for yourself: There's actually no way that's NOT about Jesus. This verse is also the best test to see if people read the chapters they quote.

>>18111892
Christianity's biggest enemy: christians

>>18111892
It's always funny when people who believe in magic flying jews fight each other.

>>18111892
Exactly. Now, can all you prots/caths start slaughtering each other again so you lose even more relevance in society?

>>18115334
>But it is, if you bother reading the rest of the servant songs.
Isaiah 42:1-4 is literally quoted by Matthew in chapter 12 of that Gospel.

"Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
And charged them that they should not make him known:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."
- Matthew 12:14-21.
(Verse 21 comprises separate quote of Isaiah 11:10, another prophecy concerning Christ or the Lord's anointed).

Matthew also ties Isaiah 9:2, Isaiah 11:1 (thus see Jeremiah 33:15, etc.) and Hosea 11:1 to Christ in the early chapters. Of course, the Lord naturally fulfills Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 too. There are too many to list properly.

Also Isaiah 49:6 (in your pic) is directly mentioned in Acts 13:47 in connection with the apostles of Christ.

"Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.
For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."
- Acts 13:46-47 (1/2)

>>18115334
Isaiah 50:5 also applies to Christ (the Incarnation). For this compare both Hebrews 10:5 and Psalm 40:6, and note the phrase, "opening of [one's] ear" in the Hebrew language is a Hebrew idiom for formation process of their body in the womb (hence why Hebrews 10:5 is worded that way). See Isaiah 48:8 for proof. The distich incorporates that same idiom there as well.

The term Israel clearly refers to the singular Christ (aka the Lord's anointed) in the Old Testament, and in certain passages (i.e. Isaiah 53) that term doesn't even make sense as a collective. Christ being continually referred to in the Old Testament also explains the plurality of God, starting in Genesis 1. It makes sense since Jesus is God the Son. That's why Paul applies Isaiah 45:21-23 to Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11, for example:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
- Philippians 2:10-11 (Compare this directly to Isaiah 45:21-23)

In yet other contexts than these, Old Testament Israel clearly refers specifically to those who are in Christ (i.e. all time periods of God's elect). Thus we see Isaiah 49:6 connected to Acts 13:47. This is just like how Psalm 22:30 is similarly connected to 1 Peter 2:9 and Matthew 24:34. More direct "Israel" connections exist in Hosea 1:10 as quoted in Romans 9:24-25, and Exodus 19:6 as quoted by 1 Peter 2:9. It makes perfect sense to refer to those who are abiding in Christ with the same name that Christ Himself is given. As it says in the New Testament,

"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
- Galatians 3:27-28

"Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;"
- 2 Corinthians 1:21

why do cathlics worship dead mortals?

>>18111935
Catholics believe it to be the word of God, they just don't sperg out and use it to justify whatever Satan is whispering in their ear like Protties.

File: 1747851297529.jpg (349 KB, 690x812)

349 KB JPG

>>18115423
Matthew is my favorite evangelist because he was the dumbest one by far. Really, he's the worst, you can almost see him awkwardly digging through the OT looking for "prophetic" stuff for his version of Jesus to fulfill when you read his gospel. Right off the bat, in Matthew 2:15, he takes Hosea 11:1, a verse about the Exodus, and goes "fuck it, this is a Jesus prophecy now lol" (which is made even worse by the fact it contradicts Luke's account, who says nothing about Jesus and his family ever going to Egypt). He mixes up two entirely different books (Jeremiah and Zechariah) while fabricating a prophecy about Judas' death (Matthew 27:9) and there are apologists still struggling to accept his fuckup nearly 2000 years later. He's also the one who invented the virgin birth (reason why you don't find it in Mark, nor in John, nor anywhere in the epistles, only in Luke who used it as source material).
Fun fact: Matthew's genealogy of Jesus includes Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin), but in Luke’s genealogy, Jeconiah’s name is absent. The issue here is that Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:30, where it is stated that none of his descendants would ever rule over Israel. This curse is crucial because, after Jeconiah's reign, his uncle, not his son, ascended to the throne, effectively fulfilling the prophecy that Jeconiah's descendants would not rule Israel. Matthew was aware of this curse and tried to fix it by removing him from the genealogy but confused Jeconiah with his father Jehoiakim and accidentally removed the father instead.
Matthew was such a fuckup he also got Jeremiah and Zechariah mixed up while concocting a prophecy about Judas' death in Matthew 27:9 (which contradicts the account of his death in Acts 1:18 on top of it).

File: 1747852519490.png (166 KB, 361x471)

166 KB PNG

>>18115423
>>18116284
The list goes on and on but nothing beats the two donkeys. He actually thought Jesus had to ride two donkeys to fulfill another prophecy he made up because he didn't understand the parallelism in Zechariah 9:9. John couldn't even tell Hebrew from Aramaic but at least he got the number of donkeys right.

Zechariah 9:9 - Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Mark 11:1-7 One donkey
Luke 19:29-35 One donkey
John 12:14-15 One donkey
Matthew 21:1-7 Two donkeys

Matthew was unironically retarded.

>>18115424
Most of the OT prophetic "prefigurements" Christians base their interpretations on are nothing but mutilated verses removed from context. And that's when they have something to quote, mind you. In Matthew 2:23 he claims Jesus being called Nazarene was also a prophecy fulfilled, but there's no such a prophecy anywhere to be found in the OT.
Luke isn't much better, by the way. In Luke 24:46 he "fulfills" another prophecy that literally doesn't exist. He cherry picks lines from disconnected OT verses, stitches them together, and there's his "sign of Jonah." The NT writers constantly dismantle OT verses referring to other people and events to make these Build-A-Bear prophecies about Jesus all throughout the gospels and epistles. Chapter 1 of Hebrews is one of the worst offenders. It's entirely made of verses taken from Psalms, Samuel, Chronicles, etc talking about David, Solomon, and God but removed from context to make it look like they're about Jesus. It goes as far as to directly quote 2 Samuel 7:14 while describing Jesus and casually omit more than half of the verse because it didn't fit with him being sinless. This can be seen whenever they quote Psalm 110 (and they do it A LOT, the first verse is the one OT verse they quote the most), where someone is singing about David and they try to shoehorn Jesus in there to make you think it's David singing about him.

File: when-a-goy-says-something(...).png (200 KB, 454x630)

200 KB PNG

>>18115424
Also
>The term Israel clearly refers to the singular Christ (aka the Lord's anointed) in the Old Testament, and in certain passages (i.e. Isaiah 53) that term doesn't even make sense as a collective.
Literally couldn't be more wrong, Israel/Jacob consistently refers to a collective i.e. the nation. You definitely didn't read the OT to say that.

Hosea 11:1
>When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.

Exodus 4:22-23
>Then tell Pharaoh that this is what the LORD says: ‘Israel is My firstborn son, and I told you to let My son go so that he may worship Me. But since you have refused to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son!’”

Jeremiah 31:9
>They will come with weeping, and by their supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk beside streams of waters, on a level path where they will not stumble. For I am Israel’s Father, and Ephraim is My firstborn.”

Isaiah 63:8-9
>For He said, “They are surely My people, sons who will not be disloyal.” So He became their Savior. In all their distress, He too was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them. In His love and compassion He redeemed them; He lifted them up and carried them all the days of old.

Paul himself emphasizes that in Romans 9:4, one of the verses you conveniently didn't post:
>the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory and the covenants; theirs the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises.

>Christ being continually referred to in the Old Testament also explains the plurality of God, starting in Genesis 1.
>God the Son
You can't find thar not even in the NT.

File: jesus fulfilling a prophecy.mp4 (1.03 MB, 540x1122)

1.03 MB MP4

>>18116310
>It goes as far as to directly quote 2 Samuel 7:14 while describing Jesus and casually omit more than half of the verse because it didn't fit with him being sinless.
NT writers be like
>*David has diarrhea in the Old Testament*
>oh that's clearly prefiguring and foreshadowing how Jesus will suffer for our sins!
>*David gets a guy killed just to fuck his wife*
>oh that's... let's not fulfill that.

Baptists should spend less time autistically screeching about "icons" and the "early Church" and more time noticing that the early Church practiced infant Baptism.

>>18116329
Then how do you reconcile The Angel of the Lord depicted in the OT?

>>18116782
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7KScjwdwoQ

File: STScI-01J9S5A5GHXD07DN4A5(...).png (3.87 MB, 1580x1211)

3.87 MB PNG

>>18116284
>which is made even worse by the fact it contradicts Luke's account, who says nothing about Jesus and his family ever going to Egypt
Argument from silence isn't a contradiction.
>He mixes up two entirely different books (Jeremiah and Zechariah)
He never said it was written in Jeremiah, only that it was spoken by Jeremiah, which is no different than what it says in Jude about what Enoch once said.
>there are apologists still struggling to accept his fuckup nearly 2000 years later.
Can you stop this, anon?
>Fun fact: Matthew's genealogy of Jesus includes Jeconiah (also called Jehoiachin), but in Luke’s genealogy, Jeconiah’s name is absent.
Luke gives son-in-law relationships, including Jesus - Joseph, and Joseph - Heli (Mary's father). Mary was also descended from David via Nathan rather than Solomon.

>The issue here is that Jeconiah was cursed in Jeremiah 22:30, where it is stated that none of his descendants would ever rule over Israel. This curse is crucial because, after Jeconiah's reign, his uncle, not his son, ascended to the throne, effectively fulfilling the prophecy that Jeconiah's descendants would not rule Israel.
Jeremiah 22 is overcome by the fact that Jesus Christ was not a biological descendant of Jehoiachin, but He is still the legal heir of Joseph, thus inheriting the kingship. Jesus Christ also similarly bypasses the curse placed on Adam's offspring as well (in Genesis chapter 3), due to having no human father.
>by removing him from the genealogy but confused Jeconiah with his father Jehoiakim and accidentally removed the father instead.
It is perfectly legitimate to say that Josiah begat Jehoiachin and "his brethren" (i.e. Zedekiah, who is called Jehoiachin's 'brother' in 2 Chronicles 36:10, as well as Zedekiah's brothers, Jehoahaz and Jehoiakim). I don't see where anything is amiss here. Matthew includes Jehoiakim as the 14th generation of the second set, and Jeconiah/Jehoiachin as the 1st generation of the second set of fourteen. (1/3)

File: Raised_Nun_in_Judges_18.30.png (29 KB, 431x173)

29 KB PNG

>>>18116284
Matthew was aware of this curse and tried to fix it by removing him from the genealogy but confused Jeconiah with his father Jehoiakim and accidentally removed the father instead.
Nope, this is you hallucinating.
>he also got Jeremiah and Zechariah mixed up while concocting a prophecy about Judas' death in Matthew 27:9
Already explained here
>which contradicts the account of his death in Acts 1:18 on top of it
Judas Iscariot hanged himself, and then some kind of freak accident happened, for example the rope broke, and his body fell and burst open. No contradiction.

>Mark 11:1-7 One donkey
>Luke 19:29-35 One donkey
>John 12:14-15 One donkey
>Matthew 21:1-7 Two donkeys
John mentions the ass (ὀνάριον) in verse 14 and the colt (πῶλον ὄνου) in verse 15. And for Mark and Luke, the mere argument from silence is not a contradiction.

None of what you've pointed out is anything I haven't heard before. It isn't even among the more difficult things to explain, either.

>>18116310
>In Matthew 2:23 he claims Jesus being called Nazarene was also a prophecy fulfilled, but there's no such a prophecy anywhere to be found in the OT.
I literally mentioned here (>>18115423) that Jesus fulfills Isaiah 11:1 in reference to Matthew 2:23. The word "netzer" (branch) in Hebrew of Isaiah 11:1 resembles the word "Nazarene." I'm surprised you didn't know that's what Matthew was talking about there, honestly.

>Right off the bat, in Matthew 2:15, he takes Hosea 11:1, a verse about the Exodus,
It's also about Christ. Hence why the words "Israel" and "my Son" are singular in the Hebrew of Hosea 11:1. The LXX or Septuagint screws this up by changing the prophecy to plural. But Matthew is quoting the Hebrew version of Hosea 11:1 here with singular "Israel" and "my Son."

>In Luke 24:46 he "fulfills" another prophecy that literally doesn't exist.
What prophecy in Luke 24:46?
>someone is singing about David
No, Psalm 110 is a Psalm of David written by David. Jesus accurately states this.

>>18116329
>Exodus 4:22-23
>Then tell Pharaoh that this is what the LORD says: ‘Israel is My firstborn son, and I told you to let My son go so that he may worship Me. But since you have refused to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son!’”
See what it says in Hebrews:

"And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him."
(Hebrews 7:9-10)

So, analogically to the above, we see that the coming Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was already in view when Exodus was written (and earlier too). When it talks about "Israel is my Son" in these places, the Old Testament was really all referring to Christ all along from the beginning. You see this as early as Genesis 3:15, the protevangelium.

>Paul himself emphasizes that in Romans 9:4, one of the verses you conveniently didn't post:
I already mentioned how Romans 9:1-5 fits in here: >>18114716 I'm not ignoring it at all.

>You can't find thar not even in the NT.
See:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."
(Isaiah 9:6)

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."
(Psalm 2:12)

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."
(Hebrews 1:8)

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
(1 Timothy 3:16)

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
(Acts 20:28)

>>18116807
>Some out of shape boomer breathing heavily while walking
>Uh...I think this because later Judaism rabbinic thought and le Book of Enoch lmao
Seriously?

>>18116807
Also, this fuck is a Mormon? This is who you want to source for valid theological interpretation of the Bible? Mormon apologetics have some of the most slippery snakes on the planet.

>>18116989
I'm assuming whoever posted the video is a troll.

>>18116984
>>18116989
>>18116995
>doesn't know who that boomer is
He probably studies more about these subjects in a day than you will in your life lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bA3a4xwCGA

>>18117001
>Dude, you know who's interprentations you should trust? A Mormon lol
If they had the slightest clue about what they were talking about, they'd be using the Book of Mormon as toilet paper. No, I'm not taking a Mormon's babble into consideration. It's just not going to happen.

>>18116989
Mormons are also Credodemons.

>>18117014
What you feel about Mormons is exactly what rational people feel about Christians in general.

>>18117025
Nobody cares about your "rationality", you retards have no clue what's going on in the world, why it's happening, and what they're flaunting right in front of your face. Your self-assurance is going the way of the dodo bird, this I promise you. Better buckle up.

>>18117025
I don't think most people are bothered by non-baptist mainline protestants having like a Sunday service. Like maybe they think it's a waste of time but I doubt they feel threatened by it.

>>18116989
they openly believe in apotheosis. they are polytheists and they defile the holy trinity. nobody considers them Christian. my congregation made it clear that if you hang around them your whole family won't be getting buried and your kids will be denied baptism.
i would not take advice from a dumb mutt going through death anxiety and wanting closure. that guy sounds like a mentally ill egomaniac. par in course for every other american zionistian

>>18117079
What right do you a human have to choose who receives the sacrament of baptism. Fucking demonic.

>>18117086
boo hoo nigga

>>18117086
>Just pay the tithe, goy!
No, I don't think I will

>>18117086
>blasphemer amerimutt throws his favorite word around at things that he doesn't understand
1 John 2:19

>>18116928
>Argument from silence isn't a contradiction.
It's not argument from silence, the accounts are incompatible. Either he went to Egypt or he didn't, the timeframe doesn't accommodate both events.
>He never said it was written in Jeremiah, only that
>Can you stop this, anon?
Even a 4th century Christian like Jerome could accept that Matthew fucked up because it's that obvious.
>Luke gives son-in-law relationships
Luke didn't delete Jeconiah.
>Jesus Christ was not a biological descendant of Jehoiachin, He is still the legal heir of Joseph, thus inheriting the kingship
How can he inherit kingship from Joseph if Joseph was a biological descendant and, therefore, cursed?
>It is perfectly legitimate to say that Josiah begat Jehoiachin and "his brethren"
Why omit his son unless you confused him with his grandson who was actually cursed?
>>18116932
>and then some kind of freak accident happened
Phenomenal explanation. With that kind of apologetics no wonder Christianity is only growing in 3rd world shitholes.
>John mentions the ass (ὀνάριον).
>for Mark and Luke, the mere argument from silence
You're actually retarded, aren't you? John is still talking about the same animal. Argument of silence might as well be dementia at that point.
>resembles the word "Nazarene."
>Hebrew of Isaiah 11:1
Too bad they used the Septuagint exclusively and that shit is damage control.
>Matthew is quoting the Hebrew
Matthew could barely understand the Greek translations you think he read the Hebrew texts?
>singular
Jacob/Israel is the nation being referred to as a person, my dude. It's all about past events, there's nothing about some "Jesus Christ" guy that won't be born until centuries later anywhere in those verses. None of that revisionism would've meant anything to readers back then.
>What prophecy
"This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
Where is that written in the OT?
>written by David
To be sung by a Levite.

>>18117116
What are you even trying to imply by that verse?

>>18111892
This guy beat his wife and kids and now spends his time crashing out about all his pastor buddies leaving his "nifb" group.

>>18117111
>>18117114
I am not mormon. I am just pointing out that denying an infant baptism is demonic.

>>18116936
>So, analogically to the above, we see that the coming Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was already in view when Exodus was written (and earlier too). When it talks about "Israel is my Son" in these places, the Old Testament was really all referring to Christ all along from the beginning.
Weird how they just keep talking about this Son as the nation of Israel like it's going to last forever and never remember to elaborate on this Jesus guy hiding between the lines.
>You see this as early as Genesis 3:15, the protevangelium.
Is Satan is crawling on his belly and eating dust right now?
>See
Where is "God the Son" there?

>>18117143
>Is Satan is crawling on his belly and eating dust right now?
Ngl but kind of sus you can see what Satan is doing right now.

>>18117034
>"you retards have no clue what's going on in the world"
>said the schizo waiting for a dead rabbi to come back from the dead and fix it
lol

>>18117150
In the Book of Job he was roaming the earth and visiting God in the divine council, if I recall correctly. Kinda odd that Christians would later adopt the belief that he was the snake in Eden.

>>18117162
Presumably he can shape shift as necessary.

>>18117121
amerimutt goy cults masquerading as christians are bound to go to Hell. if you voluntarily leave Christianity for whatever material gain (i know baptists love dangling the prospect of citizenship to dupe people), your entire lineage is better off embracing this new cult. we have low membership in mormon and baptist churches thankfully so i would say this works well
was your question was rhetorical? i know you people don't actually read scripture so im curious to see what actually confused you

>>18117169
And bypass God's punishment apparently.

>>18117170
That you posted that verse in reply to me calling credobaptism demonic? Because credobaptism demonic on multiple levels?

>>18117172
God was just punishing snakes. Not the devil. Genesis 3:14 is very explicit about being snakes being punished. So I suppose they stopped having legs?

>>18117187
They probably found some fossils and connected the dots.

>>18117194
They had uranium in the Arc of the Covenant too, that's why it killed people.

>>18117177
denying baptism happens every day and it isn't demonic no matter how much it hurts your feelings. nothing is satanic about preventing a porn addict mcdonalds muncher and his little freak from driving the flock away. you need to repent

>>18117201
Believable ngl

>>18117205
You have no right to deny an infant Baptism you disgusting credo scum.

>>18117194
Mesopotamian mythology had lots of dragon type serpents with legs. Genesis 3 is presumably referring to such a serpent and not a snake.

>>18111892
>1. They pray to saints
just like early Christians
>2. They pray to Mary
just like early Christians
>3. They are idol worshippers
as much as early Christians were
>4. They believe you are saved by works and not faith
they believe that if you have faith you will act accord with it, not just proclaiming and doing what ever
>5. They see the pope as a demi god
they don't
>6. They don't follow the Bible
they do follow it according to their interpretation and along side the church traditions
>7. They believe all religions can go to heaven
universal reconciliation isn't official catholic dogma

>>18117221
Might be true. I read somewhere that Sumerian mythology had a serpent that was tricked into giving its immortality - because they believed shedding their skin made snakes immortal - to another character, who then becomes a god, a story which Genesis eventually subverts and retells.

>>18117224
Did the early church refuse Baptism from people because they were poor and socially undesirable? Was baptism reserved only for people considered to be upstanding adult members of the community and not given to slaves or outcasts?

>>18117232
I am assuming that because Genesis assumes familiarity with Babylon and claims Abraham is of Mesopotamian origin, that it also assumes familiarity with Mesopotamian mythology.

>>18117235
NTA but everyone was poor. But you had to have been especially socially undesirable to be denied baptism. In contemporary times, many churches deny baptism for reporting members who are too assimilated. They do this to keep their message alive. It's not demonic or satanic.

>>18117246
>many churches deny baptism for reporting members who are too assimilated
What in the fucking schizophrenic protestantism does this sentence mean?!?

File: 1736153882589337.jpg (332 KB, 1200x1200)

332 KB JPG

>>18117120
>Either he went to Egypt or he didn't, the timeframe doesn't accommodate both events.
Sure it does. See the chronological breakdown below:

1. Jesus Taken to Temple
(Luke 2:22-39a)
2. The Flight to Egypt
(Matthew 2:12-20)
3. Jesus Moved to Nazareth
(Matthew 2:21-23) + (Luke 2:39b)

>How can he inherit kingship from Joseph if Joseph was a biological descendant and, therefore, cursed?
Joseph had the legal inheritance, he just wasn't going to be permitted to claim it since he was a descendant of Jehoiachin. He was able to give it to Jesus Christ as his legal heir.

>Why omit his son
Old Testament genealogies sometimes say that a grandfather begat a grandson.

For example, compare Numbers 26:5-9 with Deuteronomy 11:6, the latter of which skips over Pallu and goes straight from Eliab to Reuben.

Also compare 1 Chronicles 6:47 with Ezra 8:18, the latter of which goes straight from Mahli to Levi (two generations). A grandfather can be said to have begotten his grandson. This may also explain why Matthew also omitted Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah in the list of kings of Judea, which can likewise be explained since they were descended from Athaliah and it took several generations before the kings were sufficiently clear of the house of Omri's curse (as it says in Exodus 20:5, "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me").

This would explain why Matthew doesn't include Ahaziah, Jehoash and Amaziah, but instead is able to directly say that Jehoram begat Uzziah (3 generations later). That kind of thing isn't a problem.

>Luke didn't delete Jeconiah.
Luke is giving Mary's genealogy in Luke 3.

>unless you confused him with his grandson who was actually cursed?
Jehoiakim is included under the phrase "and his brethren." Along with his two brothers Zedekiah and Jehoahaz. Since these brothers all reigned after Josiah's death, they are mentioned together rather than separately. This isn't difficult.

>>18117240
Yes Abraham is allegedly the successor of Melchizedek a high priest of El.

File: kjv_7.png (1.59 MB, 1920x1080)

1.59 MB PNG

>>18117253
Continuing the above post.

>"This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,"
>Where is that written in the OT?
Here is Luke 24:46 in context:

"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
(Luke 24:44-47)

So according to the above, Jesus Christ first explained the scriptures, and then He added more prophetic teaching by His own authority, namely, "thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."

That is what Jesus added. So Jesus says, "thus it is written, and thus it behoved," etc.

"Thus it is written" refers to the Scriptures already mentioned in Luke 24:44-45 (i.e. "all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me"). Following that, His additional statement, "thus it behoved," etc. refers to Jesus' additional prophecies that He gave the apostles at that time. And you must be reading a bad translation if it says something different in your translation, anon.

File: 1738678701198589.jpg (56 KB, 728x408)

56 KB JPG

>>18117143
>Where is "God the Son" there?
In Isaiah 9:6, it says, "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

As it says, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

>never remember to elaborate on this Jesus guy hiding between the lines.
See Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Genesis 49:10, Genesis 22:17, Genesis 3:15, Deuteronomy 18:18-19, Job 19:25, Psalm 2:12, Psalm 22:16, Proverbs 30:4-5, Psalm 102:16, Jeremiah 33:15, Ezekiel 34, Isaiah 53, Hosea 11:1, Daniel 7:13, Daniel 9:26, Haggai 2:7, etc.

>Too bad they used the Septuagint exclusively
No, wrong again. This example of Matthew quoting Hosea 11:1 proves you wrong. This is simply incorrect. John 19:37 quoting Zechariah 12:10 is another example. Whoever told you that they used the Septuagint at all, much less "exclusively," was bold-faced outright lying to your face, plain and simple.

Now you're repeating that unsubstantiated lie here like the low down lying dog that you are.

>>18117251
You're either ESL or you're just American who has never really been part of an actual Christian congregation. My mistake. I'll leave you alone.

>>18117276
No I need to know what the fuck you are talking about. Are you a Wisconsin or Missouri Lutheran?

>>18111892
>1. They pray to saints
Are souls not immortal? To pray is just to ask. Why not ask holy dead to pray for you?
>2. They pray to Mary
See above
>3. They are idol worshippers
Maybe some Catholics go to far, but many Protestants view the Bible as an idol
>4. They believe you are saved by works and not faith
So? Is the the by all end all? If you also believe you need to be baptized or be a good person, you then don't follow Jesus Christ?
>5. They see the pope as a demi god
No one thinks this
>6. They don't follow the Bible
Firstly, they do, secondly Jesus founded a church, he didn't write a book.
The Bible was collected from scripture after the church had existed for centuries. Much of the New Testament is talking about internal church disputes. The word of the church is equal to that of the Bible.
This isn't Islam, the Bible isn't the Quran
>7. They believe all religions can go to heaven
Many Protestant churches believe this too. Are they not Christian?

>>18117295
This specific accusation:
>7. They believe all religions can go to heaven
Always bothers me the most as God decides who goes to heaven or not. Man isn't the Judge at the general judgement. So God might possibly let certain Buddhists, or Muslims, or north sentineleese or aliens in and we have absolutely know way of knowing this, and to assert otherwise is insanely egotistical.

>>18117303
See the following:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
(John 14:6)

>>18117313
Ok? You think you 100% know what God is thinking at all times?

>>18117253
>1. Jesus Taken to Temple
>2. The Flight to Egypt
Except Luke states they stayed there 40 days (Leviticus 12) and went back:
>When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth.
There's obviously no room for traveling to Egypt until Herod dies (which Luke also doesn't mention, he knows nothing of a "Massacre of the Innocents" because Matthew invented it just to have an excuse to bring Jesus back from Egypt and "fulfill" his made-up Hosea 11:1 prophecy).
>Joseph had the legal inheritance
According to Luke through Mary's genealogy. According to Matthew he was a biological descendant and therefore cursed, so he had no kingship claim to give to Jesus. Like the Egypt/Nazareth contradiction above, the more you try to reconcile them the more evident they become, to the point you're forced to write a third gospel to support your own headcanon.
>This would explain why Matthew doesn't include
But not Jehoiakim.
>Jehoiakim is included
That's an omission not an inclusion.
>>18117264
>And you must be reading a bad translation
But I'm not reading the KJV?
https://biblehub.com/luke/24-46.htm#lexicon
>>18117270
>Isaiah 9:6
Says nothing about God the Son. It's also the shitty KJV translation.
>See Isaiah 7:14 (...)
I did. Have you read the whole chapters instead of cherry picking verses? The "virgin" giving birth isn't even the prophecy, much less about shit that would happen centuries later in a completely different place. Do you think the Christian interpretation would make any sense, or even matter, to people reading that when it was written?
>Hosea 11:1 proves you wrong
Did he translate Hebrew Hosea to Greek?
>Whoever told you that they used the Septuagint at all
They LITERALLY quote the Septuagint all the time, sometimes nearly verbatim.
>Now you're repeating that unsubstantiated lie here like the low down lying dog that you are.
You're getting upset because your pilpuling isn't working.

File: 1643392575197.png (160 KB, 500x684)

160 KB PNG

>>18117318
I know what the Lord said. See John chapter 8.

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins."
(John 8:24)

The above is an absolute fact. The words of Jesus Christ, "if ye believe not that I am," specifically the part where He said "I am" is another reference to the Biblical term, "I AM THAT I AM." (see Exodus 3:14).

Whoever does not believe the He is literally God shall certainly die in their sins. This is what Jesus Himself said and taught, and the rest of the Bible confirms it. And the fact that Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" is an absolute, unchangeable fact.

Finally, the fact that there are some people who simply choose to wallow in ignorance on purpose changes nothing. Such individuals have absolutely no excuse for doing so. Before being thrown into the lake of fire, these people will be shown for how absolutely guilty and worthy of eternal fire and torment they are, for their choice to reject God and the truth. As it says in Romans, such individuals should have chosen to seek the Truth, but they did not. Instead they decided to withhold the truth from themselves. They deliberately chose to forget God as Paul says in Romans chapter 1. In doing so, they have brought everything that follows upon themselves.

>>18117340
This is still a concerning level of confidence (and is incredibly blasphemous).

>>18117340
"And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven."
Deuteronomy 4:19

File: failed prophet.png (36 KB, 554x554)

36 KB PNG

>>18117340
>Whoever does not believe the He is literally God shall certainly die in their sins. This is what Jesus Himself said and taught, and the rest of the Bible confirms it. And the fact that Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" is an absolute, unchangeable fact.
But Jesus was wrong.

>Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Mark 13:28-30

>Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Matthew 16:28

>And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Deuteronomy 18:21-22

Here we have Acts 3:22-23 directly quoting Deuteronomy 18 and the chapter literally tells the reader that Jesus was nothing but a failed apocalyptic preacher.

>>18117339
>Except Luke states they stayed there 40 days (Leviticus 12)
Yeah, before the flight to Egypt.
>and went back:
After the flight to Egypt. There is a time gap.

For anyone thrown off by this anon's comment, re-read what was already written earlier in this thread:

1. Jesus Taken to Temple
(Luke 2:22-39a)
2. The Flight to Egypt
(Matthew 2:12-20)
3. Jesus Moved to Nazareth
(Matthew 2:21-23) + (Luke 2:39b)

To the anon: I notice how you cut out the verse references from my original post when you quoted me for some reason. But see the verse references again here.

>Joseph had the legal inheritance
>According to Luke through Mary's genealogy.
Luke is about Mary's genealogy, while Matthew is about Joseph's legitimate descent from the kings through David and Solomon. Both Joseph and Mary were descended from David through different lines.

Jesus was Joseph's legal heir but not biological son. Joseph's descent from the kings of Judah is relevant since Jesus inherits it legally from Joseph, despite not being blood related. I don't see what's difficult about any of this or where you keep getting confused.

>Jehoiakim is included
>That's an omission not an inclusion.
You cut off my sentence, anon. I wrote, 'Jehoiakim is included under the phrase "and his brethren." '

Matthew has the phrase "and his brethren" in chapter 1, which refers to Jehoiakim, Zedekiah and Jehoahaz.

If you will stop cutting off my sentences and responding to dishonestly-edited partial phrases, it would help. Otherwise, it only confirms that you're a satanic liar who isn't trying to have a good faith conversation.

I'm mainly here to point out how dishonestly you have been misquoting me by cutting off my sentences and pretending not to see the rest of what I had written. This proves how you have been dishonest, while I've been as generous as possible in re-explaining the same point, despite being misrepresented and having my sentences quoted incompletely, with important information left out.

>>18117386
>Yeah, before the flight to Egypt.
>>and went back:
>After the flight to Egypt. There is a time gap
Neither of the gospels say that. It makes no sense. You have to break them down and recombine then (Matthew 2:21-23) + (Luke 2:39b) just to create a third narrative based on a clear contradiction and somehow convince yourself that it's what the Bible is trying to say, which not only exposes the contradiction but shows how it's impossible to reconcile those accounts.
>Joseph's legitimate descent from the kings
Joseph descends from Jeconiah, he's not legitimate.
>If you will stop cutting off my sentences
I cut them off because of the character limit, there's no reason to write multiple posts just to quote your pilpuling.
>I'm mainly here to point out how dishonestly
You're only showing how dishonest you are when cornered.

>>18117339
>https://biblehub.com/luke/24-46.htm#lexicon
Luke 24:46 says the following in the original form:

καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Ὅτι οὕτως γέγραπται καὶ οὕτως ἔδει παθεῖν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ ἀναστῆναι ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

This is also what the KJV is translated from here.

File: pulpit commentary.jpg (155 KB, 661x327)

155 KB JPG

>>18117435
γέγραπται where?

File: Stephanus_1550_Luke_24_46.png (512 KB, 911x402)

512 KB PNG

>>18117453
See pic. My quotation is from the TR, anon.

>>18112163
>“You people also have your adorers of columns, and sometimes even of pictures.” And would to God that we didn’t have them, and may the Lord grant that we don’t go on having them! But all the same, this is not what the Church teaches you.
Huh? Isn't Augustine talking about the "adorers" when he says that he prays that the Lord grants that "we don't go on having them," and not the icons themselves? What's the full quote?
>>18112230
It's to my understanding that the supposed letters of Epiphanius that condemn icons were only cited by the iconoclasts themselves, and no other ecclesial writer. Is that true?

>>18117339
Tick tock.

>>18117561
Only KJV worshipers care about the TR, anon.

>>18117654
>>18117385