/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>1665

> Thus, the Bible is "fallible". If you have another conclusion, share.

The Bible is not to be read in a literal way. It is full of rethorics and metaphors.

Facts like two different creation myths and different last words of Jesus clearly prove that.

That's also why we need someone to interpret it , the magisterium has the authority for that and the know how

>>1696

>the magisterium has the authority for that and the know how

But who has the authority to declare the magisterium able to do that?

What authority do you use to choose their interpretation?

It's all very cyclical. You trust the Church because the Church has stated that the Church is right, because it's the Church, and by decree of the Church, the Church is right.

I'd rather look at the facts, the arguments, the evidence, the proof, and all of that. Even an atheist can have an excellent argument with regards to the faith, truth is truth in the mouth of Satan or God.

>>1695

>There is a multitude of different bibles and bible translations.

True, but all New Testaments are the same 27 books. Translations vary for good reasons, not because of ignorance. Languages have changed over the centuries, which gives one reason to have newer translations, and the scope of a translation varies too, from translating the words, to translating the ideas, to translating the general message.

>It was composed by the Church and the centuries after Jesus death

It was compiled by the Church centuries after His death, but it was not composed centuries after His death. The oldest manuscripts we found was written around 50 years after His death, if I recall. And note that it was only found, which doesn't exclude that older manuscripts existed.

All the manuscripts we found, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, confirmed that all New Testaments which ever existed are virtually identical.

Vid related.

I have to go but I'll answer your other questions as soon as I return. I hope others will contribute, as I don't think anyone else has my take on the Bible exactly.

>>4654

>truth is truth in the mouth of Satan or God.

Satan will fulfil your wishes just like a genie would. Satan will tell you partial truths, just like masons would.

Barnum statements are true but they are not expressions of clarity. The duty of the church is to teach the truth with clarity. This is the criticism about Vatican II.

>>4657

Since the evangelists were part of the faithful, it is also written by the Church. What they already believed before writing is in the respective books, too.

>>4659

>Satan will fulfil your wishes just like a genie would. Satan will tell you partial truths, just like masons would.

I figured someone might not understand the words of Christ. What it means here is that truth is truth no matter who speaks it. And if you knew the devil so well, you'd know that he will give plenty of truth to cover his lie, so that we may believe him all the more.

When you find that wishes which come from fear and hate actually fit what you think Christ wants, you might pause and ponder.

In other news, Satan doesn't speak to me. Nor does God.

>Since the evangelists were part of the faithful, it is also written by the Church. What they already believed before writing is in the respective books, too.

Of course, but that's something the Orthodox can say as well, and in fact, even Protestants can say as much. All the first Protestants were Catholic, so the apostolic line wasn't broken.

I fully agree on the Bible being tradition. Where I differ is when modern day Churches prefer their wishes to what the Bible actually says. In that, I consider the Catholic Church, and you, "modernists" and progressive. You'd rather have what you want than what Christ stated. I've made the case many times.

You can't be more traditionalist than sticking to the words of Christ, and that's where I stand.

>>1695

>So the bible itself is younger than Christianity

Yes, I don't know why this should be surprising. Any book about chess is younger than chess. Any sacred book is younger than the religion it comes from. It's a popular non-religious belief that first you get the book, then you get the believers, who believe in the book. People believed in God long before they even had a book.

>While all Christian communities claim to have the "true" bible there are sometimes severe differences on translations and which books are to be added to it.

That's a bit of a caricature, and to be frank, I don't remember anyone claiming to have the "true Bible" because there aren't that many differences between them. As said before, all New Testaments are the same: 27 books for every denomination. I'm not aware of a single denomination that has a different NT, not one. Mormons may have footnotes pertaining to their faith, but it's the same collection.

No current denomination got to choose what got into their Bible or not. Protestants removed the deuterocanonic books, but as the same suggests, they weren't considered part of the first canon by the Hebrews either. Apart from that, it's exactly the same Bible.

As to translations, I've answered that before: different purposes have different translations. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't make much of a difference, they all err the same way and only a very educated look at the original text is truly of use if you want to get to specifics.

>>4672

Jehova's Witnesses do have their own version, they have added, removed and changed certain things in the NT.

>>4674

True. I've seen a list of mistranslations they prefer to use in their NT. To be fair, they're not the only ones.

But remember that they aren't Christian. They don't believe Christ is God, for instance.

>>4679

While I agree, they DO profess and claim to be Christian, which is the only reason why I mentioned them.

>>4681

They all do. If one of them showed up here I would let them call themselves Christian just like anyone else, but the Nicene Creed is pretty basic in terms of defining what a Christian is.

>>4696

That's the thing about the Nicene Creed, only the people who believe in it believe it to mean anything other than the judgement of men.

Anyhow, its a pretty pointless debate. People can just call themselves whatever they like here, no one can do anything about it.

>>4698

I agree with you. I mention the Nicene Creed more for convenience of a definition than "WHO'S RIGHT?" because you'll never see me say who's right, because I don't know, apart from Christ. I've mostly given up on ever finding a denomination for myself. I currently think the Church is one, but it's not divided by men. It's God's Church and whoever is in it is in it, not by choice of men. As Christ said, His Church is made of the people who do God's will, not those who just call themselves Christian. I certainly try to do God's will.

>>4705

I try.

>>4679

>But remember that they aren't Christian. They don't believe Christ is God, for instance.

Oh my goodness how dare you they are as Christian as you or me

CHRISTIAN AT EVERY FAITH!

>you need to believe that Christ is God to be Christian

wtf it is like 2015 ?!

>>4762

This post having dubs was predistened before the dawn of time.

>>4755

>>4762

>>4763

>>4765

Please show me where the KJV says this. I will only believe if you're able to properly explain it in 17th century English. Ok?

>>4755

If we had one over here and he called himself Christian, I wouldn't tell him otherwise, but my definition of a Christian is the Nicene Creed. A definition is needed for anything, I can't find any more basic definition of a Christian.

I don't like Jehovah's for theit cultish ways. That said, around here, they're the only ones who give a fuck. Nobody else is waiting at the train station in the freezing cold, delivering little magazines with the Watch Tower hidden inside. Nobody else comes to your door. Catholics have never bothered coming to my door. Never. Protestants either.

This Jehovah guy rang at my place once, and I told him I couldn't receive him now but that he could leave me his magazine in my letterbox. He did so, but he also write me a short message on the damn thing. If a priest had ever taken the time to do this much for me, I might have considered things differently.

>>4763

Hilarious.

>>4807

Stop oppressing me.

>>4816

Too bad you hate homos more than I ever will.

>>6826

>you talk like this like the vulgate came from thin air. the vulgate was translated form greek and that one from hebrew too.

I never even mentioned the vulgate. Christianity also predates the vulgate and the septuagint.

Tell me, you think that the bible is the essential part of Christianity, do you?

How do you reconcile this view with

a) Christianity predating the bible

b) Jesus, who is God, not writing the bible when he had the chance to do so.

>>6860

Of course it is. Why the vatican refused to not only translate it, but destroying all other advances by others?

If it wasn't the they should have just let them be right?

The thing is, if the Bible isn't that important then why the primitive church translate it into greek? And then to latin?

Of course the message comes before the writing of that message. And of course the message is more important than the paper is written on, and because of that, is an imperative that everybody should have the facility to read the message. Telling them lol just learn latin fagget ' is the opposite.

Instead of making people follow christ 'just because' or 'because I say so', they should be prepare with everything available, because it wouldn't matter if they are tested by Satan later on, they would have the sword on point.

Its precisely that people were not encouraged to read and learn about the bible that you have a bunch of weak christians that follows whatever the society tells them to follow.

>>6869

>Of course it is.

Of course what is? The bible the essential part of Christianity? Then:

>>6860

>How do you reconcile this view with

I see a contradiction here.

>The thing is, if the Bible isn't that important then why the primitive church translate it into greek? And then to latin?

The Bible is important. But is it THE essential part of Christianity? Is it what this religion is all about?

And if so, how is it possible for the two facts I mentioned in >>>6860 to exist?

>Of course the message comes before the writing of that message.

Yeah. But 300 years without Bible is tough, if the Bible was the essential part of Christianity.

>. And of course the message is more important than the paper is written on, and because of that, is an imperative that everybody should have the facility to read the message. Telling them lol just learn latin fagget ' is the opposite.

Why should everyone have the facility to read the message? This sounds dangerous, because it becomes easier and more likely for the message to be corrupted.

>Instead of making people follow christ 'just because' or 'because I say so', they should be prepare with everything available, because it wouldn't matter if they are tested by Satan later on, they would have the sword on point.

People should be prepared of course. But letting them just read the bible and assume all weird stuff and interpret it, I can see no good coming of this.

>Its precisely that people were not encouraged to read and learn about the bible that you have a bunch of weak christians that follows whatever the society tells them to follow.

I'm fairly sure that the average medieval peasant was better informed on Christianity than most Church attendents today.

Without reading the Bible for himself.

>>4657

they are not the same at all, texus receptus is what all the real bibles are based on, and if you use the new garbage texts your doctrine will get fucked up

>>6875

Let's put it this way. You don't need to own a bible to be a christian. But catholocism is not christianity in that sense, and you are all going to hell because of faulty doctrine, because you don't pay attention to what the bible actually says. Your religion is of a manmade organization and manmade traditions, not of Christ.

>>6882

Ignore the Layman Anderson shill

>>6878

>Let's put it this way. You don't need to own a bible to be a christian. But catholocism is not christianity in that sense, and you are all going to hell because of faulty doctrine, because you don't pay attention to what the bible actually says. Your religion is of a manmade organization and manmade traditions, not of Christ.

It is intriguing how you keep claiming this, while

1st ignoring the two arguments I brought up here

>>6860

2nd Bringing no arguments yourself.

>>6882

>Why should everyone have the facility to read the message?

It is dangerous to allow this. It has only lead to heresy and feel good stuff so far.

>then why others cant?

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.

>St. Jerome

People should be taught the message. This way they will not be ignorant.

If we allow them to interpret it themselves that may lead to falsehood and misconception. This way people are unknowingly kept in ignorance.

All of the important doctrines of the New Testament can be found in the Old Testament.

The youngest books of the Old Testament predate the Orthodox church by about one thousand years.

Everything found in New Testament scripture confirms Old Testament doctrine. If it didn't it was cast out as heretical.

>>6912

I agree that more people reading the bible will without a doubt create more views on it. This is not bad, if you believe that there's a wrong believe someone is following you should prove to then that it is so. In this the new convert will be wiser and smarter and more knowledgeable about the the word of God, they become prepare , not like today's lukewarms.

And your view is completely wrong in that it presumes people would follow God better in it only had one voice channel, this is false, the vatican had this channel for hundreds of years and it was obviously not so.

On the Jerome thing.

no, dude Jerome patronage is of the bible study. To the point that virtually all his representation in arts is about bible study.

Vatican Council specifically asks all Christians to read the Bible frequently in order to know Jesus.

"This sacred Synod earnestly and specifically urges all the Christian faithful… to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the excelling knowledge of Jesus Christ. For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ…And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together."

Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Section 25

C'mon.

>>6912

And also isn't the latin quote a way of judging others?

Isn't saying to them 'hold up you cannot read this because I think you're to dumb and stupid to understand it, and insult on it self?

>>6992

Exactly your understanding of 'Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.' shows why sola scriptura doesn’t mean: 'all bible interpretations are correct'.

>>7039

>I distrust the intellectual capacity of the masses ever since the French Revolution, sorry.

I-i hope you are reading the thread over there, it’s really good.

>This is my personal opinion here that differs from the official Church recommendation

Well since it is not a de fide aspect you can safely receive communion. I would agree with you on that, to an extent.

>>6988

>the vatican had this channel for hundreds of years and it was obviously not so

Actually, I wouldn’t call any time as having had an especially clear voice channel from Rome, as people obviously ignored certain bullas about slavery being forbidden, expelt the jesuits, bishops made money off purgatory, people sold relics, etc.

Where there are humans, there is abuse. Only a naive person thinks that abuse justifies schism or iconoclasm, however.

>dude Jerome

Why not call him saint?

>>7039

Its more like

> I think I have the mental capacity to read this book while you dont

Where's oolf btw ?

>>7050

I disagree. The church obviously had the one channel for themselves. But people dont become holier because of that. that's exactly the point I'm making

>>7058

People don’t become holier by splitting off is the point I am making

>>7058

It’s not about the mental capacity but about ordination.

>>1695

Bump

>>7058

He moved on a while back. Probably preaching his version of the Gospel at Bad Dragon or something. He´s a good man, I liked his passion, but I think he saw himself as a missionary of sorts, destined to bring the Gospel (the true one) to the poor and downtrodden and find God in doing so, and got disillusioned when that didn´t happen here.

>>7129

Do you think he has found Christ by now? I wish he didn’t feel offended by me all the time so I could have given him some guidance/counsel.

>>7129

He is a good man.

I hope and pray he made it.

He gonna have a lot of stars in his crown that's for sure

>>7059

>People don’t become holier by splitting off is the point I am making

What does make people holier? Not a blessing by a man, but is not through the belief in the Love of Christ and his perfect and holy sacrifice? I don't believe its correct to say a church makes anyone holier, i'd go so far as to say it does the complete opposite.

>>7186

They need access to grace and be taught about the implications of the decalogue. And other things of course.

>>7198

iircc the access of grace in catholocism is a personal one. So it doesn't matter if a church have a monopoly on the bible.

>>7203

No. Catholics aren't under grace. They have to follow the law to go to heaven.

Any who tell you otherwise are lying. Ask them if they have to do anything to go to heaven. The only answer should be believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. It won't be.

>>7206

Hold on then, let me see if I understand. According to Baptists, if you aren't a baptist (or a denomination that believes in Jesus *correctly*) you have to follow the Law to get to Heaven? What does following the Law entail?

Or instead, the only way to get there is to believe in Jesus correctly and to tell someone they need to do something, like following the Law, is incorrect?

>>7211

I think he's point itst'if you think you have to do some extra the you need to follow thw whole law which its impossible', like the bible verse he pointed out in this thread before.

Justification in the roman church was historically based on deeds, but since the reformation they added trough grace. Sneaky.

Its like the Luther 2003, the movie, in which Luther is preaching and then goes

> God is watching over, hearing you, waiting for you to JUST believe… (he then dramatically stops and looks at some old teacher he had and continues) … and tithe, and do good deeds, and take the sacraments, and baptize, and take the Eucharist, and confess, and do penitance, etc.

>>7211

Galatians 5. Paul is talking to Christians who have become judaized, they think that they have to follow the law to be saved.

>Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

>Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

>For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

>Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

>For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

>For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

>Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

>This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.

>A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

>>7211

> According to Baptists, if you aren't a baptist (or a denomination that believes in Jesus *correctly*) you have to follow the Law to get to Heaven?

We Baptist are sola scriptura. Scripture says that if you trust on God, God will deliver you by grace (as your sins are paid for with his sacred blood as the sacrificial Lamb of God), but if you are trusting on your works, you'll be judged according to your works. Catholics trust on their works; thus they'll be judged according to their works and there is not one righteous, no not one..

>>7216

>>7213

>>7221

Thank you all. I think I get it now.

>>7211

Because baptists don’t understand that this talks about keeping to the Halakhah, the ceremonial law.

>>7238

Have you ever read Galatians from start to finish?

>O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

>This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

>Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

>Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

>Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

>And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

>So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

>For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

>But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

>And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

>Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

>That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

>I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

>Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

>But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

>As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

>But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

>Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

>I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

>For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

>For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

>inb4 the catholic new gospel laws are fine because the church stands above Paul and all kinds of laws are fine just as long as they're not Jewish, even though Paul said it was by faith :^)

>>7245

>Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

There you go, again the ceremonial law. You just proved my point not that you made any point at all, you’re just hiding your ignorance in bible verses that you don’t understand without actually saying anything

Besides, we can go on like this forever and antinomian mind germs won’t become correct. Just kill yourself and see what happens, antinomian heretic. If you don’t have to obey the law, surely suicide will be allowed. I betcha your faith is not big enough.

>>7246

francis would be so proud of you

My big question is that if it isn't important for everyone to read the Bible and Popes and priests have the real interpretation, what happens when there are corrupt priests or heretical Popes looking at you Comrade "even atheists go to heaven" Jorge who teach wrongly?

Yes it is true that someone all by themselves may read the Bible and come to all sorts of crazy conclusions and assumptions, but the same is true if a wayward preacher preaches incorrect doctrine as well and the person only has the preacher's word to go on. I see the translation and access of the Bibles as a benefit, a way to encourage dialogue in faith in order to keep the faith. That way one does not have to rely solely on a preacher, who is not perfect, but can read the Bible themselves while also listening to what others say.

>>7245

>>7250

Don't incentivize him.

>>7301

You aren't seriously suggesting that there has never been any corruption in the Catholic Church, are you?

>>7302

No. Nowhere did I even imply that. That's why not everyone can be allowed to interpret stuff.

>>7303

top fucking kek

>>7301

so the curia have more power than the pope?

>>7303

How does Catholicism address this issue? I mean, if people have the ability to interpret something, chances are they will do so, and it may not agree with the Orthodox, rightful opinion of the priestly class that operates the Roman Catholic Church.

How do you inspire confidence in the people so that they don't go around calling themselves Catholic while believing in gay marriage and abortion?

This problem was pretty rampant where I grew up, in an unspecified hispanic country, where people did this all the time.

>>7363

>so the curia have more power than the pope?

Legally the Vatican is an elective absolute monarchy, in which the government elects the Pope as an absolute monarch. The whole procedure is in that very similar to the British Crown in parliament system. except for the hereditaty part, of course

So I'll just ask you:

Do you think that the British parliament has more power than the British monarch?

There's your answer :^)

>>7364

I don't know how to answer that. You know perfectly well how it is done in practice. Insufficiently, namely, if you ask me that is. It would be the task of the local bishops to keep their flock in check, they deny to doing so. Also the pope does not feel like lecturing them.

So that's how it's done in the moment.

But if you ask me how it should be done: ostracism. We should shun those that fail our standards, that will help us and them in the end. It is from uttmost importance to bring the women of a community on your side in order for this to work.

This is also how it was done. Excommunication is literally excluding someone from the community.

But the clergy does not feel like it at the moment. We will see where this will lead.

>>7366

iirc the theres no absolute monarchy in the bogland.

>We should shun those that fail our standards

you mean, todays current standars? literally all catholics today would have been anathema'd in the early days.

>>7368

>iirc the theres no absolute monarchy in the bogland.

No, it is constitutional. But by law the monarch had enormous power in Britain, even today. She just decides not to use it.

But also the vatican is no absolute monarchy, if you'd ask me. There is the neverchanging dogma, which serves as kind of a constitution.

>you mean, todays current standars?

Of course. I'd rather not be judged by the standards of either 100 years ago not 100 years in the future, because I will certainly fail them.

>>7366

>Excommunication is literally excluding someone from the community.

I think this would be a good idea. I've spoken with the leadership in my local ward suggesting such an approach, but the fear is that it will drive people away and its better to have people who half believe than few people who believe fully and appropriately,

I did read about a Bishop (your type, not mine) I think in New Jersey who has begun to implement such rules in his particular sphere of influence. No communion or sacraments for anyone who is a practicing homosexual, divorced or supportive of the LGBT, Abortion and divorce agenda.

Made some waves in the news over here at least.

>>7384

> No communion or sacraments for anyone who is a practicing homosexual, divorced or supportive of the LGBT, Abortion and divorce agenda.

Yeah. That's not something special tbh, this is just his duty, it is meant like this.

There's also been a fuss about that on the synode of the family, where it was demanded to stop this practice.

>>7393

Wow, such times we live in. For me personally, I expect the secular world to embrace this level of degeneracy and filth, but it hurts me a lot when people from within one's own church are clamoring for this to become the norm. Absolutely disgraceful.

Well, I've been reading about the councils and meetings going on in your church, and that many "Conservative" leaders intend to voice their opinions about these issues. I hope it all goes in their favor.

>>7376

dont you see the changing standards and beliefs of the chruch as proof that it isnt 'perfect, unchanging, eternal, etc' ?

>>7397

Im feeling the same tbh

there are people that are trying their most to ordain womyns that I dont know how to feel about it.

>>7522

>dont you see the changing standards and beliefs of the chruch as proof that it isnt 'perfect, unchanging, eternal, etc' ?

Dogma does not change neither evolve. There are however new things that are added, this distinguishes us from the orthodox Church.

I do not see a problem with this, since the amount of truth we do not know must be infinitely big.

>>7397

> I hope it all goes in their favor.

It did btw

>>7528

>new things that are added

thats a change btw

>>7667

No. We have a certain amount of dogmata right now. These are valid and unchanging, asserted truths.

Then there is an unknown amount of truths that we do not know of and that are yet to be revealed.

As soon as we know of them they are a new dogma when proclaimed.

This is what distinguishes Catholicism from the Orthodox. The Orthodox think that it is impossible to add new dogmata.

>>7790

>Then there is an unknown amount of truths that we do not know of and that are yet to be revealed.

how you know this?

Dude, lets say for example Trent, in it they clearly stated that the only bible is the latin vulgate with all its books and parts, all of them is 100% true and sacred.

later on, because of the pressure of textual criticism they go full "well, they really didnt meant that, you could remove parts of the bible if its historically correct"

isnt that a contradiction?

>>7808

>how you know this?

Educated guess.

>isnt that a contradiction?

I'm in no way suited to argue with you about some random 15th century church history, sorry.