/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>4502

This is the definition of temptation from the Philokalia, it is iterated in many of the writings throughout the book, and also in The Ladder of Divine Ascent by John Climacus in step 15. The Philokalia has a rather different view of mental phenomenon than contemporary psychology, this word defined in the book is basically a summary of multiple writings.

"Temptation- The word indicates, according to context: (1) a test or trial sent to man by God, so as to aid his progress on the spiritual way; (2) a suggestion from the devil, enticing man into sin.

Using the word in sense (2), the Greek Fathers employ a series of technical terms to describe the process of temptation (See in particular Mark the Ascetic, On the Spiritual Law, 138-141, vol. 1 philokalia [G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware translation]; Maximos, On Love, i, 83-84, in vol. 2 same translation; John of Damaskos, On the Virtues and Vices, 337-338, vol. 2 same translation). The basic distinction made by these Fathers is between the demonic provocation and man's assent: the first lies outside of man's control, while the second he is morally responsible. In detail the chief terms are employed as follows:" (Philokalia Vol. 2, Glossary, 387-388), Cont. next post.

>>4504

"(i) Provocation: the initial incitement to evil. Mark the Ascetic defines this as an 'image-free stimulation in the heart'; so long as the provocation is not accompanied by images, it does not involve man in any guilt. Such provocations, originating as they do from the devil, assail man from the outside independently of his free will, and so he is not morally responsible for them. His liability to these provocations is not a consequence of the fall: even in paradise, Mark maintains, Adam was assailed by the devil's provocations. Man cannot prevent provocations from assailing him; what does lie in his power, however, is to maintain constant watchfulness and so to reject each provocation as soon as it emerges into his consciousness - that is to say, at its first appearance as a thought in his mind or intellect. If he does reject the provocation, the sequence is cut off and the process of temptation is terminated.

(ii) Momentary disturbance of the intellect, occurring 'without any movement or working of bodily passion' (see Mark, Letter to Nicolas the Solitary: stated above translation, vol. 1, p. 153). This seems to be more than the 'first appearance' of a provocation described in stage (i) above; for, at a certain point of spiritual growth in this life, it is possible to be totally released from such 'momentary disturbance', whereas no one can expect to be altogether free from demonic provocations."

(Philokalia Vol. 2, Glossary, 388) Cont.

for me is when we indulge in them.

there was a sermon i heard quite a long time ago that said: the first look is innocent, the second is sinful, and thats why i always stare the first time.

its pretty difficult tho.

>>4506

"(iii) Communion; coupling. Without as yet entirely assenting to the demonic provocation, a man may begin to 'entertain' it, to converse or parley with it, turning it over in his mind pleasurably, yet still hesitating whether or not to act upon it. At this stage, which is indicated by the terms 'communion' or 'coupling', the provocation is no longer 'image-free' but has become a logismos or thoughts; and man is morally responsible for having allowed this to happen.

(iv) Assent. This signifies a step beyond mere 'communion' or 'coupling'. No longer merely 'playing' with the evil suggestion, a man now resolves to act upon it. There is now no doubt as to his moral culpability: even if circumstances prevent him from sinning outwardly, he is judged by God according to the intention in his heart."

(Philokalia Vol. 2, Glossary, 388-389) Cont.

>>4508

"(v) Prepossession: defined by Mark as 'the involuntary presence of former sins in the memory'. This state of 'prepossession' or prejudice results from repeated acts of sin which predispose a man to yield to particular temptations. In principle he retains his free choice and can reject demonic provocations; but in practice the force of habit makes it more and more difficult for him to resist.

(vi) Passion. If a man does not fight strenuously against a prepossession, it will develop into an evil passion."

(Philokalia Vol. 2, Glossary, 389)

TLDR; A thought has potential to be sinful as soon as you start grappling with it, rather than ignoring it. It is sinful as soon as you assent to it as you have intent to sin in your heart at that point.

A note, We cannot necessarily trace our thoughts to their source, Our free will could be seen as merely our ability to make a decision on those thoughts.

>>4502

Yeah, thoughts are definitively sinful, its part of how high the stakes are now: you can be saved by simple repentance, but you can be damned by thoughts as well.

That, of of course, you can remedy by trying your best not to think sinful things and asking Christ for forgiveness when you fall short of that goal.

>How severe is it? Does it harm our soul? Lead to worse?

Its not as severe as acting on it, but I'll be impressed if you can find a sinner who's wicked deed wasn't nurtured and cared for in his mind first. It does harm one's soul, but the effort of trying to keep pure and admitting to Christ that you cannot, not without Him (no one can), will strengthen you.

I have problems with this all the time, and I don't ask for forgiveness nearly as much as I should.

>>4504

>"Temptation- The word indicates, according to context: (1) a test or trial sent to man by God, so as to aid his progress on the spiritual way; (2) a suggestion from the devil, enticing man into sin.

>

>Using the word in sense (2), the Greek Fathers employ a series of technical terms to describe the process of temptation (See in particular Mark the Ascetic, On the Spiritual Law, 138-141, vol. 1 philokalia [G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware translation]; Maximos, On Love, i, 83-84, in vol. 2 same translation; John of Damaskos, On the Virtues and Vices, 337-338, vol. 2 same translation). The basic distinction made by these Fathers is between the demonic provocation and man's assent: the first lies outside of man's control, while the second he is morally responsible. In detail the chief terms are employed as follows:" (Philokalia Vol. 2, Glossary, 387-388), Cont. next post.

Very good.

>>4507

> the first look is innocent, the second is sinful, and thats why i always stare the first time.

This sounds not very good.

>>4506

>>4508

>>4511

Thanks.

>>4520

So I ask for forgiveness and then? It's not like the thoughts would go away…

>>4524

>This sounds not very good.

it was a joke. to make the point that what matters is your heart and what your intentions were.

>So I ask for forgiveness and then? It's not like the thoughts would go away…

>I will not tempt you more that what you cant endure

>But when youre tempted I will provide a way out for you

>resist and the devil will go away

>>4524

>So I ask for forgiveness and then? It's not like the thoughts would go away…

Its the same as any other sin. You will continue to sin, you are inherently unable to stop sinning because you are a human being, yet God has provided for you a way that should you strive your hardest to not sin, He'll save you from failure.

You'd simply have to continue to try and not have sinful thoughts and repent when you do, until death. Be intelligent about it though. Random/Satanic thoughts can strike at any time, but you may pay attention and observe if there are any specific things in your life that "trigger" these sinful thoughts. Once you have that, you can significantly decrease the amount of sinful thoughts you'll have on a daily basis, and therefore have less to atone for.

Thinking about sin is not a sin. Planning to sin, however, is the beginning of sinning. That is the meaning of Christ when He says that coveting is already a sin.

Planning to cheat on your wife is a sin. Feeling attraction towards other women is not. There's a huge difference between actively preparing to cheat on your wife and merely fantasising about having sex with someone else, knowing full well you will never act on it.

Scripture supports to this vision of things.

>>4541

Matthew 5:28 though…

>>4533

>you are inherently unable to stop sinning because you are a human being

Jesus lead a sinless life and was 100% human though.

also Mary

>>4541

>Thinking about sin is not a sin.

But are there sinful thoughts?

So we have so far:

Hope for the best

+

>you may pay attention and observe if there are any specific things in your life that "trigger" these sinful thoughts. Once you have that, you can significantly decrease the amount of sinful thoughts you'll have on a daily basis,

>>4504

>>4506

>>4508

>>4511

I liked the citations best.

>(2) a suggestion from the devil, enticing man into sin.

Sure, that's what one would think anyway.

> (1) a test or trial sent to man by God, so as to aid his progress on the spiritual way;

This is intriguing. God does tempt us to do evil himself?

Thinking about it it's even part of the "our father".

Why does God do this? If he does test us, is it always possible for us to pass this test?

>>4588

>Jesus lead a sinless life and was 100% human though.

These two people were kind of exceptional in more than one way, and they are ere the exceptions that prove the rule.

>>4593

But they prove that we could be perfect if we loved God more than sin, don't they?

>>4598

Well, I don't think see how that can be. Christ is definitely exceptional, and iirc you also believe He was not just fully human but fully God, while on Earth, which kind of sets Him apart.

Mary, then, I thought you all believe that Mary was *made* sinless in the womb so as be able to birth the Lord. Yeah, she had to remain sinless throughout her life which is no small feat, but she had the stain of original sin removed from here from day zero, which is something no one else (besides the obvious exception) ever has.

>>4602

Yes. But does this really mean we have no choice to be good anymore? Where is the free will here?

If we never willingly deny the lord but are forced to do so, why does it all even matter?

>>4542

>Matthew 5:28

That's exactly the verse I use for this. Studying this part of the gospel, and not limiting yourself to your favourite translation of it, shows that Christ says that planning a sinful act is in itself already a sin, while fleeting thoughts which don't equal to planning are not.

The words Christ use in this verse, the original words, are very explicit about it.

http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/

Some of this article mentions that.

>>4588

>But are there sinful thoughts?

Yes, the planning of a sinful act when you want it to happen. That's what Christ is about in this passage.

If you fantasise about murdering your annoying neighbour, that's not a sin, because you know full well that you won't murder him. Planning to seduce his wife, for real, and having ideas of how to do it, for real, that is a sinful thought. Fantasising does nothing. Planning is the beginning of sinning.

Also, Paul said no human could be sinless. Not sure how to reconcile that with Jesus and Mary, apart from the fact that they are not humans like us in some way, otherwise they would also be subjected to sinfulness by definition.

>>4598

>But they prove that we could be perfect if we loved God more than sin, don't they?

Since Mary owes her sinlessness to her conception, hardly. Much the same can be said of Christ.

>>4629

>Studying this part of the gospel, and not limiting yourself to your favourite translation of it

>implying that not only the KJV ONLY is the 100% true and infallible word of God for reasons

wew

>>4633

Why would you assume that I have any particular obsession with the KJV?

>>4629

You put me in a difficult position. Here you say that this man has the correct interpretation, and yet I cannot validate that because I don't speak greek, and also whatever titles he holds mean little to me. Conversely, my ignorance is no grounds to dismiss your argument.

So all I can do now is essentially "ignore" this. I'll come back after I see what some General Authority has to say on the subject.

>>4605

>But does this really mean we have no choice to be good anymore?

To the contrary, you absolutely should strive for perfection. The difference is that its hubris to legitimately think that you can achieve a level of Christ-like perfection while you are a mortal man. Once you acknowledge this, you then just try your hardest not to sin, and acknowledge that the only way you'll get close to your goal is with the help of Jesus Christ.

You're well versed enough that I imagine you already understand this isn't a "license to sin" or anything so Episcopalian.

>>4588

> (1) a test or trial sent to man by God, so as to aid his progress on the spiritual way;

>This is intriguing. God does tempt us to do evil himself?

I cannot say for certain, but I assume it is much like a father letting a kid on its own for a task, or being handed over to a teacher for a test. A good biblical example I can think of is actually Adam and Eve being left in the garden with a moral task and a tempter.

>Thinking about it it's even part of the "our father".

>Why does God do this?

Why does a parent let a kid fall, instead of holding them up for everything, it is a fantastic way to learn. It also increases the contrition of the believer. Personally, times where I am tried without help, show me how truly powerless I am and how much I need God to lift me up.

>If he does test us, is it always possible for us to pass this test?

I cannot imagine it is always the case that we would fail, nor can we know all the reasons why God would test us. It could be pass conditions, such as turning to prayer or rejecting a certain temptation, or it could be merely to highlight how far we need to go through failure(failing is a great way to learn).

>>4665

>You put me in a difficult position. Here you say that this man has the correct interpretation, and yet I cannot validate that because I don't speak greek, and also whatever titles he holds mean little to me. Conversely, my ignorance is no grounds to dismiss your argument.

I don't speak ancient Greek either, but, to my knowledge, there are no ancient Greek expert who dispute this. You can always use an online dictionary to get a glimpse.

>So all I can do now is essentially "ignore" this. I'll come back after I see what some General Authority has to say on the subject.

Up to you. It's what many prefer to do when facing the actual words of Christ: they ignore it because it doesn't fit Church doctrine. That's when I ditch Churches. I don't care who's who and what they stand for: if they twist the word of Christ, I'm not listening to them anymore. Especially if the actual words of Christ make more sense than their ill-intentioned interpretation.

I refuse to have my religion tainted by the puerile sexual problems of those who can't deal with them without blaming God for it.

>>4671

> That's when I ditch Churches

That's what I don't understand. If you spoke Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, then I could understand where you're coming from, but as of yet you just use a different interpreter between yourself and the words of Christ: these Scholars.

I just don't see any difference between what I do, what others here do and what you do, you just seem to trust these guys more, for whatever reason.

>>4673

>you just use a different interpreter between yourself and the words of Christ: these Scholars.

Because they translate what Christ actually said, in full detail, without concern for "making it read well" as you would when translating the Bible. This is about the exact meaning. I've been trained as a linguist and I speak two languages fluently, with insights into others, due to said training, and I can judge for myself that such differences in languages do exist, because I have seen them for myself over the years. People who only speak a single language fluently and aren't aware of the mechanisms of language in general may not realise how different things can be. Some people don't even understand that not every concept can be translated into a single word in other languages.

I'm not doing anything crazy, I'm only reading about what Christ actually meant by words like "hell" or "lust", based on the words He is reported to having used. It's not hard to do, and it's not something special: obviously someone had to translate the original text in the beginning, or nobody would get a translation at all.

Bad habits are hard to kill, but I'd rather trust Christ than a translator who chooses what he wants based on what he expects.

>>4668

>Thinking about it it's even part of the "our father".

Had to think of how to respond to this point. It is interesting that most it seems to me never explicitly reallize what it means that everything is done according to God's will. That is in his pride the devil thinks he is not consigned to God's will, when really he is. Such as potential cases from my previous post, he is used to teach lessons to God's children, afterwards, they return to God, and the devil is wounded as well by this, and further illustrates how he is subjugated he is himself. Praise be to the Lord!

>>4673

>I just don't see any difference between what I do, what others here do and what you do, you just seem to trust these guys more, for whatever reason.

Christ was recorded in tongues we don't speak. "These guys" speak those tongues, so I trust them for a translation. It's very simple. You'd rather trust an English translation without knowledge on what was actually meant, and the rest is up to what you and/or your Church prefer. That's the difference between us, I don't follow a Church's preferences or mine: I read what is written. I try to find Christ's actual meaning.

When we translate "Gehenna" by "hell", which is one of the words Christ uses, don't you think it matters to know that "Gehenna" was never considered atemporal by the Hebrews who used it? Gehenna is finite in time, so if Christ uses that word for what we translate by "hell", it matters to know that this actual word of Christ is finite in time. Whether hell is forever or not is a big deal to me.

And it's a big deal to you too because as a Mormon, you actually believe hell isn't forever, and that fits actual scripture, it fits the exact words of Christ.

If you don't study the original languages, you miss all this.

>>4676

> but I'd rather trust Christ than a translator who chooses what he wants based on what he expects.

This is what I'm saying. How do you know that you can trust the translators you choose? Is it that you see them as having no discernible ulterior motive, or perhaps being entirely secular and therefore "neutral" on the subject? Does you own experience as a linguist (studying different languages than the biblical ones, obviously) make it so that you take offence to my implication that a secular linguist is untrustworthy?

>"These guys" speak those tongues, so I trust them for a translation.

But so do people who belong to Catholicism, so do many protestants and Othodox. Heck, the Greek Orthodox especially.

>You'd rather trust an English translation without knowledge on what was actually meant, and the rest is up to what you and/or your Church prefer.

It has nothing to do with the language for me, it boils down to whether the person has the Holy Spirit with them or not. If they are not LDS I simply am taking to much of a risk trusting anything they might say.

>If you don't study the original languages, you miss all this.

This is my question. Do you study Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic? Do you read the texts yourself and discern from it your interpretation? Why do you trust the guy who "knows" the language if you can't confirm that he, in fact, knows the language?

>>4680

> How do you know that you can trust the translators you choose?

Ancient Greek isn't astrology. There's a fair consensus on it, using other texts from the same era and region. It's not obscure. Besides, you also rely on translators for the Bible, all I'm doing is that I prefer to check the material that those translators used to come up with their own version.

>Is it that you see them as having no discernible ulterior motive, or perhaps being entirely secular and therefore "neutral" on the subject?

When someone translates "temporary correction" by "eternal hell", yes, I suspect foul play with the express purpose of twisting Christ's words to a Church's will.

>Does you own experience as a linguist (studying different languages than the biblical ones, obviously) make it so that you take offence to my implication that a secular linguist is untrustworthy?

I'm not offended, I didn't even think of that at all. I disagree, however, with the idea that a secular expert in Greek cannot be trusted. You can have 60 experts study each other's work and in this case, you have unanimity on what the words mean, because it's not up to them. Just like egyptologists don't get to choose what hieroglyphics mean.

>But so do people who belong to Catholicism,

You mean Greek experts? Yes, but those are not allowed to go with a translation that means something the Church doesn't condone. A non-eternal hell, for instance, if found in Scripture (which it is), cannot be condoned by the Catholic Church, even if it'd explain Purgatory away more simply. These experts aren't free to just tell us what Christ said. They have to conform.

>It has nothing to do with the language for me, it boils down to whether the person has the Holy Spirit with them or not.

I don't see how that connects to translating Gehenna to "hell" without telling the reader that Gehenna was always finite in time, whereas we read "hell" as being forever, as in the pagan myths. Holy Spirit in you or not, I don't see what it does here.

>If they are not LDS I simply am taking to much of a risk trusting anything they might say.

Who said to judge people by their fruit? Christ. Do that, judge by the accuracy of their work, not by your preconceptions on their character. I don't judge you by your being a Mormon. I don't care what you call yourself, ultimately, even if I think you're in the wrong denomination, that doesn't affect my judgement of you. I'm not LDS either but I think you know you can trust me.

> Do you study Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic?

I'm not learning these languages, no.

>Do you read the texts yourself and discern from it your interpretation?

If I learned ancient Greek, I'd learn the same stuff these people have learned. That much isn't hard to see: if some expert says "hell" is really this or that word, and it means this or that in ancient Greek, you can verify using a dictionary of ancient Greek. I've done that and it checked out. I've seen the damn word on manuscripts of the NT, and it's the same word, so yes, I am pretty sure it's what Christ was reported as having said by His apostles.

> Why do you trust the guy who "knows" the language if you can't confirm that he, in fact, knows the language?

But I can confirm. That type of work isn't some obscure divinitation, it's not astrology. It's the nitty gritty. It's about individual words, and anyone can check out individual words without having to do much research.

You can take a copy of the original NT and go to any expert you want and they will all say the same because it's the same language.

I have no reason to trust anyone else more than the experts in the field, especially when those who have divergent versions also have hate in their heart.

I don't care how much someone hates someone else, that's not an argument for translation.

>>4687

> all I'm doing is that I prefer to check the material that those translators used to come up with their own version.

>When someone translates "temporary correction" by "eternal hell",

> I disagree, however, with the idea that a secular expert in Greek cannot be trusted.

>If I learned ancient Greek, I'd learn the same stuff these people have learned.

I personally would feel uncomfortable putting so much stock into this stuff until I could boast of at least a decent proficiency at Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. I think at this point what you are doing requires a level of trust; in institutions and individuals; that I am simply not capable of offering.

> Do that, judge by the accuracy of their work, not by your preconceptions on their character.

The problem is that I can't judge accurately, in this case, because I don't speak the language. I'd be placing my faith; something very very important; in numbers. "I speak greek, this is what Christ says", another guy says "Can confirm, I speak greek as well and he's right", third guy says "Can confirm, I speak greek and Hebrew and he's right", maybe a different guy shows up and says "Actually I speak Greek two and he's slightly wrong, but mostly right!"

So long as I cannot, myself, learn greek and read the dang paper myself, I'll always be taking someone else's word for it, and this is by necessity a leap of faith. How certain you feel in this judgement that your chances are good depend on your rationalization.

You get the Idea. This is what it sounds to me like you are doing, which isn't unreasonable or wrong, I don't want you to misunderstand me, but it just looks like a different shade of faith like the one others have.

>>4692

>I personally would feel uncomfortable putting so much stock into this stuff until I could boast of at least a decent proficiency at Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. I think at this point what you are doing requires a level of trust; in institutions and individuals; that I am simply not capable of offering.

But, Mormon friend, it is what you do already.

>The problem is that I can't judge accurately, in this case, because I don't speak the language.

I've given you a concrete example where you can check. There are others.

>So long as I cannot, myself, learn greek and read the dang paper myself, I'll always be taking someone else's word for it, and this is by necessity a leap of faith.

Isn't it what you do with the Bible already? It's been translated, and you read that, and you trust that. I'm the skeptical one here, not you, since I go check on the source material and see how it fares.

>How certain you feel in this judgement that your chances are good depend on your rationalization.

I'd love to know how you rationalise your trust in the institutions that translated your Bible if you can't believe I trust expert translators. How do you trust your experts if you don't understand how I can trust mine, given that I can test the ones I use and that you don't even try to test yours?

>>4697

>I've given you a concrete example where you can check. There are others.

I told you why I'd feel uncomfortable doing that. I don't speak greek, I don't trust dictionaries like that on these matters. Context is important and I need to be able to grasp the whole thing.

>But, Mormon friend, it is what you do already.

>Isn't it what you do with the Bible already? It's been translated, and you read that, and you trust that.

>How do you trust your experts if you don't understand how I can trust mine, given that I can test the ones I use and that you don't even try to test yours?

Well, first of all I'm simply asking you, the conversation isn't about me. Second, I'm asking because you seem to think that what you do is somehow more rational, fool-proof or logical than when other people simply trust their religious institutions, whereas I'm openly and unashamedly admitting that my zealous and close-minded approach is based exclusively on faith and my testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and nothing else.

>I'm the skeptical one here, not you, since I go check on the source material and see how it fares.

What I still don't understand is how you can *actually* do this; without actually speaking the language and without simply trusting the words of other people because of whatever expertise they profess.

>>4701

> I don't trust dictionaries like that on these matters.

Seriously? You don't trust dictionaries?

>Well, first of all I'm simply asking you, the conversation isn't about me.

And I answered by pointing out that your situation isn't very different from my own, and that, in fact, yours is more like mine than you think.

> I'm asking because you seem to think that what you do is somehow more rational, fool-proof or logical than when other people simply trust their religious institutions, whereas I'm openly and unashamedly admitting that my zealous and close-minded approach is based exclusively on faith and my testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God and nothing else.

Absolutely. I think what I do is more rational and more likely to produce good fruits, whereas you simply trust who you were told to trust.

Faith is for God, not verifiable facts.

>What I still don't understand is how you can *actually* do this; without actually speaking the language and without simply trusting the words of other people because of whatever expertise they profess.

I've given you an example. There are many.

We translate "aionos" to mean "eternal". As in "eternal punishment", but the word doesn't mean "eternal", it's much more complicated than that, and has been used by contemporary Greek writers to mean anywhere between a lifetime to only 3 years. But we translate it, casually, as "forever" or "eternal". Same thing with "punishment", the original word has a corrective aspect to it, it's not just punishment. It's something that is unpleasant but it's intended to make you grow and learn. As a Mormon, I thought this stuff would interest you more because I found all of this in your religion. If I were you, I'd definitely use this as an argument, since it fits actual Scriptures!

Here's a page on the matter of hell:

http://www.godsplanforall.com/mistranslationstomeanhell

I haven't read it in details myself but it's a good example of how translating can simplify things beyond worthiness, with drastical consequences for the faith.

>>4706

>Seriously? You don't trust dictionaries?

Not on this issue, no. It'd be more accurate to say I don't trust my ability to correctly interpret context using only a dictionary and not being proficient at the language in question, though I reserve this level of skepticism, or paranoia, for theology alone. Word for word, as opposed to entire sentences, seems too risky.

>And I answered by pointing out that your situation isn't very different from my own, and that, in fact, yours is more like mine than you think.

That's what I'm saying, but I felt like you don't realize that. Faith in the church, faith in the translators; if you told me "I can read greek" I'd stop feeling like I do.

>you simply trust who you were told to trust.

The "who" who told me to trust is actually pretty important in this case.

> As a Mormon, I thought this stuff would interest you more because I found all of this in your religion. If I were you, I'd definitely use this as an argument, since it fits actual Scriptures!

I'm not saying you're wrong in this case, heck, like you say the idea of "Hell" as temporary is correct and we believe it. Its just the methods I'm iffy about. I personally would feel like I'm bringing a knife to a gunfight if I start using "muh original greek" but I'm not at least conversational in the language.

>>4739

>Word for word, as opposed to entire sentences, seems too risky.

>eternal hell

>temporary correction

That doesn't sound too daunting a translation. You can surely learn two words of ancient Greek, right?

>Its just the methods I'm iffy about.

This I don't get: you resort to translators, I resort to translators who talk about what they've translated and tell me about it. How is this different?

>I personally would feel like I'm bringing a knife to a gunfight if I start using "muh original greek" but I'm not at least conversational in the language.

I rely on higher authority in the matter. Surely you do believe that some people who are expert in LDS doctrine are reliable in their fields, I do the same with other experts. I will also consult any experts who disagree but has the same expertise. I just haven't seen any so far.

You don't need to be fluent in Greek to consult experts about a single word like "aionos", since the question is whether it means forever or not.

Let's forget that a) Matthew wasnt Greek but Hebrew, b) Jesus spoke aramaic, c) Matthew uses Mark as a core d) the Catholic church doesnt teach that only acts are truly fulfilled mortal sins. e) Matthew, Mark AND the council of Nicea all were part of the church (thats why Matthew and Mark wrote it down) and believed most likely exactly the same. f) OoLF is extremely biased and cherry picking.

>>4868

>Catholic church doesnt teach that only acts are truly fulfilled mortal sins

If you could read, you'd see that I said exactly that.

>Matthew wasnt Greek but Hebrew,

Makes no difference, the Gospel of Matthew was still written in Greek.

>OoLF is extremely biased and cherry picking.

No arguments there, eh? You can't handle the truth given to you by Christ. Your responsibility, but don't act like you haven't been told.

>>4885

Stop projecting. And dont pretend the church does not speak with the voice of Christ. Thats the unforgiveable sin: calling prophets devils and righteous men unrighteous.

>>4899

>Stop projecting.

Top kek.

>And dont pretend the church does not speak with the voice of Christ.

No need to pretend.

>Thats the unforgiveable sin: calling prophets devils and righteous men unrighteous.

Not according to Christ, but we've already established that you don't much care what He really says.

“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” — Mark 3:28-29

Not that I assume you know what it even means to "speak against the Holy Spirit", but you can't just twist Christ's words around to your preference.

What is one to call another who takes the word of God and twists it? I don't have any nice words for that.

>>4906

>What is one to call another who takes the word of God and twists it

OoLF

>>4957

Then how come I merely copy/paste His words while you paraphrase?

>>4957

Cuckvol says:

>Thats the unforgiveable sin: calling prophets devils and righteous men unrighteous.

Christ says:

>I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.

OoLF says:

>“I promise you that any of the sinful things you say or do can be forgiven, no matter how terrible those things are. But if you speak against the Holy Spirit, you can never be forgiven. That sin will be held against you forever.” — Mark 3:28-29

Find which one has twisted Christ's words.

>>4959

What is wrong about paraphrasing? Exegesis is not twisting the word. What happened before that verse?

25 Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; 26 and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Be-el′zebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. 30 He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

You don’t quote scripture to shut people up, you quote scripture to prove some other sentence you expressed.

You are saying I am a heretic but you cannot prove it,

“For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.”