ba6c6e No.584226
It is clear to me that Protestant reading troubles most come form more base sets of problems that they can have while reading the Bible, and I wish to take a minute to review some of them, just to wind out.
The first problem I meet is that they refuse certain things that greatly help bible interpretation, such as Actions form Saints.
For example, if you point out "Jesus Christ did X", you can very well find that you will be replied with "WELL YOU'RE NOT SINLESS, SO, SORRY MATE!". This is a rather bad position to take since while rules are what the apostles are following, their actions are what give context as to what the spirit of the law is.
I think the second problem That I sometimes also find with Cathodox, but whatever is just rash interpretation of bible verses, which curtails other parts of the bible.
For example, on Works, the Bible says:
"For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast"
But it also says:
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
Most people are still so slow and take it to mean that works don't matter and can't give a proper answer when confronted by the second verse, though Cathodox are able to see that both verses work in tandem, and not against each other.
38a266 No.584229
Protestant reading of scripture is essentially the pharisee brought back from the OT.
endless bickering, circular logic, and through the use of holy scripture deny their own salvation. the pharisees using the Torah to deny Christ, protestants using the Gospels to deny the Eucharist (which is denying Christ, again)
680357 No.584230
>"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
>Most people are still so slow and take it to mean that works don't matter and can't give >a proper answer when confronted by the second verse, though Cathodox are able to see that both verses work in tandem, and not against each other.
Almost everyone knows what it means. It means you should do works but thise aren't going to save you. Also I've never seen cathlodox explainEphesians 2.
680357 No.584231
>>584229
>the pharisees using the Torah to deny Christ,
And then Jesus BTFO of them.
>protestants using the Gospels to deny the Eucharist (which is denying Christ, again)
So you mean we deny that Jesus is literally nade out if bread and wine? There's a huge differece from saying Jesus isn't the Son of God and saying Jesus isn't a piece of bread.
ba6c6e No.584236
>>584230
>It means you should do works but thise aren't going to save you
>>584231
No anon, we're saying the piece of bread becomes Jesus. Its the other way around.
680357 No.584237
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>584233
>Jesus: He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
>Cathlodox: You mean the opposite if what you said.
Also I doubt you actually believe Exodus 20:11
680357 No.584238
>>584236
>>It means you should do works but thise aren't going to save you
Yes I realize I posted that
You're still saying a piece if bread is Jesus.
ba6c6e No.584239
>>584238
Jesus Christ did too.
Can you explain why he didn't bother to correct the Jews that were following him, and instead simply re-state "This is my flesh" again when questioned?
680357 No.584242
>>584239
Pretty much the sermon was symbolic. Jesus said if you believe in him you will never thirst or be hungary, so I guess you never to eat or drink ever again right? Also he did to the apostles "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."
38a266 No.584245
>>584242
You introduce confusion where there was none. The practice of the Eucharist comes from Christ, and then to the Apostle's, and then to the Church they left behind.
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
42067c No.584247
>>584237
>Also I doubt you actually believe Exodus 20:11
>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.(2 Peter 3:8)
>For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. (Psalm 90:4)
a4be67 No.584248
>>584241
There is a distinct difference between "I am x" and "this is my X". One is applying the mundane to the divine, the other is applying the divine to the mundane.
ba6c6e No.584250
>Going to point out that the thread was intentionally derailed
>Realize there's not much to discuss in the OP other than agreement
Oh, well.
6b3076 No.584256
>>584248
why is that significant?
a4be67 No.584258
>>584256
Because it's one thing to use metaphor in order to explain the nature of the divine by applying mundane things that the human mind can understand, and it is another to take a piece of bread and say "this is my body," aka a divine thing.
680357 No.584270
>>584245
>Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
Then he says "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." so if that means eating a piece of bread and drinking wine then gaytheists and fagnkstics would be saved by doing communion only once.
Also theif on the cross didn't
680357 No.584271
>>584247
It says "the evening and morning were the ____ day" for every day. Read Genesis 1 again. And if it does mean 6000 years then that means plants existed fir a 3 thousand years without animals. Also those verses are that time doesn't quite exist to God
680357 No.584272
>>584248
First off no not really. Second off Jesus said "I am the bread of life" so he did say the same thing that way
42067c No.584275
>>584271
>the evening and morning
without sun
42067c No.584277
>>584271
>Also those verses are that time doesn't quite exist to God
Oh why thank you for finally agreeing on this.
Now agree that days merely represent division of creation history by events in symbolic manner instead of 24 hour day.
680357 No.584278
>>584275
>New Jerusalem is also just a metaphor
Get out heretic
680357 No.584279
>>584277
Besides it never implies that
d0e500 No.584280
>>584277
The passage defines days as being sunrise-to-sunrise. It's clearly talking about literal days as they exist within the bounds of this world, not as God perceives them.
42067c No.584282
>>584278
>Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
680357 No.584283
>>584278
This is what I'm talking about
23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
a4be67 No.584284
>>584272
>First off no not really
I mean yes really unless you want to put up an argument dude
>Second off Jesus said "I am the bread of life" so he did say the same thing that way
Certainly, but as I pointed out that isn't saying the exact same thing.
680357 No.584285
>>584282
>3 times is the same as what the entire religion came from is mentioned in almost every book
680357 No.584287
>>584284
>Certainly, but as I pointed out that isn't saying the exact same thing.
It kinda is. In one he's saying he's the bread of life, in the other he says this bread is him and if you don't have it you don't have life
d0e500 No.584289
>>584248
>There is a distinct difference between "I am x" and "this is my X"
In both cases the verb of being actually means "represent"
a4be67 No.584294
>>584287
>In one he's saying he's the bread of life, in the other he says this bread is him and if you don't have it you don't have life
Exactly.
680357 No.584295
>>584294
Yeah and it's not literal unless he's also made of wood and hinges
a4be67 No.584308
>>584295
Jesus's body was made up of a pile of quarks, dust to dust, and so is a piece of bread, why is it so hard to believe that one can be a body for God and not the other? And again, you haven't actually addressed my initial argument besides saying "no" so far, that this passage is distinct in applying the divine to the mundane as opposed to the mundane to the divine.
680357 No.584312
>>584308
>Jesus's body was made up of a pile of quarks, dust to dust, and so is a piece of bread, why is it so hard to believe that one can be a body for God and not the other? And again, you haven't actually addressed my
Maybe the most autistic argument I've ever seen. That's like saying I'm made if gold because me and gold are both made of protons and electrons
6b3076 No.584314
>>584258
i see why they're slightly different, but i don't see why it's significant in addressing whether or not both are rhetorical devices.
b5cd94 No.584318
>here's my journal where I debate a strawman
a4be67 No.584328
>>584312
The point is that of those created things should even be possible to be fit vessels for the uncreated, eternal, and infinite, yet they are anyways, that is unless you want to deny the incarnation.
>>584314
>i see why they're slightly different, but i don't see why it's significant in addressing whether or not both are rhetorical devices.
Because something cannot be metaphorically divine, that's why. It's metaphors about the God-man vs metaphors about bread.
66facd No.584330
Catholics are just wannabe cannibals. Every time you eat the bread and drink the communion wine you are reminded that transubstantiation is a lie. It tastes like wine and bread because that is what it literally is and nothing more and every Catholic knows this deep down.
6b3076 No.584334
>>584328
>something cannot be metaphorically divine
can something not metaphorically represent something that's divine?
255264 No.584341
>>584226
>control f
>fucking 0 results
>cunt 0 results
>faggot 0 results
>kike 0 results
Proud of you guys.
a4be67 No.584346
>>584334
It can, but in light of what Jesus's body actually is, aka God inhabiting matter, aka a theoretically impossible phenomenon, is it not more likely that when Jesus says "this is my body," which is in and of itself a miracle beyond reason, that he is saying that he is performing a miracle beyond reason? It is one thing to say that Jesus's body is not a door, that much we can see, but in light of what Jesus's body actually is Luke 22:19 is another case entirely.
0bf5c1 No.584347
>>584241
You neglect to mention that it is literally called a parable in john 10:6
>This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
a4be67 No.584349
>>584347
I'll just post this for him and point out that's not at all what he was going for, it's specifically a backlash against a post on the Eucharist in the same vein.
0bf5c1 No.584351
>>584349
Where do you even get this "eucharist" word from anyways? Just call it the Lord's supper. I don't think it is biblical or of faith to call it "eucharist"
a4be67 No.584356
>>584351
Eucharist just means thanksgiving, so yeah it's pretty biblical afaik.
6b3076 No.584359
>>584346
>in light of what Jesus's body actually is, aka God inhabiting matter, aka a theoretically impossible phenomenon
>is it not more likely that when Jesus says "this is my body," which is in and of itself a miracle beyond reason, that he is saying that he is performing a miracle beyond reason?
no, i don't understand your logic here, how that would factor into it being more or less likely the case at all.
i'm reading it as:
>X says something that would be theoretically impossible
>X is able to do that which is theoretically impossible
>???
>therefore, X is less likely to have meant it metaphorically, and is more likely to have done that which is theoretically impossible
f93eb0 No.584362
>>584351
Matthew 26:27 uses eucharistēsas…
75559a No.584367
0bf5c1 No.584369
>>584362
Matthew 26:27
>And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
I don't see the word "eucharistēsas" in the verse.
>>584356
Why not just say thanksgiving then and use more plain, and more biblical language?
f93eb0 No.584374
>>584369
Of course you will not see "eucharistēsas" if you look at an English translation of the Greek…
a4be67 No.584375
>>584359
The logic is
>X says something that would be theoretically impossible has been done, a.k.a the incarnation, which we will call Y
>X is Y
>X says Z is Y
>therefore, X is less likely to have meant not meant Y is Z only metaphorically and is more likely to have meant that Y is Z literally.
0bf5c1 No.584376
>>584374
>>584372
>(((greek)))
Care to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that the word "eucharistēsas" is the correct word to be in that position? Or how you came to the conclusion that it means what you say it means? For no interpretation of scripture is private due to 2 peter 1:20.
a4be67 No.584379
>>584376
>(((greek)))
>(((the language of the new testament)))
Please don't tempt me, I deleted my smug anime girl folder quite a while ago.
38a266 No.584382
>>584376
2 peter 1:20 is talking of the holy scripture itself, it's not referring to your own personal interpretation
quit messing around with this, this is dangerous
f93eb0 No.584383
>>584376
>(((greek)))
What is your point here supposed to be? That the Jews tampered with the Greek NT? Or is it that the apostles and early Church did not use the Greek NT?
>Care to explain to me how you came to the conclusion that the word "eucharistēsas" is the correct word to be in that position?
I'm not aware of any Greek manuscript that uses another word there.
>Or how you came to the conclusion that it means what you say it means?
We know what most Koine Greek words mean, especially since it's the same word in modern Greek.
0bf5c1 No.584387
>>584383
>What is your point here supposed to be?
That the kikes tampered with the old manuscripts after the 17th century, claiming the (((hebrew))) ones were biblical hebrew and not a combination of babylonian script and biblical hebrew script. Also that the (((greek))) ones were also tampered with to change the meaning of doctrine and to leave clueless christians in confusion.
>We know what most Koine Greek words mean,
But how did you figure out what they mean? It is a language that hasn't been spoken for over a few thousand years.
especially since it's the same word in modern Greek.
But how did you come to this conclusion?
>>584382
If it is refering to scripture then you should be able to tell me how you came to your interpretation of Matthew 26:27.
>>584379
Have a smug.
f93eb0 No.584390
>>584387
I'll go straight to the point.
1) You claim that Matthew 26:27 was tampered with. Show me the receipts.
2) The KJV was translated off a manuscript that said "eucharistēsas" and translated it as "gave thanks." Do you disagree with the KJV now?
6b3076 No.584392
>>584375
conclusion is still a total non-sequitur.
i'll leave you alone my dude, this isn't going anywhere.
0bf5c1 looks like he'd be more entertaining to engage anyway
42067c No.584393
>>584376
>>((Greek)))
>>584387
>That the kikes tampered with the old manuscripts after the 17th century, claiming the (((hebrew))) ones were biblical hebrew and not a combination of babylonian script and biblical hebrew script. Also that the (((greek))) ones were also tampered with to change the meaning of doctrine and to leave clueless christians in confusion.
illness is getting more severe it seems
38a266 No.584394
>>584387
and of course, you have not an ounce of material to prove absolutely anything of what you're saying
89cd69 No.584408
>>584387
Are you a self hating messianic Jew or something?
I-i never seen this lunacy. I'm not sure what to think…
6e1a8e No.584411
>>584229
Except pharisees insisted on the existence of a superbiblical tradition passed down from God to Moses, as catholics do with Jesus to Peter.
>>584226
People need to take a Google Earth Approach to reading the bible. What I mean is zooming in and out, using multiple layers of context, from the chapter to the book to the whole bible. Most of the lukewarm christian just don't read the bible period, they just get spoonfed certain verses from their lukewarm pastor who thinks its ok to recruit gays by supporting their sin.
a4be67 No.584414
>>584387
So yeah the full meaning of the Eucharist isn't going anywhere with 6b3076 and quite frankly he's right, you do seem like the more interesting one to engage.
So tell me why do you think that the Textus Receptus is a jewish trick?
42067c No.584415
>>584408
If you are new here, get used to it. He is present in every thread and shitting in them as if it was a sport, as well as teaching idiocies such as ann*hilationism, mortality of souls and so on. And mods dont ban him, sadly.
In other words, Welcome to nowadays /christian/
f93eb0 No.584419
>>584415
he also believes that Jesus died twice - once for the Old Covenant and once for the New
a4be67 No.584424
>>584419
?????????????(((????????)))????????????????
Ok I need him to explain the mechanics for that though. Did his heart just stop and start and stop again on the Cross? Did he just dissolve in a cloud at the ascension? Did breaking the bread at the Last Supper count or something? What in the actual eternal hell kind of exegesis is that?
f93eb0 No.584427
>>584424
if I remember well, it's based off some bizarre exegesis of Hebrews
I think he said Jesus died once before all ages for the Old Covenant, and at the cross for the New Covenant
But he'll have to respond himself, it's been a while since I saw him talk about this
0bf5c1 No.584436
>>584424
Which death? Physical death that is temporary? Or eternal suffering which is also known as the second death in revelation 20:10,14-15?
>>584419
Jesus suffered from the foundation of the world due to hebrews 9:26 and was slain from such due to revelation 13:8. Death is also known as suffering when taking revelation 20:10,14-15 into account.
>>584415
What is your explanation for revelation 16:3 saying "every living soul died" then?
>ann*hilationism
What is this?
>>584390
>1) You claim that Matthew 26:27 was tampered with. Show me the receipts.
My proof is that every version after the KJV makes God a liar if it were true because of having errors, hence the translators were not of God due to titus 1:2, matthew 7:15-20, and 2 timothy 3:16.
>2) The KJV was translated off a manuscript that said "eucharistēsas" and translated it as "gave thanks." Do you disagree with the KJV now?
No because the KJV doesn't make God a liar if it were true, which it is.
>>584414
Because there are just about two different texts/scrap papers for every verse contained in the Bible within the textus receptucus. It's so confusing and inconsistent and not all of it can be true. Sounds like a perfect description of a fake (((jewish))) trick. Don't confuse the biblical jews with the (((jews))) of today.
>>584394
My proof is in it's fruits as in accordance with matthew 7:15-20. Technically no there is no physical proof of the shoah of the old texts. Other than all the new ones would make God a liar if they were true, which is proof enough if you believe what titus 1:2 says.
42067c No.584439
>>584436
>What is your explanation for revelation 16:3 saying "every living soul died" then?
It denotes living being. So every living being physically died. nothing more, nothing less and it has been interpretated so before you and your autistic innovation came in in AD 2017
0bf5c1 No.584444
>>584439
>innovation
>taking it literaly
Re-read revelation 16:3
>And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a dead man: and every living soul died in the sea.
Do you think there were humans, alive in the sea, who died as creatures? Because even so "every living soul died".
Have another one in Genesis 6:17
>And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
What is your explanation for this verse? I think because all things that breath have souls, can die due to the wording of genesis 2:7.
89cd69 No.584464
>>584436
>Which death? Physical death that is temporary?Or eternal suffering which is also known as the second death in revelation 20:10,14-15?
Are you implying Jesus is suffering & being tormented in the lake of fire as His second death?
Sounds Talmudic
0bf5c1 No.584471
>>584464
No, Jesus is in heaven currently due to ephesians 4:8-10. I am stating that hebrews 9:26 states Jesus has suffered since the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8 also states that Jesus died at the foundation of the world. The only pain comparable to suffering forever in the Bible is the pain caused by the lake of fire in revaltion 20:10,14-15. Obviously the lake of fire doesn't exist yet. But that is clearly likended to the pain Jesus experienced, most likely due to isaiah 14 and the lamentation of ezekiel 31.
89cd69 No.584499
>>584471
>Jesus died at the foundation of the world
Ok so you are saying His first death was actually His second death (suffering) and that His first death (his physical death) was actually his second death. Gotcha.
Never mind the fact you are using a prophetic book that describes a particular even that has yet to come to pass as the basis of your theory for an event you claimed happened at the foundation if the world that is supposed to only be something meant for the antichrist, the false prophet, satan & followers of Antichrist as punishment at the end of the world.
0bf5c1 No.584508
>>584499
Yes indeed except for one thing
>His first death (his physical death) was actually his second death.
No, Jesus was slain twofold on the cross due to john 19:30-35, as a physical sacrifice to fulfill matthew 5:17-17 which is the law that is of romans 6:23 and the worldy ordinances of the leviticul priesthood hebrews 9:8-15, and the spiritual sacrifice, like that of the foundation of the world hebrews 9:8-15, to create a new law of faith and grace romans 3:26-27.
0bf5c1 No.584510
>584499
>that is supposed to only be something meant for the antichrist, the false prophet, satan & followers of Antichrist as punishment at the end of the world.
Have you not read hebrews 9:16?
>For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Why do you think there are two testaments/laws? Because Jesus died/suffered twice of course.
89cd69 No.584540
>>584508
>>584510
Really seems like grasping at straws & making connections in your head between verses that are not there. You are far out the realm of what Christianity at large believes. This is a false doctrine of your own making.
At first you provided revelation 20:10,14-15 but that is about a specific event not what you are claiming.
Then you give me Hebrews 9:26 which does not even say Jesus died.
Then you give me john 19:30-35 which says nothing about Him being slain twice on the cross he died once & then they stabbed he dead body (we're up to 3 deaths now, once at the foundation & twice on the cross)
You gave me Hebrews 9:16 which again does not say anything about Jesus dying three deaths & Jesus can!e to fulfill the old covenant not be a testator to it.
Them you give me Matthew 5:17 which actually supports me that Jesus came to fulfill the law (which is why He says it is consummated in John 19) then note from Hebrews & Romans that again do not back you up.
On top of all that there is still all that insane stuff you believe about the both the ol Hebrew & Greek being tampered with yet you still for reason trust the English that was translated for said corrupted scripture. Its so inconsistent & reeks if cognitive dissonance.
I don't think /christian/ is for you. This is a more traditional & doctrinally sound board.
I really think you would be happier posting on >>>/christ/
They are more accepting to heresy & way out there beliefs
ce220c No.584555
>>584376
>Greek in echos
This is a falseflagger isn't he?
Please tell me someone can't be this dense or retarded.
0bf5c1 No.584557
>>584540
It's like you aren't reading it in the KJV or something.
<At first you provided revelation 20:10,14-15
>And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever
>And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
>And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
The lake of fire is eternal suffering, it is also called the second death.
<Then you give me Hebrews 9:26 which does not even say Jesus died.
>For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Eternal suffering was equated to the second death in revelation 20:10,14-15. Hence why I said such involving hebrews 9:26 as it is also stated Jesus was slain which means to have died from the foundation of the world in revelation 13:8.
>Then you give me john 19:30-35 which says nothing about Him being slain twice
Do you not believe that Jesus came in the flesh, and in the spirit? Read John 19:34
>But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water
Water is the same as the spiritual blood of Christ according to hebrews 10:22 and revelation 1:5 which equates being washed in the blood of christ to also having been washed by water. Romans 8:8 also applies here.
>(we're up to 3 deaths now, once at the foundation & twice on the cross)
No, Jesus only died twice, but his death on the cross had a twofold implication since he was both physically there to die due to his blood and spiritually there to die due to the water.
>Jesus can!e to fulfill the old covenant not be a testator to it.
Why not? He is the mediator of the new testament according to hebrews 9:15 and states hebrews 9:22
>By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Implying there was a testament before that which required the death of someone according to hebrews 9:17. While also stating Jesus died/suffered from the foundation of the world. Hence why Jesus is the mediator of both testaments.
If you think this is wrong, then whats your interpretation of hebrews 9:26, revelation 13:8, and how do you account for blood and water in john 19:34 as there was never enough time for his blood to seperate and become blood and water. He was killed with his blood being seperate from water in his body. And then how do you account for whom the mediator of the first testament is?
0bf5c1 No.584558
>>584555
Acts 28:27-28
>For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
>Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.
24a89d No.584561
The reason the bible contradicts itself is because is a compilation of several texts written by many different apostles.
0bf5c1 No.584566
>>584561
But it doesn't contradict itself, or God would be a liar. Or rather I should say the KJV doesn't contradict itself. The more accurate to the (((greek))) and (((babylonian/hebrew))) versions do indeed contradict themselves and would make God a liar if they were true, which they are not.
What does that have to do with the thread? Why do you not have faith that God tells the truth? Why are you here if you don't believe God speaks the truth in His word?
ba6c6e No.584571
>>584566
You realize KJV is based on the Textus Receptus?
0bf5c1 No.584573
>>584571
I do, but I also believe it to be inspired by God, like all scripture is supposed to be if you can call it scripture because of 2 timothy 3:15-17. But this is circular logic/faith since it requires believing God exists and would tell the truth of preserving His word forver in 1 peter 1:25 to begin with.
If you have not faith, why are you here?
ba6c6e No.584576
>>584573
>If you have not faith
If you can't foresee the possibility of a Christian having a different opinion than you, why are you even posting? Leave.
0bf5c1 No.584584
>>584576
>If you can't foresee the possibility of a Christian having a different opinion than you,
I can, hence why I quote 2 peter 1:20 on occasion to get their interpretation of scripture. Also hence why I asked in >>584557 what 89cd69's interpretation is, of which he must still be typing up. Do you have a interpretation you would like to share with all of us for our edification?
ba6c6e No.584586
>>584584
Can you explain how you know the KJV is inspired?
89cd69 No.584590
>>584566
>The closer the translation is to the original Greek/Hebrew the more unreliable it is
>But the KJV which is translated from those very same "corrupted" scriptures is accurate
0bf5c1 No.584594
>>584586
By examining its fruit as matthew 7:15-20 says to. Only God is good according to matthew 19:17. Since God can not lie according to titus 1:2 I think the KJV is scripture as it claims to be scripture, and it contains no error that would make God a liar and thusly would be good fruit as matthew 7:15-20 speaks of. But this requires trusting that God exists john 8:58 and would tell the truth in the first place titus 1:2. As to preserve His word forver in 1 peter 1:25.
ef8bd0 No.584598
>>584341
>control f
>fucking 1 result
>cunt 1 result
>faggot 1 result
>kike 1 result
ba6c6e No.584600
>>584594
Remake your post but with the bible verses quoted on it.
0bf5c1 No.584602
>>584590
Indeed that is the truth, however absurd. Also see 1 corinthians 1:20-25
>Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
>For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
>For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
>But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
>But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
>Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
624270 No.584603
>>584594
You are the most annoying poster on the board.
0bf5c1 No.584607
>>584600
Are you too lazy to look them up or something? There is a Bible located at >>>/pdf/7147 .
By examining its fruit as matthew 7:15-20 says to.
>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
>Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
>Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
>Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
>Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Only God is good according to Mark 10:18 misquoted the first one
>And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Since God can not lie according to titus 1:2
>In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
I think the KJV is scripture as it claims to be scripture, and it contains no error that would make God a liar and thusly would be good fruit as matthew 7:15-20 speaks of. But this requires trusting that God exists john 8:58
>Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
and would tell the truth in the first place titus 1:2. As to preserve His word forever as stated in 1 peter 1:25.
>But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
89cd69 No.584609
>>584602
You have to be a false flagger trying to make KJV onlyists look bad because they aren't even this retarded. This a whole new level of wrong.
0bf5c1 No.584613
>>584609
No I am completely serious. Do you have anothe explanation for any of these verses in line with that 2 peter 1:20 says about private interpretations, not having any?
0bf5c1 No.584614
>>584609
I am not a KJV onlyer. I am open to other versions being the word of God, if they pass the test and matthew 7:15-20 and titus 1:2 holding true in them. I have yet to find another version though.
ba6c6e No.584641
>>584607
>Are you too lazy to look them up or something?
Yes.
0bf5c1 No.584644
>>584641
>unironically admitting you don't care what God says because you are too lazy to look it up
Not sure how to feel about this.
a4be67 No.584658
ba6c6e No.584667
4c9d8a No.584682
>>584644
>Not wanting to look up a laundry list of verses to follow a post on an imageboard means you don’t care what the Bible says
Seriously, can we have a moratorium on this shit? Not only does it waste people’s time having to look up shit that you already did and should take you an extra second to copy-paste it, half the time it isn’t even clear what you meant by a verse because you haven’t explained how you’re interpreting it. I have never seen an actual theological debate where people just rattle off verse numbers and expect an argument to magically present itself.
0bf5c1 No.584683
>>584682
>wasting peoples time
>taking time to read the word of God, which is above His own name
Pick one.
>Not only does it waste people’s time having to look up shit that you already did and should take you an extra second to copy-paste
It's a great way of spotting apostates like yourself who are to lazy to lookup what God says in His word.
>half the time it isn’t even clear what you meant by a verse
It's literal, why aren't you taking God at His word? You do realise words have meaning in the english language right? Get a dictionary if you don't understand.
>and expect an argument to magically present itself.
I am going based off of thus saith the Lord. Either believe what God literally states in His word or don't. Don't even acknowledge my arguements should I make one and not back it up scripturally. But rather believe what God states in His word.
ac0005 No.584691
>>584241
But there is literal spiritual meaning to "I am the door"
f069dc No.584699
>>584691
Same with "I am the bread of life"
0bf5c1 No.584702
>>584691
That meaning is in the previous verse as it literally calls it a proverb.
>>584699
That meaning is in john 6:55 because of hebrews 5:12-14.
3755d3 No.584737
>>584573
>I do, but I also believe it to be inspired by God
Why? Because you think it helps support your theological arguments? Why would God wait so long to divinely inspire this one particular translation and allow so many other translations to be corrupted. This is some Islam tier logic.
>>584614
>I am not a KJV onlyer. I am open to other versions being the word of God, if they pass the test and matthew 7:15-20 and titus 1:2 holding true in them. I have yet to find another version though.
First of all, that makes you a de facto KJV onlyist. Second of all, if you want people to actually understand your reasoning instead of just being smug about how right you are and how wrong everyone else is, you're going to have to explain in detail why you believe what you do instead of just quoting bible verses at people. The only bible I own is a KJV version and I actually like that translation, but I fail to see how anyone of sound mind can believe that it's somehow divinely inspired and all the other translations are basically worthless in comparison. You'll have to explain your reasoning in order to make me see.
0bf5c1 No.584747
>>584737
>how right you are and how wrong everyone else is
No, ignore what I say and listen to what God says in His word and serve God.
<but I fail to see how anyone of sound mind can believe that it's somehow divinely inspired
Because that's exactly what 2 timothy 3:16 says, if it is scripture
>All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
If you believe what 1 peter 1:25 says in any version or Bible
>But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Then God's word will endure forever and it claims to be the word of God.
<and all the other translations are basically worthless in comparison
I say all, but I have yet to check all of them. Do you have a version I can compare against what matthew 7:15-20 and titus 1:2 says to look for when looking for God, truth? For God said He would preserve His word forver, unless you don't believe God.
<You'll have to explain your reasoning in order to make me see.
If you don't have eyes to see you never will see. So get out you unbeliever and don't come back until you profess that Jesus has come in the flesh due to 1 john 4:2. But to those who do have eyes, this is a perfect example of matthew 7:6.
51682c No.584762
>>584683
>Don't even acknowledge my arguements should I make one and not back it up scripturally
So disregard your entire post, gotcha.
0bf5c1 No.584763
>>584762
Now you are catching on.
8deef0 No.584776
Id say catholics do it worse and Im Catholic
They quote that "you are peter and on this rock I will build my church" quote without being able to explain it other than "peter means rock in greek" which is irrelevent anyway as Jesus points this out in the quote.
0bf5c1 No.584784
>>584783
I laughed at that, thanks for the chuckle. But 1 corinthians 3:18-21 applies
>Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
>For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
>And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
>Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;
And yet here I am becoming 1 corinthians 4:10
>We are fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
38a266 No.584787
are people still responding to this guy?
>>584614
so are you aware you are completely disingenuous or not?
http://biblehub.com/titus/1-2.htm
http://biblehub.com/matthew/7-20.htm
0bf5c1 No.584788
>>584787
romans 9:1
>I SAY the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
38a266 No.584797
>>584788
you are not saint paul dude
0bf5c1 No.584804
>>584797
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, does this make you feel better when I don't quote the Bible? Get over it. Save the fact that you might have another interpretation to share with all of us for our edification that also accounts for the verses quoted thus far.
38a266 No.584809
>>584804
i really wonder if you communicate irl by just quoting page numbers of scripture; it's barely related to anything you're speaking of, as a rule
0bf5c1 No.584811
>>584809
You asked here >>584787
>so are you aware you are completely disingenuous or not?
And I answered here >>584788 by denying being decietful to you.
>it's barely related to anything you're speaking of, as a rule
How is that verse not relevant when it has everything to do with denying being disingenuous?
fb2a75 No.584820
Fellow protestants, have you ever noticed when Ortholics don't disagree with the methods of interpretation when our understanding of certain theology is identical, yet they always say the methods is incorrect (if not blasphemous) when it differs from their theology.
Rly makes u think.
fb2a75 No.584821
>>584820
*the same methods.
4c9d8a No.584823
>>584820
What do you mean by methods of interpretation? "Holy Spirit take the wheel" level shit? No Cathodox would say that’s a sensible method of interpretation regardless of what you come up with, it’s just that the methodology is going to be questioned as a matter of course if you come up with a questionable reading whereas nobody on this board is going to challenge someone arguing the Trinity in case they divined it using tea leaves or something.
c0740c No.584825
>>584823
The Holy Spirit arranged the tea leaves in such a way as to show that the Trinity is true of course.
ce220c No.584940
>>584825
>2018
>Still not drinking Holy Spirit tea
How do you even exegesis m8?
42067c No.584942
>>584823
>>584825
>>584940
You are talking about the Holy Spirit. Please refrain from bad posting.
4f34f4 No.585003
>>584823
>"Holy Spirit take the wheel" level?
1 Corinthians 2:9-13
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
b104f2 No.585042
OP is completely misrepresenting protestants.
38a266 No.585094
>>585042
Protestants have no set belief outside the occasional limits set by Luther with Sola Fide & Sola Scriptura.
you can depict them in many number of ways, and as long as its within these limits, you can find a Church that believes it
e76a1d No.585210
>>584387
fucking retard man