/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>touching marcionite bibles

>>752128

>marcionite

Fortunately, the RSV CE made some needed corrections (CE2 even moreso with the OT, I believe).

>>752128

idk what that means

>>752135

Basically it's heresy where said heretics try to fully get rid of the Old Testament.

Much like a pb&j sandwhich without the pb, a christian without the Old Testament is incomplete.

>>752153

>Basically it's heresy where said heretics try to fully get rid of the Old Testament.

Hah.. I thought you meant how Marcion corrupted and edited the texts.. and thought the Alexandrian script the RSV is based off of might've had his influence.

Simply having a New Testament doesn't mean a person is a Marcionite. He actively hated the OT. That's not the same.

>>752153

if they included the OT with full commentary, the book would be ginormous

>>752160

I was not aware the corrupted the OT. I learned something new today. Thank you.

>>752161

Lol, I'll stick to the OSB

>>752164

what's the OSB?

>>752171

how so?also, is it Orthodox, or orthodox?

The OSB is the only thing you'll find these days with commentary rooted in seeing scripture in purely Christological terms. You could get illuminating commentary even from a seemingly forgettable text about tabernacle construction in Leviticus and walk away with new things about Christ. It's sad, since every Church Father used to write like this. But bible scholars as a whole tend to avoid it.

>>752127

Divide the number of pages by 365 and thats how many pages you need to read to finish the entire book in a year.

p.s you'll realise that all books aren't even that long and you could even read an 8000 page book in a year if you read 22 pages per day.

>>752173

If I'm not mistaken you're probably talking about allegorical interpretation. This was a form of interpretation that plagued the church for a long time. It's first seen in the epistle of barnabas and then in the writings of Origen. It's a forced way to see Christ in every biblical passages no matter how convoluted and this was mainly done with the OT and the God given reformation is what actually fixed this beacuse it was then when people finally started to take the Bible seriously. There's a reason why scholars don't take this approach anymore.

Also,

>OSB

kek'd

>>752186

>If I'm not mistaken you're probably talking about allegorical interpretation. This was a form of interpretation that plagued the church for a long time. It's first seen in the epistle of barnabas and then in the writings of Origen. It's a forced way to see Christ in every biblical passages no matter how convoluted and this was mainly done with the OT and the God given reformation is what actually fixed this beacuse it was then when people finally started to take the Bible seriously. There's a reason why scholars don't take this approach anymore.

I know what allegorical is. And didn't it start with Barnabas. It goes back to the Aramaic Targums and Midrash.. and the New Testament itself. Even Jesus showed the walkers on the road to Emmaus how much the scriptures speak of him. And Phillip to the Ethiopian.

"O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." - Luke 24:25-27

Christ IS THE WORD. Literally and figuratively. He's the sum of everything the scriptures spoke of. The Church Fathers were simply led on to more things by the Spirit.

Sigh. You even promoted Wayne Grudem and his pet cashcow. Over the Church Fathers? Really? The OP is a Catholic. At least attempt to meet halfway (like I'm doing). Or are Evangelicals incapable of doing that? Did they lose all touch with 2000 years of the Church? Does the beginning and end of all things Christianity recourse back on to themselves?

>>752183

>(((scholars)))

OP, if you read a chapter a night it shouldn't take you very long. Frankly though I wouldn't be concerned with how long it takes to read something unless you're teaching a class or something.

>>752172

>is it Orthodox, or orthodox?

Yes.