b658a3 No.842458
Baptists are not Protestants.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
28ced0 No.842459
>>842458
Those alternate histories are borrowed from Adventists. They had more of an excuse to justify their existence, because nothing like them came before. But Baptists in the 19th century didn't engage in this retardery. They were proud Protestants. Go read Spurgeon like a good boy and get away from the internet for awhile.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
28ced0 No.842460
Also, perhaps the saddest thing about the "perpetual" Baptist timeline is trying to include Donatists and sometimes Monatists among the number of true believers. It just screams "We didn't read even basic history books and are just including them because they were outcasts to the established church." It's just siding with heresies for the sake of it. For Baptists in particulars, it's especially strange, since they were absolutely "works" based fanatics. Both groups espoused ascetism for Salvation, and Donatists in particular thought the clergy must be perfect for even the Eucharist to be valid. And neither one had anything to do with Celts. They proliferated in Northern Africa.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9f3f28 No.842464
Why would landmarkism mean that we're not Protestant?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e5f542 No.842465
>>842459
>Those alternate histories are borrowed from Adventists. They had more of an excuse to justify their existence, because nothing like them came before.
Actually, its the other way around.
Adventists were renegade baptists that came from the Millerite Movement, which later formed both the SDA, and the Bible Student Movement, from which the JW's came.
Weird ass we wuzzery, "we are the ones that figured it all out" attitude, and conspiracy stuff was rampant in the more "hardcore" part of baptism.
Still is, see Anderson.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4fa14a No.842466
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Smyth_(Baptist_minister)
Smyth was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1594 in England. He preached in the city of Lincoln in 1600 to 1602.[3] Soon after his ordination, he broke with the Church of England and left for Holland where he and his small congregation began to study the Bible ardently. He briefly returned to England
In 1609, Smyth, along with a group in Holland, came to believe in believer's baptism (thereby rejecting infant baptism) and they came together to form one of the earliest Baptist churches.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9f3f28 No.842467
>>842466
There are four theories of Baptist origins
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4fa14a No.842471
>>842467
No more point in discussing this with Baptist than there is discussing Joseph Smith and the gold plates and us magic glasses.
It's part of the belief, but it is neither Biblical, historically shown (Peter becoming the Bishop of Rome) nor consistent with the teachings of the apostles.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9f3f28 No.842473
>>842471
I agree that theres no point in discussion when you have those presuppositions
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
abc726 No.842478
>>842467
And one of them isn't some made up nonsense believed only by wackjobs
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
abc726 No.842481
>>842459
>>842465
Baptists who believe in ahistorical conspiracy theories about their denomination's origins have nearly always been Arminian. The reason they have felt the need is clearly because of the Roman Catholic objection that they are the ancient church and all others are a mere derivative. Reformed Baptists like Spurgeon have not believed any such fanciful nonsense because the Reformed tradition has had a solution for the problem that does not require it. However, while the Reformed and Lutheran churches have mostly retained their connection to the reformers, many of the synergist churches abandoned any connection to church history in the 19th century, thereby generating the pig-ignorant fundamentalist stereotype.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
dd10ac No.842506
>>842458
Wow, now baptists go so far to accuse Clement who was consecrated by the apostle Peter to be a heretic because he correctly taught what the apostles already teach. Just goes to show how far away these heretics are from the Christian religion.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
abc726 No.842675
>>842506
It's referring to Clement of Alexandria not Clement of Rome lmao
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845122
>>842478
I'd say the continuation theory has had prominent support until around the time "modern" historical scholarship (which is highly self-referential) emerged. This is around the time when everyone started assuming that everything a Catholic said about something must have been true.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f5b572 No.845582
>>842458
Jesus quoted more stuff in the Septuagint than what he did from what's written in the Masoretic Text (what books like the KJV, NASB, etc, are all based on).
First you need to stop using the Masoretic Text, then we can talk about which way is right.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845616
>>845582
You didn't bring any actual verses so I'm assuming you have none then.
The Septuagint of today comes from Origen, and it removes the prophecy of the Son in Psalm 2:12. It also has Methuselah outlive the flood by 14 years in Genesis 5, and adds some things from the New Testament into Genesis and Exodus which proves it was written later.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
28a69e No.845617
>>845616
>adds some things from the New Testament into Genesis and Exodus which proves it was written later.
I've never heard of this, can you point me to an article?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c6e356 No.845630
>>845617
This.
>>845616
I shouldn't have to bring verses, I assumed you would be capable yourself of such a thing. Looks like I didn't account for people like you.
Here's an example of modifications/purposeful altering:
Arphaxad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug (the children and their children of Shem) all had 100 years dropped from their ages of when they had their children. The Masoretic text is the only one which has those 100 years removed. Nahor is the odd one out here since he only had 50 years dropped.
The Greek Septuagint, Samaritan Pentateuch, and Flavius Josephus all have those 100 years on there (50 for Nahor).
Genesis 46:27 of the MT says that it consisted of 70 people total. Exodus 1:5 of the MT also says 70 people.
Genesis 46:27 of the LXX says 75 people total. And Exodus 1:5 of the GS also says 75 people.
So which was it?
Well, Stephen the Martyr in Acts 7:14 says that it consisted of 75 people total, agreeing with the LXX. But he spoke Hebrew though? Well this is where we bring in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). In 1947 in many caves, they found many ancient Hebrew scrolls which predate the MT by more than 1000 years (300-200 BC).
And in the DSS they found Exodus 1:5, which tells us that it was 75 people total.
Stephen the Martyr is disagreeing with the MT, because he IS agreeing with the ORIGINAL Hebrew.
Even Jesus himself sides with the LXX.
In Luke 4:18 […] "And recovery of sight to the blind,". If you look up Isaiah 61:1 in the LXX you will see "and recovery of sight to the blind;". But you don't see it in ANY translation of the MT.
You can also go as far as to do a bit of maths (I'm assuming it's a scary thing for you) and scratch off the 2350 BC for the date of the flood. The LXX, SP and Flavius Josephus all tell us that that it's 3000 BC (the MT removes 650 years of history). This is actually quite a large one since this is one of the arguments which the Atheists like to use to try to disprove the Bible. But as you can find out for yourself, you can disprove them.
But why Jews alter and distort the MT? What could they possibly gain from it?
To tell us that Jesus cannot be the new high priest.
They tell us that Melchizedek = Shem. So the priesthood went from from Shem to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Levi. But a
And according to Rabbi's for Jesus to inherit that priesthood, he would have to inherit it from Levi, just like Levi inherited the priesthood from Melchizedek/Shem. But since Jesus is not a descendent of Levi, therefore Jesus cannot be the New High Priest.
And this is the argument which Jewish Rabbi's use, even to this day.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
c6e356 No.845631
>>845630
So here's how we sort out this problem.
Melchizedek lived as the same time as Abraham. Melchizedek interacted with Abraham. Melchizedek brought bread and wine to Abraham and Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of all.
But with those ith those extra 100 years for each person (and 50 for Nahor), Shem died 500~ years before Abraham was even born.
So how did Shem bring out bread and wine to Abraham when he had been dead for the past 500~ years?
The answer is he didn't. Shem cannot be Melchizedek since Shem had been dead for the past 500~ years from when Melchizedek interacted with Abraham.
So it appears that a long time ago, some Jews decided to conspire with the Scribes and have them drop those years off of those ages. That way they could distort the genealogy in such a way to where the lifetime of Shem now overlaps the lifetime of Abraham. This way, they can say that Shem lived the same time as Abraham and then began to promote the idea that Shem is the same person as Melchizedek.
In fact, if you ever hear/see anyone saying that Shem is Melchizedek, you'll see that the only evidence that they provide is they'll say "Look at the Genealogy. Shem lived the same time as Abraham.". That's it.
Where's the rest of the evidence though? They might quote the Book of Jasher, the Targum, or some commentary by a Rabbi, but those aren't scripture. There is no scripture evidence which shows that Shem is Melchizedek.
Now these years might not have been dropped out when the Leningrad Codex was made (1008 AD), they might have been dropped out in an earlier copy of the MT. In fact, they might have even been dropped out in a copy of the Hebrew which dates all the way back to the days of Paul the Apostle. And IF that's the case, then that might be why Paul warned Titus and Timothy not to get involved in foolish arguments and disputes about genealogies.In order to give heed to Jewish Fables.
Titus 3:9, 1 Timothy 1:4, Titus 1:14.
Now why would Paul say something like that? Why would the Jews want to argue with Christians about genealogies?
Maybe it's because they distorted the genealogies in their attempt to disprove Christianity. And maybe that distorted genealogy is the one and only single piece of evidence that even remotely supports this ridiculous, anti-Christian fable that Shem is the same person as Melchizedek.and therefore Jesus can't be the New High Priest.
Maybe that's what Paul was talking about.
Now, we have the evidence that those years were dropped out of the MT, but now we know of a motive as to why they would want to drop them out.
This is why we cannot trust what the MT says. There is extremely little to tell us that this was an accidental copyist error.
It's very likely that the Jewish Scribes dropped out those years on purpose with the intent to deceive.
There's also the removal of "and Canaan" which I'm not going into for this post. 5.6k characters is probably already too much for you.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845751
>>845630
>So which was it?
70 People.
The Hexaplar Septuagint agrees in Deuteronomy 10:22. QED
>Stephen the Martyr is disagreeing with the MT, because he IS agreeing with the ORIGINAL Hebrew.
He agrees with the account that says 70 because he says that Joseph invited 75 people in Egypt. This obviously didn't include Joseph himself (he didn't invite himself into Egypt) nor his two sons (he didn't invite his children who were born there into Egypt).
Yet in Genesis 46, Joseph and his two sons are included in the count of the 70 total persons of the house of Jacob who went into Egypt.
This is because Joseph is in the 70 of the house of Jacob but not in the 75 who were invited by Joseph. The difference? The wives of the patriarchs are counted, while Joseph, Jacob himself and Joseph's two sons are not, thus taking the total number from 70 to 75.
By blatantly altering Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, clumsily taking the number straight out of Acts 7, they created a contradiction because Joseph did not invite himself or his two sons into Egypt, yet he and his two sons are still counted in Genesis 46:19-20. So not only was a contradiction created, but also they forgot to change the number to 75 in Deuteronomy 10:22, thus creating an inconsistency.
The fact Deuteronomy 10:22 says 70 reveals the clumsy effort because they likely knew they had to change Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 a few pages over, but totally forgot about the third reference that would have to change in Deuteronomy 10:22. So Deut. 10:22 was left saying 70 still, proving that's what it originally said in all three places.
And 70 makes more sense than 75 for the reasons given above. If you subtract the patriarchs' wives (who were not in Jacobs house but WERE invited by Joseph according to Acts 7:14) and add Joseph and his two sons to the count (as Genesis 46 itself does in verses 19-20) then the numbers line up perfectly.
The Hexaplar Septuagint therefore not only contains a contradiction for the fact Joseph didn't invite himself into Egypt, it also contains an inconsistency because it says 70 still in Deuteronomy 10:22. This reveals that the original number was 70 and also that they (likely Origen) took the number 75 from the book of Acts in their back-translation.
There are also indications of modifications to Genesis 5 that show Origen or someone with the New Testament altered it in a clumsy attempt to synchronize the accounts. However as we see here they created contradictions by doing this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845752
>In Luke 4:18 […]
In Luke 4:18, the part of the combined passage which reads “recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,” is derived from Isaiah 42:7. This, namely the combination of Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 42:7 is even closer to what Luke 4:18-19 reads than the LXX version of Isaiah 61:1, since the LXX also delete the phrase "the opening of the prison to them that are bound" from Isaiah 61:1. This makes it's version of Isaiah 61:1 farther away from the quote than the original language Old Testament, because it doesn't have the phrase "the opening of the prison to them that are bound" whereas the Hebrew does.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845753
>You can also go as far as to do a bit of maths (I'm assuming it's a scary thing for you) and scratch off the 2350 BC for the date of the flood.
The Old Testament appears by various computations to place it at 2653-2619 B.C. but I would be interested to see how you would prove a different date range from Scripture if you can.
>And this is the argument which Jewish Rabbi's use, even to this day.
Those people are not actual Jews, according to Revelation 2:9 they are the synagogue of Satan, "those who say that are Jews and are not."
They are also definitely not Rabbis that you are referring to. Most likely you are referring to so-called Judaism, which is nothing but a mix of pharisaism and manichaeism borne out of the writings of Mani, written into the Babylonian Talmud in Babylon circa A.D. 250—499, with a mixture of earlier gnostic teachings and neoplatonism.
What those guys say couldn't concern me less.
>That way they could distort the genealogy in such a way to where the lifetime of Shem now overlaps the lifetime of Abraham.
So?
>This way, they can say that Shem lived the same time as Abraham and then began to promote the idea that Shem is the same person as Melchizedek.
Oh so you think this is the reason behind Christ-denial then? Do you really think that?
What about the fact we've shown true problems in the Septuagint as outlined above, such as with Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5?
What about the fact you haven't answered how the Septuagint of Origen removes the prophecy of the Son of God in Psalm 2:12? I noted this in my original post. You didn't answer it.
Those things are actually a very big deal and I would like to have them answered.
>that might be why Paul warned Titus and Timothy not to get involved in foolish arguments and disputes about genealogies.
I've been talking about the contradictions the Hexaplar Septuagint creates as a response to your claim that everyone should drop the original Hebrew in return for Origen's LXX which was obviously back-translated from the New Testament such as where they took the number 75 from Acts 7:14 and inserted it into Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 but forgot to do so in Deuteronomy 10:22.
I'm saying that's a pretty big deal and I'd rather be using the original version of the Old Testament since we have that available, and not the modified version in another language.
>Maybe that's what Paul was talking about.
Can you prove this somehow? The geneaologies part as he mentions is relevant because if you read Galatians 3 & 4 which disproves zionism, the only person's geneology that matters is Christ. People claiming to be descended from the chosen people who refuse Christ are violating 1 John 2:22-23
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845755
>>845631
>In fact, if you ever hear/see anyone saying that Shem is Melchizedek, you'll see that the only evidence that they provide is they'll say "Look at the Genealogy. Shem lived the same time as Abraham.". That's it.
Who cares about this? They will continue to deny Christ for whatever reason they want, and the identity of Melchizedek is irrelevant to that discussion. This is the weak point because it's irrelevant whether they can argue this or not if it's simply not true in the first place.
I do find it interesting that modern "Jewish" translations agree with the Septuagint in Psalm 2:12 though where it removes the prophecy of the Son.
Psalm 2:12 KJV
>Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Corrupted version of Psalm 2:12 taken from Septuagint:
>Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him.
The JPS Tanakh 1917:
>Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, When suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.
So here we see the Catholic and "Jewish" version of Psalm 2 going together against the original Hebrew Old Testament version. What's interesting about this verse and Psalm is, that it is quoted several times in the New Testament in reference to Jesus Christ. Psalm 2:12 happens to be the only place in the Old Testament where "the Son" is to be "trusted" in in order to be blessed. Meanwhile, thirty-seven other Psalms say (at least one time) that we should trust in the Lord and/or God.
Isn't it interesting that the one time the Psalms say to trust in the Son and kiss him and fear him is removed in the Septuagint? And that modern Christ-rejecting translations such as the JPS Tanakh 1917 and the NET translation (infamous for also mis-translating Isaiah 7:14 along the same lines) follow this corrupted version of Psalm 2:12?
Where are you guys on that? I've refuted all of the so-called problems with the original Hebrew version. I've seen the chart, I've refuted every single thing it has. Proving it from Scripture. I have yet to see even a semi-serious response about Psalm 2:12, or Deuteronomy 10:22… nor about Genesis 5 with Methuselah, nor about Psalm 145:13, etc. Nope, these always turn around and walk away after these things.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
607ce2 No.845758
>>845755
Where does the new testament quote that passage of psalms? I can't find it.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845762
>>845758
Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Hebrews 5:5. It quotes verse 2.
Also Acts 4:24 quotes verse 1 and Revelation 2:27 quotes verse 9. All in reference to Jesus.
The begetting referred to in Acts 13:33, etc. is also mentioned in in 1 Cor. 15:20, 23, and Colossians 1:18 (where it says the firstborn from the dead).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845763
>>845762
>Acts 4:24
Sorry Acts 4:25.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
607ce2 No.845811
>>845762
>Acts 13:33
>God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
This passage isn't referencing Psalms 2:12 It's referencing Psalms 2:7 which reads
>Declaring the Ordinance of The Lord: The Lord said to me, Thou art my son, today I have begotten thee.
In The Septuagint and
>I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said to me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.
In the KJV. The only difference between these two passages is "today" and "this day" which both mean the same thing.
>Hebrews 1:5
>For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
Again, this passage references Psalm 2:7, not 2:12. It matches the Masoratic version of the passage better but this is not a direct quotation of the OT like in the previous passage. Saint Apostle Paul is simply asserting that Jesus Christ is the only son of God.
>Acts 4:25
>Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
The KJV reads
>Why do the heathen rage and the people imagine a vain thing?
And The Septuagint reads
>Wherefore did the heathen rage and the nations imagine a vain thing?
Neither of them match the NT quotation word for word but both convey the same idea.
>Revelations 2:27
>And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
Psalms 2:9 in the KJV reads
>Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron: Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel
and The Septuagint reads
>Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel
Again, neither match word for word but they both convey the same idea
You being so fixated on the replacement of "Kiss The Son" with "Accept discipline" doesn't make any sense to me since I can't find any single passage in the NT that says "Kiss The Son" and I don't think the difference is as significant as you want it to be. The Book of Psalms is not even a book of prophecy, it is a book of musical pieces written by King David to worship and bring glory to God.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
28ced0 No.845849
>>845811
>The Book of Psalms is not even a book of prophecy, it is a book of musical pieces written by King David to worship and bring glory to God.
Wrong. It's both:
"David said about him:
'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope, because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.
You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.’
Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a *prophet* and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it." [Acts 2:25-32]
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4fa14a No.845850
Given what the "baptist" say, I'm sure that even the protestants are happy about what you say, Op.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845888
>>845811
>You being so fixated on the replacement of "Kiss The Son" with "Accept discipline" doesn't make any sense to me
It's corrupted in the later version. Again, there are thirty-seven other Psalms wherein it is stated that one should trust in the Lord and/or God, but Psalm 2:12 is the only equivalent prophecy where it is stated of the Son. Thus, it is interesting that both Origen and later modern Judaism both corrupt this verse. Meanwhile though, some people complain that the original Hebrew version of the Psalms and other places in the Old Testament are corrupted in some manner but I have shown that this is consistently not true by going through every single example I've ever seen brought up (so that they're afraid to bring up any more examples and start speaking in generalities) and showing, from Scripture, how it's really supposed to be.
And yeah, Psalm 2 is quoted numerous times in the New Testament because Jesus Christ is the Son, and if you corrupt Psalm 2:12 you lose that Biblical connection that the Psalms in the Old Testament says we are to trust in him just as we are to trust in the Lord God, for instance:
>I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. - (Psalm 91:2)
So again,
>You being so fixated on the replacement of "Kiss The Son" with "Accept discipline" doesn't make any sense to me
It's changed and only one can be correct. That much is beyond dispute. And the later Greek version in this case removes the reference that pertains to Christ (as seen by numerous quotes which I've already shown in answering your question) by changing the reference to no longer say that we should trust in the Son. This is the only time such a statement is made specifically about the Son, making it a messianic prophecy that is removed in the Septuagint.
The Septuagint in the completed form we have today was written much later and edited by people who had access to the New Testament as we have shown with the case of Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronomy 10:22 (!!!) as compared to Acts 7:14.
>>845849
The version of Acts 2:30 you just quoted is corrupted, by the way. It doesn't say "place one of his descendants on the throne." The Bible in Acts 2 doesn't merely say "descendants." That would have been fulfilled by Solomon or any other descendant.
Here is the original version of Acts 2:30.
>Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
>raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
Now that there is a unique prophecy and better reflective of the Davidic covenant spelled out in the original version of 2 Samuel 7. Hope this helps.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
45e4d3 No.845903
Hey, if this is the Baptist thread, I’m a revert to Protestantism after having converted to and leaving Catholicism, and I’m feeling drawn to the Primitive Baptists due to their humble worship practices and dedication to the Bible that I’ve seen being rare even in the SBC. But due to the PB’s Calvinist views, I’m not so sure that I want to jump head first without more research. Does any one here have some good resources on if TULIP is Biblical or Unbiblical?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845907
>>845903
Primitive or particular baptist is not Calvinist. The doctrine may sometimes sound similar though. Especially on answering basic questions that don't touch on the errors of that doctrine.
>Does any one here have some good resources on if TULIP is Biblical or Unbiblical?
Limited atonement doesn't accord with such passages as:
> 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
> 1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Irresistable grace makes no sense in the light of what the Lord said (in John): "And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."
The basic problem is you can't attribute man's errors to God. Otherwise how do you make sense of passages like Jeremiah 19:5 where the Lord explicitly states that their thoughts of sin did not originate with Him.
However, the particular, or primitive baptists that I know, as equally as they are not Calvinist/TULIP, equally do not subscribe to Arminianism, which also teaches that God makes mistakes, in giving eternal life to people He knows only to have to yank it away again later. They believe in eternal security (see John 5:24) as explained by the Bible and in the infallibility of God. Hope that helps friend.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
45e4d3 No.845956
>>845907
i can see your point, but 1 Timothy 4:10 itself seems to imply that the Crucifixion is particularly for those who believe and broadly for all mankind? Also, John 5:40 is a run on from John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." It seems to me that Jesus isn't necessarily talking about the ability of the Pharisees to accept the gospel and more about how the Scriptures prophesied about Jesus and yet (most of) the Pharisees had a blindness on them and couldn't understand? Again, I don't really know the whole mechanics of Calvinist/ Particular Baptist exegesis enough to say it's more or less wrong than Arminianism, but I know that John Gill (a Strict Baptist pastor) wrote this:
>but these men (the Pharisees) did not see themselves as such; nor did they see any need they had of coming to Christ; for they thought they had eternal life elsewhere: and such were their ignorance of themselves and Christ; and such their prejudices against him; and such the depravity, perverseness, and stubbornness of their wills, that they had no inclination, desire, and will to come to Christ, any more than power; which is an argument against, and not for the free will of man, unless it be to that which is evil: and this perverseness of their wills to come to Christ, when revealed in the external ministry of the word, was blameworthy in them, since this was not owing to any decree of God, but to the corruption and vitiosity of nature…"
but again, I would love to have more help on this.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
8dd71c No.845960
>>845907
I tried to understand what Baptists mean by eternal security, but I have not yet succeded. Do you treat salvation as a tag that one cannot remove?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.845970
>>845956
Yeah that quotation I completely agree with. I think if someone had a serious problem with that quote, they are likely getting close to pelagianism, the false doctrine that man is capable of achieving good without grace of God. Every single person would be justly and rightly condemned by the Law if it weren't for grace, and the work of Christ, which is sufficient for all and effectual for those that believe thanks to the Lord God.
I also still believe, based on passages like this, that some have resisted God (which is why the Lord Jesus has pointed out to them the fact that they will not come to Him) and for this they are not going to be saved. If his grace was irresistable, it would make no sense for Him to chastise them for not willing to come to him.
>i can see your point, but 1 Timothy 4:10 itself seems to imply that the Crucifixion is particularly for those who believe and broadly for all mankind?
Pretty much like I said above, the sacrifice was potent to save all men, he took on the iniquities of us all (Isaiah 53:5-6, Galatians 3:13, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5, 1 Peter 4:1).
This explains statements like 2 Peter 2:1
>But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
As it says in Hebrews 2:3
>How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
And also Hebrews 4:2
>For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
Rather than having faith, some have not received the love of the truth, cf. 2 Thess. 2:10-12, Isaiah 66:4, John 12:37-40. Yet everyone will be judged by the same Word, John 12:48. I always like being able to share some Bible quotes when I can so thanks for asking.
>>845960
It is related to God's omniscience. We have to understand and remember this first in order to make sense of predestination, foreknowledge, and things of this matter. But basically, I worship a God that never makes mistakes and never makes false statements. So I take the assurances given in Scripture as fact, and I've given up everything else as secondary authority compared to his scripture and word. And remember that they that are of God hear God's words (John 8:47). He says that his sheep hear Him and, know His voice (John 10:4-5). So you are encouraged therefore to seek for God by reading his words.
>Do you treat salvation as a tag that one cannot remove?
No, I believe that firstly God already foreknows every person who will gladly receive his word and therefore does not make mistakes in who is granted what especially when he makes statements like John 5:24
John 5:24
>Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
John 11:26
>And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Now I know that everyone that believes shall not come into condemnation no matter what. However, I only know myself and those that are stated to be saved in Scripture. I cannot prove to you that fact without works (i.e. James 2). Same likewise for you. So then for everyone else I can be reasonably confident that they are saved as far as I am confident that they are true believers, but if somehow it becomes manifest that there was a false teacher in our midst, I trust that God will make it manifest in some way according to the following paradigm:
1 John 2:19
>They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
So the key difference is whether we are talking about eternal security that one can have for oneself versus confidence that other people are saved. I'm not relying on anyone but God to save me, and if there are false teachers in my church I trust God to find them and protect us.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.846036
And with this image I can prove that it's been claimed as far back as 2017 that there is a truly independent baptist church still alive today.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
45e4d3 No.846090
>>846036
Although that’s a funny meme in some ways, it also doesn’t do much in the way of explaining WHY the Baptist church has no 2000 year pedigree. If >>842481 could explain what they meant by the Reformers having “a solution to the issue that isn’t there”, we could maybe further the dialogue along.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a6f215 No.846095
>>842458
>those images
Sometimes Protestants test my Catholic patience to the limit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.846096
>>846090
Couple things here. First of all, the idea that Scripture isn't sufficient proof of doctrine deserves to be lampshaded. On that, I agree one hundred percent with Spurgeon. People who ask for geneologies after turning their eyes away from the word of God should not be dealt with seriously as that would imply we agree with them that the Holy Bible isn't the sole reason, and the final authority for doing everything I do.
At the same time, I personally like to point out the fallacies that many people who do seriously have this style of thinking make. There's nothing wrong with pointing out fallacies. They truly believe the most ridiculous things about history such as that everyone was one big hivemind who agreed on every doctrine until one day some baptists showed up (but they can never explain where or how without contradicting themselves).
The fact is according to Matthew 28:20, he is with us until the end of the world. That promise and the fact that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church continues to be eternally true, and that it is the pillar and ground of the truth, the safeguard of the pure Scripture, just as we can show the continuity of the Received Text itself in the same time span. This is proves because the word of God the same way states that his words shall never pass away, Matthew 24:35, and they are incorruptible, 1 Peter 1:23, Proverbs 30:5-6 and endure to every generation, Psalm 12:6-7, 119:160, Isaiah 59:21.
So then it is shown from God's word that the one truth, the faith which was once delivered to the saints (Jude v.3), has never, has not, and is not going to pass away from this world, and his church will always be here safeguarding it. I don't agree with people that deny this fact.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
a6f215 No.846097
>>846096
>People who ask for geneologies after turning their eyes away from the word of God should not be dealt with seriously as that would imply we agree with them that the Holy Bible isn't the sole reason, and the final authority for doing everything I do.
Do you even think before you type something? Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of church fathers were wrong since the death of christ for 1500 years until some guys finally discovered the truth of sola scriptura?
If you ignore the history of christianity while defending/attacking supposedly christian doctrines, you better be getting yours from an angel or you're just too deluded to interact with.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.846099
>>846097
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
>Do you honestly believe that the vast majority of church fathers were wrong since the death of christ
People today have corrupted and misinterpreted uninspired writings and placed them on a higher pedestal than God's word. The fact is that every man is fallible and only God's inspired word is uncorrupted by time and the Holy Spirit enables the saved person to understand the things of his word. See John 16:13.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
>until some guys finally discovered the truth of sola scriptura?
I would never say that. The church of Jesus Christ has always used the word of God as their sole authority. See for instance St. Paul in Acts 20:29-32.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 John 5:9-10
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
>If you ignore the history of christianity
I haven't been ignoring the history of Christianity actually. I have however made the point above that everything that we need for being saved in found in Scripture. People who were saved by knowledge of our Lord in the 1st Century A.D. had the same basis for believing everything about Jesus Christ that we do today, including that He will always be with us and the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church (Matthew 16:18). Now if you want to talk about history, feel free. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence pointing to the continued existence of Christianity, the institution of the church set up by God himself, as one might expect from what is given in his true incorruptible Word. The words of Scripture are the true sayings of God. And it doesn't involve or support catholicism, which was set up by Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century, as can be shown.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.846100
>>846099
Another reason why no one should be changing the doctrines of the inspired Scripture around is the command given by the apostles:
Galatians 1:8-9
8 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.
9 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.
2 Timothy 3:14
But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
Jude v. 3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
1 Peter 1:23
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
5af38f No.846102
>>846097
Now as far as your people will say that Scripture is meaningless, we have to disagree on that point and the disagreement is irreparable until we get past that. Because God is not the author of confusion.
Whenever anyone tries to show you the Bible, you proceed by responding with "oh. eh." and then toss the Bible into the scrap heap, proceeding to ask "got anything else?" No, first go pick up the Scriptures of the Lord that you just tossed into the trash heap and actually read it. You have to take the Scriptures out of the mental trash bin that antichrist has been teaching you to place it in and actually read, otherwise nothing I ever say can help you. Why? Because it is said in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The answer has always been available, it's a question of whether you will follow the world's advice and ignore it like so many do for the rest of their lives because common wisdom (originating from Satan) teaches them to ignore Scripture and never read it. It comes from the same antichristian worldly authorities that once tried to burn Scripture in earlier times. It, they, are pure evil, simple as that. Willful blindness causes people to ignore this and that's the power of this world to deceive those that do not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved (2 Thess. 2:10). No, people want things other than the truth and this is their downfall.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.