e153c8 No.847763[Last 50 Posts]
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847764
Ignore the snarky image title
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
15a09d No.847766
>>847763
The answer is that which is never spoken of, genetic entropy. I suppose Ripperger speaks of it but hardly anyone is as educated as him. Adam and Eve were peak man and everything kept getting worse. Maybe even monkeys and mosquitoes descend from far more noble forms.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d1039f No.847772
File: 17c25c43daaad4a⋯.jpg (Spoiler Image, 73.41 KB, 960x824, 120:103, flat_earth_dinosaur_extinc….jpg)
Creation happened just as God told us in the Bible it happened. Literal 6 days roughly 6000 years ago. For example God said there was light, and there was light. Today's experiments prove that indeed light can be created in water with sound; consider the following on sonoluminescence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyT1dsY0KtA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSIPolpvjBY
Furthermore the soft tissues, nerves, blood vessels, etc still intact in dinosaur bones worldwide proves the Flood is recent, giving credence to the fact that the earth is young. Yep, ya read that right, soft tissue STILL intact in dino bones! It is an impossibility if the bones are millions of years old. Please watch Dr.Mark Armitage's presention on how he dissected these bones and his discoveries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE9GVaOSHu8
The half-lives of radioisotopes captured in granite proves that the dry land had to have been created instantaneously.
https://youtu.be/_cbVdmZzobg?t=1489
In conclusion, I would encourage you to check out the series Creation In Symphony: The Model by Carl Baugh. Even though he's considered a quack even by Kent Hovind and other well known young earth creationists; his theories are worth serious thought because of his rattlesnake and fruit fly experiments. When placed into a hyperbaric chamber that simulates his theories of the conditions of the Earth's atmosphere prior to the flood, the venom of the rattlesnake became symmetrical, and the flies lived 3 times as long iirc.
https://keelynet.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/rattlesnake-bites-getting-worse/
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/7359
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
15a09d No.847774
>>847772
This is just as convincing as the science liberals use to prove their side. All it takes is time for a belief to become indistinguishable from truth. So I choose to believe in Werewolves and Transformers. Maybe I should start believing in some LOTR and Star Wars stuff too. This world is too boring and the inhabitants don't accept the angel/demon canon truth God intended anymore anyway. So even following the actual truth doesn't yield any rewards anymore, at least not outside your room and pew.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9dcbd3 No.847778
>>847774
>This world is too boring
If you're going to choose a story, choose God's story. Please watch this. Tolkien once helped his friend CS Lewis on the very issue you raise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAE15gtEzg
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
69ba0d No.847791
I have no problem with how God Created the world.
That's a weakness most often incurred by Baptist and it destroys their faith.
Kinda sad.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
15a09d No.847793
>>847778
I think Tolkien's mostly right but the Gospels alone are no longer an accurate reflection of the story the human soul desires. People want more of a focus on corruption and just punishment of the source of the corruption, which he obviously knew from his own heart and made the central theme of his books. However, the Gospels completely lack this and are a story of the explicit abuse of a justice system to kill God Himself. You don't see justice in the New Testament until the last book. At this point I'm convinced Revelation is the last book precisely because people will make the muslim argument that the later books in the Biblical order have more authority than the earlier ones. Without Revelation that would be the Gospels and Paul which seem to fetishize martyrdom and condemn application of justice. Revelation brings back that Old Testament sanity and pragmatism but through a Christian lens.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.847796
>>847793
>Revelation brings back that Old Testament sanity and pragmatism but through a Christian lens.
The sanity was always there, it was the coming of realization that our Savior is the one to carry out justice that changes some things and makes them clearer and more real and attainable. As it says in Revelation 19:11 "in righteousness he doth judge and make war."
Consider what was written all the way back in 1531 and how few people come to realize this point even now.
>So take a lesson from the clarity of vision present before His coming; how much more clearly is He known since His coming. Scriptures speak more clearly of Him after His coming than they had done before. After He came, He is clearer and more powerful than He was before, as He said Himself (Mt. 13). Many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, but did not see it; they longed to hear what you hear, but did not hear it. Therefore, the present world, since His coming, will experience sharper condemnation than did the one before He came (Mt. 10, 11, 12; Lk. 10). For, since we are now more able to know Him and can say more about Him, we can pattern ourselves after Him, and more fully partake of the divine nature and spiritual good.
>Thus, revenge is no longer permitted in the New Testament for, through patience, the Spirit can now more powerfully overcome enemies than it could in the Old Testament. Therefore, Christ forbade such vengeance and resistance (Lk. 9, 21; Mt. 5), and commanded the children who possessed the Spirit of the New Testament to love, to bless their enemies, persecutors, and opponents, and to overcome them with patience (Mt. 5; Lk. 6).
>Such a powerful Spirit, a Spirit promised for the last days, could not come as long as Christ was personally upon the earth with His disciples (Jn. 12, 16). Now we are to reflect upon Him spiritually, upon what kind of a mind, spirit, and disposition He had, and how He lived; the more we reflect upon His physical words, works, deeds, and life, the better God allows us to know His mind, and the better He teaches and instructs us (Jn. 6). Whoever does not think of Him, reflect upon Him, pray, or seek Him will not receive from Him (Mt. 7, Luke 11, 13; 1 Chron. 29).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.847797
>The more one now learns to know Him and see Him spiritually (Jn. 6, 17; Heb. 12), the more one learns to love Him, to become friendly and pleasant toward Him and, through such knowledge, receives Him into the heart and grows therein (2 Pet. 1, 2). Finally, one jumps with Peter himself, freely and voluntarily (Jn. 21), into the sea of tribulations and, concentrating on Christ, casts aside the mantle or the old garment. Through such a knowledge of Christ, man also comes to the knowledge of God (Jn. 8, 14; 2 Cor. 4) and partakes of divine nature, but only if he is willing to flee from the lusts of this world, under God's rule. […]
>Whoever practices or receives such ceremonies and matters without true faith, because of an external urge or other reasons, errs even though there is, externally, correctness of words and procedures. Such mistakes some have confessed to have made, but they confess it only out of anger and not for the good, which makes them unbelieving and unloving; these I admonish to believe and to genuine confession.
>Whoever has been inwardly baptized, with belief and the Spirit of Christ in his heart, will not despise the external baptism and the Lord's Supper which are performed according to Christian, apostolic order; nor will he dissuade anyone from participating in them. Rather, he should willingly accept them and practice them, not merely imitating them externally in a beastlike manner, but in truth and in the spirit with which the true worshipers use external means, such as the mouth, hands, and knees. For, as one can see, the heart moves our external members. […]
>In summary: The believer will retain, undissolved or unchanged, the commandment of his Master and will be a faithful disciple, who does not long to be master or to run ahead of Christ; he will diligently seek to be faithful in all things (2 Cor. 2), to fulfill all righteousness (Mt. 3), not only inwardly before God, but also externally before man (2 Cor. 8, Tit. 2). If anyone acts differently, he is not to be believed, whatever boastful claims he may make. Yes, even if an angel were to come from heaven and teach differently than Christ and His apostles one taught and commanded, he should not be believed. […]
>Through these powers, and through true faith in Christ by whom, and none other, we accomplish to His praise our acting and willing, life, cross, and death, we may grow and increase in divine, quiet nature without causing others to be offended by the only name that saves, the name which cannot be deceived and does not deceive, Jesus; that name will not be put to shame (1 Pet. 2).
A Clear Refutation, in: "The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, pp. 62-67."
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
15a09d No.847798
>>847796
Actually I just remembered in Luke Jesus says God wants you to bring His enemies before Him and slaughter them, so Jesus actually does call for violence in the Gospels. There's a Breaking Benjamin (jewish band) song that goes "Bring me your enemies, lay them before me, and walk away." It's a complete inversion of Jesus' quote as to be expected from jews.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ecc1a4 No.847876
>>847763
I don't believe in the theory of evolution, there are many holes when you look a bit deeper. It is almost impossible mathematically, it does not take consciousness into account (unless you think consciousness is physical), and it is logically unsound. What is the usefulness of a proto-eyeball? How did organisms go from asexual to sexual reproduction? How did the first cell originate? How do you define beneficial traits, for example a wolf that is born with a stronger body might be more susceptible to heart attacks because of its size.
I am not entirely sure about the creation of Earth and the universe. I want to believe that the King James version is the perfect Word of God, but the astronomical and geological (although I have heard some arguments against the latter) evidence seems to explain a different story. The light from a star that is millions of lightyears away would take millions of years to travel to Earth, yet we still see the light, indicating that our universe is billions of years old, not thousands. Unless of course God placed those rays of light to be 99% done with their journey to our eyes upon creation.
I know that at least the original text is the Word of God, for if we look at the original translation of the word "day" in Genesis, it is the Hebrew word "yowm," or יוֹם. This can translate to day (as opposed to night), day (full 24 hours), year, lifetime, or a certain period of time. The "period of time" interpretation could fit our current scientific model of the universe. http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3117.html
Another way of interpreting the seven days of creation is to look at it from God's perspective, rather than the universe's. After all, how can time be experienced if there is no object in a frame of reference to experience it? If you were traveling near the speed of light, the world around you would travel much quicker, where 24 hours for you would be millions of years for the rest of the universe. Similarly, maybe for God (or at least the angels, who knows how God experiences time) the creation of the universe did take only seven full days. From this interpretation, the King James Bible would still be perfect and infallible, the true Word of 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.
cf0682 No.847880
>>847876
Hi anon. You are definitely right about evolution being a massive presupposition. People have imposed this metaphysical framework on the data to invalidate perfectly valid explanations leaving them with a mess. They could do better but choose not to in order to keep the theory that their worldview is based on.
Evolution affects how people live their lives, they view themselves as animals and it decreases the responsibility with which they view their actions. Their hesitance to accept perfectly good explanations is attributed to not wanting to change their lifestyle. Secular humanism is indeed a set of value propositions and that set of propositions is necessarily opposed to Christian values found in Scripture.
>but the astronomical and geological (although I have heard some arguments against the latter) evidence seems to explain a different story.
It explains a different story than flood geology, which is the popular way to reconcile observations today with Scripture. But we have to ask, how did this become the popular way. It turns out this particular form of YEC originates with George M. Price and Henry Morris who wrote The Genesis Flood in 1961.
This is not necessarily the only method of doing Biblical exegesis on the first eleven chapters of Genesis. I certainly do not believe one must accept the premises of these books in order to be a Bible-believing Christian.
I also strongly object to the day-age theory because of what the Scripture says in Exodus 20:11 and many other places. There, it clearly indicates that "day" is in the same sense that "sabbath" is a day. See for yourself.
No, the true explanation for this I believe is that there were events between Genesis 1:1 and the next verse.
(cont'd)
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cf0682 No.847881
>>847880
The following is an actual Bible reference.
>For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
If the Lᴏʀᴅ created it not in vain, then how is it that the earth was without form and void? The explanation is that it became that way after some time had passed, and the state of being void is a state of breakdown and decay. This is called the "ruin and reconstruction" explanation for the first eleven chapters.
It turns out that "without form and void" is the same root word as "in vain," from Isaiah 45:18, as quoted above. Isaiah 45:18 directly says God did not create it that way. If the Lᴏʀᴅ did not create it that way, it must have become that way after some other events not mentioned here occurred. The grammatical structure of the passage does allow for this. It is not required certainly, but it does allow for it.
Now the fact that the Lᴏʀᴅ set lights in the firmament is none other than him allowing the already existing light to start to penetrate the atmosphere of a ruined earth. I don't want to speculate on why earth was ruined, but it appears that it was completely flooded. There was only water on the surface. This would correspond to other mentions of a global flood that destroyed all life. And notice, this is different than the flood of Noah in Genesis 7-8 where a small number survived.
2 Peter 3:6-7 appears to be a reference to this first flood.
>Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
>But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
Notice how Peter mentions by inspiration that the heavens and earth which are now… Heavens obviously refers to atmosphere. If the heavens which are now were destroyed, that would mean all life was surely destroyed. Nobody could have survived.
If you remember, in Genesis 1 God created the "firmament" which is the atmosphere. This directly implies that the original world, mentioned in 2 Peter 2 suffered such great ruin that its atmosphere was even destroyed and had to be reconstructed. God also appears to refer to the two floods also in Genesis 9:11.
Of course, modern flood geologists dislike this. It goes against their long held views as well. They call it gap theory and claim it is a compromise with evolutionism. But this could be farther from the truth, because it relies on God creating all things and does not at all imply evolutionism. That is not the intent of this explanation at all, but rather to provide a more coherent explanation than YEC flood geology, which even has signs of being co-opted and part of a modern false dichotomy with evolution being the supposed only other explanation. Do you see the trap being laid? I would just consider these things carefully because this is what appears to be taught by Scripture proper. You will notice that Scripture also doesn't teach other popular theories such as Zionism and hyper-dispensationalism either.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
cf0682 No.847887
>>847881
One last thing, if someone tries to say that all things were created in six days according to Exodus 20:11, that is not required at all. That refers to the reconstruction. If you read Nehemiah 9:6 he lists additional things not mentioned in Exodus 20:11.
Nehemiah 9:6 includes the heaven of heavens (the outer space) as well as things that are within the earth. Yet Nehemiah 9:6 does not require this to have been created in six days. Compared to Nehemiah 9:6, not all things are seemingly included in the passage of Exodus 20:11.
Only the things that were created in Genesis 1:3 – 2:3 seem to be included by Exodus 20:11. But Nehemiah 9:6 meanwhile, includes everything from the original act of creation in Genesis 1:1. Just some interesting things I have noted having studied Scripture for a while.
>Revelation 21:5
"And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new."
>Isaiah 45:18
"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
>Hebrews 11:3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13041b No.847901
>>847763
Once you start trying to interpret creation through the lens of the Bible instead of the Bible through the lens of creation you're trusting a book humans authored over what God directly created.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847906
>>847901
All scripture is god breathed
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13041b No.847909
>>847906
Including the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847911
>>847909
This isn't clever and it doesn't help the argument you were trying to make
Scripture means holy scripture
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13041b No.847912
>>847911
Define holy scripture. What makes HGG any less holy?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847913
>>847912
Holy scripture are the texts which were inspired by God. There are 66 books worth, genesis to revelation.
The list of possible books to include in the canon is limited to those which were even alleged to be by the early church and old testament believers, and we find an exhaustive list when we analyze each book.
This is a very boring "flying spaghetti monster" tier talking point and its pretty pathetic that you feel the need to post here when your objective is apparently evangelical atheism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13041b No.847914
>>847913
>your objective is apparently evangelical atheism
I'm currently debating an atheist on another site. My goal is to spread a rational understanding of Christianity which is the only true way to understand Christianity.
>Holy scripture are the texts which were inspired by God. There are 66 books worth, genesis to revelation.
>The list of possible books to include in the canon is limited to those which were even alleged to be by the early church and old testament believers, and we find an exhaustive list when we analyze each book.
"Someone told me so" isn't a good reason to believe something. Why argue from authority when you could argue the Bible's practical success in inspiring civilizations?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847916
>>847914
If you're playing devils advocate I will play along
>Someone told me so" isn't a good reason to believe something
That's not the case I just presented
Heres a fuller picture
https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm
>Why argue from authority when you could argue the Bible's practical success in inspiring civilizations?
Dont argue from authority, argue from evidence
The bibles practical success in inspiring civilization is nebulous and misses the point of the bible which itself claims to be the very word of God
When you say rational are you meaning rejecting the supernatural nature of the Bible or the Christian religion? That's call atheism
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13041b No.847919
>>847916
>When you say rational are you meaning rejecting the supernatural nature of the Bible or the Christian religion?
Absolutely not. Logic dictates God and therefore the supernatural must exist.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847920
>>847919
Well logic proceeds from God, but you probably mean God and therefore the supernatural must exist by logical necessity
The canon of scripture is closed and knowable. It does not rest on the decree of anyone, but it so happens that Christians have had this question figured out for a long time because it is very important
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
13041b No.847922
>>847920
The New Testament was very quickly and shoddily assembled together. This is known historical fact. The Gospel Of John which kept gnostic doctrine out of mainstream Christianity almost never made it into the canon. The Bible is not anywhere near close to perfect. Rather it's a miracle a remnant of God's word survived in it amongst the rubbish at all.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.847931
>>847922
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.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
f7e38c No.847933
>>847931
beautiful picture, thanks
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
14e965 No.847940
>>847798
That was a parable last I checked.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
14e965 No.847941
>>847876
God is outside of time and space.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
86f8c9 No.847942
>>847931
There's scripture outside the Bible too.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
86f8c9 No.847943
>>847940
Yes, and the person in the parable who says that is figuratively 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.
e153c8 No.847946
>>847922
Are you a Bart ehrman "the text is not reliable" guy or are you a "quest for the historical Jesus" guy
Which texts of the new testament are unreliable and why
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847947
>>847942
No there isn't you pedantic dweeb
Scripture in the context of Timothy refers to holy scriptures
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
86f8c9 No.847949
>>847947
Well ackshually it only refers to the Old Testament because that's the canon at the time of Paul writing that letter.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
86f8c9 No.847950
>>847946
Literally who? I'm a reality kind of guy.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847951
>>847949
No, not exclusively but I'm noticing that you've just conceded the argument you repeated twice
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9dcbd3 No.847958
>>847922
>The New Testament was very quickly and shoddily assembled together. This is known historical fact.
No. There was no "New Testament" as we know it until the late 100s (even then there were minor differences). That's the only "historical fact" we really know. Churches largely read the New Testament writings individually, and used them in their local public reading/sermons. The Church didn't even bother with an "official" canon until a heretic came around and formed his own: Marcion. He was excommunicated in 144. He was the first one to actually put something together in a deliberate way. The "canon" didn't even come about because of the Church. They were just reacting to his heresy first. He stripped everything except the Gospel of Luke and Letters of Paul and echoed similar stances as Gnostics, where he wanted to get rid of anything too "Jewish" out of the apostolic writings (basically he hated Jews). He claimed he was a disciple of Paul and called Paul the only true Apostle. The Church rebuked him and it was only then that they carefully put together something like a canon. By the time of writers like Tertullian and Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (mid to late 100s), you see them quoting from large collections that resembled each other. That's the indication that something more formal was put together between the time of Marcion and them.
Now this isn't fact, but just a conjecture and connecting some dots: There are theories that Saint Polycarp (died 155) might have been responsible for such a collection. Irenaeus and Justin Martyr alike were his students, and it's interesting that they had similar collections of New Testaments that they relied heavily upon. Unlike Marcion who claimed to know Paul, Polycarp was actually a Bishop of Asia who was ordained by the Apostle John himself. Everyone revered him for this fact. He was the last surviving connection to the Apostolic age. He was an old man by the mid 100s when Marcion came about with his stripped down collection of writings, and Polycarp was one of his most vocal opponents, who spent his last years fighting Marcionites off and combatted them with what the Apostles actually taught. He might have been sought after to help in putting together a more orthodox canon, as he was the only main figure left who could really put the nail in the coffin. Everyone from Syria to Gaul would have listened to him. Even the bishop of Rome (before he was called a "pope") respected Polycarp so much that he let Polycarp celebrate the Eucharist in Rome's own church when he visited Rome (a great honor).
My point is, if you want to pinpoint a time when the church "quickly" put something together, then it was only as a response to Marcion. And the person who had the most authority at the time to do anything "quickly" without any dispute from others would have been Polycarp. That said, they probably would have easily agreed anyways, as they mostly copied similar texts in an informal fashion already.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d0ec26 No.847962
>>847958
Yes, and the NT canon as we know it today was compiled by St. Athanasius the Great in the 4th century. Some nasty icooner made the book that prots worship! How ironic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9dcbd3 No.847963
>>847962
Prots and Orthodox and Catholic all have the same New Testament that Athanasius listed. Thankfully it's one of the main things all branches are united on. The difference is Old Testament. But only Catholics have made an official canon to OT texts since the Council of Trent. Orthodox have gone about it more informally. That's why the Slavonic canon and Greek canons differ slightly, for example.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
86f8c9 No.847965
>>847958
And yet after all that it's still just a book, an imperfect creation. It's not an idol for you nu-Christian crypto pagans to worship in place of the one true living God. One book to rule them all! One book to find them! One book to bring them all and in the darkness bind them!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9dcbd3 No.847975
>>847965
Prioritizing scripture is quite the opposite of "idols". It's a witness to the one true God. What kind of Galaxy Brained reasoning is this, where the belief in the one true God is somehow the worship of idols? How do you even get from Point A to Point B here? You're not thinking clearly at all about this subject.
And what is this "nu-Christian" thing? Is this what John Chrysostom is too? He bares witness to the scripture himself, and he isn't "nu".
“The mouths of the inspired authors are the mouth of God, after all; such a mouth would say nothing idly—so let us not be idle in our listening, either . . . Pay precise attention, however: the reading out of the Scriptures is the opening of the heavens.” - Chrysostom
To elaborate, you and I wouldn't even know about the "one true living God" without the scriptures. You and I are the imperfect creations here. Not scripture. All of us would be destined as simpletons who worship cows and fertility gods and demons without the scripture teaching us otherwise. Because this is exactly what has happened time and time again without it. Every single time. God is known ONLY by revelation. Humanity has never known him any other way. There is no amount of discovery, experience, logic, or "enlightement" that reaches God. All are in darkness, until he takes us out of it. Only he reaches you. You do not reach him. This is why countless souls are burning in hell. Because they went their own way and said nonsense like you. Don't make the same mistake. I'm telling you for your own good. You only have one life.
He can definitely reveal himself further beyond scripture, but he wouldn't contradict what he already said either. Even the saints, from Justin Martyr to Augustine, said they heard a voice telling them "Tolle Lege". "Take and read." This is what he wants you get through your head first. He isn't going to reinvent the wheel for you. And if you can't even grasp the basics, you'll never understand anything else.
Jesus himself, who is the Word Incarnate, was promised in those very scriptures. If you mock them so easily, it shows how little of an opinion you have of our Lord himself. They prophesied and bore witness to him. You would never have a chance to even know about him either without the scripture. There is no "Gospel" you can pull out of your hat, that is completely independent of scripture. You only know about the Gospel because his Apostles wrote it down and "revealed" it for you. If those are "imperfect" in your mind, then you've just tossed out your own lifeline to Jesus as well. You couldn't even begin to pray to God without the scripture telling you what Jesus said about prayer. You wouldn't know about his crucifixion and resurrection, without it being witnessed first and then told to you. You don't come up with any of this by yourself. And they are older traditions than anyone us telling you about them. They are witnesses from the Apostles themselves. Where do you even begin with Jesus and the "one true living God" you think you know when you just spit on scripture like it's some supermarket novel? Think man!
On top of that, Jesus' first step in his ministry was to enter a synagogue and speak the words of Isaiah. Yet you mock scripture, as if you are above it, when even the Son of God, who rules heaven and earth, and is above everything, thought it appropriate to start his mission with scripture. Who are you, to think you devalue something that not even Christ devalued?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.847977
>>847958
If you want to refer to the New Testament as a complete set of 27 books, that is a somewhat artificial construction.
In reality, we know from the inspired scripture itself that every word of God is preserved for us, being incorruptible, as it says. See Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25.
In places like in the book of Acts of the Apostles, like Acts 12:24 and 19:20 it is stated that the word of God grew, multiplied and prevailed. And that among physical "written copies" there remained perfectly intact copies of each passage as well, even into our present day. Though in some cases these were only fragmentary, at least until the development of the T.R.
Now if you want to talk about the New Testament as a whole, after the final revelation of Scripture occurred we know that before 157 A.D. there was already a translation into Latin called the "Itala" in the 4th century. Having been translated so early, it predated Jerome. But this is a sure date by which the 27 books would have physically been gathered together. However, of course the prophecies contained within the Scripture has always been true, there wasn't anything magical about bringing them together into a collection except for the natural convenience of it. People still believed or rejected the word of God regardless of whether it was together in a book or not. If you know that the difference is God inspired it and ensured his word was preserved, then you realize there was never any danger of his word being lost or corrupted. In fact, read Jeremiah 36 the chapter sometime and see how God dealt with someone who tried to erase his words.
By the way, the church has indeed always sent men to other churches to meet various needs, but the congregations are the ones that ordain the pastors. For more information on the congregationalist vs episcopist debate, see the excellent article in the Edinburgh Encyclopedia (1830) titled "Bishop" here:
https://archive.org/details/edinburghencyclo03edinuoft/page/540/mode/2up
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.847978
>>847958
>Marcion wanted to get rid of anything too "Jewish"
Perhaps if you take the Biblical sense of the term. He was radically opposed to the Old Testament and in his Antitheses he tried to show places where it contradicted (his corrupted form of) the New Testament.
I say the Biblical sense of the term "Jewish" because in fact later Jews were influenced by gnosticism. After Marcion came the false prophet Mani who created a false syncretic religion based on eastern gnosticism, persian religion and some stuff he had learned while studying in India around A.D. 240.
Manichæism became the biggest cult in the orient until islam replaced it. What's interesting is that some of Mani's books (Syriac books like the book of Giants, etc.) influenced the writing of the Talmud in Babylon around that time - the Talmud was not codified until around 499. So Marcion can actually be seen as an early source of modern talmudic Judaism. One of their core beliefs is reincarnation as well as purgatory.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.847979
>>847963
>Thankfully it's one of the main things all branches are united on.
This might be misleading because most professing Christians are now using corrupted versions of the New Testament that removed passages such as Mark 16:9-20. This would be the issue of the modern versions, invented around 1880, which became popular in the mid to late 20th century.
It is rather inaccurate to say that everyone is united as long as people are still doubting various passages of Scripture from the received version. They instead hold to a modernist view that we lost the real version of the New Testament until it was rediscovered by archaeologists like Constantin von Tischendorf in the 1800's. Even now, the modern version translators pretend that we do not have the original words of Scripture but only corrupted copies. They practice a school of thought originating in continental philosophy called "higher criticism" which places doubt on the inspiration and verbal plenary preservation of Scripture. They question the authorship and truthfulness of Scripture overall. Of course, these details are obscured in the advertisements put out for the modern versions of the bible, which are nothing other than disguised corrupt versions. In these corrupt versions, the New Testament suffers the most. They rely on things like "easier to read!" and "updated language!" without mentioning all the textual variations they have removed. Even today, most people are completely unsuspecting that entire passages of the New Testament are removed from these versions.
And worse still, the relativist mindset downplays these alterations, telling people that it doesn't really matter exactly what scripture says as long as you get a general idea. But let me ask you, if I went through a book and changed one word on every page with an agenda to change the message, would the result still be saying the same thing at all? It would say completely different things, while appearing similar.
>>847975
Anon, people want to retreat from scripture and the way they do it is by reverting to manmade traditions. People react one of two ways to the inspired words of the Bible. Either they accept it or they become more hardened against it. People who are completely hardened look for defense mechanisms to avoid having to face it and one of the big ones is to disparage Scripture and talk a lot about "oral traditions" which is what you see today. I've even seen people on here who want to remove everything except the apocrypha from the Bible because that's how resistant they are to the inspired Scripture. They take a fake "oral" tradition simply to avoid talking about the real.
Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 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.
86f8c9 No.847984
>>847979
Why can't we just like scripture without worshipping it? I agree with its values. I hate kikes and sinners. If a sinner's going to cherrypick one anomalous verse to go against an overarching theme of the Bible I'm going to be understandably angry, especially since I grew up with the Bible and know when someone's choosing a very weird verse with an idea that's barely/never repeated elsewhere in the Bible but oft contradicted by other verses.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
e153c8 No.847986
>>847984
Nobody worships scripture
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
9dcbd3 No.847987
>>847984
It's not that "anomalous". It's not a cryptic saying. Nor is it a parable or some hard to decipher poem. It's straightforward dialogue to his disciples about how they're all brothers, and to not imitate others. It's very much in line with everything else he warned us about pretentious teachers. They always want a high title to promote fealty (rabbi, father, etc.. Doesn't matter). They all wear attention getting garb, or make a show of themselves when doing good works or praying in public. This particular passage comes from Matthew, but Matthew over and over again shows Jesus warning us about these charlatans. And no matter what age we live in, they all follow the same pattern. It's not just "kikes and sinners". It's the whole world. This whole system. Break free of it.
It's not worshipping scripture. It's prioritizing Jesus over the traditions of men. It's inviting you to imitate his vision for the Kingdom of Heaven, and get away from this kingdom of men.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ecc1a4 No.848279
>>847880
>I also strongly object to the day-age theory because of what the Scripture says in Exodus 20:11 and many other places. There, it clearly indicates that "day" is in the same sense that "sabbath" is a day. See for yourself.
A day for God can mean a very, very long period of time.
>2 Peter3:8 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.
I do think your pre-flood theory is interesting though and may have some merit.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.848286
>>848279
>A day for God can mean a very, very long period of time.
In Exodus 20:11 it is very clear it is talking about six literal days. If someone is going that far to juggle meanings of terms even inside of the same sentence they can arrive at any private interpretations they want.
>For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
<Oh, he's talking about literal days at the end of the verse, but at the beginning of the verse he is not.
<even though there is no indication of this
That however is textbook eisegesis. The clear design of this sentence is to unambiguously show that the six literal days are the same kind of day as the sabbath day is. If you are able to get around this verse, then you can redefine anything to mean whatever you want even in midsentence, nullify all meaning through eisegesis, through juggling terms around instead of being taught out of the passage. I can't think of a single time this is true of any passage of scripture.
Not counting modern versions of course, which are loaded with contradictions because thousands of things are changed in those.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ecc1a4 No.848288
>>848286
>the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day
Scripture says that it is God who rested on the sabbath day, not man. Therefore we must look at this verse from God's perspective, which indeed can be thousands of years or a single day. This is not eisegesis because later scripture reveals that this can be exactly the case. As well as the scientific evidence that the seven days cannot be seven 24 hour periods, it took Earth much longer to form.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.848290
>>848288
>which indeed can be thousands of years or a single day.
No it can't, because it says sabbath day. The sabbath day is the seventh day of the week.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4fc6d1 No.848292
>>848288
God rested on that day not because He needed to, but to set an example for mankind which at the time was Adam and Eve (they were created day 6). Furthermore God said that observance of the 7th day sabbath distinguishes His people from the rest.
[Eze 20:12, 20 KJV] 12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them. … 20 And hallow my sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the LORD your God.
Then Jesus goes on to say that "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: "[Mark 2:27]
Just as a chair is made for man to sit on, so was the sabbath sanctified for man to rest.
There is simply no way for man to rest thousands, or hundreds, or even dozens of years as a "day". This convoluted reasoning does not hold water with the plain Thus saith the Lord. Especially when in the first chapter of Genesis God clearly narrated "and the evening and morning were the first day," … second day…etc. None other timespans contain evenings and mornings other than the 24hr day period.
Finally, we are too inferior to attempt to look from God's perspective, we can't even comprehend his thoughts:
[Rom 11:33 KJV] O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
His word are written just as it is, and we can read and study and take Him at His word that what happened did indeed happen and it was scientific. See >>847772
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ecc1a4 No.848296
>>848290
>No it can't, because it says sabbath day. The sabbath day is the seventh day of the week.
The sabbath day would be a literal 24 hour day, because on the seventh day humans were also around to experience it. The preceding days could technically be long periods of time, since there was nobody present on Earth to experience that time, therefore time did not even really exist on Earth. Scripture permits God to hit the fast-forward button.
>>848292
>There is simply no way for man to rest thousands, or hundreds, or even dozens of years as a "day".
Man was not around until day 6. From then forward time proceeded as usual. The time in the heavens do not necessarily correlate to time on Earth.
>2 Peter 3:8 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.
>Especially when in the first chapter of Genesis God clearly narrated "and the evening and morning were the first day," … second day…etc
It might be somewhat of a stretch to say that these times of day were the experience in Heaven for the angels and not Earth, but it would not contradict anything in scripture (assuming this is speaking about the first 5 days).
>His word are written just as it is, and we can read and study and take Him at His word that what happened did indeed happen and it was scientific.
I will look at the videos in that post, but I still have questions. What about light that we see that is billions of lightyears away? What about fossils that are millions of years old? What about dinosaurs? What about minerals that are analyzed to be billions of years old?
Creation in seven 24 hour periods seems to me to be very unbelievable and on par with flat earth. In fact it seems like you would almost have to believe in flat earth in order to believe in young Earth creation. There is also room for creation right after Genesis 1:1 like this anon suggests >>847880, however this still does not fit with our understanding of geology today, and seems to be flex the Bible nearly as much as my current understanding. For example the oldest landmass is tested to be billions of years old, while through your interpretation it is only thousands. Maybe the scientists are wrong/lying, but unlike the evolutionary biologists, scientists that study the age of things come from many different fields, and all of these fields seem to point to the same long cosmic timespan.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
000000 No.848354
what does "God created man in his own image" really mean?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
0ea954 No.848378
>>847763
Did the fallen angels take on the form of monkeys and other beasts to corrupt the image of man?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ba0a25 No.848379
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
226b15 No.848395
>>848296
>Scripture permits God to hit the fast-forward button.
In Titus 1:2 it says that God cannot lie, though.
"In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
>The time in the heavens do not necessarily correlate to time on Earth.
I'm pretty sure they do otherwise our satellites wouldn't work.
>From then forward time proceeded as usual.
What scripture verse says this? Did you just come up with that for a reason other than what scripture says? This does not seem to correlate to any known statement.
>but it would not contradict anything in scripture (assuming this is speaking about the first 5 days).
Yes actually it would contradict the whole thing. Especially because there is no statement anywhere anything like what you just said. You are reading interpretations into the text through eisegesis then pulling them out again.
>What about light that we see that is billions of lightyears away? What about fossils that are millions of years old?
Potentially explained by >>847880
or else could just be created that way. Either way doesn't contradict scripture. But if you want to deny creation, the ability of God to make the earth in however long, and be materialist then there is no point in following scripture at all.
In John 2, the very first miracle that Jesus performed was turning six jugs of water into wine. What do you possibly think this might be meant to symbolize?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4fc6d1 No.848564
>>848296
>The sabbath day would be a literal 24 hour day, because on the seventh day humans were also around to experience it. The preceding days could technically be long periods of time, since there was nobody present on Earth to experience that time, therefore time did not even really exist on Earth. Scripture permits God to hit the fast-forward button.
>It might be somewhat of a stretch to say that these times of day were the experience in Heaven for the angels and not Earth, but it would not contradict anything in scripture (assuming this is speaking about the first 5 days).
It is a stretch. God wrote the Bible for us humans on earth and so he will refer to timeframes that relates to us. The angels could not have had these evenings/mornings in Heaven which did not revolve around a sun, as they do not dwell on Earth.
>Creation in seven 24 hour periods seems to me to be very unbelievable and on par with flat earth. In fact it seems like you would almost have to believe in flat earth in order to believe in young Earth creation.
>I will look at the videos in that post, but I still have questions. What about light that we see that is billions of lightyears away? What about fossils that are millions of years old? What about dinosaurs? What about minerals that are analyzed to be billions of years old?
Aside from the poisoning of the well/distraction that is the flat earth heresy, you may have not yet seen or understood the science for young earth creation. I have posted some videos that you said you would watch that introduces just some of the science, the 3rd video by Mark H Armitage would answer the questions about the fossils and dinosaurs. The 4th video about granite would answer the question about minerals in regards to how the dry land had to have been created instantaneously due to existing radioisotopes.
>>847772
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.