/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

There are like multiple threads being occasionally re-created by some spammer and this is one of them. What the goal? This is not cuckchan, /pnd/ is browsed by little number of returning people.

>The Bible describes through the analogy of Jesus how to be a good person.

Its main point of Crucifiction sometimes missed, even though crosses are main symbol. Its a salvation through incarnation of God dying to lift off sins of humanity. And serving as example not on how to be a "good" person, by definitions of this world, but braving the struggles, torture and infamy for faith. Its moral teachings are there also as a reminder of what sin is, and how nobody is sinless or capable of completely obeying all commandments. Hence sacrifice of the Son was needed, no one is righteous.

>It seems as though we cannot know anything at all about our own character from the input of our outer world

Because "king of the world" is deceptive megajew who is appointed by God to play a role of opposition and antagonist against fame of God's Word, until thrown to hell. Bible's nature entirely pessimistic on state of the world, in carrying ones cross of faith in braving the suffering.

>>184484

>The Bible describes through the analogy of Jesus how to be a good person.

>This might be why Jesus was sinless and simultaneously someone people hated and wanted to torture.

You're wrong on so many levels.

1. The texts never try to analogize Jesus. He is and was a literal person in history, and that's how the text treats Him. And it's not just the bible that does so either. People don't give their lives for things they consider myths, and all of the apostles, among countless others, did indeed give their lives for this Jesus guy.

2. He was and is hated, including by yourself, because He proclaims that the only way to approach God the Father is through Him, with zero exceptions. That the only way to be justified for sins before the Father is on the basis of His blood. That you can't just "make up" for sin by "being a good person", but instead have to surrender and acknowledge what you really are: evil. Jesus shines light on your evil, and you can't stand it.

>>184492

>"The Word" is a reference to Logos, and so the Holy Trinity represents Logos, Pathos, and Ethos.

"Ho Logos" is the phrase in the Greek translated as "The Word." It has nothing to do with Platonic categories of persuasion/communication. Plato didn't invent the term logos. Logos in this case is logic, order, reason, the cosmic ordering principle which permeates the cosmos. This is how a Greek would have understood what John was saying. In Greek thought, the gods were separate from the creation itself. John combined the logos and theos together into one when he said "the word was with God, and the word was God." He made the logos personal, whereas before it was considered impersonal.

>>184553

>Plato didn't invent the term logos.

Yes because Heraclitus invented it. Whole beginning in Gospel of John is a weird combination of Heraclitus, Vedas and Bacchae.

>>184604

>>184608

>>184609

>controlled op

lol

>>184612

It's the homosexual Pope-lust poster! We meet again. Have you sent him love letters yet?

>>184615

>oy vey, use my proper pronouns goy!

>>184580

>My nigga, you think that the son of a lowly Judean fisherman had access to the Vedas?

Greeks 300 years prior to birth of Jesus had access to Indian knowledge. Both of brahmanists and buddhists.

The Greek Experience of India: From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks:

https://1lib.eu/book/5433511/3a7b29

Greek Buddha: Pyrrho’s Encounter with Early Buddhism in Central Asia:

https://1lib.eu/book/2843491/1f2c02

Pyrrhonism: How the Ancient Greeks Reinvented Buddhism:

https://1lib.eu/book/1262886/02d0fb

>>184684

Maybe that's because

OP REMADE THIS THREAD MULTIPLE TIMES ALREADY

And people only argue among themselves because everyone is borderline existential and this year is horrible for everyone, and nobody feels sane, only lonely, depressed and questioning meaning of life or justify going against common sense just to get blood pumping with at least some reason to live in opposition to something. Except it matters not because religious beliefs are secondary to social causes in this day and age, its pointless to divide between larpagans, atheistlets and christcucks. Everyone is going to hell together because apparently god of this world, also known as YHWH, hates racial purity and loves jews.

>>184588

>myth doesn't mean it's not true you fucking retard

It did in the sentence that I just used it in, wasted Hitler dubs man. That's also how it's generally used in common language. You understood what I was saying, which proves my point.

My point still stands: if these people didn't believe Jesus was a physical person and that the events described actually happened, they're not going to die for them. Even professing some of these ideas in the first century was a potential death sentence–why would they not stick with a safer, established religion that offered more material security? Why give up everything and risk death just to propagate an abstracted story? No one is going to kill you for worshipping Caesar, so why not just offer incense and be done with it?

>>184596

>Christcucks must die if the white race is to live.

No u

>>184604

>a Christian will eventually admit to you that the only basis there can be for defining good and evil is God

That's standard doctrine. It's not a big secret.

>But when asked why evil people prosper and good people suffer, or why sociopaths even exist at all

The answer a particular Christian will give you depends entirely upon their concept of biblical anthropology. That is, what the nature of man is, what the capabilities of man's will are, etc.

>God IS everything, and when creating this everything said 'it was good', right?

He is all pervasive, not "in everything." That's heretical no matter what denomination one is a part of.

>I have NEVER received an actual answer to that question from a Christian. If you have one, I would be glad to give it proper consideration.

Invariably when someone makes a statement like this, they haven't bothered asking people that have actually studied theology. Evil exists temporarily to glorify God by providing a way for Him to demonstrate His wrath, as well as a basis for God to demonstrate His mercy. Without evil, neither of these things are possible. You won't like this answer, but it's the answer the bible gives in Romans 9.

>>184665

>Greeks 300 years prior to birth of Jesus had access to Indian knowledge. Both of brahmanists and buddhists.

I'm well aware of that… But there's no evidence to suggest that either John or his father were Roman citizens. Greeks may have had such knowledge, but I emphasize again that John was a FISHERMAN and did not live in a Greek town. The Vedas probably wouldn't have been a common collection of scrolls in Jewish villages.

Moreover why would John have supposedly referenced it in that spot and then no other if he was so heavily influenced by Hindu writings?

>>184691

>yeah and not one fucking reply ever was relevant

My reply was directly relevant.

>>184484

Many people have difficulty understanding Christianity because they think the bible was written for them. It's not, it was written for people long dead, in dead language. A time when elections were rare and rape and looting were considered a part of a soldier's pay. You are not those people, but that doesn't make Christianity any less powerful.

This begs the question, of how it can be as meaningful to you as it was to them. To understand this you have to understand the trinity is literal. God is the father, son and holy spirit, not in some mystical way, but in that it's the family – parent, child and the love that binds them. God is love, not love of foreigners or faggots, but of your family. God is not a wizard that lives in the sky. Loyalty to God is loyalty to your family, your people. Be fruitful and multiply, because if you have no children you've failed your biological imperative. This is why homosex is a sin, it can't bear offspring. The Bible is the literal word of God because it is the advice to the next generation from the men who wrote it.

When viewed through this lens (that YOUR family, and to a lesser extent YOUR nation is all important) all apparent paradox or inconsistency in Christianity is erased. To your original point not having an ego in service of your family and children is probably a great lesson. This is why modern people misinterpret "turn the other cheek" he's talking about living under a corrupt monarch. It's advice to not fight with the police. Sound advice in 1 AD when they'd execute you and your family. Not great advice when dealing with muslim invaders.

When you accept this and look at everything through this filter you can see the true power of Christianity. The afterlife is not some bullshit with clouds, it's literally the world you leave to your children after you die. You'll be judged by them for the person you were. You can leave them heaven or, like the boomers, a hell they'll have to deal with. Atheism isn't a choice. The only choice is being good or being evil. Sin isn't some crime against an invisible ghost, it's weakness that makes you incapable of fighting for your people. Gluttony, sloth, lust, obesity, drug addiction, faggotry, xenophilia. All of these things render you incapable of making the world a better place for you people and being ready to help when they need you.

This is why jews are the synagogue of Satan. They fear nothing more than a strong family and people who put nation above hedonism. This is why they promote sin at every turn… in order to weaken you and make you a victim. This is also why, to the jew, National Socialism must be vilified and eradicated. For National Socialism is Christianity as policy. Love your people, put your responsibility to them before you own ego and you will be praised in the life after you are gone. You will live forever in the hearts of those who remember your sacrifice for the good of your people.

>>184722

It's unfortunate, because I strongly agree with a lot of what you're saying here, including

>Loyalty to God is loyalty to your family, your people.

but unfortunately you're abstracting things that really are literal. That doesn't negate the point you're making, but I do have to emphasize a few things.

>This is why homosex is a sin, it can't bear offspring.

That's not the reason, that's a consequence. The reason is that it's an act of spiritual rebellion.

>The Bible is the literal word of God because it is the advice to the next generation from the men who wrote it.

No, the bible is the word of God because it is literally "God breathed." Men spoke (wrote) from God while carried along by the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. That is scripture's statement on the subject.

>The afterlife is not some bullshit with clouds, it's literally the world you leave to your children after you die.

We have no idea what the afterlife looks like, but there is one. It is not a metaphor. Scripture never treats it as a metaphor.

>You'll be judged by them for the person you were.

Absolutely alien to the bible. Jesus is the one sitting upon the judgment seat. Scripture heavily emphasizes this in both old and new testaments.

>The only choice is being good or being evil.

No, the choice is whether or not you're going to ask the high priest to make sacrifice on your behalf. Either Jesus dies in your place, or you die in your place. There are no other options. But all sin must be met with justice eventually.

>Sin isn't some crime against an invisible ghost, it's weakness that makes you incapable of fighting for your people.

Again, you're confusing consequence with reason-for. Sin has consequences, but sin isn't sin merely because it hurts us. It is about violating God's laws. The bible is extremely judicial. (Sorry Orthodox dudes, but it be that way.)

>For National Socialism is Christianity as policy.

This one is very correct.

>You will live forever in the hearts of those who remember your sacrifice for the good of your people.

Existence does not end when the body ceases to function. But that doesn't mean the here-and-now should be neglected either. Rather, it's all the more reason why protecting your people is so important.

>>184722

>it was written for people long dead, in dead language

Are you talking about entire European race that was heavily devoted to it at least until 17 century with no equal phenomena of devotion in the world? Its like all the art, the music, the architecture, saints, theological literature and all other crafts and people giving in their lives for it never happened. Protestant brainwashing surely makes you believe christianity is just a book.

Even the best christian video games are mostly about crusades.

>>184720

>I emphasize again that John was a FISHERMAN and did not live in a Greek town.

Whole NT part of the bible is written in greek, they use substitute words with poor translation from hebrew. Not everyone who wrote NT even knew hebrew well.

Papias gave testimony that there was in fact "original gospel in hebrew language" (the so called Logoi of Jesus) but greek translators corrupted it. Johannine Evangelists rearranged episodes because of it. So John's Gospel was made only after christian mystery cult was firmly established.

There were three editions of John's Gospel alone, first, second and final. With ever increasing emphasis to changes on pharisees because of growing conflict of jews with christians.

Even Apocalypse was edited once just to attribute it to John inside Johannine corpus.

Origen gave testimony that because of diversity among manuscripts and due to carelessness there were corrections done to the bible even in his time.

There's also a huge implication that "John the Fisherman" was in fact Magdalene, the woman from fishing village instead, 19:25-27 especially most mysterious set of lines, loved by Popes to quote on Mary worship. Which correlates with the idea from Gospel of Thomas 114 that Mary might had assumed identity of a man to preach. But feel free to doubt that, i always thought John resting on Jesus's breast at 13:25 was weirdly immasculine among the jews, unless you want to assume that it was fine for Jesus to be homoerotic.

As far as the vedic "light untouched by darkness" goes, romans and greeks might had this by default as indo-aryan people, it has tendency to be related to the star of "immortal which knows no change" that was associated with pole star, until it actually unfixed itself, hence it eventually transformed into "changing yet changeless" saying “‘He who, without causing the breath to stop, rises aloft, changing yet changeless, [he who] dispels the darkness” of Maitri Upanishad. Because around pole star other stars were going round, so indo-aryans thought it was a chief among celestial objects, since their whole theology is tied with astrology. Eventually this was forgotten and buried, but some people continued to make references to it (like Gustave Dore in illustration to Dante's Paradiso, where around chief Light all Angels are spinning).

I tried to think of an illustration. In the movie, Passion of the Christ, there is a torture device which has hooks at the end of strings. When used I imagine it might rip off pieces of flesh. Regardless, let's say that it does. Imagine that you are Jesus. People around you are throwing accusations at you, saying that you are a bad person. This could be for example a court sentencing you to prison. Or it could be any negative attitude or opinion someone has of you. Or it could be an act of someone against you which aims to harm you, punish you or diminish you in any way, for example someone fooling you, such as a lawyer lying to you in order to get you convicted rather than acquitted of a crime you are charged with. Let's call all of these things "accusations" just to have a word. Imagine each accusation is a slash on Jesus with that torture device which has hooks. Each time a piece of flesh is torn off. The metaphor that says that when someone demands your jacket offer them your shirt too is applied for each slash, "you want this piece of flesh off my back, take this flesh here too". Each piece of flesh is something which you consider to be part of yourself as a person, something which you feel some pride over, for example you may think that you are not a criminal, or shouldn't be anyway, it's not fair that you are labeled a criminal. Or you are worthy of all those job opportunities which are now taken away from you due to having a criminal record, you deserve them. Or more abstract things like when someone's actions to diminish you make you feel that you were fooled, oppressed, that you were stupid etc. Any negative characteristic in yourself which the other person makes you think of. If you meditate upon it you could probably feel that you are some type of core "you" which isn't actually all the things you are accused of, and that all the shit that appears to be you is actually happening to you as if in your outer world. This is what I mean is the paradox I was talking about, that you have all these accusations thrown at you from outside, appearing to be caused by the fact you are actually that which they accuse you of, i.e. bad in various ways, but a good person doesn't have ego, and it is the ego which is taking the accusations to heart.

>>184776

>In the movie

You're again denying the point of Christ acting as scapegoat for sin and everything done to him was either part of the prophecy, or an old jewish curse. This good/bad person shit is for the babies, the esoteric significance of the whole crucifixion trial and later resurrection is where its at. And the most original thing in christianity compared to other cults of divine godman.

Explaining every detailed nuance to someone who judges whole thing by hollyjew movie and then talks about modern concepts of ego is a waste of time.

When it comes to self guilt i am more worried that during confessional practice in middle ages church used to instill fasting penances for insignificant stuff like masturbation:

From "Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe"

>The penitentials, unlike earlier Christian commentaries on sexual morals, devoted great attention to masturbation. This emphasis presumably reflected the experience that many penitential authors had as confessors to communities of clerics and religious. Penances assigned for solitary sex acts varied considerably- thirty days of fasting for boys and forty for young men, according to Theodore; the Bigotianum, however, increased the penance to a hundred days for a first offender and a full year for repeated offenders. Inconsistently, however, the Bigotianum in another passage imposed a mere three-week penance for masturbation by a priest. St. Columban wished to see masturbation punished on the same scale as intercourse with animals and thought that nothing less than two years of fasting for laymen and three for clerics would constitute adequate reparation. Mutual masturbation required increased penalties, as did femoral intercourse. Even involuntary ejaculation during sleep called for penance, although the nature of the punishments assigned-often the recitation of psalms and a short fast-probably indicates that ritual defilement, rather than sin, was the underlying issue.

Homosexual penances

>Theodore of Canterbury provided a range of alternatives for dealing with penitent homosexuals. He assigned fifteen years, ten years, and seven years for habitual adult offenders, four for those who offended but once; young habitual offenders merited four years of penance, while a first offense by a boy brought a penance of two years. Femoral intercourse, when treated as an offense separate from anal sex, generally received a considerably lighter penance-one or two years as a rule. 188 Incestuous relations between brothers ranked as an aggravated offense with correspondingly harsh penance.

Oral sex penances:

>Oral sex, either homosexual or heterosexual, merited greater severity than anal intercourse. "Let him who puts semen in the mouth do penance for seven years, declared Theodore, for "this is the worst evil. He added that other confessors would be far more severe and require lifelong penance (some say twenty-two years) for fellatio. Finnian and his compatriots were less harsh and judged fellatio or cunnilingus to deserve about the same penitential treatment as anal sex. A few writers viewed sexual experimentation among b'oys as a relatively trivial offense, to be punished by brief periods of fasting or by corporal punishment.

How does a christian confuse social sins and sins by the decree of the church, in a world where pope himself defends homosexuality? Do you think catholic christians confess racism, sexism, homophobia as sins to a pastor? Because all i know it was a big deal to instill guilt by the church for doing any unnatural behavior, and people were willingly confessing and paying penances for doing it. Now we have new liberal religion instilling same kind of social guilt, and if catholics are embracing it, soon you might hear people repenting for being straight.

We already full of guilt for being white.

>>184800

>For example the fact Jesus was sinless and yet was punished.

Why you marvel at story as old as tale of Cain and Abel? 1 John 3:12-13:

>Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

Its because the world itself is polluted, like prior to the flood or destruction of sodom. So it doesn't welcome any beneficial change, its also jealous, while unable to ascend, that why humanity always wants heaven on earth but unable to build one. And its not even supposed to. The play is kind of theatrical admission for differentiation of playing actors. One has to play role of divine Scapegoat, to lift off sins of the chosen believers, another has to play a role of the devil. Yes God foresees all things, but evil is not really evil for it serves purpose of pushing the right order forward. Providing necessary actors of sin that don't have any point beyond being used as pots of lower usage.

Romans 9:21-22:

>Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction

For God sacrifice of His own Son is one large drama to bind Himself with allotted humanity.

Now you say:

>But most Christians are extreme literalists and extremely incapable of entertaining philosophical thoughts.

Because philosophy is damned in the bible itself:

Colossians‎ 2:‎8

>Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

And Plato is the father of all heretics and Aristotelian school of dialectics was admitted to be better than Plato's:

Georgius' libellous:

>"Therefore for me anyone who thinks and says that Plato is godless, is a Christian; anyone, however, who defends him as a pious man, has heen already proved and shall he further proved to he a most violent enemy of the Christian religion."

>"from whom all heresies and crimes either originated or received increase and strength". "Such are the doctrines", "which many are attempting to introduce into Italy that it may be destroyed like their own country by the wrath of God".

>"Plato's writings were the cause of all the heretic perversity and misery of the Greeks"

>"while on the other hand Aristotle's writings greatly assisted the Latins"

>George Scholarios (who became Gennadius II, Patriarch of Constantinople) later defended Aristotle and convinced the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus that Plethon's support for Plato amounted to heresy.

Since every single gnostic was just reverse Platonic, it was useful strategy. Tertulianos said about this the following in his De praescriptionibus adversus haereticos:

>"What have they in common, Athens and Jerusalem, the Academy and the Church, the heretics and the Christians?"

>"this human wisdom, the pretender and corrupter of truth"

He proves at the end of his Apologeticus that Christianity cannot be judged as some philosophical system:

>The philosophers play at truth like actors and in playing at it they spoil it, because they hanker after glory. The Christians necessarily yearn for truth and they testify it unspoilt, like those who care for their salvation. Thus we are not like each other, as you think, either in conscience or in teaching".

>"In what does the philosopher resemble the Christian, the pupil of Greece the pupil of heaven, the dealer in hearsay the dealer in life, the man of words the man of deeds, the builder the destroyer, the propagator of error the restorer of truth, the thief of truth its guardian?"

>"Which of the poets, which of the Sophists did not drink from the well of the prophets? The philosophers quenched therefrom the thirst of their spirit, and it is because of what they have from us that we are said to resemble them"

In De anima he states:

>"I regret sincerely that Plato became a dealer in spices to season every heresy"

>>184850

Well, its exactly why we used to burn people on stakes, sacrifice of Jesus is not an allegory, such heresy is equal to consorting with the devilish idea that resurrection was not in the flesh, now hush before i bring in the rack.

Those autist's threads with Passion_flogging.jpg, who drunk too much new age koolaid, aren't even deleted or reached bumplimit:

>>170122

>>182572

How about you fuck off to >>>/christian/ and annoy them instead?

>>184874

A whole bible can denied by its pagan roots starting from old testament and legend of Exodus. Church is continuation of older tradition and a product of white culture. Feel free to know is that we fixed christianity to save ourselves from inevitable doom this jewish teaching would bring at its honest value.

Supporting the so called purification against the church is trying to return to jewish roots and helping out its division.

There is no objectively visible truth, faith is only powered by considered effort put by unity of convinced people. Its a necessary cultural phenomena that is remembered by works of its peers. Trying to make sense out of phenomena of devotion by using logic is pointless, just admit its indeed a mystery. Otherwise you're looking down on millions of the dead white Christians convinced in their beliefs who raised healthy families and labored for supporting their religion and nation.

>>184881

>I don't understand severe punishments for blasphemy / rejection of the Holy Spirit

Because Holy Spirit (Άγιο Πνεύμα) goes beyond cognizable religion preached. Its especially loud in words:

Mark‎ 3:‎28-29

>Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

Luke‎ 12:‎10

>And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Ultimately nature of the Holy Spirit is beyond obstructions of religious/preaching dogmas, but also beyond its rules or any possible forgiveness by Son. Because Holy Spirit overrules even the Son in authority. Some religions have alternative to this as presence or power of God, but all leading to the an enigma capable of human possession, not necessary same enigma, and its assumed Jesus had the Most High. Egyptians had the teaching of having God as one's own δαιμόνιον, but same word is used for devils cast out by Jesus (δαιμονια), hence Jews being naturally all magicians that bind angels and worship God as functions, being put to shame instantly for that being equal to unforgivable blasphemy, because Beelzebub cannot really go against his own, which leads at least to two spiritual houses of opposition. Probably because jews haven't really cared about differentiation of clean and unclean spirits, and most certainly end up in opposition to Holy Spirit after what happened. By earlier greek philosophers δαιμόνιον constituted fate and character of a man, personal guardian or genius. Since rejection of platonic philosophy in favor of christianity daimons turned into demons because of opposition to Holy Spirit. And what's apparent after triumph of Christianity is that daimons associated with pagan gods could not survive against powers of Christ's Spirit, nor their teachings.

>>184885

Its not supposed to let go of the original sin, anon. Romans Chapter 7 fully deals with that problem.

>>184891

>Then why some churches reject the Trinity?

Because they are heretical even to the biblical basics.

>1 John‎ 5:‎7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

>What's the link with Roman Catholicism ?

There's most certainly some amalgamation happened between Mary, Spirit and Church in deep union as binders of saints. Because Mary in Sacred Tradition is considered a "spouse" of Holy Spirit through Immaculate Conception of Jesus. While Church is the bride of Jesus. Because of two mysteries intertwine together, Virgin becomes "Temple of the Holy Spirit". Hence Marian cult is the most logical of Church's developments.

Cult of saints in Catholicism in a lot of ways relies on metaphysics of people with Holy Spirit in them being channeling powers of the Church, bearing witness in one spiritual community, but bound.

That's why deconstructing union and oneness of the Spiritual Church is villainy, for it goes against those bonds.

>What's the role of the Antechrist ?

In all honesty to play a role of a worst bad guy possible when this world is not needed anymore, actual fall of satan may not have happened yet that is the result of Michael's battle against him, for this world still needs opposition to righteous, and bible doesn't hold authority everywhere to mark true end described in Matthew 24:14. It implies only when satan gets desperate, when his time is up, he pulls off his false messiah card.

>>184914

>1 John 5:7

>pic related

Which version do you cite ?

>>184914

??? holy spirit where ????

How can you be 100% sure that Christ's words have not been altered by the malicious ? Why so many satanic symbols in your pic ?

Hitler should have gassed and kill ed all Catholics, Jews & Christians to make his stance a serious non touchable religious power ball that WONT autistically plummet into the ground

Why did Alan Turning die in gas chamber?

Because Hitler should have invaded UK first

>>184918

>>184923

>mfw trying to explain something to americans but they use heretical changed version of the bible

Look up King James Version. That's apparently the only non-heretical version for you english men.

The line in Greek Bible (1516) goes as:

>οτι τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν

>holy spirit where ????

αγιον πνευμα in 1 John 5:7 is clear as day in the line. As well as πατηρ and λογος. Why your NIV merges lines 7 and 8 i don't know.

In Matthew 28:19 αγιου πνευματος also repeated clear as day:

>πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

No one has problems with bible except english speaking crowd for some reason. Probably to pander to all your evangelicals and other schlock who uses fake versions of bible to justify heresy, homosexuality and all the liberal nonsense among your wallmart-tier "churchs".

>>184981

What reformation has to do with bible being re-adapted for "modern crowd" by americans much after it? Latin and greek versions of New Testament were compiled by Erasmus in 1516, based on older manuscripts, on which KJV (1611) is based on.

All later editions were only pandering to protestants/evangelists with bias towards their agenda. I repeat it again, there's no problem in the rest of the world with bible translations that doesn't practice american evangelical de-synthesized christianity. This problem is alien to everyone outside your spectrum of heresies.

As of german Luther's Bible published in 1522, he was also translating from Erasmus' second edition (1519) of the Greek New Testament, Textus Receptus.