[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
4Archive logo
Old Testament thread
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /his/ - History & Humanities

Thread replies: 280
Thread images: 27
File: 134901902566.png (2 MB, 5040x4152) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
134901902566.png
2 MB, 5040x4152
Was the OT always considered a meme book by early and medieval Christians?
>>
>>683355
No, medieval kings mirrored themselves with the kings of the Old Testament like Saul, David and Solomon.
>>
>>683388

They got ambushed by their oppressed victims while trying to take a shit, encouraged their children to commit incest, and worshiped idols?
>>
>>683422
I'm sure you can find medieval monarchs who did this but I meant that they strived the follow the same ideals of monarchy than those three kings also were supposed to follow. These three kings may not be a paragon of decency, but the OT makes it clear when they're right and when they're wrong.
>>
Trump
>>
1 The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

2 Horus was of royal descent. Jesus was of royal descent.

3 Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

4 The birth of Horus announced by angels. The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

5 Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

6 Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

7 Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

8 Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

9 Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus - the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

10 Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

11 Horus was resurrected after 3 days. Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

12 Horus was given the title KRST which means “anointed one” Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”
>>
>>685546

>he takes zeitgeist seriously
>>
>>685546
>he actually watched Zeitgeist
>>
>>683422
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIFpf5JxzHA
>>
>>683355

No it was pretty much considered literal for most of the history of Christianity despite some theologians such as Augustine querying parts of it.

Since Jesus divinity and claims to be the Messiah are based on prophecy from the Old Testament if you are going to just throw away the Old Testament then you might as well throw away the New Testament as well.

Fundamentalist Protestants are actually the smart Christians because at least they undertsand they have to claim the whole bible is true to follow their faith. Other Christians are actually even more retarded than them because they are essentially talking nonsense that doesn't hold together theologically.
>>
>>686495
True doesn't have to mean literalistically true. Also Christianity isn't based on the bible - the bible is a product of the church.
>>
>>686525

The Old Testament, which is what we are discussing can in no way be said to be the product of the "the Church".
>>
>>683355
Oh boy, a MS Paint infographic poorly put together
Everyone else sure looks stupid now
>>
File: 1340411808616.jpg (25 KB, 128x256) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1340411808616.jpg
25 KB, 128x256
>>686495
>if you are going to just throw away the Old Testament then you might as well throw away the New Testament as well.
I don't see any problem with this.
>>
>christianity isn't retcons: the belief
wew lad, why don't you ask for your unchanging god who changes his mind for a bigger brain
>>
>>686540
> about 400 AD Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome, the leading scholar of the day, to produce an updated Latin bible to replace the Vetus Latina. Jerome's work is called the Vulgate (i.e. common language), and he translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew, since he argued for the superiority of the Hebrew texts in correcting the Septuagint on both philological and theological grounds
>>
>>686820

Not him, but the funny thing is, Jerome does a shit-tier job of translating from the Hebrew. Just look at his Genesis 2:25 and 3:1, where he uses the same root word in 2 completely different meanings a sentence apart without a single word of annotation explaining what he's thinking.
>>
>>686753
This, it goes back to the very beginning.

>The world is going to end!
>Ok, so it's going to take a few generations for the world to end.
>Uh... well maybe it's going to be a while before the world ends.
>You know what he was talking about the temple the entire time.
>>
>>686834
Yeah I am not THAT much into this stuff but; all I wanted to point out that we use a translation commissioned by the the Church and that translation obviously always means interpretation.
>>
>>686820

That's just a translation mate. It's like saying a new English translation is a brand new bible.
>>
>>686855
>>686841
>>
>>686841

Yes but new modern translations into modern languages are done from the original Hebrew, not from Latin sources.
>>
>>686864
>>686865
>>
>>686865
>>686855

Again not him, but what he's aiming at is that you really can't translate without doing a degree of interpretation, and that makes the translation a product of the worldview of the translator.

Take, for instance, Isaiah 7:14. Whether you translate "Ha-Almah" as "virgin" or as "young woman" depends enormously on your worldview and whether or not you think this is a stealth prophecy for Jesus. There's a reason why pretty much every Christian bible goes with "Virgin" whereas almost no Jewish bibles do.
>>
>>686877

Yes, but you are missing the point of what I said that it doesn't matter what the interpretation when translated into Latin was because we still have manuscripts in Hebrew that are used as the source for the OT not Latin translations.
>>
>>686884
Even if you are 100% correct about modern translations: The church was still shaped by those older translations and was at the same time responsible for them. Initially I was responding to: >>686540
>>
File: come try some.jpg (49 KB, 509x501) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
come try some.jpg
49 KB, 509x501
>Discussing the OT only in the context of Christianity being the source of all interpretation
>Hurr Orthodox versus Catholic versus Protestant!
>Completely leaving out the Jews as the literal god's chosen people of all biblical canon
>Pagans interpreting a semitic text not in its original Hebrew and Aramaic


I shiggy diggy'ed mah niggy
>>
>>686901
You haven't read the thread at all have you?
>>
>>686884

But recall the original comment that kicked this off. >>686525


The Bible as we have had it for thousands of years is a product of the Church, not the other way around. By being the one who commissions and guides the translations into languages that are actually used, they're shaping the message. It's unavoidable.

Nowadays, you have competing organizations doing the same, but their translations will also result in a certain shaping of the message into whatever fits their ideology.
>>
>>686898

So what? The Latin translations were based on the Hebrew manuscripts as well.

The earliest Christians that founded the Church were Greek and Aramaic speakers.

Look Christianity shares the OT with a whole 'nother religion. Another name for it is the Hebrew Bible or the Tanakh. The idea that you can claim it is a product of the Christian church by waffling on about the fact there were latin translations is insulting stupid.
>>
>>686918
>The Bible as we have had it for thousands of years is a product of the Church,

The OHebrew Bible / Tanakh is Jewish. It is NOT a product of the Christian church, no matter how many times you repeat this idiocy or make incredibly bad arguments about translations to support it.
>>
>>686924
>The idea that you can claim it is a product of the Christian church by waffling on about the fact there were latin translations is insulting stupid.
No it is not and calling me names is not a replacement for an actual argument. A product is the result of several processes forming an artifact. Claiming that the OT is a product by the church doesn't deny or diminish Jewish contribution
See:>>686877
>Whether you translate "Ha-Almah" as "virgin" or as "young woman" depends enormously on your worldview
For example
>>
File: buisness.jpg (99 KB, 874x960) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
buisness.jpg
99 KB, 874x960
>>686931
>The OHebrew Bible / Tanakh is Jewish. It is NOT a product of the Christian church
Literally nobody claimed that bra.
>>
>>686958

There was no contribution except the Jewish one. The entire thing predates Christianity. There was no Christian contribution AT ALL never mind "minimising" the Jewish contribution.

And I am calling you names as well as making the point because you are being so incredibly ridiculous.
>>
>>686963

That's what the entire conversation has been about, "brah". >>686525 >>686540
>>
>>686931

Ok, I'm going to say this again, and I want you to read it carefully, because you're clearly not getting it.

"The Bible" and "The Tanach"/ OHebrew Bible ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS. Yes, they share certain books in theory, if not in practice because the understanding of such books is almost completely divergent. But those individual books does not compose a "Bible", or a "Tanach". It is the books which are compiled for the purpose of teaching a certain set of lessons that makes it what it is.

Why do you think that the Jews removed Maccabees from the Tanach, but a lot of Christian organizations keep it? Because the former view the Priestly assumption of Kingly roles as a horrible event and thus the actions are not a holy endeavor worthy to be called scripture, while Christians see it as part of the ongoing chronicle of the Hebrew people, important to presage the coming of Jesus.


As an organizational scheme, as a foundation for teaching a message, "The Bible" is fundamentally created by the Church (or arguably, several different bibles are fundamentally created by different churches), because they're the ones deciding what books go in and what books stay out, and what obscure passages in those books mean. The original composition, or alternative understandings of those books are irrelevant. So "the Bible" is created by the Church. The completely separate document "The Tanach" is created by the rabbinical establishment. That they share some source material (and only tangentially at that) doesn't make them the same thing.

Do you get it now?
>>
>>686978
>"The Bible" and "The Tanach"/ OHebrew Bible ARE NOT THE SAME THINGS

Except they are.

You have Google, use it.
>>
File: pablo.png (3 MB, 1920x1080) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pablo.png
3 MB, 1920x1080
>>686967
That's the point. Translation is a contribution to the product that is the Old Testament,
Obviously not to the Jewish Bible which was (mostly) read by Jews and written in Hebrew.
You failing to understand this simple fact makes me doubt your reading comprehension.
>Wiki: The Old Testament is the first section of the Christian [sic!] Bible, based primarily [sic!]upon the Hebrew Bible
>>686972
No it wasn't; or it was but only for you.
>>
>>686982

Good, now read the rest of the post to figure out what the Bible actually is. And try googling the book of Maccabees, or Tobit, or you know, the entire New Testament.
>>
>>685546
Someone has seen and believed Zeitgeist. Wow.
>>
File: 1445167075041.jpg (26 KB, 275x280) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1445167075041.jpg
26 KB, 275x280
>>686989

The fact that a book has been translated into different languages is no point at all. It's like saying Harry Potter is a Japanese book (series) because it has translated in Japanese.

The fact you cannot grasp this is severely trying my patience.
>>
File: hans.jpg (18 KB, 349x349) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
hans.jpg
18 KB, 349x349
>>686982
>The Tanakh (/tɑːˈnɑːx/;[1] Hebrew: תַּנַ"ךְ, pronounced [taˈnaχ] or [təˈnax]; also Tenakh, Tenak, Tanach) or Mikra is the canon of the Hebrew Bible. The traditional Hebrew text is known as the Masoretic Text.
>The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity. It is a collection of scriptures written at different times by different authors in different locations. Jews and Christians consider the books of the Bible to be a product of divine inspiration or an authoritative record of the relationship between God and humans.
Ehm. Care to provide a proof for your claim? Like at all?
>>
>>686990

Reminder that this thread is about the OT, the NT is completely irrelevant,
>>
>>686978
The Old Testament and the tanakh are the same things, but the books are organized differently. The bible is obviously more than just the Old Testament.

Maccabees is not properly in the bible. Nothing written after Malachi is properly in the Old Testament.

There are 350+ messianic prophecies that all proclaim Jesus is the Messiah. The Jews would have to literally shred every book to rid it of anything referring to Jesus.

Proper canon is simple. The tanakh is in. Anything written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that contains no error, and has no contradictions to the tanakh, is in.

It's really not that complicated.
>>
File: varg.jpg (23 KB, 272x347) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
varg.jpg
23 KB, 272x347
>>687005
Either you don't understand how translations work or you are fooling yourself into believing that you are right.
A Japanese translation of Harry Potter is quite obviously a product of Japanese people and the hag who wrote the book. So yeah. I doubt there is a Japanese word for wizard carrying the exact same meaning as the English word for example.
Taking into account that every single word of the translated bible mattered for hundreds of years and those words were interpreted and contextualized during the Middle Ages and beyond make this fact even clearer. The mere fabric of some European languages (like German) were formed by bible translations.
>>
>>687017
>Anything written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that contains no error,

Are you saying the Gospels have no errors?
>>
>>687033
Yes. And by yes, I mean the autographs.
>>
>>687010

The OP was. Then, someone started talking about "The Bible" in general, which is something different.

>>687017

>The Old Testament and the tanakh are the same things, but the books are organized differently. The bible is obviously more than just the Old Testament.

Incorrect, given how the Tanach and the OT of most Christian denominations don't have the same books, and certainly don't incorporate the books into the same structure of teaching.

>Maccabees is not properly in the bible. Nothing written after Malachi is properly in the Old Testament.

In Christian organizational schemes, Deuterocanonical books like Maccabees are considered part of the OT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit

>There are 350+ messianic prophecies that all proclaim Jesus is the Messiah. The Jews would have to literally shred every book to rid it of anything referring to Jesus.

This again goes to organizational differences being so large as to the point that the two documents are completely seperate. Look at the "350+ messianic prophecies", Here's a random site I looked at, which I realize isn't a great authority.

http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Notice how many of them are very general? "A lamb without blemish"? Notice how many of them come from places like Pslams, part of the Cetuvim, and are thus not prophecy in the Hebraic view of things? The words are often the same, but the meaning is completely different.

>Proper canon is simple. The tanakh is in. Anything written by an eyewitness to the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, that contains no error, and has no contradictions to the tanakh, is in.

So, you argue with literally every major Christian denomination and remove the entirety of Paul's writings from the Bible? Not to mention all 4 gospels contain contradictions to the Tanach, so I don't see how you could count any of the NT as "Bible" at that point.
>>
File: 1413604290273.png (779 KB, 960x540) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1413604290273.png
779 KB, 960x540
>>687026

I'm bored of your arguments on this now. The point has been made.

If you can't see someone claiming the OT is a product of the Christian church is wrong and are trying to support it by pointing out there are translations is just plain silly then there is nothing more I can do.
>>
>>687026
If a Japanese translator attempted to substitute each and every English word in Harry Potter into Japanese, the result would be a huge incomprehensible mess.

That is not how the bible has been translated, but for Young's Literal Translation, which, suffice to say, does not read smoothly in English.
>>
>>687010
>It is understandable if Christians think the Old Testament and the Tanakh are one and the same thing, but a closer look reveals important distinctions. For example, Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Christian Old Testament canons include additional books, either written or preserved in Greek (Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabees, etc.), that are not in the Jewish canon. And some Orthodox communions only use the Greek translation of the Hebrew (the Septuagint)—which varies in word choices and length from the Masoretic (Hebrew) Text. The Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh are also distinct from each other in terms of punctuation, canonical order, and emphases.
>Differences in canonical order further create distinct interpretations. The Old Testament tucks Ruth between Judges and 1 Samuel; the book fits here chronologically, because Ruth is King David’s great-grandmother, and David is introduced in 1 Samuel. The Tanakh places Ruth in the Ketuvim (Writings), where her scroll (Hebrew, megillah) accompanies the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Qohelet (Ecclesiastes), and Esther. These scrolls are read, in full, on certain Jewish holidays; thus they have a more prominent place in the canon of Judaism than they do in the Christian canons.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm

This really is frustrating.
>>
>>687041

Those don't exist.

>>687045

And the only issue anyone ever had with that was to point out the OT was not a product of the Christian church.
>>
>>687051
>That is not how the bible has been translated, but for Young's Literal Translation, which, suffice to say, does not read smoothly in English.
And by translating and adding punctuation the meaning was changed. Same goes for the alternative order of the books included. I am not even going to argue how theological interpretation claims that some parts of the OT were superseded by the NT,
>>
File: diminuendo02.jpg (866 KB, 1182x750) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
diminuendo02.jpg
866 KB, 1182x750
>>687060
Ok. Simple question. Who produced the OT? Who produced the text in pic related?
>>
>>687060

>And the only issue anyone ever had with that was to point out the OT was not a product of the Christian church.

Except it quite obviously is. The OT is not identical with the books that comprise the OT. The decision to stick those books in and not different ones? A decision by the church. The ordering of the books? A decision by the church. The "appropriate" understandings and translations? Products by the church.

Your mistake, IMO, is to view "The Bible" as a book the way Moby Dick is a book, or the way Lord of the Rings is a series of books. It isn't. "The Bible" is a theological artifice, a choosing of pre-existing materials to teach a particular set of lessons.

Suppose you and I each sat down, and in isolation decided to write a book of "The most influential pieces of fiction in the 20th century.", which would include a list of what we each thought of as such and brief notes discussing their meanings. There would likely be some overlap in the pieces of fiction chosen, but not complete congruity, after all, we likely have different opinions. The understandings of the texts would also vary.

Your position is essentially that we would have written the same book. It's nonsense, and quite obviously so.
>>
>>687075
>And by translating and adding punctuation the meaning was changed.


http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/reliable-hebrew-text
>>
>>687087
>Who produced the OT?

Jews.

>Who produced the text in pic related?

Irrelevant.
>>
>>687045
Same books.

Bereshit - Genesis
Shemot -Exodus
Vayikra —Leviticus
Bəmidbar—Numbers
Devarim -Deuteronomy
Yĕhôshúa‘)—Joshua
Shophtim)—Judges
Shmû’ēl)—Samuel
M'lakhim)—Kings
Yĕsha‘ăyāhû)—Isaiah
Yirmyāhû)—Jeremiah
Yĕkhezqiēl)—Ezekiel
Hôshēa‘)—Hosea
Yô’ēl)—Joel
Āmôs)—Amos
Ōvadhyāh)—Obadiah
Yônāh)—Jonah
Mîkhāh)—Micah
Nakḥûm)—Nahum
Khăvhakûk)—Habakkuk
Tsĕphanyāh)—Zephaniah
Khaggai)—Haggai
Zkharyāh)—Zechariah
Mal’ākhî)—Malachi
Sifrei Emet - Psalms, Proverbs and Job
Hamesh Megillot -Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther
remaining books in Ketuvim - Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah (Ezra Nehemiah)
Chronicles

Some just weren't split in two, as they are in the Old Testament. Kings I and II, Samuel I & II, etc.
>>
>>687045
>Christian organizational schemes

Catholic. Not christian.

> "A lamb without blemish"?
This is not vague at all. Jesus is the Lamb of God, and is the only person to have ever been found without spot or blemish under the Law. It points directly to Jesus, as seen from Abraham telling Isaac that God will provide Himself a lamb for the offering.

Paul is a witness to the resurrected Jesus, and spent years with Him in Arabia.

Blind Jews are Blind.
>>
>>687056

It gets less frustrating when you realize that the Catholics and the Orthodox churches have nothing to do with Christianity.
>>
>>687060

They did exist. They were copied, tens of thousands of times. And by their copies, dating back to the early second century, we can tell what the autographs were.

If 99.5% intact isn't good enough for you, please feel free to discount every historical writing about everything, ever. Just live your life like an animal, by what you see with your eyes.
>>
>>687075
That's because you do not understand the things of God, and do not know that the things in the OT foreshadow the things in the NT, and that NT reveals things hidden in the OT.
>>
>>687092
Good analogy if each and every work you considered were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and you only chose those that were.
>>
>>687118

But I was never referring to errors made in copying. How can the Gospels have no errors? It is simply not possible given that they don't agree with each other on multiple points of 'fact'.
>>
>>687095
Oh come one now. The King James Only movement is hardly a reliable source. Of course they claim their translations are (almost) perfect and superior to every other translation. Those fuckers even argue that God helped translating. I mean read up about the whole debate on "Ghost" vs "spirit".
>By God’s grace and providence there are not as many variant readings
Really a weak argument buddy.
http://www.kjvonly.org/other/demystify.htm
>>
>>687102

And yet I don't see Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, the Letter of Jeremiah, and others that are included in Christian OTs. Not to mention some of the books that only the Greek Orthodox include, like the prayer of Manasseh.

So I guess they're not the same after all, even in book composition, let alone understanding of such.

>>687106

>Catholic. Not christian.


I'm pretty sure non-catholic denominations have organizational schemes to the Old Testament. Sometimes, it's even different from the Catholic one!

>Jesus is the Lamb of God,

Not according to Jewish views.

>and is the only person to have ever been found without spot or blemish under the Law.

Again, not according to Jewish views.

>It points directly to Jesus, as seen from Abraham telling Isaac that God will provide Himself a lamb for the offering.

Or, you know, it's not prophetic at all, the angel's intervention implying as such as opposed to a command from God telling him to stop, and it's just something Abraham is saying.

>Paul is a witness to the resurrected Jesus, and spent years with Him in Arabia.

Uh-huh. Look, I don't want to get into you or your apologetics. I'm a fedora tipper myself. I'm just saying, a point which I thought was pretty simple, that the OT of Christians and the Tanach of Jews are so different from each other that they're seperate documents entirely, a premise which I thought was rather uncontroversial.
>>
>>687099
>the text that was actually read is irrelevant
>the Old Testament was written by Jews even though they didn't call it the Old Testament or used the language most people read it in
OK.
>>
>>687128

The gospels can have no errors if and only if the authors were divinely inspired; that they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God.
>>
>>687130
Yes, the presence of the Holy Spirit at the convention called to produce the KJV was palpable.
>>
>>687130

The point was it does not use any Latin sources for the OT.
>>
>>687144

So, divine inspiration can make two contradictory statements both true?
>>
>>687139
>Christian OTs.

Catholic.

Catholic OTs.

Not Christian.

Catholic =/= Christian

Catholic = satanic
>>
>>687144

So they can't have been divinely inspired then. They disagree with each other on significant points of fact so must have some errors, even only using the Gospels as a source.
>>
>>687139
>Not according to Jewish views.
Almost all of the early church were Jews who realized Jesus is God.

You can take your chances with the synagogue of satan, if you'd like.
>>
>>687140

>The Old Testament was not written by Jews because various translations into other languages have been made over the centuries.

Ok.
>>
>>687139
>are so different from each other

You have not pointed out one single difference, other than organizational, which was assumed from the beginning.

Your argument is that the catholics did things the christians refused to go along with, like adding apocryphal books and heretical books to their canon.

The catholic canon has nothing to do with the Word of God.
>>
>>687155
No. Reason and logic can dictate that contradictions are A and Not A in the same time and place and manner.

Every attack on the bible fails; every purported contradiction is a lie.

If you'd like to post your pet lie, I'd be happy to shine some light on it and watch it scurry back under a rock.
>>
>>687160
They don't.

Your understanding of them is in doubt, not their ability to be harmonized.
>>
>>687153
So? Do you speak Hebrew? Cause I do a little and I can fucking tell you that you need to add punctuation to old Hebrew texts to make sense of them. This is what the KJV did and by doing so it rendered a different meaning to the text.
>>687151
Ok, if your argument is essentially "God did it" there is no arguing with you. I am not even fedora tipping but if you are serious there is no discussion about this point.
BTW I got both the official catholic and the officla ecumenic German bible right here. They both argue how hard it is to translate from the original source but they both leave God out of it since men wrote the original texts and men are writing the new ones.
>>
>>687163

>>686958
>Claiming that the OT is a product by the church doesn't deny or diminish Jewish contribution

You can't read. Literally. You are either part of some fucked up hardcore cult or really fucking stupid.
>>
>>687182
Show me one different meaning by the KJV putting in punctuation marks.

No, you should satisfy yourself that God did it, first. And then you should assume it is as God. True.
>>
>>686958

Not really. A boy being born from a young girl is commonplace, not a sign to the world the savior has arrived.
>>
>>687161
>Almost all of the early church were Jews who realized Jesus is God.
Yeah and the jewish theological elite really liked and encouraged their new sect, right?
>>
>>687198
So your argument that no Jews believed in Jesus is gone then?

Sweet.

Now let's talk about the willingness of the pharisees to murder a man in order that they would not have to die for their beliefs, but kill Him for His.
>>
>>687187
>Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise". The comma should not be after "thee", but "day". The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the
future.

>Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after "week" as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene..." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene..."

https://books.google.de/books?id=W3oVRK4I7UsC&lpg=PP15&ots=uVW4gDtqfR&dq=king%20james%20bible%20punctuation&lr&hl=de&pg=PP12#v=onepage&q=punctuation&f=false
See chapter 9.
>>
>>687212
Of course they were Jews. They didn't even consider them something else then Jews. It was a Roman that first called them "Christians" (or "Nazarenes" I am not 100% sure but it was that dude in Antioch).
>>
>>687157

And yet I already cited some of the Greek Orthodox divergent OTs from Jewish Tanachs. GO=/= Catholic.

>>687161

Which is a long way from saying that most contemporary Jews believed such. Christianity was a smallish sect, and only ballooned when it started preaching to the gentiles.

>>687167

I've repeatedly pointed out that they include far different books. I've pointed out that the understanding of certain critical words are different. I've mentioned how CHristians view certain sections of the OT as prophetic wheras Jews don't view the same sections of the Tanach as being prophetic, such as anything written in Psalms. Have you been paying attention?
>>
>>687178

You are mad if you think books that have clear discrepancies cannot have any error.

Here is a simple test you and anyone else in this thread who think the Gospels have no errors, no errors in them at all (or even if you don't) can do right now in a few minutes using nothing but a Bible on the Internet if you have no paper copy to hand.

Look at the stories of the Crucifixtion and the Resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There is no need to read the whole Gospels wo you forget what has been written, read the stories about the same event side by side?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015

What did Jesus say as his last words? What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)? What time did the crucifixtion happen? Who went to Jesus' tomb? Who did they find when they got there? What were they told to do at the tomb?
>>
>>687196
But a boy being born from a virgin is rather extraordinary where I live.
>>
>>687176

What were Jesus's last words on the cross? Is it as John said, as Luke said, or as Mark and Matthew said? And if the two Ms are right, was it in Hebrew or Aramaic, since they disagree on that point?
>>
>>687196

Of course, Isiah is talking about a sign to Ahaz that his war is going to go well, not that a savior to the world has arrived. Not to mention that the form indicated in the Great Isiah scroll indicates that the speaker will be giving him the name of Immanuel, i.e., it's going to be Isaiah's kid with his wife.
>>
>>687219
Nope. That day, both Jesus and the thief died and went to Paradise. Paradise, the Bosom of Abraham, is one compartment of Hades. They remained there three days, and then Jesus led the captives free. Everyone in Hades/Sheol/Paradise is now in heaven.

That day, the thief was with Jesus in paradise.

Jesus rose on Sunday morning, having spent three days and three nights in the grave, the sign of Jonah, starting from His Crucifixion on Nisan 14, a Thursday, and Passover. He did appear to Magdalene first, and nobody believed her.

These people are lying to you dude.
>>
>>687226
Nope. The Followers of the Way were first called Christians at Antioch. They knew they were no longer Jews, as there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Body of Christ.
>>
File: pasta.jpg (526 KB, 1913x1591) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
pasta.jpg
526 KB, 1913x1591
>>687241
I am not sure how your posts relates to mine. My point is not that the original meaning was lost but that the original meaning differs from the KJV.
Not even Christian btw.
>>
>>687227
Same books, which I detailed here in this post, that you apparently could not see for blindness.

>>687102
>>
>>687252

Not the same books, which I listed here>>687139

Are you illiterate?
>>
>>687230
Jesus had 7 things to say on the cross, and not all of them were listed by any one witness.

You have some childish notion that the writers of the gospel were stenographers.

They were each writing their own experiences, in their own words, to their own audience, for their own purposes.

By putting together the four gospels, you can see the seven things Jesus said, seven being the number of completion and perfection.

Or you can cry because some witnesses wrote three or four things, and some witnesses one or two.

To say that is a contradiction is absurd. None of the gospel writers said that "These are the only true things that Jesus said on the cross."
>>
>>687233
A sign to the world, you might say.
>>
File: satam.jpg (122 KB, 960x960) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
satam.jpg
122 KB, 960x960
>>687187
>>687219
BTFO? Where you my friend in denial?
>>
>>687234
There were seven utterances. See >>687267

You people really need to define contradiction for yourselves. You're really lost.

If I say I have an apple, that does not mean I do not have three apples, or that I do not also have an orange.
>>
>>687277
Already answered.>>687241
>>
>>687238
Isaiah made a double prophecy; he was blessed with a baby boy himself, when he and his wife were barren, and the later fulfillment is the virgin birth of Jesus.
>>
File: 1450171909107.jpg (725 KB, 1200x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1450171909107.jpg
725 KB, 1200x1200
>>687267

Not only is that a pretty lame defence of the "what Jesus said on the cross" question. It is deliberately ignoring all the other questions.

What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)? What time did the crucifixtion happen? Who went to Jesus' tomb? Who did they find when they got there? What were they told to do at the tomb?
>>
>>687248
Nope. And it also works both ways. Jesus and the thief were in Paradise that day, before sunset, and Jesus told him that day, he would be with Him in Paradise.

How would you say your reading comprehension is, usually?
>>
>>687283
But how does what I posted not show that punctuation changes meaning?
NVM I have the strong impression you are trolling since 20 minutes.
>>
>>687296
I am not going to argue about the content of the text since this was never the point.
>>
>>687259
You listed books that are neither in the tanakh nor in the Old Testament. I can't tell you how many times I said there are books in the catholic and orthodox canon that have nothing to do with the bible.

You just keep listing them like a broken record player.

Are you Marco Rubio?
>>
>>687278

And yet each of Luke, Matthew, and John explicitly say that Jesus "gave up the ghost" after their particular utterance. Which does indeed contain contradictions, since not all of them can be last.

>>687287

You don't read too good, do you. First off, Isiah's wife was not barren, given his other kids he has in 7:3 and 8:3.

Also, the word for "conceive" (Although given the masculine conjugation, "impregnate" is probably slightly more accurate) is given in the past tense, so unless you want to change the literal meaning (See how we keep coming back to this?) it's not exactly referring to a future conception.
>>
>>687288
>What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)?
Thursday, Nisan 14

>What time did the crucifixtion happen?
Began at 9 am, John references Jesus being crucified at noon, which, of course, He was.

>Who went to Jesus' tomb?
Many people. Mary Magdalene went first.

>Who did they find when they got there?
Different people found different beings.

>What were they told to do at the tomb?
Different people were told to do different things.

Is this a complex problem for you?
>>
>>687307

>You listed books that are neither in the tanakh nor in the Old Testament. I can't tell you how many times I said there are books in the catholic and orthodox canon that have nothing to do with the bible.

Yes, and your assertion that Greek Orthodox and Catholics aren't actually Christian is retarded and therefore ignored. I may as well point out that there are Jewish groups that claim all Christians as lapsed Jews, therefore any NT inclusion is a "wrong" bible, so whatever sect you have also has nothing to do with the bible. This in fact is the clearest demonstration I can think of of my original point, namely, what is put in the Bible or not is context specific, namely what sect you belong to.

Do you see how asinine you're being?
>>
>>686576
Non-argument
>>
>>687326

So then why then are all the Synoptics claiming that Jesus is a sinner, having eaten the Last supper's Passover offering on the wrong day? Why were they even able to, surely the priests wouldn't have let people walk up and chop up their lambs on the wrong day/
>>
>>687298
It does not change the meaning. Both are true. Both mean the same thing.

One is not "you will be with me in paradise" and the other "I want a tuna sandwich".

The deeper meaning is that it is a prophecy of Jesus' that was fulfilled that day. Normally it takes days to die on a cross; because of the special holy week, the Jews wanted the bodies down before sunset. The thief had his legs broken, and died, but Jesus was already dead. They stuck a spear into His heart just to make sure.

When Jesus says "This day", He means "This day".
>>
File: 1451731215125.jpg (41 KB, 600x600) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1451731215125.jpg
41 KB, 600x600
>>687326

Nice trolling mate.

I'm going to be an anal asshole at this point and repeat the point I made. Note, I'm not even having a pop at reasonable, normal Christians here only fundamentalists that claim the Gospels have no errors.

What did Jesus say as his last words? What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)? What time did the crucifixtion happen? Who went to Jesus' tomb? Who did they find when they got there? What were they told to do at the tomb?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015
>>
>>687305
Point is both are true. If you want to grasp a deeper meaning in the Greek and Hebrew, feel free.

If you want to run around and say the English translation is bogus, eff you.

Feel me?
>>
>>687317
The last thing Jesus did was to give up the Spirit.

So it's literally true that it followed everything He said.

Do you see your deep desire to not understand plain English?
>>
>>687317
By that time she was, yes. Well past child bearing years, as Sarai was.
>>
>>687340
Ok I think you are wrong but for the sake of the argument let's say you are right.
Why are you ignoring Mark and the link I posted?
>>
>>687329
>Greek Orthodox and Catholics aren't actually Christian is retarded a

It should be self-evident, as both were created centuries later.

Tell me, is Islam also Christian to you, as it mentions Jesus and Mary?
>>
>>687350

>Do you see your deep desire to not understand plain English?

There's an interesting psychological phenomenon called "projection" you might want to look up. Again, Matthew, Luke, and John are all EXPLICIT that Jesus gave up the ghost immediately after saying their rendition of his last words, which have 3 different versions of those said words.

Since it is a logical impossibility for him to have said all three last, at least 2 of those Gospels are wrong.
>>
>>687335
The last supper was bread and wine.

That menu had no lamb on it.

You're so engrossed in saying that God is a liar that you are going to end up facing Him on judgment day.

But I'm sure you've never broken any of the 613 commandments, and are like God, yes? So it will go well with you that day.
>>
>>687355

>By that time she was, yes. Well past child bearing years, as Sarai was.

She's a young woman, remember? It quite explicitly says so in 7:14.

>>687359

No, because Islam doesn't hold a core tenant of Christianity, namely that Jesus was God.

By the way, can I assume from your silence that you've conceded the central point, namely that what's "in the bible" is dependent on your individual sect?
>>
>>687366

>That menu had no lamb on it.

That's funny, because Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17, and Luke 22:13 all talk about it.

Also, tiptip, not star.
>>
>>687343
Thanks. I like when people admit they're assholes.

The Gospels refer to different times and name different women who arrived at the tomb. Matthew states that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” came to the tomb as it “began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Mark adds Salome to the group and claims that they came “very early in the morning” (Mark 16:1–2). Luke agrees that it was “very early in the morning” and names “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women” as those who came to the tomb (Luke 24:1, 24:10). John wrote that “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (John 20:1).

Was there one angel at the tomb, as described in Matthew 28:2–7 and Mark 16:5–7, or two angels, as stated in Luke 24:4–7 and John 20:12? This minor difficulty is easily explained. There were two angels. Neither Matthew nor Mark claims that only one angel was at the tomb. The complete number does not appear in their accounts. It is not a problem that Mark and Luke call the angels “men,” since angels frequently appeared in the form of men and were identified as such elsewhere (Genesis 18:1–2; Daniel 9:21).

(These were like 20 second Google searches; I doubt you really want answers.)

Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”
Luke 23:43, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
John 19:26-27, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”
Matt. 27:46, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
John 19:28, “I am thirsty.”
John 19:30, “It is finished!”
Luke 23:46, “Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.”
>>
>>687366
>But I'm sure you've never broken any of the 613 commandments, and are like God, yes?
Kek. Do you want to count yourself how many god breaks and how often, or should someone else do it for you?
>>
>>687358
>>Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after "week" as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene..." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene..."

Literally no difference. He rose Sunday morning, and appeared to Mary the same day.

Three days.
Three nights.
Belly of the beast, the sign of Jonah.

Thursday crucifixion to Sunday morning is three days and three nights, Jewish style.
>>
File: 1377632712200.jpg (172 KB, 644x698) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1377632712200.jpg
172 KB, 644x698
>>687374
>The Gospels refer to different times and name different women who arrived at the tomb. Matthew states that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” came to the tomb as it “began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Mark adds Salome to the group and claims that they came “very early in the morning” (Mark 16:1–2). Luke agrees that it was “very early in the morning” and names “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women” as those who came to the tomb (Luke 24:1, 24:10). John wrote that “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (John 20:1).

I like it when fundamentalists show the whole world how silly they are. You just gave multiple conflicting accounts and claimed they were the same.

>
Was there one angel at the tomb, as described in Matthew 28:2–7 and Mark 16:5–7, or two angels, as stated in Luke 24:4–7 and John 20:12? This minor difficulty is easily explained. There were two angels. Neither Matthew nor Mark claims that only one angel was at the tomb. The complete number does not appear in their accounts. It is not a problem that Mark and Luke call the angels “men,” since angels frequently appeared in the form of men and were identified as such elsewhere (Genesis 18:1–2; Daniel 9:21).

How can you even begin to accept that as a solid answer everyone in the thread, non-religious, religious, reasonable Christian can see you this is terrible.

What did Jesus say as his last words? What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)? What time did the crucifixtion happen? Who went to Jesus' tomb? Who did they find when they got there? What were they told to do at the tomb?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015
>>
>>687362
Or your rendition and understanding of them are, as only Mark uses words like "immediately", and even he didn't use it here.

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.

Matthew 27
50 And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

John 19
So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.

And as usual, WHEN YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHEN THINGS HAPPENED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, you refer to Luke, who wrote in chronological order:

Luke 23
And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’”Having said this, He breathed His last.

Luke 23:34, “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”
Luke 23:43, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
John 19:26-27, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He *said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”
Matt. 27:46, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”
John 19:28, “I am thirsty.”
John 19:30, “It is finished!”
Luke 23:46, “Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT.”
>>
>>687368
Not at all. The bible is 66 books.

Any canon that leaves one out, or adds one, is false.

Since there would only ever be one virgin birth, Isaiah’s prophecy had to be given in a broad enough context to accommodate a partial fulfillment, and that’s why he used almah instead of bethulah. Isaiah’s wife was actually the one who provided the partial fulfillment. (Isaiah 8:3) How do we know? The Lord referred to the son she bore as Immanuel (Isaiah 8:8) even though He told her to also give him the ceremonial name of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
>>
>>687421

You are quite clearly incapable of reading or understanding English, let alone other languages. Good afternoon.
>>
>>687373
Talk about getting a place to have it.

They never had it.

Last Supper
Garden of Gethsemene
Arrest
Phony trials
Crucifixion
Resurrection
>>
>>687389
Why bother? The answer is Zero. How long does it take you to count to zero?

I like that you're prepared to break one of the big 10 Commandments in order to bear false witness against God.

Maybe that will quicken your conscience.
>>
File: Jeebus.jpg (51 KB, 331x448) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Jeebus.jpg
51 KB, 331x448
>>687421
>Matt. 27:46, “ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” that is, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?”

Said God.
>>
>>687408
They aren't conflicting at all.

If there are two angels there, there is also one angel there. If there is one Mary in the group, there can also be another Mary in the group.

I answered all of your questions above, so, yeah. Pretty done with you.
>>
>>687441
>ripping babies out of mothers' wombs doesn't count as murder
k

my count is roughly in the thousands
>>
>>687434
Concession accepted.
>>
>>687446
>they have to say specifically "there is one and only one angel" in order for it to be a contradiction
Be sure to remember this when you try to serve two sandwitches to someone who asked for one.
>>
File: GoddessSophiaWisdom.jpg (433 KB, 1029x1264) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
GoddessSophiaWisdom.jpg
433 KB, 1029x1264
>>687446
>They aren't conflicting at all.
>If there are two angels there, there is also one angel there. If there is one Mary in the group, there can also be another Mary in the group.
>I answered all of your questions above, so, yeah. Pretty done with you.

Apart from not coming up with one single decent answer.

What did Jesus say as his last words? What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)? What time did the crucifixtion happen? Who went to Jesus' tomb? Who did they find when they got there? What were they told to do at the tomb?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015
>>
>>687442
Yes.

Jesus became sin, so that we might live. When Jesus became sin, the Spirit fled, and the Father turned His back.

God is a triune supernatural entity; three persons have been manifested to us by the One God.

Jesus being cut off from the trinity was worse than any physical torture He went through, for you.
>>
>>687447
It's Zero. God doesn't sin. The commandment against Murder is not violated when God judges people to death.

God is going to judge you to death if you're not careful.

God kills millions, and murders no one.

And all dead children He takes for Himself, to live in heaven forever with Him. They're better off than you are.
>>
>>687454
Yes, that's very much the same. Someone telling what they choose to include from a story is the same as ordering sammiches.

That's the level of discourse on this board?
>>
>>687455
Answered already. Maybe read the thread.
>>
>>687459
>Jesus became sin, so that we might live. When Jesus became sin, the Spirit fled, and the Father turned His back.
>God is a triune supernatural entity; three persons have been manifested to us by the One God.
>Jesus being cut off from the trinity was worse than any physical torture He went through, for you.

God became sin, so that we might live. When God became sin, God fled, and God turned God's back?

God is a triune supernatural entity; three Gods have been manifested to us by the One God?

God being cut off from the God was worse than any physical torture He went through, for you?
>>
What is the significance of Marks' Gospel ending at the empty tomb?

I have heard people argue that Mark is actually an exact but incomplete copy of another text but this doesn't sit right for some reason
>>
>>687482
Yes. Since you obviously have no comprehension of the trinity, the least you can do is have an apprehension for the trinity.
>>
>>687488
Mark wrote about Jesus as the Ox, the Suffering Servant.

It has no genealogy.

Nobody cares about where a servant comes from, or where he goes.

And Mark, John Mark, is writing from Peter's eyewitness account. Peter met with the risen Christ Jesus on several occasions, and is not trying to say Jesus did not rise from the grave.

Matthew: Lion of the Tribe of Judah.
Mark: Ox, the Suffering Servant.
Luke: Son of Man.
John: Eagle, the Son of God.

These are four of the faces of Jesus.
>>
File: Aishwarya Rai.jpg (74 KB, 520x589) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
Aishwarya Rai.jpg
74 KB, 520x589
>>687472

Not. Even. Close.

You have said something along the lines of....

>I'm going to ignore the Passover issue

>I'm going to ignore the time issue and claim one Gospel is right and ignore the point this makes the other Gospels wrong.

>I'm going to pretend Jesus said multiple different things just before he died

>Mary went multiple times at the same time with multiple different people at the same time to the same tomb at the same time and kept finding different people there at the same time who told them different things at the same time and one time the rock was not there and one time the rock got blown away by an angel and people are just angels and I'm going to ignore the guards altogether.

>I'm going to ignore the fact they got told multiple different things.

I understand your frustration at not being able to come close to a decent answer that doesn't just accept there MUST be contradictions and errors in the Gospel, because there isn't one. And we've only even started examining a couple of events.

What did Jesus say as his last words? What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)? What time did the crucifixtion happen? Who went to Jesus' tomb? Who did they find when they got there? What were they told to do at the tomb?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015

More dreadful answers that everyone can see are bad answers on the way I expect!
>>
>>687492

No one has comprehension of the Trinity. It is a Holy Mystery. I understand the Trintity (as well as it can understood) fine.

Jesus is God, not a part of God, Jesus IS God.

The Father is God, not a part of God, The Father IS God.

The Holy Spirit is God, not a part of God, The Holy Spirit IS God.

All three are separate. All three are God, fully God. ONE GOD.

Every decent theologian handwaves this away with an acceptance you can't understand God. So if you are claiming to 'comprehend' it then you are way, way, way out of your depth.
>>
>>685546
look man as the others point out, you watched Zeitgeist, he was proven completely wrong :l
>>
>>687525
>What did Jesus say as his last words?
Seven things already noted three times above.

>What day did the crucifixtion happen (before or after Passover)?
On Passover.

>What time did the crucifixtion happen?
9 am to 3 pm

>Who went to Jesus' tomb?
Mary Magdalene, Peter, John, Mary the mother, Mary the mother of James, some other women.

>Who did they find when they got there?
Mary Magdalene found Jesus, the group of women found angels, and Peter and John found nobody.

>What were they told to do at the tomb?
The women were told to tell the others He was alive. Peter and John were told nothing.

You were right.

You really are an asshole.
>>
You know, I never thought I'd be saying this, but Constantine appears literate, reasonable, and intellectually honest next to our new Proddie Christposter.
>>
>>687552

You're in the same position spiritually as he is; you share the same spiritual father.
>>
>>687548
>On Passover.

That's not the agreement among the Gospels.

Have you even read them like I asked? Have you EVER read them or did you just declare they were infallable and believe that and try and Google your way out it when someone challenged you?

>Mary Magdalene, Peter, John, Mary the mother, Mary the mother of James, some other women.

>Mary Magdalene found Jesus, the group of women found angels, and Peter and John found nobody.

If you can't even grasp you are being incoherent I don't know what to say.
>>
This whole fucking thread is proof that religion usually hinders the development of man, and is a complete waste of time in our time and era.

You both have spent god knows (pun unintended) how much time arguing each other over definitions and differences in translations of a book that has no merit other than teaching a set of values to the unwashed masses before the modern era.

Can we please progress and start discussing shit that actually drives humanity forward?

Signed: somebody who has been educated about the Cathecism of the Catholic church for a fairly long time and thus doesn't deny that you both raise interesting points and hasn't said that what you both babble are lies/conspiracies/satanic ideas but rather just something not really worth discussing in 2015+1.

Excuse the ESL grammar.
>>
>>687583
Of course it is. But see, you're the special person who can go along not knowing that there was not only a Passover that week, but a Feast of Unleavened Bread. And a preparation day for both.

I have read them, and unlike you, actually understood them.

You can't even understand my answers. It's ponderous. Even after being told different groups of people went to the tomb at different times, and found different things, you're still lost.

Very, very lost.
>>
>>687592
>Cathecism of the Catholic church

Satan wants us to stop talking about Jesus. How unusual.
>>
>>687605

>Matthew states that “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” came to the tomb as it “began to dawn” (Matthew 28:1). Mark adds Salome to the group and claims that they came “very early in the morning” (Mark 16:1–2). Luke agrees that it was “very early in the morning” and names “Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women” as those who came to the tomb (Luke 24:1, 24:10). John wrote that “Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark” (John 20:1).

Unless you are tripping on acid this is not different times.

And why the different instructions about what to do and where Jesus is? Questions you have not even begun to answer yet.

Nor is claiming there were two Passovers a remotely sensible answer.
>>
>>687608

I understand that as a protestant, the Catholic church may seem like it's controlled by the devil: but that isn't to to say that all they say and do is wrong. The cathecism probably is correct in a couple of places.
>>
>>687621

1. Mary Magdalene first by herself.
2. Peter and John run there by themselves.
3. Mary Magdalene and the other Marys next, because nobody really believed Madgalene.

Super not complicated.

What are you?
>>
>>687621
>Nor is claiming there were two Passovers a remotely sensible answer.

The Feast of the Unleaven Bread begins the next night after the Passover and celebrates Israel being delivered from bondage in Egypt. Lev. 23:6
>>
>>687623
True.

By appealing to his understanding of their catechism, he reveals himself to be a catholic, and not a christian.

I am without any reservation saying that Roman Catholicism is Mystery Babylon, and that the pope thereof is the False Prophet.
>>
>>687621
>Nor is claiming there were two Passovers a remotely sensible answer.

The Passover and Unleavened Bread
4 ‘These are the feasts of the Lord, holy convocations which you shall proclaim at their appointed times. 5 On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover. 6 And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the Feast of Unleavened Bread to the Lord; seven days you must eat unleavened bread.

(Since you won't look up the bible verses that demonstrate your own foolishness.)
>>
>>683355
The Christians used the old testament as a means of showing their legitimacy through venerable age to Roman magistrates.
>>
>>687659

> On the fourteenth day of the first month at twilight is the Lord’s Passover

So the difference is about 5 minutes. The meal in which the Passover is eaten is the Feast of Unleavened bread, which you'd realize given that the Gospels themselves conflate the two.

Luke 22:7

>Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
>>
>>687332
Ah yes, the word I was looking for
>>
>>687659
Foolishness is to discuss this.
Why is this even a thing.

I'm sure humanity needs people like you to start thinking about AI, or ethics of colonizing other planets in case there are aliens, or maybe just trying to understand how Kant may react to modern problems like obesity, abortion, etc.

We've come a long way from Picco who argued that human dignity stems from our species' ability to manipulate god's work and have free will unlike animals, so maybe start progressing please.
>>
>>687671
Two festivals.
Two days.
Jew days start the night before.
>>
>>687676
AI? The Abomination that brings desolation? The statue of the Antichrist erected in the Holy of Holies, that can move, talk, think, and act? Who forces all humans to take the mark of the beast, and has the power of life and death over them?

Gee, what's that?

If there were only something written by bronze age sheep herders to warn us about such an abomination.
>>
>>687592
>2015+1
What happens to you, idiot?
>>
>>687636

>1. Mary Magdalene first by herself.

>3. Mary Magdalene and the other Marys next, because nobody really believed Madgalene.

This is obviously evidenced as wrong because when Mary Magdelene went with the other Mary, according to the Gospel of Matthew was when the stone was rolled away by an angel.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28

So having completely proven your timeline irrefutably to be incorrect let's look at another issue and you having failed to provide a decent answer for anything else let's have a look at another issue.

The genealogy of Jesus in Gospels that are without error.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A23-38&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1
>>
>>687680

At full dark, actually. So twilight of the 14th is a few minutes before the start of the 15th.

Thus, the sequence goes

>Lord's Passover
>Kill the lamb
>Roast it
>Take it home
>Eat it
>By now night has fully fallen, and it's the feast of unleavened bread.

Not complicated.
>>
>>687691
Stone was rolled away prior to the first visit by Magdalene.

"Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene *came early to the tomb, while it *was still dark, and *saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.

You're a fucking idiot. Pardon my french. A fucking idiot.
>>
>>687693
Thursday
Friday

Not complicated.
>>
>>687687
A post scarcity society is the best thing that could ever happen to humanity.

You should stop devoting all these resources to some ethereal god and start using them for humanity's sake.

We are our own gods.
>>
>>687706
>We are our own gods.

When you face Him, remember that you are just like Him. Cast your charges against Him freely, and wave your mighty fist against the Almighty.
>>
>>687703

Those are modern solar days, not what the contemporary people would have been using. Remember your big wall o text about how days start at night in the Jewish calendar? Ergo, there is one festival being celebrated, which is why the Gospels themselves record it as such.
>>
>>687727
Two.

Which is why they had to remind Pilate that the next day was also a holy day, due to the fact that the second Thursday was on the 14th.
>>
File: 1416764749484.jpg (98 KB, 843x843) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1416764749484.jpg
98 KB, 843x843
>>687698
>Stone was rolled away prior to the first visit by Magdalene.

The source I just gave you, if you are using the Gospels, proves you irrefutably incorrect.

Are you even bothering to read what is given to you? Y'know, the things you should have read before you proclaimed them infallible on the Internet?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28

So far you have been completely proven wrong about your timeline of visitations to Jesus' tomb and what happened. You have failed to provide a good answer for anything else and ignored most of the discrepancies.

Now you are just repeating yourself, even when proven wrong, as an attempt to ignore....

>The genealogy of Jesus in Gospels that are without error.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A23-38&version=ESV
>>
>>687735

So then, you're saying the Luke made a mistake, since he equates the Passover killing with the feast of unleavened bread.

I thought the Gospels were perfect?
>>
>>687716

If the almighty is so merciful why are we all going to be judged anyway.

There's no way to opt out from his shit (assuming his shit exists): either you join him now or you endure purgatory and maybe hell (or if you are specially lucky to be here in the apocalypse: the same but enjoy torture too, lol).

He "gave" you free will but you're still going to perish if you don't side with him in death: lol thanks, it's like the Chinese cultural revolution all over again.

What if I just don't want to be part of his perverse sadist shit show.
>>
>>687747
John 20:1 [ The Empty Tomb ] Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Absolute idiot.
>>
>>687747
>>The genealogy of Jesus in Gospels that are without error.

Maybe your family tree has no branches, but Jesus' does.

One is Mary's, and one is Joseph's.

A normal person could tell they were of two different people, as someone cannot be from both Solomon and Nathan, Solomon's brother.

WHAT ARE YOU?
>>
>>687749
Nope.
>>
>>687751
Because there is one unforgivable sin.

That sin is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

That sin is Unbelief.

That sin is not paid for. You pay for your unbelief with your life. Since you are an immortal being, who will live for an eternity, that death is an everlasting and ongoing torment in a lake of fire.

For Unbelief.

aka Rebellion.
>>
>>687860

Solomon's father was David, not Nathan. And both Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 talk about Joseph, although they give different fathers for Joseph, it seems quite reasonable to conclude that they are in fact divergent rather than giving each side of his family tree.

A normal person would conclude that they're in fact divergent.
>>
>>687862

Yes.

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/22-7.htm

It's right in the original Greek.
>>
>>687866
your god's mercy is amazing
>>
File: 1384630539396.jpg (639 KB, 2560x1704) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1384630539396.jpg
639 KB, 2560x1704
>>687856
>John 20:1 [ The Empty Tomb ] Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene went to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.

Are you forgetting that you are trying to prove ALL the Gospels are accurate? All you have just done is prove there are discepancies, entirely proving my point all along.

Jeez.

>>687860

>Maybe your family tree has no branches, but Jesus' does.

I'm not making contradictory claims about my genealogy and then proudly procliming both contradictory claims are entirely true and divinely inspired.
>>
>>687867

David

Solomon Nathan


Both Solomon and Nathan are in those two genealogies, of two different people, Mary and Joseph.

satan's child said that there must be a mistake, as the genealogies are different.

Most people's parents' genealogies are different. Outside of West Virginia and Hawaii, of course.
>>
>>687866
also, care to provide a source for that? (unless you are some crazy Protestant that just made that shit up after some quick reading of the babble)
>>
>>687891
Offering to adopt rebels who hate Him is indeed merciful.

Paying the death sentence for all of those rebels is indeed merciful.

If a man neglects such a great salvation, what hope does he have?

God would be holy, just and righteous to have condemned all humanity to hell.
>>
>>687892

They are all accurate. As are both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph. Both descend from David, and but for the curse of Jeconiah, Joseph would be entitled to sit on the throne of David.

Are you that autistic Esau loving idiot?
>>
>>687895

>Both Solomon and Nathan are in those two genealogies, of two different people, Mary and Joseph.

Except neither genealogy mentions Mary at all; the closest you get is Matthew mentioning that Joseph was Mary's husband. It is only with the liberal application of pretzel logic that you can claim one of them was about Mary rather than admitting that they're completely different.
>>
>>687898
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.

Mark 3
The Unpardonable Sin
28 “Assuredly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation”— because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

2 Corinthians 6:14 [Full Chapter]
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
When are you going to understand that Christians are Christians, and catholics are not?
>>
>>687921
Joseph descended from Solomon.

Mary descended from Nathan.
>>
>>687909

ok so still everyone has to get his approval when we die: he's an egotistical cuck
>>
>>683355
How exactly is Orthodox and Anglican/Catholic interpretation different?
>>
>>687921
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA
>>
>>687930

Let's see what Luke has to say about that, shall we?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A23-38&version=ESV

Nathan-Mattatha-Menna-Melea-Eliakim-Jonam-Joseph-Judah-Simeon-Levi-Matthat-Jorim-Eliezer-Joshua-Er-Elmadam-Cosam-Addi-Melchi-Neri-Shealtiel-Zerubbabel-Rhesa-Joanan-Joda-Josech-Semein-Matthias-Maath-Naggai-Esli-Nahum-Amos-Matthias-Joseph-Jannai-Melchi-Levi-Matthat-Heli-Joseph-Jesus.


I don't see Mary anywhere in there, do you?
>>
>>687932
He gives people His Holy Spirit to live in them, and resurrect them for eternity.

To get into heaven, you must be a living being.

Right now, you are dead and don't know it.
>>
>>687928
If anything, from an historical perspective, Catholics are the original Christians you cuck. Who is Peter.

But well, alright, I see these verses and now I can understand how a protestant draws a conclusion like yours... I'm still interesred in seeing what the cathecism says about "being a rebel to god".

You are still acting kind of backwards: it's 2016 and we don't need religions now.
>>
>>687947
Heli is Mary's father.

The line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph--here His real, there His reputed line--explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Heli,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables.

Here's my word of the day for you.

Useless

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.
>>
>>687949
how am I dead?

Even metaphorically.

Am I dead because I don't acknowledge god as the best thing ever?
>>
File: 1429028051544.jpg (56 KB, 365x451) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1429028051544.jpg
56 KB, 365x451
>>687918
>They are all accurate. As are both the genealogies of Mary and Joseph. Both descend from David, and but for the curse of Jeconiah, Joseph would be entitled to sit on the throne of David.

I can't stop laughing. Everyone can see, every single lurker in this thread can see,that they are entirely contradictory.

So far we have established, to recap, in the Gospels...

1. The people that went to tomb and at what time and what they saw contradict each other.
2. The claims about what Jesus' said as his last words were contradict each other.
3. That the geneaology of Jesus' given in the Gospels is contradictory.

Every single honest lurker in the thread can see that all of that is true.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A23-38&version=ESV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2023

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27&version=NIV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2015

I'm loathe to move on to other ways in which the Gospels prove each other to have factual inaccuracies until you have hanged yourself with your own rope, but we will do that in time.
>>
>>687952
Peter is one of the apostles, and one of the layers of the foundation of the New Jerusalem, and sits with the elders. He is one of twelve. Those twelve, along with all of the prophets, are the foundation for the real and actual invisible church, the body, of which Jesus is the head.

The catholic lie involves a deliberate obfuscation of the differences between Petros, a man's name, a masculine Greek word, and petra, a feminine Greek word that does not stand for Petros. It stands for "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" which Petros had just uttered.

Jesus did not say "I name you Peter, and upon you, Peter, will I build my church" no matter how badly the papists want you to believe that. In fact, by using deliberate and opposite words, petra could be anything in the world except Petros.
>>
>>687944

He misquotes the "Laws of Numbers", tribe and household are not the same, and after the Lost tribes bit, everyone's in the same tribe anyway. Furthermore, the entire reason there is a problem in Numbers 36 is because in the event of no sons, the daughters are heirs, not the son-in-law, the problem occurs with the children of that couple, whose tribal affiliation might not be with the mother's tribe.


Furthermore, both the Levirate marriage theory or the "It's really Mary's line" theory involves making assumptions about the inclusion of facts that nobody mentioned at all in the gospels themselves, and the levirate marriage theory requires multiple rounds of levirate marraige before you can reconcile the bloodlines.

I mean sure, it's supposedly possible, but it's also possible that the entire meaning of Greek words changed when nobody realized it, and that Heli and Jacob are actually the same name just transcribed differently, and if I squeeze my eyes shut tight enough, I can ignore all evidence to the contrary or assert its invalidity. You need to show plausibility, not just possibility.
>>
>>687970

Do you have the Breath of God, the Ruach Elohim, in you? No? Then you are as dead as Adam and Eve the minute after they sinned and at the forbidden fruit.
>>
>>687974
They are not contradictory, you complete moron.

They are two separate genealogies.

One is Mary.

One is Joseph.

Jesus is heir to the throne of David through both His mother and His step-father.

You are that Esau worshiping moron, aren't you. I shudder to think two people could be this autistic.
>>
>>687983
Ok so according to you, the Catholic church twisted the meaning of Peter.

But he's still one of the apostles and along with Paul, a pretty big deal.

Catholics were the first Christians, and protestants aren't actually trying to go back to "the root" of christ: they are just humanists.

it's 2016 and we don't need religion anymore. Hell isn't real and I only kinda think some god may be probable to have existed sometime due to Aquinas' quinque viae.
>>
>>687966

>Heli is Mary's father.

And yet it doesn't say that in Luke. Ooops.

>(as in Ru 1:11, 12)

And why is Ruth disposative and not say, Exodus 18:5? After all, the former is merely what Naomi said to her daughters in law, wheras the latter is an objective description of the relationship between Moses and Jethro.

>in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables.

So then why give Mary's line at all?

>But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless.

Yes, I can see why. After all, if you start by teaching people to reject logical thought, debates would be useless.
>>
>>688017
Christians 32 AD

Catholics 325 AD

Which is first again?
>>
>>688009
Even tho I am not following your church indeed I do have the breath of god: The Trinity etc: Under your faith Jesus lives within me too.
>>
>>687995
Now compare the 2 genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and you’ll discover an interesting bit of information. Matthew’s account shows that Joseph descended through Solomon, the royal but cursed line, and his father is listed as Jacob. But in Luke 3:23 Joseph’s father is called Heli, and the line is different all the way to Solomon’s brother Nathan before joining Matthew’s account at King David. It turns out that Heli was Mary’s father and therefore Joseph’s father in law. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David.

Here’s the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family’s land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel’s king, but Joseph could secure both Mary’s right of inheritance to her family’s land, and her son’s claim to David’s throne.
>>
>>688020
Now compare the 2 genealogies of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38, and you’ll discover an interesting bit of information. Matthew’s account shows that Joseph descended through Solomon, the royal but cursed line, and his father is listed as Jacob. But in Luke 3:23 Joseph’s father is called Heli, and the line is different all the way to Solomon’s brother Nathan before joining Matthew’s account at King David. It turns out that Heli was Mary’s father and therefore Joseph’s father in law. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David.

Here’s the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family’s land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel’s king, but Joseph could secure both Mary’s right of inheritance to her family’s land, and her son’s claim to David’s throne.

(since you only read things with (you) connected to them. Did I mention God hated Esau?)
>>
>>688022
which group became which

of course there wasn't a Pope and shit in the early times of that religion: that doesn't mean my assertion is false.
>>
>>688028
He does if you can say out loud that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead. If you can do that, then indeed the Holy Spirit lives in you.

If not, then not.
>>
>>688036

Which was first again?
Were there christians who escaped being murdered by catholics?
Have there always been christians who have not bent the knee to Rome?

No, this "Catholics are really Christians, and protestants are lost" meme needs to die.
>>
>>688022
What an incredibly stupid statement, There were no Christian sects resembling Protestantism during Roman times. All the Christian communities had bishops, and the debates were between themselves and other bishops
>>
>>688037
Lol now you are making shit up

It's true that some of the gifts the holy spirit gives include being able to shout shit about Jesus in all languages.

But to say outright that not all humans have the breath of god is in direct contradiction with the religion itself you zealot.
>>
>>688046

32 AD to 325 AD

Not in Rome

See, Rome is Babylon. So says Peter. And Babylon is of satan. So says God.
>>
>>688045
Catholics are Christians
Protestants are also Christians

Catholics are some of the first Christians
There were also some Christians who didn't become Catholic, granted

That meme is wrong

It's just that in my personal opinion, if I did believe in all this horseshit and wanted to give away my complete free will to become a man of god I'd be a Catholic jesuit rather than a lutheran.
>>
>>688015
>They are not contradictory, you complete moron.
>One is Mary.
>One is Joseph.

I love the level of Poe's Law this sort of topic invokes. Both genealogies clearly stem from Jospeh no matter how many times you pretend they don't and burst into tears about it.

>Elihud the father of Eleazar,
>Eleazar the father of Matthan,
>Matthan the father of Jacob and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1

>23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, etc etc etc

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+3%3A23-38&version=ESV

That isn't even before we point out that "howdafuq" is Jesus bloodline from Joseph relevant to prophecy given that he was supposed to actually be born from a virgin birth.
>>
>>688057
I didn't even mention Rome, go to Greece or Egypt or Jerusalem. The beliefs may have been slightly different but they all Christian communities had the same basic structure with a bishop at the head
>>
>>688049
Romans 10
...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.”

The Breath of God is the Holy Spirit of God.

Not every human has the Holy Spirit of God in them.

Only born again new creations in Christ Jesus have the Holy Spirit in them.

This is like Christianity 101. He who has the Spirit, has life. He who has not the Spirit, has not life.
>>
>>688031
>>688033


>Here’s the tricky part. Mary had no brothers, and so was entitled to inherit her family’s land as long as she married someone also descended from David. Joseph fit the bill and being in the royal line had a claim to the throne, but carried the blood curse. No biological son of his could ever legally qualify as Israel’s king, but Joseph could secure both Mary’s right of inheritance to her family’s land, and her son’s claim to David’s throne.

Actually, she would be entitled to inherit her family's land, such that it was (remember, Hebrews divide their inheritances among the surviving children, and there's no mention that going all the way back up to Nathan were all only children), if she married anyone from Judah. Which is pretty much everyone at that point. There's no need to stick within the Davidic line. So yeah, you're spewing nonsense. There's also the little part about Luke's geneology never saying Mary once.

You are literally inventing facts to make sure that your biblical interpretation is "correct". Anyone can do that to validate any biblical reading. Hand me any religion you want, and if I'm allowed to make up shit, I can "prove" that the Gospels justify it.
>>
>>688062
>Catholic jesuit

Literally the most evil people on the planet, as in planned and executed the Holocaust evil. Wrote Mein Kampf evil. Pure, unadulterated evil.
>>
>>688068
Heli is Mary's father, and therefore Joseph's father in law.

Jesus hates Esau.
>>
>>688076
like the real socialistesque Christians you mean

Also, Pope Francis
>>
>>688068
>"howdafuq" is Jesus bloodline from Joseph relevant t

As Jesus' adoptive father, and with a claim to the throne, Joseph being of David's line is very important. Moreover, due to Joseph not being the biological father of Jesus, Jesus is not cursed by the line of Jeconiah.

Jesus hates Esau is JHE

JHE
>>
>>688070
Any Nicolaitan structure of "experts" over laity is detested by Jesus.
>>
>>688073
>Luke's geneology never saying Mary once.

Heli is Mary's father.

Mary's father had Mary.
>>
>>688078
>Heli is Mary's fathe

Now I am genuinely interested.

How you got a good citation for THAT? I would be fascinated, honestly, in a good kind of way.
>>
>>688072
You aren't replying to my point: I wasn't talking about being saved or not, I was talking about "heathens" like me having part of god living inside.

Even serial killers are creatures of god you know?

You are making shit up, also cut the ye olde biblical phrases for he who talks like that commits grave annoyance unto his senpai.
>>
>>688086
Then there is no connection between Jesus and early Christians.
>>
>>688090
According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Chag. 77,4), Heli was actually Mary’s father making him Joseph’s father-in-law. The reason the two genealogies are different is that Joseph was descended from Solomon while Mary was a descendant of Solomon’s older brother Nathan.
>>
>>688091
>Even serial killers are creatures of god you know?

One is, that I know of. The Son of Sam. He was saved in prison.

Shed your notion that we are all children of God. Most people are children of satan.
>>
>>688094

I'll take "What is the Holy Spirit" for $800, Alex!

I'll take "What are the Scriptures" for $1,000 Alex!
>>
>>688112

It's exactly the notion of Christianity:
we're all children of god: the devil just makes you wander off his path.

You may be a child of god while walking a different path, granted, that makes you a shit child.

What drugs are you on, Anon, I want some

And I'm not even fucking Christian wtf
>>
>>688108

Oh c'mon mate.

We were talking about the Gospels and now you want to invoke a book that says Jesus' mother got fucked by a Roman soldier.

Don't you think that is a tad 'not Gospel compliant'.
>>
>>688116
All early Christian communities were under a bishop, only offshoots like the gnostics were not, and they were reading a bunch of weird books not in scripture.

These things are historical facts, there were no small sect of Christians rejecting the authority of bishops and adhering to strict interpretation of the scriptures. That is a fantasy.
>>
>>688123
No it is not.

Adam and Eve had the Holy Spirit in them, they sinned, and died. Their children were born dead. Like you. Their children were made in their fallen and broken image, not in the image of God.

In order to be saved, you have to be born again; once of water (natural, flesh) and once in the Spirit (spirit). This is what Jesus told Nicodemus.

You are on the broad road that leads to destruction, because you are not on the narrow path that leads to life, which is Christ Jesus Himself. His Spirit.

Because you are not a Christian, and do not know how to become a Christian, no, you do not know more about Christianity than Christians do.
>>
>>688124
It says a lot of things. It says Mary's father's name was Heli. You asked for a source, I gave you a source.

Ingrate.

Besides the bible also records Jews taunting Jesus about His parentage. He suffered it in silence.

He is their God, and they mocked and taunted Him.

Think about that, because that is what you are doing too.
>>
>>688089

>Heli is Mary's father.

Luke doesn't say that. Luke says he's Joseph's father. The implication that Heli is Mary's father comes out of a need to claim that the Gospels have no mistakes, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary.

>>688108

>According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Chag. 77,4)

Fake. The Talmud doesn't use a chapter, verse format, and I'm not even sure what "Chag." is supposed to refer to. Page 77, 4th side? Make a real citation.
>>
>>688145
Joseph's father in law is Joseph's father.

You're going over Niagra Falls, and you're straining at a gnat.

Maybe learn to read the talmud. No, wait, don't.

JHE
>>
>>688132

I. I was a Christian and my parents, school, community and myself gave me the best formation in Christianity

II. I do know what to do if I *wanted* to limit myself to the dumb path of Christianity

III. Presence of god != original sin you stupid cuck: what you describe about Adam and Eve is the original sin

IV. You are still talking about salvation and shit: I know that I may not be saved if oh shit your god turns to be real. But under your religion I still have god living in me.

V. What you say about being saved while rather poetic, is right. You do have to be baptized, etc. And there a couple of corner cases the Catholic church in particular covers like dead babies and people who were converted just before dying.

You are still a retrograde dumbshit that doesn't belong in this century.

I'm sure even most crazy atheists know Christianity better than crazy American rednecks
>>
>>688160

>Joseph's father in law is Joseph's father.

Exodus 18:5. Jethro is Moses's father in law, not his father.

>Maybe learn to read the talmud. No, wait, don't.

I don't see a valid citation. Come up with one you retard. "Chag 77.4" doesn't exist. And are you seriously implying you can read the Talmud? Can you even articulate the differences between Babylonian Talmudian Aramaic and Jerusalem Talmud Aramaic?
>>
>>688138
>It says a lot of things. It says Mary's father's name was Heli. You asked for a source, I gave you a source.

Like Jesus is in Hell and Jesus' mother got fucked by a Roman soldier. Great way to 'prove' the geneaology of the Gospels m8.

>Think about that, because that is what you are doing too.

Hey dude. The one unforgivable sin in the Bibble is to mock the Holy Spirit.

Do you know what I think of the Holy Spirit? It is a laughable, silly concept made up by people that thought magic and demons are real. It is a joke, a massive, silly joke that everyone should laugh at. The Holy Spirit is less real than a magic Irish Leprachaun frolicking among the the blue daffodils made of purple bananas.
>>
>>688166

How did you become a Christian?
>>
>>688175
Both my father and my father in law are my father, if I'm Hebrew back in the day.
>>
>>688175
Google it. It's in the Jerusalem talmud, obviously.

So obviously that to wonder is to admit complete and utter ignorance of anything written by anyone ever.

JHE
>>
>>688188
I was born into a Christian family and society, sent to a Christian school.

I initially loved that shit and were even one of those acoholites (no I wasn't raped by the clergy).

Then around my teens I started to learn about shit outside my Christian echo chamber and I, myself, decided that Christianity is stupid and that the whole thing is cucked up.

So yeah maybe I didn't become a Christian as I've never converted into Christianity: But I did manage to receive a good amount of sacraments the Catholic church gives.

Why does it even fucking matter? It's not like I don't understand the shit: I do, and better than most.

And thus I know the thing is pretty damn retarded.
>>
>>688192

>Both my father and my father in law are my father, if I'm Hebrew back in the day.

Which is why חֹתֵן and בֵּן are the same words, and are used interchangeably in the Hebrew portion of the Bible.

Oh wait, they're not, nevermind.

>>688197

>Google it. It's in the Jerusalem talmud, obviously.

I have. And you know what? I don't see a page. I see people "citing" to a page, but no page itself.

Furthermore, the citation wouldn't fit in with the general structure of the Gemara, since it would be tractate-book-page-side, with the possibility of leaving out the tractate since it will be implied by the book.

I see what I assume is an abbreviation of a book that is unclear as to what book it's referring to, a page, and then a 4, which means nothing.

Please stop being a memeing retard. Or if you can't, stop posting.
>>
>>686495
Well I never in my whole orthodox life considered old testament to not be true, nor the church thought me this - it is considered to be written under the influence of the Holy Spirit which prophesied about Messiah and the same Holy Spirit spoke trough Apostles so never seen a problem... texts felt fluid to each other.

Holy fuck there is even a mointain of tradition that we kept about the events and lives of different people from the old testament - there are many interpretations and it's quoted every time... where did this idea of ignoring or rejecting the old testament came from?
>>
>>688227
I hope you understand that it is part of my faith to test people who say they are my brother, and are not.

The "sacraments" you got from the Catholics are useless.

You have nothing.

It's time to ask Jesus for His grace and mercy, and save yourself from what you know you deserve.
>>
>>688234
Happy Thanksgiving, Father In Law! How are you doing, my Father In Law? Good, I hope, my Father in Law?

kek

>Waaah, I can't google stuff.

JHE
>>
>>688257

I understand.

I said I used to be Christian
Your test is not really well made

Catholics are Christian ffs

I don't give a shit about your god
I am my only god
>>
>>688275
It is, actually. The means by which you thought you were a christian were bogus.

Becoming a christian is a permanent transformation. No one can say they used to be a Christian.

It's like a caterpillar saying it used to be a butterfly.

Catholics are only members of the Catholic church, the most evil organization on earth. Nothing more.
>>
>>688265

At this point you've devolved into total incoherence. You have different words in Hebrew for "Father" and "Father in law", I've cited to you verses in which they're used.


"Chag" does not exist as a book in the Jerusalem Talmud. It is made up by people like you to try to invent authority that doesn't exist. Even if it did exist, the "citation" of 77,4 is meaningless.
>>
>>688281
Ok fine, you invented your own definition of Christian.

Ok so say you stop believing in god in the future, you never were a Christian in the first place?

Nice, no true scotsman. Damn you.
>>
File: 1390928881063.png (352 KB, 1000x466) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1390928881063.png
352 KB, 1000x466
>>688250

So which is it? True or false?

Before you get on your high horse and say something along the lines of "fedoras don't understand muh allegories" or "because it isn't literal it does not mean it is not true" you better have a darned good defence about what the 'allegory' is for a talking donkey or that slaughtering the Caananites is an allegory with some moral tale behind it.

And it better be something more substantial than wishy washy "well that's not what Orthodox fink innit".
>>
>>688288
Indeed.

And yet, one's father in law was often called one's father, back then.

It's a very simple family concept.

I take it you come from a single mother, who herself is an orphan?
>>
>>688304
I'm not sure what your second sentence says.

If you were a christian before, you are a christian now.

If you are not a christian now, you were never a christian.

The caterpillar-butterfly analogy really holds up, especially when you consider that the caterpillar has to die in order to be transformed into a butterfly. And yet, he lives.

Be a butterfly.

Jesus really is God, and He really did rise from the dead.
>>
>>688339

>And yet, one's father in law was often called one's father, back then.

And yet, you can't seem to find other biblical incidents to back up your assertion here in Luke. Funny how that's working out for you.

>I take it you come from a single mother, who herself is an orphan?

No, I come from a pretty normal nuclear family with a mother and father, and what's more, we managed to speak a coherent language. I take it you come from a family where communication was done by pointing, grunting, and occasional aimed flatulence, judging by your inability to communicate well.
>>
>>688373

Are you married?

Do you call your father in law "father in law"?

How autistic are you, by the way? 10/10? 11/10?
>>
>>688386

>Are you married?

Yes.

>Do you call your father in law "father in law"?

Well, usually I refer to him as Mr followed by his last name, but I certainly don't call him dad.

>How autistic are you, by the way? 10/10? 11/10?

Ahh, the accusation of autism, the last pathetic whimper of the 4channer who has been revealed to be spewing nonsense. You can run along now, nitwit.
>>
>>688404
>I certainly don't call him dad.

He doesn't like you.

No need to be ashamed, autist. It's just the way God made you.
>>
>>688481

And I suppose I should apologize for calling you a nitwit and a retard. It's just the way God made you to be unable to argue a coherent point.
>>
>>683355
If religious works aren't supposed to be read like scientific textbooks (read: collections of declarative truth-apt statements concerning the universe and its structure) then how should they interpreted? As fables that for some reason still deserve serious consideration?
>>
File: image.jpg (305 KB, 640x1136) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
305 KB, 640x1136
>>687112
It gets frustrating when you realize Protestantism is not Christian
>>
File: image.jpg (183 KB, 1136x640) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
183 KB, 1136x640
Proteshitism BTFO
>>
File: image.jpg (157 KB, 1136x640) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
157 KB, 1136x640
>>691583
>>
File: image.jpg (222 KB, 640x1136) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
222 KB, 640x1136
>>691588
>>
File: image.jpg (1 MB, 3264x2448) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
image.jpg
1 MB, 3264x2448
How can Protestwats be legitimate when we have history opposing them?
>>
>>691481
Can I get an answer on this?
>>
>>685546
just by reading any garden variety mythology book you can easily debunk zeitgeist
>>
>>691481
I think what OP is talking about is when non-Christians bring up verses that aren't scientifically correct. For instance, there's some verse in Exodus where it says something along the lines of "The sun stood still in the sky." My non-Christian brother brought that verse up and was like "what the heck??? The sun isn't in the sky, it's in space!!!"
I thought that was a silly complaint, because the writer was just recording what he saw, how he understood it. Even though we know the sun isn't in the earth's atmosphere, we still understand what the writer was trying to portray.
>>
>>685733
>>686997
>>687546
>>692283
Explain what is this Zeitengeistenschteistenzstouzen meme and why it is somehow wrong.
>>
>>692473

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
>>
/his/, I'm going to read the New Testament. Which commentary should I use?
>>
>>692473
None of the myths actually say what he'd claiming they do to give the appearance of them mirroring Jesus' story
Thread replies: 280
Thread images: 27
Thread DB ID: 516470



[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Home]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.