The Holy Bible

File: 1461266909305.jpg (1MB, 3508x2480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3508x2480px

>>1661333
Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

>>1661333
Infallible.

File: Kingdom of Israel purported borders.png (92KB, 279x1011px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 279x1011px

>>1661333
We have yet to see this big jewish empire the old testament talked about.

So far Egyptians and other contemporaries see the area as a mess of tiny states and petty kingdosm.

>>1661473
We wuz Emperors n shiiiet, Shlomo.

>>1661477
>Dat's right, childrens, we used to be Meleks n shiet. We worship the only one true god and conquered canaan and King Shlomo was so rich, people from around the world sucked his dick, I aint bullshittin you!
>Well what the fuck happened, Rabbi? Why we be living in other countries and you be out crying about lost kingdoms all day?
>Cuz dem muthafuckin Assyrians came and oppressed us and took away our empire. Now get your chosen asses to bed.

Reminder lads:
https://www.contradictingbiblecontradictions.com/?p=4288

File: 1427474689382.jpg (161KB, 788x685px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 788x685px

>>1661501
That made a laugh for a bit. Cheers to that meme.

>>1661333
>the questioning the historical aspect of the scriptures.
>2016+, and not passed that.
The real question is, is the theological parts of the bible accurate?
http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=9416152470

>>1661333
Yes.

For a long time it was the only historical record of the ancient civilizations it described.

>>1661333
Most likely (99.9%) not.
Also, translations, voting and plain outright editing.

>>1661582
>Also, translations, voting and plain outright editing.
When will this retarded meme end? We've got extremely old manuscripts to which we can compare and translate from today.

>>1661582
I have a better thread topic; why do people with little to no knowledge on a subject feel the need to give their input? Is this a result of democracy? If so, was democracy a mistake?

>>1661606
There will always be things fucking lost in translation.

Shit was lost when the Greeks translated what Jewish niggers wrote. Shit was lost when Romans translated what the Greeks wrote, so on and so forth.

>>1661624
Nothing is lost you idiot, we've got the original hebrew and greek writings.

>>1661727
What about the books some people in charge of developing the canon didn't include, but are still recognized as canonical?

>>1661727
Lost in translation =/= Physically lost, you fucktard. I was talking about changes in meaning happening each and every time shit was translated.

>>1661757
>changes in meaning happening each and every time shit was translated
There are indeed bad translations but koine greek and biblical hebrew are languages which can be studied and learned like Mein Kampf's german you imbecile.

>>1661519
the historical and theological aspects are pretty tied together

>>1661624
>Lost in translation

We have many fragments in the original Greek. Put them all together, and you've got a document that's 99% what the original was. As for actual translation? That's why we have numerous versions, as different translators will look at things slightly differently.

File: Cult stand of Taanach (10th century BC).jpg (118KB, 584x864px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 584x864px

It's an incredibly useful historical source when analyzed critically, but no, it's not historically accurate prior to about the 7th century BC, and after that it still remains a politically and religiously biased account of events rather than a really accurate one, like any ancient historical source.

There's no evidence for an exodus from Egypt or a conquest of the Canaanites; rather the Hebrews emerged as pastoral tribes in the highlands who began to settle down and form kingdoms after the collapse of the lowland Canaanite cities during the Bronze Age Collapse. The United Monarchy didn't exist and if David and Solomon existed, they were pastoral chieftains who founded a dynasty which only became powerful centuries later rather than great rulers themselves. The kingdom of Israel was far greater in its power, complexity and extent than the contemporary Judah which was a relative backwater, the opposite of how the Bible depicts it. Monotheism probably emerged gradually as the Judaean patron god of Yahweh was made first the sole god worshiped by the Hebrew people, then the supreme god in heaven and then the only true god at all.

I'd suggest reading this if you're interested; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed

>>1661830
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed
trashed

Not in the slightest.

>>1661830
>The Bible Unearthed
every time.

>>1661831
Not him but please, The author is literally jew, writing about a jewish book, who is also an academic.

I'm not saying don't disagree with anything or take any academics word (Be they christian jewish or atheist) as gospel but what you are doing is just pure anti intellectualism.

>>1661831
>>1661839
Do you have an actual criticism or does archaeology just hurt your feefees?

>>1661844
Yes, a review of the Unearthed book by their High School graduate Pastor in the middle of cornfuckstan is enough to refute it.

>>1661830
>The United Monarchy didn't exist

I thought that the existence of the United Monarchy was a solid "maybe lol i dunno"

>>1661842
>>1661844
>>1661850
Sorry for offending your favorite jew.

File: Samaria Ivory Hah Plaque (9th-8th centuries BC).jpg (260KB, 600x402px)

260KB, 600x402px

>>1661852
The United Monarchy as depicted in the Bible is a large, unified and prosperous kingdom ruled from Judah covering all of Canaan, before it split into the kingdoms of Israel and Judah around 930 BC. There's no archaeological evidence for the existence of such a thing; at the time when the United Monarchy supposedly existed, there's no evidence for any large-scale political organization among the Hebrews who were still a tribal society transitioning from pastoral nomadism to village-based farming. Instead Israel seems to be the first kingdom to emerge around 900 BC, building a fairly powerful and complex urban state with plenty of archaeological evidence for its prosperity (art, architecture, etc), while Judah only emerged later around the mid-8th century and only rose to any relevance after Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrians around 720 BC.

The Davidic dynasty did exist and are attested in contemporary inscriptions, but they were only a minor kingdom or chiefdom in the shadow of Israel, nothing like the United Monarchy. The United Monarchy seems to just be an mythological golden age invented by the Judaeans to increase their own prestige relative to the Israelites.

>>1661879
Be sorry for not coming up with a sound refutation, Well I read opposite in such and such would be enough.

If you want us to take you seriously do come up with an actual argument.

>huhuhu those big gigantic pyramids the egyptians wrote about before the assyrian conquest? lol they never existed, why? because they're not there anymore!...and don't even try to say that they've been destroyed!
>huhuhu ancient egypt? lol it only became relevant after the assyrian conquest, why? because we haven't found anything impressive from before that period!...don't say yet!

This is what you sound like.

>>1661385
this

File: Megiddo Gate 2.jpg (1020KB, 2331x1808px)

1020KB, 2331x1808px

>>1661938
What the fuck are you taking about? Even if the pyramids had been destroyed, we'd still have evidence of them. We have plenty of evidence of other Egyptian monuments and cities that were destroyed millennia ago, like Amarna for example. We also have a wealth of evidence for Israelite prosperity, like the massive gates they built at places like Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor or the intricate ivories of Samaria, despite the fact that these sites were destroyed millennia ago.

That's how archaeology works; any complex society will leave a wealth evidence for its existence that archeologists can uncover. Even ancient Chinese dynasties that built entirely in wood that has since completely rotted away left enough evidence of their constructions in foundations and post-holes that that we can reconstruct their buildings with relative accuracy. Even tribal or hunter-gatherer societies leave behind evidence of their settlement patterns, tool-making, and often other cultural practices.

This is exactly the case with the Judeans; archaeologists have surveyed the Israeli highlands and uncovered plenty of village sites from the period, discovering that they were native to the region and were former pastoralists and even noticing cultural traits such as the avoidance of pork, but finding absolutely no evidence of political organization or urbanism, and certainly not empire-building.

This is further backed up by historical evidence; contemporaries describing Israel as a powerful kingdom but paying little or no attention to Judeah, plus the fact that the Biblical accounts of the United Monarchy are full of anachronisms that describe the 7th century BC when they were composed rather than the early Iron Age in which the kingdom supposedly existed.

>>1661894
http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ivory-palace-king-ahab-001576
I tried to find that ivory from your image and it seems that the ivory from Samaria dates to Roman and Hellenistic times, not to the Kingdom of Israel. It really just furthers your point: this was falsely identified with Israel because of a bible reference to Ahab building an "ivory palace"

>>1661385
Yet, Adam, Eve, Noah - The Patriarchs and the exodus itself were all fake and obviously historically inaccurate.

>>1661333

100%, yes. Luke is one of the greatest historians of his day, being 100% correct on everything he wrote about.

>>1661473
Yes, that's kind of the point of the Second Coming of Christ Jesus.

Real Israel is much bigger than modern Israel, and will remain so forever.

>>1661830
What fucking garbage.

>>1663031
All true.

Exactly as written.

The entire bible is true.

>>1663101

Oh look, Ælian the Æutist has arrived

What happened to your trip? Did it die of assburgers?

>>1663116
I'm not whoever that is.

The two of us do not comprise the entire population of people who know that the bible is true on everything it touches, including history.

>>1663129

And yet you still respond to my post, as if you do. Must be one of your many autistic fits again

>>1663140
Are you, um, autistic?

>>1663148

>um,

Nice projection there, Ælian.

>>1663159
I'll take that as a "yes".

One of the problems you're going to have to deal with is a difficulty in imagining that God is a person.

The best way to deal with this is to think of Jesus as God, because it's easier to think of Jesus as a person than this Trinity that is God.

Once you see Jesus as God, you have the choice to reject Him or worship Him, and both have consequences.

>>1663196

Wait, I thought you weren't really Ælian. Why are you still continuing this back and forth if you're not really him? You really have no idea how to socially interact with people, do you? No wonder you love Scholasticism so much, computer-like deductions are perfect for a potatotard like you

File: 3.png (204KB, 659x382px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 659x382px

>>1663159
>Ælian
That would be me and I am not this anon >>1663148

I've also never written "um" once in my life, I only say "hmm" or "uh".

>>1663116
I made the first post of this thread buddy, you're confusing me with the proddy, that's literally the reason why I started tripping for a while until people like you recognized my posting style and then stopped.

>>1661757
Holy shit you sense motherfucker.

We have the original shit we can translate directly from that. We don't have to jump through hoops trying to find what was lost in Greek or Latin.

File: Jesus Christ.jpg (995KB, 1053x1600px)

995KB, 1053x1600px

>>1663031
It actually is very accurate.

Hebrew/English:

Adam = Man
Seth = Appointed
Enosh = Mortal
Kenan = Sorrow
Mahalalel = The Blessed God
Jared = Shall come down
Enoch = Teaching
Methuselah = His death shall bring
Lamech = The Despairing
Noah = Rest, or comfort.

>Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.

>>1663223
Was "Godless Catholic" your trip? "Papist Pussy"? "Hellbound Hentai Fan"?

>>1663239
"Catholic" and then "Aelian" ("latinization" of Alien, as in E.T). Why?

>>1663031
Hey, how come it's not "obviously inaccurate" to billions of catholics, christians, and Jews?

>>1663248
I like to know to whom I am being compared, and I find this comparison most distasteful.

>>1663256
Of course, you're a proddy who hates the Church Christ founded as much as demons.

>>1663218
I thought you crawled back to /x/, or did a swan dive down a flight of stairs.

>>1663267
Nope, I've just been reading a lot this summer. I also would never commit suicide.

>>1663263
I love Jesus, and hate the Catholic church, yes.

So the difference between you and I is that you believe that Petros is the petra, and I do not.

You believe the ways and beliefs of the Nicolaitans are favored by God, and I do not.

You believe that you have to be a Roman Catholic to be saved, and I do not.

You believe you know how to be saved, but you do not.

You do not know the gospel.

Please take this opportunity to explain salvation and the gospel, if you have a clue about either. Feel free to use the bible as a reference. I suspect that, like 99% of all catholics, your idea of salvation is "join the church and do what they tell you to do".

>>1663276
Never say never, champ.

>>1663267
Weird how you summoned him here. Suspicious even.

>>1663281
Keepa is the Keepa, yes.

ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

>I suspect that, like 99% of all catholics, your idea of salvation is "join the church and do what they tell you to do".
Who's this "they" you've invented? Like all proddies you are clueless about what Christ's Church teaches and why. You should give the CCC a read sometime:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

>>1663263

I wonder if you understand this verse. No, strike that. I know you don't.

Luke 13:19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and put in his garden; and it grew and became a large tree, and the birds of the air nested in its branches.”

>>1663303
Oh, you're the completely insane asshole from yesterday who thinks "Keepa" is in the bible, but couldn't show it as such.

Since you dodged both questions already, I'll lay them out again.

What is the gospel?

What must a man do to be saved?

>>1663291
I finished watching the Sodom documentary, went back on /his/ and saw new posts for this thread in the thread watcher, nothing spooky, don't worry child, it's a pure coincidence.

>>1661385
So all you have to do to be recognized as legit is to include the names of a few real people in addition to your bullshit? Guess I'm converting, then.

File: CfJhvOoW4AAne4P.jpg (87KB, 894x599px)

87KB, 894x599px

>>1663314
...and you're the illiterate nu-male who thinks the Bible is an english book?

For the third time:
ctrl+f: ''0p0k'' or ''Keepa''
http://www.peshitta.org/pdf/Mattich16.pdf

>>1663316
>went back on /his/ and saw new posts for this thread in the thread watcher

Wait, are you telling me that you do nothing all day except being on /his/, and watching threads you've posted in? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you have any friends at all, or a job? I guess not.

And you're calling others autistic. How fucking ironic.

>>1663316
There are no coincidences.

>>1663321
And for the nth time, the passage was written in Greek.

Not Aramaic.

Greek. Petros, a man's name, a masculine word. petra, a rock or cliff, a feminine word.

Two completely different objects.

>>1663326
I'm not on /his/ all day and I use the thread watcher because it's useful. Did you just discover 4chan?

>you're calling others autistic
?

>>1663326
This site redefines nadir.

File: 3sovr2.jpg (588KB, 916x897px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 916x897px

>>1663333
I know.

File: Samaria Ivory Sphinx (9th-8th centuries BC).jpg (145KB, 600x583px)

145KB, 600x583px

>>1662827
That site doesn't seem very trustworthy (just look at their 'suggested books').

The ivories from Samaria don't have any Hellenic features but as far as I can tell they in every way resemble other late bronze age and early iron age Canaanite/Phoenician ivories such as those from Megiddo (13th century BC) and Nimrud (9th century BC, made by Phoenician craftsmen). Maybe the article's right, but I doubt it.

Still, I agree that identifying them with Ahab is taking it too far though, since ivories like these were probably just furniture attachments and are found in plenty of other sites.

>>1663321
Aramaic to Gibberish bibles aside, your attempt to claim that Jesus contradicted the bible is absurd:

1 Corinthians 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Gee, seems that the petra, the foundation, is Jesus.

Jesus the Rock.

Not Peter.

>>1663321
Oh wow, look, more bad news for your Aramaic hypothesis of changing everything the bible says:

In contrast to this, in paragraph #2 at the beginning of this article, the Roman Catholic Church says that the rock cannot refer to Jesus "but only Peter--as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock.'" The problem is that the text is not in Aramaic--but Greek. Since we do not have the Aramaic text, it is not proper to refer to it as proof of the Roman Catholic position. We have to ask ourselves why the Roman Catholic Church would resort to using something that we don't have: the aramaic text. Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek, and so they must infer something from a text we don't possess?

Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)." The word "Peter" here is petros--not petra. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic kephas which is not a name in Aramaic.

"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."

>>1663340
Christ uttered the words of Matthew 16:18 in Aramaic and it was then translated when written down in greek. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

Why did Christ start calling Simon "Petros" after telling him that He gave him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose? Is it a pure coincidence? Why would Simon's new name not be masculinized in the greek translation? Why would he be given a feminine name?

I love those mental gymnastics of yours.

>>1663374
So, because there exists some Aramaic in the bible, which the bible interprets, we must allow fools like you to take Aramaic to Gibberish bibles to extend the Aramaic to the entire bible.

Even the Hebrew?

Where does this delusion end?

>>1663368
>he's copying and pasting text from proddy articles again
Please stop embarrassing yourself, you clearly have no understanding of what you're pathetically attempting to have a debate on.

>>your Aramaic hypothesis
Huh? Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic, this is a fact, not a hypothesis.

>>1663374
That's exactly the point.

Petros is given a man's name. Petros.

The foundation is given a feminine word. petra.

So that nobody would confuse Petros with petra.

Except you have.

The keys Petros used twice; heaven is open to the Jews (Pentecost) and the Gentiles (Cornelius' house). The keys are spent. Heaven is open.

The nefarious and demonic lie that the keys were transferable is one of the abominations of the catholic church; the supposed ability to kick people out of heaven and into hell.

The Vatican is pure evil, and you rely on it for salvation.

Which you cannot define.

Or explain how to obtain.

And don't know the gospel.

>>1663389
Are you capable of reading things that were copied and pasted?

Because it absolutely destroyed your insane Aramaic hypothesis.

>>1663393
>your insane Aramaic hypothesis
Which is?

>>1663380
What are you even trying to say?

>>1663389
>"Except in Jn. 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic kēphás, Pétros is used in the NT only as a name for Simon Peter . . . The translation supports the view that Kēphás is not a proper name, since one does not usually translate proper names."

Bye bye shitty Aramaic hypothesis.

And by the way, Jesus also spoke Hebrew, as He taught in the temple, so no, not everything He said was in Aramaic.

He also spoke Greek.

He also spoke Raccoon, as He is God.

>>1663401

That your idiotic reliance on an aramaic text is not only unjustified, but demonstrably false.

>>1663368
>Is it because their argument is not supported by the Greek
No. Even the greek supports "our argument" which is the truth and also accepted by linguists.

>>1663408
No, it does not.

The petra can be anything except the Petros it does not agree with.

"I will name you Peter, and upon you, Peter, will I build my church."

--Things Jesus never said.

petra: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

as opposed to

Peter

File: Ribera-José-de-St-Peter-c1630-Prado.jpg (443KB, 1341x1600px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 1341x1600px

>>1663368
>Furthermore, in John 1:42 it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter)."
Gee I wonder why Christ said this!

>>1663408
Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."

2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

Which of these is Peter again?

>>1663417
Already explained above. >>1663368

Do try to keep up.

>>1663403
>Jesus also spoke Hebrew
I haven't denied this. Nice strawmanning proddy.

There is no "aramaic hypothesis", Christ spoke to Saint Peter in Aramaic, that is a fact which you will have to accept, not a "hypothesis".

>>1663425

"I use the Aramaic because Jesus spoke Aramaic."

More papist half truths and lies.

>>1663425

Do you have voice recordings of Jesus speaking to Peter?

Those would be worth bucks!

>>1663425

Is the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek a fact?

But for a few transliterations as mentioned above, with Jesus on the cross?

Is that a fact? That the inspired and written word on this subject, in Matthew, was penned in Greek?

Or Hebrew?

And not in Aramaic?

Is that a fact?

>>1663425

Salvation?

Gospel?

Buehler?

File: peter's successor.jpg (106KB, 708x720px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 708x720px

For the Catholics

File: Cephas.jpg (892KB, 1500x1974px)

892KB, 1500x1974px

>>1663422
Are you not aware that Christ would not live forever on Earth? The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and therefore occupies the Chair of Saint Peter, whom Christ designated as the rock of His Church and to whom He gave the authority to bind and loose while adding that whatever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and that whatever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

>I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
John 10:14-16

>When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”
John 21:15-17

>>1663452
Acts 8:14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,

That's strange, I thought Peter was in charge of all of them. And here he is being sent like an errand boy.

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:

Why that's odd, Peter doesn't seem to know he's over all of them?!

File: Literally every Christian thread on his.png (422KB, 820x460px)

422KB, 820x460px

>Another thread on /his/ about Christianity turns into a Catholic vs Protestant shitfest

wew lad

File: 351027670_c152df94e2_b.jpg (292KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1024x683px

>>1663422
>When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them." Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."
CCC 880

>The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.
CCC 881

>"This college, in so far as it is composed of many members, is the expression of the variety and universality of the People of God; and of the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one head."
CCC 885

>>1663429
>>1663432
Nice shitposting proddy.

>>1663468
So, none of those Rocks are Peter? Good. Breakthrough. God is the Rock, and Jesus was having some sport with Simon calling him the Rock before he was even saved.

Glad we could clear that up.

Are you aware that Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, Who is just as much the Trinity as Jesus, on Pentecost? Are you saying Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not One?

I can bind and loose things in heaven too; so can all of the other apostles.

Matthew 18
“Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

“Again I say to you that if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”

Hmmm, you said Jesus wasn't here on earth, and yet there Jesus is, saying that He is in the midst of two or three of us. Ponderous that you wouldn't know that.

The sheep of the other fold were in Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and were let into heaven when Jesus died and rose from the dead.

Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus restored Peter three times. And humbled him, as he did not agape Jesus, as Jesus agape'd him.

Is there anything else you missed in 2nd grade Sunday School that I can help you with?

File: st-theodore-the-studite.jpg (21KB, 180x251px)

21KB, 180x251px

>>1663439
Yes.

Have you ever read the New Testament in greek in its entirety and understood it? Is greek your language? No? I thought so, please stop being smug, humble yourself and shut up instead of embarrassing yourself. This Saint's answer would be yes though:

>Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all.
(Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

>>1663477
Gee, your catechism doesn't seem to allow for Judas.

The Rock is Jesus, as detailed above.

The college of Cardinals is to the pope as the Senate was to the emperor.

I don't remember ever saying that the Roman Church didn't utter abominations.

>>1663479
Yes, ad hominem. The last refuge of the scoundrel.

>>1663505
See >>1663503 and stop shitposting.

>>1663503
So your earlier argument that relied on the Aramaic to Gibberish translation, have you abandoned that yet?

I don't get into the original language unless the Holy Spirit so directs, as there's usually something very special there, a depth and a quality that is missing in the English.

Are you done making Aramaic arguments about a Greek text?

Yes more abominations made by more hellbound papists. It's really sickening.

>>1663507
Seen and responded in kind. I'd very much appreciate the shit you post to end, forever, but it won't until heaven.

Luckily, that's not too far away.

>>1663512
The greek supports the fact that Peter is described as the rock and so does the aramaic that came out of Jesus' Holy Mouth, what's so hard to understand? There is nothing for me to "abandon".

Address what I wrote here >>1663503 instead of making a worthless comment.

>>1663518
>responded
No.

>>1663530
I feel like I'm talking to a 5 year old.

Yes, Peter is called the Rock. Petros.

The foundation is also called a rock. petra.

Petros is a man's name, and a masculine word.

petra is a rock, a cliff, and a feminine word.

Jesus literally did not say Petros is the petra.

The real petra is Jesus Himself.

You are arguing that you belong to a church that worships Peter as its founder, and not Jesus as its God.

Which, in fact, you do.

>>1663530
So despite all of this effort to show you that your reliance upon the written Aramaic gospel, which does not exist, in defining Peter as the foundation of the church, when in fact it is Jesus Himself, has all gone right over your head.

>>1663530

Salvation? Any ideas on how to be saved?

Gospel? Any idea what the gospel of Jesus Christ is?

No?

Fifth time?

File: 1447792365340.jpg (59KB, 499x499px)

59KB, 499x499px

>>1663518
>I'd very much appreciate the shit you post to end, forever
You'd also appreciate the eternal fires of hell to extinguish, forever. That won't happen though, sorry proddy.

By the way, are you aware that your so-called "perfect" precious KJV "Bible" has mistranslated the greek word "kexaritomene" in Luke 1:28?

>>1663537
Read >>1663477 instead of shitposting.

File: 1463882733161.gif (2MB, 360x414px)

2MB, 360x414px

>>1663476
>someone saved my picture

>>1663543
No, and gee does that sound important.

Did you know your bible credits Mary for defeating satan?

>>1663550
I read your papist abominations, and called them abominations.

How about you read the actual bible? Is that too much to ask? Like, read where Peter and Jesus are talking in Matthew, right after this whole petra talk, where Jesus calls Peter "Satan".

>>1663542
>Salvation? Any ideas on how to be saved?
Faith and works.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html

>Gospel? Any idea what the gospel of Jesus Christ is?
Yes, do you?
>Fifth time
Are you enjoying that "christian shitposting" session you're having right now? I don't think Christ appreciates it very much though.

>>1663543
kek

Looked it up. Literally only the papist bible says this is "full of grace". Everyone else says Mary was favored, blessed, etc.

Only Jesus in the bible is full of grace.

>>1663557
>No, and gee does that sound important.
Tell that to the Church Fathers.
>Did you know your bible credits Mary for defeating satan?
What's "your bible"?

>>1663562
So literally no clue on either.

Is that why you don't know you're saved?

Because you're not?

>>1663566
Only the Douay Rheims says Mary defeats Satan.

The autographs are inerrant and infallible, not any particular translation.

The KJV is as good as any, and better than most. I prefer the NKJV.

>>1663566
>Tell that to the Church Fathers.

Your catholic church fathers are in hell, and I will never speak to them.

Thankfully.

File: madonna-of-the-magnificat-1481(1).jpg (2MB, 1656x1656px)

2MB, 1656x1656px

>>1663564
>Everyone else
Dishonest proddy translators =/= Everyone else

>Only Jesus in the bible is full of grace.
John 1:14 - ..."full of grace" ----> pleres charitoo
Luke 1:28 - ..."full of grace" ----> kexaritomene

In Luke 1:28 the term "Xaire" (Hail) precedes "kexaritomene". This term is only found 5 times in the New Testament and it precedes a title each time.

Matthew 26:49...χαιρε ραββι = Hail Rabbi
Matthew 27:29...χαιρε ο βασιλευς = Hail King
Mark 15:18...χαιρε βασιλευ = Hail King
John 19:3...χαιρε ο βασιλευς = Hail King

aaaaaaaannnnnd, you've guessed it, Luke 1:28..."χαιρε kεχαριτωμενη" translated "Ave gratia plena" by Saint Jerome who actually spoke the koine greek of the time and which translates into english as "Hail full of grace" and is found in the Aramaic Peshitta as "Shlomlekh, maliath taibootho". Wanna guess how "maliath taibootho" translates into english? Literally "full of grace".

>>1663627
It means favor, not grace

File: pzwl11tgke.jpg (134KB, 900x1153px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 900x1153px

>>1663564
Here's what protestant greek scholars have to say about this:

>" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of chartoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6, ... The Vulgate 'gratiae plena' is right if it means 'full of grace which thou has received'."
Archibald T Robinson

>"Luke 1:28 ... 'kecharitomene' is a quite rare Hellenistic verb (only found elsewhere in the NT at Eph 1:6 in the active). Etymologically it should mean 'to be furnished with grace'."
John Noland

>"Chartoo ... Highly favored as in Luke 1:28 meaning to bestow grace upon...it really does not mean to show favour, but to give grace to."
Spiros Zohdiates

>"Kecharitomene...completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace. The perfect stem of a Greek verb denotes a continuance of a completed past action."
Blass & Debrunner

>"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace."
(Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament)

>However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action.
(H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175).

>>1663627
>Aramaic Peshitta
This is like if i cited the KJV as evidence against it, you retard.

File: bouguereau-18b.jpg (171KB, 886x1014px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 886x1014px

>>1663629
You are wrong. Linguists say you're wrong and native greek speakers say you're wrong.

Stop the mental gymnastics and stop hating the Blessed Virgin Mary, you blasphemous proddy.

>>1663635
>let me attack one little detail of your post whilst ignoring all the rest which completely demolishes my pathetic argument
Silly proddy.

>>1663031
We're talking new Testament here famberto

>>1663627
>John 1:14 - ..."full of grace" ----> pleres charitoo
>Luke 1:28 - ..."full of grace" ----> kexaritomene

See the difference?

>>1663631
Yes, Mary was highly favored to be chosen by God to bear the Messiah, which is what every little Jewish girl wanted to do. Bear the Messiah.

Which God chose Mary for.

Which is why Mary is blessed among women, for she was chosen to bear the Messiah.

See how none of this means that Mary is herself "full of grace"?

>>1663644
The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people." (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner.

Mother Earth cultist.

>>1661727
>original writings

Kekle

File: Diego_Velázquez_-_Coronation_of_the_Virgin_-_Prado.jpg (239KB, 800x1065px)

239KB, 800x1065px

>>1663629
>>1663644
and you need to understand that, as I've explained here >>1663627, in this context, "kexaritomene" is used as a TITLE for the Blessed Virgin Mary who is the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

The angel Gabriel did not show up and say "Oh hello there! Did you know that God likes you?".

http://www.ignatius.com/promotions/cfe/documents/Mary%20web%20pages.pdf

>>1663661
Yes, Christ's person is described as being full of grace while the Blessed Virgin Mary is given a TITLE.

File: catholic_idolaters.jpg (29KB, 384x256px)

29KB, 384x256px

>>1663679
Stop worshiping Mary it's pissing God off papist

>>1663627

The Nestle Aland 26th edition, Greek New Testament Interlinear--"having gone into her he said rejoice one having been favored, the master is with you."

The NRSV English Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament--And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you."

American Standard Version--"And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee."

English Standard Version--"And he came to her and said, Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!

Today's English Version--'"The angel came to her and said, “Peace be with you! The Lord is with you and has greatly blessed you!”

King James Version--"And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

New American Standard Bible--"And coming in, he said to her, Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.

New King James Version--"And having come in, the angel said to her, Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"

Revised Standard Version--"And he came to her and said, 'Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!'

New Revised Standard Version--And he came to her and said, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”

The New Century Version--The angel came to her and said, “Greetings! The Lord has blessed you and is with you.”

New Living Translation--Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you!'”

The Cambridge Paragraph Bible--And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, 'thou that art 'highly favoured, 'the Lord is with thee: 'blessed art thou among women.'

The Holman Christian Standard Bible--"And the angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, favored woman! The Lord is with you."

International Standard Version--'"The angel'' came to her and said, “'Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you!"

Gee, no "full of grace".

>>1663679
>"kexaritomene" is used as a TITLE for the Blessed Virgin Mary who is the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant.

More blasphemies and abominations.

Joseph plowed Mary like a two bit whore after Jesus was born. Jesus had many brothers and sisters.

Mary is not any sort of ark.

Mary is not any sort of Eve.

Mary has nothing to do with the New Covenant except needing it for her own salvation.

>>1663679
>Yes, Christ's person is described as being full of grace while the Blessed Virgin Mary is given a TITLE.

Blasphemies and abominations.

>>1663692


Just like the whore you worship.

Revelation 17
And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.[b] 5 And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.

I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.

>>1661333
No. There is no proof of a universal flood, a massive Israelite Exodus, a unified Davidic kingdom, or a widespread slaughter of newborns under Herod. There are countless more examples from this Jewish book of fables which negate it's historicity.

File: Tissot_Moses_and_Joshua_in_the_Tabernacle.jpg (157KB, 445x379px)

157KB, 445x379px

>>1663665
>highly favored
Much more than that.
>which is what every little Jewish girl wanted to do. Bear the Messiah.
You keep repeating this sentence every time I try to explain this to you, yet you fail to realize how useless this sentence is.
>Which is why Mary is blessed among women, for she was chosen to bear the Messiah.
Yes, and be His Mother.
>See how none of this means that Mary is herself "full of grace"?
No.

Are you implying that God would chose a dirty woman to bear the Incarnated Word rather than an immaculately concepted, perpetual virgin who will be assumed into heaven? Did God ask the Israelites to build a pathetic box to cotain the Shekinah Glory?

>>1663705
There is evidence for all of that, and their existence is not in question at all as they are laid out in the bible, the inerrant and authoritative Word of God.

>>1663709
Stop worshiping a whore or stop calling yourself Christian.

>>1663709
No.

Not more than that. That's enough.

Do you understand she has never heard you?

Do you understand you will never meet her?

Do you understand you're worshiping an idol?

Jesus never calls Mary His mother, no.

The phrase "Mother of God" is not in the bible, and is an abomination.

Hey Dev
Mom said to come downstairs to eat dinner. We've calling you for a couple minutes and mom is getting mad so now I have to get on 4chan to get call you. Please hurry up.

>>1663673
See >>1663631

The word kεχαριτωμενη appears only once in the entire New Testament and it is used as a title, following χαιρε. See >>1663627

>>1663709
>Are you implying that God would chose a dirty woman to bear the Incarnated Word rather than an immaculately concepted, perpetual virgin who will be assumed into heaven?

YES

>>1663673
See >>1663631

The word kεχαριτωμενη appears only once in the entire New Testament and it is used as a title, following χαιρε. See >>1663627

Stop the mental gymnastics.

>>1663685
Were the Israelites worshipping the Ark of the Old Covenant?

hyperdulia =/= latria

>>1663725
Hey, here's an idea. Instead of directing people to posts they've already responded to, you read their posts.

How's that for an idea?

>>1663673

>>1663736
>worship =/= worship

>>1663736

What part of "stop worshiping Mary" don't you understand?

Why do you accuse the Hebrews of idolatry in worshiping the ark of the covenant?

>>1663686
You could copy and paste a million PROTESTANT translations, they would still be dishonest.

The root greek word is "xaris", meaning "grace".

See >>1663627 >>1663631

>>1663709
What does the Greek say here for "highly favored one? It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. It does not mean "full of grace" which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek.

5923 χαριτόω (charitoō): vb.; Str 5487; TDNT 9.372—LN 88.66 show kindness graciously give, freely give (Eph 1:6); as a passive participle, subst., “one highly favored.”1
5487 χαριτόω [charitoo /khar·ee·to·o/] v. From 5485; TDNT 9:372; TDNTA 1298; GK 5923; Two occurrences; AV translates as “be highly favoured” once, and “make accepted” once. 1 to make graceful. 1a charming, lovely, agreeable. 2 to peruse with grace, compass with favour. 3 to honour with blessings.

>>1663755
>It's a conspiracy!
No, it's a fact. It doesn't mean full of grace.

>>1663755
The bible that says Mary defeats Satan is the dishonest one.

It's a shame you can't see how obvious that is.

You idiots should stop debating the meaning of Greek words, the KJV is an authoritative, and the ONLY authoritative English version of scripture. The fact you have to play around with Gammas and Iotas just shows that you are not saved.

>>1663692
>More blasphemies and abominations.
The irony.
>Joseph plowed Mary like a two bit whore
This is why proddies aren't Christian. Do you think Christ would appreciate such blasphemy?

You deserve to be put to death like Uzzah. I'd personally burn you at the stake if I could to be completely honest.

>Jesus had many brothers and sisters.
Wrong.

File: 3938352962_777a90373e_b.jpg (272KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 683x1024px

>>1663692
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>The ark traveled to the house of Obed-edom in the hill country of Judea (2 Sam. 6:1-11).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>Mary traveled to the house of Elizabeth and Zechariah in the hill country of Judea (Luke 1:39).
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>Dressed as a priest, David danced and leapt in front of the ark (2 Sam. 6:14).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>John the Baptist - of priestly lineage - leapt in his mother's womb at the approach of Mary (Luke 1:41).
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>David asks, "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43).
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>David shouts in the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:15).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>Elizabeth "exclaimed with a loud cry" in the presence of the Mary (Luke 1:42).
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>The ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for three months (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>Mary remained in the house of Elizabeth for three months (Luke 1:56).
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the ark (2 Sam. 6:11).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>The word blessed is used three times; surely the house was blessed by God (Luke 1:39-45).
Golden Box: Ark of the Old Covenant:
>The ark returns to its home and ends up in Jerusalem, where God's presence and glory is revealed in the temple (2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs. 8:9-11).
Mary: Ark of the New Covenant:
>Mary returns home and eventually ends up in Jerusalem, where she presents God incarnate in the temple (Luke 1:56; 2:21-22).

File: stained-glass.jpg (408KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1600x1066px

>>1663692
The Old Ark of the Covenant was the physical dwelling place of the Shekinah Glory.

The New Ark of the Covenant was the physical dwelling place of the Word Incarnate.

>The Old one contained the body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh.
>The New one contained the body of Jesus Christ - the word of God in the flesh.

>The Old one contained the urn filled with manna from the wilderness - the miraculous bread come down from heaven.
>The New one contained the womb containing Jesus, the bread of life come down from heaven (John 6:41).

>The Old one contained the rod of Aaron that budded to prove and defend the true high priest.
>The New one contained the actual and eternal High Priest.

I could go on and on.

>>1663701
>Blasphemies and abominations.
t. blasphemous abomination

Enjoy spending all of eternity in Hell.

>>1663726
>YES
Then you are a complete imbecile and need to make use of that Sola Scriptura of yours.

>>1663771
>The irony.
Just admit you think she's a godess above the Triune God
>This is why proddies aren't Christian. Do you think Christ would appreciate such blasphemy?
See above.
>You deserve to be put to death like Uzzah. I'd personally burn you at the stake if I could to be completely honest.
Hang from a tree instead.

>>1663742
>lalalalala I don't want to understand lalalalala

>>1663782
You're blaspheming the Holy Spirit

>>1663750
>What part of "stop worshiping Mary" don't you understand?
What part of hyperdulia not being latria don't you understand?
>Why do you accuse the Hebrews of idolatry in worshiping the ark of the covenant?
Why do you put words in my mouth? You see, unlike you I am not the pawn of Satan the accuser, the deceiver, the slanderer, the father of all lies.

>>1663791
No i guess you don't

>>1663757
See >>1663627 >>1663631

>>1663771
Yes, you papists just love killing Christians.

I used harsh language to break through your conditioning.

The bible not only says Jesus had brothers and sisters, but it names them.

One of them, James, wrote a book in the bible.

Your perpetual virgin is a pagan goddess, and you are following her to hell.

Matthew 13:55 Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?” So they were offended at Him.

Matthew 12:46-50 [Full Chapter]
[ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers Send for Him ] While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” ...

>>1663738
Hey, here's an idea, stop shitposting and read what you're being told. You'll learn eventually.

>>1663794
>What part of hyperdulia not being latria don't you understand?
Why do you hate God?
>You see, unlike you I am the pawn of Satan the accuser, the deceiver, the slanderer, the father of all lies.
ftfy

>>1663761
Linguists and greeks disagree, sorry Cletus.

>>1663762
I've never read the Holy Bible in english, it isn't my language.

>>1663809
Papist one's are biased, sorry Pablo.

>>1663774
>>1663777

You could go on, but I have already shown you, and from catholic scholars, that the comparison between Mary and the ark of the covenant are already dismissed, debunked, and put to rest.

Even by mother earth worshiping papists like yourself.

“We are told that Mary is paralleled with David (both ‘arise’ and ‘set out’), while other times Mary is paralleled with the Ark. Moreover, the statement of David in 2 Sam 6:9, ‘How can the ark of the LORD come to me?,’ changes the parallelism from Mary/David to David/Elizabeth . . . The fluctuation of the parallelism from Mary/Ark to Mary/David to David/Elizabeth to Elizabeth/Obed-Edom seems too capricious to be valid, and is for that reason alone rightly rejected by most scholars” (Eric Svendsen, Who is my Mother? The Role of and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism, [Calvary Press, 2001], p. 168).

In sum we must agree with Brown, Fitzmyer and the other Roman Catholic editors of the book Mary in the New Testament when they conclude, “in our judgement there is no convincing evidence that Luke specifically identified Mary with . . . the Ark of the Covenant” (Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried, Joseph Fitzmyer, John Reumann, Mary in the New Testament, [Paulist Press, 1978], p. 134).

Nobody believes this except you.

The ark did not contain the shikinah; the shikinah rested on the mercy seat.

>>1663788
If Mary said no, all God needed was another brotherless Jewish virgin who descended from David.

That's it. That's what Mary was.

You people have deified her, to your shame, and eternal torment.

>>1663790
>Just admit you think she's a godess above the Triune God
No because she isn't. The Word is eternal, the Blessed Virgin Mary isn't. You truly are clueless about Catholic teaching, your brain is polluted with anti-Catholic proddy garbage.

https://www.protestanterrors.com

File: 051a39ae7e14e2509794003119f17f93b4891d-wm.jpg (108KB, 640x920px)

108KB, 640x920px

>>1663828

>>1663794
The part where you go to an idol of her, supposedly, burn incense to her, light candles to her, pray to her, expect her to hear you, expect her to help you, you know, IDOL WORSHIP.

>>1663814
It's the Vulgate in Latin that changes the proto-evangelion to having Mary be the Messiah, and not Jesus.

>>1663828
Just like the muslims, you think Mary is on par with Jesus.

Co-Mediatrix with Jesus.

The Queen of Heaven.

>>1663832
Yeah, this.

Tell me that's not a shrine to Mary.

File: Mater Dolorosa.jpg (382KB, 800x1200px)

382KB, 800x1200px

>>1663800
>I used harsh language to break through your conditioning.
Nice damage control. But you know what Christ will tell you?

"I never knew you. Get away from me, you who practice evil!" (Matthew 7:23)

>>1663854
Jesus says that to those who think they'll be saved by works i.e Catholic heretics
Sola Fide
Sola Gratia

>>1663854
Damage control?

I'm seriously trying to break through your fucking Jesuit mind conditioning so you read the bible for yourself.

Look at you.

Look at the garbage in this thread you stand up for. Worshiping Mary. Changing the bible to worship Mary. changing the bible to make Mary an eternal virgin. Changing the Greek language to put Mary on par with Jesus.

It's disgusting.

Even your quoted verse is wrong, and not appropriate for anyone in this age, but for a tribulation "saint" who didn't make it into the Kingdom.

It's ye who practice lawlessness.

Like you, trying to live by the Law, you are practicing lawlessness.

Like you, who will not be taken in the rapture, but will have to become a tribulation "saint", and likely fail at that.

That verse is for YOU, not me.

>>1663800
The problem emerges in understanding the meaning of the word brother. In the original text of the gospel, we find the Greek word adelphos, meaning brothers, used. However, adelphos does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or step-brother. The word also described other relationships like cousins, nephews, uncles, etc. For example in Genesis 13:8 and 14:14-16, the word adelphos was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a blood brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an adelphos to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle. (In the New American translation, “kinsman” or “relative” will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the gospel.)

The same meanings are true for the word sister in Greek. For example, in I Chronicles 23:21-22, the sons of Kish married their “sisters,” a literal translation of the text, but in reality they married their cousins.

>>1663800
Actually the confusion originates in Hebrew and Aramaic, the languages of most of the original Old Testament texts and of Christ. In these languages, no special word existed for cousin, nephew or aunt, half-brother or half-sister, or step-brother or step-sister; so they used the word brother or a circumlocution, such as in the case of a cousin, “the son of the brother of my father.” When the Old Testament was translated into Greek and the New Testament written in Greek, the word adelphos was used to capture all of these meanings for male relatives. So in each instance, we must examine the context in which the title is used. In all, the confusion arises in English because of the lack of distinct terms for relatives in the Hebrew and Aramaic, and the usage of the Greek adelphos to signify all of these relations.

Nevertheless, other gospel passages clarify these relationships. James and Joses were the sons of Mary of Cleophas (Mark 15:40). Mary of Cleophas is described in the Gospel of John as our Blessed Mother’s “sister” (John 20:25); obviously, she must have been a cousin, and James and Joses thereby cousins of our Lord. Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Luke 6:16). James the lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Matthew 20:20ff).

>>1663800
The gospels are also very clear that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38). Remember when the Archangel Gabriel announced to Mary God’s plan, she responded, “How can this be since I do not know man?” After the birth of our Lord, although the gospels do not give us many details of His childhood, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the “sons of Mary” or “a son of Mary,” but only the son of Mary.

This point is again corroborated at the crucifixion scene: Before He dies, our Lord says to Mary, “Woman, there is your son,” and then to St. John, who is definitely not a blood brother, “There is your mother.” According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first born son. By this time, St. Joseph had died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no “blood brother,” He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

>>1663800
Interestingly, the Orthodox Churches solve this problem over brothers and sisters by speculating that St. Joseph was a widower who had other children before he married Mary. These brothers and sisters would really then be half-brothers and half-sisters. Perhaps this notion is why St. Joseph sometimes appears elderly in paintings.

Actually, this whole confusion is not new. About 380, Helvidius suggested that the “brethren” were the children born of Mary and Joseph after Jesus. St. Jerome declared this as a “novel, wicked, and daring affront to the faith of the whole world.” In his On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary, St. Jerome used both Scripture and the fathers like Saints Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr to refute Helvidius. Later, the First Lateran Council (649) definitively declared that Mary was “ever virgin and immaculate.” Therefore, as Catholics, based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition, we do not believe that Mary and Joseph had other children and consequently that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters.

>>1663876
There's no problem, as they speakers in context grew up with Jesus, and were upset with Him "putting on airs" as it were.

They mentioned both his brothers and sisters.

James is the brother of Jesus, and wrote James.

All the mental gymnastics in the world can't dent the truth.

>>1663879
>>1663880
>>1663881

There's no confusion.

There are only people desperately clinging to the eternal virgin myth.

>>1663806
>Why do you hate God?
Why do you enjoy shitposting while LARPing as a Christina?
>ftfy
You think that was witty or funny? >>>/b/

>>1663818
Proddy linguists are not "papists" and the greeks still disagree, sorry Cletus.

>>1663627 >>1663631 >>1663774 >>1663777

>>1663880

When I went to the war, I did not have sex with my wife until I came back home.

Did I have sex with my wife when I came back home?

>>1663832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWHSpmXEJs

>>1663822
>i-i-it's just a coincidence
great argument

>>1663910
It's bullshit.

Unmitigated, unsubstantiated bullshit.

>>1661995
Good post. Maybe there is hope for /his/

>>1661333
Its not a history book written by people who were focused on historical accuracy.

>>1663904
Matthew 1:25
When Joseph woke up, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and embraced Mary as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.

>But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son.

Marriage confirmed consummated.

Mary's virginity confirmed taken.

File: 1461881050119.gif (3MB, 256x172px)

3MB, 256x172px

>Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
Matthew 7:15-20

>>1663692
>Joseph plowed Mary like a two bit whore after Jesus was born. Jesus had many brothers and sisters.
Proddies everyone, the funny thing is that this gentleman thinks he's going to heaven.

Christ was right in, a diseased tree bears bad fruit: >>1649683

>>1663800
>you papists just love killing Christians
Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Christ said so and I'll repeat myself: I'd personally burn you at the stake if I could.

File: image.jpg (45KB, 298x300px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 298x300px

>>1663832
And Jews worshipped a snake even thought God forbade making graven images.

File: 0_d8725_c7ddc7e3_XL.jpg (67KB, 375x700px)

67KB, 375x700px

>>1663868
Once again,

Latria =/= Hyperdulia
Douay-Rheims Bible =/= My Bible
Changing the Bible =/= Interpreting the Bible
Changing the greek language =/= Understanding the greek language
Putting Mary on par with Jesus =/= Aknowledging the fact that she is the Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve

Keep strawmanning though.

>>1663929
Joseph and Mary's sex was likely quite vigorous, as it produced as many as ten children.

Yes, you papists think you do the work of god when you slaughter people by the millions.

You are pure evil.

>>1663883
>All the mental gymnastics in the world can't dent the truth.
Then stop twisting the meaning of the text.

Adelphos.

This is the key word.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

File: CarloDolci-HeMourningVirgin.jpg (32KB, 642x644px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 642x644px

>>1663962
The greek text does not support your peverted blasphemies.

You are not greek and you are not a linguist therefore humble yourself, shut up and listen to the people who actually know what they're talking about.

Pride, which is one of the seven deadly sins is what will lead you straight into your god's arms, Lucifer, in Hell, for all of eternity.

>>1663962
>Yes, you papists think you do the work of god when you slaughter people by the millions.
I would do the work of God by bludgeoning you to death, remember what happened to Uzzah? You deserve the same fate.

>retards ITT are ACTUALLY arguing that we have all of the manuscripts and everything from the last thousands of years, and none of it was lost and we have a perfect translation from """"""god""""""

lol. do you people even understand how retarded you are?

not staying in the thread to see your retarded replies either. bye bye. :)

>>1663990
>bye bye. :)
Protestant here, see you in hell sweetie ;)

File: average pope.jpg (26KB, 474x538px)

26KB, 474x538px

>>1663929
>>1663952
>>1663957
>>1663967
>>1663985
Truly your religion is of the devil.

File: image.png (11KB, 123x88px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 123x88px

>>1663999
>666
t. pawn of Satan, the accuser, the slanderer, the deceiver, the father of all lies

He's waiting for you in hell, there you'll have all of eternity to insult the Blessed Virgin Mary, I can promise you that.

>>1663957
>Latria =/= Hyperdulia
False as it's only in degree; Mary's not worth worshiping a little less than God. She's not worth worshiping at all.

>Douay-Rheims Bible =/= My Bible
You don't have a bible; you have a collection of nonsense. The claims I made of the D-R I backed up. If you want to run from them, which are in fact the source of this Marian idolatry, feel free to be as big a hypocrite as you'd like.

>Changing the Bible =/= Interpreting the Bible
Interpreting the bible to say things it does not say is actually changing the bible, yes. As you have been shown many, many, many times.

>Changing the greek language =/= Understanding the greek language
You have not shown any understanding of the Petros v petra conflict, so no, you don't know Greek.

>Putting Mary on par with Jesus =/= Aknowledging the fact that she is the Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve
She is not the ark of the new covenant, and she is not the new Eve.

Jesus is the Second Adam.

You are saying Mary is the Second Eve.

That Jesus and Mary are husband and wife.

This is how absurd your theology is.

>>1664024
Actually those are nines

>>1663967
The plain meaning of the text is Jesus' Nazareth neighbors talking about the Jesus they knew, who had brothers they knew, and sisters they knew.

The people attempting to break into the meeting also said His mother and brothers were outside, and did Jesus drop everything and go to them?

No, He said all who believe are His mothers and His brothers.

You are caught in a linguistic trap that just because a word can mean different things means it has to mean what the Jesuits say it means.

Adelphos.

Matthew 12:46 N-NMP
GRK: kαὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήkεισαν
NAS: His mother and brothers were standing
KJV: and his brethren stood without,
INT: and the brothers of him were standing

>>1663985
The text names several brothers of Jesus, and says He has daughters.

See, when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they have a special hug where the daddy puts his penis into mommy's vagina, and nine months later small humans pop out.

Even in the Greek.

>>1663989
Murderous, murderous papists. When will you ever know that you are evil?

File: 1462915348662.png (2MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1366x768px

>>1664025
>She's not worth worshiping at all.
Hence the reason she isn't worshipped. Next strawman.
>You don't have a bible; you have a collection of nonsense
The Holy Bible is nonsense?
>The claims I made of the D-R
I don't care.
>Interpreting the bible to say things it does not say is actually changing the bible
Says the pervert claiming, and I quote >>1663692 "Joseph plowed Mary like a two bit whore after Jesus was born. Jesus had many brothers and sisters."
>You have not shown any understanding of the Petros v petra conflict, so no, you don't know Greek.
See >>1663374
>She is not the ark of the new covenant, and she is not the new Eve.
She is.

https://www.ignatius.com/promotions/cfe/documents/Mary web pages.pdf

You're like an atheist.

>THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!1 OKAY!!!!!???
>THE MOTHER OF CHRIST WAS NOT FULL OF GRACE!!!!!!1 OKAY!!!!!???

This frustration is demonic.

Reminder: >>1663627 >>1663631 >>1663774 >>1663777

>>1664024
When I meet Mary, I'll give her a huge bear hug, the kind I'm known for.

I'll never tell her how many people were deceived into going to hell in her name; she doesn't deserve to know that.

>>1664038
A simple google search will show you that the greek word "adelphos" does not mean what you want it to mean.

Linguists and greeks disagree with you.

Stop embarrassing yourself, Cletus, this is getting pathetic.

>>1664063
Idols. Pray to idols. "Hail Mary, Mother of God, blessed are you among women. Pray for me now in my hour of need, and I will light these candles to you, and rub my beads to you, and talk to you as though you can hear me. I will tell people how wonderful you are, and how you saved me. I will tell people that they should believe in Mary and be saved.

I believe Joseph and Mary had an awesome sex life, mostly because they were poor, yes. And because it produced many children.

See, people who don't have vigorous sex don't have a lot of children. That's kind of how that works.

There is a God; He has no mother. He created the universe. He came down from heaven in the flesh, and by the power of the Holy Spirit grew in Mary's womb until birth.

He did not start out as you did, at your conception.

He is God.

You demons should be frustrated.

>>1664073
A little google search did.

See, I googled Strong's adelphos, and cited it to you in the verses we're discussing.

You know, relevant information.

>>1664052
More blasphemies from the pawn of the accuser.

>>1664056
When will you know that you deserve to die?

>>1664081
ad hom and murder.

The last resort of the papist.

>>1664066
>I'll give her a huge bear hug, the kind I'm known for.
Uzzah wanted to do something similar, wanna guess how it turned out for him you filthy proddy?

>>1664076
https://www.ignatius.com/promotions/cfe/documents/Mary web pages.pdf

>I believe Joseph and Mary had an awesome sex life, mostly because they were poor, yes. And because it produced many children.
What your perverted dirty mind imagines is not reality.
>There is a God; He has no mother. He created the universe. He came down from heaven in the flesh, and by the power of the Holy Spirit grew in Mary's womb until birth.
Of course.

>>1664089
Oh, wow.

You know that people touched Mary, right? And they didn't die? So, there goes your entire theory, right?

What book of the bible did Ignatius write?

Yes, that's how babies are made. Sorry you had to learn on the internet.

You worship Mary as the Mother of God.

Now you changed your mind.

Huzzah!

>>1664073
Aren't you the one bragging about your Greek?

And you can't read Greek?

Matthew 12:46 N-NMP
GRK: kαὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ εἱστήkεισαν
NAS: His mother and brothers were standing
KJV: and his brethren stood without,
INT: and the brothers of him were standing

I'll give you a hint. The GRK is the Greek line. It says adelphos.

>>1664116
>It says adelphos.
And you still don't know the meaning of this word.

>>1664131
Yes, that's what your evil demon worshiping church does.

It murders everyone who does not bend the knee to Rome.

It has over 68,000,000 murders on its hands, not counting the Holocaust of the last century.

It is evil, as are you.

I don't doubt your desire to murder me, a Christian. It's what you people do. You murder Christians and Jews.

>>1664136
Strong's does, and I quoted Strong's.

You don't know Greek, obviously.

File: 4ae56d64f2fef2af9708a82921b95440.jpg (43KB, 500x747px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x747px

>>1664082
Executing a blasphemer is not murder.

I'll say it again, if I could go back a few centuries, I would gather a crowd of fellow Catholics, hunt you down with pitchforks like a dog and burn you alive at the stake.

You deserve such a death and guess what's coming next for you? Revelation 21:8

>>1664140
>>1664082 (You)
Executing a blasphemer is not murder.

I'll say it again, if I could go back a few centuries, I would gather a crowd of fellow Catholics and hunt you down with pitchforks like a dog and burn you alive at the stake.

You deserve such a death and guess what's coming next for you? Revelation 21:8

>In case people were wondering what the papist erased.

>>1664149
>Executing a blasphemer is not murder.

It is, actually.

>>1664149
For your sake I hope you've never called anyone autistic

>>1664149
So, you're an autistic papist. It's virtually the same murderous post!

File: 1472331015614.jpg (163KB, 746x789px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 746x789px

>>1664140
>not counting the Holocaust of the last century
Reminder that demonic proddies idolized Hitler, the New Luther.

>>1664140
>me, a Christian
>>1663692
>Joseph plowed Mary like a two bit whore

>>1664149
>Executing a blasphemer is not murder
So it's ok to kill catholics

>>1664153
I'm kind of wondering why anyone would use dogs that would leave enough of a fugitive to then impale on a stake.

Get better dogs.

>>1664151
It is not.

>>1664153
>>1664154
>le autism maymay
More name-calling from the blasphemer revealing that he truly is the pawn of the accuser, the slanderer, Satan himself.

>>1664162
Hitler, the catholic, with the Concordat of '33 under his belt from the pope, got 99% of the vote. And 100% of the catholic vote.

And Hitler said he was going to finish the job his church started, by killing all the Jews.

When I say the Vatican is evil, this is what I am including in that bill.

>>1664179
>use dogs
More proof that Mr. Sola Scriptura is truly unable to understand what he reads.

>>1664167
Yes. Both my posts.

Jesuit conditioning is hard to break. The myth of the eternal virgin is very near and dear to the NEET heart, which our autistic papist friend here no doubt is.

Tough times.

Tough measures.

Biblical.

>>1664149
I honestly desire to hang the pope and the cardinals

File: they wuz good catholic boys.png (1MB, 1261x2661px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1261x2661px

>>1664186
Pic related.

You can stop shitposting anytime anon.

>>1664196
>damage control

>>1664182

It is murder to execute a blasphemer.

Hopefully you will try that defense on a muslim one day.

>>1664191
Ah, yes. You said like a dog. That makes more sense, as I would have my teeth buried in your throat, papist.

>>1664197
Your desires are perverted and filthy. I wouldn't be surprised if you masturbate to pornography involving whores dressed as nuns.

>>1664197
The black pope, Pope Francis, will be cast alive into the lake of fire.

With that, I am content.

>>1664207
Tell me where the priest touched you anon.

>>1664203
>It is murder to execute a blasphemer.
According to the law of man, not the Law of God.

>>1664198
Axis: Japan, Germany and Italy.

Pope Concordat with Mussolini '29
Pope Concordat with Hitler '33

The pope ran the war, and ran the death camps.

>>1664210
Ever heard of papal infallibility champ?

>>1664215
Show me in the bible where you can murder "blasphemers".

"Thou Shalt Not Murder" is writ large there.

>>1664219
The unfalsifiable claim of the "Holy See"?

Yes. It's nonsense.

File: le catholic child molesters maymay.png (99KB, 628x489px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 628x489px

>>1664213
Reminder you perverted proddy:

>Sue Widemark A Penn State historian, Philip Jenkins, has done in-depth research of pedophilia and sexual abuse among the clergy and has come up with some rather eye opening facts (Pedophiles and Priests, Anatomy of a Crisis, Oxford University Press, 1996, Paperback edition, 2001). It seems that while .2 to 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been guilty of pedophilia (or sexual abuse particularly of boys, p. 80-82), a whopping 10 percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of sexual misconduct with a 2 or 3 percent pedophilia rate (p. 50-52).

>This is all the more interesting, notes Jenkins, since there has been NO media term "Pastor Pedophilia" coined at all! Jenkins theorizes that the media, proving the 'point' of the 'necessity' of sexual promiscuity, overemphasizes any instance of pedophilia found among the Catholic clergy since it can use this to criticize the entire idea of celibacy. But it is interesting that the NON Celibate Protestant ministers have a MUCH GREATER problem with it than the celibate Catholic priests!

>Jenkins' research was based on several highly respected studies and statistics. He points out that whereas sexual misconduct has always been a problem, among Catholic and non-Catholic clergy as well as among the general populace, what is new now is that the 'problem' of priest sexual abuse, constructed by the media as a result of a 'moral panic' occurring in the mid-1980's.

http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/SexInProtestantChurches.pdf

File: pius-xi.jpg (89KB, 606x753px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 606x753px

>>1664218
>The pope ran the war, and ran the death camps.
Take your meds.

Also:

>Pius XI watched the rising tide of totalitarianism with alarm and delivered three papal encyclicals challenging the new creeds: against Italian Fascism, "Non abbiamo bisogno" (1931; 'We do not need (to acquaint you)'); against Nazism, "Mit brennender Sorge" (1937; 'With deep concern') and against atheist communism, "Divini redemptoris" (1937; 'Divine Redeemer'). He also challenged the extremist nationalism of the Action Française movement and anti-semitism in the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XI#International_relations

>>1664222
>"Thou Shalt Not Murder"
Killing a blasphemer isn't murder, get that through your thick skull.

>>1664230
Wow, a Jew pedophile means all the papist pedophiles stopped existing.

So, where did the priest touch you? You seem awfully prepared to claim that other people are also being molested. Stockholm Syndrome much?

>>1664219
Yes, it's a satanic lie

>>1664238
Told Hitler to kill as many "christkillers" and communists as he could; only saved a few Jews who he forced to convert to Catholicism by baptism (forced being the operative word; they disavowed it when they were safe) and ran Nazi war criminals to South America after the war via the Vatican Ratlines.

The most evil institution on earth, bar none.

File: jews and papists.jpg (26KB, 624x294px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 624x294px

>>1664238
Luther was right again!

>>1664240
Where in the bible does it say that?

>>1664240
So you have no backing from the bible, or anywhere else, that would allow you to murder "blasphemers".

That's good news for you, as not only are you a blasphemer, but you belong to the most blasphemous organization on earth.

>>1664253
>>1664254
Leviticus 24:14

>>1664241
>You seem awfully prepared to claim that other people are also being molested.
No, I am prepared to respond to hypocrites like yourself.

>>1664248
>Told Hitler to kill as many "christkillers" and communists as he could
[citation needed]

>>1664255
Why can't people like you ever provide the verse? It would burn your eyes? Hands? What? Afraid of what the verse actually says?

“Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.

“Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. And whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death.

Gee, that seems like Old Covenant Hebrew living to me.

Is that your situation? You're a Hebrew 3500 years ago living under the Law?

You take that as permission from your God to kill anyone you consider a "blasphemer"?

Even though nobody in this thread blasphemed God except you?

>>1664257
Hypocrites? No, you can call me many things, and you have, but that's not one of them.

>>1664260
Take a history class.

Ok there's enough christians here so I can share my meme theory

The trinity might be logically unsound to assume

You see from what I know theologists have constructed the trinity from various sayings in the new testament and believe it exists so god can sense love for themselves

however I feel this construction is unnecessary and pointless since god would have to exist outside of the realm of the logic of the universe because of miring problems with omnipotence such as the question "can god make a sandwich so large even he can't eat it?"

you can frame countless such questions, some even dealing with omnibenevolence, the answer is always that god exists outside our realm of physics

Therefore the trinity is pointless since god can refer to themselves however they want, whenever they want and there is no mechanism necessary for 'love'

>>1664264
The execution of a blasphemer is not condemned in the Holy Bible, that is my point. Are you pretending to be stupid?

>>1664267
Typical response of a hypocrite.

File: Trinity.png (376KB, 822x1857px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 822x1857px

>>1664275
Pic related.

Besides, there is not enough christians here actually, just 3 protestants attacking a Catholic Christian (redundant I know) with demonic rage and accusing him of all sorts of debunked memes. That is very typical of pawns of Satan, the accuser, the slanderer, the deceiver, the father of all lies.

>>1664275
The trinity was present at the baptism of Jesus, and your pointless omnipotence questions are just nonsensical. Further, "omnibenevolence" is not a claim God made for Himself; it's just an atheist strawman.

We're not assuming the Trinity; God said He is one God. Jesus did and is and said things only God could; the Father did and is and said things only God could; the Spirit did and is and said things only God could.

While it is difficult to comprehend, or in some cases even to apprehend, you have to keep in mind that God has more dimensions than we do, and our ability to perceive Him as He is does not exist until He transforms us into beings like Himself.

You're correct that God is not tied down by our logic; logically one kid's lunch cannot feed 10,000 people. Yet with God, all things are possible, and one kid's lunch did feed 10,000 people, with 12 baskets of leftovers.

None of the miracles of God follow our logical rules, and none of the miracles of God follow the laws of the universe.

Isn't that kind of to be expected?

>>1664290
I asked where YOU could murder people for being blasphemers.

YOU want to murder blasphemers.

Can I make that any clearer? Or the fact that you don't know what a blasphemer even is? Or the fact that YOU are the blasphemous one in this thread?

>>1664307
The generation which Jesus spoke of has passed. Why hasn't he returned?

File: 1470526627285.jpg (11KB, 229x221px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 229x221px

>>1661842
>The author is literally jew
Only christcucks believe in the bible.

>>1664304
Great pic.

Absolute shit tier post. Per usual.

>>1661333
If you have to ask...

>>1664315
You're conflating two prophecies.

The first was that some hearing Him then would not die until they saw Him return in glory.

The second is that the generation who sees the Beginning of Sorrows would last until the survivors of that generation saw the second Coming.

The first was fulfilled by John the Revalator, the apostle of Jesus, on Patmos, who died after seeing Jesus' second coming, and then writing a book about it.

The second is this generation; these are the beginnings of sorrows, and this generation will not end until the second coming of Christ Jesus.

>>1664314
>YOU want to murder blasphemers.
Execute, not murder.

>YOU are the blasphemous one in this thread
t. >>1663692 "Joseph plowed Mary like a two bit whore"

>>1664319
?

>>1664325
That's not blasphemy. As I suspected, you have no idea what blasphemy is.

Nothing anyone says about Mary can ever be blasphemous.

>>1664336
More autistic double shit posting.

>>1664340
Mary is not some random woman, she is the Mother of Christ.

You cannot insult her without insulting Christ.

You are a blasphemer and you deserve to die. See >>1663854

>>1664344
>modifying your post is autism
>autism autism autism!!!
As I said, you can stop shitposting anytime.

>>1664307
There is no point in belittling and just brushing over omnipotence questions is not doing them any justice
making any serious distinguishing between Son, Father and Spirit is fundamentally pointless, they don't reveal anything about the inner workings of god
Also if omnibenevolence is a pointless strawman why do theodysies exist?

>>1664348
Jesus never calls her "mother".

"Mother of God" does not appear in the bible.

I cannot blaspheme Mary. I can say she is a whore who slept with an entire Roman legion cucking Joseph 500 times without committing blasphemy.

>>1664358
Nonsense is nonsense even if you put the word "God" in it. "Can God make a burrito so big he can't eat it?" is nonsense.

Nobody belittled you.

They make a distinction amongst themselves; the Son has a name nobody knows; the Father knows the day and hour, and no one else; and blasphemy against the Father and Son can be forgiven but not against the Holy Spirit.

They each have a unique attribute, and they each relate to each other, and have, forever. They are one, bound together by the Spirit, and only not one at the cross when Jesus took on the sins of the world.

Saying God wins is not saying God is omnibenevolent.

>>1664360
Next, we come to one of the most perplexing verses regarding Mary in the Bible. After Mary tells Jesus, "They have no wine," Jesus responds, saying, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come" (Jn. 2:4).

At first glance, these words seem harsh – as if Jesus is pushing His mother away. Imagine a mother calling her 14-year-old son to the dinner table for supper, and the son responding by saying, "Woman, what do you have to do with me? My hour has not yet come!" To our modern ears, these words sound more like those of a rebellious teenager than of the holy Son of God!

However, if we consider this verse in light of ancient Jewish culture and in the wider context of the story of the wedding feast at Cana, it becomes abundantly clear that these words reflect no opposition between Jesus and Mary, but rather something positive, indeed something beautiful, about their relationship.

(1/?)

>>1664360
First, in Johns Gospel, Jesus uses the title "woman" to politely address other women with whom he has a positive relationship. This is seen, for example, when Jesus tenderly appears to Mary Magdalene on Easter Sunday (Jn. 20:15), when He forgives the sins of the woman who committed adultery (Jn. 8:10), and when He draws the Samaritan woman to faith in the Messiah (Jn. 4:21). Given the positive way this address appears in Johns Gospel, Jesus calling Mary "woman" would not indicate a rebuke or lack of affection.

Second, in Biblical times a man might address a female as "woman," but nowhere else in the ancient Greco-Roman world or in ancient Israel do we have a known example of a son addressing his mother with this title. Jesus addressing His own mother as "woman" would be unique in all of antiquity. This suggests that Jesus has some particular purpose in calling His mother "woman" – a purpose that goes beyond the normal, congenial way He addresses other women. When applied to Mary, this title likely has some important, symbolic purpose (which will be considered below).

(2/?)

>>1664360
Third, consider how Mary herself interprets Jesus words: Does she walk away from the scene feeling sad, hurt, or rejected in any way? Just the opposite: She hears Jesus words and immediately says to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you" (Jn. 2:5). Mary interprets Christs response so positively that she confidently believes Jesus is going to fulfill her request, and she tells the servants to be ready to do whatever her Son commands.

Finally, Jesus own actions indicate that He looks with favor on Marys petition. And He supplies much more wine than Mary or anyone at the feast would have imagined. The six stone jars used for ritual purification (Jn. 2:6) each would have held 1524 gallons of water. Thus, when Jesus has those jars filled and changes all that water into wine, He ends up providing some 120 gallons worth for the wedding party. Now, if that tremendous overabundance is meant to be a rejection of Marys request, it is hard to imagine what fulfillment would look like! Far from denying Marys petition, Jesus provides in a way that exceeds all expectations.

(3/?)

>>1664360
Therefore, whatever Jesus words "woman, what have you to do with me . . . " may mean, they do not imply a negative relationship between Jesus and Mary. Now let us consider the positive significance that the title "woman" has for Mary in light of the opening two chapters in Johns Gospel.

The Gospel of John starts with the words "In the beginning . . . ," which hearken back to Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." In the next four verses, John goes on to write of light, life, creation, and light shining in darkness – once again, images taken right out of the creation story (Jn. 1:25). By drawing on these themes from Genesis, John introduces the story of Jesus against the backdrop of the story of creation, highlighting how Jesus comes to bring about a renewal of all creation.

(4/?)

>>1664376
Nah, don't bother. You already proved my point.

Jesus never called Mary His mother.

>>1664360
Some scholars have noted how Johns Gospel continues this creation theme by setting up a series of days that establishes a new creation week. The sequence begins in 1:1 with the phrase "In the beginning." John then demarcates a second day in 1:29 with the words "The next day . . . " He then uses the same phrase to note a third day in 1:35 and a fourth day in 1:43. Finally, after the succession of these first four days, the story of the Wedding at Cana is introduced as taking place three days after the fourth day: "On the third day there was a marriage at Cana . . . " (2:1). The third day after the fourth day would represent the seventh day in the Gospel of John. Consequently, the wedding at Cana comes at the climax of the new creation week, the seventh day.

Now we are ready to understand the profound meaning of Jesus calling His mother "woman" at the wedding feast of Cana. Highlighting how this scene takes place on the seventh day of the new creation week, Johns Gospel leads us to view Jesus and Mary in light of the creation story. And in this context, Jesus calls Mary "woman." With the Genesis themes in the background, this title would bring to mind the "woman" of Genesis, Eve (Gen. 2:23; 3:20).

(6/?)

>>1664360
This woman of Genesis played an important part in the first prophecy given to humanity. After the fall, God confronted the serpent and announced his eventual defeat, saying:

"I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise his heel." (Gen. 3:15)

Given at the dawn of creation, these words, known as the Protoevangelium ("First Gospel"), foretell how the woman one day will have a seed, a son, who will crush the head of the serpent (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 410). Centuries later, at the wedding feast of Cana, this prophecy begins to be fulfilled. By calling Mary "woman" with the creation story in the background, Jesus in the narrative of Johns Gospel is not merely addressing her politely as He does Mary Magdalene or the Samaritan woman. Rather, He is identifying Mary as the woman of Genesis 3:15.

Far from rebuking His mother or distancing Himself from her, Jesus, in calling Mary "woman," honors her in a way no woman had ever been honored before. She is the New Eve, the woman whose long-awaited Son will defeat the devil and fulfill the prophecy of Genesis.

(7/7)

>>1664376
>>1664381
>>1664383
>>1664384

Never feel the need to post this shit again.

>>1664387
kek

What an absurd stretch of reason for nothing meaningful.

File: Navez_-_Holy_Family,_2001.18-1.jpg (68KB, 457x600px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 457x600px

>>1664360
>I cannot blaspheme Mary. I can say she is a whore who slept with an entire Roman legion cucking Joseph 500 times without committing blasphemy.
I didn't know jews enjoyed role-playing as proddies.

Anyways, enjoy eternal damnation.

>>1664390
Delusional. We would have known Mary, the mother of at least 7 kids, was a woman even if Jesus didn't say so.

>>1664391
You need to get educated.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/knowing-mary-through-the-bible-new-wine-new-eve.html

>>1664390
There is no new Eve.

There is only a second Adam, Jesus.

This whole New Eve is incestuous garbage.

>>1664405
>This whole New Eve is incestuous garbage.
See >>1663774 >>1663777 you filthy pervert.

>>1664401
Wow, you really don't understand, do you.

Only God can be blasphemed.

Not Mary. Mary is not God.

Are you clear on that? That Mary is not God?

>>1664403
No, your useless traditions and stories have no interest for Christians, only for papists and other lost souls.

Your church's traditions are vile to God.

>>1664372
Not buying into believing omnipotence questions are pointless in the way you describe, they are because of other reasons
Besides i'm interested in the verses that phrase the distinctions between Son, Father and Spirit, care to list them? I'll admit I'm not too well versed in the bible.

Also could you explain the point of theodysies according to you?

The 'belittling' was constructed wrongly btw, ignore it

>>1664408
Mary is the Mother of the Incarnated Word of God.

You cannot insult her without insulting Christ.

By insulting her you are scourging Christ again with each vile word you utter.

When you will wake up in hell you'll understand.

You'll have all of eternity to think about it.

>>1664407
Adam and Eve had sex. A lot of sex.

Jesus is the Second Adam.

1 Corinthians 15
And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

If Mary is the New Eve, and Jesus is the New Adam, the Mary and Jesus are having sex in heaven.

Do all papists believe this, or just you autistic ones?

>>1664411
Study Church history instead of shitposting like some demon possessed atheist.

God looks at you with disgust.

>>1664408
No, she's higher than God, he know to kneel before his Holy Mother

>>1664418
Mary isn't God you blasphemer