where do I start?

>>9841167
With Genesis 1:1 generally

>>9841167
The first page

>>9841167
Leviticus

Matthiews

>>9841180
This as far as New Testament

>>9841186
isn't matthiews new testament?

>>9841167
In the beginning

The trash.

>mfw reading the theology behind John 2:4
Damn son

>>9841167
The Greeks

>>9841196
I meant as far as the NT goes

>>9841217
ha.

>>9841222
why would you want to do that? considering you can't really understand the NT without the OT

>>9841306
I wouldn't, I'm just saying if you're going to do it that way do it right

>>9841167
Read from Genesis to Deuteronomy and then stop and claim you know everything about how Christians are supposed to practice their religion.

>>9841215
Expand on this.

What is so important about this verse?

All I know about it is that the way "women" was used was supposed to be in a loving way rather than an angry way.

>>9841527
This is correct. The Pentateuch is the main point of contention in all books of the Bible (except maybe the poetry ones).

Following/not following Moses's Laws was the entire message of the prophetic books, which directly led to Christianity/New Testament which is also concerned with said Laws.

>>9841532
It's like 9-levels of theology scrammed into one sentence, it's also evidence that both Jesus and John were very highly educated Jews.

I'll give a short rundown
>Beginning of john's gospel sets up the theme of 7, a obvious reference to Genesis, like Genesis on the 7th day there is a marriage; this is basically a recreation of the first covenant implying that the unidentified couple getting married in the presence of Jesus and his Mother are the new Adam and Eve, WTF?
>Then it goes on to give a weird recreation of "1 Kings 2" Like Solomen Jesus doesn't want to perform a miracle but this time because he's worried people might be confused about the time of his Crucifixion but does it anyway on the behest of Mary

Now the part you've heard
>"O woman, what have you to do with me?" wasn't just loving submission but it's also confirming the prophesy of Genesis 3:15 and claiming Mary as the New Eve, wait what?
>previously the "what have you to do with me" phase has only been used once when he exorcises a demon in mark
>tdlr: Mary is higher in holiness than god himself

The gospel of john is top-tier crazy magic wizard shit.

>>9841909

Are you from r/catholicism? I just read that article.

File: 2.jpg (15KB, 260x337px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 260x337px

Get the Ignatius Study bible for the New Testament and get the individual books for the Old. Out of all the Bibles and commentaries that I've read (The Navarre, The Oxford, and the Didache Bible) the Ignatius is by far the most comprehensive. There are more notes than there is scripture. You could easily spend a good 15 minutes just reading the notes on a single chapter.

File: 1500058466022.jpg (71KB, 451x365px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 451x365px

>>9842027
>They still haven't released a single volume complete edition of the Ignatius Study Bible
Why must you remind me, how cruel.

>>9841167
the new testament, disregard the jewish testament unless you're interested in background lore

>>9842032

SOON

I just finished Genesis, Joseph was pretty based.

read all of genesis and exodus. then skip to psalms and proverbs. then the gospels and acts. then romans and hebrews in that order. then if you feel like it read revelation and also go back to some old testament books.

>>9842686
>skipping the Daniel story
>not reading about Jeremiah eating shit
>no Ecclesiastes

OT is best T, my friend.

>>9842686
no one is seriously this plebeian right?

>>9841167
start with the greeks