Let's have a bible thread. If you have any questions I can probably answer them

I can't remember off the top of my head but it was either God or one of the angels that told him what was going on in a dream.

But the bible was a lot more specific than that about slavery, it wasn't just "taking away freedom from bad people might be OK"

I accept this, but then it begs the question how much of it should we handwave with that? Fundamentalists think nothing, they want the entire book as it is, and Sam Harris argues christianity only changed because it had to. What's your view on this? And on that note, what's your relationship with the bible to begin with? Is it just a book with cool stories about admirable values, or literal word of god to you?

What did the angels say to Jesus on the mountain?

Couldn't God have made it possible for humans to have many things to choose from, exercising their free will, but without the existence of evil choices?

>Gen. 1:26 Let us make man in our image
>Gen. 3:22 Behold, the man has become like one of us
>Gen. 11:7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language
Who is God talking to? Who is this "us" if there is only one God? Also, how were the Pharoah's magicians in Exodus able to perform magic if the only god is Yahweh?

>Traps aren't gay

him and the holy spirit, they hang around together

If you ask a girl to marry you but deprive her the ability to refuse, could the marriage that results be valid? I don't think so. True love can't exist if there isn't an opportunity to reject it so if God wants us to love him we have to have the ability to reject him. I don't even think the concept of good makes sense without the existence of evil.

But according the doctrine to the Trinity they're the same being. Why would he need to talk to the Holy Spirit? Is he just talking to himself? Why does he never do this outside of Genesis?

>If you ask a girl to marry you but deprive her the ability to refuse, could the marriage that results be valid?
Yes. That's kind of how marriage worked for most of history.

What is the most impactful passage in the Bible from a purely aesthetic standpoint?

What's difficult to understand?
>be God
>bored
>create a tulpa
>call it the holy spirit like the pretentious pseud you are
>get bored with your tulpa
>create humans
>start talking with them instead

I think the language ultimately prefigures the doctrine of the trinity (Mt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14). Scripture also shows that creation is the work not only of the father, but also the son (Jn 1:1-3; Heb 1:2) and the Spirit (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30).

>I don't even think the concept of good makes sense without the existence of evil.
Did evil always exist? I mean, was there ever a time in which God exised but evil did not? Is so, then certainly there was a time in which there was good but not evil, unless God is not inherently good.
Anyway, either evil always existed, God created it, or it came into existence of itself. So, God was either the author of evil, was powerless to destroy evil, or allowed evil to exist. Pick one.
Why isn't the existence of God enough for goodness to "make sense"? If there was only God, would there be no good?

I don't think the Bible is the literal word of God but it is a superb collection of religious texts from a great tradition; I personally believe in God and Jesus but I don't think the Bible is the be all end all or the sole source of religious truth.

see

So, God is incapable of creating a world in which we have free will but there is no evil. He just can't figure that one out. Got it. Thanks, user!

If you go with the "evil is the absence of good" argument, then evil doesn't even have an objective existence.

So, if there was only God, there would be no evil. God created everything, made it separate from Himself, and thereby is the origin of all evil. Got it.

You don't even have to read it in the context of the trinity. Jewish and Christian scholars both see it has God speaking as a king representing himself in his full majesty in the court of heaven.

>But the bible was a lot more specific than that about slavery, it wasn't just "taking away freedom from bad people might be OK"
Could you be more specific in what you're referring to? I assumed you're talking the rules regulating slavery in the Kingdom.

It’s impossible to tell whether prophecies are being fulfilled until the moment of their completion. Any assumption that current events are linked to prophecy is pure speculation

I'm 14 and what is christianity?

So then why does this literary convention not exist outside of Genesis? Seems odd to only use it during the creation story and not carry it on at least throughout the Pentateuch.

Many people believe the book of Genesis is in part or wholly allegorical. Literality is impossible to discern so while your questions could be cause for speculation there’s no way to give a definite answer or tell if they are valid in the first place

Why did nobody laugh at my letters to romanians joke. It was funny.

I don't know what you mean. God could be representing himself in his full majesty among the court of heaven any time he refers to himself in the plural, like in Isaiah 6:8

All of those questions are relevant regardless of whether or not it's allegorical.

>Christianity is a Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as described in the New Testament.

>So, if there was only God, there would be no evil.
Yes.>God created everything, made it separate from Himself, and thereby is the origin of all evil. Got it.
I think that's a valid argument actually. It's not the whole story though. Creation is an ongoing process. It's incomplete and so of course evil "exists" in that state. However, all will eventually return to God and become complete and wholly good.

I'm speaking a bit more as a Platonist speaking on behalf of Christians, but my understanding is that this is basically Augustine's interpretation, who was trained by Platonists.

If all returns to God eventually, what's the point?

You’ll find that’s not true, especially not for the latter half. To answer the first three/four, it is commonly accepted that the snake represents the devil. This is impossible to tell for sure, but is inferred from the texts in Revelations. It is also hard to tell how he came to enter the garden as the phrasing could have also referred to abstract thought. There is no guarantee any physical form was involved whatsoever

The Bible is allowed to be the sole witness to history.

Some people will say "Even if the accounts of the patriarchs, or the exodus, or the Israelites in Canan are not anachronistic, that doesn't prove those accounts describe real events in history. They could just be pieces of historical fiction." But when people say this they are assuming that unless a historical event described in the bible is also described in a nonbiblical work, then the event either never happened or we have no way of knowing if it did happen.

This way of approaching scripture, what some call "hermeneutic of suspicion," treats the historical accounts in the bible as being "guilty until proven innocent." If a justification is given for this assumption, it's usually that the bible describes miracles, and that makes its historical accounts unreliable. But other ancient historians like Josephys, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Herodotus also record miracles, and their knowledge of the ancient world isn't deemed "suspect" unless someone else corroborates their assertions. In fact, these writers represent our only knowledge of many historical episodes.

Another point to remember is that critics who rejected the bible because it was the only witness to something have been proven wrong before. Prior to the late 19th century, the bible was the only source that attested to the existence of the Hittites. Since no other works or artifacts corroborated their existence, modern critics said this was yet another example of the bible getting ancient history wrong. But in 1880, Henry Sayce delivered a lecture demonstrating that hieroglyphics found in Turkey and Syria showed that the Hittites had actually existed.

Just as they did with the Hittites, modern scholars also doubted Belshazzar's existence because it was only recorded in the bible, but that too was disproven.

Yes, but in Isaiah, God actually is addressing a court and the narrator (Isaiah) that have been introduced to the reader. No such introduction has been given in the relevant passages of Genesis. It reads as if God is speaking to himself, or to other gods; especially Gen. 3:22.

imo, for God to experience himself.

>As a literary device, an allegory is a metaphor in which a character, place or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences.
How does this magically dissolve the weirdness of people talking to a snake like it's no big deal?

He didn't experience Himself before creation?

Can God really be God without creating?

Not the same person but presumably “himself” was meant to mean “for his own purposes”

Was God not God before He created?

And what are they?

The word for God that is used in Genesis, elohim, may refer to the multiplicity of powers found in God (God the all-powerful, God the all-knowing, God the all-good, and so on). Elohim does not require the existence of multiple deities, because even though it is a plural noun it is often joined with a singular verb, such as in Genesis 1:26, which says, “Then God said [singular form], ‘Let us make man in our image.’” The sacred writer understood that the God of Israel was one being, even though he could be described as having a magnificence that is best represented in human language through a plurality.

I don't think so. The aspect of creator is inherent to the nature of God. If the Creator does not create then there is simply nothing. Can there be a mind with no thoughts?

This interpretation kind of relies on material that doesn't appear until well after Genesis though. It seems odd to cryptically refer to a singular God as a multiplicity of powers before introducing those powers. Wouldn't it make more sense to use a singular noun at the beginning of a story about a lone god who existed before all?

Well we're looking at Genesis 1:26 in isolation and there's clearly a singular use of Elohim.

>Then God said [singular form], ‘Let us make man in our image

Aside from that, even If I were doing as you said I was and relying on material that appears afterwards I don't see why that's a problem because it's usually a good idea to take everything in context.

What would sex have been like for Adam and Eve in the garden had they not been exiled?

>Using the (((Masoretic))) instead of the Divinely inspired Septuagint.
>Calling yourself Christian.
Pick one.

What was up with that part in Exodus where God sent Moses off on his mission, then cam and tried to kill him, and the only thing that saved him was his wife circumcised him in his sleep?

Why would God give Moses his mission, watch him dutifully obey, and then try to kill him in his sleep?

Why is mutilating your dick a sign of god's favour? I mean aside from the simon says part.

You previously quoted NT verses to support your interpretation. That "context" was supplied thousands of years later by separate authors. That's more revisionism than it is context. It makes sense to interpret Genesis on its own since it obviously predates all the other material by a large margin. And given Genesis's archaic nature, I think its more plausible that God is addressing other lesser dieties, which the ancient author and reader surely would have been aware of.

What does the OT say about a messiah?
Did Jesus ever claim to be the messiah?
How well does he fit with how the Judeans defined the word at that time?

Is there a difference between Lucifer, Satan, and the Devil?

If God created, then there has to be a point at which the created did not exist. Thus, there must be a time at which God had not created anything. At which point, you say, God was not God.

Have you never read literature before?

our penises would work on command like the antennas in those old cars that rise up and fold in when you turn the radio on or off

I've read good literature, in which every detail of the allegory is pertinent.

Sometimes. Lucifer/Morning Star could mean Satan but it could also be referring to Jesus like Revelation 2:28. Devil could mean Satan or it could refer to lesser demons.

Pertinent to what?

There can't be time when there is no reference point. There's just nothing. God had to create in order to be God. This is essentially the question, "Why is there is something rather than nothing?" And the answer is "Because it is." God's name is "I am". He just is.

What does Matthew 5:17 mean?

God created time and lives outside of it (eternity)
Read Augustine's Confessions

Occasionally some protestant will freak out about Catholics literally worshiping Lucifer. I always got a kick out of that.

Pertinent to the meaning of the allegory.

Do I really have to read Leviticus and Numbers? I've been trying to push through them for so long now

He is, and He would be regardless if He had or hadn't created anything. God's name is "I am," not "I create."

What parts of the creation story are not pertinent to its meaning?

Leviticus isn't terribly important but you should at least read Numbers 9-36. Leviticus is really just a lawbook, it's meant to referenced rather than read through. If you're the type of person who reads local laws and regulations for fun you might enjoy it.

What the fuck is going on in exodus 4??

Attached: most-high.jpg (750x848, 76K)

Recently, I discovered the biblical definitions of meek and "turning the other cheek": are there other terms or sayings that you can think of that are commonly misused or ill-defined?

Also, how should I start reading the bible?

Are you talking about 4:24-26? The original meaning is obscure. Moses may have followed the Midianite custom of waiting to circumcise boys until just before marriage. If so, he neglected the Abrahamic covenant, which required newborn males to circumcised on the eighth day after birth. Failure to observe this rite mean being "cut off" from the covenant people (Gen 17:14). In any case, the incident is often thought to foreshadow the events of Passover night, when sacrificial blood will protect the first-born sons of Israel from the divine destroyer (12:21-27). Consider the fact that the present episode directly follows a reference in 4:23 to the tenth plague, the stopover at the lodging place suggests a nighttime setting, death is averted by a ritual shedding of blood, and the expression 'sought to kill him' in 4:24 may refer, not to the Lord's pursuit of Moses, but to a divine threat against Gershom, the first-born of Moses.

Yeah I'm talking about at the inn..."So it came to pass by the way at the inn, the lord met him in the inn and sought to kill him." So is it just a literary device of foreshadowing or is there a deeper meaning?

Then there's "thou art a bloody husband..." the use of pronouns is very ambiguous. To me this is the most mysterious line of the Torah.

There's no special way to read the bible, it's just whatever works for you. My first time I read straight through starting with Genesis and ending in Revelation. The key is to make it a routine part of your day because it takes a very long time. 30 minutes every morning will do the trick. Don't neglect commentaries and other secondary literature because they will shed light on a lot of things and make it a more enjoyable experience.

Both the divine persona (trinity) as well as the heavenly host (angels)

kjvtoday.com/home/is-the-kjv-confusing-in-exodus-424-26

you are homosexual.

This

Attached: 1551229890833.png (1024x1004, 1.01M)

Why don't we just remove the boring books from the bible?

Then what's the point of prophecies if they're only meant to confirm the event after it happened? Then it's not a prophecy. We can make a vague list of possible things which may happen in the future, then confirm our biases when one of these things happens. The rest can be said to not have happened yet, or to have been metaphorical or symbolic.

The Quran also uses plural for God, it's some semitic thing, like French tu/vous.

I think it's God speaking to the angels, who are an extension of His Will.

Matthew 10:14 since one of my favorite novels ends with it.

Attached: A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz_cover_1st_ed.jpg (263x377, 24K)

That's what I'm asking, bruh.

Really? That's it? In the entire better part of a million words, this is the level of profundity and beauty the Bible has to offer?

Attached: tn_1235245586270.jpg (600x491, 29K)

1 Corinthians 13:8-13
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies,they will cease; where there are tongues,they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in partand we prophesy in part,but when completeness comes,what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;then we shall see face to face.Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love.But the greatest of these is love.

Can I be a pantheist and also a theist at the same time? Can I have my own views in the vein of God-as-Consciousness and concepts of monism but simultaneously believe in there being a Heavenly Father who oversees everything and ensures that the world remains in order? Because while I certainly hold to the first part, I've lately found it kind of scary to conceive of there being no ultimate Judge or Overseer of us, and there being only us. It is kind of scary to imagine that, and I wish there could be both pantheism and theism at once, wherein the Theistic God is part of the Pantheism - part of the monism. Does that make sense? Can I use the Heavenly Father of Christianity as that God, or does that violate Christianity? Are there any Christian thinkers who synthesized Pantheism/Monism with the existence of a Heavenly Father?

Once again, we're talking about one of the largest books ever written and this is the absolute best of its contents? Shakespeare has much more inspiring passages. The Bible is such a meme.

"Evil" often just means bad, not necessarily moral evil. "Fearing" God means more like having awe and respect than fear. Also look up hesed. Also be aware of the various names of God and how they're usually represented English bibles.

Talk to me about Thomas. He's the most based boi in the Bible imo. Sticks his finger into Jesus' wound and shit. It's basically God's way of telling us that skepticism is good. Tommy is a based boi indeed.

To add, I find myself a strange character. On one hand, I am an avowed pantheist-monist. On the other, I simultaneously find myself something like a crypto-Christian. I love their music, their imagery (well, not the cross or images of death), and the notion of a Heavenly Father. Yet I also hate theism and think it has ruined our world. I don't know what's wrong with me. Why am I a Pantheist-Monist yet also find myself drawn to currents of Christianity?

>What does the OT say about a messiah?
Messiah and christ both mean annointed one, a title used to refer to kings of Judah and Israel. The Old Testament has many prophecies that Israel would be restored, all the exiles gathered back to it, and basically usher in a utopian age of Jewish hegemony. An essential part of that is a new king who reestablishes the davidic monarchy that ruled Judah. Most prophecies focus on the restoration of Israel in general rather than the messiah in particular. But as you got closer to the 1st century, Jews became more interested in the messiah part and more passages were interpreted as messianic. Then Christianity happened and they interpreted a ton of passages as being about the messiah that the Jews didn't.

>Did Jesus ever claim to be the messiah?
irl? Probably. Lots of people were claiming to be the messiah at that time and in Jesus's case it's something very firmly ingrained in Christianity (it's even there in the name).

>How well does he fit with how the Judeans defined the word at that time?
Not well. There's a reason Jews didn't accept him as the messiah. He didn't reestablish the kindom of Israel and expel the Romans. At most, if the gosepls are believed, he performed individual healing miracles and was raised from the dead. Even if these things happened, they're a far cry from what was expected of the messiah. Of course, Christians say all the world-changing stuff will happen at the second coming. Also, when Christians consider Jesus to be literally God, "annointed one" sort of seems like too small a title. It implies someone chosen by God who has power bestowed on them.

No joke but Jordan Peterson answers all these questions in one of the biblical lectures.

What do you think of the Bible's vehement denial of the legitimacy of other religious traditions? It's one of the Bible's most common and consistent themes.

Actual good post.

I chuckled user

Prodigal Son

Good for you user!

John 1:1-18

>we're talking about one of the largest books ever written and this is the absolute best of its contents?
For you.

Which books of the new testament are forgeries?

How much would you say a bible writen with ink pen would be worth?

Attached: 5c733f57a3106c65fffb8115 (1).jpg (800x800, 183K)

> Shakespeare has much more inspiring passages
such as?

You ask for a personal opinion but now you want to play this game "oh gee that's all it has to offer?!" and it's lame.

Not him but seriously you could probably drop in at any page on any work, I think faith is a prerequisite to holding the collection of scrolls to such an absurd height in literature, the introduction to the Hitopadesha is more aesthetic than anything posted here, and that's not even my favorite book, that's just something I've read recently. People say that the wisdom in the bible is unrivaled but in all honesty how? I haven't found a single thing that beats Maitri's Upanishad or the Arthaviniścaya, or the stoics & cynics who greatly influenced the authors of the bible, or the Dao De Jing, the Analects, the only ones that are either tied or below the bible would be the other Abrahamic global salvation based religions, Semitic paganism has some great stuff too like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the fragments of wisdom literature.

Spoiler: creation never actually happened in the first place

forgery implies originals

There it is. I knew you were just looking for an opportunity to don your fedora.

What? No it doesnt. It implies writing with the intent to pass the work off as someone else.

I would love to hear how the cynics and stoics influenced the authors of the bible. Try to give a proper answer. Check the dates and be specific in what books you're talking about and provide textual citations. We know very little about the cynics and early stoics so I can't even imagine how you wold begin to back up your assertion.

How do you quantify aestheticism?

>You ask for personal opinion

I don't remember doing that.

Attached: 1485105299153.jpg (657x527, 39K)

Is it true there is an unread original version of the bible in the vattican that people are not allowed to read? (For more than preservation purposes, like its an un-edited mess that has horrible secrets)

What could the answer be if not an opinion?

im still waiting for my answer

Read "Through New Eyes" by James B Jordan. The pdf is online

Everything does have a meaning but you need a grounding in ancient symbolism and literature to understand what they meant. You can't just read the text alone and figure all of that out. The stories were grounded in a larger oral tradition.

An academically supported passage widely renowned for its depth and beauty.

Attached: 1482562638449.png (556x430, 81K)

All of academia could agree but it would still be an opinion.

which is the most readable, least jewed translation?

Attached: 73dea9c80f58f9b953f93a4ff18b9cdc877288abb39fa670465b5ae41d6875b1.jpg (1200x1200, 1.02M)

I think the RSV strikes a good balance between the scholarly and readability. A lot of great secondary literature will use the RSV or one of the derivatives so it's that much more useful.

the nigga bible

Whatever. Its too bad the bible was memed by Bloom. If that were not the case we'd hardly have any threads about the Bible because ultimately it's shallow, cruel, and crude.

uuuhhhhhhhHhhhhHHHGGGGGG

Good post fren

Attached: 90f.png (924x560, 48K)

The Jewish Bible, or the Tanakh, gives rules for slavery to Jews. Confusingly, the Tanakh was tacked onto the New Testament, and now Christians are accused of all sorts of Jewry by laypeople who don't understand this context. However, because of the idiocy of Christians themselves, instead of disowning the Tanakh, they make excuses for it. This is because at least over 90% of Christians aren't serious Christians, or they are easily influenced by herding techniques.

>Is the snake in the Garden of Eden the devil?
The snake is Christ.
>Did God put Adam and Eve in a cage with the devil?
No. Yahweh intended to create the physical universe to be detached from the spiritual world. Christ entered into the physical world that Yahweh created to help Adam and Eve.

But Paul endorses it too, and he wrote the majority of the NT, and is considered an authoritative voice.

Saul of Tarsus is also the majority of the conflicts between him and other New Testament readings, on top of being a proven liar. I mean, a Jew that endorses the Jewish bible. That's essentially what Paul is, except he's writing to corrupt Christianity (and he succeeded).

Justify free will in the case of physical determinism.

Just ordered this.
You should too.

Attached: 51Kx8gJAH+L.jpg (331x500, 45K)

Justify X in [my presupposed condition].

>He denies physical determinism

Attached: 1502685569461.jpg (1900x2650, 164K)

I would agree with you, but the fact is that 99% of Christians do not, and that everyone has followed his version of the religion since he first proselytized 2000 years ago. So there's no point of making these claims when nobody you're speaking of or to agrees with you on the matter. The NT, though perhaps not Christ, indeed supports slavery, and has always.

Compatibilism.

>le funny frog memay

Alright, so disregarding the previous bullshit and numbers pulled out of your ass, I'd like to hear how the New Testament endorses slavery, because this is news to me.

Ephesians 6:5 and after.

>Ephesians
>

Attached: serveimage.gif (500x500, 470K)

It's in the NT, and directly supports slavery. There's nothing else to be said.

I thought you did that on purpose to go along with my tirade, but it seems you're really serious about using Paul as a legitimate voice of Christianity. It isn't funny anymore. I'm concerned that you might actually be this much of an idiot.

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1280x720, 148K)

I appreciate the kindness, it's always nice to be reminded of how compassionate Christians are. Very spiritual, user!

I was agreeing with you on Paul's unworthiness, but it doesn't change the fact that his words make up most of the NT, and people follow them to this day.

ad populum

KJV

RSV is jewed. Just google where the kjv mistranslated stuff and you'll be good to go. If you really need something "scholarly" then NKJV or ESV are good and uncucked, but then you'll be missing out on the beautiful KJV language.

I assume anyone who likes the KJV is a brainlet who is simply impressed by the older English rather than any real literary merit. When it was written that was how people talked, it was the plain language of the day. We should read the bible in the plain language of our day. By reading the KJV all you're doing is making things that much more difficult to understand what you're reading. I think the KJV explains why so many protestants are deficient in their understanding and believe so many ridiculous things.

how can evil be permissible if God cannot increase the sum of good by creating?

Evil is the rejection of good and is necessary for true choice. If you can't reject good then you can't truly accept it.

>The snake is Christ.
First time I've heard of this.

Attached: 1551064839747.jpg (814x696, 90K)

>Who is God talking to?
It's a remnant of the very old polythestic roots of early Judaism.
>Also, how were the Pharoah's magicians in Exodus able to perform magic if the only god is Yahweh?
The Old Testament doesn't always deny other deities exist. Their magic worked on Egyptian deities.

It's not solely a history book so where do you draw the line between story and history?

Some of the Pauline Epistles are thought to be fake (as in not written by Paul).
Acts might be also be a rewriting of history to make it more Paul-friendly.

So what are you exactly?
The original Jewish Christianity (the "untainted" branch) didn't survive for long.

While there are certainly grays and instances where out understanding of particular scripture will change as outside information comes in, with a careful examination of the language being used, the genre, the authors, the intended audience, and of course the what text actually says, we can get a good idea of what truths the authors are trying to communicate. You're not going to find any sort of list of metaphorical or literal passages because that's not how books work, and many things are open to interpretation. Sometimes it doesn't matter if it's a literal account of actual events, like the story of Jonah. Sometimes it's essential, like in the gospels. The story of Jonah teaches us obedience, and the existence or nonexistence of Jonah doesn't make the story any less valuable but a fictional story of Jesus dying and coming back to life wouldn't teach us anything.

We are not limited to saying that every story in the bible is either literal history or poetic fictions. They could instead be non-literal accounts of actual historical events. Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommy's that grow inside the mommy's tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a child's level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in Genesis can be true but consist of non-literal language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.

A critic might say that if Job and Jonah did not exist, then maybe Jesus and Peter never existed as well. Maybe the entire bible is didactic fiction. But that leap of logic is as unwarranted as saying that because a library contains books of fiction, it follows that every book in a library is fiction. Like any piece of literature, we can examine the genre of a particular scriptural passage and see what kind of message it communicates.

>While there are certainly grays and instances where out understanding

Proofreading is for chumps. I mean to say there's certainly gray areas and instances where our understanding change.

It wasn't how people talked you brainlet. They intentionally wrote it in an outdated language for the time to add Majesty to it. Learn some history. Read kjv aloud.

I hate prodestsnts but this is a brainlet take on it.

So you admit to being impressed by older sounding language. Good job.

How do protestants interpret Matthew 16? To me it seems like there's an obvious proof of the papacy but the few protestant commentaries that I've seen skipped over it entirely.

>Jewish Christianity

Attached: 1551133563443.jpg (455x675, 113K)

This was not a joke.
I'm talking about the little sect founded by Jesus, who recognized him as their Messiah (but not as God in the flesh) and followed the Mosaic law. It didn't last long, compared to the hijacked made-for-goyim Pauline version (still plaguing us today).

it's a big book, yes?

>founded by Jesus
>no recognition of transcendent godhood
>followed Mosaic law
Yeah this is a joke, and you're fucking dumb if you think anyone would believe you for a second

I want to read the bible because the stort of Judas sounds cool but the bible is too long. what can i read to just read that part itself and understand all the characters involved

Peter Kreeft has a pretty good book called You Can Understand The Bible which goes through every book and summarizes them and offers a little bit of commentary. When you find a book that interests you don't be afraid to jump right in. You don't have to read the bible in any particular order, although I would say there is an overarching narrative throughout the bible. It goes something like this:

Genesis
Exodus 1-24, 32-40
Numbers 9-36
Deuteronomy 34
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Ezra
Nehemiah
1 Maccabees (non-canon for protestants)
Luke
Acts

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Jewish_Christians

Anyone?

what about evil that isn't a result of free will?

"Natural evil" can't be consider true evil since it isn't aware and intentional so it should be treated as a separate matter. It's okay to allow such evils to exist if by doing so you bring about more good or prevent a greater evil. Humans allow the evil of car accidents because the regular use of streets and highways bring about a greater good. We could get rid of car accidents by getting rid of cars, but that solution would be worse than the problem we're trying to solve.

but God, a maximally good being sans creation, can't increase the sum of good by creating. so the existence of evil couldn't be permissible "for the greater good."

You're speaking a different language because I'm not sure what you mean. Why can't God create something which is good and continues developing?

>Why can't God create something which is good and continues developing?
He could do that. but it could never develop to a point where there is a greater sum of good in the world versus a world in which only God exists. because God is defined as a maximally good being sans creation.

You're not explaining this very well. You seem to be asserting that not only must God create the most maximally good universe possible, but he must also do in one instant--that he can't just create a universe and let it develop into the maximum good over time. I'm trying to figure out why you believe these things have to be true, if that's what you're saying. I'm not sure because when I asked for a clarification you just repeated a lot of the language you already used. God being defined as the "maximally good being sans creation" is meaningless to me because I'm not entirely sure what that means so I have to guess.

>You seem to be asserting that not only must God create the most maximally good universe possible
if he is omnibenevolent, yes he must do this.
>but he must also do in one instant--that he can't just create a universe and let it develop into the maximum good over time.
he could do this. but the point is that that maximally good universe can only ever be as good as a universe where only God exists. therefore, God creating a universe where evil exists couldn't be justified as "working toward a greater good," because even as maximally good as it can get, it will only possibly be equally as good as a world where only God exists.
>God being defined as the "maximally good being sans creation" is meaningless to me because I'm not entirely sure what that means so I have to guess.
it just means he's omnibenevolent. so a world in which only he exists (i.e., "sans creation") is maximally good (as good as possible).

I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying, that when creation is finished, our universe can only be as good as God is. I don't see why the existence of evil would contradict God's existence in our universe because creation isn't finished. The maximally good universe is in the process of being created and we're in the middle of it.

Why did it age so poorly

>that when creation is finished, our universe can only be as good as God is.
yeah. so a universe with evil in it can only at best be equally good, not greater, than a world in which only God exists. faced with two equally good worlds, an omnibenevolent being would presumably choose the one in which no evil exists.
> I don't see why the existence of evil would contradict God's existence in our universe because creation isn't finished.
I'm not sure what you mean by evil "contradicting God's existence."

>I'm not sure what you mean by evil "contradicting God's existence."
I mean the existence of evil isn't a problem because the universe is still being created. It's not a finished product which must be as good as God.

I don't see the relevance of that. even when it is a finished product, it can only be equally good as a world in which only
god exists. and, like I said, faced with two equally good worlds, an omnibenevolent being would presumably choose the one in which no evil exists.

Why do people adhere to Sola Scriptura?

Attached: 41294021_2091642587817274_6173687446987866112_o.jpg (1280x953, 87K)

Wild misinterpretation of the Bible.

what's the misinterpretation?

I'm currently up to Kings 2. Why do the Israelites always forsake God? King after King, they just keep worshiping Moloch and the wooden idols. It seems like this has been going on since Exodus. They just keep forsaking him, and then he punishes them, but they don't learn. It's confusing me on a lot of levels. Why do they keep doing it? Why does he never wipe them out? Why does he basically do nothing sometimes?

bump

Not Bible related but are Saint John of the Cross works worth reading?

Do all people have an equal amount of 'free will'? For example if someone suffers from a severe injury to the prefrontal lobe and behaves in sinfull manners that were not yet present before the injury, will he/she be held accountable for those actions?

What is your opinion on Gnosticism?

He probably thinks gnosticism will touch his peepee at night if he doesn't pray to beads or some shit.

What is the oldest sentence in the Bible? Like which sentence came first?

Cuz it feels like it's definitely not written in chronological order.. It changes pacing and themes so fast, especially after Genesis. I doubt that the Bible really started with "in the beginning god creates earth."

So yea, where did they first start writing the Bible? Is Exodus the first story written down?

is god real

It's part of the human condition. We reject him just as much but in different ways.

I think some people are naturally repulsed by hierarchy and authority so they're motivated to find a way out of it. Sola scriptura allows protestants to believe whatever they want to believe and this makes it utterly indefensible. There's no historical foundation for it which is why many protestants will generally ignore the history of Christianity.

>The snake is Christ.
Please elaborate.

Which is a good monthly (or so) reading plan for the bible?

Why would you trust the Bible? It’s biased towards itself. What if the truth is that God’s a bitch, and it’s all in some other old books that got burned a thousand years ago?

I trust the bible because I believe Jesus is who he said he was. If you want I can make the argument for the resurrection which is the reason I believe that's the case, but for now let's assume Jesus is God. When taken as just a reliable human document, the bible shows that Christ not only rose from the dead, but that he established a church built on the apostles (Matt. 16:18-19, Eph. 2:20). The successors of the apostles, or the popes and bishops who inherited the apostles' spiritual authority, were then able to authoritatively declare the bible to be the word of god.

This is not a circular argument, in which an inspired bible is used to prove the church's authority and the church's authority is used to prove that the bible is inspired. Instead, it is a "spiral argument," in which the bible is assumed to be a merely human document that records the creation of the divinely instituted church. This church then had the authority to pronounce which human writings also had God as their author.

Personally I'm not a fan of any monthly reading plans because they're too restrictive and many times there's no real logic to the daily readings, like if there's a short narrative within a book they might interrupt it and assign it to multiple days when it could all be read at once.

I like to cultivate a habit of reading for a certain amount of time, at the same time every day. I think that's the key to approaching any large work.

This must be bait. Most pseud post I have read on this board so far.

>The snake is Christ.
Degenerate retard.

Christ is traditionally held to be the noetic serpent, but this teaching is the absolute contrary to what he said.
youtube.com/watch?v=J_KWeBqFY_g

>If you want I can make the argument for the resurrection which is the reason I believe that's the case.
Please go ahead, I've read about the open tomb but nothing detailed. If you could flesh out the entire story for me with all its details I'd greatly appreciate it.

I can give a fairly basic rundown. There are certain facts which almost all historians agree on, whether they're secular or religious. I point this out because I know a lot of critics will be tempted to reject them on impulse, but I think this is a wrongheaded approach. I believe they should be focused on finding alternative explanations which also account for the facts rather than go against the super majority and reject the existence of Jesus or something equally silly. With that said, here's the facts although I freely admit to presenting them in a biased way:

Jesus was a real person and was crucified, multiple people claimed to have encountered an alive Jesus after his crucifixion, and this belief was genuine (regardless of whether it's true or not) because many of them went on to become martyrs for that belief.

Now because Jesus was crucified, it's reasonable to believe he really died. He was placed in a guarded tomb because it was in the best interest of the Jewish and Roman authorities to make sure that the body didn't disappear or any other funny business took place because the Romans were putting down a rebellion and the Jews were squashing a heresy. We know the body truly disappeared because the Jews accused the Christians of stealing the body.

I'm only aware of a few possible explanations but I think only one of them is truly plausible. There's the hallucination hypothesis which accuses the followers of hallucinating the post crucifixion appearance but this doesn't make any sense because multiple people at multiple times and places claimed to have experienced the risen Christ and real world hallucinations don't work like that. This also fails to explain the radical conversion of Paul who was one of the greatest prosecutors of the early Christians and overnight became the most devoted follower after Jesus is said to have met him on the road.

There's also the "greed hypothesis" which accuses the followers of making it all up in play for political power but that doesn't seem like a very convincing incentive since many of the apostles and followers of Christ were tortured and martyred. They were never very rich and as a group and Christians as a group never really gained much power until hundreds of years later.

To me the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus is who he said and was and demonstrated it by dying and resurrecting.

Thanks for taking the time to write down all that for me user. It's appreciated. I saved everything you wrote for further research so know you didn't waste your time writing it all. Godspeed.

It all
returns
to nothing
it just keeps tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling doooooown

Are you talking about the Gnostic gospels? I never bothered reading them because I don't ever see biblical scholars and historians take them seriously. The consensus seems to be that they were written by pagans attempting to assimilate Christianity.

What is this?

What Bible do I buy?
It must be a KJV and include the Apocrypha. Hardcover. Nothing too excessively beautiful and expensive because I'm an atheist, it's just another book to go on my shelf. But at the same time I do want quality befitting it's immense importance.

Yes
I don't know, he might be. Gonna believe regardless cause I want to.

The Norton Critical Edition Bible is not hardcover but it's the only KJV Bible worth getting due to the critical notes and extras.

If you're really just looking for a decoration or something to pass down you can't go wrong with a family bible. That's what the OP's picture is and they come all sorts of different designs.

>Semitic paganism has some great stuff too like the Epic of Gilgamesh
This is higher quality bait than usual, I will give him that. The Epic of Gilgamesh is shit to read, and half of it is missing, and has to be ffing interpolated from fragmentary texts references to what happened over the centuries

This beats the bible hands down. You can't find prose like this anywhere

>He who has seen the history of Gilgamesh,

>[He who] knows all [that has happened to him]

>[He who] has seen all kinds of wisdom,

>[and] knows the mysteries and has seen what is hidden,

>he bringeth news dating farther back [than the deluge];

>He has traveled far-distant roads,

>and become weary * * *

>[and now he has written] on a memorial tablet all the other things

>* * * the wall of Uruk-supuru

>Lines ten and eleven are missing

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Do you have a question or do you think there's something wrong with it? I don't think there's anything wrong with regulating slavery or this specific regulation because there are some morally acceptable forms of slavery and there are times when punishment of those slaves is acceptable. Slavery is the deprivation of freedom and this must take place under certain circumstances for society to exist.

>we live in a society therefore it's okay to have slaves and beat them for any reason and the only limitation is that you don't kill them
The USA has no legally sanctioned slave-beating. Even if you argue prisons are slavery because they deprive people of freedom, which is retarded, you're not supposed to beat prisoners as punishment, you only use force to restrain them.

Why the fuck does every Bible have to use shitty thin paper?

Using a rod to punish slaves may seem barbaric but you have to keep in mind that Paul was speaking to a specific audience with a particular conception of punishment. The didn't have a prison system In the modern day when our slaves deserve punishment, prisons will usually put prisoners in solitary confinement. The rod is their solitary confinement.

The punishment itself doesn't matter so much as the principle which states that slaves can be punished under certain circumstances. Paul recommends the rod for his audience but that doesn't mean we have to use it.

What makes a man resurrecting from the dead a plausible hypothesis in your mind?

It's the best explanation of the facts.

Even if it is, which I would dispute, it still may not be plausible. In some cases we simply can't provide a good explanation for something, so even the best explanation is a bad one.

If you're prejudiced against the supernatural or automatically rule out of the possibility of supernatural events I can see why you would think that way. I think it's a mistake to do that without a good reason.

It's not that I rule out supernatural events. I rule out people rising from the dead unless it can be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm skeptical of the claim Jesus rose from the dead for the same reason, and probably to the same extent, that you would be skeptical of any other claim of someone rising from the dead. Even if some people earnestly believe he appeared to them, that simply isn't enough to overcome the low prior probability that ought to be placed on a guy rising from the dead.

Yeah if a group of people started claiming they witnessed somebody come back from the dead I wouldn't take them at their word. That's not all that happened with Jesus though. We have the state sanctioned execution and verified death, so we know he really died. Then they place him in a guarded tomb and over night the body disappeared. So far things can be easily explained without supernatural explanations but things start getting weird. Jesus starts showing up and physically interacting with different groups of people at different times and places, even to enemies of his Christian followers. Jewish authority figure name Paul who then go on to convert to Christianity. For any casual observer it would have looked like he just threw his life away for no good reason, because Paul was living the good life.

I think it's clear that something very weird happen so a weird explanation is acceptable to me.

It certainly is a weird series of events, I just think that positing an actual resurrection makes it orders of magnitude weirder.

I believe it. Stranger things have happened.

I think God is real also, and is an active force in our lives, even society. Some things are happening today that proves God is real.

I believe and pray to God

I haven't seen any alternative explanation capable of holding water so no matter how weird the resurrection hypotheses is considered, there's no real competition. What other option do I have?

>Stranger things have happened.
Have they though? Stranger than reversing death? There's a reason people say the only thing certain is death and taxes.

See . It's not enough to compare the resurrection to various other hypotheses if its plausibility can't be demonstrated on its own. Saying "We don't know what may have happened and can only speculate" is always an option, especially when talking about ancient history.

What would it take to make the resurrection hypothesis plausible enough for you to accept?

That's an interesting question. I think there needs to be hard, physical evidence for a claim like that, not just what people think they saw. We're unlikely to get evidence like that for an event so long ago, but if we could prove a resurrection in the present day (with hard evidence) and show that Jesus's situation was similar in relevant respects, that would make it plausible. Also anything that just proves Christianity in general, like the second coming and the apocalypse happening.

because bible is thicc

>I haven't seen any alternative explanation as to why a bunch of religious zealots who had been claiming their leader could come back from the dead would claim their leader came back from the dead
You haven't put much thought into this, have you?

am i allowed to eat shrimp

Yeah why wouldn't you be?

coz god forbids it

Here's a question:
What the fuck?

Attached: the-book-of-ezekiel.jpg (550x411, 36K)

Not until you clean your room.

i can live with that

does God love me

Attached: saddy.jpg (500x500, 30K)

It's not forbidden, although it was in a certain context. Many of the laws in the OT were regulating worship in the temple or day to day life in the kingdom, but we don't live int he kingdom and we don't worship in the temple. The context for those laws don't exist since the temple and kingdom no longer exist so you can enjoy your shellfish.

thank you for your time

So is this thing fiction or nonfiction or what?

it is whatever you want it to be

Why did Jeebus choose the lads he chose to be his Disciples? and don't tell me to read the Bible and find out; I'm getting to it.

Attached: image.jpg (1365x2048, 438K)

These posts might interest you

The concept of faith, or "unconditional trust" doesn't make sense to me, if I have to accept a religion as true even though my inquiries suggest that it most likely isn't, why should I choose Christianity over Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or even an arbitrary fictional religion like loving Lain?

Attached: d54517935ff3539b49228ada5b45e1360b5d91426c4b8dadc34e79a5f7f35ca0.jpg (2048x2048, 582K)

>Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommy's that grow inside the mommy's tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a child's level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in Genesis can be true but consist of non-literal language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.
I would argue the account of creation in Genesis 1 doesn't even resemble reality the way your example does.

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

You must wager (it is not optional).

Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

But some cannot believe. They should then 'at least learn your inability to believe...' and 'Endeavour then to convince' themselves.

As a Christian I don't accept anything with an unconditional trust so I have to reject that definition of faith. To me you can't have faith without reason because having faith is defined as holding on to what your reason tells you is true. My reason tells me that God is real and Christianity is true and my faith is what keep the emotions in check which sometimes tells me that life would be so much easier as an atheist, if only I could forget this God stuff.

As far as why you should believe that's something you ultimately have to investigate yourself. If you don't believe in God then take an honest look into the philosophy. If somebody like Ed Feser convinces you on a philosophical level you can start looking into the various religions and see what arguments they have to offer. It's a process.

>God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
Reason alone can't tell me that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it can tell me that I might as well assume it will.

>Pascal's wager
What if god is an entity with radically different values to the ones preached by the bible and they judge me on the basis of how rationally I made my decisions? What if only Buddhist, Daoist, or Hinduist texts were divinely inspired and the bible has as much value as the Ainu folk religion? What if there are creatures beyond our senses that judge other living entities on the basis of how they influenced a specific event that already happened long ago in a planet beyond our observable universe? The possibilities are infinite, and if I can't just pick the one that seems most likely (there are no such entities) then they are all arbitrary and I might as well continue being an Epicurean and hope that my I'm right, that I'm not right but whichever higher entities that exist think that what I did was correct or acceptable.

Attached: b1710580b8a3f1d8fad93ef411d78f5234ce20416181fe4ec0063d5c27ac7e94.jpg (1665x2499, 586K)

I am sick of your final argument. God has been felt by multiple cultures across the globe, he Abrahamic God, Allah, the one and the same.

There is no difference. The god of the Taoists is Allah. They may not realize that, but it doesn’t matter to God, as long as you pray and do what is right.

The Quran, by the way, confirms Jesus’ teachings in recorded in The New Testament

>God has been felt by multiple cultures across the globe
Why are you so sure that what they felt was not something else?

>The god of the Taoists is Allah
How do you know / why do you believe that it's not the other way around? Why are you so sure that your god and the teachings you follow are not a misinterpretation of the Dao?

>If somebody like Ed Feser convinces you on a philosophical level you can start looking into the various religions and see what arguments they have to offer.
Which specific books by him or by other authors you would recommend to someone in my position?

Attached: 5ed99bb94cfed73e1c9b7c4f7ee74986ea59f1a75e97f9fd46f8e7fa9ff0a358.jpg (2000x2846, 2.04M)

>Jordan Peterson
no thanks

Attached: 1549637493841.png (438x432, 61K)

Really can't be arsed to read it as is, but an anthology of the philosophically relevant parts does interest me. Does something like this exist?

If I had to pick one I would go with Five Proofs, all of his books are good though.

Attached: 433.jpg (445x667, 39K)

My life has led me to discover who God is. There is a reason so many others share the same feelings as me, even on this Yea Forums board

I don't know if anything like that really exists. Any decent commentary will have something to say about the various philosophical and theological issues they come across in scripture. If you're just interested in Christian philosophy in general then Ten Universal Principles by Fr. Spitzer might be a good start.

I'm rly only interested in Christianity insofar it was of importance for later philosophers as an influence, such as Hegel, who, to illustrate the difference, was a very devout protestant who thought explicitly Christian philosophy to be rather useless.

Good thread fellers

Thank you for your answer.

However, what causes doubts in me, although I hate to admit it, is that it almost seems random, or as an afterthought. I can't see the design behind all of it.

the snake is the devil, represented as an evil figure (harmful, one bite could kill, sin likened to poison)
god allowed satan to enter the garden because the purpose of this life is to be tested

trinity doesn’t exist
he’s talking to premortal christ

parable of the fig tree

God isn't real. The Bible is false.

>convoluted explanation to support trinity
one more reason it’s false doctrine

jesus states to be messiah reading in the temple
>this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears

christ is the final sacrifice needed, so as to fulfill the law of moses. he implies that the law of moses is all pointing to him.
the law is still not pertinent to us today, not because he removed it but because through him it is completed