Bible Thread IV

>The Gospel of Thomas is almost certainly as old as the other gospels.
It is not. The Gospel of Thomas is way younger than any of the canonical gospels, dating from around 135-200 AD, while the youngest gospel is estimated to be from circa 90 AD, if memory serves. It's very likely that the Gospel of Thomas was based on sayings from a very early date, but it was naturally added on to as time passed.
>I honestly think it is rather bizarre that the OT (texts used exclusively by those who rejected and murdered Jesus) was included in the canon, yet Thomas was not.
Now THIS is bizarre! What, do you follow Marcion in saying the God of Abraham is not the God of Jesus? You don't sound like it. I don't understand why this would confuse you. Jesus and Paul and so on make constant refrences to the OT all over the NT. This new covenant the Christ brought forth only exist as a continuation, expansion and culmination of the old one. None of it would make sense without it. It is certainly not only the Jews who use it. Who was the Word who spoke through the tongues of the Prophets?
>Much of it is just incompatible with what was revealed to me.
What is incompatible with what you have received? user, the way we have of testing alledged prophecy, that either we hear about through someone else or ourselves are gifted, is through comparison with what has already been recieved. Anything that stretches beyond that cannot be trusted. Consider that your revelation may have been demoniacal.
>Well actually in action, my denomination would probably most resemble of a mixture of Orthodoxy and Catholicism (pre-reformation), with elements of the Salvation Army.
The way you speak about it too. "My" denomination.

What is legitimate baptism?
user in the last thread said protestants don't do it right.

IMO as long as it's performed by a validly ordained priest or bishop then it's legitimate. Some Protestants are called Baptists and believe you must be an adult and fully immersed though.

What's wrong with Baptists

Priest is not necessary. Laypeople can baptize. Reading Basil right now and he emphasizes that invoking all three persons of the Trinity is imperative. Corresponding with this you see three applications of water. Orthodox insist on three full immersions so it’s not just Baptists. This is rooted in baptism mirroring death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

+1 for Matthew for the exact same reason. My son is being a holy terror these days and I keep telling him the blessed are the merciful beatitude, I really hope he makes it.
Honorable mention to Psalms. Great poetry and Jesus’ footprints are all over the place.
Missed last thread, first was Good News Bible, mainly read KJV because it’s public domain so epub is free. NKJV is my favorite because it’s in the hotel drawer when you really need it.
Captcha G0YSW, too funny.

>Anglo-Catholic?
Obviously I'm talking about aesthetics here and how things would look 'on the ground'. Theology is its own, complicated topic and frankly I lack any close comparisons I can use to give you a quick idea of the theology.
As far as aesthetics go. Imagine a church building whose exterior architectural style combines elements of French Gothic, Byzantine, Carolingian, Stripped Classicism and Futurism. The interior of the Church is decorated in a style reminiscent of how Catholic churches used to look before the reformation and feature a number of mosaics depicting events from the bible. The church officials present all wear formal military styled uniforms complete with ranks and badges displaying what 'corps' of the church they are apart of.
>because it isn't literally full of prophecy and prefiguration
That its only if you accept that those prophecies refer to Jesus. The modern Jews certainly do not and even the Jews who first wrote those books would not have, given that Jesus does not fit the requirements of the Jewish messiah.
>most of them converted
I'm sure you know this is not true. Prior to Paul, Christianity was a very small sect and after Paul, gentiles quickly overtook Jews in terms of the Christian convert population.
>The Gospel of Thomas is way younger than any of the canonical gospels
I'm sure that you know there is a lot of debate over when not only Thomas, but also the canonical gospels were first written. While we cannot know the exact dates or order, they were all written within a few decades of each other.
>It's very likely that the Gospel of Thomas was based on sayings from a very early date, but it was naturally added on to as time passed
I fully agree. Just like the canonical gospels.
>do you follow Marcion in saying the God of Abraham is not the God of Jesus?
Correct.
>Who was the Word who spoke through the tongues of the Prophets?
Yahweh. We may disagree on the nature and disposition of Yahweh. But we can be in agreement on this. But, the prophets of Yahweh are not relevant to me.
>What is incompatible with what you have received?
That is getting into theology. Given the nature of that topic, I would only be able to respond to specific questions.
>Consider that your revelation may have been demoniacal
Please do believe me here when I say that I have. That is a suggestion that I have taken very seriously.
>The way you speak about it too. "My" denomination.
Well it does not yet have a name. It just seems easier at this point to call it 'my denomination' rather then attaching a name to it that could both confuse and come across as rather pretentious.
I personally only consider a baptism legitimate if it is performed by a priest, on an adult that is fully educated on the nature of Christianity and the meaning of the sacrament. Some groups consider it important that baptism features full immersion, but that really seems superfluous to me.

everyone agrees on immersion, i'd say.

>calls it a Christian denomination
>denies Christ and literally everything else related to Christianity
you won't fool anyone.

>a suggestion i've taken very seriously
and then smothered it with pride.

Why do some churches do sprinkling instead of baptism???

Why do these hip, trendy, new age "Christians" place more value in what modern Jews believe than what Christians have always believed???

Psalm 22:16
tell me you don't see one of the clearest prophecies of the OT.
>the writers didn't know
there's a reason it's called prophecy. and God might've shown them. Isaiah is another book with very clear prophecy of Jesus Christ.
>most of them
as in, most of the ones who did convert.

might not have a baptismal pool. they should do immersion though.
Very good question. bumping.

I read an interesting theory anons.
One reason that the Jews rejected Jesus was because He was not the political savior that they wanted. He was much more than that.
Modern state of Israel wants a political savior too. What if their "savior" comes, and they worsjip him as their "messiah" and this is in fact the Antichrist? And many of the Zionist evangelical and liberal Christian types might be fooled as well!
What do you think anons?

Attached: Norwegian-Forest-3-645mk062211.jpg (645x380, 40.41K)

I'm an Anglican.
What military uniforms are you talking about?

depending on your meaning of political, precisely.
they expected a David type of king who'd rule them and whatnot.
atleast some saw Christ and believed in the truth.

it might've also been pride; with the pharisees thinking themselves superior, and all the rest of the "for show" ""holiness"", like the modern day extremely legalistic books through which they fool themselves they can take loopholes out of sin.

I think their antichrist is Zelenski.

also with that ""holiness"" thinking themselves free of sin, which is where most of their hate for the Messiah comes from, because Jesus Christ exposed their sins.
A few did listen to Him, humbled themselves and repented. blessed brothers they are.

I thought in romans it says the jews will come around to Christ. I'm paraphrasing of course but pretty sure it says that

It's unreasonable for a human female to expect to orgasm every time she copulates.

Attached: 129.jpg (545x630, 46.34K)

That's exactly what's going to happen

Luke 4:25-27 is one of many epic trolls. There is a mentality that being chosen is the end of the story. They were chosen to be the nation that the Messiah came from but He was for everybody. Jews got right of first refusal and many chose to exercise it. Sad!

>I'm sure that you know there is a lot of debate over when not only Thomas, but also the canonical gospels were first written. While we cannot know the exact dates or order, they were all written within a few decades of each other.
Right. That's why I gave you a range of 135-200. That's not narrow, there's plenty of room in there. Even if you go with the lowest number, that's still about half a century after the youngest gospel. There's no skirting around this by saying "we just don't know", that's not an argument. You can justify any claim with that. The matter of the fact is that we have no reason to trust the Gospel of Thomas considering its age and its exclusion from most Christian communities.
>Yahweh. We may disagree on the nature and disposition of Yahweh. But we can be in agreement on this. But, the prophets of Yahweh are not relevant to me.
It was the pre-incarnated Christ, actually.
>Please do believe me here when I say that I have. That is a suggestion that I have taken very seriously.
And how have you determined that this prophesy was not demonic then? By what standard except the written teachings of the Christ, which this prophecy contradicts, do you have to try what you have experienced by?

>denies Christ
I absolutely do not. I deny that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, but I do not deny his divinity, nor the role of Christ as saviour.
>literally everything else related to Christianity
Rejecting the trinity and biblical canon is hardly 'everything else related to Christianity'. Heck, early Christians had no concept of either and yet were still Christians.
>Why do some churches do sprinkling instead of baptism???
Sprinkling is generally easier to manage if you only have access to a traditional baptismal font and lack anywhere for the water to drain if you attempting a pouring baptism; Water on a polished floor is a pretty big slipping hazard. Regardless, sprinkling is just as valid.
>tell me you don't see one of the clearest prophecies of the OT
I think it is worth keeping in mind here that the authors of the gospels did have particular motivations in mind when writing them. Matthew for instance was written with a Jewish audience in mind and a desire to 'sell' Jesus to the Jews as their messiah. Putting words into the mouth of Jesus in order to link him back to Jewish texts is to be expected. The new testament is filled with such examples, just look at the textual variants.
>there's a reason it's called prophecy
A prophecy is only worth anything if it is fulfilled. By putting words in the mouth of a dead man, such prophecies can be retroactively 'fulfilled'.
>Isaiah is another book with very clear prophecy of Jesus Christ
Isaiah is talking about the Jewish messiah. Jesus did not meet the criteria of the Jewish messiah.
I was talking about the Salvation Army. pic related. Obviously the uniforms I'm talking about would look different, but this gives you the general idea of what a uniformed clergy would look like.
>That's why I gave you a range
That puts it within a few decades of the assumed later dates of composition of the canonical gospels. I do not deny that Thomas was written after them, however it is not a next that just appeared many decades or centuries latter like some tend to claim. If you were a kid when the canonicals were written, you could have still been alive when Thomas was.
>It was the pre-incarnated Christ, actually.
Had you told the Jewish prophets that is who they were actually talking about, you probably would have been stoned to death. Every single one of them certainly considered themselves to be prophets of Yahweh.
Regardless, as I reject the trinity this is not relevant.
>By what standard except the written teachings of the Christ
You do remember that I am composing a denominational bible with several harmonies in it right? What do you think they are harmonies of? There are plenty of texts out there that agree with what has been revealed to me, they just happen to be apocryphal (broadly, I still do accept most of the NT).

Attached: 170-900-0002.jpg (556x1000, 57.85K)

Attached: gospel coins.jpg (3116x3109, 913.44K)

Oh.

Sorry that the Bible thread got in the way of all the quality posts from JIDF making unfunny joke after unfunny joke about Hermann Melville.

>putting words in
it's literally what happened to Christ. did you even read the verse?

Just one look at the catalogue and you'll see the reprobate Jewish mind trying to turn this place into r/funny.

Attached: 1187Talmud..jpg (720x526, 148.86K)

Finally found a Cambridge Cameo with apocrypha for cheaper than retail price but I don’t get paid from my wagie job until next week :(
Anyone got this edition? Can you confirm it looks as good as I think it is?

Attached: C949DFEC-356C-44F1-B77F-BF1B6A7F8362.png (750x1334, 1.08M)

Listened to a sermon that said nebuchadnezzars dream in Daniel has already come to pass because Jesus has established the Church and Rome was crushed by it. Would anyone consider that an accurate interpretation or inaccurate?
He also interpreted the first seal and the white horse as Jesus (as Christianity conquered the Roman empire) and the red horse as referring to the Civil wars in the later Roman empire where they went through a dozen or so emperors in a short time
Not sure how much I agree with but it's interesting to hear someone say seals have already been opened when typically people point to the future or current events

haven't read Daniel yet, but on Revelation, that's inaccurate. it's much more widespread than a mere empire.

>which book of the Bible is your favourite and why?
Probably Genesis since it has all the famous “in the beginning shit” but really I haven’t read through much yet.
Currently reading John at another anons suggestion, which, if you’re reading this, thank you. John is a really good place to start. Where shall I go next brothers?

any of the other three, but read Luke along with Acts (he wrote both), then the Epistles, Revelation, and OT in order.

Yeah it's world wide which is why I wouldn't necessarily agree with it.
I can see where he gets the interpretation for the dream and Daniel
Revelations ones seemed a little hazier

I'd personally recommend Matthew, Mark, then Luke and Acts.

Translation review for the Global NT.
Summary: you cannot not find one book more divergent in translations from a plethora of languages from the very same source material. Perhaps if the ‘Literal’ version of each tongue was compiled for comparison, then it would be possible, but most take incredible liberties in ‘parsing’.
I know enough common vocabulary to understand the four in Latin Script. Cyrillic, I can read its letters and sounds, but I’m yet to learn Russian itself. Arabic, I solely know the numerical system which I learnt from this book at the present moment.

Attached: 27793073-EEB2-42FB-8C55-5D6802E757C1.jpg (2916x4032, 2.4M)

Here, I noticed the verse number 22. It’s most likely the dividing of the last verse into two, since that happens throughout this Sexalingual Bible, and also the merging which is the exact opposite. However, since I do not know the Arabic Script, there remains the possibility that a doxology not present in the source material is there, but that is the upper limit of what might and might not be.

Attached: 1A5F87CC-9A24-44B1-93B1-CE1F9748B8A1.jpg (2100x1561, 993.29K)

Here is that which warrants ridicule.
The first half of Revelations 13:1 in French and German is removed and added as verse 12:18 from to the anterior chapter! It’s even worse than the times where verse X:32 is written as X:23 out of some sort of dyslexia, which is not uncommon.

Attached: 4FA87C74-A0B4-40DB-B8C0-2119DC86BEBF.jpg (2100x1575, 1.09M)

Sloth is among the Seven Deadly Sins. Is it not?
Despite all this, I would still recommend this purchase as linguistic novelty.
Post Scriptum: to those that speak only English, I noticed that last verse 12:18’s error by the word for Sea, being ‘Mar’ en Español, ‘Mer’ en Français, ‘Meer’ (conjugated in the genitive case as ‘Meeres’) auf Deutsch, & ‘Mopя’ пo-pyccки.

Attached: 7ED7388D-86B3-4248-A145-6518F75CA746.jpg (2100x1575, 998.03K)

I've got a Bible with white page edges that I'm planning to rebind myself. Gold gilding isn't an option, but either red or gold inking is for the edges. Do you guys think gold inking would look good, or would non-gilt gold edges look like shit?

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
Deuteronomy 4:29 KJVAAE
bible.com/bible/546/deu.4.29.KJVAAE

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Matthew 7:7 KJVAAE
bible.com/bible/546/mat.7.7.KJVAAE

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13 KJVAAE
bible.com/bible/546/jer.29.13.KJVAAE

When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
Deuteronomy 4:30 KJVAAE
bible.com/bible/546/deu.4.30.KJVAAE

>20293500
Why do we have to put up with such lazy and obvious shitposting trolls like this every single thread?

You can report for trolling outside of Yea Forums or for being extremely low quality.

I have that exact edition.
It's nice, though the one downside is that the type isn't as well-printed as others, and the antique typeface might take a little to get used to.
Also, the names of places and certain people are printed with pronunciation symbols, which you might find a little annoying.

Mods never do anything about antichrist trolling/spam on this site.

I did. What I'm saying is that it is easy to retroactively change or add details to an event, should the author have motivations beyond a simple recall of events. The drawing of lots for instance is something that would have been a trivial addition, motivated by the conscious desire to seem to fulfil prophesies in Jewish texts; A pretty good idea if your main motivation is converting Jews, huh?

Look, I have a great deal of respect for all of my fellow Christians in these threads (excluding Evangelicals and Unitarians obviously) and the last thing I want to do is seem as if I'm attacking your theological positions. How about we just agree that we have different interpretations of the Jewish texts and their connection to the NT?

Attached: 1650661356685.jpg (621x616, 41.1K)

There is no denomination that even remotely accepts Marcionism. Your persona and theology are just wacky D&C to infiltrate yet another Christian group. You whine about Christian posts on /pol/, then you follow Christian when they go elsewhere. 109.

Are there any good books on the history of the canonicity of the bible?

you're a heretic. no agreements.

are you saying Christ was not crucified?
because nothing there could've been "changed" or "added".