Bible thread VII

Papists ITT, I understand you have a custom of adopting your patron saint's name as one of your names. So a John James Smith with Saint George as his patron saint might become John James George Smith. But what about more modern saints with longer/multiple names? Eg, Saint John Henry Newman. Would the former person become John James John Henry Newman Smith?

Have you ever been to Spain?

The most interesting thing for me about the Bible is its apparent contradictions, especially in justice vs mercy. This is explored most piercingly in Jonah - Jonah is the only prophet that Christ actually compares himself to, by the way.

On the one hand we're supposed to be "perfect" and "exceed the pharisees" in righteousness. On the other hand, it seems like God doesn't distribute his grace evenly (30fold vs 100fold, 5 talents vs 10 talents), and we have to ask for mercy every day. There's also the experience of being in the church and seeing how flawed Christians are (it's easy to see other people's faults after all).

If I try to reconcile these two strains in my own mind it can go one of two dangerous directions:
1.) You're doomed, you'll never live up to these standards, you might as well do whatever :)
Or
2.) God is so good your little sins (gossiping or eating too much or whatever) aren't a big deal, so don't worry about them :)

Jesus told people to give away all their wealth. How many people actually do that? The Dominicans in my town who take vows of "poverty" probably live a better life than any working-class person... I don't mean to be cynical.

But there's always something more I could be doing. We all love ourselves, and virtually all of us draw a line somewhere and take some things for our own comfort. For instance, I live alone and spend extra money for the rent. Should I move in with roommates and give the money saved to charity? Or is that a temptation to overextend - I'd be miserable living that way and end up worse?

Peter said, "How can any man be saved?"

"With man it is impossible but with God all things are possible."

The more I try to fit God into my own mind, the further away from him I get. I am a Catholic but the older I am the more I understand how we really are saved by grace alone. Therese of Lisieux said when we die we go to God with empty hands.

It seems like anything that I say about God, even if only to myself, can be dangerous. That's why the Bible is so special. It's the voice of God. When you read the Bible, you're not in your own mind. It's the only way to be sure you're not creating an idol, even if the experience is sort of like leaping into an abyss.

If you read Therese's autobiography, she seems very spoiled. But she was willing to empty herself and willing to suffer, and she died choking to death on her own blood thanking God for the privilege.

Attached: Teresa-de-Lisieux.jpg (565x720, 109.54K)

Saint Luther

No, but I kinda like the music.

Attached: threedognight.jpg (934x553, 98.11K)

>conquered death
Dalai lama did this and better.

I’m coming to accept there is no Church or denomination for me, but I’ve also accepted that each denomination is right in their own unique way about something. Except for the Unitarian Church, naturally.
I believe that combined, the Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Baptist/Anglican churches hold a lot of truth, and together, they would make the one true church.

Does anyone else here not believe in any of Paul's writings? I've come to believe he's a tool of Satan (perhaps unwittingly) who tricked people into going against the Gospels. I just don't see how Jesus preached all that stuff about how hard it is to reach heaven and how we should live and then Paul comes and basically says 'nah ur good just believe in Jesus'. And he makes Jesus so much more important than the Father. It just doesn't check out.

>Papists ITT, I understand you have a custom of adopting your patron saint's name as one of your names.
No, genius. Babies are named on birth after the name of their patron saint. So a George would have been born on the day of St. George and a Cecilia would have been born on the day of St. Cecilia. No one takes particular exception with the names of saints showing up multiple times in the calendar, either, so a guy born on the day of St. John or the day of St. John Chrysostom would just be named 'John' unless their parents wanted to be very specific about it.

It's also just that - a custom, not a rule.

We can definitely assert that all those denominations have the most important thing; worship of our great God and savior Jesus Christ. But; not every church follows the comments. When we go to John 6 for example; we see Jesus Christ give direct commandments for the Eucharist. “Drink, eat, this is my body which is broken for you for the remission of sins” and If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is [l]drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.
60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples [n]complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you?

The Baptists, pentecostals, Calvinists, etc. have already missed it.
Those without a bishop are in violation of Acts 20:28, establishing a random church and making oneself overseer without any form of approval is against the commandment. The Anglicans are blatantly not the faith of the apostles, they are in disobedience to the Roman Catholic Church because Henry the 8th wanted a divorce; their current spew of female bishops is beyond concerning; given it’s blatantly banned in the Bible

I think that's a misreading of Paul. He is constantly exhorting people to moral perfection, but faith has a priority. It's faith in God that leads to growth in virtue, and that faith itself is sheer grace.

This notion is not unique to Paul. It's in the OT, and is also very marked in the Johannine literature.

I mean seriously read Romans. He says that the life of a believer is a constant warfare between the spirit and the flesh and that we'll be judged by our works ("God will repay each person according to what he has done" 2:6)

I think a lot of the popular misunderstanding of Paul comes down to:
1.) He's hard to read, his style is really obscure
2.) False prophets like to grab onto a couple of Pauline verses to justify their presumptuous "we're all going to heaven no matter what!" bullshit
3.) Paul talks the most about sexual morality (because he was dealing with gentiles whose sexual morals were way further off-base than Jews'). Modern people hate that stuff most of all, so they try to smear Paul.

how do i become john jacob jingleheimer schmidt?

What are you referencing specifically? We still have to keep in mind
25 “These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the [g]Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28 You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because [h]I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I.
As well as 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18

Imo senpai desu I think it would be good for you to contact a priest (of the orthodox variety) and ask. The gospel can at times be confusing; and we need the testimony of the saints since the revelation of the church (and going back further, the prophets, and even past this to Adam and Eve) to understand what all these things mean

Attached: 71LOK7wUABL.jpg (1225x2560, 240K)

I don't even think you have to bring that in, though. The things people hate about Paul are

1.) Salvation by faith
2.) Predestination
3.) Vicarious atonement
4.) Sexual morality

Can those things be found in the words of Jesus? Yes.

1.) "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16, many many other places)
2.) “I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17, other places as well)
3.) "For even The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give his life a ransom in the place of the many." (Mark 10:45)
4.) "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh. on a woman to lust after her hath committed. adultery with her already in his heart." (and other places, e.g. in the list of sins that "come from the heart" he includes fornication)

>earlychristianwritings.com
The dating on this website is so dumb. Here are corrections.
>65-80 Gospel of Mark
45-60
>80-100 Gospel of Matthew
50-69
>80-130 Gospel of Luke
~62
>90-120 Gospel of John
60-100

catenabible.com/

This website is very cool and should really be in the OP. It has a collection of patristic quotations for the whole Bible.

Is this basically the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, but digitized and adding later commentaries? (in some cases, much later commentaries like George Leo Haydock's which I see on Matthew 1:1)

>Catholic/Orthodox
The thing there is, no matter what Bible based doctrinal differences there are among the others, nothing will ever make "ever virgin Mary" factual. They took straight up gnostic sub cult fan fiction from the 2nd century and made it very prominent aspects of their "churches". So even if they are right about other things, they bring with them major heretical fictions that one is expected to accept as dogma and practice, which included praying to beings other than God.

Source: It was revealed to me in a dream.

Evidence for Exodus as historical event:
youtu.be/dIc7i6eVk7w
Evidence for Moses as historical person:
youtu.be/FNV3rCP1R2Q

>Saint worship
Nicene creed, they are very open they don’t worship these people and worshipping them as God is strictly prohibited
>Inserted the ever Virgin Mary
One issue, Christ promised us the Holy Spirit who would lead us to all truths, would constantly intervene, the church is the pillar of truth, etc. When can then look at the Montinists, Paulinians, Donatists, and see they’re blatantly heretics. The ever virginity of Mary wasn’t written down, but we are clearly told there is both a written and oral tradition. To then assert that Christians for no reason what so ever picked up a heretical teaching from Gnostics and merged it into their faith for no good reason isn’t consistent with how the early church acted

People talk about being "forgiving" and "compassionate". There's a side of me that thinks it's a crock of shit. The people who seem forgiving and compassionate are simply happy. It's very easy to be forgiving when you don't even feel resentful.

That's one reason to never judge anyone. Someone who seems like a prick might be putting way more effort into being forgiving than someone who seems very "nice". I love the story about the poor woman putting a copper into the collection basket. That sort of thing must be possible on a spiritual level too.

Besides, most nice people aren't really all that nice if they're tested even a little bit.

Non-believers think that orthodox Christians are like pharisees. I'd say the people who think of themselves as "nice people" are the truly self-righteous, pharisaical ones.

>for no reason what so ever picked up a heretical teaching from Gnostics and merged it into their faith for no good reason isn’t consistent with how the early church acted
>no reason what so ever
It was started and written into pulp fiction by the Encratites in the 2nd century to support their anti marriage and absolute chastity agenda. It was argued into the church by Jerome, who lead his own personal sub cult of chaste women (one of whom died from his dietary orders on her) in the 4th century, and was accepted as dogma in the 5th century. It was not "for no reason".

Why does every larper own this set? Where'd they get the money? I thought only seminaries bought this.

Attached: 8ca4013bd89a6c960e939a107bee7c8b.jpg (2338x1445, 593.09K)

theorthodoxfaith.com/article/mary-as-ever-virgin/
Not really: we see it in the OT and apparently goes back prior to the Arian heresy and was picked onto the church way before then.
Are you speaking against voluntary monasticism

Curious about the overlap between those and pic related. How much content do they share?

Attached: accs.jpg (1500x1001, 1.96M)

>My suggestion for a standardised OP edition (Deus Vult).
Start with not using an anime you disgusting pedophile

>Up until recent centuries, the early church’s teaching that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life was unchallenged
First sentence and already absolute bullshit, as Jerome wrote letters blasting people who challenged it.

Welp, I hate responding to these statements but I have to since other people will read it
You do realize that since the OT confirms the evervirginity of Mary, this indicates that since Jerome was blasting people who disagreed (assuming your point is true) this is the faith of the apostles. Jerome is arguing status quo, while the heretics where arguing something else

>OT confirms the evervirginity of Mary
Bullshit, I haven't even read the rest of the article but I already know it probably plays the Ezekiel "eastern gate card". Guess what, the prince it speaks of cannot be Christ because he makes a sin offering for himself and for the people. A bunch of Mary obsessed cultists looked for her everywhere and found anything that could possibly be used, but left out any mention of the parts that refute their attempts, and took advantage of ignorant third worlders to spread their crypto Ishtar cult.

Oh, and BTW, no, Jerome's argument was *not* "this was the faith of the Apostles", which is a blaring point. He and others had been cooking up heavenly hierarchy schemes and he realized that according to those schemes Mary would be lower than actual lifelong virgins and it upset him.

>Ambition seeks honor and glory, whereas only thou shouldst be honored above all, and glorified forever.
Instead of seeking glory, Augustine wrote his Confessions book just about glorifying God, and with that he found eternal glory as his book is one of the most important classics. Interesting how that works when you have genuine faith.

>(assuming your point is true)
I should also point out that you do not even know this history of any of this but yet you are arguing in defense of your pet earthly institution. Anyone can look this up for themselves and not rely on dogma propaganda pieces.

>The priest makes a sin offering for himself and the people
The priests are a type of Christ (as in metaphor to Christ). If you’re saying them not being Christ means they aren’t a pointer to him you would need to assert David isn’t a type of Christ, or the arch of the covenant isn’t a metaphor to Jesus Christ, or the arc of Noah isn’t a metaphor for the church. Your argument hinges on the belief that the whole OT isn’t a metaphor to Christ or in some way pointing to him. Which you can argue if you want to, but you should have a bit more historical reference points. Possibly a guy who espoused your beliefs and wasn’t someone who is wildly heretical

Are you Christian? If so; what type?

Have you converted someone?

Can someone tell me what this sounds like?

God the father is a corporeal substance that begat two distinctions, the son and holy ghost, the son is the word of the father given to the gentiles and the holy ghost is god/consciousness within his children. in order to receive his grace thereforth, people should seek him out in order reconcile the spirit with word.

>muh until
Nice scripture twisting but those are entirely different contextual uses being compared. Bill Clinton said that it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

What type of Christian are you; if any?
When did the church go apostate? When can you point to a historical figure who agreed with you theologically?

Heresy?

Whatever

>God doesn't want you to eat the fruit because you will become like him
>let us start praying to omnipresent Mary now
A Christian type Christian.

>karpers buying volume upon volume of books they will never read and don’t need to read
Become Orthodox

Attached: 74807D75-B4EE-458F-88E2-B18C742A90D3.png (1334x750, 1.64M)

Out of all of those, the Apostolic Fathers is probably the only one really useful of the stack. Maybe the Holy Gospel/Holy Apostle/Prophetologion if you want the EOB Bible but don't want the paperback or zipper copy. BTW, he also has a Qur'an collection despite admitting he can't read Arabic.
youtube.com/watch?v=FDWLg9WoNDQ

I shall criticize!
>Begat
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father
I would contact a priest otherwise, something sounds a little off but I’m assuming “reconciling spirit” references reconciling the human spirit with God the word. Am I correct in this assessment?

Yes. Any Christology theories similar?

I haven’t read too much into it senpai, and I’m not big on speaking on theories lest I fall into heresy. Why do you say the Holy Spirit is the conscious of God?

>there is perfect and uniform knowledge and opinion among priests so contact one of them

King James bros…was our guy black? I can’t believe this. I’m shaking

youtu.be/buVRZitz8T0

Attached: 7AE5EC18-0770-4423-B9A6-C67C80CD60F7.png (1334x750, 1.72M)

No, you misread, the holy spirit exists within people, jesus/god is the word.

if the Holy Spirit exists inside you, how did so many receive it in Acts?
also John 14:16.

a bit finicky. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God, but not each other.
same essence and different "function".
that sounds like the Father brought into existence both the Son and Holy Spirit. also seems to imply the Father is what the Son and Holy Spirit came from, but not Him as a person.