protestants will often criticise catholics and orthodox's for "adding" books to the bible yet in reality it was the protestants who removed books from the bible.
the canon that the protestants choose to use is the one set in place by the jews in the second century, and the only reason the jews decided to use that canon is because they chose to only use books written in hebrew.
the Deuterocanonical books are all written in greek and therefore were excluded from the jewish bible. the christians at the time (all of whom were catholic) didnt care what language the books were written in (the new testament is written in greek after all) they only cared about the spiritual value.
The canon of the bible of the protestants is jewish
further, catholics are prohibited from circumcising their children although this has not been taught since the heretical second vatican council (which took place between 1962-65). the protestants on the other hand have been circumcising their children for hundreds of years. in the old testament the jews are told to not only circumcise their own children but also that of their slaves. i will let you connect the dots
The Jewish canon, which protestants use, was established by Jews who denied that Jesus is the Christ:
1Jo 2:22 - Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
It is literally the bible of antichrists.
they are very ignorant however, notice that anytime a thread is made defending Catholicism is made it is bombarded with attacks but anytime a thread attacking Protestantism is made there is nothing but silence.
many Freemason writers have credited the success of freemasonry to the success of Protestantism. the catholic church has always criticised and condemned freemasons, this made it so freemasonry could never gain any foothold within catholic nations. however with the break of the anglicans freemasonry became very popular in england. and with the break of the other protestants caused by martin luther many of the other european nations became undermined, however the greatest place freemasonry could gain a foothold was america since its inhabitants were all protestants. the first president of america as well as many of the founding fathers were all freemasons. this would never have happened in a catholic society.
Reminder that Luther wanted to cut out the epistle of James because muh Sola fide. Oh and the books of Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation.
Which bible should one read then?
Brought up in a protestant country.
>the only reason the jews decided to use that canon is because they chose to only use books written in hebrew
There were plenty of books written in Hebrew during Second Temple period that did not make it into the bible tho (e.g. Book of Jubilees). They were only preserved by the Ethiopian Church, but Hebrew "originals" were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The kings James Bible.
I can't think of a group of people who hate Jews more than Protestants.
The Ku Klux Klan was started by Protestants.
Catholics have been letting Jews get away with subversions for years.
When people on this board say Protestants, most of the time they mean crazy Southern Baptist or other evangelical 700 club types.
>prays to dead people who are his idols thus using divination and idolatry at the same time
opinion discarded
New Revised Standard Version is the most reliable and scientific English translation, and it is the one most used by scholars.
However the NRSV focuses on literary meaning and linguistic clarity clarity. Everett Fox made an EXCELLENT translation of the Hebrew bible that very successfully captures the "spirit" of it, with all the wordplays and nonsensical passages and grammatical oddities maintained. It's very hard to get a hold of, though.
Of course you can get the NIV if you want theologically-motivated translation for dumb American Evangelicals.
Or the KJV, if you're the sort of person who thinks god actually exists.
Luther was even dumber than the guy who invented the Catholic/Orthodox church, Agustine.
The Masoretic Texts are the preserved Word of God. Prove otherwise?
Yeah I'm thinking of getting one, it's weird however to read it in my second language. Not sure what the most accurate in Norwegian is, I have one from 1930/38. I think that is the most accurate. They even changed the lords prayer in the newest one
This is about the fragments stored in one particular Evangelical museum in America. It's not even the first time some stupid collector/curator buys forged fragments.
The actual bulk of the scrolls stored in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem are real and have been confirmed through carbon-dating.
Stop being so fucking retarded, holy shit.
The OT passages quoted in the NT are mostly straight from the Greek Septuagint. Good enough for those authors, good enough for me.
Just get a greek concordant
the douay-rheims bible. the king james bible is overrated and even has a few errors. you dont want post vatican II catholic bibles as they also contain errors and you dont want any other protestant bible because they are also full of errors (more so than most translations)
however you are from norway and i am unsure about the norwegian translations so idk
The fact the LXX tradition is AT LEAST as old, and contradicts the MT in many places?
The fact that the DSS are the oldest physical copies of the texts, and they often contradict both the MT and the LXX?
augustine is just one of very many early church doctors. you have been brainwashed by your jewish/protestant teachers who have fed anti-catholic nonsense into your mind
KJV is a fine translation, but Tynsdale messed up a few translations. Like he used the word "hell" for three different places with three different greek names. That is the cause of a lot of confusion and false teaching today.
Protestant’s are heretics and nothing is more heretical and that’s not even taking into account all their meme denominations which are more like cults.
>uses strawman argument that is easily debunked
opinion discarded
No, the early Church was people like Justin Martyr, not Agustine who decided it was ok for Christians to go to war. He wasn't a Christian. Pic related is the actual original church hundreds of years before agustine was born.
KJV is the ONLY Bible that has the word "Palestine" on it. I wonder (((who))) would shill otherwise...
>the guy who invented the Catholic/Orthodox church, Agustine
Literal sub 10 IQ post
"catholics" have been letting them get away with it since the second vatican council and mind you pope john xiii through to pope francis have all been elected illegally.
If anything, that's a mark against it. The word "Palestina" is an anachronism and doesn't appear in any of the original Hebrew/Greek.
I've got a Vulgate that I read every day and I'm a Calvinist.
Write your post again in Latin or fuck off you divisive little prick.
i cant believe how confident you are in your posts despite the fact that you are only making yourself out to look like an idiot. justin martyr is one of the great early saints. he is very much like Augustine. if you were a catholic then you would know about many of the early saints that came before and after justin martry.
How many languages do you speak? Yid and English? Cool. How many did the kjv translators speak, kike?
>this would never have happened in a catholic society.
Catholicism was stage one, essential for all the further stages of decay. The only way to not end up here eventually was not to accept the diluted jewish poison to begin with.
> i am (insert protestant title here) and i read a catholic bible.
good for you pal
???
What's your argument here?
The KJV took extremely liberties with interpretation and "fixing" what it considers to be "broken" fragments of the texts. The appearance of the word "Palestina" is only one such example.
Isn't this the one we all use in the UK anyway? I recently bought a 400th anniversary edition where its kept all the original text and type face and prayer scheduling etc., been meaning to work my way through it.
>a kike
>on Yas Forums
>in a Christian thread
You know what to do
This is the opposite of what Agustine said. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Which one? The original 1611 version which includes the Apocrypha or the one 150 years later?
Fucking retard calvinist with your sola scriptura bullshit lmao calvin was a fucking joke
>I'm a Calvinist
I'm not sure which is dumber.. Agustinianism or Calvinism. It's like watching to mentally handicapped people fight.
two*
The Jew in his natural habitat, sowing discord. Tick tock!
>he made a typo so his argument is wrong
k
Why does Apocrypha or Apocryphal mean? There you'll find your answer.
get to the point. you still havent made a single argument.
it seems as if though you are saying that st augustine was for war? it is as easy as a simple google search to debunk this potential argument.
if this is however not your argument than could you please post it.
You realize Christ preached to the soldiers, yes?
Fucking this, protestants are some of the most redpilled fuckers actually practicing what they preach, cathocucks are all talk and their church is filled with degeneracy
>it is as easy as a simple google search to debunk this potential argument.
Oh so you're saying he agreed with the original church that if someone seeks to become a soldier he cannot become a Christian? kek
why are you so against augustine?
just make a real post already all your posts amoun to nothing
>I corrected a typo which somehow supposes I think his argument is wrong
k
>You realize Christ preached to the soldiers, yes?
Yes, and when they converted they were told they must stop all violence. Soldiers were in it for life. Today they can simply get out. Regardless, yes... he did, and they had to stop doing violence.
You mean the word that everyone uses incorrectly. K, which version, the one with the longer Canon or shorter?
you fucking retards seem to be unaware that Protestants are literally Christians who wanted to read the Vulgate and were told they couldn't by the Catholic Church
we fought, you lost, get over it
this whole thread is idiotic and I'm betting none of you are even proper Catholics
I’m thinking more like Matt 26:52.
Welcome to most religious threads on pol. They are heretical shit shows. And we can all be more holy. But God is clearly working and many people are converting.
First: what does Apocrypha mean? Answer that instead of hopping around like a kike.
Yes Jesus preached against violence and to love our enemies instead multiple times. He really wanted to drive it home, yet many pretend Christians still refuse to obey him.
>proper Catholics
Let me guess: no true Scotsman...
on phone cant post long responses
Protestant retort of why the DR Bible and other Catholic heresies can't be used.
youtube.com
youtube.com
we need to start a YT debate/discussion channel
I am for the removal of all homosexual priests. It is not a no true Scotsman fallacy to acknowledge that nearly every Catholic thread on pol is filled with heresy and detractors.
>the original teaching.
you mean one quote from st martyr ok. you do know that the teachings of saints arent necessarily infallible and that if it werent for the crusades that all of europe would be islamic now.
besides if you look at what st augustine has said he wrote that war should always be avoided and should only be done for the sake of peace and never done for the sake of conquest.
Justin agreed with all his contemporaries. They all said the same thing, because it's exactly what Jesus said.
>took out Maccabees
>It's Jewish
U wot?
So, are you a Quaker or something? Christ is not a pacifist. What do you make of the crusades
because people know when to rebuke evil
>we need to start a YT debate/discussion channel
agree, i might start one tomorrow its 10:00 pm here now though so i cant do it now.
if you are wondering my position is sede-cavantist. basically it is the belief that the current pope isnt actually the pope.
Buddy, you answered my original question with a question bordering on pedantry but I'm the one question hopping?
Did your priest tell you what to believe or do catholics allow individuals to read the Bible now? Citholics put priests between God and men. That's all you need to prove catholics wrong regardless of how it began.
If you believe the opposite of what the "vicar of Christ" believes, then you are rejecting the foundations of your denomination. How do you cope with the fact that your "church father" Augustine was a reformer?
Does the apocrypha add any important theological points.