This is your brain on protestantism

>this is your brain on protestantism

Other urls found in this thread:

kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
youtu.be/WYBx31XOeu0
youtube.com/watch?v=OJGstZJm03o
pidginbible.org/Concindex.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I'll never really understand why they apply a clause in Rev to the whole compiled Bible, or ignore the source texts in favor of a translation that benefits neither from modern discoveries or ancient input.

The KJB is a new revelation.

>"This isn't inspired, we're just translators who employed sound textual criticism"
~t. the intro to the KJV written by the translators

It is my contention that once a person no longer believes the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God, they become their own authority and they end up not believing any text or any Bible in any language is the infallible word of God.

>ITT
>Skydaddy fanboys arguing which of their purely fictional fanfiction books is closer to reality

SOLA SCRIPTURA!! FUCK PHILOSOPHY

do you actually have the original translation or do you have one of the modern editions which has been corrected to better match the original languages?

>"This isn't inspired, we're just translators who employed sound textual criticism"
It really says something to that effect? Because seriously, the translation quality is *terrible*. What the hell constituted "sound textual criticism" back then?

Obviously the one closest to "reality" would be the one delivered in the tongue of the original Inspiration.

>There is no place in my heart for the """salvation""" of the Nazarene.

>Jesus praying to himself
>Jesus praying to himself to save himself from dying but not really

Reading the Bible in English is about as authentic as reading Shakespeare in Romanian.

>it's another Catholic LARPer can't stop loudly shitposting thread

even if it's the original non-translated texts? man, I feel bad for anyone who doesn't speak english.

Ah, you mean those accounts written 80 years latter by die hard kool aid drinkers? Yes, they must be true.

Do you not think God can speak in any language?

>What the hell constituted "sound textual criticism" back then?
See:
>a translation that benefits neither from modern discoveries or ancient input.

I mean, the translators WERE at a pretty serious deficit compared to previous and later times. They did their best, but shit, the Geneva appeared to be preferred for a long ass while in the Americas.

Also:
>The Translators to the Reader
kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

>bible believing

This is my favorite Protestant spin term, along with 'biblically oriented'

I may be muslim but honestly, user; aren't the Christians going to say that "Well since God is all-powerful he would be doing that in a way incomprehensible to mortals."?

>Romanian
romans spoke latin you retard!

I'm not speaking to the veracity of content, only the fact that in terms of historicity, the Greek manuscripts are as close as we can get to source.

He likely can, but he decided to deliver his message in Greek. Any translation is imperfect by nature since it completely rapes syntax and uses imperfect substitute words. There is literally no excuse for a Christian not to learn to read Koine Greek, I understand if you were a shit eating peasant in 600 AD who had no access to education it would be pretty tough, but in modern days you can literally teach yourself languages on the internet.

>Romanians = Romans
American education

only priests should be allowed to read and intemperate the bible

>Not opting for the Hawai`i Pidgin Bible
Mark 12
> Jesus start teaching um wit stories. He say "one guy wen go plant one grape field. He make one fence around um, an dig one puka inside da groun fo squeeze da grapes. An he build one watch tower. Den he wen rent da grape farm to some farma guys, an den he go far away.
>Wen time fo cut da grapes, he send one worka guy fo get his share from da farma guys grapes.
>But da farma guys wen grab da worka guy, an bus um up, an throw him outside wit notting.
>Da boss send one nodda worka. Dey bus up his head an dey no shame fo make any kine to him
>So he send one nodda worka, an dey kill um. He send plenny odda guys. Some a dem dey bus up, but da oddas, dey kill um.
>Still yet had one guy dea, but was his boy. He really love dat boy. In da end he wen send him. He say, ‘Eh, dey goin show respeck fo my boy.’
>But wen da farma guys spock da boy, dey tell each odda, ‘Eh, dis da guy goin own da farm. Come, we kill him an take ova da grape farm.’
>So dey grab da boy an kill him, an throw him outside da grape field.
>Kay den, wen da boss who own da grape farm come, wat you guys tink he goin do to dem? He goin kill da bad guys, an den he goin rent da farm to some odda guys.
>Eh, you guys neva read inside da Bible bout da stone dass jalike me? Da Bible say, Had one big stone,
Da builda guys was tinking,
‘Poho! Dis stone junk!’
An dey no take um.
But dat stone,
Dass da corner block.
Can make da building strong.
>Da Boss Up Dea
Wen do dis, yeah?
An dis awesome!”
>Den da main pries dem was tinking how dey can bus him, cuz dey know he was talking bout dem. But dey scared da peopo. So dey go way from him.

Truly the Word of God in its purest. A Third Inspiration.

True, but they're not the source. They're not the autographs. There's no reason to believe that the followers of Jesus didn't start writing before he died.

Unless suddenly absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Point.

Your head.

Yes, that makes them about as legit as a Scientology authorized biography of Ron Hubbard.

>but they're not the source
I'm not making the claim that they are matey.

I'm almost not hostile to this idea.

Is there a Bible in Ebonics too?

You mean all fifteen volumes of it?!

>There's no reason to believe that the followers of Jesus didn't start writing before he died.
>Unless suddenly absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
the inverse also applies buddy. you can't simply claim that something is true based simply on that it can't be proven wrong.

He looks like that dude from Better Call Saul.

believe, along with thousands of other Christians, that God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Bible.

I'm not an Anglo retard cultist so I have no reason to believe that.

Interesting to see how religion works. The book of Mormon is another good example, and I have few doubts the same methods where used for the original NT.

Is God responsible for the verse numbers and table of contents too?

I've heard of a joke one, as far as I know there isn't a serious translation into ebonics.

>I be God. Don' be dissing me.
> Don' be makin hood ornaments outa me or nothin in my crib.
>Don' be callin me for no reason - homey don' play that.
>Y'all betta be in church on Sundee.
>Don' dis ya mama ... an if ya know who ya daddy is, don' dis him neither.
>Don' ice ya bros.
>Stick to ya own woman.
>Don' be liftin no goods.
>Don' be frontin like you all that an no snitchin on ya homies.
>Don' be eyein' ya homie's crib, ride, or nothin.

NOW THA'S A BOOK I KIN READ

NT, not really, it verifiably had numerous authors. But the Quran definitely follows the same pattern as Mormonism (random guy sees an angel, gets told all existing Scripture is corrupted or incomplete and gets a new revelation of some brainlet polytheist cult and writes a book about it)

>Interesting to see how religion works.
youtu.be/WYBx31XOeu0

So the only difference is that in this case it was some second rate cool aid drinkers who made shit up instead of the big prophet guy?
Face it, most of Christianity is made up. tailor made to fit the Roman religious market, re-edited and stream-lined several times to fit the times and the guys in power. The King James edit is just another one.
You can like christian values if that is your thing, but if you really believe thats the word of god then you are just one naive idiot.

why does everyone make a big fuss about paul and his contributions to christianity?

t. Schlomo

>paul and his contributions to christianity?
Like pulling the entire thing out of his ass?

>Torture and martyrdom
>Tailored roman religious market
Thanks Moishe

ad hominem for lack of arguments...

...

I'd have liked to hear more early theological perspectives. Like James the Just.

Like turning a small time jewish zealot into the messiah and re-branding the jewish religion into something fit for the mass market? He was a marketing genius of the highest magnitude, thats for sure.

>hi my name is Reza Aslan and this is brainlet pophistory

You've never argued with yourself user?
Never once talked yourself into or out of something?

really running out of arguments now, don't you christfags?
Sorry, it is not my fault you based your lives on a completely made up story that a 6 year old could see trough. See it positive, at least you have a social network of like minded people now and things get real easy for you because all the complicated and important questions in live already have been answered for you.

>You've never argued with yourself user?

Veeky Forums related

>Mormons made their holy book up, lol
>Muslims made their holy book up, lol
>no, the Bible is totally not made up, it is the word of god!!!

There's a Gullah version:

youtube.com/watch?v=OJGstZJm03o

t. Antichrist

Is there actually any proof he drastically altered the religion of the Christians?

Given that Jesus was only addressing other jews and was just one of the many zealots fighting against the romans of the time he made up most of the Christian religion. Jesus was a jew, all his disciples where jews, they held to the jewish laws and thought only off the jewish religion with their messianic message.
Paul/Saul opened that up for the mass marked, no more chosen people only, everybody can join, have some old testament free with that.

Nope, just fedorafags being annoying edgelords in a thread not about them, as usual.

His drastically altered form of Judaism became what we know as Christianity.

>post some pre Paul/Saul "Christian" teachings
>oh wait, there are none
>right then, it totally must be the word of god then

Now with 100% more messianic, plus open for non-gods-chosen-people

>"he altered Judaism by making Jesus say things he never said!"
>"where are the proofs?"
>"where are the proofs he didn't?"
It doesn't work like that, faggots. The burden of proof is on you. Otherwise every historian pulled out everything they wrote from their ass because they could.

>Jesus was only addressing other jews

FALSE.

Jesus preaches to a Samaritan woman (John 4:1-26)

Jesus preaches to a Canaanite woman (Matthew 15:21-28)

Jesus helps the faithful centurion (Luke 7:1-10)

Its a logical supposition based on what we know about the gospel writers, Paul's letters, and what fragments of "heretical" Christian writing that survives.

actually the cricic-historic method works exactly like that.
The first Christina writing known is the 1 Thess by Paulus in the year 50, 20-30 years before the first gospel was written.
With the historic evidence we have, all Christian texts are either from Paulus or his disciples, long after Jesus. Thats what we know. Now some cunts believe this is the word of god, but then every religious cunt ever believed it his book was the word of god for some reason or another.

t. Judaizer

The idea that Jesus was even a real person is also just a logical supposition. The skeptics are quite right there is no direct evidence he was a living person, its just more absurd to believe he was made up whole cloth

So your proof is a book, written ~100 years after Jesus and explicitly trying to sell a new religion to all kind of peoples, including the aforementioned ones?
>it is true because this advertising brochure says so

How can I be a judaizer when I don't give their religion any more credence than I give yours?

What does that have to do with the accusation that Paul made up things about Jesus?

However, I'm sure you would just argue that it is a logical supposition that the scriptures are lying because it fits your ideology.

The stories themselves predate their transcription and regardless, yes I do believe in the Gospels.

>"The gospels were written years later after the death of Jesus, so he actually hated the non-jews and they invented everything because I say so!!1!"
You are all fucking pathetic.

What about people who don't speak english? Should they all learn english to read the KJV of the bible? Did any american evangelist ever ask himself this question or does the fact non-english people exist boggle their mind?

Because you're arguing that Jesus meant to continue Jewish cultural practices such as ritual observance to the Law which is precisely what the Judaizers argued.

The supposition comes from most of the same scholars, though the same historical method. If you trust the historical methods determination that Jesus was a real person its logical to except their conclusions on Paul as well.

>Is not very successful as a zealot
>hundreds others like him
>gets eventually nailed by the romans, like many other zealots of the time

>50-70 years later
>has a little cult going on
>cool aid drinkers write down story
>with the clear intent to make their little cult more popular

>100% the word of god
>can't proof otherwise
>no, just because all other religions are fake this doesn't mean the same mechanism was at work here

Keep on believing homre!

Well I never said that, but I do think its pretty clear that Jesus was an observant Jew if not quite an orthodox one, and wanted his followers to do the same, which is what most of the apostles outside Paul also though before he allegedly convinced them otherwise.

God wen get so plenny love an aloha fo da peopo inside da world, dat he wen send me, his one an ony Boy, so dat everybody dat trus me no get cut off from God, but get da real kine life dat stay to da max foeva.

He's the only one of the apostles that wrote while Jesus was alive. All of the other books in the New Testament were written around 100-120 AD. I'd say that's kind of a big deal.

What the fuck lmao

Frankly I don't trust the historical methods of secular scholars because their ideology colors their analysis.

My determination that Jesus is a real person stems from my personal relationship with Him.

Of course I don't rely solely on that argument when addressing a hostile audience because I'm sure my subjective experience is likely to just provoke mockery so I supplement with secular scholarship because I understand that it is more persuasive to a non-believer.

However, that does not mean I agree with all of their findings or methods.

>My determination that Jesus is a real person stems from my personal relationship with Him.

An if I was one talka fo God, an I wen know all kine secret stuffs an all da kine stuffs dat da smart guys know, an if I wen trus God all da way so I can even make da mountains move, but I no mo love an aloha, wat den? I worth notting, dass wat.

>I'm sure my subjective experience is likely to just provoke mockery

We see this not only when we look at books about 'kingdom', but also when we consider 'Jesus and the law'. Here the great fact is that Jesus' followers did not know that he had directly opposed the law, and in particular they did not know him to have opposed the laws governing Sabbath, food and purity. Sabbath and food, which are prominent in the Gospels, are two of the three issues which figure in Paul's letters. In Rom. 14, for example, we see clearly that neither the Roman Christians nor Paul had a tradition from Jesus which clarified the proper stance towards the law on these points. Thus we learn a negative with virtually complete certainty: Jesus did not explicitly oppose these parts of the law, nor did he 'abrogate' the law in general. No study of the synoptic conflict pericopes can ever establish their 'authenticity' if that is taken to involve 'proving' Jesus' explicit opposition to the law. The great fact of Christian behaviour proves otherwise. Opposition to Sabbath, food and purity do not belong to the bedrock of the tradition.

I will ask which is likely to have the most bias, a large pool of researchers coming from different faiths and world views, pooling and fact checking reaserach over a long period of time, or the subjective experience of a "relationship" with a deity, something which is hardly unique to Christianity?

>Bit the bait
I bet you're British

>with the clear intent to make their little cult more popular
>being part of a "cult" and believing in someone
>changing completely everything he said disrespecting him and his message even though at the time their religion would give them way more problems than advantages
Kek. As I said, pathetic. Go flaunt your trenchcoat somewhere else. Like in plebbit where you belong.

It depends on the issue, because trying to guess his stance on things he did not talk about and changing what he said or did (ex. preaching to non-jews) are two very different things.

An afta, everyting goin pau. Dat time, Christ da King goin wipe out all da spirits dat say, “Me, I da leada! I stay in charge a everyting! I get da right fo make how I like! I strong!” Same time, Christ da King goin turn ova everyting to God his fadda.

Nice cut and paste.

If Jesus was just another orthodox rabbi, why did he do work on the Sabbath? Isn't that a violation of the Law?!

Why did he associate with sinners, tax-collectors and lepers? Wouldn't that have made him ritually unclean?!

Why did he say "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them?" How is that kosher?!

OY VEY NONE OF THIS IS KOSHER!!!!!11!1

Both sides are biased so objectivity is not possible when discussing Jesus.

"This is why Simeon said "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed"

>If Jesus was just another orthodox rabbi, why did he do work on the Sabbath? Isn't that a violation of the Law?!
When did he do work on the Sabbath? Healing people and saying prayers isn't "work"

>Why did he associate with sinners, tax-collectors and lepers? Wouldn't that have made him ritually unclean?!
No, it wouldn't have. You become ritually unclean by touching dead people, or things like semen, blood, or menstrual fluid, not by hanging out with the lower strata of society.

>Why did he say "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them?" How is that kosher?!
Because defilement and sin are two completely separate concepts in Judaism, and have nothing to do with each other. Occasionally, in cases like burying the dead, performing the righteous act, the one that you are obligated to do, nevertheless makes you defiled.

Not even the guy you're responding to, but holy shit, you should get yourself a clue as to how Judaism operates before making stupid statements like that.

Objectivity is arguably impossible, the reason we use a systematic process is to minimize the effects of bias and dishonest scholarship.

Frankly so many issues in history are controversial if we didn't approach them like any other question we would never accomplish anything.

>Be Protestants.
>"FUCK Studying ancient languages. God must speak in the vernacular like a father speaks to a child."
>W-WHY DON'T WE UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF THIS? IT'S A MYSTERY. GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS.

Performing miracles is work which is why the Pharisees were offended when Jesus did it on the Sabbath and touching a leper would have made Jesus ritually unclean because it's a skin disease (Leviticus 13-14) and touching something unclean makes that person unclean (Numbers 19:22) and finally, an orthodox rabbi would not have said that food does not cause defilement because it directly contradicts Leviticus 11:47.

I agree and that's why it's ultimately a matter of who you choose to put your faith in.

This is the greatest thing I've ever read

pidginbible.org/Concindex.html

Tkaes a lot of faith to believe nowadays. I'm always impressed how well you guys are able to bend your minds around facts and keep believing.

KJV is top tier English literature. Piss poor for theological purposes.